Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:28:43 PM
Sarah Palin Can’t Tear Down The Wall Between Church And State
[ hateful, duplicitous, demagogic cherry picker ]
To hear Palin tell it, there’s a veritable army of “angry atheists armed with an attorney” who “want to try to abort Christ from Christmas” by filing lawsuits “when they see a plastic Jewish family on somebody’s lawn—a nativity scene, that’s basically what it is, right?”
Actually, no.
But never mind theology, here’s the deal: If Palin or anybody else can provide a single, verifiable instance of somebody being successfully sued for exhibiting a crèche, a cross or any religious symbol on private property anywhere in the U.S., they’d have something to complain about.
They’d also have the certain support of the American Civil Liberties Union in defense of their First Amendment rights.
But of course that’s not what these (to my mind overblown) fights over nativity scenes at courthouses, city halls and state capitols around the country are about. Instead, they’re about an “establishment of religion” which the same First Amendment categorically forbids.
In typical scattershot fashion, Palin even invoked Virginia’s own Thomas Jefferson, a conventionally pious Founding Father in her mind, who would, like, totally object to the persecution of people like her who can’t make everybody admit that their God is America’s God:
-----
“I think Thomas Jefferson would certainly recognize it and stand up and he wouldn’t let anybody tell him to sit down and shut up.”
-----
Now it’s definitely true that Jefferson was rarely shy about his religious views. Courtesy of Martin Longman in Washington Monthly .. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_12/history_palinized048099.php , here’s his opinion about what Palin calls “the reason for the season” from an 1823 letter to John Adams: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.”
Like Swift, Jefferson recognized the dangers of religious strife. That’s precisely why, he assured Connecticut Baptists in 1802, the First Amendment decreed “a wall of separation between church and State.”
A wall that protects us still.
Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr
page 2 of 2 - http://www.nationalmemo.com/sarah-palin-cant-tear-down-the-wall-between-church-and-state/2/
====
Sarah Palin – Shit-Stirrer And Hypocrite .. bit ..
I think there have been four instances over the years when the old hooah has attended a church.
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb965NZRdTo ]
Uploaded on 23 Sep 2008
In a frantic speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid.
In video footage of the speech, she is seen saying: As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and hes so bold. And he was praying Lord make a way, Lord make a way! — Lord make a way!
Subsequently an ecumenical cook preacher talks about the
“Alaskan Armageddon.”
This is the Pastor Muthee video…
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs
that video, i think, was the one gone black here ..
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50289489 ]
At Ted Steven’s funeral
At Wally Hickel’s funeral
Apart from these rare sightings, Palin has never been seen attending church. If the religious center of Christmas means so much to her, then why doesn’t the old bag get off her bony arse and go preying praying at her local place of worship?
Palin is only interested in religion and Christmas for what it has to offer her. Her false gods are MONEY and FAME. That is idolatry .. http://www.gotquestions.org/idolatry-definition.html .
[...]
More on her drivel at Liberty…
http://austinisafecker.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/sarah-palin-shit-stirrer-and-hypocrite/
====
Liberty Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr., uni. spokesman Johnnie Moore and Palin all lied by omission when, while lauding the role of Christian abolitionists, they omitted to mention there were as many, if not more, Christian evangelists stridently anti-abolitionist ..
Lecture 8, The Convenient Sin, by Dr. Terry Matthews
A House Divided
This chapter may have been part of a course on Religion in America taught in 1995, by Dr. Matthews, who was a United Methodist clergyman and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Religion at Duke and / or Wake Forest University]. I got it from the W F U web site, but it was no longer there as of 05 / 26 / 12.
As the anti-slavery movement in the South was being displaced by a rising tide of sentiment that held slavery to be a positive good, one should be sensitive to the religious dynamic at work in this shift. The growing assault on slavery from outside the region and the extreme defensiveness that it produced were both rooted in the revivals of the Second Great Awakening.
The attack on Slavery, for instance, was financed in large part by Arthur and Lewis Tappan, two prosperous merchants converted in the revivals of the Second Great Awakening. They poured their fortune into the effort to end slavery through "immediate emancipation, to be accomplished gradually." They financed the issuing of countless tracts, as well as the forming of societies and state conventions to advance the cause of abolition. Many of those drawn to the abolition movement by their efforts were also converts from the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, and were attracted to this effort to purge the nation of the sinful stain of slavery.
The attacks on slavery mounted by the Abolitionists stung Southern evangelicals, and denominational authorities from both North and South reacted strongly to the abolitionist campaign. One example of this reactivity was the effort made by Methodists to gag abolitionists in the church, who were deemed to be a threat to the order of the church. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church ordered their preachers "to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and to refrain from patronizing any of their publications." They were willing to take this step because they feared that such advocacy might hurt the patronage of the church in the South. Nor were the Methodists alone in this. Roman Catholic bishops did something very similar, when they refused to pronounce slavery an evil.
Another response to the growing campaign of the abolitionists was the effort on the part of Southern religious leaders to ground the institution of slavery in ultimate reality. Slavery was part of the divine plan, they argued. Not only did God's Word make it clear that slavery was not evil, it was, in fact, a part of the divinely established social order.
At the same time they sought to ground slavery in ultimate reality, Southern religious leaders also sought to defend the Bible from attack. Already questions were being raised about whether the Bible was literally true. It had already been noticed, for instance that while the Bible attributes its first five books to the authorship of Moses, these books include the story of his death. Now, the South felt it necessary to defend the Bible as inerrant truth, with no mixture of error because Southerners came to believe that anything that threatened to undermine the authority of scripture also undermined one of their best defenses of slavery. Robert Lewis Dabney clearly described the deliberate nature of this strategy when he wrote in 1851: "Here is our policy then...to push the Bible argument continually, to drive Abolitionism to the wall, to compel it to assume an anti-Christian position." Like other Southerners, he felt if the abolitionists could be made out to be attacking God's Word as well as slavery, their influence among the public could be limited. Another leading Southerner, James Henley Thornwell went so far as to say that calling Slavery sinful was to reject the Bible in favor of a rationalistic mode of thought. And some Southern religious leaders who went so far as to attack the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Bill of Rights, as having sprung from the same infidel philosophy which bred abolitionism.
Within a generation, the evangelicalism of the Second Great Awakening was profoundly divided, and at odds with itself. On the one hand were the Christian abolitionists who saw slavery as a violation of the Christian gospel. They focused on the spirit and teachings of Jesus, and believed that the Golden Rule had superseded the ethic of the Old Testament. They saw scripture as a progressive revelation, and therefore gave greater weight to the New Testament teaching concerning the law of love. On the other hand was the South, with its claim that slavery was divinely ordained. Southern clergy cited scriptural texts to prove their point, and insisted that those who differed from them were denying the truthfulness of God's Word. Where evangelicals in the North came to see the struggle against slavery as a crusade to wipe out the sin of human bondage, the South saw itself engaged in a battle to defend the cause of God and religion from the infidelity of scripture-denying abolitionists.
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/slavery&southernchurches.html
----
[ Christian ] Opposition to abolitionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opposition_to_abolitionism
=====
.. and re your link about an inch down
But the trustees at Brewton-Parker College see something else in Caner. Trustee Bucky Kennedy said in the school's press release that Caner’s “character and love for God are admirable and inspirational.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/disgraced-former-liberty-dean-ergun-caner-gets-new-job-seeks-silence-critics#sthash.PAetmy7a.dpuf
When "love for God" is more highly valued than the simple human value as basic, that has dangerous portent.
[ hateful, duplicitous, demagogic cherry picker ]
To hear Palin tell it, there’s a veritable army of “angry atheists armed with an attorney” who “want to try to abort Christ from Christmas” by filing lawsuits “when they see a plastic Jewish family on somebody’s lawn—a nativity scene, that’s basically what it is, right?”
Actually, no.
But never mind theology, here’s the deal: If Palin or anybody else can provide a single, verifiable instance of somebody being successfully sued for exhibiting a crèche, a cross or any religious symbol on private property anywhere in the U.S., they’d have something to complain about.
They’d also have the certain support of the American Civil Liberties Union in defense of their First Amendment rights.
But of course that’s not what these (to my mind overblown) fights over nativity scenes at courthouses, city halls and state capitols around the country are about. Instead, they’re about an “establishment of religion” which the same First Amendment categorically forbids.
In typical scattershot fashion, Palin even invoked Virginia’s own Thomas Jefferson, a conventionally pious Founding Father in her mind, who would, like, totally object to the persecution of people like her who can’t make everybody admit that their God is America’s God:
-----
“I think Thomas Jefferson would certainly recognize it and stand up and he wouldn’t let anybody tell him to sit down and shut up.”
-----
Now it’s definitely true that Jefferson was rarely shy about his religious views. Courtesy of Martin Longman in Washington Monthly .. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_12/history_palinized048099.php , here’s his opinion about what Palin calls “the reason for the season” from an 1823 letter to John Adams: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.”
Like Swift, Jefferson recognized the dangers of religious strife. That’s precisely why, he assured Connecticut Baptists in 1802, the First Amendment decreed “a wall of separation between church and State.”
A wall that protects us still.
Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr
page 2 of 2 - http://www.nationalmemo.com/sarah-palin-cant-tear-down-the-wall-between-church-and-state/2/
====
Sarah Palin – Shit-Stirrer And Hypocrite .. bit ..
I think there have been four instances over the years when the old hooah has attended a church.
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb965NZRdTo ]
Uploaded on 23 Sep 2008
In a frantic speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid.
In video footage of the speech, she is seen saying: As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and hes so bold. And he was praying Lord make a way, Lord make a way! — Lord make a way!
Subsequently an ecumenical cook preacher talks about the
“Alaskan Armageddon.”
This is the Pastor Muthee video…
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs
that video, i think, was the one gone black here ..
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50289489 ]
At Ted Steven’s funeral
At Wally Hickel’s funeral
Apart from these rare sightings, Palin has never been seen attending church. If the religious center of Christmas means so much to her, then why doesn’t the old bag get off her bony arse and go preying praying at her local place of worship?
Palin is only interested in religion and Christmas for what it has to offer her. Her false gods are MONEY and FAME. That is idolatry .. http://www.gotquestions.org/idolatry-definition.html .
[...]
More on her drivel at Liberty…
http://austinisafecker.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/sarah-palin-shit-stirrer-and-hypocrite/
====
Liberty Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr., uni. spokesman Johnnie Moore and Palin all lied by omission when, while lauding the role of Christian abolitionists, they omitted to mention there were as many, if not more, Christian evangelists stridently anti-abolitionist ..
Lecture 8, The Convenient Sin, by Dr. Terry Matthews
A House Divided
This chapter may have been part of a course on Religion in America taught in 1995, by Dr. Matthews, who was a United Methodist clergyman and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Religion at Duke and / or Wake Forest University]. I got it from the W F U web site, but it was no longer there as of 05 / 26 / 12.
As the anti-slavery movement in the South was being displaced by a rising tide of sentiment that held slavery to be a positive good, one should be sensitive to the religious dynamic at work in this shift. The growing assault on slavery from outside the region and the extreme defensiveness that it produced were both rooted in the revivals of the Second Great Awakening.
The attack on Slavery, for instance, was financed in large part by Arthur and Lewis Tappan, two prosperous merchants converted in the revivals of the Second Great Awakening. They poured their fortune into the effort to end slavery through "immediate emancipation, to be accomplished gradually." They financed the issuing of countless tracts, as well as the forming of societies and state conventions to advance the cause of abolition. Many of those drawn to the abolition movement by their efforts were also converts from the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, and were attracted to this effort to purge the nation of the sinful stain of slavery.
The attacks on slavery mounted by the Abolitionists stung Southern evangelicals, and denominational authorities from both North and South reacted strongly to the abolitionist campaign. One example of this reactivity was the effort made by Methodists to gag abolitionists in the church, who were deemed to be a threat to the order of the church. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church ordered their preachers "to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and to refrain from patronizing any of their publications." They were willing to take this step because they feared that such advocacy might hurt the patronage of the church in the South. Nor were the Methodists alone in this. Roman Catholic bishops did something very similar, when they refused to pronounce slavery an evil.
Another response to the growing campaign of the abolitionists was the effort on the part of Southern religious leaders to ground the institution of slavery in ultimate reality. Slavery was part of the divine plan, they argued. Not only did God's Word make it clear that slavery was not evil, it was, in fact, a part of the divinely established social order.
At the same time they sought to ground slavery in ultimate reality, Southern religious leaders also sought to defend the Bible from attack. Already questions were being raised about whether the Bible was literally true. It had already been noticed, for instance that while the Bible attributes its first five books to the authorship of Moses, these books include the story of his death. Now, the South felt it necessary to defend the Bible as inerrant truth, with no mixture of error because Southerners came to believe that anything that threatened to undermine the authority of scripture also undermined one of their best defenses of slavery. Robert Lewis Dabney clearly described the deliberate nature of this strategy when he wrote in 1851: "Here is our policy then...to push the Bible argument continually, to drive Abolitionism to the wall, to compel it to assume an anti-Christian position." Like other Southerners, he felt if the abolitionists could be made out to be attacking God's Word as well as slavery, their influence among the public could be limited. Another leading Southerner, James Henley Thornwell went so far as to say that calling Slavery sinful was to reject the Bible in favor of a rationalistic mode of thought. And some Southern religious leaders who went so far as to attack the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Bill of Rights, as having sprung from the same infidel philosophy which bred abolitionism.
Within a generation, the evangelicalism of the Second Great Awakening was profoundly divided, and at odds with itself. On the one hand were the Christian abolitionists who saw slavery as a violation of the Christian gospel. They focused on the spirit and teachings of Jesus, and believed that the Golden Rule had superseded the ethic of the Old Testament. They saw scripture as a progressive revelation, and therefore gave greater weight to the New Testament teaching concerning the law of love. On the other hand was the South, with its claim that slavery was divinely ordained. Southern clergy cited scriptural texts to prove their point, and insisted that those who differed from them were denying the truthfulness of God's Word. Where evangelicals in the North came to see the struggle against slavery as a crusade to wipe out the sin of human bondage, the South saw itself engaged in a battle to defend the cause of God and religion from the infidelity of scripture-denying abolitionists.
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/slavery&southernchurches.html
----
[ Christian ] Opposition to abolitionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opposition_to_abolitionism
=====
.. and re your link about an inch down
But the trustees at Brewton-Parker College see something else in Caner. Trustee Bucky Kennedy said in the school's press release that Caner’s “character and love for God are admirable and inspirational.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/disgraced-former-liberty-dean-ergun-caner-gets-new-job-seeks-silence-critics#sthash.PAetmy7a.dpuf
When "love for God" is more highly valued than the simple human value as basic, that has dangerous portent.
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
