The second part of the first amendment requires separation of church and state, and elsewhere, the Constitution requires that there be no religious test for office. Ben Carson requires that there be a religious test for office. This is because Carson is, essentially, an Evangelical Christian, in the sense that he believes, as do many other Gops, that Christian belief and doctrine should be part of our governance and law.
In other words, Carson believes first in a higher power, God, to whom he owes primary allegiance and, critically, believes that the belief system that emerges from worship of that god should guide his actions and, if he is elected, governance. In other words, he is not inclined to separate his religious life from his job. But, if elected, he would take an oath to the US Constitution. By taking this oath with the equivalent of sworn belief to a different authority, his very first act of being president, the actual act of becoming president himself, will be an act of treason. You might as well just set up the impeachment proceedings in advance and get it over with.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit religious tests (just establishment of a religion, or prohibiting free practice), and I don't believe there has ever been any case law interpreting it as such.
It's the third paragraph of Article VI of the original, unamended, constitution that has the clearly written "no religious test" clause.
Yeah, I fixed that. Writing too fast.
“The second part of the first amendment requires separation of church and state…”
No, it does not.
The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.
The Constitution only prevents the state from establishing a religion. However, the Founding Fathers had nothing against, and probably encouraged, religion influencing (not directing) matters of state (e.g. laws, policies).
“Ben Carson requires that there be a religious test for office.”
No. I think Carson has a test for office for whether one’s beliefs are in conflict with the Constitution or the values and principles of this nation.
Let’s look at what Carson actually said, according to CNN:
["I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," the retired neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
… Carson, meanwhile, was asked Sunday whether a president's faith should matter to voters.
"I guess it depends on what that faith is," he said. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem."
Asked whether Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said: "No, I don't -- I do not."
He said he is open, though, to voting for a Muslim for Congress.
"Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just like it depends on what anybody else is," Carson said. "If there's somebody who is of any faith but they say things and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them."]
“In other words, Carson believes first in a higher power, God, to whom he owes primary allegiance and, critically, believes that the belief system that emerges from worship of that god should guide his actions and, if he is elected, governance. In other words, he is not inclined to separate his religious life from his job.”
Same goes for every past president of the U.S., assuming they weren’t undercover atheists.
“By taking this oath with the equivalent of sworn belief to a different authority, his very first act of being president, the actual act of becoming president himself, will be an act of treason. You might as well just set up the impeachment proceedings in advance and get it over with.”
That should win quote of the week.
There is nothing in conflict with a religious, God-fearing person taking an oath to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Is that a Bible that Obama has his left hand on? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWJJLvDwtWU
Should he be impeached for that?
He said it depends on what the faith is.
Also, yes, the Establishment Clause means separation. We live in a secular country and only anti-Americans like you think otherwise.
You miss the point that most presidents who were not atheists of some sort (and many certainly were, it is a position taken by a majority of highly intelligent and functional adults) were quite capable of compartmentalizing. Ben is suggesting that he is not.
You really are kinda slow on the uptake, aren't you. That is probably why you are such a rabid science denialist.
Carson is really more scary than Trump. Trump is the side-show freak that gets people to attend the show but only holds their attention for a (relatively) short time.
Carson is the shill that people remember after they leave: well dressed, quiet, speaking in what seems are reasoned tones - in comparison to the sideshow freak. He's the one that will draw people back for more.
The fact that Carson's lies and insanity are couched in better language than Trump's is missed by far too many people.
There is nothing in conflict with a religious, God-fearing person taking an oath to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
No there is not. The facts that you are too effing stupid to understand the point under discussion, and so effing dishonest that you trot out the old irrelevant line of shit
The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.
are simply the latest demonstrations of your complete failure to be an honest educated person.
Carson will only require a minor change to the presidential oath of office.
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, except those parts that conflict with the word of God and the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
....as I see fit to interpret it.
The Constitution only prevents the state from establishing a religion.
If that had been the intent, why was language saying exactly that specifically rejected?
Madison himself was on record saying that he felt the Fist Amendment even prohibited military chaplains. It is worth noting that he used the phrasing "establishment of religion" and "religious establishment" interchangeably, further putting the lie to the idea that it is only about prohibiting a state church.
It's about prohibiting "the state" from establishing an official religion (a "state religion"). It does not prohibit the practicing of such faiths, provided that none is favored over any other. That allows for military chaplains, provided the government does not authorize only one specific faith, does not subsidize only one religion's chaplains, does not prohibit chaplains of other faiths, etc.
We have to wonder about Carson said he is open to voting for a Muslim for Congress, saying, "Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just like it depends on what anybody else is," and, "If there's somebody who is of any faith but they say things and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them."
If there were a Muslim running for president who 'says things and lives a life that is consistent with elevating this nation and making it possible for everybody to succeed and bring peace and harmony', is he 'absolutely not agreeing with that', yet 'with them'? Is this hypocrisy or just confused self-contradiction?
If you use the wayback machine and go back 100 years the same thing was said about catholics (see Al Smith). The catholics where all slaves to the Pope and would turn the US into a theocracy run by the pope. Indeed the 1920s KKK was largely about Catholics. It would be interesting to ask Carson if a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Wiccan, an Animist or a believer in the Great Spirit could be president.
Is this hypocrisy or just confused self-contradiction?
Or an unconscious admission that he doesn't believe a Muslim could have those characteristics?
Pandering and ignorance all the way down.
You don't have to go back 100 years, only to 1960 and the election of John F. Kennedy. Many worried at the time that Kennedy would be in thrall to the Pope, until he explicitly told them he wouldn't.
Christopher, he was rounding up!!! Omg.
Here are some examples of Muslims I wouldn’t want to be president. I’m guessing Ben Carson wouldn’t want them either.
-A Topeka, Kansas, man, John T. Booker, was charged April 10 with plotting a suicide bomb attack at Fort Riley, an Army base 70 miles away, as a gesture of support for the Islamic State group. Prosecutors allege he told an FBI informant he wanted to kill Americans and engage in violent jihad on behalf of the terrorist group. Another Topeka man, Alexander Blair, was charged with failing to report Booker's plans to authorities.
— Two New York City women — Noelle Velentzas and Asia Siddiqui — were arrested April 2 on charges they plotted to wage violent jihad by building a homemade bomb and using it for a Boston Marathon-type attack. Officers searching their homes recovered items including three gas tanks, a pressure cooker, handwritten notes on the recipes for bomb-making and jihadist literature, court papers said.
— An Illinois Army National Guard soldier and his cousin were arrested in March on charges of plotting terrorist attacks in support of the Islamic State group. A federal complaint said Jonas Edmonds planned to attack an Illinois military facility while Hasan Edmonds joined Islamic State fighters.
— In February, federal authorities charged three New York City men with planning to travel to Syria to join forces with the group also known as ISIS. Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev, Akhror Saidakhmetov and Abror Habibov were indicted on charges of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and travel document fraud.
— A Ohio resident, Christopher Lee Cornell, was arrested in January and accused of plotting to attack the U.S. Capitol. According to authorities, Cornell had said he wanted to shoot President Barack Obama in support of Islamic State militants.
— Mufid Elfgeeh, a naturalized American citizen born in Yemen and living in Rochester, New York, was arrested last year on charges of trying to aid Islamic State extremists. Investigators said he tried to arrange for other individuals to travel to Syria to fight there.
You know, the death to America, death to Israel, kind of believers.
Sn, you stupid sob, nobody is saying any particular religion gets a pass to be considered a viable candidate for president. Yes, people who commit crimes like you list, if they are found guilty (we know you consider them guilty automatically because of their religion, just as you did the boy in texas), should not be president. Neither should anyone who bombs a clinic where abortions are performed. Same for people who have committed crimes against gays, lesbians, etc.
The point is that there is no religious test for office in this country, a fact that Carson and you (no surprises in either case) are too ignorant to understand.
Nobody is surprised at your lack of comprehension but everyone is amazed that you are so proud of it you continually put it on display.
By the way sn, there are numerous tea bag folks actively urging armed rebellion against the govenment. By your statement above you would say they should not be trusted as president, right - death to the U.S. and all that - after all, you do want to be consistent, right?
Dean, "there are numerous tea bag folks actively urging armed rebellion against the government" -- that's outright sedition (still a hanging offence?) Are you sure it's that blatant? (Not to say that Tea Baggers aren't seditious...)
Are these passages from the Bible consistent with the values of our founding fathers? Isn't it possible for people to pick and choose what aspects of their religion they pay attention to and follow?
GE 4:2-8 God's arbitrary preference of Abel's offering to that of Cain's provokes Cain to commit the first biblically recorded murder and kill his brother Abel.
GE 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.
GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.
GE 19:26 God personally sees to it that Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt (for having looked behind her while fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah).
GE 38:9 "... whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked ..., so the Lord put him to death."
We've had some folks in the thumb (breeding ground of the OK city bomber) call for armed revolt to end moder tyrrany.
But to make it easier fo sn; how about people who are on record as saying their state should secede?
Dean, they'd be blowing hot air. The SCOTUS decision on Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) holds that the Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that "the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances", would be held "absolutely null".
As Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase put it, the union between the States is complete, perpetual, and indissoluble. "There is no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
They could call for it, but wouldn't get anywhere without starting that armed rebellion.
Joseph, No. Since roughly 2000 years ago, we have been living under a superseded system that "upgrades" the Pentateuch that you quote. (It's like telling adults that they must continue to live by the rules that Mommy and Daddy gave them when they were 4 years old, such as, "You must not ever cross the street unless you're holding the hand of Mommy or Daddy." That rule was given to the 4-year-old, but the now 42-year-old adult is not bound to follow it in that way.)
Try flipping forward to where it says, "New Testament", and starting reading about the principles and values that people are expected to follow and not to pick and choose from among. (Pay special attention to the ones that our politicians seem eager to violate, especially while they try to sound convincing about espousing them nevertheless.)
Islam's allah god in the Quran exhorts Muslims to fight and kill unbelievers, that's 99% of Americans.. NO WAY should a Muslim even be allowed in office in this country, especially President. Yes we have one that sneaked in as a Christian and stupid people voted for him.
TWF, we already have a method to keep a Muslim from being allowed to hold office in this country.
Don't vote for him. Or her. And this works not only for Muslims, it works for Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, too.
It even works for right-wing assholes, like yourself.
Looks like TruthWFree has never read the bible, in particular the old testament. Some gruesome examples can be found here:
Greg, what you have there is also the basis for removing from the military all of those whose oaths to defend the Constitution were made with the reservation of a contradictory and superordinate belief in theocracy. They should be given conscientious objector status and honorable discharge, but those who fight the process should receive less than that.
BTW, Jimmy Carter is Evangelical. Carson and others in the current Republican lineup are Dominionist. Keyword search "Dominionism" and read up: you need to know this for the sake of making clear distinctions that can't be argued.
Though, I have to quibble about your claim that atheism "...is a position taken by a majority of highly intelligent and functional adults..."
I'm reasonably sure that in the end, and in the absence of social pressures, the distribution of beliefs across the spectrum from strongly theistic to strongly atheistic, will be found to be a normal curve or something close.
And as well, it's also true that the large majority of holders of high public office in the US, particularly the presidency, who are the subject matter of Carson's claim, have publicly espoused beliefs that are at least nominally theistic.
Here we are concerned with elected office, rather than with the intelligence of various other groups such as the general population, various professions such as science, technology, and so on, or academic attainment. It may be the case that people of high intelligence are by majority atheistic, or not, and I'd be interested in any unbiased empirical data on the subject.
In any case, argumentum ad populum is a weak case. The strong case is that any belief that comports with reality should be able to stand on its own feet, regardless of the percentage of the population that holds the belief.
Carson's belief in a religious test for office does not comport with the reality of our system of law and government, so it falls on its own as well.
I was using the term evangelical to refer to something other than a self declared description, in this case. But yes, the distinctions are important. The way I mean it here, is that you are required to inculcate your faith in day to day life. I admit this is a bit of a tautology. I know Carson is evangelical because he is being evangelical.
You get a good idea just how utterly crazy Carson is when you realize that Armstrong Williams is a close friend, confidant, and 'informal advisor' to Carson's campaign. If there is crazy and unhinged to bring, Williams has it.
“The SCOTUS decision…holds that the Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States… “There is no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or THROUGH CONSENT OF THE STATES.””
Well, if we’re Brainstorming about ways to effect significant change without violence and without the Washington establishment, some further thoughts:
-Article V of the United States Constitution:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, OR, on the application of the legislatures of TWO THIRDS OF THE several STATES, shall CALL A CONVENTION for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states…”
Learn more, and sign the petition! http://www.conventionofstates.com/
-The thought of Thomas Jefferson: “…whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force.”
You can't do anything relevant can you sn?
Pass on your convention of idiots web page reference - it is sad to think there are others as dishonest, racist, and deluded as you.
That's it, I'm converting to Islam*.
I NEVER WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT ANYWAY!!
*thanks SN, I've seen the error of my ways.
Here’s an odd thing:
As I recall, the reason Ben Carson was asked about Muslims being president is because of the earlier and much publicized incident with Donald Trump, where the Donald failed to correct or reprimand a town hall questioner who said Obama was a Muslim.
The media made a big deal about Trump’s silence, but WHY?
Apparently, because the media considers being called a Muslim derogatory, or at least not something a president of the United States wants to be known as.
I mean, can you imagine the media making as big a fuss if the town hall questioner had instead said things like:
‘We know Obama’s a small man, and not just in his five foot five physical stature’
[O’s probably actually about 6 foot], or
‘We know Obama’s a Yalie, and not much good comes out of there, like Kerry and G.W. Bush’
[Obama actually went to Columbia and Harvard]?
Would the media have demanded Trump correct the record on Obama on such statements?
Is Trump supposed to defend Obama at all times?
WHY was the media upset that Trump did NOT say ‘No. Obama is NOT Muslim’?
I think the media may have a religious test for president, and Muslims would fail it.
Encourage everyone to click Amendment 1->Clause 1->State Constitution Origins and read a few of those...Like North Carolina's Constitution "XXXII That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."
Perhaps New Hampshire VI "As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection: and as the knowledge of these, is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes, the people of this state have a right to impower, and do hereby fully impower the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies-corporate, or religious societies within this state, to make adequate provision at their own expence, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality:
Provided notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, bodies-corporate, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And no portion of any one particular religious sect or denomination, shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect or denomination. And every denomination of christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good subjects of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. And nothing herein shall be understood to affect any former contracts made for the support of the ministry; but all such contracts shall remain, and be in the same state as if this constitution had not been made."
Ron, the obsolete clauses you're referring to are withered, fruitless vestiges of long-ago attempts at discrimination at the state level. (They should be struck, but good luck with that.)
They (and others like them) have been nullified by the Federal Constitution and thus cannot be applied.
Who the £uck would want a Muslim in high office?! Don't you get that they want to cut your £ucking head off? Stupid left wing liberal fools will get us all killed...
Why focus on Ben Carson when you have a Carly Fiorina, who righteously, indignantly confronts us with truths we don't want to hear:
Carly Fiorina’s claim that 307,000 veterans ‘died waiting for health care’
Carly neglected to mention that the dying veterans were laid on tables, hearts beating, legs kicking, while Muslim doctors harvested their brains. It's all on video.
Ray, there are some who would say you are just to trolling and really don't mean what you say in your post at 38.
I have more faith in you than that: I firmly believe you are as big sn asshole as you seem.
“Islam’s allah god in the Quran exhorts Muslims to fight and kill unbelievers, that’s 99% of Americans.. NO WAY should a Muslim even be allowed in office in this country, especially President. Yes we have one that sneaked in as a Christian and stupid people voted for him.” #23
I guess that explains the mass slaughter of America's non-Muslims, and why the American population has been reduced by more than 90% since Obama (unlike his predecessor) sneaked into office. Thanks.
While you may desire to nullify the thinking that created the 1st Amendment, you cannot deny that this was the thinking: That government would not officially endorse one denomination over another, but that Christianity was the religion of the day. They were keeping Church Government and Civil Government separate in order to protect Churches from the coercion of civil government power. That's not to say that the founders believed in a Right to worship false gods. Of course, the current thinking has twisted the original intent in order to conceal the Christian foundation.
Ron, read what is linked at 37. it contains quotations from the discussions the people who wrote the Constitution had to say.
ron, to correct the words you seem to want to put in my mouth, no, I have no desire to nullify the thinking that created the 1st Amendment. Nor is anyone denying that state governing bodies in the late 18th Century were biased towards promoting Christian religion (however they interpreted that to be at that time). Be that as it may, your are correct that wiser heads prevailed and U.S. Constitution was drafted so as to nullify states' attempts at imposing "religion tests" such as you posted. They were keeping Church Government and Civil Government separate in order to protect civil government from the coercion of churches' power, too. Yes, current thinking has twisted the original intent in order to conceal things such as the fact that having non-Christians hold office was considered and was accepted as a possibility. (Dean was nice enough to provide one link.) So don't worry, ron, no one is going to try to take your religion away from you. Be glad that the rest of us are concerned about people like Ben Carson who do want to take that right from you.
I've known a few Muslims in my life. They've been my lecturers,my neighbours and my friends. Not one of them has been a bad person or done me any harm
Republicans OTOH, are evil in what they seek to do to the rest of us. Their policies tell the story ad we all know it by now. Stuff em and stuff Ben Carson. No way is that klown or any other republican gunna be POTUS. Just not good enough.
#43 Dean, if all you need is quotes from the people who wrote/signed the Constitution...maybe you've heard of Noah Webster " REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA”
[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.
The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws."
The Church of England was unacceptable to many because of the government's intrusion into religious doctrines. The 1st amendment was to protect churches to freely worship, not to shield government from influence by churches or church members.
While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
OBTW, Hillary's previous campaign the one who started the Obama is a Muslim meme...
ron, if you are stupid enough to realize that the objections you cite as being raised were not the ones that won the discussion, and that the Constitution doesn't say what you claim it does, then you really are an idiot.
" Hillary’s previous campaign the one who started the Obama is a Muslim meme"
Wow - if there were any question about your ignorance that answers it in the direction of ignorance. Those rumors were started by the right during his first run for government office, before 2008.
Greg @ 28: Aha, OK, that makes sense. You're using "evangelical" as the adjective form of the verb "evangelize," in which case the lower-case "e" applies. I'm using it as the noun form that refers to a particular denomination, in which case the capital "E" applies, as in the capital B in "Baptist."
Does "you're a dumb-dumb, dummy!" win you many debates?
Silly me, I've been citing sources and bolstering my position with facts all this time.
Yes, silly you: you cite sources but completely ignore what the constitution says. That does say something about you.
Your position is worthless.
To G #48:
“You’re using “evangelical” as the adjective form of the verb “evangelize,” in which case the lower-case “e” applies. I’m using it as the noun form that refers to a particular denomination, in which case the capital “E” applies, as in the capital B in “Baptist.””
I don’t think evangelical is a particular denomination, regardless of whether a capital E is used.
“Evangelical” is more like an adjective which imperfectly labels a certain type of amorphous Christianity.
Evangelicals have no agreed-to, authoritative leadership, and can come in a variety of degrees of orthodoxy.
To ron #49:
Yes, that’s what you get with dean.
Or something on the order of
‘You are nothing if not consistently wrong on issues relating to science (or anything, for that matter)’
or his #50 “Your position is worthless.”
I put demon dean on my “No Fly”/“Do Not Call” list back on http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/09/14/drum-states-it-plain/#…
See @ 51: Yes, you're correct, and I was distracted when I posted that. I was thinking of President Carter and had forgotten that he was a member of a Baptist denomination as well as describing himself as an Evangelical (though I almost remembered since I used Baptist as another example!). (There's that noun-vs.-adjective thing again;-)
There's a word I'm looking for that's similar to denomination but isn't quite the same thing. It doesn't refer to an entity as such e.g. as the Baptist church, the Catholic church, and so on, but refers to a strong philosophical and practical thread that runs through a number of Protestant denominations. The common denominator of Evangelicals seems to be an outward focus rather than an inward focus: those I knew in high school, decades ago, were deeply concerned with service to others as an expression of their faith, as distinct from being concerned primarily with their own salvation.
It seemed to me that they believed that their own salvation was assured (salvation through faith, a core Protestand doctrine as distinct from salvation through good works, which is a core Catholic doctrine), and so they were free to devote their lives to serving others. They were unequivocal in their dedication, and they treated others with a very real sense of love and respect. (And there was none of the element of "I have a Get Out Of Hell Free card" and the hubris that goes along with, that one sees in certain political figures today.)
Speaking of Catholicism, I am very much looking forward to hearing what the Pope has to say during his visit here. To my mind he truly embodies the deep spirit of Christianity at its best, and his outreach to the world of science is also highly admirable. In these times we need to build bridges rather than walls, and in a very practical way our future depends on our ability to cooperate across the widest sphere of human endeavors.
yes sn, if I were the only person who thought you were a lying cretin completely ignorant of science, you'd have a point. But as the ass-kicking you received on the vaccination thread at RI, or the beat down you received at Evolution Blog on a regular basis before you got yourself banned, or the responses you receive at other sites, it isn't a perception: you really are as you've been described.
To G #53:
“There’s a word I’m looking for that’s similar to denomination but isn’t quite the same thing… refers to a strong philosophical and practical thread that runs through a number of Protestant denominations.”
Wouldn’t be “heretical” you’re thinking of, would it?
“It seemed to me that they believed that their own salvation was assured…”
Highly likely. The relatively new false teaching of assurance of salvation (a.k.a. “once saved, always saved”, “eternal security”), is held by many Protestant groups.
“(salvation through faith, a core Protestand doctrine as distinct from salvation through good works, which is a core Catholic doctrine)…”
A brief theological clarification. Neither Protestants nor Catholics would say you’re saved by faith or works. Both would say, or should say, you’re saved by grace.
Beyond that, Protestants generally have a narrow view of “faith”, as in “mental assent.”
Catholics see “faith” more broadly, as something inseparable from works (e.g. Matthew 24:12-13; John 3:36; James 2:24).
I, too, am looking forward to hearing what the Pope has to say during his visit here. I may even get to see him in person this weekend.
But as with presidents, some Popes are better than others. And Pope Francis, so far, is the least of Popes in my lifetime. He’s a holy man and means well. But his imprudence, gullibility, and shallowness of intellect are almost unbelievable to me.
He may be as innocent as a dove, but he’s not wise as a serpent (cf. Mat 10:16).
See @ 55:
"Heretical" to some denominations, core doctrine to others. I was looking for an unbiased term for this. Are there any comparative religion majors here who can help? In my view of things, belief in salvation by faith also requires constant thoughtfulness, vigilance against self-justification, and also requires consistency of action as (at minimum) a backstop against hubris. Many are those today who do not make the slightest effort beyond the "check-box" level.
By "relatively new" do you mean in the historian's timeframe that would include Martin Luther? Or a more recent timeframe such as within the last century?
"Saved by grace," thanks for the clarification on the language. "Faith inseparable from works" is also good to know.
I hope you do get to see and hear Pope Francis. And consider this: At a time when many people had become highly cynical of the Church due to the ongoing reports of crimes against children, Francis has managed to overcome a very substantial amount of that cynicism. At a time when many people have become highly cynical of religion as a whole due to the use of religion as rationale for the selfish use of power, Francis has managed to overcome a very substantial amount of that cynicism. At a time when the polarization between theists and atheists was increasing, Francis has managed to build a bridge instead of a wall. His impact on the larger community in which the Church exists, has been strong and positive.
If you want to accuse the man of imprudence, gullibility, and shallowness of intellect, you'll need to spell out your reasoning.
But in any case I hope you can listen to what he has to say with an open mind. If nothing else, because I know of more than a few atheists who are willing to listen, so people of faith should be able to do at least that much.
The notion that sn judges anyone to be "shallow on intellect" when he is completely uneducated and unwilling to learn is amazing.
Perhaps sn's dislike is caused by something he isn't used to: the pope will tell the truth.
Or perhaps it is because the current pope isn't as fundamentally evil as the previous two - they with their agendas to protect priests who abused children and protect the church's money. The current pope seems to have abandoned that.
Yeah, Dean, that's the "problem" with Pope Francis: He talks & acts too much like Man from Nazareth as portrayed in the Book.
Some people love him because of that. Some people hate him because of that...
I imagine that 2000 years ago in Galilee, things started with the same kind of name-calling.
To G #56:
“By “relatively new” do you mean in the historian’s timeframe that would include Martin Luther? Or a more recent timeframe such as within the last century?”
I mean a more recent time frame, like the last 100 or 200 years. The doctrine of “eternal security” would have been heresy to Martin Luther, as I recall.
“If you want to accuse the man of imprudence, gullibility, and shallowness of intellect, you’ll need to spell out your reasoning.”
I don’t need to spell out my reasoning to you, but I’ll give you a couple quick examples:
imprudence (his careless and wildly misinterpreted “How am I to judge” comment),
gullibility (his swallowing the junk science of man-made global warming hysteria),
shallowness of intellect (his ignorance of the workings and unparalleled benefits of free market capitalism).
“But in any case I hope you can listen to what he has to say with an open mind.”
I have been listening with an open mind. And as a result, I have reason to believe Pope Francis’ mind is so open his brain is about to fall out – at least in regards to certain current issues which are *outside his authority and expertise* (e.g. global warming; economics of income inequality).
"I have been listening with an open mind.
The ease with which you lie is astounding.
Ha ha hee hee hee ho ho.
Man, I never get tired of hearing old geezers squeeze this chestnut out of their hardened arteries:
"...mind is so open his brain is about to fall out..."
Right. Or so it appears if your mind is a puckered raisin imbedded in a concrete block that's sealed in a buried ossuary.
Depends on the quality of brain they gave him...
...and how they've been programming it for him.