Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Time for the 28th Amendment
Although I had initially conjured up the idea only to reject it as undemocratic, perhaps it is high time that we as a nation, believers and nonbelievers alike, consider the establishment of the 28th Amendment. Its majestic words would read as follows:
Section 1. The right of presidential aspirants to discuss religion, invoke sacred texts, or mention God on the campaign trail is hereby repealed
Section 2. Whenever a religious figure endorses any candidate for the presidency that candidate must reject aforesaid endorsement.
Section 3. The Congress shall have power to have the offending religious figure immediately deported to France
My proposal is only partly prompted by the widely discussed remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Rather, I am hankering for constitutional change mostly on account of the infelicities of Senator McCain’s recent Evangelical champions.
While the comments of John Hagee and Rod Parsley have received less attention than those of Wright, they pose--and here I come to the first talking point for my amendment--a substantial threat to America’s tradition of inter-religious tranquility.
Reverend Wright’s unfortunate observations did damage mostly to Senator Obama’s presidential hopes. But those of McCain’s endorsers risk disturbing the national peace. The musings of Pastor Hagee evoke the specter of Old World Catholic/Protestant antagonisms that the Framers steadfastly sought to escape. Rod Parsley’s criticisms of Islam raise possibilities of hostility towards religious minorities that Americans have, for the most part, historically avoided
I wonder if a few supporters of McCain and Obama might be coming around to my position. For the truth of the matter is that Faith and Values politicking has actually imperiled their candidates’ prospects. Reverend Wright’s heavy rotation on YouTube assures that the Senator from Illinois must now exert twice as much effort to secure the middle-class white votes he desperately needs to capture his party’s nomination and a general election.
His colleague from Arizona now has a potential problem with Catholics--the largest religious denomination in the United States. He never had one before. For this he has Pastor Hagee to thank.
This brings me to a final point: the unofficial insistence that all candidates for high office pay lip service to God and faith is depriving us of many skilled leaders. Simply put, there are many qualified politicians out there who do not want to inject religion into their campaigns. Some are nonbelievers, but the majority, I would venture, are believers who feel profoundly uncomfortable emoting about religion in public, or dragooning God into the service of their national campaigns.
My proposal is, of course, a tad facetious. Yet I think we should seriously consider that the relentless infusion of religion into the 2008 campaign poses dangers to the religious liberties that the Founders sought to secure, if not the integrity of our political process.
(For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs).
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
March 27, 2008; 9:01 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Thumbs Down on Domestic Violence |
Next: Beyond Unity vs. Sectarianism
Posted by: Anonymous | April 1, 2008 5:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidey,
You didn't address my point. Maybe the bridge is broken up ahead. And maybe you are trying to alert people to that fact. But your posts display a joyfulness about people burning in hell. I think you'd like to watch them burn. A Christian should feel compassion. Remember, hate the sin, love the sinner. You seem to hate the sinner.
Posted by: Egregious Philbin | April 1, 2008 5:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Athena, nobody wants to burn you. Im preaching so nobody gets burned. Don't you get it?
Hell is real.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 31, 2008 9:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Philbin, my mother was a former Catholic and I'm glad somebody told her that it's false. If not for that person, our whole clan could have been driving along a highway and going towards that broken bridge. Somebody put a sign "BROKEN BRIDGE AHEAD" and as a result, it saved many lives.
Now, I want to emulate that act to save more lives. If you want to take that sign out, it's your call.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 31, 2008 9:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidey,
Do you relish the prospect of Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Quakers burning in hell? Do you look forward to hearing them go snap, crackle, and pop? It seems to me that a Christian ought to feel tender sympathy and compassionate pity for those he deems lost. Yet in your posts you always seem gleeful that nonbelievers will burn in hell. It seems to give you joy. You seem to have a sadistic streak in you that is very unchristian.
Posted by: Egregious Philbin | March 31, 2008 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Egregious Philbin wrote : "Hey Spidey, Will any Catholics or Jews go to heaven? Any Quakers? Any Hindus or Buddhists?"
Check this youtube link and judge for yourself :
http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=-ZcueajkWnY&feature=related
(omit that space between "you tube", otherwise an error message will greet you.)
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 31, 2008 7:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://www.you tube.com (testing)
Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2008 6:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wapo censors my youtube link post. (censorship testing)
v=-ZcueajkWnY&feature=related
Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2008 6:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
censorship testing
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 31, 2008 6:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
testing censorship
Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2008 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Athena:
"Sorry, Lacey, to lump you in with the likes of Spiderman.
I can't speak for PP's response to Jovez, but I do know that JJ is a spammer who frequently posts inflammatory things just to get attention. He "decorates" the boards with his BUAGs and rants, then complains when the moderators censor his postings. In one case, he threatened to sue the WaPo for not letting him post. Any smackdown that PP layed on him was probably deserved."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for the apology, I do appreciate it and it is well received.
I also like Spiderman's post so I don't have an issue with him, in fact some of his post are very informative to me. (I quantified my statement and said "me")
I don't care for any of PP's post very much and this one post seemed particular vindictive and delighting in seeing harm come on JJ. I don't know JJ and am not as bothered by his post as some are.
But if I ever had to judge a post as "cold, indifferent, and seeing pleasure in one being hurt it was the one by PP that I referenced, it bothered me that much.
I found this quotes and thought that you and others, including my self might like to consider them,
1. A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill,
British politician (1874 - 1965)
2. When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion. Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
3. Faith is taking the first step, even when you don't see the whole staircase. Martin Luther King Jr., US black civil rights leader & clergyman (1929 - 1968)
Posted by: Lacey | March 31, 2008 5:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry, Lacey, to lump you in with the likes of Spiderman.
I can't speak for PP's response to Jovez, but I do know that JJ is a spammer who frequently posts inflammatory things just to get attention. He "decorates" the boards with his BUAGs and rants, then complains when the moderators censor his postings. In one case, he threatened to sue the WaPo for not letting him post. Any smackdown that PP layed on him was probably deserved.
Posted by: Athena | March 31, 2008 2:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Athena:
"If this nation continues to forsake God, This Nation WILL be Punished."
Do you mean that God will damn America?
Frankly, if America becomes a nation of Christianists like you, Lacey, and Spidey, I'm heading to Australia before the mob comes to burn me at the stake for being a Witch."
~~~~~~~~~~~
You have a lot of gull determining my position of death sentence on someone's life. If I have not said it to you then you do not have a right to state that I would do as such.
I take it you are one of the Pagans that claims to have morals, if so use them and stop making false accusations against someone. Great example of Pagans having morals.....
In fact, please, please, leave my name out of any of your conversations. I have had enough dealings with Pagans to make me never to want to know one again.
Especially, Paganplace, the post PP did to JJ last night was filled with nothing but hatred, revenge, and payback. What kind of person claims to have morals but openly tells JJ that "remember when you said such and such, now look at you, your in a bad position, as a form of ha, ha, now you are getting what you deserve.
I want no part of people like that, period. If someone is hurting they have my sympathy and I hurt with them, not ha, ha, remember when you did this to me, now your getting paid back.
Post by PP under Rabbi Kula to JJ, "can religion help us heal sexism and racism?
Paganplace:
"Do you *remember,* JJ, the name you called me, when knowing full well I was non-straight, Irish, and Pagan?
"World-view," you called me.
Remember?
Nothing's forgotten, Jacob.
What does your 'world view' look like *now,* JJ?"
Look where you've come in a very short time.
The *world* hasn't changed that much. But what *you're* doing has.
Guess what. It's not the first time. Someone thinks they got the brightest blessing ever, and in short order they are saying things *just like you have.*
Some will tell you that hateful speech like that will reward you, Jacob. But where *are* you?
Any time you want to come back from that dark and frightened place you're in, now, JJ. Any time.
We'll be here."
March 30, 2008 9:08 PM
"Paganplace:
"I *told* you that all that 'seeing the one true Light' would eventually lead you to this...
Photon guy.
Tsk."
Posted by: Lacey | March 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"If this nation continues to forsake God, This Nation WILL be Punished."
Do you mean that God will damn America?
Frankly, if America becomes a nation of Christianists like you, Lacey, and Spidey, I'm heading to Australia before the mob comes to burn me at the stake for being a Witch.
Posted by: Athena | March 31, 2008 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2, thank you for your explainatin. I understand your point of reference now.
Posted by: Lacey | March 31, 2008 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The only reason any candidate wants support from the church is because they are going for the vote of the masses who show up on Sunday morning all dressed up thinking that this means something to God.
The word "religion" comes from the Latin root meaning, "to connect" and you don't have to wear anything or go anywhere to do this. Yes, you can actually connect with the deeper nature of reality at anytime or place. You don't need a paid cheerleader or a collection plate or a balance sheet, these have nothing to do with God. They are simply the tools that people use to convey their take on history.
If we haven't learned from the past two decades about the real reason these people want to be on television and in the news then we never will. It's all about money and the love of it. People like Falwell, what an appropriate name, and Robertson are all about the fame and fortune of talking loud about God.
Posted by: Michael | March 31, 2008 7:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is one more argument why everyone should vote for Hillary !!
Posted by: JIMBO | March 31, 2008 6:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable not hateful:
I've seen GW claimed by several teams. That aside, it doesn't change the fact that many people, for hundreds of years, justified their ownership of other people based on Biblical scripture. It also does not change the fact that Christianity was the dominant religion in our country at that time. It seems only fair, therefore, that if GW wants to credit religion and religious morality for "political prosperity" and whatnot, then one cannot ignore that particular key religion's role as, at least, an indirect enabler of governmentally sanctioned human bondage.
As regarding the validity of GW's quote, I certainly don't see any kind of refutation of the principle of church/state separation that your original post seemed to imply, i.e. "The separation clause was not meant to be as high as the secularists here want. [.] G. Washington disagreed with you." That is unless, of course, you can demonstrate that either the establishment clause or the quote say something that I'm not seeing.
I agree wholeheartedly with you and GW that religious people will probably always influence government; one can't be forced to check one's beliefs at the curtain of the voting booth and religion isn't going anywhere soon. But, I also stand by my (expanded) statement that religious leaders and organizations who/which violate pertinent IRS rules should have their tax-exempt statuses revoked. If the direct endorsements we've seen lately are permitted under the current rules, then I think the rules should be re-examined .
Aloha
Posted by: Neal: | March 31, 2008 3:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey Spidey,
Will any Catholics or Jews go to heaven? Any Quakers? Any Hindus or Buddhists?
Posted by: Egregious Philbin | March 30, 2008 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Lacey, I'm fine. Thanks for correcting me. I used the word "we" the same way I would use it in statements like " Why did we crucify Christ? " I didn't noticed that there's a possiblity that it could be misconstrued. Thanks.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 30, 2008 9:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal- I have addressed this issue with many before(slavery). People are sinful. Period. They are greedy and culturally some really did believe that blacks were not human. Big mistake. I don't discount what people had to say just because they were not in the right time in the world. Cultural change takes time, but it does not make GW's words any less valid. He was a deist, by the way.
Churchwallstate- what you are looking for is some place that does not exist, where people that are religious don't have the right to speak up about what they believe about society and what direction it should go. After all, it is a exchange of ideas- of course we all have to listen to what people say, even if we disagree with you. I fear, however, that people like YOU want people like myself and others to shut our pieholes, and to not vote our consciences. This is a Republic- democracy, after all, and one of our great founders had something profound to say about those that are religious - that we have something positive to contribute to our republic, which many on this forum - like YOU , think we don't. That is why it galls you so much.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | March 30, 2008 9:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal,
So you've seen that charlatan Mike Murdock too. Pretty unbelievable, no? You're right that he is pretty much a-political; he is also a-religious. He says little about God or the Bible except brief references when he goes about his main business, seducing that fool that is born every minute into sending him a thousand dollars. This guy is a more transparent fraud than Robert Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff, and Benny Hinn, and that's going some. At least nut jobs like Pat Robertson and James Dobson seem, to me, sincere (though hateful and misguided). But Murdock and his ilk are like the professional wrestlers of the religious world. How do people not see through the all-too-obvious scam? I guess there will always be people who buy snake oil.
Posted by: Neal Obstat | March 30, 2008 9:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal Obstat:
If you don't have $1,000 in cash, and even if you're praying to be delivered from crushing personal debt, "Dr." Murdock will deign to let you charge up to the limit of your credit cards. I've also heard him and his spawn encourage people who have already sown their seeds without result to, in effect, double-down and donate multiple times: "It takes a lot of seed to reap a mighty harvest." To give the devil's look-alike his due though, he seems largely a-political and keeps his attention focused, like a laser, on believers' pocketbooks.
Posted by: Neal: | March 30, 2008 8:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hagee and Parsley claim Catholicism and Islam are false. If it's true, then, what's wrong with that?. What is wrong with exposing a false doctrine?
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 30, 2008 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2, "Hagee and Parsley claim Catholicism and Islam are false. If it's true, then, why do we condemn them?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Spiderman2,
Hi, how are you?
We as Chrisitans do not condemn anyone that is appointed only to God and Christ, I am not sure what your point is here, please explain?
Thanks
Posted by: Lacey | March 30, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jon: "This is a waste of everyone's time. There are no gods, and there never have been. Religion has outlasted it's usefullness if there ever was a good use to dividing people.
Many of the posts I have read don't even get the point. These folks need to move to a theocracy instyead of a democracy."
~~~~~~~~`
And by what merit would an "unbeleiver" consider that there is a God?
Posted by: Lacey | March 30, 2008 7:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
NO, "Think of it as an investment so that at least your personal finances will be protected by God while he decimates everybody else's."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Truly stated and a good point.
So why aren't you trusing in God to protect your finances?
Posted by: Lacey | March 30, 2008 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Neil wrote : "To use an admittedly inflammatory analogy: chimps and humans seem to share 98% of their genes, but no matter how much we might object, we're both still primates."
Your eyes and hair share 100 percent of your DNA and no matter how perfectly similar their DNAs are, they are not both eyes nor both hair. The analogy of blood relations cannot be applied to DNA. Humans and bananas share a big chunch of their DNAs and both cannot be considered as relatives. On the other hand, if we share 1% of our grandmother's blood, we can be relatives.
False assumptions or beliefs makes many so-called "Christians" become false Christians. In short, Neil, you give Christianity a bad name. Atheists don't see the difference coz they are idiots. There are true and false religions or true and false Christianity and it's your business to find out the difference. You got brains, use them.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 30, 2008 7:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To Cindy Murphy:
If our economy is a mess because we have forsaken God (apparently God actually intervenes in economic affairs and in the weather, which I was quaint enough to believe varied according to narural forces), then I have a suggestion for you. Send Mike Murdock your $1000.00 "seed money"; he assures you that God will repay you many times over. Think of it as an investment so that at least your personal finances will be protected by God while he decimates everybody else's.
Posted by: Neal Obstat | March 30, 2008 5:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
While I understand why "moderate" Christians do not want to be associated with the more intemperate elements of their faith, it seems unavoidable.
In my part of the theological universe some people juggle rattlesnakes and sip cyanide as tests of their faiths. They cite Bible verses (Mrk 16:18, among others) as reasonable faith-based justification for their liturgy. From what I can tell from a (safe) distance, except for those few particular beliefs, they would be considered garden variety, heaven-bound Christians. To use an admittedly inflammatory analogy: chimps and humans seem to share 98% of their genes, but no matter how much we might object, we're both still primates.
Posted by: Neal: | March 30, 2008 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is a waste of everyone's time. There are no gods, and there never have been. Religion has outlasted it's usefullness if there ever was a good use to dividing people.
Many of the posts I have read don't even get the point. These folks need to move to a theocracy instyead of a democracy.
Posted by: Jon | March 30, 2008 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is some support from the words of Jesus for this point of view. Not that I am an expert or even very familiar with all the words of Jesus, but his instruction that prayer should be performed in private, plus his view that it was ok to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's seems to me to indicate that He thought of the realm of religion as being separate from the realm of government and perhaps even society to some extent. The emphasis of protestants on the concept of Jesus as a personal savior is in harmony with this.
None of this is to say that good works, by which "ye shall know" believers, are unimportant. And legitimate good works include trying to improve things for people, and that includes trying to improve government. But government is not improved by dragging religious considerations in to the extent of causing strife among various religions.
It seems to me that Christians in particular are less true to their faith if they cause or exacerbate divisions among people when trying to achieve such worldly goals as influencing the election of particular political candidates.
Posted by: Bill Mosby | March 30, 2008 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I love it.
Posted by: Karen | March 30, 2008 2:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Only God knows what's in the hearts of Rod Parsley and John Hagee; as for me these guys are unfortunate caricutures of Christians. I am sorry Senator McCain feels he has to bring them in his camp.
A 73 year old follower of Christ
Posted by: jack wilson | March 30, 2008 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Simplier, just tax what church a religious "leader" belongs to (i.e., do away with an tax-exempt status), the day they endorse a political candidate. Most (if not all) of those who have "political" aspirations, love money far more than religion...take John Hagee for example.
Posted by: Will | March 30, 2008 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2:
I was about to chastise thee for quoting an anonymous North Korean source when I realized, that compared to your usual sources, it's probably a net improvement.
"When you mix politics and religion, you get politics." - Gene Carlson, Wichita, Kansas preacher
Posted by: Neal: | March 30, 2008 12:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"My proposal is, of course, a tad facetious."
Yes, just a "tad."
Dumping undesirables from the U.S. in France---this represents scholarly 'thinking' today?
On the other hand, rather than dumping people, there could be valuable gains from more considered exchanges between the French and American people.
The fact is, each could learn valuable lessons from the other and in the process certain silly stereotyped notions of the other could be undone by some direct experience. Both France and the U.S. suffer from what might be described as 'complementary errors of habit'. That is, each has certain strengths and weaknesses which the other tends to lack.
I admire the French people for a much greater respect for intellectual life. At the same time, France could benefit from adopting in _deed_ rather than merely in (lip-service) word some of the U.S. society's habits of placing greater priority on a person's individual merits rather than its too-common class-protectionist habits of a society based on inherited privilge and opportunity. That automatically excludes many bright and talented people from even getting a fair crack at advancement.
Posted by: proximity1 | March 30, 2008 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
An important book, "The Path Through Infinity's Rainbow: Your Guide to Personal Survival and Spiritual Transformation in a World Gone Mad" clearly describes how the religious right is a tool for controlling the masses and turning the United States into a war machine. In his book, author Michael P. Byron also details what we need to do once these insane and evil people have finished off our civilization.
Posted by: Fangdango | March 30, 2008 12:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
An unidentified KCNA (North Korea) military commentator, just recently, said, "Everything will be in ashes, not just a sea of fire, if our advanced pre-emptive strike once begins."
There goes your atheist relatives, fellas. A product of "enlightened" Karl Marx.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 30, 2008 11:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"[P]lease do not presume to inject your personal fantasies into public discourse regarding a government that is supposed to serve and protect us all - those who believe in your bible and those who do not."
___________________
Everyone injects their own personal fantasies into public discourse, whether those fantasies be inspired by science, philosophy, religion, or political theory. That is the essence of democratic freedom and religion is no less a legitimate source of illumination than any other.
The illiberal impulse to tell people to shut up because we disagree with them should be resisted. Remember that there is no Constitutional protection from being annoyed. Chances are, your personal opinions are just as annoying to others as their's are to you.
Posted by: Mike S | March 30, 2008 10:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Kenneth wrote : "Executing Spiderman2 and Jimmy Carter is going a little too far...A little waterboarding and exile seem a little more reasonable to me."
Sounds like North Korea. See what I mean?
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 30, 2008 10:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Most Churches are dens of inequity. Glorified fashion shows where everybody slaps each other on the back about how their saved then goes back to their greed materialistic lives making big plans on how they are going to despoil the earth and take advantage of their fellow man. Where are the vows of poverty working to lift the lowest and least among us? Instead it's the fancy clothes fancy cars and the big house. Every drop of oil wasted is food out of someones mouth, but you wouldn't know that if you looked at the average Church's parking lot. Sunday Christians have driven my doubt to heavenly levels they talk the talk but can they walk the walk. When Religion has become the tool of statecraft it has soiled itself and for the most part is the refuge of scoundrels.
Posted by: elgunjduts | March 30, 2008 10:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bondage and false beliefs go hand in hand. It is therefore not a surprise that countries which follow Islam (Arab countries & Africa), Catholicism (South America), Budhism (SE & E Asian), Atheism (China & Russia), "Enlightenment" (European Parliament) are mostly dictatorial or corrupt in their governance.
In the U.S. private groups can no longer give free Bibles to students because secular/atheist groups hinder them.
Jesus said that the truth shall make you free. On the other hand, adherents of falsehood make prisoners out of themselves.
If we replicate the likes of Jacques a million times and make them a state, it would have more similarities with North Korea than any free nation and similarly would very likely treat the U.S as it's staunchest enemy.
Would you believe that a few years from now, the U.S would battle a big chunk of countries which adhere to false beliefs? Yes, it's in the Bible and it would happen.
If you think you're smart because you are "enlightened" and does not believe in God, think again. And think hard.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 30, 2008 10:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Executing Spiderman2 and Jimmy Carter is going a little too far...
A little waterboarding and exile seem a little more reasonable to me.
Posted by: Kenneth | March 30, 2008 8:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As a Pastor of a small Bible believing Baptist church in Vermont, I find the recent flap over Rev. Wrights comments interesting. It is not his remarks that bother me, in fact I think he has every right from the pulpit to declare what he believes. Mr. Obama in my opinion is not responsible for those remarks. What is interesting is that no one is talking about the theology which is the basis for the remarks. Liberation theology is at it's heart a socialistic theology. When Cone coined the phrase "black liberation theology" it just narrowed the view. McCain has been endorsed by Hagee and Parsley(which I have theological disagreements with) but has not been a part of their respective churches. Mr. Obama while not having to answer for the remakrs of Wright does have to explain if he endorses liberation theology. At least in my view the issue isn't race but what does he believe. That's why it is important to know what if anything a candidate believes. It is silly to think that a candidate can seperate himself from his core beliefs.When Jimmy Carter introduced religion into public politics by declaring himself to be born again, he had somewhat of a different take on it than most Evangelicals. The Democrats opend the box using religion to get a candidate elected and I fell for it. Now I want to know more.
Posted by: James Lake | March 30, 2008 8:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Any preacher who uses his pulpit and/or power in the religious community to endorse/campaign for a political candidate should automatically be investigated by the IRS for violation of their tax-exempt status. I don't care if the leader is muslim, jewish, christian, or pagan - if whatever religious organization is covered by the tax-exempt status, then they need to stay OUT of politics. Of course, that will never happen - therefore, I say to those in the church who believe it is their right to use the church's influence to steer a political campaign - then you must render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's (your tax exempt status) and render unto God that which is God's (your offering plates)Of course I'm still trying to figure out how these folks remain tax exempt when they are selling prayers to God via on-line and TV orders of holy land water, sand, and god-blessed prayer scraps. . .too much snake oil
Posted by: Bev | March 30, 2008 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
re: Cindy Murpy: "There's going to be The Wrath of God On Our Nation and we're seeing signs already. Our nation was Founded on GOD and The Bible that is why God Blessed this nation. If this nation continues to forsake God, This Nation WILL be Punished. My concern it will be worse than 9-11. The Bible has many examples of nations that faced the wrath of God. Lord Deliver your people."
This kind of pseudo-theological rambling is like second-hand smoke. Keep your personal religious beliefs away from our government. You are free to believe any fairy tale you choose. But please do not presume to inject your personal fantasies into public discourse regarding a government that is supposed to serve and protect us all - those who believe in your bible and those who do not.
Posted by: Bob | March 30, 2008 7:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Amen!
Posted by: Sid | March 30, 2008 7:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion does not exist in a historical vaccuum any more than science does, although both would like to tell themselves otherwise. The good and bad of religion are determined by the social context in which it exists, as well as by those who practice it.
What one continually finds in religions are boundaries not only deterimined by who does and who does not belong, but by the prevailing prejudices of the day. Although I am not Catholic, I did work in a Jesuit University for awhile. There, I heard a priest speaking to an admissions officer about a paricular graduation, referring to the graduates as NOK. Translation: Not our kind.
The Jesuit was Irish. The graduates from the school of social work were black, Latino, Jewish, et al. Good enough to pay the bills with their tuition, but that was it. That the blacks and Latinos were Catholic was irrelevant to the good father, SJ. For him, they were inferior just as Jews were. Although for awhile, I was raised as an Episcopalian, Englightenment struck my very wise mother who decided that nonsense was nonsense and that she was better equipped than the church to teach me morality. As a result, I escaped the WASPY class-consciousness that so many of my former co-religionists endlessly demonstrate.
I leave you to contemplate our good Christian president.
Posted by: Cathy | March 30, 2008 6:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This Hagee guy sounds to me more like someone running for the Israeli Knesset than a Christian preacher. On the other hand I have never heard an Israeli politician badmouth the Catholic church.
Posted by: Observer | March 30, 2008 6:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
My concern is The way This nation is headed. Don't you see the warning signs of God? God is warning this nation by the signs in the weather, the economy,etc. If this nation Does not repent to God for the evil this nation is guilty of and repent for forsaking Him. There's going to be The Wrath of God On Our Nation and we're seeing signs already. Our nation was Founded on GOD and The Bible that is why God Blessed this nation. If this nation continues to forsake God, This Nation WILL be Punished. My concern it will be worse than 9-11. The Bible has many examples of nations that faced the wrath of God. Lord Deliver your people. I believe the reason our economy is in trouble is that this nation forsaken God. How can He Bless this nation if we don't turn to Him.
Posted by: Cindy Murphy | March 30, 2008 5:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
America is the laughingstock of the world because (among many other things) of the way primitive superstition plays such a prominent role in public life. The only difference between us and islamic nations is that we're largely ignorant and they're largely evil.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 4:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jprfrog wrote : "Why do I do it?" I keep asking myself. I don't know and so far God hasn't answered. Maybe He's too busy talking to Spiderman."
Or maybe He did answer but your ears were not tuned in.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 30, 2008 2:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable not hateful:
It's seems relevant to point out that the scriptures of GW's particular religion were also used to justify his ownership of other men.
You're probably 100% correct, but maybe we *can* prevent religious leaders from continuing to suck on the public teat while they're doing it.
Posted by: Neal: | March 30, 2008 1:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Religion is connected to morality and morality/virtue that springs from religion initiates popular government."
Religious fundamentalism is related to morality only in that it *interferes* with the discernment and practice of moral behavior. Religious fundamentalism makes people like YOU believe that you don't have to listen to or consider the wishes of anyone else. "God says" what you say, and scruw anyone who doesn't agree with you.
In any other setting, people who think they can step on whomever they want without regard to their wishes are considered, well, criminals.
But religious fundamentalism gives people the excuse they need to do just that.
"Please note to all you secularists-"
And you call yourself "reasonable not hateful." Evidently you had to spell that out, because it sure isn't evident in wour words.
Posted by: ChurchStateWall | March 30, 2008 12:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To church wall state and Franklin in Sarasota-
The separation clause was not meant to be as high as the secularists here want. Franklin, G. Washington disagreed with you.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Religion is connected to morality and morality/virtue that springs from religion initiates popular government.
Please note to all you secularists- you will NEVER keep religious people from influencing government.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | March 29, 2008 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
JPRFROG wrote:
"Can't anyone here recognize exaggeration for effect? Perhaps the Professor's error was that he expected at least some readers to have a sense of humor."
Amen, JPR FROG, Amen
Posted by: Josh | March 29, 2008 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Can't anyone here recognize exaggeration for effect? Perhaps the Professor's error was that he expected at least some readers to have a sense of humor.
Reading these comments is profoundly depressing. "Why do I do it?" I keep asking myself. I don't know and so far God hasn't answered. Maybe He's too busy talking to Spiderman.
Posted by: jprfrog | March 29, 2008 6:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Andrew:--"His argument seems to be that Dr. Hagee and Dr. Parsley should not be permitted to express their views because others may (and surely do) disagree. Notably he doesn't evaluate the veracity of their statements, perhaps because he would be obviously out of his depth."
My research indicates that neither John Hagee or Rodney Parsley hold anything other than honorary doctoral degrees from anywhere other than Bible colleges.
Not only do I agree with you that John Hagee, Rodney Parsley should not be censored, I think their messages should be broadcast on the mainstream media, at high volume and repeatedly, so that everyone is aware from whom John McCain draws his inspiration.
I don't see how there is enough room in the entire WaPo to judge the veracity of their statements, especially if that would include the necessary (I think) examination of the veracity of the pertinent Biblical foundations upon which they seem to totter.
Posted by: Neal: | March 29, 2008 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
big difference between haggee and parsley and rev. wright. one answer is sitting right in the pews. there are loads of black,white ,yellow and red people sitting in haggees and parsleys pews.they are preaching the word of God from the bible and essentually it says repent,accept Jesus's sacrifice on the cross to have fellowship with the Creator. thats what sticks in you libs craws is the sin part. they are't telling their people to go out and rob ,pillage and destroy anything. they are telling their people how to have a relationship with God and their fellow man. you accuse them of being dangerous? you are the danger and wright's black liberation theology is the danger and you libs ignore it to your peril. black liberation theology is very close to radical islam in it's objective. your new amendments "majestic" words are crappola. black theology makes no allowances for white libs. you go under the bus with the rest of us.
Posted by: gary | March 29, 2008 4:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2:
Apologies accepted.
I've read your response. Given the conditions I placed upon my question, i.e. "If people you respected found 100% verifiably genuine scrolls, which could be proven to be written by Jesus himself...", I would have thought that the question would not be so difficult. I still think it can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", but thanks for the effort.
Posted by: Neal: | March 29, 2008 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Another air ball from the good professor. His argument seems to be that Dr. Hagee and Dr. Parsley should not be permitted to express their views because others may (and surely do) disagree. Notably he doesn't evaluate the veracity of their statements, perhaps because he would be obviously out of his depth.
A reasonable examination of Islam suggests that what Dr. Parsley wrote in his 2005 book is a series of inconvenient (to the secularist worldview) truths.
Posted by: andrew | March 29, 2008 3:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Lacey:--"I say the latter because the more education that people get the more they become distance from relying on innate processes such as instinct, reason, and logic."
I could be mistaken, but I thought the whole point of education was to teach people how to use the correct application of reason and logic to overcome the frequent errors that arise from relying too much on our uninformed instincts.
You seem to be saying: "Too much education is a bad thing". If that's a correct assessment of your statement, where would you draw the line? High school? 3rd Grade? Up to the point where people might start to effectively disagree with you and Spiderman2's assertions on the nature of the universe, god, hellfire and brimstone?
"A *little* knowledge [may] be a dangerous thing", but a lot of knowledge would seem to be very useful.
Posted by: Neal: | March 29, 2008 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal::, Im sorry for the harsh words. I thought you were Obstat. Honestly, I admired your question and you can see that thru my lengthy reply. Thinking that you were Obstat, I tried to shoot it down. Emotions overtook me. I sincerely apologize.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 29, 2008 3:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
For the record, and though I covet the name even more than my neighbor's ox, I am not "Neal Obstat".
Props to Arminius for warning me of the resultant "drivel".
Posted by: Neal: | March 29, 2008 2:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Lacey wrote : "the more education that people get the more they become distance from relying on innate processes such as instinct, reason, and logic."
Lacey, thank you for defending me but I disagree on the above statement. A fool is a fool and no education can make him wise. With or without education, atheists are inherently stupid.
God won't call them fools if they are not literally idiots.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 29, 2008 2:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Neil wrote : (Spiderman2), If people you respected found 100% verifiably genuine scrolls, which could be proven to be written by Jesus himself, stating that there really isn't such a place of punishment as Hell and that everybody goes to Heaven, would you still be a Christian?"
You know Neil, this is the kind of questions idiots ask. The concept that everybody goes to Heaven regardless of what he/she does is quite puzzling. This is a clear indication that you really have a small brain. Stupid or moron? Georgiason picked the first. Good coz moron fits you better.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 29, 2008 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal Obstat, good point you have there. But I hope you understand what I'm saying coz when doomsday finally arrives, Im sure you won't be thinking anymore whether the word grammer begins or ends with a "g " or no "g " at all.
One thing I just observed, you have a good sense of sight. I didn't noticed that I've writen "who's" instead of "whose". Maybe you alot too much energy for your eyes and forget that your brain needs it more. It could only mean one thing -- your brain could be smaller than your eye.
Think harder. You would need it if you read the Bible, otherwise, you would end up blaming it instead of blaming your nice little brain. The Bible is like a race car engine and if your brain is like a bicycle tire, it would tear into shreds and you would end up cursing the engine. And that is exactly what all the idiots here, like you, are doing.
Georgiason wrote : "Is this the Freudian slip of all times? "
Perhaps you meant of all time? Moron or stupid? Pick one.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 29, 2008 12:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
GeorgiaSon: "Mr. Berlinerblau's legitimate call for keeping religion out of politics is marred by his inaccurate claim that Obama must now exert twice as much effort to secure the middle-class white votes. Actually, the latest polls show that his candidacy was not hurt one iota by the Wright flap."
"*Pure BS from a BS'er.*"
~~~~~~~~~~~
No pun intended, my comment was strictly related to this Georgiason's post. Sorry :~(
Posted by: Lacey | March 29, 2008 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal, " Hi there Lacey,
My correction of Spidey's spelling error was sort of an afterthought, an aside. But I do think there is a correlation between his inveterate illiteracy and the stupidity of his comments. I am not nitpicking on one or two stray errors. In fact, my own post had a typo--"immeasurable" instead of "immeasurably." That happens. But Spidey always writes illiterately. Yet this illiterate is the repository of truth? Now, I know he will say that it is God, not he, who is the repository of truth. But it is Spidey who presumes to speak for God, based on an apparently not terribly literate reading of the Bible."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does illiteracy mean not smart? In fact there have been some very smart people that have more common sense and reason/logic about life then the educated. They tend to have a more compassionate heart as well. Don’t get me wrong I am not against education but from a woman’s point of view nothing impresses me more then when a man has accomplished and gained a level of intelligence through life’s experience, having a touch of gray to I might add.
Only because experience cannot be purchased, sold, or given, it can only be acquired by someone. It is the person that uses that experience to teach and prepare those less literate for the level that he has acquired.
I say the latter because the more education that people get the more they become distance from relying on innate processes such as instinct, reason, and logic. Education becomes their whole basis for everything; not making a good foundation for being a "well-rounded" person.
I think that we can name the "big white elephant in the room" Christianity and Spiderman2’s approach of salvation, hell fire, and brimstone message that is rubbing you and others the wrong way.
BTW, thank you for the acknowledgement it is nice to know that I have been noticed and received.
Posted by: Lacey | March 29, 2008 11:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
GeorgiaSon: "Mr. Berlinerblau's legitimate call for keeping religion out of politics is marred by his inaccurate claim that Obama must now exert twice as much effort to secure the middle-class white votes. Actually, the latest polls show that his candidacy was not hurt one iota by the Wright flap."
*Pure BS from a BS'er.*
Posted by: Anonymous | March 29, 2008 11:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi there Lacey,
My correction of Spidey's spelling error was sort of an afterthought, an aside. But I do think there is a correlation between his inveterate illiteracy and the stupidity of his comments. I am not nitpicking on one or two stray errors. In fact, my own post had a typo--"immeasurable" instead of "immeasurably." That happens. But Spidey always writes illiterately. Yet this illiterate is the repository of truth? Now, I know he will say that it is God, not he, who is the repository of truth. But it is Spidey who presumes to speak for God, based on an apparently not terribly literate reading of the Bible.
Posted by: Neal Obstat | March 29, 2008 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The usual leftist diatribe in rebuttal to my post.
I dislike Jackbooted thugs I must there by be a jackbooted thug. I dislike the notion of ever expanding government therefore I am a fascist never mind that the Chief Hall mark of Fascism is an overweening belief in the power of government to solve all our problems. Mussolini was a socialist and said so repeatedly. His only real disagreement with the Soviets was over the concept that one could be an Italian and still be a socialist. This by the way was the only real disagreement between Stalin and Hitler as well only of course replace Italian with German. The fact of the matter is neither Hitler nor Mussolini were right wingers nor did they ever claim to be. On the political line the extreme right is Anarchy and the extreme left is totalitarianism.
The nanny state is no less a totalitarian regime than the Third Reich. It just simply isn't interested in killing any more people than absolutely necessary preferring instead rather to crush the human spirit in ever thicker cocoons of rules and regulations almost all of which have to do according to the left with protecting people generally from making bad decisions or ameliorating the effects of bad decisions they already made.
Posted by: Garyd | March 29, 2008 10:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
GeorgiaSon:
SPIDERMAN2 wrote:
""Sorry to say but there is what I call the 'initial rupture'. It's not the rupture of the saints.""
"Is this the Freudian slip of all times?"
Maybe so, but let us be fair if we are going to criticize and look at your Freudian "slips" and see the bizarre ways that we come up with, shall we?
Posted by: Lacey | March 29, 2008 10:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal Obstat: "Spidey said: "I'm not God and my knowledge cannot question somebody who's knowledge dwarfs mine immeasurably."
Hey, Spidey, EVERYBODY'S knowledge dwarfs yours immeasurable."
(And it's "whose," not "who's.")
~~~~~~~~~~
Spiderman2 gets his point across in his comments and that is all that matters. If you want to "grade" someone's grammar and word usage I suggest that you become an English major at a school/college. Proper grammar and or sentence structure on this type of forum are not a requirement.
I can always tell the” pigs are annoyed” when they begin to dredge the bottom because that is the best come back they can do.
Posted by: Lacey | March 29, 2008 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidey said: "I'm not God and my knowledge cannot question somebody who's knowledge dwarfs mine immeasurably."
Hey, Spidey, EVERYBODY'S knowledge dwarfs yours immeasurable.
(And it's "whose," not "who's.")
Posted by: Neal Obstat | March 29, 2008 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques:
If I recall correctly, we planted an American flag on the moon.
Josh
Posted by: Josh | March 29, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm thinking the Antarctic. . . .
Posted by: Tina | March 29, 2008 8:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I, myself, would recommend the Vatican. Why?
1. It would pre-empt Protestant-Catholic warfare.
2. The wealth is such that Rev. Wright will not long miss his nearly finished mansion.
I understand that the priority is getting these fellows off our native soil. If others find my suggested location disagreeable, I will quietly go along with whatever locale the majority deems most suitable.
Posted by: Secularly minded | March 29, 2008 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Prof. Berlinerblau:
Having considered your proposal with care, I submit that while France has the requisite amorality, we would show a more generous spirit by shipping them off to a location where everyone will be able to understand what they're saying, i.e., can speak English. In this way, the ethical among the population will not be taken in.
The Republic of Ireland is clearly out, since it has already suffered too much at the hands of clergy. Northern Ireland--well, here, I confess, I hesitate--but, again, too many of the wrong people could be harmed. The obvious location? England.
Back, back, back to the source of the killer religious instinct that led to genocide here. And there, racism and sexism continue apace. The Brits might not even notice Wright & co. among them.
I shall write my legislators advocating on your behalf.
With gratitude,
Skeptic
Posted by: Skeptic | March 29, 2008 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
SPIDERMAN2 wrote:
"Sorry to say but there is what I call the 'initial rupture'. It's not the rupture of the saints."
Is this the Freudian slip of all times?
Posted by: GeorgiaSon | March 29, 2008 7:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau's legitimate call for keeping religion out of politics is marred by his inaccurate claim that Obama must now exert twice as much effort to secure the middle-class white votes. Actually, the latest polls show that his candidacy was not hurt one iota by the Wright flap.
Once more, an elitist intellectual is caught projecting his own views of the average American onto those Americans' likely opinions, rather than reflecting objective reality about those Americans' actual opinion. He is found guilty of committing what he considers the chief sin of other people: letting their existing perceptions and opinions determine their reaction to new facts, rather than weighing the new facts objectively.
Or, to sum it up: The average American, Mr. Berlinerblau, is smarter than you think. Maybe even smarter than you!
Posted by: GeorgiaSon | March 29, 2008 7:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm sure the author's ideas are posted on WP for shock value. Obviously his proposed ammendment would itself violate the 1st Ammendment. Also, will authors of his sort please demonstrate some intellectual integrity and learn what an Evangelical actually is in the historic context. Not every white preacher in America is an Evangelical and the two mentioned in his post are known Pentecostals. Historically Pentecostals and Evangelicals arise from different theological roots. There may be some similarities, but there are big differences. My sense is the author does care about accuracy though as long he can use people to make his point. It was Jimmy Carter that said his faith informed his politics and no one on the left ever complained then. Consistentcy and accuracy would make for a better argument.
Posted by: RedskinsReverend | March 29, 2008 4:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh yes, Prof., do get some Congressional support for this and i'th heat. Not only are you a remarkable intellectual problem solver, but you are practical, as well. Who said higher education is going downhill? I recall no less than Thomas Friedman telling Charlie Rose, "The French have the morality of a knat." Rose laughingly agreed.
With no morality to lose,France would be the ideal place to send these folks. Obama's rev. might miss his 1.6 million dollar home, though.
Posted by: TexasTim | March 29, 2008 4:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 aka CanyonShearer/ Bible Thumper / Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,
Fools are those who have read only the bible. God cannot be proud of such lazy creations!!!!
And what "voodoo of the hoodoo" gave you such stupidity in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 29, 2008 2:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal wrote : " (Spiderman2), If people you respected found 100% verifiably genuine scrolls, which could be proven to be written by Jesus himself, stating that there really isn't such a place of punishment as Hell and that everybody goes to Heaven, would you still be a Christian?"
I just wish there is no Hell Neil, but God puts it there. I'm not God and my knowledge cannot question somebody who's knowledge dwarfs mine immeasurably. I have proven the Bible and the rest of you here will see it's authenticity soon.
The concept that everybody goes to Heaven regardless of what he/she does is quite puzzling. The most "intelligent" man in such a scenario would be the one who kills anybody whom he considers a threat to his dream of world domination. And the truth of the matter, is that, that is what a lot of godless people are really thinking right now. They are just waiting for the right moment to make their move. The end result will be doomsday. The good news is that it is they who will be doomed.
That is not a very simple question and there are a lot of factors to be considered before that can be answered. In the first place, there would be no Christianity if such a scenario occurs. There could be false Christianity in such a scenario though, as there are now who believes that kind of doctrine.
Arminius, I'm the one who wants to convert you and it means it is I who's teaching you how to sing. In that regard, Lazarus Long's dictum pertains to you as the pig. Is it true then that I annoyed you?
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 29, 2008 2:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why is god telling spiderman2,Thomas Baum and the other 35,000 Christian cults different stories? Some kind of trickster no doubt.
Posted by: Hank | March 28, 2008 9:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal,
Don't bother with Spidey, he will only answer with his usual drivel. Remember Lazarus Long's dictum: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 28, 2008 9:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2:
"...Fire-ance." You can't buy this...
I normally go out of way to ignore you, but I have one question I'd like to ask. If you answer, I promise not to respond or ever ask another.
If people you respected found 100% verifiably genuine scrolls, which could be proven to be written by Jesus himself, stating that there really isn't such a place of punishment as Hell and that everybody goes to Heaven, would you still be a Christian?
Mahalo
Posted by: Neal: | March 28, 2008 8:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Somebody wrote : "Despite what many people wish, this is not a 'christian nation.' "
Well, if it's not then it's going to be after God renders His judgment which is coming soon.The Bible states that there's a succession of wars coming and it will culminate in the destruction of islamists, atheist and liberal idealogues around the world.
Sorry to say but there is what I call the "initial rupture". It's not the rupture of the saints but the "rapture" or extermination of the "un-saints".
Jacques' proposal would occur but it's the reverse. All atheists will be deported by God soon. Not in France but in Fire-ance.
Now don't accuse me of warmongering, I'm just a messenger of Someone whom you call "does not exist" and let's wait and see if I am just a bearer of fairy tales.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 28, 2008 7:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't think we need such an amendment, for the simple reason that what got Obama into hot water will now get other politicians who use religion for political constituency into hot water. I guarantee you that videos of right wing Christian preachers (i.e. Hagee et al.) will now start popping up on youtube where people can see what they have been spewing. Perhaps conservative politicians will now try to distance themselves from such hatemongers.
Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 28, 2008 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Berlinerblau:--"His colleague from Arizona now has a potential problem with Catholics--the largest religious denomination in the United States. He never had one before. For this he has Pastor Hagee to thank."
In view of the overwhelming priority that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops places on anti-abortion positions in their voting guidelines, McCain may feel that they have nowhere else to go anyway. Judging from conversations I have had with younger Catholics, McCain may have overplayed that hand.
(Having given up dangling participles for Lent, I beg your indulgences if for pigging out now.)
Posted by: Neal: | March 28, 2008 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No, no, no deportation but "pink slip" all popes, bishops, priests, rabbis, preachers, monks, imams, clerics and medicine men/women/"vodooers practicing the hoodoo" for the mumbo jumbo they have been feeding us for the last "many a millenium".
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 28, 2008 5:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"No, he's not saying that at all, just saying that religion, period, should not play a public role in selecting who is the best person to be President. His "proposal" would apply equally to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc,"
That's what I got from Berlinerblau's article as well. Why would anyone assume that he was referring to only Christians or Christianity?
Posted by: Tonio | March 28, 2008 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Advocating that a bad statement doesn't count and that all the persons statements should be looked at as a whole certainly sounds like a lawyer pleading for leniency at a sentencing hearing after the person has been found guilty by a jury of peers.
Posted by: Stan | March 28, 2008 5:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
GaryD says: "A man is known by the company he keeps. ..."
True but we should judge "the company he keeps" (in this case Rev Wright) by the entirety of his life's work instead of just cherrypicking few outlandash comments and using them to intentionally misrepresent the entirety of the man.
Besides, I place a hell of lot more weight in what Obama actually says and does himself and he has repeatedly condemned those particular comments of Rev Wright and Obama has also lead an exemplary life when it comes to fair treatment regardless of race.
So to focus in on a few comments of Rev Wright rather than the life and words of Obama himself is to miss the point entirely. But something tells me that is exactly what you intended to do.
Posted by: Freestinker | March 28, 2008 4:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Great article.
What baffles me most about the Hagee endorsement: McCain *solicited* this endorsement from a fringe, albeit nutty, element of the evangelical movement just days before he knew Huckabee would withdraw and he'd probably garner the lion's share of the mainstream evangelical vote by default. It may have been a play to get Joe Lieberman's supporters' backing, in that Senator Lieberman is also way up in Pastor Hagee's theological underpants.
Posted by: Neal: | March 28, 2008 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Because of the water requirements, Noah and flood waters over the whole earth clearly didn't happen. Since the flood fails, then the whole old stuff fails. However, people want to believe. The problem is that the main religions seem to have been developed for the purpose of manipulating minds and controlling people - and are being used today for that same purpose.
The religions need to be seen as ongoing activities and organizations over many centuries. Communism (another 'ism') considered religion to be the opiate of the people - and totally failed.
There must be something inherent in the mind that requires/demands adherence to a higher authority - which has been recognized and used for personal power over others throughout the ages and for the development of man-made religions.
There seems to be something 'out there/among us' which we haven't recognized and don't understand. However, if a positive man-made religious test is required for public office then - 'Lord help us'.
Posted by: Stan | March 28, 2008 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Why don't you say what you and the rest of the fascist left crowd want the right to deport everyone that has the temerity to disagree with you and the unmitigated gall to stand up and say so?"
Unlike the Fascist Right crowd, of course. You just want to either deport us, convert us to your religion, or else execute us.
Posted by: Athena | March 28, 2008 3:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
We shouldn't be dragging religion into a public political process. The religious right has assumed so much power in the Republican party that no GOP candidate for national office has a prayer of getting elected without sucking up to them. I'm not sure we should deport spiritual advisors, mentors, etc., to France though. The French already don't like us much. Maybe it should be decided on a case by case basis: John Hagee-Vatican City; Jeremiah Wright, Beaumont, Texas, etc.
Posted by: Michael | March 28, 2008 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
J. B., I had thought your train of thought had become derailed in Europe and the western Pacific between May and September 1945. I was wrong.
Posted by: wrong | March 28, 2008 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I object to people who are running for office and who use their faith as a fig leaf to hide relevant facts. Wright, Hagee, Parsley...ought to be put out to pasture. A nasty part of me said they ought to be in the same meadow but that's cruel.
I am not interested in a candidate's faith. I am interested in his (or her) ethics, which may or may not come from the candidate's faith. I am not interested in whether he or she is "saved" but whether the country can be saved from the garbage it has endured for the past almost eight years at the hands of a professed religious person who uses his faith as a phallus, sticking it into everything.
Posted by: Karen | March 28, 2008 2:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Keeping religion completely out of state matters is entirely fair and logical, if we want peace and stability. Zealots have a way of taking unproven, taken-on-faith religious arguments and trying to make them facts or laws. This cannot work in a land that protects all people equally regardless of religion. Kudos for the proposed 28th Amendment.
Spiderman2's comments make it sound like he would prefer holy war to peaceful coexistence with alternative religions and non-believers. Which, if I am accurate in my assessment, is sickening. If there is a place like Hell, its fires await the hatemongers, not the peace lovers.
Posted by: patrick | March 28, 2008 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Why don't you say what you and the rest of the fascist left crowd want the right to deport everyone that has the temerity to disagree with you and the unmitigated gall to stand up and say so?"
Here's a mirror and a bottle of Windex. Use them.
The true fascists in our midst is obvious to anyone who sees people like you talk and write.
You hate Berlinerblau not because he's a fascist, but because he's NOT a fascist. That's your REAL beef.
Posted by: ChurchStateWall | March 28, 2008 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To Dana, Spiderman2, and anyone else interested in this "dictator for life" question...
Dana - its not an entirely spurious argument. Any regime that would seriously implement a proposal like this and tell someone that they can't voice their religious beliefs in the public square obviously doesn't place much value on the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.
Now, Spiderman2 may have made quite a leap when he said this would lead to a communist dictatorship, but obviously regimes that don't respect freedom of speech and freedom of religion are at great risk of dictatorship.
Berlinerblau and others get frustrated with people who think and act differently than they do and who think and act offensively... and its easy to sympathize with their frustration. But if we take it to far we are jeopardizing the kinds of freedoms we should WANT to see in American politics.
Posted by: Daniel | March 28, 2008 1:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bravo! I wholeheartedly agree.
Despite what many people wish, this is not a "christian nation." There are a whole heck-of-a-lot of American citizens who are anything but christian. The President is their president, too. The President must represent ALL Americans, not just christians and not just god-believers.
Requiring candidates to go through this little "I believe in god" dance tells you nothing true about the candidate, but it makes a great number of Americans feel unwelcome and unwanted.
Posted by: David | March 28, 2008 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I tend to agree with only the final point of the article. Politicising religious belief prostitutes religious belief. I speak as an ordained person.
Side note: I found the translation of Mr. Berlinerblau's name---Berlin Drunk---amusing.
Posted by: Herschel Atkinson | March 28, 2008 1:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I love it!!!!
Religion + Politics = Disaster
Posted by: One happy heathen | March 28, 2008 1:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Amen Jacques - send them all to France except for the ones that would really do us serious harm.
Can we load up a Greyhound to Raptureland with Hagee, Parsley, Tim LeHay and Spiderman2 and other like-minded apocalpytic whackos aboard and send them way the hell out in the middle of the Gobi desert? Maybe set off a few Chinese fireworks along the way, just to make the whole thing believable -it won't take much for this crowd. They can entertain each other with delightful tales of how damn smart they were.
The born-agains will think they're in Paradise, and in the meantime it will spare France from having to hide all the many marvelous hedonistic delights from the 'purified senses' of the true believers - big job, that.
As for the less threatening offenders, I might even join Rev. Wright at the Follies and a quick tour of the wineries after ...........
Rage on, all you true believers - we've still got a few bus tickets left.
Posted by: trussed | March 28, 2008 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I favor the intent of your 28th amendment, though I am puzzled as to why you would have them deported to France (wouldn't some quiet isolated island be better - how about St. Helena? It was good enough for Napoleon). But in the interest of fairness I must point out that non-spiritual advisers can be just as much of a problem. I really don't think Geraldine Ferraro was channeling a holy spirit when she managed to embarrass the Clinton campaign!
Posted by: D. Edward Farrar | March 28, 2008 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Dana, they have that 28th ammendment in communist countries and they ended up with one leader for life.
I'll be glad to have that ammendment in America once Huckabee becomes president so he would be our president for life.
Long Live Great Leader !!!"
I'm not sure which better demonstrates the (lack of) intellectual quality of your "argument": that you think there's some kind of causal relationship between restricting the public injection of religion into presidential campaigns and ending up with a dictator for life (even though we have a pesky little detail called the 22nd Amendment), that you can't spell "amendment," or the fact that you actually want Huckabee as President for even one day, let alone for life.
Posted by: Dana | March 28, 2008 1:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I tend to agree with only the final point of the article. Politicising religious belief prostitutes religious belief. I speak as an ordained person.
Side note: I found the translation of Mr. Berlinerblau's name---Berlin Drunk---amusing.
Posted by: Herschel Atkinson | March 28, 2008 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In a free society people have the right to speculate as to the unkown. People also have the right to publicly speak their ideas, to promote other's ideas and even to form movements around ideas. When these ideas relate to the divine, we call it religion. Thus free thought and freedom of religion are forever intwined as basic rights in a free society.
The only problem with religion is that a percentage of people are completely insane on the subject. Though this insanity is not only seen in the religious, it's also seen in a percentage of the anti-religious. The anti-religious would choose to eliminate free thought and they have a depraved history of violence and oppression (Mao, Lenon, etc) similar to religious zealouts.
To me it's quite clear that Jacques Berlinerblau has at the very least a mild strain of this insanity.
Posted by: Paul | March 28, 2008 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In a free society people have the right to speculate as to the unkown. People also have the right to publicly speak their ideas, to promote other's ideas and even to form movements around ideas. When these ideas relate to the divine, we call it religion. Thus free thought and freedom of religion are forever intwined as basic rights in a free society.
The only problem with religion is that a percentage of people are completely insane on the subject. Though this insanity is not only seen in the religious, it's also seen in a percentage of the anti-religious. The anti-religious would choose to eliminate free thought and they have a depraved history of violence and oppression (Mao, Lenon, etc) similar to religious zealouts.
To me it's quite clear that Jacques Berlinerblau has at the very least a mild strain of this insanity.
Posted by: Paul | March 28, 2008 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sure, that and religion is for crazy folk.
Posted by: Rob L. | March 28, 2008 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Miss-shure Jacques:
Deported to France!!!!???? The Vatican. Or Scotland and thrown into a VAT of something.
You're beating around the bush. Hit it!
28. No law shall use the word religion or any of it's many substitutes like faith, sect etc.
Simply end official recognition of religions. End religions getting tax and accounting breaks. It's not nice to not let people be free to be, "as stupid as they please."
We can go the other way too, you write the amendment. We can prosecute ministers for claiming God said anything. Actually that could be done right now under "bunko" laws.
Make religions prove it was God in the burning bush. That can't be proved but the trial should cause the actual words of Exodus to be examined in public thus removing the bunko from claiming it was God and then going on to say what God demands, in particular, "rendering unaccounted, tax free, tax exempt money to God's representatives operating from tax exempt facilities."
Here's a start, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Think what legal minds, the kind that "looted" big tobacco could do if they tried. Got any idea how much money, real estate etc religions have? I'd say thats a mighty plump chicken ready to be plucked.
Posted by: BGone | March 28, 2008 12:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Not only unconstitutional but pretty stupid. A man is known by the company he keeps. How many years has McCain filled a portion of a pew in Hagee's Church? How many times did he take his wife and family there?
Nice attempt at misdirection Mr. Berlinerbrau.
Why don't you say what you and the rest of the fascist left crowd want the right to deport everyone that has the temerity to disagree with you and the unmitigated gall to stand up and say so?
Posted by: Garyd | March 28, 2008 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RIVES -
RE: "Since 1980 the Republican party has been in thrall of evangelicals who reason in a pinched shorthand binary method: God talk = good, Pondering the data = evil."
This kind of hyperbole really doesn't help. There are great analysts on both side of the aisle, and there are people who just appeal to mob-mentality on both sides of the aisle. Al Sharpton uses religion just as opportunistically and unceremoniously as Bush does, for example. And Democrats who don't use religion use something else to get voters worked up.
Who cares. America is not and never will be a theocracy. It is not and never will be ruled by mullahs. You want to know why the "Religious Right" has power? Its because there are a lot of religious right wing people. This isn't some conspiracy or anything... like I said before, as long as America is religious, religion will come into American politics. I think it would be scary if it didn't - if people didn't feel comfortable bringing it in.
As you can tell from my previous post, I'm no friend of the Right - religious or otherwise. But I think scapegoating people who make religious statements in the public square for the very secular mistakes of the Bush administration is wrong. We value free speech, free association, and freedom of religion in America and as long as we do I don't think people should get worked up when voters and politicians actually exercise those rights! Its a good sign, not a bad sign!
Posted by: Daniel | March 28, 2008 12:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
We have to be very careful when politicians start talking about God!
Posted by: Ruben Echandy | March 28, 2008 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Everyone is up in arms about Senator Obama's preacher, but this article is one of the few I've seen that bring up Senator McCain's relationship with the Reverend John Hagee. I'm a Catholic Democrat, but it's not so much the Reverend John Hagee's anti-Catholic stance I object to, as it is the danger his "Christians United for Israel" movement holds for the whole world. Their readiness to do whatever it takes to expand the unending conflicts in the Middle East into a World War in hopes it will bring on the "rapture" is scary beyond belief. They supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon; they are urging an attack on Iran; and, they do not want to end our occupation of Iraq. I don't know if Senator McCain is part of that movement. We do know that the Senator who whispered in his ear last week is (check out their national convention last year). We also know that President George W. Bush has a relationship with the "rapture ready" "left behind" bunch. This country and the whole world is in real trouble if we elect another president with their world view.
Posted by: Circuit Rider | March 28, 2008 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Democratic party's long primary season is opening the door to legitimate policy debate. There is hope that we can begin creative secular thinking and pondering the difficult questions instead of defaulting to myth and Dark Ages fear. If Obama continues to conduct his campaign in a rational and articulate manner we have a chance to step away from superstitious/magical thinking about world events and difficult domestic policy.
Since 1980 the Republican party has been in thrall of evangelicals who reason in a pinched shorthand binary method: God talk = good, Pondering the data = evil. It is time to recognize the advantages of intelligent analysis as a method to find solutions. Enough of the USA-style Taliban of the christian mob.
Posted by: RIves | March 28, 2008 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I should revise what i said about bush -
its not that there haven't been huge changes under bush - my point is that there haven't been huge substantive changes that have to do with religion/morality.
in other words, the stuff he's screwed up in the last seven years isn't related to his religion
Posted by: daniel | March 28, 2008 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think Berlinerblau is getting a little too worked up about this. I agree that religion in american politics can be a little overblown, but who cares? The fact is, its pandering - nothing that any of these candidates say about their faith is going to influence the way they govern substantially - its just a way of appealing to voters.
Take bush, for example - the most evangelical president we've had for decades. He's pushed through some abstinence programs, but aside from that not much change. Roe is still here and the Roberts court doesn't seem interested in changing that... and even if they were interested, its Bush's conservatism that created the Roberts court, not his religion.
Ultimately, I think this matters a lot less than Berlinerblau suggests it does. America is a very religious country and as long as it is the campaigning will have elements of religion. That shouldn't be scary to anyone, and if McCain or Obama get involved with religious figures in a way that hurts them in the long run, that's their problem.
The scary thing about Americans isn't their religiosity - its the fluff and sound bites that we get instead of real policy positions. That's my big concern
Posted by: daniel | March 28, 2008 12:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wouldn't it be easier to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Church or other religious institution that the offender leads?
These religious leaders claim that they are making a "personal" endorsement, but surely they don't make distinctions between their personal and professional opinions in other matters? No, let's simply make the "personal" endorsement a matter of interest to the IRS.
I certainly don't want my pastors endorsing candidates, either from the pulpit or in the press.
Posted by: Matt | March 28, 2008 12:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Long Live Great Leader !!!
Oh sorry, I thought I was in North Korea.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 28, 2008 12:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dana, they have that 28th ammendment in communist countries and they ended up with one leader for life.
I'll be glad to have that ammendment in America once Huckabee becomes president so he would be our president for life.
Long Live Great Leader !!!
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 28, 2008 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is no greater threat to democracy than the religious right's influence on politics in the US.
Jacques is absolutely right in that better governing talent is shying away from state and national politics due to the self appointed Christian mullahs who will brand those they do not approve of as apostates. This in a country that rightly puts its constitution as the topmost guiding law of the land. Its position on religion is crystal clear and not only protects a person's right to religion but protects the people from a government position on religion.
The current lunatic in power, strongly endorsed by the Christian religious right, has increased US federal debt from $6T (took 40 years to get there) to over $9.3T. Clinton handed him a surplus annual budget.
A less religiously motivated president would have had his attention on governing and not crusading for Daddy in revenge over Gulf War I. He would be cooperating with world leaders. He would be seeking dialog with the enemies (in particular Iran, who reached out in 2003 and were rebuffed by Bush in arrogance.) in order to find a road to peace. The smoking gun after Sept 11 was the immediate Bush cabinet knee jerk reaction to blame Iraq (which had no association with Al-Queda - they feared them too.)
By ridding the world of Saddam Hussein (no great loss), Bush has unwittingly altered the balance of power in the Middle East and has made Iran much stronger. The danger in this (especially after you refuse a chance for dialog [2003] should be clear enough even for Bush.
And he would have focused on capturing Bin Laden and would have forced Pakistan's cooperation (they are the Muslim country who have detonated a nuclear weapon, not Iran).
George Waterboard Bush, with much religious right support, instead has mired the country in an unwinable war in Iraq. It is costly in lives and money. It is contributing to the technically bankrupt state of the nation.
Jacques is right: the political process in the United States needs protection from religious influence. It propelled an incompetent, who does not respect congress or the constitution, to the White House.
We should be very thankful that the three candidates presently on the slate, while all having Christian credentials of one flavor or another and in varying strength, do not seem to be overly influenced by the religious right. It may be that the next, younger, generations of politicians in the US will be listeners and not actors on the religious right's behalf.
Spiderman2: your assertion regarding atheism is misfounded fear mongering. To make it clear to the point that maybe even you can understand: The separation of church and state has nothing to do with a democratic process. The constitution protects your right to religion and the governments freedom from religion.
Posted by: Allen Braun | March 28, 2008 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"They did that in communist countries and they ended up with only one leader for life.
Atheism is stupidity and it really has no place in America."
OK, not sure about the logic here, but I'll try. No one is saying politicians would/should be required to be atheists, which I guess is the connection you're making with communist countries? He's just saying they should be judged as candidates for public office on something other than their religious beliefs, whatever those are. Our Constitution and its amendments protect our right to elect a new President on a regular basis, so the "one leader for life" thing can't happen here in any case.
If atheism is stupidity, then please explain how believing in an ancient book written and translated (many times) by fallible human beings because it's what your parents told you as a child is any more intelligent. And freedom of religion means that as long as individual Americans exercise their right not to believe in any god, atheism will have a place in America.
Posted by: Dana | March 28, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
But France, quite rightly, would turn them back at the airport as disturbers of the peace. The French are more fiercely attached to the separation of state and church/synagogue/mosque than any other country in Europe, as Sarkozy learned to the expense of his national popularity when he tried to inject his own personal religious beliefs into the public national debate. Victor Hugo said it with uncharacteristic succinctness: "L'Etat chez lui, l'Eglise chez elle." (roughly: "The State in its place, the Church in hers.")
Posted by: jack | March 28, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wonderful proposal, Jacques!
But why France?? I think Siberia would be much better. More solitude to reflect on why they were banished there!
Posted by: Gaby | March 28, 2008 11:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is all wishful thinking. War is coming in succession regardless of who becomes president. When all the dust settles down, you would see a different America, more powerful and more Godly than it has even been.
Continue with your dreams. Cookies and cream...
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 28, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Jacques Berlinerblau, So you are saying that everyone has a voice in democracy except Christians? Oppression of those one doesn't agree with is in conflict with democracy."
Oh, cut your dam whining and read the dam article.
And kudos to Jacques for picking up on the imbalance of media attention. Here's more:
http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/the_church_state_wall/2008/03/furor-over-bara.html
Posted by: ChurchStateWall | March 28, 2008 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
While a practicing Christian, I am always appalled by how bent many Christians are in the infusion of religion in government. If we were to examine how Christ managed this situation, we would see in a number of examples that he did not support the establishment of a religious government led by men. He reserves that to be established after His second coming.
A few examples are in order: 1) when asked as to whether we should pay taxes He asked whose image was on the coin, then to render to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and to God what belongs to God. 2) When a disciple was asked to pay their taxes, Jesus instructed his disciple to catch a fish and to pay the taxes from the coin in the fish's mouth. 3) When asked about his kingdom during His trial, He responded saying that His kingdom was not of this world.
American Christians naively believe that religion in government would be driven by Christian morals and values. They forget that the rights of individuals, regardless of religion, are guaranteed by the Constitution.
One example of Christian naivetee would be the issue of prayer in public schools. Christians may not realize that OTHER THAN Christian prayers would have to be allowed and that those prayers contrary to the beliefs of Christians not only would have to be allowed, but would also be protected. So, it would open a pandora's box of any unimaginable belief system to have a forum. Do we want our children to be hearing someones rant about praying to Satan or any other human invention and not be able to do anything about it? Be careful what you ask for.
You want your children to pray in school? No problem. You have two choices. 1) Pray silently (after all, you should be praying to God and not for the exaltation of self), or 2) Send them to a religious school of your own belief.
Theocracies have not left a good record in history. Let's keep our politics and religion separate.
Posted by: Franklyn in Sarasota | March 28, 2008 11:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Jacques Berlinerblau,
So you are saying that everyone has a voice in democracy except Christians? Oppression of those one doesn't agree with is in conflict with democracy."
No, he's not saying that at all, just saying that religion, period, should not play a public role in selecting who is the best person to be President. His "proposal" would apply equally to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc,
Posted by: Dana | March 28, 2008 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wright's comments weren't wrong, of course, they were powerful and to the point to a public that needed to hear such things. He and his congregation should tell the whole world to bugger off and not apologize for anything he said. Obama needs to continue doing what he did earlier, telling the press he can't control what is said by his non-campaign people and stop apologizing every time someone demands that he do so. And Berlinerblau should lead the tour bus back to France and stay for a few years on sabbatical...
Posted by: Rich | March 28, 2008 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
They did that in communist countries and they ended up with only one leader for life.
Atheism is stupidity and it really has no place in America.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 28, 2008 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jaques,
I personally agree with your proposals, but through prayer, I've learned:
God would likely feel your proposals have some merit.
Jesus would probably fight you in the courts.
The Holy Spirit wouldn't be able to do much because he's been locked up for molesting children.
Posted by: Kenneth | March 28, 2008 11:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The POPE Should incarserate All Misbehaving Nuns & Priests (especially PEDAPHiLE Priests/Preditors) and assume the costs, at his (their own)
"Vatican City Jail (Prison) System" and or thrown into the Francais BASTIL Dungens!
Oh Tacqavaille!
Posted by: < ?: +) Ya | March 28, 2008 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What part was a 'tad facetious'? The bit about France? Sorry, I don't get that one.
If we let religious leaders make our political decisions for us, then we get what we deserve. How do the god-talkers decide? Do they look into their eyes and see their souls, the way Bush did with Putin? That one sure turned out great, didn't it.
Posted by: tsk | March 28, 2008 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques Berlinerblau,
So you are saying that everyone has a voice in democracy except Christians? Oppression of those one doesn't agree with is in conflict with democracy.
Posted by: DontTypeLies | March 28, 2008 10:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why does the foreign based cult of rome have the right to tell us what our rights are here? Religion is a way of life and NO ONE has the right to come here and tells us what our way of life should be. The separation of power, the power of God and Man must be kept seperate or the carnage and slaughter of humanity as we saw in europe last century will continue.
Posted by: Buckwheat | March 28, 2008 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anti-Immigration Dutch Lawmaker Characterizes His Film (FITNA) as 'Tough Reality'
A Dutch lawmaker known for his outspoken opposition to immigration posted a graphic film depicting Islam as a religion of violence on a maverick video-sharing Web site Thursday night after government and religious officials spent weeks trying to prevent its release.
The 15-minute film splices verses from the Koran with videos of mutilated bombing victims, the World Trade Center attack, the beheading of a man by masked gunmen and an Afghan woman draped in a pleated blue burqa being shot in the head.
"It is not a provocation, it is tough reality -- a reality that some Muslims might not find comfortable," (more at link)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032703722_Comments.html
Posted by: keep speech free | March 28, 2008 9:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
EP, "A Christian should feel compassion. Remember, hate the sin, love the sinner. You seem to hate the sinner."
~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a true statement, and indicative of what God's sentiment is regarding the same; according to scripture.