Religion And Politics In 2012
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-06/religion-and-politics-2012
It once looked as though religion could play a central role in this election. Mitt Romney is the first Mormon in modern times to run for president and both vice presidential candidates are Roman Catholic. But many voters don’t see it that way. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, most Americans are comfortable with what they know about the candidates’ faith. And they report their votes will have little to do with the nominee’s religion. Still, American politics is polarized by questions often connected to our religious beliefs –abortion, religious liberty, and gay marriage. But are we polarized to the point of no return? Join Diane and her guests as they discuss the role of religion in politics.
Guests
Jonathan Haidt
social psychologist and author of "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion."
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, Brookings Institution. Author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Michael Gerson
syndicated columnist, author of "City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
" there is no faith or philosophy that cannot be corrupted".
Read the Parable of the Mustard Seed. Jesus predicted it.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"I don’t get the relevance of the mustard seed parable. First, there are more than one. Second, they all seem completely inapposite to what I wrote. Care to explain?"
Inaposite?! Wow! Even when I try to agree with you I get criticized!
Only one parable, multiple accounts in three gospels.
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof".
Matt 13:31,32
To understand the parable, you have to understand the biblical symbolism of the day. Jesus is talking about the Church (better, "Churchianity") that would develop from its beginning with him, which in a figure, was tiny, like a mustard seed. Now the common mustard plant, which his listeners would have known, does not "grow into a tree" - it's a small shrub. What Jesus was saying is that THIS mustard plant would grow ABNORMALLY big. It would be a "freak" mustard plant that would grow so big that the birds could rest on its branches. "Birds" in biblical symbolism always represent sin or sinful people. So when you say, "there is no faith or philosophy that cannot be corrupted", I say, "Jesus predicted it". And that is indeed what has happened to the Christian church through the last two millenia.
Here is a good treatment:
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-mustard-seed.html
@HonestAbe
So, what you are saying is, it's ok to abrogate your responsibility to the poor because ... well, 'cause you're getting tax break on your charitable contributions?!
"Face it all ye conservatives, a strong central government actually is serving the wealthy at an optimal level."
From the progressive point of view then, all the more reason to shrink it!!!
Here's an idea. Instead of filtering our good doing through government via taxes, how about if people keep more of that money and have the opportunity to give it to the charities they wish, not to some government designated charity (read: program)?
Since studies show that conservatives (tending more religious) than liberals (tending less relgious) give to charity, a lot of the money would go there. I'll go one step farther. How about if we get ONE HUNDRED PERCENT tax break on charitable contributions. That would really encourage people to give to the poor. Only problem with that one for the progressives is that they wouldn't have enough of OPM to run their "programs" any more would they?
Just saw a story that said Romney is so desperate to become President because he is being investigated for negligent homocide in France. Anyone else hear this story?
SteMar wrote:
"Just saw a story that said Romney is so desperate to become President because he is being investigated for negligent homocide in France. Anyone else hear this story?"
Yes I've seen it, it's been running on WLTV. (Loon T.V.).
NYT tells the actual story:
"Thirty years earlier, in the spring of 1968, Mr. Romney, then a Mormon missionary in France, had a scare of a different sort. He was at the wheel of a tiny Citroën, cruising along a country road, when a Mercedes rounded a curve and crashed into his car, head on. One of his passengers — the wife of the French mission president — was killed. Mr. Romney, by all accounts not at fault, was knocked unconscious and mistakenly pronounced dead at the scene. "
I was astounded at the fact that the three guest "experts" speaking about religion and politics in today's program were not only men, but also seemed to have an inherent bias that the Christian, Catholic, and Morman religious structures are foundationally "good" for our national political landscape.
When asked the question if racism may be affecting some voter support of Romney, one speaker suggested this was a "simplistic" view. I have to challenge both the speakers and, respectfully, the producer of this particular program in asking why a person of color's perspective, a woman's perspective and/or a perspective of someone with a more nuanced and critical review of patriarchal religious structures were not included for a more well rounded (and less simplistic) discussion?
It has long been discussed by feminist thinkers, for example, that patriarchal religious ideologies are largely responsible for the subjegation of women, promoting "moralistic" restrictions on issues pertaining to women's health and pay equality. Maternalistic views that idealize marriage and motherhood as primary roles for women disenfranchize them, while reinforcing these mindsets as the "good" religious foundation today's presenters seem to support. What small connection was made of these religious mindsets to issues like contraception and abortion missed the point completely. Sexism was not discussed at all.
The views presented by these "experts" highly illustrate that racism and sexism are too often blindly contained within patriarchal religious systems. Additionally, of the calls and emails taken, only one was by a woman. (I tried to call numerous times while I was driving, but could not get through.) I hope future programs will present a more balanced panel of "experts" on these issues, certainly including a feminist perspective - male or female. I look forward to that program!
Maybe we should ask how religious beliefs are INforming or DEforming the political discourse. I am all for people practicing their faith and I would not hesitate to put myself out there to defend that right. What bothers me, however, is that people use their faith either to justify bigotry (movement to block or repeal same sex marriage), to justify taking away a woman's right to choose, or to defund organizations that do great work like Planned Parenthood. There is a "Christian" assault on the separation of church and state. While extremist elements fueled anti-Sharia laws in some of the less informed areas of this country, at the same time these elements seek to impose their own homestyle Sharia-type laws on the rest of us. I don't believe what they do. I believe, for example, in the traditionally christian ethics like taking care of the poor, doing a better job on attacking poverty and homelessness, and making sure that everyone in the US has access to health care and a decent education. I feel the latter is being overshadowed by the ideological war being waged by the right in the name of religious expression.
People use things in religion very selectively. I've seen a bumper sticker on the car of someone I know quoting the Pope as saying you cannot be a Catholic and believe in abortion. Well if I recall correctly, the Pope has also had some choice words about Capitalism though I never hear those repeated. And I don't think it's just Conservatives that do this.
@ jediwoman: what is at issue with most Americans who you would consider on the "religious right" is not weather you should, or should not have access or freedom to the things you mention. What is at issue is weather our collective tax dollars should be spent to pay for these things if you have a moral or religious objection to them. Now before you start into the standard tantric mantra of "you heartless right wing conservative nut case" understand this... I am just pointing out what the difference is. You will see many, many postings on this spot that either outline that difference boldly, or you will see postings that kind of wander around the subject with tactful jabs. I've seen postings today that in essence say: the difference is - those on the left feel they are doing their part in sticking up for the poor and pacifing their conciences by spending tax dollars (OPM) to help the poor and needy. Those on the right feel that they should not be forced, thru taxation to pay for programs and practices that they morally object to and that they help the poor thru charitible donations. I have to believe that somewhere there is a solution to all this. But it will not be addressed in this election regardless of who wins. You can't legislate or mandate the feelings in people's hearts and minds... that comes with consideration from both sides of the mindset...and a civil form of kindness and thoughtful dialogue, designed to solve problems, is unfortunately, in short supply these days.
I am blogging about how this matter is playing in Alabama. Disaster down here as Billy Graham may abet with all the straight GOP voting the reelection of Judge Roy Moore. google asfoxseesit today and again next week.
On I59 in NE Bama about mile marker 214 is a billboard says: This election will determine the survival of our Freedoms. Vote Republican"
With many of the white Baptist preachers in the state preaching from the pulpit Obama is a Muslim, well lot of soul searching to be done with Coach Nick Saban and his devout Catholic Wife as they explain that White Baptist sentiment to the 17 or so football players of color who start for the state's Nationally Number one ranked football team.
I hope drshow comes back again to this topic soon, with Emory;s Joe Crespino on panel. Google his books.
John 18:36--"My kingdom is not of this world".
America is of this world. And it serves one god. Mammon, the god of materialism.
Unless of course you deny the obvious.
"materialism"
Put me down for materialism.
To davr (writing on November 6, 2012 @ 10:29 am):
I agree with everything you wrote (a rarity for me). But let me add a few additional points.
Christianity is closer to Islam than to Judaism in another important respect. Christians believe Jesus was born of a Virgin, was the Messiah, and was the Son of God. Muslims agree with the first two statements, but not the third. Jews, of course, reject all three!
On the other hand, Judaism and Islam are closer in some respects. Both are strictly monotheist, and both frown on the making of "graven images". Christian concepts like the Trinity, the plethora of Saints and Angels, are not shared by either faith.
Of course this is a great oversimplification, equivalent to the demand made of Hillel (that he teach all of the Torah while his student stood on one foot). I don't have the wisdom to give Hillel's answer, but I am wise enough to know all three faiths (indeed all religions) are far more complex than their detractors think. And that's true even for their detractors from other faiths!
willis6 on November 6, 2012 @ 10:30 am wrote: “Blacks are socially conditioned to accept values over race, but not so with Whites.”
My what a bigoted statement. If someone were to say the reverse (“Whites are socially conditioned to accept values over race, but not so with Blacks.”) you’d howl about “racism”! And just as you can provide plenty of examples of racial bias among Whites, I can do the same for Blacks.
Remember Tawana Brawley, and the instant credibility she had with the Black community (or, to be accurate, some members of it)? Or how about the way that community “rallied around” the nomination of Justice Thomas, even after the infinitely superior Justice Marshall warned them not to support the man merely because of his skin color? And let’s not forget Marion Berry and his long criminal and political career.
The fact is bigotry and prejudice are everywhere, and are always busy. It is not the exclusive province of one race, one party, or one end of the political spectrum. But fortunately, neither is their opposites (reason, tolerance, sound judgment) exclusive to any one side. Please remember the names of Goodwin, Chaney, and Schwerner - three civil rights workers murdered by the Ku Klux Klan in 1964. Chaney was Black, the other two were White Jews. Don’t you think they were “socially conditioned to accept values over race”? After all, they proved it with their lives!
mmb on November 6, 2012 @ 10:34 am wrote: “Truly nauseating how E.J. Dionne, of course predictably unchallenged by Ms. Rehm, keeps harping on about how good it is that Romney is not being challenged on his Mormonism.”
I think you miss the point. Dionne wasn’t talking about approval of the Mormon faith, or what some of its members have done. He was talking about there being no attacks on the religion itself, as distinct from its activities.
Remember when that Southern Pastor introduced Governor Rick Perry by lambasting Mormonism as a “cult”? That’s the kind of thing Dionne was talking about: religious bigotry at its finest. (And for my conservative “friends”, please note it was a conservative Republican who made that attack, not one of us “nasty” liberal Democrats!)
Certainly the Mormon Church (or any religious institution and organization) can be criticized for its stand on political issues, especially since doing so crosses the line between Church and State. But to condemn the entire faith for that, and all of its members, is as wrong as condemning all Germans for the crimes of the Nazis, or all Christians for the Inquisition!
To CarlosKStreet, writing on November 6, 2012 @ 10:38 am:
There is a difference between being an Atheist, and being an Anti-Theist. You, and Mr. Hitchens (whose book you quoted), are prime examples of the latter. You are also textbook evidence for my assertion that between the extreme “right” and the extreme “left” there's not a dime's worth of difference. You are mirror-images of each other: fundamentalists with a fanatic’s hatred for an opposite point of view.
Elsewhere today I pointed out examples of how “atheism” has hardly been the “morally perfect” philosophy you and Hitchens pretend. (Just as Christian Fundamentalists pretend their faith is morally perfect.) So let me take the opposite side of the argument. You denigrate religious leaders? Does that include the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.? What about Mahatma (“great souled”) Gandhi? Perhaps you think we’d all be better off without those reverends, pastors, rabbis, etc., who march and work for the causes of women’s rights, gay rights, and human rights in general?
You’re so busy condemning the “mote” in religion’s eye that you ignore the “two by four” sticking out of your own!
climatewiz1 on November 6, 2012 @ 11:01 am wrote: “The 1st amendment came after the ‘founding’ of the nation as I recall. Those who first came to this nation were seeking both religious freedom and... freedom from religious / government oppression and persecution. They were looking for a more just and free society.”
I’m always amused by people who think playing “word games”, and indulging in sophistry, is a substitute for sound reasoning and argument.
Those who “first came to this nation” had no nation to come to! (I presume you are referring to the early settlers, especially the Pilgrims.) They founded colonies, subject to the rule of Great Britain, the British Parliament, and the British King.
The United States of America wasn’t “founded” until over a century later. So, when we speak of its “founding”, and of the Founding Fathers, we are referring to the period from 1776 through 1791, when the foundations of our nation and its system of government were laid - including the First Amendment. (Though the concept of Church/State separation pre-dates that Amendment. It can be found in the “bones” of the original, unamended, Constitution.)
And sorry to burst your bubble, but not every colony was founded by people seeking religious freedom. Georgia was founded as a penal colony. Virginia - to make money growing and selling tobacco. New York was founded by the Dutch (a pretty tolerant bunch) to make money from trade and finance. (The more things change . . . .)
TO BE CONTINUED
Part Two
Even the Plymouth Colony wasn’t founded for “religious freedom”. To the contrary, as the Mayflower Compact stated, it was founded “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith”. Of course, for the Pilgrims that meant the “right kind” of Christianity (theirs: Puritanism). They allowed no other faiths in their “heavenly commonwealth”, especially not Jesuits or Quakers (many of whom were hanged by the “freedom loving” Pilgrims). Plymouth also made church attendance mandatory, on pain of fine or imprisonment. The Pilgrims also launched the first, true, war on Christmas. They banned the holiday, and even forbid saying the words “Merry Christmas”!
In fact, the history of religious persecution and intolerance on these shores motivated the Founders to create a secular government through a secular Constitution, as much as the same history in the “Old World”. Study the history of how Baptists were treated in Congregationalist New England, or Anglican Virginia. It’s one of the reasons Jefferson and Madison were such staunch champions of Church/State separation.
Finally, how dare you assume “those of faith” will vote one way, and “those who have no religious affiliation” will vote another. I am a Jew, but I will not vote for any candidate who uses government to impose their religious ideas on me, or anyone. That is the true distinction which must be made: between those who believe faith should wield the sword of government, and those who believe in “rendering unto Caesar” only those things that belong to Caesar. Religion isn’t one of them!
Etaoin Shrdlu November 6, 2012 - 11:50 pm
Though I might be wrong, I believe I heard precisely those words: "challenged on his Mormonism” which I interpreted to mean at least inquiring into Romney's position on his faith
While it's not fair to accuse Mitt "Binders Full Of Women" Romney of misogyny, racism or gay bashing as a Mormon Church leader just because he is a believer in a religion with a well-documented misogynist (polygamy anyone?) racist and gay bashing history whose misogyny and racism can be found in the doctrines expounded by the Mormon Church's founders.
But it is entirely fair to ask a presidential candidate what his personal views are on these doctrines which run afoul of values that most citizens hold dear.
partisan politics on November 6, 2012 @ 10:45 am wrote: “the values we used to have translated to much more personal responsibility and better life outcomes. I think most people agree with this.”
Which “values” do you refer to, and when?
The values of Laissez-Faire Capitalism (as distinct from those of regulated Capitalism)? You know, the “small government” values that allowed the creation of sweat shop death traps, such as the one that killed so many in the Triangle Shirt-Waist Factory Fire?
Or perhaps you mean the values of Manifest Destiny, in whose name we practiced “ethnic cleansing”, and genocide, against Native Americans?
Maybe you mean Biblical values, such as the ones slave masters invoked to proclaim their “peculiar institution” a God-given right?
I know, you mean “States’ Rights” and secession, which the first Republican President fought a war against. (But that was back when the Republican Party was the liberal party!)
And if you truly think the “family” was held sacred in some mythic golden era of the past, go to any book or record store (or any public library), and pick up such books as Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina, or Tess of the D’Urbervilles, not to mention the libretto of almost any Grand Opera one can name. You’ll find plenty of adultery, adultery, and ADULTERY! Perhaps that’s the “traditional values” you mean. After all, that “champion” of such values (Newt Gingrich) is a serial adulterer. (And I’ve lost count of how many of the “self-righteous of the Earth” have been caught with their pants down, including those with vows of celibacy.)
Live in your fantasy world, that is your right. But you have no right to force the rest of us to join you there!
ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 10:47 am wrote: “but they saw a marked spike (one might say a ‘hockey stick’ rise!) following Engel v. Vitale.”
That’s another conservative myth that doesn’t stand up to facts. Of course, it ignores such things as the influence of Playboy (founded in 1953, nine years before Engel v. Vitale), or the development of “the Pill” (also pre-dating Engel), to say nothing of the other cultural and social factors that together comprised “the sexual revolution”.
And since the Engel decision was rendered in 1962, how do you explain that “revolution” starting in the 60’s? I’d say the hippies and yippies were a significant part of that. In 1968 the revolution was well under way, and those worthies were generally in their late teens and early 20’s. That means they were between 12 and 16 when Engel was decided. That also means they’d spend most of their lives with prayer in school! And that doesn’t take into account the adults who were also busy “revolting”.
I’d say there’s a few holes in your argument, about a mile wide each.
mmb on November 7, 2012 @ 12:51 am wrote: “Though I might be wrong, I believe I heard precisely those words: "challenged on his Mormonism” which I interpreted to mean at least inquiring into Romney's position on his faith”
You’re wrong. Check the Transcript. Here are the only mentions of “Mormonism” (I found none of “challenged”, or “his Mormonism”):
REHM (10:10:16) - Michael Gerson, you've been struck by how little attention Gov. Romney's Mormonism has received. Why do you think that is?
GERSON (10:10:29) - Well, you know, in this election, it's kind of the dog that didn't bark. There were a lot of predictions that Mormonism would be a huge debate in American life. It's very much an out religion. People don't know much about it. But, in fact, when you look at the polling, it hasn't gotten much attention. Only 60 percent of Americans even know that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. They don't really want more information about this. And I think this is, you know, generally a good thing.
HAIDT (10:12:00) - Well, I think, as Michael pointed out, the role of Mormonism has been neutralized. . . .
HAIDT (10:13:04) - . . . There's this great Arab proverb, me against my brother, me and my brother and cousin against the, you know, me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin... (10:13:25) ...me and my brother and cousin against the stranger. And during the primaries, Mormonism was the stranger. But once it became Democrats versus Republicans, well, Mormons were welcomed.
JR. (10:14:07) - It is actually to the credit of Democrats in this election that they did not try to use Mormonism. . . .
JR. (10:14:31) - . . . . That Mormonism was important in the Republican primaries, not because anybody used it particularly explicitly but because Mitt Romney really couldn't win primaries in which a majority of the vote was cast by evangelical Christians.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
REHM (10:20:03) - . . . . Here is our first email, and apparently, a number of emails like this, "One of your speakers just asserted that the lack of attention in this election to Mormonism is a good thing. . . .”
JR. (10:21:41) - . . . . It's a very good thing that Romney's Mormonism has not become a central issue, and I think on the side of his opponents on the whole, there has been a small D -- emphasize that -- democratic discipline in not running a campaign against Mormonism.
REHM (10:51:12) - . . . . And here's an email from Ross. He says, " . . . .I feel compelled to let you know Mitt's religious beliefs were not a factor in our decision." Ironically, he says, "I think the fact that Mormonism is a 'Made in America faith,' one can't help but wonder if the Romney team missed an opportunity by not leveraging Mitt's value system more publicly. . . .”
In short, your initial premise was incorrect. As I said earlier, Dionne (and the other guests) were talking about there being no attacks on the religion itself during the general election, as distinct from its activities. (Though, as I have also pointed out, such attacks were made during the Republican primary season, by Republicans.)
As for Romney’s personal views on racism, gay bashing, and misogyny (as religious doctrines), I’m far more interested in his views on affirmative action, immigration reform, abortion and birth control (to say nothing of things like the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act), and DOMA vs. gay marriage.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
I believe we already know the answer to those questions. So the key question for us is: does it make any difference whether he comes by his opinions from religious or secular reasons? I would oppose his views on these matters whatever those reasons might be. But if his views are based on the idea that his Mormon faith requires him, as President, to hold these views and impose such policies on the nation, then he is crossing the line between Church and State, and that’s an additional reason to vote against him.
P.S. - Sorry for all the transcript quotations, but I wanted to put this dispute ‘to bed’.
jeearles on November 6, 2012 @ 10:48 am wrote: “I believe government in infringing on my religious freedom. It started sixty years ago when the government took prayer out of school, the Ten Commandments, morning devotionals, etc..... I believe that is one of the reasons our nation is so fragmented today. They have no moral feelings about life.”
Pray tell how stopping the government from imposing religious activities in school infringes on your rights? Would you be so enthusiastic for school prayer if it was the Shema Yisroel (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!)? Perhaps you’d prefer “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.”? How about a Pagan prayer, or a prayer praising Satan? School prayer doesn’t sound so nice when it’s not your faith’s prayer.
As the old saying goes: if you want prayer in school, hold a pop math quiz!
And I question how “fragmented” our nation is today, at least compared to times past. John Adams estimated that during the American Revolution only one-third of the population supported independence, one-third opposed it, and one-third didn’t give a damn!
And then there’s the Civil War, when the nation was so “fragmented” it literally split in two. (I doubt the Republican advocates of secession and “States’ Rights” truly want a return to that. But these are the dangerous verbal “toys” they’re playing with.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Our nation is “fragmented” over religion because one group (conservatives) insist on forcing their religious beliefs down everyone’s throat, and want to use the government to do it. They make a public display of their piety, in order to win votes and gain power. And they denigrate any faith or person who doesn’t conform to their dictates of “religious correctness”. They are turning us into a nation divided by God. Precisely what the Founders feared would happen if Church and State are mixed.
As for abortion, it depends on the facts and circumstances. Consider the case of Anencephaly, a condition where the brain absolutely fails to exist! In the “mild” form there’s only a brain stem and the spine. In the severe form there’s no stem or spine at all. Such a “baby” cannot survive outside the womb. Is it just, because of your religious views, to force a woman to carry such a pregnancy for nine months (knowing the ultimate result)? No, that is sadistic cruelty!
And that’s just one example. It must be wonderful to believe you are wise enough to make such critical decisions for other people. Wonderful, but not very humble. (And I always thought humility was a virtue.)
As for gay marriage, no one is suggesting that any faith be forced to perform gay weddings. That would truly be a violation of the First Amendment. But what of faiths that support such marriages (such as Reform Judaism and the United Church of Christ)? Aren’t you violating their religious freedom?
And if not, where does it end? Catholicism forbids divorce and remarriage. Does that mean that divorced Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc., should be forbidden from remarrying too? How far does protecting your “religious freedom” require stomping all over the freedom of others?
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
That’s why Church/State separation is so important. By keeping the government out of such issues, we allow everyone to follow their own faith, and to answer to God for it, not to the government. Freedom of religion includes freedom from the imposition of other’s religions.
I’m sorry you lost your job in May of 2009, but riddle me this: how is that Obama’s fault? Unless you were willing to blame Bush the Second for 9/11 (and conservatives rushed to defend him with the argument that he’d only been President for “a few months”), how can you blame Obama for something that happened even earlier in his administration?
The plain fact is: when Obama took office our economy was crashing. His policies helped stabilize it, and turned things around. Things could be better, no doubt, but I think under Romney they’ll become a whole lot worse! (At best, they’ll continue to improve because of what Obama did. Though I’m sure Romney will try to take credit for it.)
ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 1:43 pm wrote: “Wow! Even when I try to agree with you I get criticized!”
My, aren’t we thin-skinned?
I wasn’t criticizing you, only asking for further information. I failed to see how that parable was relevant to what I was discussing. (And, indeed, which version you were referring to. Thanks for clarifying that.)
“Inapposite” simply means “not pertinent”. I failed to see how that parable applied. (Had you mentioned the parting of the Red Sea I would have made the same remark. A better Biblical story would have been David and Bathsheba, showing how even a man who “delighted in the Lord” could do evil. But even that wouldn’t really fit.)
However, thank you for your exegesis. It certainly explains why you think the parable applies. I’m not sure I agree with it, but hey, it’s not my religion anyway. So far be it from me to instruct you on how to interpret your scripture!
Thanks again for the explanation. Just don’t assume I’m always critical of what you write.
Ciao, for now.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 10:47 am wrote: “but they saw a marked spike (one might say a ‘hockey stick’ rise!) following Engel v. Vitale.”
That’s another conservative myth that doesn’t stand up to facts. Of course, it ignores such things as the influence of Playboy (founded in 1953, nine years before Engel v. Vitale), or the development of “the Pill” (also pre-dating Engel), to say nothing of the other cultural and social factors that together comprised “the sexual revolution”."
....
I’d say there’s a few holes in your argument, about a mile wide each."
Really?
So you admit we've become depraved, it's just a question of why?!
http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html
@ Etaoin Shrdlu: Reading is fundamental Etaoin... you missed the point on both of my posts.
#1 response to you " Your reasoning is flawed. Agency is a basic human right - regardless of religion. Believe or don't believe - vote your personal values. You want to thwart or change that system? It works as much for you as against you"
I was not making a case for either side of the issue - just stating the facts concerning the differences of opinion.
#2 response to Jediwoman: " many on the left feel they are doing their part in sticking up for the poor and pacifing their conciences by spending tax dollars (OPM) to help the poor and needy. Those on the right feel that they should not be forced, thru taxation to pay for programs and practices that they morally object to and that they help the poor thru charitible donations. I have to believe that somewhere there is a solution to all this. But it will not be addressed in this election regardless of who wins. You can't legislate or mandate the feelings in people's hearts and minds... that comes with consideration from both sides of the mindset...and a civil form of kindness and thoughtful dialogue, designed to solve problems, is unfortunately, in short supply these days."
Same premise - same day - same failure to comprehend the gist on your part.
You are the one who launched off into the "word games" my friend. You bloviate on and on and on and accuse others of "indulging in sophistry" but from what I can see from your posts.... oy vey..... I also love the smug "how dare you" comment.
I would say the one who is "indulging in sophistry" is the one who twists the words of others and bloviates the most... all the while trying to impress the world with their self professed "knowledge"...???
Almost forgot this one ...
"My, aren’t we thin-skinned?"
Me? ... strudel?!!!
"I wasn’t criticizing you, only asking for further information. I failed to see how that parable was relevant to what I was discussing. (And, indeed, which version you were referring to. Thanks for clarifying that.) “Inapposite” simply means “not pertinent”.
I know what the word means. I also know when it's being used in less than a complimentary way, as in "unsuitable", or "inappropriate", "non sequitur".
" I’m not sure I agree with it,"
"Just don’t assume I’m always critical of what you write."
Then offer an alternative ... otherwise I'm just going to assume you're disagreeing to be disagreeable.