This Week in God

First up from The God Machine this week is the ongoing religio-political discussion about a Mormon presidential candidate. Al Sharpton clearly seemed to cross the line this week when he said, “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation.”

But that’s nothing compared to what Romney has to overcome on the right.

While some evangelical Christians are defending the presidential candidacy of Mormon Mitt Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, another prominent pastor is going further in his condemnation — saying a vote for the former Massachusetts governor is a vote for Satan.

That’s the word from Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based Live Prayer TV program as well as LivePrayer.com.

“If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!” he writes in his daily devotional to be sent out to 2.4 million e-mail subscribers tomorrow.

Keller, a fairly prominent televangelist in religious right circles and a graduate of Jerry Falwell’s college, also lashes out at those evangelical leaders who haven’t condemned Romney. “I have watched in horror over the past weeks as one evangelical Christian leader after another has either endorsed, supported, or just as bad, refused to denounce Romney’s run for the White House and those Christian leaders who support him,” Keller writes. “Last weekend Pat Robertson, founder of CBN and Regent University, had Romney deliver the keynote address to the graduates of Regent. Regent is one of the great Christian colleges in this nation, and Robertson allowed this cult member to deliver the commencement address. Is he out of his mind?”

OK, Keller, now tell us how you really feel.

Michelle Cottle had a TNR item yesterday noting that intense hostility towards Mormons continues to permeate the GOP’s religious right base. If anything, she was understating the case — the bigotry and hatred is palpable.

Next up is a disconcerting addendum to recent revelations about mistreatment of injured military veterans. This time, there’s a religious angle to the story. (Thanks to reader B.D. for the heads-up)

U.S. Navy veteran David Miller said that when he checked into the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Iowa City, he didn’t realize he would get a hard sell for Christian fundamentalism along with treatment for his kidney stones.

Miller, 46, an Orthodox Jew, said he was repeatedly proselytized by hospital chaplains and staff in attempts to convert him to Christianity during three hospitalizations over the past two years.

He said he went hungry each time because the hospital wouldn’t serve him kosher food, and the staff refused to contact his rabbi, who could have brought him something to eat.

Miller, an Iowa City resident and former petty officer third class who spent four years in the Navy, outlined his complaints at a news conference in Des Moines on Thursday. The event was sponsored by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an activist group based in Albuquerque, N.M.

He described the Iowa City facility as an institution permeated by government sponsorship of fundamentalist Christianity and unconstitutional discrimination against Jews…. The hospital’s chaplains and staff, Miller said, have the attitude that you either accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and you are saved, or you are damned.

Miller explained that he’s not against chaplains at military facilities. “When I was in the Navy, I was a religious program specialist. I worked with Christian chaplains, and I believe in the value of the chaplain corps, but not using it to bludgeon people, for heaven’s sake,” Miller said.

When it comes to taking care of our wounded vets, let’s not forget their religious liberty, too.

Also from the God Machine this week, the Vatican has been struggling to spin the pope’s latest thoughts on excommunicating politicians who disagree with the church on abortion.

Pope Benedict XVI caused such a stir with his comments on the excommunication of lawmakers who vote in favor of legalizing abortion that the Vatican released a transcript Thursday changing what the pontiff said.

While Benedict met with Brazil’s president, and thousands of Roman Catholics streamed toward a soccer stadium for an evening youth rally, the Vatican released a new transcript that seemed to roll back the pope’s comments from a day earlier.

Asked during an in-flight news conference Wednesday if legislators who legalized abortion in Mexico City should rightfully be considered excommunicated, Benedict replied, “Yes.”

“The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the code,” the pope said, referring to canon law.

On Thursday, the Vatican issued a slightly edited transcript that dropped the word “yes” in the pope’s response. Several other changes made his remarks seem a more general statement, rather than referring specifically to Mexican bishops who had said the politicians had excommunicated themselves.

Benedict’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters that such edits are common. “Every time the pope speaks off the cuff, the Secretariat of State reviews and cleans up his remarks,” he said.

The folks who do the transcriptions for the president are probably thinking, “Why didn’t we think of that?”

I need someone to edit my comments to my wife: “No, honey as you can see right here in the transcript, I clearly said yes, not no.”

  • According to church teachings, papal doctrinal pronouncements are “infallible.” I’m just wondering if the infallibility applies to the initial remarks as given or to the cleaned-up versions.

  • I believe that Bush does have his official remarks cleaned-up. Perhaps not too much, but the Dubya Speak website has shown quite a few discrepencies between what was clearly said and what the Whitehouse website says was said.

  • Papal infallibility applies to an extremely limited set of pronouncements — there was only one officially infallible pronouncement in the 20th century.

  • Most Catholics I know and grew up with and went to school with don’t believe they have to answer to the Pope but to God. They consider the Pope the leader of the Church on Earth but only the individual can judge if he is unworthy of the Sacrements. The Pope is more like an adviser and leader than a ruler.

    The “born again” Christians are dangerous for they believe laws and rules don’t apply to them unless it coincides with their faith and think nothing of breaking them if they consider them un-christian. They are closed minded. It is their way or the hiway. If you don’t believe the way the do then you are going to hell and belong to satan and are just wrong. In the bible belt when I was a teenager in the ’60s they would literally try to beat the devil out of you while trying to save you. They could not accept freedom of belief. There was just something wrong with you. They practice sedition everyday, operate in secrecy, feel a law school is more important to Christ than a Medical School and have set out to take over and control our country. Rule of law to them is their interpretation of God’s law not the constitution. They are the most dangerous internal threat to America because they are against the one principle that makes our Democracy work….Tolerance. They use a religious document to point the direction of our foreign policy and it is one of destruction. Emotionalism and faith dominate reason and logic and love is replaced by righteousness. The good news is that the small group with their very public outspoken leaders do not truly reflect the principles of their followers. It’s another case where the dominate few speak for the many. Still, fanaticism from any religious organization is deadly to democracy.

  • This religious crap is enough to make a person wear sack cloth & ashes.

  • Cyan is right. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950. This means that Mary the Mother of Jesus was transported into Heaven with her body and soul united. “Having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory,” according to the Pope. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

    I’m sure that you are all thrilled to know this.

    As a young skeptic in Catholic school, I always found it odd that the only doctrines that the Church teaches infallibly are those that can’t possibly be falsified, like the Assumption. Of course when the Church taught that the Sun moved around the Earth but later changed their minds, they claimed that THAT teaching was never meant to be infallible. The difference probably wasn’t so clear to Galileo.

    I think that the Church misuses its supposed infallibility. I doubt that most Catholics realize that the vast majority of their church’s teachings are not officially infallible. Or maybe they do, since so many pick and choose which ones to follow:
    Abortion? No.
    Capital punishment? Yes
    Birth control? Yes
    Republican politics? Sometimes. Depends on the bishop.

  • Hopefully, former Petty Officer Miller will sue the shit out of those taliban morons.

    As to the Mormons, there’s something to consider that people are refusing to look at with the Mormon Church:

    JFK told the Baptist Bishops in Dallas in 1960 that he was an American first and a Catholic second, and he would not be carrying out any papal directive he did not believe met the first test of being right for the country. The article above points out that Catholics do not think of the Pope as the leader of their church whose dictates on all things must be followed explicitly.

    That is NOT the case with Mormons. A Mormon MUST follow every dictate put out by the President of the Mormon Church, who is considered the Prophet, who is directly in line of authority from Jesus Christ (the Pope only claims authority from Peter) and directly in touch with God. To fail to follow his every utterance exactly is to be excommunicated.

    Thus, a vote for a Mormon to any office is a vote for that candidate to follow the leadership of the Prophet of the Mormon Church to dictate public policy. Having Orrin Hatch – one of 100 Senators – do this is one thing; having the President of the United States under such religious authority is a matter of extreme importance. It is unlike any other religious question in a candidate for President, and has to be asked and answered. And Romney cannot say to the American People what Kennedy said to the Baptists – if he did, he would be excommunicated on the spot.

    That’s important, and it doesn’t involve the slightest bit of religious bigotry to be worried about it.

  • The Navy officer’s story reminds me of the cretin, sorry, chaplain in Iraq who tried to refuse water to the troops unless they accepted Christ as their saviour.

    In this case the irony is increased by the fact that the officer was Jewish. No wonder JC won’t come back. His biggest fans are raving anti-Semites.

  • …] when the Church taught that the Sun moved around the Earth but later changed their minds, they claimed that THAT teaching was never meant to be infallible. The difference probably wasn’t so clear to Galileo. — Okie,@ 7

    Not to mention Giordano Bruno.

    Another teaching which changed over the years is that matter of abortion. Before 10th? 11? century, the belief was that humans didn’t have soul until the 4th month of pregnancy. Probably because most miscarriages (also known as spontaneous abortions) happen during the first 3 months. But,
    because of that, while first trimester abortions were frowned upon, they were not considered the sort of sin they’re considered now. In fact, suicide would earn you eternal hell but getting the village wise woman to slip you a bunch of herbs to miscarry did not.

    This Pope ain’t the same as the last Pope, not by a long shot. The Rat has problems with the “socially conscious” religious in South America too, while Wojtylla encouraged them.

  • I haven’t heard any condemnation from the right about Keller’s anti-Mormon remarks. Sharpton was practically complimenting Romney’s Mormon faith compared to what this religious rightist said.

  • Regent is one of the great Christian colleges in this nation…. Is he out of his mind?”

    Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

    The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950. This means that Mary the Mother of Jesus was transported into Heaven with her body and soul united. “Having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory,” according to the Pope.

    Years ago I prowled the stacks in the library and came up with two books by pseudo-Dionysius, the fifth century theologian and philosopher. At one point he mentions a pilgrimage that he’s going to take with some church elders to view the bodies of Peter and Mary (yeah, the one that the pope said was taken bodily to heaven). It boggles the mind that people follow the pope, especially one like the current douchebag, who declared recently that yes, hell is really a place of eternal torment but no, eating meat on Good Friday won’t land you there. Presumably calling the pope a douchebag will, however. Be still, my quaking heart!

    As for Romney, anybody who believes the unadulterated baloney that is Mormonism and wears magic underwear has no business being even considered for the position of president any more than a coke-snorting moronic deserter. Oh, wait…

  • Could members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) be more “Christian” than other Christian denominations? . . Oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship and portions of the Apocrypha referred to “mysteries”, instituted by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

    Early Christian churches, continued Old Testament temple worship traditions:
    1) Baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family
    2) Lay clergy
    3) Anointing with holy oil after baptism
    4) Then clothing in white clothing

    An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
    .
    And read Exodus Ch 29 for Aaron and his sons” ordinances. . Old Testament Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to the time of the Emperor Constantine [see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.) Lecture XXI]. . . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them

    A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ, His Son, being separate, divine beings, united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

    The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.”
    Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity.

    Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).

    Only members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue these practices of First Century Christians. The Cross became popular in the Fifth Century A.D. But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”:. All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

    It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

    * * *

    And the 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LDS Evangelical
    Attend Religious Services weekly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% . . . . 55%
    Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
    extremely important . . . 52. . . . . . 28
    Believes in life after death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . 62
    Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 5
    Has taught religious education classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . 28
    Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline . . . . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . 22
    Sabbath Observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . 40
    Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . 56
    Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 19
    Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
    (very supportive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . 26
    Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
    Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality . . . 84 . . . . . . 35

  • In their defense, evangelicals should be allowed to think all non-Christians are damned. They can’t help it. It’s PART of their religion to believe everyone but they are doomed. We mustn’t insist on weakening their faith like they persecute ours (whetever it may be.)

    While they’re on planet Earth though, they should be content to allow people to damn themselves when they say “No thank you” to the pitch.

    Either that, or they shouldn’t get a government job like military service.

  • President LIndsay wrote:

    “Years ago I prowled the stacks in the library and came up with two books by pseudo-Dionysius, the fifth century theologian and philosopher. At one point he mentions a pilgrimage that he’s going to take with some church elders to view the bodies of Peter and Mary (yeah, the one that the pope said was taken bodily to heaven).”

    Either your memory or reading comprehension is faulty in this case. From the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions:

    The Christian belief that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her life. The doctrine first emerged in various New Testament apocrypha of the 4th cent., and on the strength of a passage in pseudo-Dionysius became accepted in orthodox circles by the 7th cent.

    Also, from “History of the Christian Church”, by Phillip Schaff:

    Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours, for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul.

    It should be noted that Schaff was a Reformed Calvinist (a sect that ranges from disbelieving to hostile to ‘Catholic’ doctrines such as the Assumption), and would have gleefully pointed out if pseudo-Dionysius had said anything about the body (or, rather, bones) of Mary being viewable. It is possible that pseudo-Dionysius was undertaking a pilgrimage to view the tombs of Peter and of Mary, since it was understood that Mary died and her body placed in a tomb prior to her Assumption. There is no Christian writer of any time before the Protestant Reformation that denies Mary’s Assumption.

  • Comments are closed.