Whenever you want to.

That's a rather ... novel ... exegesis.

...but you will not always have me

Good job missing the point and the entire phrase

¹ Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were scheming to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. ² "But not during the festival," they said, "or the people may riot."

³ While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

⁴ Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? ⁵ It could have been sold for more than a year's wagesa]">[a] and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

⁶ "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. ⁷ The poor you will always have with you and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. ⁸ She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. ⁹ Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

¹⁰ Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. ¹¹ They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

Contessa is just underlining the position is as we will always have the poor, it is good to make as many people people poor as we can so the fortunate few can kick it in style.

Thus it is very Christian to abuse orphans and kick widows, and steal change from the homeless. It is Republican to do so, which is next to Godliness.

So if you don't want to, @!$%# 'em! Lazy bastards deserve to suffer.

The Bible also says to plant extra rows near the road for the widows and orphans. That's a pretty clear message.

"The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me"

translation: Don't be concerned with the poor. They will get their help. I will not always be around so be more concerned with your time with me.

Sounds like Jesus wasn't too concerned with the poor at that time either.

Don. Making as many poor people as we can is Obama's expertise. He's the food stamp prez.

Wow so you completely ignore the entire passage to come up w/ whatever justification you want, 'eh contessa? And this is why atheists like me get so annoyed w/ the Bible. People bend it to fit whatever they want. The man is on his last night alive and his point was that his disciples need not be worried about other issues on that particular night. But why take context into consideration: hell you already show your unwillingness to ignore context by making the "food stamp" statement. Le sighs.

No, you cross-dressing freak (apologies to all the legitimate and sweet natured cross-dressing freaks out there) Bush and Cheney had burned down Wallstreet BEFORE Obama had gotten elected. TARP was Bush's baby. Boehner whined and simpered on the house floor to get it passed. The Recession was a triumph of the Bush/Cheney Administration, just like the '87 stock market crash and the S and L bailouts because of "junk bonds" were truimphs of the Reagan Administration.

As for how concerned Jesus was about the poor...

Matthew 25:

31 ¶When the ^aSon of man shall come in his ^bglory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all ^anations: and he shall ^bseparate them one from another, as a ^cshepherd divideth his^dsheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his ^aright hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his ^aright hand, Come, ye ^bblessed of my Father, ^cinherit the ^dkingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an ^ahungred, and ye ^bgave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a ^cstranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye ^avisited me: I was in ^bprison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee ^asick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have ^adoneit unto one of the ^bleast of these my ^cbrethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the ^aleft hand, ^bDepart from me, ye ^ccursed, into everlasting ^dfire, ^eprepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an ^ahungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the ^aleast of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into ^aeverlasting^bpunishment: but the ^crighteous into ^dlife^eeternal.

So yeah, sure - don't worry about the poor. Just go find your devil and go to your own well deserved corner of Hell.

Luke 18:25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Mark 12:15 Should we
pay or shouldn't we?" But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to
trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."

Mark 12:16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.”
Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
And they were amazed at him.

Tell me contessa, when you set out to be wrong, do you stretch first? Because there is no way I could be that thoroughly wrong without spraining something. I'd have to break out the Ben-Gay and need a week to recuperate afterwards.

Should read willingness to ignore. I really need to stop blogging while I'm working >.<

Don, could you please not go around calling cross dressers freaks? Not even the mean ones.

[hangs head, contrite] Lemme tell you a story, a true one. I worked in a grocery store deli for so long that I had to have back surgery eventually. We had this dishwasher there who had been a farm boy in his youth but was now fat and in his forties. A big good old boy by any measure. And a devout Christian. A terribly sanctimonious self-righteous SOB. He was...abrasive. He married a woman who had been a lesbian until she met him and got saved.

After my back surgery I convalesced for a couple of months. When I came, he was wearing a bra under his clothes, eye make up and lip stick. Visually, the effect was...jarring. Which given my appreciation of congnitive dissonance as an art form, was not a bad thing. More striking though was the change in his demeanor. Gone was the self-righteous sanctimoniousness and in its place was a friendly open heartedness. Courage too, obviously. Its brave to get tarted up when you are a big good ole boy. Even his marriage made more sense. His wife liked kissing people who wore lipstick and he enjoyed wearing lipstick. And I'd known them both long enough to know they really loved eachother, so it is all good. When I would see him away from work, he was always wearing long dresses or gowns.

Truly, I didn't have much use for that man before I had my surgery. But I was more than happy to call the transvestite he became later my friend. He was a far better Christian when he wore make up than he was before.

The reason a slam contess for being a cross dresser is because "she" is not a woman. He is a re-reg of eap1 or independentvoice or some other poorly programed right wing troll.

Like I said, no disrespect to crossdressers or transvestites. But I have absolutely no respect for contessa.

TARP was Bush's baby and it saved the financials from total collapse. Taxpayers may end up making money on Tarp. Obama did nothing to help us out of a recession.

Jeez Don. No one is saying we shouldn't help the poor. In fact, the poor have at least 300 programs available to them to help them. So why worry right now about people who were never employed in the first place. Let's worry about the middle class whose earnings have dropped and costs have increased. The 53% who pay taxes are hurting and thus our federal revenues used to help the poor are hurting. You want to help the poor? Then have a strong US economy, not a low GDP, high unemployment economy of the socialist nations.

I know that argument,

"When the Economy is up we shouldn't worry about income inequality and economic justice, because we have growth, so we're doing okay."

"When the Economy is down, we shouldn't worry about income inequality and economic justice, because if we get the economy growing, we'll be doing okay."

So we ultimately never get to talking about the fundamental flaws in the system.

It's just like that old joke, where the man sits on his porch with the rain coming in the roof. When asked "Why don't you fix the roof." He says, "Can't fix the roof when it's raining," When asked, "Why don't you fix the roof when it isn't raining," and he says, "When it's not raining, the roof doesn't need fixing."

My only point is that there is no wrong time to address the problems of income disparity and unemployment, and there is no reason we have to cut the poor and middle classes into smaller and smaller, more defined groups, so we can say, "We'll help, these people, but not these."

Like Romney's "I care about the poor, just not the very poor."

Let's worry about everything, and try to fix the whole system.

We can fix the whole inequality thing by having millionaire tax brackets and lowering the number down to 15% of the people that pay no federal income tax. Everyone except the very poor should have some skin in the game and know what it feels like to pay taxes only to see that money go to Solyndra, turtle tunnels or government fraud.

First off the majority of people who live in poverty had money at one point. I'm not even sure where you pulled that out of. The majority of people who are in poverty now won't be in poverty forever- that is your own argument as given by other threads. People who enter into poverty are usually one of a few categories: people who are mentally ill, people who are disabled, people who are elderly, and people who have lost their current employment. Very few people are on social programs likes WIC and food stamps throughout their entire life. Additionally, as has been said god knows how many times, the tax rate is not why 47% of Americans are not paying income taxes. This has to do w/ the poverty rate AND w/ the drop in wages that you've talked about. If people's wages drop then they fall outside of the taxable bracket. Changing the tax rate so that more people pay income tax will only increase income inequality because those people will now be adding income tax on top of their falling wages. Beyond this everyone has "some skin in the game" eap. We've talked about this before. Every single person, including the poor, pays taxes. Beyond this lowering the top tax bracket for the upper income bracket will only increase economic disparity. You are saying that rich people (millionaires and above) should be able to keep more of their money while everyone else should be forced to pay more, but then you turn around and argue that this would close the income gap. You say this while recognizing and admitting, for the first time ever, that wages have stagnated and fallen. Which is amazing considering that every time TRMS has posted a blog about wages falling or stagnating you've automatically responded by talking about how people are making more money than ever and how things really are better. The contradictions are just endless.

Also I just want to point this out for everyone:

Contessa has just said that he recognizes that wages are falling and that the economic buying power of average Americans has stagnated while the income gap (between rich and poor) has increased. Thus what we need, he says, is to is raise taxes on the average American (whose wages have gone down) and cut taxes on upper income Americans (those whose wages have gone up, thus creating the income disparity).

Just wanted to make sure that everyone caught that in case it wasn't clear.

TARP was Bush's baby and it saved the financials from total collapse.

It was Bush policies that made TARP a necessity.

How is what the candidates are running on any different than the policies that nearly destroyed Wallstreet? And why are you operating under a woman's name?

Hahaha

Okay Don. What policy of Bush made Tarp necessary? I'm sure you have no answer for this one or you'll pull some bs out of your arse.

MOUZ...apparently you didn't read what I said. We have millionaire tax brackets for those that make the income so disparite.( the top 10% OF the top 1%) AND we make those that pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX pay their "fair share". Like Obammy says, "Everyone should have some skin in the game". No reason people that own two cars, a house, a flat screen, internet and cable can't pay a few hundred dollars to help out our tax sitution.

Financial deregulation. The very same crap that gummed up the stock market and S and L institutions under Reagan done on a far grander scale.

Well, Obama can't do anything well by the Republicans/Republican pundits. If he walked on water, they would be in an uproar about why can't he swim.

+10!

smb1970 & melissa1977 are right on!

For more commentary on this topic, let's go to Fox News political correspondents Meshach and Abednego.

Could have done worse than "Shadrack." Or do you think he'd have preferred Mishack or Abednego?

For the life of me, I can't figure out what "biblical principle" he might be alluding to. I cannot think of anything in the Bible that would support the idea that anyone, including anyone with a "calling", shouldn't be paid a decent wage. Quite the contrary. Since McGill doesn't seem able to provide any citations, let's just go to the source.

We could start with Luke 10:7 which says, in part, "the laborer deserves to be paid." That is a sentiment repeated in 1 Timothy 5:18. So far, not so good for the Gillster.

First Corinthians 9 has some things to say about being paid for working. "Who," Paul asks, "at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of the milk?" He goes on to say "For it is written in the law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' ... [W]hoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop." As for those with a "calling", whatever that is, Paul also says "Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar?" Paul, it is true, also speaks here of not claiming the right to be compensated for his missionary work, but that is a choice he makes for himself. No one made it for him or against his will. But he did make his living by doing other work (as a tent maker, according to Acts) for which he was presumably paid well enough if he didn't have to take payment from the people he was preaching to.

Sorry to make this a Bible study, but if public figures are going to spout about "biblical principles", then it would be better that they actually back up their claims or not make them at all. As it is, this McGill person has simply made himself look like an ignorant dolt, because actual statements of biblical principles do not appear to back him up in the slightest.

well, are you asking a republican to put fact before fiction?....good luck with that....

If Obama says the sky is blue, the GOP will set up cameras at night and say, "See! The sky is black! Another Democrat lie!"

That made my day (LOL)

Mine too!!

The Repubs are beyond pathetic, why can't their electorate see it?

The unemployment for January is down to 8.3%, the Dow is up a 4 yr. high, slow and steady wins the race, thank you Mr. President!

Phony preachers, prayer meetings only for Christians, sanctimonious evangelicals and the rest of the b.s.!!! It's crap like this that makes people atheists. Poor God! Amen I saw that show. Ghost Hunters

"Phony preachers, prayer meetings only for Christians, sanctimonious evangelicals and the rest of the b.s.!!! It's crap like this that makes people atheists. Poor God!"

No, it is questions like "Who created God." Read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian." Although some people do become atheists out of rebellion against arbitrary and hypocritical authority. I can't prove that God does not exist any more than I can prove that if I toss a coin in the air it will land flat rather than on edge, but I do have faith in both propositions.

Still I would not want the state involved in forcing these beliefs on anyone any more than I approve of making 2012 the year of the Bible in PA or any other state.

hear, hear....

Locknpost, that was precisely what Jessica asked the school to do. They refused and took the matter to court. The judge quite correctly took their refusal to make it explicitly secular into account in deciding that it was *intended* as a religious message and so ruled. The school, or its operating city, is now out $173,000 in legal fees for having had its posterior served back to them.

No where did I read that. Everything I've seen said to take the whole thing down "or else".

I'm not going to sweat it yet though, until public kindergarteners at free time art are forbidden to fingerpaint anything resembling a cross because it may end up posted in the hallway.

I would recommend future student graduating classes stick to mottos that can't be construed as religious, like:

"We ask of ourselves, that we may each day seek the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful." That's much better.

That's not bad. Much better than your first stab at redacting the thing. The 'grant us' part begs the question 'Who is doing the granting?'

I'm kind of against mottos and aphorisms, though. They're the illegitimate parents of mission statements.

I'm kind of against mottos and aphorisms, though. They're the illegitimate parents of mission statements.

I can understand. I believe in mission statements, which create clarity and unity towards the purpose or main goal of any organization.

I find some formal mottos wishy-washy, pointless, or akin to a scripted character, unlike those that define a group's common motivation or standard of action.

very well put sir....Jesus did NOT judge anyone....no one is better than anyone else....

Not quite. The people he slammed are as guilty as ever.

Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Matthew 23:16
"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'

Matthew 23:23
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Don...very good reads...you continue to impress..i haven't been on in a while..good to see you have been holding down the fort.....Peace..

p.s...fact is never right leaning nor left..it is not blue or red...it is simply... fact...

Dude...its been entirely too long. I've missed you man. My computer got struck by lightening or some such, so I'm on a borrowed machine, and occasionally I have to give it back for awhile. And most recently, I'd gotten a PS3 for X-mas and have had my free time side swiped by Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Fallout 3.

But I'm still around.

Regarding religion and politics...when a single source which is supposed represent a single world view (Talmud, Holy Bible, Koran) is used by a single man (any priest minister rabbi mullah) to have the ear of millions and directly influences their thoughts if not controlling their actions...the religion has BECOME politics.

In regards to Christianity in politics, what Christ preached could only make great policy: Love your neighbor, do for the least of them, render unto Caesar, introduce every lobbyist to the end of your sandal (moneychangers you know.) great stuff.

Unfortunately the bastards who hide behind the cross as well as the flag are the very same bastards who had him sacrificed Christ on the altar of political expediency a couple thousand years ago - REGARDLESS of what they call themselves or who everyone else believe them to be. Baptists and evangelists are today's Pharisees. And fundamentalists of ANY religion are today's Sanhedrin. From the Taliban to the nearest abortion clinic bomber and funeral protestor.

They are all in accord with what a woman's place should be and what to do about homosexuals. And they are all WRONG.

well, you wouldn't want people to start thinking for themselves...that would just be crazy....if my pastor says i should hate you...well i best ta get hating...

False logic. You assume ALL must be wrong, therefore the theory is wrong. There are other conclusions: Take the religion/emotion out of it and it becomes:

I think, because of my reading of a book, that the sky is blue. Someone else thinks, because he read the same book, that the sky is green. How can this be possible? Because when I read the book, I read all the way to the end, when the Hero said, "heh... I may have said the sky was green in chapter 3, but much has changed over the years and I have thus changed my mind and I now say with full authority that the sky is, indeed, blue."

Christianity is more complicated than that, but there is the crux of a lot of misunderstanding.

Conversely, applying another possible and completely logical explanation... one group is lying.

Nice...I do love a good debate..."truth is round...it has no sides, color, gender....etc., etc..."

It is more than being posers. The Republicans are using religion as a political tool and churches are using the GOP to insert themselves into politics while hiding behind the separation of church and state doctrine. Despite the tax laws against churches politicking, the IRS is too timid to enforce those laws. That leaves a big hole in the separation wall for mixing religion with politics and there are a lot of opportunistic politicians willing to mix them. Gingrey's act of walking out is merely a political stunt for the benefit of his constituents.

Mike P, you have said it simply & exactly correctly.

Well, there are people who are religious, and they aren't just Christian evangelicals. Regardless what your views are on the history, destiny or cognitive clarity of people of faith, are they or are they not welcome under the big tent?

I was not aware that secularism was party plank.

are they or are they not welcome under the big tent?

The big tent includes us all. It's not my fault that some want to be exclusive. It is the religious who are making the divisions. It's the religious who say this is a Christian Nation. It is the religious who cling to faith over secularism. They exclude themselves.

As for politics it is supposed to be free from religious dogma. I have a feeling tho. we are talking at cross purposes as I'm not sure what you mean.

this nation was founded on freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. the founders were more concerned about government influencing religion, not the other way around. if you read the Danbury letter, which is the first utterance of the oft quoted phrase "separation of church and state," it is undeniable that our forefathers were more worried about the state than the church. "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF." people of faith, any faith, should be able to express their views without concern over being censured (or censored) by secular believers. it is a great irony that atheists seem to believe lately that "freedom of thought" is defined as "thinking the same way I do."

I'm going to clarify this because I hate the term being used incorrectly:

Secular =/= atheist

Secular = non-committed to a particular religion

Your paragraph indicates that you are also a 'secular believer.' Our nation is a secular nation by constitutional design. Pretty much every government is unless it's a theocracy. Sorry it just drives me nuts how people misuse that term. This doesn't have anything to do w/ the rest of your post.

"It is the religious who are making the divisions."

I was making a distinction. You are not. When you say "the religious" do you also include 'Obama, Bono, and Pelosi? Or are do you have some hidden assumption that they are not really religious- that it is some sort of political charade or motion they are forced to go through?

Does separation between church and state imply that we should make no reference to the values expressed in the policies we propose? The President made reference to Christian, Jewish and Muslim support for the values his administration is advancing. This is a rejection of the practice commonly held among progressives to shun any religious references and instead be the party of separationist secularism.

That was what the President was confronting in this speech, as he did in the Sojourners "Call to Renewal" speech back in 2006. (video) If you think he is stepping back from religion or advocating secularism, you better listen to it.

Please read through, nobody was arguing that Believers should leave the country, and nobody was arguing "freedom of thought meant thinking the same way as we do."

No, we respect your right to believe. We simply think your beliefs are stupid.

Don't feel offended, you think the same thing about our beliefs, or am I misinterpreting "The fool says in his heart there is no God."

But we can all come together and work toward a better future for all humanity. That's what America means.

You can keep witnessing the word of the lord and I can keep arguing the absence of evidence of his existence. But we leave Government out of it.

....oh and please stop pretending that our attempts to defend the first amendment's established neutrality of Religion is some kind of secret oppression. If we were oppressing you, you'd know it.

....oh and please stop pretending that in America, Christians are an underdog, minority. You're not supposed to draw your righteousness from being the underdog, you're supposed to draw your righteousness from the authority of the Cross, remember. It's 21'st century United States we're talking about. You're the majority.

....oh and please stop pretending the first amendment only gurantees you the right to choose a religion, and not also the right to not believe.

Well Vox, thanks for that. I was getting confused about who was talking to whom and about what.

Yes, I agree. The point is religion hs no place in politics/government. Why are we constantly bombarded with any of it? I don't care who believes what but when religion steps its ugly foot into government, I take exception. I resent that there is a prayer meeting connected to government. I resent that it it expected that a president must be a person of faith to be considered fair and honest and worthy of the job.

This needs and must be a secular government to fairly represent all of us. Good for you Vox. I'm glad we connected on this topic.

.Or are do you have some hidden assumption that they are not really religious- that it is some sort of political charade or motion they are forced to go through?

It certainly is a charade. I'm sure they would all rather keep their religious views to themselves rather than have to parade them out to keep the religious fanatics satisfied. Prayer meetings and talk about God and Jesus need to be kept in church and the President should not have to feel obligated to espouse just to keep the religious rabble from calling him a secret Muslim.

I find the arguement over the the founding Fathers freedom of religion and that the state could not make any law to trump one religion over the other interesting. People fight over it's meaning but do not seem to want to look at the why of such a statement. In the contempory times of the founders, religions were shifting and splintering over mostly interpretation of the bible (no abortion, women rights, gay rights, women clergy, gay bishops or any other help of that sort). The Kings and Emporors at the time aligned himself with whichever religious organization he thought was the most powerful and that would boost his agenda the most. Often rules and laws would be passed to further the agenda of the religious organization. But also, these founders were barely two or three generations removed from the horrors of the inquisition - a travesty that survived due to the King's blessing of it. There are countries that have governments that practice exactly what the founding fathers did not want: A mono theism that, in order to survive, must have a dictatorship. People who truely think and believe that having a theocratic government is good have not read their history or have not thought that they themselves, will become victims of that religious government.

Beyond that, the amendment has allowed different religious perspectives to bloom without bloodshed. And that, in itself, is an awesome acheivement.

What? I didn't think you said that Believers should leave the country. I asked a question of clarification. You said "the religious" are creating divisions and I asked you if by "the religious" you included folks like Pelosi, Bono and Obama. The reason for my question concerns the basis of our mutual respect within our big tent.

No, we respect your right to believe. We simply think your beliefs are stupid.

Don't feel offended, you think the same thing about our beliefs, or am I misinterpreting

This gets to the heart of it. At one point in his speech Obama drew and ecumenical moral equivalency between 3 major world religions. Do you think Obama thinks the Jew or Muslim is stupid because they are not Christian? Similarly, does he believe that you are stupid because your belief system is other than his? If so I can't see that you understand the point he was making in this speech about pluralism and belief systems.

The President has a policy that the rich should pay a larger percentage of their income than they currently pay. He cites Jewish, Muslim and Christian teachings that mirror the value expressed in the policy. A separatist secularist would not make this argument, would he. The President is not proposing that his belief system is a language of certainty. In fact, it is the language of noncertainty, of humility and openness to the majesty of existence.

Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us. Michelle reminds me of this often. (Laughter.) So instead, it is our hope that people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other. And I have to say that sometimes we talk about respect, but we don’t act with respect towards each other during the course of these debates.

He doesn't think you are stupid nor do I.

@Mouzer I suspect you understand I am using the political science sense of the term secularist, but still there is opportunity for a great deal of confusion given the senses in France versus India versus Turkey versus whatever it is we think we are doing here in the US.

Many religious and nonreligious democrats believe that political activities, policies and decisions should not make reference to, or be subject to any religious influence. Regarding this sense of secularism, this is the form I am saying Obama rejects. Certainly, he accepts the government should non committed to any particular religion and there should be a separation between church and state. But he does not believe that participants must be solely motivated by and communicate from the perspective of a wholly secular ethical system scrubbed clean of any religious references.

.

I suspect or I at least have some optimistic hopes that Melissa Harris-Perry will commit some segments of her new show to such subjects. Her other doctorate is in theology.

This may be extremely hard for believers to understand, but give it a serious try.

You are not your beliefs.

Now you took a simple statement:

No, we respect your right to believe. We simply think your beliefs are stupid.

And deliberately twisted it. So you could claim the moral high ground saying:

He doesn't think you are stupid nor do I.

I am not my beliefs. You don't agree with my belief, or you would have the same belief. You think that belief in God is superior to nonbelief, and you cannot escape this fundamental solipsism, "Everyone thinks their beliefs are correct and superior." That is what I meant when I said:

Don't feel offended, you think the same thing about our beliefs

I'm sorry to deal with you so harshly but I refuse to be drawn down six different tangents trying to clarify "What he said, what you said, what you said I said and What Obama said, and What I said Obama said."

Enough.

Just stop it. Because this cloud of pointless rhetoric only comes down to one thing anyway.

I was defending religious pluralism in the United States, and Secularism, which means that all religions are accepted and non are enforced by the state. And I was demanding that Atheism be given the same status.

And I do hate to fight with progressive christians, honestly I really do, But I will not tolerate the argument that they sometimes make, (Did you get that, I said Sometimes make, so don't write me three paragraphs on how "you weren't making that argument.")

That argument is that in the interest of plurality, neutrality, Peace and Tolerance... Atheists should just cool it down a little. "We're not saying that you can't deny the existence of God, we're just saying, maybe you don't speak out about it." "Oh you're a buddhist, well come this way, sit in the front, with the Muslim, Hindu and Christian...wait. You're a Secular Buddhist? I'm sorry, can you just move to the back? Christian humanist? right this way sir, ooh, sorry Secular humanist, can you just move to the back there."

"We're not saying you can't be part of the conversation, no of course not, we're just saying, look at the believers, they're not going to be rational and peaceful and tolerant, so if we're going to have peace and tolerance, You have to suffer indignities. "In God We trust," "One Nation Under God." "Prayer Breakfast," "Creationism." What do you care anyway, you don't believe any of it, just let it roll off your back."

Sound familiar? It should, it's the same operational paradigm we've been blessed with on capital hill for the last couple years.

"Look we hold bipartisanship to be the highest goal, so since we know the right isn't going to budge, lets just force the left to give up concessions and we'll call that compromise."

No,

We're not putting up with this. Not just so we can achieve a phony version of peace where we can only get along as long as the atheists don't get represented. "You can be black, just don't react so strongly when you're mistreated by the whites, You can be Gay, just pretend you're straight, You can be Atheist, but just leave it alone when people try to turn religion into public policy and when people use religion as a justification for greed and cruelty and when they threaten atheists for trying to make sure that their constitutional freedoms are not violated."

We've done this for years. The political Christians have pushed and pushed and have gone so far over the line that you would have to get them a telescope to see back to where the line of polite, reasoned discourse is.

We're pushing back.

Atheists don't have to believe in God, That's the law. They also don't have to be silent about it, also law. When they speak out about it, they are not being argumentative, they are not "picking a fight," they are not being "unreasonable." They are exercising their constitutional rights.

No I am not trying to establish a secular society, "scrubbed clean of any religious references." But I am trying to explain to you, that when you make a religious reference you're not oppressing atheists, but when someone makes a religious reference and then the atheist reacts to it, and then they are told they should shut up and let it slide," That's oppressing.

Yes, you are free to not believe in God. Yes, even in Public. Yes, even if it makes believers uncomfortable.

Well said, Vox.

@JohnMesserly Actually I was referring to @Joseph Kuhl's post, but I felt that the correction needed to be said anyways. You quantified in your post the context in which you were speaking- or at least I understood your intention. I felt the correction needed to be stated publicly because people like Gingrich go out and say 'secular, socialist' all the time when talking about Obama and his policies. Now as a sound bite I am sure it sounds nice, but in real world terms Gingrich is insinuating that America is a theocracy and I don't think people catch on to that. We aren't a theocracy nor are we a dictatorship nor are we a monarchy who insist that one national religion be recognized. We're not even a democracy in which one religion is recognized. We are a secular nation- always have been, always will be. This doesn't mean we are non-religious, it means that we're non-specified. We don't say we're Christian or we're Muslim or we're Hindu because we are all of those and we are none of those. That's the way it's supposed to be.

As for the broader conversation:

I think people cannot help it if they place their moral guidelines in the Bible or some other holy text that they will follow that directive when making decisions. W/ that said we aren't supposed to base public policy solely in 'because the Bible says so' or 'because I said so' logic. We're supposed to create policy from a position of objectivity. What brings you to want to pass a bill is relevant to you as an individual. What makes the bill plausible and acceptable for public implementation is based on the empirical information surrounding the bill. Obama's policy w/ health care reform, as an example, was sound policy outside the realm of religion. Therefore when judging the policy we need not bring his personal beliefs in. Now does this mean that his personal beliefs were irrelevant in his personal motivation to bring forward health care reform policy? Of course not. It simply means those personal beliefs are not the basis on which the policy was founded nor does it mean that those personal beliefs are the basis on which we judge the policy. People who cannot distinguish this difference (like Gingrich) are, in my view, idiots.

It was my desire to correct the right's insistence that we've secretly established a national religion that prompted me to comment. I think that it's perfectly acceptable for their to be a reality in which people have personal beliefs that they use to come to conclusions about what's important in this world, but to also demand that bills be passed w/ real world practicality. The right wing pretty much has obfuscated the difference in an attempt to say if it's based in the Bible then it automatically will make sense in the real world therefore we don't need to empirically test things we just need to have faith that they'll work out. I think this is a dangerous mind set. That is why I was making the secular =/= atheism comment. Sorry that I wasn't more clear.

The folks ahead of me have answered the questions you posed, John, for me- better than I could have so I don't feel the need to add more.

I do feel the need to quote from the late, great Christopher Hitchens about those of "faith."

"Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."

That being said, adieu and good riddance to the bible, Torah, Koran and all ancient myths that stand and have stood for far too long in the way of reason and creative thought and common sense.

Well now wait- I wasn't saying that religion is bad or that religious people are bad or that I think religious beliefs are stupid. I was saying that people like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum and all these crazy @!$%#s who can't tell the difference between their faith and their policy are idiots and insane. I don't think John was advocating that there be no distinguishable difference between faith and policy....perhaps I am wrong here, but that isn't what I read. What I read was that he feels that it's OK for people to acknowledge that their faith motivates them to act. For many people this is a true statement. Public policy is just not supposed to be based solely on one's religious belief, but on what's best for society. And whether or not a policy will be good for society must be determined empirically and objectively- it cannot be based in the Bible or the Torah or any other religious document (or personal belief system of any kind). My understand was John was complimenting Obama for acknowledging his faith as a motivational factor, but John was also recognizing that there has to be a secular rationale behind policy when it comes to it's implication. To this I generally agree.

I guess I misunderstood this conversation then. Lol I guess I should've followed the other golden rule- best not to say anything and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt ;-).

The conversation has become so convoluted who knows where it started or is ending up. Anyway, my only contention to all this prayer and Christian stuff is leave religion at home and out of politics. Use common sense and common decency for your fellow man to determine where to go and what to do and how to structure policy; leave religion out of it.

I personally feel that the President feels compelled to speak at these kind of events and talk about his own personal beliefs because he must combat all the religious right -wing fanaticism going on around him. I personally have a deep distrust and skepticism of religion as do many others. If an agnostic or atheist were to run for President how would he/she fare in this crazy religious environment? Why should the religious have a say in how government should be run to the exclusion of the non-believer. That is my point, as I ramble on and on. This is NOT a Christian nation nor a theocracy and it should not be. They (the religious) should not hold sway over the political process. Furthermore, the Constitution should be the basis of our decision making not the Bible.

End of sermon. see ya next time Mouzer

We are undoubtedly on common ground that everyone should be allowed to voice their views but the President had a very particular point about the need for interfaith reference to values- it was the point of the Prayer breakfast speech. Unfortunately Steve Benen left out the other action the President took that is an expression of his administration’s paradigm shift regarding faith. More on that in a minute. To elaborate on the sense of secularism I was describing to Mouzer, Obama wants to instead encourage political dialog based on values between believers and nonbelievers alike. His speech expresses a rejection of the strategy of attempting to identify self interests and technocratically craft policy to answer these interests explaining the policy without reference to values or beliefs. This Democratic Party status quo of neutral political dialog has been a well intentioned separatist secularist strategy and has been followed by both sincerely religious and nonreligious democrats. Although there are significant practical reasons for a departure from this strategy, Obama’s initiative is motivated by principle- he believes that a pluralistic egalitarian society requires that people understand that the values they hold dear are being expressed in the laws and policies of their government. This requires communication with reference to the language of the different belief systems that significant subcultures of our society think within.

Political tacticians may appreciate the practical reasons to support this strategy. The right wing attempts to bind traditionalist Jewish, Catholic and evangelical believers into a coalition that regards this neutral language of serving the interests of constituents as fundamentally self centered, amoral and possibly godless. We are all to aware of the GOP playbook of framing this as representing a fundamental attack on their cultural world view which they are incited to belligerently oppose. Separatist secularist rhetoric plays into that framing, and that is precisely the weakness the GOP leverages Some commentators on the Presidents efforts at a paradigm shift away from secularist dialog give the President lukewarm marks for his Prayer breakfast speech. (Washington Post article)

A different Obama action created a firestorm this week in the God world, and it is surprising it did not make Steve Benen’s list. It is important because it forms a coequal second portion of the paradigm shift. After we have entered into ecumenical dialog and have passed laws based on our common values, the laws we pass must not treat any religions specially. This could be mistaken for an expression of secularism, but it is not. It is part of the pluralist not secularist contract. For example, Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe in a story about Abraham, but as Obama pointed out in his 2006 speech (linked to above), if any of we believers saw a man on a hill appearing to have the intention of murdering a boy with a knife, we would be running up there or at the very least calling the cops to stop him. We could all be believers, but if we do not see what Abraham sees, then pluralism not secularism demands that we prevent Abraham from carrying out his intended deed.

There are faith based rationales for affirming that all citizens have a right to health care, and a right to control what happens to their bodies. Expressed in law, the affordable care act of 2010 also provides that contraceptives be available to all citizens without charge. Now the question is whether those charged with enforcement of laws can allow citizens to decline to follow laws that violate their conscience (“conscience clause”). Obama’s principle says no. Philosophically, the law is the output of process respecting religious pluralism and since we have agreed to it, there can be no exceptionalism for particular religions. So, no allowance for child sacrifice for Abraham, or denial of contraceptive to women simply because they are employed by an organization tied to the catholic church. Our pluralism shall establish commonalities, not establish a society balkanized into gated communities of belief who are granted exceptions to opt out of civil laws objected to as a matter of conscience. Such a society would hardly be an expression of pluralism but increasing fragmentation and isolationism of subcultures.

It's a huge subject, one that baffled both Shields and Brooks on PBS. To them, not letting the catholics exercise a conscience clause was politically stupid. THey really don't understand the rationale at all.

@newsblog- erm then aren't we in agreement? I guess that's where I'm getting confused. I never said that the religious should be allowed to push personal belief beyond their personal realm. What I was saying is that all people are motivated by personal belief. That's what gets us to act. It's what we do w/ our actions that should be judged and in the case of public policy we do not have a right to make policy unless it is based on scientific and logical ground. I agree w/ you that we should not allow people to use the term 'secular' as if to imply America is some sort of theocratic democracy. We are not and we are not supposed to be. And I also agree that PBO is probably more vocal on his religion because he feels compelled to be. So...we are fighting or we are not fighting? This is where I am confused.

@John- Well then I suppose I understand the atheist outrage there...because then an atheist feels that he/she is pitted against the religious. I see that you are trying to talk about common values- I.E. we both believe that homosexuals should be able to marry, but we come to that conclusion for different reasons. I because I just happen to be a homosexual and you because you just happen to be a progressive Christian. But if we are accepting the idea that religion should be openly talked about and encouraged in public as something other than personal value and personal guidance than that does indeed fuzzy the lines. It also, I suppose, becomes a catch-22 situation, no? If Obama hadn't mentioned religion then it would've been framed as his 'secular, socialist, Muslim, fascist' beliefs inhibiting him from being honest. In which case I can understand the outrage of Newsblog and others because no POTUS or any other person in the US should feel compelled to have religious background or motives while speaking or otherwise assuming roles in office (hell no one anywhere should, but we'll stick w/ US politics for now). He openly states his religious motivations and how he wants us to come together to make policy on our common grounds and then he is immediately flamed by the right for misinterpreting scripture and is lashed for not maintaining a neutral tone. The neutral tone, of course, also gets abused. I suppose I am trying to find common ground between the atheistic and theistic perspective.

I accept the fact that I have a strong personal moral background to which I approach the table when I discuss policy. I have personal reasons for why I believe abortion should be legal, for why I believe gays should be allowed to marry, for why women should be given equal pay, and for why we should offer a social safety net to all of our citizens, but especially the poor. I can, however, also justify these policies in science and rational thought devoid of my personal beliefs. So when I- the hypothetical politician- go to make policy I must base the actual law in the objective realm. But I guess I also see that I can build allegiances and move people to find my policy as acceptable by also...I suppose for lack of a better phrase...pandering to our commonly shared values.

Like I said perhaps I am the fool in this conversation.

TO JOHN: Just so you don't think you wrote all this for nothing, yes, I read it, understand what you are saying, and thank you for the effort.

My impatience is not with you but with the entire idea of religion in bed with politics. It won't come in my life time but someday hopefully our "cherished religious beliefs and values" will head the way of the dinosaur and we can get on with the business of living our lives the best we can without the goobly-gook of myths and superstition. Like I said before, we need a new paradigm, one that embraces something more substantial than faith in an ill-defined god and old wives tales out of stone-age books.

TO MOUZER: We were always in agreement as far as I can see. The replies get confused sometimes on these threads and one doesn't know who's responding to whom at times.

News, just so you know, Mouzer is one of my most favorite people. She's young, but came up hard and has educated herself very well. She's an excellent critical thinker.

Where I am a talented amature, she could be/should be pro. When she calls BS on a troll, it's educational. She's like my daughter from another father. I sort of adopted her and am incredibly proud of her though none of the credit is mine.

John, I thought maybe I would write a couple paragraphs trying to convince you that Pluralism and Secularism are not mutually exclusive. They are not even different strategies to go forward into a more tolerant society.

But this discussion is long enough already, and no explanation is any better than what was written in the first Amendment, A pluralistic society with a Secular Government.

In the recent past, believers, christians in particular, have overreached. So, yes, there will be some conflict as their attempt to marry church and state falls apart. But no, we won't "Go Overboard." With our Secularization.

Neither the Conflict Model, nor the Functional Model, of Sociology work for every case.

DonQ,

Thanks. I've encountered Mouzer before and have meant to send a friend's request but I guess I never did. I think I was venting my spleen to John not Mouzer but it all got too confusing. I am guilty of using this blog site to rant and rave and purge the poison so to speak. I get too vehement at times. There is something about religious zealotry that just makes me crazy.

:~ This is a new symbol I just made up to signify going crazy!

What? Blog websites for venting?! And here I thought blog websites were the locale of our most academic of discussions....like do you like big butts? and can you not lie about your liking of big butts? ;-)

All is good news ;-)

I love my internet friends. They let me vent and usually join in with me! As for big butts, well I better like them cause I have one! :)

I am also a serious big curvy woman afficianado. My wife is an imperious paleolithic goddess. She's at the pear shaped end of hourglass. I have written poems about how she walks. It's been eight years and still she moves me. Her curves are so dangerous, they've got guard rails on them.

Awesome folks..I wish well all manner of bug, beast and human....I have to admit I never heard of a bug or beast plotting to kill one another over a belief structure....hahahaha...that would truly be a silly sight, huh?

Now Vampire has me terrified that ants and bears will be mating...only to create a super race of BEAR ANTS! NO PLACE IS SAFE!

Nah. Honey badger wolverines!

Maybe the one about following false prophets?

Let me check the First Amendment and get back to you on that.

Christ would be fine with her. What business is it of yours?

Yes, it's safe to say that.

Though the threats and violence for apostasy and blasphemy have not been totally eradicated, we are finally entering into an age where you can stand and say:

"I. Do. Not. Believe. In. God."

without having a brick thrown at your head, and we owe a lot of that security from the United States Constitution which establishes that all men are free, and in their freedom they are not to be forced to kneel to anyone's God by the hands of the state.

Don't kid yourself. If, big IF, Christ came back today - the right wing en mass would rise up and nail him to some lumber AGAIN for being a pinko commie socialist bastard. And when he rises on the third day, they'd double tap him in his crown of thorns with a .45 because that is what you do with commie socialist propaganda spouting zombies.

"Love my neighbor? Love some of this smith and wesson you European style socialist undead FREAK!"

Quixokie, ya got that dead- bang right!

Well, it is their pattern.

Appeal to an Authority then Disregard what the Authority actually said.

Appeal to Reagan, Disregard what he said about economic justice.

Appeal to the Founding Fathers, Disregard what they said about the foundation for a free society.

Appeal to the Jesus, Disregard what Jesus said about the poor, the sick, and the needy.

Appeal to "The free-market," Disregard nobel prize winning economists' explanation of market forces.

Appeal to "The will of the American People." Disregard polling data.

Appeal to "Historical Precedent," Disregard what actually happened.

I can imagine what they see in Romney, he's taken both sides of so many issues that it will be easy, thirty years down the line, to pretend he agreed with whatever they feel like saying he "really meant."

Vox, you and Quixokie are my new best friends!!:)

I always say controversial things on these blogs and usually get a lot of guff so it's good to know I'm not alone.

Maddowblog is an exceptionally hip place. I've tried going on Ed Show blog and Last Word w/ L.O. and been drowned out by right wing trolls there. We've got our share of regular under the bridge skulkers here, but they don't run the asylum. News, we welcome you.

Because I think we need more high profile and educated people on air who see religion as a personal preference, like coffee with cream or burgers with cheese, rather than an eternal-cosmological explanation for existence.

I agree this is the crux of the argument. If the creator in the bible exists he wants us to have love in our heart. Paying your taxes is not love nor is voting to have other people pay taxes to give to those who are in need love. People who complain about the poor need to donate more to charity and people who don't want to give need to ask themselves why they are so selfish. There are folks that see Robin Hood as being moral because he stole from the rich to give to the poor, others see it as stealing and to be moral he would have given money from his own pocket.

If the creator in the bible exists he wants us to have love in our heart. Paying your taxes is not love nor is voting to have other people pay taxes to give to those who are in need love.

Nonetheless, Christ did say Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. He didn't say ANYTHING about tax breaks. What he DID say was that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich ment to enter Heaven.

Mathews, you are an anti-christian hypocrit. All gleaming white sepulchers filled with stinking dead men's bones.

I'll see your Jesus and raise you Paul. Specifically, Romans 13:1-7. In part it says "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except for God.... Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed.... For the same reason you also pay taxes.... Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."

Kind of kicks the self-righteous legs out from under the right's anti-taxation stand, and their notion that taxes are inherently wrong or immoral. I so love irony, I could squeal.

What a mean thing to say! I am not anti-Cristian I am a Christian although maybe not according to you or one that you approve. I don't understand what you are basing that on. I was clarifying an argument not making one. The argument is that when Jesus tells people to give he is telling them to personally give. To act with love and compassion. Voting to have other people pay is an act of coercion and not love.

Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...

Render unto Caesar...

You have business with the moneychangers. You are no Christian.

I just don't follow. You don't even know me. I can agree with both those statements and understand the argument that Jesus was asking followers to give out of there own pockets and please understand I am not making that case I am elucidating it. Sheesh.

I've been waiting for someone to ask Mitt Romney for numbers, maybe a nice chart or diagram.

Separating the "poor" from the "very poor."

Nothing Ostentatious, just showing us at what income level Mitt Romney stops being concerned for you.

OK, so is quoting Homer in English ridiculous? Or Marx? Or quoting Shakespeare in French? You're trying to carve out a special exception, clearly. Apparently you are not aware of textual criticism. Some would call it a science. And, not only can texts in one language reliably be translated into another, it's even possible to decipher lost languages (Accadian being one example). Differences in language are not insurmountable, not even over large spans of time. I think you would admit that, if the subject were different.