Bill Keller’s Beclowning Achievement

posted at 10:05 am on August 30, 2011 by Karl

Plenty of people — Ed Morrissey and Mollie Hemingway among them — have neatly dissected New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s perfect storm of ignorance and bias when it comes to the religious beliefs of those running for the GOP presidential nominee. Keller identified Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum as “all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity,” when Santorum is Catholic, Bachmann is Lutheran, and Perry is a Methodist. Keller hauls out the boogeyman of “dominionism,” when none of his targets are dominionists, and so on. The response (such as it is) to this criticism by Keller and the rest of the establishment media is nearly as telling as the original smears.

On Twitter, Keller had two responses to his critics. First, Keller noted that he was not seeing any quarrel with the basic point that we should ask candidates about their faith. I certainly have no quarrel with that point. In 2008, I wrote about Barack Obama’s decades-long membership in a church based on black liberation theology and his decades-long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and criticized the establishment media for not treating Obama the way JFK or Mitt Romney were treated on faith issues.

However, this merely underscores the major criticism lodged against Keller, which was that the New York Times avoided giving Obama scrutiny on faith issues. Keller’s second response was that the NYT was “late to Rev. Wright in ’08, but we got there, and did it well.” This response is dishonest or delusional, possibly both. When a political controversy erupts in March 2008 and the NYT does not give it proper news coverage until September 2008, getting there late is bad coverage. Would Keller defend covering a hurricane six months late? Please. Nor was the quality of the NYT coverage good, by the standards Keller now thinks should be applied, asking none of the sort of questions Keller now thinks should be asked. Indeed, Keller’s response on this point is particularly embarrassing once you learn that the NYT actually covered Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright in April 2007, reporting:

It is hard to imagine, though, how Mr. Obama can truly distance himself from Mr. Wright. The Christianity that Mr. Obama adopted at Trinity has infused not only his life, but also his campaign. He began his presidential announcement with the phrase “Giving all praise and honor to God,” a salutation common in the black church. He titled his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Mr. Wright’s sermons, and often talks about biblical underdogs, the mutual interests of religious and secular America, and the centrality of faith in public life.

With hindsight, it is easy to imagine how Obama could distance himself: by relying on the establishment media generally, and the NYT in particular, to mostly look the other way at the crucial moment.

It is worth noting — as Ed Morrissey and Lisa Miller did — that the NYT’s Keller is hardly alone in falsely playing the “Crazy Christian” card. Similarly erroneous, x-degrees-of-separation journalism has been committed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, NPR’s Fresh Air, Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker and Michelle Goldberg, a senior contributing writer for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. From there, the bogus story gets treated as a serious topic of discussion at forums including the WaPo, CNN and USA Today.

Thus does the establishment media function the way Hillary Clinton once claimed the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy operated. Thus does the establishment media again operate with the sort of “epistemic closure” that the Julian Sanchezes, Conor Friedersdorfs and Andrew Sullivans of the world are so quick to condemn in the conservative media (when they aren’t busy ignoring Sullivan’s obsession with the status of Sarah Palin’s uterus). Ironically, Sullivan has been foaming at the mouth about “Christianism” for years.

Indeed, almost all of those soooo concerned about bogus memes circulating in a conservative echo chamber will never treat Rachel Maddow the way they treat Glenn Beck. (Indeed, they won’t blink over the fact that a religious left activist — the Rev. Al Sharpton — now hosts a show on MSNBC.) They will never view NewsBeast the way they view WorldNetDaily. They will never compare Bill Keller to Sean Hannity — and rightly so. After all, Hannity correctly identified the theology of Obama’s longtime church and interviewed Rev. Wright. Hannity committed more actual journalism on this subject than Keller did. More self-aware lefties in the media, like TNR’s Jonathan Chait, should take note that this is another example of the magical thinking of liberals.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

What are these British Civil Wars of which you speak?
Trafalgar on August 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM

The rebellion of Cromwell and the roundheads?

tommyboy on August 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 12:42 PM

When you say something that directly contradicts a fact, I think it’s helpful to go to the original source. If I just paraphrased them you’d argue with me. I will leave it to you to argue with Justice Marshall, John Jay, Joseph Story et al.

Akzed on August 30, 2011 at 1:00 PM

It puts into question Keller’s intelligence and education. He really is a fool.

pat on August 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Certainly, from 911 to the Spanish Inquisition to the British Civil Wars to religion has not prevented atrocious behavior. In some cases it has even been the cause. I don’t think the religion is a barrier to people behaving atrociously.

IMHO, in most cases people tend to ascribe far, far too much influence to religion (good and bad) WRT human behavior.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM

One nice thing about using religious teachings as a guide for personal conduct is that you get the benefit of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of practical experience. We know Christian teachings on morality and personal behavior are solid not just because they are inspired by God, but also because we see in practice that they work (and we see in practice how disastrously things turn out when one departs from them). It’s no accident that we compare our country’s descent into immorality and irresponsibility with that of the Roman Empire.

That said, I think you do make an important point. Churches are ultimately institutions of people who administer, interpret, and enforce the word of God. But all people–including clergy–are fallible, and history teaches us that ecclesiastic institutions are subject to the same kind of “capture” and perversion that civil institutions are. The more political influence, power, or money your church has, the more folks with ulterior motives might like to “capture” or pervert it and use it for their own evil ends.

Outlander on August 30, 2011 at 1:04 PM

The rebellion of Cromwell and the roundheads?

tommyboy on August 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Ah, the English Civil War. Goes to show you that his knowledge of history is as limited as his knowledge of Christianity.

Trafalgar on August 30, 2011 at 1:05 PM

tommyboy on August 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

I mentioned it because of the influence of the Protestant and Catholic struggles that led to the founding of this nation and the influence it had on the authors of our Constitution.

And the court ruled the 10 C display unconstitutional in McCreary because its purpose was primarily a religious one.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:07 PM

If you want to know why the taking of human life is illegal you needn’t refer to your bible to find out.
The anti-abortion crowd bases their opinion on religion, at heart.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Thou shalt not kill is one of God’s Commandments. Abortion is murder of an innocent life. One does not need be religious to know that this is wrong.

“Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right”

Abortion is not wrong because man says so, it is wrong because God says so.

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 1:08 PM

And the court ruled the 10 C display unconstitutional in McCreary because its purpose was primarily a religious one.
MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:07 PM

And in the companion case the Court found the display constitutional. The distinctions were pure sophistry as the dissentors and even the concurrences pointed out. Both acknowledged that the “tests” of precedent were conficting and largely unworkable.

tommyboy on August 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I’m not interpreting scripture or Catholic tradition, merely pointing to the writing of Pope John Paul II…

…And on the canons of the Church:

…Those Catholics who publicly announce their denial that abortion is always gravely immoral, or who publicly promote abortion, or who publicly argue in favor of legalized abortion, also commit a mortal sin and also incur a sentence of automatic excommunication.

Trafalgar on August 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Your paraphrasing is an interpretation of tradition or magisterial teaching. Only now with your pointing have you provided a non-interpretation.

But my point is that should you as a layman be able to provide us proper instruction over your bishop or priest? Until he is officially and specifically excommunicated or recants you should continue under his wing regardless of his invisible auto excommunication or your interpretation of the canon law. The bishop or priest might have his own interpretation for not thinking that he is breaking the law and he still supercedes you until otherwise corrected.

And when he is finally excommunicated you can then confess your sin of collaborative heresy.

shick on August 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Trafalgar on August 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Thank you for posting that and making clear what you’ve posted previously. It’s always good to learn from others that have access to information that adds to the discussions.

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 1:17 PM

tommyboy on August 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Nonetheless Lemon v Kurtzman has not been overturned. It has been expanded on, but the 3 forks of the Lemon test are still the guiding principles of our law.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM

I mentioned it because of the influence of the Protestant and Catholic struggles that led to the founding of this nation and the influence it had on the authors of our Constitution.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:07 PM

The Englis Civil War (not British) had nothing to do with Protestant and Catholic struggles in England. It had everything to do with determining the power of the throne vs. the power of the parliament in governing England and established the precedent that an English monarch cannot govern without Parliament’s consent Nothing to do with Catholics and Protestants as England had split with the Catholic Church in the 1530′s, but keep trying that spin.

As with your declamations on Christianity, it’d serve you well to know a little about your topic before popping off on it.

Trafalgar on August 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

One has but to look at the photo of this pasty faced, lipless, cellar dweller to understand that he and his ilk have been cloistered within their fundraising dinner at the Waldorf crowd. But for the underside of the rock he crawls out from underneath, his intellectual curiosity stunted by his presumed superiority to everyone who isn’t just as mindlessly sycophantic as he. Perhaps we could change the headline from beclowning to what it truly is… a$$hattery.

PatriotPete on August 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 11:49 AM

This is just so wrong, so ignorant of history, I don’t even have words to express my dismay. To express such idiocy is to ignore what the very founders wrote in their own words.

dominigan on August 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM

But my point is that should you as a layman be able to provide us proper instruction over your bishop or priest?

shick on August 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM

My apologies for my apparent inability to communicate. I wasn’t trying to provide you with instruction, I was simply pointing out what the canons of the Church, and Pope John Paul II, say on the matter. My original point was that, according to the canons of the Church, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae. From experience on previous threads I was simply trying to deflect the argument that since some bishops allow them to receive communion, it makes their pro-death political positions somehow ok with the Church. It does not.

Trafalgar on August 30, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Outlander on August 30, 2011 at 1:04 PM

You make a good point as well, about the time-tested nature of a system of morality. I would argue, however, that there are advantages to updating our moral consensus as times change. While not quite the same thing, our Constitution provides a mechanism to stay current via the amendment process.

I would suggest that even Christian morality has indeed changed over time. For example, the days when we bowed down to kings as a religious duty in the West have passed. Modern Christianity in our society promotes the enlightenment ideals of equality.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:29 PM

dominigan on August 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Bluster, denial, bluster, bluster back atcha.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:33 PM

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I think Keller is among that faction of the Left (majority) that believes religion of any denomination is superstition. They are trying to increase their numbers among democrats. People assume that being a democrat means they are non religious, this is not the case. By attacking religion Keller is making his elitist secular stand “You are with us Secular Atheist or you are not counted one of us” It’s is the progressive new left, that is in control of the democrat party. Keller is not a liberal classical or otherwise. Obama is a self identified Christian so I guess Keller is giving him a wavier.

What the progressive left did to the democrat party by driving them off that political cliff (mid term elections) by passing Obamacare, when the majority of Americans rejected it – I think was out of spite. If you google, progressives hate blue dog democrats, you might be surprised by the hateful comments directed at the blue dog democrats. They almost got wiped out in the south in the 2010 mid term elections. The left had no problem sacrificing them, they hate conservative democrats, who still identify Christian, and now there are less of them serving in public office. In turn, the democrat party is now more “Left” not to be confused with liberal who are tolerant of people’s belief systems. They turned the democrat party into a coastal party. The New Left are a hateful minority, that captured the democrat party….even Obama’s own administration refers to them as the professional left and firebaggers. Where does their bitterness, and hate come from? I guess it goes back to the universities who spawned them. Where they were indoctrinated into group think by their wannabe socialist professors. We are currently suffering from the 60s and 70s hipsters, trying to relive their college years, glory days. Keller’s having his own mid life crisis in front of the entire country. In fact his articles are like a personal diary documenting his 2nd childhood. I wish he would just by a sports car, and start wearing his shirt unbuttoned to the navel like every other middle age man LOL!

Dr Evil on August 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Yeah, because a creepy neighbor and G-d are exactly the same thing.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on August 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Uh … no. The creepy neighbor was Abe.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM

I wish he would just by a sports car, and start wearing his shirt unbuttoned to the navel like every other middle age man LOL!

Dr Evil on August 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM

I had to chuckle at that, LOL. Thanks for some add’l info. I’m familiar of what happened to the Democratic Party in 2008, which caused an uproar and quite a few millions voted for McCain/Palin:-)
This was due to the nomination being stolen from Hillary and given to B.O. Those groups are on standby and are hoping we get a R that they can vote for:-)

The bluedogs, oh yes. I knew they were in for it. They had R opponents and also had the 2008 Dems running ads against them also!! Not too many still around. The Democrat Party changed in 2008 for the worse and yes taken over. Now they are all upset and don’t know what to do, LOL

The only thing that I wasn’t aware of is the 2010 mid terms. Were some of the bluedogs/dems replaced by R’s or the harder left?

I can check my files, just don’t remember since I concentrated on the R House & R Senate wins.

What is the new Dem Party looking to do, elect Aethists?

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

What is the new Dem Party looking to do, elect Aethists?

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Just curious, would you have a problem with either party electing some atheists?

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Just curious, would you have a problem with either party electing some atheists?

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:55 PM

That would depend on if they had any morals and what they based those morals on.

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Since both theists and atheist may be moral or may be immoral, why does it matter if they’re atheists?

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

I would suggest that even Christian morality has indeed changed over time. For example, the days when we bowed down to kings as a religious duty in the West have passed.

Please quote the canon that enjoined this duty.

Modern Christianity in our society promotes the enlightenment ideals of equality. MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 1:29 PM

You mean the Enlightenment ideals of equality that led to the guillotine…

Akzed on August 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM

he was not seeing any quarrel with the basic point that we should ask candidates about their faith

Does that mean it is accpetable to ask candidates who have no faith “why” they don’t have any religious based positions, how do they explain having rejected religion, and what do they base their morals & ethics on.

katiejane on August 30, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Does that mean it is accpetable to ask candidates who have no faith “why” they don’t have any religious based positions, how do they explain having rejected religion, and what do they base their morals & ethics on.

katiejane on August 30, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Why would you think it would be unacceptable to ask? Sounds like something I would want to know. Well not “why” they lack any religious positions. If they’re an atheist then that explains that part.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 2:23 PM

I can check my files, just don’t remember since I concentrated on the R House & R Senate wins.

What is the new Dem Party looking to do, elect Aethists?

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

I remember reading it was something like a total of 700 seats won across the country in 2010 by the republicans, they were counting Governors, State Legislators, Federal Legislators. The biggest seat sweep in 70 years. Keller thinks they haven’t alienated enough of the democrat voters that don’t identify strictly secular progressive left. They don’t think about the numbers they need to win elections. In Keller’s case he’s repelling would be democrat Christian voters for Obama, it’s all about ideological purity. Keller is more into posturing for the cocktail set, who share his short sided vision. We are a Republic with majority rule and minority protection. The new left is a small sliver of the democrat party, the sooner the PUMAS can purge them, and rebuild the democrat party the better off the democrat party will be. Before everyone jumps on me for suggesting the democrat party needs to be rebuilt to be competitive. We are a two party system. If people want a better republican party, it needs real competition from a viable alternative democrat party. Competition improves all products, including political party’s.

Dr Evil on August 30, 2011 at 2:25 PM

O/T Has anyone noticed that Jay Carney is wearing Rachel Maddow’s glasses? What’s up with that?

Dr Evil on August 30, 2011 at 2:33 PM

I wonder if it’s part of the new leftest uniform?

Dr Evil on August 30, 2011 at 2:34 PM

short sided vision -short sighted vision.

Break Time :)

Dr Evil on August 30, 2011 at 2:35 PM

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM
Since both theists and atheist may be moral or may be immoral, why does it matter if they’re atheists?

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

I don’t judge a person by their title, but their morals. What is their talk, their belief system? Once that is known, then I determine if they walk that talk.

I could say I have a degree from Harvard, but if I don’t produce any evidence that is able to be confirmed, then you don’t have to believe me. As they say, talk is cheap. I don’t believe everything I hear or see and I’m sure you don’t either. If someone tells me they are a thief and shows me evidence, then I’d believe them, LOL

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 2:43 PM

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Coolness. That sounds very reasonable to me.

Politically, I lean towards conservatism. I’m libertarian on most social issues, but am strongly in favor of Federalism. I think that states do have the right to legislate morality, subject to guidelines along the lines of the Lemon test (with its ambiguity leaving room for argument). I may not like the laws of my state, but as long as I have the freedom to move then I think that our system works as it should. The problem for me comes when Fed-zilla imposes laws outside of its powers on the states and deprives me of the ability to influence or move to a place where I can escape laws I don’t like.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Dr Evil on August 30, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Yes, I agree the Democratic Party is a disaster and needs purged. I don’t see how it can be done without the 2012 election in the R favor tho. If that is accomplished, then there is a chance.

Any extreme views from the R’s or the D’s is troubling. They both need to work for the betterment of the Country.

The R’s need to see if they can get on the same page, instead of all of this bickering. I’m not interested if someone left a whisker while shaving:-) Or some other nonsense. Majoring in minors doesn’t advance the objective, but it does overlook the bigger issues.

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Abortion is the taking of the life, since God states “I knew you in the womb”, biblically that goes back to the old testament, not centuries after…
right2bright on August 30, 2011 at 11:55 AM

If life begins at conception and a ‘soul’ is deposited in the zygote at that instant then, since more than 30% of pregnancies are ‘aborted’ before the woman even knows she was with a soul-bearing zygote, god must be the abortionist in those cases. Perhaps he should burn in hell!

Annar on August 30, 2011 at 3:01 PM

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Oh, I agree. The Feds have overstepped their authority in so many ways. Not to mention disregarding the Constitution. This Country has been on a downward slide for way too long. People have been sleeping during that time. Now they are awake and it’s clear that many would prefer they go back to sleep:-)

I enjoy Hotair because a lot of smart people post here. Now this Lemon law? I have no idea what that is, sorry.

I see Dr. Evil is taking a break and I have errands to run, catch up with you later.

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 3:06 PM

short sided vision -short sighted vision.

Break Time :)

Dr Evil on August 30, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Carney and his glasses? I noticed that, Ha-Ha I have a hard time telling any of them apart. (not M or F)It’s like if you hear one, you hear them all. You know, like the news:-) Blah, Blah

Errand time for me.

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Oh, forgot to mention. Gov. Perry is to be on Hannity’s radio show today(was changed from Mon.) Maybe 4PM, not sure. I just have the station on, nothing been said yet on the time slot.

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 3:16 PM

But my point is that should you as a layman be able to provide us proper instruction over your bishop or priest? Until he is officially and specifically excommunicated or recants you should continue under his wing regardless of his invisible auto excommunication or your interpretation of the canon law. The bishop or priest might have his own interpretation for not thinking that he is breaking the law and he still supercedes you until otherwise corrected.

And when he is finally excommunicated you can then confess your sin of collaborative heresy.

shick on August 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM

The point is that the Catholic church has always been opportunist with respect to doctrine. Over 40% of the nazi SS was Catholic as was the Führer himself. Only one nazi was ever ex-communicated for events related to the war. It was not Hitler (who never renounced his faith) but Goebels for marrying a Protestant!

As for abortion, if they were serious about their doctrine, the entire Kennedy family, Biden and Lalapelosi would all have been out.

It is no wonder that the majority of Catholics do birth control, are silent on abortion why should they be holier than the Pope in a manner of speaking?

Annar on August 30, 2011 at 3:18 PM

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Hint, it’s not about used cars :-)

Here’s what I posted earlier for someone else. The SCOTUS ruled in Lemon v Kurtzman that a law must pass the following 3 part test to be consistent with the 1st Amendment:

1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

It still stands as the basis for their decisions, although as tommyboy pointed out, it has been fine tuned on occasion and there are signs that the SCOTUS may modify it in some way before too long.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 3:22 PM

If life begins at conception and a ‘soul’ is deposited in the zygote at that instant then, since more than 30% of pregnancies are ‘aborted’ before the woman even knows she was with a soul-bearing zygote, god must be the abortionist in those cases. Perhaps he should burn in hell!

Annar on August 30, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Uhhhh, yeah, that makes sense…and one wonders why the atheists have never accomplished anything of use…thanks for making us understand the unfaithful that much more.
Please, I plead with atheists, don’t argue anything spiritual, you all end up looking like this poster…if you don’t understand something, just let it go.

right2bright on August 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Trafalgar on August 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

I was referring to the period marking the end of the Tudor era. When successive monarchs persecuted first Catholics and then Protestants and then Catholics again. It was the era of the Mayflower when people fled to this continent to escape religious persecution.

Although, there were certainly were religious elements in the glorious revolution with the round heads and cavaliers later on in the 19th century. However, since they came well after our founding that is not what I was talking about.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Hint, it’s not about used cars :-)

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Glad you defined it, since the used car one was all I ever heard of, LOL

Ok, I’ll read up on that then. Until then, I see #1 as being for everyone, not for a particular group.
#2 key word is primary
#3 key phrase is excessive government entanglement with religion-not sure on the meaning of that without reading more.

That is just off the top of my head:-)

I’m off to the other thread that appears will be an all nighter:-)

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Good observations about the Lemon test. As you noted, words like “primary” and “excessive” leave room for judgement and interpretation.

For example, I see most laws entitling a student to apply a school voucher for a religious school as being acceptable within this framework, provided secular private schools are also available. The voucher program is not primarily to advance religion and has a secular legislative purpose and finally, does not excessively entangle the government in religion.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 5:19 PM

For example, I see most laws entitling a student to apply a school voucher for a religious school as being acceptable within this framework, provided secular private schools are also available. The voucher program is not primarily to advance religion and has a secular legislative purpose and finally, does not excessively entangle the government in religion.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Cool:-) That helps to understand #3. Great example, thanks.

Time for dinner now:-) This blogging takes a lot of time, LOL

Perry did pretty good on Hannity today. I like that he stays on message. Jobs/Economy/Obamacare

bluefox on August 30, 2011 at 5:26 PM

I was referring to the period marking the end of the Tudor era. When successive monarchs persecuted first Catholics and then Protestants and then Catholics again. It was the era of the Mayflower when people fled to this continent to escape religious persecution.

Although, there were certainly were religious elements in the glorious revolution with the round heads and cavaliers later on in the 19th century. However, since they came well after our founding that is not what I was talking about.

MJBrutus on August 30, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Now you’re just making a fool out of yourself. The Tudor period was 1485-1603. The Mayflower sailed in 1620 during the Stewart period. There was no civil war whatsoever at the end of the Tudor era and the transistion from Tudor to Stewrat rule after the death of Elizabeth I was remarkably smooth and welcomed. I will agree that there was religious persecution on both sides during the Tudor period; however, the early Church of England set up under Henry VIII was far from being a protestant entity and in fact rejected the ideas of early protestantism, not becoming a protestant church until much later The rifts between the early Church of England and the Catholic Church had more to do with the format of the mass and whether the Pope or the monarch was head of the church. Henry himself was a devout Catholic scholar, he broke from Rome because of the Pope’s decision not to allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragaon, and because he was passed over as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

The English (not British)Civil War (1642-1651) was not, as I said before, a war about Catholicism vs. Protestantism at all. Charles I was the head of the Church of England and not Catholic. Oliver Cromwell was a protestant. It was a war about the poer of the monarch to rule without the consent of parliamnet. Nothing more.

The Glorious Revolution happened in 1688 and was the deposition of James II by the Dutch Prince William of Orange. It had nothing at all to do with cavaliers and roundheads (that was the English Civil War).

Again, you get in trouble when you try to discusss history without knowing anything about it. Just as you get in trouble discussing Christianity without knowing a lot about it.

Trafalgar on August 31, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Trafalgar on August 31, 2011 at 8:04 AM

No, you’re being an ass. Protestants and Catholics batted it out in the years following Elizabeth’s death (the end of the Tudor era). Her father Henry VIII established the Anglican church, duh. Queen Mary was Catholic and after her death Protestants regained control. That was indeed the background to the history of the Mayflower.

MJBrutus on August 31, 2011 at 3:56 PM

MJBrutus on August 31, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Just to be clear, Bloody Mary Tudor preceded Elizabeth. The reign of these queens was marked by persecution based on religion. And it was a period of civil war. It wasn’t settled until after the Glorious Revolution.

The fact is that my original remarks were on point. Your attempt to deny that religious prosecution among Christians of different stripes being responsible for the Pilgrims’ flight to America is pathetic. And you insults only make the hole you’ve dug for yourself deeper.

MJBrutus on August 31, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2