I think this guys makes a lot of sense on the topic. Worth considering at least (without weighing in on your stance regarding Mr. Beck...who is a Mormon let's not forget).
Please read on at http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1185840
Timothy
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Obama invites confusion about his faith
I found this article well thought out. Funny, but my first thought after reading this was that Obama is not unlike a lots of folks in America: dabbled in a little bit of many things, but ultimately came up with nothing of substance. I doubt he's any more faithful a Christian than he is (purportedly) a Muslim. And he's probably trying to please both sides by being purposefuly vague or of little substance in his practice. Of course the middle of the road is generally an unsafe place to drive, so no wonder he's getting side-swiped from both directions.
Sourcelink: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1134060
Timothy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama invites confusion about his faith
Dr. Paul Kengor - Guest Columnist - 8/24/2010 10:35:00 AM
The recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is generating much discussion over its provocative finding that an increasing number of Americans (nearly one in five) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The survey was completed before Obama's recent comments endorsing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.
While this no doubt is a fascinating development, consuming most media coverage of the poll, and unprecedented in presidential history, the figure of greater interest to me — and not surprising — is the percentage of Americans unsure about whether Obama is a Christian, or, more generally, about his faith at all.
"[T]he proportion saying [Obama] is a Christian has declined," reports Pew. "More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows." Pew added: "Only about one-third of adults (34 percent) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48 percent in 2009. Fully 43 percent say they do not know what Obama's religion is."
This confusion is not confined to Republicans. Pew notes: "fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009)."
The numbers among Democrats are telling. Indeed, it's easy for Obama defenders to lash out at this data as allegedly reflective of narrow-minded anti-Obama conservatives. In truth, there is confusion about what Obama believes because, in fact, there is — rightly so — confusion about what Obama believes.
Uncertainty builds
I say this as someone who studies faith and politics, and who has written books on the faith of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton — books that hit upon the faith of just about every president.
For the record, in one of those books — the 2007 one on Hillary Clinton, who I described as a "lifelong, committed Christian" — I wrote briefly about an emerging political dynamo named Barack Obama. "Obama is a Christian," I reportedly confidently, seeing no reason to say otherwise.
As November 2008 approached, I wrote similar things, though acknowledging the growing uncertainty about Obama's beliefs. I recall speaking at a church near Pittsburgh where one liberal couple practically jumped out of their seats when I dared mention a June 2008 Newsweek poll that found 12 percent of Americans believed Obama is a Muslim.
Those perceptions, already evident then, have only intensified. And for those Obama supporters enraged by this, please try to understand the legitimate confusion, including for someone like myself who carefully studies these things:
Generally, when it comes to faith, Americans accept whatever self-designation offered by a president, especially as his background leaves little doubt. President Jimmy Carter called himself a "born-again" Baptist from Plains, Ga., which the record easily supported. President Woodrow Wilson referred to himself as a Presbyterian in the "Reformed" tradition, and a mere cursory examination revealed precisely that.
Sometimes, we dig deeper. My experience in the case of Ronald Reagan is especially relevant now, as I'm being cited by liberals who point to Reagan's infrequent church attendance as support for their insistence that Obama's infrequent church attendance doesn't mean he lacks faith. (Ironically, in the 1980s, it was liberals who questioned whether the president was really a Christian.) That comparison, however, is misplaced, for reasons that underscore the questions about Obama. Consider:
Reagan attended church his entire life, from the First Christian Church on S. Hennepin Avenue in Dixon, Ill., in the 1920s, to churches in Iowa in the 1930s, to varying churches in California from the 1940s through the 1970s, and again after his presidency. As a new president, he immediately began attending the National Presbyterian Church, present for all but one or two services prior to when he was shot by John Hinckley. I interviewed the pastor of that church, the Rev. Louis Evans, at length, plus other witnesses. Reagan's attendance declined only after the assassination attempt. He cited security reasons, and the record supported his explanation. Beyond that, Reagan's personal life, family background, writings, speeches, and much more, revealed a deep, pervasive Christian faith throughout his entire life.
The Record
For President Obama, a similar evidentiary record does not exist. Unlike Reagan, Obama was not raised by an intensely pious mother, nor was there an extremely influential pastor in his adolescent years. As noted by an excellent Newsweek piece during the campaign, Obama was reared by a "Christian-turned-secular mother" — herself a product of "two lapsed Christian" parents — and was the son of a "Muslim-turned-atheist African father" and a stepfather with a "unique brand of Islam."
As Obama himself candidly admits, he meandered his way through Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, asceticism, with, along the way, smatterings of Augustine, Graham Greene, and Nietzsche, just for starters.
Amazingly, the only Christian church to which Obama could have been considered a consistent member was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. And if we are to believe the disclaimers of Obama and his supporters, he rarely attended Wright's services, and even more rarely listened or paid attention.
Likewise, Michelle and the girls have not attended church regularly, if ever. Newsweek reported a remarkable fact for a major presidential candidate who would win the presidency: "Obama is a little spiritually rootless again."
Our Puzzling President
All of this, from rare church attendance to the lack of other conventional displays of faith, has persisted well into Obama's presidency. Think about the oddity of this one fact alone: The current president has neither a church, nor, to my knowledge, even a denomination. When I'm asked questions about his faith, by sincere people not looking to attack, I sincerely can't give a good answer. It's a problem I didn't have with any of the Bushes, the Clintons, Reagan, Carter, and on and on.
In short, and I don't mean this to be disparaging, with Barack Obama we are witnessing the most unconventional faith profile of a president in arguably 200 years. The assessment we're getting from a curious public is not a crass misperception by a bunch of intolerants, but, rather, natural puzzlement.
Of course, it shouldn't be difficult to rectify misperceptions. Throughout American history, presidents have been asked about their faith and sat for lengthy interviews sharing their thinking, explaining precisely what they believe. Why doesn't Obama simply do the same? This isn't rocket science.
Will some people still not believe him? Of course. But Obama's problem isn't a tiny fringe that believes he faces Mecca to pray five times a day, but an increasingly large number of Americans that aren't sure what he believes. Until he makes that clearer, confusion will understandably reign.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include "God and Ronald Reagan," "God and George W. Bush," and "God and Hillary Clinton." This column, which first appeared in USA Today, is printed with permission.
Sourcelink: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1134060
Timothy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama invites confusion about his faith
Dr. Paul Kengor - Guest Columnist - 8/24/2010 10:35:00 AM
The recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is generating much discussion over its provocative finding that an increasing number of Americans (nearly one in five) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The survey was completed before Obama's recent comments endorsing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.
While this no doubt is a fascinating development, consuming most media coverage of the poll, and unprecedented in presidential history, the figure of greater interest to me — and not surprising — is the percentage of Americans unsure about whether Obama is a Christian, or, more generally, about his faith at all.
"[T]he proportion saying [Obama] is a Christian has declined," reports Pew. "More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows." Pew added: "Only about one-third of adults (34 percent) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48 percent in 2009. Fully 43 percent say they do not know what Obama's religion is."
This confusion is not confined to Republicans. Pew notes: "fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009)."
The numbers among Democrats are telling. Indeed, it's easy for Obama defenders to lash out at this data as allegedly reflective of narrow-minded anti-Obama conservatives. In truth, there is confusion about what Obama believes because, in fact, there is — rightly so — confusion about what Obama believes.
Uncertainty builds
I say this as someone who studies faith and politics, and who has written books on the faith of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton — books that hit upon the faith of just about every president.
For the record, in one of those books — the 2007 one on Hillary Clinton, who I described as a "lifelong, committed Christian" — I wrote briefly about an emerging political dynamo named Barack Obama. "Obama is a Christian," I reportedly confidently, seeing no reason to say otherwise.
As November 2008 approached, I wrote similar things, though acknowledging the growing uncertainty about Obama's beliefs. I recall speaking at a church near Pittsburgh where one liberal couple practically jumped out of their seats when I dared mention a June 2008 Newsweek poll that found 12 percent of Americans believed Obama is a Muslim.
Those perceptions, already evident then, have only intensified. And for those Obama supporters enraged by this, please try to understand the legitimate confusion, including for someone like myself who carefully studies these things:
Generally, when it comes to faith, Americans accept whatever self-designation offered by a president, especially as his background leaves little doubt. President Jimmy Carter called himself a "born-again" Baptist from Plains, Ga., which the record easily supported. President Woodrow Wilson referred to himself as a Presbyterian in the "Reformed" tradition, and a mere cursory examination revealed precisely that.
Sometimes, we dig deeper. My experience in the case of Ronald Reagan is especially relevant now, as I'm being cited by liberals who point to Reagan's infrequent church attendance as support for their insistence that Obama's infrequent church attendance doesn't mean he lacks faith. (Ironically, in the 1980s, it was liberals who questioned whether the president was really a Christian.) That comparison, however, is misplaced, for reasons that underscore the questions about Obama. Consider:
Reagan attended church his entire life, from the First Christian Church on S. Hennepin Avenue in Dixon, Ill., in the 1920s, to churches in Iowa in the 1930s, to varying churches in California from the 1940s through the 1970s, and again after his presidency. As a new president, he immediately began attending the National Presbyterian Church, present for all but one or two services prior to when he was shot by John Hinckley. I interviewed the pastor of that church, the Rev. Louis Evans, at length, plus other witnesses. Reagan's attendance declined only after the assassination attempt. He cited security reasons, and the record supported his explanation. Beyond that, Reagan's personal life, family background, writings, speeches, and much more, revealed a deep, pervasive Christian faith throughout his entire life.
The Record
For President Obama, a similar evidentiary record does not exist. Unlike Reagan, Obama was not raised by an intensely pious mother, nor was there an extremely influential pastor in his adolescent years. As noted by an excellent Newsweek piece during the campaign, Obama was reared by a "Christian-turned-secular mother" — herself a product of "two lapsed Christian" parents — and was the son of a "Muslim-turned-atheist African father" and a stepfather with a "unique brand of Islam."
As Obama himself candidly admits, he meandered his way through Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, asceticism, with, along the way, smatterings of Augustine, Graham Greene, and Nietzsche, just for starters.
Amazingly, the only Christian church to which Obama could have been considered a consistent member was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. And if we are to believe the disclaimers of Obama and his supporters, he rarely attended Wright's services, and even more rarely listened or paid attention.
Likewise, Michelle and the girls have not attended church regularly, if ever. Newsweek reported a remarkable fact for a major presidential candidate who would win the presidency: "Obama is a little spiritually rootless again."
Our Puzzling President
All of this, from rare church attendance to the lack of other conventional displays of faith, has persisted well into Obama's presidency. Think about the oddity of this one fact alone: The current president has neither a church, nor, to my knowledge, even a denomination. When I'm asked questions about his faith, by sincere people not looking to attack, I sincerely can't give a good answer. It's a problem I didn't have with any of the Bushes, the Clintons, Reagan, Carter, and on and on.
In short, and I don't mean this to be disparaging, with Barack Obama we are witnessing the most unconventional faith profile of a president in arguably 200 years. The assessment we're getting from a curious public is not a crass misperception by a bunch of intolerants, but, rather, natural puzzlement.
Of course, it shouldn't be difficult to rectify misperceptions. Throughout American history, presidents have been asked about their faith and sat for lengthy interviews sharing their thinking, explaining precisely what they believe. Why doesn't Obama simply do the same? This isn't rocket science.
Will some people still not believe him? Of course. But Obama's problem isn't a tiny fringe that believes he faces Mecca to pray five times a day, but an increasingly large number of Americans that aren't sure what he believes. Until he makes that clearer, confusion will understandably reign.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include "God and Ronald Reagan," "God and George W. Bush," and "God and Hillary Clinton." This column, which first appeared in USA Today, is printed with permission.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
You Call this Health Insurance?
Yes, you know you're in an ecomomic "recovery" when they kick you when you're just getting up again.
Take Anthem/Wellpoint's plans to "up yours" on their premiums for hard-working self-employed Californians by up to 39% effective March 1st. (LA Times story here.)
UPDATE (5/4/10): Looks like Anthem is completely pulling the plug on the rate increases (at least as announced: I would still expect one in the future, though "smaller"). See below from: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-30/bay-area/20876824_1_rate-hikes-rate-application-medical-inflation-trends. Of course getting LOTS of heat does tend to make a company think twice about what they were "doing". Now I'm not a big fan of extensive government involvement in what is essentially a private insurance arrangement. However, the relative monopolopy and impunity of coverage here sometimes only responds to a big stick; and also the pending national healthcare changes (for good or ill) at least kept one increase from my hard-working friend's doorstep (for now: he says he's always waiting for the other shoe to drop, and I can't blame him for his cynicism.). So, the beat goes on.
This was not unnoticed by the Secretary of the Dept of Health and Human Services,and she put out a very strong letter to Anthem on Monday, which you can read if you want: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/02/20100208c.html.
She does indicate that the State of CA is "investigating this matter" (see LA Times story link above for more on this), and while I don't know what authority the State has, it's at least heartening that someone with clout (her and the State) aren't taking this lying down. But it's probably at best just delaying the inevitable.
Want a real life "affected" story? Take my friend Mark and his family. They are self-employed contributors to the greater good of humanity (and a little bit for themselves) and they of course have to privately contract for their healthcare. No clout, and yes your health history counts (against you). Did this affect them? Yep. They now get to pay $310 more then they already did (making it nearly $1200 a month for this healthy family of four). Wow. He says the money's just not there, so they'll have to try other options: but more than likely, he'll just have to switch to a higher-deductible plan and basically have "insurance that doesn't feel like insurance" (remember when "I'm insured" meant that you could expect to owe little or nothing on your care?).
And how about me and my house? Oh yes, I work for a large multi-national firm. We have clout. But we want "cheaper is better" (for the investors). So, I get to pay $90 more a month this year for worse coverage than I had last year (e.g. per person deductible is $1500 and family deductible is $4500). And when I did my taxes, I spent (after my premiums) $2500 on my medical care last year (not enough to qualify as a deduction, but it hurt...and they want to raise the minimum percentage even more I'm told). And I can't keep my family doctor, because my only "choice" of health plans isn't one his practice can stomach. So, let see: more cost, can't keep my doctor. Do ya think we need health insurance reform? Do you think it's likely to come from current legislation? (That's not for me to answer.)
Take Anthem/Wellpoint's plans to "up yours" on their premiums for hard-working self-employed Californians by up to 39% effective March 1st. (LA Times story here.)
UPDATE (5/4/10): Looks like Anthem is completely pulling the plug on the rate increases (at least as announced: I would still expect one in the future, though "smaller"). See below from: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-30/bay-area/20876824_1_rate-hikes-rate-application-medical-inflation-trends. Of course getting LOTS of heat does tend to make a company think twice about what they were "doing". Now I'm not a big fan of extensive government involvement in what is essentially a private insurance arrangement. However, the relative monopolopy and impunity of coverage here sometimes only responds to a big stick; and also the pending national healthcare changes (for good or ill) at least kept one increase from my hard-working friend's doorstep (for now: he says he's always waiting for the other shoe to drop, and I can't blame him for his cynicism.). So, the beat goes on.
This was not unnoticed by the Secretary of the Dept of Health and Human Services,and she put out a very strong letter to Anthem on Monday, which you can read if you want: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/02/20100208c.html.
She does indicate that the State of CA is "investigating this matter" (see LA Times story link above for more on this), and while I don't know what authority the State has, it's at least heartening that someone with clout (her and the State) aren't taking this lying down. But it's probably at best just delaying the inevitable.
Want a real life "affected" story? Take my friend Mark and his family. They are self-employed contributors to the greater good of humanity (and a little bit for themselves) and they of course have to privately contract for their healthcare. No clout, and yes your health history counts (against you). Did this affect them? Yep. They now get to pay $310 more then they already did (making it nearly $1200 a month for this healthy family of four). Wow. He says the money's just not there, so they'll have to try other options: but more than likely, he'll just have to switch to a higher-deductible plan and basically have "insurance that doesn't feel like insurance" (remember when "I'm insured" meant that you could expect to owe little or nothing on your care?).
And how about me and my house? Oh yes, I work for a large multi-national firm. We have clout. But we want "cheaper is better" (for the investors). So, I get to pay $90 more a month this year for worse coverage than I had last year (e.g. per person deductible is $1500 and family deductible is $4500). And when I did my taxes, I spent (after my premiums) $2500 on my medical care last year (not enough to qualify as a deduction, but it hurt...and they want to raise the minimum percentage even more I'm told). And I can't keep my family doctor, because my only "choice" of health plans isn't one his practice can stomach. So, let see: more cost, can't keep my doctor. Do ya think we need health insurance reform? Do you think it's likely to come from current legislation? (That's not for me to answer.)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Gayly Described
In an excellent article, "Gay Rights: Don't Ask, Don't Think", Frank Turek really gets to the issue of "what you are" (a person) vs. "what you do" (behavior). And how we keep enshrining behaviors as if they were innate and inalienble "rights of being".
Read the article and let me know what you think.
Read the article and let me know what you think.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Haiti: What's Sin Got to Do With It?
Today I read a well-done newsletter from Foursquare entitled, "Who Sinned in Haiti?" In it, Jonathan Hall says, "Jesus’ disciples encountered great suffering in the life of a man and his family (John 9) and they asked whose sin was responsible. They wanted to know if he or his parents had committed evil to deserve such loss. Like the disciples, my mind tends to immediately assess fault and blame; I pursue answers to the questions of why and how through ever-present human logic and judgment. Jesus changed everything, leading the disciples to blend the divine and earthly. Then Jesus touched the man with healing and the kind of personal transformation that glorifies God."
To which would like to add the following thoughts:
Who sinned? A: Everyone. But that's nothing new. Been happening since the Garden.
Who cares? A: God, and then everyone who's called by His Name.
Did this happen because of anything in particular? A: Not really.
Jesus said of those who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them that they weren't any worse sinners than the rest of us (Lk 13:4). So, it's not as if God measures the general sinfulness level and, when He's "had enough", He drops an A-bomb on the unlucky chosen ones. The worst can happen to the best, and the reverse. Our task: love anyway, and remember that vengeance is His never ours.
Could God have.....(you fill in the blanks)? A: Yes, he "could have" done anything. What He did and didn't do isn't for us to judge. He is already doing a lot that He doesn't get credit for, so why overly blame Him for this ("acts of God" is a gross misrepresentation no?).
Death and pain were not His plan. He does a lot. He cares more than we could know. He doesn't give up, and He never gives in to pressure or expectations. He loves. He is love. We should "go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37).
Timotheos
To which would like to add the following thoughts:
Who sinned? A: Everyone. But that's nothing new. Been happening since the Garden.
Who cares? A: God, and then everyone who's called by His Name.
Did this happen because of anything in particular? A: Not really.
Jesus said of those who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them that they weren't any worse sinners than the rest of us (Lk 13:4). So, it's not as if God measures the general sinfulness level and, when He's "had enough", He drops an A-bomb on the unlucky chosen ones. The worst can happen to the best, and the reverse. Our task: love anyway, and remember that vengeance is His never ours.
Could God have.....(you fill in the blanks)? A: Yes, he "could have" done anything. What He did and didn't do isn't for us to judge. He is already doing a lot that He doesn't get credit for, so why overly blame Him for this ("acts of God" is a gross misrepresentation no?).
Death and pain were not His plan. He does a lot. He cares more than we could know. He doesn't give up, and He never gives in to pressure or expectations. He loves. He is love. We should "go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37).
Timotheos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)