The difference between a candidate who has belonged to the Aryan Church of the White Christ and one who has belonged to Trinity United Church of Christ is that white people enslaved, tortured and murdered millions of black people and not vice versa. This fact does not necessarily make the latter candidate's affiliation acceptable, but it makes the former's far more reprehensible.

Joe Carter:

You say: ". . . . Ryan Lizza says that the overarching thesis of his article is that Michele Bachmann holds 'a set of beliefs more extreme than those of any American politician of her stature.' [1] But is this really true? [2] Just how extreme can a candidate’s beliefs be before they are deemed unelectable?"

You then proceed to to ignore questions 1 and 2, which you yourself raised, and launch a virulent attack on Trinity United Church of Christ ("an apostate, racialist church that makes no distinction between faith and politics") and Black Liberation Theology ("despicable," "a strain of heresy"), all of which is irrelevant, particularly since you "have no doubt that Obama is not a racialist and that he has never agreed with the basic tenets of his church." Why the need to attack TUCC and Black Liberation Theology when they are not an issue?

So we are left hanging when it comes to the question of whether Michele Bachmann holds “a set of beliefs more extreme than those of any American politician of her stature.” And we don't know, from reading your own "hit piece," what kind of religious beliefs a presidential candidate might hold that raise legitimate questions about his or her abilities to function in office in a pluralistic democracy in which separation of church and state is a basic tenet.

You say: "The tacit agreement between Democratic candidates and their voters is that it doesn’t matter whether a politician is a Protestant, Catholic, or religiously motivated racialist since they won’t let their church’s teachings conflict with their political ideology." This is, of course, a purely partisan attack. You have not dealt with the real issue, which is what kind of religious teachings SHOULD affect an officeholder's ideology and performance, and which should not. While I wouldn't deny that voters have a right to know something about a candidate's religion, the real question of interest to voters is, and always has been, and always will be, "What will this candidate do in office?" If he or she has atypical religious beliefs, how will they affect performance in office, if they do at all?

I don't think your post gets us anywhere in the matter of what is troubling and what is not concerning a presidential candidate's religious beliefs. But I do think it ventures into dangerous territory in its gratuitous attack on Trinity United Church of Christ and Black Liberation Theology. In the name of defending religion in the public square, you have made the kind of religious attack any "true believer" in one Christian denomination or non-Christian religion could make on just about any other Christian denomination or non-Christian religion. If others follow your lead, First Things could become a forum for religious warfare rather than "an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."

From the two comments above, I gather Joe's thought experiment failed. Whenever Jeremiah Wright's name comes across a page or is said in a broadcast, I say a prayer for Howard Thurman. He is sorely missed. I read his slim volume "Jesus and the Disinherited" after reading Cone's "Risks of Faith."

Thurman's successor must be out there; he or she is just not getting media attention.

The light shines on in the darkness...

"The difference between a candidate who has belonged to the Aryan Church of the White Christ and one who has belonged to Trinity United Church of Christ is that white people enslaved, tortured and murdered millions of black people and not vice versa. This fact does not necessarily make the latter candidate's affiliation acceptable, but it makes the former's far more reprehensible. "

Saying history justifies present behavior and claims of ethnic guilt are to be taken seriously are opinions fit for a Balkan tribal warlord.

Excellent point regarding our current political culture Joe. Sadly the road to this sorry state of affairs was paved by Democrat Catholic politicians that use and abuse the Church for their careers.

@ Joe - "I have no doubt that Obama is not a racialist and that he has never agreed with the basic tenets of his church. Yet I find the alternative explanation just as troubling."

He appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General, every one of whose appointees is a radical leftist, and whose ranks are chock full of racialists, who effectively constitute the secular wing of black liberation theology.

He gained street cred and learned to deceive people in the "black community" through his 20 years at TUCC (at a minimum), gathering to himself the cannon fodder of black liberation theology.

He embraced and taught Marxism, which is the root of black and other liberation theology movements.

He has been rewarded with the support of some 95% of black Americans, the very demographic that hosts the virus of black liberation theology.

His own minister spoke from under the bus that President Obama was merely doing what he had to do as a candidate running for nationwide office, a sort of taqiyya for secularists, I guess.

The only things that don't fit the TUCC mold are his support for Islam and Muslim dictators. Granted, a Muslim Marxist (or Marxist Muslim) is a walking, talking contradiction, but from such base alloy are leaders often pressed out in the mold of history.

I think there is a false equation here between Rev. Wright and the pastor of that white "racialist" church. Wright's paranoid, but having grown up before the Civil Rights Movement, he comes by his paranoia naturally. And Joe, doesn't Cone sound an awful lot like an Old Testament prophet promising God's deliverance for heathen oppressors, and insisting that Jewish religious practices were the only way to God? When Israel wasn't oppressed, it had to be on guard against its enemies. Doesn't that remind you of African-American history? I mean, Wright deserves criticism, but how 'bout a little empathy?

@ Joe - "Obama knew that as a modern Democrat he is not expected to believe—or at least act as if he believes—the teachings of TUCC or any other church."

I don't think that applies to black liberation theology or to social gospel theology. Just about any perversion or counterfeit is welcome under the Democratic Party's big tent, just not the original. That's where I see the dividing line.

Not really sure how people missed the point on this post.

As for me, I would say I'm already at the cynical bottom of electoral politics. I assume that candidates don't really believe until proven otherwise. I expect to see the rest of yall down here soon.

I just wanted to clear up what James Hal Cone was referring too when he talked about "black" and "white." This may lead people to agree with him more.

We gain insights about what Cone means by "black theology" and "black power" by understanding what blackness means in his theology. Cone notes two aspects of blackness: the physiological and ontological. In the first sense, "black" indicates a physiological trait. It refers to "a particular black-skinned people in America."[24]

In the second sense, "black" and "white" relate not to skin pigmentation but to "one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism."[25] Blackness is thus "an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression."[26] Seen in this light, "blackness" can be attributed to people who do not have black skin but who do work for liberation.

By contrast, "whiteness" in Cone's thought symbolizes the ethnocentric activity of "madmen sick with their own self-concept" and thus blind to that which ails them and oppresses others. Whiteness symbolizes sickness and oppression. White theology is therefore viewed as a theological extension of that sickness and oppression.[27]

This I think would clarify a lot of what the Reverend is saying. It was also stated that he was the creator of Black Theology, this also is not true, Black Theology began long before James Hal Cone. Rev. Cone though was the largest contributor to the school of theology ever and he wrote during the 60's. during the Civil Rights protests. His 'extrem' ideas that God was a champion of the oppressed and any other 'god' that was preached must be rejected, came out of this. I think this puts thing in more persecutive and shows why there was no up roar that President Obama was a racist. Simply anyone with that theory would not have a leg to stand on once the facts came out.

I have enclosed a link to this information:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/BlackTheology.html


I also wanted to say that I am the son of a Protestant Preacher but was raised with and have a deep respect for the Catholic Church. (in fact my girlfriend is Catholic) This blog's writer though seem to be doing a diservice to its cause, (not that Evangelicals are better) This has been pointed out by a few people. My point is I have been reading this blog and there are some great articles. The articles are thought through and the comments intelligent and engaging, but some of it is like this article, misleading and wrong at best, hatful and deliberately ignorant at worst. This to me is sad but since the readers seem to be more engaging and intelligent I hope to see this change.

@John ***This I think would clarify a lot of what the Reverend is saying.***

It may clarify the terms but it makes it no less hateful, no less racist, and no less anti-Gospel.

***It was also stated that he was the creator of Black Theology, this also is not true***

"Black theology" has become a synonym for "Black liberation theology," of which I think it is fair to say that Cone was the founder.


***I think this puts thing in more persecutive and shows why there was no up roar that President Obama was a racist.***

No, I don't think it does. "Black liberation theology" is a racialist politically motivated ideology. If the public truly believed that Obama agreed with it he would have never been elected president.

***This blog's writer though seem to be doing a disservice to its cause, (not that Evangelicals are better)***

I'm not sure what my article has to do with Catholic-Protestant relations (I'm an evangelical.)

What Resh and Ken said. Or, as Cone put it, while the two levels of a slave trader's ship might both be full of people who believe in God, it's not the same god.

Joe Carter responded to John's clarification of Cone's theology by saying "It may clarify the terms but it makes it no less hateful, no less racist, and no less anti-Gospel."

But if Cone uses 'black' and 'white' as symbolic terms - not to deliniate racial groups, but rather - to distinguish between groups of people who have differing attitudes towards opression (or perhaps, the opression of racially black people specifically), then in what way is his theology using these terms still a racist and hateful one? Is it because of the way that he uses terms derived from racial ones to symbolise good and evil, with white aligned with evil? Or is it because he seems to think that the fault line between the good and the evil is that of one's attitude tiwards specifically racially white opression of the racially black? -

These are geuine questions. I know nothing at all about Cone's theology, or black theology, or liberation theology, than what has been included in this post and its comments - but I was struck my Joe's response to John that his clarfication made Cone's position no less racist and hateful. I would be grateful if Joe could elaborate a ittle on why he thinks this.

Steve Thorngate writes:

"What Resh and Ken said. Or, as Cone put it, while the two levels of a slave trader's ship might both be full of people who believe in God, it's not the same god."

So much for monotheism. Blacks worship one God and whites another? Both of whom are Jesus? Bizarre (to use a term now quite au courant).

This is what happens when ecclesiology is based on consumer choice and demographic marketing rather than Christ's historic founding of His single church. (Matt. 16:18 et seq.; Matt. 28:18-20; John 21:15 et seq.; Acts 1:1-28:31).

The Progressive Left will use thier full arsenal of weapons to go after Repubican candidates. In some ways they may find success, in that there is a growing number of Christians who just get along and get on. I've heard or read a little bit about Bachmann's Lutheran parish. And my reaction was, "So what?". Religious differences amongst Catholics and Protestants is nothing new. But, what Bill Keller, editor of the NY Times, wrote recently is also telling. Keller, a lapsed Catholic, puts devout Catholics in the same boat as Evangelicals and Fundementalists. This may be a clever rhetorical gimmick, but anyone who pays attention to demographics knows there is a bit of difference between a pious Baptist in Odessa Texas, and a devout Catholic in Queens New York.

Yet, beyond short term political strategy, people like Keller have hit on a raw nerve. Christianity is changing in the US. Catholics can see this (if they pay attention) in doctrinal fights that continue in the wake of Vatican II. For Protestants, it may be a bit more murky, as few Protestant Churches have magesterial authority. But, the influence of Protestant leaders such as Pat Robertson, and James Dobson has been waning for a decade or more. And it isn't just thier ages that is to blame. The kind of orthodox Protestantism that has held sway for the last 100 years is also on the way out. Newer and more charismatic leaders such as Rob Bell have gained influence. And they bring, if anything, an eclectic bag of Christian beliefs that run counter to many Protestant denominations.

Orthodoxy, whether Protestant or Catholic, is diifcult to defend in the long run -especially in the United States. The Catholic Church remains overall the same church (from a theological perspective) as it was 600 years ago - because of an outside Magesterium. The trappings may change (smells and bells), but not the dogma. But, within this orthodoxy is a kind of strife pitting "reformers" versus the orthodix. The Culture at large has informed much of the reform. The reformers are winning. As a matter of fact, most Catholic couples now support and use artificial birth control, not to mention thier support of divorce and even abortion. And within this theologica/sociological split is the invetiable political split. While most Catholics still would not support a formal split with Rome, their actions have say otherwise.

Progressives over 100 years ago recognized the power of 2 institutions -the family and religion. It is no suprise that overtime they began to marginalize both. And now we've come to the point where opinion makers group both orthodox Protestants and Catholics into the same category as religious fanatics. How this will play out is still open. But, in the short run I'd put my money on the Progressives.

***But if Cone uses 'black' and 'white' as symbolic terms - not to deliniate racial groups, but rather - to distinguish between groups of people who have differing attitudes towards opression (or perhaps, the opression of racially black people specifically), then in what way is his theology using these terms still a racist and hateful one?***

Let me offer another thought experiment that I think may help frame the answer to your question (which is certainly a legitimate one). Imagine that a politically motivated right-wing theologian used the terms “black” to symbolize an attitude of acceptance of “violence and criminality” and “white” to symbolize an attitude of “peace and lawfulness.”

Now let’s use the terms in Cone’s quote: “For black people, God’s reconciliation in Jesus Christ means that God has made white people a beautiful people; and if they are going to be in relationship with God, they must enter by means of their white brothers, who are a manifestation of God’s presence on earth. The assumption that one can know God without knowing whiteness is the basic heresy of the black churches.”

Most of us would recoil at that as being a racist remark. The theologian, however, could say that he was using the words “symbolically” and that African Americans could be “white people” just as Caucasians could be “black.” I doubt that many of us would agree that this was a plausible interpretation. It’s like when white racists say that the N-word doesn’t necessarily refer to blacks but to a particular set of attitude and behaviors.

No one—even theologians—has the authority use terms like “white people” and “black people” in obviously racist ways simply because they have completely redefined the denotation of the words. Cone was a smart man. He knew what he was doing when he used those terms in the way he did.

"Cone was a smart man. He knew what he was doing when he used those terms in the way he did."

I expect he wanted his readers to begin thinking of "black" as a positive term, and no longer a shameful one.

The comments on this article are really very interesting; I learned a lot from them, but they all ignore the one overriding fact that the battle is over and the liberals have won everything,everywhere, and that is because "the best have lost all conviction".

I blame the churches and especially the Catholic church. The rest of it is a learned discussion on the construction of lifeboats while floating in a freezing sea clinging on to the debris of the Titanic. It's over.

There will restoration of sanity because Jesus promised that the Church would prevail, but that will not happen in my lifetime, so I have became quite sanguine about the whole business and this learned discussion is to me-how can I say it?-just spinning wheels. None of it matters.

What really bugs me is this sentence, among many others, in the article: "Just how extreme can candidate's beliefs be before they are deemed unelectable?"

Now, there are those who will wonder what I'm so bugged about; they are uneducable. There are those who know why I'm so bugged; to them I say "It's over, friend. Let us work our our salvation quietly. Pace."

@Ken, To adopt the inflated terms of the debate, if Cone "wanted his readers to begin thinking of "black" as a positive term", he certainly picked an extreme means to do so. Demonizing the "other" with Humpty Dumpty words is a human urge that we should work to overcome, at least according to the Tanakh and reiterated by Jesus, himself. Where else does "dominionist" come from? But all of us fall.

I think a lot of people are skeptical of the right-wing "religious" agenda, which is really a front for a right-wing corporatist agenda. I think many of us have become cynical with attempts to manipulate "useful idiots" to vote for an extremist agenda that is not in their best interests. Ralph Reed, Ted Haggard, and the Bush policies of unprovoked war and torture have left many with a bad taste in their mouths. We're disappointed with people who want to "deliver the Christian vote" for ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers. The latter and their ilk have control of much of the media and fund influential right-wing think tanks. These groups cynically manipulate people they hold in absolute contempt. I recently heard one right-wing Christian solemnly intone that "global warming activists have an anti-Christian agenda." This is not someone who understands the science at all. Through very sophisticated and clever propaganda, people like this man are led to believe that being a Christian means one can't believe in global warming. What the hay is this? One would think that a responsible Christian would be eager to study the science and to consider the outcomes and their effects on people. Many of us don't want to support the rampant corporatism that is leading a large faction of right-wing Christians by the nose. Jon Huntsman is a conservative who does not fit into the "right-wing loon" category and does not appear to be unscrupulously manipulative with his religion. I'm inclined to think he might be a worthy candidate.

Margaret, Better go back to your list of left-wing cliches. I think you may have missed one or two. For example, I didn't see any reference to Karl Rove as the anti-christ or to "Darth Cheney."

fleegl,


The 90+ men in St. Paul / Minneapolis seminary and the 60+ lay people studying alongside, suggest a different possibility. (And the data in this article is one year old.)


http://thecatholicspirit.com/news/local/st-paul-seminary-is-home-to-33-new-seminarians/


It's not over, as long as we have teachers, politicians, business owners, etc, entering into the marketplace with the gospel that uses words only when necessary. Sorry to hear about your pessimistic convictions. Since we have no real way of knowing who might be reading this webpage and these conversations - and who might be influenced by them to change their beliefs tomorrow - this webpage is itself a sign that it's not over.


I pray that God provides you with a 'win' in the near future. 'Let down your nets' one more time. [Luke 5]


This is not a pep talk - more of a challenge.

Hello, David Nickol,

“And we don't know, from reading your own 'hit piece,' what kind of religious beliefs a presidential candidate might hold that raise legitimate questions about his or her abilities to function in office in a pluralistic democracy in which separation of church and state is a basic tenet.”

Regarding that “basic tenet”:

On May 4th, 2009, a bipartisan group of 25 members of the House of Representatives submitted H.Res. 397. It called on Congress to affirm “the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as 'America's Spiritual Heritage Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.”

The text of H.Res. 397 can be read here:
http://fota.cdnetworks.net/pdfs/2009-05-13-hres397.pdf

I submit it to you for review, not because I want to convince you that we were founded as a Christian nation, although one might understandably conclude that after reading the numerous citations it contains that seem to indicate that, but only to point out to you that the understanding of many of the meaning of “separation of church and state” doesn't even remotely reflect the thought of our Founding Fathers or the facts of history.

Consider the words of John Quincy Adams in his Jubilee of the Constitution speech:
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm

It is clear that Adams' understanding that our government was founded upon natural law, or the “laws of nature and nature's God,” was not his unique idea, but was the view of the Founding Fathers. They were vehement in their disagreements on how to best form a government based upon natural law, but in agreement on that principle. For a detailed and scholarly explanation of this, see *Heir to the Fathers – John Quincy Adams and the Spirit of Constitutional Government,* by Gary V. Wood.

Not in the wildest dreams of the Founding Fathers did they imagine a phrase like “separation of church and state,” which many believe actually appears in the constitution somewhere when it doesn't at all, would be used as though it did to undermine the fundamental principle of the government they founded. Such a government indeed

“had never before been adopted by a great nation in practice”
-- J. Q. Adams, Jubilee of the Constitution

and sadly,

“There are yet, even at this day, many speculative objections to this theory. Even in our own country, there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration, as self-evident truths – who deny the natural equality and inalienable rights of man”
-- J. Q. Adams, Jubilee of the Constitution

for which there is no foundation outside of “the laws of nature and nature's God.” In so doing those people, however unaware of it they may be, are destroying the greatest and noblest political/governmental experiment in the history of the world.

*** Imagine that a politically motivated right-wing theologian used the terms “black” to symbolize an attitude of acceptance of “violence and criminality” and “white” to symbolize an attitude of “peace and lawfulness.***

Imagine yet another thought-experiment, where a religious leader reverses the normal poles of what is considered good and bad, saying woe unto the rich and blessed are the poor. Should we criticize that leader for being reverse-classist? Or would such a criticism be a gross oversimplification?

This common rhetorical move to claim reverse racism (e.g., “why is celebrating black pride acceptable but not white pride?”) is either naive or mean-spirited. “Black” pride or theology is limited, but “white” pride or theology – in the context of American history – is wicked. You can’t take how power has operated in history out of the equation!

I believe we’re more likely to find Christ and more likely to have a healthy democracy by being mindful of our own sin and others’ suffering rather than quick to judge others’ sins and insistent upon our own suffering. Particularly if in the history that’s led up to us power has been exercised overwhelmingly in our favor (i.e., if we’re “rich” rather than “poor”).

I was all set to read Joe Carter’s piece, thinking that it would correct Lizza’s misconceptions about the theology of Bachman’s church. Instead, I find a kind of tu quoque against the left, with special venom towards the mentor of the pastor of Obama’s former church. Is that religion in the public square? I would like to hold First Things to higher rather than lower moral and theological standards than The New Yorker . . .

Margaret,
Thank you for disqualifying Jon Huntsman for me. One less squishy moderate candidate to pay attention to.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings, and I haven't heard any fat lady singing. Frankly I never will.

"You can’t take how power has operated in history out of the equation!"

Please explain why race is something theologians should care about.

Have mercy on me, oh God
According to Your unfailing love
According to Your great compassion
Blot out my transgressions

Create in me a clean heart, oh God
Restore in me the joy of Your salvation

The sacrifices of our God are a broken and a contrite heart
Against You and You alond have I sinned

Would You create in me a clean heart, oh God
Restore in me the joy of my salvation

Wash me white as snow
And I will be made whole
Wash me white as snow
And I will be made whole

-Jon Foreman

White: symbolizes the purity of the soul, innocence, and holiness. White is a symbol of purity and virginity, from whence derives the tradition of the white wedding dress and the white robes and collars worn by Christian clergy. The virgin Mary wears white in images of the immaculate conception, and under her blue robes in other portraits.

Black: is an ancient symbol of death and mourning; it is routinely used to symbolize the devil, the underworld, witches, and mourning- except when paired with white, the color of purity, whereby it becomes a symbol of humility.

-http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1333


Pro-slavery proponents used religion to justify the enslavement of Africans. The book of Genesis was understood to suggest the descendants of Ham were condemned to slavery; Noah ‘curses’ his son Ham for not averting his eyes from his father’s nakedness, and so Ham is destined to be a slave of his brothers. Supporters of slavery linked the condemnation of Ham with Africans, claiming that the Hamites were Africans. They asserted that their skin color signified darkness, evil, sin and the devil, while white skin signified purity, innocence and light.

-http://www.recoveredhistories.org/storiesreligion.php

These are the ideas that James Hal Cone was trying to combat. It does not mean that he did not go ever board in that phrase you quote, in fact he did which he later admitted when confronted about it saying,

"As in 1969, I still regard Jesus Christ today as the chief focus of my perspective on God but not to the exclusion of other religious perspectives. God's reality is not bound by one manifestation of the divine in Jesus but can be found wherever people are being empowered to fight for freedom."

The idea he was trying to express was that he wanted his readers to as Ken expressed to think, "of "black" in a positive and no longer a shameful one."

I do like what you did just replacing white with black and ignoring that I had explained what the Reverend was saying by black so let me take the quote and do what you did using another word.

“For oppressive people, God’s reconciliation in Jesus Christ means that God has made oppressed people a beautiful people; and if they are going to be in relationship with God, they must enter by means of their oppressed brothers, who are a manifestation of God’s presence on earth. The assumption that one can know God without knowing oppression is the basic heresy of the black churches.”

Suddenly this sounds a lot like theology in fact I think Jesus said something like this,

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Luke 14:15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.
16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant came, and showed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.
25 And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.


I do not know how you could continue this argument much further, I think that the Reverend and Jesus are very clear, "you must become like little children shunning your former oppressive nature to enter the kingdom of God."

The quote is my own words

The last part:

***This blog's writer though seem to be doing a disservice to its cause, (not that Evangelicals are better)***

I'm not sure what my article has to do with Catholic-Protestant relations (I'm an evangelical.)

The point was not the relationship between Catholic and Protestant but with both Catholic and Protestant to God!
I was pointing out too you that when you attack someone and take their quote out of context without explaining the terms used it does not only do a diservice to them but to you. I wonder if you have read the author you are slamming or just saying what you read on the internet in your own words? This does not build trust among your writers if the latter is true. Like I said I have started to read this blog because of the caliber of the views ideas, and logic expressed by the readers. It seems you also are a smart man and I would like to see the same from you.

I did see you were in the military for 13 years in the Marines in fact. Thank you for your service. I am personally an 0311 in the Marines now (not even close to as long as you but some day I hope) I though am reminded of your cread Seper Fi, (always faithful for you that are not Marines) I have personally have always thought of this as a commitment to truth.

John 8-
31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Excellent article. I had never been able to put into words why Jimmy Carter's religiosity was not a problem for the Democrats. Now I can proffer a reasonable opinion.

The Old Testament gives the rather fearful picture of David , ? falling for his ego , taking a count of his country men , with the result of 'satan' / God's wrath rising up , in the form of a plague .

If the leader of a country is like a father figure whose role and power can be substantial at that level , knowing if his / her heart is good and pure , charitable towards all they are to care for , could be very important .

Some one who carries hatred of any sort towards a majority of the people - could such a person ,even unwittingly , then be a portal for the unleash of evils that are waiting - in the form of natuaral disasters and so on , as well as an agent to help to bring forth laws that undermine the good of many !

Let us hope that a God of mercy has touched the hearts of our leaders , to be persons of humility and Godly wisdom as well as courage !

Here's a different take on Jeremiah Wright, and religion in American politics more generally (Stanley Hauerwas):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/oct/16/faith-america-secular-britain

"...Americans expect their presidents to believe in god. They do so because they are confident that the god presidents believe in is not a god that can call into question the American project. This is why President Obama had to leave his church when his pastor suggested that God might stand in judgment on the US."

Race is a slippery, unscientific idea. Just to raise a few points:

We are all, ultimately, as human beings, descended from Africans. Shouldn't we all, therefore, be black?

Differences among races are far greater than differences between races.

Extreme conflict is often shown between groups, such as the Irish, Scots, and English, who are almost completely genetically identical. Therefore, culture and religion are more important than genetics.

Conversely, surface-level racial affinity often obscures extremely deep cultural divides. I think this primarily happens in America and Britain. As an Irish Catholic I have found greater affinity with a Mr. Kim or Ms. Nwosu who is Catholic than with a Mr. Brown or Ms. Miller who may be closer genetically but is miles apart culturally.


Culture wars may be worth fighting, but I am not convinced that I owe any particular allegiance to someone who has a similar level of melatonin and bone structure.

That Hauerwas quote is a keeper. And who knew, from reading the Scripture alone, that God hates cooperating with other nations, such as via the United Nations? So much of conservatism seems to rest on false pride. It's _my_ money because I made it all by _my_self (with no help from the Giver of Talents and Gifts, apparently), and I won't submit to no government, and this is _my_ country, and we won't submit to no foreigners. As Jesus said, "Don't Tread On Me."

Any commenter dismissing this piece as partisan hackery is missing the point by a wide margin. The church in question happens to be the church of the current President, but if it were the church of a sitting black Republican president, would the theology of the church be any less foul or reprehensible? No. Would Joe be any less inclined to speak out against it, or call for the Republican president (or presidential candidate) to disassociate himself with said church? Of course not.

As Joe said, no Republican president would get near the white house if he had an association with a church espousing a fairly reprehensible and racialist theology. A democratic not only got close, he got the whole way. These are facts. If the facts 'lean right', then don't shoot the messenger. Blame the facts.

Race is not the issue. Abuse and exploitation of a race are the issues. I think we can and should empathize with the harm done to the African American community.

Fred, you're stereotyping and in the process creating a straw man to attack. We all need to get past "them versus us" thinking.

Wrt the original article, I don't think any of us is concerned with religion (or wishes to pledge allegiance to "irreligion") as much as with magical thinking and superstition. When we have Rick Perry praying (with stunning lack of success) for rain, while denying climate science and making inaccurate and mean-spirited claims about the integrity of the scientific community, we need to be asking questions. The reason I bring up climate science is because it perfectly illustrates the tribal and magical thinking of the superstitious (as opposed to the religious.) Instead of science, the deniers embrace irrationality, false logic, and inaccurate information. Climate change denial has become a fundamental tenet of their religion (although, of course, they'll claim that belief in "belief in AGW is a secular religion," etc.). Why do they need to believe what they do? Because they're manipulated by the very powerful right-wing think tanks and media outlets to incorporate irrational beliefs (universal health care is immoral, supply side economics helps the poor, AGW isn't happening) into their religious belief system.

The real concern is not about the religiosity of Perry, Bachmann, or Palin -- it's that they embrace superstitions and falsehoods that are downright dangerous to the common good.

_Fred, you're stereotyping and in the process creating a straw man to attack._

Oh? Did you or did you not write "I think a lot of people are skeptical of the right-wing "religious" agenda, which is really a front for a right-wing corporatist agenda." Is that or is that not a vast oversimplification (i.e. cliche) of the conservative positions on religion and business?

Did you or did you not refer to "'useful idiots' [who] vote for an extremist agenda that is not in their best interests"? Is that or is it not a reductive "What's the Matter with Kansas" cliche about conservative voters and why they vote as they do?

Did you or did you not write "We're disappointed with people who want to 'deliver the Christian vote' for ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers"? Is that or is it not a left-wing cliche about the relationship of corporations to politics?

Before you accuse others of stereotyping and creating strawmen you should a) review the definition of strawman (I did not attack an argument you did not make; you quite clearly indulged in spewing knee-jerk left-wing cliches rather than making arguments) and b) remember another, more apolitical cliche, something about glass houses and stones.

Oh, and by the way Margaret, thanks for informing me that prayer is superstition and that anyone who disagrees with (or even questions) your obviously superior intellect on such matters as AGW is "embrac[ing] superstitions and falsehoods that are downright dangerous to the common good." I'm happy to see you don't stereotype or engage in strawmen.

Fred, no, prayer is not superstitious. Dismissing reality -- in the form of science -- is. The reason I know so many of these people are substituting ideology for reality is that they give scientifically incorrect and easily and often refuted reasons for disputing AGW. In 98% of cases. their reasoning is demonstrably and quantifiably false. How can I avoid concluding that they are superstitious?

I don't actually see them as stupid, as you seem to assume that I do. Some seem moderately bright, which is all the more reason to conclude that they've been duped.

Duffy You should read my post on this issue.

I don't think anyone was saying this was a partisan issue.

I think many Doctors of the Church described Pride as the deadliest of the seven. It seems it may often be an impediment to being able to determine who has been duped or if there is duping occurring. Lucifer -- the chief example of pride -- turns out to be the Great Deceiver or duper extraordinaire.

"Lucifer -- the chief example of pride -- turns out to be the Great Deceiver or duper extraordinaire."

Associating the "dupers" with Lucifer is going a little too far, even for me. Cynical and dishonest efforts to manipulate, as in attempts to link the non-conforming with Satan, are just that -- cynical and dishonest.

Luke 14:15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. From the two comments above, I gather Joe's thought experiment failed. Whenever Jeremiah Wright's name comes across a page or is said in a broadcast, I say a prayer for Howard Thurman. He is sorely missed. I read his slim volume "Jesus and the Disinherited" after reading Cone's "Risks of Faith."

I also wanted to say that I am the son of a Protestant Preacher but was raised with and have a deep respect for the Catholic Church. (in fact my girlfriend is Catholic) This blog's writer though seem to be doing a diservice to its cause, (not that Evangelicals are better) This has been pointed out by a few people. My point is I have been reading this blog and there are some great articles. The articles are thought through and the comments intelligent and engaging, but some of it is like this article, misleading and wrong at best, hatful and deliberately ignorant at worst. This to me is sad but since the readers seem to be more engaging and intelligent I hope to see this change. No, I don't think it does. "Black liberation theology" is a racialist politically motivated ideology. If the public truly believed that Obama agreed with it he would have never been elected president.