Friday, July 2, 2010

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition?




"people should fight against tyranny for their God-given rights."
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, CPAC
(Conservative Political Action Convention)
The title of this post is from a piece of music dating back to the attack on Pearl Harbor and our last formal declaration of war. The music is from a song by Frank Loesser back in 1942, based on a perhaps apocryphal saying by chaplain Howell Forgy, on the U.S.S. New Orleans during the attack. The song describes a 'sky pilot', a fond slang term for clergy, putting down his Bible and manning a gun turret. I selected this title because it was a popular combination of religion and politics, and history.

This post is not about any one of those, exactly, but like the title, it intertwines religion, politics and government, and history together. Sometime back my most-of-the-time friend and frequent critic, KR, sadly banned from Penigma for failing to follow our rules (including not trying to post while banned) accused me of being an atheist, for not stipulating to the concept that our rights as citizens derive from God, a statement I have heard often from the more extremely religious factions on the political right.


Anyone who disagrees with that political assumption is ridiculed, accused of not believing in god, which is in my opinion something to be treated with respect, not ridicule, as a very personal choice, every bit as much as my religious beliefs or any other person's beliefs and philosophy are deeply personal. In this connection, being called an atheist appears to be an accusation, not simply an acknowledgement of personal choice guaranteed under our Constitution. It is considered a failing, a terrible fault, something to be opposed and countered.

My personal religious background derives from what are widely regarded as the two most extremely conservative branches of Lutheranism in the United States, the Missouri and Wisconsin synods. One of the greatest possible ironies - if anything could prove that God has a sense of humor - is that Michele Bachmann also professes to be a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran; she just doesn't seem to know very much about her own professed religion, on a number of counts. How conservative are they? Mention either one to most mainstream Lutherans, who understand these distinctions in the 'flavors' of Lutheran, and you will receive a knowing look, often accompanied by "Ooooooooh", usually a very sympathetic "Oh". As conservative religious thought, in my experience it was most often accompanied by conservative political thought.

I am not an atheist; I was brought up to believe emphatically in the New Testament bible verse relating to the most important source for Christian religious belief, Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." I am fond of the King James translation - although we were encouraged to attend bible classes that addressed the original language, not just translations, as a way of not allowing human efforts, however well intentioned, to get between each believer and scripture. A central part of the religious philosophy was that the Bible was not to be changed by mankind, to better conform to our lives, but rather that our lives were to conform to the beliefs contained in the Bible.

A corollary of that belief was that we were to strive to establish the closest and most deeply personal relationship with God that was possible for us, and that the proper role of the clergy in performing sacraments was somewhat minimized from the heavily ritualized variations of other forms of practicing Christianity. At all times, the emphasis was on the most direct relationship to God, Scripture, and even Sacraments, with the least intrusion of anything or anyone else, including clergy.

Our confirmation into our church, as a completion of the pledge made on our behalf as infants in our baptism, required us to have a full understanding and agreement with this approach to our faith. It would be fair to say that a very real aspect of faith was that we all still lived at home, attended church with our families, and many of my fellow confirmands did not know much about comparative religion at that age; in practice, we did what we were told, and believed more or less what our parents believed.

I was lucky to have the nephew of our senior pastor, who was himself in seminary at the time, decided to expand our educations in our Sunday School classes. He threw out the frankly stupid and cartoonish, babyish materials we were provided, and either gave us a recap of whatever his most interesting classes were that week at the seminary, or he packed us up and took us to other churches - wonderful other churches, Roman Catholic - the cathedral; Greek Orthodox; every variant of protestantism; even Synagogues (orthodox AND reformed). We didn't get the whole comparative religion experience, but it was an exciting 'tour' of sorts of Christianity, with. After each adventure in religion, we discussed the origins of that branch of Christianity, the traditions, the liturgies, the clerical clothing, even the art and architecture of Christianity some Judaism included to appreciate our Judeo-Christian origins of faith.

Nowhere in the Bible can I find any passages which state that we have ANY kind of political rights directed from God, other than possibly the admonition for separation of politics and religion, in the passage Matthew 22:20-22, (again King James):

"20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that as come from God.
22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way."

Or, Romans 13: 1-10 (New American Bible translation, this time):

"1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, 4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. 6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. 8 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law."

All of which reads, to me, like a lot of information about what God directs we owe to Government as our duty, and absolutely NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, about what rights under Government are owed or innate to US -We the People - as political rights from God. It sure doesn't much sound like God wants us to oppose our lawful government either; none of this 'armed and dangerous' HERESY.

While I am perfectly aware of the contents of the Declaration of Independence, I would point out that however important a document it is, it is not a part of religious belief; NOR is it a part of the United States Constitution which actually forms and defines our government - including the separation of Church and State. While signed by many of the individuals we have come to regard as our Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence was not ratified by anyone and is not binding on our government. Only the Constitution and Bill of Rights holds that distinction.

I would argue that the philosophy of John Locke and others who shared his belief in the consent of the governed is more central and more seminal to our country. I would direct our readers to the second sentence of the Declaration, which reads in part "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed", NOT GOD. To intrude a required belief in God or positing the existence of God for the existence of our rights is to intrude one person's religion into the practice of religion by others. It is to force one person's belief onto another in the form of political theory.

Religion, including Christianity, has been USED, and I mean "used" in the most exploitative and manipulative sense of the possible meanings, to justify everything from the supposed "Divine Right of Kings", to Empires, ancient and modern, and now to prop up their notions about Democratic, representative, elected government on the political right.

It is not in the Bible, and the attempt to invoke and involve religion in this way - any religion, not just Christianity - is false. It is a bastardizing of religion and the relationship between each of us and God (or the lack of such a relationship, for those who may be atheist or agnostic). It is a bastardizing, a polluting, a terrible mischaracterization of our beloved Constitution. It is intrusive, it is ignorant, it is exploitative, it is self-aggrandizing, it is wrong.

Second ONLY to a reverence for Holy Scripture, I was brought up to love and to believe in our form of Government, and in those documents that are the foundation of this country. Although adopted, my adoptive family goes back in this country to around 1803. A special thank you to my two favorite cousins on my father's side of the family for their research, especially my cousin the Missouri Synod minister, who learned genealogy in the seminary by practicing on the family tree for an assignment, for that information. So far as I can tell, we have had a member of the family in the armed forces defending this country during every single conflict, putting their lives to the point, not merely offering lip service to that belief. An awareness of that personal familial history, especially on the occasion of our annual celebration of its origin, makes writing this appropriate, and fuels my devotion to these United States. I believe with all my heart and mind in government with the consent of the governed, in government of the people, by the people, for the people. God given political rights? Not unless you can show them to me in the Bible --- or any other religion's primary scripture you would care to claim as an authority for our government that will pass muster with SCOTUS and not unless it is added into our Constitution specifically.

These United States are not a godless country or a gods-less country, but we are a country without adherence to ANY single religion. Religion is a personal, private, and very free matter. I cannot express my anger and opposition adequately to those who would enslave us to any religion under the pretext of being devout or patriotic, as it is an offense to both our form of government and to Christianity, to insist we are a Christian Nation.

To those of you on the Religious Right, I say BUTT OUT of personal religious faith, BUTT the HELL OUT, with your bastardized form of Christian belief and cease trying to force it into our government.

To Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, an open call - Madame, you need to be speaking less trash on this subject, and to reacquaint yourself with your Bible and with the precepts of the religion in which you claim to worship before making these false statements. As importantly, you have demonstrated a profound need to learn the most fundamental precepts of the Constitution you have sworn to uphold as a member of Congress. You are a discredit madam Congresswoman, to your faith and to your office. This country is a DEMOCRACY, from the word 'Demos", people, a representative government; not a Theocracy, not a religious-based government.

God Bless America. Please.

May all of our readers and authors have a safe, joyously patriotic Independence Day celebration. Please stop back on the 4th, for a fun quiz on U.S. history.

36 comments:

  1. I apologize; I accidently moderated a comment from KR, and then had to delete it, consistent with his ban from Penigma.

    KR in his deleted comment, suggested I was dictating Bachmann's faith. Bachmann has made the choice to embrace the Wisconsin Synod version of Lutheranism. The Wisconsin Synod does not allow 'cafeteria' style faith, where you pick and choose what you will allow or accept, and reject other parts.

    So, I am taking issue with Ms. Bachmann for what she has herself embraced and is contradicting, not dictating anything to her.

    Even if Ms. Bachmann were not speaking over and over and over inconsistently with her own professed faith, she is still intruding on my faith and on the faith of others with her views.

    I am well within my 1st Amendment rights to object to her intrusion of religion into government.

    Bachmann is of course at liberty to embrace whatever faith she likes; but she is not free to impose it on others in this way.

    Hope you like the photos I just added KR -- have a great 4th! (Sorry you cannot comment - but you can still use the email address, Penigma2@hotmail.com, to let me know any further thoughts. I've unblocked that.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. sorry again - that should have read that Bachmann was intruding on the faith of others, by her views.

    As is a good portion of the religious right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. DG, I know what you mean about politicians who wear their religion on their sleeve. Being Catholic I see this happen at least every presidential election yr. Nancy Pelosi (or John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy) would come out and say they were a good Catholic but did not agree with the church on abortion. The bishop would put out a statement reminding people of the church teaching on abortion which would, sometimes indirectly and sometimes directly, point out that she is not such a good Catholic. All kinds of people would go nuts saying the bishop should not participate in politics, the bishop would say it is his job to teach the faith and he did not want people mislead into thinking you could be a good Catholic and find nothing wrong with abortion. The thing is whether you are Lutheran or Catholic God gave you free will, you can disagree with your chosen church and still attend or you can find another church you agree with. But to publically go against the teachings of your chosen faith and then, in an attempt to get votes, claim to be a member in good standing, is dishonest and disrespectful to other members. At the same time I see nothing wrong with a politician saying "I try to be a good Christian" or "I try to follow the ten commandments." Most people would not be offended by that and it is not pushing a particular faith. And I am just using the names I mentioned because those made national news with their statements. The Catholic church is also against capital punishment in all but extreme cases so I frequently see the same type situation on a more local level in District Attorney elections with mainly Republicans but a few Democrats also.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you Tuck!

    It's not even so much the religion worn on the sleeve, as the sleeve and the strong arm in it shoving their beliefs down my throat or shoving them down anyone else's throat.

    My sense has been that the fundamentalists and too many of the others on the religious right are so enthusiastic in their faith that they are too quick and too willing to force it on everyone else; even to re-write history to falsely reflect their religious and political views.

    Texas text books come to mind as an example.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tuck,

    I suppose I see there is a difference between Bachman, who tries to intrude upon government with her brand of church, even when she doesn't understand her church all that well, and someone like Kennedy, who attempted to keep his church out of government. His church WANTED to be in government, but Kennedy disagreed, feeling that the proscriptions of the church around abortion, around sex, around birth control, were private, non-governmental affairs.

    Those things aren't the same - one seeks to mix government and religion, the other doesn't.

    However, I see your point that both politicians claim to be members, active members, of a church which they don't cling to entirely. Should they? Is the church infalible, is the Pope? Indeed, since the Second Vatican Council, in which the Pope changed the policies of MANY prior Popes - were they wrong or was John II? - since the Second Vatican, Pope's have disagreed even with John - including Benedict who reaffirmed sex being about procreation only, and who reinstated dispensments - is that the inerrant word of God speaking, was it each time?

    Is Kennedy in error for questioning this word from the Pope, a word on a subject not touched on in the bible in ANY way?

    Conversely, Bachmann claims a root in the Bible which DG rightly points out doesn't exist AND which her professed faith, a faith she routinely refers to in public life, she neither seems to know or agree with.

    Yet, the similarity that they are both politicians using God-speak, is fair, but deeper than that, they are as different as night and day. Kennedy sought to keep government at arms length from religion, while Bachmann would pervert religion to say something it doesn't in order to take over government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Using religion to hijack government is a good way to describe it, Pen.

    Certainly Bachmann attempting to force her view of god and government on otherss, regardless of their religion or philosophy.

    "God-given" rights? Really? and the divine rights of kngs, or whatever other form of government had been in power - with rare exceptions, they have in the broad sweep of history, found some way to claim godly legitimacy.

    Which either makes our god-given rights awfully changeable, and not very consistent with the Bible accounts of how society ahs been structured, or a very badly flawed concept.

    If it places someone like Bachmann in power, a doubly flawed and anything but rights-given-from-god concept.

    ReplyDelete
  7. However much Bachmann and the rest of the religious right try to spin it - like a manic top - the foundation of the United States was not made on the premise of god-given rights.

    That was dropped after the Declaration of Independence - for those who are paying attention.

    One, but by no means the only reason for that was that no one AGREED by ratifying that idea in the Constitution. I will leave it to ToE to recap our conversation about the earlier attempts that preceded the success of our Constitution.

    It was nothing more or less than a nice idea back in the Enlightenment, reflecting their level of development in philosophy, poli-sci, and their emerging knowledge of the hard sciences.

    It was recognized that this was not a part of the Abramic religions, and that it was not a part of any of the other major OR minor religions either, which formed the existing foundations of belief in god or gods.

    The wording in the declaration of independence over-reaches a bit, as religion, or as political science and philosophy. Holding something is far different than proving something or having something established as a fact. It is not.

    And from my critical vantage point the only reason the religious right is trying so very hard to make the Declaration of Independence more than it is - and it is perfect as it is, and what it is - is because they are desperate to find some way to shoe-horn religion into government.

    They quite happily cherry pick and toss anything that can't be perverted to their self-serving power-grabbing anything-but-freedom-and-liberty purpose.

    THEIR RELIGION is the point, and their power and glory, if they can swing it. using and exploiting THEIR RELIGION.

    NO. No. No. and NOOOOO.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The conversations which expand from writing these posts are as much fun as the written comments.

    I was gently reminded that I had omitted a Biblical argument against the idea that our political or civil rights are god-given rights.

    In the new testament gospels, Matthew and Luke (I'll ispare you quotations from the pertinent passages Lk 4:1-13) is the temptation of Christ. Book, not movie. Working down the list, past the stones to bread, and being lifted up by angels......... we come to? Anybody? being offered the kingdoms of the world, mundane political power, by the devil.

    No 'god-given political rights' anywhere on the pages.

    (Hmmmm. I wonder what Bachmann is reading?)

    ReplyDelete
  9. The most significant argument against God-speak government, a conduct both parties now actively engage in, but which can be rightly and fairly attributed to the right (meaning conservatives of both Democratic AND Republican stripes) - is that fundamentalist christians generally do not agree that the kingdom of Christ will provide any semblence of democracty. If the rights are God given therefore, why would Christ take them away? We may have rights of equality which are not earned or derived or taken from our fellow men/women, but one cannot profess prostelitizing for another religion would be seen in the kingdom of Christ as right conduct. The statement at the front of the Declaration is one meant to convey that we do not gain our rights from the king and that rulership is simply given by the consent of the governed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is another argument Pen, although you make a good one.

    I don't know if this is brought up in other people's experience in history classes, but one of the the aspects of the revolutionary war, and for that mattr a look at every change in government in every other country in every other period of history to the present is legitimacy.

    How does anyone claim legitimacy for their authority, when they get it? What ways are valid and what is not?

    This is the very essence of attempting to define the source of rights, to legitimize them. Positing our rights and therefore our rebellion is legitimate because it derives or stems from God is the antithesis of the divine right of kings, and the weight of precedent and tradition.

    When modern political movements, like Bachmann and the fundamentalists try to persuade their followers and would-be followers, they use what boils down to a variant of mom likes me best between siblings. God likes us best, we're doing what God wants/we're closer to God/God is giving us (not 'them') moral authority --- and that is why you should do what we say, and not listen to those other people.

    I believe free will is sufficient power, the golden rule which occurs in some form in most religions is sufficient direction, for embracing the consent of the governed.

    When I see someone trying to co-opt God as authority....it says to me that their position is too weak to stand on its own merits. It says that they have no ethical objections to subverting religion for their own attempts to gain power and authority.

    I do not believe there has been a single government, or form of government, in the hisotry of the world (part I or any other, LOL) which God has 'liked best'.

    Some clearly have doen far better than others on behalf of the consenting governed - like ours.

    I believe that Abe Lincoln got it right when he said that God was not on our side in the civil war, but that we should strive to be on God's side, in the sense of striving for the best possible personal morality in all aspects of our lives of which we are capable. That doesn't include trying wrongly to force religion into politics, like claiming god-given political rights.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A question I'd have for anyone who looks at Ted Kennedy or any other Catholic who doesn't support changing the Constitution to outlaw abortion, if we're ttalking about ahderence to Catholic standards, do you never use birth control in any form other than the "rhythym methdo?" Birth control practices too have been forbidden by the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is my wish that Catholics who are pro-choice, or not against birth control, or for allowing priests to marry or female priests, would follow their conscience and leave the Catholic church. Decimating the member rolls, and the money that comes from those members, would test the commitment of the church to their policies.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That is not a crisis of faith I would wish on anyone DS, but I suppose many individuals find those solutions in the protestant churches, like the Anglican / Episcopalians.

    I'm sure the decline in their number of new priests is certainly a challenge for the church. It always amazes me when I come across some new set of rules the church has for different coutries, as there are for the U.S. for example.
    I doubt most non-catholics and probably quite a few catholics for that matter, are aware that there are married priests within the church, an example of different rules for different places:

    http://atheism.about.com/od/romancatholicism/a/celibacy_2.htm

    At one point the rules for handling occurrences of the clergy and sexual abuse were different for the US, and then were different for English speaking countries per a recent news article.

    Which is by way of directing the topic back to people hijacking religion for politics, or religion for their brand of patriotism, and using it to try to persuade people to give them their power of consent to be governed.

    If god had given us our rights......wouldn't the history of Christianity in the western world be different? Look at all those legitimizing ceremonies, look at all the different governments in the world where the church seems to operate in cooperation.

    There is something within the Roman Catholic church in places like south america something called the theology of liberation. It is also found in churches like the one where Obama went for many years with Pastor Jeremiah Wright. That attempts to use scripture as a basis for driving social changes, which tangentially touch on political change..... but it is my understanding in passing that this has been frowned on by the higher levels of the Roman Catholic church, and that there is even a lack of agreement within other protestant church groups about it.

    I suppose I should look into that more...... but it doesn't seem to be anything remotely like the appeal that Bachmann is making in her claims of god-given rights (or KR). That would make strange bed fellows indeed. Jeremiah Wright and Michele Bachmann?????????????

    No, Congresswoman Bachmann seems to be squarely in the part of the GOP that is supporting ......what was the term I came across while doing more digging into the various black panther stories? oh, yes! "racially tinged voter politics".

    That was a reference to the GOP voter intimidation efforts, btw, and their words for it.

    Not a reference to the activities of the black panthers.

    But maybe Bachmann and her group that like to trumpet god-given rights don't believe god gave the same rights to everybody.... or maybe just not to vote?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would point out that Vatican II was called into session by H.H. John XXIII, not John II. (John II reigned from 533 to 535 AD).

    While the Constitution clearly makes the requirement that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion, nor prohibiting the free practice of religion (Amendment I), that same Constitution also does not forbid religion from intruding, or attempting to intrude into government. Religious faiths of all types regularly attempt to establish their particular morals on society through the passage of various laws. (America's experience with Prohibition is a direct offshoot of the temperance movement, which was championed mainly by the Methodist church).

    To those who say that one can't legislate morals, think about what our laws do in fact do. Stealing is not only illegal, but its also immoral. So is killing, kidnapping and a host of other activities. Our ethics are often established by our religious faiths.

    Unfortunately, there are also sects of Christianity that have gone to the extreme heresy of legitimizing greed, and claiming that Christ and the Christian faith wants them to be prosperous (read: rich). This philosophy is thoroughly repudiated by Matthew 19:23-24 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, 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"

    ReplyDelete
  15. ToE wrote:" Religious faiths of all types regularly attempt to establish their particular morals on society through the passage of various laws. (America's experience with Prohibition is a direct offshoot of the temperance movement, which was championed mainly by the Methodist church)."

    Prohibition was a disastrous experiment, and should caution us against trying these kinds of things again.

    Bachmann and her base equate the principles on which this country were founded with their religious beliefs -- which is an error they are free to make -- however, the Constitution IS the foundation of our government.

    The declaration of independence was the birth announcement, so to speak, of the struggle for independence, not the foundation of that subsequent government.

    I would dispute with you, my very dear colleague, that by having laws against muder or theft, that we are legislating morality. These laws exist fairly well everywhere, as a matter of practicality, and are as much or more a matter of ethics, than of religion and morality.

    ReplyDelete
  16. DG, referring to your comment about the married priests, the Catholic Church does not have different rules for different places. What has happened is some Anglican priest have converted. Theologically Anglicans are about as close to Catholic as you can get, other than recognizing the king of England as head of the church, allowing divorce, and allowing married priests they are practically the same. When an Anglican priest converts to Catholicism if he is married he is allowed to stay married but if his wife dies he is not allowed to remarry. This is becoming a more frequent occurence as some parts of the Anglican congregation are becoming more liberal and the more conservative parts are leaving.
    Pen, any group has the right to define what it means to be a member of that group. The Church has said to be a good member means abortions are wrong. Now every Christian church realizes people are not perfect and everyone is at times a very good member and at times a not so good member. The Church has every right to ask its members to vote for pro life politicians just as the NRA has a right to ask its members to vote for pro 2nd amendment politicians.
    Also as far as Benedict and the sex thing, if you are talking about the document I think you are then you haven't read the whole thing. 90% of the document is about how sex is a gift from God and an important part of any marriage. A small part of it says you should not inhibit procreation while having sex, not that sex is only for procreation. Of course the news media picked up on that small part and got it backwards also.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ttuck - you didn't follow the link I provided. No, I was not referring to the Anglican or Episcopalian priests. I was referring to the Eastern Rite priests.

    It's early and I should be doing dog chores so I'm going to give you a couple of wikipedia quotes:

    The Eastern Catholic Churches are represented in the Holy See and the Roman Curia through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, which, as indicated on the Vatican website, "is made up of a Cardinal Prefect (who directs and represents it with the help of a Secretary) and 27 Cardinals, one Archbishop and 4 Bishops, designated by the Pope ad qui[n]quennium. Members by right are the Patriarchs and the Major Archbishops of the Oriental Churches and the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Unity among Christians."[5]

    and

    "Eastern and Western Christian churches have different traditions concerning clerical celibacy. These differences and the resulting controversies have played a role in the relationship between the two groups in some Western countries."

    "Most Eastern Churches distinguish between "monastic" and "non-monastic" clergy. Monastics do not necessarily live as monks or in monasteries, but have spent at least part of their period of training in such a context. Their monastic vows include a vow of celibate chastity."

    the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith set out rules in a letter of 2 May 1890 to François-Marie-Benjamin Richard, the Archbishop of Paris,[63] which the Congregation applied on 1 May 1897 to the United States,[64] stating that only celibates or widowed priests coming without their children should be permitted in the United States. This rule was restated with special reference to Catholics of Ruthenian Rite by the 1 March 1929 decree Cum data fuerit, which was renewed for a further ten years in 1939. Dissatisfaction by many Ruthenian Catholics in the United States gave rise to the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese. This rule was abolished with the promulgation of the Decree on the Catholic churches of the Eastern Rite; since then, married men have been ordained to the priesthood in the United States, and numerous married priests have come from eastern countries to serve parishes in the Americas.[65]

    different ruls for different places, Tuck

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tuck,

    Having been raised Catholic and having travelled with Catholics to Rome and the Vatican, I can say with reasonable certainty I have some idea of the changes Benedict has made, but I'll agree that I have only read what Benedict said from sources other than Benedict.

    Regardless Tuck, you've (imho) ducked the point - the Pope said (a LONG time ago) that sex was only for procreation, the John XII (kudos to ToE - I knew it had a 2 in it) said it was NOT ONLY for procreation. So, who was right?

    Third, and importantly, should everyone who uses contraception be considered "not in good standing?"

    But most importantly, Kennedy attempts to draw a line between a government which isn't supposed to be theocratic and his church. I certaintly, not for a moement, would consider ANY Catholic who is pro-choice to be a member in good standing because the Church's position on this question is both a contradiction of past Church history, and because this is a HIGHLY devicive issue, the falability of the Pope is not only possible, it is true beyond question - if not, the Popes of ages past wouldn't have contradicted each other, engaged in adultery, extra-marrital sex, drug use, criminal enterprise, conspiracy, and in Benedict's case, perhaps covering up or at least abiding priestly misconduct. As such, Kennedy is fully within his rights as a human being to make up his mind about the correctness of the Vatican's edicts on this subject. It may be that in 100 years the Vatican will reverse itself, will that make Kennedy right and those who oppose abortion wrong now?

    Bachmann, by contrast, is advocating something which is beyond just the Church's stance on one subject, it is suggesting that God is hypocritical - not from the mouth of some Pope, but from the Bible itself, and every last translation of it - and she's doing so in order to promote a 'God-speak' usurpation of social/civil liberties. Our country is secular, it is not Christian except in the most loose sense of the word, the majority of us are Christian, but the majority of us recognize the fact that NO religion should be given pre-eminence in our policy making, including DEFINING WHEN LIFE BEGINS, when the law and science don't agree. Her attempts to do so fly both counter to our ideals and most importantly, exactly counter to the bible, and the worst part is, she doesn't give a damn. I sat next to this woman on the plane once, in her hands she had no less than 4 pages of 16 point font (or larger) jokes about Obama, that was, along with reading pro-rightie editorials from the WSJ, what she occupied her time with during our 2 hour flight. She's mendacious - hardly a Christian virtue, and she intends to use religion as a weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pen, I'm guessing Bachmann was looking through Obama jokes f or the ice-breaker on one of the many speeches she is busy giving instead of attending sessions of Congress and her one - one - committee meeting. She is reported to have the single worst attendance record of any Minnesotan. She has 3 press people, and 1 legislative staff person ---- the reverse of most members of congress (not just MN).

    So, she was just.....for her.....doing research reading those Obama jokes.

    You are spot on in your observation about "using religion" though.

    And as one of ToE's 'favorite heretics', LOL, I resent that kind of 'using religion'.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In 1776, the notion that our rights were God-given from our 'creator' (to encompass those who were not judeo-christian), or inalienable, was one theory that had been circulating, under discussion for most of the 18th century. The declaration of independence incorporated it, not because it was considered so widely accepted it was regarded as fact - it WASN'T, EVER a matter of consensus. It was offered as one justification, one legitimization, for breaking with the UK.

    We can look at our own history as fiction - George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac, or George Washington couldn't tell a lie about chopping down a cherry tree with 'his little hatchet'.

    Or we can look at the reality of the era; facts such as at best only a third of the colonial population ever supported the revolution (at some periods, fewer); and another third were equally and emphatically pro-Brit, with the remainder indifferent to either side, and just hoping that neither side would wreck their homes, farms and businesses. We were NOT, in our origins, all that UNITED a group of states; FAR from it.

    We can embrace our heritage, our tremndous legacy from these brave men (AND WOMEN) factually. OR, we can do a Bachmann and try to manipulate it, presenting it as something it never was, combining mythology and theology. and slapping a tacky bumper-stickr on it proclaiming patriotism.

    I like my history 'straight up' and factual, not this exploitive bull-puckey.

    If THIS is an example of the Christian worldview education that students are getting, we should all be cringing every time these religious institutions that masquerade as institutions of learning graduate anyone, and cringe doubly every time they are recruited into government by the right to promote their agendas, forcing their views on the rest of us.

    When I read the comments from people like KR, proclaiming their devotion to the founding father's and their political thought, I have to laugh, because at least from the education I was provided, which went to the source materials - they don't seem to know their subject matter very well. They seem to be repeating a very revisionist view of history, one revised by religious people who don't seem to know their Bibles very well---- about as well as they don't know their history, and typically also don't know their science or economics either.

    But they seem very very good at... conformity with their notions of traditional thinking.... right out of the '50s. Not the 1750s; closer sometimes to the 1850's, but closest of all to the 1950's.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tuck,

    The Episcopal and Anglican Churches aren't exactly the same church, but they also are very close - so I will tell you that as far as I know, the differences between Catholics and Episcopals (e.g. Church of England folks who left Englad behind) - are more than you may know of.

    First, Episcopals do not believe Mary was free of original sin, Catholics do.

    Second, Episcopals do not believe in the intercession of Saints, while Anglicans sometimes do, and sometimes don't, depending upon the Diocese.

    Third, as you say, they don't pay homage to the Pope - yet I am certain that while the King of England is head of the Anglican Church, he is most definetly NOT the head of the Episcopal church worldwide (including in America).

    Fourth, Anglicans and Episcopals accept female priests and priest can marry, that's a pretty important difference.

    Most important though, is that Episcopals and Anglicans can and do direct thier Diocese themselves. Priests are invested and aceepted by their parish, not at the whim of the Church - misconduct leads to dismissal from the Parish at least, and a Priest who disagrees with the central Church should not and does not fear replacement.

    There are few differences (meaningful) between the Anglican and Episcopal Church outside of (as far as I know) who heads the Church (though we Episcopals treat the Archbishop of Canturbury with great deference) and the intercession of Saints. Conversely, there are some very meaningful differences between Anglicans/Episcopals and Catholics.

    One of the key differences, a parish may question the central church, may even disagree with it, and is in no fear of reprisal. Perhaps the Catholic way is better, but if capricious decision-making is to be unquestioned and those who do so to be called "not in good standing", without meaning offense, well, let's just say, I do not agree with the Church.

    I have found all welcome in the Episcopal faith and none turned away.

    ReplyDelete
  22. BTW Tuck,

    My recollection and research suggests Benedict in fact DID reinforce that sex is not to be separated from procreation. Sex is fine w/o accomplishing it, but the primary goal is still procreation - so there is some argument that even abstaining during the time a woman is most fertile is subverting the will of God, and willfully engaging in it only when the woman is NOT fertile is doing the same thing.

    This was a more direct challenge to the "rythym method" than at any point since Vatican II - so I don't exactly agree with you that Benedict didn't reinforce the idea that sex is foremost for procreation. He doesn't say you can't have sex at other times, but that the unity of marraige and the creation of life should not be separated.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Actually, my read of this reinforced my earlier understanding:

    http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

    Any act which is deliberate in preventing pregnancy is a mortal sin if done with knowledge. This means, without any equivocation, the rythym method, because it aspires to avoid pregnancy by only having sex when pregnancy would be avoided, thus preventing pregnancy, is a mortal sin.

    To those Catholics out there who read this (Tuck this means you, but not limited to you), do you agree? Do you seek never to thwart the natural law of God (that's a rhetorical question, I do not ask you to answer how you handle your private life, but merely to contemplate whether you agree with Rome) - do any of you consider avoiding pregnancy to be a mortal sin?

    ReplyDelete
  24. As interesting as these explorations of doctrinal differences are.... am I correct that you both agree, Tuck, Pen, that your religion does not specify any "God-given" political rights, or generalize any either?

    These observations on the differences between the Roman Catholic church and the protestant faiths seem to be slightly off-topic....

    Tuck, as one of our courteous conservative voices, what are your thoughts, please, on political or civil rights being 'God-given' versus the consent of the governed (because we can, essentially)

    ReplyDelete
  25. All persons are children of God. God granted to us free will, but He expects us to obey His laws which He established for us in the 10 commandments, and later, Christ's great commandments.

    I disagree with my esteemed collegue DG in that she has misinterpreted the writings of the Apostle Paul in his Letter to the Romans. Romans 13:1 is pretty clear. "...The authorities that exist have been established by God." All that is just and right, including our civil rights, flow from God. While I believe very firmly that Ms. Bachman is subverting the faith by her statements, I can see where the statement "God-given rights." comes in. Our freedoms, our civil liberties, come to us as part of the natural law, and the way in which we, God's children, have chosen it. They could not exist without the will of God. While it is true that God does not endorse any particular style of government, clearly, while the concept of a republic and democracy was not unknown to early Christian writers, both of those forms of government had been long dormant in the society of the age. If they had been present, who knows what Paul's letters would have said?

    ReplyDelete
  26. ToE writes: 13:1 is pretty clear. "...The authorities that exist have been established by God." All that is just and right, including our civil rights, flow from God.

    This is about authority, ToE. The same passages that were used to justify the divine right of kings.

    Could you please identify the passage which addresses the civil rights which we are accorded under the provisions of the Constitution - freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of assembly, habeus corpus, jury trial.....any of those? You are making a pretty broad generalization to passages which have been used to justify the exact opposite of those things as much or more. (Spanish Inquisition anyone?)

    Toe wrote"While it is true that God does not endorse any particular style of government, clearly, while the concept of a republic and democracy was not unknown to early Christian writers, both of those forms of government had been long dormant in the society of the age. If they had been present, who knows what Paul's letters would have said?"

    ToE, are you asserting that the words of Paul were specific to the Romans, and were not intended to address Christians throughout the ages by what they said in their original form?

    Why would Paul have changed what he wrote - are you asserting they are situation specific, not the inspired word of God for all of us?

    ReplyDelete
  27. ToE,

    That creates a dichotomy which I'd ask you to explore, namely, in the Kingdom of Christ (end days), a theocracy, not a democracy, will exist. In such a theocracy, presumably freedom of religion is a non-sequitor, meaning therefore that freedom of religion in the United States does not 'flow from God' for God considers such a position to be heretical/a mortal sin. Further, it would seem there is no democratic right to self-rule. If I put my mind to it, I believe I could even claim fairly well that freedom of speech might include a form of speech which would be offensive to Christ and therefore outside the allowable limits within the Kingdom of Christ. Consequently, since the end days will have only one Kingdom, one land, presumably there can be no freedom of speech on matters of governmental dissent or on religion, or application of religion, without turning oneself out of the Kingdom of Christ and therefore into damnation. Consequently, no freedom of speech on those subjects.

    As a result, I contest and disagree that God intends for the allowance of many things we consider 'liberties' - especially those liberties we hold as paramount in the United States. Because we are endowed with a choice, it seems if we exercise such liberties in a way which is objectionalbe to God, he isn't approving of the act, and without the choice to act in a black vs. white, doees the right truly exist?

    I believe that God does not suggest for a moment that self-rule on earth is his concern, province, or ensured right because of ambivelence. I do not agree that our 'rights' flow from God, I believe he frankly doesn't care - render unto Ceasar until such a time as Christ is risen again.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Bible describes what is essentially a tribally organized society and government. It describes a political system that included slavery. It is unclear to what degree slaves were recognized as 'children of god', but certainly any "God-given" rights they may have had were, to borrow a Brit phrase 'thin on the ground'.

    I can't imagine any lower a status in rights than to be bought and sold, even killed, at the whim of someone who has complete and total power over your life.

    On the other hand, a re-read earlier today of the Magna Carta, in translation, does have King John Lackland not only giving up concessions to his barons, but also granting freedoms to the church.... not rights and privileges being provided by the church.

    And that is just Christianity; I haven't seen anyone offering examples of our divine creator specifiying those God-given rights in any other theology than the Abrmaic religions. They are all long on thou shalts, and thou shalt not.

    There is nothing wrong with us conferring these rights on ourselves. We don't need to make John Locke or any other Enlightenment philosopher, or our founding fathers either, with the status equivalent to a prophet. It is sufficient for them to have had really good ideas. We don't need to mythologize them; George Washington is perfectly adequate without the chopping down the cherry tree baloney, or the folk story about throwing the silver dollar across the river.

    The reality is sufficient without hyping it to be more than it is - or ever was.

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyNTHY6ekjo

    Grassley asking Kagan during her confirmation hearings if "god gave us the right to bear arms, or just the constitution"........

    Yeah, there's a lot of references to firearms in both the old and new tesstament.

    Seriously, anyone this ignorant and functionally illiterate on the subject of government and rights should be removed from office.


    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarggggggggggh!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Actually, in my experience, by and large Grassley is one of the more gentle voices in the Senate from the Republican side. He's been in the senate since the 80's, and has frequently been a pragmatist.

    I'm not sure what he was driving at, perhaps he was asking a "Do you still beat your wife question" meaning pinning her against God-given OR admitting it is in the Constitution. He's clever enough for that kind of question. I seriously doubt he's a strong proponent of "God derived rights."

    If I'd been Kagan, I'd have said, "I won't try to discern the mind of the Creator, but it appears the Supreme Court has answered the question of whether it is intended to be part of the Constitution, and even recently if I recall."

    ReplyDelete
  31. That may have been true of Grassley at one time, but he was one of the most shrill, if I recall, erroneously claiming that the Obama health care reform was eager to pull the plug on Grandma.

    I think the tea partiers in Iowa may be pushing him to the right, much like the competition in AZ is pushing Mc Cain....

    I don't know Grassley's track record as well as you seem to Pen, but .....gentle istn't the word that came to mind. Check out the video for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  32. DG, I think when we talk about natural or God given rights we are not referring to political rights like freedom of the press. Mankind was given free will by God, so therefore mankind has a right to choose their form of government and that government gets its rights from the people that chose it. So really there are basic rights from God and a more detailed set we confer on ourselves from the Constitution. The thing about the basic rights is there is nothing there to keep a bad ruler from taking the right to choose how you live and how you are governed away from you. The ruler and his followers have free will just as the people being ruled do. Free will includes the right to do the wrong thing, as in the story of Adam and Eve. This goes to what Pen says about the right to free speech not coming from God as you could use speech offensive to God. Free will means we can go against the will of God. That said I don't think the rights in the Constitution are directly bestowed by God. He gave us free will and reason which we used to create the constitution so indirectly yes all those rights come from God. If you want a real good discussion of natural law and rights then read some Aquinas, but I will tell you in a Philosophy of Being course in college it took an entire semester to cover small parts of two of his books.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tuck, free will from God means we make the choice to act well or badly, we have the freedom to sin or not sin.

    It is a huuuuuuge stretch from that to God-given rights, including a God-given right, per Grassley, to carry guns.

    We do not need rights from God to decide that our government is going to be by the consent of the governed for that decision to be legitimate. There are other perfectly legitimate sources of authority without trying to drag God into taking sides in politics - and that is what I am objecting to here.

    Imho - that is showing more real respect for God, and for each other, by not trying to pervert and twist religion.

    ReplyDelete
  34. ROFL, a friend just reminded me that conservatives had taken it on themselves to re-write the Bible so as to better reflect their politics.

    So, maybe all these God-given rights are in there, that I'm missing from the King James and other versions.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I'm wondering how that squares with the 'don't change one jot' passages?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well like I said earlier God gave us free will and reason. It can be said all rights come from those as without free will and reason we would not do things like form governments and make constitutions. However, as you pointed out, free will and reason are entirely neutral when it comes to good or evil and espcially democrat or republican. Personally I don't think God takes sides in any of these arguments we get into. He may know which side is right and which is wrong but on a lot of issues, like eliminating poverty, both sides want to eliminate poverty (which you would think God would want) but argue over how to do it. When both sides are trying to do the right thing in differnt ways how can anyone say God is on their side and not the other.

    ReplyDelete