State sanctioned religion... [modified]

[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

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

I pray to Obama, the patron saint of lost Change.

He's a politican - the last "conservative" we elected ended his time in office by nationalizing a bunch of companies. Thirty years ago we had a far-right-winger who imposed wage and price controls and then took our currency off the gold standard, creating the inflationary spiral we are dealing with today, as well as setting the scene for Bernanke to make magic money. They all lie.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface