It's Holy Week in the Christian calendar. Two days ago, the churches celebrated Palm Sunday, the day of Jesus's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The people expected great things of the messiah- that he would overthrow the Roman rule and become their king. He did, indeed, overturn the tables of the moneychangers in the temple, but then went on to be crucified. He set the example of ultimate love, sacrificing Himself for the people.
According to a Newsweek poll published 3/31/07 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/, 90% of Americans believe in God, and 82% identify as Christians. Although the Constitution mandates separation of church and state, the fact is that the teachings of Jesus constitute the moral and spiritual basis of the nation. Bush cultivated a Christian image and voter base in order to make a decent showing in the past two presidential elections.
Christians are supposed to follow Jesus and strive to be like Jesus. His law of love replaced the harsher law of the Old Testament, a bloody document full of wars, at times mandating genocide. Read the Book of Joshua for a horrendous insight into the mentality of those days.
The bloody Old Testament is sometimes used as justification for wars nowadays. But in fact, Jesus was totally nonviolent. He brought a new covenant, based on love. He preached that we should love our enemies, turn the other cheek, lay down our lives for our friends. When He was arrested, and Peter slashed the ear off one of the soldiers, Jesus rebuked him and healed the injured man, even as He was being led away to be crucified.
Christianity took a wrong turn when Constantine made it a state religion in 313 AD. The doctrine of "a just war" followed fairly quickly, enabling rulers to kill and conquer with a clear conscience. Jesus would have abhorred the idea that any war could be "just". He came to heal, not to kill.
The invasion of Iraq, killing of a million Iraqis, destroying the infrastructure, stealing the oil, imposing a hated occupation, is anything but just, and couldn't be further from the spirit of Christ. How can any American pray, go to church, call him/herself a Christian, and support this "war"?
Now we are being told that a "pre-emptive strike" on Iran is imminent, and may take place on the very day that Jesus was crucified- Good Friday- this coming Friday. Does this make martyrs out of the Iranians? What does it make Americans? Have we not become the Great Satan, if we allow this to happen?
Christians are supposed to exemplify Christ, to show the world what following the Prince of Peace actually means. Instead, this "Christian" nation is making a mockery of His name. May the Father forgive us!
In the name of the Prince of Peace, Carol Wolman
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: impeach Bush and Cheney
Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is a cochair of Bay Area Impeach Bush-Cheney. You can join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/
She ran for Congress in '06, and is now a Gteen candidate for Congress in CA district 1. She is a coordinator of The New Broom Coalition, for a clean sweep of Congress.
I look to the actions of the people who call themselves Christians and wonder if they somehow mixed Jesus up with Attila the Hun. These people have a lot to answer for, which might be why they are all so afraid to die.
John Freeman
by
Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 303 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 2:38:51 PM
“ the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, ..”
From the 1797 “Treaty with Tripoli.”
An academic, Dr. Ed Buckner, happened on this and conducted a little research. Following are clips from his essay..
“I was skeptical. Why would such a thing be in a treaty? Why would some have claimed, as I later learned, that George Washington wrote them? (Apparently only because the words were written during Washington's second term.) Was there controversy in the Senate when the treaty was ratified, or did the language even appear in the version ratified? Or was it buried deep within a long, complicated treaty where perhaps it wasn't even noticed? Did the public even know the treaty was passed or what it contained, and what was the reaction? Was it possible for the public to know who voted for it, and what price did those supporting it pay?
“I found some answers in the official Journal of the Senate. The President (by then John Adams) sent the treaty to the Senate in late May 1797. It was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator.
“This was the 339th time (I went through the Journal for the first five Congressional sessions and counted them myself) that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous!
“President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual: "Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."
What happened then? Did our heroes pay a heavy price? Skeptical that the public even knew about the treaty, I went to the periodicals reading room of the Library of Congress in, appropriately enough, the Madison Building. After some poking about I found out how to get access to newspapers of the 1790s, mostly on microfilm, but in a few cases I saw the actual papers of the day.
“I found the treaty and Adams' statement reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City and, in one case, held the actual newspaper (the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser for Saturday, 17 June 1797) in my hands. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.”
Dr. Buckner looked into the careers of the signers; many went on to high office - a Speaker of the House, a governor, etc,...
Sources Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation? Ed Buckner, Ph.D....at the 1997 Lake Hypatia Independance Day Celebration click here /> Full text: Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary click here /> Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796,
by
abacus (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 52 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 3:49:42 PM
This is fascinating, but not really relevant to the moral argument. People who profess Christianity, like Bush and Cheney and 82% of the American people, should follow some semblance of the teachings of Jesus. If they do the opposite, they are hypocrites like the Pharisees of His day.
Peace, Carol
by
Carol Wolman (214 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 5:27:14 PM
I tend to think abacus' information inre the Treaty of Tripoli is relevant, because most Americans are under the false illusion that this country was founded as a Christian nation, and "that" false moral argument is used to justify all sorts of nefarious activities. So, yes... it is relevant. Americans are ignorant of their own history, that is a fact. This country was mainly founded by deists and a number A&A Scottish Rite Freemasons, who held Christianity in derision if not outright contempt! click here If you don't like that link google it.
by
k kelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 182 comments)
on Wednesday, April 4, 2007 at 10:14:34 AM
For the record, I am a Roman Catholic; I am also a theologian and a Professor Of Cultural Anthropology, an architectural designer and an artist. Theologians read and write the archaic languages, of Coptic, Aramaic (Jesus' language) Greek, and Latin, not the modern revised languages, so they can do their own translations and what a world of difference THAT makes.
Jesus said quite plainly, "...My kingdom is not of this world." Nor did he fight when taken prisoner. People who put such importance of visible signs carved in stone, people who struggle so hard to put 10 Commandments (by the way there are 613 Commandments, not just 10, spread across Torah) on public property, people who argue endlessly about the existence of God, throw doubt to observers on who they are trying to convince, others or themselves.
People with unshakable Faith in God need not display symbols publicly, especially not on public property, and most especially if they of a faith they do not fully understand either that faith or what the Hell they are doing. Jefferson said; ""The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. However, it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
If one reads carefully one finds that Paul and Jesus said in unequivocal words that the coming of Jesus made moot all the Commandments, because if a person "...loves God with his whole mind, and body, heart and soul, and loves his neighbor as himself, there is no need for commandments..." Because person who truly believes, cannot hurt the One, which created him and does not need to be reminded of things he would never do anyway. You do not harm those you love and harming anyone displays contempt for God. That is why we had the 6th Commandment before Jesus was born. God wants no killing and those who love him refuse to kill other for only He is the judge of men.
To God good intentions are paramount; and empathy always trumps sinfulness. Placing a replica of the Ten Commandments accomplishes exactly what and for what reason is, it placed? I suspect it is a spiteful move, a vindictive in your face, takes that effort. Hardly the sort of thing God desires from men and women of peace. It is provocative, provoking those of other religions or those of none, setting up in them the expectation of not being welcome. It sets the mood of an unfriendly environment-a hostile environment, an environment that makes those not Judeo/Christian feel unwelcome. The Ten Commandments were/are a symbol of Judaism, no longer of Christianity. It is neither a friendly move nor a loving or an empathetic move, it is a line drawn in the sand.
I think those who do not spend their lives learning, do not have empathy. By the way, the words, "love thy neighbor..." are mistranslated. One cannot love people they do not know. The correct translation is, "have empathy for your neighbor..." is closer to correct. Respecting the rights of others to believe as they wish or not to believe is just and honorable. God blessed men with free will and men and governments who do less are blaspheming when they use the name of God to cover spite, bigotry and hatred of others and when they disrespect them. Saying God damn this or that, is not taking the name of the Lord in vain, what the fascists in Government and some churches by using the name of Jesus or the Father in lies and covering their evil actions is taking the name of the Lord God in vain. Swearing is not.
It is important to note that we do not live in an isolated Democracy, our Constitution and Bill of Rights created a Republic, within a Democracy, impeding therein, benevolent protections for the minorities-minorities of nationality, of race, of religion, and of no religion and nowhere does it say we are a "Christian Nation." That concept of a Republic within a Democracy represents a Liberal Democracy. Such a concept is, by it's very nature, derived form the Liberality of Jesus and others like him.
Carol Wolman, the problem is, as you have seen on this article entry, that too damned many people who don't know diddle, are practicing above their competency, and a few are educated beyond their intelligence-they've read too much which they do not comprehend and they are blowing smoke.
Good job Carol.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1216 comments)
on Thursday, April 5, 2007 at 4:28:04 PM
Nice that you would quote Jefferson: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. However, it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The smoke I see blowing comes from the fires of your beloved holy roman see, dr. pete.
From the fires of the Alexandrian Library, the burning of the French Cathars and their Book of Love, the torture and slow roasting of the Templars, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Maya, the Inca, the Inquisitions, ad infinitum.
I have other Jefferson quotes for you.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. -Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
and a final one by Diderot “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” Denis Diderot
CORRECTION, IN PARAGRAPH 4 IT SHOULD BE THE 5TH COMMANDMENT, THOU SHALT NOT KILL, NOT THE 6TH, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. I HAVE LARGE FINGERS AND HIT THE WRONG KEY, SORRY, MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MEA MAXIMA CULPA...
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1216 comments)
on Thursday, April 5, 2007 at 4:33:16 PM
