Get E-Mail Updates

My Obama Inauguration Benediction: A Singular Moment in Time

Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, dubbed "the dean of the civil rights movement" by the NAACP and co-founder with Rev. Martin Luther King of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will deliver the benediction at the inauguration of President Obama on January 20. Sojourners asked Rev. Lowery to reflect for us on how he feels to be asked to lead the benediction at the inauguration of American's first African-American president. We are grateful for his generous response. -The Editors

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

You would think attempting to summarize my feelings on having been asked to deliver the benediction at the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama would be simple.

In fact, it's quite a challenge, given the flood of emotions I have experienced in the past few weeks and months

Of course, at one level, I'm humbled and honored.

Like most Americans of a particular age, I never thought I'd live to see the day....

At an entirely different level, I'm engaged in a spiritual experience like nothing I have ever been exposed to-at any point in my life.

And this comes from one who shared in the Dream my friend and colleague Martin Luther King Jr. taught the nation about one hot August afternoon 45 years ago.

It comes from one who fought for the Voting Rights Act, for a Civil Rights Bill, and to free South Africa and liberate Nelson Mandela from 27 years of confinement as a political prisoner.

But, there's something much greater at work here.

I first sensed it in the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire where I saw the ruddy, frozen cheeks of white college students standing in snowdrifts up to their knees in support of the candidacy of Barack Obama.

I saw it as I watched a new generation text-messaging and using their iPods to spread the word about this extraordinary man.

I watched in awe, and with great satisfaction, as record numbers of Americans -- black, white, young, old, Latino, gay and straight, rich and poor -- registered to vote in order that they might participate in the greatest calling of a democracy: the right to engage in participatory democracy.

And it was a beautiful thing to see.

Finally, like most of us, I'm conscious of being called on to say something for those who are no longer here to share in this incredible event.

I think of Martin, Medgar Evers, and Ralph Abernathy. I wish Jimmy Lee Jackson, Viola Luizzo, and Rev. James Orange could be here to share in this.

I think of countless, unheralded heroes and heroines, and their innumerable acts of personal courage, struggle, and sacrifice that built the movement that on November 4, 2008, delivered Change to America.

I thank a loving and caring God who has allowed me to witness this watershed moment.

Like all Americans of good will, I say a prayer that a wise God will continue to guide and bless our new president as he navigates the ship of state through dangerous and challenging seas.

But I know too, as always, that the God on whom we depend did not bring us this far along the way to abandon us.

And, I know that what we are about to witness is an omnipotent God using his faithful and trusting children to continue the labor of bringing the Beloved Community to reality here on earth.

Amen

portrait-joseph-loweryRev. Joseph E. Lowery is founder of the Joseph E. Lowery Institute for Justice and Human Rights at Clark Atlanta University.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 8:31pm

The revenge fantasy I was talking about is Revelation which many discount as a valid christian document, or an accurate prophecy, or vision of Jesus . It is extremely unlikely to be the work of John the beloved. Neither is John's Gospel.

I can understand why you see the strength of the military separately from the abuse of military power , but the truth is that boys with toys want to play. We spend more on the military than t rest of the nations combined. If you had a neighbor who did that you would wonder about his mental health. Our borders are North america to Canada, Hawaii, and Alaska. Why do we need over 700 military bases around the world? What I am speaking of is not mistakes or misuse, but a consistent policy of using military power for the economic interests of the powerful. This is best documented in the work of Chalmers Johnson, but also in ex Nixon Republican Kevin Philips.

I am not asking us to disarm, but we spend more pom the ilitary as a percentage of our budget than we did in WW2. This is profoundly immoral and typical of empires in decline.

by: BuckeyeDon

01-16-2009 @ 9:17pm

"The revenge fantasy I was talking about is Revelation which many discount as a valid christian document"

I have to disagree, jonabark, even though, yes, you are correct that Revelation has had detractors within the Christian community from the beginning.

However, just because the document is commonly grossly misinterpreted (e.g., by the Left Behind crowd, who see it as a detailed outline of how the world will end) doesn't mean it isn't legitimately Scripture. Revelation's original audience was Christians coming under increased pressure and persecution from the Roman empire. The book was intended as an aid and comfort to such persecuted Christians, and the highly symbolic language would have been so understood. The theme is that God is in control of history, not that God is going to unleash some awful tribulation on the world at some point in the future.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 9:38pm

When retired US Army General, Wes Clark was on Chris Matthews' Hardball show on MSNBC, Matthews tried to get Wes to say "Civil unions for gays and marriages for the heterosexuals."

But, Wes, a fellow Vietnam Veteran, refused and he said, "Equal rights for all under the law! Let the churches call same-sex marriages whatever they want; but, give the same equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians."

If a couple in any state has a marriage license filed with a civil court clerk or local government marriage bureau, it really is a civil document.

Churches don't issue marriage licenses in the United States of America. Church weddings are not even required by law in the USA.

Interracial marriages used to not be legal in all states. But, the US Supreme Court got that changed.

So, if a same-sex marriage is legal in another state, it should be recognized as legal in all 50 states, too.

Almost all of the arguments against same-sex marriages are (theoretically) based on the Bible, even when the person arguing against it is an atheist.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 9:45pm

Scriptural authority? You mean the kind as in the Old Testament that if you have an adult son who is lazy and/or refuses to obey your wishes, you can take him and your case to the town elders and if they agree with you, they will execute him by stoning him?

Jesus' authority on the earth is the Holy Spirit. There is no scriptural authority against same-gender marriages.

And when one really knows the Bible texts in their historical and cultural context, there is no condemnation of homosexuals in the Bible either.

Same-gender sexual activity done in pagan fertility temples (see Leviticus 18 through 20 and Romans 1) is not homosexuality. What would a homosexual be doing participating in a fertility ritual honoring a pagan god or goddess as in those chapters?

by: ando

01-16-2009 @ 11:05pm

hammerud-
My wife and children are not "goods." They're made in the image of
God. Two way different things.

BTW: If we are living like God wanted us, wouldn't we rely on Him
leading us to victory in war, ala Joshua and Gideon, instead of having
to really on a huge military. Just a thought. I don't have an
answer....

Quoting Disqus <>:

by: hammerud

01-16-2009 @ 11:17pm

Ando, So you would be willing to use force to protect them -- it seems
you do not reject military strength, just the misuse of military
strength. In my mind, the national defense is the valid purpose of
the military, and is the reason I agree with you that most of our
policies since WWII have been misguided. National defense though
means more when we maintain a culture worth defending; and it, in my
mind, is deteriorating rapidly, right before our eyes. By the way,
what does "BTW" mean? Both Joshua and Gideon followed directions from
God in their battles. They didn't dismiss military might, unless, as
with Gideon, God limited the force. Winston

by: nuclearferret

01-21-2009 @ 4:42pm

As benedictions go, that was a real disappointment. It utterly failed to convey any of the spirit expressed in the post made above.

by: xfree9

01-14-2009 @ 9:14pm

I didn't vote for Obama, and I doubt I'll be happy with many of his decisions. But I am truly proud for our nation, and I am very thankful that Rev. Lowery can celebrate and be part of the event. Congrats for staying the course! This is just a taste of the reward.

by: BlueDeacon

01-14-2009 @ 10:00pm

I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.

The Sunday after the election, the senior pastor of my now-interracial, always evangelical church had all us African-Americans stand and the rest of the congregation lay hands on us, saying that "a spiritual stronghold has been broken." (This in a church that, just 30 years ago, didn't even allow blacks to visit.) I didn't get the significance of the election until that moment.

by: nuclearferret

01-14-2009 @ 10:47pm

Congratulations on the honor and thank you for all your work in civil rights.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-15-2009 @ 3:57am

We cast our eyes across the landscape noting Barack Obama taking his place. His children have moved to their new school. We see George Bush preparing to leave DC. The bands are practicing their places, speech writers deciding which words fit, and talking heads making a great deal about noting "Who is where." Young Black boys living in the shadow of the White House will be in position on their street corners yet uninvited to the Event. Rick Warren moves from his spot--and prays. Obama stands on the designated point and asserts "So help me God." Joseph Lowery moves from his location and prays.

Some wring their hands about who has and who has not been allowed behind the podium to pray.

How much do all these positions matter to the Sovereign?

I pray we each, on January 20, be found "in position" before the One Most High--humbled in prayer, backs turned to all wicked ways, faces inclined only towards the One, not turning right nor left, our hands to the plow.

I believe on Jan 20 I will return to a spot I often pray. On the State Capital steps in Montgomery, AL is a gold star marking the spot where Jefferson Davis assumed the presidency of the Confederacy; from which I can look down Dexter Avenue to the site of the old slave market, and more closely, Dexter Ave Baptist Church.

What a privilege to be positioned by the King of All!!

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-15-2009 @ 4:31am

Joseph E. Lowery mentions gays in his blog above; but, he is not pro-equal rights for gays and lesbians under the Constitution of the United States of America. He does not approve of same-sex marriages. But, he approves of the 2nd class relationship status for gays which is same-sex unions.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-15-2009 @ 4:36am

I will add this note: Since Barack Obama is a Christian, he should go by what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 through 7, which is "Don't swear by anything." Jesus just said, "Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no."

When a person swears a promise oath and he includes God and he does not do what he promised, he took God's name in vain.

Besides, there is no constitutional requirement to even have this event which costs lots and lots of money on January 20.

by: BlueDeacon

01-15-2009 @ 5:40am

In context, however, that applies only in the church/among believers -- that is, no church should force people to take oaths. In secular society, however, that's another matter.

by: SisterMarie

01-15-2009 @ 3:36pm

"In context, however, that applies only in the church/among believers -- that is, no church should force people to take oaths. In secular society, however, that's another matter."

I'm not 100% sure, but you may be wrong. For most of us, our knowledge about oaths is derived from watching TV where we hear the judge intone,"Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I could weigh in with a more current understanding of what is now required.

by: PASTOR JEFF

01-15-2009 @ 5:06pm

SisterMarie: My understanding of the prohibition against oath taking is in the context of truth-telling, letting our yes be yes, integrity of behavior and the superfluity of having God watch over our shoulders or claiming to others such divine oversight. Jesus also gives, in another place, the example of the Pharisees abuse of oaths and vows by swearing "by" various items and the quality of the oath varying thereby. Our Anabaptist friends will have a much clearer explanation, I'm sure.

by: jonabark

01-15-2009 @ 6:10pm

I would feel better about these Obama inauguration articles if there were more articles about the continuing war in Gaza. America is directly involved and is still, as MLK argued, the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. Is it so much to ask that we cut the military budget? Is God building all these weapons. Is God in charge of the nuclear arsenal? How far has God brought us? I am a little fed up with Obama using Martin's style without more evidence of his courage. I am still hoping.

The truth is grim. There is no way in today's America to stand for peacemaking and economic justice except in the most symbolic and uncourageous ways unless one is willing to stand up to an onslaught of political and Media and Corporate anger. Most of those with power would line up against such a leader. Such courage would gain huge popular support , maybe a majority, but there is a large question as to whether such people power could be mobilized for the needed changes and could survive the onslaught.

The trouble is that the incremental changes proposed will accomplish so little to address the problems that the momentum of environmental madness and economic imbalance and military answers to political problems will carry the day and we will continue the path toward a world in which there are many Gazas and a few Israels.

by: xfree9

01-15-2009 @ 6:22pm

How is "same sex unions" 2nd class status? That's a subjective interpretation, like calling a female a "woman" is 2nd class because she's not labeled a "man." There is a distinction in definitions, not status. If nobody considered it "second class," then it wouldn't be. Legally, there should be no difference, but the State is not what should define "marriage."

by: JaneinWNY

01-15-2009 @ 6:56pm

Your resident Anabaptist, on cue :)

PJ, your statement is what I have always understood. I went to the Mennonite Confession of Faith to confirm that. See Article 20 http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.20.html. The first two paragraphs:

"We commit ourselves to tell the truth, to give a simple yes or no, and to avoid swearing of oaths.

Jesus told his disciples not to swear oaths at all, but to let their yes be yes, and their no be no. 1 We believe that this teaching applies to truth telling as well as to avoiding profane language. 2 An oath is often sworn as a guarantee that one is telling the truth. This implies that when one has not taken an oath, one may be less careful about telling the truth. Jesus' followers are always to speak the truth and, in legal matters, simply to affirm that their statements are true."

Jane.

by: ando

01-15-2009 @ 7:59pm

"How is "same sex unions" 2nd class status? That's a subjective interpretation, like calling a female a "woman" is 2nd class because she's not labeled a "man." There is a distinction in definitions, not status. If nobody considered it "second class," then it wouldn't be. Legally, there should be no difference, but the State is not what should define "marriage."

I also would like to know that answer. I'm trying to figure out where there is out-and-out discrimination going on. Perhaps because I live in a place that's "outside reality' and the "Berkeley of the Midwest" that I don't see it. What is the legal difference between same-sex marriage and same-sex unions?

BTW: Our local To the Left newspaper -- just went weekly -- had a column that trumpets Lowery and blasts Warren on just this issue. Lowery in the column is held up as an example of the tolerant Christian, whereas Warren is ridiculed for his beliefs. So, it is a two-way street out there. And in some places Scriptural authority is ridiculed and harrassed.

by: carlcopas

01-16-2009 @ 1:46am

Xfree, your graciousness is noted and appreciated.

by: hammerud

01-16-2009 @ 2:40am

jonabark, I appreciate your desire for peace. I also desire peace, but I think of the Scripture that says, "a strong man armed keeps his goods." This is an evil, fallen world. There is a lot of bad out there and we need to be strong to keep the peace. Just a thought. We will have real peace when the Prince of Peace returns, but things are going to get pretty crazy before then, according to Revelation. In the mean time, we better keep a strong military.

by: ando

01-16-2009 @ 3:14am

If you're going to apply Scripture, you might want to add the Beatitudes: blessed are the humble, the peacemakers, the meek, etc.

In addition to our enemies, pride also goeth before a fall.

by: nuclearferret

01-21-2009 @ 2:42pm

As benedictions go, that was a real disappointment. It utterly failed to convey any of the spirit expressed in the post made above.

by: WitnessforPeace

01-17-2009 @ 2:20pm

Joe_Allen_Doty: Correct! Any speculations I enter in my blog may or may not be helpful applications of what Jesus originally meant.
Carolcopas: Just 5 minutes ago I read another hearty recommendation of Bauckham on Revelation(Cambridge University Press 1993). Thank you for the confirmation!

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:26am

The "principle called "analogia scriptura," which states that no Scripture, properly interpreted, contradicts any other Scripture." is apparently a Roman Catholic Church denominational principle. Jesus' message of peace and not being pro-war seems to contradict the need for war in the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures.

The word "meek" in the KJV would be better translated as "gentle." The word "meek" to most people means a person who is weak and cowardly.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:30am

Since I am a Believer in Christ Jesus, I don't use the Hebrew Scriptures as a part of my personal doctrines. It is good to read the Hebrew Scriptures AFTER one has read the Gospels and the Book of Acts. I really suggest a new convert read the Epistle to the Hebrews BEFORE he reads anything in the Old Testament.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:34am

What is called Gaza today was Philistia in the Book of Judges and in the book after that. Gaza was not a part of Canaan and it was not the Promised Land to the Israelites.

The Philistines of the Old Testament are the Palestinians of modern times . . . theoretically at least. In fact, if you look of Palestine in a good dictionary, you will see that its word origin is "Philistine."

Philistia was at war with Israel way back before 1350 BC.

by: xfree9

01-14-2009 @ 9:14pm

I didn't vote for Obama, and I doubt I'll be happy with many of his decisions. But I am truly proud for our nation, and I am very thankful that Rev. Lowery can celebrate and be part of the event. Congrats for staying the course! This is just a taste of the reward.

by: BlueDeacon

01-14-2009 @ 10:00pm

I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.

The Sunday after the election, the senior pastor of my now-interracial, always evangelical church had all us African-Americans stand and the rest of the congregation lay hands on us, saying that "a spiritual stronghold has been broken." (This in a church that, just 30 years ago, didn't even allow blacks to visit.) I didn't get the significance of the election until that moment.

by: nuclearferret

01-14-2009 @ 10:47pm

Congratulations on the honor and thank you for all your work in civil rights.

by: WitnessforPeace

01-16-2009 @ 3:18pm

A good book on this is "How to read the Bible for all its Worth" by Gordon Fee et al. Christians can learn much from the Hebrew Bible, which are the Scriptures the New Testament talks about (I Tim....)
But Fee says that nothing from the OT is binding unless it's affirmed in the New. And a lot is, including all Ten Commandments. Jesus even strengthened some of them[lust, anger]. A possible exception is keeping the Sabbath with is explained as "made for humans" not the other way around. And, of course, these are standards for behavior, not a means of obtaining favor before God or to keep up good appearances among men and women.
Blessings,

by: letjusticerolldown

01-15-2009 @ 3:57am

We cast our eyes across the landscape noting Barack Obama taking his place. His children have moved to their new school. We see George Bush preparing to leave DC. The bands are practicing their places, speech writers deciding which words fit, and talking heads making a great deal about noting "Who is where." Young Black boys living in the shadow of the White House will be in position on their street corners yet uninvited to the Event. Rick Warren moves from his spot--and prays. Obama stands on the designated point and asserts "So help me God." Joseph Lowery moves from his location and prays.

Some wring their hands about who has and who has not been allowed behind the podium to pray.

How much do all these positions matter to the Sovereign?

I pray we each, on January 20, be found "in position" before the One Most High--humbled in prayer, backs turned to all wicked ways, faces inclined only towards the One, not turning right nor left, our hands to the plow.

I believe on Jan 20 I will return to a spot I often pray. On the State Capital steps in Montgomery, AL is a gold star marking the spot where Jefferson Davis assumed the presidency of the Confederacy; from which I can look down Dexter Avenue to the site of the old slave market, and more closely, Dexter Ave Baptist Church.

What a privilege to be positioned by the King of All!!

by: WitnessforPeace

01-16-2009 @ 3:36pm

I intended to say "Sabbath which is explained as..." Pardon my lisping/lithping. No offense to lispers!
This is a free country and I heartily invite you to believe anything you want. I'm explaining the historic Christian position. On the rare occasions when Sojourners talks about theology, they seem to affirm basic Christian beliefs. The historic doctrines of Protestants and Catholics generally agree with one another more closely than, say, liberal Presbyterians and conservative Presbyterians today. That's because the pre-modern/modern split [truth is absolute/truth is relative] is a much deeper divide than an argument over transubstantiation by two theologians who nonetheless were arguing according to the same rules. Please post at joyfulreality.blogspot.com if you think this is getting off topic
Blessings,

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-15-2009 @ 4:31am

Joseph E. Lowery mentions gays in his blog above; but, he is not pro-equal rights for gays and lesbians under the Constitution of the United States of America. He does not approve of same-sex marriages. But, he approves of the 2nd class relationship status for gays which is same-sex unions.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-15-2009 @ 4:36am

I will add this note: Since Barack Obama is a Christian, he should go by what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 through 7, which is "Don't swear by anything." Jesus just said, "Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no."

When a person swears a promise oath and he includes God and he does not do what he promised, he took God's name in vain.

Besides, there is no constitutional requirement to even have this event which costs lots and lots of money on January 20.

by: BlueDeacon

01-15-2009 @ 5:40am

In context, however, that applies only in the church/among believers -- that is, no church should force people to take oaths. In secular society, however, that's another matter.

by: SisterMarie

01-15-2009 @ 3:36pm

"In context, however, that applies only in the church/among believers -- that is, no church should force people to take oaths. In secular society, however, that's another matter."

I'm not 100% sure, but you may be wrong. For most of us, our knowledge about oaths is derived from watching TV where we hear the judge intone,"Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I could weigh in with a more current understanding of what is now required.

by: ando

01-16-2009 @ 4:56pm

Then we shall respectfully disagree. I don't believe that the goal of
this life is to "keep our goods". I think that's called materialism
-- or what Ronald Reagan called "Americanism"

Andy Anderson

Quoting Disqus <>:

by: PASTOR JEFF

01-15-2009 @ 5:06pm

SisterMarie: My understanding of the prohibition against oath taking is in the context of truth-telling, letting our yes be yes, integrity of behavior and the superfluity of having God watch over our shoulders or claiming to others such divine oversight. Jesus also gives, in another place, the example of the Pharisees abuse of oaths and vows by swearing "by" various items and the quality of the oath varying thereby. Our Anabaptist friends will have a much clearer explanation, I'm sure.

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 6:10pm

A lot of the bad "out there" is the long history of US militarism, apart from WW2, almost entirely aggressive and involving terror violence against civilians for political purposes, or seizure/control of land or natural resources. The book you refer to is a sick revenge fantasy and nothing to do with Jesus' life or teachings.

by: jonabark

01-15-2009 @ 6:10pm

I would feel better about these Obama inauguration articles if there were more articles about the continuing war in Gaza. America is directly involved and is still, as MLK argued, the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. Is it so much to ask that we cut the military budget? Is God building all these weapons. Is God in charge of the nuclear arsenal? How far has God brought us? I am a little fed up with Obama using Martin's style without more evidence of his courage. I am still hoping.

The truth is grim. There is no way in today's America to stand for peacemaking and economic justice except in the most symbolic and uncourageous ways unless one is willing to stand up to an onslaught of political and Media and Corporate anger. Most of those with power would line up against such a leader. Such courage would gain huge popular support , maybe a majority, but there is a large question as to whether such people power could be mobilized for the needed changes and could survive the onslaught.

The trouble is that the incremental changes proposed will accomplish so little to address the problems that the momentum of environmental madness and economic imbalance and military answers to political problems will carry the day and we will continue the path toward a world in which there are many Gazas and a few Israels.

by: xfree9

01-15-2009 @ 6:22pm

How is "same sex unions" 2nd class status? That's a subjective interpretation, like calling a female a "woman" is 2nd class because she's not labeled a "man." There is a distinction in definitions, not status. If nobody considered it "second class," then it wouldn't be. Legally, there should be no difference, but the State is not what should define "marriage."

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 6:33pm

This so-called principle can only be found in fantasyland. It is not in the Bible which has quite a few contradictions, unscientific statements, historical fabrications, and fables.

This kind of "interpretation" is like blind patriotism: it produced the Inquisition, and a great many holy wars. For some reason the God of this interpretation always wants the strong to destroy the weak, the well armed to crush the unarmed, the rich to get richer and the poor can wait for "heaven", neatly positioned after death. Jesus challenged all this nonsense. All of it.

by: JaneinWNY

01-15-2009 @ 6:56pm

Your resident Anabaptist, on cue :)

PJ, your statement is what I have always understood. I went to the Mennonite Confession of Faith to confirm that. See Article 20 http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.20.html. The first two paragraphs:

"We commit ourselves to tell the truth, to give a simple yes or no, and to avoid swearing of oaths.

Jesus told his disciples not to swear oaths at all, but to let their yes be yes, and their no be no. 1 We believe that this teaching applies to truth telling as well as to avoiding profane language. 2 An oath is often sworn as a guarantee that one is telling the truth. This implies that when one has not taken an oath, one may be less careful about telling the truth. Jesus' followers are always to speak the truth and, in legal matters, simply to affirm that their statements are true."

Jane.

by: ando

01-15-2009 @ 7:59pm

"How is "same sex unions" 2nd class status? That's a subjective interpretation, like calling a female a "woman" is 2nd class because she's not labeled a "man." There is a distinction in definitions, not status. If nobody considered it "second class," then it wouldn't be. Legally, there should be no difference, but the State is not what should define "marriage."

I also would like to know that answer. I'm trying to figure out where there is out-and-out discrimination going on. Perhaps because I live in a place that's "outside reality' and the "Berkeley of the Midwest" that I don't see it. What is the legal difference between same-sex marriage and same-sex unions?

BTW: Our local To the Left newspaper -- just went weekly -- had a column that trumpets Lowery and blasts Warren on just this issue. Lowery in the column is held up as an example of the tolerant Christian, whereas Warren is ridiculed for his beliefs. So, it is a two-way street out there. And in some places Scriptural authority is ridiculed and harrassed.

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 8:31pm

The revenge fantasy I was talking about is Revelation which many discount as a valid christian document, or an accurate prophecy, or vision of Jesus . It is extremely unlikely to be the work of John the beloved. Neither is John's Gospel.

I can understand why you see the strength of the military separately from the abuse of military power , but the truth is that boys with toys want to play. We spend more on the military than t rest of the nations combined. If you had a neighbor who did that you would wonder about his mental health. Our borders are North america to Canada, Hawaii, and Alaska. Why do we need over 700 military bases around the world? What I am speaking of is not mistakes or misuse, but a consistent policy of using military power for the economic interests of the powerful. This is best documented in the work of Chalmers Johnson, but also in ex Nixon Republican Kevin Philips.

I am not asking us to disarm, but we spend more pom the ilitary as a percentage of our budget than we did in WW2. This is profoundly immoral and typical of empires in decline.

by: nuclearferret

01-21-2009 @ 4:42pm

As benedictions go, that was a real disappointment. It utterly failed to convey any of the spirit expressed in the post made above.

by: BuckeyeDon

01-16-2009 @ 9:17pm

"The revenge fantasy I was talking about is Revelation which many discount as a valid christian document"

I have to disagree, jonabark, even though, yes, you are correct that Revelation has had detractors within the Christian community from the beginning.

However, just because the document is commonly grossly misinterpreted (e.g., by the Left Behind crowd, who see it as a detailed outline of how the world will end) doesn't mean it isn't legitimately Scripture. Revelation's original audience was Christians coming under increased pressure and persecution from the Roman empire. The book was intended as an aid and comfort to such persecuted Christians, and the highly symbolic language would have been so understood. The theme is that God is in control of history, not that God is going to unleash some awful tribulation on the world at some point in the future.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 9:38pm

When retired US Army General, Wes Clark was on Chris Matthews' Hardball show on MSNBC, Matthews tried to get Wes to say "Civil unions for gays and marriages for the heterosexuals."

But, Wes, a fellow Vietnam Veteran, refused and he said, "Equal rights for all under the law! Let the churches call same-sex marriages whatever they want; but, give the same equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians."

If a couple in any state has a marriage license filed with a civil court clerk or local government marriage bureau, it really is a civil document.

Churches don't issue marriage licenses in the United States of America. Church weddings are not even required by law in the USA.

Interracial marriages used to not be legal in all states. But, the US Supreme Court got that changed.

So, if a same-sex marriage is legal in another state, it should be recognized as legal in all 50 states, too.

Almost all of the arguments against same-sex marriages are (theoretically) based on the Bible, even when the person arguing against it is an atheist.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: xfree9

01-14-2009 @ 9:14pm

I didn't vote for Obama, and I doubt I'll be happy with many of his decisions. But I am truly proud for our nation, and I am very thankful that Rev. Lowery can celebrate and be part of the event. Congrats for staying the course! This is just a taste of the reward.

by: xfree9

01-14-2009 @ 9:14pm

I didn't vote for Obama, and I doubt I'll be happy with many of his decisions. But I am truly proud for our nation, and I am very thankful that Rev. Lowery can celebrate and be part of the event. Congrats for staying the course! This is just a taste of the reward.

by: BlueDeacon

01-14-2009 @ 10:00pm

I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.

The Sunday after the election, the senior pastor of my now-interracial, always evangelical church had all us African-Americans stand and the rest of the congregation lay hands on us, saying that "a spiritual stronghold has been broken." (This in a church that, just 30 years ago, didn't even allow blacks to visit.) I didn't get the significance of the election until that moment.

by: BlueDeacon

01-14-2009 @ 10:00pm

I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.

The Sunday after the election, the senior pastor of my now-interracial, always evangelical church had all us African-Americans stand and the rest of the congregation lay hands on us, saying that "a spiritual stronghold has been broken." (This in a church that, just 30 years ago, didn't even allow blacks to visit.) I didn't get the significance of the election until that moment.

by: nuclearferret

01-14-2009 @ 10:47pm

Congratulations on the honor and thank you for all your work in civil rights.

by: nuclearferret

01-14-2009 @ 10:47pm

Congratulations on the honor and thank you for all your work in civil rights.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-15-2009 @ 3:57am

We cast our eyes across the landscape noting Barack Obama taking his place. His children have moved to their new school. We see George Bush preparing to leave DC. The bands are practicing their places, speech writers deciding which words fit, and talking heads making a great deal about noting "Who is where." Young Black boys living in the shadow of the White House will be in position on their street corners yet uninvited to the Event. Rick Warren moves from his spot--and prays. Obama stands on the designated point and asserts "So help me God." Joseph Lowery moves from his location and prays.

Some wring their hands about who has and who has not been allowed behind the podium to pray.

How much do all these positions matter to the Sovereign?

I pray we each, on January 20, be found "in position" before the One Most High--humbled in prayer, backs turned to all wicked ways, faces inclined only towards the One, not turning right nor left, our hands to the plow.

I believe on Jan 20 I will return to a spot I often pray. On the State Capital steps in Montgomery, AL is a gold star marking the spot where Jefferson Davis assumed the presidency of the Confederacy; from which I can look down Dexter Avenue to the site of the old slave market, and more closely, Dexter Ave Baptist Church.

What a privilege to be positioned by the King of All!!

by: letjusticerolldown

01-15-2009 @ 3:57am

We cast our eyes across the landscape noting Barack Obama taking his place. His children have moved to their new school. We see George Bush preparing to leave DC. The bands are practicing their places, speech writers deciding which words fit, and talking heads making a great deal about noting "Who is where." Young Black boys living in the shadow of the White House will be in position on their street corners yet uninvited to the Event. Rick Warren moves from his spot--and prays. Obama stands on the designated point and asserts "So help me God." Joseph Lowery moves from his location and prays.

Some wring their hands about who has and who has not been allowed behind the podium to pray.

How much do all these positions matter to the Sovereign?

I pray we each, on January 20, be found "in position" before the One Most High--humbled in prayer, backs turned to all wicked ways, faces inclined only towards the One, not turning right nor left, our hands to the plow.

I believe on Jan 20 I will return to a spot I often pray. On the State Capital steps in Montgomery, AL is a gold star marking the spot where Jefferson Davis assumed the presidency of the Confederacy; from which I can look down Dexter Avenue to the site of the old slave market, and more closely, Dexter Ave Baptist Church.

What a privilege to be positioned by the King of All!!

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-15-2009 @ 4:31am

Joseph E. Lowery mentions gays in his blog above; but, he is not pro-equal rights for gays and lesbians under the Constitution of the United States of America. He does not approve of same-sex marriages. But, he approves of the 2nd class relationship status for gays which is same-sex unions.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-15-2009 @ 4:31am

Joseph E. Lowery mentions gays in his blog above; but, he is not pro-equal rights for gays and lesbians under the Constitution of the United States of America. He does not approve of same-sex marriages. But, he approves of the 2nd class relationship status for gays which is same-sex unions.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-15-2009 @ 4:36am

I will add this note: Since Barack Obama is a Christian, he should go by what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 through 7, which is "Don't swear by anything." Jesus just said, "Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no."

When a person swears a promise oath and he includes God and he does not do what he promised, he took God's name in vain.

Besides, there is no constitutional requirement to even have this event which costs lots and lots of money on January 20.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-15-2009 @ 4:36am

I will add this note: Since Barack Obama is a Christian, he should go by what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 through 7, which is "Don't swear by anything." Jesus just said, "Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no."

When a person swears a promise oath and he includes God and he does not do what he promised, he took God's name in vain.

Besides, there is no constitutional requirement to even have this event which costs lots and lots of money on January 20.

by: BlueDeacon

01-15-2009 @ 5:40am

In context, however, that applies only in the church/among believers -- that is, no church should force people to take oaths. In secular society, however, that's another matter.

by: BlueDeacon

01-15-2009 @ 5:40am

In context, however, that applies only in the church/among believers -- that is, no church should force people to take oaths. In secular society, however, that's another matter.

by: SisterMarie

01-15-2009 @ 3:36pm

"In context, however, that applies only in the church/among believers -- that is, no church should force people to take oaths. In secular society, however, that's another matter."

I'm not 100% sure, but you may be wrong. For most of us, our knowledge about oaths is derived from watching TV where we hear the judge intone,"Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I could weigh in with a more current understanding of what is now required.

by: SisterMarie

01-15-2009 @ 3:36pm

"In context, however, that applies only in the church/among believers -- that is, no church should force people to take oaths. In secular society, however, that's another matter."

I'm not 100% sure, but you may be wrong. For most of us, our knowledge about oaths is derived from watching TV where we hear the judge intone,"Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I could weigh in with a more current understanding of what is now required.

by: PASTOR JEFF

01-15-2009 @ 5:06pm

SisterMarie: My understanding of the prohibition against oath taking is in the context of truth-telling, letting our yes be yes, integrity of behavior and the superfluity of having God watch over our shoulders or claiming to others such divine oversight. Jesus also gives, in another place, the example of the Pharisees abuse of oaths and vows by swearing "by" various items and the quality of the oath varying thereby. Our Anabaptist friends will have a much clearer explanation, I'm sure.

by: PASTOR JEFF

01-15-2009 @ 5:06pm

SisterMarie: My understanding of the prohibition against oath taking is in the context of truth-telling, letting our yes be yes, integrity of behavior and the superfluity of having God watch over our shoulders or claiming to others such divine oversight. Jesus also gives, in another place, the example of the Pharisees abuse of oaths and vows by swearing "by" various items and the quality of the oath varying thereby. Our Anabaptist friends will have a much clearer explanation, I'm sure.

by: jonabark

01-15-2009 @ 6:10pm

I would feel better about these Obama inauguration articles if there were more articles about the continuing war in Gaza. America is directly involved and is still, as MLK argued, the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. Is it so much to ask that we cut the military budget? Is God building all these weapons. Is God in charge of the nuclear arsenal? How far has God brought us? I am a little fed up with Obama using Martin's style without more evidence of his courage. I am still hoping.

The truth is grim. There is no way in today's America to stand for peacemaking and economic justice except in the most symbolic and uncourageous ways unless one is willing to stand up to an onslaught of political and Media and Corporate anger. Most of those with power would line up against such a leader. Such courage would gain huge popular support , maybe a majority, but there is a large question as to whether such people power could be mobilized for the needed changes and could survive the onslaught.

The trouble is that the incremental changes proposed will accomplish so little to address the problems that the momentum of environmental madness and economic imbalance and military answers to political problems will carry the day and we will continue the path toward a world in which there are many Gazas and a few Israels.

by: jonabark

01-15-2009 @ 6:10pm

I would feel better about these Obama inauguration articles if there were more articles about the continuing war in Gaza. America is directly involved and is still, as MLK argued, the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. Is it so much to ask that we cut the military budget? Is God building all these weapons. Is God in charge of the nuclear arsenal? How far has God brought us? I am a little fed up with Obama using Martin's style without more evidence of his courage. I am still hoping.

The truth is grim. There is no way in today's America to stand for peacemaking and economic justice except in the most symbolic and uncourageous ways unless one is willing to stand up to an onslaught of political and Media and Corporate anger. Most of those with power would line up against such a leader. Such courage would gain huge popular support , maybe a majority, but there is a large question as to whether such people power could be mobilized for the needed changes and could survive the onslaught.

The trouble is that the incremental changes proposed will accomplish so little to address the problems that the momentum of environmental madness and economic imbalance and military answers to political problems will carry the day and we will continue the path toward a world in which there are many Gazas and a few Israels.

by: xfree9

01-15-2009 @ 6:22pm

How is "same sex unions" 2nd class status? That's a subjective interpretation, like calling a female a "woman" is 2nd class because she's not labeled a "man." There is a distinction in definitions, not status. If nobody considered it "second class," then it wouldn't be. Legally, there should be no difference, but the State is not what should define "marriage."

by: xfree9

01-15-2009 @ 6:22pm

How is "same sex unions" 2nd class status? That's a subjective interpretation, like calling a female a "woman" is 2nd class because she's not labeled a "man." There is a distinction in definitions, not status. If nobody considered it "second class," then it wouldn't be. Legally, there should be no difference, but the State is not what should define "marriage."

by: JaneinWNY

01-15-2009 @ 6:56pm

Your resident Anabaptist, on cue :)

PJ, your statement is what I have always understood. I went to the Mennonite Confession of Faith to confirm that. See Article 20 http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.20.html. The first two paragraphs:

"We commit ourselves to tell the truth, to give a simple yes or no, and to avoid swearing of oaths.

Jesus told his disciples not to swear oaths at all, but to let their yes be yes, and their no be no. 1 We believe that this teaching applies to truth telling as well as to avoiding profane language. 2 An oath is often sworn as a guarantee that one is telling the truth. This implies that when one has not taken an oath, one may be less careful about telling the truth. Jesus' followers are always to speak the truth and, in legal matters, simply to affirm that their statements are true."

Jane.

by: JaneinWNY

01-15-2009 @ 6:56pm

Your resident Anabaptist, on cue :)

PJ, your statement is what I have always understood. I went to the Mennonite Confession of Faith to confirm that. See Article 20 http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.20.html. The first two paragraphs:

"We commit ourselves to tell the truth, to give a simple yes or no, and to avoid swearing of oaths.

Jesus told his disciples not to swear oaths at all, but to let their yes be yes, and their no be no. 1 We believe that this teaching applies to truth telling as well as to avoiding profane language. 2 An oath is often sworn as a guarantee that one is telling the truth. This implies that when one has not taken an oath, one may be less careful about telling the truth. Jesus' followers are always to speak the truth and, in legal matters, simply to affirm that their statements are true."

Jane.

by: ando

01-15-2009 @ 7:59pm

"How is "same sex unions" 2nd class status? That's a subjective interpretation, like calling a female a "woman" is 2nd class because she's not labeled a "man." There is a distinction in definitions, not status. If nobody considered it "second class," then it wouldn't be. Legally, there should be no difference, but the State is not what should define "marriage."

I also would like to know that answer. I'm trying to figure out where there is out-and-out discrimination going on. Perhaps because I live in a place that's "outside reality' and the "Berkeley of the Midwest" that I don't see it. What is the legal difference between same-sex marriage and same-sex unions?

BTW: Our local To the Left newspaper -- just went weekly -- had a column that trumpets Lowery and blasts Warren on just this issue. Lowery in the column is held up as an example of the tolerant Christian, whereas Warren is ridiculed for his beliefs. So, it is a two-way street out there. And in some places Scriptural authority is ridiculed and harrassed.

by: ando

01-15-2009 @ 7:59pm

"How is "same sex unions" 2nd class status? That's a subjective interpretation, like calling a female a "woman" is 2nd class because she's not labeled a "man." There is a distinction in definitions, not status. If nobody considered it "second class," then it wouldn't be. Legally, there should be no difference, but the State is not what should define "marriage."

I also would like to know that answer. I'm trying to figure out where there is out-and-out discrimination going on. Perhaps because I live in a place that's "outside reality' and the "Berkeley of the Midwest" that I don't see it. What is the legal difference between same-sex marriage and same-sex unions?

BTW: Our local To the Left newspaper -- just went weekly -- had a column that trumpets Lowery and blasts Warren on just this issue. Lowery in the column is held up as an example of the tolerant Christian, whereas Warren is ridiculed for his beliefs. So, it is a two-way street out there. And in some places Scriptural authority is ridiculed and harrassed.

by: carlcopas

01-16-2009 @ 1:46am

Xfree, your graciousness is noted and appreciated.

by: carlcopas

01-16-2009 @ 1:46am

Xfree, your graciousness is noted and appreciated.

by: hammerud

01-16-2009 @ 2:40am

jonabark, I appreciate your desire for peace. I also desire peace, but I think of the Scripture that says, "a strong man armed keeps his goods." This is an evil, fallen world. There is a lot of bad out there and we need to be strong to keep the peace. Just a thought. We will have real peace when the Prince of Peace returns, but things are going to get pretty crazy before then, according to Revelation. In the mean time, we better keep a strong military.

by: hammerud

01-16-2009 @ 2:40am

jonabark, I appreciate your desire for peace. I also desire peace, but I think of the Scripture that says, "a strong man armed keeps his goods." This is an evil, fallen world. There is a lot of bad out there and we need to be strong to keep the peace. Just a thought. We will have real peace when the Prince of Peace returns, but things are going to get pretty crazy before then, according to Revelation. In the mean time, we better keep a strong military.

by: ando

01-16-2009 @ 3:14am

If you're going to apply Scripture, you might want to add the Beatitudes: blessed are the humble, the peacemakers, the meek, etc.

In addition to our enemies, pride also goeth before a fall.

by: ando

01-16-2009 @ 3:14am

If you're going to apply Scripture, you might want to add the Beatitudes: blessed are the humble, the peacemakers, the meek, etc.

In addition to our enemies, pride also goeth before a fall.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:26am

The "principle called "analogia scriptura," which states that no Scripture, properly interpreted, contradicts any other Scripture." is apparently a Roman Catholic Church denominational principle. Jesus' message of peace and not being pro-war seems to contradict the need for war in the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures.

The word "meek" in the KJV would be better translated as "gentle." The word "meek" to most people means a person who is weak and cowardly.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:26am

The "principle called "analogia scriptura," which states that no Scripture, properly interpreted, contradicts any other Scripture." is apparently a Roman Catholic Church denominational principle. Jesus' message of peace and not being pro-war seems to contradict the need for war in the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures.

The word "meek" in the KJV would be better translated as "gentle." The word "meek" to most people means a person who is weak and cowardly.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:30am

Since I am a Believer in Christ Jesus, I don't use the Hebrew Scriptures as a part of my personal doctrines. It is good to read the Hebrew Scriptures AFTER one has read the Gospels and the Book of Acts. I really suggest a new convert read the Epistle to the Hebrews BEFORE he reads anything in the Old Testament.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:30am

Since I am a Believer in Christ Jesus, I don't use the Hebrew Scriptures as a part of my personal doctrines. It is good to read the Hebrew Scriptures AFTER one has read the Gospels and the Book of Acts. I really suggest a new convert read the Epistle to the Hebrews BEFORE he reads anything in the Old Testament.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:34am

What is called Gaza today was Philistia in the Book of Judges and in the book after that. Gaza was not a part of Canaan and it was not the Promised Land to the Israelites.

The Philistines of the Old Testament are the Palestinians of modern times . . . theoretically at least. In fact, if you look of Palestine in a good dictionary, you will see that its word origin is "Philistine."

Philistia was at war with Israel way back before 1350 BC.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

01-16-2009 @ 5:34am

What is called Gaza today was Philistia in the Book of Judges and in the book after that. Gaza was not a part of Canaan and it was not the Promised Land to the Israelites.

The Philistines of the Old Testament are the Palestinians of modern times . . . theoretically at least. In fact, if you look of Palestine in a good dictionary, you will see that its word origin is "Philistine."

Philistia was at war with Israel way back before 1350 BC.

by: WitnessforPeace

01-16-2009 @ 3:18pm

A good book on this is "How to read the Bible for all its Worth" by Gordon Fee et al. Christians can learn much from the Hebrew Bible, which are the Scriptures the New Testament talks about (I Tim....)
But Fee says that nothing from the OT is binding unless it's affirmed in the New. And a lot is, including all Ten Commandments. Jesus even strengthened some of them[lust, anger]. A possible exception is keeping the Sabbath with is explained as "made for humans" not the other way around. And, of course, these are standards for behavior, not a means of obtaining favor before God or to keep up good appearances among men and women.
Blessings,

by: WitnessforPeace

01-16-2009 @ 3:18pm

A good book on this is "How to read the Bible for all its Worth" by Gordon Fee et al. Christians can learn much from the Hebrew Bible, which are the Scriptures the New Testament talks about (I Tim....)
But Fee says that nothing from the OT is binding unless it's affirmed in the New. And a lot is, including all Ten Commandments. Jesus even strengthened some of them[lust, anger]. A possible exception is keeping the Sabbath with is explained as "made for humans" not the other way around. And, of course, these are standards for behavior, not a means of obtaining favor before God or to keep up good appearances among men and women.
Blessings,

by: WitnessforPeace

01-16-2009 @ 3:36pm

I intended to say "Sabbath which is explained as..." Pardon my lisping/lithping. No offense to lispers!
This is a free country and I heartily invite you to believe anything you want. I'm explaining the historic Christian position. On the rare occasions when Sojourners talks about theology, they seem to affirm basic Christian beliefs. The historic doctrines of Protestants and Catholics generally agree with one another more closely than, say, liberal Presbyterians and conservative Presbyterians today. That's because the pre-modern/modern split [truth is absolute/truth is relative] is a much deeper divide than an argument over transubstantiation by two theologians who nonetheless were arguing according to the same rules. Please post at joyfulreality.blogspot.com if you think this is getting off topic
Blessings,

by: WitnessforPeace

01-16-2009 @ 3:36pm

I intended to say "Sabbath which is explained as..." Pardon my lisping/lithping. No offense to lispers!
This is a free country and I heartily invite you to believe anything you want. I'm explaining the historic Christian position. On the rare occasions when Sojourners talks about theology, they seem to affirm basic Christian beliefs. The historic doctrines of Protestants and Catholics generally agree with one another more closely than, say, liberal Presbyterians and conservative Presbyterians today. That's because the pre-modern/modern split [truth is absolute/truth is relative] is a much deeper divide than an argument over transubstantiation by two theologians who nonetheless were arguing according to the same rules. Please post at joyfulreality.blogspot.com if you think this is getting off topic
Blessings,

by: ando

01-16-2009 @ 4:56pm

Then we shall respectfully disagree. I don't believe that the goal of
this life is to "keep our goods". I think that's called materialism
-- or what Ronald Reagan called "Americanism"

Andy Anderson

Quoting Disqus <>:

by: ando

01-16-2009 @ 4:56pm

Then we shall respectfully disagree. I don't believe that the goal of
this life is to "keep our goods". I think that's called materialism
-- or what Ronald Reagan called "Americanism"

Andy Anderson

Quoting Disqus <>:

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 6:10pm

A lot of the bad "out there" is the long history of US militarism, apart from WW2, almost entirely aggressive and involving terror violence against civilians for political purposes, or seizure/control of land or natural resources. The book you refer to is a sick revenge fantasy and nothing to do with Jesus' life or teachings.

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 6:10pm

A lot of the bad "out there" is the long history of US militarism, apart from WW2, almost entirely aggressive and involving terror violence against civilians for political purposes, or seizure/control of land or natural resources. The book you refer to is a sick revenge fantasy and nothing to do with Jesus' life or teachings.

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 6:33pm

This so-called principle can only be found in fantasyland. It is not in the Bible which has quite a few contradictions, unscientific statements, historical fabrications, and fables.

This kind of "interpretation" is like blind patriotism: it produced the Inquisition, and a great many holy wars. For some reason the God of this interpretation always wants the strong to destroy the weak, the well armed to crush the unarmed, the rich to get richer and the poor can wait for "heaven", neatly positioned after death. Jesus challenged all this nonsense. All of it.

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 6:33pm

This so-called principle can only be found in fantasyland. It is not in the Bible which has quite a few contradictions, unscientific statements, historical fabrications, and fables.

This kind of "interpretation" is like blind patriotism: it produced the Inquisition, and a great many holy wars. For some reason the God of this interpretation always wants the strong to destroy the weak, the well armed to crush the unarmed, the rich to get richer and the poor can wait for "heaven", neatly positioned after death. Jesus challenged all this nonsense. All of it.

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 8:31pm

The revenge fantasy I was talking about is Revelation which many discount as a valid christian document, or an accurate prophecy, or vision of Jesus . It is extremely unlikely to be the work of John the beloved. Neither is John's Gospel.

I can understand why you see the strength of the military separately from the abuse of military power , but the truth is that boys with toys want to play. We spend more on the military than t rest of the nations combined. If you had a neighbor who did that you would wonder about his mental health. Our borders are North america to Canada, Hawaii, and Alaska. Why do we need over 700 military bases around the world? What I am speaking of is not mistakes or misuse, but a consistent policy of using military power for the economic interests of the powerful. This is best documented in the work of Chalmers Johnson, but also in ex Nixon Republican Kevin Philips.

I am not asking us to disarm, but we spend more pom the ilitary as a percentage of our budget than we did in WW2. This is profoundly immoral and typical of empires in decline.

by: jonabark

01-16-2009 @ 8:31pm

The revenge fantasy I was talking about is Revelation which many discount as a valid christian document, or an accurate prophecy, or vision of Jesus . It is extremely unlikely to be the work of John the beloved. Neither is John's Gospel.

I can understand why you see the strength of the military separately from the abuse of military power , but the truth is that boys with toys want to play. We spend more on the military than t rest of the nations combined. If you had a neighbor who did that you would wonder about his mental health. Our borders are North america to Canada, Hawaii, and Alaska. Why do we need over 700 military bases around the world? What I am speaking of is not mistakes or misuse, but a consistent policy of using military power for the economic interests of the powerful. This is best documented in the work of Chalmers Johnson, but also in ex Nixon Republican Kevin Philips.

I am not asking us to disarm, but we spend more pom the ilitary as a percentage of our budget than we did in WW2. This is profoundly immoral and typical of empires in decline.