A hot issue on the U.S. campaign trail: theology
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
86 Comments
Login to comment
-1
Asagao
Always amazed people can believe in a god or gods.
1
Oracle
Oh yeah, practially brothers! Because of a book title!
I sure wish these people would consider more what is the right thing, rather than what is the Christian thing, and specifically their brand of Christianity as for their own group morality.
2
Madverts
Thankfully I live in a laic country where religion is personal choice and rightfully removed totally from decision-making.
It's no different to sexual preferences to me. It should be practiced in the private of one's home or designated communal areas. Other than that don't stick it on my face thanks.
0
passingcomment
Thought: Relgion & Politics - two of the greatest causes of the Worlds troubles. Yet without either we're directionless. Comments anyone ?
-6
BreitbartVictorious
This is a good point. I will start to hyperventilate like my progressive friends and co workers do about Bachman or Palin or Romney or Perry's respective brands of xtianity if and when I ever see any of the R candidates sitting in a church with a neo-segregationist preacher literally shrieking from the altar "G_d damn America, it's in tha Bible!", like the nutjob who baptized Obama did. Remember, Rev Wright also officiated at Obama's wedding, and was clearly an inspiration to him, till he too had to go under The Bus.
-6
BreitbartVictorious
Religion can be troublesome.But in Christian democracies and elsewhere, among people who have attained a civil society, support for its presence and observance ensures that power-hungry politicians and would-be tyrants will face a faithful majority who believe, rightly so, that natural law shall be above political law - which is of course why collectivists and marxists want religion ridiculed, marginalized and expunged.
0
plasticmonkey
@Breitbart
So by that rationale you believe in theocracy. And sharia law, were that the majority persuasion in your neighborhood. Which I doubt it is.
"Collectivists" and Marxists are right that religion (especially monotheistic, faith-based claptrap) should be ridiculed (I'd take out the maginalized and expunged). The history of Europe is a prime example of how power-hungry politicians and tyrants were co-conspirators and competitors with power-hungry clergymen, both of whom were eager to invoke the name of a fictitious God to impose a guilty, superstitious, and subservient spirit upon their subjects.
And it still works wonders for Rick Perry.
0
SuperLib
And naturally is wasn't a case of him using his political position to sell one kind of religion to the masses. That would be just silly.
0
Virtuoso
If Americans are stupid enough to elect another Texan for president, they deserve whatever misfortunes befall their country.
2
John Becker
Somewhere in the last 30 or 40 years, Republican voters in the U.S. confused the concept of "political leader" with "spiritual leader." Don't they already have spiritual leaders?
I don't need a spiritual leader in the White House. I need someone who can fix the economy, stay out of other countries' business, and not be (or become) an object of ridicule. Is that too much to ask?
-1
Serrano
@Virtuoso - Are you saying Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson was a bad president?
-3
HumanTarget
@Breitbart,
You do understand that Jesus was without a doubt a socialist, right?
I quote the good Lord himself:
" ...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
So... considering America is not only capitalist, but has one of the worst income gaps between the rich and poor in the civilized world, you don't think Reverand Wright was on to something?
2
HumanTarget
Just to clarify, that line comes from the synoptic gospels, when a rich man asks Jesus how he should go about getting into heaven. Jesus tells the man: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, " before uttering the above line.
Small government and big-ticket capitalism very clearly go against Jesus' teachings, and yet Perry, Bachmann, Palin and most other Republicans claim piety.
0
Virtuoso
@Serrano -- as far as I'm concerned, LBJ set the pattern for lies and manipulation that Bush '41 and '43 followed. So read my lips: no more Texans!
-2
Serrano
@Virtuoso - So you admit that a Democrat was a bad president.
And you think that no one from Texas could ever be a great leader. Do you know how many people you are dissing?
-1
Serrano
"In 2008 candidate Barack Obama broke ties with his Chcago pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright"
Took long enuf, didn't it?
3
Laguna
One reason I'd left the States - too many religious zealots. And like the current form of the Republican Party, the various sects attack and cannibalize each other over earthly issues such as influence and wealth with no attention paid towards the good of the whole or the good of the individual. And wait, hold on - isn't Obama a Muslim? - that's what almost half of Republicans believe!
This would all make me laugh if it weren't so dangerous.
-1
paulinusa
Pandering politicians are nothing new but these people reach new levels of extremism.
0
ExportExpert
You are welcome to be religous just as you are welcome to be gay, just keep it to yourself we dont need to hear about it.
Why do religous people and gays want to push it onto others, does it make them feel more secure or justified in the thought that others will have the same strange belief?
Religion should have nothing to do with politics or school.
0
Virtuoso
All of them, I hope, but if I missed anyone, I hope you'll pass the word.
0
Virtuoso
Rick Perry signed off on over 300 executions since he became governor of Texas, and yet he has the audacity to call himself a devout Christian. Talk about twisted values...
0
TheQuestion
It will always be an issue. Whether people here want to admit it or not every aspect of a person plays a role in their decision making from their childhood, to their education, to their religion. The religion of a candidate adds some insight but it should only serve as one part of the many factors to consider when voting.
For all the reasons I wouldn't vote for Rick Perry at this moment in time his religion isn't one of them.
@plasticmonkey
Odd, I've gotten through life without ridiculing anyone's faith or lack thereof. Why anybody should feel the need to is simply beyond me. It’s a funny little hypocrisy that many feel the need to state, quite correctly, that religion should not be forced upon them and then in the same breath condemns all faithful as ignorant or deserving of ridicule. Astonishing.
1
TheQuestion
@Asagao
Frankly I wish more put more thought into matters of faith, doubt is a test meant to be weathered not hated. Many use faith to disguise their own feelings of inadequacy and personal failure. I consider it a burden gladly borne and that I am expected to live up to certain higher standards beyond mere common courtesy. If used right faith gives strength and guidance to stare down our failings and become better people, but when it is used incorrectly (as it is in more cases than I'd like) its used to cover up those failings behind a veil of forced piety.
-3
BreitbartVictorious
human target
Right. Yeah. Jesus was like, a socialist, man. For that absurd statement to be true you, human target, would be able to come here with an example of even one 'socialist' nation/state that has matched or exceeded the technological and medical advances that capitalist (and Christian) Great Britain and capitalist (Christian) America have given the world.
But you can't.
Furthermore, any 'socialist' nation state you offer as example, for your claim to be true, would have allowed Christians access to the highest offices of power.
So, tell us, where is the country that proves your point?
-3
BreitbartVictorious
vituoso
judges decide who gets the death penalty. But if you don't like Perry don't vote for him. Vote again for hope and change and unicorns...
-3
BreitbartVictorious
becker
LOL. Yeah. How much religiosity was packed into candidate Obama's deluded, buffoonish, Messiah-wannabe declaration, lapped up by his fans and sycophants, that
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal..."
???
3
lucabrasi
@Breitbart
For once you have me utterly confounded. Can you explain, in simple terms, how your second sentence is in any way related to your first? Are you seriously suggesting that the UK or the US are organised with Christianity as their basis?
The US is the nation of the "American dream": arrive with nothing and get rich. That's it. No reference to helping others or doing something socially useful. No, get rich quick and you've made it. Full stop. (Period). Jesus would be turning in his grave if he weren't risen.
4
cleo
A total non-sequitur. The only thing absurd about the statement is your weak attempt to make it, like, a hippy peace and love, thing. man. We all know Jesus wasn't into peace and love, right? Where does it say in any of Jesus' teachings that the aim of Christianity is to produce technological and medical advances? Or to get rich off them?
0
HonestDictator
Pfft, I like your first post Virtuoso and damned straight. Hopefully Rick won't get out of the primaries or I'll be guaranteed to vote for Obama like I did the first time xD.
0
yabits
Perry is about as Christian as Pontius Pilate. Both have the blood of innocent men on their hands.
1
SuperLib
That's a reasonable statement and I happen to agree with it. Someone's life experiences is going to make him what he is, and his exposure to religion is part of that process. But let's be real. His position as governor was what allowed him to advertise and pull off a massive televised prayer rally which puts him in the position of spiritual leader. And then he asked people to vote for him. That crosses the line between church and state. The fact that he's able to pull it off because he's in Texas and people are willing to go along with it doesn't make it any less of an abuse of power.
0
yabits
Yeah, plays a role to stupid people maybe.
1
yabits
LOL!!!
Create a stupid, phony set of criteria and pretend to believe that Christ would somehow approve. Rome, in its day, had quite a few technological advances too.
They don't relate. Breitbart is a follower of the "master" who offered Christ all of the governments of the world as a way of temptation.
0
TheQuestion
I tend to count the grandstanding and abuse of his station among the many aforementioned reasons I wouldn't vote for him. I’m fine with politicians being candid about themselves but I can tell a political gambit when I see one.
Classy. Because if you believe X you're stupid, I'm so glad you've clarified that. How enlightening.
0
Taka313
So not only is it amateur hour. We pretty well know who's not a real Christian among us.
THAT was a whopper.
Taka
-5
steve@CPFC
Mother things are getting better.
1
yabits
I can believe without any doubt that if Jesus were to come today, He would be called a socialist as soon as he opened his mouth -- as long as didn't reveal who he was.
As soon as his true identity was discovered, however, the conservative religionists would start trying to turn in their hoarded wealth for heaven-points. Either that or try to get rid of him again.
2
HumanTarget
Brietbart,
My point wasn't that socialism is or is not a successful style of government.
My point was that a capitalist nation must fundamentally be secular, because capitalism clearly goes against everything that God teaches.
I also find it interesting that Japan, the only country other than the US that you appear to be enamored with, has possibly the largest government of any civilized nation and the most social programs.
0
sailwind
Poorly researched article and just a veiled hit piece on Governor Perry to start to paint him as a religious extremist . Were going to see much more of this type of reporting from the media on him. He is going to get the Palin treatment by the media.
This part of the article.......
It was a rare, full-on embrace of one religious tradition in the glare of a presidential contest.
Rare my foot. President Obama embraced it in 2006 full bore also.
Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
BARACK OBAMA, Jun. 28, 2006
I totally agree with President Obama on this.
0
plasticmonkey
Yes, but the great reformers you mentioned did not organize mass prayer rallies to give the impression that God is a socially and fiscally conservative Republican. Read up on the people behind "The Response", the New Apostolic Reformation crowd. Pretty scary.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
Yeah. And next you'll tell us Marx perfected the message Christ first brought.
I come across this embarrassingly sappy "Christ was a socialist, man" more and more on the net. I think it is the ultimate in desperation, not to mention moral inversion. It is almost always a last resort, made by people who elsewhere denigrate Christianity and its followers in the harshest and often most obscene terms. (A lefty site like the oh-so-cleverly named CrooksAndLiars offers some good examples.)
sailwind has the best post here, citing Obama:
It must have stuck in Obama's throat to say it. But even the president and the leader of the Democrat Party is forced to admit the central role Christianity plays and must play in the American experience.
2
cleo
How strange. I'm not a Christian, but one thing I do find attractive in Jesus' teachings is the socialism bit - have all things in common, love thy neighbour, etc. Pity so-called Christians think that's a denigration of Christianity.
Come on, BV, it shouldn't be that difficult - where does it say in the New Testament that jesus urged his followers to Go Forth and Make a Profit? Was his hissy-fit in the temple caused by his anger at people making a quick and illegitimate buck out of worshippers (what I was taught at my UK C of E school), or by his anger that they weren't making big enough bucks?
0
yabits
Wow. Religion sure brings out the sheer stupidity like no other topic.
Obama's comments in 2006 come nowhere close to leading a prayer-meeting of thousands as Perry did. And here's the proof: "Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."
Note that. "Much of it." By nowhere near ALL of it, as espoused by the religionists. Dorothy Day, who led the Catholic Worker movement, was considered a socialist. ML King was considered to be a communist by those liars who'll never stop to slither to either side of an issue when it suits their purposes.
4
HumanTarget
Brietbart,
I invite you to point to a Bible passage that endorses capitalism.
The problem with most Christians is that they feel like they can pick and choose what parts of the Word of God to believe. You can see the inherent problems with that. You want to hate gays, but you want to eat shellfish (they are both "abominations", you know, according to the Bible).
You want the right to divorce but god forbid a woman have a baby out of wedlock.
You want subsidies for your farm, but you don't want the poor folks down the road on foodstamps.
My heart swells with joy every time a small government, God-fearing tea party poster boy has to take handouts from the government with a straight face, like when Rick Perry used all that government money for his so-called "Texas Miracle" and Chris Christie suddenly loved FEMA when the hurricane rolled in.
0
BreitbartVictorious
yabits
You make me laugh. Saul Alinsky wrote the book that 'called' Obama to 'community organizing.' And who did Alinsky acknowledge in Rules For Radicals as one source of inspiration? Check the record:
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."
2
yabits
It can get more basic than that: Christ commanded his followers to "come out" of this world,. and be separate. All governments -- every single one including America's -- were satanic and ungodly as he revealed in his message. His kingdom was not of this world -- and those who call themselves "Christian" while lusting after worldly power are guilty of the worst form of apostasy.
Well, here you go: anti-Christian as well as anti-American. All too typical of hard core Republican supporters.
-4
steve@CPFC
All religion is nonsense and is followed by thsoe with self esteem. religions are big business and should be taxed as such.
1
yabits
Your posts show more adherence to Alinsky's beliefs than anything ever issued by Obama. Alinsky, unlike Obama, was an avowed atheist. Obama's 2006 comments, which you appeared to praise earlier, were poles apart from Alinsky's philosophy.
But that's just another example of serpents who will slither to any side of an issue when it suits their purposes.
-2
BreitbartVictorious
LOL. There are none. Which I would say is most fitting, since 'capitalism' (its proponents are so laissez faire they have allowed a term of Marxist derivation to describe free exchange...) is what you get when the government leaves people alone.
As I pointed out to cleo, the New Testament was not an economic treatise. I might just as easily ask where you see Christ saying we need central planning and five-year plans...
2
yabits
I believe that Breitbart is simply the latest incarnation of a poster who has had to change his tag-line/identity on several occasions. (One of them used "alinsky" as the current one uses breitbart.)
Such vermin inhabit our world. As long as they do, it becomes important for savvy readers like yourself to expose them for what they are.
3
yabits
It was a 7-year plan and well-described in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
-3
BreitbartVictorious
FDR, on the eve of D Day, led the entire nation in a prayer he composed and delivered over the radio, the internet of his day:
"Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity."
2
Virtuoso
As soon as a political candidate starts preaching to me about how his platform is grounded in the teachings of the New Testament, or any other religious book, I cross his name off my list. Obama may, as some claim, have behaved fraudulently when promising "hope" and "change," but at least he never organized a prayer rally or vowed to pass laws because they were in accordance with something in the Bible. If any Republican candidate tries to turn the 2012 presidential election into a holy crusade, he or she is not going to win, because in their heart of hearts, a majority of American voters are, to their credit, sensible enough to be suspicious of carnival hucksters and evangelists.
1
yabits
Apostate and false religionists (aka conservatives) hated FDR, so he gets a pass for that very reason.
FDR humbled himself on that occasion -- something I've rarely seen a conservative do. (They never admit to mistakes or imperfections -- which is as far away from religion as one can get.)
1
yabits
Stop the presses: There exist delusional, ignorant white people in America. This is not to say that all white people in America are delusional or ignorant. Far from it.
But any locality that would elect and re-elect a Strom Thurmond, an Evan Mecham or a Jim DeMint have to be composed of people on the low end of the intelligence/rationality scale.
And one wonders why you keep justifying that.
1
cleo
BV, why did Jesus get upset at the money-changers in the temple?
And where does Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal (matt. 6:19) fit in with capitalism?
-2
sailwind
Devout Christian leads prayer service...........Oh the horror of it all.
1
Madverts
Devout politician you mean.
Me, me, meeeeeee...
It's simply another tool to herd sheep.
-5
BreitbartVictorious
The liberal, establishment media is going to push a meme which basically says 'theology has no place in American life anymore' as hard as they can for the next fourteen months - with brief pauses where they might try and browbeat Americans again for opposing oikophobe pet causes like the Ground Zero Mosque or the allowance of Sharia courts. I foresee, as but one unintended and unexpected consequence, a deepened appreciation for Christianity among the generation known in the US as 'Millennials' , or 'Generation Y'. The disastrous Pelosi-Obama era economy has and will continue to deprive this group, in truly woeful measure, of the future they were educated and told to believe was theirs by virtue of simply having been born American. Many, but not enough, are beginning to cotton on to this.
1
plasticmonkey
@Breitbart
So you're defending a movement to deny the free exercise of religion (e.g. building a mosque), while denigrating those who raise concerns about Perry's blatant employment of God for political gain.
Perry is running for president and implying that he's God's choice, that he's the rain that's going to water the parched earth. That's not what MLK did. Obama did not hold mass prayer rallies in his campaign.
You're the epitome of the religious right's hypocrisy. Although I sense you are not terribly religious at heart, you embrace a cynical kind of American civil religion (the Christian God and his favored land) that clearly goes against the founding principles of America, principles that shed hundreds of years of an unholy and oppressive alliance between church and state. And you'd be ready to accept such a theocracy because it serves your anger against true pluralism, diversity, and open discourse in culture.
0
yabits
Exactly. Such public displays of prayer are condemned by the very one these hypocrites claim to worship and praise.
Well, we certainly see to what extent some reprobates on the right wing are prepared and willing to distort reality. "American life" encompasses much more than the political world, and theology certainly has its place. Just not in the political/policy-making sphere. Otherwise, you end up with people like Reagan's first Interior secretary, James Watt, who claimed that it was pointless to conserve resources since "the Lord was coming back soon."
A large majority of Americans understand and agree that economic conditions in their country were deteriorating long before President Obama came on the scene. As the young continue to see through the lies spouted by those who insinuate that this is all Obama's doing, they will come to understand who it is these liars are serving. And it will mean serious trouble for the hypocritically pious conservatives.
-1
yabits
One could easily look back to the election of 2000 and its aftermath: budget surpluses turned into massive deficits, horrendous destruction in a major US city, the adoption of torture as an acceptable means of extracting information, thousands upon thousands dead and maimed, and trillions spent in completely unnecessary wars -- and conclude that the person selected back then could only have been God's choice if His intent was to punish America severely.
-2
Serrano
yabits: "trillions spent in ( on ) completely unnecessary wars"
LOL, even President Obama has said Afghanistan is the right war and has in fact increased U.S. troop levels there before starting the drawdown.
0
yabits
I don't necessarily agree with President Obama on that. Nevertheless, had appropriate resources been dedicated to Afghanistan from the start, and never insanely diverted to an completely unnecessary attack on Iraq, it is likely that President Obama would not have inherited two disastrously-run operations that have cost the United States trillions. (And the recurring medical expenses to care for thousands of wounded vets will cost additional hundreds of billions.)
It is also highly probable that the Hussein regime would have fallen as the regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, etc., -- all with minimal loss of American lives and expenses of a few billions.
And so if God truly answered the prayers of those who sought the victory of the person who occupied the White House after President Clinton, it was only because He wanted to punish America severely. No matter what one may say about the Obama administration, I don't believe Barack Obama could have been elected in 2008 if the previous regime had not been so disastrous to American fortunes.
-1
TheQuestion
I don't think Jesus preached any specific economic system or that he would support any in current existence. Socialism and Communism, while well intended, are systems based on coercion. Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange that lacks coercion but often results in exploitation.
The argument of compatibility can be made in any number of directions.
Capitalism is a system of mays. You may live as you please, you may keep what you earn, you may give what you want, and you may live as rich or as humble as you want. By contrast socialism and communism are systems of musts. You must give a portion of your earnings to the common cause, you must sacrifice for others, you must support the poor, you must not expect to be rewarded by exceeding your peers, and you must never place your own needs ahead of that of others. I think there is more merit in giving when I need not than giving because I'm forced to.
Thank God and science that we can beam today’s headlines 8 years back in time right?
-1
Taka313
And is it not completely and utterly obvious that one of those two statements is about a guy praying to and invoking Jesus and and another putting it in a form that allows the listener to choose who their "Almighty God" is.
It couldn't be more obvious. Only a child would miss the difference in the two.
What am I dealing with here? It's not someone with above average intelligence, that's for sure.
Taka
1
yabits
He would not have had to. If people followed the precepts Jesus laid out, a fair and just economic system would have naturally arisen out of them. And it would look nothing like what people like yourselves refer to as capitalism.
Wrong. The locations that most closely follow the Christian ideal are monasteries, and perhaps the old kibbutz system in Israel. As long as a human being has the basic need for food, water, clothes and shelter, no system can be totally free from coercion. All are put into positions where they have to offer up something in exchange for those necessities.
LOL!!! Yeah, after having taken advantage of the work of others -- teachers, guides and mentors -- you may decide to give something back in return. But since your version of capitalism is primarily based upon selfishness, the odds are very high that the work of everyone that has contributed to an individual's success will not be recognized or acknowledged by that individual. He will want to believe he did it all on his own. This is tremendous delusion and couldn't be farther from the ideals of Christ.
It takes asking one simple question: Is the system sustainable? If the answer is "no," then it becomes simply a waiting game. Being descended from Polish refugees and growing up in a Polish-American community, most of us knew the system would collapse from the 1960s. War with the Soviets would have been absolutely senseless. The Hussein regime hadn't been around all that long and would have collapsed too without any outside assistance.
-1
TheQuestion
Good, freer markets benefit those who bring a product or service to the largest number of people. The farmer that produces the best food for the lowest prices will do better than the one that charges more for the same product. I've lived in areas where water drilling services did the same. All people have different needs and motivations, free structures allow them the greatest mobility in that regard.
Blame the driver not the car the system exists for voulentary exchange. I paid my professors for their time in my time at college so how is that taking advantage of them? My public school days were a years of being shuffled from one grade to another with all my actual learning done on my own time, its more like they were taking advantage of me than the reverse.
0
TheQuestion
I can't account for the motivations or drives of others. My parents fed and sheltered me until I was 16, from there I made my own way. I worked for pay and I paid for education. There are people in my field that have done even more with less than what I had. Why do you want to strip people of what they've earned?
And those ideals were meant to be voluntary. There is nothing about a free market system that requires you to be wealthy; it doesn't require that you do anything. I don't feel people should be forced to support others, they should want to do so by their own volition. Christ didn't avdocate forced conversion and what is socialism if not a forced conversion to the religion that is the state?
0
yabits
Yes. That's what your devotion to the golden calf of a "free market system" causes you to believe. True theology, however, compels people to consider the drives and motivations of others as a critical aspect of their their decisions and actions. Otherwise, we would repeat the foolish, tragic judgments of all those who serve false gods.
In the Judeo-Christian theology, whatever was "earned" came only after paying what was required by the Creator -- the one who made the world so that human beings might live. The free market ideology which causes an individual to believe that "it's all mine" and "I owe nothing to God or anyone outside of a fair market exchange" is antithetical to Christian theology.
I believe that any market system requires conversion to its tenets. We all know of examples of states that have brutally suppressed religious people in the name of free market capitalism -- religious people who wanted more a more just and godly system than the one in place.
A system maintained by people who practice genuine Christianity will look a lot more like socialism to the person observing it than it would free market capitalism. Mainly because it would be composed of people who utterly rejected your first premise: that the drives and motivations of other human beings shouldn't be accounted for.
If you truly believe you have paid back each and every person in your life for the many gifts you have received from them, it is no wonder why you would despise anything resembling a social community based on Christian principles. I have taken a good, hard look at the free market ideology and am forced to reject it as a false theology that drives people farther away from the truth.
0
TheQuestion
But not to force them which you seem to avdocate.
The free market forces no one to believe anything. You may operate as you see fit so long as you don't violate anybody elses body or property, under such systems people of any faith may operate.
Really? What truely free market supresses anybody. If suppression is possible than it is not a free market, what part of 'free' are you having a problem with.
And that would be their right under a free market system. They may serve each other as they see fit, help each other, donate to the poor, and perform any public works that they desire. Under a free market that is their right, under a social system they wouldn't have a choice in the matter.
Charity, public works, and any other good task should be voluntary. Why are you so repulsed by the idea of letting people act as they will? This way the faithfull may act and the those that lack faith may go about their business. I won't force beliefs on others though you seem content to.
-1
HumanTarget
TheQuestion,
A free market benefits no one but corporations. Corporations are legally mandated to make as much money as possible - it's their soul purpose and function. Without government regulation, corporations will be compelled to cut as many corners as possible and the quality and safety of the product will degrade considerably. See: the 2008 world economic collapse.
And what are you talking about, "the faithful" will perform acts of charity and goodwill? Most Americans interpret the Bible much differently now, and charity and goodwill generally don't fit in with their interpretation. In fact, the only group I see doing any meaningful public service these days is Muslims.
2
HumanTarget
The religion talk must be getting to me. I meant "sole purpose"
0
yabits
Other than in the tenets of the free market. That's precisely why it's godless. It puts the individual as the center of everything.
So long as their theological beliefs -- which force or compel them to act in accordance with different precepts than those who worship the golden calf of "free market" ideology -- don't put them into conflict with the godless.
LOL! It wasn't that long ago you were endorsing the right of pharmaceutical companies to make monopoly-level profits, despite their heavy dependence on publicly financed basic research. In that conversation, you endorsed imprisoning any group of people attempting to organize themselves into what your version of the state would interpret as a "cartel" of those who would withhold their labor the very same way the pharma companies could withhold their products from those who needed them.
Only someone who is very gullible would believe your foolish insinuation that a state would not violently and ruthlessly suppress any who were felt were threatening its "free market" system. I can't begin to count how many free market advocates and phony religionists were counseling "constructive engagement" with the brutally oppressive apartheid regime of South Africa.
Any candidate making a big deal about how they are following Christ and who would also defend "free market princples" -- which are godless to their core -- is a liar and a hypocrite.
-2
BreitbartVictorious
The free market forces no one to believe anything.
yabits:"Other than in the tenets of the free market. That's precisely why it's godless. It puts the individual as the center of everything."
By yabits' bizarre reasoning here the most spiritual, advanced cultures and peoples have centrally planned economies...
1
yabits
Readers could easily reason that whatever culture produces pathetic, mendacious, derisive individuals such as the writer who is quoted above, it can not be very spiritually advanced. As a bad tree can not produce good fruit.
By the same token, a nation where less than 1% of its people control over half of its wealth would only be able to spout a false theology. Nothing that is God-centered could have produced that result. And yet, those politicians who spew Christ's name out the most are the one's who most defend a system that is evil to its core.
A person might look to Amish/Mennonite communities for an example of economies operating on a higher plane of spirit. Any economy that truly attempts to put God at the center would look to an outsider to be more like a centrally planned one -- since God is one.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
"And yet, those politicians who spew Christ's name out the most are the one's [sic] who most defend a system that is evil to its core."
Very revealing choice of verbs there, yabits.
0
Wolfpack
It amazes me how many people hate Christians. I am not a religious person (agnostic) myself but too many folks somehow are unable to understand that people are different and don't always think the way they do. I'm talking to you know-it-all atheists who seem to think that you somehow understand everything just because you are not religious. Being religious doesn't make people evil. So Gov. Perry is a Christian - so what? So is Obama and he uses religion as part of his politics all the time. He certainly used Rev. Wrights church to his political advantage. Being religious or at least accepting that their can be something greater than oneself causes people to humble themselves to some degree or another. It's good to see a politician acknowledge that they don't have all of the answers - regardless of party.
-1
globalwatcher
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute-JFK
I have been living by this rule all my life.
What is happening today amoung Tea Party is truly pathetic and is insulting to my intelligence. And my heart cries out for these easily manipulated helpless people.
-1
HumanTarget
wolfpack,
It's not that Rick Perry is evil. It's that he's a hypocrite. To call for three days of prayer to call down a blessing of rain from the lord suggests that you believe yourself pious enough to lead that prayer... and yet, Perry turns around and spouts hateful rhetoric unbecoming of a Christian and uses his position of power to influence policy so that he and his friends get rich for nothing.
And I hate it just as much when Christians (and apparently at least one agnostic) assume aetheists are somehow less moral than those with faith.
0
Wolfpack
HumanTarget:
Re-read what I wrote and correct your statement. I did not make an assumption that atheists are less moral than those with faith. My comments were directed at the near hysterical certitude of atheists that religious people are wrong and that they are right. So in the end, the atheist is just as annoying and presumptuous as the believer.
As for Perry, he is no more a hypocrite than President Obama. Political leaders of all political persuasions since the country came into being have asked for divine guidance and blessings. I suppose that atheists as-well-as a large number of Liberals hate this American tradition and want to stop it by belittling people of faith. What is truly hypocritical are those on the political left that become pious about how tolerant they are right before slamming the religious as ignorant.
President Obama goes out of his way to make sure everyone knows he is a devout person but makes hateful and untrue statements about his political opponents nearly every time he opens his mouth. He is practically begging the country to believe him when he says that his political opponents are trying to destroy the economy to win the next election. When the roles were reversed, I remember Democrats getting very upset when whispers of the same motivation were accredited to them.
This section of the article points to the fact that Obama has simply used religion as a tool for political gain and that there are some in his party that would like him to do so again in 2012. This is in line with traditional politics in the US. However, as a Senator President Obama spent nearly two decades attending one of the most hateful churches in America. Thus I hardly think Republicans have the corner on religious hypocrisy.
0
Wolfpack
globalwatcher:
Yes, but as long as the state does not endorse any particular faith or religious sect than anything else goes.
The phrase separation of church and state originates from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Baptists of Danbury which states: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
The English at the time had a state sponsored religion. Jefferson opposed this and there has never been a state religion in the history of the country. But with equal weight to the first half of Jefferson's statement is the idea that there should be no infringement on the free exercise of religion either. When Gov. Perry or President Obama invoke the name of God, this is not the establishment of a state sponsored church; it is the free exercise of their religion. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm sorry but those in the tea party don't want you to waste your time worrying about them. They want to be left alone to chose their own path in life. They do not want to be held back by the misguided choices of others. Those in the tea party that are religious will place themselves in the hands of their God and not the government or anyone else that is intolerant towards them. Those that are not religious and not a member of the church of big government, will put their heart and efforts towards their particular civic group and with their friends, family, and country.
0
HumanTarget
Wolfpack,
Obama making hateful and untrue statements about his political opponents? Can you give any examples. Because, you know, he's generally considered to be one of the mildest presidents we've had in decades and is constantly calling for people on both sides to tone down the rhetoric. Not to mention that he's increasingly hated by the left because apparently the only thing he knows how to do is capitulate to the right.
Also, how can you argue that Obama is using religion for political gain? From his stint in the Senate all the way to the beginning of his Presidential campaign, he was very low-key about religion in general, until he was forced to defend himself from a media disinformation campaign that unfairly painted him as an extremist, Muslim Socialist. I wonder, how did those stories gain so much traction in the media and yet Bachmann and Perry's clear and deep ties with Dominionism - a radical, often militant wing of Christianity - get no air time at all.
It's crazy that people on the Right still somehow find things to hate about Obama. He's given you practically everything you want and sometimes even more than you asked for. I'm a progressive through and through, but trust me, if a better Democratic candidate came around, I'd be more than willing to kick Obama to the curb.
-1
SamuraiBlue
This issue of theology will become more interesting in the next decade when the white population becomes a minority in the US. Hispanics are mostly Catholics so the US may see another religious clash between the Protestants and Catholics but this time the Puritan Protestants will have no where to go like the last time when they created the nation. LOL
1
globalwatcher
@wolfpack, I have just returned to this topic and read your post addressed to me. I appreciate your good comeback with a good logic. However, I would like to respond to you with my logic here with another remarkable history in the past in Nazi Germany how Hitler used God to his political advantage. I have been trained to compartmentalize to think each issues independently which are not easy to do sometimes.
I still believe that the separation of church and state is ABSOLUTE while a message of god has been assuring me that "you are still with me if you do not deny ME and I always love you unconditionally."
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Peace
0
Wolfpack
Let's just say that comparing a conservative politician to one of the most vile people in human history is more than just a little bit of a stretch. By the way, the evil one himself was a Socialist who had a fondness for eugenics - a scientific field that was endorsed and promoted by the Progressive movement of the time.
That being said, I think that your recounting of the silent German during the Nazi era is analogous more to the Islamist wing of the Muslim religion than to Christians. There is no Christian sect or interpretation that is endorsed by any significant number of followers that can in any way be seen as a threat to world peace commensurate to Islamic fundamentalism. There are extremists of every religion, political, and social belief, but none compare to the religion inspired terrorism that renders many Muslims silent in response to atrocities.
Although I am not religious myself, I understand that theology will always be a part of the world we live in. I can be tolerant of it because most religious people I meet are well intentioned and humble. They want to be good people and they are willing to put themselves below a greater cause than their own self interest. They are the first to admit that they often fail to live up to the high standards of their religion but are willing to try anyway. I respect that.
Back to top