Mid-Term Elections Showed Electorate Anger at Misuse of Religion

dbryugozq itgbulfhq yxcmdf yrtfb mlguvyrpx ecnwjgdk cuklphzt

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

kxuwmafvs vtbnjklc apnvl wxesovak abkvitr wysibnz hqvb http://www.ntszyrjx.qvbjnwd.com

qpux xuvl oqbmnvuz tlxync nfhor ywiaoh jbaye

You know actually the history of blues to rock and roll all stems from the gospel music of the african american slaves-

im glad that country music hasnt been able to spread-

speaking of rush- al franken is also a funny writer- rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot- and 'lies and the lying liars who tell the' to name a few- he is one of the main commentators on air america- a liberal radio station- and started out as a stand up comedian-
salaams

Victoria,
We are quite familiar with Micheal Moore, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spenser, Ann Coulter et al. You would not believe the amount of materials discussing them in Muslim blogs and Internet sites from Morocco to Indonesia.

The Muslim umma has been globalized in sharing info via the Net- from the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon controversy to Pope Benedict's speech to that German spicy addition of Mozart's opera.

We do know that Micheal Moore is vilified by the rightwingers, if you can call them that. And Ann Coulter by the liberals. And that fellow Rush Limburgh is something else. He makes the fringe Muslim fanatics sound sane.

And of course, much as Thomas Friedman's and Ann Coulter's books are being promoted overseas, Noam Chomsky outsells them everytime from Chile to China. And the interesting thing is that, apart from different preferences in books, the wider world does not seem to take to country music, but love every American music from blues to jazz to rock to rap.

And thanks for reminding me of Thomas Paine. We need to reread him to refresh.

Salaam

since we seemto have been left alone for a bit-
i was going to go into the vacuum the commies left- but then i thought- get any michael moore you can- canadian bacon is a comedy with john candy and his first movie- but bowling for columbine- farenheit 911- anything hes done- he has a great way of going to the heart of issues while informing - if you can find him- i reccommned him- you probably already know about him-

i was watching a cspan show about thomas paine the other day and there was a quote by john wilkes and he said- i want to find out what extreme limits of freedom of speech are- and we certainly have freedom to be bigoted, intolerant and as biased as we ant in the good ole us of a.
peace and salaams
ps thanks for the backup on the big Q

Victoria,
Is that why American are so litigious? Always someone else's fault? No sense of personal responsibility? They sued the cigarette companies for millions for smoking, and McDonald's too, for spilling coffee on their laps among others. Of course, that is what foreigners read about America and consequently formed perceptions. Also TV shows like Boston Legal and Nip/Tuck.

Thank God some Americans now have Muslims to blame for all the ills in the world! It used to be the commies.

And life is so exciting for Muslims nowadays. Even for Victoria, living in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, the standard bearer of human rights, champion of democracy, beacon of freedom of speech, thought and belief.

Whatever. One can never be free of bigots and they do thrive very well in democracies. They have their own magazines, blogs, associations, websites to spread their notions and visions.

whoo hoo snap!

i dont think its any secret phil- my whiteness simply oozes out of me like some pale sicky light-

ive been outed as white in america!!!

that bit about personal responsibility is exactly what i was pointing out earlier-

and since this is a mostly non-theist response and i dont think ill be insulting any christians or making them feel like their being targeted i will comment on this-

its my observation that the chrsitian philosophy that probably most everyone one here has been raised with or at least exposed to in america has at its core a complete lack of personal culpability-

i really dislike making personal remarks about others beliefs that may be negative but its pertinent to this conversation

if you never have to be really conscious of your actions- because they will all be magically washed clean with the sprinkle of "im saved" dust- and someone else bears the brunt of all your sins and actions- you live an unconscious life - i think this mentality has seeped into every aspect of america- the arrogance of manifest destiny- the above stated sense of some divine entitlement-
the teflon conscience of america-

i like that im going to say it again
the teflon conscience of america

but like i alwys say- we dont have a monopoly on self- indulgence- when someone comes to america they teach us new ways to be self-indulgent-
were just very blessed that we have so much-

i always used to say if Jesus(ata) were alive today hed be a communist hippie-

yes phil- i get it from both sides- the muslims who arent whitey white think im a spy- and my countrypeople think i am stabbing Jesus(ata) over and over again in the back-

thanks for the commendation there hanuman- im going to print it out and whip it out when it suits my purposes

o yes
personal responsibility
my favorite words

Phil C,
I know Victoria is Irish-American. Being a monkey/Hanuman as she called me, I was mischievously trying get a rise out of her, and failed to her credit :)

As a born and practicing Muslim, like other such Muslims, I am constantly amazed and ashamed that Muslim converts like Victoria are better Muslims than us in understanding and practicing Islam as it should be.

Victoria is the kind of Muslim we all want to be, and the better for it.

Jihadist - I think Victoria is Caucasian - Irish-American.

Right, Victoria?

Victoria, my apologies for the tough tone of my previous posting to you. I saw the others are sometimes quite patronizing towards your postings.

After 9/11, from what I read about Muslims written by Americans, and on American Muslims too, and how some Americans treated their fellow Americans for being Muslims, I half expected the American Muslims to be branded in crescents for identification and placed in detention camps.

American Muslims are also asked to explain the behavior of Muslims (driven by politics), in other parts of the world that they have nothing to do with.

That is the perception foreigners gets. Don't Americans understand that each and every Muslim is personally responsible and accountable for his/her own actions and not his umma in life and in the hearafter?

I suppose, as a Muslim born and living in a Muslim majority country, I have no reason to be defensive about or to apologize for my faith. It is tough to be any religious and ethnic minority in any country.

I admire your postings. They are patient, graceful and thoughful. I tend to give as good as I got sometimes. After all, turning the other cheek is not an element of my personal faith:)

Salaam.

thanks for the encouragement- im trying not to be an apologist for my existence- i just wanted to point out that if one is in a position of being misunderstood- railing against the majority only makes you look reactionary and we have to make the concerted effrot to define ourselves or we cant really whineabout it if others do it for us-

it seems bad taste altogether to me to lump people i little groups and make sweeping assumptions about them based on the smallest bit of information- but youre right- american caucasians are the most expectant, lazy folks so full of a sense of entitlement that any who doesnt automatically recognize our obvious superiority is simply dismissed as stupid or backward---

not much to be proud of, is it?

Victoria,
Forget about defining yourself to others for being a Muslim. I can't be bothered. No one ask me to so except the Europeans, the North Americans, the Australians and the New Zealanders. They measure others by their own criteria and standards.

I never ask a Buddhist, Sikh, Christian (all denominations), Bahais, Hindus, Wiccans etc, to define themselves to me. I merely read up on hteir religions and beliefs.

Methinks the Caucasians are intellectually lazy and culturally presumtious - thier own views, which they held to be always right, and others. And the theists can be just as bad.

A Caucasian going "native" in a developing/third world country is derided. But a "native" dressing and eating like a Caucasian is admired for being "civilized" and "cultured".

No one in this On Faith threads can get to me. I am four times tougher than anyone for being a person of the wrong colour (beige), wrong religion (Islam), wrong gender (female), wrong region (developing country). I have heard, seen and experienced all forms of racism, sexism, bigotry and Islamphobia.

John Kennedy: “I believe in an America where religious intolerance may some day end.”

as religious people should rightly be expected to be respectful of non-theists or any other view-(and many of us really are)
it should be expected from everyone-

it shows you dont have to be religious to be intolerant.

also a true christian is commanded intheir own bible to render unto caesar what is caesar- and unto god what is gods-

their is an inherent separation of church and state expressed there

muslims are commanded to obey the secualr laws of whatever country they are living in also-

the major problem isnt religious views-
it is hypocrisy

and that can come from any quarter

one thing i might suggest is that if one has an identifiable religious system - when they do not act in accordance with it- they can easily be identified as acting hypocritically-

if one doesnt have a codified ethic system-(that is measurable publicly) we would all probably measure their sincerity of purpose through our OWN religious (or moral) yardsticks whatever they may be-

it might make some people uncomfortable as they dont really have any way to gauge a persons moral compass- (from their own perception)

atheists may consider this a tenable insecurity that might preclude theists from knowing where they (hypothetical atheist candidates) stand or will stand on issues of importance-

while it is easy to mock or invalidate in ones mind the intelligence of the religious- is is not wise politics and could alienate the people who would have the power to vote one into any office.
(as the majority of americans are identified statistically as theists)

as a muslim- i find myself constantly defining my beliefs to the majority of non-muslims that simply are misinformed about what islam actually is-

it requires a great deal of patience and repeating myself and showing RESPECT for those who are open minded enough to learn-

atheists must also show this common respect in their dealings with theists-
and realize that many people simply dont know what atheists believe and hence their fear or hesitancy-

it is work- but if one lives in a society where one is in the minority- sometimes the extra effort is necessary.
salaams

Michael of Bowie –

Hello again. glad to see you here. I’d still like an answer to the questions I posed to you on the Harris thread, where you wrote, “I have found that it takes time to learn how to the read the Bible. I think that it is God's way of weeding out the phonies. Those who are genuinely interested in learning God's Will and Testament are rewarded with understanding as they read the Bible. It is also absolutely necessary to hear Bible teaching from annontend Ministers, from whom we can learn how to read the Bible. Yes, one has to learn how to read the Bible, as it is full of poetry, parables and layered truths.”

Here are my questions again: Do you suppose God was trying to weed out people who never had the opportunity to learn how to read? or people with low reading comprehension skills? or people who didn't have access to an anointed minister?

Michael, I hope you’ll address these questions here. I sincerely want to know your thinking on this and promise not to badger you after you answer.

Thanks

And while the anonymous post above me scares the &%#! out of me, it does so no more than crazies such as Falwell, Rove and David Koresh.

As I said before, only the names change. The goals of Religious Zealots remain the same.

Personally, I think it's time we stop talking about a candidate's religious affiliation and start dealing with the real issue: *Religious Respect*.

As neither Christian, Muslim or Atheist, I find any fundamental religion who tries to infuse their beliefs into politics scary.

At the core, they are all the same. Only the names change.

We need Respect in government, not Jesus nor Allah.

Especially in this land of Religious Freedom.

Or are we merely free to be Christian??

I am sick and tired of Hindus like Jai Khosla putting bad light on Islam.

Islam is different because it is the only true religion that was given to mankind by God through His Messenger Muhammad(Peace Be Upon His Soul). The Apostle of Allah was Allah's mercy for mankind.

Muslims are different. Yes , wife beating is acceptable in Islam but only as a last resort.

Yes, marriage between chidren and adults is acceptable so long as the girl has attained puberty. The Holy Prophet gave us an aexample by marrying Hazrat Aisha wehn she was six. He consummated the marriage when she turned nine and had had her first menstrual period. Aisha became his favorite wife. Today thousnads of Muslim men marry young girls and the couples are very happy and contented.

Yes, Islam does not give equal rights to women in all aspects of life. For example a woman can get only half the inheritance that her male siblings get. But that is because men are commanded by Allah to take care of their women.

The list goes on.

Get used to it Jai Khosla.

The whole world will soon be Islamic , ruled by sharia because that is what Allah has willed.

Christianity des not scare me as it does not interfere with legislation. Christians may but Christianity does not. Jesus said the final word when he stated something to the effect that what is mine is mine and what is ceasar's is ceasars.

What we need to be afraid of, and vigorously fend off, are cults like Islam. The arabic god allah that muhammad created states in the Koran that wives should be beaten up for being disobedient and it is therefore Islamic law that disobedient wives should be beaten up. Wife beating is only one example. There is a plethora of other laws.

I've always found it ironic when people say things like "politicians shouldn't follow the polls" - the truth is, politicians are supposed to be political officials elected not for their own views and morals but to represent *mine*. I would be and am horrified if/when a politian I elect takes that achievement as a mandate to then blithely ignore *my* opinion on how the district/county/state/country should be governed.

This horror is compounded when an elected official then makes a conscious decision to subjugate actual governing of the land to their own sense of what their chosen deity or religious book "teaches them to do" - thus importing these beliefs into the political and therefore governing arena.

The religious statements - bragging, even - by politicians in the last decade have absolutely galled me. As one person pointed out, these are claims made consciously and purposefully to cast doubt (and "sin") on an opposing candidate or official.

I take these statements for what they are: This person, if elected, is not going to follow my wishes or the wishes of those of the majority of the people, should they elect him/her, but will chose a maverick path of interpretation of religious ideology translating into religious rule, if allowed to get that far.

Yes, I call for openness in campaigning and political dogma.

I want to know who these people are. I want to know what they believe. And I want to be able to vote for their opponents.

that's my response at 1:00 AM

(response to George 12:40 AM)

I respect those who have differing views about abortion, but the issue will never be resolved until something happens: BOTH SIDES MUST BE DEBATING THE SAME ISSUE. "Pro-choice" people argue that a fetus doesn't have the same constitutional rights as a born person. "Pro-life" people argue that a fetus is, well, life. Even the terms of the two camps should be consistent.

Legal abortion is a necessary evil. Have you ever been to a third-world country? The main problems are usually corruption and overpopulation. Hunger is the worst form of child abuse. So "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."

I'm sick and tired of bogus comparisons made between war deaths and abortion "deaths."

(response to Chris 11:58)

Great Dave Barry/Star Trek quotes. I don't know how Dave Barry is, but that's a good quote.

I see that you're in Sweden. I've done some relatively extensive travel abroad, and there's one observation that I've made: Americans tend to be the most jingoistic people in the world. George W. Bush is just a microcosm of the country. Most Europeans, Canadians, and Australians I've met don't view the world in an Amer-centric way. In a nutshell, that's the problem. Why do Republican/fundamentalist strongholds tend to be in particular areas? 1) Their communities are bland and homogenous 2) There's a correlation between poverty and ignorance/intolerance; 36/38 of the states that George W. Bush won in '04 are the poorest in the country. The bottom line is that most of the world is non-White, non-Christian, and poor. That's not my opinion; it's a fact. Once you know and acknowledge that fact, it changes your world view. One out of 260+ Congresspeople being Muslim doesn't pose a threat. One Indian visiting a Southern Virginia town (see macaca incident) doesn't pose a threat. Two black guys at an LA comedy club (see Michael Richards incident) don't pose a threat. Republicans and the Middle Class are petrified. As Michael Moore put it, Anglos will be an ethnic minority within a few decades. That's resulted in many reactionary responses: i.e. White Flight, Republicans moving to the far right, etc. Many of the original American colonies were founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. How ironic that hundreds of years later, rightwing-extremist Republicans have replicated that persecution.

If you want to know the essence of a religion, learn about its founder. Jesus talked about loving your neighbor--not about hating him if he's different than you. Mohammad never advocated violence against non-believers. By the way, "The Message" is an excellent flick about the beginnings of Islam. For fundamentalist Republicans, ignorance is bliss. They could talk 'til they're blue in face, about how they hate Muslims (see Virginia redneck in "Borat") But ask them anything about the religion, and they'd be dumbfounded.

According to the An Guttmacher Institute (AGI) there have been nearly 35,316,203 abortions from 1973-1996 beginning with the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. That is, nearly 12% of our current population. Just a comparison, that's nearly 10 million more citizens than everyone in Iraq. Where's the outrage? The U.S. entry into the Middle East was bipartisan. However, I agree that there needs to be an immediate exist strategy. The morals of the right include more than just the right to life.

Steve:

According to the Court, providing for transportation is analogous to providing police protection along the same transportation routes - it benefits everyone, and therefore should not be refused to some because of the religious nature of their end destination. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with police officers stopping traffic at religious schools because it benefits everyone!!! You may consider taking a course in constitutional law.

Reading a lot of this reminds me of a comment made by Dave Barry: "Ever notice how someone who wants to tell you all about their religion never wants to hear about yours?"

The point I am trying to make is that it seems as if something is not a belief that an individual holds, that belief is diminished in validity. That sounds extremely ego centric and self serving to me. Like my time is more valuable than your time.

Our founding fathers, Christian that they all may have been, still had the forethought to see the potential pitfalls when church and state were intertwined, hence the "separation of church and state".

No one can totally separate what they belief in from what they actually do; it is a wise person who understands that all beliefs should be held equally valid at some level, and therefore temper their beliefs into what I would call "the needs of the many". (Yes a Star Trek phrase) It's call consequential thinking.

I may or may not support Barrack Obama, but I would certainly say that his understanding that his personal beliefs have to fit into what he does for the greater good rather than the other way around shows a unique insight, one not commonly found these days.

I am a Christian and I think I speak for the vast silent majority when I say that I am sick and tired of people using my religion to say they are better than me.
I've never spoken to Jesus Christ, I've been to church about 20 times in my life, and it kind of creeps me out, but I believe in the fundamental Christian doctrine: love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, forgiveness, mercy, charity. So it really makes me angry when people get up on a tree stump and start beating me over the head with a Bible. Who gave them the right?
I think it is time for ordinary Christains to take our religion back.

I am one of the long-decried "secular humanists". I am extremely well read and quite intelligent and I don't need to belong to or ally myself with ANY established religion or follow any faith. All I know is that whatever works for you works for you, just don't unduly stress or hurt anyone or anything else in the process. Yes, I am a vegetarian and I worry about my footprint on the planet.

John Pearson @ Concordia, thank you for your brief but clarifying post. Reading it makes me enthusiatic for the future knowing that we have excellent priests in the pipeline.

I feel the republicans manipulated Christians myself included by using the abortion issue. I have decided not to let moral issues determine who I vote for from now on. Killing our young men and women in Iraq is no better than killing unborn babies.

With all due respect to His Grace, "anger at the misuse of religion" hardly seemed to be a defining issue in the midterm elections.
Opposition to Iraq is hardly something that the American religions have an unequivocal position on. The mainline protestant churches seem to be against the president on the war. The fundamentalist protestants seem to be behind him. The Catholic hierarchy is officially against the war; the Catholic faithful themselves are mixed. American Muslims, Jews, and the irreligious are scattered all across the board.
What other issue could His Grace have in mind? He names none. Data-free analysis, the coin of too many amateur theologians, helps no one.
The only fair conclusion is that religion didn't really have a lot to do with the midterm elections.

I hope the Bishop is right but it will take at least one more election before I can stop having nightmares where convoys of busses pull up to every polling place in the country at the last minute, disgorging throngs of wild eyed bible wavers determined to carry out the Rove Plan of Salvation and stick the country with the Second Coming of George W. Bush.

I hope the Bishop's assessment of the last election is correct but it will take at least one more election before I stop having nightmares where convoys of busses pull up to every polling place in the country disgorging throngs of wild eyed bible wavers determined to saddle us with the Second Coming of George W. Bush.

(response to: Miggs 9:33)

What the reverand said is fairly objective. Many evangelicals are sick and tired of fundamentalist Republicans' hypocrisy and abuse of power. '06 exit polls prove it.

Rev. Chane --

Do you have any evidence to back up what you're saying? Or do you just decide arbitrarily that if the Republicans lost, it must be because of whatever you most dislike about them?

Miggs

Joanna,

AMEN, SISTER!!!

An "Anonymous" post at 2:23 puts the qutstion:"If my relgious belief is that abortion is murder, and that murder is against God, then how can I possibly compromise this belief into some "universal morality" (e.g. some abortions are okay sometimes)." So, where do I start in answering this question...

OK, lets us start with understanding what's meant by "universal morality". We can all agree, I hope, that there are cetain things believers & non-believers consider wrongful types of conduct i.e. the taking of an innocent life. Non-believers consider the aforementioned act wrong no matter what some transcendant power might have to say on the matter. I assume, rightfully, that believers also would continue considering the act wrong even if "God" said nothing on the matter.

We find certain universal principles of conduct accepted across cultural & religious lines-- I think they are inate, not something we need rationalize ourselves into accepting as a "compromise" position.

But, is even the fact that some types of conduct carry universal disapprobation enough to merit legislation regulating the conduct? Or, is it necesary to show some actual harm to society, or to an individual, in the absence of regulation? I think the U.S. Supreme Court -- Brother Antonin inter alia dissenting -- got it correct in opining the morality alone isn't sufficient.

And even where we agree on the principle, it's application may not be so susceptable to consensus. We may not agree on how to define the specifics of murder. For instance, you consider abortion to be murder. But at what point do you consider an individual life to exist? Insemination? When the heart starts beating? At the point of "viability"? If you can find consensus among religious folk on the "when", then you've done something nobody else has.

And would you consider it murder when an actually innocent person is put to death at the hands of the state under death penalty statutes? If not, then you've already compromised your principles.

In any case, the debate isn't about compromise v. fidelity to principle. It is about sectarian views v. consensus in informing the debate on public policy. Legislators are certainly free to bring their sectarian views to the debate, to vote only for policy options that hew to uncompromising religious codes -- indeed, where the legislator feels it a moral imperative, I prefer they not do anything but, even where I disagree with the option. Bishop Chane is quite correct in cautioning policy makers against legislating from the pew...

Bishop Chane is absolutely right about this: many people of many faiths are sick of the "American Taliban" and their drive to force their particular brand of Christianity on the rest of us, at the expense of education, the Constitution and its assorted principles. Like many Christians (I am a life-long Episcopalian and a firm believer in both reason and faith and the via media), I react negatively to the strident rhetoric and 'values' that these same people betray at every chance. They, like fanatical Islamists, have no respect or regard for anyone that does not believe exactly as they do, or at least gives them lip-service. I resent their noise that essentially 'signifies nothing' except to play on emotions for cash and their attempts to coerce theocracy in a country that was founded on the principle of denying any specific faith a major political role in government.

This is NOT religion, it is politics and power under the guise of faith. How many Haggards and Swaggerts have to be exposed as snake-oil salesmen, trading on people's credulity, before the average American stops mistaking hysteria for faith? Jesus had a lot to say about public displays of piety, none of it very admiring. It seems to me that the hard-core Religious Right follows an example of public-piety, private-debauch and, when caught, the whole group revels in a reality-show orgy of self-abasement. It's just more theatrics, using faith as a stage for self-aggrandizement, which has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with ego, power, and cold, hard cash. Is it any wonder that a moderate, reasoned voice gets lost in the stentorian blasts of evangelical propaganda?

I am not willing to chuck my God-given ability to reason and think at the foot of some clay-footed bellower who can outshout his intellectual betters, nor am I about to equate my personal patriotism according to their 'with us or agin us' dogma. It's high time that the moderate voices gain strength against these obnoxious and well-heeled panderers to the lowest common denoninator of human fear.

(response to Luisa 9:01 PM)

True. The vast majority of politicians are in it for themsleves.

About abortion, maybe one day Republicans will get the message: most of America is pro-choice, and in favor of restrictions on abortion--but it's not an issue that they think about much. Abortion is somewhat of a non-issue when the GD president is spending billions on an illegal and immoral war. As one South Carolinian senator put it, George W. Bush likes running for president more than being president. The Catholic church has opposed EVERY major scientific breakthrough in history. GWB isn't Catholic, but in that tradition, his only presidential veto has been against stem cell research. Pathetic. As the saying goes, "It's the economy, stupid." By George, some people never learn.

Post-Haggard, transparent and blatant religious hypocrisy is increasingly being seen by the electorate for what it is:

Cynically using Terry Schiavo's tragedy and idealized "sanctity of all life" rhetoric; while remaining remarkably silent as hundreds of thousands of innocents were slaughtered in Darfur.

Presuming a "principled stand" against embryonic cell research; all the while condoning torture and rationalizing hundreds of thousands dying in Iraq. (per Rumsfeld, "in war stuff happens")

Accepting Bishops' condemnation and threats against pro-choice candidates (and voters); never asking exactly what public position they had taken regarding priests who sexually abused children.

And then there's Mr. Haggard.

Dr. Key,

Few politicians have any real interest in outlawing abortion because it rakes in millions of votes from the hopelessly naive who don't understand that the first priority of every politician is getting (re)elected. Why break the cycle?

The Christian Right is often neither Christian or Right.

PLEASE, LORD, JUST MAKE THEM GO AWAY!!!

(response to Luisa 8:34 PM)

Valid points. Like I always say, there's nothing Christian about the Christian Coalition. Republicans are "pro-life" when it's conveeeeeeeeeeeenient. Do you think Republicans would be so ardently opposed to abortion if White women weren't having most of the abortions? Heck no. Gang violence and "gangster rap" didn't become an issue for voters until it spread to the suburbs.

(response to Kevin 7:57 PM)

Your mentioning of the Shakers reminded me of a point that I neglected to make. Again, ignorance is bliss for many fundamentalists. How many GD times have we heard Republicans refer to the "Christian Founding Fathers"? Most of those founding fathers were actually Deists-agnostics (literally meaning to "not know"), if you will. They believed that God was a "divine clockmaker" that had created Earth and then let it run on its own. That song "From a Distance" comes to mind. And before that, the Puritans came to America with Bibles and no farming tools, beliving they were predestined to push Native Americans into the Pacific Ocean. The conformist ideology of John Adams and modern Republican fundamentalists haven't strayed much from that approach.

HOW VERY TYPICAL IT HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN FOR THE WHITE MAN TO ONLY REALIZE WHAT HARM HIS MIS-USE OF GOD'S GIFTS MAY CAUSE WHEN A PERSON OF COLOR TAKES THE TOOL AWAY FROM THE WHITE MAN AND USES THE TOOL BETTER THAN THE WHITE MAN. WITH SINCERITY THAT THE WHITE MAN LACKS. HOW DARE YOU USE YOUR POSITION TO REINFORCE RACISTS, SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF CONVENIENT CODES OF SO-CALLED ETHICS! GOOD NIGHT BISHOP. SLEEP TIGHT BISHOP. DO NOT LET THE BED BUGS BITE BISHOP!

The religious right thinks Geo W. Bush is "pro-life" because he appointed 2 right-wing supreme court justices who will supposedly reverse Roe v Wade at some vague time in the future. Unfortunately, he also started a war that's getting thousands of "innocent human life" killed every year. I'm Christian but the next president can be Buddhist for all I care, as long as he's competent and ethical. I'm soooo sick of Dr. James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer and their ilk prancing and preening as if they run the country.

PLEASE, LORD, JUST MAKE THEM GO AWAY!!!

Let us not forget that religion was used as a tool to reinforce racial codes in support of slavery that are *still* endemic in this culture. Where was the good Christian outrage then? Let us not forget that a Episcopal Priest was instrumental in forcing a man with views diametrically opposed to Justice Thurgood Marshall upon the black american society much to the delight of the race baiting GOP. No! Experience and history dictate the fact that your position of authority does not obscure the Truth. Stray from the Path at your own peril Bishop. Titles do not impress me!!! They only serve NOTICE THAT MUCH IS EXPECTED FROM *YOU*!

Many of the comments in response show that a marriage of religion and politics is exactly what many people want. This is why it will not cease, and this will be the detriment of society. Religious differences are the cause of -- or perhaps excuse for -- so much of the strife and killing in our world, both today and historically. How ironic. Pretensions of morality leading to the most immoral actions.

Right Reverend John Bryson Chane Sir, you will selectively enforce this new standard at your own peril.

You make some valid points. It was interesting that in Ohio, Strickland, the Dem. candidate for governor, got HALF of the evangelical vote. GD amazing. While fundamentalists are the loudest Christians in America, they don't represent all Christians, or all people of religion, for that matter. Tim Kaine served as a missionary in South America, but he also ran with a tone of inclusiveness. With Democrats' slim majority in Congress, expect the tone to be more tolerant. Everyone's tired of Republicans' rightwing-extremist "I AM the federal government!" dogmatism. I guess ignorance is bliss for Republicans. Case in point: one Virginia Repub seems a little bit paranoid about Muslims in the U.S. Congress, so he suggested barring them from immigrating to America. Er, the only Muslim in Congress was born in the states, so that plan is kinda bogus.

As a Quaker, I'm silent on this one *grin*

Political office is not a theological office. Those elected are to deal with the practical problems we have both the technical nuts and bolts kind and the problems that arise from having such a diverse country, inter-personal, inter-cultural. There is no established religion nor established unreligion. We all have problems dealing with personal death and what to love. Those are individual problems and society can sometimes make it easier for us to deal with them. But we have communal problems as well, the growing realisation of our environmental problems, war and peace, for examble.
We as a nation are given to bouts of fantasy: Brook Farm, the Shakers, and the aptly named, Fruitlands. The Sixties was such a time, all you need is love and flower power. We are in another one now. Somehow, an ordinary plain old country, with all the usual ups and downs... even the wealthy and powerful have those... and some never recover from the downs... has confused itself with some grand metaphysical/mystical struggle in the skies.
I've lived the last 10 years overseas. The country has come to look stupider and weirder and a danger to everyone else. Get a grip on yourselves. Stop looking in the mirror all the time. Look out the window. See what going on.
Kevin

Come on people you are not being fair to religion or most Christians. Christians are human beings just like anybody else. We have the same weaknesses. And yes, we make a lot of mistakes and some people who call themselves Christians are anything but. That said you show me one other movement outside of Christianity and Judiasm that is built around a loving God who only wants people to treat each other right. Unfortunately there are a number of folks in both faiths who have forgotten what thier faith teaches. That's not the fault of religion. Just the normal tendency of some folks who can't care about anybody but themselves. Most Christians aren't in any way perfect, but they are pretty decent folks!

It isn't just the politicians but also the American people who do not seem to get it. The United States was not founded as a Christian Nation. It was a place where you could go to practice your belief so long as you did not oppress others. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are influenced more by John Locke than any Biblical character. If we were a Christian Nation, then we would be having regular religious wars, because there are many different versions of Christianity. Sooner or later one preacher or priest or reverend will claim that his is the correct version, that person will try to impose it by force if necessary, then the fight is on. The best thing is for both the politicians and the people should concentrate on civic matters, and keep the religion where it belongs. Religion in the wrong hands can be very dangerous

Follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through his disciple on earth, George W. Bush. Through the leadership of our president, we will conquer the hated Arab and his Islamic faith. God leads us to eternity through his prophets and anointed ones. Praise to the Lord.

The French Le Figaro recently reported that the French Catholic Church was entering an irreversible period of decline. Only yesterday, the article added, France was seen as la fille aînée of the Church, but today less than 25 percent of it population remained Catholics; of that number only one percent went to church on Sunday, and they all had gray hair. Why? Do the French honestly believe that the Church has nothing to do with politics?

Give me a politician who cheats on his wife anyday over a politician who cheats his country!
There are a lot of scoundrals hiding behind the Bible...If born agains minded their own business and stayed out of politics and out of other peoples bedrooms and didn't pass judgement on others maybe I'd have respect for them. We founded this country on Freedom of Relilgion and SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

TO THAMMY:

Thank you for a very wise comment.

I'm really sick of the media treating faith and spirituality like a celebiry or food column.

Americans are duped.

TO MILLAN:

To say that you do not know of any other Christian church that lets sinners 'thumb their nose' at their sin & be forgiven is to me evidence that you do not know many Born-Again Christians. They all believe they are going to Heaven - whatever they do on Earth. I know. My mother is one. The only difference between them is what each thinks is allowable - their version of Heaven.

Does George Junior fondle Ted Haggard during their weekly meatings? Speaking of which, has any American ever spent more time watching child porn than John Ashcroft?

Once again, all this blog demonstrates is the intolerance and hatefulness of secular fundamentalists.

Please, oh mighty liberal, tell me once again what a "true Christian" would do.

The human race will advance by two giant steps if we 1) outgrow religion, and 2) outgrow our savagery. NOT BLOODY LIKELY.

Pastafari - well said. I love that book.

Kevin - also well put. I'd have to say that I, like many secularists (I can't speak for all, obviously), am fine if you believe what you believe as long as it doesn't offend my morals. Morality and religion are mutually exclusive.

Many of us on the non-religious side understand that religious people have strong beliefs, and we respect that. Ridicule and contempt get us nowhere, and it doesn't help our side look compassionate or even genuine.

The trouble is, no one on the secular side is trying to force their belief system on anyone else (evolution is a scientific theory people - you don't call gravity a religion, do you?), and all we see on the other extreme side are people constantly trying, either by force or subversion, to get religion to be publicly supported. You already have a tax writeoff, which, if used cynically, can get your leaders giant houses. And people give you free money! Honestly, you wield great power to actually go out and (gasp!) practice Jesus, Mohommed's, or whatever your favorite scholar's or book's message is. Why must we all be converted? If you're message is so compelling, I'll want to go after it because it intrigues me. Trust me, it's what got me to throw religion out the window in the first place.

Funny how all the Ibrihim based religion got started. All of them in conflict with each other and within each sect. I have long abandoned religion because it left the Spirituality side the day they organized their business, operative word religion. You live and die by their rules.

One of the intersting things studying the many prophets and just good people such as Issa, both of them. (Jesus is the Europeanized name). He did not want to be part of a religious order.

His number one fame was not that he spoke.
It was that he listened.

I once almost went of the road (a turnpike, actually)in laughter about 30 years ago, upon hearing the wonderful Dick Gregory speaking to students at the University of Texas in Austin. He said: "If Jesus were alive today, y'all would be wearing little electric chairs around your necks."
Well, yes indeedy. Although now one would choose to be festooned with little syringes.

It is my sense that the first ones up to the plate to flip the switches to watch the twitches would be the so-called "Christians" who wouldn't have agreed at all with Christ's teachings (however interpreted by whomever). There would certainly be any number of eager contributors to the event, including the appropriate number of old women with their knitting needles, chortling out the equivalent of "guillotine" -- which would have signified that the event must have been the best of times. . . .

I have always found religion to be all about control. That which has been perpetrated in the name of religion is truly abominable. The only difference between Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden is a beard and a turban.

I will continue to do my good works, worldwide, without the stench of religion, thank you very much. And Jesus? What would he do? I can assure you, that good Jew that he was, he most definitely would not have eaten your pork roast.

Hey Kevin:

It would be much better if the Bible was a fairy tale but it's not. The Bible is a hoax and done with a goal in mind, world conquest.

It was a much smaller world at the time. China had not yet been created by God as well as the land on which you now stand. The earth was flat at the time and since rounded up a bit.

The idea was for a great religious leader to rule as a dictator. He would and must have absolute authority over all details of peoples lives. The authority to do that would come from a higher power, God. The Bible is the outcropping of that scenario.

The scheme reached it's pinnacle with the notion of a Messiah that would come and be the world ruler. It goes without saying that he must be a sweetheart, love everyone, insist that everyone love everyone else, smite sinners, forgive sins, (in the kingdom of God all violations of law are sins) all the Bible says and more to be added by the religious authorities, no dancing for example and guarantee everlasting life after this one.

But where did they get the Messiah? They invented one based upon another one from an earlier world domination scheme. They didn't really ever need a Messiah as long as everyone expects one will be along any time. In the mean time the highest religious authority there is will rule in the place of the Messiah.

At the present rate the evangelicals will have achieved that holy goal within an election or two. Then they can decide every detail of life for everyone. Elections will no longer be necessary. The ministers will get together and pick one to take the place of Jesus, the Messiah while we wait for His return.

That's exactly where the scheme began. It's the eternal circle of Almighty God that leads one to notice, RELIGION IS THE GREAT ENEMY OF DEMOCRACY.

There's awfully good news. The Bible is a proved hoax. It's better than that. The Bible, the soldier's manual for world conquest is proved to be the word of Devil. Only Devil wants to destroy democracy and in turn the American way of life.

Try this for size, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and rejoice with all who now know America can be saved from those who's goal is world domination using a hoax Messiah. The Devil makes them do that.

There is that good engineering rule saying:

"In God we trust, anybody else brings data"

Now, some folks are out there that claim they're getting the data directly from God.

These folks can't be trusted.

There are no documents higher than the Decleration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States with the Bill of Rights. All these political hacks who say their first allegance is to the Bible are un-American and in fact no different that islamokillers. Bush is the formost of the anti-Americans religious hacks.

Reverend Chane,

Astute observations, and good advise to all. Thank you for the post.

...forget the christian biblical analogies,
consider a biolgical one:
a forest composed of a single tree species,
sucking all the good stuff from the earth that it can with ease and little competition
may do very good for a time,
but is an easy target for predation, disease and succession.
Similarly America - this "christian" nation has had a good run, only because the non-think that fuels it can sustain nothing else to satisy the intellectual roughing-up and healthy analyses which real religious thought demands. No alternatives allowed.
Not a forest I'd want to be in, but that is precisely what we have. Disturbing.

Here's a portion of the screed put out by the Catholic bishop of Rockford, IL (Hastert's district) last August:

"We know that adherents of one political party would place us squarely on the road to suicide as a people. The seven 'sacraments' of their secular culture are abortion, buggery, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, feminism of the radical type, and genetic experimentation and mutilation. These things they unabashedly espouse, profess and promote. Their continuance in public office is a clear and present danger to our survival as a nation."

Apparently as long as he steers clear of using the word "Democrat" he's entitled to spew lies and distortions without endangering his tax-empt status.

Our forefathers fought, died, and developed rules, laws and a constitution based on equality and freedom of religious piety. So, it's not any politicians business, what religion I am, what decisions I make with regards to my own body and politicians who legislate from the pulpit instead of the capitol DO NOT DESERVE TO BE IN OFFICE! Get religion out of politics and we will have far fewer problems. I live in Southeast Idaho, ruled by the MORMAN church. The church tells these people how to vote, think, talk, you name it. I have nothing against other religions but when you start basing decision that affect every American based on your Religious beliefs, then I say its time for another revolution. Especially given all those so called MORAL MAJORITY members who are being forced out of the closets, and convicted of child porn, pedophilia, theft you name it. Don't preach to me about morals when all those skeletons are falling out of your own closet. There are no perfect men only God and he resides in your heart not in D.C.!

As more religion is pumped into American politics more liberty is pumped out. Thus it is, and thus it has been since the founding of the country. WaPo should be congratulated for its current contributions to the process.

"Using moral imperatives from a narrow Christian perspective in informing legislation and defining public policy has lost traction with many faithful Christians" In my experience, this is not true. I've heard many more 'no true Scotsman' arguments from my believing friends than indications of understanding that the melding of religion and politics defiles both.

I'm an ex-Christian, but I still like the Episcopalian perspective. At least some Churches haven't succumbed to the arrogance, ignorance, hate / fear mongering and self-righteousness / egomania of the American evangelicals, born-agains and fundamentalists.

Greg:
"It's the assumption that a profession of faith leads to infallibility in matters of morals, society, and policy, and that the absence of a particular kind of faith spells doom."

Yes, the dogma is the real problem.

I don't go to church, read the bible or the quran, but i do have faith. I deplore the hypocrisy and bigotry of churches towards women, gays and lesbians. The bible and the quran are wonderful books of faith but not fact, or they would be taught in public schools. Like I said, I have faith in a power greater than us but the way that faith is used to further a church or person's agenda disgusts me. Both of my brothers are evangelical ministers, one to a tolerant and accepting church and the other at a regressive church. He stays at the regressive church to keep some balance there. When the subject of gay marriage came up in our family they both said, We are all sinners, no better, no less, and taught me that Jesus was inclusive and would abhor the hypocrisy spoken in his name. My favourite bible verse to throw out at those who would proclaim self-rightous versions and hellfire blastings towards gays or other disenfranchised peoples is "those among you who are without sin, cast the first stone". And yes the constitution has had ammendments, because the world has changed since it was written. But both the bible and the quran have not. And anyone who reads it should realize the context of scientific ignorance it was written in, and written by men who believed they did know what a higher power wants. No women wrote the bible. How can any serious person believe EVERYTHING in it when it is so onesided? That's why the one verse i like is relevant to me. because it is like the golden rule, and makes sense, no one has the right to put themselves above anyone else. Everyone should be equal. That is the Christian part of MLK's message. And when some churches speak out against gays or abortion or women priests, they are putting themselves above those people. they are judging themselves to be better than those they decry. and that is a sin, no matter whether you believe in God,Allah,Buddha,Hindi, it is a sin against nature. The US was founded on the premise that all men were equal, and it took 150 years for women to be kinda equal and almost 200 for minorities to be legally recognized as equal as white christian men. And that was done by ammendments to the constitution and with bloodshed and violence in most cases. It is apparently very difficult for some white christian men to give up any of their power, and to recognize others as equal. From what I have learned from my bros, that's not what Jesus wanted. Living a life of helping others less fortunate, civic duty, raising children who are good thoughtful and contributing members to society is not exclusive to Christianity. And if someone has an abortion for whatever reason, it is their burden to carry or not. Who are we to judge? Christians believe in judgement day, so when that happens, God will make the judgement, not man. My one brother is dismayed at the fact that the only church that truly helps the disenfranchised and downtrodden is the Salvation Army. Too many churches are in a bubble, with well dressed and fed people filling the pews. And if these churches do happen to reach out there is usually strings attached. So when I see ALL churches opening their doors and helping people, regardless of gender preference, occupation, or lot in life, I'll think about attending church. Until then I'll just keep doing my volunteer work, my advocacy for children in poverty, and raising my sons to continue being the loving, giving people that they are.

Would the Bishop suggest that Martin Luther King have formed the "Southern Leadership Conference" instead?

Is he condemming Jimmy Carter, John Danforth, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, for discussing openly that they are people of faith and that faith influences their decisions as leaders?

Perhaps the pink from his shirt or his overstarched collar caused a certain amount of brain freeze, but it's amusing that a 2nd-year divnity school student could get something that a bishop couldn't. The problem with the current situation is not that people of faith are involved in politics. It's the assumption that a profession of faith leads to infallibility in matters of morals, society, and policy, and that the absence of a particular kind of faith spells doom.

I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that a bishop in the episcopal church botches most opportunities to seize an opportunity. More importantly, why doesn't the bishop say what he really means?

Maybe "kill" in this context is a metaphor for eating brussel sprouts.

Kevin:

Hey everyone,
just a quick observation. I've noticed too many people putting down those who believe in the Bible as being naive, children-like and believing in fairy tales.

Absolutely correct. But these days it appears more that the religious movement is on the intolerant side, they want to push their views through. The separation of church/belief and state is endangered, we do have a president that gets his marching orders directly from God, he takes advice from Robertson, all kind of politicians drive their religious views thru, and, and , and.

I think here is the frustration and that is what this blog is all about. How far are religious belives allowed to form and rule the society.

The problem with forums like this is that I can never tell if people are being funny and ironic, or if they're actually being sincere.

For instance: "Death to all non-Catholics - they're already damned, anyway."

It strikes me that the author must be doing a hilarious satire of religious intolerance, ala Steven Colbert.

But then again, most religious dogma seems like satire. "Everyone fear the invisible man in the sky!!! Oh, and donate money to the Church, the only entity that can save you."

To Michael in Bowie
"I have a gut feeling that you are only echoing others about Bible versions because its the thing to do today. Please consider this and check it out for yourself. The differences never change the message"

So educate me then on the commandment You shall not Kill: ist it then you shall not kill or is it you shall not murder.

The King James version says, I think, you shall not kill.

I don't think this one is a minor, or?

Kevin, excellent point. I did not mean to suggest that all viewpoints are equally valid. I certainly would not say that a belief that it's ok to own slaves is on equal footing with the belief that it is not ok to own slaves. I very much liked your dislike of beliefs that lead to "demonstrable harm" I'm a big free speech person, but even I feel that it must have limits, especially when it leads to actual harm of others.

I was trying to point out the wrongness of putting down someone's beliefs because it involves a leap of faith, believing in something mystical, or religiou that defies science.

Kevin (nice name), I'd agree with the following to a certain extent:

"...we must be respectful of each other's beliefs. If people are able to draw strength through faith, there is no reason to ridicule it because you do not believe it."

To a certain degree, I can follow this, but when people's beliefs are hateful towards, let's say, homosexuals (or women, or Jews, or short people, or whatever) and they furthermore act on those beliefs, I am under no obligation to respect that set of beliefs. My personal morality demands that I disrespect those beliefs, because they are harmful and manifest themselves in demonstrable harm to society.

Would someone please just produce one ounce, naa, one tid bit of proof that their is a god. Until then, leave it out of politics. They are controlling you morons with religion. Wake up and see it for what it is. A nice story, maybe a few morals to live by. The rest is rubbish.

Bishop Chane,

How about staying out of politics and instead communicate with us Episcopalians to assure us you and the Church leadership indeed embrace the Creeds. The straw man (I hope) accusations from VA need to be answered. And not in the WP, but from the pulpit.

I agree with Mr. Chane because I for one have been very upset with the last two elections being used to champion religious views that had nothing to do with governing. People tend to forget that this country was founded on seperation of church and state because it is far to easy for a majority to use religious views to justify laws that have nothing to do with governing.

These types of laws do nothing but surpress and alienate those with differing religious views. That is why our founding fathers went to great lengths to define what they thought was a God given right and what was a religious view. When we elect representative to try and micro define those rights with religious views we lead ourselves further into suppressing those rights and aleniating the minority.

History has shown that a minority today can be a majority tomorrow that will inturn treat the new minority as they were treated. For those that want to inject religion into this issue, I remind you what Jesus said when he was being pressured to define the most important commandment:

1. Love God with all you heart and give him praise and honor.

2. Treat others in the same manner that you wish to be treated.

I call it the KISS principle of Jesus, because even Jesus noted that we tend to make things more complex than it is. It is the job of our representatives to do the same and keep the goverment from intruding in our lives and establishing laws that are that in the best interest of everybody. (If you are not familiar with the KISS principle it means "Keep it Simple Stupid")

Hey everyone,
just a quick observation. I've noticed too many people putting down those who believe in the Bible as being naive, children-like and believing in fairy tales.
It's very arrogant and condescending to treat people's beliefs in such a way. I personally am very liberal and in favor of the seperation of church and state, but we must be respectful of each other's beliefs. If people are able to draw strength through faith, there is no reason to ridicule it because you do not believe it.

It's not them; it's us. Politicians would not continually make references to god in their speeches if doing so didn't ingratiate with some sector of the American population. Don't blame politicians, blame the Americans who feel they need to hear this stuff before they'll vote a guy into office.

That said, I do not think the mid-term elections were a repudiation of religious conservatives. I'd like to believe that, but I just can't. Americans have become angry about the Iraq war and the Republicans who got us into it. That's it. They weren't so much voting for Democrats or against overtly religious Republicans as they were voting against the Iraq war.

"I distrust anyone who professes their faith openly and loudly"

I don't trust people who profess to following a dogma that teaches, peace, forgiveness, etc...

Yet cast their vote to a party that advocates torture, war etc..

The last time we mixed religion with politics people got burned.

Bill Royer stated:

"It is necessary for salvation that all men should be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Pope Boniface VII

Death to all non-Catholics - they're already damned, anyway."

Sound familiar? - change the word "Roman Pontiff" to "Caliphate", and "non-Catholics" to "non-Muslims".

If any of you wonder why atheists are so nasty and won't play nice, the above rubbish is precisely your answer.

This kind of tribal barbarism has no place in modern society. This ancient worldview is something we need to escape from as a species, not dive back into.

This has ventured a tad far off the original topic into some pretty nasty stuff. Charming. I distrust anyone who professes their faith openly and loudly. While there is a definite aspect of evangelism in Christianity, the way that some do it makes me queasy and causes me to suspect that they seek to draw attention away from their failure to do the daily drudgery of faithful service. But that is a personal belief based on prejudices from my upbringing. I worry that the loudest, most coarse voice appears to be the one that gets its way in this "democracy," including when it comes to professing its particular brand of faith to be the one God likes best. That, and a good grasp of the history of the colonies that founded this country, pervade my understanding of the Constitutional prohibition and my distaste for the current cocktail of politics and purported open devotion.

So to respond to the Reverend's original post -- yes, it turns me off when some politician professes to be holier than I. I suspect he's busy making a mockery of my God in a thousand ways. I vote against those types, because they seem to be trying to pander to an element with which I disagree -- religiously, and politically.

Bishop Cayne:

The Episcopal Church employs political lobbyists to lobby for liberal causes. Now admittedly, the Episcopal Church has ceased has ceased to be a Christian demonination -- your presiding Bishop contradicts Jesus' teaching that no one comes to God except through Him. You now teach that you do not need Jesus to be your Savior to enter kingdom of God. This contradicts both the Bible and 2,000 years of Christian doctrine. But isn't it hypocritical of you to criticize Christians for voting for people and legislation that reflect their Biblical world-view?

Fortunately for all of us, the Good Book is crystal clear on the heart of this very matter.

It's all spelled out in the First Condiment that the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave to Captain Mosey on Mount Salsa:

"#1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject."

Unchanging truth for an ever changing world.

These politicians may disturb the Lord's Holy Hangover, and drive Him to anger if they'r not careful.

The best case they can hope for after death is an extra-jumbo serving of Purgatoni, while the rest of us are chilling inbetween the Beer Volcano and the Stripper Factory.

RAmen

Answer a fool according to his folly and you will be like him yourself. Do not answer a fool according to his folly and he will be wise in his own eyes. Rebuke a fool and he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will add to his learning. like a thornbush in a drunkards hand is a wise saying in the mouth of a fool.

"Majority rules"? That doesn't exactly sound like the system our country's founders established. I wonder how familiar PURELOGIC is with the bill of rights? These ten amendments were intended to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority. We have a representative democracy, not majority rule!! Majority rule becomes mob rule.

I'm feelin' the love.

Hey Mike, you just said, "No matter how intellectually sound you are and no matter how many noteworthy facts you conjure. God's power, wisdom and majesty outlasts you by far....way far." Dude, this entire discussion is far over your head....way far. If I were to say to you that I'm not sure that god exists, you would say to me, "yes he does, because he talks right here in the bible." Just logoff now, because you have nothing to add to this discussion.

Michael in Bowie:

How can word changes not mean that much? There are no shortgage of Christians that insist that EVERY word in the Bible is God's word and is without fault. Seems like ANY discrepancies in word or translation is quite a big deal when veiwed in that context. The Bible is so full of complexity and seeminly inconsistant views that exact wording and true translation would be extremely important.
Sorry, but DC2008 makes an interesting point.

Sure i agree that the politicians do tend to be a little zealous at times when it comes to wearing their religion on the sleeve.

The biggest problem though lies with the flock and the leaders of the flock. We all have a brain in our head and can tell the difference between right and wrong, so this blind allegiance to a party that is against abortion and using that one “issue “ to cover all the rest is why I don’t have much respect for many Christians.

Where do you think Jesus would stand on the following issues.

Global Warming
Universal Health Care
Gun Control
War
Torture
Etc….

So if you (and you know who you are) as Christians, who’s supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, vote for a party that endorses and advocates this behavior then as far as I’m concerned you might as well toss in your membership cards.

Don’t blame the politicians blame your selves.

Michael in Bowie

But it is the words from their bible people quote here, on the street, in Gay people's faces. It is the words in those texts.

You cannot hav eit both ways to say it is the "overall message" and then hurl direct words from a text.

Either you can eat lobster, or it is an abomination. God only wrote it one way. No nuance. No overall message.

The separation of church and state does not imply that faith and politics should be separate. In fact, that would be a very double-edged (or rather double-blunt) sword, because it allows both the state and the church to get away with blatant violations of God's gospel of love, peace, and justice. It plays into the hands of secularists who insist on keeping faith out of the public discourse, and into the hands of religious extremists (Christian or otherwise) who claim they alone are chosen.

I, for one, am terrified of organized religion. My own birth faith, Roman Catholic, is becoming increasingly hostile to gay folks and is trying to ensure the enshrinement of discrimination into State and Federal constitutions.
Enough of religion for me. Faith is one thing. Belonging to a group of supposed believers is another.
It is interesting how religious people take some issues to heart and ignore countless thousands of items in their holy books.
Remember when Catholics couldn't eat meat on Friday, women couldn't speak in church and had to cover their heads etc. As these are no longer culturally acceptable they have chosen gays to "Organize against" so they have someone to play the boogie men!
Keep religion out of politics, public policy, my bedroom and I will be just fine.

There is noway to take religion out of politics. All politicians must make decisions which have moral implications. Take the issue of stem cell research. This one can't be answered simply by the "Golden Rule," because there are two "others" here to do unto -- the potential sufferere from a disease that might be cured and the potential life found in the embryo. So your position (if it's not determined by gazing at polls) is decided by whether you believe the "other" is an embryo. Ultimately, most religions as well as those without religion will fall back on their core belief, and it can be largely a religious belief. So how do you get religion out of politics? You can't. We probably don't need to know what a politican's faith is, but we do need to know what his bedrock beliefs are. Does his belief that life is sacred mean that the embryo must be protected? or the prisoner condemned to death? Or the enemy combatant?

DC2008, You still don't seem to get it. The Bible cannot be changed to suit someone's need if the meaning of God's original messages are not changed. Don't fret the changes and don't let that be your barrier. Do your own comparisons, and then lets see what you say.

However, to your point, I must agree that it would have been better if there was only one version per Language. Don't be confused by that...I can only read English, so I don't want a Greek Version. I'm too old to learn a new language.

It is silly to toss women and children into the street. It is also silly to leave a church because someone is gay.

It is immoral to lead a person from their church without disclosing the polygamy matter.

The problem is not WHAT one believes, but how strongly. Do some of you hear yourselves? S.Heriger wrote, "You're right about one thing. God wants everyone included, and would love for everyone to find salvation, but unfortunately many do not choose Him." How do you know this to be true? You do realize that the majority of people ON EARTH will not make the correct choice and that it could very well be you on the outside looking in?

Let me provide the definition of illogic: Is the muslim or hindu version of Mother Theresa going to burn in hell, but the convicted rapist and murderer who found jesus in prison going to heaven? That's what YOU believe because YOU believe that faith is the only way to salvation, not deeds. I believe that deeds determine one's worth, regardless of religion. Faith is one of many tools used to get people to perform deeds, however any particular faith is not necessary to perform a good deed.

It's ridiculous. Episcopals put "faith" in the belief that faith will get them to heaven, but you haven't done anything for yourself or anyone else. How about putting "faith" in the belief that helping others to the best of your ability is what gets one to heaven? Wouldn't that create a better world? Or is a world with less suffering not the goal.

TO Bob:

Hillel did NOT say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ALL THE REST IS EMBELLISHMENT".

That is the Christian version.

He said "Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you. ALL THE REST IS EMBELLISHMENT".

There is a distinct difference.

If, as has become increasingly apparent these past few national elections, Americans across the political spectrum are to inject religion into the national political conversation, it must first and foremost be done with the common understanding that God is not partisan. Religion is a source of wisdom, strength, and moral clarity, not a source of words to be used to gain political advantage. Religion, if it is to be used politically at all, must be used only to rediscover the sense of the preciousness of every human being, our fundamental connectedness, and the responsibility we all share towards the common good.

Re: Mr. Henkel's question to 'break-away Episcopalians,' above: "DO you realize, or understand, that the African Episcopals who you are aligning with condone poligamy?"

I am not a break-away Episcopalian. (I am an Episcopalian, but I have not broken away, and don't plan to in the foreseeable future.) However, I would still like to respond to the question.

You suggested that people "go do a little homework on this;" I might make the same suggestion to you. I assume that you have heard that various African Anglican Church officials (bishops, archbishops) have not banned polygamy; I also assume you haven't looked beyond the surface of these claims. The fact of the matter is that the Church officials in question have *not* approved of polygamy. What they have done is take the Church to areas which had not previously been exposed to Christianity, and where polygamy already existed. The Church has continued to teach that polygamy is wrong; however, they have not required men who already had multiple wives to 'put aside' the women they married after wife #1. They took this position because such women (and their children) would then have no legal means of support; they would then be at great risk of starvation and death or, in an effort to avoid such an end, a life of prostitution, exploitation, and abuse.

So, Mr. Henkel, which is worse? Allowing already-existing polygamous marriages to continue, or banning polygamy outright and forcing innumerable women and children into the streets?

Psst: Jesus was a liberal Jew

Pass it on...

I've always lived by the motto of "don't trust any one who follows any god to closely."

Most of us posting here are venturing off the point: religion has been used as a wedge issue by unscrupulous politicians. Those who condemn prostitution on the streets seem to welcome it in the electoral campaign. Voters have been misled into supporting shameful and destructive decisions by parading ethical issues before them: homosexuality, abortion, prayer in schools, etc. Those issues will be with us for many years. The great issues of the day deserve front billing.

Let's not let our nation slip from greatness while we haggle over our neighbor's behavior. Be particularly wary of the demagogue holding the reins of government out for power-hungry ministers. There is grave fault on either party when religion clamors for state sanction.

I am aware of the ammendments. However, for example, the words in the preamble are always the same.

The words in bible change with every iteration.

The point here is that the Const. was written by men and is the words of men.

If the bible is the word of a god, why is it different? Why do men change the words? The answer is simple. People change the words of the bible to suit their purposes, which makes the whole principle of religion a farce. It is NOT about a god. It is about convenience of need. Otherwise people would be marching up and down Pennsylvania Avenue protesting sinners eating lobster.

That's a nice rhetorical and public policy argument with ZERO data to back it up, save some superficial conclusions about a mid-term election polorized by Iraq.

a famous and wise man said this:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

JOHN PEARSON, 5th posting on this board, is a 2nd year divinity student at a Lutheran Seminary. He makes this distinction:

FAITH is truly important, to be rewarded with eternal salvation.

GOOD BEHAVIOR AND GOOD WORKS are trivial. Anyone can do these.

My goodness, John, what a strange viewpoint! You should know that some people are naturally credulous and can readily qualify for having faith. If they live in southern India, they will be devoutly Hindu. Southern Ireland, devoutly Catholic. Afghanistan, devoutly Muslim.

Other people, however, are naturally skeptical. They will be of a secular mindset no matter where they live, and will only be convinced of a spiritual matter if they are pounded on the head with it.

Perhaps the peoople who believe so readily are, in fact, of poor character and behavior, contemptible, but emotional about their beliefs in their God. Perhaps the skeptics are good, honest people who leave the world a better place for their having lived.

You think that there is a God of the Universe who rewards credulity? Who ignores good behavior and works? If there is such a creature, he is a poor parent, a dullard of a tyrant, a petty creature beneath contempt. Not the type I am interested in spending Eternity with, thank you.

I am afraid that you have blinders on to the wonders and beauty of the Universe, the methods of science, the diversity of human cultures and beliefs -- that you have limited your education to the safe, the facile, the familiar. Try some challenging reading, like The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, The End of Faith, by Sam Harris, and The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan.

The universe is a really big place, John. Don't write it off as irrelevant to your education.

I pray for those who are influenced by ignorance, anger and hatred towards God.

Truth be told, Jesus is and is yet to come. It was written. No matter how intellectually sound you are and no matter how many noteworthy facts you conjure. God's power, wisdom and majesty outlasts you by far....way far.

The trick of the enemy (satan) is at full power and will devour all who lack the word of God. Resist the your flesh that burns with sin and heed to your spirit man to speak with God (prayer). His Word will open your eyes to what is so easy to understand instead of working a sweat just to prove otherwise with the intellectual fodder. You must deny yourself and accept Christ to truly get what I state.

Religion is a man's attempt inspired by the enemy to divide God's word. This is the reason why there is so much negativity among Christians and the ones who oppose Christianity. Christianity is of FAITH. Not a religion. Get your facts straight.

Faith in Christ and politics can co-exist for a politician. Problem is, you will not be popular among peers and the world and your political career will soon be at a dead end or never jump off at all. So, that goes to show you which politician is really about Christ, about the people and who's not. The ones who gain the most support are the ones you need to worry about.

True faith in God and true Christianity will never be popular nor will it be accepted by other faiths(Muslim, Buddists, atheists etc)/false Christianity. The ones who choose long suffering, unselfishness and are true servants for the people will have an awesome prize in the afterlife with Christ.

Free your mind, body and soul. Be real.
God bless

DC2008,

Let me be clear that I am not arguing for using the Bible to govern. My point is simply that the Constitution and the Bible are not that different in that both are just sets of ideas that some people have chosen to believe. They are both "religious" documents in that sense. Their authority is derived from the same place: belief.

It just so happens that you like the Constitution and don't like the Bible.

Incidentally, the Constitution is not the same as it has always been. It has been amended 27 times.

"On another subject: Why do we need the 10 Commandments in front of court houses, when they aren't placed out in front of churches?"

They shouldn't be in front of either. They're JEWISH religious laws intended for THE JEWISH PEOPLE to obey. No one ELSE is forbidden (by the Commandments themselves) from working on the Sabbath or worshipping other gods.

On the separation of church and state: the Constitution states that the federal government shall not institute a national religion that's all. If religious groups wish to get into politics they can. No quicker way to get to get off the religious path.

Have there only been two Nazi Popes? I can only think of two, but I may be wrong.

Rcope, So which manual is it? The Jewish manual, the Hindu manual, the Islamic Manual, the Christian manual? And your logic is: if you don't believe there are holy, deity-given books, then you don't really know god's nature. How do you know god's nature? Read his book(s). Which you have to suspend disbelief in. Seems to me frail logic. "God" doesn't write books. There's a saying, all people don't believe in God. You don't believe in Thor, do you? Or Apollo? At one time, people believed in them as fervently as today's Christian believes in their personal buddy god.

The Bhagavad-Gita...Finally, a person who mentions something other than the Judeo-Christian or Atheist way of thinking. It's There are other ways of thinking and living. A very brief survey of world religions will quickly teach that the Golden Rule is what is truly universal and that there are many ways to state it and achieve it. If I am not going to heaven for thinking that, so be it...perhaps I will achieve Nirvana instead. I am okay with that.

Rev. Crane is on the right track. I abhor any effort to mix government and or politics with religion. This includes vouchers for religious schools, getting involved in the Schiavo issue, using city cops to direct traffic at religious schools, anti-abortion license plates, In God We Trust on coins, etc. This country has become a great democracy partially by separating church and state. Any candidate who tries to change this will not get my vote.

Re science vs. religion, persons of all points of view can gain much from Stephen Jay Gould's book "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life" - one of the last he wrote before he unfortunately had to leave us.

Kevin Connaghan,

I think you dismiss religion too quickly.

Religion has solved problems even as it has created them. The civil rights movement leaps to mind (MLK argued from a Christian perspective).

Likewise, purely secular experiments have created oppressive social circumstances as effectively as any religion.

Personally I have no problem if you want to worship acorns as your religious entity.

The problem is when you spout religion to affect me. As if what YOU read in the bible is right.

What religious people fail to remember is religion is YOUR business. Not your neighbor's.

So keep your business out of OUR government.

we all understand that ideas endure and we all understand that the constitution is strong because we believe in it as an idea. but we understand that that is ALL that makes it real. we don't say that an angel handed us the constitution and it is perfect. we admit that men wrote it and it is imperfect. hardline christians can't admit that the bible is written by men and also imperfect. to them, it's the word of god, perfect, infallible, and to be followed word for word until the end of time. only problem is, it's full of death, destruction, intolerance, bigotry, subjugation, and ignorance. so is the Qur'an. all religions are for the mindless lemmings who need fear to guide them in their morals and comfort to hide them from the possibility of a black abyss waiting on the other side of death. there may be a god, but he is clearly not trying to help us understand him these days so i doubt he ever wanted us to understand.

Anyone who believes that our Creator would not want to give us a manual by which to live doesn't truly know the nature of our creator. You can't call the Bible a hoax, then state what the devil wants, when the fact is that the Bible is how we know about the devil. If one says that the devil wants chaos, which he does and we know this from the Bible (Jn 10:10), please cite the origin of this information if it is not from the Bible. And if one cites someone else's writing or conclusion on this, then it would be helpful to know where they got this info and so on, so forth. Gotta run!

Rich,

First, the US constitution is the same word for word as it has ever been. It was put together by men of thought and principle. We are governed by that document. That is what makes us Americans

We are not however governed by the bible. No one needs ANY religion to be an American. Atheists are as American and the most holy Rabbi.

Take any 3 copies of the bible and the text doesn't match. How can anyone stand there and quote text and claim righteousness based on words that change depending on who printed the text in front of them.

If it is the word of god, then why do the words change??? The answer--becuase it is only words--nothing more.

And for the record, anyone who reads the Koran and spouts the same pablum gets lumped in with the bible et al.

why is it that only christians feel the need to force their faith onto others (resulting in our politicians knee-jerking reaction)? right now, we have the worst president in our entire history, yet one who proclaims to be a man of faith.

If you think Episcopalians are easy to get along with, go meet the bigots in Falls Church, Virgina, who rant and rave about gays in the name of Jesus.

Re: Is there any truth to the old saw that the Episcopal Church represents the Republican Party at prayer? Yes and no. As with all things, blanket statements miss the truth. Regardless, it's far less true nowadays than it used to be.

Re: Post from "Skipn," above. Can you perhaps explain what you meant by your statement that there is no confession in the Episcopal Church? (I'm pretty sure I said one just this past Sunday. See: http://vidicon.dandello.net/bocp/bocp3.htm#page323, and scroll down or search for "Confession of Sin.") And while you're at it, can you explain what you meant by the rest of your post -- that Roman Catholics are neither confessing to, nor receiving absolution from, Christ?

Re: Mr. Royer, and his comment that all non-Catholics are damned: First, please note that the word 'Catholic' refers to the universal Christian church (see: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/catholic). If you wish to refer to the *Roman* Catholic Church, you should say so.

Second, I don't recall any New Testament references to the Bishop of Rome, let alone statements that submission to him is necessary for salvation. What I do recall is this: "[I]f any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the perfect offering for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." (I John 2:1-2) Note that it does not say 'if any Roman Catholic sin,' but only 'if any man sin.' Call me crazy but, given a choice, I place far more trust in the Bible itself than in the self-serving claims of men.

HYDE wrote: "All 3 of the primary religions come from the same desolate place in a land of misery and superstition and at a time long before reason and information prevailed. if someone walked out of the desert today to tell us all that christ had returned, would a single christian believe them?"

Is that not exactly the point? Few people believe any of the Manifestations of God when they first appear. When God spoke through Moses, was anybody willing to listen right away? How many followed Jesus during His lifetime? Those around Him jeered and poked fun. How cruelly was Muhammad treated? In the nineteenth century, Baha'u'llah appeared and was imprisoned and exiled for teaching that God is one, all religions are one, and all humanity is one. Just because you reject, does that mean these beings did not speak with the words of God?

Hi everyone. I see that evryone is still showing their love. Sorry...that's funny to me.

Anyway, John Pearson..Bravo!

G'GONE: Consider that many (not all) homosexuals are born with that defective sexual orientation. Just think about all of the zillions of defects we are born with from blindness to you name it. For these victims it would be awesome if they find God the great Holy Physician, and get healed. However, that takes a lot of faith, and some just won't get there, yet I doubt that these will go to hell. The Bible is clear that those who actually choose that way of life will not see Heaven.

DC2008: I have a gut feeling that you are only echoing others about Bible versions because its the thing to do today. Please consider this and check it out for yourself. The differences never change the message. Here is a small example of a version change that you will find. In some versions, and in the Lord's prayer there is the phrase:"and deliver us from evil". In other versions, it goes: "and deliver us from the evil one." Is the message changed? The Devil is the evil one and he is the father of all evil. So please DC2008, compare any two, three...nn bibles by chapter and verse, and I promise you will find the same message verse for verse. Now if you are serious, I recommend any Study version because they provide gobs of very useful commentary and history that help make the Bible understood.

OK..I know I'm going to get it now. Bring it on folks.

One of the first principles of the philsophy of science is--all other things being equal--choose the simplest solution.
That would be no religion.
All these religionists tie themselves in knots trying to explain their point of view. It'a waste of brainpower.

Growing up in a small town which, if not the buckle of the Bible Belt, is sure near a belt loop, I suffered plenty (my parents were into Ayn Rand and feminism)...but I do not hate the Bible itself, and I have difficulty denying that such a person as Jesus actually existed.

The Old Testament has passages of extraordinary beauty even though much of it makes God into an annoying fussbudget (eat this, don't eat that, wear this, don't wear that)...I always wonder when the homophobes who quote their favorite potions are planning to sacrifice their next ram. And the words ATTRIBUTED TO Jesus in the New Testament have such personality and coherence that I have trouble seeing them as nothing but a collective fantasy.

As for a total lack of similarity in versions of the Bible, that's just not correct. The early Church killed a lot of "heretics" in order to determine and restrict its contents...and while the words may be differently translated, there is not THAT much variation in the contents.

Lack of tolerance and open-mindedness, and self-righteousness, are two of the most despicable qualities of Those Who Know What's Right For All of Us. Don't emulate them!

Reverand Chane:

God bless you for reminding self-righteous politicians that all Americans do not attend their church nor mirror their understanding of God.

Since when does being a Christian make one a bully?

DC2008,

I have a brain. I know this because it gives me migraines every few days. I also read the Bible.

What is it about Christians that angers you? Would you go on the record saying something so degrading about the Koran or Baghavad Gita as "it caters only to the 'brainless'"?

What about the Constitution? That document is just a set of ideas that function only because people believe in those ideas. Like the Bible, it is just a 'fairy tale' in the same sense you use the word--just made up principles.

Some ideas endure. Why is that so offensive to you?

Wow! Is it not possible to comment without insults and bad grammar?
It is unfortunate that our citizenry is not better educated on the foundations of our government. It is a state religion which is prohibited, not religion itself. Indeed, if we abandon the belief that our rights are inherent, and reject fundamental Judeo-Christian values as our guide, our society as we know it is doomed. It seems there is unlimited tolerance for secularists and those religious fanatics who want to destroy our society as we know it. But there is great intolerance for those who discuss their Christian views, because these people tend to be politically conservative.

Hey judgemental! You are clearly more educated than I am - that's probaly how you justify and views that are different than yours, right?

I'm not aligning with any African church, thank you very much. I'm sticking it out- BECAUSE I AM TOLERANT. And by the way, those "Africans" - some of whose beliefs I am sure I don't support or don't understand - think gay marriage and other things the church support are WORSE than poligamy.

Instead of being open-minded and thinking, okay, I don't agree with those people on everything and I don't understand it, but they have a right to think what they do - you are proving yourself as self-righteous as some groups of people I am sure you loathe.

Jesus tells each follower the First and Greatest Commandment and he tells each believer to "Let your light so shine...."

He also addresses serving two masters. For the Athiest/Agnostics out there - Lincoln addressed houses that are divided against themselves (oh no, Lincoln was also alluding to what Christ said).

So if you happen to follow the Master, and you love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, strength and soul...and you happen to seek high political office...you should disclose the Master that you serve to the voters - and that may mean that they are "second-place" masters.

If, at some point in one's life, a politician realized that they were afire for the Perfect One who dwells within them, they know that they cannot put their light under a bushel. They know that they need to "Let (their)light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

The Matthew 5:16 passage convicts all sorts of people, even politicians.

It's true that many of us non-believers have boundless anymosity towards religion and the faithful. and it is sad. but remember, most of us have been directly or indirectly oppressed by the faithful in our upbringings. as we awaken to the reality of our convictions, we also awaken to our oppression and we are bitter for it. the religious have been using brainwashing techniques on us since birth and we are bound to be angry for such manipulation. church, sunday school, christmas, and countless other examples are all there to reinforce the intentional programming of young minds. but we each must come to grips with this injustice and get past the animosity.

in turn, i think all faithful people need to ask themselves one question. all religions spawn from individual men who think they know the will of one god or another. men wrote the Qur'an AND the bible, not a god. who are you to think that you or any man before you knows what any such god really wants? what ego man has to assume he can understand god if he even exists, let alone guide others into heaven. even episcopalians are talking as if they know what god wants while pretending that they aren't saying just that.

All 3 of the primary religions come from the same desolate place in a land of misery and superstition and at a time long before reason and information prevailed. if someone walked out of the desert today to tell us all that christ had returned, would a single christian believe them? probably not. in this day of knowledge, science, information, and reason, we never find miracles or new religions that truly take hold because we are no longer gullible like that. yet that which supposedly happened too long ago to verify, some are willing to just swallow hook, line, and sinker, despite the endless evidence disproving their beliefs.

and it's great to have moral guidance but intelligent people don't need to delude themselves into believing in santa claus, the flying spaghetti monster, or jesus. intelligent people can see how the golden rule benefits us all without using fear as a motivator.

Joel, thanks for another excellent point! It's interesting how narrowly the Loudly Pious on the Hill focus on "sexual morality" - and ignore the rest. Probably whilst hoping that their heaven will be a bit more like what we tend to hear of the Islamic version - good food and willing women! (Pretty much like communing with lobbyists, in other words!)

Rereading the above comments I have a question for the break away Episcopalians.

DO you realize, or understand, that the African Episcopals who you are aligning with condone poligamy? Go do a little homework on this.

This past election was about a war gone wrong and ethics.

At any rate, separating church and politics is a great idea - but the Episcopal church has always been better at pointing the finger at more conservative demoninations on this matter than taking a look at its own, very political self. Is that why the Episcopal church hired someone from People for the American Way to run its Washington office?

And no one is bothered when political candidates go to "inner city" churches on the stump - only when they go to Southern or rural, conserative churches.

I'm Episcopalian and I know hypocrisy when I hear it. Let's practice what we preach.

BGONE-

You will be remembered when you enter my kingdom. Only thou saw the true nature of the fire that burns but does not consume. Be with me now. What I say is done, truly and upon the breath of these words.

Amen.

Those who speak loudest on morality are usually the most immoral and should be the ones least heard. Those who silently take action on behalf of their fellow man and lecture not are often the most moral and deserve our full attention.

Sexual morality without transactional or business morality is hypocrisy... AKA Abrahmoff, Ney, Santorum, DeLay, Gingrich, Cheney, Rove... vitrually every bible pounder ever on the hill was a hypocrite and not worth the powder to blow them to their glory.

I'm a Christian, and vote, etc. But I actually do not appreciate when politicians campaign by implying and all but saying that they are essentially 'more Christian' than another candidate, or one party is across the board 'better Christians'.

Mostly, though, I've never liked the implication that being a Christian a one issue mindset.

Not only religion has been abused and soiled by a vociferous small group of individuals, but some (one in particular) even claim that Almighty God talks to them directly from Heaven!
They are not really Christians but a perverted sub-version that I call Hypo-Christinas (for obvious reasons).

I love it when people say read the Bible.

Which version? Which printer? Which publisher? There is no uniformity. They are NOT the same. Does Guttenberg's match word for word with the one that came off Random House's press yesterday?

The bible is a subjective fairy tale catering to today's brainless.

As an Agnostic Catholic, I only differ from the Pope in a few areas:

-- The existence of God
-- The divinity of Jesus
-- The infallibility of the Pope.

On the other hand, a Franciscan priest who counselled me conclude that I was a better catholic (more in touch with the actual teachings of Jesus) than most of his professing parishioners.

Cardinal Ratkiller may have a different opinion, but then it's God's call to make (if he exists) and not the Cardinals.

I think a lot of Episcopalian priests would be surprise to learn there is no confession in their church, and I think all Catholics would be surprised to hear that they are not confessing to and receiving absolution from Christ, even when done in the person of the priest. Read a book Catholic-haters.

Is there any truth to the old saw that the Episcopal Church represents the Republican Party at prayer?

Thank you, Mr. Alaimo. How do so many professed Christians manage to disregard the fact that JC himself was NOT for theocracy?! I wish they would also remember that He said that those who make a show of their piety in public "already have their reward" (and it wasn't an eternity in heaven!).

There's a line in a Leonard Cohen song, can't remember how it begins..."while the killers in high places say their prayers out loud..." Amen to that, as it were!

From what I have read of Mr. Obama's words, if he did bring his personal religious beliefs and morals into public service, he would quietly focus on the ones Jesus himself clearly considered most fundamental: compassion, and care for those less fortunate. And although the atheists I've met do indeed tend to "walk the walk" in these areas far more than the noisier evangelicals I know...it can't hurt. Anyone who reads the words attributed to Jesus and actually listens can do a lot of good.

I don't see what religion and politics have to do with each other. Who or what you worship is no one's business, and irrelvant to politics.

I am suspicious of anyone who spouts of religious testimony publicly.

There is a forum for religion and that is in a place of worship. Why the need for the "me too" type public declarations?

On another subject: Why do we need the 10 Commandments in front of court houses, when they aren't placed out in front of churches? If the goal is for people to see them, aren't there more churches than court houses in the US?

I do not understand how so many writers to this blog can be so naive. If my relgious belief is that abortion is murder, and that murder is against God, then how can I possibly compromise this belief into some "universal morality" (e.g. some abortions are okay sometimes). If you are a janitor or accountant, it is easy to leave your religion at home, and separate personal beliefs from professional performance. It is not so easy, and I say impossible, for any government official with policy making authority to do so.

We should insist on open relgious or secular debate among politicians seeking office. Because the truth is, that a politicians faith, or lack thereof, tells you a whole lot more about how they will really vote on an issue than the spin and double talk we have grown accustomed to from Washington.

As for BGone, the only hoax is the one being played on you by that nonsensicle website. Burning = Fire = Devil is nothing more than kindergarten drivel. Do yourself a favor, read the entire Bible (and not just the one story about the burning bush) and you will come to know that God is truely God.

Asking a religious person to keep their religion to theirself is like asking an atheist to keep their beliefs to theirself. Doesn't and can't truly happen. If you have personal beliefs and you practice something else in your public life then you are living a lie.

Why do religious people always have to be the ones to keep their beliefs to theirselves? Why can't the athiests keep their beliefs to themselves?

You elect people on who they are, what they believe and what beliefs they hold.

And before you go off, I often question if God is real. It could all be a hoax, we'll never know til our judgement day. But lets all practice the our freedoms to believe what we want to believe without public damnation.

Again, you live your life by what you believe and asking people to separate that from that they practice in everyday life is idiotic.

You don't want people that preach religion? Don't vote for them. Majority rules.

"THE BIBLE IS A PROVED HOAX."

That's your stuff bro, let everybody else believe what is good and right for them ok?. We don't need more ranting psychos.

"If you don't want B2 bombers with prayer rugs on them, stop Muslim immigration. Christians and Zionists are not the threat."

Boy, you are such an ignorant, either we stop inmigration at all or we don't.

BGONE:

Are you off your meds?!

Hey Bill Royer: You are a religious bigot. We fought a reformation to eleminate bad theology like that. The Bishop of Rome (and he is nothing more than that) is a human being. What is important to salvation is to be subject to Jesus the Christ, who was fully divine and fully human. The Bishop of Rome is only the latter.

What was Keith Ellison doing? What do Muslims in Dearborn do? They are using their religion to advance their cause.

If you don't want B2 bombers with prayer rugs on them, stop Muslim immigration. Christians and Zionists are not the threat.

As an Episcopalian, I also think we are easy to get a long with.

Hey all you disillusioned Catholics! Tired of all that crap from the Vatican and its self-serving protection of frisky priests? Come one over to the Episcopal Church! There's always a place for you over here. And, we confess our sins to GOD, not to some pervert priest. We ask for forgiveness from GOD, not from some pervy priest who thinks he and his church are above God.

"Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". It should be chiselled on the walls of every Church in this country. The conflation of Church and state which some Christians have created does damage both to civil government and to religion. Those of us who know better need to make that clear; repeatedly, loudly, and insistently. We are already too far down the road to theocracy and history is replete with examples of the violence and bloodshed that causes. The great gift of the Anglican Communion to the wider Christian Church is tolerance and separation of church and state. All American Christians need to be reawakened to that.

I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. People most certainly can have a public and private side. I keep my job and my private life apart. And politicians should do the same. What I believe and how I worship is none of anybody's business. At work I behave professionally and politically correct. At home I can let my hair down and be myself.

Do you really believe that any politician will publicly proclaim the true nature of him or herself? If you do,you have my sympathy!

Politicians will say or do anything to get elected. They blow a lot of hot air during their campaigns to garner votes. But ultimately, you will never know their true their convictions. If you think otherwise, you are naive.

Think about all the corruption that went on during the last year in our capitol. I am sure all those people swore on the Bible to uphold our Constitution and Laws and went to church regularly to please their constituents. That did not prevent them from breaking the law and being morally repugnant.

So again, what is all the fuss about?

Wow, Bgone. You've got some serious anger issues. I wasn't hiding behind anything with the anonymous post...just accidentally forgot to add my name. You keep assuming certain things about me that aren't even remotely true, attributing characteristics to me that you seem to project onto anyone of faith. You lack the very tolerance you claim to find missing in people of faith.

Anti-faith people can be every bit as virulent, close-minded and bigoted as any Christian fundamentalist, and your reponses appear to put you in that category, although I hope I'm wrong. I came on this site to engage in a fair-minded exhange of ideas, not subject people to unfounded hatred toward the Bible like I found in your post.

You're right about one thing. God wants everyone included, and would love for everyone to find salvation, but unfortunately many do not choose Him. It still requires a choice you have to make, not something that's there for you even if you have no use for God. You have to choose it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I wish you peace, and I hope you someday develop a worldview that doesn't contain so much anger.

"It is necessary for salvation that all men should be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Pope Boniface VII

Death to all non-Catholics - they're already damned, anyway.

I agree with Bob's post with Rabbi Hillel's quote, and it should be noted that Christ said exactly the same thing in Matthew 22:37:40.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

That's the entire message of Yeshua contained in a few sentences. The rest is just legalism, and unfortunatley, that's where many Christians seem to want to spend a lot of their time. If we stick to the basics, it works so beautifully.

anonymous, S Heriger?

Thank you. The politician that comes in the name of God does NOT preach the salvation of all either now or after death. Obama is just another one of them. Got it and you are so right.

The religious authorities don't preach the salvation of all either now or after death do they? If Disney World hires homosexuals then boycot Disney World. Homosexuals are shut out of the work place. How do they live? Homosexuals will not be entering into the kingdom of God either will they? It's so logical. They're going to hell so why not burn them at the stake right now. That's how it used to be before what?

Religions replaces the constitution with their sacred scriptures. The best news democracy will ever hear is, THE BIBLE IS A PROVED HOAX.

The politician that comes in the name of God comes first and foremost in the name of Devil. God wants everyone included. Devil wants division and chaos. Has America been under the influecne of God or Devil for the past 6 years? Longer?

For those who were concerned about the remarks of Senator Barack Obama, here is the text from the entire speech. S. Heriger's post used correct quotes, but when pulled from context they appeared to be attacking the morality (or suggestive lack of it) within secularism. It's an excellent speech, by the way, and deals in great detail with the role of faith in politics.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html

I think the respected rabbi and scholar, Hillel, said it all when he was able to describe the true meaning of Judaism while standing on one foot: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ALL THE REST IS EMBELLISHMENT". (Caps added by me.)

Of course this is the only worthwhile meaning of any religion worth its salt, and more importantly, it doesn't need a religion to make it work. A focus group of middle schoolers could probably arrive at the same prescription, without having to attach god, salvation, heaven, hell or any of the other made-up trappings that serve to give controlling power to a ruling theocratic hierarchy.

The only faith I look for in any political leader is the faith that the Golden Rule is logically all that's necessary as a foundation for leadership (and citizenship), and faith that the electorate is fully capable of the give-and-take to make it work.

There is a reason for separation of church and state. How can any person of sound mind, not clearly see the difference as well as the reason.

You religious zealots and extremeist are all the same. No different than the Sunni, shia, and rest of the terroist we are supposed to be fighting.

If we do not kick religion out of our political system, once and for all...and keep it out, we too in the USA will no doubt eventually have the religious civil war that we are seeing in Iraq.

I am a spiritual Christain, but, I would not want a leader of my country to be swayed to one thing or the other because of the worry about those within his religion being offended. Religious extremeism is everywhere and is the worlds biggist problem being faced by mankind today. Get religion out of government and government will finally get some progress towards real meaningful change that benefits all peoples and not just those whose beliefs anre this or that.

Millan, I'm not sure where you went to church, but the Episcopal church I go to isn't even remotely like the one you described. I find mine to be completely Christ-centered, and the not remotely supportive of a doctrine that allows you to "sin, then thumb your nose and go do it again." Many members of the congregation have kids in Iraq, and we support them.

"The Episcopal Church is concerned with racism, social justice, anti-capitalism, anti-golbalism, anti-westernism, pro-gay, anti-war at any cost, looking the other way at despotism and it has no reference at all to the core ministry of Jesus Christ..."

Can you cite where Jesus preached pro-racism, social injustice, capitalism, golbalism, westernism, anti-gay, or pro-war?

Bgone

What you said makes no sense whatsoever, at least within the context of what I wrote. Obama preaches the salvation of all? When did he say that? And where did I write that?

And you say, "Technically, all politicians must do that" [preach salvation for all]. The only politicians I see doing that (and there are very few) aren't remotely religious to begin with. Can you name me a few who fit your description, because I can't think of any. Most politicians of faith speak strongly in support of their faith, regardless of what it is. They don't marginalize it, but recognize that it must be tempered when entering the public arena.

Obama has stated categorically that he's a Christian, but doesn't believe he has a right to inject pro-Christian values into his politics. That doesn't make him an Anti-Christ, nor does it require he "make a stand that allows for damnation." As I've noted, he's stated that his faith provides his own moral guideposts, but in the public arena he seeks universal values for the common good. It's a compromise any politician of any faith should (and must) do. I think your cynicism in ungrounded.

This type of comment is why the Episcopal Church USA is losing members and starting a new spinoff branch. The Episcopal Church is concerned with racism, social justice, anti-capitalism, anti-golbalism, anti-westernism, pro-gay, anti-war at any cost, looking the other way at despotism and it has no reference at all to the core ministry of Jesus Christ and obeying the Commandments. I don't know of any Christian doctrine that says you are forgiven for sin now tyhumb your nose and go do it again! I will return to the Episcopal Church when it returns to Christianity.

S. Heriger,

I like Senator Obama but am astonished that he said that "Democracy demands ... that secularists ... make room for ... morality..."

Phrased this way, his statement implies that secularists have no room for morality and are therefore immoral.

My experience has been that the average secularist has more moral concern than the average Christian.

S Heriger:

Barak Obama will likely be declared an anti Christ and for just cause. To preach the salvation of all eliminates the need for a Christ. Technically, all politicians must do that. Faith requires some people to be damned to hell else faith in Christ(s) is without merit. So he'll have to take a stand that allows for damnation else he is an anti Christ. Only if he wants to get elected of course.

I recently read a great comment by Senator Barack Obama made at the National Cathedral in June: "Democracy demands that religious Americans translate their concerns into universal values, and that secularists make room for faith and morality...yet to say that men and women should not inject their personal morality into public policy debates is a practical absurdity."

In other words, what any politician believes on a personal level is going to have a ripple effect on the types of legislation they support, whether that politician be a progressive secular or fundamentalist Christian. What any politician should be willing to do, however, is seek to translate their beliefs into universal values that promote the common good. The fact that there will be conflict and debate about what constitutes a good "universal value" is exactly what makes this country great. Without it, either side gains an unfair advantage and ultimately oppresses those who don't share those values.

I'm a Christian (and for full disclosure, an Episcopalian) who believe in separation of church and state because I've never seen a theocracy that wasn't ultimately dangerous and oppressive. Yet I also believe that for a society to have any chance of remaining on an even keel, it must, at some level, find common moral ground not specifically based upon any particular religious creed, but on "universal values" that require some individual sacrifice for the common good.

John Pearson:

You bring up interesting points. "Must a politician be a confessing Christian..." Yes, but only if he wants a vote for the other candidate to be a sin.

Are you getting the word of God from the Bible at Concordia Lutheran Seminary? How sure are you the Bible is God's word? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul also known as interpretation 1,501 of Exodus says a closer look at the supernatural being "Moses made the deal with" is advisable. What do you think? Was that really God in the ball of fire?

Study hard. God needs a few knowledgable representatives.

The problem with this whole debate is that it refuses to recognize that there are two very different kinds of righteousness; confusing this distinction causes a profound misunderstanding of the Christian Faith.

True Christians believe that we enjoy eternal salvation by the grace of God alone; it is purely a gift from God given in perfect love. We can do nothing to earn it and we do not deserve it. This is righteousness before God (coram Deo) achieved solely through the works and merits of Jesus Christ. We are enabled to receive this grace through faith alone which is created in us by the Holy Spirit through the proclamation of the Word and the delivery of the Holy Sacraments.

This contrasts sharply with righteousness before the world or before mankind (coram mundo or coram hominibus), which is an actively achieved righteousness that anyone can attain through their own good works and behavior. Atheists and pagans can be good citizens, spouses, and parents; they can be great workers and regularly engage in loving and charitable contributions to society as well.

Failure to acknowledge this critical distinction can only cause Christians to misplace our faith and fall into self-righteousness and pietism.

Should a politician express his faith publicly? Probably.

Must a politician be a confessing Christian in order to execute his or her oath of office in an exemplary manner? Certainly not. To quote Martin Luther: "Better a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian."

FYI: I'm a second-year student at Concordia Lutheran Seminary in Saint Louis, MO.

John

Geez, is this the fifth liberal Episcopalian on this board (Spong, Schiori, Anderson, Dixon)?

Not enough Catholics leaving their faith to fill your pews?

I agree with statement, but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough in the context of this blog.

It needs to be more clearly stated that people who find security in a political candidate's religious beliefs are stupid, weak, and lazy by nature. And candidates who exercise public piety should be ridiculed as the insulting and mob-pandering hyporocrits they truly are. Any honest Christian, Muslim or Jew understands this, I'm sure.

Thank you.

Bob

Good points.

From my non-believing perspective, Episcopalians seem to be really easy to get a long with.

A sufficient statement by my candidates would be: "I follow the Eight Commandments" i.e. the non-God commandments plus "I love my neighbor as myself".