I don’t know the exact stats about how many Christians are in what denomination, but what Czar says is correct: The “Christian” message out there is pretty much what I’m talking about in my OP.
Having been raised Catholic, I know the Catholic message is different–basically, they don’t raise the bullhorn, they just go through the motions. I wonder how many really even believe any more. I also know there are plenty of fellow travellers in the Catholic Church and other denominations that cannot accurately be labeled “fundamentalist.” Often, there is overlap on a particular set of positions. There are many rabidly anti-abortion and anti-gay Catholics, for example.
This is a perfect example of obvious, embarrassed backpedalling, I mean, I know you’re not embarrassed, and you’re not backpedalling, but I just want to point out that this is the type of response given by some backpedallers when they are embarrassed.
No, I don’t really care all that much about it. I contact my Congressman and Senators on more important issues like global warming, recycling, passing higher MPG requirements, not opening National Forest and Reserves to industry, etc.
While I agree with your initial statement, I have to admit that the extremely vocal, politically powerful, and obnoxious segment of the Christian population in America has begun to taint the name “Christian” in my mind. Nowadays, when someone says, “I’m a Christian,” it may mean that they believe Jesus Christ was the son of God and died to offer humans salvation. Or it may mean they believe those things, plus believing that Jesus likes America best, gays should be lynched, abortion doctors shot, that the banana is the perfect proof of God’s existence, that women should be submissive to men, that only Republicans are moral, that Iraq conspired in the 9/11 attack, and that only politically conservative, evangelical Christians can be called “Christian .”
Except it is quite possible that the majority of voters in my district/state support the 1952 National Day of Prayer Act, and contacting the relevant Congressman and Senator will have no effect.
Now if only there was a branch of government with the role of ensuring that the popularly elected branches could not use their position to impose unconstitutional laws on the population, however much those laws might have majority support.
Research on the 2006 event has shown Muslim participation. I believe before the President’s remarks, an imam offered a prayer.
The Hindu American Foundation sent representatives to the event, and Lodi Gyari, a Tibetan Buddhist who serves as a special envoy to the Dalai Lama, was an honored guest.
I see also a news release from a Sikh organization from 2005 announcing their participation in the event.
Clearly organizers have striven to be as inclusive as possible, and many religious communities have responded with appropriate pride in their communities and happiness to be involved. It’s nice to see, IMHO.
Of course, that begs the question- is it unconstitutional? Washington, Monroe, Madison (sometimes), Lincoln, Truman and Clinton didn’t seem to think so, and neither might a body that begins its day with the words “The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!”
I did find the official description of this year’s proceedings and apparently this time, it was just several Christian ministers and a rabbi. Now, that doesn’t mean that clergy of other faiths weren’t invited, but we don’t know.
Of course it begs that question. And it should be determined by the Court, who have, in my view, avoided and obfuscated the issue repeatedly, come up with what I see as the incoherent and intellectually ludicrous doctrine of de minimis establishment, and frankly made a pig’s ear of the whole matter.
But the bottom line is telling someone to go complain to their Senator or Congressman when they feel that the government is violating the Constitution in a manner that garners large scale public support is not necessarily the right track for them to take.
We DO act like the majority, but the press finds the actions of the nutjob assholes to be much more interesting.
There are Christians on both sides of the aisle. There are Christians at the food banks. There are Christians stopping loggers. Name any left wing event and you will find Christians.
Funny - that doesn’t look like much of a Bush site, does it?
Punch into Google information on Progressive Christians and see what you find.
You are judging ALL Christians because a segment of them makes for good press. This is just as wrong as judging all US Muslims for the DC snipers, or all blacks for Al Sharpton’s words.
I will say that you ARE correct - more of the progressive Christians need to stand up and be counted. It is tough when, as soon as someone finds out I am Christian, they paint me as right wing nutjob. This is why we have so many closet Christians - we don’t want to be associated with the twits, and we don’t want to spend all of our time apologizing.
The people you refer to are not Christians. all of the "fish’ bumper stickers and scripture quotations in the world do not make one Christian. A Christian is one who follows the gospels and is tolerant and loving. Spending 3 hours on sunday at a mall "megachurch’, listening to some fraud wearing a $5000 suit is NOT worshiping god. Jesus would be apalled by the behavior of most of these “christians”. There is an old lady in my neighborhood who is a geniune Christian…she donates her time to helping the poor, feeds starngers, and has a good word for everyone she meets. I find her Christianity far mor admirable than those bible thumpers.
I’ve been concerned about seeing more businesses whose signs seem to display a partially disguised cross in their business logos – like the “H” in “Hope Cleaners” is jiggified to make it look kind of like “I+” or the first leg of the “M” in “Miracles Hair Salon” has a little cross bar on it.
What is the intended message? “We like the colour of Christian money better?”
Those are only President Bush’s remarks, not the proceedings for the entire event, which would include other speakers, singers and prayers.
Do you have any reason to believe that the ecumenical nature of these events, established by previous presidents and respected too by this one, would suddenly be jettisoned in the year 2007?
Not deliberately, but the page also includes a video (which I did watch) of the whole event’s speakers & singers. Like I said, we don’t know who was invited and who wasn’t.
The only thing that makes a person a christian is if they say they’re a christian. If the believers can’t agree on what god is, what makes you think they can agree on what christianity is? They’re all doing their own thing with their own interpretation. One manifestation is as valid as the next.