First up from the God Machine this week is a look at the "Under God: Indivisible" rally, held last week in Arlington, Texas, in conjunction with Glenn Beck's "Restoring Love" gathering. The rally, one of the largest religious right gatherings of the year, drew a reported 6,000 enthusiastic conservative attendees.
As part of the event, the crowd heard from disgraced former Republican lobbyist Ralph Reed, who called the 2012 election the most important since the Civil War, and said God will have "mercy" on Americans on Election Day, but only if we beg God to forgive us "for what we have allowed to happen to this country."
Attendees also heard from anti-gay Bishop Harry Jackson who said gay people "want to recruit your kids"; Family Research Council president Tony Perkins who said hate-crime laws are a sign of "chaos"; and Glenn Beck himself who praised the religious right for being willing to "wield the sword of righteousness" that will make "the leaders of the world ... pee their pants."
Not surprisingly, one of the central messages of the gathering was the 2012 presidential election, and the right-wing organizers' intention to defeat President Obama. The event also helped solidify Beck, the former Fox News personality, as an increasingly-relevant voice within the religious right movement.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, representing nearly all of America's Roman Catholic nuns, will hold its national assembly in St. Louis next week, and will decide how best to respond to attacks from the Vatican that the nuns aren't politically conservative enough.
* Wheaton College, an evangelical liberal arts school in Illinois, wanted desperately to fight against President Obama's policy on contraception access, when it noticed a small problem -- Wheaton's health plan already covered emergency contraception. The school had to quickly change its policy, so it could pretend to be outraged that Obama is forcing Wheaton to do what it was largely already doing voluntarily.
* On a related note, the University of Notre Dame is suing the federal government over contraception access, but a growing group of ND students are organizing on campus against the lawsuit.
* Another megachurch sex scandal erupted this week, with Jack Schaap, a former pastor at the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, being investigated for possibly having sexual relations with a teenage girl from his congregation (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* And Richard Land, the controversial head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, announced this week he will retire in October, 25 years after assuming his current post. He'll leave behind an unfortunate, scandal-plagued legacy.
Leave a Comment:
Never send a little boy to do a man's job. Try again little boy. It wasn't 6000 fans at Beck's Restoring Love 3 day event. It was over 65,000. Cowboys Stadium was PACKED!
Sixty five thousand.
Nice try at the lie kid. Weak.
Hahahahahahahaha... Senile Diaper Man strikes again...
Having a problem with reading comprehension Pattie? Paddie? Patty? Paddy? Check this out: "..., rally, held last week in Arlington, Texas, in conjunction with Glenn Beck's "Restoring Love" gathering..."
Now this: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/07/27/4132663/religious-conservatives-rally.html
Change your own diaper Pattie? Paddie? Patty? Paddy?
Hey Pattie (Paddie? Patty? Paddy?), you want to see Ralph speaking along with the other speakers at the rally with
65,0006000 attendees in Arlington, Texas?Here you go: http://lifetoday.org/undergodindivisible-conference/
C'mon Pattie (Paddie? Patty? Paddy?)!. Aren't you man enough to offer an apology to Mr. Benen? As a good Catholic, you do feel guilty, don't you?
ironically, one of those who got a standing ovation from the crowd of 6,000 was scandal plagued richard land....excellent choice of speakers
and irish pat...you owe steve benen an apology as it was clear he was writing about the "under god: indivisible" rally.
C'mon Pattie (Paddie? Patty? Paddy?)!!! Make wingnut troll history: ADMIT YOU'RE AN A$$!
God parted the Red Sea for Moses.
What's he done for the Religious Right?
He gave them Glen Beck.
--- Most sane people would realize: something's gone awry.
.
To Irish Pattie - this is a post I found and I dedicate it to all you "so called Good Christians" especially the Glen Becks, Lobbyist Robert Reed, Harry Jenkins and Tony Perkins and their followers.
Given Texans' thirst for the Kool-Aid served up by evangeliars like Beck, Reed, and Perkins, I'm only amazed there weren't six million people at the rally instead of six thousand.
The best thing about events like this is that they shine a spotlight on the real agenda of many so-called "religious leaders" in this country: using the insecurities of disaffected blue collar and upper-lower class folks to grab power and, ultimately, money.
There is, and always will be, a market for this flavor of baloney. The organizers of these events traffic in it. At a profit, of course.
mpguy, very well said. I'm reminded of the saying "you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time." People like Beck, Reed, Perkins and so many politicians make a very good living on fooling some of the people all the time.
Another thought, Lucy and Charley Brown and the football trick. The NRA every 4 years starts saying," their going to take your guns away". When someone said some people seem to take pride in being ignorant, they hit the nail on the head.
Flavor Aid, Flavor Aid!
Other than that, keep up the good work.
Not sure where your sources obtained thier info but I watched segments of the Restoring America Beck event on each of it's three days and knowing Cowboys Stadium (90,000 plus capicity) and seeing the HUGE stadium nearly filled takes a LOT more than 6000 people. There were records, according to Cowboys dot com that express there were nearly 46,000 seats sold for the first day's events. And further reports of crowds exceeding 65,000. So just as previous Beck events, the MSM attempts fail to diminish the truth. Cowboys Stadium was near capacity ............
thanks anyway "caca pee pee poopy boy"
Sorry little boy, TRMS blog should have had a real man do the reporting. Not a boy
Glenn Beck's 'Restoring' Love Rally Proves The Tea Party Isn't Dead
Elena Schneider|Jul. 30, 2012, 10:12 PM|50,072|56
Share on Tumblr
digg
2
in Share
Email
Share on Tumblr
digg
glennbeck.com
Conservative, doom-and-gloom Tea Party icon Glenn Beck says he is on a new mission. A mission for love.
More than one year after his Fox News departure, Beck — accompanied by a gospel choir, an orchestra, an exact replica of the Liberty Bell— made his comeback official this weekend, delivering a history lesson, a religious message, a spoken word performance and a musical and digital presentation to a 65,000-plus audience in the Dallas Cowboys Stadium.
The "Restoring Love" event completes Beck's trifecta of rallying calls.
Beck struck a new tone with his audience, aiming for a positive, action-driven message, rather than an attack on a political ideology. But he maintained some of his government finger-pointing that made him famous on cable television, particularly Obama's recent business and government gaffe and the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign.
Pacing around a cross-shaped stage, Beck told his audience: "We must not become America in name only. We must strive to be the great country that we are," he said. "There are two kinds of Americans. Those who like to be pushed, and those who push themselves."
In the end, the "global Tea Party summit" was vintage Beck, rounding out a trifect of rallying calls that began with his "Restoring Honor," a prayer event in Washington Mall in 2010 and gained international momentum with the "Restoring Courage" event in Israel in 2011. With the "Restoring Love" rally, Beck brought the party back home.
Beck rented out Dallas Cowboys Stadium for his "Restoring Love" rally — upwards of 65,000 people attended the event, according to the local news.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-beck-tea-party-restoring-love-rally-photos-2012-7?op=1#ixzz22bw63ofx
Glenn Beck Surprises at Dallas Cowboys Stadium Event 'Restoring Love' (PHOTOS)
Posted: 08/02/2012 3:50 pm
React
Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Follow
Glenn Beck , Fascism , Mass Movements , Politics News
share this story
36
16
4
Submit this story
diggredditstumble
In my high school, the gym teacher doubled as the U.S. History teacher. We passed each class ignoring him as he read questions from the back of the teacher's edition, just like in the famous scene with Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I think most Americans got something fairly similar, so it's not a surprise that we're a people who don't know much about our history.
Last Saturday night, I experienced a very different kind of history class. It was held in Dallas Cowboys Stadium, I had 65,000 classmates, and the teacher was Glenn Beck. There were videos on the Jumbotron overhead, a small army of live performers on stage and we did "the wave" eight times around the stadium cheering.
Nevertheless, it was just an American history class. The class was the feature event of a three-day long gathering that included faith leader meetings, political organizing workshops and documentary film screenings. To make this event happen, Beck followers set up local websites and organizations to connect, cheer each other on, arrange rides and charter busses. Many attended inner-circle meetings that may be serving a leadership development function. In other words, Glenn Beck is preparing a run for president as an independent in 2016. If he does it, he'll be the first American political leader ever to be backed by a well-prepared, well-educated and ideologically-coherent following.
I've always been fascinated by Glenn Beck because he puts so much energy into teaching history. His radio shows are 50 percent snark, 25 percent abuse of his chosen opponent of the day (I've been one a couple of times), and 25 percent history lesson. And that's 25 percent more history than you'll find on any progressive radio or television talk show.
When he gathers his core supporters together in person, as he's done several times now in different locations around the country, the mix changes. Wouldn't you expect the level of abuse and snark to rise? But it's the reverse. These gatherings are all about laying down the intellectual foundation of his movement and creating positive bonds among participants.
In Phoenix last year at Beck's "American Revival," I sat with 14,000 people in a hockey stadium for nine hours listening to extended lectures by a constitutional historian, a legal historian and an economist, with only very short comedy breaks in between delivered by Beck and his radio show side kicks. I didn't make it to the "Restoring Honor" event held on the Mall in DC, but at least several thousand of the audience in Dallas were there.
In Dallas, Beck did not delegate the U.S. history lecture to professionals the way he did in Phoenix. He taught the class himself and did so with brilliant showmanship. He brought to Dallas several striking physical relics -- "worth over 30 million dollars" -- to powerfully anchor each part of his lecture. He knelt before a blood-drenched beam from a Revolutionary War hospital tent. He held one of the first Bibles printed in the United State -- "printed by Congress!" He sat in Lincoln's White House chair, at Lincoln's White House desk, and read from a young lawyer Lincoln's personal letter denouncing slavery.
"I used to believe that Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery," Beck explained, "that he fought the Civil War to protect Northern capitalism. I used to believe that!" I too had learned that, and have seen lots of quotes from Lincoln during and just before the war about how he was explicitly not fighting the war to end slavery. I was surprised to hear the young Lincoln making vigorous arguments against not only slavery but any kind of race-based inequality.
But why in the world was Beck talking defending Lincoln against left wing revisionist historical claims in Dallas to a stadium full of right wing whites who had never even heard them before?
The left -- and I mean the radical, ideological left in which I came of age intellectually -- requires you to confess that Capitalism, electoral democracy, religion, the nuclear family and America itself are all evil at the root before you do anything else. It's the left's way of committing suicide over and over across hundreds of years of human history. The right, of course, simply reverses the equation. All of those things are pure good. If you question it, you're probably evil at the root yourself.
What left me reeling from surprise for days after the Dallas event was the way Beck was taking a far more sophisticated approach than either of those. He introduced the topic of America's sins with a story about his daughter. When she told him she wanted to study history, he said, "Great! We need more U.S. historians!" She told him, "I can't be a U.S. historian: American history is drenched in the blood of genocide and slavery."
Beck told us of his disappointment -- and the project that followed: He and his daughter began to study U.S. history together. "We were both wrong. And we were both right," he said. Beck learned about genocide and slavery. On the stage at Dallas Cowboys Stadium he denounced manifest destiny. He mocked it. He said America was built upon stolen land, and he meant it.
Why did he do it? None of the fans in that stadium wanted to hear anything about genocide or stolen land. He scored no points with that stuff at all. He must have sowed a certain amount of confusion, doubt and difficulty. But why?
Beck would have been answered by wild cheers if he had said something like, "Leftists condemn manifest destiny as genocide. I say they hate America!" Instead, he chose to challenge his audience's quaint view of American history and was answered by uneasy silence. Why is he doing this?
Why would Beck step so far outside of the angry and jingoistic discourse that maximizes ratings and applause? The only way I can explain it is he is trying to build a true mass movement. Mass movements must have cross-over appeal that reaches a large portion of the population. They must also empower their participants with a worldview that will stand the tests and trials of objective reality outside of the insularity of the movement.
Is Beck consciously thinking all of this through? It's possible. As a fanatical anti-totalitarian, Beck has studied a lot of Nazi and Soviet history. Maybe some has rubbed off. In granting his core followers access to secret knowledge about the world ("We really did steal the Indians land and commit genocide") he is taking them into a tantalizing world of truth and power, where only he can be their guide. That tactic comes right out of the pages of Hitler or Stalin's playbook. But more likely, he's just going on instinct.
Before the event began, the Jumbotron was cycling through quotations from people such as Gandhi, King, and RFK. In his history lesson, he passionately invoked the Civil Rights movement and the legacy of the Abolitionists, in an audience who should not had appreciated either.
Why is Beck actively appropriating the legacy of the Civil Rights movement, national liberation struggles and radical reform movements? He's the only right winger to do so with true passion. I believe it's because he doesn't want to commit the mistake of building a movement that must agonizingly denounce the best things about the 20th century. That would just be an unnecessary drag on his movement's energy. One fruit of the Civil Rights movement just may be that some right wingers of Beck's generation are not white supremacists. They've got a head full of stereotypes, they can be rude, they're ideologically immune to talk of discrimination and systemic racism, they've got no qualms at all about viciously attacking black and Latino leaders almost just for being black or Latino leaders -- but: at least some of them don't actually believe that whites are the master race and that everyone else must be actively suppressed. Once that bridge was crossed there was no longer any reason to try to pretend the Civil Rights movement wasn't a great part of American history -- so that may be all Beck's doing. He's just removing one of the pieces of shrapnel lodged by the 20th century in the American right wing. I think. I guess. I don't really know. The truth is that what I saw in Dallas was all pretty overwhelming and impossible. And as you can tell from the previous several paragraphs, I'm just fumbling around trying to make sense of it.
So what might Glenn Beck want to do in the end with the mass movement that he's building? How, unless he knocks himself out with some kind of scandal before then, can it not culminate with a run for the presidency in 2016? But while that thought has no doubt crossed his mind, I think he's just making up this movement as he goes along. He's riding a wave of personal inspiration fed by what he experiences at these kinds of events and other engagements with fans, grassroots Tea Party leaders and other right wing leaders around the country -- and also by his real inner spiritual life.
That's how he described it, and I got the feeling he meant it. If any of you progressives were there, you would have been freaked out when he started talking about how "God's been revealing" to him the steps of this movement. But that is not unusual language for Christians or rank and file Mormons (Beck is a Mormon). He doesn't mean that he's hearing an audible voice of God. He means essentially the same thing as when an atheist says, "I have a gut feeling." Christians who believe in active divine intervention in daily life just think the gut feeling is put there by God. By saying that God "spoke" to him, he's not saying that he believes God is using him as a uniquely important leader; everyone who adheres to this popular version of Christianity believes that "God has a plan" for them and is "speaking to them" through the medium of gut feelings, daily coincidences/signs and the regular unfolding of events. So the people in Cowboys stadium weren't sitting there in awe of a guy with a direct connection to God -- they experience that same direct connection themselves every day. In fact, Beck modeled this at the event in a video in which some of the attendees talked about their own prayer life. It's a beautiful universe where the God who created it is still in touch with the humans who inhabit it -- and it gives the people in that stadium great confidence and resilience.
As the Beck movement continues to grow, progressives will continue to denounce his followers as lemmings. But these folks are not blind, stupid followers. Atheists tend to fail to understand that mainstream evangelical Christianity is based on a very predictable and stable way for people to follow a leader while retaining their own agency and independence. Atheists -- especially former Christians who got burned by broken church in their lives -- see only a bunch of blind followers. In a minority of churches that can be the case. But the norm is that the followers have the same relationship to the leader/pastor/teacher as a sports fan has to a pro athlete -- or perhaps client to their defense lawyer. That is, the followers acknowledge that the leader can do something special and useful, but think of the leader as a proxy for themselves. Beck has a talent for speech and showmanship. That's what the followers are using him for. They choose to follow. And they're checking every fact and thinking hard about everything Beck says to make sure it squares with their own self-chosen world view. The minute it doesn't, they spin off into another leader's orbit.
But this brings us back to the issue of why and how Beck is challenging them on topics like slavery and manifest destiny and the ultimate implications of this dramatic departure from expected reality. That kind of challenging happens all the time in Christian churches. In the fastest growing churches people go each week expecting and wanting to have their mind blown. They're seeking the rush of having their horizons expanded. But in the church, congregants have an independent yardstick against which to measure the pastor's words: the Bible. If the pastor's ideas can't be squared with the Bible then those people have to make a choice: follow the pastor into a cult, or find another church. Almost always, they leave.
But Beck is not a religious leader. He's advocating a political program. There is no authoritative source to measure his ideas against. This opens the possibility for him to create more and more of a cult of personality. If he goes too far in that direction, his run for the White House can't happen, because America has never accepted charismatic leaders with their own specific programs.
Anyways, the important thing for a curious progressive to know about Beck's God talk is that for now it is at least just a very powerful way to connect to nearly everyone in these stadiums -- and to about 60 percent of America who practice or are exposed to such talk in their own lives. That's pretty powerful.
Finally, what does Beck actually want to accomplish? That's where, way down the road, this whole thing either has to come to a complete stop or turn into the kind of fascist nightmare that Beck regularly warns against.
Beck's only policy goal is to basically eliminate the government. He and his fans really believe that taxes, regulations and meddling social programs are almost the only forces behind social break down and economic decline in America. In their minds, if you just get rid of the government in people's lives, that suddenly a million new businesses will spring to life and thrive, and communities will suddenly begin taking care of each other, and doing a good job of it.
The problem is that it's not that simple. It's not going to work. If a movement like this ever one day gets power, and strikes out like that, then what? It just sits back down? Or maybe it starts to try actively to make changes in society and the economy. It will be sort of like how Lenin came to power, realized a planned economy was impossible right away, and established a free market entrepreneurial economy instead (for a few years) -- but in the reverse. Beck will find that free market forces won't work in America's favor right away. What if he knows too much about totalitarian social and economic planning not to try it? All I know is that will be one, or two?, very scary decades.
There's pleny more "reliable sources" rather than bogus ones. But it'll take a "man" to find 'em. Little boys and "caca pants" need not bother. It's too big a jobby for you.
The Under God Indivisible event was a MINOR add on/side car to the MAJOR event, REstoring LOve. Report the first in order to justify reporting the minor, sub event and show what was attempted here..........in conjunction over-all. The attempt here is obvious, disception.
Typical Christophobic reporting.
The event Benen sites is advertised AS in conjunction with Restoring Love event at Cowboys Stadium and this TRMS blog's attempt to diminish it's attendance is obvious. The 6,000 attending is shown in stark contrast to the over 65,000 who attended each day at Cowboys Stadium. It was a leadership conference distinctly used in CONJUNCTION with Restoring Love. Did TRMS report on Beck's Restoring Love event at Cowboys Stadium???
July 27, 2012 - July 28, 2012
Under God: INDIVISIBLE
Leadership conference held in conjunction with Glenn Beck’s
“Restoring Love” event
Jay Richards, Director of the Discovery
Institute’s Center on Wealth, Poverty,
and Morality, will be speaking at Under God: INDIVISBLE, a conference on how
to make a positive impact on the culture and on national direction. This
session, led by spiritual leaders from many denominational backgrounds, is
geared towards pastors, priests, rabbis, and any other concerned citizens who
want to join in leading America back to our foundational values of Family,
Faith, and Freedom.
For more information and to register, visit the Under God: INDIVISIBLE website.
The following evening, Jay Richards and James Robinson, co-authors
of Indivisible,
will be signing books from 6:30-7:00 pm at Glenn Beck’s Restoring Love finale.
The event will gather together people from across the country to recognize their
labors of love and to reflect on the values that unite them.
For registration, click here.
For a
full list of events at the Restoring Love event, click here.
Can’t attend? Don’t miss Restoring Love on July 28th on GBTV Plus.
July 27, 2012 - July 28, 2012
Under God: INDIVISIBLE
Leadership conference held in conjunction with Glenn Beck’s
“Restoring Love” event
Jay Richards, Director of the Discovery
Institute’s Center on Wealth, Poverty,
and Morality, will be speaking at Under God: INDIVISBLE, a conference on how
to make a positive impact on the culture and on national direction. This
session, led by spiritual leaders from many denominational backgrounds, is
geared towards pastors, priests, rabbis, and any other concerned citizens who
want to join in leading America back to our foundational values of Family,
Faith, and Freedom.
For more information and to register, visit the Under God: INDIVISIBLE website.
The following evening, Jay Richards and James Robinson, co-authors
of Indivisible,
will be signing books from 6:30-7:00 pm at Glenn Beck’s Restoring Love finale.
The event will gather together people from across the country to recognize their
labors of love and to reflect on the values that unite them.
For registration, click here.
For a
full list of events at the Restoring Love event, click here.
Can’t attend? Don’t miss Restoring Love on July 28th on GBTV Plus.
Iris Patti - why are you watching and reading these sites? I do not watch FoxNews because I do not like things people say taken out of context, or misquoted or just plain made up. So I do not watch them - I suggest you do the same. Your Faux Christianity can watch the Faux News shows and listen to the Faux Christian Radio Show Hosts.
Ah, there goes Paddy, getting into the Guinness early and embarrassing the rest of the Irish in America as he proves the English were right about the southern Irish in at least one instance. Talk about a "Drunken Irishman"....
You bog stupid moron.
If we beg for god's forgiveness ...................... then we are probably schizophrenic.
So this guy claims he can read the minds of gay people.
I understand that delusional thinking is the first symptom.
Was there an apology in all of that or did Pattie (Paddie? Patty? Paddy?) take his "apology" and assign it "to another parish" like a good Catholic (if you get my drift)?
No , as a super duper gop poser catholic , IPat just lied his ass off again
I do believe it is considered racist to call people of Irish decent paddie, patty, etc. Sort of Paddy wagon stereotyping. Liberals may not be held to the same standard as conservatives- but I would suggest Disgusted is solidly in the racist category. I think half a dozen attempts at making sure we know she is racist qualifies her.
Every subject here in the Week in God is predicated on a false pretense including the one on Beck's Restoring Love Event (which was obviously the primary event with the Indivisible event as a subordinate event) the intention by the Blog author is beyond contempt. As it is every week.
The guy with the avatar showing a Donkey behind and elephant obviously has a romantic fantasy about being with older men who wear dirty diapers or maybe just an animal/manable erotic design he dreams of.
It's said that disgusted and TCinLaLa land were across from Chick Fil A' friday with a picnic of dirty diaper sandwiches rather than the usual, "chicken sandwich". Whatever, to each his/her own.
66% or the real Irish agree with IrishPat7 doodle brain TcinLalalaland so take up the rear with the rest of the oddball 33%.
Nope, haven't had a Guiness or any drink in 15 years. But I see TC hasn't gone 15 minutes without sounding like a amada'n and the other fella, is just loves to ithean cac. It's the diaper thing his has going ya' know.
Let the author here create each story based on a viable context and honest or genuine premise without the intellectual dishonesty from which all these stories begin, marked by negative pajoratives.
The Christophobia here at TRMS Blog is a clear and yet not so concise, bigotry.
Christophobic behaviors exhibited at TRMS Blog and the author's notes:
* On a related note, the University of Notre Dame is suing the federal government over contraception access, but a growing group of ND students are organizing on campus against the lawsuit.
There are 14,251 students at University of Notre Dame, ONLY 122 signed this petition. Non story as the dissent is against the University's own Mission Statement. As a member of a University here in NH I know all so well how all is predicated on the school's Mission Statement. The premise is divisive and misleading as well as intellectually dishonest.
Secondly:* The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, representing nearly all of America's Roman Catholic nuns, will hold its national assembly in St. Louis next week, and will decide how best to respond to attacks from the Vatican that the nuns aren't politically conservative enough.
Once again, the premise is a completely false one. The Catholic Church is not a body politic nor understood to be an international or national democratic organization. It is defined as "The mystical body of Christ" it's founder whose soul is the Holy Spirit.
The assesment by the Sacred Congregation of the Church is equally defined as concerned with "doctrinal issues" not geo political issues.
WASHINGTON — The Vatican called for reform amid a doctrinal “crisis” within the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), appointing Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to lead renewal efforts.
The appointment was made as the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith revealed the findings of its multi-year doctrinal assessment of the women’s conference, which has more than 1,500 members throughout the country.
Read Further:
Several of the addresses depicted a vision of religious life that is incompatible with the faith of the Church, the assessment found. Some attempted to justify dissent from Church doctrine and showed “scant regard for the role of the magisterium.”
The document cited one address about religious sisters “moving beyond the Church” and even beyond Jesus. Such positions — which constitute “a rejection of faith” and “serious source of scandal” — often go unchallenged by the LCWR, it said.
It also noted a lack of sufficient doctrinal formation in material prepared for new superiors and formators, which may reinforce confusion on Church doctrine.
Furthermore, it voiced concerns about “certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith” that were prevalent in some programs and presentations sponsored by the conference, and risked distorting Church teaching on the divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Eucharist and the inspiration of sacred Scripture.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-calls-for-reform-of-the-u.s.-leadership-conference-of-womens-religi/#ixzz22eOaqLq4
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-calls-for-reform-of-the-u.s.-leadership-conference-of-womens-religi/#ixzz22eO4Q8Vz
In other words, it does not have to do with politically conservative criterion. It has to do with a lack of faith. Denial of the deity of Jesus Cjrist, denial of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, denial of Divine Revelation, denial of the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ etc. That is what is truly at issue here.
TRMS as did Maddow on her program in hosting Nuns on the Bus failed to tell the truth or complete story. Again, as exampled here, begin with a false premise and create a false reality or story with that as a back drop.
TRMS would do well to invite Professor Peter Kreeft onto the program to at least allow for a genuine and HONEST discussion or debate of the issues. This one involving the LCWR and the Vatican's Sacred Congregation Office in Rome as well as the REAL truthful story about the suits by the Catholic Church against HHS mandate.
To date, TRMS shows itself deceitful and untrustworthy as well as bigoted and biased .........and afraid to allow for the "other side of the equation" to be brought to light. Cowardly.
How's that for an apology. TRMS author is artful but not so much so that a discerning eye won't see right thru him/her. A falsehood is a falsehood not matter how well guised it be in it's immersion with watery facts.
Invite Peter Kreeft on the show. Like Fr Pavone on abortion and the HHS mandate, as she did when she got schooled by Senator Inhoff about global warming on her show, TRMS is afraid of the truth. Fearing the person that could destroy her argument which is based on a lie.
If your first step is a false step, the rest that follow lead to a fall into a lie. TRMS needs to "watch that first step".
There is no excuse for allowing the pathetic seemingly never-ending babblings of this "Irish" troll. The people at this site are not doing their job. And yes, that includes you, Mr. Benen.
Still no apology from Pattie (Paddie? Patty? Paddy?)? You'd think, being Catholic, he'd understand guilt. Or maybe since it's now been established that even pedophilia is not worthy of being dealt with responsibly by the top leaders of the Catholic church our Senile Diaper Man has learned another life lesson when it comes to taking responsibility for one's actions: hide your guilt and obfuscate; in Diaper Man's case by flooding the page with a firehose of nonsense than nobody's going to read in order to own up to a blatant insult to Steve Benen, whom he clearly disrespects.
Would it surprise anyone if Pattie (Paddie? Patty? Paddy?) were actually a member of the Catholic clergy?
Oh, Disgusted..., those on the right don't apologize (not real apologies, anyway). They don't have to! That's one of the innumerable benefits of being Ideologically Sound/Theologically Correct! :-/ And besides, they know from experience that good wittle wibewals will allow them to get away with all manner of rhetorical misdeeds.
I know. It's funny exposing his complete hypocricy and dickishness. What an old tool.
No , my irish grand dad called me Paddy the whole time I grew up , try again .... one might assume those who claim to be christian , then out right lie , will be right next to those who cover for pedophiles , in hell
Isn't Texas a funny place to hold a rally against dividing the USA?
There is a special place in hell for 'evangelicals' like Ralph Reed. God doesn't like LIARS and he REALLY doesn't like those who 'use his name in vain'...
God also doesn't like "Christians" who speak out on his behalf who have absolutely no fashion sense.
Did you see Ralph Reeds attire in that video? Holy cow:
Who dressed this guy the Salvation Army?
.
I doubt it. That suit probably cost him more than we make in a month. When Ugly is sold under a haute couture label it costs serious money.
Please, let's not insult the Salvation Army. He probably got the suit, tie and shirt from the stuff they throw out at Good Will Industries.
Wow. 6000 attendees. That's not even a good Star Trek Convention, let alone GenCon.
Thank You Dana Curtis for proving my initial point here. That is the exact reason the author of this TRMS Blog did not mention Beck's primary event Restoring Love at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington Texas to begin with. But instead chose only to use the minor convention as the blog article. The difference was to read as you read it, 6,000 attending. Oh my what a small number, 6,000. To take your eye of the 65,000 who attended each day of the three during Restoring LOve event. Didn't see the Blog author here mention that Paul McCartney only drew 36,000 plus at the same venue when he performed at Cowboys Stadium? Did he?
6,000 not even a good Star Trek Convention.
Thank You. You have proven my point.
An Ralph, Crom does not want me to beg! Crom only respects strength!
And if you disagree, then to hell with you!
Mormons seem to be moving on the Religious Right from several flanks.
A suggestion for the folks in Texas, be it 6000 or 60,000:
A few years ago a like-minded group of Christians gathered, with the blessing of the Pope. He (Urban II) was a "reformer, worried about the evils which had hindered the spiritual success of the church and its clergy and the need for a revival of religiosity"(From Wikipedia). So they set out to "take back the Holy Land", much as Beck and his fellow travelers want to "take back our country."
The suggestion: Arm your selves heavily- Texas being the ideal spot to do so-and head for Jerusalem, post haste. (Having been there, Beck knows the way.)
I wonder how many of the 6000 or 60000 know who Ralph Reed is? Do they know he was a partner with Jack Abramoff. Second thought, do they know who Jack Abramoff is and all the deals he did that got him sent to prison.
Sad to see so many people eager to follow a false prophet. It's no wonder you see no Ivy league schools in red states.
the better question is 'what he is?" sadly, most don't care, anymore than they care about romney's magic drawers for the moment. i daresay that if romney loses, he won't finish his concession speech before the likes of jeffress is back damning him as a cultist.
So what, they say. He bagged him some Injuns!
As long as they continue to say 'gay people are bad' then the sheeple don't care what else they do.
They could even be caught with underage girls in their hotel room, as long as they don't let the girls get abortions, the sheeple will hang on their every word.
Snarkiest bumper sticker ever: Vote Glenn Beck God in 2012, or else! -Kevo
in additional "twig" news
kc priest pleads guilty to child-porn charges
Thursday, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, 46, pleaded guilty to using five girls to produce or attempt to produce child pornography over several years while he was as pastor to congregations in Kansas City and St. Joseph, Mo.
Each count carries a maximum sentence of up to 30 years in federal prison.
U.S. attorney David Ketchmark said prosecutors will recommend what he termed "a virtual life sentence."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/02/159617/missouri-priest-pleads-guilty.html
in addition civil and criminal cases remain pending against bishop robert finn and the diocese for delaying to report finding the photos.
in more catholic related news...
pew has new polling that shows obama leading romney of the question of "who better reflects your views on social issues like abortion and gay marriage," 51-34
obama leads among catholic voters 51-42 after trailing romney in april by 5 points
the poll also shows:
"Catholics who are aware of U.S. bishops’ concerns about restrictions on religious liberty generally agree with the bishops’ concerns. Yet the bishops’ protests have not drawn much more interest among Catholics than among the general public. And there are no significant differences in the presidential vote preferences between Catholic voters who have heard about the bishops’ protests and those who have not."
full report:
http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Catholics-Share-Bishops-Concerns-about-Religious-Liberty.aspx
and congress has passed news restrictions on westboro baptist's military funeral protests....
"According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service. The bill also requires protestors to be at least 300 feet away from grieving family members.
This aspect of the legislation was introduced by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) at the urging of a teenage constituent."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/veterans-bill-military-funerals_n_1733080.html?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%20Brief&utm_campaign=daily_brief
Russell,
If the Honor Guards were issued live ammo ... never mind.
Okay, I'm a Christian and I'm really angry at many Christians right now. I don't understand why they only focus on certain issues such as pro-life and against same sex relationships when most of the gospel is about helping the poor, healing the sick, and loving one another. This is why I love the nuns on the bus tour. In my estimation, many Christians should be on their knees repenting for focusing on the wrong things.
The Christian Right is primarily economic and social Republican, in its modern extremist form, not Christian.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi
Oh, sunshine1437, that "helping the poor, healing the sick, and loving your neighbor as thyself" stuff is soooooo pre-Reagan era. For Republicans, religion nowadays is all about exploiting fear and hatred for political gain.
Because the religious right is primarily a political movement, but one that exploits the fears and religious impulses of a highly authoritarian segment of the population in order to gain support and advance its cause. Americans have always been very religious, often in unconventional and nontraditional ways, and for the majority Christianity is the default religion, so naturally the religious right has (mis)appropriated Christianity to gain automatic and undeserved credibility and authority.
The good thing is that the religious right is not all there is. The bad thing is that they've done a very good job of convincing too many people that they are.
SadOldVeteran, I think Jesus Christ, himself, would be a hated liberal by todays far right republicans.
Jesus was hated back in the day, too. We just traded Rush Limbaugh for Pontius Pilate and Ralph Reed for Barabbas.
Indivisible is code for stick together with Republicans in elections on issues some of call the primary ABOVE those, because that way, we can get people to vote for Republicans.
Never mind those Nuns on a bus, they are following Jesus' teachings instead of the religious right who are following teachings of the latest person to teach tiny kids to sing "ain't no homos going to heaven" and applaud when they do.
The birth control part of the ACA offends "us" and "we" hate feeding those hungry homeless because they need a drug test first.
Yikes, but yes thanks to those who have seen through the political cover of God only votes Republican and only we know what he wants and thinks about "them".
Sunshine, love the moniker. I make no presumption that I speak for any other than myself. I was raised Christian and argued my way to atheist via the abject idioicy of Christian's own explaination of their beliefs. But there is something I share in common with their Christ. We both loath hypocrisy. You would be hard pressed to find a better exhibit than a right-wing Christian Republican. I was a life-long Republican excusing myself with the belief I could be more effective at reform inside than out. I finally couldn't take the stupid any longer and went unaffiliated last February. My utter contempt for the GOP, and especially their sheeple idiots in the church, should not be taken as hatred of Christians so much as a hatred of a hypocritical behavior. Those who live humble and charitable lives, Christian or not, are my friends. You sound like one of them. If instead, you are one who uses the moral authority of your religion to cram your hypocrisy and stupidity down my throat, go pound sand ;-)
@lennybruce48: To your first point regarding Christians explaining their beliefs, I'm not a big fan of faith just based on beliefs, rather, what works for me is experiencing a relationship with God. And, I definitely try to keep it humble and be open to other peoples' experience. My political leanings bring me to read this awesome blog daily.
I would suggest that Jesus would be the opposite of a liberal in todays world. He called for the exact opposite actions of the liberal agenda. Jesus was clear that we should all be our brouther's keeper- we each hae a personal responsibility. Take the parable of the Good Samaritan- The parable was a person rendered assistence, then gave the health care provider (inn keeper) monies from his or her own pocket to care for the injured. He did not call for Rome to take care of the injured- but the person. Recall both Al Gore and John Kerry gave about a grand to charity- preferring to let taxes take care of things- or Rome.
Wow Rusty, perhaps you have a different Bible than I do. You TOTALLY missed what Jesus was all about!! And he says it so simply!! Maybe YOU should read the Gospels again!!!
once- well- if you're referring to me- then I understand when you read the bible that you may havea comprehension problem. You may need to refresh us all as to just when Jesus called upon the government (Rome) to do more. I'm waiting- andsuspect I'm right about you not being able to read very well.
rusty,
I don't have a reading comprehension story - but obviously you do. Or maybe it is that you pick an isolated incident that seems to fit what YOU want (yea, I know - it's all about "me"; not about "we" with you guys) and try to make a "doctrine" of it.
What Jesus was all about was loving and helping your neighbor - he was all about "we" and not about "me". To me that means ALL of my neighbors, not just the chosen few I "consider" worthy of my help - you will notice Jesus didn't "pick and choose". The best way in a society as large as we live in now is to provide a means where ALL people of equal need get help. I CAN'T do that by myself, but I can vote for and support by my tax dollars a government that CAN do this.
So you "pride" yourself in giving to charity. HURRAH for you - that is a worthy thing to do, but REALISTICALLY, how much does your charity help all the people who need help??? And what does your "charity" ask of them? And how much help can your charity provide them. Does that mean that all the rest of the needy that your charity can't handle have to go without? People starving to death your way of serving Jesus? Do you HONESTLY think that individual charities are the way to solve the problems that exist today? We tried that before in the 30's before Roosevelt was elected and it didn't work. What makes you think it will work today?
In Judea at the time, the "real" government was the temple. "Rome" was a few centurians and a puppet Judea government. The "rules" that governed peoples lives came from the Pharisees. (Sometime, for giggles and grins, read how Rome controlled its vast territories and why Jesus would NEVER have even suggested that "Rome" or the puppet government take care of the needy. Perhaps YOU think we NEED a government like ROME today??). Do you remember what Jesus did and said at the temple?
Do you remember what Jesus told the rich young ruler? He asked the rich young ruler to give away all his worldy possessions and follow Jesus. Could the rich young ruler do that? Could or would YOU do that?
Like I said earlier, maybe you should reread the gospels to find out what they truly say. It is really very simple if you don't try to make them fit YOUR beliefs, but instead believe in what they say!!!
Rusty (yes, I'm referring to you...since there's no one else calling himself Rusty!!!), it's not enough to assert that someone has a comprehension problem. You have to explain what the problem is.
As for you, you not only have a comprehension problem, you have a reality problem. For one, you have swallowed the nonsense that liberals neither believe in community and responsibility, which you disdain as "socialism". It is in fact "conservatives" who deny those the value of joint action, which is evidenced by the clear preference of today's "conservatives" for the rantings of your real lord and savior, Ayn Rand, who saw the world consisting of atomistic individuals acting out of pure self-interest.
We believe in community and cooperation, which is the best expression of personal responsibility: we are all in it together, and we cannot take care of ourselves without taking care of others. And one of the most important ways of directing collective action is through government, and "conservatives" are always trying to tear down government, to pull people apart, and turn the world into a dystopian Randian hell-hole. If we are to work together, including in Christian terms, then government must be a part of it; and if you can't accept that, then the problem lies within you, not with the idea of government or with somebody else's understanding of Jesus.
"Conservatism" is an indicator of an unhealthy mind: it is excessively self-interested, morally inverted, hostile, vicious, fearful, infantile and petty. Instead of arguing that your defects make you inexplicably superior to everyone else, you would do better to seek some kind of help.
Folks- Jesus always called for people to love their neighbors and their enemies. The interpretation deltas we seem to have is that liberals interpret that as the Government should tax the wealthy and distribute it to the poor. To Jesus, it is clear that the test for the wealthy young ruler was not whether the wealthy young ruler was willing to tax his subjects and give money to the poorer people- but to take his own monies and give to the poor.
I've heard liberals talk of the Good Samaritan as a call for Socialized health care. Misses the point completely. The Samaritan didn't call 911, ensuring the Government showed up to take care of the injured. He took it upon himself to care for the injured, transported the person to a place where care could be given, and then paid out of his own pocket- with a glad heart- to ensure continued care. Jesus was much more interested in the heart of a person than the wallet. I think he would not find a society that forced taxation on others, then used someone elses monies to pay for charity as an example of Christian love.
Rusty, have you ever met a dyed in the wool, real live person who calls him/herself a liberal?
To lacquer our lord and savior with the denigrated assumption that he fits nicely into your liberal/conservative understanding of the world, is to debase my Christian faith.
Go home and rethink your relationship to life, the universe and everything! Maybe you will come around and be yet again recognized as a member of the true faithful of the Gospels! -Kevo
kev- first question's answer- no- usually people who are liberal run from the name- inventing new labels such as progressives, etc.
To the rest of your response- I've studied these issues, etc much. My belief is that I fall short of what Jesus would like. It is only through his perfection that I can be justified. I would never want to judge your heart, but will leave that to Jesus. If you wish to judge mine- well, I will leave that to you, and it seems it has been answered.
In terms of the government, though- I would still challenge those of you on here to show me where Jesus ever called upon the government to do more for its people. AsI read his words and deeds- he was much more interested in having people with pure hearts willing to give of themselves. I believe liberals have misinterpreted his examples to call for governmental reaches- but that in itself reduces the need for all of us to do more on a personal level.
Since you brought up your faith- is it centered upon calling for the government to do more? On taxing others- thusly taking the kindness of the heart out of the equation?
ROTFLMAO!
Your right, The Good Samaritan didn't use the local 911 system (and it was SOOO GOOD at the time) and wait for the ambulance (they just cost too much, EVEN THEN, huh) , because GOD didn't want him depending on the government!!!!
AND he was just SOOO much smarter than all the trained EMT's of the day (you know, those Government hacks just don't really KNOW anything), so he did it all himself!!! And he transported him (in his car?) to the local hospital (Catholic, no doubt)! WOW!! - AND with a "glad heart".
Jeez, Rusty, how many times have YOU done that - or are you one of those guys who passes people and "pretends" you just don't see them - or do you wait for "someone else" to do it first (Actually, with you, that is probably the BEST THING you could do for a victim - I sure as hell wouldn't want YOU trying to perform "healthcare" on ME!)?
How much have YOU paid out of YOUR pocket to pay for healthcare for a complete stranger who needed it? Don't answer, I already know the answer!!!!
So it's all about YOU having a "glad heart" and not ACTUALLY doing the best you can to help the PERSON, using all the tools available to you????
Rusty, I don't know how to respond to you - you have GOT to be the DUMBEST troll we've had on here in a long time!
Rusty:
Ahh, the CRUX of your argument. YOU don't help anyone, but that's OK, because Jesus will take care of YOU! So all those other people YOU don't help, well, government isn't supposed to help them either - they should just die and get out of your way while YOU are making money!!!
So Rusty, I'm having trouble understanding your interpretation of the acts and word of Jesus.
You seem to be asserting that Jesus would want all those people in need of housing and food stamps (through no fault of their own). THAT is the kicker that conservatives seem to assert-that it ALL THOSE PEOPLE are able to change their circumstances if THOSE PEOPLE would get a job. (Like we have SO MANY of those today). People keep telling us the benevolence of business allows us so many jobs- well THAT would be a charitable act, but they are not in it for charity, they are looking for return on interest. People are falling for some real garbage ideology to think if there were no government all those benevolent business owners and rich would hand over their tithing to actually help people,
These donations go to political participation, I can see one example. Rmoney donates to SLC LDS and their leaders send it to NOM to put ads in California about ballot initiatives to TAKE AWAY something in the CALIFORNIA State laws. They ask their members to do the same.
That is just doing so much good for hungry, housing and health needs.
Catholic diocese does the same & the posters inside the church Yes on 8.
This is really something to tell the NUNS to stop helping the poor so much and get on the anti gay stuff more.
I really don;t expect anything from someone who has determined this is all well and good and Jesus stands with THEM and condemns liberals.
Just WOW, that is so much b.s. that you forgot Jesus was seen as a huge threat to the Pharisees that they had him killed. The Pharisees, Rome washed their hands. Jesus was calling Pharisees hypocrites and blind leading blind. He was angry with the moneychangers in the temple. You think people are making money selling God, lining their pockets. Open your eyes and ears. But Jesus seemed FINE with Rome and paying taxes. THEY have sold a huge lie and Ayn Rand was an atheist.
Eloquently and succinctly stated. Unfortunately, it isn't just "nowadays" or just "exploiting" fear and hatred. It's about creating the thing to be feared (death panels, gun control, casting aspersions on the POTUS due to nontraditional name) and fueling, then exploiting, these fears. It's just done in a more crafty and insidious fashion now than the Inquisition or witch hunt of yore.
Once- I do believe you have stretched the words used by me considerably. When I say I fall short, that isn't meant to be interpreted as I don't help anyone or do anything. I wonder your intent of misinnterpreting in this way?
Sandy- instead of responding to what you think I believe or am saying- Iwill just tell you what I do believe. If the government takes care of everyone, then there is no need for me as an individual to lift a finger. I would just go to work, pay taxes and let the government handle charity as they deemed needed. It is clear to me that this model isn't what Jesus meant to have happen. He never called upon Rome to do more. He called upon individuals to do more. If you have evidence that charitable donations aren't what they seem, I couldn't argue at all. That's not what this discussion regards. And- I never said Jesus condemns liberals.
I do find it funny how I can say something that is very simple- and it is interpreted with such a huge array of slants that obviously have no relation to anything I said. Again- I wonder the intent of those who are slanting my thoughts to mean something differently than what I am saying.
Once- also- to answer one of your direct questions. I have paid nothing out of my own pocket to cover a non-relative's health care with exception of whenever there is a community or church fund raiser for someone with medical needs. I told you that I fall short of expectations. And since you seem to find that funny, I would sort of expect that you have been a regular contributor out of pocket to other's health care?
And yes- Jesus does call upon us to give with a happy heart and not because we feel compelled to do so.
I do coach on behavior change from time to time. My favorite example is in asking people if they help elderly people cross the street. Most will say they do. I then follow with asking if they have help such a person cross the street this week. Most just think- but you can assume they haven't. Then I ask if you've help a little elderly lady cross the street this month. Then this year. The point I make is that 95% of the people profess to help elderly ladies cross the street- but a much smaller percent actually do commit to the act. Based upon your ridicule of me- I would suggest you've probably helped a good many elderly ladies across the street this month already, not to mention this year (or decade).
I was asking you for clarity, because that is lacking. The interpretation I have is what I stated.
There is plenty of need, because there are still SO MANY PEOPLE living in poverty and growing.
Conservatives are telling us to let individuals do everything and forget about any social systems.
How am I going to pay for health insurance or bills? Oh wait, I already do, in more ways than one.
Individuals are not persuaded to give to other individuals adequately and it's not because they pay taxes.
You are saying I am slanting your thoughts, but you totally said what liberals think, so….
I would not run from the term liberal, but I do have more to me and my mind than following or promoting government doing everything which MANY conservative minded people assert.
Liberals are for society and community helping each other. We believe in pooling money to create usable and beneficial things for the public (which includes people we disagree with).
You are claiming that I think nobody would ever be compelled to act charitably on their own. I will clarify that to you, not to be defensive but a matter of fact. I believe people have a responsibility to be empathetic toward whomever they meet and not assume they must be deserving of their plight.
Also conservative minded people are being persuaded to claim Jesus, yet reject his teachings. Also, to put their freedom ahead of general freedom. Poor people have less freedom, so at least give them necessities and compassionate empathetic people guided by their attention to the plight of people than trying to make everyone conform to a moral code they interpret (or likely misinterpret, as variance of interpretations IS freedom of religion) as law.
People are free to add to those bare necessities of life to give tuition to schools and libraries, etc. We have a huge number of people WITHOUT bare necessities, through no fault of their own and that is callous to say there exists too much government safety net because the rich need to pay less taxes.
Are you frigging kidding me?
How old are you? I'm betting you are a "teenager" full of the "Sound and the Fury" of your religion right now!! Come back when you have lived a little bit and have found out the world (and government) just "isn't" like you've been told it is!!!
Sandy,
I swear some of the "right-wing" trolls on this board are turning me into a "flaming" liberal!! I used to consider myself a moderate or perhaps a liberal on social issues, but moderately conservative on fiscal issues, but after seeing what these guys think and how they treat other people, I am becoming more and more liberal every day on EVERY issue!!!!
No- conservatives are not telling you to drop all social systems. And that is not, by the way, the crux of this discussion.
This discusssion isn't about the proper role of government, but if Jesus demanded larger roles for governments. We, as society, should decide what level of support is needed. But to do so by saying Jesus wants a bigger government is a play on what he calls for.
I've had a long history on here as supporting any level of governmental role that society as a whole decides. The only thing I've demanded was that it be paid for by everyone- not just that rich guy over there. The US has arguably the most progressive tax structure of any country- and it tends to cause a greater demand for services than otherwise would be prudent. If you want socialized health care- then do it and use a National sales tax to pay for it. Everytime you spend a buck, you will be helping to pay for it.
The discussion above wasn't what was prudent- but what Jesus called for. Different discussion.
Once- was born in the '50s. I don't think you are converting.. Sounds like you're firmly entrenched. One difference between you and me, just possibly, because I don't know you at all- is that I can completely accept you having a different opinion than me without thinking less of you. I would suggest that does seem like a difference.
And,yes- where I work- Leaders are expected to teach and coach. I would never discuss politics in a setting with subordinates- but as I said- I often teach and coach elements regarding improving performance and that includes driving action. The above example is a demonstration of where people tend to think they are active- but aren't. Causes them to think. We do a lot of this in terms of safety improvements and teaming in the workplace. Over 30 years experience, startiing on the factory floor handling iron.
Once, I think I have a little conservative in me. I just think it's time to stop moving to the right because there is very little freedom there.
Yes they would say to people, feel free to stand on the throat of poor people, that is morally acceptable. Sorry, I don't agree.
I do agree with conserving resources and I actually DO believe in a balanced budget, but I do not agree with trickle down economics because we see that is not happening for OUR people. I do not say throwing money at things is the only solution, either.
I just see in human beings around and they are not all lazy and unmotivated, conservatives like to say that, so I cannot dehumanize people because of my moral code that comes from where? My heart and my spiritual guidance.
Jesus also talks about hardening of the heart being undesirable. If a man asks for a shirt, give him your coat also. But now there is the desire to say, he is not worthy, I will not give to him, but to those that put my money into political ads to demonize "them" that are judged as unworthy.
Rusty you are judging and/or labeling quite a bit yourself, just so you know:
You still didn't really explain the thing that led me to say that you seem to think Jesus would condemn a liberal:
Oops, I lost part of the quote:
So, rendering to Caeser the taxes should be done with a glad heart? Oh, is that what liberals do? I do render to government with a glad heart because I envision it going to things I support. Not those I do not support. I am GLAD to live in a country where we have public resources.
sandy- well- as for my labeling- I did clearly indicate it was an opinion of mine. But point taken.
Well- as to your question of what liberals do? I'm not for sure, but it appears that they try to ensure that others pay more taxes.
I am probably less partisan on here than people think. For instance- I think Bill Clinton was good on the economic side. Morally- he was challenged- but economically- he put things together in a way Obama would never consider. He managed to work with an opposition that absolutely hated him. Obama feels the same hate- he just chooses to feed off it unlike Clinton.
Positives with Clinton in this regard? He actually made the tax receipts much less progressive. He raised taxes on every taxpayer- and brought more people into the role of tax payer. He recognized the need for investments- so lowered the capital gains tax rate along with raising the overall tax rates. He also recognized that monies sitting overseas were doing us no good- so he instituted aa much lower tax rate for re-patriated income from multi-national corporations. By doing the above- he allowed for better capitalization. On the welfare front- he recoognized people may need a safety net- but ensured it was temporary by putting a cap on the time you could receive these benefits.
I think Obama has been very good from the terrorism aspect. I love the Obama Doctrine (put a hole in bad guys before they can get their hands above their heads), use drones in the desert to obliterate bad guys, fund rebels inside bad governments- all these elements work for me. I'm more amazed that liberals support them and even more that conservatives don't.
Now if all of this above makes me partisan- then I have to look up that definition again. I would vote for someone who espoused Clinton economics along with Obama foriegn policy. Unfortunately, Obama is the opposite of Clinton on economic policy.
I'd have to disagree that Obama feeds off hatred. I think he and I are mystified that all the moving to the right just wasn't enough.
I'd say that I did not call you a partisan, but I commend the self examination. I think most people have bits and pieces and we have all been used for votes to things we do not fully support.
I just think that liberals want the government to provide for the necessities and many conservatives would say they can just die.
I heard this for myself not long after my brother died (he didn't have health insurance). He put off health maintenance (no money for that) and ended up needing 911 called, ambulance and ER, not successful. Family members dug into savings and paid for those things and burial, so it was not passed on to others. I know there are those that have no way to pay and their bills get passed to others in the form of higher costs.
I think the health care debate and hating this is going to be shown as unwarranted. If we call ourselves Christians or whatever faith, we care about others and this is fundamental basic care should be available. This ACA has been demonized, the same thing Rmoney put in and Republicans want.
I believe it when McConnell and DeMint said they wanted to make Obama a one term president and break him. Just look at what they do.
Clinton was hated for his tax rates and military base closing, which also led to deficit reduction, BTW. He was put on the skewer for that, usually the politicians look the other way on "womanizing" or morals. Not this time. AND we had major job growth in technology, which led to offshoring when NAFTA and GATT came along.
I would not go that far to say I loved Clinton's economic policies. But I did love his budget balancing during booming economy. We can say the job growth was phenomenal, but then business said, let's offshore these tech jobs that everyone trained to do in high school and college.
What can I say? Conservatives are trying to claim God is on their side, but I can't buy it. I wish others would think about those things I alread mentioned when talking about morals. They are steered toward Gays and Guns as if no LGBTQ are Americans or deserving of love and as if all Democrats are for taking guns away.
But what about liberals is the opposite of Jesus?
You don't have to answer to ME, but I think many people might ask themselves that question with TOTAL HONESTY and searching what Jesus said and did in the Bible they always talk about.
You seemed to have dodged the question and I did notice that you did dodge it.
And I would agree about the looking into national sales tax or something like it to pay for nationalized health care.
Not meaning to dodge it- and think I answered it. As I read the Bible- it is clear to me that Jesus wanted people to care for people- and that government was irrelevant. I think libs would suggest growth in government programs and then try to use the "Jesus" factor against conservatives. Such as, Conservatives claim to follow Jesus but in reality they would like to deprive poor people of government services- something along those lines. I've explained this already.
But government is not irrelevant, Jesus said to render to Caesar (in Israel). But I would respond if government is irrelevant, then so many Christians feel so compelled to put their beliefs into our government seems off the mark. So for paying taxes, no way, for charitable "works" no way but for Christian laws yes way?
Paying the tax was affirmed- not negated. But if one would argue that Caesar being our government, the separation was made there.
However, the religious doctrine inserted into government might then be called irrelevant, using your analogy. But we have millions and millions of dollars spent to insert (various) religious doctrines into a government and that is irrelevant?
He said to give government whatever they said was due them. Not to cheat them. You are right that paying taxes was affirmed. That's not saying he thought taxes were good or bad- very unclear about that- but what is clear is that if it is owed- you are commanded to pay them.
I do believe religion ought to be seperate- but I also know that we have a concept called "Freedom of religion" and not "Freedom from religion". That's a point oft missed- you should be able to worship as you choose including nothing. But you're not guaranteed to not be exposed to religion. So many think that if they get exposed to religion- their rights have been violated.
We do have the no establishment clause. I think there needs to be tolerance of those that are not religious at all and respect their views as we'd like ours respected. I am not an advocate of no tolerance of religion (obviously?), but I also respect that some people do not believe what I believe. I have to separate the religion from the Constitutional laws, because Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. So, there is no requirement to have any religion and there is free exercise of religion (which follows the rest of the laws- i.e. equal protection of the laws. Make no law respecting the establishment of religion could very well be freedom from religion.
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
Yep
Too much to catch up on, so I'm just going to highlight one of Rusty's basic assumptions: that government is an alien element which should have no part in people's lives. That, of course, is what the Republican Party would dearly love everyone to believe. If we do, then they can go about their subversive business without anyone complaining. If we expect nothing, we won't be disappointed when we get it.
The reality is that we and the government are supposed to be one and the same thing. It is, as I think I already said, meant to be the primary means of national collective action. If we were to take Rusty's nonsense at face value, then we would have to conclude that he would like to dismantle civilization entirely and reduce society to scattered bands fending for themselves. Strictly speaking that's not what he is literally asking for, but it would be if he were honest. And Republican politicians also are not literally calling for the dissolution of government. They just want everyone (other than the wealthy and powerful) to give up on government as a means of doing anybody (other than the wealthy and the powerful) any good.
The anti-government rhetoric of Rusty and other wingers is fundamentally dishonest. It's real purpose is to sever the connections that must exist between government and the governed in the hope that all us dirty little peons won't squawk when government is fully converted into a private racket serving only the wealthy. All the talk about personal responsibility and liberty is just smoke. "Conservatism" is inherently dishonest in it's objectives and motivations. There is therefore no good reason to give it any respect, much regard it as being either 'American' or 'Christian'.
"...disgraced former Republican lobbyist Ralph Reed, who called the 2012 election the most important since the Civil War, and said God will have 'mercy' on Americans on Election Day, but only if we beg God to forgive us "for what we have allowed to happen to this country."
In other words, Reed thinks God is not happy with:
1) helping tens of millions to get access to better healthcare;
2) improving consumer protection;
3) helping struggling college students with paying their school loans;
4) wanting to regulate the Wild West mentality of the financial markets that caused the worst economic crisis in 70 years;
5) returning to the sensible tax rate of the prosperous 1990s;
6) trying to save jobs, so that families wouldn't lose their homes, or go hungry;
7) ensure that EVERY American who can vote gets the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, without unnecessary restrictions based on fantasy;
8) helping those who have come to this country, have worked hard to realize the American Dream, but are treated as inferior because they came here"illegally";
9) that the relationship between two consenting adults should not be judged and restricted by the government;
And finally,
10) that God's judgement of our actions should be left up to GOD to decide, and not by someone who thinks he or she who thinks they know God better than everyone else.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
-Susan B. Anthony
Evangelist's! What hypocrite's.They profess to be defender's of the constitution,and yet they try their damndest to inject religion into government.They believe in equal right's as long as you believe and practice what they believe.Their leader's, such as the late Jimmy Swigart set a fine example's of their values did'nt he.All people like him are in the preaching business for is to make money,they are no better than the greedy fat cat's on Wall St.That include's Glen Beck,the true antichrist.
Can't disagree with much of what you say, but you must know something the rest of us don't about Jimmy Swaggart passing on. As far as I know, he's still very much among us. My "Google" search shows that he is still appearing in person and on TV, albeit on a more limited basis.
The commenter above probably meant Jerry Falwell and not Swaggard. Maybe the commenter is an old man like me. Us old white men have trouble telling the difference between one money-grubbing, hypocritical televangelist and another.
Sorry guy's I made a mistake, I was trying to think of the one beside's Swigart.Was'nt Fallwell the one with the wife name Tammy.I do'nt follow these hypocrite's that closely, but I do remember the scandal's.And yes sad old vet I am an old man like you.But I have sometimer's disease sometime's I remember sometime's I do'nt.
That was James Bakker, the disgraced televangelist.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/bakker/bakker20.html
But he says "show business people have their ups and downs, too". So he sort of admitted their show was a lot like show business.
The Lord probably stayed for about 3 seconds and then said "I'm getting the hell out of here" or " The hell with this" and took the next train for the coast, maybe stopping by a music festival or an art festival along the way.
LOVE IT!
May be time to rename the "God Machine" to the "God Racket". Most of the poster boys featured in this week's edition would fit that category pretty well -- money diggers for Jeebus and Slick Mitty. They might as well all be Mormons. Why do these guys have to continue to prove that man is not the "end" of evolution (in the sense of an intelligent hand being at work)?
I'd prefer "This Week in Blasphemy," but that'd be a disservice to the positive examples of religion (such as the items about about the nun's convention and the Notre Dame students opposing the school's contraception lawsuit).
People like Beck and Reed are like a cancer among us. Just like how a cancer can spread because the immune system doesn't recognize it, these people are thriving because of the ignorance of so many people.
Tom51: I agree. As scripture warns, a little bad yeast can infect the whole loaf. I can't believe people can't see through this stuff.
@MeddlingMonk, I'm with you. I think Steve should take your suggestion!
How can the new testament be "valid" but not the old? Granted most people know the bible was written by men not god but then some call it holy while basically ripping it in two.
Actually, the "old" Bible validates the new. About 2/3 of the new testament rehashes and refers to the old and is maybe 1/4 or 1/5 of the old in total. But that's only if you believe the "old" Bible is valid to begin with.
Well then why do far right loons throw out the term "old testament" as if it is an insult?? Ooops-they also do this with "liberal", so I guess its just a way of showing themselves for what they are.
Picking and choosing which parts to believe always drives me crazy. Conservatives want a biblical definition of marriage but when you give them examples they complain that Old Testament examples don't count. But the majority of the anti-gay passages they use are in the Old Testament.
It is not that many Christians feel the Old Testament is not relevant, it is just that the Bible (like most writings) has to be understood as a whole. Many ceremonial and civic laws were given only to the nation of Israel (as a group of people) that are not applicable now.
In addition, Jesus' teachings shed new light on the moral code of the OT. Jesus pointed out that it was not just the action but what was in one's heart that God examined. Thus hating someone was akin to murder, etc.
There is no doubt that the modern church is not doing a good job of being examples of God's love, grace, and mercy.
Everyone does that. Modern printing technology hides how massive the Bible really is, so it's easy to overlook how difficult it is to have a thorough and integrated knowledge of what's in there. But there is also a strong motivation to pick and choose: the desire to have something simple to back up whatever it is a person or movement wishes to argue.
Like I said, the Bible is massive, and it's a collection of diverse texts. Not only that, it's a collection of several collections. The various parts were written at various times with various purposes, redacted at various times with various purposes, and the various sub-collections assembled and joined to others at various times with various purposes. Every passage has it's immediate context, a broader context, and (often) more than one meta-context (to over-simplify it a little). The different levels of context have differing implications on meaning depending on which level you are working in or are even conscious of.
So, it is pretty much inevitable that people, especially the simple-minded, will choose to highlight isolated bits rather than do an enormous amount of work in order to arrive at highly-nuanced interpretations that probably won't serve their predetermined agendas. And that goes for everyone: religious, areligious, or antireligious. No ideological bent is free of village idiots.
Christian doctrine with respect to the Hebrew Bible ("old testament") is complex, going back all the way to the foundation of Christianity as a religion. It should be remembered that Jesus was born to Jewish parents and all his first disciples were Jews. He did not advocate the formation of a new religion but rather the reformation of an existing one (Judaism). In the generations after Christ, the theological debate raged on whether (1) the Gospel should be open universally, to pagans as well, or only spread to those who believe in the One God, and (2) whether the new canon of scripture (gospels, epistles, etc.) comes in addition to or instead of the old canon, i.e., do all the old rules still hold. This is oversimplified but in 2-3 centuries after Jesus' passing from this world (I'm keeping tone neutral on purpose) we know how the story ended. Weirdly, even though the doctrinal decision was made that the new testament displaces the old in terms of what is binding with respect to believers, fundamentalists pick and choose specific bits and pieces of the old testament which they would like to keep. Only things like killing witches, stoning men to death for homosexual relations, that sort of thing, leaving out everything else, and God knows, there are a _lot— of rules in the old testament.
According to the "Jerusalem council" (kind of an overblown title for a meeting at that stage of church history) and several passages in Paul's letters, the answer is 'no'. You probably know that, but I wanted to emphasize the point.
Of course, in the passages I'm alluding to, the principal emphasis was on the rite of circumcision; but the determination that Jewish law is not binding on Christian must apply to the whole of the law, not simply that one rite. So, under the heading of 'not binding' must also be the infamous Levitical prohibition on 'one man lying with another' which the religious right takes to be a reference to homosexuality (almost certainly incorrectly, since it more than likely has to be understood within the context of priestly ritual purity, although how and in what way is not at all clear at this extremely late date).
I think it's important to always bear in mind how the different layers modify each other. That's probably the best way for people of any ideological stripe to avoid becoming fundamentalist. Instead of ignoring the tensions within the canon, or simply dismissing them as contradictions, it better to keep all that in mind. Doing so is a great way to avoid ideological rigidity and fanaticism. (That works for non-biblical subjects as well, such as the body of work produced by Marx and Engels, another 'canon' that people are often dogmatic about.)
Thank you, MeddlingMonk, for expanding on the point. I agree with almost all you said. However, while the King James version of Leviticus 18:22 ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.", followed by the death penalty for both men who engage in such activity) is a little vague, the Hebrew is very clear. Literally it says: you shall not lie down (i.e. have intercourse) with a man in the same way you would with a woman.
Lest anyone misunderstand me: I am thoroughly opposed to this Bronze-Age prohibition on a fundamental human freedom to live according to one's sexual orientation. It is important, though, to be precise on what precisely the Bible says.
Iron Age. And it is a logical fallacy to argue from either the novelty of the antiquity of a thing. The Pythagorean Theorem is ancient, more ancient that many parts of the Bible, in fact. Scientology is a very, very new thing. Is that really significant? Let's not be intellectually lazy.
Or swat at straw men. I never said a word about the KJV, nor anything about what the Leviticus passage was literally saying. My concern was the very much lost likely original cultural context of the prohibition, not what literally was being prohibited. The questions of why and for what reason are more important than what, particular if the why really had nothing to do with the inherent rightness or wrongness of thing being prohibited. Many things in Jewish law, such as the dietary laws, are meant to establish cultural boundaries. Other things concern boundaries between priests and the laity. Non-textual contexts are important, too. Not all biblical prohibitions have to do with morals. The religious right loves to ignore contexts and focus on the supposedly literal meaning of things. I don't think their example should be followed.
The Indiana pastor is only an "ex-pastor" because he was fired on Monday as a result of the scandal.
He is by no means necessarily an "ex-pastor". He is only the "ex-pastor" of that particular Bible Thumping Church. As a republican, he can proclaim that he has sought "God's forgiveness" for his sins; be proclaimed reborn; and get another gig selling hatred in the name of Jesus.
"God will have "mercy" on Americans on Election Day, but only if we beg God to forgive us "for what we have allowed to happen to this country."
Again we witness the hatred the religicons have for the USA. I suggest they leave and take their hatred with them. Iran seems to love religious kooks.
I agree that we need to beg God to forgive us "for what we have allowed to happen to this country".
- Ralph Reed
- Dick Cheney
- Karl Rove
- 'Little George' Bush
- Mitch McConnell
- Peter King
We have a lot to be forgiven for letting religious hucksters, corporately owned media, Ronald Reagan, and assorted other horrible republicans to keep happening to our country.
The truly religious have no need for gatherings like "Restoring Love" or "Under God: Indivisible." They require neither the affirmation nor the ratification that comes from the implicit "blessing" of fellow attendees.
If organized religion isn't about improving oneself, demonstrating compassion toward others, and making society more tolerant and temperate, there is little use for it. There's even less use for various subsidies, including those in the tax code.
The good thing about the "work" of those "preaching" (read, cashing in) at such events is that they're hastening the decline of an organized religion that fuels hatred, mistrust, suspicion, and division. A religion that hypocritically tears society apart one poor, unsuspecting, sheep-like follower at a time.
Glenn Beck and his confederates are doing the devil's work. I'm sure he couldn't be happier than to have allies like them on his side.
The only thing behind Glen Becks mind is making money and handing a line of crap to people to keep the money rolling in. If Glen Beck had anything to do with God it sure wouldn't be to what he has been doing that involves hatred.
Is Beck still trying to sell gold while he preaches? Or is he skipping that just to have his followers fill his "basket"?
In its original form it read:
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At
this time it read:
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President
Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the
31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration.
Today it reads:
By the way notice how the Obama campaign shows Mitt singing America the beautiful rather than the Star Spangled Banner? It is baaaack-that old junk where the religicons want to change the anthem to this so as to put god into the mix. Guess the fact that America...was just Oh Canada rewritten and it refers to god save the king....escapes them.(or does it?Maybe they prefer a king to a president)
mpguy: you're right; so upsetting how they use religion to manipulate others.
CLINT EASTWOOD endorces Romney. Good stuff.
Halftime in America..................
And your point - I watch Clint Eastwood's movies because I like him as an actor and director. However, I do not take political advise from him - I do not care who he votes for. If that is how you vote than that explains why you are voting for Pinocchio on Steroids.
And a prostitute endorses.....hrm.....well, yeah. She endorses Willard, too.
Eastwood has always been a Republican. No surprise here.