"You should not be afraid of someone who has a library and reads many books; you should fear someone who has only one book; and he considers it sacred, but he has never read it." Frederich Nietzsche
Craig, too true. And when you add the “prosperity gospel” in which God supposedly gives material riches to the most faithful, (regardless of how many commandments they break to acquire and keep them), then you encourage pride of class and exploitation of anyone not in your group (those favored by your god).
No, it’s the religion preached by preachers like Joel Ostern. “ The Prosperity Gospel (PG) is a fast-growing theologically conservative movement frequently associated with Pentecostalism, evangelicalism, and charismatic Christianity that emphasizes believers’ abilities to transcend poverty and/or illness through devotion and positive confession. The PG is popular among impoverished communities, where at best it is considered to offer the poor a means of imagining and reaching for better lives (at times accompanied by sound financial advice), and at worst is criticized as predatory and manipulative, particularly when churches or pastors require heavy tithing.”
Mary, just send money you don't have to your pastor. I am reminded of the scene in Repo Man where the young man is eating a can of...is it dog food....while his parents are glued to a TV pastor and sending him all their money. My great niece has fallen for this kind of thing and once was on Facebook trying to solicit funds for her pastor. During the pandemic she was upset that she could go to the grocery store, but not church. Pfft, isn' an omnipresent god everywhere. She was also in my will for a family item which i then figured she would either give or sell to help her pastor. So, that item is now going to my nephew here.
Fortunately they all live at least 2000 miles away and so I only see things on Facebook. I did take on something she said once for all the good it did.
The “Prosperity Gospel” is a new name for an old product. In the 19th century, the “Gospel of Wealth” emerged in American as an explanation for and lionization of men like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and others who had amassed great fortunes. It also, later, underpinned non-denominational preachers like, the Reverend Ike who liked to say, “the best thing you can do for the poor is not be one of them.” This, in turn, is what we hear from Joel Osteen and his ilk today.
Nope, but they don't follow the Sermon on the Mount.....too woke. Jesus is also clearly against using religion to get rich. So Osteen and his ilk are running a den of thieves and of course loudly praying.
I am a bit surprised that we are seeing comments where the commentor is not familiar with "prosperity gospel". Yes it is a thing and it has been a thing for a while. Many of Trump's "spiritual" advisory folks were of this bent. Remember Paula White? It was sickening to watch.
Yes Beverly. Should go down as one of the biggest cons in the history of evangelicalism. Few people on earth are more un-Christian than Trump. I do not know how conservative Christians who are Trump bootlickers can look at themselves in the mirror without complete and utter shame. A new meaning of the word hypocrisy.
Check Robert Schuller’s sermons that built the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, CA. (1955 and 1980). Been around for a very long time. The sermons often started with “cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you 10-fold.” That is, give money to this ministry and you will be made rich.
Our system of government and its founding documents are the product of The Enlightenment’s rejection of absolute monarchy and state religion. In a recent essay in The Atlantic, Peter Wehner explains where House Speaker Mike Johnson’s view of government’s role comes from. The essay is worth reading and it’s frightening. Johnson, evidently, believes The Enlightenment either did not happen or should be considered error.
He is a true believer who is full of hubris and arrogance. He has this constant smarmy look as if only he knows and the rest of us dolts do not. He is truly awful.
Anyone who thinks that material wealth is a sign of God’s approval (prosperity gospel), must’ve missed that part about the rich man trying to squeeze through the needle’s eye...
Thanks for the article, MAS. Just read it and indeed you are correct to use the word "frightening". It pulls the curtain back on not just Johnson but how his mentors like David Barton the "Christian-right activist who cherry picks from the past to promote political agendas in the present, to paint a picture of America’s history as evangelicals would like it to be", perverting Madison & Jefferson's written words into their own worldview. Worse, Johnson's commitment to these perversions led 139 House GOP to illegally try overturning the election who “In formal statements justifying their votes, about three-quarters relied on the arguments of,... Mike Johnson"
The author, Peter Wehner's last line sums it all up, "he uses his Christian faith to sacralize his fanaticism and assault on truth. I can't help thinking this isn't what Jesus had in mind."
Jesus certainly didn't have anyone like Speaker Smug in mind. In fact, he would have been on Jesus's black list....exactly the kind of person who practices the form but not the essence of a religion. This was part of his dismay with the Temple hierarchy.
Practices the form of what religion? Not any Christian religion. Quite the contrary, as your reference to the concept of black list suggests. But I for one loathe the term "black list" which harkens to mind Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy.
Focusing on Madison and Jefferson and the Virginia Constitution gives a distorted impression of the role of church and state at the founding. It is not helpful to deny that there were strong religious impulses when the nation was founded. The First Amendment was readily accepted because it was a restraint on the FEDERAL government. It pleased the Deists (e.g. Jefferson) because they distrusted all religions but perhaps more importantly, it was supported by many religious people who feared that state level links to particular religions would be overridden in a movement to establish a national church. The Fourteenth Amendment was not interpreted to extend the religious First Amendment protections from state action until 1940 (Cantwell v. Connecticut).
Here are a few other points to bear in mind: In 1776 all but one of the thirteen colonies (Rhode Island) had ties to one or another church. Church-state ties persisted for decades afterwards and were only gradually weakened during a period that was sometimes called the Disestablishment . The last Congregational link in Massachusetts (always the bane of Maine) was not dissolved until 1833. Long ago (as now) religious (and anti-religious) enthusiasm seemed to breed controversy and political conspiracy theories. In 1800 it was the Illuminati who (first) were said to be using Jefferson to end all religions and then, in a new conspiracy, were alleged to be using Adams to impose one national one!
These struggles have continuous life over centuries.
Not sure it was resistance to empire although it was the Romans who crucified. No, it was his calling out of the Temple hierarchy who aided and abetted his being crucified. They were not interested in helping the poor and the outcasts, only enriching themselves. Does this sound familiar.
It sure does. And don't forget welcoming strangers (immigrants).
Some commentaries indicate that the Palm Sunday procession was an act of resistance to the emperor--a royal procession and declaration that Caesar wasn't lord. There are other indications of resistance to empire in the Gospels.
Render unto Caesar. The Romans were puzzled by Jewish resistance because they extended to Jews some things not available to others under Rome like not having to worship Caesar as a god and other duties of Roman subjects. Then Jews continued to resist and the result was their utter defeat by Titus and the destruction of the Temple. Most of the time the Romans were tolerant of other religions as long as people did not rebel. I am not an expert, but I see the life of Jesus as being focused on the problems of the Temple hierarchy and the ignoring of the real problems of ordinary people.
George Bernard Shaw wrote a very interesting and (IMO) illuminating essay about Jesus in the introduction to his play, Androcles and the Lion. Not the Jesus of the Prosperity Gospel.
I recently read “The Petroleum Papers” by Geoff Dembicki (which I highly recommend). I was struck by how many of the early fossil fuel magnates were strong proponents of evangelical Christianity. Apparently, despoiling the planet was consistent with their theology.
I don't go that far. We need churches, and Christian organizations, that reject all of this to remain financially healthy so that they can mount an effective resistance to this stuff. They're the first line of defense against it, because they are best equipped to throw sand in the Dominionists' theological gears.
And most of the kinds of Christians who would be resisting Dominionism and Christian nationalism do service work in their communities that would cost those communities more in social services than any tax revenue they would get from assessing church properties.
Further, taxing churches would probably violate the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion" clause, and probably also subject non-religious 501(c)3 charities to taxation.
So... failed farthest-right politicians embraced religion, converted to pastors, made money tax-free.... and misguided their passive, obedient flock in all things.
I would argue that a church is not a person, and has no constitutional rights, under the First Amendment or otherwise- it's just a type of social club. Human beings have constitutional rights, but entities do not - notwithstanding Citizens United and McCulloch v Maryland. (Citizens United was just plain wrongly decided, in my view, and McCulloch could be more narrowly construed so as to allow reasonable and appropriate taxation). Taxing an organization that one belongs to doesn't impede one's free exercise of religion, because no one is forced to pay to exercise their religion, are they? (Are they?) Churches, especially "the" Church, own vast amounts of very valuable real estate, as well as valuable personal property. As it stands now, people are allowed to take a tax deduction for contributions to their churches, but the church has no concomitant responsibility to pay tax on that income - unlike virtually every other club people choose to join, and pay dues to in order to be members. This damages our economy, particularly local economies in which a church owns valuable real estate but is sheltered from paying taxes on it.
And there's no reason the tax code can't make a distinction between taxable charitable entities and non-taxable charitable entities. Once an entity dives into the realm of politics, it should not be entitled to tax-free status.
Most people can no longer take tax deductions for their church contributions becasue of the Trump tax law. We would have to donate something close to $30,000 in total charitable deductions this year to even begin itemizing them--and that would only be amounts over that $30,000 (I could be wrong about the exact figure, but it's large).
Churches are not social clubs. That's a common attack label, but that's not their purpose; they are organized for the purpose of religious worship and religious instruction, so their very existence very much would fall under the "free exercise of religion" clause. The comparison of churches with corporations is a false analogy.
Most churches would have to close their doors if they were taxed. And that would shutter the social services they provide, putting a burden on taxpayer funded social services. The idea that churches damage our economy is just another attack, on the order of religious bigotry, that has no basis in fact.
Most of the wealth of the church is non-fungible; that is, it's not easily converted to cash, so the claim that the churches' wealth can be used to claim they should be taxed is simply not a valid argument.
Just because a few churches abuse their tax-exempt status (and it's really only a small percentage overall) is no reason to deny it to the many congregations that are trying to be faithful.
And as I wrote above, they are the first defense against the Dominionists and Christian nationalists. You can bet that, should they take over our government completely (God forbid), non-compliant and resisting churches would be the first organizations they would attack. Forcing them to pay taxes would kneecap the needed resistance they would provide.
Don, the large donors are the point - they are the ones getting huge tax deductions against their huge incomes. Not fair at all. And they can and do use their large donations to form policy and procedures - and those are rarely social services without a political agenda attached.
A specific church may have been formed for a specific purpose - allegedly. It isn't what they claim they are organized for, it is what they actually do once they are organized, which should justify their qualifying for non-taxable status. To the extent they carry out political organizing, or just engaging in socializing, they are not qualified for a tax deduction based on their religious instruction or worship. Call it a political club or a social club, that is not religious.
As I said, considering the zillions of extremely detailed provisons of the Code, making distinctions between churches qualified for non-taxable status and those "churches" in name only and therefore not qualified should be no trouble at all for the kind of people who have drafted (and amended, and amended, and amended) that Code.
And the analogy to corporations is apt; it is human beings, not their organizations, that have the right to freedom of religion. A church is an entity separate and distinct from its human congregation, and exists independently of them; if a member dies, the church does not die. If all the congregants die, the entity that is the church still "lives" - exactly what a corporation does.
With respect to the real and personal property of a church, yes, real and personal property can be sold to raise money to pay taxes; if a person has no source of income, and has to sell their stuff to pay their bills, why shouldn't a church? If a church has income, it can pay its taxes - I mean, by definition, it's not going to be liable for income taxes unless it has income; if its income is insufficient for that, it can tithe more. And let's not pretend that many "churches" aren't very wealthy, beyond the dreams of avarice, sitting on property, real or personal, that exists for "investment" (apartment buildings, artwork, items of gold and silver and jewels, etc.), and could be sold in a heartbeat, or used for paying taxes. Not all churches hold services in a congregant's living room.
And regardless of how many in number the cheating "churches" are, they are exactly the ones, the mega-churches come immediately to mind, against which a fair tax code should be enforced. Fix the tax code to prevent the cheating by political organizations masquerading as churches - they should have to justify their tax-free status, and if they actually provide religious instruction and worship and charitable services without political activism, like REAL churches, then they, like the REAL churches, can remain non-taxable.
And if they and other entities paid a fair share of taxes, a lot of the social services they provide could be shifted to the government's shoulders, and could be provided to all and sundry without any religious overtones, as such aid should be.
Finally, with all due respect, there don't seem to be any churches at all fighting in any noticeable way against the Xtian nationalists, end-of-times evangelists, dominionists, or other RWNJ gangs opposed to and working against democracy. Individuals, sure, but have any of the Xtian nationalists or their sorry ilk ceased striving to overthrow our nation as a consequence? I'd love to hear about their successes!
Anyway, taxation is a vexed question always, and with the RWNJs in the House of Reps now trying to fund aid to Israel ($14B) conditioned on defunding the IRS to the extent of every penny allocated to it under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act ($80B), it raises its ugly head again, benefitting the rich tax cheats to the detriment of the rest of us - and, eventually, anyone abroad we'd like to help. They are truly despicable.
Well placed comment, Craig, and Amen, Frederick Nietzche. Hallelujah for the plethora of books that public libraries provide for all.
When I ask people during phone banking when “religion” comes up, specifically white Christian viewpoint, “have you read the Bible cover to cover?”, I have yet to either get a response or a “yes”.
Any teacher will tell you it is impossible to teach without reading and thinking first. One cannot foster varying viewpoints if one does not have a viewpoint. One can harbor a single viewpoint when that viewpoint has been shoved down the throat rather than cured and savored by the brain.
All they have to do is go to church and their pastor will tell them what to believe as will people in Bible study classes based of course, on their interpretation and an emphasis on those things that Jesus did not really teach. We have the Christianity of Paul, not so much Jesus. He managed to prevail over the brothers of Jesus in Jerusalem and that is too bad. I once again recommend God, An Anatomy for an excellent understanding of what is in the OT which reflects ideas prevalent in the ancient Middle East at the time.
The Buybull, cover to cover is an absolute, contradictory mess. From the Hateful Barbarism of the Old Testament to the Proselytizing of Paul, trying to get his Greeks & Romans to give up the old (fun) Pagan ways.
My Bible is very thin. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Something I have noticed that "Poser Christians" never quote from.
But... doesn't it have to be "up for discussion"? The Gospel, in particular, in which Jesus speaks in parables, often grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted by churchmen to fit in with their pursuit of power. If one doesn't probe and study in depth, the Good News may not come into its own.
I thought this was Thomas Aquinas, “hominem unius libri timeo…" ('I fear the man of a single book'). I was not aware Nietzsche had enlarged upon it. I would have thought him too nihilistic and deterministic to have written this.
I'm 78, MA in Religious Studies from VA Theological Seminary, 800 hours of Chaplain training, a former RC nun, and I have not read every single word in the Hebrew Scriptures (what we used to call Old Testament). I bet neither has almost everyone who uses "The Bible" to justify all manner of injustice. Just saying.....
Oh, Mary, thank you for the reminder and the link. It's one of my favorite scenes, second only to Adam Arkin's psychiatrist telling Josh in "Noel"..."because we get better." I cry every time!
Or worse yet, Craig, doesn't read the original tract, but avidly reads and/or listens to others who reinterpret what was said or written to suit their own prejudices. Most of the people I have met, including my mother and her sister, claimed to be devout 'Christians" but who, in reality followed Calvin and Knox.
Bravo Clearly explains our country’s position on church and state per the founders And cuts the new so called speaker who should know about separation of church and state down to size on his backhanded bill
Both church and state are corrupted when single-minded religious groups capture the civil powers of the state or when those entrusted with powers to defend all of the people misuse them to serve a personal or factional ideology. The Enlightenment mindset of the founders, while inadequate to recognize the equal rights of race and gender, still managed to legitimize and further a foundation for universal rights, which many still fight to expand today. Their acquaintance with advances in scientific thinking prized legitimacy established by testable logic and evidence, not prophecy. They did not reject individual faith in religion, but ruled it out as a basis for deciding matters of state that would require independent verification, such as guilt or innocence in a trial. The outcomes of theocratic governance can be observed throughout the world, and throughout history and can be compared to the outcomes of religiously tolerant, yet secularly governed societies. I know which option I would choose.
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the Crusades and the religious wars that had wracked Europe for the preceding 150 years. They probably knew about some of the tortures that Tomás de Torquemada (the Inquisition) inflicted upon "heretics," and the witch trials in the colonies. They knew that religion was a serious threat to the state. Moving forward, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all raised as Roman Catholics. It could merely be coincidental, but given that six of our Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic, I have little confidence that they can keep religion and despotic inclinations out of their decisions. I feel fairly confident that Speaker Mike Johnson has no problem with the concept that "the end justifies the means." What if Johnson and the MAGA Republicans simply shut down the government by starving it?
Two reminders: President Joe Biden is Catholic. And a truly excellent example of one who walks the walk instead of just talking the talk, unlike the dictators previously mentioned in your examples of world leaders no one should seek to emulate regardless which religion they were raised in.
Second, Leonard Leo is neither clergy nor theologian. His dark-money machinations represent capitalism, not the Roman Catholic church. Leo’s outsize, evil affects on Supreme Court nominations are terrifying and are currently, finally under investigation by the Justice Department.
Has the Catholic Church produced more than its fair share of evil autocrats? Yes. But so have most major religions. Netanyahu is Jewish and not exactly a great example of a mensch. Iran’s Ayatollahs cause untold harm with their death chants. Religion is a human construct; therefore has all the same problems humans do.
Please be careful judging all Catholics by the behaviors of the rich, powerful, mentally-deranged white guys who try to burn the world down. Has little or nothing to do with being a person of faith.
When power, money and egos (pride) go so far off the rails as the radical right coalition of Catholics and fundamentalist Christians has gone, we need to call out even those members of the cult who merely do nothing and say little or nothing. At some point it is a choice and an action to fail to oppose wrongful use of power and influence; we are long past that point with both the Republican Party and the Catholic and fundamentalist Christian religions (all 3 of which are tightly wrapped together in the current courts and political structures). Because politicians, and citizens in general, do not read history - or read only an edited, distorted version of it - they fail to realize how much religion was intentionally excluded from the founding principles of the US by virtually all of the white men we now revere as Founding Fathers. With all due respect to those who consider themselves "persons of faith", religion, which is a human construct, has done more damage and caused more misery and suffering than any other force in human existence. It has no place in the secular legal, political and social management of a diverse and inclusive world, country, state, town or any other secular organization. Our country was founded by people who'd seen and escaped religious interference and intended to establish a democratic Republic free of its pernicious influence.
I just have to say, with all due respect, that fellowship and bonding with others for comfort has offered a huge space for those in need. Religion has been there to offer this. But, yes, separation between church and state here in the US was Madison's goal.
I don't think all churches and temples house cult and not all cults are religious, but all cults prohibit and often severely punish cross-examination of the cults precepts, in which I can find no legitimacy. If one's basis for faith is robust, it should be able to withstand questioning and scrutiny. I think that the beginning of wisdom and civility is acknowledgment that every single one of us is human, fallible, and obliged to make consequential decisions with the benefit of certainty.
Like all other human constructs of power it can be used for good or evil, it depends on who the people using it elevate to power.
Look at us now. We have a choice between a man filled with love or a man filled with hate, and so many want to give power to the man filled with hate. It’s always been up to us. Which wolf do we feed? There’s only one mothership for all of us.
Excellent points, Sheila. I didn't point out the atrocities perpetrated in the name of some of the other religions, Islam in particular. These religions are beliefs based on faith, which I define as the firm belief in the truth of something based on hope and conjecture. They have no facts to support their claims and reason is not on their side either. Our inability as a species in the generality to think critically, to get beyond our confirmation bias, to believe what we want to believe, costs us and the rest of the creatures that share this planet with us dearly.
Richard, I'd like to comment on your statement about the inability of humans as a species to think critically. I think the opposite - the ABILITY to think critically is inborn in most of us, but how to execute that ability must be taught by others who have learned from previous others, etc. As must refraining from squashing it in the young by people in positions of power or authority over them, whether parents, teachers, "spiritual leaders" (which are often nothing of the kind, IMO), governmental officials, the media, employers/bosses, etc. That ability can become a disability if discouraged and prevented and punished enough. And someone who's motivated to obtain power as a consequence of effectively squashing the critical thinking ability in others can and will do so -as we have seen. Sadly.
And I completely agree with your comment on the truth that all religions are based in fantasy and wishing, not on anything real. Maybe someday as a species we'll outgrow the need for a Big Daddy to reward the good guys and punish the bad guys, and so fear being a bad guy ourselves. I suppose it's possible to be spiritual, in the sense of having an awareness of being fully entitled to belong within and be a part of the entire cosmos, and appreciate that (like appreciating music, or nature, that can bring ecstasy or joy) without having to have faith in, or even believe in the existence of, some superpower - but that spirituality doesn't lead to power, and money, so it's not very popular, as far as I can see.
“As must refraining from squashing it in the young by people in positions of power or authority over them, whether parents, teachers, "spiritual leaders"…”
I think we all have, to varying degrees, inborn capacity to develop any of the traits that humans possess, but more than other animals(even though many animals do this a lot), our behaviors are learned from experience and each other. We also have advanced powers of self-reflection and empathy that serve us as a species. we also have a unique, individual experience and identity, the sense of "me", that we all need, but becomes toxic is "me" is ultimately all that we care about. Some people encourage mindfulness, while malignant narcissists often encourage self-serving self-absorption, and build cults around it.
Some of the gullibility could be cultural. Thomas Frank, in his book, "What's the Matter with Kansas," shows how the oligarchs use the promulgation of wedge issues through the media to persuade ordinary Americans to vote against their own best social and economic interests. How far down the income ladder must they plunge before catching on to the Pied-Piper play on them? The oligarchs really do intend to turn this government into an oligarchical autocracy. Who said it, "Total power corrupts totally?"
Lynn Spann Bowditch, you do seem to be telling of a belief in what I'd term "mono-atheism". To state my position, I see myself as religious but mistrust beliefs and belief systems, especially those grounded in blind faith. Not only the creeds required by Christian churches but various forms of inculcated irrationality, including scientism and blind faith in the deity of our time, money.
It is, of course, a common projection to imagine that others have beliefs while we... have Knowledge.
Going back to what I called mono-atheism, this seems on the face of it to be a variation on the endemic disease of the monotheist religions. The notion that there is One truth is unbelievably powerful and its political usefulness is evident... Thus, it can become correspondingly dangerous in the hands of anyone in a position of power who proclaims he possesses that one truth. Anyone, regardless of religious belief.
In Buddhism, the danger is when someone whose motivation is unsound has attained great powers of concentration. Witness the case of Ashin Wirathu in Burma: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30930997.
Some other examples of religious or pseudo-religious abuse:
The Japanese militarists created a synthetic religion called State Shinto, centered on the deified Emperor, a ritualization of Japan's supposed spiritual superiority that integrated all the most negative features of the warriors' code. Buddhism was downgraded and everyone was obliged to join in imperial rites.
By demonizing the huge Muslim population of India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has succeeded in hammering the immensely diverse communities, beliefs and philosophies that go under the single label "Hinduism" into something more like a solid mass.
Hitler achieved something similar by deforming the great diversity of the German-speaking peoples into a seemingly monolithic unit, the Herrenvolk, destined to dominate all lesser races and obliterate those whom the Fuehrer demonized, in particular Jews and Roma.
Stalin persecuted all religions without exception until the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, when he understood the need to draw on the ancient identification of Slavic peoples with Orthodoxy in the defense or Russia and Ukraine from Mongols and Tatars in the east and Catholic Poles and Teutonic Knights in the West.
'Even as President Biden presses Israel to define clearly the goals of its war against Hamas in Gaza, he is turning his eyes to a much larger endgame: the ever-elusive hope for a lasting peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.'
'Speaking to reporters last week, Mr. Biden said that “when this crisis is over, there has to be a vision of what comes next, and in our view it has to be a two-state solution,” creating a sovereign Palestinian nation alongside the state of Israel.'
'The question is how hard Mr. Biden intends to work for that outcome.'
'Until last month, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not among his top priorities. A president focused on countering China and then Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had little time or inclination for a distant goal that stymied — and politically bruised — several of his predecessors.'
'Biden administration officials also doubted whether Israel’s increasingly hawkish leadership was interested in any plausible deal. They also wondered whether the Palestinians would trust the United States as a peace broker after four years of the Trump administration’s dramatically pro-Israel tilt and a Trump peace plan that the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, excluded from its devising, declared dead on arrival.'
'Unlike his recent predecessors, Mr. Biden did not appoint a special envoy for Middle East peace or task his secretary of state with trying to forge an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, he focused on mediating a normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, hoping to leverage Israeli concessions to the Palestinians along the way.'
“It was not a tier-one policy objective to solve this conflict,” 'said David Makovsky, a former peace process negotiator in the Obama administration.' “The goal was to stabilize, and not trying and failing a fifth time.”
'Mr. Biden did not follow through on his promise to reopen a U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem.'
'But even modest efforts proved surprisingly difficult, and some analysts believe that Mr. Biden’s minimalist approach neglected the Palestinians. In particular, Palestinians had hoped Mr. Biden would reverse several Trump-era decisions that downgraded diplomatic ties with the Palestinians and loosened guardrails on Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.'
'It wasn’t to be.'
'As a candidate, Mr. Biden promised to reopen the Washington office of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Mr. Trump shuttered, kicking out Palestinian representatives from the nation’s capital. Mr. Biden never acted on the pledge.'
'Nor did he follow through on his promise as a candidate to reopen a U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem — also shut down by Mr. Trump — that had long served as America’s local diplomatic point of contact for the Palestinians.'
'Many Palestinians also hoped that the United States under Mr. Biden would reinstate a State Department legal opinion declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo canceled the opinion, which had been in force for four decades. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has not moved to reverse it.' (NYTimes) See gifted link below.
Black journalist and writer Ta-Nehisi Coats delivered a complacency shattering interview on DemocracyNow.org in the second half of today's hour long news program.
None of us would want to miss it.
As for US envoys for Middle East peace, isn't it time to get the usual guardians of the tragic status quo out of the way and finally let a country with lived experience like Ireland or South Africa take the lead?
Shane, the usual "guardians of the tragic status quo" are also, in large part, the very creators and then perpetuators thereof. And yes, we - the US in particular - need to consent to being led for a change, and learn from the experience of others, such as and including Ireland and South Africa - not that there's entire peace in either of those places.
Coats was recently in occupied Palestine and applies his experience with race and discrimination to illuminate matters we have learned to ignore. We, of course, have for decades "adjusted to" excuses for bombing and occupation of country after country and our President has noted that arms production is a jobs program.
This is the problem of painting everyone with the same brush because of the behavior of certain individuals. Religion, like everything else, can be used for good or ill. I am currently, finally, reading Braiding Sweetgrass, where she talks constantly of a world view which sees natural world as a gift and a world view that sees everything as a commodity.
Sheila, Yes! Or listen to the author read it on the audio version. She has a hauntingly sweet voice. I listened to the book first, then went right out to buy the paperback so I could mark it up--then bought several copies to give away. It's a little costly, but worth it for special people!
Her father's morning coffee ritual reawakened my life of gratitude that had become dormant during the first year of the last administration.
I believe I recommended the book to this community some time ago now....
Michele, and everything in the natural world is sacred--whatever one's spirituality or religious beliefs happen to be.
Some Christians have forgotten (or ignored) this. They believe they have dominion over creation, instead of responsibility to care for it (and each other). Thus we have enslavement, abuse of animals, and raping the earth--In my opinion the Garden--all with the implied permission of their particular version of God in Genesis....
Yes. So many people have no respect for other people let alone the earth. I listen every day to drivers roaring up and down our street and street racing at night. We had one instance where late at night a person hit a pedestrian on a nearby street and put the body in his car and drove it out of town and it seems to me just left the car. He did get caught thankfully.
I think in the end we are all persons of some sort of faith, but not all of it is theological, and not all theological faith is authoritarian, but some if it is, and it seems to me no accident that the authoritarian strain of religious interpretation melds with coercion of authoritarian politics. It is the religious spin of those who aim to lord it over others. The other strain aims to liberate, which is the nemesis of authoritarians, and, as was the case for MLK, often met with violence. And not all violence is physical, it often takes the form of pernicious lies, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, that both harms directly and creates environments where material violence is likely to occur.
It seems that many self-proclaimed Christians despise the poorest, worship money and the most monied, and dream of executions and war, seemingly the very antipode of thoughts attributed to Jesus.
The wonderful thing is how these all-powerful church hierarchies produced so many truly great saints and such marvels as the great cathedrals. (Who today could even imagine such music in stone as Hagia Sofia or Amiens cathedral... Or, moving to Islam, the mosques of Iran and Central Asia?)
The hierarchy produced the funding; the stone masons and mosaic artists produced the timeless beauty. I would love to see those mosques in person; thank heavens for the internet so at least I can enjoy photos!
One of the things that fascinates me as an artist was the freemason movement. Was it a movement of well-trained artisans who trained the next generation of artisans so the Cathedrals could be completed? Or was it a political movement? How did those, whose skills gave them a passport to travel, including income and respect, become such a force in Europe? Learning from many cultures is a well-established method of breaking down barriers. Yet, the Catholic Church seeks to create barriers - as in our way or you will be outed as a (pagan, infidel, whore, witch, take your pick) and be stoned, othered, attacked, left to starve. How is that Christian, by the way?
And how many of the authors of the US Constitution were Masons?
The Roman Catholic Church’s history is bathed in blood. Yet my dad became a conscientious objector growing up in the Catholic Church. Why did he “get” it and someone like Brett Kavanaugh become a Supreme Court Justice? Feel like a toddler some days with the constant question why.
Our democracy has been deeply damaged by the actions of those who call themselves Christian, including Evangelicals and Catholics. And the guardrails separating church from state are badly battered. ! You guessed it; why do they do that?
A couple more modern day saints would be helpful. Like my colleagues in the climate movement.
Jennifer, for me, I think that they are so invested in what they want to believe, that they can't recognize the truth, i.e., facts. They have a huge blind spot. It is a common phenomenon among humans, very common. Belief in an afterlife is the prime example.
Reagan-Trump "Republicans" pretend to hate "government" while yet making it more intrusive and heavy-handed upon those not in their club. It's "government of the people, by the people, for the people" neo-"Republicans" have come to despise, as well as the common weal, and it is that they have consistently attacked and dismantled these four plus decades, (just count the ways) in a wealth-fueled quest to reestablish something harking to feudalism.
I’m going to quibble with you. Stalin was not raised Roman Catholic. He attended a Russian Orthodox academy.
Those leaders, like today’s evangelicals, perverted the teachings of the Church. Can you imagine what Jesus would think of the prosperity gospel folks? I’m pretty sure he’d throw them out of the temple, reminding them of camels and eyes of needles.
Me thinks we go through these periods to emphasize and move above the din.
Hopefully enlightenment vs WWIII.
Heather encapsulates with historic precision , her Letters ARE enlightenment . ( Must be her shoes...Lord, I love her shoes!!!!)
We have a real chance here ...here within the clever and careful thoughts spurred by research and knowledge ...and so share we should , good journalism /good writing best encourages.... to rest the chatter of our minds amidst this cacophony .
I read an email this morning about Meta being sued by 41 states for instigating addictive behaviors in teenagers , depression, and suicide.
Me thinks the ‘parental oversight ‘forgot about off buttons/structured time allotted for social things/ and that little word ‘no’ ...which btw needs enforced from day 1. I acknowledge the algorithms , the hard sell techniques, new toys, disinformation, capitalism pitfalls AND the religious/cults/demagoguery being captured by anyone or multiples.
WE have all skirted such or been part of at times ...education is but one key.
Evolving is currently a hot ticket , can we rise and better ourselves...again?
🤣, it was her natural self on 60 Minutes with Judy W. Heather lives in my home state , exudes a gathered , rugged ‘ downeasta’ wholesomeness in her dress and competent carriage, equally the teacher…but the shoes cinched it for me . “Now there’s a level headed woman!” I quipped to my husband , “ check out those shoes!”
Foundations, solid needs, she studies our foundations, well done Heather!
Also, her appearance on the LBJ Library gives a great view of Heather as herself- including the great shoes (I so agree about those!) and a stellar display of her delightful wit.
Wow! You said it, Richard! You will appreciate that every December for reasons I do not know. I get a letter from the RC bishops from Pennsylvania telling me how to vote and asking for money. It’s been fun watching Pope Francis recognizing over population and climate change, when my RC neighbor tells me “God will take care of climate change.” Science began with Galileo’s standing up for what he knew and the embrace of the Enlightenment which began to free us from superstition by studying and writing about what is as opposed to what were products of fearful imaginings.
Thank you. I have a 12 volume set of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and his abounding curiosity should be an inspiration to the likes of Johnson, if he would be read them.
His fascination with science, and copious correspondence, is astonishing. I am reminded of one small thing, his excitement with a new gadget, the metronome. Musical performances had no fixed way of knowing a composers intent at rhythm, and this wonderful new device made it possible for each movement of any piece to contain a setting for the metronome.
Thank you for writing about Jefferson and the metronome. Having been to Monticello, I knew about his farming interests, but you are reminding us of what a Renaissance man he was.
Thanks for the info about the metronome. I did not know that Jefferson had invented it. Practice with a metronome is a darn near daily exercise for me.
He didn’t, it was originally invented by I think an eastern European . It was patented by a German man. I want to say he heard about it from Lavoisier, whose acquaintance he had made when ambassador to France, but…hey there are 12 volumes.
Good to know. I just know that, without a metronome, I would be incapable of "playing ahead of the beat" which you have to do on the tuba (18' of tubing plus sitting in the back row means making your noise earlier than you think...)
Galileo, one for whom the term "genius" fully applies, managed to calculate a numerical value for objects accelerating due to gravity, a benchmark for Newton and Einstein to build on. Since he had no metronome with which to quantify time, some speculate he used his pulse, but in any case a good-enough way to regulate the measure of time. A pendulum perhaps? He managed to extrapolate free fall from objects rolling down ramps.
Professor, if only you were in Congress! I would love to see you cut these bloviating “Christians” down to size with historical accuracy the way Katie Porter does with financial accuracy.
MAGA's would cover their ears, but I have seen Elizabeth Warren's keen knowledge of subject manner reduce some less prepared officials to awkward silence.
Some of the founding fathers were deists. They believed in a Creator God, who created the universe and left to operate according to the rules the Creator put in place, example gravity.
Jefferson was one such deist. He even created his own version of the Bible, cutting out the parts he disliked. What would Mike Johnson do with Jefferson?
Jefferson's Bible was not about cutting out the parts he didn't like. He was trying to separate the teaching of Jesus from the commentary of Paul and the other commentary written for centuries after Jesus lived.
Jefferson cut out the words attributed to Jesus and glued them into a journal, creating a Bible of Jesus's teachings.
What would Johnson do with Lincoln? Their heads are on the mountain and even on money. They are too famous to dis, and DJT discovered that Lincoln was a Republican, so what to do? I am sure that someone quoting some of Lincoln's less salient writing would be reflexively dismissed as a "Communist" by MAGAs. I notice and morn the removal of Lincoln's Birthday as a national holiday.
Johnson would not be at all pleased with Jefferson's heavily edited Bible.
Plus, the founders knew about auto-da-fé and were trying to popularize the equality of all “men.” They may have been a bit shocked at Abigail Adams, but they didn’t burn her at a stake. Never forget: even if Jesus embraced Mary Magdalene, the Catholic Church only “awarded” souls to women in the 12th century. But still you cannot teach that in public school. (If an international medievalist, a high church Episcopalian, hadn’t said it in class....)
George Lakoff writes about differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more afraid of change, and difference than liberals. They also tend to seek out authoritarian leaders to feel reassured that someone is in charge, while liberals want more nurturing leaders.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Kanai et al. (2011) found that conservatism was associated with greater gray matter volume in the amygdala, and suggested that this finding may be associated with the emotional and cognitive differences across political orientation, particularly those associated with 'managing fear and uncertainty' (p. 678). (NIH)
This makes so much sense. In situations of perceived threat, the amygdala is activated and stimulates many neurohormones. One effect is that the prefrontal cortex is over-ridden by fear and anger. Rational thought is more difficult and less compelling than the automatic response of avoidance, freezing or attacking.
I’ve had a few conversations with conservatives wherein I try to politely challenge their most basic misinformation. I could literally see their PFC disengage: that “deer in the headlights” look, followed by changing the subject to the next rant.
Clearly there is something neurologically different in their thought processes.
We must never forget the attack on peaceful Black Lives Matter marchers in DC so tfg manbaby could walk across the street and hold a bible upside-down. The troops he called out, the low flying helicopters, would have stopped the Jan 6 rioters cold. The stunt seemed so weird then but makes perfect sense of his intent to me now.
Christopher, 100% of that people list believe in money, not the "Lord". In America, when you see a Republican in government, they are there for the money. No other reason.
That is generally true. But the few that are in it to change America to a theocratic government are really the most frightening. They are not indifferent to money but they absolutely have a different goal. Their culture war positions are not a sop to their base but something they are determined to fight and win. (shiver)
Straight out of the NT, bent on changing a "corrupt" world, a self-serving "called by God" to do "His" bidding.... yours and the comments of others, amplify Heather's essay on the First Amendment. The Enlightenment was toning down the violent consequences of the breakup of Christianity in Europe on both traditional governmental forms and republican innovations....but we of course need to be mindful that the severe anti-Catholic biases of the French Revolution was formidable.
Because when your foundation is an imaginary sky pilot, you can make up what you want to.
I really don't want to put words in Zella's mouth, but my recent experience tells me that many Christians (at least here at LFAAU) do not believe that those who follow a path towards Christian Nationalism are actual Christians, since they do not follow the teachings of Christ.
Thank you, as always Heather. You are right on point tonight.
The "Originalists" of SCOTUS are obviously expressing there opinions as cut from whole cloth. The power to amend our constitution is as original as could be and is proof positive that the founders were aware that unknown future entities, conditions or objects could become necessarary to account for in the legal system, statute and application and understanding of the first ten ammendmends. The AR-15 is such an unknown and the belief expressed by Mike Johnson is expressly and originally unfounded and not allowed. I read the Federalist Papers some sixty- five years ago in a civics class and am a bit rusty, but the quote of Madison makes me wonder about the Federalist Society. Have they ever read the Federalist Papers?
Thank you, Ransom Rideout, I first studied The Federalist in 1956-'57 and reread the papers decades ago, seeking lessons for Europe.
So, I too have often asked myself the same question. Have they ever read the book or is it, like the Bible and The Wealth of Nations, just another fat tome to be waved upside down to impress the foolish?
A name which has no connection to the goal. Chump proved the Bible best used to create an illusion (delusion) for those who never read a book but listened to the purveyors of righteous from an evil perch. The Federalist Society just latched on to a familiar and respected name
Ransom, While I take your point on the power to amend inscribed in the Constitution, I would add that our Founders enlisted a very steep climb for whomever would want to edit them—two-thirds majority in both U.S. legislative chambers and subsequent ratification by three-fourths of the states. I imagine most of us have viewed this threshold as both a blessing and a curse.
Ransom, I imagine you’re right about the justified “original” intent. Still, the Founders’ methodical reasoning doesn’t make me any less frustrated that we are the only country that still enacts an electoral college to elect its president, let alone the other disheartening vestiges that fuel minority rule over the will of the majority. Note I haven’t even gotten started on the 2nd Amendment.
Yes. Heather went deeply into why this was done to go from the Articles of Confederation to the writing of our Constitution. In order for the slave states to ratify, the Electoral Collegewas was to give the South parity in votes because Black Slaves were only three fifths of a white man in the census. The Senate gave the southern states parity beween the states themselves.
It's been sixty years since I studied this stuff. Scroll back through Heather's archive of History Chats.You can get there from her FB page.
On a more frightening note, the T-Rump had an opening campaign rally in Waco,Texas today?yesterday? where he laid out the plan to resurect the Confederacy, basically. Re-establish the Southern Oligahchy as our rulers. They plan to make all our issues irrelevant. This election is no joke. Donate as much as you can to Fair Fight, CREW, Common Cause and others who are waging the legal battles to secure un-molested elections. Google Voting Rights Legal Action Organizations and many will show up.
Can’t think of anyone who epitomizes the Repub party these days more than Santos. At least he doesn’t pretend righteousness. Sorry you are dead and can’t see this, Bill Buckley.
Ransom ... you got 52 LIKES. A lot. That's because of the power of your words and insight I think. And I'm in Athens. The birthplace of democracy. Where they know a Theocracy is not a democracy. So me, and my 20000 tourist friends, and the guides, we salute you and your wisdom. J. ¹
I too am very rusty on the Federalist Papers, but in Heather’s quote from Madison, I was given pause to read. “it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” I will explore the context for the reference, but wonder if anyone here can clarify why he refers to to these values as specifically Christian. Is this simply a universal reference that all who read in that time would understand as such? I wonder if a statement like that can be, and is being, used to claim that the founders assumed a specifically Christian value system (however it be individually construed).
I had the same thought. The average Christian will simply see the word Christian and claim it means that we are a Christian nation, meaning the whole of Christianity, and not a circumscribed , era-defined adjective describing the "the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” I (an athiest) went to a Catholic college taught by nuns (for the full tuition scholarship). A common saying was "That's mighty Christian of you." It was meant as a small sarcasm against people who were performative but not sincere in their actions toward others.
That's mighty nice of you to say, Ransom. I try to only post worthwhile additions, but I recognize that these are very long comment threads, and I know that few people will end up reading most of it.
Frustrating sometimes. Several of Heather's followers who followed Steve Schmidt (and Joyce) also have decided to stay in contact after he pissed us off big time last Friday for going to work for Dean Phillips to primary Biden. Six very smart women and one other man maybe. You might appreciate staying in touch too. If so, Kathy Sherpa was the main instigator and a wonderful person about my age(mid-late 70s) and a retired psychaiatrist.
I am sure she will not mind if I pass long her email. I will let her know. Not an active group, but to pass on important information and be there for support in these crazy times. When one sends an email, your thoughtgoes directly and is not lost in the fast moving stream.
Anyway, you sound like you might just fit right in. if you care to, check in with Kathy :
"You should not be afraid of someone who has a library and reads many books; you should fear someone who has only one book; and he considers it sacred, but he has never read it." Frederich Nietzsche
Craig, too true. And when you add the “prosperity gospel” in which God supposedly gives material riches to the most faithful, (regardless of how many commandments they break to acquire and keep them), then you encourage pride of class and exploitation of anyone not in your group (those favored by your god).
The prosperity gospel?? Is that another name for rogue capitalism practiced by the oligarchs???
No, it’s the religion preached by preachers like Joel Ostern. “ The Prosperity Gospel (PG) is a fast-growing theologically conservative movement frequently associated with Pentecostalism, evangelicalism, and charismatic Christianity that emphasizes believers’ abilities to transcend poverty and/or illness through devotion and positive confession. The PG is popular among impoverished communities, where at best it is considered to offer the poor a means of imagining and reaching for better lives (at times accompanied by sound financial advice), and at worst is criticized as predatory and manipulative, particularly when churches or pastors require heavy tithing.”
https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/faq/prosperity-gospel#:~:text=The%20Prosperity%20Gospel%20(PG)%20is,through%20devotion%20and%20positive%20confession.
Mary, just send money you don't have to your pastor. I am reminded of the scene in Repo Man where the young man is eating a can of...is it dog food....while his parents are glued to a TV pastor and sending him all their money. My great niece has fallen for this kind of thing and once was on Facebook trying to solicit funds for her pastor. During the pandemic she was upset that she could go to the grocery store, but not church. Pfft, isn' an omnipresent god everywhere. She was also in my will for a family item which i then figured she would either give or sell to help her pastor. So, that item is now going to my nephew here.
I was worried there. Must be tough having a family member who has fallen for a cult.
Fortunately they all live at least 2000 miles away and so I only see things on Facebook. I did take on something she said once for all the good it did.
Religion and money = Roots of All Evil
The “Prosperity Gospel” is a new name for an old product. In the 19th century, the “Gospel of Wealth” emerged in American as an explanation for and lionization of men like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and others who had amassed great fortunes. It also, later, underpinned non-denominational preachers like, the Reverend Ike who liked to say, “the best thing you can do for the poor is not be one of them.” This, in turn, is what we hear from Joel Osteen and his ilk today.
The entire LDS church is built on this premise.
Yep
Yes. You got that right!
Whoa! What is that gospel? !?!?! Maybe not from
the sermon on the mount!
Nope, but they don't follow the Sermon on the Mount.....too woke. Jesus is also clearly against using religion to get rich. So Osteen and his ilk are running a den of thieves and of course loudly praying.
My memory is not great, but didn't Osteen refuse to open one of his stores? for people looking for shelter from a major hurricane? Eventually he did
Yes, he refused to open the 16,000 seat stadium church to Hurricane Harvey victims until he was called on it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna797036
Yes, he did. He had to be shamed into doing so. So much "Christian."
Jesus is definitely way too woke!!!
I am a bit surprised that we are seeing comments where the commentor is not familiar with "prosperity gospel". Yes it is a thing and it has been a thing for a while. Many of Trump's "spiritual" advisory folks were of this bent. Remember Paula White? It was sickening to watch.
and they made 45 a golden idol, too.
Yes Beverly. Should go down as one of the biggest cons in the history of evangelicalism. Few people on earth are more un-Christian than Trump. I do not know how conservative Christians who are Trump bootlickers can look at themselves in the mirror without complete and utter shame. A new meaning of the word hypocrisy.
It was UGLY
Always good to get educated!
Check Robert Schuller’s sermons that built the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, CA. (1955 and 1980). Been around for a very long time. The sermons often started with “cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you 10-fold.” That is, give money to this ministry and you will be made rich.
Oh, you mean rich HERE on Earth. Oh, no, I meant in HEAVEN; meanwhile, these false prophets are raking it in.
Just what we need. A bible verse to justify trump.
That’s called tribalism!
Our system of government and its founding documents are the product of The Enlightenment’s rejection of absolute monarchy and state religion. In a recent essay in The Atlantic, Peter Wehner explains where House Speaker Mike Johnson’s view of government’s role comes from. The essay is worth reading and it’s frightening. Johnson, evidently, believes The Enlightenment either did not happen or should be considered error.
He is a true believer who is full of hubris and arrogance. He has this constant smarmy look as if only he knows and the rest of us dolts do not. He is truly awful.
My feeling too except a one word description would be “smug”. Or absolute arrogance - in my opinion
Yes, he is smug as only a true believer can be. Already I can't stand to see his face and that little smile.
No true follower of Jesus is full of hubris and arrogance
Jesus himself said “...i am gentle and humble in heart.”
Jesus words to the proud and arrogant religionists, Pharisees in those days, were
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
Watch Him, listen and learn, Mr. Speaker.
Anyone who thinks that material wealth is a sign of God’s approval (prosperity gospel), must’ve missed that part about the rich man trying to squeeze through the needle’s eye...
Shades of John Ashcroft!!
I had forgotten him with good reason.
Thanks for the article, MAS. Just read it and indeed you are correct to use the word "frightening". It pulls the curtain back on not just Johnson but how his mentors like David Barton the "Christian-right activist who cherry picks from the past to promote political agendas in the present, to paint a picture of America’s history as evangelicals would like it to be", perverting Madison & Jefferson's written words into their own worldview. Worse, Johnson's commitment to these perversions led 139 House GOP to illegally try overturning the election who “In formal statements justifying their votes, about three-quarters relied on the arguments of,... Mike Johnson"
The author, Peter Wehner's last line sums it all up, "he uses his Christian faith to sacralize his fanaticism and assault on truth. I can't help thinking this isn't what Jesus had in mind."
Jesus certainly didn't have anyone like Speaker Smug in mind. In fact, he would have been on Jesus's black list....exactly the kind of person who practices the form but not the essence of a religion. This was part of his dismay with the Temple hierarchy.
"sacralize"--thanks for a new word, for me, and concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacralism
Spot on!
Practices the form of what religion? Not any Christian religion. Quite the contrary, as your reference to the concept of black list suggests. But I for one loathe the term "black list" which harkens to mind Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy.
Words I never thought would come to mind: Mike Johnson makes me miss Kevin McCarthy.
Michael, So out of the frying pan, into the hellfire?
Focusing on Madison and Jefferson and the Virginia Constitution gives a distorted impression of the role of church and state at the founding. It is not helpful to deny that there were strong religious impulses when the nation was founded. The First Amendment was readily accepted because it was a restraint on the FEDERAL government. It pleased the Deists (e.g. Jefferson) because they distrusted all religions but perhaps more importantly, it was supported by many religious people who feared that state level links to particular religions would be overridden in a movement to establish a national church. The Fourteenth Amendment was not interpreted to extend the religious First Amendment protections from state action until 1940 (Cantwell v. Connecticut).
Here are a few other points to bear in mind: In 1776 all but one of the thirteen colonies (Rhode Island) had ties to one or another church. Church-state ties persisted for decades afterwards and were only gradually weakened during a period that was sometimes called the Disestablishment . The last Congregational link in Massachusetts (always the bane of Maine) was not dissolved until 1833. Long ago (as now) religious (and anti-religious) enthusiasm seemed to breed controversy and political conspiracy theories. In 1800 it was the Illuminati who (first) were said to be using Jefferson to end all religions and then, in a new conspiracy, were alleged to be using Adams to impose one national one!
These struggles have continuous life over centuries.
Oh, they read it. They just take from it what they want and leave the rest alone.
Yes, the stuff they leave alone is the stuff that they ban other books for
Oh, I think it's more than that--much more. The life and witness of Jesus--his critique of "religion" and his resistance to empire--for a big example.
Not sure it was resistance to empire although it was the Romans who crucified. No, it was his calling out of the Temple hierarchy who aided and abetted his being crucified. They were not interested in helping the poor and the outcasts, only enriching themselves. Does this sound familiar.
It sure does. And don't forget welcoming strangers (immigrants).
Some commentaries indicate that the Palm Sunday procession was an act of resistance to the emperor--a royal procession and declaration that Caesar wasn't lord. There are other indications of resistance to empire in the Gospels.
Render unto Caesar. The Romans were puzzled by Jewish resistance because they extended to Jews some things not available to others under Rome like not having to worship Caesar as a god and other duties of Roman subjects. Then Jews continued to resist and the result was their utter defeat by Titus and the destruction of the Temple. Most of the time the Romans were tolerant of other religions as long as people did not rebel. I am not an expert, but I see the life of Jesus as being focused on the problems of the Temple hierarchy and the ignoring of the real problems of ordinary people.
George Bernard Shaw wrote a very interesting and (IMO) illuminating essay about Jesus in the introduction to his play, Androcles and the Lion. Not the Jesus of the Prosperity Gospel.
Indeed!
I recently read “The Petroleum Papers” by Geoff Dembicki (which I highly recommend). I was struck by how many of the early fossil fuel magnates were strong proponents of evangelical Christianity. Apparently, despoiling the planet was consistent with their theology.
Cafeteria Christianity...
I think that's known as "The Salad Bar Sect" of Christianity....
And require the churches to pay income taxes.
And property taxes, which stay within the community.
I don't go that far. We need churches, and Christian organizations, that reject all of this to remain financially healthy so that they can mount an effective resistance to this stuff. They're the first line of defense against it, because they are best equipped to throw sand in the Dominionists' theological gears.
And most of the kinds of Christians who would be resisting Dominionism and Christian nationalism do service work in their communities that would cost those communities more in social services than any tax revenue they would get from assessing church properties.
Further, taxing churches would probably violate the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion" clause, and probably also subject non-religious 501(c)3 charities to taxation.
So... failed farthest-right politicians embraced religion, converted to pastors, made money tax-free.... and misguided their passive, obedient flock in all things.
Politics disguised as religion -- yuk!
I would argue that a church is not a person, and has no constitutional rights, under the First Amendment or otherwise- it's just a type of social club. Human beings have constitutional rights, but entities do not - notwithstanding Citizens United and McCulloch v Maryland. (Citizens United was just plain wrongly decided, in my view, and McCulloch could be more narrowly construed so as to allow reasonable and appropriate taxation). Taxing an organization that one belongs to doesn't impede one's free exercise of religion, because no one is forced to pay to exercise their religion, are they? (Are they?) Churches, especially "the" Church, own vast amounts of very valuable real estate, as well as valuable personal property. As it stands now, people are allowed to take a tax deduction for contributions to their churches, but the church has no concomitant responsibility to pay tax on that income - unlike virtually every other club people choose to join, and pay dues to in order to be members. This damages our economy, particularly local economies in which a church owns valuable real estate but is sheltered from paying taxes on it.
And there's no reason the tax code can't make a distinction between taxable charitable entities and non-taxable charitable entities. Once an entity dives into the realm of politics, it should not be entitled to tax-free status.
Most people can no longer take tax deductions for their church contributions becasue of the Trump tax law. We would have to donate something close to $30,000 in total charitable deductions this year to even begin itemizing them--and that would only be amounts over that $30,000 (I could be wrong about the exact figure, but it's large).
Churches are not social clubs. That's a common attack label, but that's not their purpose; they are organized for the purpose of religious worship and religious instruction, so their very existence very much would fall under the "free exercise of religion" clause. The comparison of churches with corporations is a false analogy.
Most churches would have to close their doors if they were taxed. And that would shutter the social services they provide, putting a burden on taxpayer funded social services. The idea that churches damage our economy is just another attack, on the order of religious bigotry, that has no basis in fact.
Most of the wealth of the church is non-fungible; that is, it's not easily converted to cash, so the claim that the churches' wealth can be used to claim they should be taxed is simply not a valid argument.
Just because a few churches abuse their tax-exempt status (and it's really only a small percentage overall) is no reason to deny it to the many congregations that are trying to be faithful.
And as I wrote above, they are the first defense against the Dominionists and Christian nationalists. You can bet that, should they take over our government completely (God forbid), non-compliant and resisting churches would be the first organizations they would attack. Forcing them to pay taxes would kneecap the needed resistance they would provide.
Don, the large donors are the point - they are the ones getting huge tax deductions against their huge incomes. Not fair at all. And they can and do use their large donations to form policy and procedures - and those are rarely social services without a political agenda attached.
A specific church may have been formed for a specific purpose - allegedly. It isn't what they claim they are organized for, it is what they actually do once they are organized, which should justify their qualifying for non-taxable status. To the extent they carry out political organizing, or just engaging in socializing, they are not qualified for a tax deduction based on their religious instruction or worship. Call it a political club or a social club, that is not religious.
As I said, considering the zillions of extremely detailed provisons of the Code, making distinctions between churches qualified for non-taxable status and those "churches" in name only and therefore not qualified should be no trouble at all for the kind of people who have drafted (and amended, and amended, and amended) that Code.
And the analogy to corporations is apt; it is human beings, not their organizations, that have the right to freedom of religion. A church is an entity separate and distinct from its human congregation, and exists independently of them; if a member dies, the church does not die. If all the congregants die, the entity that is the church still "lives" - exactly what a corporation does.
With respect to the real and personal property of a church, yes, real and personal property can be sold to raise money to pay taxes; if a person has no source of income, and has to sell their stuff to pay their bills, why shouldn't a church? If a church has income, it can pay its taxes - I mean, by definition, it's not going to be liable for income taxes unless it has income; if its income is insufficient for that, it can tithe more. And let's not pretend that many "churches" aren't very wealthy, beyond the dreams of avarice, sitting on property, real or personal, that exists for "investment" (apartment buildings, artwork, items of gold and silver and jewels, etc.), and could be sold in a heartbeat, or used for paying taxes. Not all churches hold services in a congregant's living room.
And regardless of how many in number the cheating "churches" are, they are exactly the ones, the mega-churches come immediately to mind, against which a fair tax code should be enforced. Fix the tax code to prevent the cheating by political organizations masquerading as churches - they should have to justify their tax-free status, and if they actually provide religious instruction and worship and charitable services without political activism, like REAL churches, then they, like the REAL churches, can remain non-taxable.
And if they and other entities paid a fair share of taxes, a lot of the social services they provide could be shifted to the government's shoulders, and could be provided to all and sundry without any religious overtones, as such aid should be.
Finally, with all due respect, there don't seem to be any churches at all fighting in any noticeable way against the Xtian nationalists, end-of-times evangelists, dominionists, or other RWNJ gangs opposed to and working against democracy. Individuals, sure, but have any of the Xtian nationalists or their sorry ilk ceased striving to overthrow our nation as a consequence? I'd love to hear about their successes!
Anyway, taxation is a vexed question always, and with the RWNJs in the House of Reps now trying to fund aid to Israel ($14B) conditioned on defunding the IRS to the extent of every penny allocated to it under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act ($80B), it raises its ugly head again, benefitting the rich tax cheats to the detriment of the rest of us - and, eventually, anyone abroad we'd like to help. They are truly despicable.
Lynn, are you involved with a congregation? Because it appears that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Well placed comment, Craig, and Amen, Frederick Nietzche. Hallelujah for the plethora of books that public libraries provide for all.
When I ask people during phone banking when “religion” comes up, specifically white Christian viewpoint, “have you read the Bible cover to cover?”, I have yet to either get a response or a “yes”.
Any teacher will tell you it is impossible to teach without reading and thinking first. One cannot foster varying viewpoints if one does not have a viewpoint. One can harbor a single viewpoint when that viewpoint has been shoved down the throat rather than cured and savored by the brain.
Salud!
🗽
All they have to do is go to church and their pastor will tell them what to believe as will people in Bible study classes based of course, on their interpretation and an emphasis on those things that Jesus did not really teach. We have the Christianity of Paul, not so much Jesus. He managed to prevail over the brothers of Jesus in Jerusalem and that is too bad. I once again recommend God, An Anatomy for an excellent understanding of what is in the OT which reflects ideas prevalent in the ancient Middle East at the time.
The Buybull, cover to cover is an absolute, contradictory mess. From the Hateful Barbarism of the Old Testament to the Proselytizing of Paul, trying to get his Greeks & Romans to give up the old (fun) Pagan ways.
My Bible is very thin. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Something I have noticed that "Poser Christians" never quote from.
The core... of what survived after Constantine used religion as an immensely powerful unifying factor (hence, of course, the birth of heresy).
I've found it useful to add other dimensions, other viewpoints that cast light on the canonical gospels, via the often difficult Gospel of Thomas.
Thumpers. My brother's one, smack you with a literal, out of context quote that suits their grossly ignorant view of Christian style humanity.
Absolutely. Even the Bible is up for discussion. Many interpret-it to their liking.
But... doesn't it have to be "up for discussion"? The Gospel, in particular, in which Jesus speaks in parables, often grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted by churchmen to fit in with their pursuit of power. If one doesn't probe and study in depth, the Good News may not come into its own.
There in lies the problem because there are many who preach and don’t truly understand The Word.
So yes to your response!
I thought this was Thomas Aquinas, “hominem unius libri timeo…" ('I fear the man of a single book'). I was not aware Nietzsche had enlarged upon it. I would have thought him too nihilistic and deterministic to have written this.
I liked that line too Craig, Happy Thursday🫶
I'm 78, MA in Religious Studies from VA Theological Seminary, 800 hours of Chaplain training, a former RC nun, and I have not read every single word in the Hebrew Scriptures (what we used to call Old Testament). I bet neither has almost everyone who uses "The Bible" to justify all manner of injustice. Just saying.....
Terry, I love this scene from The West Wing in which President Bartlett tests an Evangelical leader’s knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures.
https://youtu.be/S1-ip47WYWc?si=a08DpzDNRkJS784u
Oh, Mary, thank you for the reminder and the link. It's one of my favorite scenes, second only to Adam Arkin's psychiatrist telling Josh in "Noel"..."because we get better." I cry every time!
Or worse yet, Craig, doesn't read the original tract, but avidly reads and/or listens to others who reinterpret what was said or written to suit their own prejudices. Most of the people I have met, including my mother and her sister, claimed to be devout 'Christians" but who, in reality followed Calvin and Knox.
Oh. My. Yes.
Boom!
Love love love this!!
Bravo Clearly explains our country’s position on church and state per the founders And cuts the new so called speaker who should know about separation of church and state down to size on his backhanded bill
Both church and state are corrupted when single-minded religious groups capture the civil powers of the state or when those entrusted with powers to defend all of the people misuse them to serve a personal or factional ideology. The Enlightenment mindset of the founders, while inadequate to recognize the equal rights of race and gender, still managed to legitimize and further a foundation for universal rights, which many still fight to expand today. Their acquaintance with advances in scientific thinking prized legitimacy established by testable logic and evidence, not prophecy. They did not reject individual faith in religion, but ruled it out as a basis for deciding matters of state that would require independent verification, such as guilt or innocence in a trial. The outcomes of theocratic governance can be observed throughout the world, and throughout history and can be compared to the outcomes of religiously tolerant, yet secularly governed societies. I know which option I would choose.
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the Crusades and the religious wars that had wracked Europe for the preceding 150 years. They probably knew about some of the tortures that Tomás de Torquemada (the Inquisition) inflicted upon "heretics," and the witch trials in the colonies. They knew that religion was a serious threat to the state. Moving forward, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all raised as Roman Catholics. It could merely be coincidental, but given that six of our Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic, I have little confidence that they can keep religion and despotic inclinations out of their decisions. I feel fairly confident that Speaker Mike Johnson has no problem with the concept that "the end justifies the means." What if Johnson and the MAGA Republicans simply shut down the government by starving it?
Two reminders: President Joe Biden is Catholic. And a truly excellent example of one who walks the walk instead of just talking the talk, unlike the dictators previously mentioned in your examples of world leaders no one should seek to emulate regardless which religion they were raised in.
Second, Leonard Leo is neither clergy nor theologian. His dark-money machinations represent capitalism, not the Roman Catholic church. Leo’s outsize, evil affects on Supreme Court nominations are terrifying and are currently, finally under investigation by the Justice Department.
Has the Catholic Church produced more than its fair share of evil autocrats? Yes. But so have most major religions. Netanyahu is Jewish and not exactly a great example of a mensch. Iran’s Ayatollahs cause untold harm with their death chants. Religion is a human construct; therefore has all the same problems humans do.
Please be careful judging all Catholics by the behaviors of the rich, powerful, mentally-deranged white guys who try to burn the world down. Has little or nothing to do with being a person of faith.
When power, money and egos (pride) go so far off the rails as the radical right coalition of Catholics and fundamentalist Christians has gone, we need to call out even those members of the cult who merely do nothing and say little or nothing. At some point it is a choice and an action to fail to oppose wrongful use of power and influence; we are long past that point with both the Republican Party and the Catholic and fundamentalist Christian religions (all 3 of which are tightly wrapped together in the current courts and political structures). Because politicians, and citizens in general, do not read history - or read only an edited, distorted version of it - they fail to realize how much religion was intentionally excluded from the founding principles of the US by virtually all of the white men we now revere as Founding Fathers. With all due respect to those who consider themselves "persons of faith", religion, which is a human construct, has done more damage and caused more misery and suffering than any other force in human existence. It has no place in the secular legal, political and social management of a diverse and inclusive world, country, state, town or any other secular organization. Our country was founded by people who'd seen and escaped religious interference and intended to establish a democratic Republic free of its pernicious influence.
I just have to say, with all due respect, that fellowship and bonding with others for comfort has offered a huge space for those in need. Religion has been there to offer this. But, yes, separation between church and state here in the US was Madison's goal.
I don't think all churches and temples house cult and not all cults are religious, but all cults prohibit and often severely punish cross-examination of the cults precepts, in which I can find no legitimacy. If one's basis for faith is robust, it should be able to withstand questioning and scrutiny. I think that the beginning of wisdom and civility is acknowledgment that every single one of us is human, fallible, and obliged to make consequential decisions with the benefit of certainty.
Like all other human constructs of power it can be used for good or evil, it depends on who the people using it elevate to power.
Look at us now. We have a choice between a man filled with love or a man filled with hate, and so many want to give power to the man filled with hate. It’s always been up to us. Which wolf do we feed? There’s only one mothership for all of us.
Amen
Tom, you nailed it. (Imho)....
Excellent points, Sheila. I didn't point out the atrocities perpetrated in the name of some of the other religions, Islam in particular. These religions are beliefs based on faith, which I define as the firm belief in the truth of something based on hope and conjecture. They have no facts to support their claims and reason is not on their side either. Our inability as a species in the generality to think critically, to get beyond our confirmation bias, to believe what we want to believe, costs us and the rest of the creatures that share this planet with us dearly.
By their action we will know them not by their claim of faith.
Richard, I'd like to comment on your statement about the inability of humans as a species to think critically. I think the opposite - the ABILITY to think critically is inborn in most of us, but how to execute that ability must be taught by others who have learned from previous others, etc. As must refraining from squashing it in the young by people in positions of power or authority over them, whether parents, teachers, "spiritual leaders" (which are often nothing of the kind, IMO), governmental officials, the media, employers/bosses, etc. That ability can become a disability if discouraged and prevented and punished enough. And someone who's motivated to obtain power as a consequence of effectively squashing the critical thinking ability in others can and will do so -as we have seen. Sadly.
And I completely agree with your comment on the truth that all religions are based in fantasy and wishing, not on anything real. Maybe someday as a species we'll outgrow the need for a Big Daddy to reward the good guys and punish the bad guys, and so fear being a bad guy ourselves. I suppose it's possible to be spiritual, in the sense of having an awareness of being fully entitled to belong within and be a part of the entire cosmos, and appreciate that (like appreciating music, or nature, that can bring ecstasy or joy) without having to have faith in, or even believe in the existence of, some superpower - but that spirituality doesn't lead to power, and money, so it's not very popular, as far as I can see.
“As must refraining from squashing it in the young by people in positions of power or authority over them, whether parents, teachers, "spiritual leaders"…”
Especially, the “shroud of shame”
I think we all have, to varying degrees, inborn capacity to develop any of the traits that humans possess, but more than other animals(even though many animals do this a lot), our behaviors are learned from experience and each other. We also have advanced powers of self-reflection and empathy that serve us as a species. we also have a unique, individual experience and identity, the sense of "me", that we all need, but becomes toxic is "me" is ultimately all that we care about. Some people encourage mindfulness, while malignant narcissists often encourage self-serving self-absorption, and build cults around it.
Some of the gullibility could be cultural. Thomas Frank, in his book, "What's the Matter with Kansas," shows how the oligarchs use the promulgation of wedge issues through the media to persuade ordinary Americans to vote against their own best social and economic interests. How far down the income ladder must they plunge before catching on to the Pied-Piper play on them? The oligarchs really do intend to turn this government into an oligarchical autocracy. Who said it, "Total power corrupts totally?"
Lynn Spann Bowditch, you do seem to be telling of a belief in what I'd term "mono-atheism". To state my position, I see myself as religious but mistrust beliefs and belief systems, especially those grounded in blind faith. Not only the creeds required by Christian churches but various forms of inculcated irrationality, including scientism and blind faith in the deity of our time, money.
It is, of course, a common projection to imagine that others have beliefs while we... have Knowledge.
Going back to what I called mono-atheism, this seems on the face of it to be a variation on the endemic disease of the monotheist religions. The notion that there is One truth is unbelievably powerful and its political usefulness is evident... Thus, it can become correspondingly dangerous in the hands of anyone in a position of power who proclaims he possesses that one truth. Anyone, regardless of religious belief.
In Buddhism, the danger is when someone whose motivation is unsound has attained great powers of concentration. Witness the case of Ashin Wirathu in Burma: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30930997.
Some other examples of religious or pseudo-religious abuse:
The Japanese militarists created a synthetic religion called State Shinto, centered on the deified Emperor, a ritualization of Japan's supposed spiritual superiority that integrated all the most negative features of the warriors' code. Buddhism was downgraded and everyone was obliged to join in imperial rites.
By demonizing the huge Muslim population of India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has succeeded in hammering the immensely diverse communities, beliefs and philosophies that go under the single label "Hinduism" into something more like a solid mass.
Hitler achieved something similar by deforming the great diversity of the German-speaking peoples into a seemingly monolithic unit, the Herrenvolk, destined to dominate all lesser races and obliterate those whom the Fuehrer demonized, in particular Jews and Roma.
Stalin persecuted all religions without exception until the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, when he understood the need to draw on the ancient identification of Slavic peoples with Orthodoxy in the defense or Russia and Ukraine from Mongols and Tatars in the east and Catholic Poles and Teutonic Knights in the West.
'Even as President Biden presses Israel to define clearly the goals of its war against Hamas in Gaza, he is turning his eyes to a much larger endgame: the ever-elusive hope for a lasting peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.'
'Speaking to reporters last week, Mr. Biden said that “when this crisis is over, there has to be a vision of what comes next, and in our view it has to be a two-state solution,” creating a sovereign Palestinian nation alongside the state of Israel.'
'The question is how hard Mr. Biden intends to work for that outcome.'
'Until last month, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not among his top priorities. A president focused on countering China and then Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had little time or inclination for a distant goal that stymied — and politically bruised — several of his predecessors.'
'Biden administration officials also doubted whether Israel’s increasingly hawkish leadership was interested in any plausible deal. They also wondered whether the Palestinians would trust the United States as a peace broker after four years of the Trump administration’s dramatically pro-Israel tilt and a Trump peace plan that the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, excluded from its devising, declared dead on arrival.'
'Unlike his recent predecessors, Mr. Biden did not appoint a special envoy for Middle East peace or task his secretary of state with trying to forge an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, he focused on mediating a normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, hoping to leverage Israeli concessions to the Palestinians along the way.'
“It was not a tier-one policy objective to solve this conflict,” 'said David Makovsky, a former peace process negotiator in the Obama administration.' “The goal was to stabilize, and not trying and failing a fifth time.”
'Mr. Biden did not follow through on his promise to reopen a U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem.'
'But even modest efforts proved surprisingly difficult, and some analysts believe that Mr. Biden’s minimalist approach neglected the Palestinians. In particular, Palestinians had hoped Mr. Biden would reverse several Trump-era decisions that downgraded diplomatic ties with the Palestinians and loosened guardrails on Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.'
'It wasn’t to be.'
'As a candidate, Mr. Biden promised to reopen the Washington office of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Mr. Trump shuttered, kicking out Palestinian representatives from the nation’s capital. Mr. Biden never acted on the pledge.'
'Nor did he follow through on his promise as a candidate to reopen a U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem — also shut down by Mr. Trump — that had long served as America’s local diplomatic point of contact for the Palestinians.'
'Many Palestinians also hoped that the United States under Mr. Biden would reinstate a State Department legal opinion declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo canceled the opinion, which had been in force for four decades. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has not moved to reverse it.' (NYTimes) See gifted link below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/01/us/politics/biden-israel-palestinians-peace.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7Uw.7Avo.xON-kEja5vGa&smid=url-share
Black journalist and writer Ta-Nehisi Coats delivered a complacency shattering interview on DemocracyNow.org in the second half of today's hour long news program.
None of us would want to miss it.
As for US envoys for Middle East peace, isn't it time to get the usual guardians of the tragic status quo out of the way and finally let a country with lived experience like Ireland or South Africa take the lead?
Shane, the usual "guardians of the tragic status quo" are also, in large part, the very creators and then perpetuators thereof. And yes, we - the US in particular - need to consent to being led for a change, and learn from the experience of others, such as and including Ireland and South Africa - not that there's entire peace in either of those places.
Coats was recently in occupied Palestine and applies his experience with race and discrimination to illuminate matters we have learned to ignore. We, of course, have for decades "adjusted to" excuses for bombing and occupation of country after country and our President has noted that arms production is a jobs program.
This is the problem of painting everyone with the same brush because of the behavior of certain individuals. Religion, like everything else, can be used for good or ill. I am currently, finally, reading Braiding Sweetgrass, where she talks constantly of a world view which sees natural world as a gift and a world view that sees everything as a commodity.
One of my favorite books! Thanks for the reminder. Time to reread, I think.
Sheila, Yes! Or listen to the author read it on the audio version. She has a hauntingly sweet voice. I listened to the book first, then went right out to buy the paperback so I could mark it up--then bought several copies to give away. It's a little costly, but worth it for special people!
Her father's morning coffee ritual reawakened my life of gratitude that had become dormant during the first year of the last administration.
I believe I recommended the book to this community some time ago now....
It is beautifully written. I am really enjoying it and every page is filled with something to think about.
Michele, and everything in the natural world is sacred--whatever one's spirituality or religious beliefs happen to be.
Some Christians have forgotten (or ignored) this. They believe they have dominion over creation, instead of responsibility to care for it (and each other). Thus we have enslavement, abuse of animals, and raping the earth--In my opinion the Garden--all with the implied permission of their particular version of God in Genesis....
Yes. So many people have no respect for other people let alone the earth. I listen every day to drivers roaring up and down our street and street racing at night. We had one instance where late at night a person hit a pedestrian on a nearby street and put the body in his car and drove it out of town and it seems to me just left the car. He did get caught thankfully.
I think in the end we are all persons of some sort of faith, but not all of it is theological, and not all theological faith is authoritarian, but some if it is, and it seems to me no accident that the authoritarian strain of religious interpretation melds with coercion of authoritarian politics. It is the religious spin of those who aim to lord it over others. The other strain aims to liberate, which is the nemesis of authoritarians, and, as was the case for MLK, often met with violence. And not all violence is physical, it often takes the form of pernicious lies, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, that both harms directly and creates environments where material violence is likely to occur.
It seems that many self-proclaimed Christians despise the poorest, worship money and the most monied, and dream of executions and war, seemingly the very antipode of thoughts attributed to Jesus.
I agree. i think the life of the spirit is important, but for some it becomes adherence to hatred and violence.
Or a narcissistic pretext for it.
Very well said.
The wonderful thing is how these all-powerful church hierarchies produced so many truly great saints and such marvels as the great cathedrals. (Who today could even imagine such music in stone as Hagia Sofia or Amiens cathedral... Or, moving to Islam, the mosques of Iran and Central Asia?)
The hierarchy produced the funding; the stone masons and mosaic artists produced the timeless beauty. I would love to see those mosques in person; thank heavens for the internet so at least I can enjoy photos!
One of the things that fascinates me as an artist was the freemason movement. Was it a movement of well-trained artisans who trained the next generation of artisans so the Cathedrals could be completed? Or was it a political movement? How did those, whose skills gave them a passport to travel, including income and respect, become such a force in Europe? Learning from many cultures is a well-established method of breaking down barriers. Yet, the Catholic Church seeks to create barriers - as in our way or you will be outed as a (pagan, infidel, whore, witch, take your pick) and be stoned, othered, attacked, left to starve. How is that Christian, by the way?
And how many of the authors of the US Constitution were Masons?
The Roman Catholic Church’s history is bathed in blood. Yet my dad became a conscientious objector growing up in the Catholic Church. Why did he “get” it and someone like Brett Kavanaugh become a Supreme Court Justice? Feel like a toddler some days with the constant question why.
Our democracy has been deeply damaged by the actions of those who call themselves Christian, including Evangelicals and Catholics. And the guardrails separating church from state are badly battered. ! You guessed it; why do they do that?
A couple more modern day saints would be helpful. Like my colleagues in the climate movement.
It is eerily possible. Johnson and his ilk do not want to know truth. They are too busy twisting it.
Jennifer, for me, I think that they are so invested in what they want to believe, that they can't recognize the truth, i.e., facts. They have a huge blind spot. It is a common phenomenon among humans, very common. Belief in an afterlife is the prime example.
The gop has been starving federal social support programs since their guru Reagan declared government is the problem!
Reagan-Trump "Republicans" pretend to hate "government" while yet making it more intrusive and heavy-handed upon those not in their club. It's "government of the people, by the people, for the people" neo-"Republicans" have come to despise, as well as the common weal, and it is that they have consistently attacked and dismantled these four plus decades, (just count the ways) in a wealth-fueled quest to reestablish something harking to feudalism.
I’m going to quibble with you. Stalin was not raised Roman Catholic. He attended a Russian Orthodox academy.
Those leaders, like today’s evangelicals, perverted the teachings of the Church. Can you imagine what Jesus would think of the prosperity gospel folks? I’m pretty sure he’d throw them out of the temple, reminding them of camels and eyes of needles.
Me thinks we go through these periods to emphasize and move above the din.
Hopefully enlightenment vs WWIII.
Heather encapsulates with historic precision , her Letters ARE enlightenment . ( Must be her shoes...Lord, I love her shoes!!!!)
We have a real chance here ...here within the clever and careful thoughts spurred by research and knowledge ...and so share we should , good journalism /good writing best encourages.... to rest the chatter of our minds amidst this cacophony .
I read an email this morning about Meta being sued by 41 states for instigating addictive behaviors in teenagers , depression, and suicide.
Me thinks the ‘parental oversight ‘forgot about off buttons/structured time allotted for social things/ and that little word ‘no’ ...which btw needs enforced from day 1. I acknowledge the algorithms , the hard sell techniques, new toys, disinformation, capitalism pitfalls AND the religious/cults/demagoguery being captured by anyone or multiples.
WE have all skirted such or been part of at times ...education is but one key.
Evolving is currently a hot ticket , can we rise and better ourselves...again?
This format and you give hope ...🫶
💙💙VOTE ALL COMPLICIT OUT💙💙
I’ve missed the shoes..do you have pictures?!🤪
🤣, it was her natural self on 60 Minutes with Judy W. Heather lives in my home state , exudes a gathered , rugged ‘ downeasta’ wholesomeness in her dress and competent carriage, equally the teacher…but the shoes cinched it for me . “Now there’s a level headed woman!” I quipped to my husband , “ check out those shoes!”
Foundations, solid needs, she studies our foundations, well done Heather!
Also, her appearance on the LBJ Library gives a great view of Heather as herself- including the great shoes (I so agree about those!) and a stellar display of her delightful wit.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkbAayPUjtM
Also some neat still photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lbjlibrarynow/albums/72177720312036685/
I still need to see that episode, thanks for the reminder! Yes, competency, level-headedness, humor, and smarts.
She included a pair in her 4/29/23 letter. 😁
Wow! You said it, Richard! You will appreciate that every December for reasons I do not know. I get a letter from the RC bishops from Pennsylvania telling me how to vote and asking for money. It’s been fun watching Pope Francis recognizing over population and climate change, when my RC neighbor tells me “God will take care of climate change.” Science began with Galileo’s standing up for what he knew and the embrace of the Enlightenment which began to free us from superstition by studying and writing about what is as opposed to what were products of fearful imaginings.
He’s trying😬😡
Correction to Richard Sutherland: Stalin was a seminarist in the Russian Orthodox Church before he became a bandit, then...
*
To the Kah-Gay-Bay
*
Our old Nobodaddy Joe
watches us from down below.
At the seminary, he
grew jealous of the Deity;
plotted there to take His place,
liquidate the human race,
leaving only Party cadres,
indispensable cadavers
and of course His Privates, We.
Thank you. I have a 12 volume set of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and his abounding curiosity should be an inspiration to the likes of Johnson, if he would be read them.
His fascination with science, and copious correspondence, is astonishing. I am reminded of one small thing, his excitement with a new gadget, the metronome. Musical performances had no fixed way of knowing a composers intent at rhythm, and this wonderful new device made it possible for each movement of any piece to contain a setting for the metronome.
Johnson would likely want to ban it.
Thank you for writing about Jefferson and the metronome. Having been to Monticello, I knew about his farming interests, but you are reminding us of what a Renaissance man he was.
Thanks for the info about the metronome. I did not know that Jefferson had invented it. Practice with a metronome is a darn near daily exercise for me.
He didn’t, it was originally invented by I think an eastern European . It was patented by a German man. I want to say he heard about it from Lavoisier, whose acquaintance he had made when ambassador to France, but…hey there are 12 volumes.
Good to know. I just know that, without a metronome, I would be incapable of "playing ahead of the beat" which you have to do on the tuba (18' of tubing plus sitting in the back row means making your noise earlier than you think...)
I never thought about it. A well tempered tuba.
Galileo, one for whom the term "genius" fully applies, managed to calculate a numerical value for objects accelerating due to gravity, a benchmark for Newton and Einstein to build on. Since he had no metronome with which to quantify time, some speculate he used his pulse, but in any case a good-enough way to regulate the measure of time. A pendulum perhaps? He managed to extrapolate free fall from objects rolling down ramps.
No one has mentioned Jefferson’s (French) wine cellar. Don’t remember where I learned about that, but this seems a good thing to throw into the mix.
Professor, if only you were in Congress! I would love to see you cut these bloviating “Christians” down to size with historical accuracy the way Katie Porter does with financial accuracy.
MAGA's would cover their ears, but I have seen Elizabeth Warren's keen knowledge of subject manner reduce some less prepared officials to awkward silence.
Some of the founding fathers were deists. They believed in a Creator God, who created the universe and left to operate according to the rules the Creator put in place, example gravity.
Jefferson was one such deist. He even created his own version of the Bible, cutting out the parts he disliked. What would Mike Johnson do with Jefferson?
Jefferson's Bible was not about cutting out the parts he didn't like. He was trying to separate the teaching of Jesus from the commentary of Paul and the other commentary written for centuries after Jesus lived.
Jefferson cut out the words attributed to Jesus and glued them into a journal, creating a Bible of Jesus's teachings.
What would Johnson do with Lincoln? Their heads are on the mountain and even on money. They are too famous to dis, and DJT discovered that Lincoln was a Republican, so what to do? I am sure that someone quoting some of Lincoln's less salient writing would be reflexively dismissed as a "Communist" by MAGAs. I notice and morn the removal of Lincoln's Birthday as a national holiday.
Johnson would not be at all pleased with Jefferson's heavily edited Bible.
Plus, the founders knew about auto-da-fé and were trying to popularize the equality of all “men.” They may have been a bit shocked at Abigail Adams, but they didn’t burn her at a stake. Never forget: even if Jesus embraced Mary Magdalene, the Catholic Church only “awarded” souls to women in the 12th century. But still you cannot teach that in public school. (If an international medievalist, a high church Episcopalian, hadn’t said it in class....)
Repubs have been nothing but skilled at corrupting the messages of the founding fathers
Jeri Chilcutt. That is the most concise description of the MAGA Republican I’ve read
Thank you. Pretty good at cherry picking the Bible too. About ditched the NT.
Nothing new, I fear.
The Trump Whitehouse was packed with radical evangelical Christian nationalists - Pence, Pompeo, Perry, Sessions, DeVos ..... and the rest.
No wonder they think he was sent by the Lord
Hence, disagreeing with him (Mango Muffin) is blasphemy, right! I can hardly believe we have become soooo stupid. "Stupid is as stupid does...".
Stupid, ignorant, and 360 hating, a bad trifecta which some call winning, others call our worst disaster.
And afraid. Their fear drives them sometimes into paranoia. Their fear drives their hatred.
Always true, fear is the driver for a lot of insanity.
George Lakoff writes about differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more afraid of change, and difference than liberals. They also tend to seek out authoritarian leaders to feel reassured that someone is in charge, while liberals want more nurturing leaders.
no argument here
Today there are no Conservatives. Bill Buckley spins in his grave when that term is applied to MAGA Republicans.
J. Nol Writes J.’s Substack - "George Lakoff writes about differences between conservatives and liberals."
And he most recently said:
"𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, '𝘠𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦.' 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, '𝘠𝘦𝘴, 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘖𝘒', 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘖𝘒 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘢𝘸𝘧𝘶𝘭."
The left, he argues, "𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 – 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳, 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘦. 𝘐𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘦: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴' 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴. 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦; 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳. 𝘐𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘓𝘢𝘬𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘴, 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵; 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 – 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/01/george-lakoff-interview
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
— Frank Wilhoit
Fear, true, but don’t forget about hate is a driving force.
Kanai et al. (2011) found that conservatism was associated with greater gray matter volume in the amygdala, and suggested that this finding may be associated with the emotional and cognitive differences across political orientation, particularly those associated with 'managing fear and uncertainty' (p. 678). (NIH)
This makes so much sense. In situations of perceived threat, the amygdala is activated and stimulates many neurohormones. One effect is that the prefrontal cortex is over-ridden by fear and anger. Rational thought is more difficult and less compelling than the automatic response of avoidance, freezing or attacking.
I’ve had a few conversations with conservatives wherein I try to politely challenge their most basic misinformation. I could literally see their PFC disengage: that “deer in the headlights” look, followed by changing the subject to the next rant.
Clearly there is something neurologically different in their thought processes.
“Mango Muffin.” 😂🤣😂 Hadn’t heard that one. Thanks for the morning chuckle.
I like orange putrescence, courtesy of Stacy Abrams.
🤣🤣🤣 Laughter is good for the soul. Hilarious!!
Humor is a foundational ingredient. Without it every thing is 'flat'. Even the earth would be flat..oh my!
We must never forget the attack on peaceful Black Lives Matter marchers in DC so tfg manbaby could walk across the street and hold a bible upside-down. The troops he called out, the low flying helicopters, would have stopped the Jan 6 rioters cold. The stunt seemed so weird then but makes perfect sense of his intent to me now.
Christopher, 100% of that people list believe in money, not the "Lord". In America, when you see a Republican in government, they are there for the money. No other reason.
That is generally true. But the few that are in it to change America to a theocratic government are really the most frightening. They are not indifferent to money but they absolutely have a different goal. Their culture war positions are not a sop to their base but something they are determined to fight and win. (shiver)
not evangelicals?
So far, the Lord has a rotten track record. Trump could well be one of the Lords "natural disasters".
Wrong lord...
Straight out of the NT, bent on changing a "corrupt" world, a self-serving "called by God" to do "His" bidding.... yours and the comments of others, amplify Heather's essay on the First Amendment. The Enlightenment was toning down the violent consequences of the breakup of Christianity in Europe on both traditional governmental forms and republican innovations....but we of course need to be mindful that the severe anti-Catholic biases of the French Revolution was formidable.
Add to the list former AG Barr, a devout radical catholic!
Christopher, I don't think the Donal Trump has any acquaintance with the Lord.
Ah, but his followers, his base thinks he does, that's enough, and he knows it.
Enough is enough!
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ginni-thomas-says-mike-johnsons-wife-seems-a-little-crazy
But Lord of what?
not evangelicals? really?
Why does each side believe the other side doesn't believe?
Because when your foundation is an imaginary sky pilot, you can make up what you want to.
I really don't want to put words in Zella's mouth, but my recent experience tells me that many Christians (at least here at LFAAU) do not believe that those who follow a path towards Christian Nationalism are actual Christians, since they do not follow the teachings of Christ.
and Christian
Thank you, as always Heather. You are right on point tonight.
The "Originalists" of SCOTUS are obviously expressing there opinions as cut from whole cloth. The power to amend our constitution is as original as could be and is proof positive that the founders were aware that unknown future entities, conditions or objects could become necessarary to account for in the legal system, statute and application and understanding of the first ten ammendmends. The AR-15 is such an unknown and the belief expressed by Mike Johnson is expressly and originally unfounded and not allowed. I read the Federalist Papers some sixty- five years ago in a civics class and am a bit rusty, but the quote of Madison makes me wonder about the Federalist Society. Have they ever read the Federalist Papers?
Thank you, Ransom Rideout, I first studied The Federalist in 1956-'57 and reread the papers decades ago, seeking lessons for Europe.
So, I too have often asked myself the same question. Have they ever read the book or is it, like the Bible and The Wealth of Nations, just another fat tome to be waved upside down to impress the foolish?
"or is it, like the Bible and The Wealth of Nations, just another fat tome to be waved upside down to impress the foolish?"
Answer: Yes.
There is no way that Rump has ever read the Bible. If he opens that book just to look in it, he would immediately go up in flames.
Chortle!
A name which has no connection to the goal. Chump proved the Bible best used to create an illusion (delusion) for those who never read a book but listened to the purveyors of righteous from an evil perch. The Federalist Society just latched on to a familiar and respected name
Right there with you.
Nothing in the Constitution prescribes or authorizes original intent as the way to interpret the document.
I think I was sort of referring to that.
My way of agreeing with your thoughtful comments. J.
You might be as facetious and sly as I.
Now that’s a profound statement!
Ransom, While I take your point on the power to amend inscribed in the Constitution, I would add that our Founders enlisted a very steep climb for whomever would want to edit them—two-thirds majority in both U.S. legislative chambers and subsequent ratification by three-fourths of the states. I imagine most of us have viewed this threshold as both a blessing and a curse.
It is both and I believe that was the"original" intent.
Ransom, I imagine you’re right about the justified “original” intent. Still, the Founders’ methodical reasoning doesn’t make me any less frustrated that we are the only country that still enacts an electoral college to elect its president, let alone the other disheartening vestiges that fuel minority rule over the will of the majority. Note I haven’t even gotten started on the 2nd Amendment.
Yes. Heather went deeply into why this was done to go from the Articles of Confederation to the writing of our Constitution. In order for the slave states to ratify, the Electoral Collegewas was to give the South parity in votes because Black Slaves were only three fifths of a white man in the census. The Senate gave the southern states parity beween the states themselves.
It's been sixty years since I studied this stuff. Scroll back through Heather's archive of History Chats.You can get there from her FB page.
On a more frightening note, the T-Rump had an opening campaign rally in Waco,Texas today?yesterday? where he laid out the plan to resurect the Confederacy, basically. Re-establish the Southern Oligahchy as our rulers. They plan to make all our issues irrelevant. This election is no joke. Donate as much as you can to Fair Fight, CREW, Common Cause and others who are waging the legal battles to secure un-molested elections. Google Voting Rights Legal Action Organizations and many will show up.
Hang in there, Barbara Jo.
Like Nazis, repubs are not loathe to twist logic to embrace the opposite of what was intended. I would say it’s a major skill set. Thanks Frank Luntz…
Deftly illustrated by their unwillingness to expel George Santos.
Can’t think of anyone who epitomizes the Repub party these days more than Santos. At least he doesn’t pretend righteousness. Sorry you are dead and can’t see this, Bill Buckley.
Ransom ... you got 52 LIKES. A lot. That's because of the power of your words and insight I think. And I'm in Athens. The birthplace of democracy. Where they know a Theocracy is not a democracy. So me, and my 20000 tourist friends, and the guides, we salute you and your wisdom. J. ¹
Thank you JBR (name one day?) ENJOY! but keep an eye out for smoke...
I am, as Scarlett O’Hara said, “pea green with envy.” Enjoy Greece!!!
I too am very rusty on the Federalist Papers, but in Heather’s quote from Madison, I was given pause to read. “it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” I will explore the context for the reference, but wonder if anyone here can clarify why he refers to to these values as specifically Christian. Is this simply a universal reference that all who read in that time would understand as such? I wonder if a statement like that can be, and is being, used to claim that the founders assumed a specifically Christian value system (however it be individually construed).
I had the same thought. The average Christian will simply see the word Christian and claim it means that we are a Christian nation, meaning the whole of Christianity, and not a circumscribed , era-defined adjective describing the "the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” I (an athiest) went to a Catholic college taught by nuns (for the full tuition scholarship). A common saying was "That's mighty Christian of you." It was meant as a small sarcasm against people who were performative but not sincere in their actions toward others.
But this is just the Federalist Papers. As relavant to their claim as the Pentagon Papers.
Ha, a dear friend of mine was sent to one by her father for the same reason. I, being an aethiest also, say" That's raht christian of yuh"
Your comments have been very good for quite a while, Barbara.
That's mighty nice of you to say, Ransom. I try to only post worthwhile additions, but I recognize that these are very long comment threads, and I know that few people will end up reading most of it.
Frustrating sometimes. Several of Heather's followers who followed Steve Schmidt (and Joyce) also have decided to stay in contact after he pissed us off big time last Friday for going to work for Dean Phillips to primary Biden. Six very smart women and one other man maybe. You might appreciate staying in touch too. If so, Kathy Sherpa was the main instigator and a wonderful person about my age(mid-late 70s) and a retired psychaiatrist.
I am sure she will not mind if I pass long her email. I will let her know. Not an active group, but to pass on important information and be there for support in these crazy times. When one sends an email, your thoughtgoes directly and is not lost in the fast moving stream.
Anyway, you sound like you might just fit right in. if you care to, check in with Kathy :
kdsherpa@ bellsouth.net
Enjoy your day, wherever you are.