Georgia governor organizes public vigil — to pray for rain
posted at 2:30 pm on November 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Well, actually it already has.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, who has asked Georgians to pray for rain today, and at lunchtime will convene with various religious and political leaders on the steps of the state Capitol to seek divine intervention in the state’s months-long drought.
Desperate times, it’s said, call for desperate measures. And with Lake Lanier growing grass instead of bass, we’re definitely in desperate times…
“This is a ridiculous, illogical exercise even for people who are deeply religious,” said Ed Buckner, treasurer for the Atlanta Freethought Society. “I would think they’d be offended.”
Buckner, an atheist, is helping plan a “polite and peaceful protest” on the Capitol grounds today, and expects members of both the Council on Secular Humanism and Freedom From Religion Foundation to attend. He objects to the governor, in his official capacity as an elected representative, endorsing a belief system…
“Does the God that Sonny Perdue believes in have to be informed about the drought?” Buckner asked. “Doesn’t he know? Or have the important people not appealed to him yet?”
Here’s the Freethought Society press release, replete with relevant footnoted Biblical quotation. Follow the link to the AJC article and see what one Atlanta rabbi has to say about likelihood of divine intervention. Why, it’s a certainty — eventually. An interesting legal question lurks here about how far Perdue could go before this amounts to an Establishment Clause violation. Praying alone in his office? A-OK. Praying publicly on the steps of the Capitol? Sure, no prob. Issuing an executive order calling for a day of prayer? Questionable, but what about federal religious holidays? Sending around a memo requesting but not requiring the presence of staffers at the vigil? Hmmm. Calling up some religious leaders and having an informal prayer shindig on the Capitol grounds? Off the Capitol grounds? Hmmm hmmm hmmm. Welcome to the wonderful, inexplicable world of First Amendment jurisprudence, my friends!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
I think you’re projecting.
I’ve never said that I believe any of the Bible to be inaccurate.
Except that I’m not doing that. I’m able to take both Paul’s word and the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke (who wasn’t even a disciple) and John.
Seriously, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus died. Paul’s letters were written at the present time with scripture backing them up.
If you’re willing to accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all got the word of Christ down, then what’s the problem with Paul? Just because he’s got no proof that he saw Christ other than his vision and the vision of another man who became convinced that Paul was no longer a Christian killer?
I get the idea that some people think the whole Bible is wrong, but I still do not follow your logic here.
That’s not my argument.
My argument is that all of those people actually believe whatever it is they’re preaching. They’re not just good PR people.
Off the top of my head, I find it really easy to abstain from:
Sleeping with animals, my mother, my father, my brothers, my sister my brother’s wife, my sister’s husband, my aunts and my uncles.
Those are real easy rules for me to follow.
1. You’re talking about Gentiles, people who didn’t have a concept of the Old Testament Law. For them, a law against sex outside of marriage is a further restriction from what they’d been living under.
2. I’m aware of the random rules in Leviticus, the ones that say things like don’t use two different fabrics together. Those were useful rules back then because of the technology they had back then, the same as with unclean meat; however, in the modern world, we do not have such problems.
Esthier on November 15, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Seriously, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus died. Paul’s letters were written at the present time with scripture backing them up.
Paul’s letters are even farther removed from Jesus than the Gospel accounts. He’s writing his interpretation of what he thought Jesus meant, which is second source. No matter how you cut it, he was not one of Jesus’ intimates and had no first hand knowledge of the man.
If you’re willing to accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all got the word of Christ down, then what’s the problem with Paul? Just because he’s got no proof that he saw Christ other than his vision and the vision of another man who became convinced that Paul was no longer a Christian killer?
Wow, that’s a pretty good reason right there, don’t you think? Hey everybody, I just had a vision from God himself, and he demands that the Raiders win the next 3 superbowls and go undefeated for the next two seasons! What? Not buying it? There’s a guy in Oakland who had the same vision.
I get the idea that some people think the whole Bible is wrong, but I still do not follow your logic here.
If Jesus said something, and it’s pretty clear he said what he said (unless the Gospels are inaccurate), then how does a guy who is not the messiah, is not even partially divine, and never met the man possibly in any way, supercede Jesus? He doesn’t. That you prefer Pauline doctrine over the actual words of the Messiah isn’t something I have to reconcile, you do.
I’m aware of the random rules in Leviticus, the ones that say things like don’t use two different fabrics together. Those were useful rules back then because of the technology they had back then, the same as with unclean meat; however, in the modern world, we do not have such problems.
That’s not really the point, is it? The point is that God himself gave the chosen people a set of rules they were to follow. Jesus said that these rules remain intact. You think that they don’t apply to Christians, because Paul says so. I say they do, because Jesus says so.
The Gospels are for everyone, right? Therefore, Jesus knew that everyone interested would wonder what these laws were, and how to get all full of faith and so forth. This is why the Old Freaking Testament is right next to the new one. ‘Law? What Law? Oh, THAT law!’
Krydor on November 15, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Except for meeting Jesus on the street, a vision which you doubt but nonetheless cannot disprove.
1. Luke wasn’t one of Jesus’ disciples. His information was also second hand.
2. Paul didn’t demand anything because of his visions.
3. Your analogy falls short of the death threat hanging over Ananias’ head. Ananias had every reason to not believe Saul would become Paul as did every other Christian at the time who lived in fear of being executed.
I have never said that.
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT.
How many times must I write those exact words before you’ll understand what I’m saying. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT PAUL IS AN AUTHORITY OVER JESUS. That is not even my belief. I’ve written that several times to you just today, but for some reason you’re ignoring it.
Except that Jesus said so much more than just that.
1. You don’t take Paul as an authority on what Jesus said because he wasn’t there with Jesus.
2. But when Peter, “the rock” and one of Jesus’ closest disciples, has the same interpretation, you don’t buy that because Peter was just good at PR. By good at PR, you mean good enough to convince people to join his faith but not good enough to keep himself from being crucified upside down for his faith.
3. You don’t even accept the times when Jesus Himself broke the laws as evidence that He meant something else.
4. Jesus’ own words go against what you’re claiming:
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ ”
After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.”
That’s a literal reference to what Peter and Paul discuss from Jesus Christ. It can be found in the book of Matthew and the book of Mark.
Esthier on November 15, 2007 at 3:36 PM
As to the way to full faith, Jesus answered that one plainly.
Before Christ, the way to salvation and God was through the law. Then Christ came claiming He was the way to salvation and “the Father”.
Esthier on November 15, 2007 at 3:48 PM
You’re greatly simplifying the reason behind people not believing in a god. I know many atheists, including people who were once Muslims, none of them don’t believe in a god due to the reasons you’ve mentioned.
Nonfactor on November 15, 2007 at 5:24 PM
It’s Bigkatt’s personal anecdote. Everyone’s got one.
Esthier on November 15, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Esthier,
If nothing else, at least we’ve established that the Bible can mean whatever it is you want it to mean. You might want to read deeper into those passages you quoted, regarding “it’s not what goes in, but comes out”, because that was a simplified Sunday School reading. It’s a bit deeper than than. It doesn’t mean you get to eat whatever you want.
Nowhere does Jesus say his presence cancels the Law. The opposite is true. The Law does not change. Jesus said it was staying around until he fulfilled his mission. He did not, at least not yet.
I would bring up Matthew, again, but you seem to have read it and not gleaned anything of value from it. I do accept that Jesus broke the law, we differ on the why of it. Because you will not branch out of a couple gospels and into the wonderful world of History due to some other discussion you are having with Loundry I can’t go any farther.
If you aren’t willing to take that leap into books that aren’t the Bible, then there’s nothing I can do. There is an online Classics Archive with all the Historians of the day waiting to be read.
Krydor on November 16, 2007 at 8:31 AM
This is already off the front page, so unless I know you’ve come back to read any of this, I won’t bother going into too much detail.
1. I’ve never said that I won’t venture away from the Gospels. I only said that we could have a separate conversation about that if you want. Feel free to attempt to school me on history as it relates to the Bible, and I will respond. Or did you expect me to lead that discussion?
2. They were literally talking about eating with unclean hands. Jesus was talking about the purpose of the law rather than its application. The same is easily said of pork. Surely we can both agree that common sense would tell you that eating pork does not make someone evil.
Esthier on November 16, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5