"These voters tend to be even more pro-life than their parents, but abortion isn't always a priority that moves their votes..."

Exactly how pro-life is a person for whom abortion doesn't "move their votes"?

I agree with Peter S...callin this "by Jim Wallis" is sort of funny.

Posted by: Brian B | September 8, 2008 5:10 PM

I am not looking at the "faith" of our politicians, left or right. Why? Because I don't trust them to be truthful about their true beliefs! They will pander to what the electorate wants! In fact, I don't trust government to legislate morality in any way at all. We tried that with liquor and created a whole new mess, ie, the Saint Valentines Day Massacre! Further, government is not responsible for our morals- we are! Making something we don't like an unlawful act only drives an underground of unlawful deeds for profit. Don't ask politicians to be your conscience- teach your children wnat is right!

Posted by: Mary Lou | September 8, 2008 5:22 PM

I normally like Amy Sullivan, but this isn't one of her better efforts. For instance, there's this bit:

"They live in the suburbs, hold graduate degrees, and while they might not want their children reading certain novels, would be embarrassed by attempts to ban certain books from libraries, as Palin is reported to have briefly considered while Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska."

Whoa, so Palin "briefly considered" banning a book!

I mean, it's not like she actually banned a book, or even half-heartedly tried to ban a book -- she just considered it. Briefly. In other words, she had a bad idea, and then decided not to act on it. This is supposed to scare off evangelicals?

The sermon Sullivan cites was ugly, but as I recall it was delivered by a guest evangelist. And do you really want to get into a debate over who has the crazier pastor?

Here's some friendly advice: start over.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 8, 2008 5:47 PM

Lord V--

Palin apparently did more than "consider" banning books. When she was mayor, she asked the Wasilla public librarian if it would be OK to remove some books from the shelves. When the librarian replied, no, that would not be OK, Palin tried to have the librarian fired. So she did more than simply decide it was a bad idea.

Posted by: Don | September 8, 2008 5:56 PM

You would think the religious left would be smarter then this . The lessons in politics is Americans , especially non political Americans have a strong dislike for meanness to certain people and groups . They don't like it when gays are treated badly , they didn't like it when Bill Clinton was piled on , the remarks about his daughter just backfired .

The comments I have seen from the godless left are pointed towards a special needs baby " yes I know sick" a 17 year old girl , religion , remarks about Assembly of God and them speaking in tongues to their churhes connections with james Dobson, her looks, her nastiness etc .
The time America basically saw her , she delievered a speech that was quite well done " written for her " and the complaining about her attacks on Obama go un noticed because she did it all with a smile on her face and appearing as American Pie as you can get . Whcih I think made the leftist mader .

Anyway the poll shift to McCain I believe has much to do with this nastiness. I think Obama is the better candidate , and Palen being a lightweight would have showed up in the debates and such . Now all she has to be is mediocre and the leftist hate machine losses the posible gain Obama would have had .

Thanks to his supporters , McCai has gained on this one .

I would think people guided by Faith in Jesus Christ could see the hatred and evil within their own political ranks instead of joining up with them and joining in .

The GOP is done with in my opinion because of their network of good old boys , but the religious left appears not to know the difference between evil and Light .

Posted by: Michael | September 8, 2008 6:07 PM

What I see here is the Left casting about, throwing as many minute criticisms at the wall as possible, in the hope that one will stick. Everyone has something unsavory on their record, however minor.

Posted by: Gordon | September 8, 2008 6:29 PM

Palin tried to have the librarian fired. So she did more than simply decide it was a bad idea.
Posted by: Don | September 8, 2008 5:56 PM
---------
Professor Don, Can you give us a reference for your claim of impropriety?

Classic ploy to paint the conservative as a nazi book burner.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 8, 2008 6:52 PM

"Should Sarah Palin and John McCain prevail in November, feminism can courtsy and treat herself to a hard-earned vacation. The greatest achievement of feminism won't be that a woman reached the vice presidency, but that a woman no longer needed feminists to get there."

Kathleen Parker, columnist.

Posted by: anom | September 8, 2008 7:07 PM

Can we take a break from S Palin for three days?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 8, 2008 6:29 PM
------------
LJRD, I agree. This article is really pretty pathetic in its attempt to use the media as cultural support for Jim's leftist views. Especially since Amy Sullivan is a classic Wallis crony.

See Jim's review of her book:
"Amy Sullivan is an exceptional journalist who has become one of our most insightful commentators on the American religious-political landscape. The Party Faithful is filled with discerning reporting, behind-the-scenes stories, and astute analysis. Her history of the evangelical social conscience will be illuminating to many. She shows that faithful voters do not belong to only one party, but are looking to bring their moral passion to politics and are more likely now to hold both sides accountable. She understands the sea change going on in faith and politics in America." -- Jim Wallis, author of The Great Awakening and God's Politics

AND she has blogged on THIS page before: blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/03/amy-sullivan-republicans-dont-own.html

So Jim, nice try on passing this off as "I saw a column this weekend in Time magazine" as if you have not communicated about it.

This deception earns a 'Boo to you'.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 8, 2008 7:23 PM

...and since this article is particularly un-thought-provoking, here is something to ponder as you long for Big-Government to blow your nose for you.

"The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau, what an alluring utopia!" -1944, Ludwig von Mises from "Bureaucracy"

Posted by: Peter S. | September 8, 2008 7:43 PM

Peter S.

Do you have anything else to do besides getting yourself worked up over Jim Wallis? Clearly you are never going to agree with Wallis, so might I make a recommendation? Go read Dr. Dobson at Focus on the Family. There's a guy who thinks all good Evangelicals think like him. I'm sure you'll feel right at home.

Posted by: Paul | September 8, 2008 7:47 PM

"Do you have anything else to do besides getting yourself worked up over Jim Wallis? Clearly you are never going to agree with Wallis, so might I make a recommendation? Go read Dr. Dobson at Focus on the Family. There's a guy who thinks all good Evangelicals think like him. I'm sure you'll feel right at home."

I agree. Peter S., you're schtick is getting realyl old. We know your hatred for the Religious Left. So get over it. There are plenty of right-wing blogs out there to get your jollies. I can appreciate the conservative point of view from someone who has something to say. Unfortunately, you're just here to criticize people you don't like and don't add anything to the dialogue/debate.

FYI - I am an independent and an undecided voter. People like you make it much easier for me to pull the lever for Obama-Biden.

Posted by: ando | September 8, 2008 7:57 PM

Posted by: neuro_nurse | September 8, 2008 7:49 PM

He's talking about the church, not the state.

Posted by: Gordon | September 8, 2008 8:05 PM

Again with the paranoia Peter, it's just hard for me to believe that you really believe that there is a communist agenda.

Christians have been a part of the democratic party for a while. (for the record not a democrat.) The number of communists in the states is a really low number.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 8, 2008 8:18 PM

“Since Palin is running for public office and not Church leadership there is no conflict. Paul was talking about women in church, not politics.”

That’s an interesting dichotomy; the power to end human civilization as we know it as opposed to authority over men in church.

I’m not so sure the McCain & the Republicans should count the evangelical vote as assured.

My wife was raised in a Southern Baptist church and told me a few years ago, when we were talking about Hillary Clinton, that she didn’t think a woman should be the U.S. President. Now she doesn’t think highly of McCain and may very well vote for Obama.

Of course, this is based on a sample size of one, and a sample that quite possibly has been biased by the influence of her liberal husband – but we’re happy in our influence on each other.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | September 8, 2008 8:24 PM

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” 1 Timothy 2:12

"How do conservative Christians reconcile this verse with the very real possibility of having a woman president?"

Are you serious ? Is this sorta like why the Pope is always a man psoition ? My denomination allows women Pastors , but I will share with you what I have learned from mt Bible and teachings .
We are all different , using the Bible to justify Palin is a bit far fectched for me though .

But anyway the folks Paul was talking to actually had a culture that made sexism of today appear mild . The women at the time then actually were not even allowed to learn besides males , and thus Paul is speaking to the very fact that they were susceptible to false teachings . Which Paul sort of had a pet peeve about . He always was warning us about it .

So Neuro he is talking about people being put in position of authority who have little knowledge of the scriptures . Not per say women , but because women at the time were left out of the learning process. People use this I am sure to support sexism , just like the Bible has been used to support racism , slavery, perversions of all kinds .

Posted by: Michael | September 8, 2008 8:31 PM

"I just want you all to know what you are getting into. The true-left will drop all Christians like yesterdays trash when they have achieved their ends. There is no room for religion in a communist society."

Oh, we have a prophet in our midst! Watch out, they're after your money, your homes, your cars. Why, the country will not longer be safe for the Fat Cats! We need to protect the Dick Cheneys of the world, please before it's too late. I'm feeling the strain on my pocketbook already. Oh wait, Bush is still President.

Posted by: ando | September 8, 2008 8:59 PM

Oh, we have a prophet in our midst!
Posted by: ando | September 8, 2008 8:59 PM
-----------
We also have a puppet.
____________

there is a huge difference btwn him being a marxist and a conspiracy to turn this nation into a communist nation.
Posted by: Payshun | September 8, 2008 8:47 PM
----------
I'll say no to both by voting McCain, thanks.

You know there was a day when I would agree with Democrats. I don't think that JFK would recognize the party today.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 8, 2008 9:17 PM

Just got this in my mail box , I subscibe to FactCheck.org
. But it gives you the slime Obama gets and McCain gets . The slime McCain gets is repeated in these circles unfortuantely . I may be wrong on the issues , but I do not promote sliming or lying about people.

Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Summary
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesty" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
A few of these claims were included in a chain e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny. We'll be looking into other charges in that e-mail for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Posted by: Michael | September 8, 2008 9:20 PM

... "as Palin is reported to have briefly considered while Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska."

Be careful that you don't make the mistake the many in the media have made. That is to report on things that have not been confirmed. Believe me, after the beating that Governor Palin has taken from the media, I for one will not believe everything I hear or read.

Posted by: wally | September 8, 2008 9:38 PM

The last prominent Republican who shared Palin's religious faith was John Ashcroft (Bush's first Attorney General). While I do admire him for standing up to Alberto Gonzalez when he tried to get him to sign off on Bush's torture program while he was still recovering from surgery, he insisted on covering some of the statues in the building that houses the Justice Department that revealed too much of the anatomy.

So when I read about reports that Palin tried to purge the local library of objectionable books, I am not surprised.

Perhaps McCain selected her to counterbalance his own dismal record for fidelity.

Posted by: sister Marie | September 8, 2008 10:32 PM

Jim,

I believe that the answer to your question is, "No, evangelicals are not sold on McCain/Palin." Furthermore, I believe that the longer that they are exposed to them, they will conclude that this pair offers no significant change from the disastrous policies of the past seven and a half years.

Placing them in office will do nothing towards bringing home the brave men and women whose lives are being sacrificed by two men who found a way to avoid the war of their generation.

Electing them will do nothing to correct the downward economic slide in a era when the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Electing them will do nothing to check the increasing power of the feceral government to monitor our email, check our library check-outs or any of the multiple ways in which our privacy has been curtailed.

Electing them will invite the federal government to invade local hospital rooms and interject itself into the most personal of decisions.

The bottom line is that if you are happy with the type of government that bush and Cheney have provided, then you should vote for this pair of clones. I am not happy. We can do better, and that is why I am voting for Obama/Biden.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 8, 2008 11:10 PM

Kevin Wayne: "Why haven't we gotten off our asses about Impeachment/Prosecution of Bush/Cheney?
And before you say it's a waste of time, look at this"

Uhh, because it IS a waste of time?

"By the way Communist Party of USA endorses Obama for President."

THAT settles it. He's definitely got my vote.

Posted by: carl copas | September 8, 2008 11:22 PM

I find highly amusing to read these comments referring to Christian Right/Left. I wonder what Biblical interpretation is put on these words:
In Christ there is no east or west, in Him no South or north. . .
Seems Jesus might have died in vain after all when his professed followers readily and eagerly divide themselves in order to stand in line before their God. . .

Posted by: Cymric | September 8, 2008 11:34 PM

Amy always has engaging perspectives...I miss seeing her stuff regularly here. Thx Jim

Posted by: canucklehead | September 9, 2008 12:07 AM

So when I read about reports that Palin tried to purge the local library of objectionable books, I am not surprised.

Posted by: sister Marie

And i am not surprised that no liberal here takes you to task for spreading false witness. Thats unfortunate because the creditability and lies are important in even secular organizations .
Check out FactCheck.Org Explains the whoppers that both sides tell about the other ,

-------------------------------------------------
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 1:13 AM

Both sides are spreading a great deal of misinformation. I highly recommend these three sites for political stuff:
http://www.McCainFactCheck.com/
http://www.ObamaFactCheck.com/
http://www.factcheck.org/

They haven't come up with official sites devoted only to Palin or Biden--yet.

This one is good for all those internet rumors like the book ban list:
http://www.snopes.com

Unfortunately, many of you will find that the lies you hold as truths about Obama are nothing more than falsehoods meant to stir up the right. Ditto for some of what is being said about McCain and Palin. So far though, the McCain official ads contain more misinformation and stuff taken out of context. Much of the Palin misinfo is coming from regular internet users. So far, the Obama campaign is taking the official high road--not so for the Republicans. We'll see which tactic works best with the American people. Bush/Cheney road to victory on a pack of lies and misinformation and have managed to make that the cornerstone of their administration. As Obama asks "Just how stupid do they think we are?"

I'm reading these sites and checking every single email before I forward it. If I can't verify something, I say so, or don't send it. I even googled to find the source of a "Letter from Alaska" and found the guy's email. he responded and said I could forward the letter on. He was not damning of Palin, called her nice, but said he felt she was not at all qualified for VP/President.

Both sides have factions that promote lies and half-truths. All we can do is search for the truth where ever we can.

Posted by: SolvayGirl | September 9, 2008 3:03 AM

"She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States."

But her husband was, and she did address the party in her official capacity as governor.

Michelle Obama gets skewered by the conservatives because she says that for the first time she is proud of her country. Then, Palin's husband is a member of a secessionist party and he gets a pass. Sounds fair to me.

"Less time then it took by a few posts by JamesM to figure what you were all about." Posted by: FairandBalanced

Why thank you, fair and balanced. You will be in good company here among many other neo-con reactionaries who frequent the blog. Welcome.

"Not that it means McCain is the better President , but it does mean the folks here that are spreading the hatred, lies , and mis information from the internet and trying to spread it to the mainstream are finding the American people have a problem with sliming ." Michael

An equally plausible theory is that McCain was able to energize the evangelical base with one gratuitously nasty speech by his running mate and the evangelicals cleverly took the bait.

BTW, welcome back back Mick. Different name, same nasty disposition, huh?

Posted by: JamesM | September 9, 2008 6:11 AM

Once again, I tried to imbed a link and it didn't work. The link is a long one, so I didn't want to paste it here itself. But if you go to BostonHerald.com or google the article "Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books" you will find the reference.

D

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 7:36 AM

As far as Palin goes, just click on this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html?hpid=topnews Or Podcast the extensive work Keith Olberman did on Countdown last night. Please check into some honest sources if you still believe that the Republicans have a legitimate reason, other than partisan frenzy, to be excited over this "chihuahua in drag". Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about breaking the glass ceiling. I am a passionate feminist at heart, but frankly, as a voice for the female gender, I can say for sure that we can do better than an ankle biter.

What I like about this article, and the reason I think that it has value and is "well worth the read" is because Sullivan asks whether all the compromises McCain is making to appease the so-called "Christian Right" are worth it when they could cost him the votes of moderate Americans. Barack Obama has certainly striven to be as moderate as possible, but he still has room for improvement with evangelicals (even though most are already hooked on the Republican Kool-Aid...).

I'm voting for Barack because I think his policies on the majority of issues make sense. His views on education, on poverty, on foreign affairs; his plan for Iraq--all of it makes sense. I would rue the day I failed to vote for Barack Obama, because I fear that the alternative is 4-8 more years of retrograde, destructive, ignorant Republican policies, and the thought of electing McCain is more than my flickering hope in America can handle.

Posted by: Steph | September 9, 2008 8:07 AM

Cheryl:

You are absolutely correct--we should be comparing Gov. Palin's record and experience with Sen. Biden's, not Sen. Obama's. Better yet, we should be comparing her record and experience with that of the potential vice presidential picks that Sen. McCain passed up.

Another word to Peter S--you wrote:
"Classic ploy to paint the conservative as a nazi book burner

I never used the phrase "book burner," nor did I use the word Nazi. So please don't put words into my mouth.

Michael wrote:

"No one with a realistic understanding of the candidates positions thinks Obama is a communist . He tilts extremly to the left hence unfortunately the name calling ."

No, Michael, we've been here before. Obama is not an extreme leftist. He only appears that way because US politics have tilted so far to the right. Obama is really a moderate. But the term "leftist" scores political points, so some like to keep using it.

Once again, my source: www.politicalcompass.org

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 8:30 AM

Please check into some honest sources, like last night's Countdown or today's Washington Post article on Palin if you still believe that the Republicans have a legitimate reason, other than partisan frenzy, to be excited over this "chihuahua in drag". Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about breaking the glass ceiling. I am a passionate feminist at heart, but frankly, as a voice for the female gender, I can say for sure that we can do better than an ankle biter.

What I like about this article, and the reason I think that it has value and is "well worth the read" is because Sullivan asks whether all the compromises McCain is making to appease the so-called "Christian Right" are worth it when they could cost him the votes of moderate Americans. Barack Obama has certainly striven to be as moderate as possible, but he still has room for improvement with evangelicals (i.e. the issue over when life begins)- even though many are already hooked on Republican Kool-Aid...

I'm voting for Barack because I think his policies on the majority of issues make sense. His plan for Iraq, his views on education, on poverty, on foreign affairs- all of it makes sense. I would rue the day I failed to vote for Barack Obama, because I fear that the alternative is 4-8 more years of retrograde, destructive, ignorant Republicanism, and the thought of electing McCain is more than my flickering hope in America can handle.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 8:41 AM

Just imagine that you are the librarian of a small town library and you receive a phone call from the mayor relevant to the books that you have authorized for general circulation. Well, if you are aware that there are other people who could do your job, and you are equally aware that there aren't too many other opportunities in your town for a librarian, you might be pretty intimidated by a phone call of that nature.

But these Publicans have no scruples. When they read what the husband of Valerie Plame wrote, they outed her thereby ensuring that she would never work in her previous capacity again.

These stories have given me a new understanding of "whited sepulchers."

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 9, 2008 8:46 AM

"As if that never happened with Obama. "Liberals" are fair game for smears, right?"

The problem is that both sides do it. Find whatever dirt they can so as to make the opposition as unpalatable as possible to the electorate, on grounds irrelevant to the policy issues. I would deplore it if it hadn't been a feature of American politics since 1776.

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 8:50 AM

I can't speak for the Evangelicals, but as for this Catholic, I'm not sold on McCain-Palin. At this point, I'm not even listening to their sales pitch.

Posted by: Scott Brazil | September 9, 2008 9:51 AM

If the Communist Party supports Obama, it's their prerogative. But it's also incidental. Just like Hamas or Louis Farrakan supporting an Obama presidency. Obama never asked for their support.

But you know what was not incidental? In 2000 and 2004, the Karl Rove-led Bush campaign actively targeted white supremacist groups for their votes.

Now, a message just for Peter S...

Last week I defended your right to take part in the dialogue on this site when Don had flat-out had enough. I gotta tell ya, I'm ready to go with Don to get you booted out. I appreciate that you have another opinion, but I think a few of us are getting a little tired of The World According To Peter. If you want to be part of a dialogue, by all means stay. If you want to do a monologue, please take it somewhere else.

Posted by: Paul | September 9, 2008 10:00 AM

Dear Mr Jim -

Thanks for not disappointing me. I thought you would write an article talking about how wonderful Obama is but I just knew that it would be an article about Palin. You are talking about all the innernet chatt about Palin but not quite ready to say that it is true. (very Stalinized I might say)

I have had a book removed from our elemetary library. My daughter checked it out based on a list of 'recommended reading for third graders' that was produced by an organization that promotes libraries in our state. (I did not think that it was appoiate for my 3rd grader to be reading about a young couple 13 - 14 making out on the sofa and 'she got wet'. Call me whatever - I believe that it was wrong) Interesting - the person in the district I had to take on was one that assisted in putting this list together. Interesting - I have a friend that works at the library in her community and he was able to produce a copy of this list that had been submitted to them about books to purchase and it had her signature with a note. The book that I challenged our district about and she had taken me on about my 'conservative' narrow mindedness. That book and a few others had been crossed off. Guess it is OK for her to be 'selective' but not the common person. (she still has a Kerry/Edwards sticker on her car) Palin is middle America and I truly believe that this scares the 'blank' out of Biden and Obama.

Will be an interesting and historic vote it 08'

Blessings to all
.

Posted by: big guy | September 9, 2008 10:20 AM

Big Guy,

I don't agree on your point that Palin is middle America (on some things yes, on other things no -- much farther right), but I will agree with you about the book you described. I'd be upset also to find out my child was reading soft porn recommended by the school library. I don't want Sarah Palin cramming her family values down my throat; nor do I want this kind of self-proclaimed open-mindedness forced on me and my family.

Posted by: Paul | September 9, 2008 10:56 AM

The problem is that both sides do it.

You still don't have evangelicals criticizing conservative candidates for their corruption or tomcatting -- you'd have thought that we'd have learned from two years ago with the exposure of the Jack Abramoff-fueled lobbying scandal.

Why is this getting so heated?

Political discourse has been divisive since the 1960s, even to the point that it's split the church. It's always been easier to defeat the other side than to find common ground; if you start with the former you will end up with the food fights.

Posted by: Rick | September 9, 2008 11:19 AM

Posted by: Sara | September 9, 2008 10:45 AM

'...pro-life when she supports the death penalty?'

You really need to seperate these two issues, you are doing an apples to oranges compairson.

death penalty - the accused had their day in court and were found guilty by a jury of their peers.

abortion - the fetus never had their day in court. they never killed anyone.

You want to discuss the death penalty - fine. I will be glad to engage you. If you want to talk abortion - no problem. We can discuss it from a social - moral - medical perspective.

One has nothng to do with the other.

Blessings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 9, 2008 11:47 AM

One has nothng to do with the other. Posted by: big guy

That is incorrect. It goes to having a consistent ethic of life.

Posted by: JamesM | September 9, 2008 11:55 AM

Posted by: Paul | September 9, 2008 10:56 AM

I don't want Sarah Palin cramming her family values down my throat; nor do I want this kind of self-proclaimed open-mindedness forced on me and my family.

Well whom ever is in office gets to cram at will. I went through 8 years of Clinton Gore. (and we know whose throat got it there - lol) I am more conservative - socially more moderate. I can be more supportive of Palin than Biden.

It will be an interesting election

Blessings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 9, 2008 12:00 PM

This is true on both sides of the political divide.

Not really -- you generally don't have folks on the liberal side purporting to speak "in God's name," and those few that do don't have large TV, radio or publishing networks at their disposal and aren't in bed with large, influential secular liberal groups (because, for all practical purposes, they don't exist).

Posted by: Rick | September 9, 2008 12:32 PM

"Not really -- you generally don't have folks on the liberal side purporting to speak "in God's name," and those few that do don't have large TV, radio or publishing networks at their disposal and aren't in bed with large, influential secular liberal groups (because, for all practical purposes, they don't exist)."

Thanks Rick - that gave me a good laugh just when I needed one.

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 12:47 PM

The right wing Christians and their overwrought and rather whiny defensiveness of Sara Palin and all things Republican have taken over the site again. The republican party has trashed the country and the constitution and are without remorse. The nation is floating on a sea of debt, and you think someone who hunts moose from a helicopter and thinks the war in Iraq was God's idea is the answer. All of these articles calling for civility would make sense if the Republican party had pursued civility. They have pursued surrogate vengeance on a mass scale, torture, spying, and economic ideas that are sending the financial system over the cliff. They refuse to renounce any of these things. All of these things are justified among "Christians" because the GOP is "pro-life". Those of you who don't like Jim's tactics and message and don't have an effective platform for your own ideas show with these posts that you are afraid his methods may be effective. This at least is encouraging to me though not enough to slog through more than a handful of your predictable comments.

Posted by: jonabark | September 9, 2008 1:18 PM

Peter S,

I think it's important to hear conservative viewpoints as well as the liberal/progressive viewpoints. For example, though I lean liberal I agreed with Big Guy that my kids' school library shouldn't be recommending smut to my kids. Or his assessment of the double standard in the "consistent ethic of life."

I personally lean liberal on many issues, though I think Democrats miss the boat all too often as well. Like Obama's energy policy that's going to cost you and me a ton of money -- a little too reckless for my liking.

But it's great to come to a place where we can challenge each other's thinking. Isn't it great when any one of us has one of those little, humbling moments when someone else causes us to say, "yeah, OK... I can see that."

As much as our politicians want to make this a simple, black and white world, there's always more to the story. I am pro-choice in that I don't know everyone's story and haven't walked in their shoes. I am pro-life in that I believe every single abortion is a tragedy. When a child is born into a world with parents and grandparents who don't want or love her, Jesus weeps. When a woman decides to abort her baby, Jesus weeps.

That's why we must share our convictions with each other. That's why it's OK for Jim Wallis to point out that not all Evangelicals think as one. That's also why it's OK for you to disagree with Wallis.

Just please try not to squash other people in the dialogue. I did that a couple days ago to my own mother. I came down too heavy-handed in my dislike of Sarah Palin, and I caused my own mother to withdraw from a political discussion going on within my family. Too bad, too, because she was adding valuable food for thought.

At this time, coming up to the Presidential election, many of us have strong opinions and emotions running amok. Let's share them, but let's be careful not to bludgeon each other with them.

Wishing you peace and grace,

Posted by: Paul | September 9, 2008 1:24 PM

"access the person that believes it is permissable to destroy an innocent life in the womb but will not agree to capital punishment?" Big Guy

I have never had to "access" them and I wouldn't do it that randomly.

Posted by: JamesM | September 9, 2008 1:42 PM

Copied from the A/G web page:

"Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally. Admittedly, there is progression in God’s creative work. But each step was concluded: "And there was evening, and there was morning." This points to a specific measurement of time. The most natural reading of the creation account therefore is to place it in parallel with a 7-day week. By doing so, the burden of determining time frames and development for various components of creation is avoided. Furthermore such a literal view of God’s creation process requires no more faith than theories of science–that our world evolved to its current state by the accidental collision of molecules."

How's that Gordon?

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 9, 2008 1:55 PM

Peter S,

I think you miss the point. Lots of people here are conservative Christians. I know I am. Heck, I was raised IFCA, which is pretty narrow-minded and very proud of it.

But even then, I didn't hold all the views my pastor did. As people grow their views change, so my pastor then probably doesn't even hold all the same views as he did then.

The mind and heart are a wonderful thing. As long as people can defend their views I'm all for it.

There are cultures that want the President to be much different then they are. They want someone who makes more money (and therefore knows more about it) knows more about international affairs, and presents him or herself like royalty. This isn't wrong, it's someone's right.

Posted by: U TOO | September 9, 2008 2:10 PM

In reference to the above A/G qoute....

I'm a United Methodist and I don't believe everything that is in the Methodist doctrine. Sen. Biden doesn't believe everything coming from the Catholic Church, abortion being one.

Can you site where she has expressed these beliefs, not the church in which she belongs? And even if she has, what does it matter?

Posted by: Tim L | September 9, 2008 2:22 PM

Don you are wrong , and spreading false witness in regards to the Book banning. You quote a link that re affirms your facts , instead of seeking the facts , those facts actually prove you wrong . Why is it so important to you that a person you disagree with politically is below your moral standards also ? Obama is too far to the left for me politically , he is a good man .
I would love to have him over for a cup of coffee, MCcain also . We have to clean up the place first of course,

Sister marie I have been going to an Assembly of God Church for over 20 years . I left the link to our position on Creation . It starts out with saying the Bible is not a science book . You appear to cherry picked a part like political pundits do to promote a negative view. Why would a so called Christian do that ? I always was quite relieved we were somewhat out of the mainstream of our culture of today . We are leaders in Missions , reachong out to the poor , feeding the homeless, pretty much staying out of politcics, have to admit most of us find your type of politics a reasoning fro voting for people you don't support. Your hatred is seen and we know who spreds these kinds of things . We supply the Gospel and much needed drugs, food , shelter and such . And unlike our Catholic brothers who took this country and forced others to bend to their culture till it broke them , we learned and train others in Ministry from that culture to teach , so they could teach . God made us different , even liberal and conservative , we are to love and celebrate those cultures and people.

What is you denomination , appears you fit in with the culture of today quite well . I am not ashamed of the Gospel , or my church . I also do not understand the reasons people will attack one church because others attacked another church closer to your beliefs I guess. Two wrongs don't make a right , not scripture , more like my Mom .

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4177_creation.cfm

Even though the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it is as trustworthy in the area of science as when it speaks to any other subject. We can have confidence in what it says concerning the origin of all things because "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is not the changing word of human beings, but the unchanging Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 2:36 PM

Assembly of God and early History.

I thought Mitt had to deal with stuff, and the trashing Obama got with reverend Wright . Interesting , since some of your side play smut its ok to return the smut . In any case , the church basically has its roots in African American Bibical Traditions.

The World Assemblies of God Fellowship, or Assemblies of God for short, is the world's largest Pentecostal denomination, with over 283,413 churches and outstations in over 200 countries (including 12,311 churches in the U.S.) and approximately 57 million adherents worldwide.[1][2][3] It prefers to be referred to as a cooperative fellowship instead of a denomination.[4]

The Assemblies of God has aggressive missions programs that are designed to establish self-propagating, self-supporting, and self-governing national church bodies in every country. As of late 2006, the Assemblies of God World Missions Research Office reported constituencies in 212 countries and territories, with over 5,000 adherents added per day.[2] As of 2005, the fellowship operated 859 Bible schools, 1,131 extension programs and 39 seminaries outside of the United States.[5]

The Assemblies of God has its roots in the Pentecostal revival of the early twentieth century. This revival is generally traced to a prayer meeting held under the leadership of Charles Parham, at Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, on January 1, 1901. The "awakening" or "revival" spread rapidly to Missouri, Texas, California and elsewhere. In 1906, a three year revival meeting under the leadership of William Seymour began at Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles that attracted believers from around the world.

These early leaders where licensed as ministers by Charles Harrison Mason, founder of the Church of God in Christ, a predominately African-American denomination. The Church of God in Christ provided initial credentials to the mostly white Pentecostals who would later form the Assemblies of God. [6]. Jim Crow laws of the South and other racial cultural norms of the early 20th century America contributed to the early demise of racial unity with these Pentecostal leaders with the predominately African-American Church of God in Christ denomination.

Pacifism
Today, the Assemblies of God acknowledges that its members may take different stands on the question of war, and allows each church and believer to take the stance they feel most appropriate. The denomination acknowledges its loyalty to the government, but has no other official stance on the issue.

However, prior to 1967, the A/G, along with the majority of other Pentecostal denominations, officially opposed Christian participation in war and considered itself a peace church. The official position of the church until that time read as follows, "We, as a body of Christians, while purposing to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizenship, are nevertheless constrained to declare we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life, since this is contrary to our view of the clear teachings of the inspired Word of God, which is the sole basis of our faith."[10] Most of the founders and first generation members of the denomination held to this view and it was presented as official teaching throughout World Wars I and World War II. In 1940, The Pacifist Handbook listed the Assemblies of God as the third largest peace church in America.

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 2:51 PM

Michael wrote:
Don you are wrong , and spreading false witness in regards to the Book banning. You quote a link that re affirms your facts , instead of seeking the facts , those facts actually prove you wrong .

I am NOT wrong and I am NOT bearing false witness. I NEVER said Mayor Palin actually banned books; I never even used that term. I also never said that she actually attempted to ban books. I also implied that I knew that the book list that is circulating the Internet is a fake, because I never mentioned it--the article I was citing specifically said there was no list.

I DID say that Mayor Palin suggested to the librarian whether it would be OK to remove unspecified books from the shelves, and that Palin later asked the librarian for her resignation.

These are facts, not rumors, and the article backs them up.

So does factcheck.org, by the way: It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time...Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library...Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation, along with those of Wasilla’s other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing, but said she didn’t feel she had Emmons’ support. The decision caused “a stir” in the small town.

Michael continued:
Why is it so important to you that a person you disagree with politically is below your moral standards also ?

Why is it so important for you to try and prove me wrong that you distort what I wrote? Why is it so important for you to try and prove me wrong that you would ascribe motives to me (e.g., that because I disagree with Palin I have to demonstrate that she morally is below my standards) that you can't possibly know? You don't even know to what extent I agree or disagree with Gov. Palin, because I haven't discussed any of her views here.

Actually, you can know my motive for bringing up the library story, if you would bother to take the time and carefully read the dialogue leading up to my contribution. I mentioned it because Lord Voldemort had tried to dismiss Amy Sullivan's mentioning of the incident. I was trying to assert that the incident is not quite so easily dismissed. And that's something I still believe to be true.

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 3:05 PM

"Even though the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it is as trustworthy in the area of science as when it speaks to any other subject. We can have confidence in what it says concerning the origin of all things because "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is not the changing word of human beings, but the unchanging Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13)."

A literal interpretation of scripture is actually a disservice to the text and it's ancient Hebrew roots. Like the first two chapters of Genesis are ancient Israelite poetry that is not literally true but a metaphoric truth about the nature of God and his nature. The word of God is Jesus, the person revealed in the pages of that wonderful, sacred book. No one is arguing against the end of what you said. But some here might take issue with your interpretation of the Bible. But then I know that some might take issue with mine.

I would not knock the Catholic Church too much about their charity. They have consistently done more to show charity and grace in this world than most protestants even know about. The Catholic church did not do what you said they did anyway. (to borrow your words for a minute) "unlike our Catholic brothers who took this country and forced others to bend to their culture till it broke them." The protestants did that. You could make that claim about Britain and a few other places but the Catholic Church never had the same strength it had in Europe.

BTW I am not Catholic but I follow the teachings of their mystics.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 9, 2008 3:08 PM

"Most of your posts sound like they are from a kid , talking about maturity ?"

Sounds like someone is a little bit defensive.

My question is why can't you handle someone actually challenging your beliefs and questioning them?

"Disrespect for believers with a more literal view of the Bible have people from arrogant and elitist beliefs making comments like they cling to their guns and religion are no differnt then the personalities in this book of evoltionsist who call this guy for promoting his beliefs and theories. Many of the theries of evolution are based on logic , not science . Yoy are aware of that right ?"

yes I am but thanks for the education. You can call my beliefs arrogant and elitist all you want. If it makes you feel better about yourself and continues to paint yourself as the victim in this discussion, feel free to keep doing. All it does is show the weakness of your view and in the end it's not me that will be confounded.

Oh and Sarah Palin is gaining not because of the arrogance of us city folks but because of the resentment of the rural folks to being judged by some of us. They never developed the thick skins necessary to living in this world so then they whine about the world slipping out of their world control.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 9, 2008 3:18 PM

"I too agree with big guy. I personally would gladly give up the death penalty if it meant an end to abortion--if that was an option."

I'll second that. I support the death penalty, but if doing away with it would repeal Roe, I'd cheerfully go along.

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 3:25 PM

Just please try not to squash other people in the dialogue.
Posted by: Paul | September 9, 2008 1:24 PM
-------
Paul, Thanks for the comments. Point above well taken.

re: 'the double standard in the "consistent ethic of life."' I too agree with big guy. I personally would gladly give up the death penalty if it meant an end to abortion--if that was an option.

Posted by: | September 9, 2008 3:20 PM

That was me... Peter S.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 9, 2008 3:29 PM

As if that never happened with Obama. "Liberals" are fair game for smears, right?

Posted by: Rick

Not at all Rick . I totally agree with you . I think Obama got it worse in certain ways . Perhaps not as much in a short period of time .

But because Sean Hannity makes him appear like someone who will lead us into mayhem, the folks trying to scare people because of the Assembly of God denomination, book banning ,portraying people as stupid and ignorant Creation theory cultists , etc. are no better . worse actually if you see the smear method as wrong . I understand the feeling if you believe you have to smear back or you will loose the election.

Being a christian I always had that problem in politics , I guess in a way it held me back .
Maybe thats just my excuse too ? I am no better , but at least I know better that this smearing is wrong .

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 3:35 PM

Rick I can not write as well as you . But this came out of me and i had to only do a little editing to get it published . when SoJo wants to get its act together , I will right by your side . If you will have me .
.

Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., recently hosted a forum that was aired on most of the cable news stations. It was a wonderful conversation between candidates to be our next president, Barack Obama and John McCain.

Seeing religion "used" as a reason not to vote for someone or as a reason to vote for someone, it was so refreshing to see these two men share the importance of God in their lives. It was not a debate, it was a conversation. There was no right or wrong answers; it was a faith-based exchange of ideas, beliefs and understanding.

How ashamed I am of the recent letters using racism in a manner that undermines the issues that we are facing as a nation — especially from a past chair of the local Democratic Party. This country was founded on freedom and equality. We have been plagued by racism, and the abuse of those who had no or little voice. Social justice demands a clear and honest debate, a clear and sincere conversation. It has always seemed so obvious to myself and others from both political spectrums when others will use race, political views or culture to negatively exploit a person to win a debate.

African Americans have been exploited for centuries in this country, and it will be no better if the next president of the United States wins because of using race in or against his favor. A recent poll stated 90 percent of Americans have no problem with an African American president. I would hope that would be higher, and pray it is not lower. I suggest those in politics not appeal to the lower 10 percent of our voters.

Mick Sheldon

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 3:40 PM

Carl Copas- It's not a waste of time, as you would see if you watched the video I posted. Nixon would have been prosecuted after he was out of office, barring the pardon he got from a fellow Republican.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 9, 2008 3:47 PM

Gordon,

That's true but look at what the last literalist did. Are you really willing to risk it?

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 9, 2008 3:55 PM

Payshun - I assume you mean GW Bush? Aside form the fact that you and I strongly disagree on your premise (that he caused widespread havoc) I don't think it had anything much to do with his Biblical literalism.

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 3:59 PM

"My question is why can't you handle someone actually challenging your beliefs and questioning them? "

Your comments have made that hard to do . Perhaps email , sounds like a kid who thinks he is better then the person you are talking with . Thats the way it comes off on email . If its my insecurity , then it is my insecurity . either way ,if you are a Christian , pray for me . I need all the help I can get .

The body is suppose to build each other up , here it appears you tear parts of the body down because some are smarter then others . This appears based on political views also .

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 4:04 PM

"
Good reading and delves into the more detailed pipework of the GOP's deliberate attempt to welcome the Thurmond/Wallace crowd with open arms.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne

Do you and paysun go to the same church ?

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 4:08 PM

Don - that's a good point.

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 4:13 PM

Kevin Wayne -- Actually, the Klan itself never publicly endorsed Reagan; more specifically, one Georgia Grand Dragon (whom I'm not sure was speaking for the whole organization) did. His name was Bruce Wilkinson or Wilkerson, I'm not sure which.

Posted by: Rick | September 9, 2008 4:15 PM

He tilts extremly to the left hence unfortunately the name calling ."

'No, Michael, we've been here before. Obama is not an extreme leftist. He only appears that way because US politics have tilted so far to the right. Obama is really a moderate"

Well we disagree to disagree Don . or you can take the road I can't handle by Faith and denomination being ridiculed . I suggest the comments here are extremly tilted to the left also , and actually based in extremism and meant to dehumanize people , not challenge .

What say you . To think Reverend Wright was attacked for anything but political reasons by the right is exactly what is going on here .

The difference in my opinion is I happen to like Obama , his extreme views and ratings by liberal organizations of the left all rate him higher then other democrats . Are you saying the other democrats have moved to the right ?
I see the country moving to the middle , gay rights is not an issue in many places, abortion either , its the economy and energy .

As it should be .

Oh yeah arh arh Squeak , I get it . Not to suggest making jokes about righties means you are inclined to vote for lefties. ? That would be insulting ?

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 4:18 PM

Thank you so much for posting the Time article for which I would have never seen. It is truly God's blessing for me to learn what she had to say, so much obliged!

Posted by: Steve | September 9, 2008 4:20 PM

Rich, If you are looking at who to vote for purely on the VP pick why would you not reject Obama for his rejection of Hillary?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 9, 2008 4:22 PM

Payshun,
I accept your sincere and helpful comment.
Blessings,
Witness for Peace

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 9, 2008 4:25 PM

Michael,

No we don't go to the same church. I am actually going to a pentecostal/evangelical church myself even though I disagree sharply with it's premise and goals I must learn to reconcile with those I disagree with. Not only that but I am honestly starting to believe they have a lot to teach me.

There are very few churches in the states that line up with my beliefs. My ideal church would more than likely be found in France in the Taize community. It's a multi-church, multi-denominational community that seeks to bring all the different parts of the Christian tree together into union. They bring the orthodox, Catholic, Protestants together in the hope that love and reconciliation can be lived for all.

It's a great community.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 9, 2008 4:32 PM

Don,

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_/ai_n9333645

Please read that. It talks about some of George Bush's theology. The thing is we know what a lot of it is because he has talked about it.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 9, 2008 4:42 PM

I will do my best to stop belittling yours. That's all I can do. But I would ask you to do your best to stop belittling mine or others.

p

Thats sounds great my man ! Which basically was my whole point . The degrading belief promoted of "intellectual lacking" of denomination over another . Different cultures , different experiences , all come into play .

But dont you take all politics out of this and see some nasty stuff coming from those who support your political views here . I see that from conservatives , I see that from me , so yeah I am insecure , I am HUMAN . To see that we use religion as a means to degrade people , even those who are related to us In Christ ! Just to make political gains ? I guess if you see religion and politics interwined , it is harder to see what I am saying .

My Faith promotes my desire to be right in politics , it does not however mean i am right !!!!!! If you believe your politics is the same as your faith in Christ , yikes I am getting out of your way . Because your a train looking for a wreck .

If a person insults Obamas Faith background , and is called on it , in defence he says well you are degrading mine . I do question the Faith in Christ of anyone who will ridicule a brother or sister to gain a political advantage . Because that brother or sister is in need of correction , and perhaps my method is wrong , but not the reasoning .

When I do it , and I have . I question my self . You seem to be gaining that vision of self examination also , how very conservative of you my friend . ;0)

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 5:00 PM

"Many in fact have -- in fact, they're now winning elections in Southern states in part by declaring their independence from the national party."

It was a significant factor in the 2006 mid-term elections

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 5:01 PM

Hey people, take a breath. I don't think that Jim Wallis is a leftist. Waaait. What he wants us to do is look at all the candidates and sift through what they want to do for the people of this country. Like Barak Obama says it starts at the bottom to the top. We the people!!! Have your heard that before.
I think Amy Sullivan is right on in her article. I agree with her. When you have lived through as many presidents as I have and wondered how people voted these candidates in? I wonder if any should vote until they take a test on the issues, and what the candidates stand for on their platform.
I have found that many people are closed minded and want to believe what they want to believe.
I believe what Joe Biden say is true. As a Catholic he does not believe in abortion but he knows he cannot push his beliefs on all the people. Yes Michael what is wrong with being a populist that is not being liberal.

Posted by: Judith | September 9, 2008 5:10 PM

Michael--

My joke was exactly what I said it was. A joke. Nothing more, nothing less. Other than the fact Don's response to you reminded me of the joke, the joke itself had nothing to do with the conversation whatsoever or with you or with anything you said. Which is why I prefaced the joke with the words, "Completely off topic."

"Oh yeah arh arh Squeak , I get it . Not to suggest making jokes about righties means you are inclined to vote for lefties. ? That would be insulting ?"

Well, no clearly, you did not get the joke, otherwise you wouldn't have been insulted. You maybe would have chuckled, rolled your eyes, groaned, or laughed hilariously, depending on how much you like bad jokes. But you wouldn't have been insulted...well, I suppose if you hate bad jokes, you might have been insulted...

It is my bad, though. I probably should have considered the joke would only be funny to fellow musicians, so I will interpret the joke for those of you who aren't musicians. But be warned, it will probably not be as funny, as jokes never are when you have to explain them.

Violas and violins are not the same size--violas are bigger. Violinists are known for being the orchestra prima donas and having huge egos. With that as background information, here again, is the joke:

Why are violas bigger than violins?

They aren't. They only look that way. Violinist's heads are bigger.

Ba-dum-dum...crash!

So, no, I wasn't making a joke about righties or lefties. It was a joke about violinists and their huge egos. Of course, a violinist might find the joke insulting.

So for the sake of being well-balanced. Here is a drummer joke (I'm a drummer).

How do you know a drummer is at your door?

You hear:

*knock* *knock*

"Dominoes!"

Posted by: squeaky | September 9, 2008 5:24 PM

Michael said:
When I do it , and I have . I question my self . You seem to be gaining that vision of self examination also , how very conservative of you my friend . ;0)

Me:
Well that's good to know because your posts have not made that clear. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you have done a good job explaining how you separate your religion from your politics. Actually I learned that level of self-analysis from my fellow green party hippies. So it really sounds like you might be coming to my side a little bit. LOL

I am a devout secularist, it's really easy for me to keep my spiritual beliefs separate from political ones that's why I support Gay marriage. Me using that as an example is not something I will debate in this thread so please just look at that as an example and nothing more. For me spirituality and politics are separate and have nothing to do with each other.

"I do question the Faith in Christ of anyone who will ridicule a brother or sister to gain a political advantage ."

Well it's not your job, the last time I checked you are not God. Only God can question and answer if someone is a Christian or not. He is the only one that knows the hearts of men. We don't even know our own hearts. Remember the second part of the golden rule, love your neighbor as yourself, if you question another's Christianity you ultimately question yours. I don't think you want to do that do you?

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 9, 2008 5:30 PM

level ground people - that is all we ask for

If that were truly the case there would be no issue. But in fact, you (plural) don't want your views analyzed, scrutinized and dissected because they often come out looking bad in the end. I get tired of the political right complaining about "persecution," especially from the media (which I'm in), when it's more likely to do the persecuting in the first place.

Posted by: Rick | September 9, 2008 5:49 PM

Me:
Well that's good to know because your posts have not made that clear. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you have done a good job explaining how you separate your religion from your politics

Don actually wrote a good post explaing about the pit falls of email and exchange . Not a very good method actually . You may be seeing too much into things from your own perspective and prejudices .
its possible you know .

'I am a devout secularist,"

Part of the communication gap . Differnent perceptions and even different meaning of words.

"Well it's not your job, the last time I checked you are not God"

Oh people who portary themselves as part of the body of Christ and lead those astray is very much all of our jobs , we are to expose them . Cast them out from among us . That was for a reason , as not to take down the weaker ones and new in Christ . Paul warned about false prohphets all the time . Those who promote sexual perversions or spirtual perversions .

Getting a bit insecure again P. You apologize then go right back at it .

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 5:51 PM

Thanks Don! Glad you enjoyed the jokes!

Garrison's Guide is classic. I particularly like his characterization of the harpists and the percussionists as the two most patient members of the orchestra. Percussionists are patient because they have to count through 300 measures of rest to play one (count 'em, one) triangle note (and I have played pieces like that, so he is not exaggerating). And of course, that not eis pivotal to the whole piece (I've also missed that important note countless times as well).

Harpists are patient because they take hours and hours to tune their harp, and then some joker opens the door, and it's out of tune again.

Good stuff.

"Dumkopfs! Sprechen sie nicht uber Musick!"

oops--it's the ghost of Schoenberg telling us to get back on track. Better be careful or Stravinski will weigh in, and then this site will really be going to the Communists.

Cheers!

Posted by: squeaky | September 9, 2008 6:00 PM

"The last prominent Republican who shared Palin's religious faith was John Ashcroft (Bush's first Attorney General)."

So Sister Marie , what religious faith are you ?

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 6:06 PM

Squeaky,

At the end of the age when all the believers were standing in line waiting to get into heaven, God appeared and said, "I want all the men to form two lines. One line will be for the men who were the true heads of their households. The other will be for the men who were dominated by their wives."

God continued, "I want all the women to report to St. Peter."

The women left and the men formed two lines. The line of men who were dominated by their wives was seemingly unending. The line of men who were the true head of their household had one man in it.

God said to the first line, "You men ought to be ashamed or yourselves. I appointed you to be the heads of your households and you were disobedient and have not fulfilled your purpose. Of all of you, there is only one man who obeyed me. Learn from him."

Then God turned to the lone man and asked, "How did you come to be in this line?"

The man replied, "My wife told me to stand here."

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 6:18 PM

There's that term "Christian Right" again. I prefer to say "Religious Right." The right wing has a religion alright, but I don't recognize Christianity in it.

Posted by: Jim Allyn | September 9, 2008 6:44 PM

Palin apparently did more than "consider" banning books. When she was mayor, she asked the Wasilla public librarian if it would be OK to remove some books from the shelves. When the librarian replied, no, that would not be OK, Palin tried to have the librarian fired. So she did more than simply decide it was a bad idea.

Posted by: Don

Don once again this false , its a distortion of what happened . It gives a false distortion of what happened . Grow UP !

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 6:49 PM

Is Michael the old "Mick"?

Posted by: JamesM | September 9, 2008 6:53 PM

am NOT wrong and I am NOT bearing false witness. I NEVER said Mayor Palin actually banned books; I never even used that term.

Previous post on this blog by Don

Palin apparently did more than "consider" banning books.

I also never said that she actually attempted to ban books.

This is what you said

When she was mayor, she asked the Wasilla public librarian if it would be OK to remove some books from the shelves.

Sounds like she asked to have books removed Don!

I DID say that Mayor Palin suggested to the librarian whether it would be OK to remove unspecified books from the shelves, and that Palin later asked the librarian for her resignation.

Why is it so important for you to try and prove me wrong that you distort what I wrote?

And that's something I still believe to be true.

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 3:05 PM

Because you failed to give an honest understanding of the situation , that with other material and lies that have not been bothered to be refuted her , only slimjing has been defended by the hosts here . The post above saying the Christian Right is not Christian but the religious right , while listening to a far more moral young man taking me to task for asking those who spread lies and vulgar impressions of people they disagree with if they are Christians . Why is it ok to call one person on their faith , while I am seeing here people calling millions they do not know on theirs ?

Appears some want others to be held up to scrunity , and not their own selves . Thats why !

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 7:00 PM

Don once again this false , its a distortion of what happened . It gives a false distortion of what happened . Grow UP !

I think you should stop the personal insults, Michael. Re-read my comments of 3:05 PM. I am not wrong, and I didn't distort anything.

I think you need to grow up Don , that is no personal attack . Especially when you represent those people of Faith on a blog . You attack those clearly from a political stand point , You promote rumor and distortion , you even stated you never used the word ban , when I just showed you did .

Why is so important to past on slime you don't know the whole story to ?

Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 7:06 PM

--Don more to come , But notice the title
Sliming Palin
False Internet Claims .
How did you correct those claims / or did you perpetuate them .
And remember your under oath . ;0)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Summary
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 7:13 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986/output/print

Another Newsweek piece with the Title

SLIMING PALIN

In this piece it says the librarian that was fired was hired the next day . And vesrions of the story have two sides , one from the librarian and one from Palin

Obviously only one is given here . Thats fair Don . We are talking about people , I thought after Bush was gone the left would slow down , it looks like they picked up the pace .

These may be not the best choice for leadership of our country , but they seem like both to be honorable and descent people .

Same with Obama Barak , not sure about Biden .
But let the folks win on their issues or loose on them . What are you afraid of , especially here ?

The obvious disdain for anything on the right , or I mean when the right is only analzized .t always shows up short on ideas and full of lies and blaming .

Do you really believe this when we are discussin how much we should tax people before it hurts , or if we should drill for oil while we do other stuff to become energy independent ?

Here it becomes one religion is narrow, one is enlightened . In conservative circles it is NO better . How can you say different ?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Sliming Palin September 8, 2008

Michael:

You need to go back to factcheck.org and look at the updated "sliming Palin" report. They made some corrections earlier today from things that they posted yesterday (Sept. 8), including and especially the testimony of the Wasilla librarian.

I never repeated the education funding cut claim, the Independence Party claim, the Buchanan claim, or the creationism claim. The only one I mentioned is the library book incident, and factcheck bears out what I wrote. Read it for yourself. I'm NOT passing off slime.

And your admonition for me to grow up is indeed an insult and a personal attack.

You are beginning to make me angry, to be honest. Why you continue beating me up with this nonsense is beyond me. Once again, you need to take a breather from this because you are getting frustrated.

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 7:28 PM

Don -

I was somewhat perplexed by the Dolores Lear post. Not at all sure what she was getting at, or what it had to do with the article she was responding to.

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 7:32 PM

Gordon, this Dolores Lear posted the same stuff on several of the recent threads, in some cases more than once (go through the threads with your browser find feature and you'll find them). Fortunately, they have been for the most part ignored. For that reason, it was a good example for me to use in my point to Michael that not all posts are worth responding to.

Don

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 7:37 PM

OK, Don, I get it.

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 7:40 PM

Michael--you posted responses to Don while I was writing to you that included your evidence to refute his evidence. So I see you are doing that, which is good.

Don wrote what I was essentially writing while I was writing it, too. So, sorry for the repeated suggestions, but again, I hope you take it to heart.

You should read your posts before you send them. Read them as if you are receiving them, and if there is anything you think might be insulting from the perspective of the person reading them, then remove it. It takes more time, but it is well worth it.

Posted by: squeaky | September 9, 2008 7:42 PM

neuro_nurse!

It has been so long! Where have you been?

Well, true about Stravinsky. But, some on this site would probably jump to the conclusion he was just a commy.

I remember the attempts at analyzing Schonberg in my 20th century analysis classes. I had a hard time with that.

A BASS PLAYER!?! I love bass players! They are a percussionist's nearest kin, both in jazz and us timpanists! I learned a lot about playing timpany from watching the bass section!

Did you play in New Orleans? Do you still play at all? Compose anything?

Charles Ives rocks. His comment about Rachmaninoff--Rach-not-man-enough.

Schostakovich! (someone say "God Bless You" or, more appropriately, given the conversation in German, Gesundheit)

Posted by: squeaky | September 9, 2008 7:52 PM

I don't know if they're sold on Palin. I'm somewhat skeptical myself. But I am completely confident that, whatever issues evangelicals may have, they will not sell out to Obama-Biden.

Posted by: James Banks | September 9, 2008 7:57 PM

Whatever evangelicals' issues, I am confident that they will never sell-out to Obama-Biden, particularly after the former's sorry performance at Saddleback. And who are these new evangelicals that people like Wallis and Sullivan keep talking about anyway? And what is it precisely that makes them evangelicals other than that they refer to themselves as such?

Posted by: James Banks | September 9, 2008 8:06 PM

Michael,

If you really paid attention to my posts, you would see that whenever I see someone who consistently is being rude to others, I say something. The key is the word "consistently". You would also notice that I have ignored a lot of rude comments, but I have ignored them on both sides of the political spectrum. Just go back on this thread alone and look at all the rudeness I passed up the opportunity to police! If I addressed every rude comment made on this site, I would never go home.

I commented to you because you are consistently throwing stuff into conversations that just does not belong there. You are conversing with INDIVIDUALS, and bringing in stuff that other people have said has nothing to do with the conversations you are having with INDIVIDUALS (caps for emphasis, I'm not shouting). It is as if you think the person you are conversing with made the comments you are upset about. It is as if you take every conversation you have here as an opportunity to complain about this site and to unload your anger about a post that someone else made on a different thread a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Look, if you want to have meaningful dialogues here, wipe the slate clean with each conversation, and stop bringing up unrelated stuff from other people's posts or comments or insults or whatever. Focus on the person you are conversing with. Pretend the person is right in front of you.

As for the Kevin comment, you might have said "hey, that was rude. You owe Kevin an apology" when that comment was made. I didn't see that one, so I don't know what you are talking about.

So often, though, when someone comes to another's defense, instead of saying what I just wrote above, they just use another insult. Avoid that, and just respectfully make your request for more Christ-like discourse.

We are all responsible for making this site more reflective of Christ's love. And I would encourage you not to make excuses for your own part in lowering the discourse. Saying, "well, she or he said this or that mean comment to this or that person" is no excuse for repeating the same behavior, as any parent would tell any child. You are not responsible for anyone else on this site but yourself. If you want to see the level of discourse be more Christlike, then strive to raise it in your own discourse.

Posted by: squeaky | September 9, 2008 8:19 PM

“BTW I am not Catholic but I follow the teachings of their mystics.” Payshun

Speaking of Catholic mysticism and evolution, have you ever read “The Phenomenon of Man” by Teilhard de Chardin? (Have I asked you that before?)

“Heavens, my mother questioned my husband's salvation before we got married, but never did she ask where he stood on creation.”

I’m a Catholic liberal married to a conservative Baptist. Creation/evolution was a topic of much serious discussion before we were married.

"It has been so long! Where have you been?"

Studying. Actually, I have a copy of the cancelled check for my registration for the ASTMH tropical medicine certification exam to remind me that I shouldn't be blogging!

"Well, true about Stravinsky. But, some on this site would probably jump to the conclusion he was just a commy."

Stravinsky is my main man, but then, so are Duke Ellington, Charles Mingus, Johnny Cash, Joe Strummer, J.S. Bach, Sun Ra....

"I remember the attempts at analyzing Schonberg in my 20th century analysis classes. I had a hard time with that."

Sometimes it's better just to listen - although Schönberg is not something I can put on when the wife's around.

"Did you play in New Orleans?"

New Orleans is my adopted home, I'm not a native, but if I could live the life, I’d play funk - George Porter-style!

"Do you still play at all?"

I pull out my Telecaster (yeah, I know, but I love that sound!) when I get tired of studying. I spent some time on Die Kunst der Fuge with my 4-track recorder, but I struggle with those movable C-clefs.

“Compose anything?”

I have some staff paper around here somewhere. Every now and then I get an idea, a mode to play around with, I’ll scribble it down, and then forget about it.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | September 9, 2008 8:29 PM

Hey PX,

Ahh, Stravinsky--my fave as well. I'm partial to the 20th Century, which makes sense, being a percussionist.

True about Schonberg--really, about most 20th century music.

I hope you are able to take lots of breaks to get some music going. It's so important for us musicians to get an outlet, especially when we have moved away from that passion. I"m playing in a jazz ensemble in my new job here. It's not great, but at least I get to play, and get some of my chops back. And it's fun.

I'm not a composer, but I was in Belize earlier this summer, in the rainforest. And the sounds of the rainforest were something I wish I had the talent to create a musical piece with. It was just incredible. Very rhythmic. Often I think God is a far better artist than any one of us could ever hope to be. All our art is but a feeble attempt at recreating the Glory He has already created in His creation.

Get back to work!

Posted by: squeaky | September 9, 2008 9:04 PM

If I were to join an orthodox church it would be the Copts.

I sort of like the Armenians myself, even though I'm not Armenian. But I like their story.

Yes, I do like Alan Hovhannes' music. He was part Armenian. I haven't performed very much of it, though.

I have a real love for renaissance polyphony--Josquin, Byrd, Palestrina, etc. I could listen to that all day. But I like lots of kinds of music from all periods. I took a course on Schoenberg and Ives back in college--they were born the same year. I definitely like Ives better. Our theory/comp. teacher was big on Bartok, too, so I learned to like his music as well. And of course I like all the other usual suspects: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Mahler, and, oh, yes, Stravinsky.

I like Miles Davis a lot--trumpet player, you know. Ellington, too, of course, and Count Basie. And the music I can't put on when my wife is home is bluegrass. She doesn't really like that renaissance stuff all that much, either.

But you'll have to tell me who Sun Ra is. That's not a familiar name.

It's quite fun to have so many music lovers and musicians on this blog.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 9:15 PM

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has been travelling.

Anyway, I think Amy Sullivan was well-advised to pick her words carefully. She might have been better advised not to say anything at all.

Here's the latest from FactCheck.org. Their title sums it up pretty well: "Sliming Palin". Their quick summary of the situation is as follows:

"She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a 'What if?' question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term."

Unless something else comes up, I think we should consider the matter closed.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 9, 2008 9:19 PM

"Oh people who portary themselves as part of the body of Christ and lead those astray is very much all of our jobs , we are to expose them . Cast them out from among us . That was for a reason , as not to take down the weaker ones and new in Christ . Paul warned about false prohphets all the time . Those who promote sexual perversions or spirtual perversions ."

But she did not lead anyone astray and kicking out people out of the church had to deal with a very specific type of sin. There is always more grace and mercy than what you are saying. I don't know if what I am writing makes sense but if it doesn't please ask questions. She's still a member of the church and is still a Christian. Since she's working her second Walmart job (laughing)I am going to leave this topic alone. I have made my point and that's all I really need to say.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 9, 2008 9:21 PM

Lord Voldemort--

First, welcome back. But you just copied the synopsis of factcheck's commentary. You need to read their full analysis of the library incident. It contains important detail.

D

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 9:27 PM

The Ethiopians vehemently deny that they are Copts. They Insist that they are the Autonomous Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Beyond that, I don't know all that much about their history.

I have a real respect for the Copts, a church that has survived intense persecution for so long.

Posted by: Gordon | September 9, 2008 9:29 PM

Don -

Imagine a picture of a jagged-edged, broken oval. Inside crouches a middle-aged man holding a pen and a piece of music paper. The caption: "Hovhannes in eggshell sits."

Sorry for all the bad jokes. Sometimes, when things get really testy, the best antidotes are laughter and music. Glad to see both cropping up here.

Posted by: Another nonymous | September 9, 2008 9:33 PM

Don,

I assume that the "critical detail" you speak of was Palin's firing the librarian, then rehiring her shortly thereafter. But FactCheck explicitly says there's no evidence that the firing was due to the censorship issue -- one of the things that any chief executive does is go through the personnel and bring in his or her own people. Now in this case, Palin jumped the gun and was forced to back down. This is one of the things that is valuable about even limited executive experience, you learn valuable lessons about what you can and cannot get away with.

This is a story that is crying out for some patience and careful examination -- it's possible there's more there that hasn't come out yet. But right now the left's mindset is "Ready! Fire! Aim!" If there's any halfway sourced bad story about Palin, they'll buy into it with little questioning. Besides being morally wrong, that mindset is self-defeating in the political realm. Pretty soon, even if you find a smoking gun, nobody's going to care because so many other stories just haven't panned out.

I mean, seriously, in 1996 Palin was supposedly ready to ban the entire Potter series? In 1996 Potter was still living under the staircase with the Dursleys.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 9, 2008 11:15 PM

Lord V:

The detail I am referring to is the fact that according to the librarian's own account, Palin pressed her on the topic on at least two occasions. That says to me that Palin was doing more than considering it. Also, factcheck doesn't rule out the possibility that the firing was due to her resistance on the book question, it only says that Palin noted that she felt she didn't have the librarian's support.

According to Anne Kilkenny, Palin reinstated the librarian because of pressure from citizens. We await what factcheck has to say about Kilkenny's account.

We don't know all the facts--yet. But we may learn more soon. I can't categorically dismiss the account as factcheck seems to be doing.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 10, 2008 6:38 AM

Did someone say that this blog was heating up the place. Must be all these silly rumors all of you have been distracted by.

Lets talk about something that really matters.

Palin doesn't believe "Global Warming" is caused by our behavior on the planet.
"Drill baby, drill" her fans are saying. Who cares if Alaska has a melt down. The rapture is going to come anyway.

You bet it will. Is this truly a sign of madness?

Hey! If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen Ms. Governor. This is politics.

We are headed toward a global recession because we can't let go of an energy economy that is dragging us down. My most conservative Republican friends in the tradition of Lincoln are horrified that McCain is already showing his senility.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | September 10, 2008 7:42 AM

Seems that McCain doesn't recognize an insult about the ecomomy when he hears one.

Its just plain ugly and no amount of make up is going to make it pretty.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | September 10, 2008 7:55 AM

"I am troubled by the deep resentment in all of these replies."

In ALL the replies? Are you a violinist too? Hey, I told a drummer joke to balance things out!

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 9:49 AM

Rick--what do you play?

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 12:01 PM

I've enjoyed all the musical discussions. I may need to hijack every thread with music jokes and references from now on. I"m going over to the abortion thread to do just that! See ya there!

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 12:04 PM

Carl: Don't know, but she may be the Whale Rider in diguise.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 10, 2008 12:15 PM

Squeaky -- I play woodwinds, in this group primarily baritone sax.

Posted by: Rick | September 10, 2008 1:12 PM

"Squeaky -- I play woodwinds, in this group primarily baritone sax."

Cool! We now have a trumpet, a bass, a sax, and drums. We can have a Sojo Combo!

Don--well, at least we may be able to eliminate some of the snark, eh? =)

Of course, before you know it, violinists will become offended, and they will shoot bassist jokes, who will fire back with a conductor joke, and we'll be back to our old ways again...

They told a violin joke. And I laughed. And I did nothing to stop it.

They told a trumpet joke. And I laughed. And I did nothing stop it.

They told a piccolo joke. And I laughed. And I did nothing to stop it.

Then they told a percussionist joke. And I didn't laugh at all. Because it wasn't funny, dang it! I mean, that stuff hurts! And everyone else was too busy laughing to do anything to stop it.

(with deepest apologies for "and Then They Came for Me". )

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 2:00 PM

Squeaky: "They told a piccolo joke. And I laughed. And I did nothing to stop it."

LOL. Squeaker's on a roll!

Posted by: carl copas | September 10, 2008 2:05 PM

Rick- Reagan as far as I remmeber, repudiated the WHOLE orgainization of the KKK over that- except that he only did it after a Carter cabnet offficial brought it up.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 10, 2008 4:14 PM

I and I --thanks for the laugh!

The best music to play in such a situation is John Cage's 4'33"

Canucklehead--who's on first?

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 4:52 PM

"Who cares if Alaska has a melt down. The rapture is going to come anyway."

I do! Catholics don't believe in the rapture!

4'33" is about the only piano piece I can play well.

"Another vicious rumor from the Daily Kos (what the heck is a Kos?) is that she is the love child of Stravinski..."

What?! Sarah Palin had Sid Vicious' love child?!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | September 10, 2008 6:36 PM

Neuro-nurse:
I'm interested to know if Catholics believe that all Christians will be on earth, living through the events spoken of in Revelation, known to some Christians as "the seven year tribulation period", since Catholics do not believe in the rapture. I'm not trying to put you on the defense or anything, I just didn't know that about the Catholic doctrine, and now I'm curious to know what Catholics believe instead. In case anyone would now ask about my religion, as I have seen on this thread...I'll pre-empt that by answering that I'm kind of Bapti-costal.
Steph

Posted by: Steph | September 10, 2008 9:32 PM

I should have added the word "political" after "wise" and before "decision" in my comment above.

Posted by: Eric | September 10, 2008 9:39 PM

Wait a minute--we all believe in the rapture, if by "rapture" one means the "catching up" of believers at the return of Christ that Paul mentions in I Thessalonians (ch. 4, I think). What we DON'T believe is the kooky nonsense about the rapture's being a rescue: the dispensational teaching that the we will be caught up for the purpose of returning with Christ to heaven while a period of so-called tribulation ravages the earth. Nor do we believe the nonsense about planes crashing unpiloted and cars without drivers wreaking chaos on the roads.

There are so many theological problems with that view that it would take too long to discuss them. But one problem is that the Greek wording of the passage in Thessalonians means meeting the Lord and escorting him on his way back to earth, not meeting him in the middle of the sky and then turning around and going back to heaven.

The second, and bigger, problem, is that God doesn't normally "rescue" believers from suffering and persecution. If there is to be a future "great tribulation" (and interpretations vary about that), then believers will be going through it; we won't be rescued from it. It would be an insult to all the martyrs and other believers who have suffered for their faith if God had ordained that the last generation of believers would be snatched away from trouble and not have to experience suffering.

No, I'm not Roman Catholic. But I think my views on this topic are close to Catholic views.

Steph: Most of the events of Revelation have already occurred, because they were fulfilled during the period of Roman persecution of Christians. Revelation isn't a road map to future events; it's a book of aid and comfort for suffering and persecuted believers.

Nobody has yet told me who Sun Ra was (Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 9:15 PM)

Peace,

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 11, 2008 7:22 AM

Don,

Sun Ra a.k.a Herman Blount:

An avant-garde jazz composer/conductor/musician, started out in Fletcher Henderson's big band in 1940's. His Arkestra used a lot of space sounds, organ, tape loops, and had an excellent trumpeter named John Gilmore. Claimed to be from Saturn, and had his own cult following (literally). Dressed in outlandish garb and was, well, quite hefty. Died in 1993-94 (I remember where I was living at the time).

He was very prolific, but much of his catalogue is out of print and will likely stay that way as many master tapes have been damaged by heat and water. There are quite a few available on the market that are worth a listen, but you may want to sample it at Barnes and Noble before you actually buy. My personal favorites are "Space is the Place" and "The Magic City," but others here might have their own recommendations.

Posted by: I and I | September 11, 2008 9:30 AM

What was it like to see Sun Ra live?

Fun!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | September 11, 2008 9:44 AM

Thanks for the info about Sun Ra, I & I.

D

Posted by: Don | September 11, 2008 12:59 PM

"...and now are made fun of by Newsweek..."

My dear Michelle, did it ever occur to you that perhaps attitudes like yours might have more to do with the ridicule than the Christian Left or the emergent church?

I would hate to think what you were saying, or would have said, during the church's involvement with the civil rights movement. Funny, a lot of people that make fun of the war-on-Christmas whiners and Falwell/Dobson followers don't make fun of the many Christians in the social justice movements. I wonder which kind of Christian is a better witness?

Posted by: I and I | September 11, 2008 5:21 PM

Thanks for responding, Don and neuro_nurse! I can see the logic behind your responses, and I appreciate the detail and care you both took to answer. I'm always interested to hear other views.

And, neuro_nurse, it's cool that you mentioned the Greek Orthodox beliefs. For a while now I've been trying to read through and understand their sacraments, and I've been pretty impressed. Can you give me that link for their beliefs again; the link you included didn't direct me to a Greek Orthodox site.

-------------

"Do your good works privately and then vote for a person who is as close to the Ten Commandments as possible." - Michele

Michele, I can see that you believe very strongly in the sanctity of life, and so do I. It bothers me that Democrats won't compromise on the abortion issue. It seems like, as much as Democrats like to talk down special interests and lobbyists, their conglomerate view on abortion is one example of their attachment and reliance on these special interests.

However, for us Christians, shouldn't our rule of thumb be The Sermon on the Mount? Jesus said to love everyone - even those who hate us! I can tell that we have a fundamental difference in opinion as far as politics go, but I've sometimes thought, when I hear this remark about living out the Ten Commandments and their appointed supremacy as they relate to our society, that if we were expected to vote based on who was closest to the Ten Commandments, I don't know if I could ever vote, and I would never expect others to vote for me! No one can meet those standards at all the way that Christ explains them, that's why we're depended on the redemptive, gracious work of the cross. I'm not tied down by morality and a rule book, I'm merely required to love and show grace to those I come into contact with. And many times that's harder to do than simply following a set of rules in my private life.

I'd rather have a candidate who talked about reliance on the cross than a candidate who made morality a dogma. But then I'd really rather have a candidate who held to no religion at all than a candidate who espoused a religion he or she superficially believes just to get elected.

Also, while I love hearing Jim Wallis' political opinions, I don't hold all of them personally, and I think that if you even look at his style of writing, you will see that he's trying to raise awareness and bring things up for discussion rather than be some kind of moral authority (like James Dobson tries to be).

Posted by: Steph | September 11, 2008 10:37 PM

When did honesty stop being an important Christian value? “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” “Let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else is from the devil.” Don’t the ten commandments and directions from Christ matter any more?

This trend started way before Sarah Palin joined the McCain ticket.
•Lie: McCain ad, accusing Obama of "snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital at Landstuhl because he could not take reporters with him.
The truth is Obama visited three other hospitals while on that trip with out the press. The plan was always to exclude the press from this visit as well. The visit was cancelled because the rest of the congressional delegation had left. Only Obama and a political advisor would have been visiting and he did not want to politicize the visit. McCain knew this and ran the false ad anyway.
•Lie: McCain ad says Chicago power broker Tony Rezko got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers." It says Rezko "purchased part of the property [Obama] couldn't afford."
The truth is there's no evidence of any connection to the Obama home purchase. The $14 million was to build apartments for low-income seniors. Obama wrote a letter supporting the "worthy" project, but both men say Rezko didn't ask for the letter. Rezko's wife did buy an adjoining tract but later sold the land at a profit. Obama paid market price for his home.
•Lie: A McCain ad shows pictures of wind-driven turbines while the narrator says: "Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that's John McCain."
The truth is his energy plan doesn't specify any new federal spending for renewable energy and says only that he'd "rationalize" existing tax credits to provide incentives. In the past, however, he's opposed extending such tax credits when paid for by tax increases elsewhere.
•Lie: McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families.
The truth is Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.
•McCain is still running an ad about a bill in Illinois that Senator Obama voted for to educate children about good touching and bad touching as “legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners.” One might ask why John McCain supports protecting pedophiles, but that would be a lie . . . I think.

Now Sarah Palin, a self proclaimed evangelical Christian, has joined in. These lies fall into two categories. Those about herself designed to pad her resume’, and those about her opponent designed to tear down his character.

First the lies about herself:
•Lie: She opposed the bridge to nowhere
The truth is she supported the bridge to nowhere when she was running for Governor, "I'm not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation and the position of strength that they have right now." After congress removed the earmark, but left the funding for it, she then said “thanks but no thanks.” As Governor she, took the money and spent it elsewhere.
•Lie: She has fought against earmarks and pork-barrel spending
The truth is she encouraged the people of Alaska to support their congressional delegation while they were in such a strong position to bring federal dollars home to their state. As mayor of Wasilla she helped that delegation bring $27M to her little town of less than 9,000.
•Lie: She sold her government plane on e-bay
The truth is she tried to sell the state’s plane, which by the way was not just the governor’s plane but was also used to transport prisoners, on e-bay three times unsuccessfully. She finally sold it at a loss through an aviation broker.

Now the other kind of lie, the false witness against Obama.
•Lie: Obama “has not authored any laws or reforms even in the state senate.”
The truth is Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies. “If Palin’s own ethics reforms in Alaska were important enough to highlight in her convention address, then it’s only fair to credit Obama’s efforts on that topic. In 1998 in the Illinois Senate, Obama cosponsored an ethics overhaul that bars elected officials from using their campaign funds for personal use and and was called the the first major overhaul of Illinois campaign and ethics laws in 25 years. It also bans fundraisers in the state Capitol during legislative sessions. Obama’s Republican cosponsor Kirk Dillard even appeared in an Obama ad last summer describing Obama’s skills working with members of both parties to get legislation passed.
In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they “bundle” to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices.” - Factcheck.org
•Lie: Obama “will raise your taxes”.
The truth - One assumes that not everyone in the audience at the convention and on TV make over $250,000 a year. In fact I don’t need to assume, I was watching and I don’t make anywhere near $250,000. Only people who make over $250,000 will see their taxes go up when the Bush tax cuts for that income level are allowed to expire. “81.3 percent of all households would get a tax cut” - Factcheck.org
•Lie: Obama “opposes producing more energy.”
The truth - On the contrary he wants to produce more energy that are not dependent on terrorism supporting middle-eastern countries. What could be more American than that? “Obama's not against producing more energy. In fact, he's not even against drilling for oil any more, within limits. He has a $150 billion clean energy program and says that he wants to develop clean coal technology, advance the next generation of biofuels, prioritize construction of the Alaska gas pipeline (surely a measure Palin agrees with) and take a host of other steps to both conserve energy and produce it, in various forms.” – FactCheck.org
•Lie: Obama “wants to forfeit Iraq.”
The truth is Obama has said the removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months.
•Lie: Obama “wants to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.”
The truth is Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Beyond that though, how much stronger will we be as a nation when we drastically reduce our dependence on oil.

At the convention McCain said:
•Lie: Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor."
The truth is the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.
•Lie: Obama voted for "corporate welfare" for oil companies.
The truth is the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.
•Lie: Obama would "close" markets to trade.
The truth is Obama, though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.

So why are evangelicals flowing to the McCain/Palin camp? Jesus warned us about false prophets and how to tell which ones are false. “Ye shall know them by their fruits. . . . A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.“ The fruit from the McCain/Palin campaign is not good fruit. It’s the same evil fruit that brought down McCain in 2000. Do we really want another bowl?

Posted by: VoiceOfReason | September 12, 2008 5:10 PM

OIL IS FOR DINOSAURS

Posted by: Patrick Gasparro | September 13, 2008 11:49 AM