Politically active pastors must keep up the pretense that they aren’t endorsing candidates or risk their churches’ tax-exempt status. But that was before Pulpit Freedom Sunday, which will find at least 33 pastors this weekend making their picks public and practically inviting the Internal Revenue Service to come after them. “What they’re doing is talking to their congregations about biblical issues related to candidates and elections, and they believe they have the constitutional right to do that,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the sponsoring Alliance Defense Fund.
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
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- XXX on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
165 Comments
Bet most of them are black.
Reading comprehension test for the above for the typical American.
1. Pol Pot is alive, and forming an army in the jungle.
2. Pastured milk is tax exempt
3. A bully pulpit ought to be tax exempt
4. Democrats want to stop preachers from telling us how to vote.
Oh good, I hope they can be taxed like the businesses they are. The self-proclaimed pastor, Mark Holick, who has a history of violence and criminal activity, is allegedly one of the “pastors” who will, once again, endorse a candidate.
I can just hear them shouting in megachurches how through the power of the ballot, the congregation’s will can be welded into one mighty fist of God. That could apply to zoning in your city, too, and pet leash laws. I’d – uh — stay away from this one. Tax those bastards until there’s nothing left but salty ground where there churches once stood.
“What they’re doing is talking to their congregations about biblical issues related to candidates and elections, and they believe they have the constitutional right to do that,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the sponsoring Alliance Defense Fund.
As long as they don’t openly endorse a candidate are they still on pretty firm ground in regards to tax exempt status? I was under the impression(maybe wrongfully so) that as long as they didn’t overtly come out and support a candidate and use the church for the said candidate that was ok. I’m for keeping politics out of the pulpit,too many people are too easily persuaded.
I have never had a preacher tell me who they are voting for or who we should vote for. I don’t know why so many people panic about it. They assume that every member of the church follows blindly everything that their pastor says.
As for their constitutional right, yes they do have that constitutional right to freedom of speech but the government has stepped in and told them they will lose their tax exemption if they use that right. I would like to see Hollywood lose money every time they use their constitutional right about politics. That sure would change the movie and tv industry, wouldn’t it? Or even have the MSM lose money or even better yet fire staff that would use their constitutional rights when they show which candidate they are for and who they think we should vote for(anyone say polls?).
It seems to me that it is the democrat liberals who want to shutdown any institution that may use their freedom of speech that is not in line with what the dems believe such as talk radio and churches. However, dems don’t mind it when the MSM and movie industry use their freedom of speech because they are in agreement with the dems.
I believe that all people and institutions should have freedom of speech. Once you take it away from someone, it is easier to take it away from the next person. Anyway, we all have freedom of choice and if we don’t like what a pastor says, we can leave. If we don’t like a movie, we don’t have to go or we can leave. If we don’t like what’s on tv or radio, we can turn it off. That is a freedom too.
btw – I don’t think a lot of these dems really care when it is a Pastor that is supporting a democrat candidate. It happens all the time.
“As for their constitutional right, yes they do have that constitutional right to freedom of speech but the government has stepped in and told them they will lose their tax exemption if they use that right. I would like to see Hollywood lose money every time they use their constitutional right about politics.”
Uh huh.
Let’s be clear on a few things.
1) “Hollywood” is not tax exempt. Directors and producers and actors all have to pay their taxes. Therefore, your “I would like to see” comment is nonsense.
2) Churches are tax exempt, as are other organizations that are affiliated with causes (like, for example, the American Red Cross or the Sierra Club).
3) Tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Ministers have first amendment freedoms to support candidates, but if they express that support in their official capacity, then it is considered an official act of endorsement. Therefore, if those cynical Christian right coalition conservatives who want to “lift” the “unconstitutional” muzzles from churches (reasoning that evangelical churches will overwhelmingly support them), fine, but also do it for the cause related organizations (such as human rights or environmental advocacy groups) that might tend to go the other way (and guess what, the legislation the righties proposed only referred to religious organizations-freedom to endorse candidates for mine but not for thine, indeed). In the meantime, to keep the PRIVILIGE of being tax exempt, everybody in the position of speaking for a tax exempt organization has to keep their traps shut about which candidate they support.
I hope the pastors of churches all over this country speak out loudly and clearly as to the biblical principals surrounding the voting issues, and where the candidates positions stand relative to those principals.
As long as they don’t say basically, “vote for this guy”, they are within their 1st Amendment rights.
Pointing out the difference is fine.
Taxing churches would be in direct opposition of the so called separation of church and state. Not only that, but you would be taking money directly out of the hands of many faith based charitable organizations. Organizations like “The Lord’s Diner”.
Go ahead and tax away… but don’t be surprised if that isn’t the first step to making Roman Catholicism the most powerful political force in America, and eventually our “national religion”.
More people will be turned off by the practice of being told who to vote for from the pulpit. The Southern Baptist Convention is already losing membership because they’re perceived by their own members as bigots and sexist – apparently having wives take oathes to submit to their husbands hasn’t been a big winner for them. Let’s add having your preacher tell you from the pulpit “You’re not a real Christian unless you vote for who I tell you God tells you to” in the mix and see how it goes for them. The majority of the people will resent it.
That “Politics is inherent in the Old and New Testaments” the SBC’s position doesn’t appeal to the People once they figure out -as with our country’s current economic state and bailing out the rich who’ve caused the crisis- that power, wealth and politics go hand-in-hand and that the little guy’s “morality” only counts for the vote that comes with it.
This is going to blow up in these preachers’ faces and the sooner the better. It’s time America and Americans returned to Civic life and renewed their respect for the Founders and the great ideals this nation was founded on that are expressed in the Declaration and Constitution.
This experiment has already been done.
In the United Kingdom, it ended up being the official State church.
What’s one of the other places that intertwines religion and politics, Iran?
No thanks.
If Ministers and congregation want to have organizations based on secular political influence, then they should form another group like a PAC and use their ideology to drive their political appetites.
“Taxing churches would be in direct opposition of the so called separation of church and state.”
No it wouldn’t Sam, as long as churches were taxed according to the same rules as everyone else is.
“Not only that, but you would be taking money directly out of the hands of many faith based charitable organizations. Organizations like ‘The Lord’s Diner’.”
Again, not if charitable organizations that were sponsored by churches were tax exempt, just as secular charities are also tax exempt.
“Go ahead and tax away… but don’t be surprised if that isn’t the first step to making Roman Catholicism the most powerful political force in America, and eventually our ‘national religion’.”
With all due respect, I don’t think this comment even makes sense. Also, for my part, I am not arguing that churches should or should not be taxed. However, as tax exempt organizations, like charities and social cause organizations, they should have to follow the same rules as those other organizations. And if pastors decide to specifically endorse candidates, they risk their church’s tax exemption. No one is going to throw them in jail. They have the “right” to speak out. But, they don’t have the “right” to tax exemption.
Like I said, I have never heard a pastor say to who vote for. And like Boxlock said, there is nothing wrong with them speaking issues as long as they don’t say vote for this guy.
It seems that most of you just ignored the fact about the freedom of choice that I mentioned. They do go hand in hand. I think that our freedom of choice can determine who we vote for and what churches we go to. I don’t think it should be the government making those choices for us. It is as though the government believes they know better what is right for us than we do. How do you feel about that?
“It seems that most of you just ignored the fact about the freedom of choice that I mentioned.”
You weren’t talking facts, you were making poisoning the well accusations against “democratic liberals” trying to take away your choices. It wasn’t really worthy of response.
Let’s be clear, your regular rantings against the MSM are simply over the top paranoid nonsense. When your viewpoint loses in the marketplace of ideas, it is the MSM’s fault for misrepresenting or muzzling the “right” view.
You’ve got some good and brave words Borghunter. Let me help you with them.
“It seems that most of you just ignored the fact about the freedom of choice that I mentioned.”
It is certain members of the church looking to restrict this freedom or that.
And implying that they have the say so from “god” for doing so.
“I don’t think it should be the government making those choices for us.”
See above.
“It is as though the government believes they know better what is right for us than we do. How do you feel about that?”
Much the same way I feel about those who would speak for some supposed all powerful entity…
who never seems able to express himself.
Sam does make a good point. The Catholic Church is a very powerful religious organization in this country. To change their status from exempt to non exempt would open the door for openly enticing members to vote for the church’s choice.
As an example of how powerful the church is, you can watch a god/bad Notre Dame football game on TV every weekend. They buy air time for their football games. They will be in a college bowl game every year, regardless of record, because they bring in big bucks. Right? Wrong? Pointless: money talks, and Catholics have money.
With that kind of money, and a non exempt tax status, the Catholic Church in this country could have a major influence on elections.
Religious churches should stay out of politics, and work on peoples souls. Separation of church and state is there for that specific reason.
This is one of the problems I have with Palin. A political person going to any church, and telling people God has a plan for Iraq, or God has a plan for an oil pipeline, or allows some witch hunter to perform some exorcism on her, is, in my opinion, mixing the two big time. Someone that far out would have a difficult time separating the two. That is not what the Constitution stands for.
Most churches do care more about helping others than punishing others and are therefore democratic. Who could be more liberal than Jesus? The politically active ministers that misuse the respect of their position can mislead.
There is not a constitutional right to violate a tax exempt privilege by improper speech. Speech that harms is not always protected. Holick’s abuse of children should not be protected.
JM,
I don’t know about your last post. If she was attending the church in her capacity as gov. yes that is mixxing the 2 big time. However, if she was there just as a parishioner,albeit the ceremony was a little(?) odd then she is not mixing the two.
The oft-watched YouTube of Gov. Palin speaking to graduates of a church program where she does indeed tell the audience God has a plan both for Iraq and the pipeline, where she talks about the visiting witch doctor praying over her and contributing to her success in winning her office — was after she left that congregation and joined another less controversial. She was introduced as governor. It was obviously a mixture of “the two,” BIG TIME.
And does anyone actually question which is her church home? The one she attended since she was a young girl or the “less controversial” one she joined recently? Did the change of church have anything to do with the possibility she would be scrutinized more closely as her political career took off?
View and draw your own conclusions. Governor Palin speaking in her old church home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0UQbA0ZmmM
And does anyone actually question which is her church home? The one she attended since she was a young girl or the “less controversial” one she joined recently? Did the change of church have anything to do with the possibility she would be scrutinized more closely as her political career took off?
—————————————————-
What bothers me more than which church is her home is her obvious lack of knowledge and expertise for the job she is running for
Yes, most people see that as a potential problem. McCain gambled and if elected and unable to serve out his term, WE THE PEOPLE lose on his gamble.
Linda,
I dont’ know how old you are,but I remember all the hysteria coming from some quarters about JFK being Catholic. I heard normally sensible people(I was just a kid but still remember how silly it seemed) saying the things like the Popes flag would fly over the capital and things like that. To my way of thinking no politician who wants to serve out his term would even think about bringing their religious precepts to play in their policies
I’m in my sixties, Freebird. I remember that time well.
It’s a more recent phenom. Sometimes referred to as “religious right,” social issues that are better dealt with outside government at any level have more influence today with some people than good governance.
(This is well worth the read.)
Why we don’t take sides on candidates
My dear friends,
A group called the Alliance Defense Fund is urging pastors across the country to join their Pulpit Freedom Initiative by preaching a sermon “that addresses the candidates for government office in light of the truth of Scripture.”
The group’s goal is to challenge the Internal Revenue Service’s restriction on tax-exempt organizations “by specifically opposing candidates for office that do not align themselves and their positions with the scriptural truth.”
Needless to say, none of our Catholic churches or priests will be participating in this initiative. For one thing, we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt. That is why we accept that status and agree to abide by IRS rules that ban religious organizations from becoming involved in partisan politics.
For another, “scriptural truth” is not that easy to attain. Which is more “true” in terms of scripture: The Old Testament passage that says “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” or Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek”?
The problem is that people often quote selectively from Scripture in order to back their own opinions. The other problem is that rarely, if ever, does an individual candidate or political party embody the gamut of “scriptural truth.”
The Catholic Church values Scripture, but we also value 2,000 years of oral and written tradition handed down from the apostles and their disciples, and another 2,000 years of ongoing theological reflection by some of the greatest thinkers and saints.
When we teach on a particular moral issue, we rely on the whole of that tradition rather than on any individual’s opinion or interpretation of Scripture.
That is not to say that we are not involved in politics. Catholics do not give up their right to vote or take political sides when they are baptized.
But the role of the church is not to be like the “party boss” who goes around telling people how to vote. Our responsibility is to remind people to vote wisely; to reveal to them the wisdom of Scripture, the wisdom of the church’s moral tradition, so that they can base their votes on solid moral ground.
Too often, people vote based on their feelings, or on the partial sound-bites of candidates pushing a particular point of view. More often than not, decisions based on feelings or partial information turn out to be wrong.
That is why it is especially important for voters to study all sides of an issue — or candidate — and examine that information in light of their own beliefs and values.
When church leaders speak on issues such as immigration, poverty, health care, abortion, war or embryonic stem cell research, we are not telling people how to vote. We are reminding them of the moral teachings that should inform their lives, and as a result, their votes.
We will not speak on behalf of individual candidates or parties. But we will speak in support of legislation that we consider to be morally sound and beneficial to the whole community — regardless of which party or candidate proposes it — and we will speak against legislation that we consider harmful to individuals and society as a whole.
In the coming weeks, you will be hearing from the bishops of Florida regarding important issues that we believe will impact the future well-being of all the people in our state.
That is our duty as teachers and successors of the apostles.
Your duty as Catholics is to listen to those teachings before making rational, informed, conscientious decisions regarding whom or what to vote for.
Archbishop John C. Favalora,
Archbishop of Miami
September 12, 2008
http://www.miamiarchdiocese.org/Statement.asp?op=Column080912&lg=E
People holding political office speak in churches big time, and generally they tend to go to churches where they think they will have a sympathetic ear. As long as the churches would not refuse to allow one candidate to speak while allowing another, there really isn’t a violation, even if candidates themselves are the selective determiner of which church they speak in.
Palin did not cross the line on this one.
Archbishop John C. Favalora should explain how it is that taxcuts for the richest, $4 a gallon milk and an economic bailout that’s going to cost working class families $17,000+ is saving babies.
Palin used Alaska taxpayer dollars to make the trip.
Seems like we have a very distinctive line separating church and state, when we want to.
Sorry, you can sugarcoat it all you want, but if they are using the pulpit to bring politic’s into God’s house, then they are inviting the IRS to visit was well.
Can’t have it both ways.
was well should be “as well”.
Well, no politics of any kind was mentioned this morning at Central Christian.
Chris and Borg, the sheepiest of the sheep, think they vote differently from their pastor? Oh please.
“But the role of the church is not to be like the “party boss” who goes around telling people how to vote. Our responsibility is to remind people to vote wisely; to reveal to them the wisdom of Scripture, the wisdom of the church’s moral tradition, so that they can base their votes on solid moral ground.”
Isn’t that the same church that threatened to disfellowship Sebelius and Kerry for being pro-choice?
I’m starting to think that politicians should be barred from talking about God as well.
“Archbishop John C. Favalora should explain how it is that taxcuts for the richest, $4 a gallon milk and an economic bailout that’s going to cost working class families $17,000+ is saving babies.”
Why? I am quite aware of Archbishops and bishops who hold liberal views on quite a lot of issues outside of abortion. Not all the bishops are as abortion obsessed as some of the nitwits who “spoke out” during the Kerry campaign.
“Sam does make a good point. The Catholic Church is a very powerful religious organization in this country. To change their status from exempt to non exempt would open the door for openly enticing members to vote for the church’s choice.”
They may be powerful, but they are not even close to overwhelmingly so, and they would still have to function in a democratic constitutional republic that prohibits them from becoming the legal religion of the land. Yes, the Catholic church tends to take what power it can in a given country, but there would still be limitations regardless of tax exemption. Remember, churches used to be able to openly endorse candidates. This isn’t a First Amendment issue, it’s a tax code issue. If the tax code were to change for everyone, it wouldn’t change current proportions of influence much.
The problem is, the coalition conservative republicans who were so determined to “lift the muzzle” from churches were equally determined to leave the muzzle on other non-profits. The short term political reasoning behind this is obvious.
“I’m starting to think that politicians should be barred from talking about God as well.”
What was the point of that comment?
Personally, I think God would disavow many politicians.
All Hail to the FSM, and the Holy Sauce!!
According to our constitution, “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification of any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
And yet here are churches trying deperately to impose religious tests of all sorts to the candidates. As a result, every candidate for office (right down to dogcatcher) has to pay some kind of lip service to the various christian churches and toss them a legislative bone now and again, despite his personal beliefs, or risk having church members being told that God said to vote against him.
There have been times in our recent history when a Catholic couldn’t get elected simply because he was Catholic. In colonial times, he would have been hanged or sold into slavery, Quakers had their tongues bored, Anglicans were burned and Baptists and Methodists were persecuted almost everywhere. We have a terrible history of anti-semitism in our land. Our founding fathers tried to put an end to such practices by instituting freedom of religion, but the churches still do their best to promote religious hatred. Just look at all the churches spreading the lie that Obama is at least partly (someone here said 44%?) Muslim, as if that makes a difference under our secular government.
When churches demand that candidates discuss their religious beliefs, and exercise those beliefs as legislation for the benefit of churches, the churches have left their spiritual purposes behind and entered the secular arena. Now I have no problem with churches tax-exempt status in regard to their charitable works, but when they attempt, or are hired to become political influence groups for particular candidates or parties, they should register and render unto Caesar the same as any other lobbying group.
Chas,
It is amazing that you as a Christian minister would embrace a made up religion whose sole purpose is to mock others faith.
Political_Mama,
You continue to show us your bigotry of Christianity.
Chas,
I’m so sorry, but I can’t become a Pastafarian; I’m allergic to oregano.
There ya go Jed… I do believe thats what you were referring to….
Jed,
You show me “all these churches” spreading that Obama is a muslim and I will look at them.
Now Nathan even attempts to define for me what my sense of humor should be!!
Pure TRASH Nathan!! But go ahead, and spout your daily dose of bigotry… We have come to expect that here… LOL!!
Those with faith have just as much of a right to voice their opinions and what matters to them as anyone else does.
Where is it written that only secular humanism can be allowed in politics?
When 90% of the people you represent are either Christian or hold some faith then it is important that you are someone that they believe will reflect their values in government.
Simply because those values are based on a religious world view is not reason to disqualify them.
The concpet is not freedom FROM religion it is freedom OF religion.
JED –
I understand you can substitute a little Rosemary and Thyme in such cases as yours…
Nathan,
“It is amazing that you as a Christian minister would embrace a made up religion whose sole purpose is to mock others faith.”
Isn’t that what all religions say about all other religions? Isn’t christianity a made-up religion to mock and persecute Jews?
Freedom OF religion, by its very nature, includes Freedom FROM religion, if that is the choice of the individual….
In the novel, Scarlet Letter, one might recall how those who chose NOT to attend weekly worship servies, were later put into the public stock, where the “righteous” folk could pelt them with rotten vegetables…
Our wise Founders rightfully remembered such atrocities, and instituted the Freedom OF Religion, to ensure that such religious bigotry would no longer occur…
And yet, here in 2008, we still have some boneheads who would argue that Freedom OF Religion doesnt include Freedom FROM religion…
Yea, sure, right!!
But… but… Jed… the FSM persecutes no one… not even Vegans, for there are some delightful blends of Vegetarian Pasta mixes…
“Where is it written that only secular humanism can be allowed in politics?’
Nice poisoning the well nonsense. Arguments that a government should be neutral on religious matters and therefore functionally secular in no way equals secular humanism.
Nice red herring.
#
Nathaniel
Posted September 28, 2008 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
Chas,
It is amazing that you as a Christian minister would embrace a made up religion whose sole purpose is to mock others faith.
Whereas I’m not at all surprised you’re still spouting this talking point. But I am genuinely sorry that teaching religion as science is a doctrine of your faith. I think most people mistakenly assumed it was a public policy position, seeing how it involved many other people who weren’t members of your “religion”, and took place in a government facility and all. How could Bobby What-his-name have known that your religious ceremonies included teaching activities in the public schools?
Perhaps then Chas should apologize for attacking your “religion,” strange as it may seem to us. But then you should also acknowledge that making other people’s children participate in your religious ceremonies is unacceptable.
Chas,
How does freedom of religion translate into freedom of religion?
When you talk about physically forcing someone to do something we are already violating several other right and legalities. Besides that is FORCING religion on someone.
If you truly logically believed that freedom of religion meant freedom from religion then there could be NO religious speech in public outside of private property period.
That is simply absurd.
First sentence should have been freedom of religion into freedom FROM religion…
Jed,
Even if we do accept your premise that Christianity is indeed made up to mock a Jew…
My point would be that it would be rather odd that a Jewish rabbi would then embrace Christianity in mocking his own faith.
That is simply absurd.
No, it’s just common sense. Anyone with enough sense to come in from the rain knows that it is literally impossible to have freedom of religion without having freedom from religion.
And since I’ve explained this obvious principle many times before, I’m not going to do it again.
Nathan, I said NOTHING about freedom of religion translating into freedom FROM religion… PLEASE READ… and stop your stupid, silly red herrings….
I SAID… Freedom of religion INCLUDES freedom FROM religion…
What YOU offer, is the absurd!!
Rage,
I only bring up the point when Chas presents it. I have no intention of dragging it out like we used to do.
But as usual, you liberals are always right here to pounce on me when I say something about someone elses faith and you NEVER say anything to Maggotpunk, CapnAmerica, or Mary when they say something about my faith or any of the other Christians on this forum.
But… nevermind.
Teaching religion as science is not a doctrine of my faith. Nice strawman argument.
I have said several times on this blog that I do not believe in forcing anyone to do anything religious. Specifically forcing them to learn about creation.
There are a few that think it should be at least offered in school and a few more who think it should be part of the curriculum. I disagree, but either way it is hardly a “doctrine” of our faith either way.
Rage,
Perhaps the difference is in what you think Freedom FROM religion is and what I think Freedom FROM religion is.
Do you think that you have a right (or should have the right) to walk down the sidewalk without ever seeing anything religious or hearing someone say something religious?
Chas,
And this is where it becomes pointless to continue a discussion with you.
Rage,
Do you think you have the right to come to a public forum as this one and not be subjected to someone saying something religious?
Just what exactly do you mean by “Freedom FROM religion?”
When I say “Freedom FROM religion” I am thinking about you having an absolute right to not ever have to see, hear, or be around religion at all.
“When I say “Freedom FROM religion” I am thinking about you having an absolute right to not ever have to see, hear, or be around religion at all.”
Thats your absurd point Nathan >>>>
That is not at all what Freedom FROM religion means… Inasmuch as Freedom of Religion allows anyone to practice any religion of their own choosing… Freedom FROM religion is merely an extension of that… namely, the freedom to not poracticee ANY religion at all….
As noted earlier, we have a significant part of our Constitution that FORBIDS the use of religious belief as a Litmus Test for election to public office (more specifically, nomination to the Judiciary)
Chas,
The religious test is one not to be imposed upon someone by the government.
We as individuals can choose to vote for whomever we want based soley on thier meeting our religious criteria. That is our freedom to choose whom to represent us.
If I don’t want to vote for someone soley because they are not a Christian, then I don’t have to.
Chas,
It is not an absurd point. It is simply what I think of when I say Freedom FROM Religion. I was trying to bridge the gap between our understandings of what we thought it meant and all you can do is call me absurd.
Idiot.
Nathan,
“When 90% of the people you represent are either Christian or hold some faith then it is important that you are someone that they believe will reflect their values in government.”
So you are saying that countries that are predominantly Muslim are justified in persecuting christians? Would you say that in a predominately Baptist town, a Catholic or Pentecostal would be unfit for office? The country has been there and done that to its own detriment, and it’s time to move on!
“Simply because those values are based on a religious world view is not reason to disqualify them.”
But you do your damnedest to try to mock, threaten and disqualify anyone whose values are not based on your conceptual world view. In fact that’s just about all you do. And I might point out that many if not most christians would find your particular world view highly offensive. Try running for office on a platform of the opinions you’ve stated here, and see just how far you get!
World views are of necessity highly personal and varied. I rather doubt you would find two family members whose world view agrees in all respects, let alone two church members. Why do you think that every religion has so many varied sects, and why is there such disagreement even within those sects? A world view (as much as churches and politicians have tried over the centuries)is experiential and can’t be successfully imposed on another person. While you may find some sort of general agreement, the devil is always in the details. And we’ve fought wars and slaughtered millions over those details! You yourself are in the business of slaughtering human beings over just such details, so I assume you want the killing to continue. Some of us believe that we need to address more important issues that the exact number of angels who can tango on the head of a pin.
“When I say “Freedom FROM religion” I am thinking about you having an absolute right to not ever have to see, hear, or be around religion at all.”
I cannot see how this would even be remotely possible, unless you lived your entire life within a public school. Thus, I am wondering why we need to argue about this?
Steven,
In many of my discussions with others outside of this blog, when they say “freedom FROM religion” they are talking about the fact that they shouldn’t ever have to hear or see anything religious.
That is why I am used to a different meaning of the term.
I was not seeking to argue about it anymore than trying to figure out what Rage and Chas meant when they used it since it is obviously something very different than what I thought.
OK, Nathan.
Nathaniel,
Your intolerance and insults do NOT reflect well upon your “religion”.
Jed,
“So you are saying that countries that are predominantly Muslim are justified in persecuting christians?”
Of course not. That is where freedom of religion comes into play. Many countries have no such freedom or guaruntee of freedom as ours.
“Would you say that in a predominately Baptist town, a Catholic or Pentecostal would be unfit for office?”
Unfit? Not on that fact, no. However, if all those Baptists want someone Baptist, then that is who they are going to vote for. Are you saying that you shouldn’t be allowed to vote for who you want to?
“But you do your damnedest to try to mock, threaten and disqualify anyone whose values are not based on your conceptual world view. In fact that’s just about all you do.”
That is all anyone does.
“And I might point out that many if not most christians would find your particular world view highly offensive.”
Again, you love to make these broad statements. Who are these “many if not most” Christians you speak of?
“Try running for office on a platform of the opinions you’ve stated here, and see just how far you get!”
This is my point exactly. You are arguing against people choosing whom they want for office based on religion yet turn around and mock me by saying that my own faith wouldn’t get very far in getting me elected.
“You yourself are in the business of slaughtering human beings over just such details, so I assume you want the killing to continue.”
Huh? Where do you get this BS from?
Cosmos,
What intolerance? And for someone who routinely insults people… well I could say that your insults do not reflect well upon your being and AGW advocate.
“I was not seeking to argue about it anymore than trying to figure out what Rage and Chas meant when they used it since it is obviously something very different than what I thought.” [Nathan]
If thats true, then why did you label my first explanation(on which I stand) “absurd”??
Nathan,
You could certainly use a couple of college level world and US history classes. Your arguments lead to just the ends you deny.
While you certainly have the right to vote for anyone based on anything you want, up to and including the size of her tits, hopefully you will be informed with the wisdom to realize that just because someone is active in a particular church doesn’t mean that they share your view of the world:
1.1 Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s-40s
1.2 Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s – 1980s
1.3 Oral Roberts, 1977 and 1986
1.4 Jim & Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, 1986 and 1991
1.5 Peter Popoff, 1987
1.6 Mike Warnke, 1991
1.7 Robert Tilton, 1991
1.8 Frank Houston, 2000
1.9 John Paulk, 2000
1.10 Douglas Goodman, 2004
1.11 Kent Hovind, 2006
1.12 Ted Haggard, 2006
1.13 Paul Barnes, 2006
1.14 Lonnie Latham, 2006
1.15 Richard Roberts, 2007
1.16 Bishop Earl Paulk, 2007
1.17 Coy Privette, 2007
1.18 Phil Driscoll, 2007
1.19 Joe Barron, 2008
1.20 Todd Bentley, 2008
1.21 Michael Guglielmucci, 2008
1.22 Tony Alamo, 2008
I was not seeking to argue about it anymore than trying to figure out what Rage and Chas meant when they used it since it is obviously something very different than what I thought.
Really? I actually have to explain it again?
Here’s a clue: the First Amendment limits the powers of government–it doesn’t create them. The Contitution in general (with the exception of the Thirteenth Amendment) deals only with the government, not private parties.
Freedom from religion means that government is not used as a vehicle to promote or subsidize anyone’s religious faith.
This drives some people nuts, hence they offer stupid slogans like “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.” Wrong. If anything, the Founder were more concerned about official support of religion, particularly since the Constitution at the time was only a limitation on the power of federal government.
Which is not to say they wanted state governments to commit the same abuses. Mason, Madison and Jefferson fought attempts to infuse religion into the state of Viriginia (indeed, this provided the basis for the First Amendment).
It’s fascinating when you come up with exceedingly dumb scenarios that no one has advocated ore even implied, Nathan (is there some Society for the Forcible Elimination of Religion out there, or something?). Any government that does such a thing would be–obviously–be guilty of violating freedom of religion.
But I’ve also heard some ssy–with a straight face–that such action would mean the “wall of separation” is too high. Of course, it–obviously–would the exact opposite was true.
P.S. Even from the plain meaning of the words, divorced from context, it amazes that anyone can “freedom from religion” they way Nathan portrayed it.
A freedom, by its very nature, involves one’s personal autonomy, not the “freedom” to control others.
Perhaps therein lies the philosophical source of the confusion.
For those of you like Blue Jay & Agnatha who believe that all Christians and all churches are raving lunatics with pastors who rant and rave at their congregations and tell them that they are not true Christians if they don’t vote one way or the other, here is a bit of information you might find shocking.
On the day that you have said that the pastors are going to endorse a candidate, our pastor said whoever may become the President, Barack Obama or John McCain, we need to be praying for them. He also said we need to pray for our current President, George W. Bush and all of our leaders of this country. He even mentioned Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and then he proceeded to mention our Mayor and others in our city government.
I believe a lot of people like you are prejudice against Christians because of the MSM or the churches you were raised in. I think a lot of times, you see Christians as the ones with a closed mind but maybe it is you who has closed your mind. I for one thank God that he has led me to this church. I wasn’t raised in church so maybe that is why I don’t see things like those who were.
Agnatha…
I was not responding to the issue of taking away tax exempt status of churches that break the tax exempt rules. I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with those like Maggot that constantly call for the taxation of ALL churches. In that case, separation would be violated and I truly believe that eventually the most powerful church would become the government. That is pretty much the case with the LDS Church in Utah. No, it is NOT officially the government, but it does run the show!
Borg,
I am well aware that not all christians agree with the televangelists and bushies, but since they say they speak for all christians, and very few christians publicly counter that, I assume that most of you more or less agree with the religious nutcases. Maybe if more of you stood up and opposed some of their worst excesses, We wouldn’t have to make that assumption.
Chas,
“But… but… Jed… the FSM persecutes no one… not even Vegans, for there are some delightful blends of Vegetarian Pasta mixes…”
That may be, but isn’t the FSM officially depicted bearing meatballs?
“but since they say they speak for all christians, and very few christians publicly counter that,”
You mean like Barack publicly countered his church leaders, and other black ministers? But only after it became an issue on the campaign trail. Had he not been a presidential contender, we all know he would still be in the flock of haters.
(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that he has resigned from the church where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers created political headaches for his campaign.
“We don’t want to have to answer for everything that’s stated in the church,” the Democratic front-runner said. “We also don’t want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes.”
Obama said he was resigning “with some sadness.”
“This is not a decision I come to lightly,” he said. Watch Obama discuss departure »
The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama’s Democratic rival during a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois.
In the sermon, Pfleger wipes his eyes with a handkerchief and suggests that Sen. Hillary Clinton wept because she thought that as a white person and the wife of a former president, she was entitled to the presidency.
Pfleger is a Catholic priest at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago’s southwest side. He is also a friend of Trinity’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from whom Obama distanced himself in April.
Is the FSM another accroynm created by Chas with an alternative meaning? Like Chas’ classic STFU
(Serious Thinkers Former University)
Jed,
You could also use a few history classes as well.
Definately some logic and argument study.
Any extreme whether it be religious or humanist can lead to horrible things. What I have said doesn’t inevitably lead to anything more than voters choosing those to lead them that they want to.
Of course people do not always share my view of the world. Almost all of my best friends and I still disagree on different issues, yet we are all Christians and hold the same faith.
There are different levels of a worldview. Even though we all disagree on different things, we still share the same belief that Christ is our Lord and Savior and that only through faith Him is Salvation.
No matter what, we view the world through that standard first.
“TheBorgHunter” offers –
“For those of you like Blue Jay & Agnatha who believe that all Christians and all churches are raving lunatics….”
The problem, “TheBorgHunter,” is that evangelical CONservatives have worked long and hard to co-opt the word “Christian” to mean only themselves.
“Nathaniel,” for example, has no compunctions about calling “Chas” a non-”Christian” because “Nathaniel” accepts only his flavor of the faith. Like the Taliban approaches Islam.
Listen to “Christian” radio sometime. When they’re saying someone’s a good “Christian,” they’re not likely talking about Episcopalians or Catholics or Congregationalists or Mormons; they’re talkin’ about speakin’ in tongues and rollin’ on the floor and a preacher ranting in a fake southern accent that pronounce the the word in four syllables: “Juh-HEEEZ-zus-huh.”
Years ago, just after Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s network was taken over by Swaggart and Fallwell (and before Swaggart got caught, literally with his pants down, in that sleazy New Orleans hooker) there was a late-night session of four prominent evangelists talking about their craft. Swaggart was the star. One of ‘em might have been Rex Humbard. I don’t remember the others
The got to talking about how they preached. certain sermons. They come out of a book! Did you know that? It’s not the spirit of God flowin’ through them it’s theater!
They were telling old war stories about “…the first time I preached that sermon,” and stuff like, “Oh, yeah. That’s always a good sermon to preach on the second week of Advent….”
I grew up in a church that has a pipe organ instead of a rock band. And the pastor writes his own sermons, far as I know. The congregation prays for people who are ailing but there are no scam faith-healers laying on hands.
If you want to join the church, there is no altar call; you drink coffee after the service and talk with a member.
That’s a church evangelicals dismiss as not being “really Christian.”
The twice-born use “Christian” as if it were their own personal word.
Rage,
When you are talking about “freedom from religion” you are talking more specifically in regards to a freedom from government endorsed/funded/implemented religion.
Yet the phrase “freedom from religion” doesn’t automatically lead one to assume that.
In the most basic sense the phrase is quite open to a more absolute sense not limited to what you understood it to mean.
So would you like to debate who is more absurd for thinking what that meant or simply agree that I understand what you are talking about now and move forward?
“When they’re saying someone’s a good “Christian,” they’re not likely talking about Episcopalians or Catholics or Congregationalists or Mormons; they’re talkin’ about speakin’ in tongues and rollin’ on the floor and a preacher ranting in a fake southern accent that pronounce the the word in four syllables: “Juh-HEEEZ-zus-huh.”
You are revealing in your stereotype of Christians. Very few churches actually speak in tongues as part of services or as a measure of faith. In fact, I have found much disagreement with the church and various religions on the use and/or proper us of the speaking in tongues.
I don’t disagree with Monkeyhawks statement they ” co-opt the word “Christian” to mean only themselves.”
But I think you are lost in trying to paint all religions and christians the same.
“They come out of a book! Did you know that? It’s not the spirit of God flowin’ through them it’s theater!”
Sad but true. Many religions have “pat” sermons. I found that out in my Lutheran (Miss Synod) upbrining. Each holiday, or change of season (lent for instance) brought the same sermons using the same verse with the same inflections. Didn’t matter if I attended my parents church, or went to church with grandpa and ma. Same canned speech.
Did they not trust the preachers? Or was the interest to ensure we all received the same measure of devotion from our pastor?
But is a well known and factual for many “organized” religions that they use pre-determined sermons.
Does this lessen the meaning? Does it mean they are fakes? Not for me to judge. I would have to know what is “right” by God and what is not. That would be for monkeyhawk.
The article mentioned that endorsements or recommendations would possibly be weighted on the conservative side. Keeping in mind the ruckus that was raised by local pastors when the gaming issue came up last year, you have to wonder how the article, “McCain and a Host of Aides Forged Close Ties to Casinos,” which ran in today’s NY Times and was excerpted in today’s Eagle impacted the enthusiasm with which the morning’s religious / political message was delivered. In the article, Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a “leading Indian gambling expert,” called John McCain “One of the founding fathers of indian gaming.”
Well, the article from the top of this thread did say something about getting the various matters aligned. Perhaps a perfectly good biblical reason may be found why pastors who make a big production of opposing gambling in their communities can nevertheless “align” their beliefs in such a way as to endorse “One of the founding fathers of indian gaming.”
The other possibility is that, upon aligning text from the bible with politicians, quite a bit of selective reasoning may be applied so as to get the spiritual and electoral ships sailing in the same direction.
Or maybe the pastors in question enjoy a weekend getaway in Vegas just as much as McCain reportedly does.
“American_Way” says –
“…I think you are lost in trying to paint all religions and christians the same.”
Reread my post. I specifically mentioned denominations that evangelicals clearly don’t consider really “Christian.”
If I have any bias about religions it’s that I think fundamentalist anything is sadly misguided. Fundamentalist Judaism, fundamentalist Mormonism, fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist “Christianity,” all seem to get wrapped up in trivial doctrinal differences and wailing against heretics, real and imagined.
With any fundamentalist approach to faith, I hear more man and less God at work.
Phred Felps has reduced his brand of Baptist theology to two Old Testament verses and one New Testament passage. Remember when Robert Tilton based his who
con</strike “ministry” on the one verse about giving all your money to him so God can return it “a hundred fold?”“Jed” posted an interesting rogues’ gallery of people who’ve leveraged “Christianity” into criminal enterprises worthy of the Mafia. But at least the Mafia admitted they were crooks.
Great proofreading, “Monkeyhawk.”
Hoo boy we’ve had some whackos drift through the blog.
I don’t of anything in three years that tops the post at 7;13.
I don’t have my net and tranquilizer gun. So I’m gonna watch and wait.
“Fundamentalist Judaism, fundamentalist Mormonism, fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist “Christianity,” all seem to get wrapped up in trivial doctrinal differences and wailing against heretics, real and imagined.”
Well heck Monkeyhawk, they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t!
I myself have no problem with the competition between religions (with exception of force). My concern began with they all came “together” to form the religious right and became the dominant platform of the republican party.
Barack Obama’s job, as a “Community Organizer” was to get Black churches involved in the political causes, and to support liberal candidates for office.
That is a fact!
Obama was told by the Black pastors that he would have more success, in the job the Saul Alinsky Marxists gave him, if Obama HIMSELF would join a church.
So, Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s church, for purely political purposes.
Read Obama’s own darn book before you argue with me about this!
There are some terrific churches of all differing faiths and there are good, hard-working people attending these churches.
Personally, I have a problem with these mega-churches that gobble up all the prime real estate at tax-exempt status. These are the churches that seem to care more about their golden calf than their God. If you really want to know how a church truly worships, follow the money.
I have many friends of different faiths and each one is spiritual. I also have many atheist friends who lead more moral lives than some of these Evangelical Chrisians that people like Nathaniel thinks are the only ones going to Heaven.
There is a big difference between being spiritual and being a church person.
As for the Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion – both are guaranteed in the Constitution. No one has the right to force any religion nor do they have the right to take religion away from anyone.
The practicality of this religion guarantee is in the tolerance of Americans to allow people to choose for themselves, even if that means no religion.
And Nathaniel, telling everyone that the only way for salvation is through Jesus Christ is YOUR religion. Your freedom of religion stops where my freedom of religion starts. Got it?
Franklin – alot of white Evangelical Christians join their mega churches to make business contacts to enrich their own pockets. So what is your point?
Mom,
No where have I ever said, indicated, or implied, that only Evangelicals are going to heaven.
No where has my faith ever encroached upon yours nor have I said one thing about yout faith. (That I know of)
Perhaps you could explain to me where my freedom of religion has ever encroached upon yours or where you just giving me a warning for what reason?
OMG Monkey… you must have listened to the wrong Christian Radio.. there are some that are extremely political, but others that I find much more positive. Air1 for instance.
http://www.air1.com/promodetails.aspx?i=3652
I dunno, “samkan” –
Mostly I catch one of the Bott stations when I’m driving at night across the prairie.
I especially have enjoyed the “Southwest Radio Church,” which did a half hour on injected micro-chips used to identify pets, and how it was “just a matter of time” ’til they’re small enough to be injected any time you get a shot at the doctor’s. And how those chips will track your every movement from satellites overhead, so the Devil will know where you are and what you’re doing. And … and this is where it’s good… the company than makes these microchips gets its silicone from a company that’s owned by General Motors and the largest single stock-holder of GM is the Rockefeller Foundation which is further PROOF that David Rockefeller is the Anti-Christ!
Ya can’t argue with logic like that.
where have I ever said, indicated, or implied, that only Evangelicals are going to heaven.
Actually, you have, Nathan.
You said that only people who interprete the verse “I am the way” the way you do will get to heaven.
Too bad, Gandhi.
Yeah, “Nathaniel” –
You’ve been pretty free and easy with declaring who and what you consider to be a “true christian.”
You know it.
Anyone who’s paid attention to this forum knows it.
And you regularly seem to revert to naive little doe-eyed questions that reveal you’re willful ignorance of issues and facts and matters of faith.
That act wears pretty thin, boy.
“No where have I ever said, indicated, or implied, that only Evangelicals are going to heaven.”
You’ve implied plenty of times that only Christians can go to heaven, Nathan. Wow, what about all those poor souls who lived before Jesus was born…do they get grandfathered in or what?
I just need to know what the rules are, ya know.
Watch Nathan’s response now….”I didn’t say that, it’s the BIBLE that says that” :)
If only GOOD Christians like Nathan go to heaven…it’s gotta be a pretty lonely place.
Anyone, anyone, can claim to be a “Christian”. It isn’t copyrighted term. But a person can certainly opine if they think that person beliefs meets their understanding of a follower of Christ. Particularly, those who claim the mantle and then attack those who dare take the words of Christ literally.
Nathan has every right to do so, and he is very correct, in my opinion, in most cases.
You’re right, anyone can claim to be a Christian…it’s another thing to be one and to actually live like one. Very few walk the walk….that would require sacrifice and most want to cherry pick their beliefs in order not to sacrifice.
Good nite all…6am comes really early.
Is that why you quit Mary?
The local “christian” school hauled all their students down to the court house last Friday to join hands around the flag pole and pray for… something or or other.
They notified the local newspaper’s photographer so they could get a PR push.
I’m guessing the message of the day was not based on Matthew, Chapter 6, Verses 5-6:
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men … But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
But as the boy prophet “Nathaniel” has told us: “Taking the Bible literally doesn’t mean taking every word literally.”
Monk,
one day several years back, when I was escorting patients at a local women’s clinic, there was a preacher, down on his knees in the driveway, waving his bible over his head and praying loudly for god to rain down fire upon the clinic. I walked up to him and quietly asked if, while he was down there, could read my favorite bible passage, Matthew 6, verses 5 and 6. He of course obliged, and then proceeded to launch into a sermon about the hypocrisy of praying in public, which he got well into before he realized that he was preaching against himself. He quickly closed his bible, walked off, and I never saw him there again. Yep, that passage is a real hypocrite killer!
CapnAmerica,
I have said that one must have faith in Christ to go to heaven.
I never said that it was only Evangelicals and they are not the only ones who believe in Christ either.
So does everyone go to heaven no matter what CapnAmerica or do you claim ignorance on the subject? Claim that no where in the Bible does it indicate any standards at all for going there?
What about the 10 commandments? If someone were to worship a false idol and proclaim it their god, do you think they will still go to heaven or are you not sure?
What if your preacher came into church one day and started to pray to a Golden Calf and encouraged the congregation to do the same? Would you join in, ignore him, go to a different church, or maybe point out that it might be wrong to do that?
Nathan,
“What if your preacher came into church one day and started to pray to a Golden Calf and encouraged the congregation to do the same?”
Hey, I’m a professional artist! I’d be mad as hell that I didn’t get offered the commission for that very expensive idol!
“For those of you like Blue Jay & Agnatha who believe that all Christians and all churches are raving lunatics with pastors who rant and rave at their congregations and tell them that they are not true Christians if they don’t vote one way or the other,”
I can’t speak for Agnatha there Borg.
Why do you presume to speak for me?
I lunched with Chas just the other day. I didn’t fine him a raving lunatic.
I have also personally met HLP Hank and Nathaniel who I find less than respectable both here AND in person. Yet I find no problem with freedom of faith.
Except when it encroaches on me or those I care about. TOO often, it does.
My family found out only a few weeks before my dad died what it was that was killing him.
By then, dad’s reasoning and perception had been almost completely destroyed. As the oldest son, I made the decision with my mother to not try and explain to my dad what was happening to him. Our neurologist supported that decision. His words, “He will remember it only for a moment and will be frightened in that moment.”
I found out only after my dad died that the pastor of his church had made a different decision.
Against the expressed wishes of the family, the pastor told my dad that he was going to die. I only found out about that at the funeral when his pastor spoke.
In one of my final visits with my dad, he looked frightened. He grasped my arm so hard that nursing staff had to help release his grip on my arm. The look in his eyes was one of fear.
Now? I don’t know what it was that pastor won.
It certainly was not my family. My mother quit that church some time ago.
We wanted my dad to suffer as little as possible. He could not understand what was happening to him and we did not wish to add to that.
And there was no help from any god.
I will never forgive a representative of Christian faith for making my dad afraid in his final hours.
So keep your religion to yourself if it gives you comfort. Don’t inflict it on others.
Mom I find it interesting that you who doesn’t believe in heaven think Nathaniel is plotting to keep you out.
You libs, Mary, Monkey, BJ, Jed, Chas on ocassion tell the blog you don’t believe in Christ or the God of David so why do you care if you are going somewhere you don’t even believe in?
Why do you try to keep Nathaniel from believing in what he wants. If he thinks only Christians will be going to heaven. Whats it to you?
“okobserver” –
Nobody’s trying to prevent “Nathaniel” from believing in anything.
It’s his obsessive narcissism that causes him to be the self-ordained judge of who is or who isn’t a “christian” that bugs me.
I’ve never stated I “don’t believe in Christ or the God of David.” You’re making stuff just to get yourself into a good outrage.
I am a lapsed agnostic; I’m not sure of what it is I don’t believe in.
I’ve asked “Nathaniel” to invite me to his church so I can find out what’s worked for him. He’s treated my requests with utter contempt.
So he’s not interested in saving souls. He thinks he’s found the answer and spends far too much time whining about people he deems less worthy of salvation than he imagines himself to be.
Doesn’t sound very Jesus-y to me.
If they want to endorse a candidate I have no problem with it as long as they are willing to give up their tax exemption when they do it.
And each and everyone of them should be prosecuted by law as any one else would PERIOD
Monkey..
I’m not sure where you live, but let me offer some suggestions. On the West side, Pastor Dennis Wallace of Asbury UM Church is the man who presented Christ to me in a way that I was willing to become a Christian. On the far East side, I have heard that Hope Church in Andover is very accepting of outsiders. If you might be interested in a downtown based church that ministers to people on the street, then you might try Zao Christian Fellowship. They meet on Saturday Evenings in the Rivercrest Methodist Church building at Douglas and Emporia. Pastor Jeremy is a bit more Pentecostal, but they do not look down their noses at anybody, and the services are not like any you will see anywhere else!
Religion and politics should be seperated and remain so.
“Agnatha…
“I was not responding to the issue of taking away tax exempt status of churches that break the tax exempt rules. I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with those like Maggot that constantly call for the taxation of ALL churches.”
Either all churches should be taxed or none (except for those who violate the rules). As long as there is consistency, there is no violation of the First Amendment and certainly no violation of of the separation of church and state. And the reality is, while there will be those who call for the taxation of churches, it won’t happen. The church going constituancy is too big, and I am not just talking about politically active right wing evangelical Christians (and counter to Borghunter’s silly projection-I do not nor have I ever dismissed all church going Christians as “raving lunatics”-Borghunter herself may be a different proposition-she sure didn’t make her case otherwise with her absurd straw man projection), I am talking about church goers in general.
“In that case, separation would be violated and I truly believe that eventually the most powerful church would become the government. That is pretty much the case with the LDS Church in Utah. No, it is NOT officially the government, but it does run the show!”
True enough, but keep in mind that it already does so in an environment where all churches are tax exempt, so you really aren’t making your case here.
You can make arguments against taxing churches, Sam, but saying it violates church and state separation really isn’t a valid argument. Churches are still protected and limited by the First Amendment, and denominations that exert a great deal of influence regionally do so without taxation anyway.
Agnatha,
I’m sorry if I have not made my arguments clear. It does not make them any less valid.
You yourself just said how powerful the LDS church became, even within the taxation rules. Take away the rules, you take away the limits and they become even more powerful in the political arena.
Taxing ALL churches would do only harm to the charity and services that they provide. Not only the churches, but the faith-based non-profits that provide many services that the government does not. If the government takes away a percentage of their income, that percentage is going to come out of their programs and services, not their operating budgets.
Nathaniel
Posted September 28, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
Jed,
Even though we all disagree on different things, we still share the same belief that Christ is our Lord and Savior and that only through faith Him is Salvation
__
Nathaniel – this is where you press the point that people only get to Heaven through Jesus Christ.
That’s the problem – not everyone believes in Jesus Christ and you, as an American, should respect your fellow American to hold a different view.
I really like this guy – [ http://realanswers.net/radio/desc/002432.html ] Bob George – People to People Ministries – Thank God for the interned —- enjoy
outlander
Posted September 28, 2008 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
Anyone, anyone, can claim to be a “Christian”. It isn’t copyrighted term. But a person can certainly opine if they think that person beliefs meets their understanding of a follower of Christ. Particularly, those who claim the mantle and then attack those who dare take the words of Christ literally.
Nathan has every right to do so, and he is very correct, in my opinion, in most cases
____
Actually the Bible tells us to not judge one another. If people like Nathaniel, who routinely questions Chas for his true religious beliefs, would clean up their own backyards, then they would not have time to be judging as to who is or who is not a true Christian. And the same goes for you Outlander.
God does not need the likes of you two to be judging people.
I think it’s best to preach the gospel and allow God to decide who is real and who isn’t – but mom has this issue of ‘judging’ all messed up
Just because someone makes an ASSESMENT of anothers ‘doctrine’ does not mean that they are ‘condemning them’ or judging that person
========================================
Eph 4:14 .. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; .. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
I Timothy 1:3 .. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
I Timothy 1:10 .. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; .. According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
I Timothy 4:13 .. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
I Timothy 4:16 .. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
I Timothy 5:17 .. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
I Timothy 6:1 .. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
I Timothy 6:3 .. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
II Timothy 4:2 .. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine . . . FOR THE TIME WILL COME when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Titus 1:9 .. Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Titus 2:1 .. But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
Titus 2:7 .. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
II John 1:9 .. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
II John 1:10 .. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
If one accepts that only Christians will go to heaven, as mom and Nathan do, then one has to have the consequent view that only Christians can be Christ-like.
Hence, everybody else is not Christ-like. None of them have the love of humanity that Christ showed. None of them are merciful and kind and caring and embody the principles that Christ died for–like the Beatitudes.
Therefore, every non-Christian, according to this Manichan view, is of the devil and will burn forever in an eternal lake of fire.
Too bad Ghandi. Too bad Dali Lama.
Mom..
>That’s the problem – not everyone believes in Jesus Christ and you, as an American, should respect your fellow American to hold a different view.Actually the Bible tells us to not judge one another. If people like Nathaniel, who routinely questions Chas for his true religious beliefs, would clean up their own backyards, then they would not have time to be judging as to who is or who is not a true Christian. And the same goes for you Outlander.<
Let me also add that you are correct about judging others who are not claiming to be Christians. But, it is acceptable and proper for Christians to point out to one another when they believe that someone is not living up to the standards of Christ. This is to be done in love and encouragement, and with proper procedure. The WE Blog is not a proper forum for such a discussion.
Sorry CapnAmerica – the issue is not how ‘bad’ you are – the issue is how dead you are
“The WE Blog is not a proper forum for such a discussion.” – Tough – deal with it
Hmmm.. Half of my comment was left out… sorry.
>That’s the problem – not everyone believes in Jesus Christ and you, as an American, should respect your fellow American to hold a different view.<
Nathan only stated the basic tenant of the Christian faith. To do so is neither judging anyone, nor being disrespectful. I believe the same thing, but to do so does not lower my respect and compassion for others who do not. I have the utmost respect for Jed and his work, and I think he knows that. I work with and beside people of all walks of life and faiths. They will KNOW that I am a Christian, because that is why I do the things I do, but they will also know that we do not have to agree on everything.
FORGIVEN FOREVER – A GREAT (BIBLICAL) MESSAGE BY BOB GEORGE –
http://realanswers.net/radio/desc/002417.html – I JUST CANT GET ENOUGH – ENJOY
RIGHT-ON SAMKAN
Politically active pastors must keep up the pretense that they aren’t endorsing candidates or risk their churches’ tax-exempt status. But that was before Pulpit Freedom Sunday, which will find at least 33 pastors this weekend making their picks public and practically inviting the Internal Revenue Service to come after them.
==========================================
REALLY – IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS, THEY SHOULD HAVE SPOKEN UP YEARS AGO WHEN ALL THE LIBERAL BLACK ‘CHURCHES’ STARTED PREACHING POLITICS AND MAKING ENDORCEMENTS FROM THE PULPIT – NOT A PEEP THEN NOW WAS THERE
I would prefer pastors to preach the Word from their pulpit, and let the listeners make up their own minds about which candidate to vote for. While I beleive becoming a pastor does not delete their first amendment rights, and they have the right to say what they will as individuals and citizens, doing so from the pulpit only diminished the pulpit, and entangles them in the politics of the day. It should not be so.
VERY WELL SAID LITTLEJOHN, I AGREE, I’M ONLY POINTING-OUT THE DOUBLE STANDARD, NO-ONE SAYS ANYTHING WHILE LIBERAL ‘CHURCHES’ HAVE BEEN PREACHING GORE – KERRY – AND NOW OBAMA FOR YEARS, AND NOW A CONSERVITIVE CHURCH MIGHT SAY SOMETHING ABOUT POLITICAL MATTERS, OH NOW THE ‘PEOPLE’ ARE RISE-UP AND DEMAND WE KEEP CHURCH AND STATE SEPERATE – THE DOUBLE STANDARD INDEED – IS HE RISEN ??
Granny,
“You libs, Mary, Monkey, BJ, Jed, Chas on ocassion tell the blog you don’t believe in Christ or the God of David so why do you care if you are going somewhere you don’t even believe in?”
Hey, I’ve spent my life as an activist for several good causes, because to me life is about trying to make a difference. Your description of heaven seems to me to be an eternity of utter boredom. But put me in your hell, and I’d join the Free Icewater and Air Conditioning Reform Movement and be right in my element! It might take us an eternity to win, but then we’ve got eternity! Should we get there sooner I’m sure we can find other good causes.
There has indeed been at least the appearance of a double standard, with so many, primarily black, but I am sure there were plenty of others’ inviting and seeming to endorse such politicians. However, what I cannotknow, and what makes the difference, is what was said fromthe pulpit. However, just because it has been done in the past, does not make it fair game now.
REALLY JED – IF THE ATHEIST TOLD ME THAT IF I DIDN’T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD, SOMETHING BAD WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, SHOULD I SPEND EVERY DAY AND NIGHT, ALL OF MY MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL ENERGIES FRETTING OVER THE IDEA THAT BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD ???? I THINK NOT, IF THERE IS NO GOD, THEN I DIE THE SAME DEATH THEY DO, AND NEITHER OF US WOULD EVER KNOW
EXCUSE ME, I MEAN: REALLY GRANNY
THESE PEOPLE GET ALL EXERSIZED OVER FRED’S LITTLE FUNDAMENTAL HATE GROUP CLAIMING: “SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST HATES YOU” — YAAAWN !!
Sam,
You know that I respect the work that you do. You are one of the few that actually walks the walk. You are a good person. You would be a good person had you been born Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Pagan or Atheist or…..? Being Christian isn’t what makes a person a decent human being, it’s the caring that does.
The idea that I’ve fought against all of my life is that belonging to a particular family, class, church, race, gender, sexual orientation, fraternity, lodge or species somehow sets one morally above someone else. This is something we really need to get over if we are to amount to something worthy of the title “Human.” That you spend your time in the trenches, actually getting to know and understand and help human beings who some consider the worthless, if not atually dangerous dregs of society tells me that you see a lot of what I do in the world. That we may disagree on the finer points of religion is of little consequence when there’s work to be done!
Mom,
Of course not everyone believes as I do. Where have I ever not respected someone elses right to have whatever faith they want?
The only thing I have done is point out that there are certain fundamental things to calling yourself a Christian.
Pointing out that Christ is the only way to heaven in no way stops you or hinders you from believing what you want.
I am not “judging” anyone either. If we used the same logic in what “judging” someone means then you are no better for judging me for being judgmental!
The truth is that the scripture is not talking about the generic use of the term judging, it is talking about the eternal damnation sense of the word.
I do not presume to judge anyone. I only point out what has clearly been told to us by Christ and God.
If I were to tell you that murder is wrong and you shouldn’t do it or you will go to jail or be executed that is not “judging” you. That is simply pointing out what happens under our legal system.
That is the same thing I do by saying that only through faith in Christ are you saved. I am not “judging” you just pointing out what happens.
CapnAmerica,
People don’t have to be Chrisitians to be good caring people.
Your claim that if one is to accept what I believe they must also believe that no one can be “merciful and kind and caring” is simply false.
Are you now claiming that you get to heaven through good works?
Simple question CapnAmerica:
Do you think anyone goes to hell or does everyone go to heaven?
If one were to accept CapnAmerica’s view it doesn’t matter how good or bad you are in life, you go to heaven.
It doesn’t matter what you believe or how many people you hurt in life, you go to heaven.
We all go to heaven! Yeah!
Unfortunately, you have to completely ignore nearly everything in the history of the Bible and Christianity to hold such a view.
But hey, whatever makes you feel good, right?
First, I think that one would be safe in assuming that existence after physical death would be the same as existence before physical birth.
Second, and most importantly, churches are still 100% free to preach anything they want, but if they are explicitly political, then they pay taxes like EVERYONE ELSE.
No right to free speech is in jeopardy, merely their special exempted status. Period.
Judge not, lest you be also judged. For the judgment you give, is the judgment you shall receive.
HOW is that the “eternal” sense???
Amazing — Dadman posts in ALL CAPS… And the “Gang of Thugs” says NOTHING!!!
I post in caps for emphasis… And all I get out of the “Gang of Thugs” is BITCH, BITCH, BITCH!!!
WELL — GANG OF THUGS — SHOVE IT!!
Chas,
HOW is that in the modern day English use of the word being “judgemental” as the liberals like to use?
Even if it is, which it is not, I am fully prepared to recieve the judgement I give.
I believe that Christ is the son of God sent to die for our sins and that only through faith in him can I or anyone else be saved.
Go ahead, judge me.
You on the other hand, well…
“Agnatha,
“I’m sorry if I have not made my arguments clear. It does not make them any less valid.
“You yourself just said how powerful the LDS church became, even within the taxation rules. Take away the rules, you take away the limits and they become even more powerful in the political arena.”
Sam, I see your line of thought here and I think you stated it well here. However, I don’t agree. Churches have not always been tax exempt and for that matter certainly have not always had the candiate endorsement limitations put on them.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2852/1/41?TopicID=2
Again, in the extremely remote hypothetical that churches were to become taxed, there would probably be some changes, but I doubt the things you are concerned about would come to pass. More to the point, the dangers you seem to be concerned about are more likely to come to pass if coaltion Religious Right conservatives were to elimintate the prohibition on churches endorsing candidates to maintain their tax exempt status (and to be fair, you have already indicated your desire for those prohibitions to remain in place).
“Taxing ALL churches would do only harm to the charity and services that they provide. Not only the churches, but the faith-based non-profits that provide many services that the government does not. If the government takes away a percentage of their income, that percentage is going to come out of their programs and services, not their operating budgets.”
Again, we are talking about a remote hypothetical, but probably not. Charities are tax exempt regardless of whether they are faith based or secular. I’ve worked for secular charities most of my professional career. There is no reason to think that if churches were to suddenly have to pay taxes, that this would apply to the charitable endeavors that they sponsor. What you would probably see is a scramble to separate their charitable enterprises from their other enterprises (and I could see that becoming a real mess). If faith based charities were to become taxable while secular charities remained untaxed, I would then agree with you that this is a violation of the First Amendment. Personally, for that reason alone, the tax exemption of churches should be left alone. But, churches should have to follow the same rules as everyone else who qualifies as a 501 non-profit.
But again, taxing churches is at this time nothing more than a hypothetical somewhere along the lines of discussion of who would win in a fight, Marvel’s Thor or DC’s Superman.
“Amazing — Dadman posts in ALL CAPS… And the “Gang of Thugs” says NOTHING!!!
“I post in caps for emphasis… And all I get out of the “Gang of Thugs” is BITCH, BITCH, BITCH!!!
“WELL — GANG OF THUGS — SHOVE IT!!”
It’s obnoxious when Dadman (a spammer) does it, and it’s obnoxious when you do it. Happy now?
Nathan,
“Jed,
Even though we all disagree on different things, we still share the same belief that Christ is our Lord and Savior and that only through faith Him is Salvation”
Yeah, I know, and the real problem with that is that none of you worships quite the same Christ. Each of you carries an image of Jesus that varies, sometimes substantially from that of your neighbor.
Jesus has been reinvented so many times, by so many people, to fit so many political, social and religious agendas over the past 2000yrs that any sense of what Jesus who was actually Yeshua ben Yousef has been mostly and permanently lost. Texts have been lost or burned or mistranslated or miscopied, words have changed meaning over the centuries, sometimes radically, concepts have been turned on their heads so that anything you think you know for sure about him is actually up for grabs.
The only way to cope with this and avoid admitting that you know almost nothing about him is what most of you do without thinking; you keep Jesus a bit vague and out of focus in hopes that the various inherent contradictions and interpretations in each christian’s vision of Jesus will become invisible in the interest of avoiding more of the ferocious, bitter wars that have been fought over the tiniest of details. But the devil always remains in those blurred details that if truly discovered, would mean the ultimate destruction of Christianity as a source of authority.
Jed,
What are you talking about? We all worship the same exact Christ. Some of us simply interpret the things said in the Bible a bit differently.
That doesn’t make Christ different or our worship of Him that to a different God.
Your understanding of the Christian faith is truly a warped and twisted one. No offense.
Chas
Posted September 30, 2008 at 5:16 am | Permalink
Amazing — Dadman posts in ALL CAPS… And the “Gang of Thugs” says NOTHING!!!
I post in caps for emphasis… And all I get out of the “Gang of Thugs” is BITCH, BITCH, BITCH!!!
WELL — GANG OF THUGS — SHOVE IT!!
===============================================================
Somehow I missed this.
Methinks Chas would ENJOY the SHOVING Way Too Much!
Chas,
At first I don’t think it really bothered anyone that you did post in CAPS, just that it is not very good blog etiquette.
It was when you said that you couldn’t help it because you had a stroke and that it was beyond your control that we started to see what a liar you were and point that out more than the use of the Caps.
So you see, if you wouldn’t have lied about it, I don’t think you would be getting half the hard time you have.
The GANG SHOVE, I’m sure Chas is dreaming about it.
Nathan,
Isn’t it obvious Chas had at least one STROKE?
Not all Pastors be Real Pastors:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429901,00.html
Pastor Fighting to Stay in Massage Business After Charges He Ran ‘Heaven Spa’ Prostitution House
Monday, September 29, 2008
Arizona attorneys say an Arizona pastor should be barred from the massage business after authorities reportedly discovered that he was running a house of prostitution under the guise of a church.
Nathan,
I’ve been watching christians for a lot longer than you have. The exact same Christ? The only way you all could possibly be worshipping the same Christ is if he were suffering an extreme multiple personality disorder. I don’t think you want to think about that, so I’m being charitable and saying that you worship one of the many reinventions of Christ that churches over the centuries have postulated in order to fit him into ever-changing world-views, political situations and power struggles.
Believe me, you wouldn’t begin to recognize the concepts of Christ that many of the early christians worshipped, yet they were culturally, linguistically and temporally vastly closer to him than you will ever be. When Rome became the center of christianity, his message was re-edited to accomodate the politics of Rome, et cetera, et cetera. The constant redefining of the christian belief has continued without interuption, and will probably continue long beyond your and my lifetimes.
Jed,
So what if you have been watching Christians longer than I have?
Do you sit around doing actual sociological/scientific studies which are recorded?
Sounds like more of your typical anecdotal evidence which you can’t/won’t ever back up.
Why is the “only way” that we could all be worshipping Christ is if He had multiple personality disorder?
You don’t offer me anything other than your typical rantings based on absolutely no evidence.
Consider this:
When we study history we learn about people like JFK. There are many people who have different opinions on JFK, his thoughts, his policies, his actions, his death even.
It doesn’t mean we are all talking about a different person. We are all talking about the same person only have different opinions.
It is the same thing when we are looking at and worshipping Christ. We all worship Christ, only have different opinions on certain things here and there.
“You don’t offer me anything other than your typical rantings based on absolutely no evidence.”
As opposed to what you do? Seriously, I find it amusing when you criticize posters for exhibiting the kinds of faults that you routinely showcase in your own posts.
And your analogy between JFK and Jesus is laughable. There are no historical records of Jesus except for gospels (no, Josepheus does not count), four of which became canon more years after the events supposedly occurred than it has been from the Revolutionary War until now. And those gospels and the others were recovered from oral traditions that existed for years before any of them were written. Hardly the same thing as JFK, or even George Washington.
Agnatha,
The point of my analogy was not to compare JFK to Jesus.
The point was to compare the way we might differ on our understandings of JFK historically to that of the way we might differ on our understandings of Jesus historically.
Simply because we might differ on certain things about JFK doesn’t mean that we are all talking about a different JFK.
It doesn’t matter what you might think about the validity of the history surrounding Jesus or not in regards to my point. You are introducing a Red Herring.
Anything else you would like to add?
Nathan,
Just under two weeks ago, I was visiting with an old friend who is an art historian and curator of a major middle-eastern antiquities collection, and was looking at photos of a 2nd cent. silver diskos or paten (used exclusively in christian communion to consecrate the eucharist) recovered from Ephesus in modern Turkey, the early christian community Paul corresponded with. The diskos was engraved with a very recognizable image of the crucifixion, complete with the crown of thorns and spear wound, only where the cross would have held the usual INRI inscription, it was engraved with the name of Orpheus, the object of a Greek cult that predated christianity by several centuries. Seems many early christians of Greek heritage (a very influential group in the development of christianity) identified Jesus with Orpheus, and at least some of what was originally Orphean belief was adopted by christians and eventually became part of the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by many churches even today. Christianity isn’t nearly as purely christian as you seem to think it is. You would be astonished, if not outraged by much of what most early christians practiced and believed, and in turn they would be equally outraged by what christianity has become over the centuries. It ain’t the same church, and it ain’t even the same Christ!
“Simply because we might differ on certain things about JFK doesn’t mean that we are all talking about a different JFK.
“It doesn’t matter what you might think about the validity of the history surrounding Jesus or not in regards to my point. You are introducing a Red Herring.”
No, I’m not. The red herring exists in your own mind. JFK is a man about whom we have a great deal of writings, including writings by JFK, not to mention the fact that there are still people alive who knew the man, and film of the man speaking. Claims about the man can be tested against primary records of what the man said, including the man’s own words.
Jesus is the center of a multitude of religions that may be called “Christian”. There are no primary records of him at all. The gospels were written years after the events that they were to have been portrayed, and came from oral traditions. Furthermore, the gospels themselves were copied by hand by scribes. Literacy in those days was a profession and literacy did not necessarily mean the same thing in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries what it means now. Some of the scribes could barely read what they were writing. Others made changes to the gospels they transcribed (probably in their mind correcting errors made by earlier scribes).
It has not been definitively established that there was a single historical Jesus, much less that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is in any way an actual portrait of the man. The idea that Christians are talking about the “same” Jesus is an article of faith. Unlike JFK, there is no way to test claims made about Jesus against primary records. Because of this, the Jesus people refer to is an artifact of their experiences, their religious history, and their culture. It is astonishing that there is a widespread perception of what Jesus looked like based on 18th, 19th and 20th century paintings. Even if it is granted that there was an actual Jesus, and even if one were to go further and grant for the sake of argument that this Jesus was the “son of God”, it is still a fact that the Jesus various Christians refer to is an artifact of their religious traditions, and not a common understanding of a historical figure.
Like I said, I did not introduce a red herring.
Ag,
You are quite right regarding translation errors and corrections in the gospels, but there’s a whole other layer of factors at work too.
Words themselves are not constants. Consider that just a decade ago, the word “rendition” was applied to a musical performance, not to sending someone another country to be tortured. 60 years ago, discrimination was a taste people of culture possessed; now it’s a practice mostly confined to the uneducated and/or boorish to deny the rights of groups of people they dislike or are afraid of. The tetraskel was an ancient and revered symbol denoting the passage of time and a wish for good fortune as you pass through the vicissitudes of time, among other things. Under the Nazi’s it became the swastika and was used to justify unimaginable horrors.
Meaning is constantly changing, words are redefined as the language grows and new concepts are introduced and others grow old and die. Our view of the world and the way in which the things in it work are constantly changing as we find new ways to look at and understand them, and the view of the universe and our place in it is far different than the view our grandparents based their lives on. Try listening to a teenager today and you’ll be lucky to understand half of what he/she is discussing.
The notion that the bible is unchanging simply because it has the same words in it as it did in the time of King James is absurd to say the least. And for a person with modern cultural sensibilities to go back and comprehend the old texts with old eyes in the same way as when they were written, it is practically impossible, even with great education and study to gain more than an approximation of the original meaning of writers whose lives and times and conceptual worlds were so vastly different than our own. We can read the words and find meaning and beauty in the old texts, but to assume that the meaning we find is the same meaning the writer intended is absurdly foolish, a vanity we can no longer afford. Better to scrap our notions of biblical infallibility and begin again to find the just society we’ve all longed for and so desperately need.
Nathan,
“Do you sit around doing actual sociological/scientific studies which are recorded?”
No, I’ve spent most of the last 64 years studying mythology, mythmaking and it’s uses and abuses, both as a personal and professional interest, and have done extensive reading, thinking and discussion on the subject, and its application to art and history. It’s a necessary part of being an artist.