You might as well keep them for your own. For sure, none of the Rightists want them.
Democrats think the glass is half full. Republicans think the glass is theirs. Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
We can each decide who we believe. (I recall hearing essentially what you reproduced above.) In my own experience attending church, it is pretty hard to chose in advance which sermons you hear and which ones you miss. And it was established that the Rev. Wright's published sermons were representative of his general position.
It was? Where?
All that was ever produced was the one U-tube clip, that circulated amongst the right wing websites in an infinite loop. What was seldom mentioned in the same context was his service in the US marines, among other things.
When you have to use the same anecdote over and over again, it indicates that your anecdote is representative of very little.
The Roman Catholic church takes several positions that I strongly disagree with. The Spanish priest who baptized my wife and married us was a commited franquista...and it came out in almost every sermon he preached. Still...I credit him and other churchmen and women in my life with helping make a Christian out of me.
Most Christians believe we are all imperfect...but that we are all also capable of doing God's work.
Well, the man did claim to be a twenty-year member of the Reverend Wright's church and then publicly denied hearing any of his sermons.
No he didn't. Here's what he really said:
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
I think Coulter is closer to right (correct, that is) than anyone else.
Right about what? His religious beliefs?
From the same speech:
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
I contrast the way Barack Obama has lived his life, with the way Anne Coulter has lived hers, and come to the conclusion that she is not much of an authority.
We can each decide who we believe. (I recall hearing essentially what you reproduced above.) In my own experience attending church, it is pretty hard to chose in advance which sermons you hear and which ones you miss. And it was established that the Rev. Wright's published sermons were representative of his general position. His sermons were as political as they were religious.
Most of the agnostics that I know think they are pretty good at judging the way Christians practice their faith.
Well, the man did claim to be a twenty-year member of the Reverend Wright's church and then publicly denied hearing any of his sermons.
No he didn't. Here's what he really said:
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
I think Coulter is closer to right (correct, that is) than anyone else.
Right about what? His religious beliefs?
From the same speech:
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
I contrast the way Barack Obama has lived his life, with the way Anne Coulter has lived hers, and come to the conclusion that she is not much of an authority.
Democrats think the glass is half full. Republicans think the glass is theirs. Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
And, isn't it true that every Democrat in the Congress is a Christian?
No, it's not quite true. Rep. Pete Stark of California is an Atheist and Keith Ellison of Minnesota is a Muslim. I'm not sure about the other Democratic members.
I think Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer and a few others might object to being thought of as Christian too.
Evidently, a fair number of Americans agree with Graham.
Whilst it is obvious that the American President is a devout Christian, what possible difference would it make what religion he happened to follow? Or even if he followed no religion at all?
What matters is how well he does his job.
Well, the man did claim to be a twenty-year member of the Reverend Wright's church and then publicly denied hearing any of his sermons. I think Coulter is closer to right (correct, that is) than anyone else.
And his religious preferrence has nothing to do with where he was born. (See the second and third posts.)
Ah, but there are many well-known Christian liberals. For example, back in the 19th century, there was Henry Ward Beecher, and, more recently, Paul Tillich, Lloyd Geering and John Shelby Spong, to name just a few.
Beecher was a Congregational minister and a prominent abolitionist who also advocated women's suffrage, and who believe in evolution.
The late Paul Tillich, a professor at Harvard Divinity School and professor of Theology at the University of Chicago, was a Christian existentialist philosopher.
New Zealand Presbyterian minister Lloyd Geering rejects the notion of god and believes Christian fundamentalism is a social evil.
And John Shelby Spong, Episcopal bishop and liberal Christian theologian, believes that religion turns demonic when it tries to prove that it is the only truth.
Actually, liberalism goes very well with mainstream Christianity, if you think of Jesus as being a socialist and champion of the common people.
Christian socialism was a real force in politics about a century ago. Michael Moore seems to be trying to resurrect it. Dr Rowan Williams here is generally liberal and Archbishop of Canterbury (head of the Church of England). When Coulter says "Christian", she means a very specific kind of Christian. The kind that mixes Old Testament fire-and-brimstone judgement with extreme-right-fringe politics. In other words, the Cultus Americanus or "Moral Majority".
And, isn't it true that every Democrat in the Congress is a Christian?
Very nearly but not quite. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) is a Muslim, the first elected to Congress.
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31
According to Ann Coulter, President Obama is an atheist, not a Muslim:
"The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist."
And, according to pretty much anyone who's read her work, Coulter is either the most skilled parodist of her generation or dangerously out of her mind.
Why is it obvious that he is an atheist? Again, according to Coulter, "All liberals are atheists... There's only one true Christian liberal in the country and that's Mike Huckabee."
Mike Huckabee is a liberal? That would be news to him.
Realistically, Coulter, Michael "Savage" Weiner and, lately, Glenn Beck make up the unholy trinity of what I like to refer to as the "Rabid Right" or simply "Republican zombies".
Way I see it, pundits, and most people who are interested in politics, can be roughly divided into four categories. The independents or moderates are the ones who take a look around every two or four years, decide whether they're better off than they were last time and vote for or against the party in power accordingly. Really, that's all there is to them. They almost never vote for the opposition party but they quite often vote against the party-in-power. They can occasionally be moved to passion on some abstract issue (say, financial reform) but only if it doesn't affect their lifestyle very much. They are the vast group of whom Terry Pratchett (author, satirist, Knight Of The Realm) said "people say they want justice and freedom for all. What they really want is an assurance that life will go on much as it did before and tomorrow will be very much like today". They are not stupid as such but they are short-sighted, forgetful and prone to allowing their worst instincts to rule them.
Type 2 are the fellow travellers. These guys loosely choose a side (more often liberal or conservative than Democrat or Republican) and vote for that side so long as the party is pushing values they believe in. Most single-issue voters fit here. For example, anti-abortion voters will vote for either party so long as they promise to try making abortion regulations more restrictive. You could say the same about NRA voters or enviromentalists. Depending on the position of the individual parties at the time, they can and will cross between parties. For example, the racist conservatives who bolted from the Democrats to the Republicans after Johnson forced integration (and are mostly now dead or retired). I place myself here. On the political compass, I come in as a left-libertarian and I'll tend to vote for the candidate who promises to try and advance those positions but don't identify much with parties (and right now, the parties here are in flux anyway).
Type 3 are the reasonable believers. This lot are alligned with one party or another but not at the cost of common sense. George Bush Sr would be a good example. In general, they'll vote party line but they're also willing to buck the party line when it makes no sense. When you find intellectual pundits, you'll generally find them here. They can and do change party affiliation but not quickly and never on a whim and when they do, you can expect a line like "I didn't leave the party, they left me". Until recently, most elected officials outside Texas (note, I don't dislike Texas but you guys do have a record of electng batty politicians) would have fit nto this category.
Finally, there are the Rabids (or "zombies"). These are the ones who are "my party, right or wrong". They never change party affiliation and, if they ever question the party line (which is rare), it will only be because teh party isn't extreme enough. Right now, the majority of them are on the right. That's not always the case and it changes every so often but that's how it is right now. This group not only are die-hard believers in their party, they actively hate anyone on the other side. As soon as someone is identified as being on the other side, they will go to any lengths, believe and propogate any lie (no matter how provably untrue) to destroy them. If they were religious (and some are), we would describe them as "zealots" or "fanatics". The Birthers fit here and they can be dangerous because they treat politics as a zero-sum game. They would far rather destroy the other side than advance their own side and they see no difference between the usual rough-and-tumble of politics and the character assassination specialised in by people like Karl Rove.
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31
