Moonie Times editor: Obama 'threw Christianity under the bus'
By David Neiwert Monday Apr 13, 2009 8:00am
(H/t Heather)
Now here's a shocker: Tara Wall of the Washington Times -- owned and operated by the world's most powerful theocrat, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon -- thinks America is a "Christian nation."
Wall's appearance today on CNN's Reliable Sources was briefly countered by both Howard Kurtz and David Corn:
KURTZ: Tara, why are some pundits on your side of the spectrum saying that perhaps Obama doesn't believe in a Christian nation, when he was clearly just saying that America is a pluralistic society?
WALL: Well, you know, his idea to forge ahead on this idea of religious neutrality, he essentially threw Christianity under the bus the same way he did Reverend Wright. I mean...
KURTZ: Threw Christianity under the bus? Where is that...
WALL: Well, listen, the point is the history -- let's revisit our history here. This one dollar bill, all of our dollar bills say "In God We Trust." We are a country -- wait. We are...
KURTZ: It doesn't say, 'In Christianity We Trust.'
WALL: We are a country based on Judeo-Christian values. Our laws are inscribed based on Judeo-Christian values -- our Constitution.
CORN: You can go back and look at Thomas Jefferson.
WALL: And the point is, at the same time -- listen, because we are a Christian nation, we welcome all religions. We are a free country; we welcome individuality.
KURTZ: Let's let David in here.
WALL: These are things that he can certainly communicate in communicating his message of religious neutrality without essentially saying we are not a Christian nation. That's completely false.
KURTZ: David?
CORN: I know this is a media show, not a religious show, but this debate comes up again and again, whether we are or are not a Christian nation. It's not in the Constitution. You can go back and look at some of our founders, including Thomas Jefferson...
WALL: I have.
CORN: ... and he doesn't call us a Christian nation. In fact, his relationship to God is kind of on the iffy side, let alone his relationship, if he had one, with Jesus Christ. And so, you know, here you have these people on the right, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, again and again focusing, oddly enough, on the Christian end of the remark. You know, they cut off his quote when he said we are not a Christian nation.
WALL: Because he says we are not a Christian nation. And that's false.
CORN: He says we're not a Jewish nation and we're not a Muslim nation.
KURTZ: Right.
WALL: But we are a nation...
CORN: We have no official religion in this nation.
WALL: We are a nation based on Judeo-Christian values, and there is nothing wrong with asserting that notion while, at the same time, embracing all religions as we do. And why people come here to flee religious persecution, because we are based on...
But what's perhaps most amusing about Wall's appearance was watching her head explode at the thought that none of these crazy right-wing memes making Obama out to be a radical trying to destroy America are sinking in with the American public -- voiced by Chrystia Freeland, of the Financial Times:
KURTZ: Chrystia, what about the -- hold on now. What about the business about, did Obama appeared to bow to the Saudi king, and was that a terrible thing, that it also seemed to be -- factor into some of this criticism?
FREELAND: Yes. No, definitely. And I think, again there, as it happened, one of the things that I, not being American, find most attractive about the United States is that this is a country based on opposition to the monarchical principle. So I think American leaders in general should not be bowing to monarchs.
But having said that, again, what I thought was interesting was that was very much a right-wing fringe criticism. And I think one of the things that we're seeing right now in terms of the polarization...
KURTZ: I've got to move on.
FREELAND: ... of the American debate is the right -- really grasping at these straws that are not overall being picked up by the American people.
Login or Register to post comments.
Who gives a damn what these ignornant, brainwashed, FAKE religious nuts say?
with the onset of spring weather and the cheez doodles and monster truck rallies and Nascar tailgate barbeques and the drive-in beer emporiums all beckoning they might have to report some hard news for a few months to retain viewers.
We are not a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers wanted no national contact with religion, let alone Christianity. Thomas Jefferson re-wrote his own Bible, removing all references to Christ. He, Adams and the rest were Deist - believing a God created us and then left us alone. No Christ; no Christianity. And our laws are from British common law and the Magna Carta, not Judeo-Christian values. When will these fools stop being fools ....
A good many of them including Ben Franklin and Paul Revere were 'Free Masons' and Jefferson Removed all references of Jesus performed 'Miracles' from his Bible not Jesus personally.
Many Religious believe 'Free-Masonry' to be a Cult.
www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1988v23n1.htm
http://www.bilderberg.org/masons.htm
Freemasons: The silent destroyers - deist religious cult based on the Knights Templar
..I am driven. I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic schools, was an altar boy, and even made the pilgrimage to the seminary to see if that was what was waiting for me. Phew!! ...thank God it wasn't.
The more I hear from the Catholic Church these days, the more bitter I become. I still practice, but I'm losing my faith quickly. All I learned as a child has been burned by the history of the Catholic Church, the recent scandals of the Catholic Church, and NOW the political voice of the Catholic Church. If they keep it up...I'm going to be a "practice in my basement" Catholic I'm afraid. A man can only take so much, and I am so ashamed of what the Catholic faith stands for these days.
Where did Jesus ever go?? It's all about corruption and politics these days. Shameful. All these religions are nothing more than a front for hate and grabbing money from the gullible.
Actually, Jefferson did not rewrite his own Bible. What he did was take the four gospels of the New Testament, and made a kind of "cut-and-paste" of them, removing passages dealing with the miracles and anything else he deemed supernatural, including any references to a divine Jesus or a resurrection. Beacon Press has a great edition of "The Jefferson Bible," which, by the way, was titled by Jefferson "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English," which rather flies in the face of your allegation that he removed "all references to Christ." Also, although he became a Deist, he was a Christian Deist. If I'm not mistaken, he was buried in an Episcopalian or Church of England service. And while our Constitution and Bill of Rights may have been influenced by British common law and the Magna Carta, we also have to bear in mind that those systems of laws were influenced by what went before, including, like it or not, principles and philosophies coming out of Greek and Roman law, as well as those of Judaeo-Christian heritage.
He called the biographers of Jesus liars and said that he would extract the diamonds from the dunghill.
Christ is a title not a name. It's like Buddha or Saint or any other religious suffix or prefix put before someone's name. Christ means annoinated one. Yeah there was more then one Buddha.
"If I'm not mistaken, he was buried in an Episcopalian or Church of England service."
Charles Darwin was buried in Westminister Abbey with special hymns made just for him praising him and his work that led to the Origion of Species.
No such thing as a Christian Deist. Contradiction in terms. And yes, sorry about the Jesus thing; my fingers weren't typing as fast as my brain - Jefferson did eradicate just the miracles, not Jesus.
And he also wrote: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere abracadabra of the mountbanks calling themselves priest of Jesus."
No Christian, he ....
.
"In God We Trust" was not a founding principle. Anyone who asserts that it is, really needs a history lesson.
Next, what kind of Christian gets their message from currency? "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." was a message of Christ's.
.
The "In God We Trust" wasn't on our money before 1957! linky
So for the first 175ish years we weren't a christian nation? And have been for just over 60 years?!?
We are a nation of LAW! The Founding Fathers went overboard in trying to make that perfectly clear. Rule of Law anyone?
Our money should state "In the Law We Trust". And the Pledge should read "One Nation, under Law..."
...that would undermine the "wisdom" of the Red Scare.
so I'll just reply the corrections. 1957 is not the date, it's 1864.
"IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin." So, by the "motto on money" arguement we were NOT a christian nation until the end of the Civil War...88years after the founding of this Republic of ours.
1957 for the paper currency same year the national motto was changed from what the Founding Fathers put down and it was the same year (or decade I forget) that also had the Pledge of Allegiance have the word god put in in oppositon to the Pledge's writers family.
If anything these should be removed and currency, motto and pledge of allegiance be restored to what the founders of these things meant them to be.
Namely currency, a motto that anyone could be proud and that had actualy meaning, and a pledge that all people could stand behind.
Why do Christians hate America? After all it was Christians who said the country was founded on godlessness till the 1950s and that the founding fathers were burning in hell since they opposed every effort to make Christianity the national religion?
on money then we should add "ALL OTHERS PAY CASH"; that sould make it more clear!
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 09:09 — Embittered Angr...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSdrYXCiurI&fe...
When will the media end affirmative action for rightwing Republican African-Americans?
They are THE most overrepresented minority on television by any stretch of the imagination.
-GSD
Well put, and (unfortunately) painfully true.
Age of Reason.
My Grandmother gave me her copy of this book before she passed away 30 years ago.
After understanding the meaning of Thomas Paine's frustrations with christianity and the other religions, it is quite apparent why this nation was founded on secular, freedom of and freedom from religion.
when this happens there is a simple response in the form of a question. what are the ten commandments? most of these people are sure their way of life is under threat, they just have no idea what that way of life is.
George Washington's minister sent him a letter about making a point skipping taking the Eucharist (or whatever they called it). He said it was setting a bad example for the rest of the congregation. Washington continued going to services there, but would not show if he knew the Eucharist was going to be served.
He was also president of his Free-Mason chapter; does that make this a nation of Free-Masons?
He also had bad teeth,
should we not strive to be a toothless nation as well? :)
George had a set of carved Wooden Teeth painted white.
Sorry, but Washington's teeth were not wooden. They were actually made of several different materials, including ivory and gold, and the teeth of horses, donkey, and humans, possibly slaves. Really. Check it out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875436/
Not true. One of the myths perpetuated over the years, along with cutting down the cherry tree and throwing a coin across the Delaware. His teeth were ivory, although they might have been uncomfortable.
Continuous
Noisy
Nonsense
They were not Christians. Each time a group came over from Europe, they were fleeing some sort of religious persecution and desired to worship the way they wanted. That's why the USA has no official religion. What is so difficult for these Christianists to realize about the separation of church and state? Or, better question: why do they want to make America into a Christaliban state? Probably because religion + government power = complete control.
"In God we trust is even on our money" - well yes, it has been our official motto, after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.
You have to love religeous fanatics ramming their beliefs through law and then using those laws to justify more theocracy.
Ben Franklin was an Atheist - "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies." and "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
Thomas Jefferson (at best a deist)"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
Susan B Anthony (okay not a father): "I was born a heretic. I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows."
James Madison "In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
Abe Lincoln - "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
Thomas Paine "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. "
George Washington refused to take communion...
So who constitutes a founding father and how were their Christian?
John Adams "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
Why is someone from the moonie times arguing that we are a Christian nation?
in moonie we trust
Even our coins are shaped like a moon.
"We are a nation based on Judeo-Christian values" is not equivalent to a 'christian nation'
not to mention the idiocy of the entire argument. i saw hitchens debate someone last week and it was astounding how little the rightwing "christians" knew about the religion they claim to adhere to. i wonder: are rightwing "christians" simply indoctrinated with a set of GOP talking points and a 'color me saved' bible coloring book?
i would pay cash money to see the rightwing "christians" listen to elaine pagels speak about the gnostic gospels, i believe we would see the fabled human spontaneous combustion.
There's no need to go into the Gnostic gospels, since they'll say it's heresy.
Just the background on the history of the Bible is enough. There were five different versions of the Old Testament Elohist, Yahwist, Deuteronomist, Septuagint and Priestly. Although claims for it to go back a thousand years BCE, there are no real evidences of that beyond fragments. Some of the fragments don't even match each other: the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandricus, the Codex Vaticanus and the Chester Beatty Papyrus. The Dead Sea Scrolls are just bits and pieces too.
The New Testatement was drew from hundreds of "sacred books," none of which were expecting a super compendium that would be all authoritative. The earliest known book of the New Testament was I believe Revelations, and that was 70 CE. The rest were pulled together in the Byzantine Church between 4th-8th centuries CE. There's the Vulgate version of St Jerome, the John Wycliffe, the William Tynsdale in English before King James and the Douey versions. The text itself reads for much like Horus/Herakles/Attis/Mithraic beliefs, with a Greek Dramaturgical structure of Agon, Pathos, Threnon, Anagnoresis, and Apotheosis.
you are a friggin excellent source for this stuff, truly impressive. fascinating, thanks for that
probably a dumb question, but did you read the 'gospel of judas'?
Bits and pieces as a teenager. I probably should read the Gnostic Bible.
I doubt it's anymore accurate than what we have today. It's essentiallly derived from Pagan Oriental doctrines, whilst what we have now essentially is derived from Pagan Occidental doctrines.
You could say I was an Occident at birth.
... wouldn't that make you an Occidental tourist? ;)
I don't like William Hurt.
I have read the Gospel According to Peanuts, and the Gospel According to the Simpsons.
The Gospel according to Jesus' childhood friend,Biff.
As told to Christopher Moore
You will love it!
Lamb - the Gospel according to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore - absolutely brilliant!
http://www.amazon.com/Lamb-Gospel-According-C...
oops - "great minds..."
That should be Threnos, not Threnon.
The rest of us "lower critics" reject that as nonsense for many reasons, generally not germain to this thread. It would be too lengthy.
The NT was already accepted by consensus, for the most part. It was not by a vote or any other such Dan Brown nonsense. The gnostic writings, all late, were never accepted by the mainstream.
See An Introduction to the New Testament by D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, and other reputable texts. The consensus had been reached long before the 4th c. canon was set, and, iirc, only James and Hebrews were in any real discussion. Much of the remainder of the discussion was due to regional access to the documents (on account of persecution) and not because the authenticity was actually questioned.
Revelation, the last-penned NT document, was written somewhere between 70 and 90 AD, with earliest fragments from early 2nd c., in the Rylands collection in the British Museum.
The transcript says Kurtz says "Threw Christianity under the bus? Where is that..." But that line sounds like it came from David Corn, not Howard Kurtz.
Obama for her slavemasters. She never says anything positive about the guy...she'd be fired if she did. Wall is Armstrong Williams redux.
... between the number of American males attending church each week in the fall versus the number who watch football each Sunday instead.
The numbers I've seen put the percentage of regular church, synagogue, or temple attendees at about 40%. This seems high, but, even if taken at face value, people in this country don't regularly attend religious services by a margin of 3 to 2. And that includes Jews and Muslims as well. If this were an election these results would be called a landslide victory.
saying Football is not a Christian sport, sport?
And please do not depict the prophet Tom Landry's image without permission of the NFL.
Has an evangelical fundamentalist team ever won a game?
You think those kids coming up on Friday nights ate fish sticks?
Fellowship of Christian Athletes - The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is a not-for-profit Christian organization that has been based in Kansas City, Missouri since 1956. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_of_Christian_Athletes
If it's got points then it's not a ball.
Eamus Catuli!
Ancient Teabagger proverb.
And wan't Eamus Catuli the guy they sent Rudy in to play for
when he finally got on the field for the Irish?
:)
Nice to see someone who knows Latin!!!
My father is a deeply religious man, but he doesn't have a holier-than-thou attitude. One of the few guys I can actually be around without the conversation devolving into "Are you a Christian?" and then I have to explain why I'm a Deist.
He'll go to church on Sundays and then head to Texas Stadium with his season tickets to watch football. (He'll be going to the new stadium in the fall too.)
Given the mileage they got out of being thrown to the lions, I would think they would enjoy being thrown under the bus.
I cracked up when she brought out the dollar bill. Nice try Moonie. And why didn't they remind her that she works for the Moonie's? The Unitarian church...Hello! I'm still amazed the MSM gives them as much air time as they do. Talk about pushing infotainment. What a crazy narrative they're pushing, are we a christian nation?...blah blah blah.
Moon is their GOD; Jesus must be his son?
Moon Unit is his daughter.
Mr. Kenneth Blackwell. Ken sounded like his brain engine threw a rod he was stuttering so much. Mr. Blackwell is a very stupid man.
better than any video you could ever create for the purpose.
She's trained to bark talking points, but her cognitive faculties are stunted to the point of idiocy.
... if our founding fathers were such outstanding Christian guys, and It's Very Clear that We Are A Christian Nation, then how come we're paying short shrift to the other things these guys said, like the Constitution?
are just hopelessly stupid.
wow trying to get the evangelicals stirred up again. when are evangelicals going to stop being used by the
right/neoCONs? just like giving us the latest update on how many weeks it's been since obama went to church. the logistics is very challenging for a president. i just find it interesting that people want to judge others to rationalize their existence.
Isn't if funny (as in ironic, not hawhaw funny) how Christians are THE MOST JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE ON EARTH, yet when faced with that face, claim not to be?
Judge not lest ye be judged
right?
Hypocrisy anyone?
To throw the 9th commandment at them. Shuts um up everytime.
" Thou shall not bear false witness"
"Judge not, lest ye be judged AND IN THE SAME MEASURE."
So when you start hammering people for their values or lack thereof, it comes back to you.
Only the so called and self proclaimed "Born Again."
Because they are SAVED, they can do no wrong; not even murder.
For does it not say:
"Instead, go into thy room and pray in secret. And your Father, hearing you in secret, shall reward thee openly."
Of course, if they dispute the meaning of the passage, simply point out that Christ's example of a prayer immediately follows: the Our Father.
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Exodus 21:20-21
yay!!! property!!!
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
continues until today. God lets us say what we want from the halls on Monty Zuma to the shores of Barbra Rhee.
Well, since it was a treaty with the nation of Tripoli, which does not exist anymore, does that treaty actually have any standing? One party of the treaty faded out, essentially backing out of the treaty, making it null and void, ya?
the rest is history.
their nation's capital city is no more.
When did Tripoli stop existing, when Raygun bombed it to bits in the 80s?
to confuse us. Bring back the gold standard.
It says:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This was unanimously approved on the floor of the Senate and signed by John Adams.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tr...
there weren't no Mathatma nations.
Too be technical another treaty superceded it four years later without that wording.
Whether that was backtracking, or simply not wanting to repeat what had already been understood is problematical. But conservaturds run with the former, although the new treaty never explicitely identified America as a Christian country either.
And repeated in all newspapers and several hundred court cases also cite the treaty text. It was also repeated to several other countries and is in their archives as well.
Of course some people proclaim that a flawed translation of the only Arabic copy invalidates Article 11 when if these people had any sense they would know that by law it is the English version that is what matters and which was voted upon by the Senate signed by the President and entered into the treaty books.
This Rev. Sun Myung Moon is a cult leader. He's not right wign or Left Wing. He's a nut that thinks hes Jesus reinncarnated. If anything he attracted Flow children of the 60's70's and promoted "Universial Love" For his Unification church. He is a false prophet.
http://www.gorenfeld.net/book/cinema/
Bad Moon Rising.
A lone journalist explores the amazing untold saga of the cult leader, his news paper, and the Republicans who love him.
but he sure is pretty consistent in his funding of rightwing outlets
He can multitask, just like his buddy Bush who is a CONservative and a f*cking asshole.
Ain't that a bitch. So now neither Bush nor Moon were ever conservatives... according to... conservatives? Heck, listening to Beck et al... it now turns out Hitler was a liberal. For such a side so obsessed with other people's personal responsibility, conservatives sure do seem masters at passing the buck for their own f*ck ups.
Heck by 2010, I assume most GOPers to say with a straight face how Bush was a Democrat. Orwell would be ever so proud to see these assholes operate.
the National Inquirer of TV.
Kurtz - insider spineless hack whose job is to report on the media. Nice work if you can get it, nothing to investigate, just surf the net.
Wall - right wing nut with an agenda to bring down the president.
Freeland - shrill junior desperately trying to find the angle that will get her at the same table as the idiot Gloria Borger.
Corn - jesus, why can't there be more journalists like this guy
Also attributed to Kurtz, but again, it sounds like Corn
But I see the transcript is from CNN. Hope they double checked that. ><
"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of the clergy."
Abraham Lincoln - "...If God would reveal his will to others, on a point so connected to my duty, it might be supposed he would reveal it directly to me."
Thomas Jefferson - "State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights...Erecting the wall of separation between church and state therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Jeebus H. Keeryst - "I'm Nailed Right In."
Do the network heads have a plaque-copy of the quote attributed to Pt Barnum, "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"?
Their dentists keep bugging them about it.
"20 New Comments
CRB, ysbaddaden(9), That Mick Piobr, fiver(2), Marlowe, Tyler Durden(2), Truth_Critic, Riding in the Handbasket, ThunderMonkey, Shadowgm"
Y, I love ya man but you have to get a life!
ah, and a treat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYnUXW4groc
Backatchoo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYtlpG0hb38
not a pretty sight.
Those are the only reasons I can think of why anyone who is black would be a Republican.
Matter of fact. It's the only reason anyone would consider themselves a republican.
I feel sorry for them.
Being the liberal I am I will no longer make fun of people who are crazy, bipolar or a sociopath. As long as they are not crazy enough to call themselves a Republican.
Lincoln Freed the Slaves although Lincoln also believed no white man should come face to face with a black man on a street; he was a Strict Segregationist.
Yes, The Zombie Bible!
http://zombie.stinque.com/bible/Main_Page
Hey, why not have Jesus rescue the zombie banks?
Afterall he's one of the walking-dead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gUKvmOEGCU
Just yesterday, his followers celebrate His resurrection.
Today He is a speed bump...
I don't want another six weeks of winter...
that shadow was probably a studded snow tire...
It wouldn't matter if 100% of the country were church going Christians. We would still not be a Christian nation. Those who would have it otherwise do not honor our history or our Constitution. It is they who are trying to destroy this country.
and As the World Turns with stuff like this available.
http://www.texastotalcare.com/library/images/...
WALL: We are a nation based on Judeo-Christian values, and there is nothing wrong with asserting that notion while, at the same time, embracing all religions as we do. And why people come here to flee religious persecution, because we are based on...
Puritans founded The Massachussettes Bay Colony to avoid religious persecution. Catholics planted the colony in Maryland to escape religious persecution. Who was persecuting them? The established religion of a Christian nation.
These Christianists don't know when they're well off.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Matthew 25:41-46.
Matthew was interpreting from his limited intelligence.
heritage.
long before anyone ever even heard of Barak Obama. Hold me accountable for that...Let the president be held accountable for other, more important things, like fixing the SNAFUBAR thing we have going on in the world, thanks to all you fake 'Christians' who hold the entire world to a higher standard then they do themselves.
And really, if you all want to see who really threw Christianity under the bus, Ms Moonpie Times et al, check out the idiot staring back at you when you look in the mirror. You threw it under the bus for a buck and some power, all of you.
Rob Boston, in his usual fashion, fails to grasp the broader implications of pre-Revolutionary American history. He defines being a Christian nation" like this:
"The United States was not founded as a Christian nation. Nothing in the Constitution grants Christianity favored status."
To be certain there are a few, the Reconstructionist and Dominionist community, who see Christianity in everything and seem to ignore the secular influences of the era. But Mr. Boston is doing precisely the same thing, but from the secular perspective. At that time, as is unarguably the case, this nation was one of a Christian consensus. Our revolution took place toward the end of the Wesley revivials and the spread of the revival era across the continent. This was a social matter, not a legislative, executive, or judicial one. There are good reasons why our Declaration makes statement out of Natural Law -- and it is not because natural law is a secular device. It is specifically Christian and it reflects the mindset of the day.
To argue that to be "Christian" would be to disparage others by gaining preferred status is an all-too-convenient way of branding Christians as being other-religious-bigots. That type of rhetoric is not suitable to civil dialogue. If it is true then evidence should be presented, at least to target those who would make such a claim. But the statement "Christian nation" has other nuaces which cannot be avoided, else Mr. Boston is left with an unfortunate overly generalized conclusion.
Yet, after such an egregious error, he makes a truth statement, one that most all can agree with:
In fact, Article VI bans religious tests for federal office, and the First Amendment bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion" while protecting "the free exercise thereof" - for all faiths.
That's right. He then goes on to quote President Obama:
"We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
I wonder where these "ideals" and "values" come from. Are they "secular" and devoid of religious ethical content, or are they Christian and founed in the popular mindset of the day? There is adequate evidence to allow for a Christian ethic behind our Constitution even though it is not a theological treatise. There are reasons that punishment is limited (Eighth Amendment, Leviticus 24:20). There are reasons that private property secured (Fourth Amendment, Leviticus 25).
To dismiss any Christian influence in America's heritage, even in the Constitution, is beyond hubris, both for the President and for Mr. Boston. The character of our nation requires a Christian ethic, else we end up as statists of one form or another, dedicated first to a government and secondly, if at all, to God. To say this does not require that one be a Christian or otherwise a theist. But it does say that ignoring our national character will track us away from the principle that the President is not above the law. Unless, of course, on believes that faith must be discarded with public service, as the President and his party-in-power apparently does with HB 1388.
One need not be a Dominionist or otherwise employ a post-millennial theology in order to recognize bad history.
human intelligence developed enough to think on it's own.
To argue that to be "Christian" would be to disparage others by gaining preferred status is an all-too-convenient way of branding Christians as being other-religious-bigots
LOL...
that's rich
"[B]eyond hubris" did you say? Well put, but you messed up the subject of your sentence. The ideals we hold, and those held by the founders were based on many secular sources -- including, significantly, John Stuart Mill's "harm to others" standard of freedom.
Moreover, it assumes that even "Christian" values originated with Christianity. I'm reminded of that idiot on The View who proclaimed that Christians were the first religion. History says otherwise.
... that happens to take a similar view to mine -- that even liberalism is founded on a Christian ethic. Check out John Gray's Black Mass. Though he does take some liberties with history his view of the nature of liberalism is pretty accurate.
So, where does "respect" come from, in the West, if not from Christianity?
Let's not forget the popular efforts of John Wesley and the change in social conscience that took place in America as well as in England. That movement drove a lot of what went on in the era.
You might also watch Amazing Grace to see the influence of Christianity in John Newton and Wilberforce. It was not a secular movement. It was a combination of Christianity and a classic liberal approach.
... of a long de-bunked notion that all values and morality must flow from religion or otherwise we have no values or morality.
Nonsense.
The Age of Reason, in which this country was founded, did it's best to rid debate of superstition. While some of the Founders were undoubtedly Christian, they were forced by the times to make their points in public debate without resort to the supernatural if they wished to be taken at all seriously.
There are many secular paths which arrive at a "Do unto others..." ethic as well as many non-Christian paths to the same result.
... that the Enlightement, etc., happened in a moral and ethical vacuum?
Even Kant refues to give up his belief in the existence of God.
In the post-enlightenment era Hegel and Marx unarguably borrowed Christian theology and secularized it.
You are making the same mistake as the secularists who pretend that our Founding Fathers were rabid Deists. But no orthodox Deist would pray, as did Washington, and no orthodox deist would call others to pray, as did Franklin. That era was the end of Desim, the rise of Revivalism, and a time of much religious change. Over-simplified descriptions are inadequate.
After all, Natural Law had a notable place in the Declaration of Independence.
I'm saying that because of the Enlightenment, religion was no longer considered a sufficient, or even a legitimate, basis for a proposition.
Also, please provide a source for Marx and Hegel borrowing Christian, or any, theology.
... wrote the Declaration without naming God. Instead, he chose euphemisms that are inclusive, to distinguish this new nation from the tyranny of the British Crown.
And we're not pretending anything - the proof that our founding fathers were Deists comes from their own words and writings.
It's a laugh that you warn against the inadequacy of over-simplified descriptions, then close by implying that the use of the phrase, 'natural law' in the Declaration Must Mean Something, And That Something Must Be Innately Christian.
"Laws of Nature" is not a euphemism.
"Nature's God" is not a euphemism.
"endowed by their creator" is not a euphemism.
It is inescapable, except though trickery.
A few were Deists. But even the strongest, Franklin, called men to pray.
One was, iirc, a Baptist pastor. Hardly a Deist.
Can't broad-brush the whole group.
Even Jefferson, who penned these Natural Law terms, was a Deist. So it's difficult to paint him as a sort of secular Deist. He was plainly a Christian Deist.
Jefferson said,"The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious....One only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
Jefferson also said,"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man...perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind...a mere contrivance (for the clergy) to filch wealth and power to themselves.
If Jefferson was a xtian, he was the only honest one.
And he also wrote those phrases quoted above.
Makes for a nice contradiction when one becomes too b&w.
Or it can help one discern the changes going on at the time.
Apparently, by way of Natural Law, these things were "self-evident". Does not sound like a calculated, Cartesian approach to liberty.
is just BS x 2.
for you to claim he asked other people to "pray" is disingenuous to say the least.
If you have to resort to lying in order to defend your "faith" it doesn't say much about whatever it is that you are trying to defend. Especially since your religion makes lying a big no-no.
LOL.
It's also in legal parlance when you pray to the court for relief.
Is the judge of the court God?
"Work as if you were to live a hundred years, pray as if you were to die tomorrow."
Hardly the statement of a die-hard Diest.
You didn't cite your source.
Sin originally just meant an error in archery.
Their a four main forms of religion, no matter what they called where the Deity(ies) are equated by distance and activity:
Distant/Inactive Deist
Distant/Active Forces of nature
Close/Inactive Pretty much a judge only
Close/Active Age of miracles not over, still influencing mankind and our destinies
The broad-brushing has been you up to this point, claiming that this country has a religious background, and it wasn't only part of the over-all whole.
Jefferson actually took a razor blade to his Bible cutting out the passages he deemed too superstitious and the results have been published and available on Amazon.
I've recognized and acknowledged the desim of the day.
I've mentioned the theological changes of the era.
I've looked at the broader social context.
None of this is broad-brushing.
And I look to explain the apparent contradictions of the era, such as, as you point out, Jefferson's view of the Bible and his acceptance of Christian doctrine and ethics.
But I will not jump to the level of extending Jefferson to the rest of the Fathers or the rest of society. There is no historical foundation for doing so.
And like many people on this subject, you seem to have concluded that although the founding documents did not state that the US is a "christian nation", and in areas actively contradict that notion, that it really secretly is, because, I guess, many of the original inhabitants came from christian nations.
Is that your point?
The nation has, for most of its history, been driven by a Christian ethic. I don't know what your problem is with this. It is consistent with the social conditions of the era, the character of the documents, and much more. Plus, it contradicts the "chrisian nationalists" who pretend that everyone was some type of crypto-evangelical.
What bothers me is when the secularists and some liberals think that the whole nation was rejecting Christianity when that was true for only a portion of the Founding Fathers.
To believe in morals and ethics does not automatically mean one is religious, since they're NOT synonymous. And even if one believes in God, that doesn't mean they believe in Christ or the Incarnation.
Having a Christian ethic does not require a full doctrinal commitment. I've not argued that.
"and no orthodox deist would call others to pray, as did Franklin"
You may want to look that up. It was a joke by Franklin and the praying never happened.
Also the claims that Washington prayed were also found to be bunk. Sorry there is no proof that Washington ever prayed. The claim that Washington prayed comes from the same person that proclaims he never told a lie and chopped down a cherry tree.
if you are willing to recognize the influence and positive effects of christianity in the framing of the constitution, then you should be also be willing to extent the same courtesy to atheism and freemasonry.
Laws and morals based on Enlightenment principles.
And you're making the same mistake you did the other day, equating religion with morals.
And probably the most influential source of all are the Laws of Hammurabi.
Check out John Gray's Black Mass. Though he does take some liberties with history his view of the nature of liberalism is pretty accurate.
Liberalism dovtails nicely with post-mill political ideas.
http://rrrojer.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/20...
(A wee bit naughty).
The Black Mass by Coven. Also by Coven: One Tin Soldier
I'm an old Billy Jack fan,
But his wife was ugly as sin.
I forgot one: the reason why Freemasonry has always been held suspect is because of it's expressed desire to spread revolt and overthrow monarchies. It said so in a watered down version.
George Washington was president of his local Freemason chapter, and presumably others of the Founding Fathers may've been members.
Christianity on the other hand had a tendency to teach deference to masters and government no matter how authoritarian.
I find Christianity to be at its best when it is militant. That is, when it has a struggle. Affluence and post-mill dominance have watered down or distorted the message. But today the church in PRoChina, mostly evangelical, is growing by almost 10K per day.
Additionally, you were conflating theological liberalism with secular liberalism, which is as mistaken as confusing theological humanism with secular humanism.
Additionally, England was an official Christian country, so if hypothetically speaking our country's basis is in Christianity, all Christianity succeeded in doing was starting a war where Christians killed Christians.
I was talking about political liberals as having a theological foundation.
Back to the original point, there are multiple ways to define what it means to be Christian and the consensus ethic is a legitimate historical observation.
There was a historical precedent in both England and America where wealthy women would seek to do good works for the underclasses, but liberalism today won't tell someone needing a bed or a warm meal that must sit for an hour hearing someone yell from a pulpit that they're all going to hell.
Theological liberalism tends to be ecumenical, whereas the present zeitgeist seems to be evangelical, the former inclusive, the latter exclusive.
It's the latter that they're calling "Christianity," and fear it's waning influence, not over the history of our country, just since 1979 and the rise of the Moral Majority.
Theological liberalism tends to be ecumenical
Don't confuse the components of the movement with its philosophical foundations.
liberalism today won't tell someone needing a bed or a warm meal that must sit for an hour
But liberalism today will argue for restrictions on religious liberty/speech (501(c)(3), Fairness Doctrine revival) and liberalism today will argue that the state should be the final arbiter of morality (current marriage discussions). That's because liberalism today has a Marxist foundation. It is far different than classic liberalism.
... does religion have to do with the Fairness Doctrine?
And if you believe the 'Fairness Doctrine' revival meme, then the rest of your facts are in question, since there's not been a call (other than theoretical discussion amongst blogs/forums) for such at a policy level.
The only time it was challenged, and upheld by the court of the day, was in a religious speech case.
That's because Rev. Hargis levelled a personal attack against Cook during his radio program. The FCC upheld that Cook was entitled to airtime for his response.
The case was not, per se, about religious freedom, but perhaps, more correctly, the abuse of the pulpit to engage in public attacks.
I would think, therefore, that there is a Constitutional precedent in regards to 'confronting one's accusers' that cannot be ignored simply because that accuser has a radio show or enjoys clerical status.
Aren't you confusing the components of the movement we like to call America with it's philosophical foundations?
I remember hearing of wave of newly freed religious fervor that would result when the Communist Devil was vanquished.
It hasn't happened, and for a very simple reason: if you want to convince people that they should dedicate their lives to an invisible man in the sky, you must get them when they are young. Additionally, increased literacy rates, especially in the former Soviet Union and its satellites, made the population quite a bit less gullible.
I'd love a non-religious source for the 70,000 new members of "the church" in China that signed up last week. Also: Which church?
And they have no love for evangelicals.
A quick google will find it all for you.
I Googled "Roman Catholic China Study"; my results are here. Nothing whatsoever on the first three pages.
Also, why did you say "Christian" if you meant "Catholic"? It's an evangelical fundamentalist way of pretending an importance or legitimacy they really couldn't have otherwise.
It's not that The Church has "no love for evangelicals." It's mostly that The Church, and most educated Catholics, find them mostly irrelevant (except for their heavy financing) and largely silly.
For example: The Roman Catholic Church abandoned "the Bible as literal inerrant truth" more than a a thousand years ago; today's Church has little problem with science and The Big Bang and evolution are taught every day in Catholic schools around the world (actual, respected, academic, schools; as opposed to Regent or Liberty); and all the evangelical sects in the world pale in number in comparison despite evangelical efforts to combine themselves into a significant entity.
Don't get me wrong, The Church has plenty of its own problems, but its highly unfair to lump it in with "movement" christianity.
Catholicism is a part of Christianity.
The post was from Asia Times (atimes.com).
I referenced it, as did many others.
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/20...
But, alas, the news item appears to be gone.
Login or Register to post comments.