cann4ing:

“It is a matter of settled Supreme Court law, Maani, that the Establishment Clause mandates separation of church and state.  President Washington stated early on that the U.S. government was by no means founded on the Christian religion.”

I never suggested otherwise.

“When government acts affirmatively to give prominence to a particular religion—both the inaugural invocation (Warren) and benediction (Lowry) are to be delivered by Christians—such action undertakes to establish that religion above others, not to mention above the scientifically minded who are not inclined to accept fairy tales and tend to agree with Karl Marx’s observation that ‘religion is the opiate of the masses.’”

Please show me the Constitutional language and/or SC decisions that state this.

“Perhaps some balance would help.  Instead of a religious bigot delivering an invocation, why not start the inaugural with a Native American medicine man who could open with an homage to the free and wild.  I’d nominate our Tao Walker.”

I would wholeheartedly agree with this!  In fact, while TAO Walker is certainly one option, I am friends with a wonderful medicine man from an Alaskan tribe who has performed such benedictions at both political and non-political events.  I am certain he would love to do so!

Peace.

It is a matter of settled Supreme Court law, Maani, that the Establishment Clause mandates separation of church and state.  President Washington stated early on that the U.S. government was by no means founded on the Christian religion.

When government acts affirmatively to give prominence to a particular religion—both the inaugural invocation (Warren) and benediction (Lowry) are to be delivered by Christians—such action undertakes to establish that religion above others, not to mention above the scientifically minded who are not inclined to accept fairy tales and tend to agree with Karl Marx’s observation that “religion is the opiate of the masses.”

Perhaps some balance would help.  Instead of a religious bigot delivering an invocation, why not start the inaugural with a Native American medicine man who could open with an homage to the free and wild.  I’d nominate our Tao Walker.

HokaHey!

By God, Tony Wicker, you are quite right.  I AM an immature person with personality problems!  An immature old person.  An amazing insight for someone of your limited intellectual stature.  I DO get along well with animals though.

I am not simply venting my resentments however.  I actually like most people ( you may or may not be an exception) although they may not much like me.  I actually have a more serious purpose.

We are living at a time in history when earthpeople are undergoing a historic transformation of worldview.  Largely because of the world networks of communication and transportation, earthpeople are transforming our ideological worldviews to what William Grider in ONE WORLD READY OR NOT called ‘global humanism.’

I’m trying to see if Americans who identify with American ideology, a fabric of bullshit from beginning to end, can change to a more holistic perspective, what I term an ‘earthperson worldview.’

You’ll be happy to learn that my efforts in this regard have been almost completely unsuccessful.  Except for Anarcissie, who started out with a holistic worldview, everyone is stuck fast in the morass of American ideolgy, even relatively honest Obamanites like Cann4ing. 

His indoctriantion in American political science, pounded in deeply by American law, has produced a regidity that can’t be bent by mere reason.  He shall not be moved.

But you and Cyrena have actually gotten better, having such a long way to go.  And I find I get more suggestive commnets from my ideological Enemies than I do with the people who agree with me, of which there are not a lot.  As the Obamanites strive to get rank and file progressives to support the conservative policies of Obama, I find that, intermixed with calling me a liar, hating Jews, supporting Rove, identifying with Nietche, etc, there is occasionally an insight that moves the discourse further along.

Such as yours.

jmhdodge:

Thank you for your truly excellent post.  It should be required reading for all, secular and believer alike.  It states what many moderate evangelical (and other) ministers like myself have been saying for years, if not decades.

Peace.

cann4ing:

“Our Constitution created a secular government.  While the First Amendment insures ‘freedom of religion,’ it also bars the ‘establishment of religion.’ The Constitution also expressly bars any religious test for holding federal office. So, why do we have either an invocation or a benediction at an inaugural address?  Why is each session of Congress opened by a member of the clergy?”

Read the language of the Constutition.  It simply says that “Congress shall shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion…” (Emphasis mine)

Having an invocation/benediction, or even beginning a session of Congress with prayer, is not “establishing” ANYTHING.  It does not bear
IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM on your rights under the Constitution, or affect the functions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.  Nor is such an invocation/benediction a “religious test for holding office”: Obama is already president-elect; nothing can change that.

At the risk of sounding hopelessly unhumble (LOL), it is astounding to me that I understand the secularity of the Constitution better than most of the atheists and anti-religionist here, most of whom seem to have little or no understanding of the Constitution they believe is somehow being violated by an inaugural prayer.

Peace.

Fellowdigger:

“I know the interpretation of the constitution or of anything that disagrees with you is the wrong one - I got that.”

Excu-u-use me?  I would be interested in hearing how my “interpretation” of the language of the First Amendment is “wrong.”  By all means, tell me what YOUR interpretation is.

“Obama is the President of all Americans, correct?  Well then he should reserve his personal belief in god to himself.”

Perhaps.  But that does not change the FACT of his RIGHTS as a U.S. citizen under the First Amendment.

“Most American slave owners were Christians - and many of them used the bible to justify it - and they could find many passages to do it…Is that a fact that I have incorrect also.”

No, but it is only half the story.  Because the abolitionists were ALSO Christians who used the Bible to justify their dissent re slavery.  So, setting aside that the Bible seems to have passages to support both views (which “contradictions” I know you love to dwell on…LOL), it was CHRISTIANS who founded the abolition movement (AND the child labor movement, AND the suffrage movement, AND the civil rights movement, AND…).

“If you are a deist, you don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity or the concept of revealed faith….[T]o a thinking man, these concepts are childish - to be tossed aside like the belief in Santa and the Easter Bunny.”

But deists DO believe in “God.”  Is not “God” just as “unreasonable” to non-believers as Santa and the Easter Bunny?  Are you not being just a tad hypocritical by giving the founding fathers ANY degree of “reason,” since they ALL believed (very sincerely) in “God?”

“And those 97% of Americans who identify themselves as religious is just misleading.”

First, I never mentioned “97% of Americans.”  That figure is wrong.  According to the most recent Pew poll, ~85% of Americans identify as “religious,” with the overwhelming majority being Christians of one type or another (Catholic, Protestant, other).

“When probed, alot of people don’t know anything about what their religious tradition is based on - they know they were raised in it and they were told what to think.”

As noted, I was NOT “raised” in anything: I came to faith on my own, at ~19 years of age.  The rest of my immediate family remain atheists.  And I am not by any means an aberration: there are millions of people who become believers without being “raised in it” and “told what to think.”

Your narrow, myopic view of faith and religion only reveal your lack of understanding of those concepts.

Peace.

Sorry, E. J. Dionne, but as they say in the South, that dog won’t hunt.

I doubt anyone would fail to see the absurdity if Obama had invited a Protestant minister to give the invocation if that minister, although supportive of green technology, was an avowed racist who supported a return of Jim Crow laws including laws that would have made the President-Elect’s parents’ marriage illegal.  So why should we view it otherwise simply because the target of Warren’s bigotry is sexual orientation rather than race? 

But, as an atheist, I have a concern that extends beyond the Warren selection.  Our Constitution created a secular government.  While the First Amendment insures “freedom of religion,” it also bars the “establishment of religion.”  The Constitution also expressly bars any religious test for holding federal office.

So, why do we have either an invocation or a benediction at an inaugural address?  Why is each session of Congress opened by a member of the clergy?

There is a vast difference between what we know in America today as being a Christian, and one who follows Jesus.  Most theology, and certainly the distinctions of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, are built on the “Christ” theological positions,  while progressive or liberals tend to build their ideals from what we know about the earthly life of Jesus.  For me it is a tragic flaw, that progressives battle against this distortion of what Christianity is to be, rather than promoting a positive model of what Christianity could be, if it modeled itself on the actions of Jesus rather than committment to the theological prejudices of our culture.  It has been said, that the reality is,  not that Christianity has be tried and found wanting, but rather largly untried and wanted.

Tony:

I understand that the population is not prepared for gay marriage and as you correctly point out, many gay people could not imagine this happening - and my gay friends are fairly split on this issue taking the importance it has in the community. My issue was the popular vote being able to overturn a decision by a high court determining people’s rights.  I don’t cae what the majority believes - if the popular vote determined the rights of others, than this country would look very different right about now

Maani:

I know the interpretation of the constitution or of anything that disagrees with you is the wrong one - I got that.  Obama is the President of all Americans, correct?  Well then he should reserve his personal belief in god to himself.  And because every president before him had a parayer at his inaugaration does not mean that this is a tradition that needs to continue.  Regarding the beliefs of some of the founding fathers - privately Jefferson and Admas struggled with the idea of enslaving people but eventually caved in…  Slavery—oh yes, you know what slavery is right?  Most American slave owners were Christians - and many of them used the bible to justify it - and they could find many passages to do it…..is that a fact that I have incorrect also.  Just because some of the founding fathers, like Obama, played politics and sucked up to the religious does not mean they believed what they were saying. If you are a diest - you don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity or the concept of revealed faith - therefore, to a thinking man - these concepts are childish - to be tossed aside like the belief in Santa and the Easter Bunny.  And those 97% Americans who identify themselves as religious is just misleading.  When probed, alot of people don’t know anything about what their religious tradition is based on - they know they were raised in it and they were told what to think - good luck to us all

Fellowdigger:

“I could care less who believes in the bible but it has no place in our public domain and the president of the united states shouldn’t even be mentioning his religion.”

You obviously don’t understand the Constitution, do you?  Here is the relevant text:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Thus, while there is a clear separation between church and state (“make no law respecting the establishment of religion”), it also clearly permits ANYONE - including the president - to express his religion or religious feelings (”...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).

“Most founding fathers thought the entire thing was ridiculous and unlike you I can give you many passages regarding that…”

And I can give you an equal number of quotes in the opposite regard, by the same people.  Ultimately, the founding fathers were mostly deists, with a handful of Christians among them.  And while it is unarguable that America was not founded as a “Christian” country (despite the claims of many), to suggest that “the founding fathers thought the entire thing [by which I assume you mean religion, or the practice thereof] was ridiculous” is absurd.

As noted, every single president since Washington has had an inaugural prayer said by a cleric of the time - including Jefferson, who was perhaps the most “vocal” critic of Christianity among the founding fathers.  And every single one of the founding fathers was a “believer” of one type or another: there were NO atheists among them.

Indeed, their intent in creating the language of the First Amendment regarding religion was not so much to protect “politics” from “religion” as the other way around.  And this is as clear as can be from all of the various documents by Adams, Jefferson, Monroe and others that undergird that language.

Peace.

re Fellowdigger, December 24 at 2:50 pm

I’m heterosexual, myself, but I agree with you and Jerry Brown and the California Supreme Court in viewing gay marriage as a civil right. However, this is a new standard which is only now emerging and becoming established. Warren and the rest of the Bible-thumpers are resisting this change. They don’t see gay marriage as an inalienable right. That’s not so hard to understand. As far as I know, fifty years ago nobody, including gays, had even thought of such a thing as gay marriage. But the real question, as Obama says, is whether we can set aside our differences and focus on our very broad common areas of interest, rather than let wedge issues like this divide us.

“And with the bowels of the last priest,
Let us strangle the last king.” - Denis Diderot, 1875

“I would like, and this will be the last and most ardent of my wishes, I would like that the last of the kings are strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” - Jean Meislier, 1715

These evil forces are having their day. Let’s try and make it as short a day as possible.

Maani - I don’t believe in the Essenes - i don’t believe in any of it.  If I walked around today saying those things about rich people anyone who heard it would assume that I had a deep contempt for them.  You have ignored every single argument I have made about the lack of proof by just repeating that I am uneducated - yet with all your knowledge you have still not given me one once of proof that any of this is true.  Manly because it isn’t - being a scholar of biblical folklore is like being a scholar of the lord of the rings - so what.  I could care less who believes in the bible but it has no place in our public domain and the president of hte united states shouldn’t even be mentioning his religion.  Most founding fathers thought the entire thing was ridiculous and unlike you I can give you many passages regarding that - this is my main argument - i know the bible - statements in the bible constantly contradict themselves.  And as I said before - at least the religious right has the good sense to believe what they read.  But the moderates - oh man, Talk about cherry picking.  The bible can not even agree on how many generations Jesus is removed from the House of David - and if Joseph is not the father, how can Jesus be from the House of David - Mary was not related to this line of Jews.  Why study something that is so flawed and try to give an explanation for it - I was brought up catholic - everyone ran around talking about what the Bible tells us to do - not one person knew what the hell it said.  When I picked it up and read it - I was dumbfounded.  it doesn’t take a scholar to see that the entire thing is a made up fable - even the Lord of the Rings was more consistent in it’s story line

Fellowdigger:

“Rope, string or thread - I don’t think the writer would have mentioned the difficulty of rich people gaining access to the kingdom if it weren’t meant to make them change their greedy ways and give up their wealth.”

Once again, I am going to try to get it through your thick skull: my original response was to your choice of the word “condemned” vis-a-vis the rich.  Neither Jesus nor the essenes “condemned” the rich.  And I am not playing semantics: YOU chose the word, and I responded to it.  You have still failed to provide a single example of any Scripture that “condemns” the rich.  And it wasn’t their wealth per se that Jesus was pointing to in the “camel” quote; it was their ATTACHMENT to that wealth (“LOVE of money is the root of all evil,” NOT “money” per se).

“I ask you for proof and you tell me that I need to believe that you know more than me so I should just relax and take your word that all you say is true.”

No, I did not suggest that you “take my word that all I say is true.”  I merely suggested (correctly, I believe) that I am FAR more broadly, widely and deeply read in this subject than you are.  And AGAIN to try to get through your thick skull: my study has included ALL MANNER OF SCHOLARS, including secular and even “dissenters” to the majority view.

“If I have not given you enough examples of Essenes contempt for the rich than I can not possible convince you.  You are blind to rational and reason.”

I like the subtle way you have shifted from Jesus Himself to “the essenes.”  In fact, if you are not willing to believe Jesus even existed, how on God’s great earth are you going to argue that He was an essene when this, too, is heavily debated by scholars?  As for the essenes, they may well have had contempt for the rich.  But that is not the discussion here.

“And you didn’t answer my question - if Jesus wanted the rich to give away their wealth - remember you can’t serve two masters…”

You are hopeless; now you are conflating two completely different Scriptural passages.  I will not even honor this with a response.

“Let’s face it, if Constantine’s mother hadn’t become converted you would probably have been raised with a very different concept of God.”

It might surprise you to know that I was not “raised” with ANY concept of God; my family were atheist Jews, and all of them remain so.  I was an atheist until 15, an agnostic from 15 to 18, and only became a believer at 19 - on my own.  Try not to assume so much.

“It’s as if you tell me there is a man standing before me that I can’t see but can’t disprove your claim.  It is actually your obligation to convince me that the invisible person is there.”

It is not my “obligation” to do ANYTHING.

“I know your final aim is to make me look stupid and uneducated about this subject.  It is how you people always try to win.”

No, my aim is not to “make you look stupid and uneducted” - unless, of course, you are, at least in this particular subject.  And your continued cherry-picking, taking Scripture out of context, conflating various Scriptural passages and basically mixing apples and oranges show me that you are…well, not stupid, perhaps, but not exactly well-educated in this area.

Nor am I trying to “win” anything.  I am responding to YOUR comments about Jesus, Christianity, faith and religion.  If you don’t like those answers, that is your prerogative.

Peace.

Maani

One more question:  Where all the artificats in the Sinai desert to prove the Exodus?  The Exodus never happened. The Israelites were already in the Canaan region - in fact it is now believed that the Canaanites where actually the Israelites and they had a Greek connection - coming over in boats not over land.  Egypt was governing the area at the time.  The power struggle was to free that area from Egyptian rule - there was no proof of slavery of the Israelites.  Where is Noah’s Ark?  Where are all the villages and towns that Jacob ransacked and raped and pillaged - never found - actually the story has almost all but been rejected by archaeologist.

I know your final aim is to make me look stupid and uneducated about this subject.  It is how you people always try to win. We know something that they don’t - we are in some sort of contact with the Supreme Being - I call it a meme that need to be redirected.  Why follow a book written thousands of years ago -

Maani:

I ask you for proof and you tell me that I need to believe that you know more than me so I should just relax and take your word that all you say is true.  If I have not given you enough examples of Essenes contempt for the rich than I can not possible convince you.  You are blind to rational and reason. 

When the books were picked for the bible, I’m sure the need to tell people to give away their money played an important role in which books put in there.

And you didn’t answer my question - if Jesus wanted the rich to give away their wealth - remember you can’t serve two masters…..who did these writers want the rich to give their money to - well you only have to look to Rome to figure it all out.  Let’s face it, if Constantine’s mother hadn’t become converted you would probably have been raised with a very different concept of God. It’s all chance of what region of the world you are born to be convinced that your god is the true one.  Why not argue the concepts of Zeus and Thor - it would make as much sense.  The Christian religion is a bastarized form of the Greek, Roman and Pagan traditions of every country that was invaded by Rome - I believe you only read scholars who want to make the story true - once again there is no proof anywhere that Jesus ever existed.  I’m sure that if the dead walked the earth arond Jerusalem it would have been well documented.  That of course is just one thing that is ridiculous.  And if all those people rose from the dead what is the significance of Jesus rising.  And it’s amazing that smart people can actually keep that belief alive - even Mother Theresa said she didn’t believe at the end of her life.  It’s true I am far from a scholar of your myth - but you folk set up an argument that can’t be approached.  It’s has if you tell me there is a man standing before me that i can’t see but can’t disprove your claim.  It is actually your obligation to convince me that the invisible person is there…...

“Objection to gay marriage is not necessarily religious. I have friends who have no religious affiliations or beliefs who voted for Prop 8. They believe that the concept of marriage essentially implies sexual union for the purpose of procreation, and who would like to reserve the word for that purpose. They prefer the term “civil union” for other types of relationships. They also believe in the separation of church and state, and that gay people should be able to get married in any church willing to recognize and sanction their relationship - presumably not an evangelical one. This is a reasonable position.”

I did not write that. Tony Wicher wrote that, in his response to this statement of mine: “Warren was (is) burning down the houses of gays (in) that he was campaigning (Prop 8) to deny them the right of establishing households.  He hasn’t backed down from that position.  And what reason other than a religious belief (whch not all people share) does he have to deny others that right?”  I do not consider evangelicals to be reasonable people at all.  If they really considered marriage to be ‘sacred’, why aren’t they organizing against divorce?  And if they think that marriage is about procreation, why aren’t they organizing against childless couples?  Also, the Old Testament was full of polygamy and concubinage (see the stories of Abraham and Moses).  And, personally, I think that anyone who believes that the bible should determine how he or she lives should also restrict him/herself to the technology that existed at that time.

Tony - why do you keep saying the Church won - what did they win?  The helped reverse a decision by the a high court in California.  Marriage was declared a right - you don’t put the civil rights of others on the ballot.  I am gay and I don’t give a rat’s ass for getting married and I couldn’t care less if they ever made it legal.  But they did and the effect of a popular vote taking the rights away from the minority should send a chill up every American’s back - who’s rights will next be voted on - hmmmm.  My friends just got there CA. marriage license in the mail today from an October wedding - they may have to return it.  Families with children are involved. 

I may be mistaken, but was the civil rights act of 1964 put on a ballot for the nation to vote?  I’m really asking - I don’t know….but I don’t think it was.

By Fellowdigger, December 24 at 1:35 pm #

Dyev Wrote:
“Objection to gay marriage is not necessarily religious. I have friends who have no religious affiliations or beliefs who voted for Prop 8. They believe that the concept of marriage essentially implies sexual union for the purpose of procreation, and who would like to reserve the word for that purpose. They prefer the term “civil union” for other types of relationships. They also believe in the separation of church and state, and that gay people should be able to get married in any church willing to recognize and sanction their relationship - presumably not an evangelical one. This is a reasonable position.”

THIS IS A RESONABLE POSITION - how can you actually write that. Marriage is for reasons of procreation!? - boy, you are willing to even restrict marriage among hetros.  Not all married people want babies or can have them - strange.  Also, the marriage that we have today is not even close to the marriage of the bible or the marriage of the dark ages or even turn of the century Europe or Utah.  The concept of marriage is always evolving and it should evolve some more - although why anyone would want to get married is a mystery to me.
——————————————————————————-
Fellowdigger,

Try reading posts a little more carefully before you respond. Firstly, Dyer did not post this argument, I did. Secondly, I stated that I myself am for gay marriage, and that this argument was not mine either - it was made by a friend of mine. Yes, I did say it was a reasonable position. It’s not mine, but I am not going to call anyone that adopts it a “hateful bigot” or some other term of oppobrium. That would be both intolerant and hateful. 

I do agree with you that concepts evolve and that marriage was not what it used to be in the time of the Biblical patriarchs. I believe we are evolving toward acceptance of gay marriage and that we are almost there. It seems to me that the Court in this case was on the leading edge of progress in allowing gay marriage, much as it was in the cases of desegregation and abortion. It seems likely to me that it will agree with Jerry Brown when the case is argued early next year. The less socially advanced people in our society, represented by Rick Warren, reacted against this change in the previously accepted definition of marriage. They organized politically through their churches and they won. I think it’s a very temporary victory. Meanwhile, let’s not allow Republicans to use this as a wedge issue.

By Maani:

“I suppose you’ve never heard of a “metaphor?” [N.B. The word “camel” is an incorrect translation based on a mistranscription of the original Aramaic.  The original Aramaic word translates as “rope” - which, of course, makes far more sense than a camel.]”

Of course I have heard of a metaphor - believe it or not, there are very smart people who are not buying all this bible crap. Whenever something is pointed out to you folk - it becomes a mistranslation of some kind.  Rope, string or thread - I don’t think the writer would have mentioned the difficulty of rich people gaining access to the kingdom if it weren’t meant to make them change their greedy ways and give up their wealth - but to whom - because later Jesus said don’t give it to the poor because their plight can not be helped - Oh man, it’s just one contradiction after the next.

If Jesus were to deleiver the Obama invocation - he would most certainly be more on the side of Rev. Warren.  The story of Jesus makes it very clear that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman.  He is also portrayed as believing in the old testament - he makes it clear that he came to fulfill the prophets of the old times religion.  Paul later becomes quite adamant about homosexuality -as did Leviticus and of course, the story of Sodom, Lot and the almost raped angels.  But never fear they escape because the house of Lot sent the woman out to be defiled instead.  Of course, rape, forced sodomy and horrible murder was the order of the day.  Jesus, meak and mild, brings the peace and sites the old testament - if he did exist, his message changed constantly.

As far the tax collectors - I believe he was trying to redeem them not give them rest so they could go out a do a better job- all sinners came to Jesus for redemption including the postitute - which is not Mary Magdelene - another complete misreading.

I am at the opposite end of the religion right but at least they are honest and believe the bible as it is written - warts and all -

For all of you who are not convinced that the bible is a man made tale of mythology - read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason - I promise you will walk away thinking differently.

Dyev Wrote:
“Objection to gay marriage is not necessarily religious. I have friends who have no religious affiliations or beliefs who voted for Prop 8. They believe that the concept of marriage essentially implies sexual union for the purpose of procreation, and who would like to reserve the word for that purpose. They prefer the term “civil union” for other types of relationships. They also believe in the separation of church and state, and that gay people should be able to get married in any church willing to recognize and sanction their relationship - presumably not an evangelical one. This is a reasonable position.”

THIS IS A RESONABLE POSITION - how can you actually write that. Marriage is for reasons of procreation!? - boy, you are willing to even restrict marriage among hetros.  Not all married people want babies or can have them - strange.  Also, the marriage that we have today is not even close to the marriage of the bible or the marriage of the dark ages or even turn of the century Europe or Utah.  The concept of marriage is always evolving and it should evolve some more - although why anyone would want to get married is a mystery to me.

By Folktruther, December 24 at 12:58 pm

Folkie,

You should get a job working for Rove. Maybe you already are. But I suspect you are merely an immature person with personality problems who gets his resentments out through blogging.

KDelphi:

“As easy for a rich man to get to heaven as a camel thru the eye of a needle? Do alot of camels go thru eyes of needles?”

I suppose you’ve never heard of a “metaphor?”  [N.B. The word “camel” is an incorrect translation based on a mistranscription of the original Aramaic.  The original Aramaic word translates as “rope” - which, of course, makes far more sense than a camel.]

“Jesus did not represent the rich. If he did, he would be useless.”

Wrong!  Only if He did NOT “represent” the rich would He be “useless,” since His ministry was about love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth - for ALL people, not just for some.  His message was ALL-INCLUSIVE, and, as I noted, among those with whom he ate and brought his message were “publicans”; i.e., “tax collectors,” who were among the most reviled and “rich” people of the time.

Even assuming you accept Jesus’ existence, you, fellowdigger and others seem to have a decidedly minimal understanding of what His ministry was about, and what His statements, parables, metaphors, etc. actually said.

As I noted, you and others here engage in the selfsame “bad theology” that the Christian Right engages in by taking Scripture out of context in order to support narrow, myopic positions.

Peace.

Fellowdigger:

“Show me the statistics that say these thing you profess to be true - let me see them.”

I don’t need to show you “statistics.”  I can state with some degree of certainty that I have read and studied more Biblical scholars than you have - and, as I said, from ALL stripes: Christian, Jewish, secular.  When you have read as much, as broadly and as deeply as I have, you can feel free to challenge my “statistics.”

“Better yet show me proof of Jesus and I will reconsider.”

Show me proof there are black holes: tangible, physical proof.  (The statement is rhetorical.)

“The jewish scholars have and are proving through the lack of artifacts that most of the old testament is false…”

That is simply not true, and is more cherry-picking on your part.  There are archeological finds that go BOTH ways: proving some aspects false, and proving others true.

“What more proof do you need than the story of a man who is protrayed as being poor - literally says to sell everything you have, proclaims the meek shall inherit the earth, throw the money handlers out of the temple, makes a proclamation that you won’t see any rich people in heaven - what other words do you need to convince you- where does Jesus talk about the rich in a favorable light.”

Once again, you obfuscate.  My original response was to your comment that Jesus CONDEMNED (your word) the rich.  He does not, and you have not shown any evidence that He did.  Showing evidence that He Himself lived an ascetic life, etc. is NOT evidence that he “condemns” the rich.  Nor does He say that “you won’t see any rich people in heaven”; He only suggests that it will be more difficult for them to get there than for those who engage in self-sacrifice.

“You should stop reading only Christian writers and try some real unbiased scholars.”  As noted, my reading is FAR broader than yours.  Or are only the “scholars” YOU read “unbiased?”

Your hypocrisy is astounding.

Peace.  (Yes, I can disagree passionately yet wish you peace.)

Tony Wicher—Your argument is really so rediculous as to be beneath reply, but I have a few seconds to spare. That religious bigots won a particular battle is no reason to honor one their leaders.  That there are as many or more religious bigots than the people they are demeaning is no reason to tolerate their bigotry.

Obviously you will defend Obama no matter what he does and the only way this can be done is with irrationality like this.  At least it is a change from your previous sleaze.

By KDelphi, December 23 at 9:32 pm #

“Tolerance” is a vile word, usually used to condone hating a particular group, and, pretending that you LOVE them.
——————————————————————————
KDelphi,

Tolerance is the opposite of intolerance. Tolerance is what enables 300 million people with vastly difference cultural backgrounds all to be American citizens who can put aside their differences and work together for their common benefit.

Fellowdigger—Are you speaking to moi?? I agree that Jesus was a revolutionary , and, spoke for the lower classes, for the most part. I cannot prove he existed. That is not as important, I dont think, as his message—he says so himself.(Which is the same message as many other pacifist prophets—not “profits”) This “born again and you are saved” stuff is such crap. So, then, it doesnt matter how you live?? Or, if you care for others, it is for the “reward” later? Thats not “love”.

As I have said, I am agnostic (cant be proven nor disproven)

Maani—“As easy for a rich man to get to heaven as a camel thru the eye of a needle?” Do alot of camels go thru eyes of needles? (Oops! I just saw that this is a repeat—there are many more, and you know what they are. Jesus did not represent the rich. If he did , he would be useless._

Now THAT is something as old as the Torra—“they just dont understand”. Well, all you christian , folks—explain it to us unwashed masses. I had years of catechism. Lutheran catecxhism. Although I reject it now, these new fundamentalists are something complettely different…scary.

here is all I need to know abaout Pastro Warren:http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2008/12/rev-warren-pastor-author-debat.html

He is a member of the Federalist Society. Pat Robertons supports him. Cmon , guys…

By Dyev, December 23 at 4:47 pm

Tony,

Warren was (is) burning down the houses of gays that he was campaigning (Prop 8) to deny them the right of establishing households.  He hasn’t backed down from that position.  And what reason other than a religious belief (whch not all people share) does he have to deny others that right?
——————————————————————————-
Dyev,

Prop. 8 was a legitimate democratic contest which the Christian fundamentalists won. I was strongly against Prop 8 - contributed to the anti-Prop 8 campaign, put out yard signs. I lost. We lost. Why, because they out-organized us,out-funded us and beat us fair and square. There are just as many fundamentalists in this country as gay people. They are Americans too. Obama has said that he intends to be the president of all the people. Having Warren do the invocation is a strong gesture conveying that he means it. Shall we go on spitting at each other or shall we learn to live together and work together in our mutual interest? That is the question.

Objection to gay marriage is not necessarily religious. I have friends who have no religious affiliations or beliefs who voted for Prop 8. They believe that the concept of marriage essentially implies sexual union for the purpose of procreation, and who would like to reserve the word for that purpose. They prefer the term “civil union” for other types of relationships. They also believe in the separation of church and state, and that gay people should be able to get married in any church willing to recognize and sanction their relationship - presumably not an evangelical one. This is a reasonable position. Personally, gay marriage is fine with me, but what I am more interested in is not allowing the Roves of this world to use this as a wedge issue. Progressives and gays who get all hot under the collar about Warren are just making Rove happy. Jerry Brown will be arguing the anti-Prop 8 case in the California Supreme Court. I hope he wins.

The OVERWHELMING majority of Biblical scholars - Christian (Catholic, Protestant, gnostic), Jewish and, yes, secular - all agree on (i) the existence of Jesus, (ii) his overall ministry, (iii) the existence of a “Gospel of Mark” (whether or not written by him), and (iv) the dating of that gospel to ~60AD.  As noted, this date is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars.  nly a VERY small number of Biblical scholars agree with your position here.

Being a biblical scholar is like being an english lit major - of course, the people who study Dickens are all going to agree that it’s great literature - it doesn’t make it true - even though that period of time existed.  Show me the statistics that say these thing you profess to be true - let me see them.  Better yet show me proof of Jesus and I will reconsider.  The jewish scholars have and are proving through the lack of artifacts that most of the old testament is false, I don’t think they are to concerned with proving the existence of Jesus.  And remember a lot of religious scholars at one time believed that the sun went around the earth and disease was caused by demons.  I think as of today, at least the catholic church has put both myths to bed.  Science will eventually prove all the rest is false too.

What more proof do you need than the story of a man who is protrayed as being poor - literally says to sell everything you have, proclaims the meek shall inherit the earth, throw the money handlers out of the temple, makes a proclamation that you won’t see any rich people in heaven - what other words do you need to convince you- where does Jesus talk about the rich in a favorable light.

Jesus telling the Jews to give the taxes has absolutley nothing to do with the oath - He was talking about taxes not the court of law - which makes the beginning of the passion all the more unbelievable - the Jews never would have had the audacity to tell a Roman governor what to do and he never would even have considered asking them - what historic scholar has ever agreed with that story - they have gone out of their way to reject it - you should stop reading only Christian writers and try some real unbiased scholars

By Maani, December 23 at 3:50 pm #

Tony:

You’re making FAR too much sense for this discussion…LOL.  Many of these people are dug into their own intolerance, blindness and denial like Alabama ticks.

Peace.
——————————————————————————-
Thanks, Maani. People who lack self-awareness do not understand that tolerance is a two-way street.

Fellowdigger:

“Everything Jesus preached was about being humble and being poor.  He was poor himself.  He turned the tables in the temple. He made the comment about the camel - you have got to be kidding when you say Jesus was not an image of poverty.  Another example of a Christian changing the bible to fit their lifestyle.”

Actually, it is YOU who are changing your argument in mid-stream.  I was responding ONLY to your assertion that Jesus “condemned the rich.”  He did not.  But that does not mean that He Himself was not “an image of poverty.”  Certainly He was.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

“Also, there is no evidence, and I’m talking the real kind of evidence (like evolution) that Mark existed or Jesus for that matter.  The concept of Mark being pushed to an eariler date is just to have one of the gospel writer living during the “make-believe” time of Jesus.”

The OVERWHELMING majority of Biblical scholars - Christian (Catholic, Protestant, gnostic), Jewish and, yes, secular - all agree on (i) the existence of Jesus, (ii) his overall ministry, (iii) the existence of a “Gospel of Mark” (whether or not written by him), and (iv) the dating of that gospel to ~60AD.  As noted, this date is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars.  nly a VERY small number of Biblical scholars agree with your position here.

“Your are forbidden to bring your fellow man before a court of law.”  Once again, you cherry-pick and take things out of context.  At no time does Jesus suggest that believers are not subject to the laws of the political system under which they live.  In fact, even were your reading of Matthew 5 correct, it would only negate “swearing” on the Bible; it would NOT negate “bringing your fellow man before a court of law.”

Indeed, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s” - although directed, in context, toward the giving of “tribute” (i.e., taxes) - is generally understood to mean that God retains our SPIRITUAL allegiance, while we remain subject to the “laws of the land,” as long as the two do not conflict.  (This is also supported by Romans 13:1-7).

Peace.

Here is another passage you folks have strangely plucked out from the text to totally dismiss

Matthew 5 33-37 regarding oaths

so I don’t bore you all - Jesus basically forbid folks to make an oath to heaven or earth nor Jerusalem, nor a person such as yourself.  Yet everyday, countless times people swear on bibles - and who do they swear to but God and the heavens above -wow

Jesus stated your yes will be a yes and your no will be a no - no need for all that oath stuff - read it - it is there….

Also, sorry folks - your are forbidden to bring your fellow man before a court of law - there is only one judge - the heavenly father - opps

You are engaging in exactly the same type of “bad theology” that the so-called Christian Right does: taking Scripture out of context in order to support your positions.  Scripture must be read IN CONTEXT; i.e., what came BEFORE the line or passage offered, and what came AFTER it.  In neither case (the camel or giving up one’s worldly possessions) was Jesus condemning material wealth.  There were points being made by Him, but they had NOTHING to do with “condemning the rich.”

Okay - this is ridiculous - first of all who cares what the bible says - but for the Christians who love to spout it try to get it right - Everything Jesus preached was about being humble and being poor.  He was poor himself.  He turned the tables in the temple. He made the comment about the camel - you have got to be kidding when you say Jesus was not an image of poverty.  Another example of a CHristian changing the bible to fit their lifestyle.

Also, there is no evidence, and I’m talking the real kind of evidence (like evolution) that Mark existed or Jesus for that matter.  The concept of Mark being pushed to an eariler date is just to have one of the gospel writer living during the “make-believe” time of Jesus.  Not one other scholar of the time recognized a man named Jesus - Josephus talked about a preacher with followers - which there were tons at the time before the Jewish Revolt - many most likely put to death considering the stability problem in Jerusalem and the hatred for the zealot by both the Romans and the average Jew - you people just make things up

KDelphi:

“We are a secular nation.”

This is naive in the extreme.  We are (or are supposed to be) a secular nation POLITICALLY.  But the PEOPLE of the nation are OVERWHELMINGLY believers, and the majority of THOSE are Christian. You simply cannot gloss over this as though it does not exist and has no impact on “the nation.”

“Warren is a Dubya-type evangelical.”

Overly simplistic.  He is only so on one or two “identity politics” issues.  On almost everything else - poverty, homelessness, environment, “rule of law,” even science, etc. etc. - he is very much NOT a Dubya-type evangelical.

Fellowdigger:

“This other argument that the biblical Jesus did not condemn the rich is absurd.  A writer of one of the gospels clearly had Jesus say that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven - Or then there is the passage about giving up all your worldy possessions to follow the spiritual life.”

You are engaging in exactly the same type of “bad theology” that the so-called Christian Right does: taking Scripture out of context in order to support your positions.  Scripture must be read IN CONTEXT; i.e., what came BEFORE the line or passage offered, and what came AFTER it.  In neither case (the camel or giving up one’s worldly possessions) was Jesus condemning material wealth.  There were points being made by Him, but they had NOTHING to do with “condemning the rich.”

“Also, I may be wrong but I have never heard one biblical scholar…ever claim that Mark…wrote during the lifetime of Jesus…”

I did not say that.  I said that most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to 60AD - one generation AFTER Jesus’ death (in ~33AD), and that Mark himself was alive and present during Jesus’ life and ministry.

Jerry:

“If the real Jesus was to deliver Obama’s…inauguration blessing I feel reasonable assured that the self-righteous of every ilk would be sweating profusely as he delivered what would resemble a Jeremiah Wright sermon infused with some pretty scathing assessments of modern government and culture.  The culture that Jesus would be attacking with great gusto is that of the white bread world’s assertions that only the genuflecting, church-going, paste-up, wind-up-on-sunday Christians who deride gays, Islam, and abortion and love their guns like their mothers are all full if shit and Jesus would have nothing to do with any of them, but be polite and squeaking out a crooked smile as he passed them by to visit his Gay friends.”

Not sure about the Wright reference, but the rest of this is very much on the money - although it is probably not true that He “would have nothing to do with them,” since He was nothing if not inclusive. Still, a big “bravo” to this.

Peace.

The moderate democrat is certainly being tolerant of Rev. Warren.  Had this been John McCain and a right-wignut, anti-choice, creationist, homophobe up on the dais - the people now beinig so patient with Obama would be swinging from the proverbial ceiling with outrage.  They all drank the koolaid.  Where is Thomas Paine when you need him?

and let us not forget how charitable the terrorist in the middle east professes to be

Believe it or not, The Ku Klux Klan was founded, in part, as a charitable organization to help those (white folks) devastated by war and reconstruction.

I understand that Mr. Warren, too, decries poverty (and AIDS), and since he cannot vent his smallness and his hatred on Jews, Catholics, and Blacks, a la the Klan, who’s left?

I guess the Rev. Warren move worked - yikes!

The right is so thin-skinned.  Whenever they go after and bash a group of people, and the group have the audacity of telling them to get out of their business or keep their religious views out of government and public policy- they call us intolerant - this is ridiculous.
Unless you agree with everything they say, or just shut up about it, you are a reactionary and intolerant.

This other argument that the biblical Jesus did not condemn the rich is absurd.  A writer of one of the gospels clearly had Jesus say that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven - Or then there is the passage about giving up all your worldy possessions to follow the spiritual life.  For the right those things are not exactly what the bible meant - however, anything that fits into their narrow portfolio of hate reads verbatim.  Nonsense.  Also, I may be wrong but I have never heard one biblical scholar, and I use that term loosley, ever claim that Mark (or the writer(s) of Mark’s gospel) wrote during the lifetime of Jesus, whenever that may have been - if ever.

Dyev—Youre just parsing words.Were you “offended” by “church”? I used Temple (capital T) before. If I offend religious people , they will just have to be more tolerant.

You cannot prove whether Jesus existed or not. I do not belive that he was “the chosen one” and I’m not a christian. (I was simply trying to indicate why I was referring, at all, to what was written in the scriptures)I am going on history of human behavior,. Usually if a story is passed on long enough, and it lasts, there is a grain of truth to it. Greek gods are alot older than Jesus’ story. (Some of what they are based on is probably a kernel of truth)

Maybe he didnt exist. It is neither here nor there, to me. The message matters more than the person, and many of today’s so-called christians—like Warren—-seem to have lost the message. I was giving my interpretation—it is as valid as yours.

Maani- You can defend him all you like. Yes, I am intolerant of people like this, especially since Dubya. He has made me very intolerant of evangelicals. If he had been gay , I probably would have been as non-trusting of gays , now. (Gays have never tried to tell me what to do with my life, and, are a fairly non-judgemental lot)People are sick to death of the Dubya brand of christianity—judgemental and non-caring. We are a secular nation. Warren is a a Dubya-type evangelical.

Dyev:

“He threw the moneychangers out of the temple.  I haven’t seen many (any) of these evangelical ministers denying their services and sacraments to Wall Street bankers recently.”

Wall Street is not “the Temple.”  Jesus threw the moneychangers out because they were not simply transacting business, but conducting “usury” within the Temple walls.  If you remember, Jesus ate with all manner of sinners, including “publicans” (tax collectors).

“The gospels were written at least a hundred after Jesus was reputed to have existed.”

You obviously never studied the history, did you?  The Gospel of Mark has been dated as early as 60AD - only 30 years (ONE generation) after Jesus’ crucifixion.  And Mark WAS there.  And the other gospels followed suit fairly quickly thereafter, written by those who were ALSO “there.”.  As well, Paul began his epistles ~75AD.  In fact, the last of the NT books to be written (Revelation) is dated at 90AD.  Thus, in fact, ALL of the books of the NT had been written within three generations of Jesus’ crucifixion.

KDelphi:

From Webster: “Tolerance: Sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.”  So if Warren is “intolerant” because he lacks sympathy for the views of gays, then the gays are just as “intolerant” because they lack sympathy for HIS views.  They don’t have to AGREE with him.  But their disdain for him is as inappropriate as his disdain for them.

Peace.

KDelphi,
There’s just as much legend and myth that says that the Greek Gods existed.  Do you believe in them also?  The gospels were written at least a hundred after Jesus was reputed to have existed.  That’s four generations, which means that there was no-one alive to verify his existence.

BTW the temple was a synagogue, not a church.

Dyev—I take that passage to mean that Jesus wanted the church to have nothing to do with money. Of course, preachers and other that stand to benefit will interpret it another way. That is the problem with scriptiure. It is open to interpretation.

BTW—I believe that Jesus existed, and, was probably a Rabbi.There is just too much “stuff” about him , in legend and myth, as well as on paper (long after he died) for him to not exist. It is my belief that he would resent the spin that people are putting on his words these days. People like Warren.

Maani—I may have misinterpreted, but, I got it from here:“All I can say is: Ditto.  You three clearly “get it” while most of those here would not know “tolerance” and “getting along” if it bit them on the ear”

“loving the person”, but, “hating the sin” is just pandering.  They are my fellow travlers, and, have a right to travel any way they wish.

“Tolerance” is a vile word, usually used to condone hating a particular group, and, pretending that you LOVE them,...

The worst part of it is, the rift it has put between the LGBT community and the Af Am community. I am not certain that people who do not have alot of gay family and friends aroudn , this time of year, relize how angry the gay community is!. And, I would say, rightfully so.

It is not personal for me. I just cannot TOLERATE Pastor Warren…or any other neo-con preachers. Why should we tolerate hate?

Maani,
Actually, he did.  He threw the moneychangers out of the temple.  I haven’t seen many (any) of these evangelical ministers denying their services and sacraments to Wall Street bankers recently.

KDelphi:

“Maani—I’m rather surprised. But, I guess I shouldnt be…so, you think that other human beings should just be ‘tolerated.’”

You are putting words in my mouth; I never said nor implied that.  In fact, I believe in Jesus’ ministry of love, peace, humility, compassion, etc.  And He stated quite clearly that we are to “...bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

However, even living this way, He neither condemned NOR condoned certain behaviors, lifestyles, etc.

Peace.

Jeez, Dionne! I guess it is just great that Pat Robertson is complimenting Obama now, too!

Pastor WWarren may not be “burning down your house”, but, his hate filled rhetoric may encouarge others to do so.

Maani—I’m rather surprised. But, I guess I shouldnt be…so, you think that other human beings should just be “tolerated”.

“Cant we all just get along??” I dunno, in today’s society, should women submit to their husbands, and, gay people be treated like pedophiles? The answer to both questions is certainly “no”.

Tony—If you are uncomfortable around gays,—dont get around them! If you are uncomfortable around evangelical—oh, never mind. We have to hear from these bullshit people every day of the week. Sounds like “back to Bush” to me.

Little Brother—Good points, but, actaully , people like Dionne are NOT moderate liberals nor progessives. They just get paid to act like them.

Good luck trying to make fun of Joe the Plumber, and, Palin’s followers in the future—oh, that’s right, they are Obama followers now!

William Calhoun—Funny you should mention Pat Robertson—he just backed Obama today, and, criticiwzed Bush! Brilliant!

It just goes to show—backing Obama is THE thing to do this season!

RickinSF:

“I’d like to know which of Obama’s advisors said this would be a good idea.”

You simply don’t get it, do you?  Obama doesn’t always need advisors to tell him whether things will be “good ideas.”  He is intelligent enough to make certain decisions on his own.  And he makes some of those decisions because they prove the sincerity of the ongoing statements and claims he made during the campaign that he would NOT exclude ANYONE from a “place at the table” - even if doing so seemed “divisive” to many.

Like any other human being (believer or non), Warren is on the right side of some issues and the wrong side of others.  But he does not make policy: in fact, he has NO role WHATSOEVER in Obama’s administration.  He is simply delivering an inaugural “homily” - as has been done at every inaugural since George Washington.

Obama is president-elect, and will become president on the day Warren delivers his prayer.  The ONLY thing that matters is what OBAMA does beginning that day (and afterward) with respect to gay rights.

The flap over Warren is much ado about nothing.  He will deliver his prayer, go back to his church, and that will be the end of it (for him) with respect to what actually happens with gay rights in the U.S.

Peace.

Obama threw the gay people under the bus to earn some points. Maybe EJ’s right that the move was strategically clever. But it doesn’t say much for Obama’s integrity.

Tony:

You’re making FAR too much sense for this discussion…LOL.  Many of these people are dug into their own intolerance, blindness and denial like Alabama ticks.

Peace.

By John Petty, December 23 at 8:44 am #

“There are few votes in this for Obama, or the Democratic Party.  If he really was thinking electorally, he’d reach out to Roman Catholic and mainline protestants, not evangelicals (whom most of the country loathe anyway).”
——————————————————————————
John,

“Most of the country loathes Evangelicals” - really? You are projecting your own loathing on the whole country. Why don’t you be honest and say that YOU loathe Evangelicals just as you think they loath homosexuals? And having said that, ask yourself if you are not just as full of hate as “they” are.

By Dyev, December 23 at 11:30 am #

Tony Wicher says “they (gays) should show the same tolerance and forbearance toward the Rick Warrens of the world that they are asking them to show toward homosexuals.” Homosexuals are not campaigning to outlaw Christianity as Warren has been campaigning to deny them marriage rights.  If Tony wants gays to be tolerant of anti-gay Christians perhaps he should first be tolerant of the man who is trying to burn down his house.
——————————————————————————
Dyev,

Warren will not be burning down my house. He will only be giving a ceremonial prayer, the language of which I am sure will not mention gays and will be inclusive of all Americans. It’s not hurting anybody, and it’s a fine way to open up a dialog between evangelicals and progressives. Too bad many progressives are just as intolerant as many evangelicals. 

—————————————————————————-

The political system is a shell-game….and the “marks” just got taken for another ride.  The “inaugural” spectacle is of course intended to fool ‘em into thinking they’re at least getting something in-return for their “money.”  Incorporating some staged “controversy” serves to keep ‘em distracted from the fact the entire sham is as hollow and empty as those putting it on.  It makes the on-going pocket-picking a lot easier, too.

Arguing here over the relative merits of the “principals” involved seems about as sensible as coming to blows over some ref’s call on Monday Nite foosball (Do they have refs in foosball?).  It’s ALL make-believe, Kids.  Only the blood and the pain and the confusion, etc. are real (but only as indicators of the condition your condition is in).

The way to get all this media-manufactured foolishness to stop is to quit paying any attention to it.  After all, it ain’t like you haven’t got some serious “issues” to attend-to here.

Hokahey!

Identity politics developed in response to monstrous social evils, but it proved to be a Trojan Horse of sorts—or a vaccine that mutated into a more toxic substance than the bacteria it was designed to kill.

Thus, condoning and embracing evil can readily be disguised as an exercise in the virtue of tolerance—and those who criticize or deplore such actions can be readily condemned as “intolerant”.

Apparently Karl Popper didn’t “get it” either, judging from his insight into the paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...]  We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Is that engaged or enraged with the facts of poverty, social justice, AIDS, homosexuality, “gay marriage,” and other liberal and progressive issues.
First of all, the evangelical community is not going to change their political viewpoint because of shifting and blowing winds or the advancement of time.
They will never back down on their stand against progressive issues, such as abortion, people in love having the blessing of marriage, contraception, teaching about sex and its consequences, SCIENCE and all the other myriad issues that plague the minds of those who have closed theirs due to deliberate and destructive ignorance.
I for one, was once one of those people, who chose not to believe any of the “LIES of the DEVIL,” regarding anything that was not in the WORD! This led to much consternation on my part, because there is so much that is not brought to light, so much that is inconsistent within the Old and New Testaments, and the obvious answers that could not be brought forth because of a lack of knowledge of the real world on my part.  Thank G-d, that I have seen the light, every one of the people that I knew, was superficial and shallow, to the point of oblivion.  There was no scholarship on their parts regarding anything about the Bible, every word was true and that was built upon the fact that every word was spoken by G-d, and therefore it was true.
A form of solipsism that could not be justified, because of the round-robin logic, that was inherently involved in the making of “A” book consisting of 66 books, or if Catholic, more than that. Somehow the Holy Spirit caused the writers of the Word of G-d, to write these specific things so that we could all understand the nature of G-d, and all “his” wondrous works.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Suffice it to say, that there was many hands involved in the writing of the Bible, many hands that were not guided by the Holy Spirit, some political most out of jealousy because of the inherent power that went along with the imprimatur of G-d’s blessing, especially on an early and forthcoming nation that was trying to build itself with the blessing of a particular church.
If anyone is interested, I can go deeper into this subject on the lessons of history regarding the intransigence of the “church,” in relation to issues that will affect the choices of Barack Obama. His choice of “Rev. Rick Warren,” is not the most wise choice he has ever made and reflects badly on the ability of Barack Obama, to completely understand the ramifications of making someone like Rick Warren, the choice for the man who will lead the invocation.

John Jay, Howard, Tony:

All I can say is: Ditto.  You three clearly “get it” while most of those here would not know “tolerance” and “getting along” if it bit them on the ear.

Peace.

As a non-religious American, I don’t need ANY preacher validating mine.  What is a church representative doing opening our state ceremony? —Bronwen Rowlands, December 23

Here’s the deal, Bronwen:  The Amerikan masses, and the demagogues who pass for political leaders, harbor a deep-seated, atavistic superstition that a Creator of the Universe directs and observes our every action.  And He—yes, “He”—is obsessively narcissistic and jealous of His Supreme status; therefore, the superstitious are in turn anxious to include Him in any major political undertaking, lest He become Pissed Off and cause or allow the undertaking to fail.

Actually, it’s surprising to think that Amerikans don’t require their president-elect to throw handfuls of salt over his shoulder, and deliver his Inaugural Address wearing an ermine robe festooned with rabbits’ feet.

The rational, common-sense suggestion that We the People would do better to simply leave the Creator of the Universe out of so secular a function as inaugurating a head of state is regarded by both pious dimwits and their half-bright leaders as vile apostasy and unthinkable bad taste.  Because, as you no doubt know, Believers assume that everyone but a handful of cranks, eggheads, and wackos really believes in the Creator of the Universe, and knows perfectly well that He’s—yes, “He’s”—up there waiting for another excuse to be stroked, or there’ll be Hell to pay!

Hope I cleared it up for you!

Meanwhile, another predictable “half-full” offering from Dionne.  It’s mordantly amusing to me how agreeable moderate liberals or progressives are to “pragmatism” or “realpolitik”; they’re always so quick to grasp the strategy and tactics employed by politicians with talent in this line, which allows them to explain how there’s a sterling silver lining to every billowing nimbus cloud rising from Bonnie Prince Barack’s nascent administration.  Usually, as here, the spinners employ patronizing moral equivalence or levelling; ergo, a preacher who’s decidely on the wrong side of a sensitive and crucial human rights issue shouldn’t be rejected as a distinguished participant in a high ceremony of state—after all, he has lots of supporters and followers who agree with his backwards, ignorant, and vicious perspective.

And isn’t Obama president of all the bigots, too?

OK, they don’t exactly put it that way; but, as usual, the corporate media infotainwhore is willing and ready to denounce the denouncers, and reduce the odious and reprehensible qualities of the person or act that they’re defending to a mere respectable difference of opinion. 

I guarantee that the EJ Dionnes and earnest Obama supporters would not react this way if Obama had chosen, say, Ward Churchill to speak at the inauguration.

Personally, I find the various explanations of Obama’s promiscuous embraces of every neoliberal, Establishment, and reactionary public figure from the Clinton era and beyond to be patronizing, condescending, and manipulative.  Obama’s charismatic, messianic character got him to where he is today—but he’s getting carried away with himself, and it may prove to be his undoing.

Dionne as a hack Dem truther serves as a mainsteam guide for Obamanites who will continue to extol Obama and the Dems as he sells out the progressive rank and file.  This is done in the usual way, by giving lipservice to progressive values and supporting, in practice, right wing acts that subvert them.

Thus Dionne says he supports gay marriage while actually sanitizing the increasing Obama support of a religious bigot who opposes it.  As Obama does.  This is vintage Obama, saying he is a fierce supporter of gay and lesbian rights while promoting religious bigotry that subverts them.

But this is his entire strategy, triangulating the whole political process.  Implying he is for progressive values and issues while in actuality continuing the Bushite counter revolutionary policies.

The committed Dems and Obamanites will go along with it and with Bushite policies,(Brilliant!) but the newly activated Obamanites, and real progressives, will be increasingly disgusted by this performance.  It is necessry to get these people before they are disillusioned with politics and imbue an historical view that keeps them active.

They will need to learn that the Dems have ALWAYS sold out progressives historically, that this is just one more egregious election to put a black face on White capitalist polities of violence, brutality, and oppression. 

Just as Powell was put on public display in the UN, with Tenet sitting in the background, to lie to the whole world to help the US power structure invade Iraq.  But now, instead of Sec of State, this process will start with the President of the USA.  Who will rule from the middle of the power structure consensus of the rich who bought him, and the right of the population consensus.

“Although I support gay marriage, I think that liberals should welcome Obama’s success in causing so much consternation on the right. On balance, inviting Warren opens more doors than it closes.”

I agree with this. I think supporters of gay marriage should understand that many people are genuinely uncomfortable with homosexuality, and they should show the same tolerance and forbearance toward the Rick Warrens of the world that they are asking them to show toward homosexuals. This will advance the gay rights cause much more than being just as intolerant as they are.

In the crucible of progressive politics, Rick Warren’s faith-based pronounment to facilitate “social justice” precludes equal civil rights for ALL. When he choses to attribute “charity” to these laudable aims it is patently disingenuous and he stumbles on his evangelical flat feet. Social justice, according to Warren, is, afterall, exclusionary; it’s not about change or progress; it’s not embracing but abrasive: he will ration his charity to those who share his beliefs. This signifies very little change in the evangelical “move” from the centrifugal force of their gay and abortion rights battles. Warren’s moral relativism and superiority rewards conformity and uniformity: it derides the fact that through many we are one. Warren’s social justice is neither social nor just.