It seems that among some self-proclaimed conservatives, President Obama can't catch a break.
For instance, there is the prevailing belief that the President is a Muslim. I am not clear where or how this rumor started, however, recently the Washington Post reported that according to a new Pugh Research Center survey, 20 percent of Americans now believe that President Obama is a Muslim, not Christian.
This belief surfaced during the Presidential Campaign, so much so, that in a town hall meeting, Senator John McCain addressed the issue by telling a participant that the rumor was absolutely false. This after he had been questioned about the President's alleged Muslim beliefs.
Yet, as witnessed by the Pugh Survey, the rumor continues to grow. Indeed, in a recent Op-Ed in the NY Times by Paul Krugman, Rush Limbaugh is quoted as referring to President Obama as "Imam Hussien Obama."
Then there was the birth certificate flap. Conservatives alleged that President Obama was not an American citizen. His birth records were called into question.
In July of 2009, the Washington Independent reported that the McCain campaign learned of a lawsuit that had been filed in Pennsylvania asking the court to strip President Obama of the nomination because of a growing suspicion that he indeed was not an American citizen. The McCain campaign dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous. Yet, there was enough clamor over the rumor, that the McCain people are purported to have looked into it.
In spite of countless articles detailing the facts that the President is "legally" the President, there are still those who refuse to believe it.
And now Glenn Beck has called President Obama's view of Jesus into question. Fresh from his "Restoring Honor" rally, Beck was interviewed on Fox News. In the interview, and as reported by the Washington Post, among other publications and online news, Beck claims that the President, "is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology."
He goes on to say, "You see it's all about victims and victimhood; oppressors and the oppressed; reparations, not repentance; collectivism, not individual salvation. I don't know what that is, other than it is not Muslim, it's not Christian. It's a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it."
Apparently, while Beck championed not talking politics at his "Restoring Honor" rally, that did not keep him from calling into question President Obama's understanding of both Jesus and the gospel. In other words, while talking about the President's politics was forbidden, criticizing his religious beliefs was fair game.
Never mind that Glenn Beck does not have a degree in Theology, did not study at a Seminary or Theological school of any kind, and, apparently has not taken the time to read even Wikipedia on what Liberation Theology is.
He assumes that he knows what "most Christians" think the gospel is. He further assumes that he has his finger on the pulse of the theological beliefs of an entire segment of those who adhere to the Christian faith. This in spite of the fact that he is a Mormon, whose understanding of Jesus is different than what would be the understanding of both a Protestant and Catholic theological understanding of who Jesus was, as well as, who Jesus is understood to have said he was.
This is not a critique of the Mormon faith, it is simply a recognition that Glenn Beck approaches his own Christian faith from a particular theological construct.
I had the privilege of graduating from a Protestant Seminary, studying at both a Presbyterian Seminary and at Princeton Seminary. In addition, I served as both a Pastor and a Chaplain. I can say with some authority that Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs and understanding of who Jesus is. There are those who understand Jesus as personal savior. Yet, there are also those who understand Jesus as God's incarnation who has come to identify with the poor, the oppressed and the outcast. And then there are those who see Jesus as both.
In fact, even the Early Church wrestled with it's understanding of Jesus. For instance, the letters of Paul speak often of both the nature of the gospel and whether the good news is meant for only those of the Jewish faith or should be shared with the "Gentiles." In addition, it is well documented that the Early Church was split between a more orthodox view of Jesus and that of Gnosticism, which denied the humanity of Jesus in favor of a Jesus that only appeared to be human. Read the Gospel of John, for instance, and one comes away with the stark impression that John is very concerned with whether or not God did indeed come "in the flesh."
So, now along with his citizenship and his religious affiliation, President Obama has to deal with those who are questioning his belief about Jesus. According to Glenn Beck, that understanding is wrong, out of the mainstream and borders on heretical. And, apparently, he has no qualms about saying so.
I would ask Glenn Beck to listen to other members of the evangelical community. Recently, a group of 70 evangelical pastors released a letter asking people to stop misrepresenting the faith of the President, saying in the letter, "the personal faith of our leaders should not up for public debate." (Holly Bailey, August 26th, Yahoo News)
In fact, when Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church and one of the leading figures in the Evangelical community was asked about the rumor that the President was Muslim, he offered no comment.
Glenn Beck should do the same.
********
~image courtesy of Bing
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
A Life of Healing
Mimetalker
mhold
Mabel White
Lea Lane
Way2 Black
Salon.com
Comments
I hope you rate an EP today. This is remarkable.
Bonnie, my point in referring to Rick Warren was to highlight the lack of response from a leading member of the Evangelical community. As to your opinion of him, I choose no comment. However, I do appreciate your honesty. Thanks.
This is so very, very wrong.
Arguing facts with these halfwits is a waste of time -- they can't even decide whether Obama is (the wrong kind of) Christian or (the wrong kind of) Muslim. And beneath all the screaming, they really don't care. This is just another excuse to throw a tantrum and escape from the reality they and their party created.
Thank you, Amanda.
Jerry...perhaps, however, I had to.
Jeanette and Razzle..thank you!
Kathy...I so appreciate your thoughts on this. Your piece on Understanding Beck was both enlightening and well done.
Thanks for your impassioned comment, motherwell.
I personally believe Jesus was a mortal man who set an example of self sacrifice. He was married and his descendants became all the royal dynasties ruling Europe the past thousand years, including Constantinus, Meroveus, Arthur, Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, and Edward Longshanks. All US Presidents are descendants of King Edward, making them descendants of Jesus.
Liberation theology bubbled up in Latin America as a response to poverty that had its roots in economic injustice. Its spread was also a decentralizing movement in the Catholic church. That's not to say that such theology is perfectly applied — there have been many abuses, some of them quite serious, and almost all of them related to the apparent innate desire of humans to have power over other humans. In too many places, liberation theology has just reversed the roles of the oppressed and the oppressors, but it has succeeded in drawing attention to the idea that marginalization is not a Christian value, and that religious belief should not be set aside when it is politically expedient.
In my view, the greatest failing of modern evangelicalism (which is evolving in a positive direction at least in this regard) is its emphasis as a personal religion rather than a social religion. I can find in the Gospels no support for that, nor for the idea that the "one another" we are commanded to love include only those just like us. One of the largest criticisms leveled at Christianity by those who don't think about it too deeply is the idea that one can be forgiven and not change. One actually cannot believe without being changed, and living out that change. Some are more successful at that than others, obviously, and all of us fall short, but to believe that "The poor will always be with you" is an endorsement of economic or political oppression is an astounding perversion of the Gospel.
It makes sense that liberation theology would be seen as a threat to the status quo of the white male, and Beck is an adherent of a faith that affords white males a high degree of status. Beck seems to ascribe to the theology of scarcity, and that is not a Christian idea. He would have us believe that "as it is in heaven" really means "as it is in the right wing of the GOP."
Frankly, I'm tired of a minority - in this case Beck and the Limbaugh Ditto Heads - claiming that they speak for any "majority."
The "majority" - made up of all faiths, backgrounds, ages, and education levels - voted for Barack Obama.
While I understand fully well that our president is a Christian, even if he decided tomorrow to convert to the Ba Hai' faith, Islam, Wicca or whatever he decided was the right faith for him, he has every right to do that.
We are guaranteed freedom of religion in this country.
Thanks for shedding some "true" light on a speech full of lies and distortions.
I wish more of us remembered that repeating a lie does not make it the truth, whether it's about someone's religion, birthplace, or anything else.
I think Beck as well as anyone else should worry about their relationship to God and concern themselves with living and working out their own salvation instead of worrying about everyone else. The world would be a far better place.
What these narrow-minded are saying, in so many words, is "you can't have Jesus, he's mine" - "Jesus was a Republican" - "Jesus was lilly white with blue eyes" - "Jesus wasn't a Jew! He was a Presbyterian!"
It all goes back to people creating God in their own image. I guess the president signed up for this kind of treatment when ran for president; however, it's sad that issues get shelved, debates become argumentum-ad-hominem, and the U.S. becomes an international laughing-stock thanks to "birthers" and kooks-who-say-Obama-is-a-Muslim-even-though-they-know-he-isn't.
Sorry for my rant. I feel better now. Thanks for your post.
I'm sorry, but why is this worth emulating? We all know perfectly well that what Rick Warren means is, "Of course Obama is a Muslim, but I can't get away with saying that."
An acceptable response would be something like, "Of course Obama is a Christian" or "Obama's faith is irrelevant to his role as president of the United States" or even "Why are you so concerned about Obama's faith when you never thought to question Bush's or even Clinton's faith?"
RAR, I agree with the others that this should be an EP article.
Very much Rated
@High Lonesome: Amen!
Disclaimer: I'm an entertainer, and have been known to say outrageous things for a laugh or applause. However, I also have the good sense to add "I just made that up."
Yes, I think you've nailed it down pretty well, for all the good it's going to do when it comes to Beck-ites with their muzzy thinking and fuzzy belief set.
And I'm glad to see Kathy chimed in on this, because it's worthwhile having that information as well.
Thanks to you both.
"You see it's all about victims and victimhood; oppressors and the oppressed;", indeed Sir Beck, the Jews were victims, the Romans oppressors. This is indisputable by sane persons, and there you are.
Americans ignorance extends quite a ways into Latin America, a favorite place for us surfers. Any cursory review of history makes quite clear why the people did what they did to the Church, as usual, it was because of what was being done for them, since the 1500s.
I respect you respecting Rick Warren, however, his hate for gays makes him a zero as a human being. We don't need to call him a donkey, but a hater he is, again, this is indisputable to any human with a modicum of self-awareness.
I also respect you respecting Mormons, of course many are fine people, just incredibly hard to put into perspective two sets of magic spectacles, or the same pair dropping from heaven twice, and, incredibly even more bizarre, the idea that the previous mentioned original Latin Americans were somehow early Christians who circumnavigated the globe, well, I'll leave it at that.
Thanks for your good works. Rated.
Thank you for being informed.
Being also from the (much-maligned, these past few years) Sunflower State, I know there's more of that there (reasoned heads, informed minds) then they get credit for.
Excellent post, RAR! EP well deserved.
Lezlie
Try to reason? Impossible. I am preaching on Matthew 20.1-16 this week for Labor Day. Try explaining that (the workers in the vineyard) without some reference to entitlement, grace, and justice. I have to ask: is there a different Jesus book that these folks are reading?
Jesus wasn't just a liberation theologian; he was a liberation activist. What happened to "I have come to set the captives free"? Or the upsidedown tables in the temple?
The thing is: the religion of America is Hyper-Capitalism. Not just Adam Smith-style capitalism (that wouldn't be so bad), but Hyper-Capitalism. What Christianity can squeeze through the eye of that needle?
Excellent piece of writing. R
Speaking from a theological perspective and as a Christian, I have no problem saying that there is really only one "entity" that really knows whether or not I am a true Christian, and that would be God Himself. In other words, only God can be the ultimate judge of the quality of our faith -- whether it is real or fake or misguided.
I can call myself a Christian, I can think of myself as Christian, but only God knows for sure.
Now, do I take Obama's word that he's a Christian? Yes. He considers himself a Christian and that's fine with me. But it also doesn't mean a whole lot.
So rather than attacking Beck who, I admit, probably doesn't have a theologian's understanding of liberation theology and different forms of christianity, etc., he is still popular with a lot of people for a reason. What he says resonates with them and what he says has a "common sense" behind it often lacking in more learned responses. So why not consider that there are some legitimate issues here?
If you are someone who leans toward being distrustful of Obama (not because he's not a "nice guy" but because you worry his political philosophy is misguided or not good for the country), then you might see his attending Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago as a way to advance his political career, not because he saw himself so much as a christian. In fact, if he were not particularly religious or if he were even secretly muslim would attending a mosque be good for his political career? Probably not. Furthermore, if you have read any of the views and philosophy espoused by Wright's church you should at least be concerned about whether or not Obama shares some of these views or to what extent he might. If he wasn't attending Wright's church for mostly political reasons, that could be even more troubling because that means he must actually identify with a good portion of Wright's message.
Liberation theology, by viewing the world in terms of class and economics, seems to suggest that only the poor can be oppressed, or that their oppression is caused by forces outside of their control.
If I were building you a house and I told you that 5% of my workers were doing 60% of the actual work, would you think something was out of balance? Would you think that was fair to the 5%? Are the others just sitting around watching or taking advantage of that fact that most of the work is being done by others?
And yet, in terms of taxation, the top 5% of wage earners in the United States pay 60% of the federal income tax.
Is this fair? The tea party people don't think so, even though few of them would be in that 5% They're probably in the top 50% -- that pays 97% of the taxes.(1)
So how does this injustice not warrant a kind of "liberation theology" for those top 50%?
The great wisdom of Christianity is that you and I should never be so sure we know where wisdom will be coming from.
We should be forever vigilant about who the "oppressed" can be and who can be discriminated against.
In the time of Christ, people thought the messiah would be clothed in fine raiment as if he were the king.
They were wrong and we can be wrong too.
1. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
You say: "This is not a critique of the Mormon faith, it is simply a recognition that Glenn Beck approaches his own Christian faith from a particular theological construct."
And then you go on to say of yourself, " I had the privilege of graduating from a Protestant Seminary, studying at both a Presbyterian Seminary and at Princeton Seminary. In addition, I served as both a Pastor and a Chaplain. I can say with some authority that Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs and understanding of who Jesus is. There are those who understand Jesus as personal savior. Yet, there are also those who understand Jesus as God's incarnation who has come to identify with the poor, the oppressed and the outcast. And then there are those who see Jesus as both."
Is that not judging another's Christian understanding and bias out of your own?
Since your view and understanding of Christianity comes from your Protestant Seminary education, which you then go on to say gives you some authority to say what you say, then I have to point out that the Protestant understanding of Christianity is far removed from what Jesus himself taught.
Protestantism is simply an outgrowth of Roman Catholicism, which is a system of belief grown out of the conflict between the Roman Gentile church and the original Jewish Jerusalem church which Paul specifically warned the Roman church against in his letter to the Romans; which warning they made prophetic by ignoring when the Roman Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of his empire as a means of uniting all the various pagan peoples of the Empire, and proceeded to direct its doctrinal course himself though he was himself not a Christian, not being baptized even apparently until on his death bed.
But that conflict led to the Roman church rejecting the 7th day Sabbath in favor of the 1st day Sabbath in order to further cement in the minds of gentile believers that the real authority from Christ was theirs and not the leaders of the Jewish Jerusalem church. Calling seventh day worship judaizing, they pronounced it "anathema to Christ."
They adopted various pagan holidays and rituals as "Christian," to further make acceptance of their religion and authority easier for the varied gentile people of the empire to accept their version of Christianity and Jesus, and even went so far as to utilize the Legions of the Empire to hunt down and exterminate all the known leaders and their families of the Jewish Church in order to further establish and cement their hold on the Church; which leaders were actually the descendants of the physical family of Jesus himself, called "desposyni," meaning "of the Lord." These were the leaders of the Jewish Church and his family members.
This fact of systematic murder of those who they perceived as the greatest threat to their authority is documented by the late Jesuit Priest and Vatican diplomat Malachi Martin in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Church."
That it was the physical family of Jesus who were the leaders of the church in Jerusalem after his death we can see evidence of in the story of the great debate over whether Gentile converts should be circumcised as their fellow Jewish believers were in the Book of Acts, chapter 15 where that issue was brought by Paul before the leaders of the Jerusalem church. Peter, whom the Roman Church calls the first Pope, saying that he was charged with its leadership by Jesus himself, did indeed speak there, but it was the brother of Jesus, James, who actually gave the final decision that Gentiles were not to be forced to circumcise themselves but that they simply were required to take care of the poor and needy and to keep themselves from pollution of idols ,and from sexual immorality, verses 13-20.
Peter spoke, but it was James who gave the decision, providing evidence in support of Malachi Martins story of the descendants of Jesus' physical family who were the traditional leaders of the Jewish Church so that a few generations it was they who were caused to be hunted down and exterminated by the Roman Legions then in unholy alliance with the leaders of the Roman church.
Noting that Martin Luther didn't reject Catholicism but rather the authority of the Pope and the Roman Church and that Protestantism that came out of that still today retains much of the doctrine introduced by and taught as Christianity by the Roman Church, your view which you have come by from your education in Protestant seminaries thus giving what you call "authority" to judge the view of Christianity of Glen Beck is therefore just as biased and far removed from the original teachings of Jesus himself, and therefore are as far removed from the original Christianity and rooted in a false system of belief as you imply that Becks narrow view is.
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.
Um...he admitted that Christians were not a monolithic block, and described some of the varying interpretations of christian doctrine. What's your problem with that statement?
...I have to point out that the Protestant understanding of Christianity is far removed from what Jesus himself taught.
Which Protestants are you talking about, and how, exactly, does their understanding deviate from the teachings of Christ? The rest of your rant was all about political actions, not doctrine or understanding.
Liberation theology, by viewing the world in terms of class and economics, seems to suggest that only the poor can be oppressed, or that their oppression is caused by forces outside of their control.
The "suggestion" here is yours and yours alone. You are clearly trying to misrepresent something in order to pretend it's invalid. And no, liberation theology is NOT all about "class and economics."
And yet, in terms of taxation, the top 5% of wage earners in the United States pay 60% of the federal income tax. Is this fair?
Yes, actually, it is fair: the richer you are, the more you benefit from civil society, and the more you have to lose if it falls apart. So yes, the richest of us ARE obligated to pay a greater share of taxes -- especially if the poor's share isn't enough to pay for all the programs we voted for.
The great wisdom of Christianity is that you and I should never be so sure we know where wisdom will be coming from.
Yet more incoherent doubletalk. Are you really trying to say anything here? I don't agree with all of what we call "liberation theology," but at least it makes more sense than your amorphous drivel.
"Um...he admitted that Christians were not a monolithic block, and described some of the varying interpretations of christian doctrine. What's your problem with that statement?"
Describing differences of others is not claiming them for his own, motherwell. It's nothiung more than that: a description of a fractured Christianity. And it's his own--- not those varying differences--- are rooted in the Protestant seminaries and pastoral experience to which he credits his "authority" to judge.
Let him respond himself to my criticism. He has the education and ability apparently, and shouldn't require your help.
Is there any way you can reword that sentence to make it the least bit coherent? I really have no idea what you're trying to say.
---Sarva Satya dasa (Ron McClellan), 1990
I'm not a "humanist," per se (even Peter Singer, in Animal Liberation, comments that although the Renaissance brought about an improvement in the ethical treatment of animals, it was still based on humanism, or a human-centered universe).
I am, however, a secularist, for a number of different reasons.
1. Secularism protects religious minorities.
A Roman Catholic priest, Reverend David K. O’Rourke, said, “Every religious group in the United States is a minority group. Some may be unhappy with this status and wish they had official standing. I am not unhappy with it. The Catholic Church, the largest of these minorities, has prospered greatly in this country where we separate church and state.”
Reverend Barry Lynn (an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, a pro-choice Protestant denomination), Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State says, "The Religious Right is still spreading misinformation about church-state separation and Robert Boston’s book (Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State, Prometheus Books, 2003) debunks it. This book uses everyday language to explain why the Religious Right is wrong about separation of church and state."
According to Boston, “We have a vibrant, multifaith religious society that, with the exception of a few fundamentalist Muslim states, is admired all over the globe. We have a degree of interfaith harmony unmatched in the world. Our government is legally secular, but our culture accommodates and welcomes a variety of religious voices. New faiths take root here without fear...
“Americans remain greatly interested in religion and things spiritual—unlike their counterparts in Western Europe, where religion is often state subsidized but of little interest to most people....Children are no longer forced to pray in school or read from religious texts against their will, yet they are free to engage in truly voluntary religious worship whenever they feel the need. The important task of imparting religious and philosophical training to youngsters is left where it always belonged—with each child’s parents or guardians...
"Some European nations have passed so-called anticult laws aimed at curbing the rights of unpopular new religions. Such laws would not be acceptable in the United States or permitted under the First Amendment.
“In a multifaith society such as the United States,” observes Boston, “a type of religious marketplace does exist. Religious groups that aggressively seek converts, such as the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are well aware that people in the United States are able and even willing to change their religious beliefs. To these groups, it’s well worth it to enter the marketplace and advertise their goods. Lots of people might buy them...
“Because the U.S. government is secular, religious groups are left to contend for members based solely on their own initiative. They create a free marketplace of religion that spurs competition and a vigorous religious life. This explains why the United States, which maintains church-state separation, retains a high degree of religiosity among its people.
“The more sophisticated and perceptive believers realize that the separation principle is a boon to their faith,” notes Boston. “They see danger in any attempt by government to decide which religion is true and which is false. They know that a faith that is in favor with the government today can be out of favor tomorrow. These believers are thankful for the free marketplace of religion and the secular state that makes it possible. They understand that the way to get new members is through persuasion, not government aid.”
2. It's impossible to reconcile all of the differing and conflicting belief systems.
Several years ago, on the Democrats-For-Life e-mail list, I went through an exchange of e-mails with Louis Shapiro (Shapiro is a Jewish name, but he's Catholic). I insisted that all discussion on the e-mail list be secular, and Louis wanted religion in the public square.
I said even if we could all somehow agree on "monotheism," there would still be debate, because Jews and Muslims regard the Trinity as disguised polytheism. Rabbi Jacob Shimmel tells Satyaraja dasa (Steven Rosen) in their 1990 book Om Shalom: Judaism and Krishna Consciousness that because of belief in a Trinity, Christianity cannot be considered a truly monotheistic religion. (I don't know what Rabbi Shimmel would make of our worshipping of a plural Godhead, vishnu-tattva expansions, e.g., Radha-Krishna. Should we remove Radharani from our altars just to please Christians, who are unlikely to stop believing in a Trinity in response?)
A Christian on the Democrats-For-Life e-list wrote in and agreed with me, saying a secular government is the best kind of government Christians can hope for "until Jesus returns to establish His kingdom."
Similarly, on "pilgrimage" to the Santa Cruz, CA temple with the beautiful bhaktin Kim Grant, I pointed out to her that Christians differ widely in their beliefs: from Catholics to Baptists, to Unitarians, to Christian Scientists, to Jehovah's Witnesses, to Seventh Day Adventists, to Mormons, etc...so there's no reason they can't be accepting of Eastern religions, belief in karma, reincarnation, etc. "But they (the different religious groups listed) all hate each other!" Kim countered.
It's my conviction that in our modern, secular age, we can resolve disputes without turning to unprovable religious beliefs...without the threat of holy war.
3. A secular society allows us to do just that (i.e., resolve disputes without turning to unprovable religious beliefs or the threat of holy war).
In 1787 when the framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless, which is precisely what it is. Opponents of the Constitution challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, calling attention to Article VI, Section 3: “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. Pagans, Deists and Mohammedans might obtain office among us.” Amos Singletary of Massachussetts, one of the most outspoken critics of the Constitution, said that he “hoped to see Christians (in power), yet by the Constitution, a papist or an infidel was as eligible as they.”
Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wrote that “there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief in the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” Martin’s report shows that a “Christian nation” faction had its say during the convention, and that its views were consciously rejected.
The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the “no religious test” clause (Article VI), and “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment)
The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words “under God” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them.
Similarly, “In God we Trust” was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins beginning in 1864. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Of Many, One”) celebrating plurality and diversity.
In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bonds,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based upon the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn’t discuss religion at all. The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural.
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. However, Jefferson admitted, “In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man and that other parts are the fabric of very inferior minds...”
It was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state. Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political power.
Jefferson helped create the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, incurring the wrath of Christians by his fervent defense of toleration of atheists:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Jefferson advocated a “wall of separation” between church and state not to protect the church from government intrusion, but to preserve the freedom of the people:
“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught;” he observed, “but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and established by kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of mankind.”
Jefferson and the founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Their world view was based upon Deism, secularism, and rationalism.
“The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight,” wrote Jefferson. “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter...we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this...”
As late as 1820, Jefferson was convinced everyone in the United States would die a Unitarian. Jefferson, Madison and Paine’s writings indicate that America was never intended to be a Christian theocracy. “I have sworn upon the altar of God,” wrote Jefferson, “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Similarly, in an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson expressed anger at judges who had based rulings on their belief that Christianity is part of the common law. Cartwright had written a book critical of these judges, and Jefferson was glad to see it. Observed Jefferson, “The proof of the contrary, which you have produced, is controvertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.” Jefferson challenged “the best-read lawyer to produce another script of authority for this judicial forgery” and concluded, “What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!”
As president, Jefferson put his “wall of separation” theory into practice. He refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and fasting, insisting that they violate the First Amendment. As early as 1779, Jefferson proposed a bill before the Virginia legislature that would have established a series of elementary schools to teach the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic. Jefferson even suggested that “no religious reading, instruction, or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced, inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” Jefferson did not regard public schools as the proper agent to form children’s religious views.
As president, James Madison also put his separationist philosophy into action. He vetoed two bills he believed would violate church-state separation. The first was an act incorporating the Episcopal Church in the District of Columbia that gave the church the authority to care for the poor. The second was a proposed land grant to a Baptist church in Mississippi. Had Madison, the father of the Constitution, believed that all the First Amendment was intended to do was bar setting up a state church, he would have approved these bills. Instead, he vetoed both, and in his veto messages to Congress explicitly stated that he was rejecting the bills because they violated the First Amendment.
Later in his life, James Madison came out against state-paid chaplains, writing, “The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.” He also concluded that his calling for days of prayer and fasting during his presidency had been unconstitutional.
In an 1819 letter to Robert Walsh, Madison wrote, “the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.” In an undated essay called the “Detached Memoranda,” written in the early 1800s, Madison wrote, “Strongly guarded...is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States.”
In 1833 Madison responded to a letter sent to him by Jasper Adams. Adams had written a pamphlet titled “The Relations of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States,” which tried to prove that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Madison wrote back: “In the papal system, government and religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of government.”
Madison, like Jefferson, was confident that separation of church and state would protect both the institutions of government and religion. Late in his life, Madison wrote to a Lutheran minister about this, declaring, “A due distinction...between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations...A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.”
In the early part of the 19th century, a general understanding existed that the government should not promote religion, or favor one religion over another. Senator Richard Johnson of Kentucky wrote in 1829:
“It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true, or what is false,” Johnson observed. “Our Government is a civil and not a religious institution. Our Constitution recognizes in every person the right to choose his own religion, and to enjoy it freely, without molestation. Whatever may be the religious sentiments of citizens, and however variant, they are alike entitled to protection from the Government, so long as they do not invade the rights of others...
“Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for violation of what Government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our Government the power of defining the divine law.”
I took a class in religion as an undergraduate that included Liberation theology. So I'm not unfamiliar with it.
"Is there any way you can reword that sentence to make it the least bit coherent? I really have no idea what you're trying to say."
OK. I admit that it was not a very well worded sentence, and perhaps needs some work to make it grammatically correct, though I think the meaning still gets through as is. But try this:
And it's his own narrow understanding of Christianity--- not those varying differences--- which are rooted in the Protestant seminaries and pastoral experience to which he credits his "authority" to judge.
That should make it understandable to you--- if indeed you really could not understand it as you claim.
Now let him respond himself. It's his "authority" arising from those roots which he points to in hopes that we will accept it whether we share his own accepted splinter group of Christian understanding or not.
Similarly, in the October 2006 issue of Church & State, the periodical put out by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Gary B. Christenot, an evangelical Christian writes about his experience on the Hawaiian island of Wahiawa, where Christians are a minority "in this little village that was populated predominantly by people of Japanese and Chinese ancestry. Rather than a church on every corner, as is common in the continental 48 states, Wahiawa had a Shinto or Buddhist shrine on every corner."
Christenot notes that prayers before a high school football game were led "not by a Protestant minister or a Catholic priest, but a Buddhist priest who proceeded to offer up prayers and intonations to god-head figures that our tradition held to be pagan."
He concludes: "I would say in love to my Christian brothers and sisters: Before you yearn for the imposition of prayer and similar rituals in your public schools, you might consider attending a football game at Wahiawa High School. Because unless you're ready to endure the unwilling exposure of yourself and your children to those beliefs and practices that your own faith forswears, you have no right to insist that others sit in silence and complicity while you do the same to them. I, for one, sleep better at night knowing that because Judeo-Christian prayers are not being offered at my children's schools, I don't have to worry about them being confronted with Buddhist, Shinto, Wiccan, Satanic or any other prayer ritual I might find offensive."
This is disappointing post. Beck's flaws could be more effectively highlighted if the writer could have avoided confusing "Obama is a Muslim", which Beck absolutely did not say, with what Beck has said repeatedly which is that Obama's spiritual affiliations are liberation theology oriented (Wright, Flager and Wallace). Are these the religious associates of Pres. Obama? Is Liberation Theology a political take on the New Testament? Address those issues which is where Beck could be attacked, not that Obama is a Muslim, which Beck agrees is not true. And yoy might consider using some source more authoritative than Wikipedia to accomplish the task.
http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com
Those who would denigrate Glenn Beck's religion, usually have an ulterior motive. 11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were non-Trinitarian Christians. Those who insist on a narrow definition of Christianity are doing our Republic an injustice.
http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com
Those who would denigrate Glenn Beck's religion, usually have an ulterior motive. 11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were non-Trinitarian Christians. Those who insist on a narrow definition of Christianity are doing our Republic an injustice.
Secondly, I want to clarify two references within the post. The first is that the use of the word "authority" referred to my experience within the Christian community, that experience being that within the Christian community, and sometimes within a specific Church community, there are differing views as to who Jesus is.
Secondly, my reference to Wikipedia was about Beck's understanding of Liberation Theology, not my own.
Yeah, we gotta be sure to get it straight which bits of dumbass nonsense Beck told, and which ones someone else on the far right told.
Oh, and bot1 really is a bot. I've seen exactly the same post -- and cogent refutations to same -- on other blogs.
If you could give some specifics of that I'd be interested in reading about it, either here or on your blog.
My book, They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, was published in 2003. (I'm grateful to have become a published author before turning 40.) Similar to Steven Rosen's Diet for Transcendence (formerly Food for the Spirit), the book discusses animal rights and vegetarianism in the Western religious traditions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha'i faith, Pythagoreanism and neo-Platonism. Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wrote the preface, and the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (author, God's Covenant with Animals--it's available through PETA) wrote the foreword.
When I gave a talk on religion and animals at a San Francisco Vegetarian Society potluck in February 2001, I told the audience that I deliberately chose to focus on the Western religious traditions, because for too long, the stereotype of "religious vegetarians" is that they are all followers of Eastern religions, believing you might be reincarnated as a cow in your next life if you're not careful. (This drew a chuckle from the audience.) I wanted to show that the Western religious traditions also support the vegetarian way of life.
The book has been endorsed by Jewish and Christian clergy. The purpose of They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy is two-fold: to bring animal rights and vegetarianism into the mainstream (churches and synagogues) and to provide animal activists with inspiration and support for their own activism.
There are all kinds of fictitious "gospels" floating around, like the Aquarian Gospel, the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, the Essene Gospel of Peace, etc. Some of these "gospels" depict Jesus as a vegetarian, others say he traveled to India, or that he taught reincarnation (I believe reincarnation IS compatible with Christianity--on an abstract, theological level).
Mainline churches aren't about to take these "gospels" seriously. And with good reason. The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, for example, was received by seances and mediums in 19th century England! There's a book by Swedish New Testament scholar, Per Beskow, entitled Strange Tales About Jesus, where he effectively debunks these "gospels."
When I wrote They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, I made it a point to stick to orthodoxy: Scripture, theology, church history, secular history, the lives of the saints (Catholicism) and religious reformers (Protestantism), etc. -- and leave all "strange" elements behind.
I sent a copy of my book to Per Beskow, and he acknowledged that I have not written a "strange tale," but he didn't think I provided enough compelling historical evidence to demand that Christians be vegan. He admitted, however, that his area of expertise is historical, not theological. The book has gotten a very positive response from Christian vegetarians and vegans, of whom I have the deepest respect.
Norm Phelps, Spiritual Outreach Director for the Fund For Animals, has endorsed the book, saying the animal rights movement will never succeed until we have religion on our side. Reverend Frank Hoffman, the retired vegan Methodist minister and owner of the www.all-creatures.org Christian vegetarian website, gave the book a glowing review in Veg-News shortly before the book's publication. He wrote to me, "For a non-Jew and a non-Christian, you have a remarkable grasp of Biblical interpretation." Rachael Price, a born again Christian, has endorsed the book.
The animal rights movement--like the civil rights movement-- could use the inspiration, blessings, and support of organized religion, which was the reason I wrote They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, and sent hundreds of copies to clergy and lay people alike across the theological spectrum. Matthew Priebe, a Bible-believing Christian, and author of Animals, Ethics and Christianity, endorsed They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, but could tell right away that my approach to biblical scholarship was secular and academic.
He said They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy might influence liberal Christian denominations, such as Methodists, Episcopalians, and Unitarians, but that I would run into problems with biblical literalists and fundamentalists. I'm hoping that isn't the case. I'm hoping Jews, Christians, Muslims and Bahai's from all walks of life will join us. It's time to end animal slavery.
You can purchase a copy for $15 (this includes shipping and handling) from:
Vegetarian Advocates Press
PO Box 201791
Cleveland, OH 44120
We've kept the cost low in order to reach a wide audience.
I am appalled that Beck and his hopelessly asinine ilk seem have a chronic disregard for the separation of church and state.
To shift from everyday responsibilities and demands to a magical, invisible friend in the sky is an exercise in normative insanity.
And let us not forget that Obama's long-time Christian mentor is Jeremiah Wright. Reviewing the Good Reverend's voluminous statements and writings on a great many subjects, is his form of theology in concert with the mainstream?
And let us not forget that Obama's long-time Christian mentor is Jeremiah Wright. Reviewing the Good Reverend's voluminous statements and writings on a great many subjects, is his form of theology in concert with the mainstream?
Perhaps YOU should consider the sheer volume of flat-out lies YOUR party has been telling about Obama since 2007. Y'think that might be a factor here, boy?
And let us not forget that Obama's long-time Christian mentor is Jeremiah Wright. Reviewing the Good Reverend's voluminous statements and writings on a great many subjects, is his form of theology in concert with the mainstream?
It's a lot closer to the mainstream than that of Republican ministers like John Hagee, Jerry Falwell and "al Qaeda Pat" Robertson.
And with respect to his brand of Christianity, we should remember that his long-time spiritual mentor is Jeremiah Wright. By all means let us review the Good Reverend's voluminous writings and speeches on a great many subjects as we consider whether his theology is in concert with that of most Americans.
And to bot1, Mormonism itself draws some of its doctrines from that early apostasizing of the Catholic Church. Sunday worship, observing Christmas and Easter, etc. So forget the claim of Mormon adherence to 1st century Christianity. The LDS church is likewise far off the mark.
"No, he wasn't," she said.
Hello? She was serious! Talk about the wrong Jesus! It makes you wonder what Jesus it is she worships.
You cannot have logical discussions with these types of people, but still I try.
These people aren't stupid, but they need the support of the overwhelmingly religious stupid in America.
What's interesting here is that Beck has picked up this grenade and decided he would lob it in Obama's direction. I mean, why not? Give as good as you get, right? Except that this runs counter to established Mormon teaching on the subject. You would never hear an LDS General Authority accuse members of other faiths of worshipping "the wrong Jesus". In fact, the GAs have long learned to play nice with other religions and faiths, and the classic evangelical "everyone else is going to hell" sermon is really not part of Mormon discourse these days. Of course, a few sadly feel that pot shots at gays and lesbians are still acceptable (thanks a bundle, Boyd K.)
You do make some fair points, especially about Glenn Beck's level of understanding. I think there is a shade of misrepresentation of orthodox Mormon beliefs in the above statement, however.
Mormon celebration of the traditional Christmas and Easter is not based on theology or special view - it is pretty much on the level of just going along with celebrating the traditions of Christianity. Very different, say, from the liturgical significance as feast days on the calendar. While there is no firm and final teaching on the subject, Joseph Smith expressed the view that Jesus was born on April 6 (in our calendar), and most Mormons would assume that Easter related to the Jewish Passover, not the revised Christian Easter timetable. Doesn't mean we can't decorate trees and hand out eggs with the best of them, but it isn't really important either way.
The acceptance of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath is a different matter. From the Mormon perspective, the authority for holding Sunday as the day of worship comes from direct revelation on the subject to Joseph Smith, who had specifically sought divine guidance about whether it should be Saturday or Sunday.
Whether or not someone accepts this as meaningful justification, at least it is a conscious theological decision on the basis of new authority rather than a simple acquiescing to tradition.