Thomas Frank argued in this best-selling book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” that the GOP talks about abortion and other social issues, but what it accomplishes is tax cuts for the wealthy. But that’s just the disgruntled take of an angry liberal, right?
Well, David Kuo, President Bush’s former deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, makes a similar charge in his new book, “Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction.” Kuo argues that the Bush administration used the faith-based agenda for political purposes and that White House staffers ridiculed some evangelical supporters as “nuts” and “goofy.” He has also complained about “taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy.”
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne says these latest complaints — from one of their own — ought to cause evangelicals to re-evaluate what they are getting out of the partnership with the GOP. He wrote: “Are they mostly being used by a coalition that, when the deals are cut, cares far more about protecting the interests of its wealthy and corporate supporters than its churchgoing foot soldiers?”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
122 Comments
In the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh, “See? I told you so.”
Thomas Frank does not live hear, he does not like Kansas and he is in no way an expert on Kansas.
You obviously haven’t read (or will deny reading) the book.Frank is from Olathe, and he nailed it.Can’t wait to see Kuo tonight on Keith O.See? I told you so.
Will late-70’s coalition-of-convenience finally fall apart? Stay tuned.
Some time ago I made the accusation that sounded more like a conspiracy theory then sound judgment.The Religious Right and the Neo-cons by themselves did not have the power to take over and control the Government. So they got in bed with each other, the R.R. had the voting power but not the politic clout to get their agendas passed. The Neo-cons had the politic clout but not the votes to get their people into control. So the partnership was formed, both thinking that they could control the other.In walked the PNAC and their agenda, with many of the politic savvy Conservative thinkers. And their knowledge of the workings of Government. Their mentor Leo Strauss and his teachings as a guild line.So the PNAC used the newly formed alliance of the extreme to get their hand picked people into the White House.
But the joke may have been on all three, Bush as figure head and Cheney and his crew had their own ideas and used the force of three to gain power. Now Religious Right, Neo-cons and the PNAC have shot themselves in the foot and must face the fact that they were used. Losing any creditability them once had.
I actually got to see an interview of the actual director of the Faith Based initiatives department the other day (The Boss who was over David Kuo)
He spoke about how David’s book was less than truthful.
The book portrays a piture which is based on unproven statements which are accredited to no one in particular.
This guy David was not really in a position in the department to be making the kind of claims he is.
Not only that, but he spoke of all the gains which the faith based initiatives had been making under this administration.
Needless to say, this is yet another nicely timed hit piece on the administration.
There may or may not be some truth to what this guy writes, but it definately doesn’t say anything about the administration as a whole or Bush nor prove any type of huge manipulation of the Religious people who have supported Bush.
Oh well though, I know the truth won’t stop the democrats from doing what they do best: Accuse Accuse Accuse.
Whenever you talk with a democrat you have to wade through a dozen false premises before you can ever talk about an actual issue.
Oh well.
I’ve been wondering for over a decade how long it would take for the religious conservatives to realize that they were being used to further the neo-con agenda. Of course the religious conservatives were working just as hard to use the neo-cons for their purposes too. While it seems to be falling apart in the rest of the country, it’ll probably linger in Kansas for a couple more decades, like prohibition did.
Exactly what tax cuts for the wealth in Kansas did Frank reference in his book?
NADA
His thesis is sound, but then he provides nearly nothing to support it.
Kansas has a high local and state tax burden (18th highest). So this notion that all these tax cuts have happened simply isn’t true.
Religious fanatics were so hungry to get a person in the White House that it was a given that a political party would seize their enthusiasm to steamroll into the Presidency. The cheap crap that ensued around Terri Schiavo should have taught most rational people a lesson. Here we have a vegetative person who is medically proven to be beyond repair. It became political because out religious right whackos, yes, this includes our nations president, thought they could protect her life. Schiavo is in a better place. You would think that the religious whackos, this includes our President, the Senate Majority Leader, and our very own Tiarht and Brownback, may just think that this place called heaven they so richly describe would be the better place for her. AND – if the president is willing to say that God made him president then he must surely understand that God works in mysterious ways and possible could have been working through Schiavo’s former husband as the only person willing to show her the mercy she needed to go to her final resting place.The GOP is so arrogant that they don’t see how pathetic they are.People die everyday….just needs to be more final passages in the GOP.
Jim G.
You are right on… People die everyday. I hope that when that day comes for you, that you have repented of your sin and accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Then you too can go to heaven. God said’ Whosever’. That includes Jim G.
Not looking good for the fanatics: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061019/pl_nm/congress_poll_dc_1
I would like to know just what “wealthy” is. It sure as hell isn’t a hundred or two hundred or even three hundred thousand dollars a year. Wealthy is, I think, a millions dollars a year, but why should we take their money. They earned it. More taxes! say the Gimmecrats.
prior to prohibition, Kansas and Missouri led the nation in grape and wine production, and were among leaders in apple production. Kansas produced most of the nation’s apple seedlings. After prohibition ended, it lingered in Kansas, and these major industries went to California and Washington. I wonder what we will lose because of the unholy alliance of politicans and Jebus freaks this time? I suggest our aircraft industry might be appropriate.
DK..
Don’t confuse Jesus Freaks with Wingnuts. I, for one, am a sold out Jesus Freak… but I am moderate in alot of my political views….
It sure is tough to be hotlick, er, I mean Nathan these days….
In case you were wondering — GARTH McGINN’s – (Democratic candidate 4th Congressional District) attitude on church and state.
“As God as my witness and with Jesus absolutely in my heart, I fundamentally reject that a country full of more hateful, spiteful, religious, intolerance is a better place and I will always strive to keep it and all religion out of our government. The separation of church and state is after all a fundamental moral value in of itself which is no doubt why our Founding Fathers started the Bill of Rights with it.”
VIVA McGINN
HE WILL WIN !!!
Isn’t it funny that the moment a book comes out against the Bush administration, those loyal GOP lapdogs condemn it as non-factual and then start calling Democrats all kinds of names? But yet that docudrams Pathway to 9/11 was filled with non-facts but it was favorable to the Bush administration so every GOP lapdog loved that.
It all depends on what side of the fence a person is on. Instead of uniting the country, George W. Bush has divided us even more. Religion always divides people and the GOP has used that issue for years.
Nathan claims that Kuo is a GASP! liberal.
Sorry, marine, he’s one of yours. We’re not claiming this guy.
If he criticises the Bush administration for manipulation and duplicity, then he says so as a true believer in the Christian right cause.
It’s begging the question to say that just because he shows BushCo. to be lying P’sOS that he is not who he says he is.
But my larger point is this–rightwing Christian soldiers, stay in the Republican party and demand what’s coming to you.
Insist on ID in the schools. Repeal of Roe v Wade. Outlaw condoms. Get school vouchers. Give embryos the right to vote. Turn NASA over to the church.
You people are the best friends the Democrats ever had . . .
No doubt this is true, the other side does it to their base also, part of the deal you know, thats why politicians from both parties are mostly weasels.
Capn,
I never said that Kuo is a democrat.
If and I do say “IF” the democrats take control of either the house or Senate it will only take one election cycle for them to do their typical gun banning and be voted right back out.
Hey Nathan- Is that me?
I think the Democrats blew when they abandoned their blue-collar workbase supporters and they won’t admit to it because they like hob knobbing with the stars and the elite. There are many ‘get your hands dirty’ type of folks out there and they would rather not be associated with the barbara streisand crowd of whiney, profane liberal elitists. This is where the the Democratic party is failing, they just don’t get it.
I’m unsure why the blog starter included Frank in this commentary. Frank is a confused man that convolutes what could be simply explained by writing an entire book to hide his fallacies and poor method of theories.
David Kuo held a position on Bush’s team sure, but what possessed him to write a book and release it one month before an election says more about him than it does Bush or Republicans.
He worked in Michael Dukakis campaign from President and was an intern to Senator Ted Kennedy. He uses his faith like tylenol to use only when he gets in trouble or when it is mostly convenient for him. He used the position of his appointment by Bush as a political stepping stone. He was hoping to reap some sort of recogniztion and personal gain. Doesn’t sound likemuch of a Christian to me, but one who has lost their way and is blaming everyone else but himself.
Liberalcats just love conspiracy theories and I suppose Kuo’s book is yet another in a long line of publishings that follow that agenda.
The only reason it might reach best seller is dem’s will buy it and believe it. Then when they realize that the book was just the rantings of a person who believe they didn’t get their just due, they will once again feel betrayed and start another conspiracy theory that Kuo set them up for the Bushites followers.
Wow, the denial machine is in full spin today.
Heheh. But then, who will they believe? Bush? Or those lyin’ eyes of theirs….
Nathan
“Whenever you talk with a democrat you have to wade through a dozen false premises before you can ever talk about an actual issue.”
“it will only take one election cycle for them to do their typical gun banning and be voted right back out.”
I see your on top of your game today. Carry on.
hee hee hee hee hee hee
Uh nathan, since two of the three g’s arent working with voters anymore (god and gays) you made a nice off topic swipe to make sure the third g, guns, is trotted out.
Sigh. Different day, same tactics. How predictable and boring.
And, btw, how’s that god, gays and GUNS thing working out for you and yours?
sts argues from a point of ignorance….again.
Oh good grief. “Church goers” understand politicians aren’t trustworthy or sincere. It is a symbiotic relationship. Both are being used by the other, and as long as it accomplishes each others objectives, fine.
When it doesn’t we will see. However, religious conservatives certainly can’t move to the Democrat side because of their refusal to move off their radical abortion rights position. Until the Dems give that up, the status quo is likely to remain.
Farm girl, in support of our winger friends here, let me just say this:BILL CLINTON!!!BILL CLINTON!!!
And a good morning to you.
So what’s the upshot here? There seem to be many who are delighted at the premise of this book. But is being able to say “See, I told you so” really all you’re after?
Or do those of you who joyfully welcome any news of a GOP/Christian rift really think this book is going to result in a change in voting patterns?
Even if the charges in this book are true, that leaves Christians with this choice: Vote for the GOP party, which says it supports Christian causes (even if this book alleges it really doesn’t); or vote for the Democrat party, which openly says it does not support (and in fact strenuously opposes) Christian causes.
In other words, a Christian can vote for a party that – according to one book – may only be paying them lip service despite years and years of public record to the contrary, or they can vote for the party that – according to years and years of public record – are absolutely known to vigorously oppose their beliefs.
Doesn’t seem like a difficult decision.
Over simplification, JS.
The right-wing fundies also have the option of getting disillusioned like many left-wingers have gotten with the DLC Democrats (Bill & Hillary Clinton) and stay home on election day.
OR
They can get more fully involved and demand more representation of their concerns.
They have done the latter, with disasterous results for their party.
“Christian causes” – what are they? Feeding the hungry? Clothing the naked? I seem to recall that Christ was more concerned with those than in blowing up countries or bashing gays. The Democrats come closer to these issues than the GOP ever has or ever will.
Don’t faith based groups do an amazing job of what you deny they don’t? Feeding the hungry and clothe the nekid?You are not making sense. Wipe the lather off your chin.
Ben are you a believer in the statistic that if 100% of “Christians” in American tythed, all government programs could be abolished?
This is a legit question for you people as well.What are your feelings towards Canada and it’s acceptance of Homosexual marriage and subsequent ban on “hate speech” which bans any speech or publications that speak negatively of homosexuals?Which the Holy Bible would be included in.
Many faith based groupd do just that hotlick – and many whom I know personally are recognizing that Bush et.al. have not been very helpful in that regards and are trending back toward the Dems. Sort of like the old “religious left” of the 60s and 70s.
hotlick, wipe your mouth.there’s still a little bullshit clinging to your lips.
The GOP would no more do the things Christ asks than would the bloviating wealthy TV prechers that fund them.
KIA, the Canadians are smart enough to not take the bible literally, and especially not to make it into laws.
KIA – I suspect that if everyone tithed 10% that would at least make a big dent.
I do not know the specifics of canada’s laws. I can only say that I believe that gay “legal unions” should be allowed. In fact, I would extend that to other “couples” such as two widows who need to “merge” their legal exietences.
Since “marriage” is a religious rite and term I would remove it from Caeser’s lexicon; that would make the “gay marriage” issue moot. I would continue to allow Priests etc to complete the legal paperwork that goes along with Caeser’s requirements and would allow them to “discriminate” as to whom they do that for.
Dale,When I die and go to heaven it will be on my terms. I do not ever plan to repent, practice yoga, get ear rings, abstain from pork, go to confession, marry/divorce, throw myself at the foot of a preacher, or any other human tradition.Dale – when I die I will go to heaven just like you and I am not afraid of it….but you are. You wimp. Go ahead, vote for the GOP….they’ll take good care of you. I don’t want you on my side.Dale – there is not one thing present in the human world that can tell us what the after life will be.My best is 50/50. Either we die and that’s it or we die and our spirit rises to heaven.That’s it. You arrogant Christian alarmist have made a mess of the world and will make a mess of this nation if you ever truly get the power that you “covet” so much.Maybe God will invite you up for a visit soon. You’ll see that everyone is up there….not just “Christians”.You putz.
sorry jim; we all go to the place we were before we were born.
“…profane liberal elitists.”
ROFL And this from a follower of the FGY VP.
I must be having a dyslexic spell this morning. Make that…
…the GFY VP.
DK and Jim, I’ll take reincarnation, thank you. :)
ha ha; back to the womb; I’m ready.can’t wait to go through those “pearly gates.”
btw: where did the phrase Pearly gates” originate?
I have died at one time, and I will tell you that you are all in for a surprise.That includes all those that are not religious.Everything that you have come to know will be existing and non-existing at the same time, even time it self will be meaningful and meaningless.Don’t get me wrong about it; I am a religious person but only to my own beliefs about it.I am not into the church thing at all, simply because they can be misleading, besides it is private between only you and God.The closest that I can tell you about life after death was what was depicted in the movie “What dreams may come” with Robin Williams.I was touch by the movie in that it conveys the message that you make your own destiny as to how you will be when the time comes for your departure; this made a connection to me and my own experience of death.Yes it is only a movie and a good story but it did originate from very real bases of studies of life after death experiences.Be very careful with your emotions it will make difference.
Wiseman, an excerpt from Alice A. Baily, submitted for your approval.
The words “earth to earth and dust to dust”, so familiar in the burial rituals of the Occident, refer to this act of restitution, and connote the return of the physical body elements to the original reservoir of matter, and of the substance of the vital form to the general etheric reservoir; the words “the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” are a distorted reference to the absorption of the soul by the universal soul. The ordinary rituals, however, fail to emphasise that it is that individualised soul, in process of reabsorption, which institutes and orders, by an act of the spiritual will, that restitution.
And one more:
Death has been present upon our planet from the very night of time itself; forms have come and gone; death has overtaken plants and trees, animals and the forms of human beings for untold aeons, and yet our planet is not a charnel house, as it well might be in the face of this fact, but is still a thing of beauty, unspoilt even by man. The processes of dying and of dissolution and the dissipation of forms, goes on every moment without producing contagious contamination, or the disfiguring of the surface of the earth. The results of dissolution are beneficent in effect. Ponder on this beneficent activity, and on the beauty of the divine plan of death and disappearance.
Wow Ben, you’re a genius.That makes too much sense.
Ben,”"Christian causes” – what are they? Feeding the hungry? Clothing the naked? I seem to recall that Christ was more concerned with those than in blowing up countries or bashing gays.”You have to realize the christian church has come a long way in the last 2,000 yrs. Jesus left so many things unsaid or that needed to be improved on or discarded. Those who came after him have had to evolve and adapt the church and it’s doctrine to include all the things they want done, and do away with those that are unnecessary or costly.
Saul definitely began that trend jed.
Wow…
Coming from two non-Christians, one of whom is so openly hostile towards Christians at that.
Jed,
From day one you have misinterpreted, misrepresented, and outright lied about Christians.
Like I am taking you the least bit seriously now with your little review of Christian history? LOL
And Ben? you are actaully siding with him?
Figures.
Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who said “The first person who perverted the teachings of Jesus was the Apostle Paul” or words to that effect? This is why, as I understand it, he basically eliminated Paul’s Epistles from the Jefferson Bible.
Nathan – having been raised Protestant and being married to a catholic I am hardly “anti-Christian”. However, I HAVE seen an awful lot of distortion by many who claim to speak for Christians. And, I have to say that I sometimes wonder about Saul/Paul.
I do not agree with Jed that this distortion is representative across the board; however I do see it in too many places today. Still a minority thankfully.
I still wonder about whoever stole my wife’s purple tent and sign from our front yard. I doubt that it was a “Godless Democrat”
JM, I hate to tell you this, but as a general rule, the author of a book doesn’t choose when his/her book will be released. The publisher does. And if you think a publisher doesn’t take into account the timing of said book, especially a political based book, you’re dumber than I thought.
Just to further spice up the discussion, it is my thought that many modern day Christians should be referred to as Paulines, as much of the textual support for their positions and actions come from Paul’s Epistles, and not the teachings of Jesus as reflected in the Gospels.
Vaughn,
You were doing ok with your assesment up till the part where you said they are not based on the teachings of Christ.
If that were the case the modern Bible would exclude the Gospels.
Last I checked they were considered ONLY the most important parts of the Bible by most modern day Christians.
“would like to know just what “wealthy” is. It sure as hell isn’t a hundred or two hundred or even three hundred thousand dollars a year. Wealthy is, I think, a millions dollars a year, but why should we take their money. They earned it. More taxes! say the Gimmecrats.”
Really hotlick so when take on a debt you feel you don’t have to pay it? Do you understand how this stuff works? Taxes pay for government.
Exactly right, Vaughn.
The Neo-Greek Platonist Paul infused a lot of non-Christian baggage into the official canon.
All that “the body (sex) is evil” crap comes right from neo-platonism, as does the “women are deficient men” theory.
Christians contemporary with Paul had women in positions of “authority.” That’s why he had to smack them down.
Whenever you hear the priest or pastor start a sermon, “according to the Apostle Paul . . . ” you know that the rest of it is going to be a bunch of hogwash.
Bottom line: most right-wing evangelicals feel like going to church and singing a few hymns for one hour a week somehow makes them more ‘moral’ than the rest of us. Lemme tell ya, its about way more than that. WAY more than that.
And if the Jesus that I have read about in the Bible were here today, and encountered those on the American right who invoke his name constantly as political cover, and as a sort of mascot for their political party, he would be ashamed. For it seems that the most vocal ‘Christians’ of our times seem to be the ones filled with hate and judgment of others, which JESUS HIMSELF expressly prohibited (if the Gospels are to be believed).
Dittos to .morg.
If the Republicans don’t want to pay for it, then they shouldn’t “charge it” to the national bank account.
This “hotlick” guy is just a slightly more well-written version of Joe “Facts Don’t Matter” Williams.
CapnAmerica,
Those things were done by men, no where do you find those teachings in the Bible or the writings of Paul.
Where do you get this crap?
ddub–
If Jesus came back today, the modern pharisees Jerry Falwall and Pat Robertson would nail him to the cross again.
.morg-I don’t quite get the post, but I’ll do my best.I haven’t said to take on debt and don’t pay it. We all take on debt, then we pay it. But, if you please, what is “wealthy”?
JM, Nathan, Outlander, and other Christians still standing by the bush administration after the ….well…”revelations” of this book? There is a word for you.
Tool.
JR,
What revelations would those be? Have you even read any of them or are you just following the DNC talking points for the day?
I have a brilliant idea: Instead of just invoking that books title or authors name as if it proves something, lets look at what it actually says and discuss that.
Any takers on that, or is it easier for you to simply imagine that the book proves something it doesn’t?
You mean this crap, Nathan:
1 Corinthians 14, 34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
1 Timothy 2,
8: I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;
9: also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire
10: but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion.
11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
13: For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14: and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1 Timothy 5, 11: Refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry,
12: and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge.
13: Besides that, they learn to be idlers, gadding about from house to house, and not only idlers but gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
Revelation of John 14, 4: It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb
*****
Granted, the last one wasn’t from Paul, but it was from the syncretism that Paul fell victim to.
The “chaste” are the “undefiled.”
And what are the women, pray tell? They are obviously the defilers.
Do you actually read the Bible, Nathan? Or do you just set yourself up as an authority on it?
I plan to read the book Nathan. I don’t plan to wait to post this particular thread until after I have read the book though.
Phil wrote the thread. I heard Mr. Quo himself describe what is in it. I think we are safe to assume the word of the author as to what is in his own book!
I am actually of two minds here. Part of me is REALLY glad the religious right is not getting their agenda addressed completely. They’ve done enough damage already! Church and state are separate and should remain so. But another part of me does not like seeing people used. But hey when they are used and keep going back for more? That’s just dumb.
Democrats ban guns when did that happen? I do know that while Gov. of California in the 60’s Reagan enacted several gun control measures.
Dingus,
Have you even heard what your minority leader Nancy Pelosi has to say on guns?
Hotlick–
Something like one third of the record setting high national debt approaching 9 trillion was racked up by the Republicans under Bush.
(And that’s record-setting in terms of percentage of GDP too.)
Republicans should be the ones who have to pay it off . . .
Women should be silent and submissive. They are in no way to be in a position of authority over men. They defile men. They are the cause of the fall of man.
Other than that, there’s no misogyny in Paul at all . . .
Not surprisingly, Paul was the one that got all hot and bothered about women lying with women and men with men etc which the fundies love to parade with to justify their hate and discrimination.
Funny, how the injunctions against divorce, and having sex with a menstruating woman, and how a slave must obey his master are all overlooked these days . . .
But the part about “sodomites?” Damn right, they’ll make hay with that one.
Who cares about the debt? If you didn’t know what it was, you wouldn’t know. Does it affect any of us? No. We go to work, we pay our bills, we live our life. Big deal. All will be fine. It always has been, always will be. The crazy savings and loan bail out in the ’80’s and all that debt all went away too, didn’t it?
Oh boy somebody knock that softball outta the park. I can’t. It’s too easy. I’d be ashamed of myself for dignifying it.
Bawk Bawk Bawk
CapnAmerica,
That has to be the most first class distortion of scriptures I have seen in awhile.
You start of with saying that it is said sex is evil, then go of on a tnagent which doesn’t even come close to proving that.
You say women are to be smacked down, don’t see the support for that one either.
If you actually care to understand the scripture you throw around here is a link for you to read:
http://womeninministry.ag.org/roleofwim/0306_MinistryofWomen.cfm
Nathan,
You already know how I’ll weigh in on the “women in the Bible” thing. I have read passages in the Bible that have bothered me. No, I can’t quote them, at present, but I don’t need to. Capn did it.
It also seems to me that you didn’t mention anything about the scriptures he posted, only his take on them. The question now is, do these passages say what Capn posted, or do they not? Are these passages in the Bible?
One more question. Who wrote the Bible? (And ‘with guidance from God’ doesn’t count in the equation at this point in the discussion. ;) )
Nathan, what follows is from memory; likely to be a few factual errors here, but I believe the gist is accurate. The basis for this is an ancient history course and a religion course I took as an undergraduate, combined with my personal interest in the Bible and early Sunday school lessons.
The early Epistles of Paul represent the first written “Christian” literature. IIRC, these were written from around 54 to 64 A.D. By the way, there are many scholars who dispute the authenticy of some of the Pauline Epistles, that is, these were not written by Paul, but by his followers.
The first Gospel to appear in written form was the Gospel of Mark, about 65 A.D. Prior to that time, the teachings of Jesus had been spread by oral retelling, the “oral tradition” commonly used in those days. Many Biblical scholars consider the Gospel of Mark to have been written as a repudiation of Paul’s Epistles. The other three Gospels appeared in written form later. I believe the order is Matthew, John and Luke, although I may have the Gospels of John and Luke in reverse order. The Gospel of Luke seems to have been based, in large part, upon the Gospel of Matthew.
What of Paul (Saul of Tarsus) himself? I remember that he was a minor functionary of the Roman government in Judea, whose assignment at the time of his conversion on the road to Damascus was persecution of the Jewish followers of the teaching of Jesus. He never saw Jesus during Jesus’ life, relying instead upon the oral tradition and meetings with surviving original disciples for his understanding of the teachings of Jesus. I believe Paul was born Jewish, and had some knowledge of Mosaic law; he had been educated in the Hellenistic traditions, thus the comments of CapnAmerica on neo-platonism.
Some of the teachings contained in Paul’s Epistles seem at odds with those of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, but are consistent with various Jewish teachings, in lack of a better term, prevalent at the time. Reconciliation of these discrepancies has hounded the Christian church for centuries; much effort was expended by early theologians to seek reconciliation between the two.
Paul’s apparent misogynism is at odds with the importance of women in the early church. Frankly, his attitudes towards women are more in line with some Old Testament teachings than Jesus’ attitudes toward women, as reflected in the Gospels.
The above is presented as a reason for the antipathy of Jefferson to the Pauline Epistles, and as a short explanation of my personal feeling that many modern-day “Christians” should more properly be referred to as “Paulines”. I would encourange you to research the above for yourself. Realizing your current geographical location would make access to printed volumes difficult, perhaps looking at the Wikipedia would be a good starting point, although I will tell you I don’t think Wikipedia articles are, in and of themselves, totally reliable sources.
Stay safe; wear the body armor; and don’t forget to duck.
Vaughn,
My dispute was not with the label or terminology of Pauline, but with you linking it to a dismisal of the Gospel teachings.
They do not go against the Gospel.
RD,
I posted a link which explains it far better than I can.
Nathan, I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. Be that as it may, this is a good time to say we both agree to disagree.
Thanks, Vaughn, nice summation. And RD, it’s madding isn’t it.
You’ve got Paul telling women to sit down and shut up and that they caused all the evil in the world, and Nathan comes back with “but there’s no evidence he is anti-woman.”
Okay, fine, if Nathan chooses to make words mean whatever he wants them to mean, then there’s no point in discussing it . . .
It takes time and money to get a woman. or:
W = T*M
Time equals money
T = M
W = M**2
Money is the root of all evil:
M = SQRT(E)M**2 = [SQRT(E)]**2 = E
Therefore:
W = E
Woman = Evil
enjoy …
Yes, Capn, very frustrating. Especially when Nathan refers me to a link when some simple yes, no, and one word answers will do.
I may check out his link later, when I can devote uninterrupted time to it. That’ll give me maybe an hour and a half, before CSI comes on. ;)
JR: If you bother to read the thread, you could read my reaction.
Now, I have a word for you. “symbiosis”.
Capn America, you need to do some research so that you can understand Paul’s writings. Paul is the most brilliant of authors of the New testament. His story is absolutely fascinating. I can refer you to a few good books if you are interested.
Vaugh, you certainly understate Paul’s credentials.
RM,
You’re dumber than I thought thinking I didn’t know what publishers do and don’t do. However, I’m not a mind reader and don’t make such assumptions, but I guess you do.
Tracy, I am not too familiar with Alice A. Bailey, but I did google her name and came up with The Lucis Trust Foundation.http://www.lucistrust.org/index.shtmlThis seems to have some very interesting readings in it and will do some more reading up on Alice A. Bailey.It does fall in place with my previous comment, I am happy to know that you have a great understanding.Many blessings and Thank you very much!
//”Christian causes” – what are they? Feeding the hungry? Clothing the naked? I seem to recall that Christ was more concerned with those than in blowing up countries or bashing gays. The Democrats come closer to these issues than the GOP ever has or ever will.//
Let us not forget the shedding of innocent blood (abortion, Ted Kennedy)Immorality (homosexuality, pornography, adultery, and more)Disloyalty (making political hay out of the sacrifices of others at the expense of ones family, friends, state or country)Bearing false witness (Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Pelosie, John Kerry, and more than can be listed here.)Murder (guess who?-there are so many suspects)
I could go on but why. Neither political party is innocent of wrong doing and neither is going to provide a path to heaven. Believers have every right to support and campaign for those who they feel have their best interests at heart.Would it be acceptable in todays PC choked environment to say Gays should not support those who espouse ideas popular to that portion of society.The Republican party may not always follow the path religious people would prefer but at least people of faith are not abused and offended as they are in the Democratic party. It is apparent by many of the comments so far that anyone who confesses a belief in a higher authority is considered a rube, naive and or a moron. Why would a person support an agenda that so violently opposes those ideas held in such esteem by people of faith?Most religious people simply want to be able to live according to the dictates of their own consciences. Most non religious people seem bent on making that impossible and imposing their lack of belief on everyone. We are guaranteed freedom OF religion not FROM religion in the Constitution. Too bad most Democrats have never read it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”That’s what it says. Then again some people never let the facts interfere with their beliefs
JM, it’s RD, not RM.
“David Kuo held a position on Bush’s team sure, but WHAT POSSESSED HIM TO WRITE A BOOK AND RELEASE IT ONE MONTH BEFORE AN ELECTION says more about him than it does Bush or Republicans.” (My caps, your words.)
Now, I read your words to mean that Mr. Kuo released the book. Isn’t that what the sentence says? If that isn’t what you meant literally, then perhaps you should have said it in a different way.
Do you not know the meaning of the word IF? “And if you think a publisher doesn’t take into account…”
Geez, some people are so touchy!
“Then again some people never let the facts interfere with their beliefs”
Uh, well said, but not the way you meant, I’m sure.
Nathan,
I read your link. I just can’t buy into the “order of things” explanation. The article clearly states agreement with the submission of women, because God ordained the order of men first, women second. Blame it on Eve. ::sigh:: I think we women have managed to pay off this debt in large magnitude over the past how many thousand, million, whatever, of years. Hey, you try PMS, pregancy, childbirth, and hot flashes and see how you like it.
This is not to say that I think men don’t deserve respect. Even on my worst Hate Men days, I manage to give them respect. (It’s a joke. Really.)
I’m going to be sincere here and ask why we need so many interpretations of the Bible from so many people and so many sects of Christianity. Most of it is not that difficult to understand its current form.
Bear with me for a minute, okay? I’m just going to type out some thoughts and see what happens.
Eve took a bite from the fruit of the forbidden Tree of Knowledge. That would mean she sinned first…went against God’s law. She then encouraged Adam to do the same. Guess what? He did it! Oh, I suppose he argued and tried to tell her no, but it seems to me he was the submissive one. So why should women be destined to be submissive, according to the Bible? Seems he was at least as weak as Eve, if not weaker. (This is a woman’s view, and I’m sure men won’t be in agreement. That’s okay, guys. ;) )
The above is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it does address the issue of the submission of women to men. I believe I know why this is the way the Bible teaches. No sense airing that here. I’d only have to argue with a whole bunch of men, and it just isn’t worth the effort. Women are definitely the minority here. We don’t, however, seem to be all that submissive. :)
RD,
I don’t think you did read the link (or missed this), because you are still throwing around the women = evil crap.
Let me pull out an excerpt for you:
The curse lifted. The judgment pronounced upon Eve that her husband would rule over her (Genesis 3:14-19) was a consequence of the Fall, not the original order and design in creation. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law upon sin (Galatians 3:10-14), and thus He restores the mutual and complementary relationship which Adam and Eve shared before the Fall (Genesis 2:23,24; Ephesians 5:28-31; 1 Corinthians 11:11, 12).
I think you are still in confusion over societal and cultural norms vs the Bible and God’s word.
As with any writings you have to take into account the time they were written.
The link talked about that too.
For everyone,
I know it is far easier to try to throw around crap to bash Christianity though… please don’t take an educated look at the Bible, I wouldn’t want you to actually learn anything.
Before the Fall, Eve was subservient to Adam, being created of his rib. Now if only they were created simultaneously… (Adam & Lilith?)
My father once said that Paradise is located on the soles of feet of one’s mother. For she’s the one who fought Death face-to-face to bring Life into the world.
And Nathan, I see nobody in general bashing Christianity here, only Christianists.
Nathan,”Coming from two non-Christians, one of whom is so openly hostile towards Christians at that.”Hey, I’m only hostile to christians who are hostile to me or my friends. While I am not christian, and have no desire to be, I do have many christian friends who accept me as is.
Roo Hoo,
Adam was created before Lilith, too. Eve came along much later. According to the Lilith Myth, Adam, seeing the animals in the Garden mating, was jealous and tried coupling with each of them and was not satisfied. He complained to God, who then began to create a woman for him. Lilith from dirt. But she wanted equalilty. Actually, she wanted to be on top, now and then, but Adam refused. She got po’d and left, living on the coast of the Red Sea, outside of the Garden. God then began to create the first Eve from Adam’s bones, tissues, and such, but Adam wasn’t happy with this one either. God then created the second Eve, the one we’re familiar with. (Moral of the story: You just can’t please some men.)
This is all from memory, so may not be exact.
BTW, Lilith is said to have become an strangler of children. Not a nice Goddess/Demoness, after all. But the story is definitely cool! Much more fun than that of simply Adam and Eve.
http://www.gnosis.org/lilith.htm
The rest of this is for pondering.
(h) Some say that God created Eve not from Adam’s rib, but from a tail ending in a sting which had been part of his body. God cut this off, and the stump-now a useless coccyx-is still carried by Adam’s descendants.
(i) Others say that God’s original thought had been to create two human beings, male and female; but instead He designed a single one with a male face looking forward, and a female face looking back. Again He changed His mind, removed Adam’s backward-looking face, and built a woman’s body for it.
(j) Still others hold that Adam was originally created as an androgyne of male and female bodies joined back to back. Since this posture made locomotion difficult, and conversation awkward, God divided the androgyne and gave each half a new rear. These separate beings He placed in Eden, forbidding them to couple.
Nathan,
Could be I missed it. I admit to being tired and having spent all day with a headache. I skimmed past the first few paragraphs. I will re-read it again.
“The Scriptures do teach the headship of man and the submissive role of the woman in the marriage relationship, “as it is fit in the Lord” (Genesis 3:16; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:6; Titus 2:3-5). These passages and also the disputed passages in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14: 34, 35; and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, refer primarily to the wife’s submission to her husband.
The scriptural injunction to submit does not imply domination or the relationship of an inferior to a superior, but it establishes an order of responsible authority. It is given a rather broad application in the Scriptures, including submission to those over us in the Lord (Hebrews 13:17). We are all admonished to submit to one another (1Corinthians 16:16; Ephesians 5:21; 1 Peter 5:5).”
By “order,” I didn’t mean by order of the original creation and understand that it was determined by the Fall.
I also understand and point out that the link you referred me to concerned a woman’s place in the church much more than a woman’s place in a marriage. I get your point, though, and won’t disagree with you on the change in a woman’s place in the church.
Women=evil? Surely, you jest! Truly, I didn’t say anything of the kind or that anyone said so. The discussion is about submission. And, yes, remembering the time period the Bible was written is important. My problem is that there are a large amount of men who still stand by it. Not saying you are, just that I’ve met more than a few. ;)
Could it be in some cases that submit may mean respect? Giving one his/her due just for being a human? Hey, we’re in agreement on that!
Hey, Nathan! When you get a minute, check out the post of gary g at http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/10/brownbacks_inte.html#comments
Let’s both hope he didn’t get his opinion from the Bible. I doubt he did.
WHY A CHRISTIAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE FELT BETRAYED
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546580-1,00.html
This is an interesting quote from the article. In is in a nutshell why the President continues to have my support as much as anything. Politics sucks. But the President is a good man. I’d rather support a person who I know shares my faith whose hands seem to be tied by politics in the USA vs. a Godless person whose hands are tied by politics in the good ole USA.
“George W. Bush, the man, is a person of profound faith and deep compassion for those who suffer. But President George W. Bush is a politician and is ultimately no different from any other politician, content to use religion for electoral gain more than for good works. Millions of Evangelicals may share Bush’s faith, but they would protect themselves–and their interests–better if they looked at him through the same coldly political lens with which he views them.”
Kia
I am glad that bush has not been willing to enact the fundamentalist agenda that such as you trusted him to do Kia.
I am also sorry for you. You have been used.
Kia
I am glad that bush has not been willing to enact the fundamentalist agenda that such as you trusted him to do Kia.
I am also sorry for you. You have been used.
Well that depends on what you think I expected him to do JR.
What I find most compellng about the book and the article is that obviously it’s timing is set up to keep Christians who swung at least the last election in GOP favor away from the polls, it has done nothing but validate my feelings on what kind of man our president is.For today I’m satisfied to know that I have a President who shares my heart.
KIA,
You are a damn fool. Allow me to reiterate that: you are a damn fool.Your subservience to the GOP while believing that such party has God’s and Evangelicals best interests at hand while showing utter contempt for Evangelical voters way of life coupled with Bush’s sheer incompetence with the Faith-based Initiative groups only shows that he is Uncle Tom and you and all your Evangelical suck up buddies are nothing but his house niggers.
Pardon my political incorrectness please.
But hey, this is Dubya “Your American Messiah” we’re talking about, incompetence is to be expected.
JR,
First of all there is no “fundamentalist” agenda we expected him to enact.
How have we been used?
Lets here a logical, well thought out argument from you instead of the mere assumption that somehow this book is the almighty truth of whatever you want it to say.
Will,
Even if 10% of the crap you say is true, Bush and the GOP are stil 10 times better for Evangelicals than the democrats ever will be.
I don’t know if that is more of an insult to the democrats or not.
Either way, I have yet to see anyone of you actually show something as an example other than the mere invoking of this book as if it proves whatever you want it to.
Yess’um Massah!Yess’um Massah!
If I were Kuo, I would have bitchslapped every one of those GOP pricks who deride their evangelical voters.
Kuo is very humble. Even to the point of verbal abuse he keeps his “Yess’um Massah!” attitude!
nathan,I pray that there are evangelicals out there who do not share your naivete.
If not then God help us all!
Will,
What are the names of those staffers who “derided” evangelicals?
RD,
The thing many people skip over is that the Bible instructs men on honoring their wife as well. It is not a one way street even though that is all people like to pick out to try and say that the Bible is against women.
nathan
scroll up to my first post
I am done with you and your family Nathan. Good luck, go with your God and don’t take any wooden nickels.Abortion is still legal. As it should be.
Prayer is still out of schools. As it should be.
This is not as you fundies wished. I am glad you did not get your wish. I feel just a bit sorry that you were used. A bit,,,,but not much.
oooooohhhhh that’s gotta sting!:)
JR,A shot in the dark here, but I gather that your large ego is the result of your small “manhood?” Or lack thereof?
:)
Nathan,
Yes, I’ve read about the husband honoring the wife, too, in the Bible. I’m not exactly sure how that is supposed to play out. But there is less about a husband honoring his wife than there is about a woman being submissive. At least that was my take on it the last time I studied that portion of the Bible.
In a good and true Christian marriage, this would work fine for most. It doesn’t always because, as even you have said, some people want to take from the Bible what they want to take from it.
I’m not sure I completely agree with the ‘a woman has her place, a man has his place’ kind of thinking. I consider marriage a partnership, with both partners equal. Or it should be. I guess it all goes back to the mores of the time the Bible was written.
I’m not saying you don’t agree that marriage is a partnership. We could see this differently because you’re a him and I’m a her. I do think we probably basically agree on much of it though.
Now Will I have been nice to you for the longest time.
I know that you are by your own admission a “troubled young man” I afford you that. It was I who spoke up for you even after you threatened to kill another poster here. I did that even after you spent most of a night posting “your mama” posts against me and Rage. I think there were more than 50 of those. I could do a “bonedig”. Instead I’ll just watch you melt down………again.
JR,
Bush never promised or said he would put prayer into schools.
Bush never said he would get rid of abortion.
I never expected him to do either.
Is that all you got to say he is using us “fundies?”
JR,
Bush has however, placed judges onto the Supreme Court who would be more sympathetic to restrictions on abortion and maybe an outright overturning of Roe V Wade.
Bush has also been an advocate for the partial birth abortion ban and signed it into law.
So, I am still waiting for how he is just using us fundies.
President Bush is more online with my faith than many of the Democrats.
Like I said before, even if Bush wasn’t all that great for Christians, he is still better than the alternative.
JR,For an important guy like you, who could utterly destroy my “credibility” I am indeed grateful!
By the way Nathan, I am “done with you and your family.”
Bet you don’t like that huh?
Nathan,I saw an interview with the man who was the head of the Faith Based department and was David’s Boss. I don’t know what interview you saw but he agreed with everything David said and also quit the department for the same reasons. I tend to believe David and his former boss more than I would a current emplyee. lolwww.politicalheartland.blogspot.com
I would like to point out to those who don’t believe the book or feel they didn’t expect Bush to change anything for them. I am a liberal and also Christian. What I find offensive is the words that were used to refer to Evangelicals. Not that he didn’t do anything. I might also point out that those who claim to be Christian and hate liberals don’t reflect that in everyday life. Karl Rove takes his children to a very liberal private school in Washington, as well Sam Brownbacks kids attend a private liberal school in Topeka.