Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation. An ordained minister of the United Church of Christ since 1974, the “On Faith” panelist is the author or editor of thirteen books and has been a translator for two translations of the Bible. Her works include Casting Stones: Prostitution and Liberation in Asia and the United States (1996) and The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Translation (1995). She edited and contributed to Adam, Eve and the Genome: Theology in Dialogue with the Human Genome Project (2003).
Close.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Professor, Chicago Theological Seminary
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008.
more »
I don't actually disagree with you. I was trying to make a point. What are absolutes to me are not necessarily absolutes to you or someone else. All so called morality is based on a collection of human choices that vary by person, by time and by location. Mr. Goepfert was attempting to establish his god and his Christian principles as absolutes when there are, in fact, no absolutes imposed by some supernatural third party. That was my point - poorly stated obviously.
BTW, I have read The Virginian and acknowledge the conundra expressed there.
TO DZ,
In your comment to Fred Goepfert, you say “Yes, Fred, there are absolutes.”
All the things you listed as examples are not technically ‘absolutes’. They are choices, opinions, morals, ethics.
I agree with you that Bush has broken many of my moral laws in his quest for - what? - I don’t think Bush or Cheney has ever said exactly what it is that they’re doing. But what Bush has done in Iraq has not advanced our ‘war on terrorism’. On the contrary, it’s given them self-righteous ammunition to feel morally superior to us - a David to our Goliath.
In reading your list of “absolutes“, I am reminded of a novel I once read, The Virginian, written in the early 20th century. You might want to read it just for the moralizing of the author. It’s filled with common-sense statements about choices. One thing he points out (in the character of the Judge) is that choices always involve the better of 2 imperfect solutions. For instance, take this example from the book. A man is walking along a road & sees another man hurting someone behind a fence where there are clear No Trespassing signs. Does he violate one law (trespassing) to prevent another law (assault / murder) from being broken? The common sense answer might be Yes, because murder is a higher law than trespass. But that’s a moral judgment. Legally, he’s trespassing & can be arrested.
It’s all choices, and consequences. In a more modern example, I personally think that police should be able to use any evidence found about a crime in a court of law, regardless of how they came to get it. That doesn’t mean that if they break into my house they shouldn’t be arrested for breaking and entering, it just means anything they find there is real, it’s the truth, and it shouldn’t be thrown out of court because of the way it was obtained. But the policeman who broke in should know the consequences of breaking into someone’s house & be arrested just like anyone else. If he feels that strongly about getting me stopped from whatever it is that I’m doing, then he might be willing to suffer the consequences of arrest & jail. Or he might not.
Like I said, it’s about moral choices. It’s not absolutes.
Dear Mr. President,
Regarding "Sex, Lies, And Politics : The Naked Truth" ppg. 98 - 107.
Washington, we have a problem.
I trust The Washington Post will see the truth of the matter. Your cruelty has been duly noted, and exposed.
That is all.
If you believe in a god that takes an active role in this world and that he favors or disfavors some of his creations. If you believe that you can influence his judgement to bend to your desires. If you believe that your belief gives you any advantage in this world. Then you are seriously delusional and should never be given even the slightest responsibility.
If you are willing to lie, to pander to the delusional. To give vapid flattery to various chosen peoples. Then you just might be our next President.
I have a strong personal faith and I express it quietly to myself with my daily prayer; "Jesus Christ, you people are idiots!"
Robert Arnow said: "Good thinking, good analysis of what a person needs to be in order to be a qualified world leader. However, if Jesus was Jewish, what are those that follow a Jew, one who remained Jewish until his death- non-Jews? Help me fill in what's missing..."
It depends on who gets to define Jewishness.
The New Testament has a lot of debate about what it means to be a Jew. There was a big debate among the apostles about whether Christ-followers should be circumcised or not. Paul felt that to be a Jew it wasn't about being physically circumcized but about having a "circumcision of the heart." the final ruling in Acts 15 was that Christian converts need not be circumcized but that they should keep from food sacrificed to idols, blood-drinking, sexual immorality, and meat from strangled animals.
At that point, Christians were not people of physical circumcision. You could probably argue that Christianity is still a form of Judaism but many Jews require physical circumcision as evidence of Jewishness.
The other thing people are missing is that Jesus' place of birth is no impediment to his US Presidency. His Father, the Holy Spirit, is truly omnipresent, including in the United States. So Since at least one of Jesus' parents (the Holy Spirit) was native to the US Jesus would automatically have US citizenship as of 1776.
My personal question is not whether Jesus could be President, but rather would Jesus even consider becoming President?
My opinion is that Jesus wouldn't want to be President. I base my opinion on the fact that He did say that His kingdom was not of this world. (John 18:36)
If God so wished, He could have made Jesus the King of the whole world, but we would then be in a very different world and probably have very different predicaments.
Having said that, I am very glad to live in a country where my religious freedom is guaranteed by law and also am hopeful that once this President's term is over, we will likely get someone good, be that person an atheist or a Muslim or Hindu. I just wish we get someone reasonably intelligent.
Rhinehart: well said, you can count the lost votes to two.
It is a shameless political stunt of McCain losing out support among both sane and conservative voters.Using religion for politics is like sword - that is double edged. To say that anyone other than a Christian is ineligible for being a president is as much lunatic as McCain could get. His statement and attitude - truthful as far as they get - are not only insincere but also disappointing.
"In an ideal world, faith wouldn't be a virtue."
----------------------------------------------------
If you look up "virtues", you'll not find faith listed anywhere.
---------
Christianity is not the only religion that lists attributes worthy of having. See the following:
---------
Virtue in Chinese philosophy
Virtue (translated from "De" ?) is also an important concept in Chinese philosophies such as Confucianism and Daoism. Confucian manifestations of virtue include ren or humanity, xiao usually translated as filial piety, and zhong meaning loyalty.
The Daoist concept of De, however, is more subtle, pertaining to the virtue or ability that an individual realizes by following the Dao or way. One important normative value in much of Chinese thinking is that one's social status should be the result of the amount of virtue that one could demonstrate rather than by one's birth. In the Analects, Confucius stated that perfect virtue consists of the global practice of five things: gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness.
---------
From modern psychology, here is another list:
WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE: creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective
COURAGE: bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality
HUMANITY: love, kindness, social intelligence
JUSTICE: citizenship, fairness, leadership
TEMPERANCE: forgiveness and mercy, humility and modesty, prudence, self-regulation
TRANSCENDENCE: appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality
---------
In the New Testament, here is a reference to virtue:
"For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue (arete) and virtue (arete) with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control (temperance) and self-control with steadfastness, etc." New Testament, II Peter 1.5-7.
---------
St. Thomas Aquinas listed 7 vices, and 7 corresponding opposites or virtues:
These vices are pride, envy, avarice, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth. The opposite of these vices are the following virtues: meekness, humility, generosity, tolerance, chastity, moderation, and zeal (meaning enthusiastic devotion to a good cause or an ideal).
(No mention of "faith" as a virtue.)
---------
In Samurai culture, here is a list:
Samurai values
In Hagakure, the quintessential book of the samurai, Yamamoto Tsunetomo encapsulates his views on 'virtue' in the four vows he makes daily:
Never to be outdone in the Way of the Samurai.
To be of good use to the master.
To be filial to my parents.
To manifest great compassion, and act for the sake of Man.
----------
Ben Franklin listed 13 virtues (which he admitted he was not good at following):
TEMPERANCE: Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
SILENCE: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
ORDER: Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
RESOLUTION: Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
FRUGALITY: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
INDUSTRY: Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
SINCERITY: Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
JUSTICE: Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
MODERATION: Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
CLEANLINESS: Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloths, or habitation.
TRANQUILITY: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
CHASTITY: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
HUMILITY: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
---------
If you Google "virtues", you'll find even more.
Atheists and other secular Americans are no more relativistic in values than any Christian. All morality comes from humans, and disagreement does not even remotely imply relativism. We simply arrive at values/morality in different ways.
Also, I don't see satanists as intrinsically more evil than Christians. You all believe in things that I consider totally irrational. If some satanist were willing to govern in accordance with the Constitution and U.S. law, I would be willing to consider that. George Bush, OTOH, even though he purports to be a Christian, wouldn't qualify because he has violated almost every principle upon which this country was founded.
A believer in denying equal rights to all Americans solely on the basis of status would be ineligible. Yes, I mean gay marriage. If you oppose it, I oppose you even though I'm straight.
Anyone who believes in substituting superstitious claptrap for science in a public school classroom would be ineligible.
Anyone who endorses torture would be ineligible.
Anyone who endorses wars of choice against countries not a threat to the U.S. would be ineligible.
You're right that Jesus & Ghandi wouldn't qualify to be President under the conservative Christian views of this country.
But you failed to mention that both of these men were eminently unqualified to be politicians; they were deliberately non-political men. They eschewed politics to focus on morality.
In fact, Jesus absolutely refused to become involved in anything political. That's why the title of "King of the Jews" placed over his head on the cross was such a mockery.
Both men were kings of people's hearts, not their bodies.
What is that saying about 2 masters, you can't serve God and Mammon.....
Politics and religion don't mix. That's what McCain - and all the conservative Christians - ignore about Jesus. Any man who uses religion to get votes has lost mine.
Let's see, jesus was actually around 5'3" tall, olive skin, had curly hair, had non-caucasian lips and nose, was never married and never had sex (ha ha), thought he had special healing powers, etc. I'll say this, jesus as president would be interesting. Of course, if you combine Obama and Hillary, you get Ophra (who I keep hearing may be the new jesus. Notice the capitalization). We humans are so small and think so small; we are blind, ignorant children who need a little something to deal with the savagery of nature, and our disappointment with being born humans, and not something better. Add to that magical, wonderful mix, our need for metaphysical groupthink, and it's not really worth discussing, is it?
Chip say the same thing. If Jesus were to come to D.C. the Hill would ride Him out on a rail talking all that commie nonsense like feeding the poor, mercy and love for those in jail, the old the feeble, the downtrodden and other outsiders. Their feelings would be hurt because he would go to immigrant neighborhoods, to South East, to New Orleans, to Mississippi (the poorest state), to Mosques . . .
What he would have to say to those evangelicals that do and say everything opposite of His teachings..."Depart from me ye workers of iniquity... I don't know you"
Look. John McCain is simply reflecting the flat out religious bigotry that is rampant in America. Notwithstanding the Constitutional writ against apply a religious litmust test for political office, that is effectively what we have here in America. Let's face the truth about ourselves: We don't belive in a tenth of what our Constitution actually says. Americans are soaked in bigotry and prejudice. It still remains to be seen whether a woman or an African-American can be elected President, let alone a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist or a Muslim.
But forget the religious intolerance in America. Imagine an agnostic or an atheist trying to run for President. We simply love to pay lip service to the ideals enshrined within our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence. We love to preach to the rest of the world about it. But, like so much else of what we do, we do not practice what we preach.
I find nothing to be so amusing and at the same time outrageously false than the ringing, piteous, self-righteous claim of Christians that they are so discriminated against in our political system when you cannot name a single President of the United States, a single Supreme Court justice, or a single member of any leadership position in the Congress who isn't a Christian.
And we have the gall to say we don't apply a religious test to holding political office? Fie on us!
Wow, talk about missing the point. And this woman is a professor of what? The point is not that Jesus COULDN'T be president, but that he WOULDN'T be president. Sorry, but Thistlethwaite bombs on both sides of the issue. Now, let's discuss the issue,"What if Davey Crockett had had a helicopter at the battle of the Alamo".
The Republican Taliban and their three Presidential front-runners are stealth-racist, (don't forget, they're running for President), stealth-fascist, (911 was America's version of the Reichstag fire), and as dangerous to our nation's future as any foreign-born terrorists.
The Republican Taliban and their three Presidential front-runners are stealth-racist, (don't forget, they're running for President), stealth-fascist, (911 was America's version of the Reichstag fire), and as dangerous to our nation's future as any foreign-born terrorists.
I find it curious that the intent and loyalty of a candidate to doctrine is only in reference to Catholic, Mormon, Hindu etc. For the past six and a half years we've had a Protestant influenced by Evangelical perceptions actually claim that God told him to invade Iraq. Every socially important issue that effects ALL Americans was filtered through his intent and loyalty to his "Christian" doctrine. I imagine Jesus cringes every time he's tied to this blasphemous insanity. This criteria evidently only applies to ANY candidate not a member of the very conservative Evangelical crowd.
Neither Jesus nor Gandhi was born an American citizen, so McCain's view is as irrelevant to their suitability for president as to so many other things.
Americans may claim Jesus as their "favrit flossyfur," but they sure would not want to give up all their worldly treasure, to live like his disciples, as wandering "lilies of the field" mendicants, or love their enemies. When it turned out that He would not abide by their "Yes, but" replies to his beatitudes, and would not button up and let folks "get on with business," the crowds would get fed up, pronounce him an impostor, and have Him eliminated, just like last time.
Pegleg said "I never have understood the Christian effort to legislate morality....With our market economy, all the 83% of the American people who claim to be Christian have to do is vote with their wallets and faster than you can say "Immaculate conception" all the sin businesses from TV, to porn to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton will be closing down like a McDonalds after an e-coli scare."
You can run a fine business with only 17% market share. 17% of the population still has loads to money to spend on all those things.
Legislating morality is perhaps the primary job of governments. Laws against stealing, unequal weights and measures, moving boundary lines and the like have been around since the first governments. If the market worked for such things governments would be out of business.
Joet said "My concern would be that Jesus's ideas and ideals--based on what people in the bible said he said--would be a bit too, well, backwards, intolerant, and essentially dangerous to our way of life: moderately democratic society."
Was that tongue in cheek?
The standard of virtue is now considered backward and intolerant! I suppose he had similar problems with the society he face in Israel, but its a sad thing when we think our virtues have evolved past the one who defines virtue. Your views are probably held by many, and you phrased them so succinctly.
I suppose you are correct. We really can't be considered a Christian nation anymore. Not that we ever really were, but at least we were at one time a Christian nation wannabee. While wanting to be good and Godly is not the same as being good and Godly its at least better than not wanting t be good and Godly.
Ms Brooks: Sen. John McCain is wrong in saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth could not be elected President of these United States--not because he was not yet 35 when he died--but simply because he was Jewish and not Christian!
Conceding, arguendo, that Jesus Christ was not Christian, but a Jew who was a natural-born citizen of these United States, I see no reason why, after reaching 35 years of age, he could not be elected President of these United States.
You are quite right to say that the US Constitution does not require a religious test for any man or woman who aspires to be elected President. He or she need only be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and be at least 35 years of age.
Assuming, however, that Jesus Christ, were a natural-born citizen of these United States, and was 35 years old when he ran for President and won the Office, my sense is that it would be understandably utopian and unrealistic to think that Jesus Christ's beliefs, convictions and values as a Jew would not color or influence his decisions as President.
One has to assume that those Jewish beliefs, convictions and values, deeply embedded in the sub-conscious could easily, reflexively, unwittingly and automatically color and influence all decisions Jesus Christ would have had to make as President.
To assert that they would not is to assert, wrongly, that Jesus Christ was not human.
MarPatalinjug@aol.com
Ms Brooks: Sen. John McCain is wrong in saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth could not be elected President of these United States--not because he was not yet 35 when he died--but simply because he was Jewish and not Christian!
Conceding, arguendo, that Jesus Christ was not Christian, but a Jew who was a natural-born citizen of these United States, I see no reason why, after reaching 35 years of age, he could not be elected President of these United States.
You are quite right to say that the US Constitution does not require a religious test for any man or woman who aspires to be elected President. He or she need only be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and be at least 35 years of age.
Assuming, however, that Jesus Christ, were a natural-born citizen of these United States, and was 35 years old when he ran for President and won the Office, my sense is that it would be understandably utopian and unrealistic to think that Jesus Christ's beliefs, convictions and values as a Jew would not color or influence his decisions as President.
One has to assume that those Jewish beliefs, convictions and values, deeply embedded in the sub-conscious could easily, reflexively, unwittingly and automatically color and influence all decisions Jesus Christ would have had to make as President.
To assert that they would not is to assert, wrongly, that Jesus Christ was not human.
MarPatalinjug@aol.com
Ms Brooks: Sen. John McCain is wrong in saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth could not be elected President of these United States--not because he was not yet 35 when he died--but simply because he was Jewish and not Christian!
Conceding, arguendo, that Jesus Christ was not Christian, but a Jew who was a natural-born citizen of these United States, I see no reason why, after reaching 35 years of age, he could not be elected President of these United States.
You are quite right to say that the US Constitution does not require a religious test for any man or woman who aspires to be elected President. He or she need only be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and be at least 35 years of age.
Assuming, however, that Jesus Christ, were a natural-born citizen of these United States, and was 35 years old when he ran for President and won the Office, my sense is that it would be understandably utopian and unrealistic to think that Jesus Christ's beliefs, convictions and values as a Jew would not color or influence his decisions as President.
One has to assume that those Jewish beliefs, convictions and values, deeply embedded in the sub-conscious could easily, reflexively, unwittingly and automatically color and influence all decisions Jesus Christ would have had to make as President.
To assert that they would not is to assert, wrongly, that Jesus Christ was not human.
MarPatalinjug@aol.com
Jane said "I realize, given the mindset of the majority of the American voting public, candidates feel they HAVE to say they have faith. What I want to know that they can compartmentalize that, and not bring it into their decisions."
What you just describe is the person we don't need. That person would compartmentalize all of their virtues into a comfortable place where they could go about living their lives unchanged by their "faith". They would say "Its wrong to steal" but add "but this is different". They'd claim "I have to be honest" and then say under their breath "except in campaigns or when it inconvenient".
I suppose you have described most people to some extent, but its not a good thing. Don't claim it is a virtue in a candidate.
Dr. Thistlethwaite! How can I recommend your seminary to anyone when its president engages in such sophomoric reasoning? Jesus can't be President because He is Jewish? This from a seminarian?
Of course Jesus is Jewish, but all Christians are sons of Abraham. Where is the conflict?
As to the age qualification, he may have died at 33, but he is ageless, eternal and without end. Of course, his nomination would be challenged by some seminarian who claimed he never really existed. Not you, but there are seminarians who would take this position.
The real problem is that he would never want the job. He is already appointed to rule over all the earth, and that won't require cooperation with congress. The presidency would be a major step down from that job.
Stuff and nonsense! The constitution forbids a religious test by the government but places no such enjoinder on individual voters. There are other things to consider besides religion, but if you are to take the whole measure of a man religion better be in that mix. The real problem of using religion as a factor is the same problem faced with every other qualification: how much of it is real. A person can claim to have a wonderful relationship with God, but his God is really himself.
In the end you have to judge his claims against all the evidence that builds up in a lifetime, and then attempt to correct for all the distortions a campaign brings to your perceptions of the facts.
Anybody who trumpets his or her unshakable belief in Stone Age myths and Medieval superstition, no matter what the particular label, is completely unfit to be president.
I would vote for a candidate who said something like this:
"My personal religion is nobody's business but my own. I will say however that I do believe in scholarly endeavor, in discovery, the scientific method, in debate, in peer review, and in the quest for truth. I am capable of revising what I believe when I learn new things. I also believe in the freedom of every person to find his own path to spirituality or inner peace. I believe in taking responsibility for my actions and not treating any person different to how I would wish to be treated in turn by that person. I treasure the humanity of every single person on Earth, and I value every living organism on our planet. I value life as an end in itself and not merely as a means to my own satisfaction or pleasure. Finally, may I say that just because we don't understand something today doesn't mean we won't understand it tomorrow. My only unshakable belief is in the ability of humankind to learn from the narrative of history, the discoveries of science and the analysis of philosophy to achieve civilization and to survive and flourish on our planet."
I could vote for the candidate who said something like that. Philip J Tramdack
I'm not aware of any Jews running for President, so the question is sort of hypothetical.
Jesus of Nazereth was born in Bethlehem, which is today part of Israel. As he was not born in the United States, he cannot run for President of the United States.
Jesus could run for President of Israel, but I don't think he'd get many votes.
Good thinking, good analysis of what a person needs to be in order to be a qualified world leader. However, if Jesus was Jewish, what are those that follow a Jew, one who remained Jewish until his death- non-Jews? Help me fill in what's missing...
Good thinking, good analysis of what a person needs to be in order to be a qualified world leader. However, if Jesus was Jewish, what are those that follow a Jew, one who remained Jewish until his death- non-Jews? Help me fill in what's missing...
Question? You stated that faith has no voice in who can be president. But yet the evangelicals who supported G.W.Bush, state constantly that 'that' is just the litmus test for any policital office.
You state that being a Hindu, Buddhist, or in my words a Wiccan, (A Muslim? A Buddhist? A Hindu? Which Muslim, which Buddhist, which Hindu? You can’t answer the question “who is qualified to be U.S. President” in the abstract. This is about character and capability for leadership. Nothing else.) But yet these same evangelicals continualy stand in front of stage props depicting the ten commandments. And the most predominant is the first, stating that no other God can be had. So, my question is, what happens to us who do not recognize, or reject your Christian God?
Question? You stated that faith has no voice in who can be president. But yet the evangelicals who supported G.W.Bush, state constantly that 'that' is just the litmus test for any policital office.
You state that being a Hindu, Buddhist, or in my words a Wiccan, (A Muslim? A Buddhist? A Hindu? Which Muslim, which Buddhist, which Hindu? You can’t answer the question “who is qualified to be U.S. President” in the abstract. This is about character and capability for leadership. Nothing else.) But yet these same evangelicals continualy stand in front of stage props depicting the ten commandments. And the most predominant is the first, stating that no other God can be had. So, my question is, what happens to us who do not recognize, or reject your Christian God?
Yeah, but a lot of people would like to think they are voting for Jesus - even when it's just for a man. Thanks to the 'Jesus' vote, we have a C-student as president. I would hope Jesus got better grades. I sometimes wonder how George would expect to make it to heaven to be with Jesus. I don't recall any mention from Jesus about getting there by causing war or supporting anti-environmentalists, who believe profits and net worth are more important than God's creation. I wish Barbara would have read him the story about the good Samaritan and applied it to health care. Or the story about the woman at the well and applied it to the death penalty. We should change the constitution so that we could elect Jesus when he returns. He might be running as a third party candidate next year!
If God wanted Jesus to be president,then he'd be president.
But he obviously preferred George W Bush,which tells us that God is not smart.
Unless he just makes mistakes sometimes like people do.
Then again,maybe God died years ago.How would we ever know?
Maybe he never even existed.After all,there's no proof that he did;not even any evidence.
So it's just as likely we made him up,like we make lots of things up.
After all,if we believe,its because it was pushed into our heads when we were kids.
And what we believe is what our folks believed.
Which should tell us that religion's veracity is definitely dubious,to say the least.
And to believe is a bit of a stretch.
If God wanted Jesus to be president,then he'd be president.
But he obviously preferred George W Bush,which tells us that God is not smart.
Unless he just makes mistakes sometimes like people do.
Then again,maybe God died years ago.How would we ever know?
Maybe he never even existed.After all,there's no proof that he did;not even any evidence.
So it's just as likely we made him up,like we make lots of things up.
After all,if we believe,its because it was pushed into our heads when we were kids.
And what we believe is what our folks believed.
Which should tell us that religion's veracity is definitely dubious,to put it mildly.
And to believe is a bit of a stretch.
There is a major difference between what is happening now and what happened when Kennedy was running. Back then the concept of separation of church and state was important. People were concerned about how Kennedy's faith would be reflected in his policies because they didn't believe national and theological interests were identical.
Unfortunately that is no longer true. Religion now has become a litmus test because a small but vocal group in this country believes that national law should enforce religious beliefs. This is reflected in everything from positions on abortion, gay unions (both should be illegal), to teaching creationism and prayer in schools (should be the law). In the effort to get support from this group of voters who may know the Bible but are a little weak on the Bill of Rights, candidates feel an obligation to prove that they are from the "right" religion. Of course the "right" religion has to be once that not only shares these values but also wants to force them on everyone else. Its not just being a Christian but the right kind. Unfortunately, Unitarian won't cut it, nor I'm afraid Dr. Thistlewaite would the United Church of Christ. Your church doesn't seem to get that the First amendment and religious tolerance are so last century.
If Roe v Wade had occurred during Kennedy's time he would have been applauded for saying "my faith teaches this is wrong, but I have no right to force it on others." Nor,after saying this, would the Bishops have banned him from receiving communion. When John Kerry said the same thing he was actively denounced by many including Catholic bishops who refused him the sacraments.
I believe it was Tolstoy who said that if people lived according to the principles of "The Sermon on the Mount", there would be no need for government. Ghandi said that it would take a truly exceptional society to live without police, although he truly hoped for one. And Israel whacked the Kennedys (as best I can determine) for exposing several (of their many) lies, particularly re nukes.
My point is: Good people don't do well in politics, or government.
Ms. Thistlethwaite's commentary raised a couple of offbeat theoretical questions in my mind about the legality of not voting for someone because of their religious beliefs. Since, at least in theory, presidents are hired, at least in part, by voting citizens, would those citizens who seek to deny a candidate the job of president because of bias against the candidate's religion be guilty of discrimination as defined in current EEO law? Is the position of president fundamentally a "job" like non-elected government and civilian jobs? After all, the president is paid a salary, and there is a mechanism for "firing" one. Obviously, this is theoretical since sufficient proof of such discrimination would likely not be either pursued or obtainable, but it crossed my mind.
There is a major difference between what is happening now and what happened when Kennedy was running. Back then the concept of separation of church and state was important. People were concerned about how Kennedy's faith would be reflected in his policies because they didn't believe national and theological interests were identical.
Unfortunately that is no longer true. Religion now has become a litmus test because a small but vocal group in this country believes that national law should enforce religious beliefs. This is reflected in everything from positions on abortion, gay unions (both should be illegal), to teaching creationism and prayer in schools (should be the law). In the effort to get support from this group of voters who may know the Bible but are a little weak on the Bill of Rights, candidates feel an obligation to prove that they are from the "right" religion. Of course the "right" religion has to be once that not only shares these values but also wants to force them on everyone else. Its not just being a Christian but the right kind. Unfortunately, Unitarian won't cut it, nor I'm afraid Dr. Thistlewaite would the United Church of Christ. Your church doesn't seem to get that the First amendment and religious tolerance are so last century.
If Roe v Wade had occurred during Kennedy's time he would have been applauded for saying "my faith teaches this is wrong, but I have no right to force it on others." Nor,after saying this, would the Bishops have banned him from receiving communion. When John Kerry said the same thing he was actively denounced by many including Catholic bishops who refused him the sacraments.
All Comments (126)
J Rhinehart:
I don't actually disagree with you. I was trying to make a point. What are absolutes to me are not necessarily absolutes to you or someone else. All so called morality is based on a collection of human choices that vary by person, by time and by location. Mr. Goepfert was attempting to establish his god and his Christian principles as absolutes when there are, in fact, no absolutes imposed by some supernatural third party. That was my point - poorly stated obviously.
BTW, I have read The Virginian and acknowledge the conundra expressed there.
October 8, 2007 11:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 8, 2007 11:27
TO DZ,
In your comment to Fred Goepfert, you say “Yes, Fred, there are absolutes.”
All the things you listed as examples are not technically ‘absolutes’. They are choices, opinions, morals, ethics.
I agree with you that Bush has broken many of my moral laws in his quest for - what? - I don’t think Bush or Cheney has ever said exactly what it is that they’re doing. But what Bush has done in Iraq has not advanced our ‘war on terrorism’. On the contrary, it’s given them self-righteous ammunition to feel morally superior to us - a David to our Goliath.
In reading your list of “absolutes“, I am reminded of a novel I once read, The Virginian, written in the early 20th century. You might want to read it just for the moralizing of the author. It’s filled with common-sense statements about choices. One thing he points out (in the character of the Judge) is that choices always involve the better of 2 imperfect solutions. For instance, take this example from the book. A man is walking along a road & sees another man hurting someone behind a fence where there are clear No Trespassing signs. Does he violate one law (trespassing) to prevent another law (assault / murder) from being broken? The common sense answer might be Yes, because murder is a higher law than trespass. But that’s a moral judgment. Legally, he’s trespassing & can be arrested.
It’s all choices, and consequences. In a more modern example, I personally think that police should be able to use any evidence found about a crime in a court of law, regardless of how they came to get it. That doesn’t mean that if they break into my house they shouldn’t be arrested for breaking and entering, it just means anything they find there is real, it’s the truth, and it shouldn’t be thrown out of court because of the way it was obtained. But the policeman who broke in should know the consequences of breaking into someone’s house & be arrested just like anyone else. If he feels that strongly about getting me stopped from whatever it is that I’m doing, then he might be willing to suffer the consequences of arrest & jail. Or he might not.
Like I said, it’s about moral choices. It’s not absolutes.
October 7, 2007 4:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 7, 2007 16:47
Sam wrote:
"It would be interesting to see how the members of the various sects would react to the appearance of someone claiming to be "The Christ".
"Are there any characteristics, upon which all sects agree, that could be used to objectively identify him?"
If He appears on the Washington Mall by the Smithsonian and changes water into wine and multiplies the loaves and fishes, HE (like Coke) IS IT!.
A LEGAL NOTE:
Some years ago a man petitioned the Windham County (Vermont) Probate Court to change his name to COKE IS IT.
The Coca Cola Company opposed the petition but the Court granted it (Only in Vermont!).
I never heard further of the gentleman or how he made his way through a world of credit cards and tax returns.
October 7, 2007 10:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 7, 2007 10:52
It would be interesting to see how the various sects treated anyone who claimed to be "The Christ".
Could they all agree on the issue of his or her identification?
Are there objectifiable criteria, to which they all subscribe, that could be used to identify the claimant as such?
Or would that be a sectarian/political issue, to be resolved through the application of "belief".
October 7, 2007 7:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 7, 2007 07:38
It would be interesting to see how the various sects treated anyone who claimed to be "The Christ".
Could they all agree on the issue of his or her identification?
Are there objectifiable criteria, to which they all subscribe, that could be used to identify the claimant as such?
Or would that be a sectarian/political issue, to be resolved through the application of "belief".
October 7, 2007 7:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 7, 2007 07:37
It would be interesting to see how the members of the various sects would react to the appearance of someone claiming to be "The Christ".
Are there any characteristics, upon which all sects agree, that could be used to objectively identify him?
Or would the identification process be another function of sectarian/ political "belief"?
October 7, 2007 7:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 7, 2007 07:28
Dear Mr. President,
Regarding "Sex, Lies, And Politics : The Naked Truth" ppg. 98 - 107.
Washington, we have a problem.
I trust The Washington Post will see the truth of the matter. Your cruelty has been duly noted, and exposed.
That is all.
James Anthony Key
"Tony Romero"
Dyersburg, Tn.
October 6, 2007 9:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 21:10
If you believe in a god that takes an active role in this world and that he favors or disfavors some of his creations. If you believe that you can influence his judgement to bend to your desires. If you believe that your belief gives you any advantage in this world. Then you are seriously delusional and should never be given even the slightest responsibility.
If you are willing to lie, to pander to the delusional. To give vapid flattery to various chosen peoples. Then you just might be our next President.
I have a strong personal faith and I express it quietly to myself with my daily prayer; "Jesus Christ, you people are idiots!"
October 6, 2007 5:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 17:55
Robert Arnow said: "Good thinking, good analysis of what a person needs to be in order to be a qualified world leader. However, if Jesus was Jewish, what are those that follow a Jew, one who remained Jewish until his death- non-Jews? Help me fill in what's missing..."
It depends on who gets to define Jewishness.
The New Testament has a lot of debate about what it means to be a Jew. There was a big debate among the apostles about whether Christ-followers should be circumcised or not. Paul felt that to be a Jew it wasn't about being physically circumcized but about having a "circumcision of the heart." the final ruling in Acts 15 was that Christian converts need not be circumcized but that they should keep from food sacrificed to idols, blood-drinking, sexual immorality, and meat from strangled animals.
At that point, Christians were not people of physical circumcision. You could probably argue that Christianity is still a form of Judaism but many Jews require physical circumcision as evidence of Jewishness.
The other thing people are missing is that Jesus' place of birth is no impediment to his US Presidency. His Father, the Holy Spirit, is truly omnipresent, including in the United States. So Since at least one of Jesus' parents (the Holy Spirit) was native to the US Jesus would automatically have US citizenship as of 1776.
Peace,
RT
October 6, 2007 5:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 17:39
My personal question is not whether Jesus could be President, but rather would Jesus even consider becoming President?
My opinion is that Jesus wouldn't want to be President. I base my opinion on the fact that He did say that His kingdom was not of this world. (John 18:36)
If God so wished, He could have made Jesus the King of the whole world, but we would then be in a very different world and probably have very different predicaments.
Having said that, I am very glad to live in a country where my religious freedom is guaranteed by law and also am hopeful that once this President's term is over, we will likely get someone good, be that person an atheist or a Muslim or Hindu. I just wish we get someone reasonably intelligent.
October 6, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 16:07
Rhinehart: well said, you can count the lost votes to two.
It is a shameless political stunt of McCain losing out support among both sane and conservative voters.Using religion for politics is like sword - that is double edged. To say that anyone other than a Christian is ineligible for being a president is as much lunatic as McCain could get. His statement and attitude - truthful as far as they get - are not only insincere but also disappointing.
October 6, 2007 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 15:33
TO JANE,
"In an ideal world, faith wouldn't be a virtue."
----------------------------------------------------
If you look up "virtues", you'll not find faith listed anywhere.
---------
Christianity is not the only religion that lists attributes worthy of having. See the following:
---------
Virtue in Chinese philosophy
Virtue (translated from "De" ?) is also an important concept in Chinese philosophies such as Confucianism and Daoism. Confucian manifestations of virtue include ren or humanity, xiao usually translated as filial piety, and zhong meaning loyalty.
The Daoist concept of De, however, is more subtle, pertaining to the virtue or ability that an individual realizes by following the Dao or way. One important normative value in much of Chinese thinking is that one's social status should be the result of the amount of virtue that one could demonstrate rather than by one's birth. In the Analects, Confucius stated that perfect virtue consists of the global practice of five things: gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness.
---------
From modern psychology, here is another list:
WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE: creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective
COURAGE: bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality
HUMANITY: love, kindness, social intelligence
JUSTICE: citizenship, fairness, leadership
TEMPERANCE: forgiveness and mercy, humility and modesty, prudence, self-regulation
TRANSCENDENCE: appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality
---------
In the New Testament, here is a reference to virtue:
"For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue (arete) and virtue (arete) with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control (temperance) and self-control with steadfastness, etc." New Testament, II Peter 1.5-7.
---------
St. Thomas Aquinas listed 7 vices, and 7 corresponding opposites or virtues:
These vices are pride, envy, avarice, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth. The opposite of these vices are the following virtues: meekness, humility, generosity, tolerance, chastity, moderation, and zeal (meaning enthusiastic devotion to a good cause or an ideal).
(No mention of "faith" as a virtue.)
---------
In Samurai culture, here is a list:
Samurai values
In Hagakure, the quintessential book of the samurai, Yamamoto Tsunetomo encapsulates his views on 'virtue' in the four vows he makes daily:
Never to be outdone in the Way of the Samurai.
To be of good use to the master.
To be filial to my parents.
To manifest great compassion, and act for the sake of Man.
----------
Ben Franklin listed 13 virtues (which he admitted he was not good at following):
TEMPERANCE: Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
SILENCE: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
ORDER: Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
RESOLUTION: Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
FRUGALITY: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
INDUSTRY: Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
SINCERITY: Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
JUSTICE: Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
MODERATION: Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
CLEANLINESS: Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloths, or habitation.
TRANQUILITY: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
CHASTITY: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
HUMILITY: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
---------
If you Google "virtues", you'll find even more.
October 6, 2007 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 14:42
Fred Goepfert:
Atheists and other secular Americans are no more relativistic in values than any Christian. All morality comes from humans, and disagreement does not even remotely imply relativism. We simply arrive at values/morality in different ways.
Also, I don't see satanists as intrinsically more evil than Christians. You all believe in things that I consider totally irrational. If some satanist were willing to govern in accordance with the Constitution and U.S. law, I would be willing to consider that. George Bush, OTOH, even though he purports to be a Christian, wouldn't qualify because he has violated almost every principle upon which this country was founded.
A believer in denying equal rights to all Americans solely on the basis of status would be ineligible. Yes, I mean gay marriage. If you oppose it, I oppose you even though I'm straight.
Anyone who believes in substituting superstitious claptrap for science in a public school classroom would be ineligible.
Anyone who endorses torture would be ineligible.
Anyone who endorses wars of choice against countries not a threat to the U.S. would be ineligible.
Yes, Fred, there are absolutes.
October 6, 2007 1:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 13:31
You're right that Jesus & Ghandi wouldn't qualify to be President under the conservative Christian views of this country.
But you failed to mention that both of these men were eminently unqualified to be politicians; they were deliberately non-political men. They eschewed politics to focus on morality.
In fact, Jesus absolutely refused to become involved in anything political. That's why the title of "King of the Jews" placed over his head on the cross was such a mockery.
Both men were kings of people's hearts, not their bodies.
What is that saying about 2 masters, you can't serve God and Mammon.....
Politics and religion don't mix. That's what McCain - and all the conservative Christians - ignore about Jesus. Any man who uses religion to get votes has lost mine.
October 6, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 13:08
Let's see, jesus was actually around 5'3" tall, olive skin, had curly hair, had non-caucasian lips and nose, was never married and never had sex (ha ha), thought he had special healing powers, etc. I'll say this, jesus as president would be interesting. Of course, if you combine Obama and Hillary, you get Ophra (who I keep hearing may be the new jesus. Notice the capitalization). We humans are so small and think so small; we are blind, ignorant children who need a little something to deal with the savagery of nature, and our disappointment with being born humans, and not something better. Add to that magical, wonderful mix, our need for metaphysical groupthink, and it's not really worth discussing, is it?
October 6, 2007 11:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 11:53
There should not be a religious test for president, but there should be a values and practices yardstick.
If the individual believes and would endorse practices that are clearly harmful to others, they should not be eligible.
A Satanist would probably advocate things that would be harmful to others, and be ineligible.
A believer in Jihad by the Sword wouldn't be eligible.
A supporter of the goals of NAMBLA shouldn't be eligible.
Even in the relativistic world of the secular humanists, there are some absolutes.
Do you agree?
Fred Goepfert
Pensacola, FL
October 6, 2007 11:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 11:38
Chip say the same thing. If Jesus were to come to D.C. the Hill would ride Him out on a rail talking all that commie nonsense like feeding the poor, mercy and love for those in jail, the old the feeble, the downtrodden and other outsiders. Their feelings would be hurt because he would go to immigrant neighborhoods, to South East, to New Orleans, to Mississippi (the poorest state), to Mosques . . .
What he would have to say to those evangelicals that do and say everything opposite of His teachings..."Depart from me ye workers of iniquity... I don't know you"
Not everybody talking 'bout heaven is going there
October 6, 2007 11:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 11:22
Look. John McCain is simply reflecting the flat out religious bigotry that is rampant in America. Notwithstanding the Constitutional writ against apply a religious litmust test for political office, that is effectively what we have here in America. Let's face the truth about ourselves: We don't belive in a tenth of what our Constitution actually says. Americans are soaked in bigotry and prejudice. It still remains to be seen whether a woman or an African-American can be elected President, let alone a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist or a Muslim.
But forget the religious intolerance in America. Imagine an agnostic or an atheist trying to run for President. We simply love to pay lip service to the ideals enshrined within our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence. We love to preach to the rest of the world about it. But, like so much else of what we do, we do not practice what we preach.
I find nothing to be so amusing and at the same time outrageously false than the ringing, piteous, self-righteous claim of Christians that they are so discriminated against in our political system when you cannot name a single President of the United States, a single Supreme Court justice, or a single member of any leadership position in the Congress who isn't a Christian.
And we have the gall to say we don't apply a religious test to holding political office? Fie on us!
October 6, 2007 11:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 11:20
Wow, talk about missing the point. And this woman is a professor of what? The point is not that Jesus COULDN'T be president, but that he WOULDN'T be president. Sorry, but Thistlethwaite bombs on both sides of the issue. Now, let's discuss the issue,"What if Davey Crockett had had a helicopter at the battle of the Alamo".
October 6, 2007 10:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 10:55
The Republican Taliban and their three Presidential front-runners are stealth-racist, (don't forget, they're running for President), stealth-fascist, (911 was America's version of the Reichstag fire), and as dangerous to our nation's future as any foreign-born terrorists.
October 6, 2007 10:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 10:36
The Republican Taliban and their three Presidential front-runners are stealth-racist, (don't forget, they're running for President), stealth-fascist, (911 was America's version of the Reichstag fire), and as dangerous to our nation's future as any foreign-born terrorists.
October 6, 2007 10:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 10:35
I find it curious that the intent and loyalty of a candidate to doctrine is only in reference to Catholic, Mormon, Hindu etc. For the past six and a half years we've had a Protestant influenced by Evangelical perceptions actually claim that God told him to invade Iraq. Every socially important issue that effects ALL Americans was filtered through his intent and loyalty to his "Christian" doctrine. I imagine Jesus cringes every time he's tied to this blasphemous insanity. This criteria evidently only applies to ANY candidate not a member of the very conservative Evangelical crowd.
October 6, 2007 10:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 10:07
JD wrote:
"Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late."
No, you're one beat closer to being reincarnated and getting a fresh chance to attain enlightenment.
October 6, 2007 9:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 09:39
"Rev." Thistlethwaite's supposed point is that based on Mr. McCain's preferences, Jesus would be excluded because he was Jewish.
This woman is "President" of a "Seminary"?? Doesn't she, or anyone who actually read this tripe understand the difference between RACE and FAITH??
Jesus was the very first CHRISTIAN.
October 6, 2007 9:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 09:23
Neither Jesus nor Gandhi was born an American citizen, so McCain's view is as irrelevant to their suitability for president as to so many other things.
October 6, 2007 8:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 08:50
Americans may claim Jesus as their "favrit flossyfur," but they sure would not want to give up all their worldly treasure, to live like his disciples, as wandering "lilies of the field" mendicants, or love their enemies. When it turned out that He would not abide by their "Yes, but" replies to his beatitudes, and would not button up and let folks "get on with business," the crowds would get fed up, pronounce him an impostor, and have Him eliminated, just like last time.
October 6, 2007 8:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 08:22
Pegleg said "I never have understood the Christian effort to legislate morality....With our market economy, all the 83% of the American people who claim to be Christian have to do is vote with their wallets and faster than you can say "Immaculate conception" all the sin businesses from TV, to porn to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton will be closing down like a McDonalds after an e-coli scare."
You can run a fine business with only 17% market share. 17% of the population still has loads to money to spend on all those things.
Legislating morality is perhaps the primary job of governments. Laws against stealing, unequal weights and measures, moving boundary lines and the like have been around since the first governments. If the market worked for such things governments would be out of business.
October 6, 2007 7:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 07:56
Joet said "My concern would be that Jesus's ideas and ideals--based on what people in the bible said he said--would be a bit too, well, backwards, intolerant, and essentially dangerous to our way of life: moderately democratic society."
Was that tongue in cheek?
The standard of virtue is now considered backward and intolerant! I suppose he had similar problems with the society he face in Israel, but its a sad thing when we think our virtues have evolved past the one who defines virtue. Your views are probably held by many, and you phrased them so succinctly.
I suppose you are correct. We really can't be considered a Christian nation anymore. Not that we ever really were, but at least we were at one time a Christian nation wannabee. While wanting to be good and Godly is not the same as being good and Godly its at least better than not wanting t be good and Godly.
October 6, 2007 7:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 07:41
Ms Brooks: Sen. John McCain is wrong in saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth could not be elected President of these United States--not because he was not yet 35 when he died--but simply because he was Jewish and not Christian!
Conceding, arguendo, that Jesus Christ was not Christian, but a Jew who was a natural-born citizen of these United States, I see no reason why, after reaching 35 years of age, he could not be elected President of these United States.
You are quite right to say that the US Constitution does not require a religious test for any man or woman who aspires to be elected President. He or she need only be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and be at least 35 years of age.
Assuming, however, that Jesus Christ, were a natural-born citizen of these United States, and was 35 years old when he ran for President and won the Office, my sense is that it would be understandably utopian and unrealistic to think that Jesus Christ's beliefs, convictions and values as a Jew would not color or influence his decisions as President.
One has to assume that those Jewish beliefs, convictions and values, deeply embedded in the sub-conscious could easily, reflexively, unwittingly and automatically color and influence all decisions Jesus Christ would have had to make as President.
To assert that they would not is to assert, wrongly, that Jesus Christ was not human.
MarPatalinjug@aol.com
October 6, 2007 7:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 07:40
Ms Brooks: Sen. John McCain is wrong in saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth could not be elected President of these United States--not because he was not yet 35 when he died--but simply because he was Jewish and not Christian!
Conceding, arguendo, that Jesus Christ was not Christian, but a Jew who was a natural-born citizen of these United States, I see no reason why, after reaching 35 years of age, he could not be elected President of these United States.
You are quite right to say that the US Constitution does not require a religious test for any man or woman who aspires to be elected President. He or she need only be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and be at least 35 years of age.
Assuming, however, that Jesus Christ, were a natural-born citizen of these United States, and was 35 years old when he ran for President and won the Office, my sense is that it would be understandably utopian and unrealistic to think that Jesus Christ's beliefs, convictions and values as a Jew would not color or influence his decisions as President.
One has to assume that those Jewish beliefs, convictions and values, deeply embedded in the sub-conscious could easily, reflexively, unwittingly and automatically color and influence all decisions Jesus Christ would have had to make as President.
To assert that they would not is to assert, wrongly, that Jesus Christ was not human.
MarPatalinjug@aol.com
October 6, 2007 7:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 07:40
Ms Brooks: Sen. John McCain is wrong in saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth could not be elected President of these United States--not because he was not yet 35 when he died--but simply because he was Jewish and not Christian!
Conceding, arguendo, that Jesus Christ was not Christian, but a Jew who was a natural-born citizen of these United States, I see no reason why, after reaching 35 years of age, he could not be elected President of these United States.
You are quite right to say that the US Constitution does not require a religious test for any man or woman who aspires to be elected President. He or she need only be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and be at least 35 years of age.
Assuming, however, that Jesus Christ, were a natural-born citizen of these United States, and was 35 years old when he ran for President and won the Office, my sense is that it would be understandably utopian and unrealistic to think that Jesus Christ's beliefs, convictions and values as a Jew would not color or influence his decisions as President.
One has to assume that those Jewish beliefs, convictions and values, deeply embedded in the sub-conscious could easily, reflexively, unwittingly and automatically color and influence all decisions Jesus Christ would have had to make as President.
To assert that they would not is to assert, wrongly, that Jesus Christ was not human.
MarPatalinjug@aol.com
October 6, 2007 7:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 07:40
Jane said "I realize, given the mindset of the majority of the American voting public, candidates feel they HAVE to say they have faith. What I want to know that they can compartmentalize that, and not bring it into their decisions."
What you just describe is the person we don't need. That person would compartmentalize all of their virtues into a comfortable place where they could go about living their lives unchanged by their "faith". They would say "Its wrong to steal" but add "but this is different". They'd claim "I have to be honest" and then say under their breath "except in campaigns or when it inconvenient".
I suppose you have described most people to some extent, but its not a good thing. Don't claim it is a virtue in a candidate.
October 6, 2007 7:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 07:31
Dr. Thistlethwaite! How can I recommend your seminary to anyone when its president engages in such sophomoric reasoning? Jesus can't be President because He is Jewish? This from a seminarian?
Of course Jesus is Jewish, but all Christians are sons of Abraham. Where is the conflict?
As to the age qualification, he may have died at 33, but he is ageless, eternal and without end. Of course, his nomination would be challenged by some seminarian who claimed he never really existed. Not you, but there are seminarians who would take this position.
The real problem is that he would never want the job. He is already appointed to rule over all the earth, and that won't require cooperation with congress. The presidency would be a major step down from that job.
October 6, 2007 7:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 07:10
when "vulnerable" is based on "vulnerary", then President of USA shall be a healer again, whatever the wound is.
October 6, 2007 7:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 07:05
Stuff and nonsense! The constitution forbids a religious test by the government but places no such enjoinder on individual voters. There are other things to consider besides religion, but if you are to take the whole measure of a man religion better be in that mix. The real problem of using religion as a factor is the same problem faced with every other qualification: how much of it is real. A person can claim to have a wonderful relationship with God, but his God is really himself.
In the end you have to judge his claims against all the evidence that builds up in a lifetime, and then attempt to correct for all the distortions a campaign brings to your perceptions of the facts.
October 6, 2007 6:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:59
Anybody who trumpets his or her unshakable belief in Stone Age myths and Medieval superstition, no matter what the particular label, is completely unfit to be president.
I would vote for a candidate who said something like this:
"My personal religion is nobody's business but my own. I will say however that I do believe in scholarly endeavor, in discovery, the scientific method, in debate, in peer review, and in the quest for truth. I am capable of revising what I believe when I learn new things. I also believe in the freedom of every person to find his own path to spirituality or inner peace. I believe in taking responsibility for my actions and not treating any person different to how I would wish to be treated in turn by that person. I treasure the humanity of every single person on Earth, and I value every living organism on our planet. I value life as an end in itself and not merely as a means to my own satisfaction or pleasure. Finally, may I say that just because we don't understand something today doesn't mean we won't understand it tomorrow. My only unshakable belief is in the ability of humankind to learn from the narrative of history, the discoveries of science and the analysis of philosophy to achieve civilization and to survive and flourish on our planet."
I could vote for the candidate who said something like that. Philip J Tramdack
October 6, 2007 6:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:39
Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late.
October 6, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:14
Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late.
October 6, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:14
Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late.
October 6, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:14
Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late.
October 6, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:14
Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late.
October 6, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:14
Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late.
October 6, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:14
Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late.
October 6, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:14
Every time you feel your heart beat you get one beat closer to it being too late.
October 6, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 06:14
I'm not aware of any Jews running for President, so the question is sort of hypothetical.
Jesus of Nazereth was born in Bethlehem, which is today part of Israel. As he was not born in the United States, he cannot run for President of the United States.
Jesus could run for President of Israel, but I don't think he'd get many votes.
October 6, 2007 5:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 05:37
I thought this article was going to be "On Faith."
Nope... it is about "On Politics."
How about real articles that are about "On Faith?"
Phil Smith
Duluth, GA
October 6, 2007 5:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 05:13
Good thinking, good analysis of what a person needs to be in order to be a qualified world leader. However, if Jesus was Jewish, what are those that follow a Jew, one who remained Jewish until his death- non-Jews? Help me fill in what's missing...
October 6, 2007 5:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 05:05
Good thinking, good analysis of what a person needs to be in order to be a qualified world leader. However, if Jesus was Jewish, what are those that follow a Jew, one who remained Jewish until his death- non-Jews? Help me fill in what's missing...
October 6, 2007 5:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 05:05
Question? You stated that faith has no voice in who can be president. But yet the evangelicals who supported G.W.Bush, state constantly that 'that' is just the litmus test for any policital office.
You state that being a Hindu, Buddhist, or in my words a Wiccan, (A Muslim? A Buddhist? A Hindu? Which Muslim, which Buddhist, which Hindu? You can’t answer the question “who is qualified to be U.S. President” in the abstract. This is about character and capability for leadership. Nothing else.) But yet these same evangelicals continualy stand in front of stage props depicting the ten commandments. And the most predominant is the first, stating that no other God can be had. So, my question is, what happens to us who do not recognize, or reject your Christian God?
October 6, 2007 4:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 04:06
Question? You stated that faith has no voice in who can be president. But yet the evangelicals who supported G.W.Bush, state constantly that 'that' is just the litmus test for any policital office.
You state that being a Hindu, Buddhist, or in my words a Wiccan, (A Muslim? A Buddhist? A Hindu? Which Muslim, which Buddhist, which Hindu? You can’t answer the question “who is qualified to be U.S. President” in the abstract. This is about character and capability for leadership. Nothing else.) But yet these same evangelicals continualy stand in front of stage props depicting the ten commandments. And the most predominant is the first, stating that no other God can be had. So, my question is, what happens to us who do not recognize, or reject your Christian God?
October 6, 2007 4:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 04:05
Yeah, but a lot of people would like to think they are voting for Jesus - even when it's just for a man. Thanks to the 'Jesus' vote, we have a C-student as president. I would hope Jesus got better grades. I sometimes wonder how George would expect to make it to heaven to be with Jesus. I don't recall any mention from Jesus about getting there by causing war or supporting anti-environmentalists, who believe profits and net worth are more important than God's creation. I wish Barbara would have read him the story about the good Samaritan and applied it to health care. Or the story about the woman at the well and applied it to the death penalty. We should change the constitution so that we could elect Jesus when he returns. He might be running as a third party candidate next year!
October 6, 2007 1:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 01:50
If God wanted Jesus to be president,then he'd be president.
But he obviously preferred George W Bush,which tells us that God is not smart.
Unless he just makes mistakes sometimes like people do.
Then again,maybe God died years ago.How would we ever know?
Maybe he never even existed.After all,there's no proof that he did;not even any evidence.
So it's just as likely we made him up,like we make lots of things up.
After all,if we believe,its because it was pushed into our heads when we were kids.
And what we believe is what our folks believed.
Which should tell us that religion's veracity is definitely dubious,to say the least.
And to believe is a bit of a stretch.
October 6, 2007 12:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 00:32
If God wanted Jesus to be president,then he'd be president.
But he obviously preferred George W Bush,which tells us that God is not smart.
Unless he just makes mistakes sometimes like people do.
Then again,maybe God died years ago.How would we ever know?
Maybe he never even existed.After all,there's no proof that he did;not even any evidence.
So it's just as likely we made him up,like we make lots of things up.
After all,if we believe,its because it was pushed into our heads when we were kids.
And what we believe is what our folks believed.
Which should tell us that religion's veracity is definitely dubious,to put it mildly.
And to believe is a bit of a stretch.
October 6, 2007 12:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 6, 2007 00:31
There is a major difference between what is happening now and what happened when Kennedy was running. Back then the concept of separation of church and state was important. People were concerned about how Kennedy's faith would be reflected in his policies because they didn't believe national and theological interests were identical.
Unfortunately that is no longer true. Religion now has become a litmus test because a small but vocal group in this country believes that national law should enforce religious beliefs. This is reflected in everything from positions on abortion, gay unions (both should be illegal), to teaching creationism and prayer in schools (should be the law). In the effort to get support from this group of voters who may know the Bible but are a little weak on the Bill of Rights, candidates feel an obligation to prove that they are from the "right" religion. Of course the "right" religion has to be once that not only shares these values but also wants to force them on everyone else. Its not just being a Christian but the right kind. Unfortunately, Unitarian won't cut it, nor I'm afraid Dr. Thistlewaite would the United Church of Christ. Your church doesn't seem to get that the First amendment and religious tolerance are so last century.
If Roe v Wade had occurred during Kennedy's time he would have been applauded for saying "my faith teaches this is wrong, but I have no right to force it on others." Nor,after saying this, would the Bishops have banned him from receiving communion. When John Kerry said the same thing he was actively denounced by many including Catholic bishops who refused him the sacraments.
October 5, 2007 10:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 5, 2007 22:55
I believe it was Tolstoy who said that if people lived according to the principles of "The Sermon on the Mount", there would be no need for government. Ghandi said that it would take a truly exceptional society to live without police, although he truly hoped for one. And Israel whacked the Kennedys (as best I can determine) for exposing several (of their many) lies, particularly re nukes.
My point is: Good people don't do well in politics, or government.
October 5, 2007 10:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 5, 2007 22:54
Ms. Thistlethwaite's commentary raised a couple of offbeat theoretical questions in my mind about the legality of not voting for someone because of their religious beliefs. Since, at least in theory, presidents are hired, at least in part, by voting citizens, would those citizens who seek to deny a candidate the job of president because of bias against the candidate's religion be guilty of discrimination as defined in current EEO law? Is the position of president fundamentally a "job" like non-elected government and civilian jobs? After all, the president is paid a salary, and there is a mechanism for "firing" one. Obviously, this is theoretical since sufficient proof of such discrimination would likely not be either pursued or obtainable, but it crossed my mind.
October 5, 2007 10:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 5, 2007 22:53
There is a major difference between what is happening now and what happened when Kennedy was running. Back then the concept of separation of church and state was important. People were concerned about how Kennedy's faith would be reflected in his policies because they didn't believe national and theological interests were identical.
Unfortunately that is no longer true. Religion now has become a litmus test because a small but vocal group in this country believes that national law should enforce religious beliefs. This is reflected in everything from positions on abortion, gay unions (both should be illegal), to teaching creationism and prayer in schools (should be the law). In the effort to get support from this group of voters who may know the Bible but are a little weak on the Bill of Rights, candidates feel an obligation to prove that they are from the "right" religion. Of course the "right" religion has to be once that not only shares these values but also wants to force them on everyone else. Its not just being a Christian but the right kind. Unfortunately, Unitarian won't cut it, nor I'm afraid Dr. Thistlewaite would the United Church of Christ. Your church doesn't seem to get that the First amendment and religious tolerance are so last century.
If Roe v Wade had occurred during Kennedy's time he would have been applauded for saying "my faith teaches this is wrong, but I have no right to force it on others." Nor,after saying this, would the Bishops have banned him from receiving communion. When John Kerry said the same thing he was actively denounced by many including Catholic bishops who refused him the sacraments.
October 5, 2007 10:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 5, 2007 22:50