The American Spectator

Appleby| 9.30.10 @ 6:58AM

In every way, Obama has remained a college sophomore, although personally I was never that subjective about eternal truths. But then I had a better upbringing than he did.

Booger| 9.30.10 @ 11:30AM

From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama:

Dear Appleby and Friends,

Although you, the great unwashed, are unworthy, I will explain to you that I, President B. Hussein Obama, am neither sophomoric nor subjective in my embrace of the precepts of Jesus of Nazareth.
After a quick perusal of the New Testament (which I must admit I read over the objections of my good friend and mentor, Rev. J. Wright) I realized that the precepts of Jesus were Directly Applicable to Me. Allow me to enlighten your feeble mind to whatever degree possible.
First, Jesus said he was "the way, the truth and the light", which was doubtlessly to some extent true for his generation. Just so, I, B. Hussein Obama, am The Way, The Truth, and The Light for this generation, and for all to follow once I implement my full agenda. Truly no one will come to the great father of us all, cradle to grave sustenance from a caring federal government, except through ME.
Jesus also had to suffer persecution. If only he had known how much more I would have to endure in THIS generation. Sure, he had folks mock him some, but I have to deal with the Great Satan, FOX NEWS, and truly their demons are legion (Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly; or the Three Fools as I like to call them) and they persecute Me without cause or care. And how could those pathetic scribes and Pharisees compare to the rabble-filled hordes of Tea-baggers that hound me and my faithful disciples all across this nation? Truly, I am persecuted even more than Jesus, and thus am shown to be More Worthy. As to that business about a cross, my good friend Rev. J. Wright assures me that part is purely apocryphal and has no real bearing on the meaning of the New Testament.
Jesus was also a healer in his day. Well, he healed a few, and seemed kind of hit and miss to tell the truth. I, B. Hussein Obama, will exceed him in this regard once my marvelous health care system is in place. Jesus may have been the great physician, I will be The Greatest Physician, and all will love and worship me when the see my benevolence.
Of course, many of you less-enlightened "Christians" persist in the medieval superstition about Jesus being raised from the dead, which is not only utter nonsense, but, I have been assured by my good friend and spiritual guide Rev. J. Wright, really has nothing to do with the main message of the gospels. Well, I will show you a real miracle, a sign if you must have it, for even though Rasmussen, Gallup and their ilk have blasphemed My Great Name in publishing poor poll numbers of alleged individuals claiming to disapprove of my performance, soon this will reverse. My poll numbers will rise from the grave just before election day, the people's love for me will be universal, and my disciples shall be vindicated at the ballot box. Just wait and see.
Now Appleby, I give you one final admonition. You have spoken evil of The True Messiah of this age. Thus you must repent. DOWN ON YOUR KNEES FOR ME! YOU AND ALL YOUR PITIFUL TEA-BAGGER FRIENDS WILL BOW BEFORE ME! PRAY THAT I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THE IMPERTINENCE YOU HAVE SHOWN AGAINST MY MOST HOLY NAME!
Meantime, have a nice day.

Your President for Life,

B. Hussein Obama

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 12:21PM

Well, I was going to call that reply an appeal to bigotry, but it's actually a display of incredible bigotry.

Your hate is showing.

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.30.10 @ 12:29PM

Oh, I'd say it was spot on.

Bubba| 9.30.10 @ 3:46PM

Bob, I've read thru a number of your responses. You claim to be Catholic and pro-life, but for some unnerving reason, I think you are probably lying just a little. Here is why: no orthodox Catholic or pro lifer would ever have been able to vote for Mr. Obama due to his vote against Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. The only guy to do so, and he had enough committee power to squelch the vote from being floored. Even Hillary, who is very liberal, voted for a comparable bill when it reached the US Senate ( it passed unanimously). Obama then, to make matters worse, lied about it claiming it did not have verbiage that would protect women enough, though it included the same stipulations both the IL and federal bill. To quote Jill Stanek, one of the women who led the fight:

"During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true."

So, Bob, where do you stand, if you are really Catholic, pro life and honest? :)

Tony in Central PA| 9.30.10 @ 6:11PM

Bubba, there are a lot of people who apparently think like Bob in the Catholic Church nowadays. I should know, I just formally converted last year. Cars with " Obama '08 " bumper stickers line the street next to the cathedral I visit Sunday morning. Some of these people are in the choir or volunteer frequently, so you'd think they'd know their faith better than average.
On some rare occasions, I have gotten into a discussion with some of these people on the subject of abortion and Obama. There is an almost childlike disconnection on their part between what the Church teaches, and has consistently taught for two millenia about abortion, and what they apparently want to be true. Reason and history have no place in these encounters.
I have come to the conclusion that a great many of today's professed Catholics are very poorly catechized. The Obama appearance at Notre Dame was a public spectacle of the worst kind that displayed this sad truth. The fact that the higher - ups at an allegedly Catholic university orchestrated the whole thing proves there's still plenty of heresy around.

Bubba| 9.30.10 @ 10:30PM

Sorry to hear that. In Protestantism, there is an equally perplexing and anti-Reformation strain called Emergent or Emerging which essentially embraces the same things: Bono, Tony Campolo, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Donald Miller. They have traded in the orthodox, historic faith for a mysterious, orthoprax one that has not problem with dissembling on the things they don't like or limit their pleasure or autonomy. Same animal, different stripes. All the while, the innocent die. Unless some homosexual couple would like to adopt, then by all means, surrogate for them!

Bill| 10.1.10 @ 10:53AM

Tony, I'm also an adult convert to Catholicism; albeit some 30 years ago. In that time, I have learned that while the magisterium speaks with one voice, there are elements within the church that--surprise, surprise--think they know better. They are the elements the mainstream media loves to cite when they wish to "prove" the teachings of the magisterium "wrong." One of the most enduring doctrines of "liberal" Catholics is the "seamless garment" argument. It says that the whole of a politician's positions must be evaluated in determining whether to vote for him/her. Thus, such Catholics voted for Ted Kennedy, for example, because by applying this principle they could say that on balance all his work for the poor and the disadvantaged outweighed his Chapaquiddick cowardice, his pro-death on demand stance, his alcoholism, his intervention to keep his nephews and their friends from being prosecuted for rape, etc. Since BHO has not yet compiled quite such a record, it is fairly easy to see how one who believes in the "seamless garment" doctrine could vote for BHO. Personally, I equate the doctrine with moral relativism and hope it can be overcome in time, like arianism, etc.

DDwildcat| 10.1.10 @ 12:04PM

And Nancy Pelosi made this incredulous statement on the Catholic Church and abortion, "I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition."...wow...
I converted to Catholicism about a year ago and even I know that's a flat out lie by Pelosi. Pathetic...

Joseph Metrick| 10.1.10 @ 5:58PM

An aquaintance of mine tried to save me from the "cult", the Catholic church. I fought her tooth and nail though, with the Cathechism, scripture etc. etc. Then she said something that shook me, she said Catholics practice the same things Protestants do and believe the same things, they only like to dress better. After returning to the church after a thirty year hiatus, I knew she was right, I knew something wasn't there. The church no longer teaches the truth, it's become politically correct! God Bless you Bill! The Kennedy's and Nancy Pelosi as spokesmen for the Catholic Church??!?!?!?! but where's the Catholic church? They're busy collecting money from these Socialist Democrats, why let the truth get in the way? I didn't know Notre Dame was Catholic, did they have a conversion?

RCV| 10.2.10 @ 1:58PM

What is happening in the American Catholic church is the same thing that has happened in American protestant denominations. People in the 21st century have learned to think for themselves with the brains God gave them. They refuse to follow, cult-like, the encyclicals that aged men in Rome issue, or the prejudices that tribes had 2000 years ago. You CAN believe in God and Jesus Christ, and still believe in dinosaurs and evolution. Use your brain cells.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:03PM

Tony:

"...has consistently taught for two millenia about abortion..."

Go back to your history books, Tony. Not true. Flat out. You've been lied to.

Citizen-Comrade| 9.30.10 @ 12:43PM

"...appeal to bigotry"?
"...incredible bigotry."?
"...hate..."?

Bobbo, you gotta lay off that Kool-Aid for awhile. And maybe then you'll be sober enough to sneak into the White House, in the middle of the night, and wipe your lipstick off Obama's backside.

Booger| 9.30.10 @ 3:42PM

Oh, Bob did indeed see my hate. What he didn't tell you was that he used an upskirt photo to get a peak. He's a dirty, dirty boy.

Booger| 9.30.10 @ 3:44PM

I cannot believe I just posted that. WHERE ARE MY MEDS? OBAMACARE RATIONING TOOK MY MEDS! Oh well, back to the old diatribe drawing board.

Cordially,

Booger

Linda| 9.30.10 @ 5:37PM

Booger, you rock! Love it!

Chuckie| 9.30.10 @ 12:55PM

When you scream "Racist!" every time someone disagrees with you on a point of policy and all you do is make yourself rediculous. There is nothing there at all that is bigotry. What he did was, with humor and insight, reveal the emptiness of Obama and his administration.

I wouldn't call it hate showing. I would call it contempt.

Satire is funny only when it reveals ugly truths. This one, as another poster said, is spot on.

Ms Jones| 9.30.10 @ 1:15PM

How so? You dismiss "Booger's" satirical remarks as "bigotry", but give no specifics to support your accusation.

Debora| 9.30.10 @ 2:55PM

I saw this as a satirical piece. You take yourself too seriously.

JF| 9.30.10 @ 3:48PM

Bigotry toward what, exactly? People who profess religion but don't quite measure up in practice? Thank God for that kind of bigotry!

Nobammy Bin Lyin| 10.1.10 @ 10:47PM

Oh I get it! It's only funny when YOU are sarcastic, caustic, heteful and spiteful eh? Way to flick em a booger, Booger.

Texas Mom2010| 9.30.10 @ 12:28PM

Booger, gotta love it! lol with diet coke out my nose!

ruth| 9.30.10 @ 12:46PM

I love your letter.... wonderful insight into the anti CHRIST...

Milo| 9.30.10 @ 1:06PM

Well said. I take exception to your last paragraph, though, since Bill Clinton considers himself President for Life. Obama is President In Waiting - much like North Korea's monarchy.

armygirl| 9.30.10 @ 1:42PM

Outstanding Commentary. Especially - Just so, I, B. Hussein Obama, am The Way, The Truth, and The Light for this generation, and for all to follow once I implement my full agenda. Truly no one will come to the great father of us all, cradle to grave sustenance from a caring federal government, except through ME.

Our Lord and Savior does not like being mocked!

Al Adab| 9.30.10 @ 2:03PM

Armygirl:
Spot on.
"When I consider that God is just and his justice cannot be long delayed, I fear for my country." John Adams.

JanelleA| 9.30.10 @ 2:28PM

Mock on, armygirl! He does give us plenty of reasons to ridicule him.

scanham2| 9.30.10 @ 4:24PM

BRILLIANT!

weSwinger| 9.30.10 @ 7:20PM

Now that's funny!
Thanks, Booger!

Dr. Risk| 9.30.10 @ 7:32PM

Hysterical. Not to mention totally believable for the Narcissist-in-Chief. Very good!

Rev. Chuck Currie| 9.30.10 @ 12:47PM

President Obama is a Christian
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/c.....stian.html

milo| 9.30.10 @ 1:08PM

He can't be Christian since he was born from a Muslim father and was brought up in the "Religion of Peace (sic)". Read the Koran. It brooks no deviation.

Citizen-Comrade| 9.30.10 @ 1:10PM

So, Reverend Currie, i take it you voted for Mr. Obama?

ZZMike| 9.30.10 @ 1:35PM

If he bases his Christianity on "Rev" Wright's church, he's no Christian - because Wright is no Christian, just another Bible-thumping hate monger. In one of his books, he quotes from Wright.

He's no Christian because in a recent speech, taking about "being endowed with inalienable rights", he wouldn't even say the word "Creator".

He's no Muslim, either (unless he's some sort of subliminal Muslim), because he follows none of the requirements of Islam. He doesn't pray 5 times a day, he lets his wife run around in decadent Western clothing.

The only thing left is that he's either atheist or agnostic.

Mr Booger is a little over-the-top, but I don't think it's that far off the mark of what His Oneness thinks in private. Or at least, "If only those pesky Republicans, Libertarians, and other people who foolishly think that government is not the One True Solution, would just stand back and let me remake America in my image".

butterfly53| 9.30.10 @ 3:05PM

He's a muslim sympathizer. That's all.

Anthony| 9.30.10 @ 3:34PM

Obozo can't quite convience us that he is really a mainstream Christian. He was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim, and Islam and the Koran consider him one still.
No matter, he joined Wright's chruch in Chicago to gain street creds because he had political ambitions. He knew that being an active Muslim would interfere with his ruse to appear to whites to be a "non threating black", as he wrote in "Dreams". He had a con to pull off and he knew how to play his suckers.
Wright's Hate America First church was the perfect chruch to gather a constituancy to run for office. It also fit Obozo's concept of America. He was at home with Wright's hateful philosophy.
However, which ever one applies to Obozo, as butterfly 53 says, Obozo is a Muslim sympathizer and probably considers himself a closet Muslim.
Whether it's Wright's church of Black Liberation Theology, or Islam, either senerio is a direct threat to America.
Obozo needs to go in 2012.

Ms. Jones| 9.30.10 @ 1:39PM

I cannot judge who is or is not a Christian--only God can know the heart of any man or woman. However, in four separate speeches, President Obama has stated that his personal salvation relies on collective salvation; a reference to the Black Liberation Theology taught by the likes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Jesus taught, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Further, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Christians are redeemed through faith, through the shed blood of Jesus. It is a free gift of grace, not something we earn through our actions. We each come to the cross alone. Therefore, what the President has claimed on numerous occasions stands in direct opposition to the Bible, which is the authority on which Christianity rests.

The Reverend Chuch Currie references his web page, on which I read that he considers Franklin Graham an "extremist figure". I don't know about the rest of the readers on this thread, but I consider Franklin Graham to be about as mainstream a Christian as can be. He is the son of Billy Graham and is carrying on his father's ministry. Millions of people around the world, including myself, have come to faith in Christ through the gospel as presented by Billy Graham. If his teachings are "extreme", what kind of watered down theology is the Reverend Currie teaching at his church?

JF| 9.30.10 @ 3:54PM

I'm Jewish, and Franklin Graham doesn't scare me - but Rev. Wright sure does! Rev. Currie must be a Wright clone not to see the antisemitism, racism and hate that come out of that man's "church." And BTW, I have also visited black evangelical & pentecostal churches and was never treated to anything resembling Rev. Wright's diatribes.

Barrett| 9.30.10 @ 2:04PM

Fine, he was baptized. This makes him as much a Christian as say, Bill Clinton...

Doug| 9.30.10 @ 4:02PM

On the other hand, if you are NOT baptized, does that make you NOT a Christian? That's not what my church -- a Baptist church -- teaches.

Being Baptized or not proves nothing; the willingness to allow people to make insane amounts of money by murdering completely innocent unborn children -- even pulling them from the womb and letting them die a slow and agonizing death after they have survived the initial attempt on their life -- speaks VOLUMES about whether a person is part of the body of Christ.

BILOXIPAT| 9.30.10 @ 5:57PM

Obamunist is as much a Christian as Bill Clinton, or as my cat whom I have sprinkled, making him a "cat-lick."

JSTT| 9.30.10 @ 2:39PM

Oh, the pride of man, "I say, therefore, I AM." Words are fickel and can conceal what actions truly shall reveal. God shall judge the ACTIONS of man.

Convet| 9.30.10 @ 2:50PM

More babblings from a socialist fool. Crawl back under your rock, Currie (or whatever you are!).

Doug| 9.30.10 @ 3:54PM

I'm afraid, Rev. Currie, that you have made the argument that BHO "is a Christian" without defining the term, "Christian." If being baptized in a UCC church building is all that it takes to be a "Christian," then you are correct. If, however, it means something more, such as being part of the body of Christ, your argument is wholly inadequate.

Doctor Right| 9.30.10 @ 3:59PM

Chuck,

You're a member of the "United Church of Christ", which is a VERY Liberal organziation masquerading as a real Church.

In other words, like all Libs, you're a fraud.

Now go Preach "the social Gospel" someplace else, Chuck.

Alan| 9.30.10 @ 6:51PM

Isn't the UCC apostate? It has been for years now.
I notice in the UCC statement of faith that there is no mention that Jesus is the Son of God. That is an essential tenent to anyone who claims to be a Christian. 1 John 5:1-5

tufforcop| 10.1.10 @ 4:11AM

An obviously biased man from PORTLAND OREGON is hardly what I would call a credible source as to Obama's long term religious views.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 6:57PM

Appleby:

Get help.

Better yet.....get a woman/wife/partner, etc. who'll inform you in no uncertain terms how full of shit you are.

Ralph Novy| 10.2.10 @ 12:28AM

Back to school, Booger.

ZZMike| 9.30.10 @ 1:24PM

"... being my brothers' and sisters' keeper, ..."

He didn't get that from the Bible. It does explain, however, why he thinks HE is appointed to be OUR keeper.

Alan Brooks| 9.30.10 @ 3:54PM

I like Christianity for it being a homosexual holiday:

"don we now our GAY apparel, fa la la la la la la la la"

Alan Brooks| 9.30.10 @ 3:56PM

Oops, I mean Christmas-- must be all that eggnog laced with rum.

Tim*| 9.30.10 @ 7:28PM

Apparently , Your Freudian Slip Is Showing Sweetie Pie .

CB| 9.30.10 @ 7:05AM

What a joke....doesn't anybody see thru this bozo?

Mark MacInnis| 9.30.10 @ 8:38AM

Rest assured mate....more and more people see through this guy....the irony is he pledged to be transparent, and he IS transparent, just not in ways he thought he would be.

We can see November from our front lawn...

rainmaker1145| 9.30.10 @ 10:11AM

He loves Jews even more. Wait until you see the video of him attending a PLO lovefest and making an anti-Jew toast. It seems he and Bill Ayers served on the board of a charity that, in turn was started, by Bill's lovely wife Dorn. This charity - with the approval of Obama - made grants to the Arab American Action Network AFTER 9/11 to give to the PLO - $40,000 in 2001 and $35,000 in 2002.

He's a Christian by choice - when the eye of the media and public is on him he's a Christian; the rest of the time he's a Muslim thug.

Debora| 9.30.10 @ 2:59PM

Where can I see this video?

RCV| 10.2.10 @ 2:02PM

You can"t Debora because it's made-up nonsense.

logmank| 9.30.10 @ 7:07AM

In the third chapter of the Gospel of John is recorded a very interesting conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. Nicodemus was a very religious person (a member of the Sanhedrin) and probably a good person, as well.
Yet, Jesus said to this good and religious person that unless he was "born again" (literally, born from above), he could not see the kingdom of God.
For Obowmao to say that he was a Christian "by choice" and because he believes in the Golden Rule and is "his brother's keeper", flies in the face of what Jesus Christ says is necessary to become a Christian.
Frankly, neither Obowmao, his former "pastor", Jeremiah Wright, nor his current marxist "spiritual advisor", Jim Wallis, has the slightest clue what a Christian is.
I can call myself a rutabaga. That doesn't make me one.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 12:24PM

Ok, I will accept that you are a rutabaga.

Note that the author of that piece is a Catholic. Speaking as a Catholic (and pro-life) I can tell you your entire line of thinking is in contradiction to the teachings of the church the two of us adhere to.

Born again comes through baptism. Obama was baptised in his church.

rae| 9.30.10 @ 12:55PM

"Except a man be born of water AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot see the kingdom of God" John 3:5 It is God that imparts life in Christ - nothing that we can do - just being baptised does not make one ready for heaven - you need to recognize your utter sin and ruin, and accept what Jesus did on the cross, dying for our sins. "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galations 3:16

ruth| 9.30.10 @ 1:00PM

Bob, born again comes from the baptism of THE SPIRIT OF GOD..If Obama was baptised in the spirit it was the wrong spirit...That is made obvious by his abortion murder stance and his continual and consistent lies.. Christ is not a liar and does not murder babies...

konastephen| 9.30.10 @ 1:04PM

Hey Bobby boy. Have you ever even been to District 9 or any other of South Africa's townships. I think you're a poser. And anyway, thanks for your Catholic version of how to be saved (and no thanks). I'll go with the Apostle Paul who said that if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, you'll be saved. And that reminds me, I don't believe I've ever heard Barry confess that with his mouth... Has anyone else?

Ms Jones| 9.30.10 @ 1:43PM

Bob, if one is baptized but has not repented and received Jesus as Savior and Lord, all he is is a wet sinner.

Bruce| 9.30.10 @ 6:57PM

Standing a post one wintry night on NYC's Fifth Avenue near Rockefeller Center, A snooty member of the landed gentry came up to me and - obviously mistaking my uniform for a doorman - asked me to call him a taxi.

"As you wish sir - you are a taxi" ... and walked away.

LadyPatriot| 9.30.10 @ 8:31PM

thank you. exactly what I felt when reading BigEarsObama words.

Stephanie| 9.30.10 @ 7:21AM

Well, Logmank, you are a well spoken seemingly smart rutabaga. And I agree with you , obama is no more a Christian than I'm an eggplant.
He's dispicable.

John II| 9.30.10 @ 12:16PM

Whoa. Let me in on some of this metaphor action.

Myself, I'm inclined to think of Professor Obama as a slightly oversteamed artichoke: prickly on the outside and mushy at the core.

Stephanie| 9.30.10 @ 3:10PM

But John, I LOVE artichokes!

Ret. Marine| 9.30.10 @ 7:35AM

One would surely go to hell for lying as sure as for murder. It does not look to good for this pretender-n-thief. What a punk.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 12:25PM

Since when is lying a mortal sin?

Note, whether you are Catholic or not, the author of the piece is. And not even any Christian faith I know of considers just lying enough to send you to prison.

Nor can you show he lied.

Ryan| 9.30.10 @ 1:09PM

All sin is, in a sense, mortal.

James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

And if all have sinned, all are condemned.

konastephen| 9.30.10 @ 1:18PM

Uh Bob. Now I know you're a poser. Look, Jesus called Satan the Father of Lies. Think about that for a while. Then when you have a free moment to better your mind (not a common occurrence I'd wager), check out this: "The punishment to be meted out to liars is of the severest kind. They are positively and absolutely excluded from heaven (Rev 21:27; 22:15), and those who are guilty of this sin are cast into the lake of fire (Rev 21:8)." http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/L/LIE;+LYING/

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:29PM

Then you condemn 90% of Obama critics to hell.

My estimate.

Include the author above.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:27PM

Sorry bout that. Meant to say lying won't send you to hell.

Ms Jones| 9.30.10 @ 1:51PM

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:22-24)

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

Bob, ANY sin separates man from God (condemns one to hell); the only way out is repentence through Christ Jesus

KyMouse| 9.30.10 @ 3:54PM

Bob, it isn't our individual sins that send us to hell. Everyone who is accountable for their sins (i.e. old enough and mentally/spiritually able to understand that they are sinners) is separated from God because of their very nature, which is to rebel against Him (i.e., to sin).

Jesus paid for our sins on the cross, and in order to receive His gift, we must put our faith in Him as God, Savior, Messiah and Lord of our lives. If we don't, we must pay for our sins by eternally being separated from Him, since nothing unholy can be in His presence. The third chapter of John's gospel speaks volumes.

There is no divine ledger sheet that separates little sins from big ones. ALL of our sinfulness separates us from God.

LadyPatriot| 9.30.10 @ 8:33PM

if his lips are moving, he is lying. he is a man of lies

Rick V.| 9.30.10 @ 7:38AM

Wasn't it Mark Twain that said there are three kinds of lies? You know: lies, damned lies and statistics. Now we can add a fourth, more egregious type of lie - Obama lies. But I'm being redundant.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 12:26PM

And speaking falsely for God. Which is forbidden in the Bible.

Chuckie| 9.30.10 @ 1:13PM

Bob, I see you post often. I can't see anything you have said that stands up to even the briefest examination. He didn't speak falsely for God. He didn't speak for God. He spoke about Mark Twain AKA Samuel Clemmens.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:41PM

I don't normally post here at all. Found this through an email from American Spectator.

He did not speak falsely for God, he did list 4 kinds of lies. I merely added to the list what I find to be the worst sort of lie. One committed by so many in the anti-Obama crowd.

Alert1201| 9.30.10 @ 8:05AM

When I was in seminary we spent a great deal of time studying the biblical criticism of the late 18th and early 19th century that tore the mainline seminaries and denominations apart. They were men who attempted to “refit” the bible to the modern notion of naturalistic science by stripping it of all miracles, down playing the role of sin and depravity thus removing the need for redemption and casting Jesus not as the God-man but just a man. The cross was no long the great redemptive act of a loving God toward a helpless sinful humanity but an example to help us in our daily struggles to achieve godhood. One saying that I believed was very descriptive of the process was these men were looking down a dark well trying to describe Jesus and what they saw was a mere reflection of themselves. In other words the Jesus they found trough these methods was nothing more then what they believed he should be. I think Obama and his cohorts are doing the same thing. Except what they see is Jesus recast as a Marxist.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 12:28PM

You and those who posted their attacks on Obama here see Jesus as a reflection of themselves. None of you have any standing to judge his faith.

konastephen| 9.30.10 @ 1:10PM

Uh, again, I'm going to have to demur to you here Bobbo and go with the Apostle Paul who tells us that someday we will judge the world and the angels and we need to be capable now of discerning who does or does not have standing in the Church...

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:44PM

Which church? I speak only as a Catholic. I do not and cannot speak as a Lutheran, or a Baptist, or as a member of any other church. How about Jews, do they get to speak for themselves?

You need to be able to discern who to follow, not judge who is saved. That is above your pay grade. And mine, and all other humans.

There shall be those who say they are of God, and lie in His name. Too many of those are with us now. And too many of those are believed by those who hate Obama.

TennesseeVolunteer| 9.30.10 @ 8:06AM

He lies for convenience, he lies to get his way, he lies to manipulate, he lies to mislead, he lies when the truth would do better.
But one thing you know for sure, when his lips are moving, he is lying.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 12:29PM

Ah, you are remembering George W. Bush...

John II| 9.30.10 @ 12:37PM

Yes, and in this respect Professor Obama bears his closest resemblance to Inemeritus Professor Clinton: he lies even when there's no need to do so for political gain.

The enlightened secular shrinks would consider this sort of behavior to be obsessive and to emerge from a pathological upbringing. But I'm an unenlightened Catholic Christian with the quaint belief that pathological upbringings are not sufficient conditions for moral degeneracy. The Professor's habitual mendacity finally comes from Old Hob himself, I reckon.

Professor, meet your mentor: the Prince of Lies or the Cosmic Imbecile--select whichever title you prefer.

And now back to the superior 1946 version of "Angel on My Shoulder," starring the incomparable Paul Muni in a rare comic role. Claude Rains plays the Devil with theological accuracy.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:50PM

Since when does the Catholic Church empower you to rule on another's faith?

And where were you when Bush was sending Americans to die in the thousands, and kill in the tens of thousands, for oil and votes?

Oh, and he was chosen by God for that job... or so he claimed. As so he was led to believe.

There are only two issues of significance I find that the Catholic Church agrees with the republican party on. Abortion and gay marriage. And gay marriage is not something I find a constitutional provision allowing the government to rule on.

Abortion kills, IMO, as a pro-life Catholic, but gay marriage is something they are responsible to God for, not to us.

On pretty much every other issue of significance I see the democrats are closer to the Catholic Church than the republicans are.

Ms. Jones| 9.30.10 @ 1:56PM

How about the subject of theft? You know, the commandment that "thou shalt not steal"? Wealth redistribution is nothing but government-sanctioned theft, and is a foundational principle of the Obama administration--in his own words and the words of his "czars".

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:22PM

And what do you have to back up that claim?

It is an old claim that property is theft. It appears you believe all taxation is theft, so anarchy is the only legitimate government. Actually, I almost agree, I just can't figure out how to make it work.

However, where do you find wealth redistribution to be any kind of basis for the Obama administration? It has been a basic principle of all republican administrations for the last 30 years or more. Though it has been redistribution from the poor and working class to the rich. That is clearly true, just look at the records.

Bongo| 9.30.10 @ 4:46PM

Need I remind the religious folk here, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" (Matthew 22:21) The redistribution being theft thesis just doesn't carry any weight, particularly when comparing the tax rates of today to those of the other administrations of the 20th century

John II| 9.30.10 @ 2:42PM

"Since when does the Catholic Church empower you to rule on another's faith?"

I can only respond to the tone, since the content of your rhetorical question is nonsensical. Whatever you intended to say, I am empowered by the teaching of the Magisterium to inform you that Catholics are mandated to judge the actions of others even as they are forbidden to judge others. Quite a juggling act, ain't it?

Moving past the merely imbecile, we proceed now to the second article:

"Abortion kills, IMO, as a pro-life Catholic."

That abortion kills is a physiological, indeed scientific fact, not an opinion. Nor is Catholic teaching that abortion is a profound evil a matter of "opinion." It is a deeply reasoned judgment grounded in the First Principle that life must be cherished, on which all other law and most morality depend for their cogency. It is deeply un-Catholic to regard abortion as merely one prudential political issue among many.

A quick jump over the throwaway imbecility about "gay marriage," and we land on the pay dirt:

"On pretty much every other issue of significance I see the democrats [sic] are closer to the Catholic Church than the republicans [sic] are."

If that's truly all you see, you should perhaps keep the point to yourself, inasmuch as your expression of the point serves only to broadcast your ignorance.

In the extraordinarily unlikely event, however, that you're interested in what the Church teaches about the basics of all sociopolitical issues, you may want to take a few hours to read the three most consequential of the Church's social encyclicals (among those, by the way, to which the lefty cafeteria Catholics betray a colossal indifference): Rerum novarum (1891), Quadragessimo anno (1931), and Centessimus annus (1991).

And now back to "Angel on My Shoulder" (1946). Boy, those were the good ol' days, when Hollywood pagans displayed more knowledge of and respect for orthodox Catholic teaching than do today's cafeteria Catholics.

Stephanie| 9.30.10 @ 3:16PM

I love that word, "mendacity". Did anyone ever see Cat on a Hot Tin Roof? Big Daddy talks of the mendacity of his worthless children. Not Brick of course. And certainly NOT Maggie the Cat. Ahhh, what a great movie.
Sorry, to get off topic, but I needed a reprieve from the ugliness that is obama.

John II| 9.30.10 @ 3:50PM

You're right, Steph, but it wasn't just the word; it was the way Burl Ives (Big Daddy) pronounces it, pausing for a microsecond on the first syllable and then slightly drawling the second syllable before slurring the last two. Damn.

You know, I think I may have learned the word then. I was barely 15 and just starting Latin when the flick first came out in 1958.

Don L| 9.30.10 @ 8:11AM

Ah the old Clintonesque, "safe, legal and rare" deceit. This brightest, near messianic president ought to be able to figure out that if abortions are good and the right (private) constitutional right to choose, why should they be rare????
On the other hand his arguing for infanticide by denying a fully born innocent infant food or water till they die, reeks of being the most cold-blooded of persons -anything but Christian -no matter how you stretch the term. And what does he intend for those expensive old folks....

TR| 9.30.10 @ 12:13PM

"Safe, legal, and rare."

I guess Obamao considers approx. 800,000 abortions per year rare. And 50,000,000 abortions since 1973 makes it rare. I wonder how cavalier people would be if it was called what it is - baby murder.

The scientist that would find the cure for cancer was aborted in 1977.

Doctor Right| 9.30.10 @ 8:17AM

Once day, not too long after Obama leaves office (a year or so), he will make a public announcement.

He'll say that after a long, difficult, soul-searching, he has decided to embrace his father's "faith", and become a Muslim.

Then he'll sign-on as some kind of paid "consultant" to all sorts of Islamo-potentates to help them "gain access" to the corridors of power in Washington, and beyond. In the process, he'll get very rich. He'll also bow and bow to his heart's content.

Mohammed Ali Yasser Arafat Fidel Hussein al Obama (his new "Muslim" name) will spend lots of time in places like Dhubai, and the UAE (rich, wealthy places where he can continue to live in the style that all washed-up authoritarians crave). He and Mooch-elle (hopefully ensconced in a burqha and a muzzle) will also spend time shmoozing with potentates and would-be Dictators all around the globe (except in sub-Saharan Africa - he'll NEVER visit any countries there. Too messy, and not enough 5-Star hotels.)

The Left will pretend that this is not happening. They won't report it unless the story is too big to ignore, and even then, it'll be buried on page 36 of the New York Times next to a blurb about Paris Hilton's latest bout with chlamydia.

Meanwhile, a Republican President will have to huddle with the Intelligence Community and make a decision about how exactly to deal with a former President who has gone rogue, and who may be providing our enemies with all sorts of top-secret, classified information.

Now ask yourself...Is this scenario REALLY that hard to believe?

REALLY???

Steve A| 9.30.10 @ 10:10AM

DR, Not too sure about your theory but I am positive that we will have to listen to this guy's nonsense indefinitely after he is bounced out of office (a la Carter & Clinton). These people simply do not go away. Say what you want about the Bushes but at least they know how to shut up when their time is up.

butterfly53| 9.30.10 @ 10:17AM

Grace.
Bush left with grace and lives with the same.
Something obama and mooch-elle know nothing about.

Steve A| 9.30.10 @ 10:31AM

Bush displayed grace, class & a historical reverence for the office & it's tradition of not clouding the current debate with opinion from prior office holders.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:51PM

Your hate is showing.

Ms. Jones| 9.30.10 @ 2:00PM

By your standards, then, your posts have revealed an intense hatred of George W. Bush.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.

Why is it impossible for you progressives to understand that a person can vehemently disagree with Mr. Obama's policies without personally hating the man or his race(s)?

Convet| 9.30.10 @ 2:54PM

...as is yours MORON FROM DISTRICT 9!

Doctor Right| 9.30.10 @ 4:03PM

Ooooooooooh...How clever.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but crying "racism" and "hate" doesn't work anymore..?

coal carrier| 9.30.10 @ 8:20AM

Jesus did not say give your money to the government so they can pass it around to the community. He said, “love thy neighbor.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Jesus never mentioned redistribution of wealth. He said “teach a man how to fish and he will be fed for life”.

I don’t believe that Jesus expected us to be coerced into slavery.

In Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny” he states “ The individual’s right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual’s time on earth is finite, so too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him liberty.”

Communism, socialism or any other government-generated control over the individual is a direct affront to ones liberty. I am not talking about taxes for roads and bridges. I am talking about the insatiable appetite the progressive has for another’s possessions.

The government has turned into a slave master.

Ryan| 9.30.10 @ 9:55AM

Please provide scripture reference for the "teach a man how to fish" line.

Quick note: you can't.

Steve A| 9.30.10 @ 10:49AM

"Give a man a fish & he has a fish. Teach a man how to fish & he now has an excuse to drink more beer." I think it's in Proverbs somewhere.

TR| 9.30.10 @ 12:03PM

The saying is not from the Bible, I googled it and the author is unknown. It is, however, a wise and true saying, even if it is not Biblical.

Bob S| 9.30.10 @ 12:19PM

Steve: I believe the correct quote is: "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll sit on his ass in a boat and drink beer all day."

Steve A| 9.30.10 @ 12:26PM

Bob, I stand corrected. thanks.

Deboara| 9.30.10 @ 3:17PM

Steve A, I am with you!

Steve A| 9.30.10 @ 4:55PM

Thanks Deb, Wanna go fishin sometime???:)

coal carrier| 9.30.10 @ 11:52AM

So that's all you have? What a great comeback in the debate.

What?| 9.30.10 @ 12:15PM

It's not a debate, it's a ditto fest.

KyMouse| 10.1.10 @ 9:47AM

The closest thing I can think of is John 4:13-14, when Jesus was talking to the Samaritan woman at the well: "Jesus answered and said to her, 'Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst...'"

drgene| 9.30.10 @ 12:47PM

This quote is Toaist--probably Lao Tzu.

Jesus did say he'd teach his apostles how to
be fishers of men.(Lk 5).

But I suspect women already know how to fish
and catch men.

Obama knows nothing about how to teach anyone to fish--only how to get in the proper line for a
taxpayers re-distribution of wealth. That's the main point of the coal carrier.

No big deal that he thought Jesus said it.

coal carrier| 9.30.10 @ 5:19PM

Thank you drgene.
You are a person who obviously can see the forest and the trees.

Jim O'Brien| 9.30.10 @ 2:18PM

Obama is a collectivist who thinks everyone (other than himself of course) should have "equal outcomes" regardless of talent or effort. This means class warfare, income redistribution, and heavy doses of state control over individuals. When everyone is equal, we'll all be slaves of the government. This is the essence of Obamacare and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It's the opposite of our Constitution, human rights, and free will.

GregoryDA| 9.30.10 @ 8:56AM

Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matthew 7:20

A. Murray Kahn| 9.30.10 @ 9:10AM

In New York State, a middle class homeowner now pays more than half his income to state, local, and federal government. AND the state is bankrupt! The budget is not balanced, will not be balanced AND they have just raised the sales tax. Politicians point to greed in the private sector while acting like the thousand pound man, confined to his bed by his mass, still demanding more calories than he needs to live to satisfy a deadly hunger that grows faster than his intake.

Texas Mom 2010| 9.30.10 @ 12:44PM

Excellent point. Anecdote illustrating your point: we live here in a no income tax. Nubby was offered a transfer to California during a down turn. When he asked what the cost of living adjustment would be to justify the move, his boss told him none. Hubby turned it down; where upon boss asked, what he would do if there was no alternative? Hubby said I do have an alternative because I can manage a McDonald's here for the same equivalent salary you are offering me to move to California. And I won't have to uproot my family to do it either. It has been nearly 17 years since then and Texas is still a cheaper more free place to live than most of the rest of the USA. Still with same company too!

Really sorry (somewhat) for those stuck with under water mortgages in high tax states but then again
you keep electing the same type of morons spending your states into oblivion while expecting bailouts from the rest of us. I guess I am glad those voters haven't moved here yet. I fear that when they do there will be nowhere else to move to get away from tax and more tax voters.

Texas Mom 2010| 9.30.10 @ 12:47PM

Whoops, sorry for all the typos. Haven't figured out how to back up on this new-fangled iPad yet. Plus it changes spelling on words that I sometimes miss.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.30.10 @ 9:13AM

I'm a Christian.

I simply cannot imagine a place to have communion with this man as he is today. I pray earnestly for his repentence and salvation.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:54PM

I just prayed for yours.

Convet| 9.30.10 @ 2:56PM

Eat any good books lately PLAN 9 FROM SPACED OUTER?

John II| 9.30.10 @ 3:09PM

No you didn't, Bobbie.

This is your Conscience speaking to you from out of the ether, to wit: It's generally not a good idea to fib, and it's probably not a good idea for a Catholic to express irony on the topic of prayer, although I can think of circumstances when such irony might accord with the Catholic mandate not to take oneself seriously. My literary instincts, however, tell me that this particular circumstance isn't among them.

You may perhaps wish to reflect on the words of
that great, great Catholic comic Lou Costello: "I'm a baaaaaaad boy!"

Nate| 9.30.10 @ 3:29PM

Thanks, Holy Father.

On the safe topics for Catholics to engage with irony .... how about the topic of papal pronouncements?

John II| 9.30.10 @ 5:14PM

I'm not the Holy Father, Nate. You must have someone else in mind. I'm the Conscience of Bobbie.

Denver Todd| 9.30.10 @ 9:25AM

Glenn Beck has said that Obama is a Christian that other Christians don't recognize. I agree with that statement. I agree, because while Obama can explain his feelings about Christianity, he can't explain its doctrine.

Doctor Right| 9.30.10 @ 10:56AM

I'm not sure what Beck means.

One is either a Christian, or one isn't. It's not a gray, touchy-feely kinda' description.

For example, there are millions of people around the world (hundreds of millions, actually) who consider themselves "Christians", but who simply are not.

Being a Christian is NOT a matter of culture or convenience. It's a decision to embrace NOT merely the "principles" that Christ described and embodied, but to embrace Christ himself as one's savior, the son of God, and the ONLY path to eternal salvation.

Of course, even after acknowledging this, and embracing Christ, we ALL fall short of God's expectation...Which is EXACTLY why we must accept Christ as our savior, since he died for OUR sins.

However, getting back to those millions who consider themselves as "Christians" but who either openly spurn His message, or are not aware of it's import, they are NOT truly Christians. Obama is of this sort (if, in fact, he is any sort of Christian at all...And I do not believe that he is. He is a Muslim).

The Bible is very clear that at judgment, many will say [paraphrase] "Lord, Lord...I have always served you, and praised you, and prophesied in your name", and God will say to them "I never knew you."

rae| 9.30.10 @ 1:02PM

Thank you!

John II| 9.30.10 @ 1:09PM

Not to put too sharp an edge on it theologically, but the Professor's "Christian by choice" cliche is, of itself, a telling sign of his real faith: secular rationalism. Serious Christians don't use that kind of cheap language because they know better: Christ does the choosing.

The Professor's rationalist habits of thought--which he's obviously never reflected on deeply but merely imbibed from his chic upbringing--help explain the soft spot in his brain for Islam.

Western sentimentality about Islam dates from the early 18th century and the attendant contempt for Christianity percolating among the philosophe-types. Whence the Left's preferential option, so to speak, for Islam.

To explain his bizarre foreign policy and oafish comments on such topics as the mosque controversy, one needn't suspect, as more than 20 percent of Americans now do, that the Professor is a sure-enough closet Muslim. It's enough to point out, for certain, that he's an unreflective child of his times. Shallow is as shallow does.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:56PM

"...while Obama can explain his feelings about Christianity, he can't explain its doctrine."

True of most Christians... and most Muslims... and most... most everyone...

And most of those who post here.

John II| 9.30.10 @ 2:47PM

Most? Would that include you, Bobbie? Sure sounds like it.

Convet| 9.30.10 @ 2:57PM

Et tu MENTAL CASE FROM PLAN 9!

joli| 9.30.10 @ 11:22PM

I have read some extremely cogent explanations of Christianity on this thread. What thread are you reading?

KyMouse| 9.30.10 @ 9:35AM

Lots of people, including many who don't call themselves Christians, say that Jesus was only a wise man who taught about ethical living. That's what I hear coming from Obama.

Seems to me that one test of a person's Christian-ness is whether he/she agrees with formerly doubting Thomas in John 20:28: "And Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and My God.'"

Al Adab| 9.30.10 @ 11:52AM

What bothers me most is that in a set up forum, with prearranged questions, he performed so poorly delivering his answer. The level of prevarication seems to be beyond even his ability to dissemble.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:05PM

I found the video for the questions referred to. There is nothing there that appears setup or pre-arranged. Nor does there appear to be any prevarication.

His answer was very well presented for something off the cuff.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42830.html

Al Adab| 9.30.10 @ 2:48PM

Bob,
I have no way of knowing what your personal experience in political campaigns might be, but rest assured nothing a president of the US does in front of cameras is unscripted. The audience is pre-selected, the questions pre-arranged and the answers studied. That is not a criticism simply a statement of the process.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:59PM

In the referenced comments Obama defined himself as a Christian, and a Christian as one who accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

I the one cited above from 2007. Link repeated here.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com.....n-to-islam

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 1:59PM

In the referenced comments Obama defined himself as a Christian, and a Christian as one who accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

I the one cited above from 2007. Link repeated here.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com.....n-to-islam

Convet| 9.30.10 @ 2:59PM

Good morning, good morning good morning goo...

Big J| 9.30.10 @ 9:42AM

Did you expect anything more than a bunch of "Uh..." riddled drivel from this man?

The same man that spent 20 years in Jeremiah "G-D America" Wright's church?

The same man that will instill values in his daughters, but if they make a mistake, doesn't want them punished with a baby?

Christian, my a**!

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:07PM

You *WANT* your daughter punished with a baby?

BTW, did you ever watch the entirety of the much edited comments by Rev Wright? Nothing he said was truly objectionable to any rational person, and not as bad as what some prominent conservative Christian clergy have said. I specifically include Pat Robertson.

As to whether he is a Christian... are you?

Did God anoint you to judge his faith?

Ms. Jones| 9.30.10 @ 2:24PM

Since when is a baby a punishment? All throughout scripture, children are considered a blessing from God, and barreness a curse.

What rational person would condone BLASPHEMY from the pulpit?

Convet| 9.30.10 @ 3:00PM

How's your friend George from Move.on doing BRAIN DEAD?

ShortNSweet| 9.30.10 @ 9:43AM

I am a Christian, first and foremost. It is our job as Christians to pray for Mr Obama, no matter how much we like or dislike him. That is possibly the hardest thing of all for me personally, but I've been praying for him. I don't believe he's a Christian, (his actions like everyone's speak louder than words) but only he and God know the truth about that.
Unltimately, every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Phil2:8-11...We human beings can say and/or think whatever we please (free will) about God's Word (The Holy Bible) but Jesus Christ is exactly what God's word says He is, nothing less! and all will say so one day, here or in the hereafter. I've been praying that Mr Obama figures it out here. But...
I still will vote to remove him and his democrat friends' tales right out of office. I am sick to death of this government intruding on every tiny aspect of my life. I have enough sense to make my own decisions, no matter what those nuts in Washington think!

Al Adab| 9.30.10 @ 11:56AM

You are correct. We are commanded to pray for our leaders and our enemies. It is not a matter of choice. Nonetheless, as free self-governing people, we are still able to use our discernment to evaluate the positions and character of those who seek to fill any office of public service. We pray that the day may come when the President finds Christ and follows Him.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:25PM

With a display name as you have chosen you must be a Muslim.

"We pray that the day may come when the President finds Christ and follows Him."

I pray that for GW Bush, and everyone in his administration, and everyone who supported him.

Al Adab| 9.30.10 @ 2:51PM

Bob,
You might be the first to recognize the nom de plume. That is interesting. Nonetheless our prayer for the President does not change. President Al Naqis is not the first for whom we have prayed thus, nor will he be the last; unless of course he is the last President.

David Carr| 9.30.10 @ 7:15PM

What if someone is our leader AND our enemy?

Al Adab| 9.30.10 @ 7:21PM

David,
Then we pray for both faces.

MChristian Conservative| 10.3.10 @ 2:58PM

In Obama's case I pray that his office let another take.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:15PM

"I don't believe he's a Christian, (his actions like everyone's speak louder than words) but only he and God know the truth about that."

And you recognize the truth about that.

However, how do Bush's actions paint him? Tell me about every president in your lifetime, how much Christianity did they display?

"We human beings can say and/or think whatever we please (free will) about God's Word (The Holy Bible) but Jesus Christ is exactly what God's word says He is, nothing less! and all will say so one day, here or in the hereafter. I've been praying that Mr Obama figures it out here. But..."

In the 2007 discussion cited above, he said he was a Christian, and when asked, he defined a Christian as one who accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior. I believe that meets your criteria above.

"I still will vote to remove him and his democrat friends' tales right out of office. I am sick to death of this government intruding on every tiny aspect of my life. I have enough sense to make my own decisions, no matter what those nuts in Washington think!"

I did not vote for Obama, I voted against every one of the other candidates. Whatever you may think of him, I say he was the least bad of a bad bunch of candidates.

There is not one of those candidates who won't put government in your life. Of all of them, I find Obama to be the most Christian, though you can call that damning with faint praise.

Bob from District 9| 9.30.10 @ 3:03PM

Notice all my strawmen and ad hominem attacks. I even use red herrings. My good friend and benefactor George helps me liberally!

Stephanie| 9.30.10 @ 3:26PM

Goodness, can you on the left EVER let go of President Bush? It's like John Stewart and his obsession with Beck! He's even copying his rally, he's so taken with the man.
Read my lips Bob, barry obama is President now. NOT George Bush. Sheeeesh.......!

ShortNSweet| 9.30.10 @ 4:02PM

I can go to a garage, and call myself a car, but that doesn't make me a car. Do I look like one, do I act like one? No, but I can put my lips together and blow and I can sound like one...I also recognize the real thing when I see it....
I didn't vote for him either, nor did I vote for those other candidates. However, I am here along with millions of other americans paying the price for the ideology of those men and women.
I don't know about those other presidents, except I can say that they didn't bow their heads to tyrant dictators, and they didn't say that this isn't a Christian nation, and they birth certificates weren't priviledged information. Enough said?

WB| 9.30.10 @ 9:44AM

Gee, and here I thought Hopeychange said religion was something just the rural types "clung" to -- you know, along with their "guns and bigotry."

Guess he isn't above employing it when he thinks it'll help his political fortunes ...

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:17PM

No, he did not say that. And it is a lie to say he did. What he did was reference the old right wing agenda of Guns, God and Gays.

You can rewrite it all you want, but you can't make your rewrites the truth.

Ms. Jones| 9.30.10 @ 2:32PM

Bob!!! He absolutely did say "It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

www.youtube.com/watchv=xNoJ0q6HrK8

Who is the liar, Bob?

WB| 9.30.10 @ 6:09PM

Don't worry, Ms. Jones, Bobbie-Boy is the typical dissembling Lib. He hopes that by denying something and stamping his little feet over and over again it'll make it all go away. Pity him and his ilk ...

c| 9.30.10 @ 9:59AM

obama is not a christian nor muslim. he belongs to the CHURCH OF STATE POWER. he will use religion as a tool to achieve and maintain power. he is like many liberal/democrat politicians that believe in the power and authority of the state to control our lives because they know what is best for us. he is simply the latest and slickest, best packaged, of this breed.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:18PM

Every word you said applies to the right wing in spades.

The entire Bush II administration was based on it.

John II| 9.30.10 @ 2:54PM

The ENTIRE administration? Not even a teensy-weensy exception? Not even a smidgin? Not even . . . not even . . . not . . .

Boy, Bush was Satan incarnate. And Professor Obama is nice. In the immortal word of Napoleon Dynamite: "Gosh!"

Al Adab| 9.30.10 @ 2:56PM

Sorry Bob, neither Bush was or is a Conservative in the Movement sense. Bush 41 opposed Reagan in 1980 and 43, while more conservative than his father, still represents the accomodationist wing of the party. Rockefeller wing, or Moderate wing, or Country Club Republican or RINO if you prefer.

Stephanie| 9.30.10 @ 3:28PM

There you go again, Bob.
Now darlin', you need to go back down into mama's basement 'cause your TV dinner is getting cold. Now there's a good boy.

c| 9.30.10 @ 3:40PM

it applies only to the ones who call themselves republicans, but are not true conservatives. a true conservative believes in a small government, and allow the people to run their lives.
is district 9 a labor union?

butterfly53| 9.30.10 @ 10:25AM

Alert 1201, you are correct about stripping the church, all churches, of miracles and the supernatural. The pastor of the presbyterian church I attend is focused on bringing that back into our church. We face an uphill battle, we know, but will march foward with God by our sides. We are starting a healing ministry, hands on healing, which starts soon. He wonders how the congregation will take this, even though it is proven to help those in need of healing, be it physical, emotional or spiritual. We may loose folks, but it is what Jesus called us to do. As he healed, he told us to "do as I do".
Onward and upward.

Claypoole| 9.30.10 @ 11:32AM

Dear butterfly53: You might consider the possibility of declaring your church a confessing church. After my experience as a commissioner to the Presbyterian General Assembly, watching left-liberal doctrine influence--and in many cases, replace church law--I persuaded our Session to submit to the congregation a proposal to make our church a confessing church. As well, our Session voted to strip General Assembly funding from our Mission budget.

Some irony here: The General Assembly's theme the year I attended was "Celebrate the Children." At that same GA, a majority of commissioners voted to continue to provide abortion coverage as part of pastors' health insurance. And not just female pastors--wives and daughters of male pastors are able to have abortions paid for by the people in the pews.

Ms Jones| 9.30.10 @ 2:11PM

I was raised in an evangelica, PCUSA church, and fought an uphill fight at GA over abortion and ordination of practicing homosexuals. I finally gave up and left the denomination when the womens' "Reimaging" conference served a communion o bread and honey to the goddess Gaia.

Some Christians are Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc. etc., but not all Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc. are Christians.

Butterfly53| 9.30.10 @ 3:32PM

Thanks for your reply Claypoole. My Pastor went to the GA this summer and there was talk about the Palestinians and how we should support them. To hell with Israel. I plan to mention what you said about detaching from the GA funding. Thank you again for your commentt.

MikeBee| 9.30.10 @ 11:05AM

Using religion for political means is not new to Democrats, and has been used by many Dems for years. Obama is one example of this; another is Jennifer Granholm, Michigan's Dem governor. Nine months before her first election, in a state which has a high percentage of Catholics, she became a Catholic. This, even though she fully supports abortion, which Catholics believe is murder. Dems will use religion whenever it is politically expedient for them to do so. But they always try to keep truly religious people out of public service in the governments, so that they don't have to relate to them, and have to hear about Jesus.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:28PM

Everything you said applies to republicans exactly. To vote for a republican has the same moral effect as voting for a democrat.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 3:04PM

Ignore me and I'll go back to the Daily Kostic where I belong.

c| 9.30.10 @ 3:47PM

what exactly is a "moral" effect of voting for a republican or democrat?
should we vote for: 1. hillary /bill clinton? 2. charlie taxman rangel? 3. elliot spitzer? 4. blago? 5. all the illinois politicians in jail? william cold cash jefferson?
please educate us on the proper morally acceptable candidates.

virginia| 9.30.10 @ 11:09AM

What more proof do we need than obama'a own words - "to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing"- to prove his dissoluteness.

Tim*| 9.30.10 @ 11:50AM

Obama uses religion as a manipulative tool to carry out His Version of the Post Colonial Africa Socialist Agenda of Barack Hussein Obama Senior .

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

Rise Up !

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:29PM

Your gullibility is showing.

Oh, and are you pro-colonialism?

Tim*| 9.30.10 @ 4:08PM

Your Agenda is showin' .

Oh , and are you pro-socialist ?

AliceL.| 9.30.10 @ 12:19PM

I guess the commandment, "Honor thy mother" means nothing to Obama. Yup, now he throws his mom under the bus! Getting crowded down there.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 2:30PM

You just threw your integrity under the bus.

Ms. Jones| 9.30.10 @ 2:34PM

Having caught you in a bald face, blatant lie above, I find it ironic that you are lecturing anyone about integrity.

Bob From District 9| 9.30.10 @ 3:05PM

I just love to throw myself under buses. Michael Savage is right!

Darren| 9.30.10 @ 12:28PM

The day I bow down to this liar is NEVER. What makes him think we should bow to him. He is flushing our entire country down the commode.
I also wonder WHO wrote this trash? His feelings are represented in only a few of those statements.
And anyone who believes he is a Christian should really pay attention to the things he has and is still doing to ALL of us.

er| 9.30.10 @ 12:31PM

No one becomes a true Christian by choice. Such hubris! God calls us to saving faith in Christ by His mercy and His grace alone, we do not choose Him. There are a lot of people who call themselves Christians who need to be truly converted to Christ. We're not Christians because we call ourselves Christians. The Lord Himself said, "ye must be born again." If we are truly converted to Christ then we will love the things that He loves and hate the things that He hates. We will love Him supremely above all things. We will come to hate sin in our own life and then hate what it does to other souls. Abortion is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Obama advocates both. Interestingly, he recently chose to attend a so-called church (the mainline Episcopal church) which condones homosexuality and has perverted the Word of God. It's produced heretics like Spong who continues to write and perpetuate heresies. The church Obama attended to impress everyone is really a synagogue of Satan.

Walkthetalk| 9.30.10 @ 2:32PM

Er, you said, “God calls us to saving faith in Christ by His mercy and His grace alone, we do not choose Him.” You are partly incorrect. We must choose him. Jesus’ first command was the call to repent. This means to change your mind or to turn. We must turn to him. He calls us by his mercy and by grace (unmerited favor). None of us deserve to be called out of the darkness of sin and death into his marvelous light. But the choice is ours. This is the free will God gives all of us. We can reject him, or we can repent. 2 Chronicles 7:14 provides a verse that seems to define repent: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” You see, you must turn, it is your opportunity, it is your choice. If you turn you will have spiritual life in Christ. No hubris required. Note: Deuteronomy 30:19 “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life .…” Also note that some turn partly, thus deceiving themselves, and many do not turn at all. We pray for these to heed the call. Repent!

Linda| 9.30.10 @ 5:56PM

Let's not forget that we can't even come to the point of accepting or rejecting Jesus as Savior UNLESS we are first DRAWN by the Holy Spirit.

Walkthetalk| 10.1.10 @ 10:59AM

Linda, some clarification is in order. God loves everyone. He calls everyone to repent and have life in Jesus. The verse you refer to John 6:43 follows after all the prerequisites are met, which includes (among others), believing the Bible, humility before God, turning away from wickedness (repenting), seeking His face, then God forgives our sin, which is the point of salvation where your reference comes in, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him ….” We become born from above, children of God, saved, alive, or as some say, Christian. As John 6:40 says, “For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life.” Yes, life in Christ is totally God’s doing, calling us is God’s doing, but repenting is our responsibility or Jesus would not have called us to do it. Has Obama repented? Just look at his support of abortion. Those in Christ support life.

Fergie| 9.30.10 @ 12:37PM

A political figure, such as the President of the United States, implying American society and therefore its laws, should no longer be based on the Bible is terribly wrong. For Obama to state we should rend the curtain of God's protection that our founding fathers, through their Christian belief, bequeathed to all generations of Americans to come, places our country out of God's hands and into Obama's hands.

Who is Obama that he believes he knows what is best for MANKIND, not just America and Americans? What a pompous ass of a man -- God will reward him according to his works because as God said in His Holy Word, "I shall not be mocked." Obama is clearly mocking God by claiming himself to be a Christian, while thinking and acting like a DEVIL! Exactly what kind of Christian is he? A hypocrite -- whose baser nature rules his every action!

xuenchen| 9.30.10 @ 12:45PM

look for much of the same tactics by other dumbocrats "going home" for the elections.
they will lie and cheat as much as possible ..
anything goes this year!
AND, watch YOUR paychecks shrink some more. even MacDonald's is trying to cut off insurance for employees...and help insurance companies raise rates at the same time!

ruth| 9.30.10 @ 1:03PM

Bob... read rev 21-8 about liars...
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
And Bob I perceive you do not know god from satan...

Tim| 9.30.10 @ 1:06PM

The President's "Cliff's Notes Christianty" is familiar and thoroughly pathetic. Yet he will deceive many.

ruth| 9.30.10 @ 1:17PM

Obama is always using the BROTHER'S KEEPER thing to prove his point... The only verse I know of that refers to BROTHER'S KEEPER is when Cain said "Am I my brother's keeper" to God after he had killed his brother..
Surely Obama knows exactly who said this in the Bible.. He is laughing in our faces as he tries to make us all into fools

Groucho| 9.30.10 @ 1:38PM

Tries?

Dawn| 9.30.10 @ 1:22PM

Funny, I thought that Christianity has gone through several normal evolutions for the better. And is still evolving, going through more changes that are natural. The only religion that I know of that needs to be reformed is islam. It hasn't gone through any kind of reformation at all, because if anyone tried, they would be killed. Obama seemed to have forgotten, that because his father was a muslim, that automatically made him one. If it wasn't for the fact that he lived here in the USA, he would have been killed for his conversion to Christianity. But because he is in a position of "power", he is allowed to live.

Ms Jones| 9.30.10 @ 2:56PM

Christianity is a relationship with Christ. It is the same today as it ever was. Man-man institutions of religion, however, have undergone several reformations.

ruth| 9.30.10 @ 1:25PM

Obama said he is his brother's keeper.. Psalms 121-5 The LORD [is] thy keeper: the LORD [is] thy shade upon thy right hand.... God is the keeper..Does Obama think HE IS GOD..???

David Ben-Ariel| 9.30.10 @ 1:46PM

If only the fraud and foreigner were his greedy aunt's keeper to relieve legitimate Americans of her burden...

Republican Sage| 9.30.10 @ 1:37PM

Did you hear? Did you hear?

Obama went to a Christian Church!!!

That gives us a line of bullshit to feed the gullible and the stupid!

Whoopee!

A church!

A church!

What about the "victory mosque"? Isn't he a Kenyan anyway? Isn't he an illegal alien?

If he's not a Marxist, he's a fascist? Or aren't they the same thing?

Is there anyway I could be a more cynical fucking hack?

David Ben-Ariel| 9.30.10 @ 1:43PM

We all know the president usurper's mother was from Kansas, but it's clear she wasn't Christian by being unequally "yoked" with a Muslim - not once but twice. (II Cor. 6:14-18) Apparently she had some serious issues against white Americans and Christians.

Nate| 9.30.10 @ 3:25PM

This is probably the LEAST American post I've ever seen on the website. David, in addition to being a bigot and goddamn fool, you're a real schmuck!

RCV| 10.2.10 @ 10:39PM

Or, just maybe, she fell in love with two people she met who happened to be non-white individuals from other countries. It's a big world out there!

Vasu Murti| 9.30.10 @ 1:48PM

Barack Obama says he has "always been a Christian" ?

The phrase "always been" could be misconstrued as anti-semitic, but I don't doubt the president's words or his sincerity in this regard.

That being said, one's religious identity should be completely irrelevant in secular politics.

Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution clearly states: “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

If the press were to criticize or scrutinize the religious beliefs of Sharron Angle, Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, or anyone else on the right, the American Spectator would be up in arms!

It's possible to discuss politics without bringing religion into it. Regardless of how you feel about gun control, for example, does it really matter which church Jim & Sarah Brady worship at? Leave Barack & Michelle alone.

This article suggests political support for abortion rights is incompatible with Christianity. I beg to differ. The Bible supports abortion rights: pro-lifers need to become secular!

Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.

If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:

"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". It gains full human status after birth only.

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterward, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

The New Testament is more permissive than the Old! Paul contradicts Jesus' words (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), and those of the original apostles (Acts 10, 15 and 21) by claiming Mosaic Law has been abolished. Paul then claims Jesus said to him three times, "My grace is sufficient for thee." (II Corinthians 12:8-9). And Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please—ignoring the rest of the New Testament, and (especially) Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.

The late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933-2007), an evangelical minister, a vegan, and author of God's Covenant with Animals (it's available through PETA), told me they're quoting Paul out of context. Paul, she observed, was very strict with himself:

"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Corinthians 9:27)

Regina Hyland said further that this verse indicates it's possible for one to lose one's salvation (a serious point of contention among born agains!).

My friend Ruth Enero, a Catholic peace activist whom I very much respect, also says they're quoting Paul out of context. Paul, she says, had a "thorn" in his side, and asked the risen Jesus about it.

The response was simple: "My grace is sufficient for thee."

This was a response to a specific problem, not a license to do as one pleases, or why else would Paul himself have given so many other moral instructions?

Reverend Frank Hoffman, raised Jewish, and now a retired vegan Methodist minister, and owner of the www.all-creatures.org Christian vegetarian website says, "I agree with Ruth."

Christians focusing only on II Corinthians 12:8-9 MUST be quoting Paul out of context, because otherwise it doesn't make any sense: on the one hand, Paul is warning that drunkards, thieves, homosexuals, etc. will not inherit the kingdom of God, and on the other hand he's saying if you call on Jesus three times. . .you can do whatever you want?!

Well, then: "Abortion. Abortion. Abortion."

Or how about: "Racism. Racism. Racism." ?

My problem really isn't with Christians unable to follow Jesus or Paul, but the hypocrisy of saying "I believe," and ignoring the rest of what their religion demands when it suits them.

Why not just be secular, like everyone else? (It would certainly make things easier for those of us in the vegetarian and animal rights movements.)

We Americans really live in a secular society; people just pay lip service to religious ideals.

Secular arguments are religiously neutral and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics. The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion. Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on embryology and prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.

"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

---Hubert H. Humphrey

Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion"destroys a human life and is manslaughter." (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, "Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted." However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed.

This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favor a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

A "conscience clause" which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

"However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."

Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3066

Ms Jones| 9.30.10 @ 2:52PM

Human beings are created in the image of God; not animals, not plants. Yet you support the right of a woman to pay someone to dismember her living, growing child and vacuum it from her womb, but refuse to eat meat? What a sad, convoluted ideology.

Here is the best Biblical, pro-life argument I know comes from the Gospel of Luke,
Chapter 1: John the Baptist was conceived of Elizabeth for the purpose of preparing the people to receive the Messiah, Jesus. When Mary, having just conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, visits her kinswoman Elizabeth, scripture tells us:

39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"

In other words, the PERSON of John the Baptist, still in utereo, encountered the PERSON of Jesus Christ, just conceived, in Mary's womb. I think if either John or Jesus head was protruding from Elizabeth's or Mary's womb, Luke would have mentioned it in his account.

KyMouse| 9.30.10 @ 4:10PM

Vasu Murti, the Bible teaches that human life is different from other types of life, because human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; James 3:9-10).

The Bible teaches that children are a blessing (Amos 1:13; Psalm 127:3).

The Bible teaches that the child in the womb is truly a human child, who even has a relationship with God (Psalm 139:13, 15; Galatians 1:15).

The Bible repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent (Psalm 106; Revelation 22:15; 2 Kings 17:17-18).

Jesus paid special attention to the poor, the unwanted, and those whom society considered insignificant (Matthew 19:13-15; Luke 17:11-19). He said that "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40) are His brothers, and that what we do to them, we do to Him. Who is more "least" than a tiny baby in the womb? What you advocate doing to them, you do to Him.

Vasu Murti| 9.30.10 @ 7:03PM

KyMouse,

You write:

"The Bible repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent (Psalm 106; Revelation 22:15; 2 Kings 17:17-18).

"Jesus paid special attention to the poor, the unwanted, and those whom society considered insignificant (Matthew 19:13-15; Luke 17:11-19). He said that 'the least of these' (Matthew 25:40) are His brothers, and that what we do to them, we do to Him."

Are animal rights and prenatal rights "separate issues" as you suggest? Or are they closely related, like women's rights and civil rights?

You mention Jesus' concern for the poor and insignificant. Do you consider yourself a "consistent-ethic" or "Seamless Garment" pro-lifer?

"Consistent ethic" pro-lifers (simultaneously opposed to both capital punishment and abortion) are not well known outside of the religious Left.

In 1979, pro-life activist Juli Loesch united anti-abortion and antinuclear activists on the religious Left by forming Pro-Lifers for Survival, often called "the granddaddy of the consistent ethic movement." The Seamless Garment Network (SGN, now "Consistent Life") was founded in 1987.

Their Mission Statement reads:

"We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, the arms race, the death penalty and euthanasia. We believe these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected."

You'll note they insist: "We believe these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life." I merely assert that animal issues are similarly linked to the issues listed above. Carol Crossed, president of Democrats For Life a few years ago, told me DFLA embraces a "Seamless Garment" position with regard to sanctity-of-life issues.

I've heard DFLA took a vote years ago on whether or not to include animal rights on the agenda, but that there weren't enough pro-animal votes for it to pass. Maybe next time. This is democracy.

Carol herself wrote in her foreword to my 2006 book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion: "It may be too much to expect that the readers of this work will value both the life of other animals and the life of an unborn human equally. Perhaps like myself you too are on a journey seeking to approach the radical center point where their equality meet."

Is it radical politics? Or merely--in the spirit of Jesus--radical nonviolence?

"Animals are God's creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God's sight," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest. "Christians whose eyes are fixed on the awfulness of crucifixion are in a special position to understand the awfulness of innocent suffering. The Cross of Christ is God's absolute identification with the weak, the powerless, and the vulnerable, but most of all with unprotected, undefended, innocent suffering."

Mother Teresa, honored for her work amongst the poor with the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, wrote in 1992 to Marlene Ryan, a former member of the National Alliance for Animals. Her letter reads:

"I am praying for you that God’s blessing may be with you in all that you are doing to create concern for the animals which are often subjected to much cruelty. They, too, are created by the same loving Hand of God which created us. As we humans are gifted with intelligence which the animals lack, it is our duty to protect them and to promote their well being.

"We also owe it to them as they serve us with such wonderful docility and loyalty.

"A person who shows cruelty to these creatures cannot be kind to other humans also.

"Let us do all we can to become instruments of peace—where we are—the true peace that comes from loving and caring and respecting each person as a child of God—my brother—my sister."

Secular scholar Keith Akers writes in his (updated) 1986 edition of A Vegetarian Sourcebook:

"Christianity presents a problem for a religiously motivated vegetarian. That problem is that the New Testament says so very little about animals or about vegetarianism. To be sure, a vegetarian who wanted to find a place within Christianity could certainly do so. Seventh Day Adventists recommend vegetarianism and have a large vegetarian contingent among their membership. The Trappist monks of the Catholic Church are vegetarian. But exactly what place would vegetarianism have in the teachings of Christianity?

"Jesus' teachings focus on nonviolence and poverty. It could hardly be otherwise for anyone who recommends loving one's enemies, and selling everything one owns and giving it to the poor. Would it not be a logical extension of the principles of nonviolence to extend these principles from humans to animals? Should we not love animals and care for them? And isn't meat a wasteful luxury item, a food for the rich? Shouldn't we be making more food available for the poor and the hungry by eating plant foods?

"While all of these ideas seem plausible enough, there does not seem to be very much direct support for such views in the New Testament."

A theological case for prenatal rights, like animal rights, similarly, is an implied doctrine or idea, not clearly spelled out in Scripture.

It was for this reason that I made it a point to *first* write and publish a book on animal rights and vegetarianism in the *Western* religious traditions, They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, in 2003. Similar to Steven Rosen's 1987 book, Food for the Spirit: Vegetarianism and the World Religions, it, too, has been endorsed by Jewish and Christian clergy. Bruce Friedrich of PETA (a practicing Roman Catholic) wrote the preface, and the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933-2007, author, God's Covenant with Animals -- it's available through PETA) wrote the foreword.

But religion is not the only motivating factor. Moral opposition to killing animals (for food, clothing, "sport," etc.)--in itself--is, like opposing abortion or opposing capital punishment, euthanasia, or war, merely an *ethic*, not a religion. Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of mankind were vegetarian; many were secular, or even atheists or agnostics.

"Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into a giant oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay!"

---George Bernard Shaw

Rynn Berry, historical adviser to the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS), writes in his 1993 book, Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes (Lives & Lore from Buddha to the Beatles):

"George Bernard Shaw was born in Dublin, Ireland on August 26, 1856, and died at 'Shaw's Corner' near London in 1950--a life that spanned almost ninety-five years. As an avowed ethical vegetarian, Shaw disdained attributing his longevity to his diet. Nevertheless, both his longevity and his extraordinary creative output as a man of letters reflect no discredit on his fleshless regime. The author of more than thirty plays that have become classics of the modern theater, Shaw also distinguished himself by turns as one of the greatest drama and music critics ever to have put pen to paper.

"The fifth edition (1954) of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, in its biographical article on Shaw, refers to him as 'one of the most brilliant critics, not only of the drama but also of music, who have ever worked in London, or indeed anywhere.' But it is chiefly as a writer of plays, and the prefaces to those plays--which critic John Mason Brown called, 'one of the glories of the language,' and 'in the best prose style since Swift'--that Shaw will be remembered.

"In the late thirties, Edmund Wilson wrote that Shaw's plays were outliving those of his contemporaries. This is no less true today than it was then. During a recent theater season in New York, three of Shaw's plays were running simultaneously, and playing to packed houses--Misalliance, Candida, and My Fair Lady (an adaption of his Pygmalion for the musical stage).

"In 1925 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. He characteristically donated the entire amount to the Anglo-Swedish Foundation (to spread a knowledge of Scandinavian literature among English readers). On his death in 1950, Shaw left 367,233 pounds. It was one of the largest estates ever left by a writer.

"Not bad for an 'effete vegetarian.' Not bad for a poor Dublin lad whose early life held little promise of the man whom Irving Wardle, theater critic for The Times (London), recently called, 'the greatest world teacher to have arisen from these islands, the means by which countless adolescents have woken up and learned to think for themselves, the knight-errant intellectual who used his sword for common humanity.'"

"It is quite possible Shaw became a vegetarian and a teetotaler for the very reasons he gives--because he was inspired by the example of his hero, the poet Percy Shelley, an atheist, socialist, and a vegetarian. 'I was a cannibal,' admits Shaw, 'It was Shelley who first opened my eyes to the savagery of my diet.'"

In another account, Shaw relates that he was first exposed to the subject of vegetarianism through Shelley's poetry and dramatically asserts:

"But of course the enormity of eating the scorched corpses of animals--cannibalism with its heroic dish omitted--becomes impossible the moment it becomes conscious instead of thoughtlessly habitual."

Although mentally precocious as a boy, Shaw acquired an early hatred of pedagogy and schoolmastering that never left him.

"He who can, does; he who can't, teaches" is one of his famous sayings (from Man and Superman) in disparagement of teachers.

George Bernard Shaw became a vegetarian at age twenty-five. Shaw's doctors warned him that the diet would kill him. When an old man, he was asked why he didn't go back and show them what good it had done them. He replied, "I would, but they all passed away years ago."

Once, someone asked him how it was that he looked so youthful. "I don't," Shaw retorted. "I look my age. It is the other people who look older than they are. What can you expect from people who eat corpses?"

On another occasion, Shaw remarked, "A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses."

George Bernard Shaw was once ridiculed at a dinner party by G.K. Chesterton, a connoisseur of food.

The portly Chesterton commented: "Looking at you, Shaw, people would think there was a famine in England." Shaw retorted: "And looking at you, Chesterton, people would think that you were the cause of it."

"Strangely enough," writes Rynn Berry, "Shaw never raises the subject of vegetarianism in either of his plays, or their prefaces. In the prefaces he addresses topics that he felt were too controversial to be broached in his plays--such as marriage customs, creative evolution (his religion), vivisection, medical malpractice, and censorship. In view of his eagerness to take up the cudgels for such unpopular and idealistic causes as alphabet reform, Fabian socialism, and women's suffrage, it is odd that he should have written so little about vegetarianism. A play from his pen treating of vegetarianism--let's say a vegetarian Candida, or a vegetarian Pygmalion--would certainly have made it fashionable in London, and might well have sparked a worldwide dietary revolution. Yet in furtherance of vegetarianism he wrote no major essays, no books, no plays. It is a curious omission."

On the karmic connection between killing animals and killing human beings, Shaw wrote:

We pray on Sundays that we may have light
To guide our footsteps on the path we tread
We are sick of war, we do not want to fight
The thought of it now fills our hearts with dread
And yet we gorge ourselves upon the dead

If we thus treat, defenseless animals for sport or gain
How can we hope in this world to attain
The peace we say we are so anxious for?
We pray for it over hetatombs slain
Cruelty begets her offspring -- War

On various occasions, Shaw rejected efforts by his doctors to have him abandon the vegetarian diet. He proclaimed with mock solemnity: "Life is offered to me on condition of eating beefsteaks...But death is better than cannibalism. My will contains directions for my funeral which will be followed not by mourning coaches, but by herds of oxen, sheep, swine, flocks of poultry, and a small aquarium of live fish, all wearing white scarfs in honor of the man who perished rather than eat his fellow creatures."

A registered Democrat since 1982, I'll keep pressing for the inclusion of animal issues in DFLA! To put animal rights and vegetarianism on the map, politically; to advance the cause of animal rights.

KyMouse| 10.1.10 @ 7:48AM

Jesus, who is God, enjoyed eating animals when He walked this earth. He enjoyed eating fish, for example, and was not deceived into thinking of them as "sea kittens." Another example: He ate lamb during Seders. As God, He gave humanity animals (as well as plants) to consume.

You've made the choice to be vegetarian. The rest of us have freedom of choice as well. Or do you think "choice" applies only to butchering unborn babies?

There is no contradiction between believing that unborn babies deserve to continuing living, and that murderers deserve to receive the death penalty. Unborn babies have not chosen to commit heinous crimes. Murderers have, and should receive the punishment that God Himself instituted. It was established in Genesis 9:6; substitution is a big part of His system of justice, and the only thing valuable enough to pay for the life of a human being is the life of another. In Romans 13:4, Paul writes that a ruler “does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”

When are you going to answer the comment below about PETA's sorrow over the Arabs' donkey that was blown up, but not over murdered Israelis?

Vasu Murti| 10.1.10 @ 2:28PM

KyMouse:

According to the Bible, God intended the entire human race to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Paradise is vegetarian. Rashi (Rabbi Solomon von Isaac, 1030-1105), the famous Jewish Bible commentator, taught that "God did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its flesh. Only every green herb shall they all eat together." Ibn Ezra and other Jewish biblical commentators agree.

The Talmud says, "Adam and many generations that followed him were strict flesh-abstainers; flesh-foods were rejected as repulsive for human consumption." Although man was made in God's image and given dominion over all creation (Genesis 1:26-28), these verses do not justify humans killing animals and devouring them, because God immediately proclaims He created the plants for human consumption. (Genesis 1:29)

In a letter to Pope John Paul II, challenging him on the issue of animal experimentation, Dr. Michael Fox of the Humane Society argued that the word "dominion" is derived from the original Hebrew word "rahe" which refers to compassionate stewardship, instead of power and control. Parents have dominion over their children; they do not have a license to kill, torment or abuse them. The Talmud (Shabbat 119; Sanhedrin 7) interprets "dominion" to mean animals may be used for labor.

Man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) and told to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29). "And God saw all that He had made and saw that it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) Complete and perfect harmony. Everything in the beginning was the way God wanted it. Vegetarianism was part of God's initial plan for the world.

"It appears that the first intention of the Maker was to have men live on a strictly vegetarian diet," writes Rabbi Simon Glazer, in his 1971 Guide to Judaism. "The very earliest periods of Jewish history are marked with humanitarian conduct towards the lower animal kingdom...It is clearly established that the ancient Hebrews knew, and perhaps were the first among men to know, that animals feel and suffer pain."

After the Flood, God revised His commandment against flesh-eating. Human beings, since eating of the forbidden fruit, seemed incapable of obedience on this issue. One Jewish writer comments, "Only after man had proven unfit for the high moral standard given at the beginning, was meat made a part of the humans' diet."

In his excellent A Guide to the Misled, Rabbi Shmuel Golding explains the orthodox Jewish position concerning animal sacrifices: "When G-d gave our ancestors permission to make sacrifices to Him, it was a concession, just as when He allowed us to have a king (I Samuel 8), but He gave us a whole set of rules and regulations concerning sacrifice that, when followed, would be superior to and distinct from the sacrificial system of the heathens."

Some biblical passages denounce animal sacrifice (Isaiah 1:11,15; Amos 5:21-25). Other passages state that animal sacrifices, not necessarily incurring God's wrath, are unnecessary (I Kings 15:22; Jeremiah 7:21-22; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 8:13; Micah 6:6-8; Psalm 50:1-14; Psalm 40:6; Proverbs 21:3; Ecclesiastes 5:1).

Sometimes meat-eating Christians foolishly cite Isaiah 1:11, where God says, "I am full of the burnt offerings..."

These Christians claim the word "full" implies God accepted the sacrifices.

However, in Isaiah 43:23-24, God says: "You have not honored Me with your sacrifices...rather you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities."

This suggests, as Moses Maimonides taught and Rabbi Shmuel Golding confirms above, that "the sacrifices were a concession to barbarism."

British historian William Lecky noted, "Tenderness towards animals is one of the most beautiful features of the Old Testament."

There is considerable evidence within the Bible suggesting God's plan is to restore His Kingdom on earth and return mankind to vegetarianism. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the Chief Rabbi of prestate Israel, wrote: "It is inconceivable that the Creator who had planned a world of harmony and a perfect way for man to live should, many thousands of years later, find that this plan was wrong."

Rabbi Kook believed the concession to eat meat (Genesis 9:3) was never intended to be a permanent condition. In his essay, "A Vision of Peace and Vegetarianism," he asked: "...how can it be that such a noble and enlightened moral position (Genesis 1:29) should pass away after it once has been brought into existence?"

Rabbi Kook cited the messianic prophecies (Isaiah 11:6-9), in which the world is again restored to a vegetarian paradise. The Bible thus begins and ends in a Kingdom where slaughter is unknown, and identifies the one anointed by God to bring about this Kingdom as "Mashiach," or the Messiah.

Humanity's very beginning in Paradise and destiny in the age of the Messiah are vividly depicted as vegetarian. "In that future state," taught Rabbi Kook, "people's lives will no longer be supported at the expense of the animals." Isaiah (65:25) repeats his prophecy again. This is God's plan.

Rabbi Kook taught that because humans had an insatiable desire to kill animals and eat their flesh, they could not yet be returned to a moral standard which calls for vegetarianism. Kook regarded Deuteronomy 12:15,20 ("Thou mayest slaughter and eat...after all the desire of thy soul,") as poetically misleading. He translated this Torah verse as: "because you lust after eating meat...then you may slaughter and eat."

In his book Judaism and Vegetarianism, Dr. Richard H. Schwartz notes that God's blessings to man throughout the Bible are almost entirely vegetarian: products of the soil, seeds, sun and rain. (e.g., Deuteronomy 8:7-9; Isaiah 30:20,23; Nehemiah 9:25)

The inconsistency in Judaism’s sanctioning the slaughter of animals while worshiping a God who has mercy on all His creatures is dealt with in Rabbi Jacob Cohen’s The Royal Table, an outline of the Jewish dietary laws. His book begins: "In the perfect world originally designed by God, man was meant to be a vegetarian."

The same page also quotes from Sifre: "Insomuch as all animals possess a certain degree of intelligence and consciousness, it is a waste of this divine gift, and an irreparable damage to destroy them."

During the 1970s, Rabbi Everett Gendler and his wife studied Talmudic attitudes towards animals, and came to "the conclusion that vegetarianism was the logical next step after kashrut—the proper extension of the laws against cruelty to animals." After becoming a vegetarian, a rabbinical student in the Midwest said, "Now I feel I have achieved the ultimate state of kashrut."

In their book, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, Dennis Prager and Rabbi Telushkin explain:

"Keeping kosher is Judaism’s compromise with its ideal vegetarianism. Ideally, according to Judaism, man would confine his eating to fruits and vegetables and not kill animals for food."

In his 1987 book, Food For the Spirit: Vegetarianism and the World Religions, writer Steven Rosen makes a well-reasoned case for Jewish vegetarianism, concluding:

"...even if one considers the process of koshering to be legitimate, it is an obvious burden placed upon the Jewish people, perhaps in the hope that they will give up flesh-foods altogether. If eating meat is such a detailed, long, and drawn-out process, why not give it up entirely?"

Keith Akers notes that "Compassion for animals is firmly rooted in Judaism," and concludes in his chapter on the Jewish tradition in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983): "Judaism does not unequivocally condemn meat eating as a sin. But a strong case can be made that Judaism does revere vegetarianism as an ethical ideal. All Jews are enjoined to have respect and compassion for animals...Jews would have absolutely no problem in becoming vegetarians, while still remaining loyal to their religion."

You write:

"Jesus, who is God, enjoyed eating animals when He walked this earth. He enjoyed eating fish, for example, and was not deceived into thinking of them as "sea kittens." Another example: He ate lamb during Seders. As God, He gave humanity animals (as well as plants) to consume."

Whether or not Jesus is God or an empowered representative serving on God's behalf (which is closer to the Judaic concept of the messiah) who was later deified by his followers, is subject to debate. In Acts 2:22, Peter refers to Jesus as a "man certified by God." The doctrine of the godhood of Jesus is questionable. (Matthew 12:18, 27:46; Mark 13:32; Luke 23:46; John 14:2, 17:21; Acts 2:22, 3:13).

Yes, Jesus says, "The Father and I are one" (John 10:30), but he also prays with his disciples, "As You and I are one, let them (the disciples) also be one in us" (John 17:21), implying this "oneness" is a relationship others may also experience. The biblical phrase about Jesus sitting at the right hand of God would also be meaningless if there were not two distinct individuals--God and Jesus: the Lord and His servant.

Christians differ on a number of theological doctrines, including the divinity of Jesus. Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, founder of The Way International, wrote an entire book on the subject, entitled: Jesus Christ is not God.

Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the coming of God's kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10), the kingdom of peace, in which the entire world is restored to a vegetarian paradise (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9). Recalling Psalm 37:11, he blessed the meek, saying they would inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5) The kingdom of God belongs to the gentle and kind (Matthew 5:7-9) Christians are to "Be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful." (Luke 6:36) Those who take up the sword must perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

Jesus repeatedly spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (which Paul, and not Jesus, regarded as "so much garbage"), but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock.

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

"And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

"The compassionate, sensitive heart for animals is inseparable from the proclamation of the Christian gospel," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey in Love the Animals. "We have lived so long with the gospel stories of Jesus that we frequently fail to see how his life and ministry identified with animals at almost every point.

"His birth, if tradition is to be believed, takes place in the home of sheep and oxen. His ministry begins, according to St. Mark, in the wilderness 'with the wild beasts' (1:13). His triumphal entry into Jerusalem involves riding on a 'humble' ass (Matthew 21). According to Jesus, it is lawful to 'do good' on the Sabbath, which includes the rescuing of an animal fallen into a pit (Matthew 12). Even the sparrows, literally sold for a few pennies in his day, are not 'forgotten before God.' God's providence extends to the entire created order, and the glory of Solomon and all his works cannot be compared to that of the lilies of the field (Luke 12:27).

"God so cares for His creation that even 'foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.' (Luke 9:58) It is 'the merciful' who are 'blessed' in God's sight and what we do to 'the least' of all we do to him. (Matthew 5:7, 25:45-46) Jesus literally overturns the already questionable practice of animal sacrifice. Those who sell pigeons have their tables overturned and are put out of the Temple (Mark 11:15-16). It is the scribe who sees the spiritual bankruptcy of animal sacrifice and the supremacy of sacrificial love that Jesus commends as being 'not far from the Kingdom of God.' (Mark 12:32-34)

"It is a loving heart which is required by God, and not the needless bloodletting of God's creatures," concludes Reverend Linzey. "We can see the same prophetic and radical challenge to tradition in Jesus' remarks about the 'good shepherd' who, unlike many in his day, 'lays down his life for the sheep.' (John 10:11)"

In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, Reverend Linzey finds two justifications for a Christian case for vegetarianism:

"The first is that killing is a morally significant matter. While justifiable in principle, it can only be practically justified where there is real need for human nourishment. Christian vegetarians do not have to claim that it is always and absolutely wrong to kill in order to eat. It could well be that there were, and are, some situations n which meat-eating was and is essential in order to survive. Geographical considerations alone make it difficult to envisiage life in Palestine at the time of Christ without some primitive fishing industry. But the crucial point is that where we are free to do otherwise the killing of Spirit-filled individuals requires moral justification. It may be justifiable, but only when human nourishment clearly requires it, and even then it remains an inevitable consequence of sin.

"The second point," Linzey explains, "is that misappropriation occurs when humans do not recognize that the life of an animal belongs to God, not to them. Here it seems to me that Christian vegetarianism is well-founded. For while it may have been possible in the past to rear animals with personal care and consideration for their well-being and to dispatch them with the humble and scrupulous recognition that their life should only be taken in times of necessity, such conditions are abnormal today."

Jesus’ miracle of multiplying loaves and fishes is often cited as evidence that he did not favor the vegetarian way of life. His first disciples Simon, Andrew, James and John were all fishermen by the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called them away from their livelihood. "Follow me," he commanded, "and I will make you fishers of men." (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20)

Jesus then performed a miracle illustrating that God can easily provide for human sustenance. He wanted people to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. (Matthew 6:8,26-33; Luke 12:24-31) On the Lake of Gennesaret, Jesus told Simon to drop his nets. Huge numbers of fish were caught to the point where the nets began to break and the boat began to sink. The fish presumably went back into the lake. Simon knelt before Jesus and called himself a sinner. "Do not be afraid," Jesus replied. "From now on you will be catching men." They forsook all and followed him. (Luke 5:1-11)

After John the Baptist’s execution, Jesus withdrew into solitude. The multitudes followed him on foot from the cities. Jesus healed many. When evening came, his disciples said, "This is a deserted place, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food." And Jesus replied, "They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat."

"Shall we go and buy them two hundred denarii worth of bread and give them something to eat?" they asked. "We have here only five barley loaves and two fish," which had been given to the disciples by a boy in the crowd. Jesus took the loaves and the fish, "and looking up to heaven, he blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitudes." Over five thousand ate and were satisfied. (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:31-44; Luke 9:11-17; John 6:9)

On another occasion, Jesus multiplied seven loaves and a few fish for over four thousand people. Jesus explained: "I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way." (Matthew 15:32-38; Mark 8:1-9) Jesus raised to objection to the eating of already dead fish when there was no other food available. This is consistent with the vegetarian way of life. The prophet Elisha raised people from the dead. (II Kings 4:32-37) Elisha also multiplied twenty barley loaves to feed one hundred men. (II Kings 4:42-44) Jesus appears to have repeated the same miracle on a larger scale, using what little resources were available to him.

Matthew 14:19 reads as follows: "he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitudes." This text implies only loaves, and not fishes, were multiplied to give the crowds something to eat.

Jesus’ own recollection of the events suggests only loaves were multiplied. Jesus warned his disciples about "the yeast (teachings) of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The disciples, having forgotten to bring bread, misunderstood. "O you of little faith," exclaimed Jesus. "Do you not...remember the five loaves of the five thousand...the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up?" (Matthew 16:5-12; Mark 8:14-21)

The Fourth Gospel describes the event in almost mystical terms. Jesus multiplied five barley loaves and two fish for over five thousand. Yet he later told the crowds, "I say to you, you seek me not because you saw the signs, but because you at of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you...I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." These verses suggest Jesus really satisfied the multitudes spiritually, giving them "the food which endures to everlasting life." (John 6:1-35)

According to contemporary Christian teacher Abbot George Burke, "...there is a very interesting distinction made between the bread and the fish in the Gospels of Saints Matthew (14:19), Mark (6:41) and John (6:11). When writing of the feeding of the five thousand, all three Evangelists are careful to note that Jesus first took the bread, blessed it, divided it and gave it for distribution. But the fish He simply gave for distribution! He gave no blessing to the eating of fish because it was not given by God to man for food. Moreover, since it was already dead He did not kill anything—He just made more of it."

The New Testament mentions the feeding of the multitudes on four separate occasions, and fish is listed as one of the items present. However, the church father Irenaeus, in his great thesis Against Heresies (180-188 AD), wrote: "He there, seeing a great crowd had followed Him, fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above."

Irenaeus makes no mention of fish. In a later text, Irenaeus again says, "Our Lord after blessing the five loaves, fed with them 5,000 men." How do we explain this discrepancy? Our oldest existing Greek manuscript of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, can be found in the British Museum. It was written in 331 AD. We have no New Testaments from before this time. It is possible that early copies of the gospels made no mention of fish being fed to the multitudes, while later copyists added this symbol in order to enhance the miracle.

Students of the Bible are familiar with the use of bread as a mystical symbol of Jesus’ body, or divine substance. In the early Christian church, the fish was also a divine symbol. The symbol of the fish was a secret sign, used in times of persecution. It can be found in the catacombs of ancient Rome and it remains in popular use today. The Greek word for fish is "ichtus." This word was used in the early church as an acronym for the Greek phrase, "Iesus Christos Theou Uious Soter," or "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior."

The early church father Origen wrote, "while every passage of Scripture has a spiritual meaning, many passages have no other meaning, but that there is often a spiritual meaning under the literal fiction."

Gospel references to fish may be symbolic. The earliest depictions of the Eucharist in the catacombs were inspired by the story of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes; believed to symbolize the Eucharist. A bishop in the early church wrote, "Faith hath provided as my food a fish of exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin drew with her hands from a fountain." In the 2nd century, the church father Tertullian wrote, "We little fish, after the image of our Ichtus (Fish) Jesus Christ, are born in the water."

Did Jesus eat lamb? Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?

Passover remains one of the most important holy days in the Jewish calendar. Passover is an annual spring festival, serving as a memorial of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt under Moses. In first century Judea, Passover was centered around two events. On the 14th day of the month of Nisan, innocent lambs were ritually slain in the Temple at Jerusalem. This was the day of Preparation. On the 15th day of Nisan, the Passover feast would take place. The Passover meal would be eaten by congregations and by families, in selected places throughout Jerusalem.

The Passover meal consisted of slaughtered lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs and wine, which was sipped periodically. The prayers at the table invoked the remembrance of God’s deliverance of His people from past bondage; asking for His continued blessings upon the children of Israel. The first three gospels imply Jesus’ Last Supper was a Passover meal (Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-14; Luke 22:7-15), and that his crucifixion occurred the very same day.

If Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples was a Passover meal, then Jesus may have eaten the Passover lamb. This would mean it was unlikely that he was a vegetarian. The account of the Last Supper given in the Fourth Gospel clearly indicates it was not a Passover meal, but a meal shared on the day of Preparation:

"Before the Passover feast Jesus, aware that his hour had come that he should depart from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. And supper being ended..." (John 13:1-2)

This text explicitly states that Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples took place before the feast known as Passover!

John 18:28 states that the Jewish religious authorities would not enter the Roman Praetorium where Jesus was being tried, "so that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." Pontius Pilate told the Jews, "This is your king," as he ordered Jesus crucified. This occurred on the twelfth hour of the day of Preparation. (John 19:14) After crucifixion, the Jews asked Pontius Pilate that Jesus’ body be taken from the cross and given a decent burial before the Sabbath which was Passover. (John 19:31)

Friday was the day of Preparation for the Sabbath, which began at sundown. According to the Jewish calendar, a new day begins at six p.m., while the week concludes with the Sabbath, or Saturday. The first three gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) state that Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples and suffered arrest, trial and crucifixion on Friday evening, the 15th of Nisan. Only the Fourth Gospel explicitly places the Last Supper on Thursday evening, the 14th of Nisan. Jesus’ final meal with his disciples, his arrest, trial and crucifixion all take place on Nisan 14 in this gospel.

To some extent, the accounts given by Matthew, Mark and Luke conform to the Fourth Gospel. In Matthew 26:5, the authorities decided not to apprehend Jesus during the Passover feast, "lest there be an uproar amongst the people." All four gospel writers record Jesus’ burial on the day of Preparation. (Matthew 27:57-62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 20:42)

Passover was a holy day, regarded as a Sabbath by the Jews. Its holiness was protected by traditional Sabbath restrictions. The gospels describe incidents connected with Jesus’ crucifixion which would not have occurred on a holy day.

To begin with, it is unlikely crowds would carry weapons once Passover had begun. (Matthew 26:47,55; Mark 14:43,48-49; Luke 22:52; John 18:3) There would have been no Jewish involvement in the Roman legal proceedings against Jesus. (Matthew 27:12; Mark 15:3; Luke 23:5) Nor would the trial and crucifixion of Jesus have occurred. (Matthew 27:27-50; Mark 15:16-37; Luke 23:26-46; John 19:17-30)

Simon the Cyrenian would not have journeyed from the country (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26) Nor would Joseph of Arimathea have been able to purchase a linen shroud and see to the burial of Jesus’ body. The fact that Jesus was quickly taken down from the cross and buried in his tomb is consistent with the Jews’ desire that he not be left on the cross once the feast had begun. (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-47; Luke 23:50-57; John 19:38-57)

The accounts of the Last Supper all center on the meal itself. As the meal proceeded, Jesus took the bread and gave thanks before God. Because his position in relation to God was like that of a high priest (Hebrews 4:14-16, 5:5-10, 7:17, 8:1), Jesus more than likely presented the bread before God as an offering. He then broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it, eat. This is my body...broken for your sakes; given up on your behalf. Do this in remembrance of me."

Jesus also took the cup, gave thanks before God, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "All of you drink of it; for this is my blood of the new covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine at all until that day when I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." They sang hymns, and went out to the Mount of Olives. (Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:17-20; I Corinthians 12:23-26)

Passover is traditionally a patriarchal family rite in which the father of a family presides. This meal does not resemble a traditional Passover Seder. During the meal, Jesus identified his body and blood (soul, or life-force in the Jewish tradition) with food and drink offered to God through word and prayer. There is no mention of the Passover lamb; the foods described are vegetarian.

Paul, who called himself an apostle to the gentiles, provides the earliest written account of the Last Supper in I Corinthians 11:20-32. He writes of the "Lord’s Supper," but does not refer to a Passover meal. However, in I Corinthians 5:7, he proclaims: "Christ, our passover, has been sacrificed for us." Early Christians observed the day of Jesus’ crucifixion on Nisan 14th. Claudius Appollinaris, Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus attest to this.

Jesus Christ, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," (John 1:29) died at the same time as countless other innocent lambs of God.

A tradition soon arose, however, that Jesus was crucified on Friday. The church father Irenaeus (120-200 AD) wrote that Jesus died in obedience to God’s will on the same day (Friday) Adam ate the forbidden fruit. For centuries, one of the most bitter disputes in the Christian Church was over the date of the crucifixion. Next to the Trinitarian dispute, this was the most serious issue facing the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325.

The Eastern Church had celebrated the resurrection on Nisan 16, in April, which was also the Jewish Passover. The early Christian father Lactanius wrote that Jesus was crucified on March 23, with his resurrection on the 25th. Curiously, these are the dates on which the passion, death, and resurrection of Attis, a pagan savior, had been celebrated for nearly two thousand years. The rites performed in honor of Attis closely resembled the Christians’ Easter liturgy.

Jesus was arrested, tried and crucified on Thursday, Nisan 14. He died at the same time the Passover lambs were being slain in the Temple at Jerusalem.

Jesus promised his disciples he would be resurrected on the third day (Sunday) from his execution. (Matthew 16:21; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:33) A trial and execution on Thursday, the day of Preparation for Passover, is therefore, more consistent with Scripture.

The Reverend Charles Gore, Bishop of Oxford, writes in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture: "We will assume John is right when he corrects Mark as to the nature of the Last Supper. It was not the Paschal meal proper, but a supper observed as a farewell supper with his disciples. Nor do the accounts of the supper suggest the ceremonial of the Passover meal."

In his commentary on Luke in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, Dean Farrar suggests the Last Supper "was not the actual Jewish Paschal meal, but one which was intended to supersede it by a Passover of far more divine significance."

Jesus insisted upon the moral standards given by God in the beginning (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and this did not go unnoticed by early church fathers such as St. Basil and St. Jerome.

St. Basil (AD 320-79) taught, "The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit. One can hardly have virtue if one enjoys meat meals and feasts...In the earthly paradise, there was no wine, no one sacrificed animals, and no one ate meat. Wine was only invented after the Deluge...

"With simple living, well being increases in the household, animals are in safety, there is no shedding of blood, nor putting animals to death. The knife of the cook is needless, for the table is spread only with the fruits that nature gives, and with them they are content."

St. Jerome (AD 340-420) wrote to a monk in Milan who had abandoned vegetarianism:

"As to the argument that in God’s second blessing (Genesis 9:3) permission was given to eat flesh—a permission not given in the first blessing (Genesis 1:29)—let him know that just as permission to put away a wife was, according to the words of the Saviour, not given from the beginning, but was granted to the human race by Moses because of the hardness of our hearts (Matthew 19:1-12), so also in like manner the eating of flesh was unknown until the Flood, but after the Flood, just as quails were given to the people when they murmured in the desert, so have sinews and the offensiveness been given to our teeth.

"The Apostle, writing to the Ephesians, teaches us that God had purposed that in the fullness of time he would restore all things, and would draw to their beginning, even to Christ Jesus, all things that are in heaven or that are on earth. Whence also, the Saviour Himself in the Apocalypse of John says, ‘I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.’ From the beginning of human nature, we neither fed upon flesh nor did we put away our wives, nor were our foreskins taken away from us for a sign. We kept on this course until we arrived at the Flood.

"But after the Flood, together with the giving of the Law, which no man could fulfill, the eating of flesh was brought in, and the putting away of wives was conceded to hardness of heart...But now that Christ has come in the end of time, and has turned back Omega to Alpha...neither is it permitted to us to put away our wives, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh."

St. Jerome was responsible for the Vulgate, or Latin version of the Bible, still in use today. He felt a vegetarian diet was best for those devoted to the pursuit of wisdom. He once wrote that he was not a follower of Pythagoras or Empodocles "who do not eat any living creature," but concluded, "And so I too say to you: if you wish to be perfect, it is good not to drink wine and eat flesh."

From history, too, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists. For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.

I agree with vegan historian Rynn Berry who has served as historical advisor to the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS), and has written several books on the subject of vegetarianism that the evidence (historical, Scriptural, theological, etc.) that Jesus was a vegetarian is "circumstancial at best, but nonetheless, compelling."

KyMouse, you write further:

"You've made the choice to be vegetarian. The rest of us have freedom of choice as well. Or do you think "choice" applies only to butchering unborn babies?"

Vegetarianism, as I see it, is not a "choice" any more than not being a cannibal is a "choice"; refraining from killing (and eating) others is a moral duty or obligation we have towards other beings like ourselves who have the same rights we do.

Pro-life feminist Juli Loesch wrote in the 1970s:

"Each woman has the right (to contraception)...But once a woman has conceived, she can no longer choose whether or not to become a mother. Biologically, she is already a mother...the woman’s rights are then limited, as every right is limited, by the existence of another human being who also has rights."

"That's a point I've made repeatedly since the mid-'90s. Recognizing the rights of another class of beings limits our freedoms and our choices, and requires us to change our lifestyle accordingly -- in the name of social progress.

If the unborn have rights, a woman's "right to choose" or freedom to kill is limited. If animals have rights, one's freedom to kill animals (for food, clothing, "sport", experimentation, etc.) is similarly limited or restricted.

Do animals have rights? Do the unborn have rights? What sort of beings can have rights, especially if species membership is no longer the criterion for personhood?

*These* are the questions we should be asking, not lame arguments about how because Paul claims Jesus said to him three times "my grace is sufficient for thee" we're "free" to kill animals OR children!

Jesus loves you| 10.1.10 @ 4:03PM

Vasu Murti, you provided a long-winded diatribe full of smug self-righteousness. Like the serpent in the garden of Eden, you twisted and misinterpreted every verse you quoted. Paul said, “Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. If you will renounce your misguided ways, and repent (turn to Jesus), God will forgive you and open your eyes (teach you the truth), and give you life. You can even remain a vegetarian if you want, as long as it glorifies him and not your own self-righteousness.

PETA cried for donkey| 9.30.10 @ 4:25PM

So, Vasu Murti, you support PETA? The same PETA that, at the end of January 2003, became more upset over the death of a donkey than over the deaths of Israeli citizens?

Arab terrorists strapped explosives to a donkey and detonated it on the road between Jerusalem and the West Bank neighborhood of Gush Etzion. Fortunately, no human beings were killed in that particular incident. However, during that month, 21 Israelis and 8 foreign nationals were murdered by terrorists, and 127 others were injured.

Your friends at PETA -- perhaps even you -- kept silent about that carnage carried out against human beings. It was only when the donkey was killed that you guys spoke out.

So don't tell me what the Bible means and what it doesn't mean. You guys are the ones who tell children that fish are "sea kittens." The truth is not in you!

Mama B| 9.30.10 @ 6:48PM

P eople
E ating
T asty
A nimals

I like mine medium rare.

ShortNSweet| 9.30.10 @ 5:33PM

Vasu Murti, You are so bold as to presume to know God's mind. It is His place to give life and to take life...and what we think has no baring on that. If God procreates a child who are we to destroy that life? People like you are scary to me! I feel sorry for you.

Vasu Murti| 9.30.10 @ 6:31PM

"... who are we to destroy that life?"

I can ask you the identical question in return: who are we to destroy animal life?

One widespread rationalization in Christian circles, often used to justify humanity's mistreatment of animals, is the erroneous belief that humans alone possess immortal souls, and only humans, therefore, are worthy of moral consideration.

The 19th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, condemned such a philosophy in his On the Basis of Morality.

"Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account," wrote Schopenhauer, "they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere 'things,' mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!"

***

According to the Bible, animals have souls. Texts such as Genesis 1:21,24 are often mistranslated to read "living creatures." The exact Hebrew used in reference to animals throughout the Bible is "nephesh chayah," or "living soul."

This is how the phrase has been translated in Genesis 2:7 and in four hundred other places in the Old Testament.

God breathed the "breath of life" into man, and caused him to become a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) Animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans. (Genesis 7:15, 22) Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh." In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike.

Psalm 104 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment:

"O Lord, how innumerable are Thy works; in wisdom Thou hast made them all! The earth is full of Thy well-made creations. All these look to Thee to furnish their timely feed. When Thou providest for them, they gather it. Thou openest Thy hand, and they are satisfied with good things. When Thou hidest Thy face, they are struck with despair. When Thou cuttest off their breath, in death they return to their dust. Thou sendest Thy Spirit and more are created, and Thou dost replenish the surface of the earth."

Similarly, the apocryphal Book of Judith praises God, saying, "Let every creature serve You, for You spoke and they were made. You sent forth Your Spirit and they were created." Job 12:10 teaches that in God's hand "is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals: "They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return."

The verse that immediately follows asks, "Who knows if the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?" The exact Hebrew word for "spirit," "ruach," is used in connection with animals as well as humans. Ecclesiastes 12:7 concludes that "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

This position was taken by Paul, who called himself an apostle to the gentiles. Paul spoke of God as the "giver of life and breath and all things to everyone." (Acts 17:25)

In his epistle to the Romans 8:18-25, Paul wrote that the entire creation, and not just mankind, is awaiting redemption.

Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals: "The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died." The exact Greek word for soul, "psyche," was used in the original texts.

***

Jesus repeatedly spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (which Paul, and not Jesus, regarded as "so much garbage"), but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock.

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

"And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance ...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

***

"The compassionate, sensitive heart for animals is inseparable from the proclamation of the Christian gospel," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey in Love the Animals. "We have lived so long with the gospel stories of Jesus that we frequently fail to see how his life and ministry identified with animals at almost every point.

"His birth, if tradition is to be believed, takes place in the home of sheep and oxen. His ministry begins, according to St. Mark, in the wilderness 'with the wild beasts' (1:13). His triumphal entry into Jerusalem involves riding on a 'humble' ass (Matthew 21). According to Jesus, it is lawful to 'do good' on the Sabbath, which includes the rescuing of an animal fallen into a pit (Matthew 12). Even the sparrows, literally sold for a few pennies in his day, are not 'forgotten before God.' God's providence extends to the entire created order, and the glory of Solomon and all his works cannot be compared to that of the lilies of the field (Luke 12:27).

"God so cares for His creation that even 'foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.' (Luke 9:58) It is 'the merciful' who are 'blessed' in God's sight and what we do to 'the least' of all we do to him. (Matthew 5:7, 25:45-46) Jesus literally overturns the already questionable practice of animal sacrifice. Those who sell pigeons have their tables overturned and are put out of the Temple (Mark 11:15-16). It is the scribe who sees the spiritual bankruptcy of animal sacrifice and the supremacy of sacrificial love that Jesus commends as being 'not far from the Kingdom of God.' (Mark 12:32-34)

"It is a loving heart which is required by God, and not the needless bloodletting of God's creatures," concludes Reverend Linzey. "We can see the same prophetic and radical challenge to tradition in Jesus' remarks about the 'good shepherd' who, unlike many in his day, 'lays down his life for the sheep.' (John 10:11)"

***

English theologian Joseph Butler (1692-1752), a contemporary of John Wesley's, was born in a Presbyterian family, joined the Church of England, and eventually became a bishop and dean of St. Paul's. In his 1736 work, The Analogy of Religion, Bishop Butler became one of the first clergymen to teach the immortality of animal souls. "Neither can we find anything in the whole analogy of Nature to afford even the slightest presumption that animals ever lose their living powers, much less that they lose them by death," he wrote.

The Reverend John George Wood (1827-89) was an eloquent and prolific writer on the subject of animals. A popular lecturer on the subject of natural history, he wrote several books as well, such as My Feathered Friends and Man and Beast--Here and Hereafter. Wood believed most people were cruel to animals because they were unaware that the creatures possessed immortal souls and would enjoy eternal life.

One of the most scholarly studies on the issue of animal souls was undertaken by Elijah D. Buckner in his 1903 book The Immortality of Animals. He concluded: "...The Bible, without the shadow of a doubt, recognizes that animals have living souls the same as man. Most of the quotations given are represented as having been spoken by the Creator Himself, and he certainly knows whether or not He gave to man and lower animals alike a living soul, which of course means an immortal soul."

nfluenced by Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, the Church of Rome maintained for centuries that animals lack souls or divinity, even though such a doctrine contradicts many biblical passages. Previously, during the Synod of Macon (585 AD), the Church had debated whether or not *women* have souls!

Women in the Western world (in the East, the situation is worse!) are finally being recognized as persons in every sense of the word--social, political and spiritual. Animals have yet to be given the same kind of moral consideration.

***

Jewish writer Mark Matthew Braunstein writes in his 1981 book, Radical Vegetarianism:

"Pope Innocent VIII of the Renaissance required that when witches were burned, their cats be burned with them; Pope Pius IX of the 19th century forbade the formation of an SPCA in Rome, declaring humans had no duty to animals; Pope Pius XII of World War II stated that when animals are killed in slaughterhouses or laboratories, '...their cries should not arouse unreasonable compassion any more than do red-hot metals undergoing the blows of the hammer;' and Pope Paul VI in 1972, by blessing a battalion of Spanish bullfighters, became the first Pope to bestow his benediction upon one cruelty even the Church had condemned.' "

In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, responds to the widespread Christian misconception that animals have no souls by carrying it to its logical conclusion:

"But let us suppose for a moment that it could be shown that animals lack immortal souls, does it follow that their moral status is correspondingly weakened? It is difficult to see in what sense it could be. If animals are not to be recompensated with an eternal life, how much more difficult must it be to justify their temporal sufferings?

"If, for an animal, this life is all that he can have, the moral gravity of any premature termination is thereby increased rather than lessened...In short, if we invoke the traditional argument against animals based on soullessness, we are not exonerated from the need for proper moral justification.

"Indeed, if the traditional view is upheld, the question has to be: How far can any proposed aim justify to the animal concerned what would seem to be a greater deprivation or injury than if the same were inflicted on a human being?"

***

"Mark Twain remarked long ago that human beings have a lot to learn from the Higher Animals," writes Unitarian minister Gary Kowalski, in his 1991 book, The Souls of Animals. "Just because they haven't invented static cling, ICBM's, or television evangelists doesn't mean they aren't spiritually evolved."

Kowalski's definition of "spiritually evolved" includes "the development of a moral sense, the appreciation of beauty, the capacity for creativity, and the awareness of one's self within a larger universe as well as a sense of mystery and wonder about it all. These are the most precious gifts we possess...

"I am a parish minister by vocation," Kowalski explains. "My work involves the intangible and perhaps undefinable realm of spirit. I pray with the dying and counsel the bereaved. I take part in the joy of parents christening their newborns and welcoming fresh life into the world.

"I occasionally help people think through moral quandaries and make ethical decisions, and I also share a responsibility for educating the young, helping them realize their inborn potential for reverence and compassion. Week after week I stand before my congregation and try to talk about the greatest riddles of human existence. In recent years, however, I have become aware that human beings are not the only animals on this planet that participate in affairs of the spirit."

Kowalski notes that animals are aware of death. They have a sense of their own mortality, and grieve at the loss of companions. Animals possess language, musical abilities, a sense of the mysterious, creativity and playfulness. Animals possess a sense of right and wrong; they are capable of fidelity, altruism, and even self-sacrifice.

"Animals, like us, are microcosms," says Kowalski. "They too care and have feelings; they too dream and create; they too are adventuresome and curious about their world. They too reflect the glory of the whole.

"Can we open our hearts to the animals? Can we greet them as our soul mates, beings like ourselves who possess dignity and depth? To do so, we must learn to revere and respect the creatures, who, like us, are a part of God's beloved creation, and to cherish the amazing planet that sustains our mutual existence.

"Animals," Kowalski concludes, "are living souls. They are not things. They are not objects. Neither are they human. Yet they mourn. They love. They dance. They suffer. They know the peaks and chasms of being."

Ms. Jones| 9.30.10 @ 6:46PM

Anthropomorphic drivel! And yet you advocate the grisly practice of aborting human beings, who are created by God in His image.

KyMouse| 10.1.10 @ 8:12AM

Vasu Murti, the 21st chapter of the Gospel of John doesn't help your case. In that chapter, Jesus, who is God, meets His disciples on the lakeshore. Pick it up at John 21:5:

"Then Jesus said to them, 'Children, have you any food?' They answered Him, 'No.' And He said to them, 'Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.' So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish....

"Jesus said to them, 'Bring some of the fish which you have just caught...Come and eat breakfast.'...Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish."

If God is against humans consuming animals, that would have been a good opportunity for Him to have said so -- but He didn't.

Even after His resurrection, He ate fish -- as Luke 24:42 says that His disciples "gave Him a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence."

You can have Shaw. I'll stick with Jesus.

ShortNSweet| 10.1.10 @ 9:45AM

You can ask me the same question...and I can say...I don't kill human beings or animals. You're preaching at someone with four 75+ lb. dogs at my house. I love them dearly, and IF they go to heaven, I will be tickled to death to see them there, but to compare their lives with that of my son or daughter is ABSOLTELY ABSURD! Therefore, all of that quoting of scripture, which by the way, I am familiar with and all of those Schopenhausers, Butlers, Woods, Kowalskis and so on and all of you're magnificant speech doesn't impress me one bit. You simply prove the Bible to me sir. Jesus told the disciples, when asked about the time of His return, that it would be as in the time of Noah...Men thought they were smart enough to build a tower to heaven. Men thought they were smart enough not to need God Almighty. Sounds to me like you have mastered that mentality quite well.

PETA cried for donkey| 10.1.10 @ 9:58AM

Vasu Murti, this rambling comment of yours was posted at 6:31 p.m., more than two hours after my 4:25 p.m. observation that PETA didn't speak out against the murders of Israelis (and others) in 2003, but did mourn the death of a donkey that was strapped with Arab explosives.

Couldn't you think of a response about PETA's preference for animals over humans? Well, I'm not surprised. It's indefensible.

Daniel| 9.30.10 @ 1:58PM

Anyone who wants to know what it means to be a Christian and how to become one should read a copy of "For Our Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Friends." It's available on Amazon and many other online bookstores. The book addresses all the major heresies taught in false churches and documents Old and New Testament answers to false teachings based on what Jesus referred to as the "traditions of men."

mames| 9.30.10 @ 1:59PM

his faith is not placed in Christ but in his good works as prescribed by his liberal theology comrades. He is the ultimate phony and uses Alinsky ends justifiies the means in every thing he says and doeds. He is like the devil, a king of lies.

joanna| 9.30.10 @ 2:30PM

Amen to that! And, while I admit to skimming over a lot of the responses for the sake of time, I'm guessing that the matter of Obama's ACTIONS have been mentioned. He declared the National Day of Prayer UNCONSTITUTIONAL. He is pro-Abortion, and he takes a strong pro-gay stand and AGAINST the traditional stand of marriage extolled by the very Bible he claims to believe in, as a 'Christian'.
How, exactly, DOES Obama define that word?

Reasonable Doubt | 9.30.10 @ 2:28PM

He is a secular humanist. The Christian narrative is only a tool a means to an end ... just like his church membership in Chigcago advanced his political , rather than any presumably spiritual , ambitions. The lies fall from his tongue... like rain.

joanna| 9.30.10 @ 2:40PM

Amen and AMEN! You hit that nail on the head, "REASONABLE", I don't know who he thinks he's fooling. With all he's doing to undermine the formerly Christian nation. He declared as much with some sense of pride. He wears his 'faith' the way sports fans wear their favorite team Jersies, IN SEASON.

I only hope Believers in Christ are NOT fooled and remember what he stands for. That will force them to remember what and WHOM Obama is Against.

Elaine| 9.30.10 @ 2:31PM

This is not the first time is has thrown his grandmother under the bus. Remember during the campaign he talked about her being afraid of black people. Which I am sure she would not have wanted this to be told to the Nation by her grandson. I understood he lived with his mother & father until 2 years old & then his mother remarried to an Indonesian & he lived with them until she sent him back to live with his grandparents because she didn't like what that man was teaching him? Who knows what the truth is? I just know he thinks he can spread all the wealth around to everybody & no one will go in need. Which we all know that that will not work.

JJ| 9.30.10 @ 2:47PM

Well, I was gonna say sumthin, but fuhgetaboutit. :)

uber-infidel| 9.30.10 @ 2:53PM

hmmm..all this controversy about barry's religion ! it's obvious to me he practices the religion of DECEIT !

diablo| 9.30.10 @ 4:07PM

...and the Father of Lies is whom?

Scubbysteve| 9.30.10 @ 3:03PM

The very best thing Obama can do is to abdicate. Short of that, learn to shut his fly trap. I am beginning to favor a tall tree and a short rope, but that's just me. Certainly, it would be a better resolution for the machinery of the system to simply oust his Muslim cum Christian, two-faced and forked tongue, incapable and undeserving rear the heck out of office while there is an America left to give a damn.

ItsMeAgain| 9.30.10 @ 3:05PM

YUCK! I need a shower after reading Obummer's sermon.

We all know he worships at the alter of self.

Wally| 9.30.10 @ 3:06PM

Wow! A lot of stone throwing here. A lot of not turning the other cheek. A lot of pharisees haughtily denouncing the religious beliefs of other people.

Steve A| 9.30.10 @ 3:18PM

Yes Wally. A beer summit is definitely in order.

Nate| 9.30.10 @ 3:28PM

Bigots and fascists accusing someone of not being Christian enough!

It's not all the surprising, when you stop to think about it. What other excuse could they offer for their disgraceful and un-American behavior?

DTCofAZ| 9.30.10 @ 3:30PM

"Barack Obama threw his mom under the parish van on Tuesday..."
Somewhere in Kenya, someone would pray " Dear Allah, Obama just threw us under the bus for the midterm election.."
Wait 'till he flies oversea and see which religion he will be converting to.

Nate| 9.30.10 @ 4:09PM

In the 1990s we had the militia movement, with its paranoid, deranged fantasies about a New World Order and UN black helicopters.

In the 1960s we had the John Birch Society, a racist organization that fed into the Republican Party.

Roosevelt dealt with his share of mindless reactionary criticisms, too.

Now we have the Tea Party and the bigoted reactionary agenda of the Republican Party with which it is aligned.

The lesson?

Each time the middle class gets a fighting chance, each time the POWER of the middle class is broadened, both politically and economically, there is a reactionary backlash.

Such backlashes eventually become laughing stocks and are forgotten, but they return, often with a comic, farcical twist.

John Gault| 10.2.10 @ 8:09AM

1990's - The black helicopters were Pavlo helicopters used by various U.S. DoD special forces. The President of the United States at the time spoke of a new world order, it is printed on our money, and various world leaders have spoken of it both before and after the 1990's. They got one letter wrong about the helicopters [UN vs. US] but how was it paranoid? It was true. The government of the U.S. used military force against a cult in Texas and literally burned the men, women and children alive for so-called gun offenses that were trumped up at best and false at worst. So with actions like those, how is it paranoid to be afraid of a government that will do that?
In the 1960s and to today, we have the John Birch Society, an anti-communist group that could care less about what race someone is, a group that understood that the U.S. government, the liberal left of the Democrat Party, and Progressives was being infiltrated and manipulated by the ComIntern. After the Soviets fell, documentation became available that showed, if anything, the JBS was being conservative in its estimation of Communist influence in the institutions I mentioned before. A rally is being held today in Washington, D.C., sponsored by an Obama front group, many other left groups, and the Communist Party of the United States. What is shadowy or racist about that? Its a fact. Roosevelt caused untold misery to my father's generation by prolonging the depression for a decade. He instituted a Ponzi scheme that is now blowing up [SSA]. The Tea Party is fighting the Republican Establishment, which is controlled by the same elites that control the Democrat Party. Something is not bigoted because you say it is. Try some facts for a change.
How is the middle class getting a fighting chance by instituting socialism, which has caused misery all over the world where it has been tried, and killed more people than any other political philosophy in history? Talk facts, not Utopian dreams. Instead of paradise on earth, socialism creates hell on earth. Whenever you level something, you level to the lowest common denominator. Have you learned nothing from the Great Society experiment of the left? More people in poverty than before the billions and billions of dollars spent. But of course, confusing people like you with real history and actual facts is bigoted and reactionary. Keep living your fantasy world, perhaps move to Cuba to join that Socialist Utopia. Oh, that's right, it is a failure, they are in the process of dismantling socialism over there, without money being pumped in from outside, it cannot last.

Steve A| 9.30.10 @ 4:21PM

Hey Nate, The only comic, farcical twist around here is your post. The Tea Party is the middle class, genius.

Uncle Dudley| 9.30.10 @ 4:31PM

President Obama said that he was led to Christ by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. What he didn't say was whether that was Jesus Christ or the Anti-Christ.

A+, Uncle Dudley| 9.30.10 @ 4:43PM

That's a hole-in-one, Uncle Dudley. You made my day!

David Nice| 9.30.10 @ 4:55PM

The article and some of the responses are a sad commentary on the condition of political discussion in this country. Hatred isn't often a major source of improvement in societies. The people who hate Obama will also hate other people with whom they disagree. Hatred is habit forming.

John II| 9.30.10 @ 5:47PM

Actually, hatred is the flip side of love, as any sophomore psychology major could tell you. The real enemy of love is cold indifference. And Professor Obama has an icy glint in his ambitious eyeballs, I reckon.

Nonetheless, the left is always denouncing "hatred" in peculiarly venomous as well as smug tones. So I looked back to check out the hatred, and out of 180 posts on this thread so far, I counted 37 posts of unvarnished pique--34 of them from the usual gaggle of lefty trolls. In other words, there are thus far only three (3) pique-posts that you could possibly identify as driven by hatred, since your confreres on the left never hate.

Here, then, is a retort, David, motivated not only by scientific research but by my own irresistibly cheerful wit: You, sir, are . . . an ass. That's A-S-S: ass.

And now back to "Cyrano de Bergerac" (1950).

RCV| 10.1.10 @ 12:23PM

John: I have great respect for your intellectual talents, but if you counted the majority of hate-filled posts on this site to be from leftists, I have lost all respect for your mathematical prowess.

John Gault| 10.2.10 @ 8:12AM

His count is very accurate. Perhaps you went to a school run by Progressives? Could that be the reason you can't count?

RCV| 10.2.10 @ 2:16PM

Sir, judging from your John Birch Society (you remember, folks, the group that believed Dwight Eisenhower was a "conscious agent of the Communist Party") rant above, you apparently believe that most people with a brain are nefarious "progressives," so yes, I guess I did go to a school run by "progressives'.

Now back to "I Led Three Lives," in which that comely young housewife next door is actually a conscious agent of the communist conspiracy. Notice the red apron she's wearing!

John II| 10.2.10 @ 4:12PM

Whoa. I remember that show well, Roberto--it ran for three years, from 1953 to 1956, if memory serves.

Of course, it was anathema to the chic anti-anti-communists and denounced as paranoid and Red-baiting and McCarthyite, but it was actually well-scripted and effectively suspenseful--and the stories were true, vetted by FBI script advisors.

The only trouble with it--intermittently--was the acting of Richard Carlson, who played the lead role as the real-life Herbert Philbrick (a genuine American hero, by the way).

Carlson was something of a scholar temperamentally (Ph.D. from Minnesota before he drifted into film acting--in an Abbott and Costello vehicle of the early 1940s), and it showed through, I think, in the shortage of range displayed by his performances. He eventually got typecast (along with Hugh Marlowe, who resembled him) as the first lead in sci-fi flicks of the fifties and sixties.

But he was nonetheless well-cast as Philbrick, since the role didn't really require much range. He projected tension in gray settings very effectively, and his persona was reassuring.

In short, display not contempt for "I Led Three Lives," Roberto. It's unbecoming a man of your years and judgment, notwithstanding your stubbornly youthful political views.

And now back to "Creature from the Black Lagoon" (1954), in which Carlson plays a marine biologist of scuba-diving prowess. The great character actor Whit Bissell is in it too. Rico Brown fills the uncredited role as the monster. He didn't like commies either.

John II| 10.2.10 @ 5:11PM

Correction: The name of the performer who played the Gill Man monster underwater is Ricou Browning, a professional swimmer who later headed his own studio in Florida. He's still alive.

And I was thinking about the late Ben Chapman, who plays the monster on land. It helped that he was 6-feet, 5-inches tall. Born and raised in Tahiti, he was a thrice-decorated Korean War veteran. I mean, he REALLY didn't like commies.

Oh well, at least I sensed an error well enough to check up on it. You know, Roberto, some people complain that they can't remember anything. Until recently, my problem had always been that I couldn't forget anything. That seems to be changing with age, which gives me something new and unwelcome to fret about.

RCV| 10.2.10 @ 10:49PM

It was actually my favorite show in my youth, John, and I never missed an episode. But I have since put away childish things. Richard Carlson did play pretty much the same personality in most all his roles.

If the communists had been as organized and ubiquitous as portrayed in the series, they'd be running our government today. Oh wait ... That's what you guys believe! If only Ike knew things would turn out as he planned.

DTCofAZ| 9.30.10 @ 5:12PM

To David Nice: Not ALL the comments here are coming from hatred people.
The problem is: Obama lies and twists the stories so often. On top of that, he constantly changes his positions - depends on which situations that he's in.

And so, he lost his credibility every time he opens his mouth.
The comments are coming from the frustrated and distrust American, not from hatres.

Read between the lines, please. We're living under Obama administration, please DO learn that skill fast!

J.R. Carrel| 9.30.10 @ 5:15PM

What the man DOES tells us what he IS. Nuff said!

DL| 9.30.10 @ 5:44PM

Perhaps if you all stopped dwelling on Obama's religion, he wouldn't have to take up time answering the silly accusations. Also, how is his being a "Christian by choice" a contradiction with him being a Christian through his mother? His mother raised him as a Christian and when he became an adult, he had and has the choice of remaining a Christian or turning away from Christianity. His remarks are not opposites and the simpleton argument in the first paragraph of the article discredits the entire piece.

John II| 9.30.10 @ 5:55PM

And your response discredits your reading abilities. You missed the first sentence of the whole piece.

DL| 9.30.10 @ 7:48PM

What gem did I miss in that eye-popping introductory line? The parish van metaphor? Or the closing remark in that line about being a self-made convert that is immediately refuted by the author when he quotes Obama as being a Christian by choice and follows up with his mother raising him as a Christian? Or is it a bit further into the piece because the author is the arbiter of all things Christian and he Obama ain't it?

John II| 9.30.10 @ 10:48PM

No, you missed the part about formless spirituality, which would fit a fair swath of the formless generation from which the Professor's mater hailed. The allusion becomes all the more plausible when you add "anthropology" (especially as practiced from the fifties through the eighties, before the cracks started showing in cultural relativism) to the spotty description of her occupational interests.

Of course, that's only one version of the Professor's endlessly fluid recollections of his formative years--but I find it generally the most plausible. I'm inclined to suspect that I'll be long dead before any seriously probing and disinterested biographer lets the world know who the hell this man was, including how his mater--or more precisely, his maternal grandparents--raised him.

DL| 10.1.10 @ 12:34PM

I see your point, I guess. Stretching things quite a bit in my view, but so be it. Since the author is the one interjecting the notion of formless spirituality, I can only assume that is his view. The qoute from Obama at the end of that paragraph does not merit the label of formless as it relates to his mother's spirituality. If the author had evidence of that, he should have presented it. Or, use the formless label in his summation of Obama's spirituality - which, I think, is your, and the author's, main point. That all said, I circle back to my first point, I see little merit in dwelling on someone else's religion.

Tony in Central PA| 9.30.10 @ 6:23PM

Not long after he took office, Obama claimed that America was no longer a Christian nation. For once, I agreed with him because if we were, he never would have been elected.

Ronald Hoehn| 9.30.10 @ 6:24PM

I guess Christianity is something your mother gives you at birth. I thought Christianity was something you practiced , invented around the words of your parish's bible interpretations, a faith based religion that is about good deeds, telling the truth and standing for family values...we see none of that in Obama...Sure he has a family, but destroying a countries worth will hurt all families; initiating Marxism will take away self worth and it is anti-christian as it wants men serving the state over all. Certainly that challenges thou shall have no gods before me..a foundation of Christianity...as is thou shall no covet thy neighbors wife land donkey property or worth basically in total opposition to Marxism that covets all self earnings for GOVERNMENT re-distribution...and thou shall not steal, well isn't the government stealing your worth when it prints money? How about when Obama says one thing and the accuses indiscriminately George Bush for all his failures to govern; would that be bearing false witness against thy neighbor?? Yahweh is the only GOD and yet he says Muslim prayer is the most beautiful thing to hear and yet they pray to allah, NOT Yahweh. He is perhaps a religious man but a man of the spirit of Yahweh would perhaps not be as bold as to claim allegiance to his words when he defies so many of them.

BackToBasics| 9.30.10 @ 6:27PM

Yes, I'm uh, uh, let me think, a Christian. I you know, uh, have been inspired by, uh Jesus' precepts. You know when Cain, I mean when Jesus said uh, am I my brothers keeper, I mean when he said, uh, I am my brother's keeper. Uh, uh..

Look at that, He said, " I am my brother's keeper!!" Yes, Jesus himself is talking about wealth redistribution. Wow. my thoughts are flowing now! See no more hesitation. Jesus wants the rich and the middle class to pay even more in taxes to help out the poor among us...... (10 minutes later).... I sure like getting ginned up on Marxist policies.

GregA| 9.30.10 @ 6:56PM

He clearly sees Jesus as an example to emulate, not to have faith in. Does he believe on Christ's person and work to bring him to God, and to cleanse him from personal sin? I don't see it. And the Christianity he sat under for 20 years was the Liberation Theology of Rev. Wright in Chicago.

Tony Raskoon| 9.30.10 @ 7:12PM

0's comments regarding his own religion seem too detached, er, contrived to be perceived as sincere. They sounds like the homecoming queen discussing a frog dissection that she had only read about. Absolutely no knowledge or interest, yet she must speak. O certainly has provided no visible evidence during his term with which he could be convicted if Christianity were to become a crime.

David Carr| 9.30.10 @ 7:17PM

See Matthew 7:15-16. We recognize your fruit Barack.

Emma| 9.30.10 @ 9:37PM

Every time obama "explains his faith" he provides more raw material proving that he is familiar neither with Jesus Christ nor the Scriptures and teachings of either the Old or New Testaments. (He's clueless about Abraham as well)

If nothing else were screaming out of his comments, his disdain for the Old Testament Scriptures completely destroys any foundation he has for claiming Jesus Christ as his Lord and God. Both Jesus' own statements in the gospels and other writers of the New Testament give Abraham respect, place and identity that the obamanation knows nothing about.

Nate| 9.30.10 @ 9:39PM

Even for this crazy website, this thread is unusually absurd.

Scanning your ignorant posts, littered with biblical quotes ripped violently from their contexts, all can wonder is how the republic survives with so many morons in it.

Seriously. Do you people honestly believe this nonsense you write? Why do you spend your time writing insane, bigoted drivel?

Have you never been exposed to civil political debate? Do you only know Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?

People in this country have from time to time debated tax policy, foreign policy, and so on, and still do, without this neo-fascist hatred.

You people are ridiculous. I'm going to cling to my hope that you represent a far smaller section of the population than the media gives you credit for. I know why cable news shows give so much coverage to the Angry White Right. You're entertaining, and they're basically interested in providing the couch potatoes with entertainment.

But I refuse to believe that his is a country of irrational bullies.

Go fuck yourselves, fascists!

And have a nice day!

John II| 9.30.10 @ 10:54PM

Res ipsa loquitur.

And now back to "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (2004).

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 8:14PM

John II:

"Res ipsa loguitur" regarding WHAT?

Know the meaning of the expression, just not its object.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 8:37PM

I.e., what's the "res"?

Jason| 9.30.10 @ 11:06PM

Perfect. Anger with just the right dash of hatred, disdain, topped off with profanity, and at the same time pretending to be morally superior.

This is who voted for this liar in the white house. This is the mind who sees him as noble and sensible. This is why they must be defeated and shoved back into the holes from which they all came.

And for those of us who watch a shameless, godless man (and his wife) use Jesus Christ and the Blessed Mother as political tools, the day of general judgment will be a sight to behold.

Conservative Christian| 10.3.10 @ 2:41PM

Amen, Jason. Amen!

Tony Raskoon| 10.1.10 @ 2:19AM

Just can't make this up. It's who they are. This is just rank and file Left, the loony leader (but I repeat myself) Left will continue its circular firing squad with actions we would see as mistakes, or gaffes. MSM will not report. The Left will look up and ask "What!?" as if we were guilty for questioning anything they do.

Thank you Nate for representing the Left so well. Bereft of logic, facts and reason, you resort to name-calling, a bit of guilt-laying and then profanity laced with the word 'fascist.' You lose in so many ways.

DTCofAZ| 9.30.10 @ 11:32PM

Wow.. Talk about crazy, ignorance and absurdity, Nate just presented a perfect example of himself.
No debate, no conversation, no reasonable argument, no humor..
Just go f..k himself and then call that a nice day.

John| 10.1.10 @ 1:48AM

His mother and Muslim stepfather raised him as a Muslim till he was 10 years old, then his grandparents raised him as a Christian. Under Sharia, a Moslem father makes you a Moslem. His Harvard education was almost certainly paid for by a Saudi prince. If he is a Christian by choice then why is he not an apostate from Islam? We need a fatwa on this. If he owes debts to the Umma then we need to know what those debts are. Is he compromised? Who can trust him - the Christians or the Muslims?

Brian| 10.1.10 @ 2:34AM

The Apostle Paul questioned ppls faith. He said things like "he was among us but was not one of us". So in short, its a Christians duty to point out that Obamas faith is at the very least far from orthodox.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:12PM

Huh?

Rethink and rewrite, eh?

Yosemeti Sam| 10.1.10 @ 3:23AM

Baby ass-kicker - that's all one needs to know of this faux Christian BHO.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:14PM

Uh-huh.

And "Baby ass-kicker....." is all III need to ever know about YOU.

Twerp.

DDwildcat| 10.1.10 @ 11:56AM

What a wonderful, thoughtful article. Without being vitriolic or outright hateful it brings to light so many contradictions, hypocritical and just plain wrong views this pathetic excuse for a president lives by on a daily basis. I'm not perfect by any stretch but at least I have a semblance of shame.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:18PM

DDwildcat:

I'd suggest you upgrade your status from "semblance of shame" to either "shameful" or "utterly shameless."

The article is a shameful "hit piece" full of distortions and lies. Neumayr is both inartful and untruthful.

Robert Hagedorn| 10.1.10 @ 5:05PM

Anal sodomy? For a really big surprise, google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click once or twice until you get the surprise, which will be...too much work?

John Gault| 10.2.10 @ 8:14AM

Obama is a Christian to the same degree Colon Powell is a Republican.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:43PM

Your point being....?

No, it's not "obvious," asshole.

Spell it out.

Or are you too chickenshit?

Spyder308| 10.2.10 @ 1:18PM

I don't see how saying "my Mother was borne a Christian but I chose to be one" is in any way derogatory to his Mother. I could say the same thing about my parents.
Obama is a product of my Christian church, and that church goes all the way back in American history to the Pilgrims. It was the church of many of the founding fathers. The American ideal of democratic process comes out of that church. We vote on major issues. How we think is not dictated to us. We form our own consciences.

C.K. Amos| 10.2.10 @ 9:10PM

If, since his candidate days and to the present, Barack Obama's words and deeds demonstrate his Christianity, then Bill Clinton is a faithful and monogamus husband to Hillary.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:19PM

non sequitur

Bill| 10.2.10 @ 11:07PM

Let's tell it the way it is. Obama is a Moslem that knows very little about the Bible. He tolerates it a little (very little) for votes and his comments are an artesian well of pandering contempt. His lack of respect for our intellegence permits his tongue in cheek approach to a whole body of issues. He orders Bibles burned in Afghanistan and decries the threatened burning of a Quran in Florida. He spends our tax dollars on the building of mosques and the travel of an inman to raise funds for the "ground zero" mosque. We are ignorant Cattle to be herded, but continually disrespected. Then he says we talk like he is a "dog" and wonders why. He is no "dog." "Dogs" have enough sense to avoid bitting the hand that feeds them. He is a "snake" in the grass that bits the hand that feeds it and fills it befriender's body with deadly venom. His voice says what he thinks we want to hear, but his actions scream so loud he cann't be heard. Sometimes we don't listen to the scream because it frightens us and we don't want to hear what it says, but we need to wake up and listen to his actions. They demand we unite to vote against this insanity.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:26PM

Bill:

Does the expression "opinionated imbecile" ring a bell? How about "psychopathic racist"?

Get back on your meds, dude. It's 2010, not 1910. Criminy.

Bill| 10.2.10 @ 11:31PM

During the campaign they said he was a member of the Unied Church of Christ, a break off from the restoration movement of the 1800's. That branch went ultra liberal with almost no belief and did not exist until late in the 1800's or early 1900's. From that same movement came groups of deeply Bible believing Christians who formed the Christian Church and Church of Christ groups. The Church of Christ groups attempt to obey the command to standfast on the Apostles' doctrine (2 Thess. 2:15). The United Churches of Christ are nothing like the other groups from the Restoration Movement. They are also a very small group compared to their Bible believing counter parts.

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:31PM

Bill:

Goddamnit! I was raised in a Congregational church which, sometime around 1968 became a member congregation of the United Church of Christ.

"...with almost no belief...."

Fuck you.

We believed in LOTS of things.

Just things you apparently don't believe in....peace, justice, love.

If I were still a member of the UCC, I'd feel obliged to say "I love you" and "please change your ways."

I'm not. I'm now an atheist.

So............FUCK YOU, you miserable liar and hypocrite!

Ralph Novy| 10.3.10 @ 7:10PM

George:

"[The] precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead—being my brothers' and sisters' keeper, treating others as they would treat me," he said. He threw in a few more vague-sounding clichés..."

"Vague-sounding clichés"?

That's how you characterize some of the most fundamental principles of Christianity?

Do you have a brain? A heart?

Jeez ("pun" intended).

Nathan Bickel| 10.4.10 @ 1:12AM

It's time to quit giving Barack Hussein Obama the benefit of any doubt:

Obama is no more Christian, than the man in the moon. In his speeches when quoting foundational American documents, he conveniently leaves out Creator, God. Voters and liberal press still would like to believe his lies about his commitment to the Christian Religion. But Obama, himself has already made his religious convictions clear:

"Obama Admits He Is A Muslim"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

"7 Reasons Obama is NOT a Christian -- Why Do Christians Doubt Barack Obama's Faith?:"

http://www.squidoo.com/snobama

"Obama Is No Joshua" -- by Cal Thomas -- .....Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called “false prophets.”

http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2288

7d7| 10.20.10 @ 10:09PM

From wherever it is that Obama derives his most dearly and closely held beliefs, it is by now clear to most that the source of Obama's values and world view is not Christianity. Obama's profession of Christianity is about as credible as his promise to not increase the taxes of the middle class.