Religion on Inauguration Morning '09

Thomas Baum,

Yes, Thomas, the little bit of marine I've seen is entrancing. One views underwater scenes any old time on TV nature docos, and it's easy to become a bit blase thereby. Same for many aspects of this life. But the actuality is sacred, even (or especially) when it includes a shark! :)

The image of you, the visionary, snorkelling is a delight to me. Thank you.

And I relate to your early-life proximity to watercourses. For me, it was creeks, lagoons, and the ocean. I'm still most content floating on the sea, under the open sky, or wandering round a rocky headland.

Pax.

ONOFRIO

As I have said before, we are all in this together and I thank you for your kind words.

Awhile back, I asked you if you dove on the Great Barrier Reef and you said you didn't but that you did snorkle, I believe somewhere near Sydney.

Awhile ago, I went scuba diving down Key Largo way and it was really nice, I have always been interested in the water as I grew up right near the water on a penisula on tidal creeks and a river.

One day down in Key Largo, we went snorkling and it was fantastic, plenty of the really nice life in the ocean is within 30 feet of the surface, so on your snorkling trip, it was probably pretty nice too.

Always good to hear from you.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Ah, Rev. Would it be Chesed to leave this alone? Luther, a credit to your race?

Have you read Sander Gilman among so many others on that great Christian, Luther? Are Onofrio's prunes and planets still the same size in your view?

Not antisemitic. What are you, then?

Thomas Baum,

Thank you for your response, Thomas. As always, I appreciate your peaceable consistency. You are a credit to your visions.

ONOFRIO

You wrote, "He can suffer little children to come to him, and spout wise saws; he also rides forth to slay his enemies in a robe dipped in blood. Same Christ, yes? Or is one less real?".

Same one. To slay with the Sword of Truth, not the other kind of sword. Dipped in blood, His Blood, as I have said before, for me to consider myself a Christian, I have to admit my complicity in killing Jesus and I can't see how anyone else that calls themself a Christian can admit anything otherwise for their own self.

By the way, what Jesus went thru on a different level than the physical on the cross is what plenty of people either don't think about or even think is possible.

Jesus said, "Come follow Me", if we don't notice what happened to Jesus and He point-blank told us to take note of what happened to Him and also said this or something similar may happen to you, then who is kidding who about what Jesus meant when He said, "Come follow Me".

Jesus also said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", there has been a lot in "Christianity" that, to put it mildly, has deviated from this but nevertheless God's Plan will come to Fruition.

As I have said before, there are some who say that they are speaking for God but they are the ones who chose themself to speak for God, God didn't.

God did say that He would write it upon our hearts, in other words if we need external laws or someone else to tell us what is right and wrong, then what can I say?

It is simple, satan tries to make it seem complicated. This does not mean that it is necessarily easy to do the right thing.

Have you ever heard the saying, btw this is a paraphrase, 'those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it', think about this, 'those that are so stuck on what other people have done in the past and won't let it go, tend to wallow in self-righteousness or let the hatreds of the past consume them'.

When Jesus said, "Forgive your enemies", besides being the right thing to do, it is also good for you.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Onofrio,

Of course. Whether you have a "next round" or not is as up to you as was your first!

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm not sure there's a point in continuing this dialogue. As I have said, it might be kinder for me to let the matter drop, and, evidently, you've come to the same conclusion. I think it best for me to leave it up to the Rev. It is certain that there are things he has either seen and denied or has not wished to see.

Either way, I wish him well.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Then "plum" it is :)

The alliteration's better, to be sure,

though prunes are known for loosing the ordure.

What with the combined effects of your own good self, Paganplace, and even DITLD, I think Rev Elliott has perhaps sought more congenial company. As for Onofrio, I think the Rev gentleman is no longer taking calls from that fool, so no next round. Fair enough; he has already responded far more than many blogmeisters at On Faith. We should be gladsome... ? (:[

Onofrio,

Ah, I see you have beaten me to it. "Prune to planet" is very good, indeed. Not prosy, not at all, no sir. Wonder, though, if you would consider "plum" (as in "plum to planet") for your next round. Not that I don't esteem prunes, mind you. I fear a little for Rev. Elliot, Onofrio. Perhaps, he needs must think as he does. If Rosemary Reuther was antiChristian, what hope is there for authentic discussion?

Farnaz

Rev. Elliott,

Well, I thought you wanted to get to the specifics. I've given you two: one your own petard on which you need not be hoist; you can defuse it, and (2)Martin Luther.

Actually, I've given you many more specifics, but these two will do for now. I'm not going to pursue you, Rev. Elliott. It may be that you need to believe as you do. If so, I'll know soon enough and will leave you alone, at least, for awhile, for as long as I'm able.

Btw. I'm not going to get into the Jefferson debate, but, in some sense he was a deist, as the famous letter to Rush indicates. There are other letters, documents.

Farnaz

Rev Elliott,

You:
"Christianity was born out of Judaism, and the mother tried to kill the baby: anti-Christianism preceded (but is no excuse for) anti-Semitism (anti-Judaism)."

Antisemitism and "anti-Judaism" - how to distinguish them? Some more rhetorical questions: Can one, as a Christian, be critical of aspects of Jewish belief (complex not simplex) without a subtext of racialism, or without giving succor to racialists? Can there be, given the horrors of the past and present, a form of "anti-Judaism" that is fair and disinterested? Perhaps the only way forward here for Christians is silence, which is hard for a proselytising kerygmatic religion, and genuine attentiveness to the Other, which would require suspension of *belief*, at least temporarily. Is that even possible?

Again I ask, how can the vicissitudes of Messianic sectarians 20 centuries ago among their fellow Jews compare with Christendom's centuries-long record of racialised anti-Jewish oppression? You're inviting comparison of a prune to a planet! And you're also implying *They started it*, by recourse to a metaphor of infanticide (!). That's something of a leitmotif in Christendom's construction of Judaism - the outrage of child-killing, that is.

If it were ever the case that Jewish emperors had for centuries hounded, hurt, and killed Greeks/Latins/Teutons for their racialised Christian faith, I would say you have a point. No such history exists. Something similar does exist in the collective imagination of Christendom though - that irrepressible fear of epic Jewish conspiracy. Christians down the ages have found it easy to believe that Jews were nurturing anti-Christ, plotting to sacrifice Christian children and blight Christian crops, collaborating with enemy states, and generally conniving like mwahahaha villains to bring down all that's right, good, and pure. The proof - that Jews remained unimpressed with Christ, the repository of all value, whom they had sought perversely to erase, as declared in Holy Writ. If there were no Jewish tyrants to bring Hell on Christian earth, it was only because those scheming Christosceptics were kept *firmly* in check by goodly Christians.

In Christian history, such antisemitism has not been exceptional and desultory, but endemic. It's still a rumbling volcano. How can you maintain that *love* has prevailed in Christianity, when, historically, the *Faith* has been infected with this antisemitic mind-virus? And it ain't about envy toward business acumen. Poor Jews have been just as despised as rich ones.

TO PAGANPLACE / 1.26.09 / 3:47p
1
Right you are, the Founding Fathers’ Christianity, with its range of understandings, was particular to its time, & cannot be read back from today’s “conservative Evangelical” Christianity, with its range of understandings. The historical error of doing so is called anachronism or modernization (as in a 1937 great book titled “The Peril of Modernizing Jesus”). But competent, honest historians are as concerned to avoid excessive discontinuity as excessive continuity.
2
But the Founding Fathers did not believe in what you call “non-religiously conditional equality.” They believed, & stated in the Declaration of Independence, that equality (in the sense of equal rights) is conditional on the belief that equal rights are dependent-conditional on the belief that they are God-given & therefore “unalienable” by government, all governments being under God’s sovereignty.
3
No, the Founding Fathers felt no obligation to “present themselves as Protestant Christians., any more than President Obama does. In the run-up to the 1800 election, Jefferson (an Anglican [Episcopal] vestryman) so avoided such an “obligation” that his opponent could attack him for being nonreligious. Of course a horse can’t draw a cart unhitched, & speakers identify with their audiences enough to pull. But you go too far in accusing politicians of only using a religion they identify with, not really believing it. / Look, for example, at the astonishing influence of the Bible on our Founding Fathers as visible in their political documents. An American Political Science Review study concluded that 94% of all these documents were based on the Bible, 34% of the contents being direct quotations therefrom. (At his inauguration, our first President kissed the Bible, instead of only laying a hand on it.) (Knowing the Bible is essential to understanding America, & Bible courses are fast returning to our public schools. Check it out at www.bibleinschools.net.)
4
Far from being antagonistic to “separation of church and state,” thinking one’s religion is “best” was its source. Jefferson first used the phrase in support of the Danbury (CN) Baptists, who were pressing for freedom from persecution by their state’s established church (which was Congregational). In the previous century, Roger Williams (also Baptist) was persecuted by his state’s established church (Congregational), & founded the only one of our 50 states founded solely for freedom of religion. The political right to consider one’s own life-commitment “best” is dependent on one’s willingness to grant the same right to all others. That is clear in the positive way Jesus states the Golden Rule, & it resounds in President Obama’s oratory and life.
5
Yes, “On Faith” is a good place for freedom of conversation!

I think that Christianity spread to its dominance mostly by means of coercion and force. Islam conquoured an empire, in the name of Isalm. Christinity did not need to do that, once it became the state religion of a vast empire, already extant.

Today, almost every single Christian group or sect has arrived at its current politically settled state of affairs by violence, force, and coercion.

Once Christianity became entangled in the affairs of the Roman Empire, its peculiar and unique claim to love as it primary motivation was, simply, lost. The Christian Romnan Emperors threw more people to the lions than the Pagan ones did.

I am not trying to tear down Christianity. But Christians, like Rick Warren or example, are often a little too puffed up, and self-righeous, which is after all, a Christian trade-mark.

Christianity, is really, a personal religion, that each takes into their own heart, and is not really a blueprint on how to rule a country, or run a big corporation, and does not really play well in the humility of a prayer, designed for a billion people to hear; with an audience like that, who needs God?

Rev. Elliott,

Before we get to Luther, I wonder if you might elaborate on this:

"Christianity was born out of Judaism, and the mother tried to kill the baby: anti-Christianism preceded (but is no excuse for) anti-Semitism (anti-Judaism). But you go too far when you say that Christians are "always...hate-filled." You are correct about the killing of many Jews in eastern Europe by non-Germans; you could mention the killing of hundreds of thousands of Chinese in Indonesia _ same basic motive: as "the Jews of the East," the Chinese were better at business; as "the Chinese of the West," the Jews were better at business. In both instances, religion was a smaller factor."

Rev. Elliott,

All right, then, we can forgo Muir's taxonomy. My reason for suggesting it was primarily so that I wouldn't have to distinguish the pre-Christian antiJudean violence and what followed. I think Onofrio has just dispensed with much of that.

You have steeled yourself against everything I could possibly say, but let's see what you can tell me of Luther, "The Jews and Their Lies." My only request is that you spare me the nonsense that it was really an anti-Catholic tract, since it would be a waste of your time and mine.

I will then go back to the early Christians and bring us up to today, with Bishop Williamson. Whatever distinctions you Christians may want to make of your differences is of no concern to us Js. There were plenty of nazi Lutherans. (Big surprise.)

Rev Elliott,

You to Farnaz:
"I cited the AD 40 CE expulsion of Jews from Rome (on which see Philo, who led a Jewish delegation from Alexandria to Rome to protest) at a time when almost no Romans had even heard of Jesus."

This sort of thing needs to be set in context. The Romans did not revile Jews as deicides, or engage in caricature of their Jesus-indifferent sages. They did not hold Jewish *race* in contempt, any more than they did other non-Romans. And although they ended up levelling Jerusalem and devastating Jewish Palestine, it was no more than they would have done to any other inimical, resistant people, eg. Caesar's holocausts against the Celts, Caracalla's massacre of the Alexandrians, Trajan vs the Dacians, et cetera.

As for the *religious* dimension of expulsions from Rome: Judaism was not alone in suffering this. The enormously popular Egyptianising Isiac cults were treated very harshly by Tiberius. Elite Romans were wary of these *orientalisms*, even as many others embraced them. But generally, Romans were tolerant of religious difference, so long as it endorsed Roman sovereignty - they were even-handed in their tyrannies.

Thomas Baum,

You to me:
"There are many things that Jesus said that people thru the ages have twisted into justifying their actions."

Many of the statements attributed to Jesus are ambiguous, or alarming, or opaque, or all of the preceding. He can indeed be *all things to all men*.

People twist him, because he himself twists and turns like a basilisk crossing the water, or like that wind that blows where it will.

He can suffer little children to come to him, and spout wise saws; he also rides forth to slay his enemies in a robe dipped in blood. Same Christ, yes? Or is one less real? As for his enemies, there are many opinions as to whom they might be. Ultimately, according to more-than-a-few Christians (not yourself) his enemies are everyone not convinced of a particular creed or confession, or outside a set of sacraments. So he eschatologically rides them down, treads them in the *winepress* of God's wrath.

OK, maybe all this is an abuse of the *true* Christian teaching. So how does it occur that the current leader of the largest historic Christian stream - the Church of Rome - the very spokesman of Christ, countenances the espousal of holocaust denial/minimisation in his bishops? If one of them publically doubted the virgin birth, or the resurrection, he'd be out on his ear. But antisemitism is still forgivable, it seems. Says a lot about priorities in the religion of *pure love*.

ON FARNAZ2
1
Thank you for getting specific & for reducing your judgment of my position from “evil” to only “prejudiced.”
2
Your insistence that there be Christian involvement in “antisemitism” cancels out the pre-Christian section “ancient antisemitism” in encyclopedias. Cicero died four decades before Jesus was born, & Wikipedia puts him in the subcategory, “political and economic antisemitism.” / I cited the AD 40 CE expulsion of Jews from Rome (on which see Philo, who led a Jewish delegation from Alexandria to Rome to protest) at a time when almost no Romans had even heard of Jesus. Expulsion of Jews (twice from Rome, once from England) is not antisemitic? / Three possible reasons for your insisting on Christian involvement in all antisemitism: (1) ignorance; (2) focus narrowly on the “-ism,” which is a late-19th-c. word; (3) you want to shaft it to us Christians.
3
Of course you can quote some who would use “xenophobia” rather than “antisemitism” for pre-Christian & non-Christian discrimination against or persecution of Jews. One of my sons was involved in aid to Chinese who were ejected from Vietnam after Americans left Nam: the Chinese were successful “strangers” in Nam, as they’d been (as I said) in Indonesia (where 300,000 were murdered). But if xenophobia is the category, antisemitism is a subcategory: Jews as the “strangers.” (Actually, the category is xenomisia, hatred of strangers (whether or not the strangers are “feared” [xenophobia]).
4
In the late 1st c. AD/CE, antisemitism in Rome did not distinguish between Christians & Jews. (Compare such anti-Christian antisemites as Voltaire & the Nazis.) When antichristianism became distinct from antisemitism (a term including no Semites other than Jews), the Christian layer in antisemitism became thicker: back to Jewish antichristianism, to which (as visible in the NT) Christian antisemitism was a response.
5
Langmuir’s taxonomy seems to me not to illumine anything I’ve said here. Please tell me how if you see it otherwise.

(beginning of a split-up post) :)

Hey, some interesting stuff came up, here. Congrats, all, there being ideas going on here, at least, while so much of this board has devolved to trolls and reactionaries. :)

(And, someone was surprised. Rev. Elliott may not always, in my opinion, really demonstrate he *gets* it, but he's one of those who does read the comments under his own board, and responds, fairly often, one way or another. :)

It's often kinda frustrating, cause I'm just not sure much of what I say registers beyond how things may fit into his ideology, but it's good, given that the Net can be such a great equalizer, (I sure wouldn't give someone his age such a hard time in *person,* and I'm sure that his church followers would be trying to 'cast out demons' or something if I turned up in person, myself)

This is not the kind of conversation, when it is one, that can be taken for granted in this world.

Willis E. Elliott
TO PAGANPLACE 1.11.09 4:13p
"1
I respect what you have to say, & am grateful for your witness. "In the spirit of the new time" (as you well call it), our differences should enhance (not destroy) our mutuality of human concern.
2
I agree that Warren's use of the Lord's Prayer was inappropriate."

"3
While all the Founding Fathers were Protestant Christians,"

I would point out the obvious: "Basically obligated to present themselves as Protestant Christians" ...which of itself kind of obviates any notion that Protestant Christianity must have motivated them, when their writings show it makes a lot more sense that they actually *believed* in their Deism and treated certain Protestant language as a social convention and way of speaking to certain people. (In some cases, including themselves, in others, clearly not.)

Therefore, you can't claim mere use of that language in certain circumstances means modern conservative or Evangelical Christianity (non-existent in this form at the time, anyway)
...somehow can be exegized as making them retroactively 'conservative Evangelicals.'

(middle of a split-up post) :)

"some had come to believe that "the Creator" does not interfere with the processes He's established in nature & history. These (the deists) liked the phrase Jefferson used in the Declaration of Indepenence: "Nature's God." But that divine title did not exclude non-deists! The Founding Fathers had a dozen titles for deity, all assuming monotheism.
4
World stories (world-views, paradigms) compete, each being best (including most intelligent [your term, "coherent"]) in the hearts of those who live it. Of living Americans, 44% are not in the religion/denomination into which they were born: their present view seems to them truer or more convenient. Of course we Christians think our world-story is the best! And human beings should share their best with others human beings (but without force: force violates freedom & love)."

Well, I hope this can be embraced, if your people can understand that 'thinking your story is best' doesn't mean a government based on the unalienable rights of man can start picking and choosing what religion doles out what rights to whom under what conditions.

The Enlightenment ideals there are 'absolute,' not 'intended' to be equated with a Protestant's view of 'God,' rather intended to be perfected as soon as we humans can possibly come together around that inalienable and not-religiously-conditional equality.

"5
Yes, the "traditional" can morph into the "obligatory." No tradition, chaos; obligatory tradition, connfinement. But "the rule of law" is confinement: the presidential oath of office should be confined to the Constitution's wording, PERIOD. After the period, the "So help you God?" question is optional, though chosen by most of our presidents."

I suppose if I were designing the ritual, I wouldn't have the judge pose the question. Make it clear that the oathswearer is bringing that to the oath, not being 'tested' by it.

I mean, if in some strange reality *I* were taking so weighty an oath such as that, I don't think I'd be swearing by such a murky and conditional idea *anyway,* (Actually, is asking 'So help me God' even an oath? Good thing to *ask,* ...in my beliefs, the Gods actually *do* help you keep your oaths, whether or not you like it. :) ) Such a weighty oath, I'd probably start by swearing by Earth and sky, my life and name, then move on to the Gods I swear by. Yaknow, something there for everyone to know I was sincere about protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, not just give some priest or priestess rights to claim 'God' wants this or that. :)

(last of a split-up post)

"6
You are partly right in saying "Antiquity doesn't mean authority." If it did, there could be no progress. But a "classic" has authority in being something that has survived because of its inherent value;"

The honorific 'classic' aside, old things have survived for *some* reason. Not always a good one. Retaining *dominance,* to a given point, for instance, isn't always about 'inherent value,' only 'inherent ability to dominate.'

Some such things may seem 'inherently good,' like taking steroids or having a big weapon... Until, of course, the side-effects croak you or the big weapon jams or runs out of ammo.

Sometimes, what *really* lasts is that which simply cannot be taken away. Book-religions always think they can destroy others by editing memory, for instance, and have irrational fears that someone might do the same to them, no matter how many books of their own they print.

There are older virtues, less dominant, but which have been living and growing all along, not dependent upon dominance or suppression. Gods you don't have to *read* about, even, I'd say.

Things inherent to nature and humanity which simply can't be taken away, whether you have a book or not.

" it has the dignity, and thus the authority, of age. Mao's "Cultural Revolution" was anti-cultural: if it's old, it's bad (the reverse nonsense from "If it's new, it's good")."

Well, that's an obscenity, really. Maybe, some folks figured that such extremism was necessary to break a far older inertia than we cope with here in America.

Forgetting and rewriting is *not* the friend of Liberty, however well-intentioned the recontextualizers may feel they're being.

Mr. Elliott,

First, I don't think you're antisemitic in the sense in which the term is generally used. Nor do I think you are a psychopath like your fellow Christian (Catholics believe they are Christians), holocaust denying "Bishop" Williamson, of the fascist-loving Lefebre group. I do think you have certain prejudices.

It is difficult for me to know where to begin to help you in your efforts to get my head straight. Perhaps, a good place might be in your assertion that "antisemitism" existed before Christianity. It did not. What existed was the hatred for the foreign that obtained to all "others," among them Jews.

I'm not in love with Gavin Langmuir's typology, but if we're going to have this discussion, then we need to agree on terms. Langmuir? Or would you like to offer your own terminology?

Farnaz

ONOFRIO

You wrote in response to Mr. Elliott, " It won't do to disown these as *not what Jesus taught*."

I have to disagree with this for the simple fact that the last part of what you wrote is true, "not what Jesus taught".

Not only that but to this very day there are many that twist what Jesus said and there are many that speak in His Name that have not been asked to speak in His Name.

For an example, one of things that Jesus said, "I have come to bring Fire to this world and I wish it was already burning", considering that God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and that Jesus is God-Incarnate, this Fire is when Love burns away all of the crud, so to speak, new heavens and the new earth.

This statement of Jesus has been twisted all kinds of ways by people that don't have a clue what they are talking about but it does not negate the fact that it is True and will come about.

There are many things that Jesus said that people thru the ages have twisted into justifying their actions but that does not take away from God's Plan which He has had since before creation and will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ON FARNAZ2 / 1.26.09 / 12:15A
1
Perhaps I can simplify our conversation. My perception is that the basis of your accusations of "evil" in my case is your perception that I am antisemitic (antijewish). Your take is puzzling.
2
My reputation among NY rabbis - friends, associates in the National Conference of Christians & Jews, students of mine - was that I'm
PRO-Jewish. An instance: After Palestinians murdered 11 Israeli Olympians at Munich, I was one of two speakers in a NY synagogue, the other being the Israeli ambassador to the U.N.
3
My puzzlement is why I asked you to address specfics in what I've said to you. I'm less interested in my reputation than I am in getting your head straight.

Mr. Elliot:

Well, this is an interesting dialogue. I think I'll just hang out awhile, prior to returning to THE specifics, yours, Mr. Elliott, after mine, if they are still necessary.

Farnaz

Rev Elliott,

Thankyou for taking the time to respond to my post. Not expected, but I appreciate it.

You say:
"Jesus was killed: Christians have a preferential option for peace. Muhammad killed: Muslims have a preferential option for war, and they overran most of Christendom within a century of Muhammad's death."

My critique pertained to your claims about Christian *love* as the major vehicle of Christianity's spread. Using Islam as a negative contrast to make Christianity look better is a distraction from the issue, and inaccurate to boot.

Christianity may have a "preferential option for peace" (many Muslims could claim the same for their faith, BTW); its shadow is a strong passive-aggressive streak. The divine violence implied in Christian eschatology is, to me, real violence, and fosters the sort of alarmist Either/Or consciousness that leads to actual violence against some embodied *abomination* - often Jews, as it turns out, at other times heretics, dissenters, and *witches*. Rods of iron, smashed pots, worlds on fire...not merely descriptive of this present darkness, but instigated by the Lamb himself. An enormous reservoir of what Nietzsche termed *resentment* brims over.

This loving-fierce Lion-Lamb dualism in both the Christian God and his Christ can claim to have rescued abandoned babes from Graeco-Roman rubbish dumps. Yet it has also hatched implacable pogroms and razzias, in which babes were slain. It won't do to disown these as *not what Jesus taught*. The perpetrators could be as inspired by the militant, eschatological, sword-mouthed Christ, as by the suffering servant. Add to that the proof-texting, Christ-lensed *Old Testament* appropriation of the Tanakh, and you get a dangerous cocktail of scriptural *free radicals*, in which the decontextualised *wars of YHWH* mingle with the turn-or-burn alarmism of the New Testament. Result: a tendency to extreme ideological rigidity and sanction for actualised divine violence in its defence.

And the Christian obsession with doctrinal exactitude and (since Augustine particularly) a focus on interiority has fed an inquisitorial mindset, a steel-trappism, that exalts the contents of *belief* and the correct *confession*, and consequently, is over-zealous in controlling hearts and minds. Anathemas, proscribing books, heresy-hunting...all these thrive right alongside *love* in the Christian trajectory

TO ONOFRIO / 1.25.09 / 6:18-19a
1
I judge correct all the data in your comments, & congratulate you on being well-informed.
2
Jesus' disciples assumed they could continue in the mode of nonviolent resistance. But as worldly power devolved upon them, they became embroiled in coercions necessary to maintain public order & security & (less justifiably) to extend their governments' spheres of influence.
3
Jesus was killed: Christians have a preferential option for peace. Muhammad killed: Muslims have a preferential option for war, and they overran most of Christendom within a century of Muhammad's death....
4
....which brings us to LOVE. Historiography began as the annals of kings; political, with accent on the military. So written, Christian history seems little different from that of other cultures/civilizations. But SOCIAL history is a later development. In '41 at U.Chicago, I had a course in "The Common Christian in Early Christian Times." Top-down, Christian history can be read as political-military: bottom-up, Christianity is seen to have spread mainly by LOVE (& continues to do so today, e.g. in China & Africa). In the Roman Empire, voluntary societies competed for membership; & Christian churches were especially attractive because of mutual care ("See how those Christians love one another!") & public benevolence (setting up hospitals & schools, & making daily trips to the dump to pick up "exposed" [infants left to die by dog-mouths or dehydration]).

Rev Elliott, part 1

You to Farnaz:
"Sorry you've not experienced Christianity as a religion of love. Christianity has always spread mainly by love"

A statement of faith, indeed.

Always?

Mainly?

What about custom, treaty, conquest, law, trade? Do you really think these are so eclipsed by *love* as transmitters of *The Faith*?

As I'm sure you know, Christianity was one of several *oriental* religious trajectories that flourished in the Roman oikumene. You might not be discussing it today unless it had become the officially favoured cult of the Roman imperium. Its absolutist, world conquering, Either/Or irresistibility helped it trump Isis and Serapis, Helios-Mithras, Thoth Trismegistos, et alii. Whatever *love* was involved, it was matched by plenty of fear and loathing.

And the various paganisms that remained after the Christian imperial ascent did not *die out* in the face of some love-wave; they were actively suppressed by the Roman state, as the favoured Christ-cult transformed into Christendom. *Love* with a fair bit of help from Caesar.

And where was the *universal love and hope* in all those *abstract insights* - the hair-splitting doctrinal schisms, the invective, the anathemas... The certainties of Romaion orthodoxy were as much about needs of state as articulations of *love* - asserting Constantinople's central control against regionalism, which itself found expression and moral high ground in dissenting Christological formulas - Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Donatism, and other -isms. So where's the *love*?

And how did Christendom spread? For centuries it was simply the rump of Roman imperium, foisted on northern barbaroi, or defended from southern and eastern hordes by the bulwark of Byzantium. Fortress of the Roman continuity, in east and west.

Rev Elliott,

Rev Elliott, part 2,

(continued from above)

When Christendom did spread beyond that European corral, it was in the wake - even on the crest - of European trade and conquest. Spectre of Rome. The reach into the New World, the Indies, Australasia meant catastrophes of disease, cultural debasement, and dispossession for the Others encountered. We know the litanies. Christianity was too often a handmaid to such domination. Mostly *love*?

And when, during all of this triumph of *love*, has antisemitism been entirely absent? Do the vicissitudes of the first century apostles really compare to Christendom's age-long record of atrocities against Jews? So, you reckon Jews have been targeted so persistently out of envy, because they're good-at-business, like the Chinese? You don't think gospel-founded caricatures of *Pharisees* and implications of deicide have anything to do with it? Or the agelong Christian anxiety about the unconvinced other, the doubter? Or the savage invective of revered, seminal Christian divines like Luther, or Chrysostom?

I admit, I wear a black armband here. No doubt, there are diamonds in the Christian rough, and there is love too - human, non-monopolised love. I paint with broad strokes, but they are more precise than your *power of love* whitewash. Christianity has not been spread mainly by love. All those vast assemblies of the Christ-killed refute you.

Mr. Elliott:

3
"I must remark your failure to engage me on matters of substance, as I would expect a professor to do even if only to deny one or more of my specifics."

Now, now. Let us not get catty. I could, after all, say much the same. Are we dancing around one another? Would it do any good to engage one another on THE specifics? For, I had specifics, too, whose substance you ignored.

Shall we try that? Or will we just rage at each other? That, I would rather forgo.

Hi Arminius,

No I haven't declared war on Elliott, since the forces of good and evil are in combat for his soul, and, thus far, the latter are winning.

All things considered, the Middle Way of Persiflage seems best.

Farnaz

TO FARNAZ2
1
The "On Faith" intro on me says that I "taught" at U.Hawaii: wrongly, you assume I'm teaching there now. (When I retired, I was the dean of exploratory programs, New York Theological Seminary, Manhattan.)
2
We have this in common: we have sorrow & compassion for each other.
3
I must remark your failure to engage me on matters of substance, as I would expect a professor to do even if only to deny one or more of my specifics.

Farnaz,

Apparently you have declared war on Willis, and I know better than to get in the middle of that. But if you really want to get offended, take a look at John Mark Reynold's neolithic offering. Absolutely maddening - I stayed away because any reply of mine could get me thrown off the blogs.

Mr. Elliott,

I feel a deep sense of sorrow and compassion for you and don't know if, at this point, I should go further. On the other hand, I cannot "unknow" what I know: you are an educator. Students are vulnerable, those at your University especially so, given its population's ethnic diversity, the enormous inroads it has made toward tolerance, enlightened pluralism, etc.

There is a profound insecurity, defensiveness in your writing that I have noticed for several months. Sometimes, the experience of uncertainty can be very productive, directing us to rethink and reflect. If one grasps doubt as healthy, if one can overcome trepidation, if one can live a while with unease, one can grow.

That is all I can say for now.

Farnaz

TO FARNAZ2
1
After reading your 1.24.09 2:14p raging screed, I re-read what you were responding to & found nothing justifying your charges of "bigotry, blindness to and ignorance of ethics, morality, and history....vile notions."
2
Rabbi Chaim Stern, my best Jewish friend, would find nothing inaccurate I what I wrote to you. He was the editor of the original edition of Reform Judaism's 850p prayer-book, GATES OF PRAYER. He inviteD me to be the first lecturer in a new lecture series in his Temple (in Chappaqua, NY); of me, he wrote this (which is on cover-p. 4 of my book, FLOW OF FLESH REACH OF SPIRIT): "Willis Elliott is a spiritual and intellectual giant, a great scholar, a great human being, a great Christian."
3
Of myself, I claim nothing of what Rabbi Stern said of me. He certainly was a great scholar, a great poet in Hebrew & English, & a man of profound spirituality. I quoted him to you in hope that the ironic distance between his opinion of me & yours may at least give you pause.

Interesting, Thomas Baum, as always.

Farnaz

WILLIS E ELLIOTT

There is a lot in the history of "Christianity" that I can see that some people could construe as less than loving. There is also a lot in the history of "Christianity" that can come across as very loving and true to what Jesus taught.

Jesus never said follow what will become called "Christianity", He did not say follow My Church, He did not say follow the bible, He did not say follow my teachings, what He did say was, "Follow Me".

Many call themself "Christian" but that does not mean that they really are, only God can see into one's heart. Many call themself "atheist" and yet in their heart are more "Christian" than some that know God's Name. And of course then there are those that will get upset if you don't mention absolutely every possible belief or non-belief known to man-kind.

God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and that is going to come as a surprize to quite a few people it seems like, no matter what their "beliefs".

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mr. Elliott:

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry for the bigotry, blindness to and ignorance of ethics, morality, and history that your most recent reply to me demonstrates. I am glad that you have a "best Jewish friend" as it at least shows that "some of your best friends" aren't Jewish.

I profoundly regret the students who will come under the influence of some of the vile notions you publish here, and earnestly hope that they will have the moral wherewithal to resist it.

TO FARNAZ2
1
Sorry you've not experienced Christianity as a religion of love. Christianity has always spread mainly by love, & the bulk of the world's eleemosynary institutions are Christian at least in foundation. Tomorrow, we're taking two students from China to church (neither with any religious background); one said, "I have no religion, but I'm considering Christianity because of its emphasis on love." Christianity is an old religion, so of course one can compile anecdotal lists to "prove" it's unloving - lists in which anti-Christians find confirmation & take comfort.
2
All persecution-literature warns against the persecutors. Some NT passages reflect Jewish persecution, some Jewish literature is anti-Christian as expressing resistance to this unwanted child born out of Judaism, & some later Jewish literature is anti-Christian because expressive of Christian persecution. But the notion of "cleaning up" any of this literature is
pathetically antihistorical. For example, the earliest statement about Jesus' death in any literature is in Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians (1:15): "Jews killed...Jesus." Jews killed Paul, too (or rather they thought they did: they executed him by stoning, assuming he was dead: 2 Corinthians 11:25). Without such passages, how could a reader make sense of the NT?
My best Jewish friend, Rabbi Chaim Stern (3/4th page of NYTimes obit), use to smile at me and say, "The mistake was in writing the NT at all." / As for RRReuther, I knew her & on one occasion worked with her; she's a competent scholar, & proof that a Christian can write anti-Christian literature.
3
You claim that antisemitism has "Christian foundation." But antisemitism was so powerful in Rome before Christians had any influence there that the Emperor in AD 40 CE forbade their presence in th city. And antisemitism is powerful in some places - e.g., Japan - where Christianity has had little influence.
4
Good for you & your students in American history that your "unbelief" does not block a fair look at the Christian element. Of course I pray that it will come to more than a fair look.

I was disappointed in Rick Warren's prayer, because it is not what I was expecting. I was expecting something a little more thoughtful, and a little less Protestant boiler-plate.

A Christian prayer should not state anything about oneself, ones position or political party, or even of ones nation or earthly loyalties. It should be simply, an appropriate message or sentiment to God. Any thing else makes it a show, an essay, or simply a speech. There is nothing wrong with any of these things, but they are not prayers.

I think that Catholic Priests say prayers that are like this. They are more humble in the way they address God, than most other Christian sects. They are better at saying what Christians should say, than most Protestants, and espeically consservative Protestants. The more conservative a Christian sect is, the more likely that the pastor will say a prayer that is not really a prayer, but a speech, addressed to God, but meant for an audience to hear.

Perhaps Catholic priests are better trained in "prayer recitation;" perhaps there is a whole Catholic scheme about how to say prayers; not being Catholic, I am not sure. But it seems obvious that the mega-church pastor, like Rick Warren, has an improvisational style of prayer, that lets him say, basically anything that he wants.

Yes, he could have done worse. He means well; I can see that. But, he seems to be lacking in a great deal that a man in his position should know.

The whole "mega-church" thing is alien to me and my experience, and I am not sure I will ever understand this kind of religion or this kind of pastor. It reminds me of MacChristianity.

TO PAGANPLACE 1.11.09 4:13p
1
I respect what you have to say, & am grateful for your witness. "In the spirit of the new time" (as you well call it), our differences should enhance (not destroy) our mutuality of human concern.
2
I agree that Warren's use of the Lord's Prayer was inappropriate.
3
While all the Founding Fathers were Protestant Christians, some had come to believe that "the Creator" does not interfere with the processes He's established in nature & history. These (the deists) liked the phrase Jefferson used in the Declaration of Indepenence: "Nature's God." But that divine title did not exclude non-deists! The Founding Fathers had a dozen titles for deity, all assuming monotheism.
4
World stories (world-views, paradigms) compete, each being best (including most intelligent [your term, "coherent"]) in the hearts of those who live it. Of living Americans, 44% are not in the religion/denomination into which they were born: their present view seems to them truer or more convenient. Of course we Christians think our world-story is the best! And human beings should share their best with others human beings (but without force: force violates freedom & love).
5
Yes, the "traditional" can morph into the "obligatory." No tradition, chaos; obligatory tradition, connfinement. But "the rule of law" is confinement: the presidential oath of office should be confined to the Constitution's wording, PERIOD. After the period, the "So help you God?" question is optional, though chosen by most of our presidents.
6
You are partly right in saying "Antiquity doesn't mean authority." If it did, there could be no progress. But a "classic" has authority in being something that has survived because of its inherent value; it has the dignity, and thus the authority, of age. Mao's "Cultural Revolution" was anti-cultural: if it's old, it's bad (the reverse nonsense from "If it's new, it's good").

DITLD:

Warren could have been better, but he could have been worse. Lowery, also a Christian was excellent, don't you think?

Farnaz

For Willis Elliot

I also did not like Rick Warren's prayer and I had expected something better from him. I believe that I could have written a better prayer for him. If you reply to me, I am now and have always been a Methodist, so my criticism does not come from someone who does not "understand" Christianity, as is the common Christian reply to critics.

I think that the prayer did have proselytizing features. It also made bold political statements, which roused the crowd to cheer, something that is ALWAYS inappropriate in a prayer. And finally, it did inclue the Lord's Prayer, which all Christians know by heart, and is therefore not necessary in such a setting, and not only was it the Christian prayer, but it was the Protestant version, not the Catholic version. I would have expected Warren to know this, but perhaps he does not.

The prayer was ok, for what it was, but I thought that it was not completely appropriate; I believe that Reverend Warren gave it in sincerity, not in arrogance, and that therefore his understanding of these things is more limited than I had realized. And therefore, my estimation of him has declined a little over this.

I do not know if others have similar opiniions and judgement of him, but I would say that he did not use this opportunity to reverse the decline of Christianity; he just gave us more of the predictable same.

Is there any reason why a person could not have given a "true" prayer, patterened after the Lord's Prayer, and not a political speech disquised as a prayer, with proselytizing features?

Rev. Elliott,

More to come, especially, on what I've pasted below. Also, I wonder how much you actually know about the last two thousand years of antisemitism.
To try to rid it of its Christian foundations is futile. It has been demonstrated far too many times in far too many historical contexts. Bibliography to follow within the next few days.

Also, if you think that most Jews know anything about Christianity, most Muslims, most Hindus, etc., you are very much mistaken. Most Jews that I know actually fear reading the NT (sic), fear what they'll discover about how "they" are figured. There is a politics here, Rev., and with them came and come very bad things.

"Christianity was born out of Judaism, and the mother tried to kill the baby: anti-Christianism preceded (but is no excuse for) anti-Semitism (anti-Judaism). But you go too far when you say that Christians are "always...hate-filled." You are correct about the killing of many Jews in eastern Europe by non-Germans; you could mention the killing of hundreds of thousands of Chinese in Indonesia _ same basic motive: as "the Jews of the East," the Chinese were better at business; as "the Chinese of the West," the Jews were better at business. In both instances, religion was a smaller factor."

Rev. Elliott,

Thank you for your reply. A hurried posting--more later. I'm familiar with Christianity in several of its institutionalized forms. How many Christians (generically speaking) can say the same of Judaism? How many college religious studies texts do more than give highlights of the "OT" when discussing Judaism? That you may do so with your students is to your credit.
-------------
The extent to which Christianity was "formative" to America is debatable. Deism figured heavily in the thinking of some of the founders. I daresay Franklyn and, quite possibly, Jefferson went considerably past it, crossing over to the other side into the dark waters nonbelief, where dwelleth Farnaz.
---------------
Of the early explorers, "discoverers," see Thomas Harriott, a complex figure, whose writing indicates he'd read Montaigne, saw Christianity as a way of opiating the people: i.e., the Native Americans. Others slaughtered, roasted, dismembered, drowned, crucified them in the name of Jesus Christ. See Cabeza de Vaca, Casas.

The world has changed, Rev. Elliot. We are in the postmodern era. The triumphal narrative of Christianity has been questioned again and again and again, its status as this country's unofficial "national religion" rigorously interrogated.

As for what you consider to be the Bible (for Judaism-the Tanakh, the Mishnah, the Talmud), I suggest you glance again at Roemary Reuther's Faith and Fratricide. Note, too, that shockingly, and most happily, twelve (12) Orthodox Christian clergy have called for the "reform" of the NT (sic) to rid it of its anti-Jewish racist, or if you prefer, essentialist context.

In the interim, if, at some point, you have time and inclination, take a look at the comments on this blog, indeed, at some of the panelists' essays for the last year or so, and tell me how, as a Jew, I am to understand your religion, any variety of Christianity, as the religion of love. Is that what the Christians are, a people devoted to love for their fellow humans?

Among my students are people of all religions. It is impossible given the postmodern critique to ignore religion when teaching certain sub-disciplines, such as early American literature. Rarely do I have Jewish students in those sections. I do, however, have Muslim students, Hindus, Protestants, mainly Lutherans, Catholics. They all have questions, deep, profound painful questions. I used to try to steer away from the issues, but there is no way, unless I choose to eliminate Bradford, Winthrop, a slew of poets, etc.

I must stop now and return to my work. More later.

Farnaz

TO FARNAZ2
1
I hear your heart-cry, the heart-cry I have in situations in which I am an outsider. As an American, you are an insider; as a non-Christian, you are an outsider to the formative religion of America.
2
I taught TANAKH, and for 60 years (until my eyesight declined 80%) read the Hebrew Scriptures (as well as the Greek New Testament) daily. But in American public life, from the beginning "the Bible" has meant the Christian Bible (OT + NT).
3
You speak of your Bible "if I have one." Are you a deracinated (non-practicing) Jew? Whichever, you are well-informed on Judaism (as I am, having taught rabbis in continuing theological education). If I had lived in Israel, I would have studied Judaism, the religious base of the nation. How come you, living in a country with a Christian base, have not studied Christianity (so say "Jesus who?").
4
Christianity was born out of Judaism, and the mother tried to kill the baby: anti-Christianism preceded (but is no excuse for) anti-Semitism (anti-Judaism). But you go too far when you say that Christians are "always...hate-filled." You are correct about the killing of many Jews in eastern Europe by non-Germans; you could mention the killing of hundreds of thousands of Chinese in Indonesia _ same basic motive: as "the Jews of the East," the Chinese were better at business; as "the Chinese of the West," the Jews were better at business. In both instances, religion was a smaller factor.
5
Jews/Christians/Muslims share some common human values, & need to cooperate toward truly human ends. But there's no possibility of reconciling the three religions. (The anti-Christianism of your two posts is some evidence.) Mutual respect & cooperation is the best that can be hoped for.
6
You suggest that the world's scriptures should be paid attention to. You may not have noticed, in the intro to my entries, that I was doing just that at the University of Hawaii.

Willis:

It is not "THE Bible." It is YOUR Bible and Warren's. His "witness" is irrelevant to me and to the overwhelming majority of Americans.

MY BIBLE, if I have one is the TANAKH, that which the Christians colonized, manipulated, distorted for their own uses, "typologized," thereby forcing it--unsatisfactorily, for them--into anticipation of the "NEW (sic) Testament," new and highly in accurate. And that dissatisfaction will always leave them insecure and hate-filled. Your religion is defined by a huge faith commitment and Jews do not share it.

1. In JC's time, if there was a JC, there were numerous prophets. The land was overrun by barbarians, and it was understandable to the sages that a besieged people would respond in ways we would now call deviant. However, the age of prophecy had been declared ended as it was inconceivable that every person and his brother could be a prophet.

One could prophesy to one's heart's content, however, say one was the Messiah, son, daughter, grandaughter of God. The "Pharisees," whose descendants would write the Talmud, did not care.
They were busy.

THE JEWS were rather busy at the moment and the notion that many even noticed JC, if he existed, is doubtful. HYPE, aside. Why would they?

continues below

Part II

REMEMBER AKIVA, et al. THE true Pharisees?

I'm not talking about the Greek rhetorical devices termed "Pharisees" by the NT (sic). They would have been amusing had not so many people taken their "NT," with its supersessionist, replacement ideology as a liscense to kill, murder slaughter, with a particular eye on Jews.
Yes. Let us remember all the "ordinary men and women," in Latvia, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuanian, Romania, etc., etc., not Germans, not fascists who took pre-occupation as a chance to kill, torture, Jews, in the name of God. The genocide of the native Americans.

2.Then we have the famous Passover Sanhedrin. Narcissistic, colonialist, syncretic with a bloody S, etc. The SANHEDRIN NEVER MET ON PASSOVER. IT WAS PASSOVER.

3. BLOOD/WINE, FLESH/BREAD: UNTHINKABLE, UNIMAGINABLE to Jews then, before, at any point for which we have a record of them. A DISGRACE TO CONTEMPLATE--THIS IS JUDAISM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, GET IT? SEE TANAKH.

4. Speaking of Jews. WHAT KIND OF GOD SENDS HIS SON TO EARTH TO BE TORTURED TO DEATH? TAMUZ? DON'T know, but never would/could it have been Hashem. Baruch Hashem. No God who ever knew Joseph. No sir.

YOu may have heard of Edward Said. Said remarked that the foundation of imperialism is the theft of another people's culture and its explanation to that people.

I am that people, Willis. I am that people who has been victimized and displaced by your racism, and by the racism your people exported to the Middle East where it has since been Islamicized. I am that people that every day reads racist filth on this thread penned by your co-religionists. How about taking some time off to witness that? How about suggesting to Warren that he do it?

I hope never to see Warren "witness" anything again, for which my VERY SECULAR TAX DOLLARS paid.

I do hope I'm making myself clear. If I have to wax scholarly, posting bibliographies yet again, I will. But not tonight. I've got work to do.

REad Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide.

You asked how far along I was in my understanding of Christianity. I don't know why I should be familiar at all. This is a secular society. How far along are you in your understanding of Akiva and the Tannaim? Of the Mishnah? Of the Talmud?

I'd be interested in knowing. Then, perhaps, we should move on to Hindu scriptures, Quoran, perhaps, etc.

Also, Reverend, in the spirit of the new time, where we are *all* supposed to be friends and fellow Americans, whatever Warren may think of how I live in our freedom, liberty, and, I hope, mutual reverence for the *best* parts of us, not the most petty and territorial:

""Nature's God," who is honored in America's first document as a new nation, namely, the Declaration of Independence.""

I'm never sure what you mean by 'Nature's God.'

Much bigotry and arrogance has passed under the political banner 'Natural Law,' after all.

Presuming that Nature and what God you may or may not set over Her have something to do with each other, particularly when we get past our little mortal minds, and also presuming that our Founding Fathers sought to honor That What Is, Reverend,

We have, if you will, the same boss. In our own ways. That may be a leap of faith for the both of us, but as Americans, both, it need not be such a leap of 'principle* as some have set it up to be.

I do not trust you or your words or your beliefs with governance *over* me, but I for one ask that you stand *beside* me, here on this dirty old good Earth.

This dirty old good America.

As long as we're both and all here.

I'll hope to say this as a friend, and a fellow American, Reverend Elliott. Friends, should be able to be honest with each other.

You are not at your best when kneeling to your Jesus as a distant King. And *far* from your best when trying to make others do so. I may as well ask you to kneel before Liberty's light, which is far older.

The time has come, as our President quoted your book to say, ...to put aside childish things.

If your Jesus and my Gods, equally beloved by each of us, are friends of humanity, do we kneel, and fight? Or stand, and work?

One thing I've learned from *my* Gods, Reverend, is that we are not meant to be children nor sheep forever. Often, maybe, but not forever.

There *is* renewal, but this is kind of serious right now. It's us. What we do next, there won't be a lot of room to reinterpret.

Up for it?

Basically, Reverend. My liberty and our nation's equality are not yours to give or take based on how you interpret a pause or verbal *period.*

This is why it's dodgy, when you start speaking in those terms. Cause of what your like have done reading what you think is 'Christian Intent' into things the Founding Fathers said, well-understood at the time, but turned to other purposes now.

"PAGANPLACE

"True, the Christian language "doesn't really make sense" to you. Your sense-making is in common speech and perhaps in the special speech of some profession."

Hey, you know, for a 'benighted Pagan,' no one's ever said I wasn't good with words.

Whatever Warren was saying was so far off the purpose of the occasion, even all the buildup here couldn't keep my attention on it.

Certainly, his expectation that only the audience that would recite your 'Our Father' mattered... Was presumptuous, as well as whatever else his point was supposed to be in using the occasion to try and proselytize.

I think that bit was definitely wedgey. To coin a term. To make everyone not Christian visibly have to stand there while everyone else moved their lips. Seen it before. Cheap tactic, actually.

Like claiming that 'not getting it' means someone of another religion is of a 'lesser intellect' as you seem to be doing. Your Grace.

" I'm not putting you down unless you're claiming that the Christian language doesn't really make sense to ANYBODY:"

No, you're putting me down and then rhetorically trying to contextualize it in terms you want to present.

" Christians are only pretending it makes sense. / You say Warren's invocation "was not the story." One function of an invocation is to put the little story of the event within the big Story of the work of the "Creator," "Nature's God," who is honored in America's first document as a new nation, namely, the Declaration of Independence."

Actually, no, it's you and Warren attempting to take the gravitas of the occasion and the American nation and claim *you and you alone have the story.*

The results were non-threatening only because they were so... incoherent.

" / America has traditions and laws: I wouldn't put "mere" in front of either word. / As I said, Obama deftly put a period between the Constitution's wording of the vow and "So help me God." A good instance of separation."

I don't have a problem with him swearing by his own Gods. Especially since it's made clear in the instance what that was about. That he *chose* to.

But in the future, when that has become 'traditional,' and later, seeming 'obligatory,' will some preacher be claiming the 'American Mind' meant their version of their God to be hailed as he who conditionally-allows Presidents their office, and not 'We The People' at *all?*

People do get confused by some of these traditions, after all. Antiquity doesn't mean authority.

TO FARNAZ2

Jesus as "the One who changed my life" was not a "talking point" but a witness, the Christian witness Obama gives as clearly as does Warren. Ditto for the Lord's Prayer. / We are not "a secular society." We are, from our foundation, a highly religious SOCIETY with a deliberately secular GOVERNMENT. Our first president kissed the Bible before taking the oath of office. Sessions of Congress and other legislatures are opened with prayer. Inaugurations are socio-politial events, not just political events. / What narcissism? By putting us in our place "under God," the Bible protects us from imagining that we are gods: the Bible is ANTI-narcissism. / "Jesus who?" reveals how far you are from understanding Christianity. For us Christians, Jesus is the incarnation of God, God come among us in human flesh (see, for example, the Gospel of John,1:14).

PAGANPLACE

True, the Christian language "doesn't really make sense" to you. Your sense-making is in common speech and perhaps in the special speech of some profession. I'm not putting you down unless you're claiming that the Christian language doesn't really make sense to ANYBODY: Christians are only pretending it makes sense. / You say Warren's invocation "was not the story." One function of an invocation is to put the little story of the event within the big Story of the work of the "Creator," "Nature's God," who is honored in America's first document as a new nation, namely, the Declaration of Independence. / America has traditions and laws: I wouldn't put "mere" in front of either word. / As I said, Obama deftly put a period between the Constitution's wording of the vow and "So help me God." A good instance of separation.

I have to say that after all that, most of Warren's invocation didn't really make sense to me. It seemed kind of incoherent. At least that made it hard to take offense, which given my celebratory mood, I didn't want to be, ...I kept finding myself tuning it out, like the constant Evangelical advertising on the TV in some parts of the country.

It did seem he was making really big run-on-sentences to work in proselytizing, or references thereto, into what was supposed to be a blessing invocation, ...and what was with referring to Jesus in Hebrew and Arabic, was that supposed to be multicultural?

No harm done, I guess, whatever it was was not the story.

Anyway, Rev. Elliott, traditions like an incoming President going to a certain church that morning are merely that: traditions. Not the law of the land. The difficulty with talk like this is that people tend to get *confused* on this point.

It seems to me that Obama's insertion of 'So help me God' into or after the oath is bound to become another one of those traditions. I hope that it doesn't prove to be a similar point of confusion in the future.

A couple of thoughts:

I'm aware that Warren used the words "the one who changed my life," in deference to the billions who aren't Christian. (Hard to believe they exist, I know.) Yet I must ask why or how a life change on Mr. Warren's part is a relevant "talking point" at a presidential inauguration?

May I also ask how the Christian "Lord's Prayer," remarked on almost ubiquitously today as the most recognizably Christian prayer, rationally figures in such an event, an event funded by taxpayers of diverse faiths and of no faith? How does it figure in a secular society? One which prides itself on separation of church and state!!

Good grief, Willis. What narcissism! I mean, Jesus who?