State sanctioned religion... [modified]

[Stan Shannon]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/2/24/a-new-tradition-for-obamas-presidential-events-opening-with-a-prayer.html[^] OK - so lets hear from everyone who demonized the republicans for stirring up all those evil christian fundamentalists. A once-in-a-lifetime experience for Culp has become routine for President Obama: In a departure from previous presidents, his public rallies are opening with invocations that have been commissioned and vetted by the White House.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

modified on Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:00 AM

[Oakman]

As someone who has consistently defined America as a Christian nation and championed the Church as a civilizing force, you should be cheering wildly, yet you aren't. :confused:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you this day thanking you for who you are — a God that cares about each of our needs, our desires, and our fears. Given the site I Thank Obama[^], which you linked to earlier, was there any confusion as to who was being addressed?

Bob Emmett

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

As someone who has consistently defined America as a Christian nation and championed the Church as a civilizing force, you should be cheering wildly, yet you aren't

No, what I have said is that religion works to help a society be self-regulating and that religious people freely voting their values represents no violation of separation of church and state. What this smacks of is state control of religious expression. It might not violate 'no law' but it still represents the state vetting religious expression. But, more importantly, this speaks to the vicious double standard that continues to pervade our political environment. If a republican had done this, we would be getting inundated with 'end of western civilization' hysteria from the media. Hollywood would be making movies about theocrats controlling government. Oily would be posting about the incredible take over of our society by religious fanatics in the white house - and correctly so. What this represents is true fascism - the state bringing every national social institution into alignment with its agenda.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Bob Emmett wrote:

Given the site I Thank Obama[^], which you linked to earlier, was there any confusion as to who was being addressed?

Yes, I thought it an interesting juxtapositioning of reports.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Rob Graham]

Ok, so CPHog is broken again (posts vanishing en route). I'll try again without it. Are you disturbed by the state sponsorship of prayer from a specific religion at public appearances, or at the requirement that the prayers be "vetted " by the white house prior to delivery, or both? (I am disturbed by both for multiple reasons).

[John Carson]

Stan Shannon wrote:

OK - so lets hear from everyone who demonized the republicans for stirring up all those evil christian fundamentalists.

Obama's brand of religion is relatively benign: he isn't trying to get creationism taught in science classes, for example. I think that invocations are largely a form of pandering. I find it very regrettable. Political events are not church services. Those that want church services can go to church. Those that don't want to go to church shouldn't have it foisted on them at political events.

John Carson

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you this day thanking you for who you are — a God that cares about each of our needs, our desires, and our fears.

The concept of a personal god who deals with each and every human as an individual was a radical concept in the days of Martin Luther, but I'm not sure why you feel concerned about one of the basic underpinnings of the Protestant Reformation - unless you are Catholic? My reading of the idolatry being paid to Obama by some folks, by the way, is far more likely to support a hierarchial view of man's relationship to God, with someone - Obama - being the one who interceeds with the Creator and in turn dispenses rewards and punishments as he has been authorised to do.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

Those that don't want to go to church shouldn't have it foisted on them at political events.

Without saying you are wrong, remember that we have "In God We Trust" imprinted on every piece of our currency. The U.S., for better or worse, has always like to flaunt its piety preferring to emulate the Pharisee who prays loudly right at the altar of the temple, rather than Publican who prays sincerely in the back pew.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Mike Gaskey]

Oakman wrote:

The U.S., for better or worse, has always like to flaunt its piety preferring to emulate the Pharisee who prays loudly right at the altar of the temple, rather than Publican who prays sincerely in the back pew.

not to be too harsh, but speak for yourself.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

[Oakman]

Mike Gaskey wrote:

not to be too harsh, but speak for yourself.

If you're saying that was an opinion and open to debate, I guess I should have made it clearer. :rose: If you're saying I pray "down front", ;P

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Rob Graham wrote:

Are you disturbed by the state sponsorship of prayer from a specific religion at public appearances, or at the requirement that the prayers be "vetted " by the white house prior to delivery, or both? (I am disturbed by both for multiple reasons).

THere is obviously nothing wrong with politicians associating themselves with freely expressed religious sentiment. All politicians do that. And, a president expressing his own faith in public prayer, for exampole, is likewise acceptable. But this is more than that, it is religious sentiment being evaluated and approved for public consumption. It is an obvious attempt to align religious institutions with a collectivist agenda. Fascism requires all the institutions of a society working together towards common, centrally defined, goals. Separation of church and state is about keeping tthe state out of religion, not religion out of the state. It is perfectly ok for politicians to express religious sentiment, they have freedom of religion just like everyone else, but it isn't ok for them to try to control or define the expression of religion semtiment, and this gets very close to that.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

John Carson wrote:

Obama's brand of religion is relatively benign: he isn't trying to get creationism taught in science classes, for example.

I see it in just the opposite terms. The creationism issue comes from the religious convictions of certain elements of the population. They have every right to express those beliefs politically. Such isues are supposed to rise from the bottom up. Obama is clearly trying to use a carefully managed religious point of view and to associate it as an element of his political agenda. I don 't see that as benign at all.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Rob Graham]

I agree. It is the same appropriation of religion to the states purposes as we complain about with radical Islam, just (for now) of lesser degree. The evaluation and approval part makes it more than mere expression of faith, it turns it into employment and manipulation for state purposes. Given all the ruckus about Bush's occasional expression of faith, the media silence on this is hypocritical in the extreme.

[Ilion]

Oakman wrote:

The concept of a personal god who deals with each and every human as an individual was a radical concept in the days of Martin Luther, but I'm not sure why you feel concerned about one of the basic underpinnings of the Protestant Reformation - unless you are Catholic?

You appear to not know what you're talking about ... on multiple levels. But then, you don't really care to know what you're talking about, so it all evens out. The concepts 'God is a person' and 'God cares about you' are two different concepts.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

The creationism issue comes from the religious convictions of certain elements of the population.

It seems to me that in some cases that is absolutely true, and in others, conservatives have flipped on previously held positions to embrace the religious right's p.o.v. Witness McCain's courtship of Falwell before the recent campaign. There are, I am afraid, all the hyprocrits one might ever want to meet on either side of the spectrum. Only libertarians are truly pure. ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

"In God We Trust"

I think you'll find that new notes have "Oh God! We're Bust!".

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Ilíon wrote:

'God is a person'

Neither Stan, the OP, or Bob who created the post I responded to never said that God was a person. I certainly didn't. I suppose you might have but you assume too much if you assume that I'd be interested in what you might have to say on an issue that requires both education and intelligence to speak authoritatively about. Since you bring up the issue, however, I might point out that the incarnation dogma holds that God became man in the person of Yeshua ben Yussif - as John put it: 'And the Word became flesh." Depending on exactly which branch of Christianity you want to accept as the One True Religion, that may mean that Christ was a human whose was divine both before and after his time on earth, or that his divine self resided in his body along with his human self in a kind of God-sanctioned schizophrenia. AFAIK, no major branch of Christianity suggests that he was not human but merely some kind of divine hologram. Don't hesitate to contact me again if you are still confused about this. And have a nice day. :)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

I think you'll find that new notes have "Oh God! We're Bust!".

We should've started using that in 1971.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Just thought the 'congregation' might be confused as to whether God or Obama was being addressed.

Oakman wrote:

unless you are Catholic?

No. My wife was a Catholic when we married, so I took Catholicism 101, and attended Mass with her for 4 - 5 years, until she stopped going.

Oakman wrote:

Obama - being the one who interceeds

When I cannot find a pound coin for my supermarket trolley, I pray to Obama, the patron saint of lost Change.

Bob Emmett