What We're in For
Troy Senik, Ed. ·
February 9, 2012 at 6:08pm
If Rick Santorum continues to surge to national prominence and perhaps -- just perhaps -- to a serious shot at the nomination, expect to see the media prominently displaying more photos like this one, taken by the Associated Press on Wednesday and now making the rounds in the MSM (it's even on the front page of the Washington Post today)
The media, I think, will be keen to run with this angle, knowing that Americans will divide into those who find this picture moving and inspiring and those who find it creepy and unbecoming. And you know what? Maybe it's time we had that fight.
- Comment (138)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
The Church has always commended—no, commanded—public professions of faith. Jesus commands it, upon peril of damnation. The point of the text is hypocrisy.
May '10
Re: What We're in For
wmartin
Ah. He used incredible rhetoric saying things he didn't believe.
And yet he goes down in history as "Honest Abe." Odd. · 1 minute ago
He wasn't particularly honest, He was an exceptional politician. · 3 minutes ago
I call someone who uses lying rhetoric to manipulate the public a sophist or a machiavellian, not "an exceptional politician."
It sounds very much as if you are saying he didn't believe it, because you want it to be true that he didn't believe.
Lincoln is known to history as "Honest Abe" for a reason. I say that unless you have proof to the contrary, you are out of line to assert that he didn't mean what he said.
Edited on February 9, 2012 at 11:15pmJun '11
Re: What We're in For
katievs
I'm not talking men of faith generally, I'm talking particular men, like Santorum. Calvin Coolidge was a man of faith. So was Reagan, and Lincoln and George Washington.
I'm fairly certain Lincoln was some sort of agnostic. I vaguely recall a quotation where he said that he wanted to believe, but just could not.
I could very well be wrong on this, though.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Tom Meyer
Washington declined to take communion when he attended episcopal service and -- in all the 20-something volumes of his correspondence -- mentions Jesus only twice (and not directly at that). He thought good religion was an essential part of a good society, but his personal beliefs were closer to Deism or Ethical Monotheism than anything approaching normative Christianity. · 2 hours ago
I think that's an accurate assessment.
Worthy to note in this regard: Washington was very active in Freemasonry.
Apr '11
Re: What We're in For
katievs
wmartin
Ah. He used incredible rhetoric saying things he didn't believe.
And yet he goes down in history as "Honest Abe." Odd. · 1 minute ago
He wasn't particularly honest, He was an exceptional politician. · 3 minutes ago
I call someone who uses lying rhetoric to manipulate the public a sophist or a machiavellian, not "an exceptional politician."
It sounds very much as if you are saying he didn't believe it, because you want it to be true that he didn't believe.
Lincoln is known to history as "Honest Abe" for a reason. I say that unless you have proof to the contrary, you are out of line to assert that he didn't mean what he said. · 11 minutes ago
Edited 10 minutes ago
I am just asserting what many of the best historians have said about him and his faith. I think he used the scriptures for their literary excellence and because he could utilize that storehouse of commonly known imagery and phrases.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Here's a well-balanced article on Lincoln's faith by Mark Noll, a respected church historian whose "The Democratization of American Christianity" is essential reading.
Edited on February 9, 2012 at 11:33pmMay '10
Re: What We're in For
Christopher Esget
Tom Meyer
Washington declined to take communion when he attended episcopal service and -- in all the 20-something volumes of his correspondence -- mentions Jesus only twice (and not directly at that). He thought good religion was an essential part of a good society, but his personal beliefs were closer to Deism or Ethical Monotheism than anything approaching normative Christianity. · 2 hours ago
I think that's an accurate assessment.
Worthy to note in this regard: Washington was very active in Freemasonry. · 3 minutes ago
We will each have our own judgments about which statements and actions most reveal of the deeps of the men.
As for me, I find their speeches and letters reveal a profound consciousness of God's provident dealings with men.
Their religiosity--in whatever degree they had it—far from inclining them toward tyranny, worked in the opposite direction.
Like Santorum said this week: Consciousness of the reality of God and what is due to those made in His Image is what puts strict limits on human government.
Apr '11
Re: What We're in For
I have often been amused that the Gospel for Ash Wednesday (Mt 6: 1 - 6, 16 - 18) warns "Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast."
The distinction, I am counseled by my brother, is between official, communal rite and private devotions (e.g., ostentatiously praying on street corners).
He adds "If you want to fast every day in Lent, I don't want to hear about it". I guess he just doesn't want me to make him feel small.
Sep '10
Re: What We're in For
I agree that the church commands it. But does Jesus? I really would like to know what verses you're referring to.
Christopher Esget
The Church has always commended—no, commanded—public professions of faith. Jesus commands it, upon peril of damnation. The point of the text is hypocrisy. · 36 minutes ago
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Grendel: I have often been amused that the Gospel for Ash Wednesday (Mt 6: 1 - 6, 16 - 18) warns "Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast."
The distinction, I am counseled by my brother, is between official, communal rite and private devotions (e.g., ostentatiously praying on street corners).
He adds "If you want to fast every day in Lent, I don't want to hear about it". I guess he just doesn't want me to make him feel small. · 2 minutes ago
I think your brother is right. Ashes were once for the "penitents" applying for readmission to communion. Our modern usage is much better: we all must be penitents.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Leslie Watkins: I agree that the church commands it. But does Jesus? I really would like to know what verses you're referring to.
Christopher Esget
The Church has always commended—no, commanded—public professions of faith. Jesus commands it, upon peril of damnation. The point of the text is hypocrisy. · 36 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
2 minutes ago
One could do a whole study on this, but the most significant would have to be: "Whoever confesses Me before men, I also will confess before My Father in heaven. Whoever denies Me before men, I also will deny before My Father in heaven." (Mt. 10.32f)
Aug '10
Re: What We're in For
If the Republican party tries to run a campaign on social issues, it will get beat so badly in the next election it could damage the party dramatically.
If Rick Santorum is nominated, it virtually guarantees a strong third-party run by someone, or it will mean a Gary Johnson-led libertarian party will pick up a record high number of votes - maybe as high as 15% - in the next election. That will doom the Republicans.
This reminds me of the Republican party in 2000, which gained power on a platform of individualism, school choice, and smaller government. Then after the election we were treated to an endless serious of debates on social issues: Terry Schiavo, the Ten Commandments, infant stem cell research, etc. And a lot of the people who supported Bush started tuning out or moving toward the Democrats.
On almost every economic issue, I'm about as far right as you can go. People like me should have a natural home in the Republican party, but if it becomes the party of creationism, school prayer, anti gay marriage, and another round of the endless abortion debate, you'll lose people like me.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Dan Hanson:
This reminds me of the Republican party in 2000, which gained power on a platform of individualism, school choice, and smaller government. Then after the election we were treated to an endless serious of debates on social issues: Terry Schiavo, the Ten Commandments, infant stem cell research, etc. And a lot of the people who supported Bush started tuning out or moving toward the Democrats.
You really think Bush became unpopular because of social issues? My take was that it had more to do with a massively unpopular war and economic issues.
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
Dan, the issue was never stem-cell research. The controversy was over federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.
Sep '10
Re: What We're in For
I don't take this verse to mean public acknowledgment but one in communion with believers, an assertion of belief not a command to profess that belief everywhere. After all, he distinguishes between God and Caesar. My reading and study indicate that it is Paul who does this commanding, not Jesus. (I love Paul, by the way; I just think his focus was vastly different from that of Jesus.)
Christopher Esget
Leslie Watkins: I agree that the church commands it. But does Jesus? I really would like to know what verses you're referring to.
Christopher Esget The Church has always commended—no, commanded—public professions of faith. Jesus commands it, upon peril of damnation. The point of the text is hypocrisy. · 36 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
2 minutes ago
One could do a whole study on this, but the most significant would have to be: "Whoever confesses Me before men, I also will confess before My Father in heaven. Whoever denies Me before men, I also will deny before My Father in heaven." (Mt. 10.32f) · 5 minutes ago
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
While as an orthodox Christian I take the Epistles of Paul as authoritative and the Word of God, I understand the distinction you wish to make between the two. But I do think the tenor of it is public confession. It was very common for people to deny their discipleship because of the cost. There are numerous examples in the Gospels, e.g., Nicodemus; that is, I believe, the context. I haven't come across the interpretation you put forth; what in your reading suggests that?
Edited on February 10, 2012 at 12:25amApr '11
Re: What We're in For
Christopher Esget
Dan Hanson:
This reminds me of the Republican party in 2000, which gained power on a platform of individualism, school choice, and smaller government. Then after the election we were treated to an endless serious of debates on social issues: Terry Schiavo, the Ten Commandments, infant stem cell research, etc. And a lot of the people who supported Bush started tuning out or moving toward the Democrats.
You really think Bush became unpopular because of social issues? My take was that it had more to do with a massively unpopular war and economic issues. · 22 minutes ago
You're right, but the Terri Schiavo matter in particular was where his second term really started to go wrong. The war was the main drag on his popularity, but the social issues didn't help. That is my main worry with nominating Santorum, since he is very heavily associated with those issues, and doesn't exactly have a light touch when speaking about them.
Apr '11
Re: What We're in For
Dan Hanson:
If Rick Santorum is nominated, it virtually guarantees a strong third-party run by someone, or it will mean a Gary Johnson-led libertarian party will pick up a record high number of votes - maybe as high as 15% - in the next election. That will doom the Republicans.
On almost every economic issue, I'm about as far right as you can go. People like me should have a natural home in the Republican party, but if it becomes the party of creationism, school prayer, anti gay marriage, and another round of the endless abortion debate, you'll lose people like me. · 36 minutes ago
Exactly. And I actually like Rick Santorum, but he will definitely turn off more libertarian-minded voters.
Edited on February 10, 2012 at 12:43amSep '10
Re: What We're in For
In the context of the verse, Jesus is instructing his disciples, not preaching to people on the plain or on the mount. He's telling the disciples not to go to the Gentiles or Samaria but to Israel, to bring them into the Jesus movement. He's conceiving of the end, not the beginning. ... The problem for me with the story of Nicodemus is that it is from John, which is generally thought to be a much later gospel (though some assert it's actually very early) and is informed by early church traditions more than by the Q source.
Christopher Esget While as an orthodox Christian I take the Epistles of Paul as authoritative and the Word of God, I understand the distinction you wish to make between the two. But I do think the tenor of it is public confession. It was very common for people to deny their discipleship because of the cost. There are numerous examples in the Gospels, e.g., Nicodemus; that is, I believe, the context. I haven't come across the interpretation you put forth; what in your reading suggests that? · 9 minutes ago
Edited 5 minutes ago
Jun '11
Re: What We're in For
I meant the larger context, which I should have clarified. And I'm afraid this is where the conversation will have to cease, since I am on the complete other end of the spectrum when it comes to the Q hypothesis. Cheers.