Here is another one of his pronouncements, his 'gifts':
"I feel like Martin Luther innnocenly nailing the 95 thesis on the wall and I'm not even Catholic, I'm a Christian."Bradlee Dean, I was raised and baptized a Lutheran, from a long line of Lutheran ministers and Lutheran church founders. Allow me to assure you, you are nothing whatsoever like the historic Martin Luther. You dirty his name and insult his accomplishments by that reference. I really doubt you are much of a Christian either if you are making statements like that about Catholics, or any other denomination of Christianity.
I don't think any other Christian denomination wants you either - but then you aren't really a minister, since you haven't been ordained, never attended a seminary, and have no legitimate training whatsoever to claim to be a minister which is an actual profession with requirements for academic and other credentials.
Bradlee Dean is as insulting to Jews as he is to Catholics, blaming Jews for the crucifixion of Christ, one of the worst historic pretexts for anti-semitism, which should offend Christians and non-Christians alike, and anyone not on the extreme fringes of the religious right:
What you are, Bradlee Dean is a wack job, a nutso lunatic fringie, abusing religion to make yourself a comfy lifestyle at the expense of people who mostly believe they are donating money to a very different, far worthier cause. What you call preaching Bradlee Dean, is using the name of religion as lipstick to try to beautify the ugly pig that is your beliefs.
You are a coward Bradlee Dean, who makes a lot of noise about respecting our veterans past and present and those currently serving in our armed forces. But you run from any interview that is likely to task you with hard questions. You don't even have the courage of your convictions to stand your ground when it only requires talking, not shooting.
You are the creation of the right wing bigots Bradlee Dean; they deserve you even as they try to disown and disavow you. There is too much documentation in the form of audio and video files, still photos, and other records for that to work even when they try to censor you out of existence with their revisionist history. Not only does this apply to Bachmann, and Pawlenty, but also to Dan Severson who has just announced he will run against Amy Klobuchar in the 2012 Senate race.
You'll be the gift that keeps on giving to your opposition, Bradlee Dean, because you are too bigoted, hateful and arrogant to know when you've gone too far. YOU will just keep going, just keep making your original mistake worse.
It's too bad that Dean doesn't have that other gift that would serve him so much better; the gift to see himself as others see him.
I agree with you about most of this, but note that Martin Luther was rather a wack job himself. Have you read any of his comments about Jews? He was at least as bad as Bradlee Dean.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, that was centuries ago, but the repercussions have lasted until modern times. Bradlee Dean is a nutcase, but dirtying Martin Luther's name? I really don't think so.
I don't think much of Reverend Wright, either. And whitewashing such things doesn't do progressives any good at all. Of course, religious nuts are a dime a dozen, and mostly on the right. But we look like hypocrites if we only criticize the lunatics on one side.
WGC, I don't agree with everything that Martin Luther espoused, or what was done in his name afterwards, including the same claim of the pope as the antichrist by more than one synod.
ReplyDeleteBut Dean doesn't have any of the positive characteristics of Luther either, and there were many despite the flaws, nor does he have the positives of Jeremiah Wright.
As to Rev. Wright, he was a genuinely theologically trained minister, with a masters from the University of Chicago's Divinity School, and a Doctor of Ministry from an Ohio Seminar - in addition to his other credentials.
Dean - nothing like those that I can find.
Jeremiah Wright served this country in the marine corps.
Dean talks a lot about veterans, but I can find nothing that indicates he served in our armed forces. He supports the party which will spend unlimited amounts of money on the military industrial comples - in return for donations - but cuts spending benefitting veterans.
Looking at their religious careers - let's take this from wikipedia for an example:
"Wright became pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago on March 1, 1972; it had some 250 members on its rolls, but only about 90 or so were actually attending worship by that time.[18] By March 2008 Trinity United Church of Christ had become the largest church in the mostly white[19] United Church of Christ denomination. The President and General Minister of the United Church of Christ, John H. Thomas, has stated: “It is critical that all of us express our gratitude and support to this remarkable congregation, to Jeremiah A. Wright for his leadership over 36 years.”[20] Thomas, who is a member of the Pilgrim Congregational United Church of Christ in Cleveland, has also preached[21] and worshipped at Trinity United Church of Christ (most recently on March 2, 2008).[20]"
Wright worked tirelessly, and not for a luxurious lifestyle, for his church and his community and beyond.
Bradlee Dean has made a career out of spewing hatred and misinforming high school students and a lot of self-promotion, and has no similar church to his credit.
While I don't agree with some of the things Wright has said or how he said them, his observation of how we had done some bad things in the middle east are supported by the 'Arab Spring' revolts against the very dictators we helped keep in power to whom he objected.
So while I have some minor disagreements with Wright, I think he was largely misrepresented in a negative light very unfairly.
Dean? Hell no.
OK, fair enough, although I really don't care if someone was a "theologically-trained minister" or not. What difference does that make?
ReplyDeleteAnd as an atheist, I can't say that I care if someone led a church, either. It's their own business, but nothing I see as particularly worthwhile (others disagree, no doubt).
Finally, I never served in the military, either. Admittedly, I'm not one of those gung-ho chickenhawks who loves war as a spectator sport.
I certainly don't mean to stick up for Bradlee Dean. Nothing could be further from my mind. But I'm not so willing to overlook flaws on the left, either.
I was sympathetic to Wright until he started spouting off to the media afterward. I don't even remember what he said, but he lost my sympathy real quick. And I'm sure Martin Luther had his good points, too. Well, he broke with the Catholic Church. I've got to give him credit for that. :)
Someone who is brought in and presented as a minister or pastor to lead a prayer should BE a minister.
ReplyDeleteHow would you feel if it was some other profession being introduced to address the legislature who hadn't earned the credentials identified?
I found it just more of the right wing disrespect for academic accomplishment and earned credentials.
WCG wrote:"OK, fair enough, although I really don't care if someone was a "theologically-trained minister" or not. What difference does that make?"
ReplyDeleteThere is a great deal of importance to the formal training of the people whom we recognize as our clergy. There is both an important knowledge standard promoted and required by those organizations and the religions which recognize them.
Then we have the figures which are hateful, hurtful, wackojobs who are not so trained. That would include people like Terry Jones in Florida who burned the Quran. We have Fred Phelps, who was at least ordained, and had some minimal religious training, but who is repudiated by the Baptist faith including the 'primitive baptist' church.
If you track those who tend to espouse extremists views, or crazy views which are not supported by formal church bodies, and who do not have formal training, they pretty consistently aren't recognized - and are not accountable - to more organized formal religion which tends to have higher standards and for that matter they tend to censure those who behave badly or who deviate too far from their church doctrines.
The further you get from those standards, the more you tend to find the kinds of behavior which reflect badly on religion as divisive, hurtful, hateful, and extremist, it pretty much defines the crackpots. More extreme political views, often equally ill-educated and academically not very credible, often seem to go hand in hand with the extreme religious views.
That doesn't seem to me to describe the qualities that one would look for in selecting clergy to give a prayer to the representatives of the ENTIRE state of Minnesota.
What we have in this selection was a willingness apparently on the part of the Republicans to bring in Dean because he represented a political viewpoint that is held by a narrow and more extreme segment of right wing politics, not someone selected because they are respected clergy, to give the opening prayer, not a rant which insults the larger number of the representatives and citizens of this state.
The person who invited Dean has claimed he didn't know Dean's views. Turns out he did, or should have known, from his other attendance at Dean events - this nutjob also made a movie, and that legislator has apparently attended one of these movie events.
Well, for one thing, we should not have a religious leader of any kind leading prayers at government functions. That sort of thing is always divisive, since no one religious belief is shared by everyone.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think that's true, then invite a Muslim or a Hindu or a Wiccan to give a prayer, and see the sparks fly! Our nation was founded on the separation of church and state, and for good reason. It's our gift to the world, so we shouldn't be ignoring it ourselves.
And no, I consider formal training of no importance when it comes to religion. That's because there is no consensus about religion, since there's absolutely no way to tell which, if any, of them are right. The result is that every religion is a minority belief in the world.
A clergyman might be trained in his own religion, but what does that mean, when his training is no more likely to be correct than any other way of thinking? It's not like studying chemistry and biology, or even history and the law.
If you're arguing that clergy from mainstream religious organizations are more likely to be moderates, that's probably true. But Republicans despise moderation these days. Who else would extremists pick to give an invocation than another extremist?
But the solution to that is two-fold. First, elect moderates or progressives, instead of right-wing fanatics. We don't seem to be doing too well at that, do we?
And second, stop violating the separation of church and state. End organized prayers at all government events. After all, every single person is always free to pray to his god at any time, if he wants. (I hope I don't have to point out that we haven't actually taken prayer out of public schools.) So why do they need to force prayer - obviously, prayer from their own particular religious belief - on everyone else?
I don't like Bradlee Dean (what little I know of him), but you don't go far enough in your criticism of this. The whole practice is wrong, and no other person leading the prayer could make it right.
First of all, an apology to WCG - your comment ended up taking unusually long awaiting moderation because for some inexplicable reason (not anything you did incorrectly)it ended up in our spam folder, and was missed for more prompt moderation. As our commenter Tuck can confirm, for no rhyme or reason, thankfully rarely, that happens.
ReplyDeleteWCG wrote:
"And no, I consider formal training of no importance when it comes to religion. That's because there is no consensus about religion, since there's absolutely no way to tell which, if any, of them are right. The result is that every religion is a minority belief in the world.
"A clergyman might be trained in his own religion, but what does that mean, when his training is no more likely to be correct than any other way of thinking? It's not like studying chemistry and biology, or even history and the law."
Clergy who are formally trained nearly always require a solid background in comparative religion which SHOULD and usually does result in both more knowledge and greater respect and understanding of those other religions.
That helps to avoid the misrepresntations of those other religions - like so many things said about Islam - from coming from legitimate clergy. It should result in less inflammatory and hateful positions from the pulpit - or in this case, on the floor of the legislature.
As an example, I would refer you to this earlier post of mine: http://penigma.blogspot.com/2010/12/light-of-world-and-insight-of-chief.html
where I quote Lord Jonathan Sacks making this observation:
"One of the ways God surprises us is by letting a Jew or a Christian discover the trace of God's presence in a Buddhist monk or a Sikh tradition of hospitality or the graciousness of Hindu life. You know, don't think we can confine God into our categories. God is bigger than religion."
Real clergy, formally trined and ordained clergy, are required to have ethical training. Some subsequently fail to live up to that training, but at least it helps to have it for the very serious and legitimate reason that clergy, like mental and physical health professionals, and other professions, are in a position of very special authority and influence over people. Dean clearly lacks that. Formal religious organizations also hold their clergy accountable for their conduct (usually) to some degree. There appears to be no such accountability at all for rogue marginal pseudo-clergy like Dean or Phelps.
Continuing - albeit out of order from his comment - to respnd to WCG who wrote:
ReplyDelete"Well, for one thing, we should not have a religious leader of any kind leading prayers at government functions. That sort of thing is always divisive, since no one religious belief is shared by everyone."
No, it is not always divisive; that even while people practice separate and different religions, we share a fairly large number of beliefs (like the golden rule of 'do onto others as you would have them do onto you' for an example). That is in part the basis for the ecumenical and interfaith movements - something with Lord Sacks expounds on in one of his books.
WCG:"If you don't think that's true, then invite a Muslim or a Hindu or a Wiccan to give a prayer, and see the sparks fly!"
Personally I would love to see a far greater diversity of qualified clergy giving the opening prayer, and even add an occasional atheist or agnostic figure. I believe we have already had Jewish clergy in both the state legislature and in congress do so, but I'd have to research it to back that up with specifics. The prayer should NOT, emphatically, be about installing Christianity as some special or privileged religion in relation to government (or anything else). We definitely need a greater push-back against those who would make us a Christian theocracy for the same reasons that doing so with Islam has been a problem for the governments of predominantly muslim countries, and I would argue as well that it is serious problem with Judaism in Israel. I don't think ANY country should have a religious government; they should ALL be secular institutions.
WCG writes "Our nation was founded on the separation of church and state, and for good reason. It's our gift to the world, so we shouldn't be ignoring it ourselves."
I would posit here that the difference between a non-denominational prayer and a religion-specific worship service is that the prayer serves a very different purpose than a religious service does.
Ideally, in theory, this very old tradition continues because the practice should bring about a moment of shared focus, of emphasis, on the better aspects of the characters of the members of the legislature, what in religious terms might be referred to as our better angels. To the extent that it focuses members on that, to the extent that it attempts to bring people into a greater and more constructive appreciation of each other as human beings, and by extension of the citizens of Minnesota as fellow human beings, I think it has a place without being an insult to adherents of any religion or to atheists.
If it cannot or is not conducted in that way, then yes, I agree with you that the practice should probably be ended.
This is always divisive, certainly among us atheists. (And yes, we're citizens, too.) If you mean that the majority doesn't mind, you're right. But the majority didn't mind whites-only lunch counters, either. Was that OK then?
ReplyDeleteYou yourself might be willing to allow more than token Muslims, Hindus, or Wiccans giving a prayer. (But atheists? Heh, heh. I think you're a little confused about us.) That's very white of you, I'm sure. :) However, you must know how many people get upset at even token representatives of some other religion.
And how would you like it if they were all Muslims (or all Moonies, or all Satanists, if that works better for you), except for a token Christian here and there? I assume you'd have no problem with that?
Well, I got sick and tired of being considered a second-class citizen during the Bush administration. And, in fact, the first Bush actually questioned whether atheists should be considered patriots or citizens. So maybe I'm not even a second-class citizen, huh?
But I expect those kinds of things from Republicans. I don't expect it from progressives. I do expect progressives to support our Constitution, including the strict separation of church and state. I do expect progressives to understand minority rights.
A "non-denominational" prayer is still religion. And religion is a personal matter, not something that should be promoted by our government. The majority should not be forcing their - your - religious beliefs on the rest of us.
You can believe whatever you want, but I'm not going to go to the back of the bus. Whatever Republicans say, I'm just as much an American citizen as you are, despite the fact that I'm not superstitious. I certainly support your right to pray to an imaginary father-figure, but not as an official part of our government.
Still think this isn't divisive? :)
PS. I phrased this rather harshly in order to show you how divisive this really is. White people - and I am one - don't often realize how racial minorities feel about some things, either. It's a little different when you're the minority. So please think about how you'd feel if the shoe were on the other foot.
I believe I do understand how you feel WCG; you know very little about me. While I have referenced the religion I was raised with, I have not spelled out my adult beliefs here to any degree.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree that Bush and the Right are trying to marginalize atheists and agnostics, and that they were not treated equally. I particularly object to faith based initiatives and the government partnering with faith based organizations, because that seems to me to be applying government funds to religious purposes in a way that supports some religions over others - or over atheists beliefs.
The majority of people in this country do seem to be people of some faith. I do support full separation of church and state, and I do have a problem with the opening prayers - or for that matter official chaplains - being so predominantly Christian, because that does NOT reflect our nation's makeup.
And yes, I do have problems with that opening prayer crossing the boundary between church and state, but I also acknowledge the intent and the potential good it can do. It is not or should not be part of the passing of any actual legislation ever. It is a custom that takes place before the formal beginning of the sessions, and it could be argued it is therefore not part of the legislative branch of government that is covered by the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Is it a custom which is not respectful of atheists? I have mixed feelings about that, as it is optional not compulsory. I also don't wish to prevent the majority who wish to do so to be deprived of their equally important right to exercise their religion.......so perhaps the solution would be to allow a location to be established for those who wish to have a prayer before beginning the daily session of the legislature somewhere other than the floor of the chamber?
"It is a custom that takes place before the formal beginning of the sessions, and it could be argued it is therefore not part of the legislative branch of government that is covered by the establishment clause of the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's just weaseling around the real issue, that the government has no business either promoting or impeding religion. Religion is a private, not government, matter.
"...but I also acknowledge the intent and the potential good it can do."
The intent is to unconstitutionally promote religion, either specifically or in general. But what "potential good" can it do? If you really believe in the power of prayer, why can't you just pray silently as an individual believer? (Or, if you really do need a crowd, go to church.) There is only one reason to do this publicly, in a government venue.
"Is it a custom which is not respectful of atheists? I have mixed feelings about that, as it is optional not compulsory."
So you wouldn't have a problem with Satanists opening each government meeting? After all, it's optional. You don't have to be there. And you wouldn't have a problem with each session of the legislature opening with government officials pointedly thanking white people for their service to this country? After all, it's not compulsory, so who could object to that?
"I also don't wish to prevent the majority who wish to do so to be deprived of their equally important right to exercise their religion."
Huh? Who's depriving them of anything? Any individual can pray at any time anywhere, certainly if he does it silently. All I'm saying is that the government shouldn't be promoting it (or discouraging it, either).
"...so perhaps the solution would be to allow a location to be established for those who wish to have a prayer before beginning the daily session of the legislature somewhere other than the floor of the chamber?"
As I say, no one is stopping believers from praying whenever and wherever they like. If they need to do it ostentatiously, then yes, perhaps it should be somewhere they don't block traffic. (I think they've got churches for that, don't they?)
But either way, the government should not be involved at all. What's so hard to understand about that? And how does that deprive anyone of their rights?
For at least 150 years, we've had a steady chipping away of that wall of separation between church and state. And yes, even our founding fathers didn't always live up to their rhetoric (slavery, anyone?). But this is a principle that pretty much put an end to religious wars.
And now that our only enemies are religious extremists, people who really want to see this as a religious war, we should be even stricter at upholding that separation of church and state. We aren't a Muslim country, but we aren't a Christian country, either. We are a diverse nation of individuals free to choose for ourselves when it comes to religion.
America is supposed to be officially neutral on religious issues, leaving that entirely to each individual conscience. I know the right-wing doesn't like that, but why is that so hard for progressives to understand?
I think you make a good point WCG.
ReplyDeleteI get rather passionate about such things, as you can probably tell. I got so mad during the Bush administration that I still haven't calmed down. :)
ReplyDeleteI hope your commenting here will continue, just as passionately, WCG, on a variety of subjects!
ReplyDelete