The Tenth Crusade
A blog for rabbits.
The Tenth Crusade
Carol, go see the movie, "2016: Obama's America." It succinctly explains his world view. Dinesh D'Souza was the major producer.
Um, what about this from merely 2 years after the attack:http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030904-7.html
I saw it Joseph. Unreal.Percy, if you dont getthe differencebetween Bush and Hussein, you are swimming in the river of denial and I cannot help you.
Really dont take a shine to straw men.
Carol, get a copy of the video "Dreams Of My Real Father" Obama Sr. is not BHO's real daddy. A black American Communist named Frank Marshall Davis is the real sperm donor. That's where Barry got his communism (and DNA) from, not some Kenyan goat herder.
Steve...what? Is that in the book?I cannot not wade through that cesspool.Percy -- to elaborate, many people in this world will mitigate evil by firing all kinds of salvos at people exposing it, uprooting it. There isn't a dime's worth of difference to me between people who do that and the Kathleen Sebeluises of this world. In fact, I have more respect for Sebelius than sneaks like Shea and the Anchoress. Bush was open with his love for Christianity. He gave witness to his conversion, his use of prayer as a resource, worship. Bush did not ban Christmas and Christ from the White House. Bush did not start a religious war with Christendom or undertake any initiatives that forced us to kill people or lose our incomes. The presidential platform for election under Bush did not delete God. Bush was in fact, an ally to Christians.Therefore, taking a microcosim of something Bush did and using it to imply the enemy of Christ in the white house is actually the same thing as Bush is clever, but it is lie.I see what you're doing and it is objectionable.I would invite you to pray about whether you're under the influence of the patheos crowd. When you lie down with the dogs, you get up with the fleas.God bless.
CarolThe only blog I follow at Patheos is Deacon's Bench.I have no large agenda. I am congenitally incapable of restraining myself from pointing out inconvenient facts (I do this across the spectrum, to people I agree with (more often) and those I don't). Here, I was pointing out that Obama followed Bush's lead in the wording of these ceremonial proclamations (and later discovered that he had another proclamation with a different tone in that regard).What do I substantively think of these invocations or lack thereof of God? I think that America's civic religion is a very far thing from the Catholic Faith (America's religion sees America as a New Israel of material prosperity and individual license more than anything else - so many American Catholics have been so Protestantized that they no longer see the problem: from the Catholic perspective, America is NOT so special....), so I tend to see in the invocations of God that so often drape our civic religions something that is debased and even at times unworthy of God. I often get the sense that our politicians use God as ratifier of their own rationalizations (not just Obama, but George W Bush and all the presidents I can remember back to LBJ - that doesn't mean none of them had any real faith, but that their public invocation of it was a mixed matter that often was more self-serving than authentic). Just to clarify where I am coming from.
PS: So, you see, to me the fact that Obama didn't mention God in his proclamation said absolutely nothing about him. He followed the form Bush used more often than not (often the case with presidential proclamations). I am actually rather glad he didn't try to shoehorn a ceremonial mention go God into it for effect (would you have actually approved?).Unlike you, I don't think Obama is an atheist in the conventional sense. Rather, I suspect his faith is like that of lots of Americans to the extent his sense of God is one that challenges him mostly at the edges but otherwise mostly serves to validate his cognitive-spiritual blindspots - which is the most common affliction of believers.
Percy, When you mentioned Mark Shea, reading people you don't always agree with, etc., I obviously made the wrong assumption about reading Patheos. Sorry about that!Comparing Bush to the religious bigot in the white house is like comparing Cardinal Dolan to Martin Luther. Perhaps at some point, they both pinned notes to a door. If people are discussing the note Luther pinned to the door of the Roman Catholic Church and you come along with a story about Dolan pinning a note to your dorm room in college to give veracity to Luther, it's apples and oranges. The invocation of God keeps us from being pagan/communist nation. I always presume sincerity, excepting when the President is forced to add it because his omissions or deletions are giving him bad press and argita.It wasn't just that Obama omitted God, he memorialized faith as the worship of each other. Bush, Reagan are two examples of presidents (especially Reagan)whose faith was publicly witnessed and sincere. As crazy as it sounds, there are many who sincerely believe their own rejection of the Catholic religions is faith. From what I've observed, Obama isn't in among this group.I'm not as sure I believe he is an atheist as much as I believe he is a narcissist, and an enemy of Christ. Peace.
"The invocation of God keeps us from being pagan/communist nation."See, there I disagree, because the invocation is actually misleading: it's all about the American civic religion, not true religion. I see omission of the invocation as more spiritually truthful. It's not that I am advocating that religion get out of the public square, but that we need first to get rid of the inauthentic religion that fills so much of it. So, you see, your complain about a "Godless Proclamation" was missing the bigger boat.
America is not a theocracy and the selection of a national religion is prohibited by the Constitution. The invocation of God and references to God are for those of us who worship God. There is nothing inauthentic about that.
PS: I haven't read Shea regularly in several years. My references to him go back to well before his Patheos years. I remain impressed by his stand on torture and as I read through the criticisms of the substance his points on many disagreeing blogs, I found the criticisms mostly to be rationalizations and wanting; obviously, you don't. We can leave it at that.
Percy, Mark Shea's position on 'torture' is his own. It is not the position of Holy See. If people referring to the Catechism for their enlightenment on sin leaves you wanting for rationale, I'm not sure what to say.This is how you can tell whether waterboarding is prohibited by the Catholic religion.It is not listed as a prohibition in the Catechism. The Holy See has never condemned it. The Holy See has never said "those committing acts of waterboarding are not to present themselves to Communion".There is a reason why the Holy See leaves it up to the prudential judgment with those who need to protect the common good. Somehow, Mark Shea got the impression this was code to mean him. It isn't.Sullying and slandering the reputations the men of honor and courage who are protecting us from the wiles of terrorists is despicable.If faced with the choice of squirting water on a terrorist to extract information that would save your own children's lives or forbearing it and letting your own children burn in the rubble of 911, there wouldn't be that many of you cheering Shea on.
Post a Comment