|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What is the Right Kind of Christian for President?
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Is there are a "right" kind of Christian for the Presidency? The headline on CNN's main page caught my eye "Is Obama the Wrong Kind Of Christian?" along with an exchange between Sam Brownback at a megachurch as follows:
quote:
When Brownback rose to speak, he joked that he had joined Obama earlier at an NAACP meeting where Obama was treated like Elvis and he was virtually ignored. Turning to Obama, a smiling Brownback said, “Welcome to my house!”
The audience exploded with laughter and applause. Obama rose, walked before the congregation and then declared:
“There is one thing I have to say, Sam. This is my house, too. This is God’s house.”
And this:
quote:
Some Christians, however, still see Obama as the “other.” He doesn’t act or talk like other Christians, says the Rev. Gary Cass, a conservative Christian president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.
“I just don’t see or hear in his accounts the kind of things that I’ve heard as a minister for over 25 years coming from the mouths of people who have genuinely converted to Christianity,” says Cass, pastor of Christ Church in San Diego.
Cass says he’s never heard Obama say he’s “born-again.” There’s no emotional conversion story to hang onto. Obama talks about his faith and attends church, but Cass says that doesn’t mean he’s a Christian.
Many consider Obama a hybrid Christian (a phrase used by Diane Butler Bass) because he doesn't say the right buzzwords and didn't have an emotional conversion experience. He's also partial to liberal causes, many of which are Biblical imperatives, such as caring for the poor and the sick.
It wouldn't have been so long ago that Mitt Romney would have been considered the wrong kind of Christian because he's Mormon, but that seems to have been set aside as he's been using the right buzzwords and supporting the causes dear to the politics of one group of Christians. John Kennedy overcame the notion that Catholics weren't the right kind of Christian back in the 1960's and I haven't read anything about challenges to his Christianity after election. So what is the difference in this campaign with a sitting president where many are still challenging his Christianity. What is the "right kind" of Christianity?
Personally, I don't think anyone should have the right to openly challenge a candidate's or a sitting president's Christianity. I also have no objections to someone who isn't a Christian being President, but that isn't the question being raised. Comments?
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The religious right's litmus test for candidates has never been one of faith, it has been one of politics. The "religious" bit is incidental to the "right". It's why they don't have much problem with Randians.
Excuses about Obama not being really a Christian are just that - excuses, and bad ones at that.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
just read the article cited. Now I live in Canada and watch the going ons in USA . They are oh so quick to cite the "founding fathers" as model Christians, Franklin a skirt chaser,Washington Diest, Jefferson he edited out parts of scripture he disagreed with , oh and both the last 2 were slave owners.
Later presidents Lincoln was not known to attend church, nor many of the more recent ones either.
On the other side you had pompous prigs , Hoover , he didn't serve wines or spirits
in the White House, Wilson he believed his 14 points divinely inspired. Cleamanceau President of France said "even God only had 10"
Now where does Mr. Obama sit ? We won't know that until history is written . But he was brought up in a family with many traditions But
he has the enthusism of the Afro American church and the social concern of the social gospellers of the late 19th century. So to the fundies he is the wrong kind of Christian.
my judgement ? I leave that to God alone ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
PaulBC, the history you brought up along with the attacks on a candidate's/sitting President's Christianity are a major reason I am all for separation of church and state. I hear many clamoring for bringing back Christianity into government, but whose version of Christianity and was it really ever there? Also we are a diverse nation, does that mean only Christians are to be in government? According to some the Muslims currently in Congress are a dire threat and they too have been attacked for their religion.
I do know Romney's Mormon faith was an issue in the last Presidential election, but he's visited the right churches, said the right words and tried as best he can to fit the mold and his faith has not been an issue this go around.
Obama's upbringing has been mentioned and attacked and his background in black Christian churches (not just Wright's) have made some claim he's not a Christian and it is outrageous for Pastor's to be publicly claiming he's not a Christian for not being a clone of their making and not fitting into a mold.
I do suppose what is meant by claiming a Presidential candidate isn't "the right kind of Christian" really means they don't have the "right kind" of politics. I also don't think God is much in to being a Democrat or a Republican (or any other political party)
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Many consider Obama a hybrid Christian (a phrase used by Diane Butler Bass) because he doesn't say the right buzzwords and didn't have an emotional conversion experience.
Gosh, I'll bet he's never even prayed the Sinner's Prayer! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
He's a liberal Protestant which will never pass muster with the "Moral Majority "
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Cass says he’s never heard Obama say he’s “born-again.”
According to the Oliver Stone movie W., about the last president, the elder Bush, when asked by evangelicals in 1988 to say that he was "born again", refused to do so, implying that as an Episcopalian, he didn't feel comfortable making that assertion.
I don't know the veracity of that, but according to this, the younger Bush, as of 2004, had never said he was "born again" either. So, if the more evangelical Jr. never used the phrase, it seems likely that the Epsicopalian dad wouldn't have either.
And yet I doubt Mr. Cass was raking either of these men over the coals for their lack of faith.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl
John Kennedy overcame the notion that Catholics weren't the right kind of Christian back in the 1960's and I haven't read anything about challenges to his Christianity after election.
I don't know how true this is. Nor how widely it has been reported in his own country since his tragic assassination. Nor how shocking it may be to mention this in a thread that will be widely read there. Nevertheless, irrespective of which foot he kicked with, or of whether he was a good or bad President, JFK is widely understood in the rest of the world to have been an unusually habitual adulterer.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I don't know how true this is. Nor how widely it has been reported in his own country since his tragic assassination.
Well, I'm Canadian, but pretty much know everything I know about the Kennedys from US media. And yes, I've known about his being a phialnderer for decades. It's fairly widely known in the US, as far as I can tell.
And I think what Niteowl meant was that there haven't been any challenges to his Christianity based on his being Catholic.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally by Nightowl:
quote:
I do know Romney's Mormon faith was an issue in the last Presidential election, but he's visited the right churches, said the right words and tried as best he can to fit the mold and his faith has not been an issue this go around.
Romney was running for nomination against conservative white people. Had he won the nomination, his Mormonism should have quickly become a non-issue.
Edited to ignore the iPad's protests and spell the quotee's name properly.
[ 21. October 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
My problem with Romney is not that he is the wrong kind of Christian; it is that he is a member of a church that is known for its duplicity and for its habit of interfering in the affairs of the state--and not through open, contestable means either. I'd rather have a nonChristian of any stripe (but honest, or at least as honest as a politician can be!) than someone so closely identified with hidden agendas, movement of money and influence behind the scenes, and similar crap. That said, I am aware that politics is thoroughly riddled with such shit no matter what the party, and it is why for the first time I am sitting out this election. It seems to me the least harmful thing I can do.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl
John Kennedy overcame the notion that Catholics weren't the right kind of Christian back in the 1960's and I haven't read anything about challenges to his Christianity after election.
I don't know how true this is. Nor how widely it has been reported in his own country since his tragic assassination. Nor how shocking it may be to mention this in a thread that will be widely read there. Nevertheless, irrespective of which foot he kicked with, or of whether he was a good or bad President, JFK is widely understood in the rest of the world to have been an unusually habitual adulterer.
It was well known among some circles, but the media back then protected Presidents. Ironically, his faith could be brought up in public, but not his affairs. If he ran today his Catholicism wouldn't be a problem, but his affairs certainly would. Since he's a Democrat the GOP would crucify him. If the roles were reversed it would be the Dems hanging him out to dry.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
What bothers me about this election cycle, aside from the accusations that Obama isn't Christian and other evil things related to religion, is the huge amount of money flowing into campaigns this time around from Super Pacs. They are becoming political parties behind the political parties spending billions of dollars to get their ideological candidates elected. They are using smears at an unprecedented level, including smears on a sitting President's faith.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
What bothers me about this election cycle, aside from the accusations that Obama isn't Christian and other evil things related to religion, is the huge amount of money flowing into campaigns this time around from Super Pacs.
In all fairness, K Street has bought every politician in Washington already. It's hard for me to see much of a moral distinction between buying a politician who's already been elected and buying an election for your politician in the first place.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I do suppose what is meant by claiming a Presidential candidate isn't "the right kind of Christian" really means they don't have the "right kind" of politics.
Yes, it's all about which party you belong to, not what you believe. If you belong to the right party, reasons are found to state that you are God's choice (even if you are a Mormon which the conservatives say is somewhere between unChristian and anti-Christian). If you belong to the wrong party, reasons are found to state you are not a Christian -- you could say all the right buzz words and it still wouldn't count, it's not about the buzz words, it's about the party.
Somehow the Republican party got itself identified as "true Christians, and the only true Christians" independent of what anyone in the party really believes or says about anything.
Sad that so many Christians, sincere people trying to do what God would want, fall for whatever their leaders tell them, unquestioning. What's even more puzzling is so many leaders just jumping on the bandwagon, unquestioningly responding to the propaganda machine's claim that a political party -- yikes! -- is religious!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I know of no reason why a U.S. President must be any kind of Christian.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I know of no reason why a U.S. President must be any kind of Christian.
Gosh golly, you don't know that USA is a Christian Country?
That the cure for all ills (the economy, coddling of drug addicts, the schools failing to teach creationism) is for the country to turn from it's wicked ways -- no, that doesn't mean turn from neglecting the poor or from starting unnecessary wars, it means turn from failure to worship God as a country, like Israel are called to do over and over again in the Old Testament!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starbug
Shipmate
# 15917
|
Posted
But surely, God is an Englishman? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
“Oh the pointing again. They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?” ― The Day of the Doctor
Posts: 1189 | From: West of the New Forest | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
In answer to the OP, Ronald Binge has helpfully highlighted the right kind of Christian for president, here.
If you haven't watched the RTE interview of former Irish President Mary McAleese, you really should. She's excellent.
(okay, okay, it's a figurehead role, not remotely comparable etc etc etc. But you should still watch it).
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It amuses me when you see political signage saying, "Vote for the Mormon not the Muslim." If you look at their theology:
Mormons:
* God was created
* God is God of this planet only and there are other gods (henotheism)
Muslims:
* God is uncreated
* God is God of all time and space (monotheism)
Muslims are theologically far more like Christians than Mormons are.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It amuses me when you see political signage saying, "Vote for the Mormon not the Muslim." If you look at their theology:
Mormons:
* God was created
* God is God of this planet only and there are other gods (henotheism)
Muslims:
* God is uncreated
* God is God of all time and space (monotheism)
Muslims are theologically far more like Christians than Mormons are.
Yeah, but you've got to remember that Mormons are white, just like all good Christians. Muslims are brown or black, so not at all like Christians.
(just in case anyone can't fathom it out, go near that paragraph with a magnet)
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
But surely, God is an Englishman?
Ack! That's it! The USA Christian right are worshiping the wrong god.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Personally, I don't think anyone should have the right to openly challenge a candidate's or a sitting president's Christianity.
We all have the right to openly challenge any politician about anything we want. I guess it depends on how much we like being cranks.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Personally, I don't think anyone should have the right to openly challenge a candidate's or a sitting president's Christianity.
We all have the right to openly challenge any politician about anything we want. I guess it depends on how much we like being cranks.
What a polite way to spell "assholes."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl
John Kennedy overcame the notion that Catholics weren't the right kind of Christian back in the 1960's and I haven't read anything about challenges to his Christianity after election.
I don't know how true this is. Nor how widely it has been reported in his own country since his tragic assassination. Nor how shocking it may be to mention this in a thread that will be widely read there. Nevertheless, irrespective of which foot he kicked with, or of whether he was a good or bad President, JFK is widely understood in the rest of the world to have been an unusually habitual adulterer.
Which would presumably indicate that he was a sinner, but has nothing to do with whether or not he was a Christian sinner.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My problem with Romney is not that he is the wrong kind of Christian; it is that he is a member of a church that is known for its duplicity and for its habit of interfering in the affairs of the state--and not through open, contestable means either. I'd rather have a nonChristian of any stripe (but honest, or at least as honest as a politician can be!) than someone so closely identified with hidden agendas, movement of money and influence behind the scenes, and similar crap.
I've read this a couple of times now and can't see the difference between the portion I've quoted and the objections some Protestants had with Kennedy's Catholicism.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Nixon and Hoover were Quakers. Taft was a Unitarian. Can you imagine a Unitarian becoming President now? I rather like Taft's thoughts on his faith being challenged:
"I am interested in the spread of Christian civilization, but to go into a dogmatic discussion of creed I will not do whether I am defeated or not. . . . If the American electorate is so narrow as not to elect a Unitarian, well and good. I can stand it."
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
Well, the Unitarianism of Taft's day is quite different from the grab bag of ideologies that it is today
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
People, this is the wrong question. Our founding fathers, made it clear our government came from "We the People." There is no mention of God in our Constitution. There is no religious proscription as to who can be a president. Even the oath listed in the Constitution does not have the phrase, "So help me God." Nor is there any requirement that the president place his/her hand on the Bible while taking the oath.
I am like Luther. Sometimes I would prefer a secular humanist as president than those who want to cloak their political philosophy in religious jargon.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
On the other side you had pompous prigs , Hoover , he didn't serve wines or spirits
in the White House
Given that Hoover was president during Prohibition, serving wines or spirits would have been breaking the law.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Well, the Unitarianism of Taft's day is quite different from the grab bag of ideologies that it is today
Possibly though even then they didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Given that Hoover was president during Prohibition, serving wines or spirits would have been breaking the law.
Something that no President would ever do, of course...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Well, the Unitarianism of Taft's day is quite different from the grab bag of ideologies that it is today
Possibly though even then they didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.
I'm a bit fuzzy on the history of Unitarian Christology. However, it seems to me that, in their relatively recent past, many of them did believe that Jesus, while not divine in the Trinatarian sense, did have something about him that set him apart from everyone else, and that his mission was, in one way or another, divinely ordained.
In 1838, Emerson got hounded out of the Unitarian mainstream for giving a speech in which he said the Lord's Supper was not an important ritual. So, evidently, a lot of Unitarians at the time still attached a lot of significance to things that Jesus did which would be considered mundane if done by the average person.
UUs today have certainly come around to Emerson's thinking. I'm not sure what the consensus would have been in Taft's time.
The Divinity School Address
[ 22. October 2012, 01:39: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Well, the Unitarianism of Taft's day is quite different from the grab bag of ideologies that it is today
Possibly though even then they didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.
I'm a bit fuzzy on the history of Unitarian Christology. However, it seems to me that, in their relatively recent past, many of them did believe that Jesus, while not divine in the Trinatarian sense, did have something about him that set him apart from everyone else, and that his mission was, in one way or another, divinely ordained.
In 1838, Emerson got hounded out of the Unitarian mainstream for giving a speech in which he said the Lord's Supper was not an important ritual. So, evidently, a lot of Unitarians at the time still attached a lot of significance to things that Jesus did which would be considered mundane if done by the average person.
UUs today have certainly come around to Emerson's thinking. I'm not sure what the consensus would have been in Taft's time.
The Divinity School Address
I don't know about UU beliefs in general at the time, but Taft openly denied the divinity of Christ.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Given that Hoover was president during Prohibition, serving wines or spirits would have been breaking the law.
Something that no President would ever do, of course...
--Tom Clune
Well it is a bit tricky to make it look legal or hide it (most presidents don't say they are doing something unconstitutional but rather hide it or explain it as not really illegal). I doubt claiming a White House dinner was a huge communion service would fly or that the wine was all medicinal.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I don't know about UU beliefs in general at the time, but Taft openly denied the divinity of Christ.
Yeah, but denying the divinity of Christ can mean different things in different contexts.
Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, deny the divinity of Christ, but they don't think he was just a good moral philosoper who had a lot of useful stuff to say; they think he was the first being made by God, and the Number One Angel(aka Michael).
On the other hand, most UUs today just think Jesus really was just a mortal like everyone else, who, without any divine connections, just happened to come up with some good moral teachings, like any number of other philosophers.
I'm guessing Taft was closer to the latter than to the former, but that IS just a guess.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
On the other side you had pompous prigs , Hoover , he didn't serve wines or spirits
in the White House
Given that Hoover was president during Prohibition, serving wines or spirits would have been breaking the law.
Actually, it wouldn't have. Prohibition banned the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages (with some exceptions), not the possession or consumption. Many rich people stocked up in anticipation, and had supplies that lasted until 1933. I suspect the White House wine cellar was not empty.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Niteowl I thing we agree , there needs to be seperation of church & state. Also I think ones belief system needs to be something not talked about.It is personal & private. You are electing a political president not a pope/presiding bishop. I will watch the returns
on 06/11 with interest.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
In answer to the OP, Ronald Binge has helpfully highlighted the right kind of Christian for president, here.
If you haven't watched the RTE interview of former Irish President Mary McAleese, you really should. She's excellent.
(okay, okay, it's a figurehead role, not remotely comparable etc etc etc. But you should still watch it).
She didn't put a foot wrong in her fourteen years as President (two seven year terms), however as the thread points out, she was certainly judged the wrong kind of Catholic president to her face by that wellknown pillar of the Church, Cardinal Law.
I shudder to think what kind of President he would have approved of. Salazar? Franco?
[ 22. October 2012, 12:04: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I shudder to think what kind of President he would have approved of. Salazar? Franco?
No. Far too left wing.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
I don't know how true this is. Nor how widely it has been reported in his own country since his tragic assassination.
Well, I'm Canadian, but pretty much know everything I know about the Kennedys from US media. And yes, I've known about his being a phialnderer for decades. It's fairly widely known in the US, as far as I can tell.
And I think what Niteowl meant was that there haven't been any challenges to his Christianity based on his being Catholic.
Ah Niteowl leads a sheltered life. I have heard a number of times assertions that RCs were not Xn. Only in the past 10-15 years have the efforts of anti-gay-marriage RC activists built ideological bridges with right-wing evangelicals (evans are not necessarily right-wing-- I know many left-wingers).
However, arthosemeyfeet may have hit an uncomfortable point. Mormonism, however theologically bizarre, is perceived to be an American (white) religion while Islam, much closer to Christianity, is seen not be be an American religion. William Dalrymple, in his "Holy Mountain," makes a good case that in workship and spirituality, Islam is but a variation on Syrian Orthodox Christianity.
President Obama is seen by many to be not-American and so they do not admit that his religion can be Christian-- indeed, everything about him is exotice. Reviewing the video clip of his speech at the Al Smith dinner, he noted that while Mitt was Mr Romney's middle name, he couldn't use his own (Hussein).
In terms of Bush religion, the son gained street creds among evangelicals by speaking of his personal and spiritual changes on moving from a heavy-drinking party boy to a more serious husband and father. I think it is a true that there was a lack of comfort in this faction about the father, whose non-demonstrative New England practices showed that their approach was not his. In the Clinton-Bush election, Clinton with his flaws was more comprehensible to evangelicals and many voted for him in spite of the ideological difference.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
Although Islam recognises Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and the second greatest prophet, the version of the quran that I read (translated by Dawood) indicates that God through his archangel told the Prophet of his contempt for both Christians and Jews because of their hypocrisy.In no way are they a Christian heresy, as some seem to imagine.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Whither American exceptionalism?
This idea has been with us since the separatists (AKA Pilgrims) in 1620, who hoped to establish, in Plymouth and their other settlements, a shining city on a hill demonstrating the practical truth of the Christian faith to the world.
It had a good run. Millions have been enabled to sail under the Statue of Liberty, fleeing starvation or tyranny and providing a better life at least to their children, often to themselves as well. Militarily, the U.S. came to the rescue of Europe twice in the 20th century and then undergirded a Pax Americana. But there's a dark side, too, of arrogance and rashness. Many of us Americans believe that God will smile on us as we do things that others in the world cannot.
Such an illusion has probably been cherished by every imperial power. American Exceptionalism is just the name of the current version. And every imperial power has in due course collapsed. I suspect that the collapse was usually hastened by the clouded judgment of leaders convinced that the gods were on their side and would not let them go down to defeat.
So my first criterion of the right kind of Christian for President-- for everyone's health and safety-- is one free of the heresy that God is an American.
The Mormons certainly have no monopoly on this belief. But it would stand to reason if they were a hotbed of it, since their whole faith seems to be based on refusing to let the Old World have the last word on spiritually important events: surely something special had to happen over here!
Thanks to the declassification or release in various places of long-secret documents, we now know that the Cuban Missile Crisis was not resolved (and we are alive and well today) because Kennedy just hung tough, stared those evil Communists down, and they blinked. Thanks to extensive diplomacy behind the scenes, an agreement was worked out so that each side gained something of value. President Clinton has also warned that "the time will come when we have to make a deal." Does Romney get this? I hear no evident that he does.
Along the same lines, I'm also somewhat encouraged by the association (at least in the past) of Obama with Sojourners, a group which would fortify any determination he may have not to be seduced by the hubris and self-importance seething in that Babylonian palace we call Washington. I think it was our late great senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, who said to his fellow D.C. residents, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." His church in Chicago, which came in for so much vitriol four years ago, should also be reassuring in this way.
Innocence of these twin idolatries should, of course, go without saying for a practicing Christian-- but this is America.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
