Compare and contrast this:
Paul M. Weyrich, an elder statesman of the religious right, said today that he believes Mitt Romney has made a sincere conversion from a supporter of abortion rights and gay rights into an opponent of both….
“In analyzing the primary situation, I believe it’s going to come down to a contest between Giuliani and Romney and I don’t want Giuliani,” Weyrich said. “I feel that it would be a mistake for the Republicans to nominate him — so I decided that Romney would be the better of the two.”
Giuliani has the support of TV evangelist Pat Robertson, a high-profile Christian leader. That backing should help him with social conservatives, who have been wary of the former New York mayor because of his support of abortion rights and his positions on other social issues.
In a statement provided by the Giuliani campaign, Robertson praised him as “a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans.”
I don’t recall seeing that crowd so fractured before — some saying “Giuliani’s the guy”; others saying, basically, “anybody but Giuliani.” I wonder whether that’s Giuliani’s ticket to success — split, thereby basically neutralizing, the religious conservative vote, among whom he’s always been assumed to be at his weakest.
David – if the AFL-CIO and SEIU endorse different candidates, does THAT constitute ‘disarray’ for the Democrats? Please.
<
p>
How do you factor in Brownback’s decision to steer BETWEEN Scylla and Charybdis and endorse McCain (other than the Grumpy Old Man factor).
<
p>
Unlike the Dems, we have a much stronger second tier and many more viable candidates to declare Romney-Rudy to be the alternative Hillary-Obama.
<
p>
And for me, I’d RATHER have Weyrich, as Robertson is kind of 1980’s in his influence….
is an interesting one. He, like McCain, is one of the rare Republicans with consistent principles. And since McCain is the only Republican running who opposes torture, Brownback’s decision makes perfect sense. But it will have little to no impact, for the same reason that Brownback’s candidacy didn’t catch fire.
<
p>
As for your second tier, unless you’re talking about Ron Paul (and I somehow doubt that you are), I’ll have to respectfully disagree.
<
p>
And Weyrich — yeah, being 1970s is so much better than being 1980s.
I really don’t think it will matter.
she’ll wipe the floor with either of them! đŸ˜‰
one would end up not nominating anyone. Every, possible, conceivable candidate will be flawed and exposed to attack.
<
p>
Hillary Clinton is rising in all kinds of polls. The Kerik story is guaranteed to sink Giulliani. Romney will have to spend an awful lot on ads to even get close to winning. That’s not going to work too well as the Republicans are facing an enormous funding disadvantage. Also the Republicans are not used to facing a funding disadvantage.
I don’t think anybody is scared of republican attacks. That’s going to come anyway.
<
p>
However, does that mean that Dems shouldn’t think strategically?
you know, the one for the ca$h.
“Financial mismanagement”? From Men of God? Get outta town! Here are the main suspects:
Interesting to see regents from Oral Roberts U listed there. Recall if you will that ORU president Richard Roberts and Wife are themselves under scrutiny for alleged sexual hypocrisy and suspiciously lavish living.
<
p>
I wonder if any of these performance artists will be able to pass the Rolex test?
In all fairness, there are Calvinists that believe God rewards the righteous with prosperity. (Not-so-religious conservatives might say that the market rewards the self-disciplined with wealth. Same thing, actually.)
<
p>
I don’t know how one reads St Paul and the Gospels to arrive at that conclusion. Others might be able to fill me in.
<
p>
Of course, this belief does not fit with how most progressives expect Christianity to be expressed. Don’t I recall that you are closely related to a religionist? Not a Calvinist one I’m suspecting, no?
nor any televangelist i am aware of call themselves calvinists. if any of them purport to be bible literalists, they should be heeding the words of jesus christ and giving their wealth away (see: sermon on the mount). (not to mention staying away from shrimp and mixed-fiber cloth, but that’s old testament, so who cares really…unless you can bash the gays with it).
<
p>
but that is all beside the point of obeying the civil laws that they are taking advantage of. and i use the phrase “taking advantage of” deliberately. prosperity christians are not immune from the civil law.
<
p>
i have several chriatian clergy in my family, but none are calvinists or prosperity hucksters, i mean christians. but don’t let this lead you to believe that i claim any sort of authority on the subject.
…particularly regarding Calvinists (Methodists) but also regarding Southern Baptists.
<
p>
Several years ago, there was a proposal on the Alabama ballot, promoted by the governor, to relieve taxes on low and middle income workers, and increase them on large landowners. It was defeated in a landslide. The primary reason that was given was that many people believed that god had given the large landowners a particular dispensation so that they could become large landowners. It was a gift from god.
<
p>
A rather stupid belief, but rather true.
<
p>
If you come from a religious family, it is sometimes referred to as the “lot in life.” Basically, that refers to “you are born into your cast, and you shall remain there.”
<
p>
Regarding Rolexes, fancy suits and huge megachurches, I’m sure that you, as a lesbian, know the power of theater. That’s all that they are. If I were a cynic, I might ask just how many people in the megachurches are paid to be there.
The Presbyterians and Congregationalists are!
<
p>
Methiodists are an off shoot of the Anglian church, and adheres to its belief structure and doctrine, with some modernization.
<
p>
Oh, yes, of COURSE, must have a citation – here
…the Methodists and Southern Baptists aren’t far removed.
I was under the impression that Lutheranism was a direct competitor of Calvinism during the Reformation; they are not theologically similar. Indeed, much of northern Europe specifcally rejected Calvinism in favor of Lutheranism.
<
p>
Likewise Methodists were reformers of the Church of England, and specifically reject the “sola fide” tenet of the early Calvinist churches– retaining the faith and good works concept carried over from the Catholic Church through the Church of England.
to emulate the coffee.
<
p>
At the turn the 16th century there was the Catholic Church (at least so far as Europe is concerned) and only the Catholic Church. In 1517 Luther publicly broke with the Catholic Church by publishing his 95 Theses. This was the start of the Lutheran church. The first protestant church. Luther defied the pope and the church on strictly theological grounds. The Lutheran church was (and still is) an organization that subscribes to a theology promulgated by Martin Luther. John Calvin molded that theology into something more distinct and slightly separate, and which forms much of the umbrella under which modern denominations hang their hat. But there was never a church that came out of Calvinism in the same way that the Lutheran church came from Luther. Indeed there was never any direct ‘competition’ (whatever that might mean…) between Lutherans and those who professed alignment with Calvinism. In fact, there was a great deal of overlap. One of Luthers theses is that belief in Jesus Christ is the only requirement for priesthood so they weren’t looking at things from a institutional/separatist point of view.
<
p>
And yes, Methodists derive from Anglican tradition, which is to say they are merely Catholics no longer on speaking terms with the pope… The Methodists share, with the Lutherans, a belief in the primacy of scripture (as opposed to the primacy of papacy, as do the Catholics)
<
p>
2. The second coherence problem is that the texts anthologized in the Bible do not actually indicate which texts should be anthologized in the Bible. That decision was made centuries after they were written. Again it was a result of Christian tradition rather than a literal reading.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
The new covenant notion is mostly from St Paul. No?
on Jerry Falwell, et al.? How can they have a ham sandwich, or have a cotton/linen shirt?
I’m no expert on Christian theology, but I am fascinated (and gratified) by what I take to be the present position of the RCC on the idea that the “new covenant” replaced the “old covenant.” In 2001, Cardinal Kasper, speaking in Jerusalem, gave the following reflection on Dominus Jesus, a statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it was led by then-Cardinal Ratzinger:
<
p>
<
p>
(Caveat: I understand that Cardinal Kasper’s position is controvertial in right-wing or “traditional Catholic” circles).
<
p>
Now, I ask myself why I, a Jew, care what Catholics think about the status of the covenant between God and Israel. I probably shouldn’t. But as someone who spent a lot of time with Paul, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin in college, I can’t help but be fascinated.
<
p>
TedF
Is not as monolithic as you might be led to believe, if you only listen to cardinals when they talk about abortion or homosexuality (and not even monolithic on those issues).
And I would also submit that the Roman church is a WHOLE other world, not a subsuming force in Christianity.
I had thought that was…not at all?
I don’t think that progressives have a lock on the 10-14% of the population that is atheist. So I’d expect you’ll find that the majority of progressives admit to some religion or other. Certainly all our major political figures do.
Real life happening. John Bonifaz came to Cape Cod Community College to talk about impeachment. VASTLY progressive audience, and me.
<
p>
One speaker, respected local liberal columnist, is a Hindu (actually he WAS a traditional CT Episcopalian, but is now a practicing Hindu). When it was his turn to speak about impeachment from the state, he offered the opinion that there was a lot of hate in the room, as they were discussing Bush, and suggested a moment of prayer to heal the spirit. He was booed. By about 25% of the audience. He was shocked – he’s not some bible-thumping Baptist, he’s a HINDU! The vocal and militantly secular Progressives were not impressed. Made quite an impression – on me AND on him.
There’s no reason to assume that the booing was anti-religious.
<
p>
Many of us progressives, for example, are just plain tired of being accused of Bush hating and are totally unwilling to accept that frame — even if it comes from an Episcopalian, a Hindu, a Methodist, or a Calvinist.
<
p>
Would a prayer about overcoming all the homophobia in the room at a Republican gathering be met with bowed heads and respectful silence — even if offered by a Baptist?
I seem to recall some significant commentary on this site that Obama use of religious imagery and references to his own religious belief were evidence that he is per se not progressive, and perhaps not even trustworthy.
<
p>
If the search system on this site were better, I could find the post.
<
p>
PP’s point, though snarkily expressed, is that the relationship between the “progressive” community and religious people is, to put it mildly, strained.
PastorDan on Daily Kos is a regular contributor and I don’t think such doubts are raised about him.
<
p>
Obama’s recent tour raised a lot of questions about him and I’d be surprised if religion was the principal source of those questions. YMMV.
<
p>
Finally, there is a media narrative about the tension between liberals and believers. However, I think that’s because the media has defined believers to consist almost exclusively of anti-abortionists with counter-reformation views of homosexuality. Those believers are more colorful and more unified. They have media zing. Were the media’s portrayal of believers more balanced, I think you’d experience less strain.
I was referring to specific posts on BMG expressing, to put it gently, extreme and intense disappointment that Obama chose to pepper his speeches to references to the Deity, and, worse, to his own faith. Not because of any position that Obama has or had, but because he is religious.
<
p>
I would add to this the long series of posts about Romney a few months back that boiled down to: He’s a Mormon! They wear funny underwear! Isn’t that icky?, and the chortling that met news that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence chose to express their disagreement with the insyitutional church by insulting the congregation. Though raj doesn’t seem to quite qualify as a “progressive,” I would throw in his charming “Wholly Babble” and “RCCi” epithets for good measure.
<
p>
To the extent that progressive hostility to religion is a (cough) “frame,” it seems to me that this is because, not to put too fine a point on it, based upon a signififcant kernel of truth, Unitarian and Buddhist progressives notwithstanding.
…cite to sources, you may be worthy of response. Chapter and verse, as they say, and with links. Until then, no.
<
p>
BTW, if you believe that the RCCi is anything other than an “i” I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying. Ted Stevens’s bridge to nowhere.
<
p>
Some of us actually know a little about the history of the RCCi. You, apparently don’t.
Thanks.
…you know, the progressive Christian…Martin Luther something…
The religious right being unified has always been something of a media myth.
<
p>
In fact, in recent presidential years, the religious right has been quite divided. In 2000, the religious right was divided between Bush, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, Dan Quayle and Alan Keyes. In 2004, there was no GOP challenge to Bush’s reelection. Back in 1996, the religious right was divided between Dole and Buchannan.
<
p>
That the religious right would be divided among the candidates is no surprise, even as the fact that they have been unable to settle on one candidate to power through the primaries was a disappointment.
<
p>
I don’t think these endorsements are evidence of a movement in disarray so much as they are evidence that it is a movement with a number of leaders and tendencies, just as it has aways been.
<
p>
What I find remarkable is that once prochoice pols Romney and Guiliani are busy trying to give religous rightists reasons to support their candidacy. I think the news here is that they are succeeding.
<
p>
what I was really struck by was the dichotomy between “Giuliani” and “anybody but Giuliani.” It’s not surprising that different folks would endorse different candidates – that happens all the time, and in all kinds of communities. I was just surprised that two such high-profile religious righties would have such diametrically opposite reactions.
I am not hearing diametrically opposite reactions, just endorsements of different candidates, each for reasons of their own.
<
p>
The various leaders of the RR make their compromises, just like everyone else. I remember being surprised at how hard Robertson and Reed went for Dole in 96, his poor record on many of their issues not withstanding. I remember too, the Buchannan people packing the GOP caucuses here in MA and beating Weld/Swift people in some places (I recall the Greenfield caucuses in particular) by running as Dole delegates. In the end, Ralph Reed was Dole’s floor manager at the 1996 GOP convention. Quite amazing.
<
p>
When you can’t get purity, power and control will do.
<
p>
It’s a tale as old as politics. Believe me, most of the leaders of the religious right are far more pragmatic than they often seem — and present themselves as seeming.
<
p>