Cal Thomas: Hillary Clinton is "not a person who believes in the central tenets of Christianity"
In his July 10 nationally syndicated column, Cal Thomas discussed a July 7 New York Times article that reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "said she believed in the resurrection of Jesus, though she described herself as less sure of the doctrine that being a Christian is the only way to salvation." Thomas asserted: "This is a politician speaking, not a person who believes in the central tenets of Christianity." He went on to suggest that a Christian cannot believe that "there are other ways to God than through Jesus."
Thomas wrote: "The quality and depth of one's relationship with God should be personal and beyond the judgment of others, unless one is running for president and chooses to talk about it as part of a campaign plan to win the election." He asserted:
Liberal faith, which is to say a faith that discounts the authority of Scripture in favor of a constantly evolving, poll-tested relevancy to modern concerns -- such as the environment, what kind of SUV Jesus would drive, larger government programs and other "do-good" pursuits -- ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins and a transformed life.
Thomas suggested that the "central tenets of Christianity" bar a Christian from believing that "there are other ways to God than through Jesus." He wrote:
One might ask, which the reporter did not, that if there are other ways to God than through Jesus, why did He bother to come to earth, allow Himself to be crucified and suffer rejection? He might have stayed in Heaven and told people about a spiritual GPS system that would get them there another way.
[...]
Sen. Clinton is entitled to whatever faith she wants to practice, but when she uses it as an election tactic, she should not be allowed to alter classic Christian theology.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the July 7 Times article asserted that Clinton's public references to her spiritual life "have come under attack, both from conservatives who doubt her sincerity ... and liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics." Yet the article cited only one named conservative source attacking the "sincerity" of Clinton's faith -- Weekly Standard senior editor Andrew Ferguson -- as well as unnamed "conservative bloggers." It did not quote -- either by name or anonymously -- any "liberals who object" to Clinton's "injection of religion into politics."
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
I'd rather have a president who does't believe in fairy tales.
Good luck on that one. Every candidate that I am aware of speaks often of their faith and how important it is in their lives - from both parties.
To believe we will ever elect a president who feels it's a "fairy tale", is living a fairy tale.
True. When you have a nation of believers in unicorns and whose belief in unicorns even drives many of them to try to get others to believe in unicorns, it's going to be next to impossible to see anyone lead said nation who doesn't also pretend to also believe in unicorns.
I'd rather, should my President choose to believe in some "fairy tale", that he actually follow the central tenets of that fairy tale himself. The current occupant sure doesn't.
I'd rather my next president fully believe in Jesus Christ and the saving power that He possesses. There is NO other way the United States will survive the coming century if God isn't re-introduced back into our society. Going 'God-less' has created a morally corrupt nation of greedy/sexually perveted people. There is NO limit as to who will be corrupted next, I only pray that our next president brings God back into our nation as He was originally placed. Let all the non-believers go back to where they came from, this nation was founded on "the Creator's" principles and to remove God from our society will only further the possibility that it disintigrates like all previous God-less societies have in history.
So if you believe we 'need' god back and the 'saving power' of jesus, WHy DOESN'T JESUS JUST GIVE IT TO US???? Or, why doesn't god 'give it to us...' Godlike communities have produced divorce, crusades (killing non-believers), inquisitions, hatred, bigotry, etc... AND, automoron, please give me 3 examples of 'godless societies'... actually, can you name one? No, you can't- because you are stupid and dumb... and before you say 'Judaism, or Islam, or Wicca, or Bathists, or Amish, or Mennonites, or Buddists, or whatever, realize ALL religiond BELIEVE in a 'higher power' that is something to aspire to... nothing wrong with that- a forest has many paths... all lead in- and eventually out... the choice is yours
AND, automoron, please give me 3 examples of 'godless societies'...
China (under Gengis Khan), The Ottoman empire, Alexander the Great, The Roman empire, European empires under Charles the great, Charles the 5th and Napolean, the Soviet Union and of course Western colonial empires.
Genghis Khan was shamanistic in outlook (not a God worshipper per se, but not an atheist if that's what you are getting at). Alexander the great paid homage to the Greek pantheon, which pre-dates Christianity. They didn't have God, but they had lots of gods. The Roman Empire fell after it became Christian. The Ottoman Empire was largely Islamic, which means they worshipped the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews.
If by "Charles the Great" you mean Charlemagne; he was a Christian. There were several kings known as Charles V, but none of them ruled over godless societies. The divine rights of kings was a mainstay of royal power. Napoleon was Christian, though I don't think particularly devout (at least while he ruled). None of the countries he ruled over were "godless." Western colonial powers traditionally used "Christianizing the natives" as an excuse for their colonialism.
If by godless, you meant atheist, the only one you got right (arguably) was Soviet Russia. If you meant specifically non-Christian, you still got most of them wrong.
I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know what is being talked about. Trying to shift the conversation to whether there "was" a God involved in their beliefs is just plain childish.
When you alter your morals to suit your own agenda you become God-less. You even gave explainations for some of the examples that showed my use was correct while trying to say I used incorrect examples.
When you alter your morals to suit your own agenda you become God-less.
Maybe a better way to put it would be when you ignore certain morals to further your agenda you could be considered God-less.
When you ignore certain morals to further your agenda you could be considered a Republican.
'Cause we all know what a big supporter of war Jesus was. And how he spent hours and hours railing against homosexual marriage.
When do you think God was taken out of our society, AP? What was better about our society then as opposed to now?
i really dont care about a candidates religious beliefs
I know I've been accused of religion-bashing here, even by Godless Liberals, but being in the un-religious minority is pretty weird.
Again, Not to offend anyones faith, but to try to express how strange the status quo is, I have to accept that, with all of the issues being ignored by the media, a candidate is not viable who does not acknowledge a zombie as the path to a magical wizard who controls the universe.
And the people who most loudly demand these things of a leader have no trouble calling me crazy for thinking the US could provide health insurance for its citizens.
Intolerant bashing of religion is standard fare around here and doesn't really do any harm. However, if any Democratic presidential candidate did it, they would be toast, instantly. So instead of slamming it, they embrace it wholeheartedly........even though it probably irritates most of you.
But carry on anyway.
Tommy, I don't see the intolerance or bashing that you do, probably both of our subjective eyeballs, I do see many accusations of religion-hating here and in the media at large.
And I do agree with you about Dems, just like Repubs, latching on to religion. We really don't know what any of these pols believes, but I guess they know that they need that God-fearing heartland to win anything.
Really? "Fairy tales", "Pasty faced Midevil Priests", "path to a magical wizard", "Heavenofascists"........and that's just in the first 10 posts here.
I guess we view it differently.
Yes, let us be rid of those intolerant of others' religions.Like Pope Benedict, who said just this morning that other Christian doctrines lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_eu/pope_other_christians;_ylt=AgUhGl_Lo3XoILEneqObR7bMWM0F
He called the Orthodox chuch "defective" and other (Christian) denominations not "true" churches. I.e., only the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches provide a path to salvation, albeit "defective" in the latter instance. I'm not sure what the impact of a "defective" path is...you're kind of saved?
The Pope sure is on a roll. So far, he's managed to insult Muslims, Jews and non-Catholic Christians. Who's next?
Well, the pope is just as wrong as the rest of them, and all their followers are doomed because only my religion is the true religion!
I was sooooo going to post that next- LONG LIVE PASTAFARISM!!
I too was touched by his noodely appendage and have seen the light! Argh! There be pirates aplenty in heaven, argh!
WWFSMD?
However interestingly enoug, this current pope was willing to co-write a book about the role of religious faith With Jurgen Babermas. So, perhaps it would be better to assume the pope is human, and any specific statement should be understood in that context.
"Intolerant bashing..."?
As opposed to what, tolerant bashing?
Frankly, I think that most of the bashing that religion gets "around here" is well deserved.
And, the fact that religion is so often mentioned by political candidates and the MSM probably has our founders spinning in their graves.
Tell that to your Democratic candidates, because they are always invoking their faith whenever they get the chance.
The right does not have a monopoly of faith, Tommy. No matter what Cal Thomas, Sean Hannity and any of the other right-wing idiots you idolize says.
Where did I say the right has a monopoly on faith? And where did I intimate I idolized Thomas or Hannity?
Two strikes.
"Where did I say the right has a monopoly on faith?"
You reinforce that fallacy by singling out the left in your comments. To single out the one party - especially when in this context it has been pointed out that both parties DO participate in this heathenry - is to suggest that (1) either one party doesn't do it as much [when, in fact, the Right is far more prevalent in its bible-waving] or (2) it's okay for one party to do it, and ONLY one party.
You were BORN with 42 strikes against YOU, Tommy. You keep getting proven wrong all oer MMFA, yet you keep coming back for more......
Only because the political climate calls for it. They didn't make the issue the uber religious right wing nut jobs did. Frankly I would like it very much if one of them stood up and said their faith was nonoe of the electorate's business but alas that would be political suicide. Personally any religious pandering turns me off but it's part of the game.
That may be true. The founders, in my opinion, certaintly did not want a theocracy, but I doubt they would refer to someones belief in christianity as HBL did.
But the founders did read John Lock. Lock wrote about seperation of church and state. This approach dealt with questions of forced conversions to specific ideologies by the state. However, a christian basis was stated as an assumption.
For the record, bashing of everything goes on in here. Let's not paint the cornucopia with one color of paint.
While we're at it, let's be more redundant as well. LOL
Please refer all requests for redundancy to the Department of Redundancy Department.
:-)
In triplicate?
I, for one, don't understand the vitriolic bashing of religion that some engage in here regularly. Unless an elected official is legislating or advocating policy based on religious beliefs while disrespecting those that do not share those specific beliefs, then why the uproar?
Religion and faith are highly personal beliefs that some find critical in their lives, while others have no use for it......to bash it because one doesn't believe as another does is ridiculous.
Tell it to the Salvation Army, a tax exempt religious organization and one that accepts public money, yet cannot be litigated against for discriminatory hiring practices. They are free to require christian faith from a potential hiree and free to deny employment to non-believers.
Anyway, elected official nothing, we a have a government entity named the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.
So much for the notion of faith and religion as a private choice.
It is NOT ridiculous to criticize, ridicule, bash, etc.. someone's belief system (whereby that person will commit actions BASED on those beliefs) that is IRRATIONAL and HURTS OTHERS!! I think ANYONE who believes that when they eat a wafer at church, they are eating the body of Christ (cannabalistic) and when drinking alcohol at church, they are drinking Jesus' blood (creepy) ARE CRAZY!!
Yet you would support a Democratic presidential candidate who has these "crazy" religious beliefs? Wow, that sounds a little "crazy".
When did I say that...? Oh- that's right, I didn't... BUT, for the sake of argument, I would endorse someone who is qualified to drag America out of the swamp it's in AND who had those beliefs, AS LONG AS THOSE BELIEFS do not DICTATE their ACTIONS!! I believe in spirit guides but I won't make policies INCLUDING them into the fray because there is no way to verify them, and their usefulness, etc...
I am not a Christian but I believe that if done properly the substances become the spiritual equivalent of the Body and Blood of the Christ (but not the personality Jesus). Ritual magic can work especially on a level of spirit.
Why would you believe that if you're not Christian?
Christians worship the personality of Jesus. I dont think that Jesus would be a Christian. I dont think that was his purpose or message.
It is NOT ridiculous to criticize, ridicule, bash, etc.. someone's belief system (whereby that person will commit actions BASED on those beliefs) that is IRRATIONAL and HURTS OTHERS!!
Glad to hear you think that way Mr. L.
So when we "criticize, ridicule, bash" the religion of Islam you'll be A-Ok with that. Awesome.
I think ANYONE who believes that when they eat a wafer at church, they are eating the body of Christ (cannabalistic) and when drinking alcohol at church, they are drinking Jesus' blood (creepy) ARE CRAZY
Me? I think strapping on a bomb & blowing myself & everyone up around me, or flying planes into buildings for Allah is creepy & crazy...
As long as you approve of us criticizing the westborough baptist fundamentalists for their brand of christianity, feel free...
I bash INDIVIDUALS' interpretation of religion... 'radical' islams who kill themselves are crazy- and hurtful... christians like McVeigh are crazy- and hurtful... and so on...
So what's your point Jeter? That all religious dogma is bad or just the Islamic kind? Personally I think they are all wrong headed. Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Muslims, Hindus etc. etc. Any belief system that requires human beings to abandon reason and rational thought to embrace faith in the unknowable and incomprehensible is pretty foolish.
:I, for one, don't understand the vitriolic bashing of religion that some engage in here regularly.:
Presidential candidates have been able to say that they believe people who don't share the faith as not really being Americans - and have made it into the oval office anyhow. For those of us that don't share the prevalent faith, this is but one example of the dominant faith's subjection of those that believe differently. It pisses many of us off.
I grew up with the education saying that this was a secular government, and that there was a separation between church and state. As an adult, I recognize there's less religiosity in government in England - where they have their own government-sanctioned CHURCH - than there is in America, and I see stunning similarities between our veiled theocracy and that of our enemies. Perhaps this may give you an insight into the vitriol that you claim to see, which in my opinion is less prevalent than is deserved.
and I see stunning similarities between our veiled theocracy and that of our enemies.
Like what? Car bombings, jetliner hijackings, headcuttings, body burnings?? Maybe I'm just not reading the right papers, but I don't see ANY similarities between our enemy and us.
Religion and faith are highly personal beliefs that some find critical in their lives, while others have no use for it......to bash it because one doesn't believe as another does is ridiculous.
Then you agree that Cal Thomas was way out of line. Good.
We get angry around here when we see conservative politicians and lobbying groups attempting to force their interpretation of Christianity into public policy, rejecting sound science in the process, leading not to positive outcomes, but to increased AIDS infection, dumb kids that are not literate in the evolutionary process, and higher teen sex and pregnancy rates.
THis nation was founded on the principle of a separation between church and state, and that exact phrasing in the Constitution doesn't need to be there for it to be true.
I cannot and will not stand for the government to promote one religion over an other and forcibly inject itself into all facets of public life.
I agree , but it irritates me when a fellow Liberal poo poos my religious beliefs as something stupid. I wish everyone would respect the beleifs of others. By bashing someone for being a Christian your just as bad as those professed Chritians bashing somone for not being a Christian and/or for not following their specific interpretation of Chritianity. We should respect everybody's right to beleive as they choose.
Tommy, you're the biggest religion basher on the site. Every religion that isn't your own. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom for Christians, it means freedom for all, including agnostics and aetheists.
We need a president who is free from the bigotry put forth by the western religions.
Your description of JC as a zombie is very sacrilegious. And yet I can't stop snickering in my cubicle. I guess it's curtains for me again!
perdix,this actually came up in a thread a few months ago, as some posters(incl. me) were trying to look at religion from a completely objective point of view.(Imagine an alien from a planet without religion having this explained to him).
I always offend somebody, but that's the point, religion is the one aspect of life that can't be satirized or analyzed with any sort of emotional detachment.
Probably why those guys decided this country should keep The Gov. and The Church completely separate.
Indeed - religion is a very deep and emotional thing to many people. Often you must walk on eggs with them. I think it's very important to respect their beliefs, but on the other hand one of my favorite movies is Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I'm respectful but not so reverant.
Perdix,
I don't walk on eggshells for any of them, but I do share your statement on basic respect. People of strong faith, and those with no faith, deserve equal respect regardless of their personal beliefs. Bashing them, or treating them disrespectfully, should be condemned by everyone.
Tommy,
I disagree. Someone who believes in something despite scientific evidence to the contrary does NOT deserve the same respect as someone whose opinion was formed via the facts. Something that stands merely because of the suspension of disbelief - as does the former - can't possibly demand the same level of respect as something that stands constructed of evidence and against an assault of skepticism - as does the latter.
So, you don't even believe in giving basic civil respect to someone simply because they don't believe the way you do?
You're not serious?
You do realize it's possible to merge proven science with faith, as they can almost ALWAYS be mutually inclusive, yes?
Not really. Religious folks trying to fit their world view into modern ways of thinking might believe that. But science takes no account of religious views. Religion as far as the science itself is concerned is utterly irrelevant until proven otherwise. (That's not to say that religion doesn't impact science.)
"Science," so called is a religion. It starts with the assumption that there is no God, a priori. That requires faith. Everybody believes in something (or nothing) without prior proof. To reject the Christian world-view because it has a priori assumptions is wrong.
The atheist scientist who claims to believe in nothing but what can be empirically proven assumes that reality can be scientifically quantified and interpreted. He has no way of proving that, he just assumes it out of necessity.
The friendly folks on this site castigate the person who starts with the opposite assumption as stupid. But in actuality, their assumptions are just as incapable of 'scientific proof' as the people they feel so superior to.
EdRoss, as an American, you have the right to believe that load of crap, and I will defend your right to believe it.
Science does not start with any assumption that God doesn't exist.Everything you built on that foundation is ridiculous.
Ed give me proof that all scientists are atheists? I have read and heard many scientists who claim a belief in one religion or another. Your blanket assumption os scientists as athiests is at best disengenuous.
BLR yeah I'm one of those odd people who can believe in both creation and evolution. Some think I'm bound for hell for believing in evolution. As you said both can be mutually inclusive and not mutually exclusive. It's funny what a thinking person can adapt to, not intended to offend anyone, just to point out that you can believe and be a thinking person at the same time.
What about your fellow liberal posters here, some who even use the term "Christian" in their monikers? Are you consistent in your disrespect for them as well?
Or is only the conservative ones that deserve it?
We're not talking basic human rights, here. We're talking opinions and analysis.
Everyone - regardless of religious background - deserves the same human rights, and the respect that goes along with those rights. But in a forum like this, where people are batting around ideas and philosophies, respect is not an entitlement. You don't give the same respect to the ideas of the muslim extremists, do you?
Basic human respect is exactly what I was talking about. Where did you get anything other than that? I am not talking about embracing acceptance.
Reread what I wrote again.
PERDIX: I think it's very important to respect their beliefs,
TOMMY: ...I do share your statement on basic respect. People of strong faith, and those with no faith, deserve equal respect regardless of their personal beliefs.
Maybe I misunderstood the direction the thread was heading, since the topic of the "respect their beliefs" statement was a mere paragraph prior. Apparently you took it down a different path while I wasn't looking? Blame me for being a liberal - I would never suspect that the concept of respect for basic human rights would need reaffirming.
In answer to your "muslim extremist" question. People may have beliefs that I don't believe or even agree with, and if they act or advocate in a way that is injurious or disrespectful to others based on those beliefs, of course they deserve no respect for that.
"Thomas suggested that the "central tenets of Christianity" bar a Christian from believing that "there are other ways to God than through Jesus."
So, is Thomas' interpretation of Christianty disrespectful to Jews, Muslims, Hinduists, etc?
Bkbose,
I think one can claim a tenant of one's faith that is at odds with other faiths without being disrespectful. Obviously everyone's faith is based on the belief theirs is correct.
AA,
I agree to an extent...I think "One way, the True Way" is inherently disrespectful.
I think "One way, the True Way" is inherently disrespectful.
Too bad, because Jesus said it was true. Jesus teaches that He is the one true way and all who come to Him will have everlasting life. Jesus says all who do not, will not reap that benefit and will have other consequences. So, I guess you are saying that Jesus is "inherently disrespectful"!
No, just ficticious.
"Obviously everyone's faith is based on the belief theirs is correct."--aa
ON a personal level that is true, but once you state it out loud like Thomas did, you just kind of make an arse out of yourself.
Of course, I choose the path that I think is right, but I respect other people's belief in following what they think is right for them. Thomas' remarks are nothing like that. They simply come out as bigotry against people who do not seem to feel the same as himself about religion.
Tommy, i think part of the problem is based on dealing with an ideological conflict that has been around for over a century. The progressive movement of the late nineteenth century came out of shifts in christian ideologies. This included moves against alchohol abuse and the development of orphanages. This could be linked with Hans Kung, who more recently explained how modern socialdeomcratic thougt was founded on christian ideology, but developed outside of purely theological perspectives.
"Strong Faith" vs. "No Faith" is not very respectful. Is "No Faith" even less than "Weak Faith"?
(Hey Tommy, I'm just having fun here, don't go nuts.) ;0)
Too late - Tommy went nuts long ago....
:-)
One of my favorite Python religious commentaries is the "we're all unique" scene in the Life of Brian. I suppose I find it, and other Python religous humor, funny because it's intelligent. However, I'm not so tolerant of ignorance and bigotry.
when you reduce the christian faith down to calling it believing that a zombie is the only way to a magical wizard (or whatever) you tend to insult alot good people. I don't know what tramautic event caused you to hate christianity but attacking peoples faith is no different than having people of faith attack your atheistic views. What does it accomplish? Tommy is correct it is intolerance and intolerance coming from those who espouse liberal ideology is amusingly ironic.
achrispage6992 , I don't have any hatred for Christianity or any other religion. No trauma, I was only making the point, which you supported, that we non-religious people aren't allowed to speak objectively of religion, but need to tip=toe around it.
Every coin in my pocket has the words "In God We Trust" on it, mocking my beliefs.
People in government courtrooms swear on a Bible, attacking me as not being honest.
The mere expulsion of irritants from my nose by sneezing elicits "God Bless You!"s from complete strangers, forcing their beliefs on me, and insulting me by the implication that a magic spell is needed.
What terrible thing happened to all of you faithful that you need to constantly attack me ?
Chris, I'm kidding. I'm not that sensitive or easily offended. Maybe it's those traits that caused me to end up in the non-religious minority. ;0)
It's an absolute crock being advanced presently, as to the importance of Faith and Religion in the up-coming presidential election... it flies in the face of the evidence.
What was the importance of Faith and Religion in the most recent national election, just 8 months ago?
You know the election I mean, the one where every single incumbent Congressional Democrat was re-elected... not a single one was refused: A U.S. Historical first!
Also, not a single Republican nation-wide, in what was 468 seperate elections (435 Congressional Districts, and 33 Senate seats)... not a single open seat was won by any Republican... not one open seat nation-wide did Republicans take: Another U.S. Historical first!
More?
OK, 6 incumbent U.S. Senators and 23 incumbent House Members lost their jobs, were fired by the American People (and they say that incumbency is a sure ticket back to D.C.)... EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT SENATOR AND HOUSE MEMBER FIRED FROM THEIR JOB WAS A REPUBLICAN!
And just so you know, that was the work of 76 million of the American People, across all 435 Congressional Districts, just 8 months ago.
The question again is, just how important is Religion and Faith in the up-coming presidential election?
Balance that question with this one: Just how important are Congressional Ethics, and Iraq, and George W. Bush and the Republican Party's scheme of lies and greed and death in Iraq...
How important are those things nation-wide right now, to the American People?
[And be careful that your answer to those questions, doesn't fly in the face of the evidence.]
The answer is easy and much shorter than your question. Religion is only a DISqualifier in an election, not a qualifier. In other words, one need not speak of religion at all, other than acknowledge that he/she is a member of the club. And anyone can join the club at any time, just make sure you join before you decide to do something really important, like run for President. (okay, that answer wasn't really that short).
Well said. Most politicians don't get elected because they have strong faith, but they also won't get elected if they have no faith.
Or the "wrong faith"
"I'd rather have a president who doesn't believe in fairy tales"
I guess only atheists would make good presidents. People of faith have no business in being leaders or serving this country. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who died for this country who believed in fairy tales.
Oh, far be it from me to tell anyone that their religion is a crock, that there is no afterlife. That's one of the great facilitators to get people to kill and die for you - the promise that an ideal world exists for them after they leave this one. As long as we can keep that idea alive, people will be willing to die for a cause other than self-defense. They are confident that they die - dare I say it? - as "martyrs".
Yeah, farbeit for you to say that! If you're going to promote your "I hate Bush's war" theories, at least have the balls to stand up and say so, I would hate to imagine you are trying to say that the brave soldiers who gave their lives on the European front (during WWII) did it simply to become "martyrs".
thomas should keep his pie hole on his pasty face shut. cretinism devastates doesn't it?
It did not quote -- either by name or anonymously -- any "liberals who object" to Clinton's "injection of religion into politics."
This thread reads like most of the liberals on this site could have been quoted.
Cal must revel in the bad karma of judging another's faith (which, as I've seen it, is only available for the godhead). Good luck with that, Callie.
Imagine that...a politician who doesn't totally buy into the Dogma imposed upon us by a bunch of Pasty-faced Medieval Priests. Rather refreshing, in my humble opinion.
I agree Nerzog,
I wonder if we'll soon see the Vatican running commercials against "Hillary's Heresy."
I am by no means an expert on the subject, but hasn't Christianity - especially Catholicism - constantly evolved relevant to modern concerns over the last 2007 years?
Cal is supposed to possess a fair degree of intellect. I guess this issue was a bit beyond it.
Perdix, As far as I know, the Catholic Church has remained true to it's teachings since it's inception.
The Church has evolved, and some elements of faith but for the most part the central tenants have remained the same since the 300's and earlier when the Church organized itself.
The same tenants since the 300s? That's some long-term lease. I hope they've at least had a couple rent hikes along the way.
Bill, actually it goes even further back to the time of the apostles. However many teachings took time to codify.
The early Church had some disagreements and some heresies as one bishop or theologian sometimes interpreted the teachings in a different way. For the most part the Church recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as being the successor of Peter.
It took a number of years for all this to play out with many starts and stops, not to mention persecutions, along the way.
Barney, Bill made a pretty good little joke on your typo. Pay attention.
If this continues, we'll have no alternative but to replace him with Deputy Warren. At which point, MMfA will officially jump the shark, and we'll all be history...
C'mon Barn! Get your act together!
Deputy Warren?? Would he turn up on MMFA RFD?
hahaha... thanks for pointing it out.
Damn that spell checker! Oops.
Hadn't heard that before. I have read his columns periodically for many years. He always seemed like a low watt bulb to me. Now he seems to think that HE is the guy who can magically look into someones heart and decide the sincerity of their religious beliefs. Perhaps he fell asleep and had a dream where he was elected All High Popentate of Christianity and he has some weird right to make sucn an ass out of himself.
I find myself making such judgments sometimes too. I decided that GWB is insincere long ago. His fruit is inconsistent with the teachings. The only thing he has down is the pious invocation of the name of Jesus but I think he is insincere. We all make such judgments and need to do so. In the end another will judge our sincerity.
"Praise Jesus and Thank You Brother Thomas"....The Gospel according to Cal shows me that only Jesus believin' Christians can get to God. I must run out and tell all of my Jewish friends that they may get to heaven, but only as far as Jewish Heaven(not quite the top floor). I also wonder using Brother Cal's logic if we will have to fight a "war of heavens" since all non-JC people will be directed to the heaven of their religion and will get jealous and become Heavenofacists. And who cares what religion Hilary embraces...should we care about Mitts' religion, I think not. (off topic...where does that put Cheney)
I state once again, I am an Atheist, Thank God.
Rev. Cal,
Run home, dash into the bathroom, and stuff your head in the toilet.
You'll be doing the Lord's work.
He wouldn't dare... all that ultra-black hair, eyebrow and mustache dye might wash out.
...and the Pope thinks Cal Thomas' brand of Christianity isn't a "true" church (i.e., it doesn't provide a path to salvation). It's both funny and sad at teh same time.
* the, not teh
(at least I caught my "brandy of Christianity" mistake before posting that)
I like Brandy of Christianity, but I prefer a good IPA.
The church would never approve either. If they did, people would be going back for seconds at Mass.
I'm sticking with Rev Barnburner and The First Deformed Church of Science.... Fiction. The only path to true salvation. Nyah nah ne nah nah.
AKA David Osman of the FST, or as his partner reffered to him,"That Fraud!"
Maybe you could try the Church of the Presumptious Assumption. I think they are recruiting for a second baseman
If they throw in some Mother Baker Deepdish Sheepdip Cherrystone Pie, sure. Ah yes a mighty hotdog is our lord.
You didn't mention the works title. Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand me the Pliers.Now there's a lyrical title.
And probably my favorite of their Albums overall though to me all the old ones are very good. I am suprised. There are more FT fans out there than I ever suspected.
A president who repeatedly injects religion and who is supposedly a devout, religious man, has been a miserable disaster.
It's not about who is more Christian, who prays more, or which one has the Bible with them at all times. It's about basic intelligence and competence. Things we could use in a president, for a change.
Speaking of Christianity after George W. Bush, this is an excellent article about U.S. Christians putting partisanship and nationhood above their religion, as opposed to Christians worldwide who opposed the Iraq war: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070807F.shtml
Cal Thomas is speaking strictly from a theological point of view.
Read: John 14:4-6 “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
That is the particular part of the scripture I do believe to which Cal is referring.
As with all scripture, there are different interpretations. Many Christians do take a rather 'liberal' view of this teaching. Hillary being one. However many fundamentalists and mainline conservative churches interpret this passage strictly and feel that one must recognize and believe in Jesus in order to get to heaven.
My own personal take on this is more like Hillary's than Cal's.
My guy, Herb, down at Lowbrow Tavern, says HE's the only way to the lord. Granted, he's never turned water to wine (although there's speculation about that weak beer he draws) but I'm more inclined to follow him. Mainly because he lives a block away from me, and after a few hours down there, I can use a guide to my house...
When you believe in a man you believe in what he believed in, not that he simply existed.
Well, Herb believes I could use another beer. And I believe he's right.
“When you believe in a man you believe in what he believed in, not that he simply existed.”
Sorry to point out your non-sequitur fallacy, sir. Your pretty words covertly bespeak deception. Regardless of entity, be it individual, concept or object, one believes in that entity…in the present. Which is one’s own time, not in that past. Also, your alluding to Jesus, however honest & lovingly true you might think you’re being…is again, a glaring deception upon yourself as well as others. Look, believing in Jesus is one thing. And I am not about to stand in your way nor inhibit your beliefs. Be that as it may, if “you believe[d] in what he [Jesus] believed in,” that would make you Jewish…hopefully a knowing & understanding Jew. And not a Christian as so many errantly think. Besides, they weren’t invented yet.
"if “you believe[d] in what he [Jesus] believed in,” that would make you Jewish…hopefully a knowing & understanding Jew. And not a Christian as so many errantly think. Besides, they weren’t invented yet."
That makes no sense. Jesus obviously *believed* the things we now call "Christian." Or are you calling Jesus a liar?
Neo, what you wrote "doesn't make sense" sir. You wrote, " Jesus obviously *believed* the things we now call "Christian." What's that? Just what "things"...did her beleive in? What are those obvious things? If they are so obvious, how come you cannot elucidate? You stated they're so "obvious", well?
Also, to confront someone you don't know nor their knowledge or understanding and obliquely call them a liar...sorry dude, you struck out big time with such inane rhetoric. That last question is not only insulting, it condescends the inadequacy of your comprehension.
C.S. Lewis, for example, believed that there are paths to God other than the Church. He put it kind of cutely, though, that if somebody leads a good and spiritual life and are praying to another God, they're really praying to Christ, and would be awarded salvation. And the Christian Right LOVES C.S. Lewis..
But go ahead, Cal. Attacking another Christian for doctrinal differences will play real well with the American public. Hey Cal! Take a look at MY Church and see whether WE'RE True Christians! Why don't you denounce us for differences in dogma!Remind us why a wall between church and state's a good idea--at least while you're around!
And Cal Thomas is a sorry-ass excuse for a Christian himself.
wz,
What makes you say that?
Everything he says. Everything he writes. He is not living a Christ-like existance. He's a fraud.
First off, is this guy implying that "conservative faith" is more legitimate than "liberal faith"?
2nd - I didn't think faith was conservative or liberal
3rd - You conservatives out there have no room (in my mind) to criticize or castigate liberals when it comes to issues of faith, because you're just as susceptible to being hypocritical in these matters as anyone (liberal or conservative).
4th - I guess it's ok to denigrate any other religion other than Christianity - (I've read more than a few posts here with derogatory remarks towards Islam so any cries about liberal posters taking potshots at Christianity fall on deaf ears here)
5th - I don't particularly care for Hillary as a presidential candidate, but last I saw, she is still a human being and does deserve some basic level of respect.
6th - The intermix of religion and politics in this polarized climate only exacerbates the polarization. Which I imagine is just fine for the conservative side.
CAL!! My heavenly spirit guide can beat up your heavenly spirit guide!! And thank you for mentioning that Christainity is unchanging- I knew all those councils in Nicea and papal decrees 'telling' good christains how to act were just a waste of time because the rules have never changed!!
not to mention vatican II in the early 60s.
when they decided to actually say mass in English. and the priest turned around to face the congregation.
that wasn't a big change or anything.
Again sir,
You don't know what you're talking about. "They"? Ok, now just who eae "they"? Like, try and name tha pope?
Skip it, your lame puffery warrants no response. Please, stop polluting with your tripe...until you can write something cogent.
I am a devout Catholic and Catholism teaches that indivduals can reach salvation without excepting Jesus as their personal savior. Thomas does not know his scripture and is obviously quoting some fundamentalist christian jargon.
Mmmmm....maybe not...the Pope seems to be turning back the clock to pre-Vatican II.
I've seen some critics, (you being one,) express Pope Benedict's teachings as turning back the clock. Actually, as I understand it, nothing is turned back, the Pope is simply trying to clarify what he perceives to be errors in doctrine and faith that arose from VII.
It is news but he has made the pronouncements before.
However there is an uneasy dichotomy between the words of Jesus and "the other route to heaven" in Church theology.
Again it depends on the interpretation. Much like I'll leave global warming arguments to the scientists, I'll leave paths to heaven arguments to theologians.
It is my hope everyone gets to Heaven but I'll leave that to God to decide. at the same time I hope and pray that I make it.
To clarify, in my opinion he's turning back the clock as a result of his repeated emphasis of the exclusionary language.
Also, as a matter of practice, the Holy See clarifies, but never overrules. The latter would be incompatible with papal infallibility.
Gee, wouldn't that had made c. Ratzinger...
"The Grand Inquisitor"...?
'she should not be allowed to alter classic christian thelogy...' Then neither should POPES and PRIESTS and NUNS and MONKS and CARDINALS and FRIARS and BROTHERS and SISTERS, etc... Cal is just being stupid thinking 'thelogy' is static and doesn't evolve... AND, please, tell me WHAT liberal religious people discuss what SUV Jesus would drive... and why is pursuing 'do good' things bad...?
"Christian Doctrine" is based on the imagination of Paul and those who came after...every one of them human. There is nothing magical or sacred about "Christian Doctrine". It is a house of cards.
I just do not remember Mr T criticizing republican candidates who made it the staple and bedrock of their campaigns for not actually following the teachings of Christ. Mr. T did not criticize this president for running on religion but ignoring the admonition to forgive others(unless part of his administration), to turn the other cheek(instead we must preemptively strike first) , to reconcile with you brother over disputes rather than go to court(war), to look at your own faults before you declaim others for the faults you perceive in them(that would be blaming America), to hold goods in common(private property is next to Godliness see book of acts), to give one crop of 7 to the poor(Leviticus) etc. None of these failings have been mentioned by Mr T to my recollection. The problem with christianity is that it has solely substituted worship of Jesus for following the way he taught. Christians rarely follow any teaching instead they do the opposite, preach the opposite but claim the only thing that matters is the personal worship of Jesus. I suspect that Jesus would tell you that following the way is more important than the worship of his personality.
When I was young, we had a hymn with a refrain "they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes they'll know we are Christians by our love".
What happened to that? If I had to pick out a real Christian based on that refrain, the pickins would be mighty slim these days.
Julia,
They are all around. You just need to know where to look. :-)
Well, I won 't look in your direction. Supporting partisan politics and nationhood by supporting the war with no end is anathema to Christianity.
Julia don't listen to anotheramerican. God left the United States when the Christians took over.
Yeshua ben Yoseph gave the example of a non-believer, a Samaritan, as what a good person is. Obviously he was very open to others finding a closeness to God through other spiritual paths than through the one he grew up in. In terms of classical interpretation I do not see how anything can be a more classical version than the words of the man himself as put down in the bible.
Very good point. Thanks for the reminder.
That is a very good point and is exactly what the parable of the good Samaritan is about. The man needing help being ignored by two religious Jews and given aid by the Samaritan who showed generosity and compassion.
Not to bash the Good Samaritans, but those RV's do guzzle some gas.
Solon,
Please try to understand the anti-Semitism you mistakenly wrote. Aside from a slew of misunderstood Roman Catholic, as well as Christian, dogma you just unerringly stepped into something too many RCs & Christians so often forget…Jesus ain’t Christian….he’s Jewish. So, if you’re going to mention something like, “The Publican & the Pharisee” you had better had done your homework. Unfortunately, you didn’t and thus, slurred Jews without comprehending your error. Just as that messianic Christian, who thinks he’s Jewish, did.
No I didnt and the remark was in no way anti semetic. I know Jesus was a Jew and that has WHAT to do with the parable of the Good Samaritan. They were going to Jerusalem a priest and a Levite left the man naked and beaten a Samaratin would NOT have been considered a JEW both the priest and certainly the Levite WOULD have been Jews. Try to know what you are talking about before you accuse someone of racism. Everything critical ever said about anyone Jewish is NOT anti Semitism.
Solon,
For as long as I’ve read MM’s postings, I have also remembered yours amongst the fray. And I say “Bravo!” to you again, Solon, for your words. Unfortunately this time, sir, you penned rather insultingly, your response. When I realized, you were asking me, rather obliquely via your crudely put condescension, “Try to know what you are talking about before you accuse someone of…” not knowing a Kohen from a priest or what a Levite is & does, or anything about the “Priestly class”. Then please tell me about the Halakah relating to a Kohein and a met. Does it involve any ritual impurity? Oh, pardon me…Jesus would know all about that, cause he’s Jewish! And what’s all this bubbe meise about which of the three were Jews? Aleph, Bet, or Gimmel? Yes…gimmel! Or rather three as in…they all are. So what does a “parah adoomah” have to do with the former? As if Jesus’ story or parable involved what? Haughty Jews? Or maybe it was that “Love your neighbor as yourself” saying, from where? Or was it Hillel’s? But it don’t translate that well, do it? ¶Unfortunately I digress, so what would someone totally unknowing, present company excepted, think after they had read that line about “The man needing help being ignored by two religious Jews…”? Gee, what did you mean by that? That someone not understanding, uncomprehending or just maybe a wee bit prejudiced would give those “two religious Jews” what…a break? Like some person might think, “Why should I? I ain’t like them Jews!” Perhaps those ever burgeoning silent hate groups might just believe what you wrote about, “Everything critical ever said about anyone Jewish is NOT anti Semitism.” It almost makes me ashamed to be a life long, liberal democrat. And please reread what you wrote before you attempt a defense.
Also try to remember that the fact two of his OWN left him yet an OUTSIDER showed mercy and generosity is an essential part of the parable.
That's YOUR opinion. I've seen your interpretations of Bible verses, before, and I don't think you know what you're talking about. The essential part is the 'placement' in society the 2 had, not their race. You certainly DID bring a racial element into the parable that isn't there. I guess it's hard to admit when you are a racist after all these tyrades you've had against supposed racists.
The essential part is the 'placement' in society the 2 had, not their race.
You are partly correct. The key comparison is definitely legalism vs love. However, there is most definitely a subtext of racial tolerance as well, given the extreme animosity between Jews and Samaritans.
E.g., imagine Ann Coulter to be the lawyer to whom Christ is speaking, the two that pass the victim to be Christians (say a priest and a member of a parish council) and the one that stops to be an Iranian Muslim. The racial element is hopefully clear.
given the extreme animosity between Jews and Samaritans.
You may be right, but I just don't see the 'racial' aspect as being critical or even subtextual for the reason it was told. I think it could be true for ethnical reasons, but I don't see the racial aspect.
Liberal faith, which is to say a faith that discounts the authority of Scripture in favor of a constantly evolving, poll-tested relevancy to modern concerns -- such as the environment, what kind of SUV Jesus would drive, larger government programs and other "do-good" pursuits -- ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins and a transformed life. - Cal Thomas
Cal is generalizing. Hey I get bashed for generalizing but not a single peep from any one of you Conservatives posting here about our pal Cal's rant?
In the last Presidential election Bush pandered deep and hard toward the holy rollers and Cal didn't apply that generalization to Bush?
Oh the shame Oh the Hypocrisy of Conservatives. Dear Lord Jesus do not strike down on the Conservatives. Oh how they have zip and zowie before the public eye.
I was on the roadside hungry and half dead I heard Conservatives drive by yelling "get a job you bum instead of being so bored and busted," one of whom was Bush, another Pat Roberstson, and the late Jerry Falwell.
I am white, a black man, an atheist mexican and a pot smoking Iranian saved me. They called me brother.
Even if you don't believe in an afterlife, the sermon on the mount would be a very good guide for living now. But the loudest talkers seem to be the ones who have never tried it.
Someone, I believe it was Gandhi but I'm not sure, said words to the effect of "I have no problems with Christ, it's his fan clubs that I have a problem with." I take sides with the guy who said this regardless of whether or not it was Gandhi.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.-Gandhi
Mary, I love that quote.
Mary thanks for the correct quote. Much appreciated.
MO DEM
I wonder if Jesus would have run for Senate on a pro-war platform in 2006, especially after everyone realized Cheney's mafia were lying in 2004.
Cal Thomas, as with so many other pundits and holy rollers, is more interested in religious dogma and how it can be used politically to control people's behavior. He couldn't care less about what some guy who lived 2000 years ago tried to teach us.
The candidates' religion, or lack of it, is irrelevant to being elected president. Our Constitution strictly forbids a "religious 'test' " for candidacy. The good Christians who claim such a self-righteous position as supreme patriots need to review some things in their Bibles regarding following the laws of the land, and then re-read the Constitution, especially Article VI, Section III, which states in part: "no religious test shall ever be required, as a" qualification to any office or public trust, under the "United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government.
Wow! Do-good pursuits lead to self improvement efforts? HUH??? Stupid me! I thought feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and loving one another are what Jesus strived for. But no. He merely wanted to live and die for our sins. Forget all that crap he spewed about compassion, love, healing, guidance. Cal Is as 'modern' a Christian as it gets. Disregards Jesus as a loving God leading his flock, into truns him into a sledgehammer threatening to beat down dissent . Ghandi said; I quite like your Jesus, he is so unlike your Christians.
Mrs. Clinton is no different than her husband. She will promote religion only when it will benefit her politically, and ignore it otherwise. I have haven't seen anyone so hypocritical on her religious beliefs since her husband. It's amazing that anyone who supports her can even stand her when she claims to be Christian considering that those who DO support her are some of the most god less people on the planet. The Clinton's are among the worst people that have ever occupied a political position...and that's a tough call considering you have a murderer (kennedy) still being voted into office after all these years of hypocrisy. And, I'm trying hard not to mention the last warmongers the democrats had in Kennedy (notice a trend) and Johnson. If it wasn't for democrats we wouldn't have been in the last 4 wars, but Heaven forbid a republican gets us into ONE! And, he's called the worst because he's allowed the least casualties!
I love how you are able to argue completely from baseless speculation. Perhaps that is the talent that God gave you, albeit instead of something more useful like the ability to wiggle your ears.
Which part of it was "baseless speculation"? I don't see YOU providing anything that counters what I say. But, that is the norm. You will certainly complain about someones opinion but offer nothing in return. I think that is the typical liberal response....complain about a conservative's opinion but offer no resolutive response. Only complaints...typical.
I've noticed that liberals only seem to complain, they never seem to offer repairative ideas....only complain. Why is that?
You are a moron. When special children babble nonsense we just pat them on the head your worthless post deserved nothing more. No facts no insight just baseless assertions and hatefilled ignorance. No facts, no logic, no insight nothing to really comment on except the basic stupidity of it. I gave MY opinion about YOU. It is worth no more or less than your silly and useless rant about people you dont know and never will but feel free to denigrate based on NOTHING. You really ought to either grow up or turn off the computer leave your mommys basement and let the grown ups talk
You really ought to either grow up or turn off the computer leave your mommys basement and let the grown ups talk
That's the pot calling the kettle black. So, now there has been 2 useless rants on the merits of one opinion. Obviously, my opinion is MY opinion and you aren't required to agree. That is all you do, anyway, is express your opinion. Of course, always in a rude way. Solon, YOU are the Michael Savage of mmfa. You've already proven yourself to be a racist (earlier in this post), now you're self-proven to be an ignorant fool.
When special children babble nonsense we just pat them on the head ...solon
WTF are you talking about, Solon? Still marginalizing special ed kids, I see?
Look we already KNOW you are incredibly ignorant, bigoted and post virtually nothing but baseless insulting assertions about everyone not as rabidly ignorant and bigoted as you. You dont have to try so hard to PROVE your ignorance bigotry and basic stupidity.
*sigh* I just don't understand it. I've prayed and prayed . . . and yet you're still with us Cal.
Can you people just shut up and re-read what you’ve written & responded to? With an almost unerring child-like stupidity, y’all go & step right smack dab into their waiting trap. And with all the fervor & mite of some magnificent, all a-bothered baying Bloodhound, who got the scent alright and is seemingly right-on target! Except “old Blue” just had acquired a heroic–sized sinus blockage running from stem to stern and he’s still a-howling at everything here & yonder. Oh boy are they ever laughing. Now pardon my French but “Turd Sac” Thomas ain’t no “Silent Cal” though he’d also agree about businesses’ “business” being [you’re not supposed to realize this] profits! And all along y’all thought it t’was “business”?…oy gevalt.
Republicans salivate politically at the Greek “phalanx”, in fact they’d merrily goose-step right all over everyone not of their ilk…mysteriously guided by them neocons, perhaps? Cause that’s what the phalanx was designed to do. That’s their way: It’s all black & white, good or bad…profit or loss? Why profit of course…you a good American? So who’s a-chuckling at their lack of grey matter regarding any grey area? Hell, just look at the new Supreme Court’s rulings. Can you exclaim “Buona Fortuna, stronzo”? Democrats, now read liberals, are usually all askew—all over the place. Bickering, blundering & almost-blindly colliding with one another…over what? Departure dates? Ever since I could vote, I’ve proudly been a card-carrying jackass. Problem is all too many liberals here don’t seem to have that innate intelligence or how to use it.
Then some conservative, Republican, neocon or other some sort cries “foul!” and too many are all that eager to step into that smelly trap they laid. Hah! I for one don’t want another of their ilk in the White Hose. Now what caused that re-election win? Sure it’s a stacked deck. But while we run around all over the place, seemingly bashing each other over what? They’re just fat cat guffawing at us. To Hell with those bastards and how they’ve led this country so precipitously downhill! If we as Americans cannot collectively roll up our sleeves & work together, what’s going to happen? Who wants to kiss this country good-bye? What do we have to do in order to correct all their deceptions, lies, greediness & denigrations of America and all Americans?
The central tenet in Christianity is not that you must believe that Jesus is the only way.
His "I am" statements mean that the path he advocates is the only way. There is only one God, and you must behave as close to Jesus' behavior as possible.
As far as I can see, Hillary is not altering classic Christian theology.
"And, he's called the worst because he's allowed the least casualties!"
Autopsycho, do you really believe that's the reason? If so, you haven't been paying attention. Of the 4 wars you've referenced, I believe the Iraq War is the first one that WE started...and please, don't throw out that tired old 9/11 card; Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... you know it...and so does President Numbnuts.
and please, don't throw out that tired old 9/11 card; Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... you know it...and so does President Numbnuts.
WWII: don't use the tired old Pearl Harbor card, how is it we ended up fighting in Europe?
Hey, fellow progressives. You're making it hard for me, as a progressive Christian, to stay interested in your posts . I'm extremely uncomfortable with your characterizations of Christianity as a nonsensical fantasy. Leave the name calling to others for a while huh? Most Christians aren't as intolerant as the commentators that the MSM invites to come talking, and most don't agree with those guys at all. Where is my proof, how do I support this claim? Just look to the real tenets of Christianity and you'll find that Thomas's comments are not in line with any of them. More in line with the tenets of trash politics.
Have Peace,
Alchemist
If one bothers to actually read the writings of George Washington they might beshocked at how atheistic he comes off as. Yet he mentions God in speeches. Wing nuts took out a full page ad in the July 4th NYTimes to remind us of the founding father's "chrisitanity." My point is, pandering to the masses regarding their insistence in believing in God is nothing new. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, all knew that if they spoke publicly about their true feelings towards organized religion they would not garner support for the Constitution let alone rebellion from England. It's a shame really. As the full page ad sponsored by those crafters for Jesus at Hobby Lobby took the founder's words completely out of context to bolster their case for the US being a Christian nation. Leaving out qotes like Jefferson's "question the very existence of a god." Franklin's comments regarding lighthouses being more relevant than churches and Adams signing and endorsement of every word of what is commonly known as the Treaty of Tripoli. Too bad they couldn't get through to the early patriots that organized religion is poison and had to pander to their childish fantasies. We'd be much better off.
Ha!
The same cabal of demons currently running the country regularly tosses slop in Cal Thomas's trough.
Cal Thomas is about as qualified to judge somebody's Christianity as Charles Manson.
Well then, I guess Billy Graham himself would not rise to the righteous threshold set by Mr. Thoms:
"That's what we believe. That's the heart of our faith. But others may get to heaven in other ways, although we don't believe that. The ultimate decision is God's decision, and we should not judge."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/slater.html
In the first place, Thomas is absolutely unqualified to judge anyone's Christianity. The fact that anyone sets themself forth to be a judge of Mrs. Clinton's religious experience is a sin, described in detail by our Lord. Frankly, I have enough problems managing my own spiritual condition that I have no time to try to figure who is in and who is out as far as their religious experience goes.
So much of both of the Clinton's behavior has impressed me. They had a huge problem exacerbated by their enemies, but they decided to work on their marriage. Actually that was the Christian thing to do. It is really quite wonderful to see them together, to note their regard for each other.
In the end, only God can judge the Clintons. Since I have yet to meet up with someone who is perfect, and that certainly includes me, I have yet to know someone who is guiltless enough to be qualified as a spiritual judge. Besides me, that definitely includes you, Cal!!!!!
.
Who is this Cal guy and who made him the Christian decider?
Remember, no matter who you are, Betty Bowers is a better Christian than you:
http://www.bettybowers.com/
So, go to Betty's church:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
An open letter to Muslims, in California and elsewhere in the world.
This is NOT intended to be provocative but rather a plea to the vast majority of you good people.
My concern lies with the fact that when we hear of some terrorist attack here or elsewhere in the world there is little to no outrage expressed by our local mosque or on the news. I’m quite certain that if any one from a cleric, a mullah, or simply a member of your faith wanted to respond to the attack he/she would be welcomed by the local paper and TV stations for an interview to express your thoughts and concerns over such attacks. When people of your faith, nationality and others are killed in the name of Allah and no one speaks up it confuses me. I can’t understand it and would like, almost demand, that you speak up and allay my concerns.
We read and hear that any such objections expressed by a Muslim would be considered heretical and are virtually a life threatening (death) sentence. I would hope that is not the case, so just what is the loud silence that we hear and read? I’m all ears, PLEASE help me understand. What will it take to make you speak up? I simply cannot believe that Mohammad Atta’s plans were 100% hidden from everyone (in the mosque just blocks from my house).
Does the rest of the world need some new rules? Beyond just human decency? Should there be a law passed making it illegal to hide the knowledge of planned attacks? What should the penalty be?
I for one can think of a penalty: 1) If the perpetrators are members, attend, or are otherwise associated with Mosque “X”, that mosque would be subject to demolition on the first instance, not waiting for a second or third terrorist action. Its doors would be closed and wrecking crews would be sent in to level the building and confiscate the property. Mosque funds would be used for this task. 2) Those advocating, teaching or condoning such terrorist activities would be subject to treason and sentenced accordingly, again on the first instance. Obviously, you would be expected to provide the evidence, or would we have to put CCTVs in all of your mosques and meeting places to prove that your mosque was or was not involved? 3) All participants in the funding, planning, support and carrying out of the attack will be sent to prison for a minimum of 25 years without the possibility of parole or being returned to any foreign country. What would be MUCH better is for one of YOU to suggest an alternative, and starting in YOUR country. . . . . or should our military just impose such a sanction? I’m all ears, PLEASE help me understand. What will it take to make you speak up?