You got that right, Rochester. I note that Boehner refused the invitation to go to Rome to see the new Pope. Good thing, Boehner might burst into flames when he looks at the face of the Pope. I'll bet Boehner stays away from Holy Water, too.

Agent Orange probably does not show a reflection in a mirror.

LOL, probably not. If he actually saw what colour he is, he'd stay out of his tanning bed!

John Boehner: Hey, it's Saturday!

Go to confession!

And then go and lie no more!

And stay out of those tanning beds.........and other beds.....

Is Pelosi a Catholic?

I think Pelosi is part of the delegation.

Alva,

Oh, yes! She's a devout Catholic. She is pro-choice, though, which I am not, although I respect the law, and don't make it my business to preach on the subject.

I hope Van Roberto played the song I linked up for him.

India, interesting. So by pro-life, do you mean that you're opposed to abortion personally, or do you think the law should be changed to make abortion more restrictive?

Mrs. Pelosi is an Italian American, Roman Catholic, and a politician.

Considering that a recent poll of American Catholics showed three quarters support legal abortion while only one quarter wish to ban abortion, I would say that Mrs. Pelosi is a typical American Catholic on the issue of abortion.

The same poll indicated that three quarters of American Catholics thought the resignation of Benedict was a good thing, and that the Church needs to get in touch with its own people if it is to survive. Since the Vatican has used the American Catholic Church as its ATM card for longer than there have been ATM cards, one would hope that Pope Francis will pay attention to the opinions of his American congregation.

I am against abortion in 98% of cases, but I am Catholic, after all. The law is on the books, (Roe V Wade) and at times I wish it weren't, but I don't judge or condemn those who make a different choice. I stay out of that fight. I live my life, not anyone else's. I just don't think it's any of my business what other people do or don't do, unless it involves pain for me or my family.

I would always believe in saving the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest I am glad Roe V Wade is on the books. I dissent from the rigid extremists in those cases.

Pelosi has at least five kids so she probably feels much as I do.

Roberto, stop trolling me.

Alva, Did you see my cat? You have to scroll into Dec., I believe for the best photo.

Roberto, stop trolling me.

Sadly, that just encourages trolls. There's not much in their lives except for the pretense of mocking strangers.

Trolls gonna troll.

#1.16

Yeah...I guess so. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly...trolls gotta troll...LOL (I don't know how to make little musical notes).

I see now why he has so much hate for the dictates of the Church. They must have had some very misguided nuns in the old days.

I'm kinda glad I was raised Episcopalian! I might never have become a Catholic.

Sadly, everything encourages trolls.

Some doubt that Pelosi can be devout and also be pro choice and pro gay rights. The distinguishing factor of these church faithful is that they are generally sympathetic to a movement sometimes described or derided by catholic orthodoxy as "liberation theology". It is no coincidence that Obama's faith is also derided by the orthodoxy of American Protestants as "liberation theology".

Doubting the faith of Pelosi and Obama is an effort of the orthodox to expel and marginalize religious thinking that differs with the authoritarian views of the orthodoxy. Prior to the Christianity being used as a tool of imperial authority, there was a much greater toleration of alternate voices in the early Church. That rigidity continued to the point that liturgies were still being conducted in a dead language in the 20th century. The laity did not understand what was being said.

What is important to understand about Pope Francis is that Vatican II aimed to turn back the clock to principles alive at the time prior to the Nicene council called by Constantine in 325. Vatican II attacked the power of the church hierarchy. One of the central tenants was what is called the Sensus Fidelium. This is that the "sense of the faithful" must be respected. The Church is the people of the church- not the hierarchy. The metaphor of the Church being the Body of Christ is not just a metaphor. If the sensus fidelium is telling the hierarchy something in conflict with the doctrines they have developed, they should listen as they listen to Christ. Now, I am not saying this is a democracy, just that the leadership needs to be attentive to this source of truth. Now- the vast majority of practicing Catholics- the Church- believes that there is no contradiction between their faith and contraception. Similarly, even in heavily catholic countries like Argentina, the people believe that gay marriage is something that is not in conflict with their faith.

The orthodoxy rejects the anti imperial message of Vatican II and conservative populists like Francis and JP II have been engaged in a campaign to marginalize liberation theology by ejecting and silencing its proponents.

Priests taking up the cause of liberation theology turned away from concerns for doctrinal purity, and back to the work of the early Church before it was allied with the empire- the work that Christ called followers to do- to care for the needs of the poor and downtrodden. Yet this was a radical shock to the Church's imperial power structure in the world, and their relationships to authoritarians in the governments of the world. In central america especially, those aligned with the church orthodoxy were closely listened to by authoritarians backing the death squads. If a priest engaged in social work was called out by the orthodoxy as being a member of this movement, then many of them like Archbishop Romero of El Salvador quickly found themselves dead.

Now, people like Pope Francis may have been more guilty of omission than commission, but the silence is complicity and support for the authoritarian regime. It is the same silence that the Orthodox of Birmingham church leaders called on MLK to adhere to.

Instead, MLK like Romero, stood up to the authoritarians. And this is why it was not long before he was murdered.

So people like Santorum, Romney and Huckabee are members of the same forces in the Vatican attempting to suppress the sensus fidelium, attempting to claim those holding views not subscribed to by the orthodoxy, as those of unbelievers.

The trouble is that the Vatican's strategy is ill considered. Self identified Catholoics are down substantially in countries like Brazil, while Protestant identification has skyrocketed. I think that is a shame because there is a great need for disciplined theological thought and frankly, you will find that in short supply in Protestant congregations. (I say that as a regular church gong protestant). The church leadership needs to come to its senses.

They cannot and should not close their ears and hearts to the sensus fidelium. IF they do, they will fade away, and the Holy Spirit will find voice through alternate channels.

By the way, for those wondering how devout Catholics (or protestants) can be "for killing" (abortion), the assertion that Santorum and others are making is that "I know when a human soul is present in a mass of protoplasm". Well, the truth is he doesn't. If one believes that consciousness is the recepticle of soul, then the soul cannot be present if consciousness has ceased (brain dead patient) or has not yet emerged (early term pregnancy).

You have yet to state a "valid" opposing view. You've reid insulting, bad mouthing etc. and yet expect to be "welcome". Why not try to live your life and let others believe as the choose?

WTF is your probem, Roberto? Oops, where'd he go?

Here comes my Koala bear to save the day!! I just love Koala bears!

Randy needs to be reminded, along with Ricky, that the Constitution and the amendments give us our rights and God didn't write them. It wasn't written by their gods of money, either. And if they value our rights so much, then why is it that the teapub party is constantly trying to take them away?

Trolls (in common with those on the right in general) are inordinately fond of feeling sorry for themselves for absolutely no legitimate reason.

Santorum's message: poor people have it too good, don't suffer enough, and aren't delusional enough.

What a thoroughly disgusting person Rick Santorum is.

Getting back to the issues originally being discussed, John pointed out:

The same poll indicated that three quarters of American Catholics thought the resignation of Benedict was a good thing, and that the Church needs to get in touch with its own people if it is to survive.

This is the Sensus Fidelium that Vatican II pointed to:

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.

John pointed out that the Church needs to get back in touch with its people. There is a huge disconnect between the Vatican and the Sensus Fidelium on many questions. They are not listening, nor do they want to tolerate alternative theological perspectives that support the views of the Church. In their mind, "the Church" means the elderly men oriented to the Vatican, rather the faithful women and men, gay and straight who are oriented towards the poor and downtrodden.

After all, that is who Christ commanded his followers to attend to.

If the Vatican has little interest in following Christ, then the Church of the people will go elsewhere. Pope Francis perhaps sees the danger of that schism and wants to make deep reforms. The trouble is that all Popes come in saying they need to reform the church. It can happen- as it did during Vatican II.

It usually doesn't- but I wish him well. There is much more interest in silence towards injustice, institutional turf consciousness and political self preservation of cardinals than there is in long term survival of the church.

India, yes I saw your kitty! The pretty black one?

Well he just can't keep his mouth shut. Van Roberto is a re-reg for the 3rd time.

The only problem I have with Vegas is it has people with your mentality there Jerry. Still believe the rules only apply to other I see. Always were self centered.

"Did you see my cat?"

India #1.13

Tomorrow is the universal feast day of Saint Gertrude of Nivelles.

She was a seventh century abbess who, with her mother Itta, founded the monastery of Nivelles in present-day Belgium. While never formally canonized in 1677, Pope Clement XII declared her universal feast day to be March 17.

She is the patron saint of travelers, gardeners and cats.

How cool! Thanks for telling me that, Helen! I am also a traveler and a gardener! I guess she should be my patron saint! I wrote that down in my little notebook.

I am looking forward to late Spring when my husband and I can start this years organic garden.

I don't exactly have a cat, though, more like he has me! He's had us for nine years come May.

Alva, #1.29,

Yes, that's Jack, but he prefers to be called "His Majesty, the beautiful black one". LOL

He isn't spoiled, don't get me wrong...he must know I am talking about him, he just walked in, stood up and looked at the screen. He's big, almost 14 lbs. of solidness.

JohnMesserly,

While I appreciate the theology, my point is a bit more basic.

The Vatican has for decades used surplus funds from North America, principally from the U.S., to fund operations in less affluent areas of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa. Also over the last several decades the attitudes of American Catholics have increasingly differed from those held dear by the Vatican.

The situation has gotten to the point where American Catholics are beginning to be less generous with the Church, which is affecting Vatican finances. The new Pope has a pretty straight-forward choice to make: either promote reforms (at least in North America) consistent with the beliefs of American Catholics, or do nothing and watch the Vatican's finances go down the tubes while American Catholics continue to drift away from the Church.

After all, it is difficult to hit up the aged for a bequest in their wills if the local parish lacks a priest...and because parishioners went elsewhere after the last priest retired.

India, my two kitties were born on my mom's back porch. She ended up caring for a stray and she had kittens. That stray was my kitty's grandmother. She's cared for all those strays, so I see their aunts and uncles and their mom all the time. The entire kitty family tree. The two I have are liter mates. The male is the white and tan one, and he has a lot of anxiety issues, so I totally spoil him. In the winter he'll cuddle me underneath the blankets and sleep with me at night. The tabby is the girl, and she's hell on wheels. She's very smart, but she needs constant entertainment. If she's unhappy with how much attention I give her, she'll knock things off tables. The other day she knocked her food bowl off the counter and gave me a dirty look because I wasn't giving her enough play time with the laser pointer. Whenever I'm cooking she'll give me grief that she's not able to see what I'm doing. So my wife will often have to pick her up and let her watch. She's the most annoying cat I've ever known, but I admire her intelligence. She acts like a total princess.

John, sorry to get off in the weeds about theology. Yes, of course that is certainly a problem in US and European churches, but that is not a world most of the world's Catholics live in. Sure this minority of Catholics matter to the Vatican money machine, and the Church may not be happy with the constricted cash flow but they have ample assets for operation while they recover their credibility on religious questions central to the Church faithful. Just where the real dividing line lays is a huge blind spot in US and European coverage of the challenges for the new Pope.

Modern theological questions of the first world is dominated as it has been for the last 200 years by the urgently felt need to convince skeptics of religion. But this has nothing to do with the religious concerns of the 2/3'rds world, which like the world of the biblical Jesus is dominated by questions of subjugation- spiritual, political, and economic subjugation. The 2/3rds world is interested in the bibilical message of liberation, as was the world prior to the 4th century adoption of Christianity as the religion of the empire.

That was the turning point. Because from then forward, liberation could no longer be the message because "liberation" threatens the order of the empire. Instead, religion was to be used as the tool of suppressing the desire for liberation and thereby maintaining control. Just as imperial law was made uniform, so too was theological thought made uniform, and the rich period of diverse and chaotic theological inquiry came to a close. Any heterodox theology was suppressed and marginalized. The inquisitions continue to this day, with Benedict and Francis the most recent inquisitors personally directing the ejections.

So really the America vs. Vatican split along modern versus antiquarianism contrasted lines is not the central axis of schism in the Church. The central axis is between the vast population of practicing Catholics is in the 2/3's world of the poor largely in the southern hemisphere who think the central religious questions have to do with liberation. On the other side of the chasm are those from the orthodoxy in the Northern 1st world who think the religious challenges have to do with battling skepticism, and reasserting authority over a godless world. That is- the liberation theology of the third world painted as godless marxism, whereas the modern Europe and American is equally godless- seen as having succumbed to secularism.

The irony is that it is the church orthodoxy which has strayed from the original biblical message of Jesus- of liberation.

Its foolish historical trap they have fallen into. The empire has been long dead- Although centuries have past and the aristocracies of Europe have fallen, their habit is to ally with vestiges of authoritarianism whereever they are. Yet new authoritarian regimes in Latin and North America only briefly re-establish imperial domination before flickering out. It is over.

If Pope Francis returns the church to the original concern of the early church, and asserts moral authority over its own clergy, then they will go a long way towards reasserting their spiritual authority in the world. Not just in the 2/3rds world who are turning to Protestantism because the RCC seems deaf to their spiritual needs, but also in the 1st world, because they will see an institution doing good work in the world who are worthy of their generous bequests.

Assuming he sees the challenges this way, would the Vatican hierarchy allow Francis to undertake such changes? Nearly all Vatican observers are skeptical.

JohnMesserly: You've earned your designation as "Friend" once again, by touching upon the core problem of all religious institutions. From the perspective of non-believers (or chronic and incurable skeptics) like myself, that core problem is social change.

Religions grow from the ground upward. They're created by people and social groups, in response to individually and socially felt needs, rather than being handed down from the so-called heavens. Specific religious institutions insinuate themselves into a society, and gain power and dominance, by sanctifying the values and social mores of that society. Any religious institution, whether it's the Catholic Church, or a major Protestant or Islamic subgroup, becomes powerful by responding to, and aligning itself with, the Sensus Fidelium. This works well in a static society, because its values and mores meet its needs, and the religious institution in question sanctifies them, pronouncing them in conformity with the wishes of the deity or deities the society worships.

Problems arise when these static societies encounter major social change. Values and mores arise from social needs. Major social change brings different needs, which give rise to new and different values and mores, thus changing the Sensus Fidelium. Established religious institutions, however, having sanctified the "old" values and mores, find themselves in bind. They can't realign themselves with the "new" Sensus Fidelium without admitting that they were wrong about what their deity/deities wanted (thus confessing their own ineptitude), OR without portraying their deity/deities as fickle (thus admitting that the deity/deities they speak for aren't perfect or omnipotent, and not worth worshipping).

20th and 21st century advances in science and technology are putting all established religious institutions in this bind. The accumulated body of evidence about the age and history of the earth, solar system, and universe, and the development of life on our planet, dealt a crippling blow to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation myth, from which those institutions have not recovered. Masses of young men encountering different sexual mores during two world wars stimulated the development of contraceptive technology, and that undermined the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view that sex was shameful, a view that depended on fear of stigma from out-of-wedlock births. If the traditional religious institutions insist that their previously sanctified values and mores are the only permissible ones, they lose the Sensus Fidelium, lose followers, and lose power. If, on the other hand, they change their doctrines in response to social change, they realign themselves with the new Sensus Fidelium, but lose traditionalists who need the feeling that their religion is aligned with an omnipotent and perfect (and therefore unchanging) deity.

In our world, technological and social change seems to be a constant factor, and is advancing exponentially. Current religious institutions will continue to be in this bind, and I don't know how the conflict between a changing Sensus Fidelium and the needs of traditionalists will work out. The viability of religious institutions as social entities may itself be in the balance.

Also, as described above, the basic concept behind Sensus Fidelium is not unique to any one group.

I believe the writings of Confucius refer to the same concept applied to Imperial rule as 'The Mandate of Heaven.'

what ex-sen frothymix doesn't seem to understand is that people like him are the reason "the number of Americans who claim to have no religious affiliation is 'the highest it has ever been'..."

EXACTLY!

Yep, when I saw the photo of Santorum with the little Start button for the video clip, I couldn't bear to go there. He turns my stomach.

I just don't understand all this "religious fervor" that's gone mainstream in our modern-day politics. Isn't your faith about your personal relationship with what you understand to be immortal? Why does religious organization have any place at the table in American politics? It's personal and private.

But instead it is sliming its way into our government, pretending it belongs there and panting to regulate the lives of others.

#2.3 JL In Montana,

He turns my stomach, too. He was not appreciated in PA, that's for sure. He's such an odd duck. All these right wingers are odd in one way or another.

Religion does not belong in politics. Having said that, we could use a bit more common sense and mere morality in politics, so I am not sure you can completely divorce yourself from the Author of morality, since our country is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. I clearly don't want the religious right dictating policies for this country! Nor the Pope for that matter. Let's stick with commonly held beliefs about morality, and show some concern for the poor and disenfranchised. The right won't do that, so I hardly see them as my moral compass!

Saw you post on pro-life vs pro-choice and where you stand. I love that. I am unrepentedly pro-choice...after all I think MY body is the ONE thing I should have control over. However, my husband who is for life in 98% of cases realizes that he has beliefs but it is not HIS body so he calls himself pro-choice.

Agree with everything you've said there, India, except my experience says that everyone but the mentally deficient or insane knows generally right from wrong. It's innate in all of us, further nurtured by our earliest caregivers, our families.

When there are specific prohibitions (laws) that need to elucidated, our Constitution provides a system for that. Relying on one group's God becomes a slippery slope and even discriminatory. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Sikhs, agnostics, humanists, atheists and a host of others have just as much right to live and breathe in this country as Christians and Jews. We shouldn't forget that in the rush to be "righter" than everyone else.

JL, Totally with you on that.

But, I can't help being concerned about how all that "everybody knows what is right" business smacks of my greatest fear for this country: cultural relativism. That, too, is a slippery slope, maybe the worst one of all.

If everybody is "right", JL, is anyone ever "wrong"?

I mean, looking back at my own life, I am utterly convinced I didn't get things right, but kind of went with "what I wanted to do and convinced myself was right".

kind of went with "what I wanted to do and convinced myself was right"

Right. So even within the constructs of your church, there's a doctrine of free will. My point is that you didn't have to look in the Bible or ask your priest to finally figure out what you were doing was wrong. You can just as easily figure those things out for yourself. I realize some people don't. I'm just saying you can.

What I have a problem with is someone whose religion says same-sex unions are wrong (or abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong, etc.) influencing laws in this country, since not all of the people in this country ascribe to those beliefs. It's too much like the Taliban.

JL,

I hope I don't do that. I prefer to leave the bullying to the Santorums of the world.

I have to say that in all the years I've been a Catholic, no priest I ever knew mentioned those things at mass, or to my recollection, anywhere else. I know the church doctrine, but it isn't emphasized in any parish I've attended. It is the Gospel and the Eucharist.

What Santorum said is part of the Koch-Rove-Ailes strategy to win in 2014. Santorum speaks to the right to life part of the electorate. What we don't understand is that what sounds ridiculous to most people is part of the faith of the true believers in the pro-life movement.

The Koch-Rove-Ailes have the "divide and win" strategy. If we appeal to enough segments like the anti-gun control, anti-government, anti-immigrant, anti-black, etc. then we can get the majority to elect our Republican candidate. The strategy worked perfectly in 2010 and did rather well in 2012 (control of 25 state legislatures and 30 governors) and they are now putting together their plan for 2014.

Sadly, what Santorum said will be broadcast over the 80% of the media that the .1%ers control to the targeted audience.

Sadly, what we say here will not be broadcast or published widely because they who control the media control the programming and the .1%ers believe in censoring anything that Democrats and Obama do that is good.

Until the media cartel is broken up, until the Federal Communications Commission is allowed to function, the Koch-Rove-Ailes messages will be heard loud and clear all over the country with little opportunity to be heard for anyone else.

@martininal I'm thinking WWI. After Hearst and Pulitzer pushed the US into a war with Spain in 1898 the US also participated in the occupation of China after the Boxer Rebellion. The political debate in the US, in the first part of the twentieth century, was over whether the US should become a world power, or return to American Seperatism. Wilson was elected on the promise NOT to get American boys hurt in a European dispute but ended up trying to bring the US into the League of Nations, too. Amazingly some Senators ,past and ptresent, would still return us to that time, politically.

Frankly I hate that the press is still dominated by men who would steer this country into war, or other disasters, for the sake of the story.

bacon...

Frankly I hate that the press is still dominated by men who would steer this country into war, or other disasters, for the sake of the story.

Sounds like the plot of the James Bond film, Tomorrow Never Dies...

Dragoon, #3

I was going to say that Santorum is clearly a member of the "Anything But The Facts Folks" group, a group gaining great popularity within the right wing GOP.

I think the president makes as poor an atheist as he does a Socialist/Marxist!

But facts don't stop Rick Santorum. That's one of the reasons we threw his butt out of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (And I helped!).

If Santorum is an example of Catholicism, I'm a Unitarian.

A "religious liberty" bill that recently passed Kentucky's legislature appears intended to protect discrimination against the LGBT community.

Sorry, you hillbilly morons: the First Amendment is a shield, not a sword, and your religious liberty stops at anyone else's nose. I know it's difficult for the inbred low-IQ fundie to understand such a principle, but I'll be happy to teach it to you any time you want your face turned into a flatiron.

Here's a song dedicated to Van Roberto,(who just collapsed), Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, John Boehner, and...you know who they are........

http://www.search.ask.com/videos/watch-video/paul-simon-still-crazy-after-all-these-years-lyrics/OtC3NrgH1utv1G_2dKT-zA?o=100000031&ver=11&domain=www.search.ask.com

I would love to be able to wander around CPAC and take a survey to find out how many conservatives know who Sam Webb is...

Somehow I doubt it's very many

Somehow I think "Liberal" in this case qualifies as an epic understatement

Dragoon, I'm taking the plunge, who is Sam Webb?

Looks like we have another member of the "Duck Dynasty" trolling team with us today. Say hello to shooter for me will you roberto.

@India

Sam Webb: Chairman of the American Communist party...you know an Actual Marxist

The people conservatives swear are the root of all evil in the world and they wouldn't know their party leader if he walked up and pinched them on the ass

Roberto. Please explain how asking a question is "trolling" you. Also please list all the "free stuff" you righties love to talk about. I've ask 6 differant righties and guess what? Not one answer Wonder why.

Dragoon, I honestly never heard of him! I tried looking up the name, but my skill is limited. I couldn't find him. I found Samantha Webb! LOL

Larry 74, Did you know that the House GOP passed a bill prohibiting Obama from giving out free cell phones? (That never existed). They confuse it with a program instituted by Reagan in 1984! LOL

Nothing like wasting precious Congressional time!

I know you shouldn't respond to trolls but....

Roberto, conservatives want free stuff too. Free roads to drive on. A free military to protect them. Conservatives want a free prison system to keep criminals away from them. Their businesses want a free court system to enforce their business contracts. General Electric wants all this and to pay zero taxes. Those who make weapons of war want a free war to make them rich. Exxon-Mobil didn't have to go off and fight the Iraq War to ensure they'd have a product to sell, instead they got that for free from US taxpayers and US soldiers.

So when the "Obama Phones" cost us 5.7 trillion dollars like the wars in the Middle East did, let me know. Until then, shut it. You've gotten enough free stuff already.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

Van (Jerry) please show us your sources that only liberals recieve welfare and the non existant "free Cell phones, (that Ronnie Raygun started. And also you Fox Lies sources for all this "free Health care". Just can't get out of the Fox Lies talking points that none of what they say exists. Have you ever tried getting some facts? OH, thats right, righties don't believe in facts. Sorry for the error. Go back to the gambling Jerry. They miss taking you SS money.

@larry74

That's a good point I never thought about...I wonder what the breakdown is for poverty by political affiliation?

I know that the poor tend to vote more democratic but there must be some slice of the republican party below the poverty line...although I doubt they would admit it...

@India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Webb_%28politician%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

http://www.cpusa.org/

and before anyone flames me No I am not a communist or even much of a socialist for that matter...I just have enough sense to learn about a philosophy before I start accusing others of practicing it

Dragoon #3.17

While this isn't a perfect proxy for poverty, in 2010 40% of Americans making $30K or less voted Republican. [I'll add that it's safe to assume that 80%-85% of those voters were white]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202012-09-18%20at%2012.21.39%20AM.png

It's also worth noting that people who make $30K or less vote in smaller numbers than those who make more

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/09/800px-Voter_Turnout_by_Income,_2008_US_Presidential_Election-thumb-615x434-99051.png

PS

Here's a map of the U.S. showing levels of food stamp use in 2011

http://media2.policymic.com/fdc1b63cc7e9bae9f22ab2fd6c928b69.png

Mississippi is a very red state, as are a lot of the southern states. They also have poor education systems and high rates of poverty. These are the states, too, which don't want to accept Medicaid for their poor, even though the government, under "Obamacare", pays for 100% of it for 3 years and 80% after that.

They like to bite the hand that tries to feed them. I don't get that, but then, I tend to like some Socialism mixed with free enterprise.

That makes me soooo popular with the trolls!

Doesn't it Jerry...I mean Van..

There never were free cell phones, as I and Larry told you, but facts just don't penetrate your head! Check something OUT for once! Reagan's program, not Obama's!

Rachel talked about that on her show the other night, as well.

I've lived in this country a long time and I am still waiting for all this "free stuff" you think it out there, coming to "liberals".

Good links, Helen. Thanks. There are so many myths being perpetuated by the right, it is just nuts!

Anyone who spends his time and gets his jollies spewing verbal vomit on non-conservative blogs never made enough money to pay a million dollars in taxes.

That's all Jerry, (Van) can do is brag about all his money. I've been hearing about it for 2 1/2 years. He's been banned on Ed's radio blog 4 times and this blog 3 times. He's been caught in so many lies nobody can keep track. He's proven himself to be a self centered blow hard. He'll also brag about working his way up from janitor to CEO of a fortune 500 co. A lot of hot air in Vegas.

Dragoon,

I miss Gus Hall. While he did not know it, Mr. Hall did me a big favor by getting a pack of Navy recruiters off my back.

Back in the day, when there was a Cold War, the Navy wanted me to join up and baby-sit nuclear missiles, and they would not take 'No' or 'Hell No!' for an answer. (I am personally fond of people in general and never did see the point in taking action to incinerate women, children, and old people by the millions, no matter how much they offered to pay. Call me a softie.)

So I went to a Socialist Workers Party rally in San Francisco and made sure I was photographed shaking the hand of Gus Hall. It was not too difficult, I think there were more FBI agents than socialists at the rally. No more recruiter harassment. ;)

Nope. Just going to let the vine know you a re-reg again. You're nothing but a self-centered greedy liar, trying to brag about money you're never had or even seen. You've proven time and again, you have interest in discussion or debate.

I guess it goes without saying that a lot of the people who claim to be CEOs are lying. I've known a few corporate executives, there's a fair number of them around here in northern VA. None of them come off as blow hards who listen to Rush. Don't get me wrong, many of them are total jerks, but they tend to be reasonably bright jerks.

But many of us on Ed's radio blog listened to his BS for over a year. Never could keep his story straight.

@John #3.25

Nice, very "Alice's Restaurant"

The thing I always remind people when they go off about socialists, communists and all the other "ists" and "isms" in America be they political, religious or social is that they are all for better or worse perfectly legal and the people involved are all within their constitutional rights...and that is kind of the whole point of the thing.

Dragoon,

Well, there was no active draft at the time so it does not quite compare with having to deal with potentially being forced to kill innocents.

One of the amusing observations surrounding the rally was pointed out to me by the young lady and member of the SWP that accompanied me to the rally. As she noted, the feds in the audience bought copies of the party newspaper in a vain attempt to blend in, which was self-defeating because they were the only ones buying the paper. Regular people did not read that rag, let alone pay for it.

At least they didn't wear suits. Still had short hair though.

This is how it happens. They have distilled their politics down to the first love: money. This is where there is money. Financial freedom to do as they wish means a revenue stream. Libertarians are not as tied to their politics as to the Golden Calf. We just jump to the conclusion they are ideologues to the politics.. they are ideologues to the money. Remember that, and the Libertarian's motivations become more transparent.

The only want government to stay out of THEIR lives. For the REST of us, they want to totally regulate us so we follow the party line.

That's the core of their rhetoric, Mego-56015. Their idea of godless and anti-clerical is when their god and their theology don't dominate civil society. They believe it's their right to impose their religion on everyone, and react with outrage when that "right" isn't acknowledged by federal and state laws.

I used to think they were reacting illogically and emotionally. Now I believe that they are well aware of the unspoken assumptions of their position, and insidiously disguise their rhetoric by referring to their freedom of religion, and a general attack on all religion when they mean an unwillingness to let their religion dominate.

sofferclese,#4.3

You are spot on. They want to imposed their Draconian ideology and their strange theology on everyone in the country. What they don't mention is that their main prophets are the Koch Brothers.

Someone needs to take In God We Trust off our money. The GOP and the Koch brothers take that literally!

@india #4.4

lawsuit filed in early february to remove "in god we trust" from money

http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-groups-sues-us-govt-to-remove-in-god-we-trust-from-currency-91901/

and

"The L.A. Weekly says it’s heard from multiple sources that Charles and David Koch are considering an offer on the Tribune Co. newspaper group, which includes the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Baltimore Sun, or the entire Tribune Co., which also includes more than 20 TV stations, including WGN."

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2013/03/rumor-has-it-the-koch-brothers-want-to.html

Thanks, Russell! I will click on those links. I am no atheist, but I don't think In God We Trust belongs on our money! Some alien civilization may one day come down here when man is no more, and find our money and think, "Huh? They worshiped these little, green pieces of paper!"

And they be awfully close to the truth...

There is a fair amount of dirt on the Koch bros. in the book, The Obama Hate Machine, too.

I always saw having "In God We Trust" on our currency as an attempt to find a loophole for that pesky Matthew 6:24:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

But combine God with money, and POOF! Problem solved.

LOL! Good one, Manchu.

Personally, I do not want Santorum to shut up. He should keep on talking all the way to the presidential nomination. If he wins the Republican nomination, he and his party will get buried in a Dem landslide. And the establishment Republicans know it. I want the far right to get their referendum on their agenda because after they get walloped, the Republicans will be a minority party for another decade while they try to regroup. The longer they are not in power, the less damage they can do. And another side benefit would be the end of Grover Norquist, the American Heritage Foundation, the Koch Bros. and possibly Fox News.

Demographically, it's not looking for Republicans.

One thing that always bugged me is that after the New Deal, the majority of our Presidents were Republicans. We had a Democratic House for decades, but most of our Presidents during that time were Republicans.

Well, it's now looking like we won't have a Republican president anytime soon, not unless the GOP can put up one hell of a fine candidate. The Dems solidly have California and New York, and the southern strategy is crumbling. Things are so bad for the GOP in California, that they're set to go into 3rd party status by the end of the decade. And now the Dems are working on getting more Hispanics to vote, and this could make Texas a swing state.

The Dems have already turned Virginia into a swing state. If the Dems can make Texas go blue, it's over for the GOP when it comes to the Presidency. The electoral math would never work in their favor if the Dems have New York, Cali, and Texas.

The gerrymandered House, on the other hand, is a different matter.

Mike . . . I was thinking along those same lines. It makes sense for the Republicans to nominate Santorum in 2016.

He's the "next in line," which is how they usually determine their nominee. If Rmoney hadn't carpet bombed him with negative ads, Santorum might have been the nominee this year. (In the long run, that might have actually been better for the party.

More importantly, his beliefs are more consistent with their core philosophies than are those of a more moderate candidate. That should be the test when advancing a candidate to the general election. Making him (or someone equally far to the right) their candidate for Prez would at least make them less hypocritical. I always thought that the idea was for the party's candidate to be a reflection of the views and policy positions of the party's base.

I, too, think he'd get creamed like a dish of asparagus in the general election. But, at least, voters would have the clear choice that uber-conservative Republicans are always griping that they haven't had before.

Perhaps if God could drop Santorum and ilk into a religiously ruled country - oh like Iran - they would begin to understand that the only reason they can talk the way they do is because some very wise people decided that all people could practice their preferred religion - NOT RULE or be RULED by it.

The Republicans at CPAC are complaining they lost again because their candidate was not a true conservative. If that is true, then a far right candidate should be the next presidential nomination which would achieve two purposes. The far right would no longer be able to claim the candidate was not conservative enough and the destruction of the far right as a cohesive movement. A side effect would be the return of GOP moderates who would control the party. The South will have lost the 2nd Civil War against the North. I would expect the far right in the South to retain power in some states but they would no longer be a major force in either party.

Mike,

Their candidate in 12 was not a true anything! To me, he was perfectly aligned with the party. LOL

Hillary does speak Spanish, I believe. John Kerry is multi-lingual, for sure.

Mike,

Ronald Reagan would not qualify as a 'true conservative' in the eyes of CPAC.

• Mr. Reagan raised taxes, both as a governor and as President.
• Mr. Reagan signed the first state law in the nation legalizing abortion (before Roe v Wade).
• Mr. Reagan reformed Social Security by raising taxes and gradually raising the retirement age (a balanced approach).
• Mr. Reagan avoided getting entangled in war in an Arab country (Lebanon, which was an eerie foreshadowing of Syria today).
• Mr. Reagan extended unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed.

In fact, no Republican President in the modern era (since the Great Depression) would qualify as a 'true conservative'. I believe there is a clinical term for the people at CPAC --- which would be 'Crazy'.

Amen! I'm sure God is tired of being told who to smite by Pat Robertson.

And to quote Bono: "The God I believe in ain't short o' cash, mister."

God don't need or want cash

My oldest is a history major at UC Santa Cruz. He laughed heartily at Santorum's ignorance. After his history of Israel class he became a staunch supporter of the Palestinians, he said three students constantly tried to interrupt and disrupt the class with propaganda...

I look at it this way. The Lady (Rick Santorum) protesteth too much...and we all know what that means.

#9.1 Lebowsky Dude

I think anyone who knows the details of what's going on in Israel/Palestine would have difficulty maintaining support for what the Israeli government's been doing there, especially in the last decade. In my experience, there's a lot more about it on British news than in the US, which is probably why 72% of the British public support Palestinian claims for statehood. Not only that, but support for the Palestinians' bid for U.N. status was supported by both the British Anglican and Catholic churches. It leaves me wondering whether the majority of support for Israel in the US comes from religious grass roots level where the history and complexity of the situation is perhaps not fully understood.

I am untroubled,#9.4

OMG a voice of reason! The religious right would have no clue what you are talking about! They live off talking points that people like Santorum tell them to incorporate into their speeches. This is indeed too complex for the likes of the right wing extremists. They don't listen, as I do, to the BBC. They watch Fox faux news.

I totally agree with my Church on the issue of Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu is their Geo. W. Bush, a hawk and a fool.

If it weren't for talking points, they couldn't say anything. We could pray for talking points to go away.

The only 'fact' the religious right care about with regard to Israel is that a militarily strong and aggressive Israel is needed for the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine to come true.

Fairness and justice have nothing to do with it, they just want Jesus to come back ASAP. Since billions have to die for it to happen, what is the oppression of a few million Palestinians?

Honestly, I think they were all dropped on the head as children, but a central part of their belief system is essentially mass human sacrifice. All other injustices pale in comparison.

One would think it far more moral to, if at all possible, delay the Apocalypse. Or at least not work to set up the prerequisite conditions.

This column by Mr. Benen is very hostile to people of faith.

Not so. It's the comment area that gets hostile towards faith. (I'll admit to that one.) But it's not Benen.

Why is "tolerance" a one way street with you guys? Why can't you accept that people find joy, hope and purpose in faith? Tolerance should work both ways.

Because tolerance towards intolerance is a non sequitur. It's really that simple.

JR: Rick Santorum is not "fringe", he was the runner up to Romney for the Republican Presidential nomination. He therefore is a leader, so his words do deserve sunlight and scrutiny. It pleases me to hear you are offended, but to try and impugn Mr. Benen is absurd...

You are correct in the sense that tolerance should work both ways.
Each citizen has the freedom to worship - or NOT to worship - as they choose ... but this is a secular nation, not a theocracy. Rick Santorum would have this country turned into a Christian theocracy, and his hostility to people with NO faith is where the objection lies. It seems that he would have Christianity (or "religion) forced on everyone. How about some tolerance toward people who are NOT religious? And how tolerant should the non-Christians be towards Santorum and "his crowd" who point fingers and say the president is trying to "create a society that is Godless and without faith," as if not being religious is equivalent to being immoral? THAT is what non-religious people are objecting to, not religion or religious people in general.

I agree. I am a (tolerant) "person of faith" and I saw nothing in Steve Benen's post that is hostile towards "people of faith" - just towards bigots who try to wrap their intolerance in their "faith".

Huh? Where in any of that did you see even an implication that our "crowd" doesn't think you should be free to believe what you want? It's just that the same First Amendment that protects everyone's right to believe, also protects everyone's right to point up the ridiculousness of fringe beliefs. If you don't want to be painted with that brush (and rightly so), it might behoove you to issue the occasional horse-laugh at the extremists in your "crowd."

Mr Coleman. The only reason anyone is making a big deal out of these fringe folks saying crazy things about our President is because they are speaking infront of the leading political conference of the main national opposition group plotting to attempt a complete take over of all three branches of our government. No body really cares about what sort of joys they might have, it is their "hope and purpose" that has us concerned.

You are free to believe what you want. None of us liberals disputes that right or has any desire to infringe upon your right to believe in what and as you see fit and correct. Our beef is with those like Mr. Santorum, who seem to think they have the right to castigate us for believing as WE do, which to him seems wrong. We adamantly oppose the Thought Police you fear, telling us not just what is correct belief (orthodoxy) but insisting that our government act in accordance with what THEY believe is orthodoxy. You're right: tolerance has to work both ways. From where I stand, it's the liberals who tolerate the ultra-religious but receive no such tolerance in return.

mr. coleman...The cpac convention is one of the biggest events of the entire year for conservatives.

you might think they don't represent a "majority" of "people of faith" but there is wide spread agreement with the statements that santorum and others made among the attendees.

and those are the people that control the republican primary process.

steve's highlighting of this isn't in anyway a general attack on "people of faith."

it's not leading to "the thought police," either

Van: "Liberals" get laid much more often, so therefore we are way more cheerful that you try to portray us as. It is reassuring to read your post, since every day is opposite day for movement conservatives...

What's wrong with being hostile to religious beliefs? Being servile to religious beliefs is hostile to Reason.

In the US, when people speak of "people of faith", too often, they are speaking of people of the Christian faith. This is a misnomer. People who are Wiccan, or Asatru, or Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Native American, Aboriginal, or African Diasporic faiths are also "people of faith". The Christian Right's habit to try and divide the nation into themselves ("people of faith") and the "nones", is a transparent attempt to ignore and marginalize the millions of followers of other faiths that share in our democracy. This is the epitome of intolerance, and an imposition of "thought police". It is intolerant, and intolerable.

Van . . . Apparently you believe that we should all be marched into some church on Sunday and fed a heaping helping of theological bullpuckey against our will.

I believe it's many of the evangelical churches that want everyone to be miserable. And, of course, to contribute large portions of their wealth to the evangelists running them, so that those "religious leaders" can be insanely happy (and wealthy!). There's a word for that: SCAM.

Most of those commenting on this blog are either 1) atheistic; 2) agnostic; or 3) believers in the existence of some higher power, but who don't want to rub other people's faces in our value systems. Many who are religious think it's better to express their religious beliefs through their everyday actions, rather than making a big show of it while forgetting the essence of religion in their daily interactions with other individuals and society as a whole.

Can you--and those on your side--make those same claims?

I don't have a problem with people having faith, I do have a problem with some of those people wanting to infringe on my right not to have a faith tell me I'm not worthy or my opinion does not matter. You don't have to have a religion to give you morals. Honesty, decency, kindness, compassion are human characteristics, religion serves a purpose only to remind us to be what we naturally are. Religion's overreach into how to behave and how to practice those characteristics is no different than what the government is there to do. God says "though shalt not kill" The government therefore makes laws to protect us from killing each other. "Thou shalt not steal" again we have made laws to protects us. And so on. It is unfortunate that God's laws are not very well followed by the faithful. Maybe it has to do with some religious laws like "Thou shalt not drink offer" or "Thou shalt not dance" or "Thou shalt not wear clothes that expose your sexy ankles"

I don't need a religion to tell me what "I shalt not do" I was raised by two good parents who told me, lying, stealing and cheating were wrong. to do onto others, to be kind and compassionate, not to fear or hate. I have taught my children to be that way too.

I am an atheist, I respect people who chose to find comfort and solace and guidance in believing in an ancient mythology. However I refuse to allow those people to force it unto me.

America hasn't become Godless, its has too many Gods. Maybe a Godless America is what we need.

Tolerance is a two way street. So which way are you going on the street when you discriminate against Muslims, Gays and Lesbians, Atheists, non-white people and immigrants?

There cannot be a "godless" country. If one believes God made the world, then God resides in all the countries, whether people believe he is there or not. It's like gravity - whether you believe it exists or not, everything will fall to the ground (unless, of course, you are in space). People who feel the need to bring everyone under one religious umbrella do not know God or even have an understanding of faith. Faith is personal, inherent to each individual to acknowledge or ignore. Internal faith, when trusted, transends all - external faith, often not trusted, crumbles. It is hard to keep an external faith alive for it needs others to feed it, sustain it, acknowledge the rightness (rightousness?) of it. Which is why many fundamentalists feel threatened that the country is becoming "godless" - more people are beginning to trust and embrace their internal faith and feel no more need to feed the external faith.

I dunno...as one who considers themselves a "person of (Christian) faith", I don't feel the members of the discussion are hostile to me at all. Discussions concerning religion are generally spirited (beg pardon) and usually rather frank.

Well, the thinking goes that rights don't issue from Man but from God. I personally believe they issue from neither, but from our own realization that the conferring of rights improves the human condition. But that's just me.

I personally believe they issue from neither, but from our own realization that the conferring of rights improves the human condition. But that's just me.

Me too.

Carlos, actually Santorum is more historically correct here than you are. But just barely. The Enlightenment ideals were that man lived in complete and total freedom before man invented this thing we call government.

Therefore, we all have endless natural rights. The thinking is that if you're able to speak, then you have the natural right of free speech.

So, no, the Constitution doesn't grant us rights. It prohibits gov't from taking our natural rights away. That's why the 1st amendment doesn't say "you have free speech" but that "Congress shall make no law".

Actually, no, since suicide isn't condoned, nor is murder. It may be a fantasy world, but I'd rather believe in my Lord and find that out than not believe and wish I had when it all comes true.

Yes, I am a christian... I have acknowledged that I am a sinner and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I try everyday to be obedient to God's word and to find ways to serve others according to my beliefs to follow Christ.

I voted for Obama twice and would do it again, could he run. His intentions and goals fit more closely to those I believe in - caring for the least of our society and trying to bring life abundant to all, not just the select few.

Just remember that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the righteous, not the self-righteous. The merciful, not the merciless. God directs us NOT to hoard gold and riches, but to share them, because our riches will be found in heaven. Jesus tells us to care for the least, to be a servant...

You can call me a sheep, fine, I'd rather be that than a goat - all words and no action. I would direct you to read Matthew 25: 31-46

---------------------

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Eskimo: 'If I didn't know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' 'No,' said the Priest, 'Not if you did not know.' Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'

...but I'd rather believe in my Lord and find that out than not believe and wish I had when it all comes true.

You seem to be invoking Pascal's Wager ("It's better to believe, just in case; there's more to lose if you don't believe") here. Unfortunately, that really only applies in a world with only one religion. Since we live in a world with more than one religion, to hedge your bets, you'd have to follow all the tenets of all the varying religions. Since some tenets of opposing religions are mutually exclusive, it's impossible to do that. Pascal's Wager doesn't really apply (effectively) to the world we live in.

kbomb, is that the same Blaise Pascal of the 'Art of Persuasion?'

Same guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

There is no evidence for a god or gods. In fact, the term god is so poorly defined that it can hardly be rationally discussed. It therefore makes no sense for any person to make such a thing the central part of their identity.

The strange thing is, that even theists understand that theism is insane. They are perfectly willing, in general to, suppose that religions other than their own are obviously false, but they always willing to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading when it comes to their own religion.

Don't knock Chris Hayes before you see his show. He's awesome. I love Ed's show and am sad that he's not going to be in prime time anymore, but he's going to be anchoring the weekend news. I think that's cool. I can't wait to see his new gig. :)

Melissa, Me, too. I loved Ed's show and have a lot of respect for him. But Chris Hayes is also really amazing and I know most people will enjoy him in that slot.

I love Ezra Klein, myself. I wish he had an hour in some slot there!

Or two...

The Vatican is the equivalent of a nation in many ways. Consider the following quote from Wikipedia regarding the Vatican and the United Nations:

The Holy See holds sovereignty over the state of Vatican City and maintains diplomatic relations with other states. It has been an observer state since 6 April 1964, and gained all the rights of full membership except voting on 1 July 2004.

Consider also that the United States has an Ambassador to the Vatican; Ray Flynn, former Mayor of Boston had that position from 1993 - 1997.

The US often sends representatives to attend inauguration ceremonies of foreign leaders.

The Vatican is both a church and a state. It is an artifice, to be sure, created by, I believe, Mussolini, but then all states are artificial. In any case, I see nothing wrong with representing to the installation of a new world leader. We secularists need to pick our battles.

I totally agree John

Right on, John! Thank you....

Hear hear!

I want to add that religion does not automatically confer morality.

A person can say they are religious and still act in a completely immoral way.

A person can say they are religious and still act in a completely immoral way.

Nice. And an observation perfectly timed for CPAC.

But being religious also doesn't make you right-wing or immoral. That attitude isn't something Jesus espoused - just the opposite.

We are to love one another as he first loved us. AND to serve one another in love.

To sum up:

We should all live moral lives, love one another (or at the very least be tolerant).

What we as individuals use to guide us (a particular religion or no religion) to accomplish this goal is really our own choice. It is the result that is important.

I don't think it is necessary to have a religion or believe in any woo woo phenomena impossible by current scientific thought. For example, one might find their best access path to this spiritual element is through sources of inspiration like art or poetry.

Certainly, it is true that ethics have pragmatic value, but life without some spiritual source is empty of what are referred to as the fruits of the spirit. This "spirit" is the motive force behind those ethics. I think that secularists believe this but have not yet developed a strong language to describe this principle.

With such language, it would be possible to build stronger bridges to people of faith who do support particular progressive policies- eg regarding education, assistance to the poor, and care for the planet.

Perhaps I should have said in the first place, however, I differentiate between religion (a formal organized doctrine/faith) and individual spirituality/faith.

First, I thank all of the people who have commented in this column. I usually encounter comments to news articles that are not worthy of comment. I found your comments in particular to be well thought out and well written.

As to you comment regarding the appreciation of the "spirit" by those of us that are not affiliated to The Judeo-Christian Experience, I felt the need to point out that God existed prior to the time that there ever existed a city state by the name of Judah. Prior to the time that God was perceived as an anthropomorphic spiritual entity, God was perceived as a divine entity present in everything in life.

IF TOMORROW, FRANCIS I, were to re-interpret God and life to reflect the acceptance of science and technology, it would spell the end of patriarchy and its god. It would be the beginning of a universal religion of life that celebrates the equality and diversity of all human life. Humanity is hungry for the nourishment of the spirit. But that religion has to be based on reality. Religions based on myths will continue to lose relevance to the youth of the world. As the youth ages The old religions will become as extinct as the followers of The Eleusinian mysteries.

In the meantime, there is a war between fundamentalists who want to adhere to religious myth and force the rest of us to accept their ignorance, hatred and egotism as a way of life. Fundamentalists are dangerous whether they are Jews, Christian, Catholics, Moslems or any of the other religions that western Society fails to even consider in our religious debate, like Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

While I see the dangers of Religious fundamentalism, I do agree with Mr. Messerly, that Prior to making the various belief systems of the followers of The Proto-Christians Jews and The Pauline Christians, a uniform belief system under penalty of death by The Nicean Creed and Emperor Constantine, the dedication of the followers of Jesus to the poor and marginalized as well as comunal living and the sharing of wealth, was common.

Where I would probably differ is that what He terms as " Liberation Theology" is born in the Teaching of Jesus, That the Kingdom of God is in our lives now. He exhorts us to avoid ignorance, hatred and greed. The teachings of Jesus, to me, are Revolutionary because it seeks to have us take full responsibility for our lives by learning to be less ignorant, less hateful and less greedy. This thinking is very different from the Imperial thinking of the past and the material thinking of the present.

The gospel talks about liberation and it marches on and on. When the oppression of poverty is removed, the affluent of the 1st world moved on to confronting the other more subtle, yet no less important forms of oppression. It is not sufficient to be liberated from ignorance, hatred and greed. But it true that liberty is not the end. What should be seen in those words concerning liberation was that Christ demanded that we engage with the world- to make that wisdom manifest in visible acts in the world. That is the joining of spirit and substance- the forms and the matter of perpetual creation. He demanded radical compassion.

My wife had finished dropping off one of my daughters at her catholic school. The cars normally sport stickers like an image of the president next to the slogan "Undocumented Worker". Everyone is busy to get to work in the rush of the morning and a steady stream of cars efficiently pour out of the parking lot making he turn past the bus stop... where a figure is lying on the ground. Everyone is passing- perhaps they are too busy to notice, or perhaps it is something they don't want to see. My wife stops and attends to the woman- her clothes are pressed, and she is barely conscious. She tripped rushing to the bus and her face is bloody. Nothing is more important to her besides recovering her wits, getting presentable and to work on time. Perhaps the sluggish thinking is due to a concussion, but it seems to my wife there is some other dementia there, and there is a slight odor of alcohol. The entire atmosphere shifts when the suggestion is made to call 911. Utter stark terror. No No NO. The woman exclaims if they come they will force her to go to the hospital and she will never be able to pay the bills. Apparently she has been down that road. She is made presentable, and wants to be left alone at the bus bench and wants privacy and distance from the event to recover dignity.

And the stream of cars continue to pass by, more easily ignoring the seated woman now that the institutionalized violence against her is far more ambiguous. This could have been a public school, but it is important to draw attention to the fact that most of the people passing were professed believers in a man who called people to exercise radical compassion in their lives. The business is not the extermination of the oppression. It is caring for one another. Of bringing spirit into the world, and making it real. This is the eternal moment of Kairos.

The people passing in their cars- they were of the first world ultimate concerns- largely free of the brutal oppression the woman was still imprisoned by, but still seeking liberation. Many of them seeking to be free of government, free of Obamacare, free of the threat of overthrow of the current order by a symbol of the subjugated darker southern world, free of constraints on their personal liberty. They too seek liberation- liberation from any communal demands for collective effort. Free from being part of the body of Christ. Free from the demand for radical compassion.

It is a madness of the first world order. In his doctoral work, Dr. King studied an obscure theologian who some mistakenly identify as a proto liberation theologian. King might have been interested in Paul Tillich due to his earlier focus on those who were thinking about the relation of religion and social justice. The FBI found King's interest threatening because the early Tillich was talking about a kind of internationalized religious socialism- the movement that frequently employs the superorganism metaphor of the Body of Christ- and the emergent sensus fidelium. In the paranoia of the time, anything with a whiff of Marxism was exceptionally threatening due to the intense competition of empires at that time. But Christ predated Marx by well over a millenia and the message was far more subtle, but no less threatening to authorities due to its demand for radical compassion in opposition to forces that oppress. In the end, Dr. King did not go where Tillich went, because Tillich had taken liberation to radical levels- progressing beyond consideration of the external political and economic subjugation to addressing the doubt oppressing the first world. Liberation from the cognitive subjugation of categories misapplied to the world before us brought Tillich to a transtheistic godhead that was so alienating that King could see no way to intellectually explain or emotionally connect congregations too. King like Buber concluded that such an broad ontological view divorced man from a personal relationship with God- and it was not the God they believed in. It may have compassionately answered the call to assist the first world from the oppression of its profound spiritual shackles, but Tillich was too far out of sight. The Road at the frontiers peter out into worn paths, and at their frontiers to barely visible tracks where others have gone before.

That's the road of theology. But it is not the end, only the means of grasping and communicating the dynamic of compassionate engagement with the world- The Kairos of each moment.

The task before Francis should be clear to him- it is the church hierarchy that should be the object of his attention, not those blazing the path forward for the Body of Christ advancing through history.

Anyway, that is what I do with the Pauline path metaphor. There are still visions on the road, still a need for prophetic vision.

... Or maybe I am off in the weeds.

Regardless, an important maxim is to know things and people by the fruits of their spirit made manifest in the world. The main thing is to keep the radical connection with others- to stop and help the woman.