Sunday funnies 8-29-10
Here are my top 5 most interesting (not necessarily favorite) political cartoons for the week.
As pro-lifers would expect, liberal satirists had a wildly spun and inaccurate field day with Federal District Court Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision, based on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, to block President Obama’s executive order authorizing federal tax spending for embryonic stem cell research. Winner of the worst: Pat Oliphant at GoComics… 
Moving on, and related to our topic, a comparison of our country’s bygone days to darker times, by Dick Locher at GoComics.com…
Liberal cartoonists have also spent an inordinate amount of time the past 2 weeks attempting to paint Americans wondering whether Obama is a Muslim as well as a majority of same who oppose the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero as goons. But here’s the truth, by Chuck Asay at Townhall.com…
Finally, here were a couple cartoons that just made me laugh, the first by Mike Luckovich at GoComics.com…
and by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I love that fecall matter cartoon. Darn, sure wish I would have thought of it!!
I disagree with the Chuck Asay cartoon re: Muslim Obama. He hasn’t said much about the mosque, and what he has said– they have the right to build it, but it’s an unwise idea… meh. Definitely true that he’s ignored the right to life table, though!
And thanks for sharing the Humpty Dumpty cartoon :-)
Right on cue the lib cartoonists are distorting the truth. They are so predictable. Having to churn out one or two provocative cartoons every day is easy if you are not constricted by reality and truth.
Real life can be so much more interesting than what anyone could ever dream up in a book. So we have a President who’s very overtly given his Christian views who the hard right believes is a Muslim, while they flock to hear an overt Mormon talk about morality, and they try to twist that he’s a Christian.
Go figure!
So we have a President who’s very overtly given his Christian views
Views, by the way, that describe Christ in terms that most Christian denominations with which I am familiar would reject. Some Catholic politicians have done the same, attaching a Catholic label to views that are not reflective of Catholic teaching.
Obama has invited criticism and doubt by mocking Christianity and Christians on multiple occasions. He also, during the Stephanopoulos interview, referred to his ”muslim faith.” Personally, I don’t think he’s a muslim, but his words and actions are sufficient to cause doubt for some. And this is exactly what progressives want in order to deflect attention away from the president’s unpopular policies.
It would be refreshing to know that Obama believes in something other then himself and his collectivist, Bellowian agenda. He wishes to straddle the fence and thus he gives conflicting messages on his faith.
He is probably neither a Christian nor a Muslim. Although because he was born of a Muslim father it is said that he is considered a Muslim for that fact.
Has anyone seen an account of Obama being baptised? Google the question and you come up with much the same dialog as in the citizenship question. Saying you are a Christian (as he has done) is not enough to make you a Christian–you must be baptised. With a baptism there is usually a clear record of such. Why is it with this phony baloney there is always so much that we do not know?
Jerry – I take his easter prayer breakfast statements as enough to convince me he’s a Christian.
I take his covering up of christian symbol’s before he gives a speech and declaring (against historical fact) that we are not a Christian nation as good reason to question his behavior as an alleged Christian. And ’tis true, that baptism is a recorded event. We usually celebrate it. So, on what day was the President baptized? It isn’t enough to call yourself a Christian on the middle of a Tuesday. All established churches recognize baptism. If a church did call itself Christian but had no baptism ceremonies for its members, I would not recognize it as Christian. You can’t put a label on salt and call it sugar; it’s still salt.
So, now you can’t be Christian without a baptism. Interesting.
Ex:
History is replete with examples of people who claimed themselves to be something that was later exposed as a falsehood. Ninek is right.
Remember that Obama sat in his church for 20 years and never heard a word his minister said, or so he says. Personally I neither know or care what his faith is, its what he’s doing to this country that I don’t like. Keep in mind the “good” Catholic John Kennedy was portrayed as, never mind the ladies he was, um, knowing in a blblical sense. If Obama isn’t going to live Christian convictions then perhaps he shouldn’t put on a performance for anyone’s benefit.
Hal:
This is common knowledge. One can have Christian beliefs but is not a Christian unless baptised a Christian.
My guess is that he’s actually more of an agnostic/atheist who just knows how to talk enough talk (use enough “buzzwords”) to convince some people that he’s a man of faith.
If Obama isn’t going to live Christian convictions then perhaps he shouldn’t put on a performance for anyone’s benefit.
Agreed.
Jerry/Ninek –
Obama simply has a good view of church and state. If Mitt Romney ever wins the Presidency, I’d want him to be an American first, Mormon second.
Furthermore, we’re not a Christian nation. A nation can’t accept Christ into its heart – only a person can. We had foundations in Christian faith – sure, but a nation
Also, I agree with Hal – you can’t be a Christian now without a baptism? When did that change?
Last thought – what is interesting is Obama says he’s a Christian, so people say “well, you can’t just SAY you are a Christian and be a Christian”, so they then label him a Muslim, something he hasn’t even tried to claim! It’s quite illogical.
Kel – you could be right – I always felt that with both Reagan and Bush (junior)
Kel –
Quick clarification – on the Reagan/Bush statement – that is in reference to your first post (about Obama possibly being an Agnostic/Atheist)
On your second statement – I think Obama has lived quite a few Christian beliefs – expanding health care and dialing down war are two massive ones. Maybe he hasn’t tried to restrict the rights of gay people, but there’s a lot of Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, but still believe sinners have rights within society.
EGV, 5:46PM
As I recall, the same thing was said concerning John Kennedy and his Catholic faith. Do I detect a note of bigotry here EGV? Did Martin Luther King Jr. have a good view of church and state? I ask because there seems to be a highly selective “concern” about church and state.
EGV 5:56PM
So expanding health care through bribery, back room deals, and deceit, against the will of the American people is your idea of Christian belief?
Obama Blasts Lies, Disinformation
‘politico.com/news/stories/0810/41575.html‘
By GLENN THRUSH | 8/29/10 7:11 PM EDT
“President Barack Obama dismissed a recent poll showing that a third of Americans don’t know he’s a Christian – and blamed an online campaign of misinformation by his conservative enemies for perpetuating the myth that he’s a Muslim.”
===========================================================
Poltico and the MSM convienently mis-state the question that Americans responded to concerning b o’s religiouls affiliation.
Katie Couric made the editorial comment that x% of Americans ‘mistakenly’ believe b o to be a muslim.
No one ‘knows’ whether b o believes Jesus the Chirist died for his [b o’s] sin except b o and the ONE who gives him life and breath.
And on one ‘knows’ b o is a muslime except b o and the ONE who gives him [b o] life and breath.
There is a significant portion of both democRAT and republicans who do not believe b o is a christian and who also believe b o is a muslim.
Jesus instructed sons of God to judge righteously according to HOLY SPIRIT, and not by appearances. JESUS also taught that we can judge men by their fruit and sons of GOD by their love for one another.
The apostle Paul warned sons of GOD to stand aloof from self professed christians who’s mouths said one thing and their hearts and their hands did the opoposite.
I have never heard or read of b o giving a first hand account his salvation experience. [Reading from a teleprompter when and how you recognized you were a sinner in need of a savior lacks ‘sincerity’.]
Eloguence is no subsitiute for ’authenticity’.
Every person I have ever met who has had that experince and an encounter with the Living God does not require notes to communicate that moment in a way with which all sons of God can relate.
If it were a crime to be a christian there is not enough evidence in the public record to convict b o. There is however, enough evidence to convict him of being a sinner in need of a Savior.
Based on b o’ s actions and words I can conclude that he is an antichrist as described/defined in the new testament.
Mary – I think MLK Jr had a solid view of church and state – are you saying that he didn’t? I mean, he supported the ruling striking down prayer in schools.
On your other point:
Bribery – who received payment of cash?
Back room deals – unfortunately, it is part of the political game and art of negotiation that has been in place since day one
Against the will of the people? Gets a little tricky to start making that argument, no? Would you be against South Dakota or Colorado trying to pass abortion legislation since that would obviously be against the will of the voting public? Plus, Obama made it clear reform would be a huge part of what he wanted to accomplish – and he kinda crushed McCain-Palin.
ExRINO,
Please produce the statement where the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. endorsed/concurred/supported the SCOTUS decision striking down teacher/administration initated prayer in the government school system.
That does not sound like the position of a baptist minister from the south.
ExRINO,
The vast majority of the american public made it clear in opinion poll after opinion poll that they did not want the b o hellth scare scam.
The opinion poll that really counts, the November elections, will make it abundantly clear what most Americans believe about b o and the liberal/progressive/humanist political agenda.
b o could not get elected president today. I doubt if he could even be re-elected to the U. S. Senate from Illinois.
Ken, ExGOP is correct:
King supported the Supreme Court decisions striking down organized prayer in public schools (1962’s Engel v. Vitale and 1963’s combined ruling of Abingdon School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett). Asked about one of those rulings in a 1965 interview with Playboy magazine, King said: “I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in God. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken, and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right. I am strongly opposed to the efforts that have been made to nullify the decision. They have been motivated, I think, by little more than the wish to embarrass the Supreme Court.”
King said he was reassured in his view that the Supreme Court was correct on this issue when then-Alabama Gov. George Wallace denounced it. He told Playboy, “When I saw Brother [George] Wallace going up to Washington to testify against the decision at the congressional hearings, it only strengthened my conviction that the decision was right.”
And you won’t like this at all:
King was presented in 1966 with the Margaret Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood. In his acceptance speech, “Family Planning — A Special And Urgent Concern,” King declared, “Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.”
EGV.
One could argue Dr.King violated seperation of church and state by leading a civil rights movement, i.e. influencing public policy, from his pulpit. The Catholic clergy was accused of that when they voiced opposition to abortion. So, should Dr.King have kept silent?
Bribery- Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson. AKA, the Lousiana Purchase and the Cornhusker kickback.
Back room deals. Ohhh, that excuses it. But you must acknowledge this hardly conforms to Christian belief.
Against the will of the people. Concerning aborton, let’s see, Roe v Wade ring a bell? Obama campaigned on a lot of empty rhetoric and with the help of an adoring and gushing media. Ask what qualified Obama to be president and no one could tell you. Even Brokaw and Charlie Rose acknowledged they knew nothing about Obama. Uh fella, isn’t that YOUR job? The American people only proved they were as gullible as the German people of the 1930’s when it came to being taken in by a street thug. Apparently the AMerican people had a change of heart concerning HCR as the polls continue to show strong opposition. Certainly no bribes or back room deals would have been necessary had the full support of the American people been had.
Hal,
I wonder if the ladies auxillary of the KKK that Margaret Sanger addressed would support equality and non violent struggle.
Hal,
“So, now you can’t be Christian without a baptism.”
This is at least the traditional Catholic understanding- that what makes someone a Christian is a valid baptism. That is, in Catholic theology, the ORDINARY way one is inducted into Christianity. It still is logically possible to be a Christian without it, but that is extraordinary. And again, this is teh Catholic understanding. There may be disagreements among our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters here.
Hi Bobby, as you know I’m pretty ignorant of Christian teachings. I also don’t mean to derail the discussion. I always thought baptism was more a symbolic formality than an actual requirement. You’d really call someone a Non-Christian if they sincerely believed everything you believed, and follow Christ as best they could, but never got around to the baptism?
Okay with me, but sounds a bit rigid.
Hal,
Thank you for providing us with the quote.
It encourages me greatly to know that even great intellects like MLK, can be wrong.
MLK was afflicted with the same ‘softmindedness’ of which he warned us to be wary.
MLK’s thinking might have been influenced by his observations and experiences as minority who sufferred from the will of the majority.
While I too do not believe the federal government, should be singling out a particular religion for favor and dis-favor as prohibited in the first ammendment to the constitution, it is important to note that it is CONGFESS who is both constrained and restrained from ‘establishing or prohibiting’ religion.
Somehow, in the ensuing years since it’s ratification, the first ammendment has been twisted by the SCOTUS to include state, county, and local governments and school districts within the defintion of the term CONGRESS.
[Whenever I read the ‘such and such Independent School District’, I laugh out loud. There is not a single public/government school district in America that is not under the thumb of the federal government.]
You are an attorney.
What king of lawyering/massaging does it take to morph the XYZ Independent School Disrtict into the equivalent or subsidiary of the United States Congress.
Can the XYZ Independent School District also declare war or impeach the president of the United States?
Hi Ken,
I don’t think this was congress restraining or prohibiting religion so much as it was not forcing children to pray. What prayer is used? Catholic, Jewish, Hindu? I have to agree that prayer and worship is the domain of the family and house of worship, not the school.
I feel as strongly about “ethnic studies”. Who’s ethnicity do we teach? All people of one race do not share the same heritage, history, religion, and culture. When I went to school this was the domain of the family, community, and house of worship. The schools taught the 3 Rs.
“In his acceptance speech…”
As Dr Alveda King (MLK’s niece) likes to remind us, Dr King didn’t give that speech (his wife did) and the award was prior to the legalization of abortion. Dr Alveda King has put together two pdfs on the subject. I’ll put them below as inactive links you can copy & paste in case multiple links put my post into moderation limbo.
Part 1: http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/king-planned-parenthood-1-8.pdf
Part 2: http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/king-planned-parenthood-9-16.pdf
Ken, good question. The first amendment, of course, refers only to acts of Congress. The 14th amendment is the reason the bill of rights is now considered binding on the states (and their political subdivisions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
I like the idea that the bill of rights is now protecting us from government at all levels (taking property for public use, rights of gun owners, right to trial by jury). These are important.
Most state constitutions probably have similar protections.
Ken, do you really favor the idea that children should be led in prayer in a public school?
Hal,
Religion demands conformity, either covertly or overtly.
I am reminded of the Quaker quote, “I believe everyone is queer but thee and me and I am beginning to wonder about you.”
As a ‘creationist’ who believes the creation reflects the Creator, I would have to say that the self evident diversity that surrounds us would argue against the notion that the Creator places much value on uniformity or conformity.
As to the question of ‘water baptism’ being a pre-requisite for salvation, there are a couple of examples in the ‘book’ that stand in contrast to this notion.
Acts 10:44-48 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on
all
who were listening to the message.
45 And the believers from among the circumcised [the Jews] who came with Peter were surprised and amazed, because the free gift of the Holy Spirit had been bestowed and poured out largely even on the Gentiles.
46 For they heard them talking in [unknown] tongues (languages) and extolling and magnifying God. Then Peter asked,
47 Can anyone forbid or refuse water for baptizing these people, seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
48 And he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (the Messiah). AMP
Then there is the account of the thief hanging on the cross adjacent to the one where Jesus was nailed.
Luke 23:42-43 42 Then he [the thief] said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when You come in Your kingly glory!
43 And He answered him, Truly I tell you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.
AMP
Humans desire desperately to figure GOD out. They want to be able to predict what HE will do. GOD is not predictable, but HE is reliable.
A man I know once said if a disciple of Jesus had wanted to have a ministry of healing the blind and he followed Jesus around in order to figure out how to do it, he would come away from the experience very frustrated, because Jesus, seldom if ever, did anything the same way twice.
Here is the clue to why that was: Jesus said I only speak what I hear my Father saying and I only do what I see HIM doing.
God delights in diversity and with HIM, the possibilities are unlimited.
Thanks Ken, very interesting.
Hal,
I favor the idea that the individual independent schools districts should be governed by the men and women who are elected to their boards by the citizens of that school district and by their respective state constitutions.
Personally I would like to dismantle the ‘government school systems’ and utilize the internet to allow parents to determine who educates their children and the curriculum that is used and let parents be responsible and accountable for the daycare of their own children.
Can you imagne how much wealth would be freed up?
[Of course this could never happen in Texas, because the state religion is football and how do you field a football team without uniforms, coaches, and facilities to practise and play the games. But I can dream.]
ken, I’m in favor of individual school districts having much more autonomy than they typically do now. There must be some limits, however, if they are run by an agent of the state. And one thing I would insist on is no school-run prayers.
It’s in Washington State’s Constitution: (Article 1, Section 11)
“No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment”
Hal,
Please help me.
As an attorney how would you argue that a ‘prayer’ initiated by an employee of the local schood disrtict would conflict with the first ammendment of the 14th ammendment?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is a serious request.
I just finished reading section 1 of the 14th ammendment [posted above].
Please break it down for me.
I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, especially in this drawer full of surgical scalpels, so I need some assistance.
Ken – Looks like Hal answered the questions concerning MLK jr.
Mary – I don’t think you answered the question – in all the years where the public has been against overturning RvWade, would you be against that happening because it would be “against the will of the people”? Simple question.
Ken, certain rights have been considered so fundamental that breaching them would be seen as violating liberties without due process of the law. For example, you wouldn’t want the state or city government telling you that you couldn’t print an article critical of the governor, right? Same reasoning, you can’t have a school district acting to establish or further a religion.
Hal,
If the citizens of the State of Washington thru their elected representatives approved that ammendment to the state constitution, then my ‘federalist’ leanings are satisfied.
But if in another state the citizens approved an ammendment to their constitution allowing individual school districts to determine for themselves whether or not they would allow or prohibit prayers initiated by an employee of the school district, my federalist leanings would be even more satisfied, because it allows for more liberty, not less, for more local determination, not less.
Ken – just wondering.
If you had kids in a city school district that was mostly muslim, and the will of the people was to have muslim prayer in school, would you be in favor of allowing your kids to participate in that?
For example, you wouldn’t want the state or city government telling you that you couldn’t print an article critical of the governor, right?
No, especially if the State constitution allowed me that freedom of speech and it is difficult for me to imagine any american who would be foolish enough to vote to ammend a state constitution to prohibit free speech.
Same reasoning, you can’t have a school district acting to establish or further a religion.
Hal,
But you are comfortable with this same ‘government’ acting to prohibit an establishment or furtherence of a religion?
I do not mean to be trite, but the U. S. Constitution guarantees ‘freedom of religion’ not ‘freedom from religion’.
You seem to view ‘religion’ as a subversive or corrupting influence.
You want to limit that ‘speech’, but other ‘speech’, which would undermine parental authority or offend the conscience of the parents and/or child, is OK with you.
Do you view poitical speech as any more or less valuable than religious speech?
Viewpoint based censorship is just as bad either way.
freedom from religion is another way to express the prohibition on establishment of religion.
Ex-GOP Voter August 29th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Ken – just wondering.
If you had kids in a city school district that was mostly muslim, and the will of the people was to have muslim prayer in school, would you be in favor of allowing your kids to participate in that?
==============================================================
Ex-RINO,
You may not know it but you are not just asking a rhetorical question or a hypothetical question.
In some parts of the United States where the muslim population is particularly dense this is already happening. The ‘goverment schools’ are already providing ‘prayer rooms’ for muslim students.
None of my five children ever graced the halls of a government school building except to support or honor their friends who were students there.
We homeschooled all of our children and all of them have entered college.
Speaking hypothetically, if my children were enrolled in a government school and the policies of that particular school district undermined or countermanded my authority and responsibility as a parent I would remove as quickly as feasible and enroll them in a private and/or parochial school or home school them.
My children are not guinea pigs to be used in social experimentation by bureaucrats who will not be held accountable when they cause injury or harm to my child.
If I lived in a school district that was populated mostly by muslims and they began to use the school system to proselytize, then I would remove my children from the schools and if the school district was violating existing law I would seek legal redress to protect, not only my children, but other peoples children.
If the ‘law’ allowed them to teach islam then I would find another way to educate my children.
The enemies of religion seek to destroy it but the cannot. They do destroy everything else in the process.
Let us be blunt.
The one religion that is under attack in the United States is christianity.
You may find a rare exception here and there but you will not find the ACLU or the People for the American Way or People for the Separation of Church and State filing lawsuits against, new agers, wiccans, budhist, muslims, jews or humnanists.
There is a reason for this. Christians, even liberal ‘softminded christians, are an obstacle and a threat to the statists and their atheistic agenda.
Christians have a ‘standard’ and though some of the ‘softminded’ brethren/sistern believe they can feed the tiger in the misguided hope that it will return their acts of appeasement with kindness and tolerance, sooner or later the tiger will do what tigers do, and put them on the menu for lunch. [bon apetite mon ami]
Whenever you reject that concept that our worth, value and rights derive from the state, instead of God, then you have made the state your god and what your god giveth, he/she, will surely get around to rescending when it is politically expedient.
correction:
Whenever you embrace the concept that your worth, value and rights derive from the state, instead of God, then you have made the state your god and what your god giveth, he/she will surelly get around to rescending whein it is politically expedient.
Hal August 29th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
“freedom from religion is another way to express the prohibition on establishment of religion”
==============================================================
Hal,
Your are entitled to your view, but thank GOD the authors or the Constitution and the bill of righs did NOT express it that way.
I know this is remedial but:
When the 13 states [the former colonies] ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights [by the way the states refused to ratify the constitution without a guarantee of a bil of rights (power to the people)] the majority of the 13 states had ‘established’ CHRISTIAN churches. A practice that did not end til after the Civil War was concluded.
An ‘established’ church was a particular ‘christian’ denomination that was singled out for favor by the state government. State taxes were used to fund that particular christian denomination.
But the statists want us to believe the authors and ratifiers of the constitution and the bill or rights intended the first ammendment to be an impenetrable barrier between the church and any and all levels of govenment now and forevermore.
Am I arguing for resurecting the practice of ‘established churches’?
Not only no, but hades no!
Just pointing out a glaring incongruence between the statist revisionists view of American history and the incontrovertible documented record.
But you softminded ones just go on warring against christianity and christians and don’t pay any attention to the humanist, statists and the jihadist in your midst.
You just continue aborting yourselves into the minority and see how the new majortity will respect your rights. Europe is about 20 years ahead of us but you won’t have to wait 20 years to witness what the future holds.
Cuba is only 90 miles away and the news still gets out of Somalia and the Sudan.
The internet provides us with videos of the beheading of adulterers and the stoning of rape victms the muslim paradises of the middle east.
Just keep telling yourselves and any one simple enough to listen to your inane babblings, those christians are the equivalent of the taliban.
Ken, if my children’s public schools had sponsored Muslim or Christian prayers, they’d be removed immediately. I glad to see we agree on this.
i wish all schools would have a moment of silence. Atheists could consider it a moment to reflect before the beginning of class, and religious young people could use it for prayer. Everyone silently or quietly does what they like, and no one’s rights are infringed upon.
As for being a Christian without baptism: we call it ‘baptism of the spirit’ such as a deathbed conversion. Otherwise, you are obligated to baptism. It has been practiced since the first days of the Church. If you are a healthy middle aged man, you have no excuse not to take a few minutes out of your busy life for a baptism. So, no you can’t just be a nice guy and be called a Christian. Not that we don’t all appreciate your being nice!
“You’d really call someone a Non-Christian if they sincerely believed everything you believed, and follow Christ as best they could, but never got around to the baptism?”
If one sincerely believes everything Christ teaches, puts Him first in their life and follows Him the best they can, it would not be long before they would be strongly drawn to baptism. If someone puts off being baptized year after year because he “never got around to the baptism”, I would certainly question his convictions and sincerety.
EGV,
State laws, passed by the people’s representatives, restricting abortion in any way have been and are fought by the abortion establishment. This includes parental consent, clinic regulations, etc. You were saying something about the will of the people?
Yeah, I totally understand Hal, and am happy to tell you about some Christian/Catholic teachings.
“You’d really call someone a Non-Christian if they sincerely believed everything you believed, and follow Christ as best they could, but never got around to the baptism?”
So your example would be someone who falls under an extra-ordinary way of doing things. In other words, if they really did believe everything and follow Christ, they would know that baptism is required and necessary in order to follow him and do as he commands. HOWEVER, they may not know this. They may be sincerely ignorant, through no fault of their own, of this fact and hence not be held culpable for not being baptized. Someone like that, I think, would be considered a Christian. But ordinarily, the normal way of things is that baptism is how you are inducted into Christianity.
But in other Christian denominations, it is indeed considered symbolic or even unnecessary. Again, I can only speak to Catholicism.
If people think Obama’s a Muslim, it’s because A) he was raised among Muslims, B) Jeremiah Wright doesn’t exactly sound like a “love thy neighbor” type, C) according to Muslim tradition, Obama is a Muslim, D) he spends significant time and energy praising or defending Muslim beliefs and customs, and E) he’s repeatedly characterized various groups of Christians as intolerant, bitter, ignorant, et cetera.
Personally, I think he’s too much of a narcissist to believe there’s any being greater than he is.
Marauder, well put! Zing!
Back to baptism, of which Obama has been decidedly silent, since many world religions have a similar ‘golden rule’ ethic, and several even revere Jesus (such as Islam and Sikhism), without Christian baptism, how would you know whether I died a good Buddhist, a good Christian, or a good Sikh? Baptism is a sacrament to some of us, not just a way of signing in. Lutherans, Anglicans, and many Orthodox Christians share this doctrine. If you were baptized into a Pentacostal or a recognized Baptist church and then later you converted to Catholicism, the Catholic church would recognize that prior baptism as valid. You would still need to take classes, we call it RCIA, and go through the other steps/sacraments of First Communion and/or Confirmation (depending on which of the previous churches you’d been a member of). There is a process of discernment. Anne Rice, for a famous example, was likely baptized as a child, but she was not properly educated when she returned to the church as an older adult. She was one of those people who thought you can just start showing up on Sundays, taking the Eucharist, without a full understanding of Church doctrine.
Obama’s history and behavior gives no evidence whatsover that he is actually a Christian.
Kel, I agree with you. I think that Obama is agnostic, or a secular humanist. However, I don’t think that just because someone is a non-Christian, or even a nonbeliever, they are a bad person. It doesn’t matter if Obama is an atheist, Muslim Christian, Druid, etc. — he’s just a lousy president.
I hope you’re right about Obama being an agnostic or secular humanist, but I don’t see it. He’s smart enough, though. ;)
Uh, well, Hal, I graduated cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania and I’m a Christian — some of us are fairly intelligent. They also have a small but active prolife group there.
Joking, I was joking.
Kel, phillymiss:
I believe likewise, that Obama is an agnostic and/or a secular humanist. I might add that the messianic part of Obama is that he is a syncretist, ergo his giving mixed signals. He likes to arrogate himself as being above the fray–nothing worse than being duplicitous. Our Lord has something to say about lukewarmness.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he’s a sociopath.
Bobby Bambino August 30th, 2010 at 7:12 am
“But ordinarily, the normal way of things is that baptism is how you are inducted into Christianity.”
==============================================================
Bobby,
I believe from context of the preceding discussion and your comment above you are refrerring to ‘water baptism’.
The body of Christ is not a club where we apply for admission and are inducted by some sort of religious ceremony.
1 Cor 12:12-13 12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. NASU
Matt 3:11-12 11 “As for me, I [John the baptizer] baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. NASU
Gal 3:26-29 26 For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.
27 For as many [of you] as were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah] have put on (clothed yourselves with) Christ.
28 There is [now no distinction] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you belong to Christ [are in Him Who is Abraham’s Seed], then you are Abraham’s offspring and [spiritual] heirs according to promise. AMP
1 Cor 1:13 Is Christ (the Messiah) divided into parts? Was Paul crucified on behalf of you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul? AMP
Baptism, however we understand the procedure, is a commandment from the LORD.
I would submit that the new testament indicates there are at least 3 different baptisms: water, Holy Spirit and fire.
Matt 28:18 18 Jesus approached and, breaking the silence, said to them, All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
19 Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days ( perpetually, uniformly, and on every occasion), to the [very] close and consummation of the age.Amen (so let it be). AMP
John 4:1-2 1 NOW WHEN the Lord knew (learned, became aware) that the Pharisees had been told that Jesus was winning and baptizing more disciples than John [the baptizer] —
2 Though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples AMP
When Jesus instructed HIS disciples to baptize in the ‘name’ of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the ‘name’ was more than just a proper noun.
The ‘name’ is everything the name contains/possesses. Authority, power, dominion are all contained in the ‘name’
Hal August 29th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
“Ken, if my children’s public schools had sponsored Muslim or Christian prayers, they’d be removed immediately. I glad to see we agree on this.”
==============================================================
Hal,
I am not sure we really agree. And I have already practiced what I have preached.
Have you?
I never surrendered my children to the priests and priestesses of humanism who are daily proselytizing in the government schools.
Having a school employee counsel and assist your minor child to submit to an intrusive and irreversible elective surgical procedure absent your consent or even knowledge is OK, but initiating a prayer is an intolerable act of subversion?
Having a school employee instruct your child that homosexuality is an OK, even recomended life style, contrary to what you have instructed your child, is OK, but telling them there is a GOD is an unpardonable sin?
The government schools are indoctrinating/inculcating students with humanist doctrine and dogma everyday.
Humanists worship human intellect.
They have fabricated a god in their own image and they falsely believe they can save themselves.
So true Ken. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancies.
Hal: Many atheists/secular humanists, etc., DO think Christians are stupid, I was just pointing out that many of us are well-educated.
Ken, I think we agree on the principle, just not on the specifics. If the public school instructed my child that there was anything wrong with homosexuality, I’d raise Hell. If they led the students in prayer, I’d sue. In my case however, my kids are getting an education that I don’t object to, so I can let them stay. I have no problem with “human intellect.”
Hal,
The ‘devil’ IS in the details.
Would you have a problem if an employee of the government school taught your children christianity was wrong or bad?
Would you have a problem if an employee of the government schools system contrasted the homosexual lifestyle with the christian lifestyle?
It seems to me you have made homosexuality sacorsanct, but on the other hand you have said it is alright to speak ill of religion in general and christianity specifically, even to the point of censorship and exclusion.
For the first 150 years of these United States existence the christian worldview prevailed, but in the last 50 years there has been a sustained and concerted effort by those who embrace the humanistic worldview to exclude the christian worldview from the marketplace, academia, the sciences and goverment.
There will always be a struggle between competing worldviews and someones worldview will always prevail.
Fortunately we have the benefit of history to judge which worldview consistently produces the greatest freedom, prospertity, and standard of living.
Humanism, in all it’s permutations, has produced more misery death and destruction than all the religious wars, plagues, pestilence and natural disasters combined.
The irony is that the ‘human intellect’ always seems to blind itself to the lessons of the past and convince itself, ‘we got it right this time.’ [Kind of like Wiley Coyote]
But the human intellect never does not get it right, and it never will get it right, because humans are stupid, no matter how intelligent they are.
Humanists are hellbent to drive the bus over the cliff. I am not willing be a fellow traveler.
Thelma and Louise and the jew hating muslim extremists who flew the passenger planes into the twin towers have provided us with examples of what happens when zealots who wrongly believe they know better than anyone else seize control of the ship of state. [History is replete with examples.]
“Would you have a problem if an employee of the government school taught your children christianity was wrong or bad?”
Yes, I would. (that’s my job) (joking again. But I really would object to a teacher speaking ill of Christianity, and I’m sure it happens from time to time.)
“Would you have a problem if an employee of the government schools system contrasted the homosexual lifestyle with the christian lifestyle?”
Yes. And although I know what you mean (I think) there is no “homosexual lifestyle.” I would tend to think there is not “christian lifestyle” either, but I really don’t know.
“It seems to me you have made homosexuality sacorsanct, but on the other hand you have said it is alright to speak ill of religion in general and christianity specifically, even to the point of censorship and exclusion.”
I’m offended by the ramped up attacks on homosexuality, but I don’t hold the topic sacrosanct. I do think it’s perfectly fine to speak ill of religion and Christianity specifically. I cannot explain my reasons without violating Jill’s rules. I do not, as stated above, think it’s appropriate for teachers to do so, at least in a public school. If a private humanist school were established, I suppose they could do it all they wanted.