Netanyahu: Muslims responsible for Holocaust.

[The Chosen One]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34594563

Lol. What a great guy he is.

[Hawk]

My guess is that this the beginning of an attempt by Bibi to take a particularly aggressive stance on the recent soldier stabbings, as well as pushing for a stronger American discourse on Israel during this political season. I can guarantee that candidates are receiving talking-points, and it wouldn't surprise me to see this lead to a Republican free for fall on the Iran 'deal' during next week's debate.

FWIW, based upon the response in Israel so far, the comments will likely be walked way the **** back with the usual caveat of 'We are Israelis, we can trust no one, we must remain vigilant...' etc.

[weso1]

meh. I see propaganda on both sides on this one.

[goldfly]

meh. I see propaganda on both sides on this one.

that has zero percent to do with calling this statement dumb

[AerchAngel]

that has zero percent to do with calling this statement dumb

100 percent in what it means to do.

[BedellBrave]

It would be fascinating to read a script of Husseini and Hitler's discussions. I wonder if there is such.

[Oklahomahawk]

It would be fascinating to read a script of Husseini and Hitler's discussions. I wonder if there is such.

I am not familiar with the specifics of this supposed "connection" as far as holocaust "how to" stuff goes but the two actually did have a relatively "friendly working relationship", in fact didn't the Gran Mufti supposedly tell the Arab/Muslim soldiers who volunteered to go and fight with the Nazis, "In the next life Allah is your god, in this life Adolf Hitler is your god" or at least something pretty close to that. Also, at the end when they were fighting street by street in Berlin against the invading Russians the Arab/Muslim soldiers fought alongside the Nazis pretty much to the end.

Also, wasn't he "Yassir's great uncle or something?

[BedellBrave]

Yep - just finished reading a great article from First Things. I'll post it.

[BedellBrave]

Link (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/08/hitlers-mufti)

In his 2004 book The Return of Anti-Semitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld declared that “the ancient and modern strands of anti-Semitism” have been “successfully fused today” in the Muslim world, “and from there the hatred of Jews receives its main propulsion outward.” In the 2003 Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, Abraham Foxman added, “Virulent anti-Semitism is widespread throughout the Arab Middle East . . . . Anti-Semitism is tolerated or openly endorsed by Arab governments, disseminated by the Arab media, taught in [Muslim] schools and universities, and preached in mosques. No segment of [Islamic] society is free of its taint.” And in the 1999 Semites and Anti-Semites, Bernard Lewis concluded, “Classical anti-Semitism is an essential part of Arab intellectual life at the present time.”

It is possible to trace modern Islamic anti-Semitism back along a number of different historical and intellectual threads, but, no matter which one you choose, they all seem to pass, at one point or another, through the hands of one figure—Hitler’s mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the viciously anti-Semitic grand mufti of Jerusalem and the leader of Muslim fundamentalists in Palestine, who resided in Berlin as a welcome guest of the Nazis throughout the years of the Holocaust.

The child of a wealthy and influential Palestinian Arab family, al-Husseini was born in Jerusalem in 1893. Living in Jerusalem during the 1920s, he quickly emerged as the recognized leader of the Arabs under the British government in Palestine. From his earliest years, Kenneth R. Timmerman recently noted, al-Husseini was “a ferocious opponent of Jewish immigration to Palestine,” with an unrelenting hatred of the Jews and the British. His career as an anti-Semitic agitator and terrorist began on April 4, 1920, when he and his followers went on a murderous rampage, attacking Jews on the street and looting Jewish stores. He was subsequently convicted by a military tribunal of inciting the anti-Semitic violence that had resulted in the killing of five Jews and the wounding of 211 others.

Sadly, the British—recognizing his status among the Palestinians—disregarded his record and appointed him to the prestigious post of grand mufti of Jerusalem in 1922, which made him both the religious and political leader of the Palestinian Arabs. Only two months after his appointment, his propaganda, including a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, precipitated a second anti-Jewish riot in Palestine. On August 23, 1929, al-Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safad.

Then, in the early 1930s, al-Husseini began to make overtures to the new Nazi government of Germany. The alliance between Adolf Hitler and the Muslim fundamentalist world was initiated and forged by the grand mufti at the very beginning of the new Nazi regime. In late March 1933, al-Husseini contacted the German consul general in Jerusalem and requested German help in eliminating Jewish settlements in Palestine—offering, in exchange, a pan-Islamic jihad in alliance with Germany against Jews around the world. It was not until 1938, in the aftermath of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous capitulation to Hitler at Munich, that Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s overtures to Nazi Germany were officially reciprocated, but by then the influence of Nazi ideology had already grown significantly throughout the Arab Middle East.

In 1934, when the anti-Jewish Nuremberg laws were promulgated, telegrams of congratulations to Hitler were sent from all over the Islamic world—especially, as Paul Longgrear and Raymond McNemar have noted in their 2003 essay, “The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection,” from Morocco and Palestine, where the German propaganda machine had been most active. Several of the Arab political parties founded during the 1930s were modeled after the Nazi party, including the Syrian Popular Party and the Young Egypt Society, which were explicitly anti-Semitic in their ideology and programs. The leader of Syria’s Socialist Nationalist Party, Anton Sa’ada, imagined himself an Arab Hitler and placed a swastika on his party’s banner.

The pro-Nazi mood and increasingly anti-Jewish worldview of al-Husseini and his cohorts among the new Arab leadership was described this way by a leader of the Baath party in Syria: “We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading its books and the sources of its thought, particularly Nietzsche, . . . Fichte, and H.S. Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, which revolves on race. We were the first to think of translating Mein Kampf. Whoever lived during this period in Damascus would appreciate the inclination of the Arab people to Nazism, for Nazism was the power which could serve as its champion, and he who is defeated will by nature love the victor.”

Though he was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, al-Husseini moved his base of operations (and pro-Nazi propaganda) to Lebanon in 1938 and to Iraq in 1939, where he helped establish the strongly pro-German Rashid Ali al-Gaylani as prime minister. His role as a loyal Axis ally was increasingly appreciated by the German government, which invited him to base his activities in Berlin. On the very day that he arrived, November 6, 1941, Husseini met with Ernst von Weizsacker, the German foreign minister. Three weeks later, on November 28, 1941, Husseini met for the first time with Hitler. As Timmerman has correctly argued, “al-Husseini owes his place in history” to this meeting, where he offered to raise an Arab legion to help carry out Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. “The mufti’s close ties to Hitler, and his total embrace of Hitler’s Final Solution,” concludes Timmerman, “provides the common thread linking past to present. If today’s Muslim anti-Semitism is like a tree with many branches, its roots feed directly off of Hitler’s Third Reich.”

From the outset of his stay in Berlin, al-Husseini was portrayed in Nazi propaganda as the spiritual and religious leader of Islam. On January 8, 1942, Radio Berlin reported that the mufti had “announced in a telegram to the German Führer before the whole world his adherence to the Tripartite Pact against Britain, Jews, and Communists.” In a speech announcing his arrival in Germany, he called the Jews the “most fierce enemies of the Muslims” and an “ever-corruptive element” in the world. From his Arab Bureau office in Berlin, al-Husseini mobilized political and military support for the Nazi regime and organized networks of spies throughout the Middle East. As Bernard Lewis has reminded us, even Anwar Sadat, “by his own admission, worked as a German spy in British-occupied Egypt” for al-Husseini.

There is also evidence the mufti advised and assisted his German hosts in the destruction of European Jewry. His importance “must not be disregarded,” insisted Adolf Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny in 1941. “The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry.” At the Nuremberg Trials, Wisliceny was even more explicit: “The mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.” On this visit to Auschwitz, al-Husseini reportedly “admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently.”

In 1943 al-Husseini traveled several times to Bosnia, where he helped recruit a Bosnian Muslim S.S. company, the notorious “Hanjar troopers,” who slaughtered 90 percent of Bosnia’s Jews and burned “countless Serbian churches and villages.” Throughout World War II, al-Husseini preached regularly on radio broadcasts to the Middle East. On November 2, 1943, less than three weeks after the initial Nazi roundup of Roman Jews and the beginning of the Nazi occupation of the Italian capital, he used German radio to broadcast one of his most virulently anti-Semitic messages: “The overwhelming egoism which lies in the character of Jews, their unworthy belief that they are God’s chosen nation and their assertion that all was created for them and that other people are animals” makes them “incapable of being trusted. They cannot mix with any other nation but live as parasites among the nations, suck out their blood, embezzle their property, corrupt their morals.” “Kill the Jews wherever you find them,” the Mufti told his growing Arab radio audience in 1944. “This pleases God, history, and religion.”

“It is hardly accidental that the beginning of the systematic physical destruction of European Jewry by Hitler’s Third Reich roughly coincided with the Mufti’s arrival in the Axis camp,” Joseph B. Schechtmann pointed out in his 1965 book The Mufti and the Führer. And much of the Arab-Muslim leadership in the Middle East learned to share al-Husseini’s ideas about the Jews during the Second World War.

After the defeat of the Axis powers, Hajj Amin al-Husseini escaped indictment as a war criminal at Nuremberg by fleeing to Egypt, where he received political asylum and where, shortly after his arrival, he met the young Yasser Arafat, a teenager then living in Cairo. (Arafat and al-Husseini were, in fact, distantly related: Arafat’s mother was the daughter of al-Husseini’s first cousin.) Arafat soon became a devoted protégé of the grand Mufti, who brought a former Nazi commando to Egypt to teach Arafat and others how to fight. Arafat first shed Jewish blood during terrorist raids against Israel in 1947.

The Mufti’s mission of waging ongoing war against the Jews was continued by Arafat during the 1960s and early 1970s. In 1969, for example, the PLO recruited two former Nazi instructors, Erich Altern, a leader of the Gestapo’s Jewish affairs section, and Willy Berner, an S.S. officer in the Matthausen extermination camp. Another former Nazi, Johann Schuller, was found supplying arms to the Fatah. The Belgian Jean Tireault, secretary of the neo-Nazi La Nation Européenne, also went on the Fatah payroll. Still another Belgian, the neo-Nazi Karl van der Put, recruited the PLO. So, too, the German neo-Nazi Otto Albrecht was arrested in West Germany with PLO identity papers, after the PLO had given him $1.2 million to buy weapons.

Arafat always revered al-Husseini, who died in 1974, as his beloved hero and mentor. In a major address in April 1985, Arafat said he took “immense pride” in being the Mufti’s student and emphasized that the PLO “is continuing the path” he set. Close to thirty years after al-Husseini’s death, Arafat referred in an August 2002 interview to “our hero al-Husseini” as a “symbol of withstanding world pressure, having remained an Arab leader in spite of demands to have him replaced because of his Nazi ties.”

As Robert S. Wistrich has persuasively argued, the anti-Jewish legacy of Nazism “has proven to be especially potent” in the Arab-Islamic world, “where anti-Semitism is once again acquiring a potentially lethal charge.” This new and insidious Islamic anti-Semitism, with its roots in the virulently anti-Jewish ideology of Nazism, has become pervasive throughout the Arab world. In point of fact, as Wistrich demonstrates, “there is currently a culture of hatred that permeates books, magazines, newspapers, sermons, video-cassettes, the internet, television, and radio in the Arab Middle East which has not been seen since the heyday of Nazi Germany.”

Portions of the tradition of Muslim anti-Semitism date from as far back as the Middle Ages, but in recent decades, as Wistrich has suggested, the dehumanizing images of Jews and Israel that have penetrated the body politic of Islam have been sufficiently radical in tone and content to constitute a new “warrant for genocide.” Something different, something new, entered the Arab mind in the twentieth century. And its origins are not particularly hard to trace. Much of this new Muslim-inspired anti-Semitism owes its development to one man: Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who so passionately supported and contributed to Hitler’s Final Solution.

This unholy legacy of virulent anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish terrorism has been an enduring one: In the sixty years since the Holocaust, Hajj Amin al-Husseini has become the hero of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization, the founding father of the radical Palestine National Movement, and the inspiration of two generations of radical Islamic leaders to carry on Hitler’s war against the Jews.

[50PoundHead]

I think Netanyahu should leave his position as Prime Minister of Israel and pursue his dream of becoming a Congressman from Texas. Sounds like he'd be a perfect match with Louie Gohmert.

Seriously, here's the best thing I've read/heard yet on the comments.

Takeaway Podcast: http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/holocaust-and-misuse-history/

[BedellBrave]

50, did you read the article I posted above? I certainly can see how Netanyahu could make the sort of statement he made if that accounting of the history of Husseini is close to reality.

[Hawk]

Liberals would bleed from the eyes if Bibi resigned, especially once you consider that his replacement would likely be from the right-of-Likud 'Jewish Home' party. He's one of the most moderate forces in contemporary Israeli government believe it or not.

[BedellBrave]

Liberals would bleed from the eyes if Bibi resigned, especially once you consider that his replacement would likely be from the right-of-Likud 'Jewish Home' party. He's one of the most moderate forces in contemporary Israeli government believe it or not.


Yeah, they've got some doozies on the far left and far right.

[Oklahomahawk]

Yeah, they've got some doozies on the far left and far right.

I am a big time PRO-Israel person and I think my posting record here will support that assertion, but there's just something about Netanyahu that raises red flags to me. I can't really put my finger on it, but it's there at least to me.

[50PoundHead]

50, did you read the article I posted above? I certainly can see how Netanyahu could make the sort of statement he made if that accounting of the history of Husseini is close to reality.

I read it and I don't see how Netanyahu can say what he said with a straight face. About 90% of the Jews in the world seem to think the same way I do. There seems to be this systematic rehabilitation of Hitler and now Netanyahu seems to join in the fun. Further, the timeline doesn't support his assertions. And beyond that, Arab anti-Semitism has obviously been around a long time, but given what the First Things article says, it's Nazi anti-Semitism that has put the current anti-Semitism in overdrive and not the other way around.

The First Things article conveniently ignores everything that happened after WWI when the British reneged on their promises to the Arabs and Palestinians after enlisting them to bring down the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration trumped the McMahon-Hussein correspondence and the Arabs and Palestinians were, in effect, betrayed. But I suppose they can't be upset about that.

For the record, I respect Netanyahu and understand the stark challenges he faces in trying to keep things cobbled together over there. I just think he's dead wrong here with a very unfortunate statement.

[BedellBrave]

I read it and I don't see how Netanyahu can say what he said with a straight face. About 90% of the Jews in the world seem to think the same way I do. There seems to be this systematic rehabilitation of Hitler and now Netanyahu seems to join in the fun. Further, the timeline doesn't support his assertions. And beyond that, Arab anti-Semitism has obviously been around a long time, but given what the First Things article says, it's Nazi anti-Semitism that has put the current anti-Semitism in overdrive and not the other way around.

The First Things article conveniently ignores everything that happened after WWI when the British reneged on their promises to the Arabs and Palestinians after enlisting them to bring down the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration trumped the McMahon-Hussein correspondence and the Arabs and Palestinians were, in effect, betrayed. But I suppose they can't be upset about that.

For the record, I respect Netanyahu and understand the stark challenges he faces in trying to keep things cobbled together over there. I just think he's dead wrong here with a very unfortunate statement.

Certainly, British actions factor into Husseini's hate though I wouldn't think we'd want to excuse his wickedness and his locking arms with Hitler and encouraging genocide. Right?

Bibi errs in downplaying Hitler. Seems most everyone else criticizing him err in downplaying Husseini's role and the Nazi-level anti-Semitism at play.

And an article, by it's very nature, can't give every aspect of a story or else it would be a book. Maybe in the author's book, from which the article is taken, the earlier chapters are taken into account.

What frustrates me to no end are those on the right here in the US that think Bibi and Israel can do no wrong and the left here that don't seem to give a rat's arse about the virulent anti-Semitism throughout the Arab/Muslim world.

[50PoundHead]

Certainly, British actions factor into Husseini's hate though I wouldn't think we'd want to excuse his wickedness and his locking arms with Hitler and encouraging genocide. Right?

Bibi errs in downplaying Hitler. Seems most everyone else criticizing him err in downplaying Husseini's role and the Nazi-level anti-Semitism at play.

And an article, by it's very nature, can't give every aspect of a story or else it would be a book. Maybe in the author's book, from which the article is taken, the earlier chapters are taken into account.

What frustrates me to no end are those on the right here in the US that think Bibi and Israel can do no wrong and the left here that don't seem to give a rat's arse about the virulent anti-Semitism throughout the Arab/Muslim world.

You will never hear me defend anti-Semitism in any way, shape, or form and I don't know how you could possibly glean that from my earlier comments.

But what is odd here is that virulent anti-Semitism came largely from Catholic (and Protestant) Europe prior to the 20th century. That's not to say that Muslims loved the Jews from the get-go, but Jews were treated horribly in Europe after the Diaspora.

[BedellBrave]

You will never hear me defend anti-Semitism in any way, shape, or form and I don't know how you could possibly glean that from my earlier comments.

But what is odd here is that virulent anti-Semitism came largely from Catholic (and Protestant) Europe prior to the 20th century. That's not to say that Muslims loved the Jews from the get-go, but Jews were treated horribly in Europe after the Diaspora.


Very good.

I think the virulent anti-Semitism has both Nazi and Arabic roots. One can say that Hitler's anti-Semitism has the earlier European context. And yes, there are always deeper historical roots for much of what we see today. For example, one could list Luther's views of the Jews, or the Muslim conquest against Jews and Christians (giving rise to the Crusades), or how Muhammad treated the Jews in Medina, etc. But no matter the historical roots, the present murderous bigotry needs to be denunciated.

[Oklahomahawk]

Very good.

I think the virulent anti-Semitism has both Nazi and Arabic roots. One can say that Hitler's anti-Semitism has the earlier European context. And yes, there are always deeper historical roots for much of what we see today. For example, one could list Luther's views of the Jews, or the Muslim conquest against Jews and Christians (giving rise to the Crusades), or how Muhammad treated the Jews in Medina, etc. But no matter the historical roots, the present murderous bigotry needs to be denunciated.

And remember how Jews were treated during the Bubonic plague outbreaks? The Catholic church has a long history of antisemitism, ask Mel Gibson, but Mr. Protestant Martin Luther was pretty rabid in his feelings about Jews as well. Really it would probably be harder to find groups who have historically liked the Jews than to pick out groups who didn't.

[AerchAngel]

And remember how Jews were treated during the Bubonic plague outbreaks? The Catholic church has a long history of antisemitism, ask Mel Gibson, but Mr. Protestant Martin Luther was pretty rabid in his feelings about Jews as well. Really it would probably be harder to find groups who have historically liked the Jews than to pick out groups who didn't.

You by trade is a History teacher and by experience you are more experience than me and I took History at the University in Iowa (Good teachers of History) and things you've said is correct. Bibi is not to be trusted but I understand what he is saying. The country of Israel is in dire danger all the time and he will do anything in his power to keep it safe so who are we to blame him in anything he does or says? He could have wiped Iran off the map but he knows that nuclear fallout would hit Turkey and Russia and they would be wiped out, Iran knows that as well.

So the only thing Bibi can do is a propaganda war based on rhetoric which we are discussing. Out of the Democrat playbook of disinformation, lying, deflecting and whatnot. Actually this surprises me because Republicans aka Conservatives are blunt force type of personalities.

This is a propaganda attack.

[AerchAngel]

And remember how Jews were treated during the Bubonic plague outbreaks? The Catholic church has a long history of antisemitism, ask Mel Gibson, but Mr. Protestant Martin Luther was pretty rabid in his feelings about Jews as well. Really it would probably be harder to find groups who have historically liked the Jews than to pick out groups who didn't.

My wife hates it that I don't want to convert to Catholicism, but she loves me as a person.

I have a disdain for any religion to be honest so I can understand the fight between these two because their rules, RULES. Why have so many RULES?

[Oklahomahawk]

You by trade is a History teacher and by experience you are more experience than me and I took History at the University in Iowa (Good teachers of History) and things you've said is correct. Bibi is not to be trusted but I understand what he is saying. The country of Israel is in dire danger all the time and he will do anything in his power to keep it safe so who are we to blame him in anything he does or says? He could have wiped Iran off the map but he knows that nuclear fallout would hit Turkey and Russia and they would be wiped out, Iran knows that as well.

So the only thing Bibi can do is a propaganda war based on rhetoric which we are discussing. Out of the Democrat playbook of disinformation, lying, deflecting and whatnot. Actually this surprises me because Republicans aka Conservatives are blunt force type of personalities.

This is a propaganda attack.

Why does that surprise you? The Repubs are and always have been just as full of ****e as the Dems, that's really at the root of my utter disbelief at how so many people can really follow either party. I guess that's where the "hey look how bad THEY are" slight of hand stuff comes in handy.

As for Bibi, I understand that he has to do what's best for his country, but there's just something about him that says there's more to it than that. Also, does he want to be our ally for real or are we just a means to an end?

[Oklahomahawk]

My wife hates it that I don't want to convert to Catholicism, but she loves me as a person.

I have a disdain for any religion to be honest so I can understand the fight between these two because their rules, RULES. Why have so many RULES?

I always try to respect other peoples' religious choices even if I disagree with them. I don't necessary have a problem with rules, as long as I understand the end game and to me the Catholic church gets men way too involved in my salvation, my standing with the church, etc. To me it's like separation of church and state. I know most Christians hate this notion, but to me the state isn't competent to run the state, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to influence anyone's eternity.

[AerchAngel]

I always try to respect other peoples' religious choices even if I disagree with them. I don't necessary have a problem with rules, as long as I understand the end game and to me the Catholic church gets men way too involved in my salvation, my standing with the church, etc. To me it's like separation of church and state. I know most Christians hate this notion, but to me the state isn't competent to run the state, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to influence anyone's eternity.

I as well.

When Dems go after people about cakes, I am like why?

But the same people will not go after Jews or Muslims.

You see the issue.

I am a Christian and baptized, but yet I can't take communion at a Catholic or the Jewish equivalent but all others, no problem.

That is when I decided that I will not be a part of any religion.

Rules. I hate rules and our nation is based on it.

Republicans want this, take as much money as you can with least resistance as possible. Democrats wants that but much worse, to control your thoughts, your morals.

Why do people follow this ideology is beyond me?

[AerchAngel]

Why does that surprise you? The Repubs are and always have been just as full of ****e as the Dems, that's really at the root of my utter disbelief at how so many people can really follow either party. I guess that's where the "hey look how bad THEY are" slight of hand stuff comes in handy.

As for Bibi, I understand that he has to do what's best for his country, but there's just something about him that says there's more to it than that. Also, does he want to be our ally for real or are we just a means to an end?

My friend you are rolling today. Grats!!!

Everything you've said is spot on.

I can see why we are hated by both sides...well Sturg is getting that status as well.

They have no port to sail to, no land they can land on. Both parties sucks to high heaven.

Even Dr. Carson hates being a Republican (he is not greed/NeoCon based), but he has no chance as a Democrat on religious issues. Too many Atheists on their side.

[50PoundHead]

And remember how Jews were treated during the Bubonic plague outbreaks? The Catholic church has a long history of antisemitism, ask Mel Gibson, but Mr. Protestant Martin Luther was pretty rabid in his feelings about Jews as well. Really it would probably be harder to find groups who have historically liked the Jews than to pick out groups who didn't.

We Lutherans don't talk much about those writings, but they are a pox on our denomination. One could argue, perhaps not convincingly, that prior to the modern era (and even into the modern era), Jews were treated fairly by comparison under the Ottoman Empire. But even then, if something went wrong, it was those darn Jews that were to blame somehow. They've been hounded wherever they've gone and forced into closed communities. Funny thing is that without the Jews, capitalism probably wouldn't have flourished. Many Christian denominations forbid the practice of usury, so someone had to be in the banking business and it often fell to the Jews, who were necessary for economic expansion, but still reviled (see the depiction in The Merchant of Venice).

[AerchAngel]

We Lutherans don't talk much about those writings, but they are a pox on our denomination. One could argue, perhaps not convincingly, that prior to the modern era (and even into the modern era), Jews were treated fairly by comparison under the Ottoman Empire. But even then, if something went wrong, it was those darn Jews that were to blame somehow. They've been hounded wherever they've gone and forced into closed communities. Funny thing is that without the Jews, capitalism probably wouldn't have flourished. Many Christian denominations forbid the practice of usury, so someone had to be in the banking business and it often fell to the Jews, who were necessary for economic expansion, but still reviled (see the depiction in The Merchant of Venice).

I know you have saw the issue here in Eau Claire and the Lutheran church, it is bad, really bad.

They have a severe division. One's route of evolution of allowing gays and the other isn't. Well the one isn't got a lot more members and the ones who did accept lost their churches and like Chicago and Minneapolis and Milwaukee are renting old office or business buildings.

IN Steve Harvey's standup, the one that stand out.

When you get kicked out of church made in the early 1900's you adapt, you get one of those strip mall joints. Not going by your old name to descrate it, you give it a new one:

Mesopatamia Baptist to the High Lord Jesus Christ the Apostle of the Virgin Mary and the Higher Saints of St. Joseph and St. Peter Church.

Yes, they do exist in Chicago, those long ass names for Baptist and other churches of their religion.

[Oklahomahawk]

We Lutherans don't talk much about those writings, but they are a pox on our denomination. One could argue, perhaps not convincingly, that prior to the modern era (and even into the modern era), Jews were treated fairly by comparison under the Ottoman Empire. But even then, if something went wrong, it was those darn Jews that were to blame somehow. They've been hounded wherever they've gone and forced into closed communities. Funny thing is that without the Jews, capitalism probably wouldn't have flourished. Many Christian denominations forbid the practice of usury, so someone had to be in the banking business and it often fell to the Jews, who were necessary for economic expansion, but still reviled (see the depiction in The Merchant of Venice).

Well it certainly isn't just on your denomination but I do see your point. I was raised a Southern Baptist. You do know why we're Southern Baptists, instead of just plain old Baptists, right? Ironically it isn't related to the Jews, just but as bad IMO.

[AerchAngel]

Well it certainly isn't just on your denomination but I do see your point. I was raised a Southern Baptist. You do know why we're Southern Baptists, instead of just plain old Baptists, right? Ironically it isn't related to the Jews, just but as bad IMO.

Clubber Lang; "Southern Baptist? pain"

I thought Mormons and 7 Day Adventist, along with Jews, Muslims and Caths were bad, but SB take the cake.

People don't understand that putting man made edicts into religion is a bad thing.

[Oklahomahawk]

Clubber Lang; "Southern Baptist? pain"

I thought Mormons and 7 Day Adventist, along with Jews, Muslims and Caths were bad, but SB take the cake.

People don't understand that putting man made edicts into religion is a bad thing.

Well here's a hint, it goes back to a BIG Baptist convention back around 1850 (don't recall the exact year but that's pretty close) and a GREAT BIG blowup that happened at that convention. Who can fill in the rest of the blanks on this one?

[Runnin]

Well here's a hint, it goes back to a BIG Baptist convention back around 1850 (don't recall the exact year but that's pretty close) and a GREAT BIG blowup that happened at that convention. Who can fill in the rest of the blanks on this one?
I'll take a guess that it had something to do with slavery. . . . whether slave owners could serve as missionaries or not?

[Oklahomahawk]

I'll take a guess that it had something to do with slavery. . . . whether slave owners could serve as missionaries or not?

It did indeed!! Actually it was about state's rights, which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. But sadly the "right" to keep slaves was considered to be part of state's rights therefore when you accept one you automatically accept the other, even if you don't really mean to. And if you look deeply enough into the Bible you'll find a handful of verses that support that theory, which is why you should always beware of anyone who builds an entire theology on 3 or 4 Bible verses. That's why we were given the entire book, because 3 or 4 verses just don't quite do the job.

And I know a LOT of people, including quite a few on this board don't want to hear it but there is a modern day equivalency to women's rights. If you try to separate those you get into a battle just like you did with state's right 165 years ago m/l when that Baptist convention was held.

[AerchAngel]

This is why I like you two. By being teachers, you know your stuff. I am just a few classes (I have the credits but not the classes) from Masters but Technology is neither of you's strong point but History and Literature it is and I respect that a lot.

I might give you a hard time, but I respect those in the Academia.

[AerchAngel]

Now you two know why I left the church/religion for good. And why I don't like Democrats for good?

I don't like anyone controlling me or my actions on life. I respect everyone but don't you dare dictate my feelings on anything. If someone doesn't like how I feel about you, too bad. I am not going to physically harm you, never will, but don't think if you try with me that I won't retaliate with DEADLY force.

[BedellBrave]

And remember how Jews were treated during the Bubonic plague outbreaks? The Catholic church has a long history of antisemitism, ask Mel Gibson, but Mr. Protestant Martin Luther was pretty rabid in his feelings about Jews as well. Really it would probably be harder to find groups who have historically liked the Jews than to pick out groups who didn't.


True - so again, maybe it is best to focus on the here and now - are we (anyone) guilty of a hatred that would cause us to murder another human being for their race, their creed, their worldview? Or encourage that whole group be annihilated? If so...

[BedellBrave]

Why does that surprise you? The Repubs are and always have been just as full of ****e as the Dems, that's really at the root of my utter disbelief at how so many people can really follow either party. I guess that's where the "hey look how bad THEY are" slight of hand stuff comes in handy.

As for Bibi, I understand that he has to do what's best for his country, but there's just something about him that says there's more to it than that. Also, does he want to be our ally for real or are we just a means to an end?


We are a means to an end for any Israeli administration - and that end is self-survival. Go to Masada and you'll have no doubts about what that end is.

[BedellBrave]

We Lutherans don't talk much about those writings, but they are a pox on our denomination. One could argue, perhaps not convincingly, that prior to the modern era (and even into the modern era), Jews were treated fairly by comparison under the Ottoman Empire. But even then, if something went wrong, it was those darn Jews that were to blame somehow. They've been hounded wherever they've gone and forced into closed communities. Funny thing is that without the Jews, capitalism probably wouldn't have flourished. Many Christian denominations forbid the practice of usury, so someone had to be in the banking business and it often fell to the Jews, who were necessary for economic expansion, but still reviled (see the depiction in The Merchant of Venice).


I'm something of a student of the Reformers and while if we hold an overarching moral code to which all others should be judged (I do - as do most folks really), then Luther's anti-Semitism is certainly sinful, wrong, and worthy of critique/judgment. Nevertheless, we ought to be careful with anachronistic judgments and that goes for all (imho). When viewed against the backdrop of the late Middle Ages and early Modern era of Europe, Luther isn't much different than the general view towards Jews of his day and in part due to the point you make about usury. His was also due to a narrow blame he was placing on those responsible for the death of Christ - which was unfortunate because in general his theology was far better than that).

[BedellBrave]

I know you have saw the issue here in Eau Claire and the Lutheran church, it is bad, really bad.

They have a severe division. One's route of evolution of allowing gays and the other isn't. Well the one isn't got a lot more members and the ones who did accept lost their churches and like Chicago and Minneapolis and Milwaukee are renting old office or business buildings.

IN Steve Harvey's standup, the one that stand out.

When you get kicked out of church made in the early 1900's you adapt, you get one of those strip mall joints. Not going by your old name to descrate it, you give it a new one:

Mesopatamia Baptist to the High Lord Jesus Christ the Apostle of the Virgin Mary and the Higher Saints of St. Joseph and St. Peter Church.

Yes, they do exist in Chicago, those long ass names for Baptist and other churches of their religion.


AA, there are indeed several types of Lutherans - the three biggest that I know of and 50 can correct me - the ELCA (or what used to be called the ELCA) - it's a mainline church that leans left theologically and politically; the LCMS (Missouri Synod) - it's an evangelical denomination and the second largest Lutheran denomination (I'd probably fit in there if I were Lutheran ;-) ) and the Wisconsin Synod - a very conservative even fundamentalist type of Lutheran Church.

50, are you ELCA (or what use to be ELCA)? I'm familiar with both ELCA and LCMS. My impression is that the ELCA is going the way of most mainline churches, that is to say, dwindling. But the LCMS seems to be holding their own if not growing. Wisconsin Synod - not growing.

[Runnin]

We are a means to an end for any Israeli administration - and that end is self-survival.
ultimately a worldly and anti-spiritual thesis?

[BedellBrave]

ultimately a worldly and anti-spiritual thesis?


Worldly - but not necessarily anti-spiritual.

[BedellBrave]

Well here's a hint, it goes back to a BIG Baptist convention back around 1850 (don't recall the exact year but that's pretty close) and a GREAT BIG blowup that happened at that convention. Who can fill in the rest of the blanks on this one?


Most all Southern denominations have their origins in the same thing. So happy to see the SBC and the PCA, two historically southern churches, making great strides at public repentance for past sins. I know my own denomination is working through the issue ourselves. Sins of the fathers and all.

Shouldn't we be encouraged that the younger generation that is coming into leadership is willing to tackle the sins of our past?

[Oklahomahawk]

Most all Southern denominations have their origins in the same thing. So happy to see the SBC and the PCA, two historically southern churches, making great strides at public repentance for past sins. I know my own denomination is working through the issue ourselves. Sins of the fathers and all.

Shouldn't we be encouraged that the younger generation that is coming into leadership is willing to tackle the sins of our past?

Sure, as long as they don't replace them with a bunch of new ones of their own. That seems to be how things go these days, one step forward and two steps back. Hopefully this will be an exception, I certainly hope so. If they'll keep ALL political connections out of it I think that will be a big step forward, but I don't see that happening either. Maybe I'm just down tonight.

[BedellBrave]

Sure, as long as they don't replace them with a bunch of new ones of their own. That seems to be how things go these days, one step forward and two steps back. Hopefully this will be an exception, I certainly hope so. If they'll keep ALL political connections out of it I think that will be a big step forward, but I don't see that happening either. Maybe I'm just down tonight.


Well you are a crotchety old cynic. :-)

I suspect you just aren't as familiar with the goings-on in these denominations as I would be - and that's no slight on you, it's just more my bailiwick than it is yours. But if you are interested in this more inside-baseball stuff, then read folks like Russell Moore and Al Mohler (for the SBC) and Ligon Duncan, Sean Lucas, Tim Keller, etc. (for the PCA) - also follow guys like Lecrae, John Piper, Anyabwile Thabiti, Anthony Bradley, etc. Both denominations are making-have-made denominational statements. The next step is for repentance and attempts at reconciliation to take place at a more local level - particularly in the big-steeple, historical churches within these denominations (particularly those in the deep South). Anyway, it's good news for those who care.

[50PoundHead]

AA, there are indeed several types of Lutherans - the three biggest that I know of and 50 can correct me - the ELCA (or what used to be called the ELCA) - it's a mainline church that leans left theologically and politically; the LCMS (Missouri Synod) - it's an evangelical denomination and the second largest Lutheran denomination (I'd probably fit in there if I were Lutheran ;-) ) and the Wisconsin Synod - a very conservative even fundamentalist type of Lutheran Church.

50, are you ELCA (or what use to be ELCA)? I'm familiar with both ELCA and LCMS. My impression is that the ELCA is going the way of most mainline churches, that is to say, dwindling. But the LCMS seems to be holding their own if not growing. Wisconsin Synod - not growing.

I'm ELCA, but I really have no affinity to the over-arching church. I go to church to worship and nothing else. I don't care if the person sitting next to me is a Communist or a neo-Nazi. The more I have read, the more I have fallen away from Luther's thought (the anti-Semitism is minor in my growing distance from Luther). Lutherans are experiencing the same split that the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians over the gay marriage/gay ordination issues. Lots of spin-off organizations (North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ are the two biggest).

As per easing up on Luther a bit on his anti-Semitism, I just really can't even if I am putting myself into his era. It's not a deal-breaker for me, but I do find it somewhat amusing that some--not you per se--can give Luther a break on this, but insist that the US Constitution is written in stone and is in no way a product of an entirely different era.

[BedellBrave]

My main issues with anachronistic judgmentalism are that we acknowledge what we are doing and that we understand that we are making such judgments based on some over-aching view of morality that we too often assume is just a given.

Here's my forecast - the pro-SSM mainline denominations will become the de facto State church and likely wither on the vine.

[50PoundHead]

My main issues with anachronistic judgmentalism are that we acknowledge what we are doing and that we understand that we are making such judgments based on some over-aching view of morality that we too often assume is just a given.

Here's my forecast - the pro-SSM mainline denominations will become the de facto State church and likely wither on the vine.

I'm pretty much a historicist, so I generally agree with that statement. The problem here isn't whether or not Luther wrote what he wrote (or even believed it) or the era in which he wrote it, the results of those writings reinforced anti-Semitic sentiments which, one could argue, are still prevalent in large portions of the Western world today. The problem comes from when one faction or the other puts claims on "universal truths" which may or may not be either true or universal.

I think all mainline denominations were eroding prior to any talk of gay marriage. Having grown up in the Lutheran church, I think the battle between the aesthetes and non-aesthetes has been going on since the beginning of the 20th century with the publishing of Rauschenbusch's The Social Gospel and it has found its expression in a variety of debates, most of them over the role of the church in the community. The current debate over homosexuality is merely, in my view, the current playing field of the debate.

[AerchAngel]

My main issues with anachronistic judgmentalism are that we acknowledge what we are doing and that we understand that we are making such judgments based on some over-aching view of morality that we too often assume is just a given.

Here's my forecast - the pro-SSM mainline denominations will become the de facto State church and likely wither on the vine.

Then disband the church. Giving in is accepting that the word of God is immaterial therefore not the be all end all.

Even the black Baptist preachers wouldn't tolerate this and I don't think ever will. They will just kick you out of church. I got kicked out (by my grandpa) and it wasn't about that.

[BedellBrave]

Then disband the church. Giving in is accepting that the word of God is immaterial therefore not the be all end all.

Even the black Baptist preachers wouldn't tolerate this and I don't think ever will. They will just kick you out of church. I got kicked out (by my grandpa) and it wasn't about that.


AA, I'm not sure why mainliners exist, to be honest. Liberal theology isn't appreciably different than left-leaning secular thought. So what are you getting that you can't get via plenty of other venues? That said, there's a measure of community that these congregations provide and for the ministers and other employees, there's a check. Having State approval I think will ensure them a place. There'll be fewer people in the pews, but the lights will stay on and the ministers will still do their thing. And that's not all bad from a community standpoint because there will be charitable operations run out of these congregations.

[50PoundHead]

AA, I'm not sure why mainliners exist, to be honest. Liberal theology isn't appreciably different than left-leaning secular thought. So what are you getting that you can't get via plenty of other venues? That said, there's a measure of community that these congregations provide and for the ministers and other employees, there's a check. Having State approval I think will ensure them a place. There'll be fewer people in the pews, but the lights will stay on and the ministers will still do their thing. And that's not all bad from a community standpoint because there will be charitable operations run out of these congregations.

I strongly doubt we will ever have a state church here other than the informal state church that we've had since the founding of the Republic.

[BedellBrave]

I strongly doubt we will ever have a state church here other than the informal state church that we've had since the founding of the Republic.


Agreed - and that's why I said "de facto" earlier. By that I mean, that I think the only churches that will maintain tax-exempt status will be those that reflect the States' thinking vis-a-vie SSM (and whatever comes next). Others will be allowed, just taxed and possibly harassed more by zoning boards and the like - especially as the church moves more and more toward a house church model. I don't think that's necessarily bad for the church, but I do think it's what will happen and is happening.

[50PoundHead]

Agreed - and that's why I said "de facto" earlier. By that I mean, that I think the only churches that will maintain tax-exempt status will be those that reflect the States' thinking vis-a-vie SSM (and whatever comes next). Others will be allowed, just taxed and possibly harassed more by zoning boards and the like - especially as the church moves more and more toward a house church model. I don't think that's necessarily bad for the church, but I do think it's what will happen and is happening.

I don't think any church with any measure of legitimacy will ever be taxed regardless of their doctrine.

[BedellBrave]

You have more faith than I do.

[50PoundHead]

You have more faith than I do.

I just don't see how any Supreme Court could totally abolish the Wall of Separation that, while not officially part of the Constitution, has clearly dictated the country's approach to religious observance. If anything, I think the Wall has gotten higher, making it ever more difficult to meld the two. There may be--long after we are both dead--a backlash against some of the recent court decisions on religious practice and how it affects observance of secular law (i.e. Hobby Lobby case), but I think very narrow grounds will be used to rule on those cases, much like it was in the Hobby Lobby case. Both sides will try to do end-runs on the overall framework, but I don't think there will ever be an erosion. You have to remember, I am in my 60s. I can remember when school prayer was banned and recall all the apocalyptic hand-wringing that accompanied that.

[AerchAngel]

AA, I'm not sure why mainliners exist, to be honest. Liberal theology isn't appreciably different than left-leaning secular thought. So what are you getting that you can't get via plenty of other venues? That said, there's a measure of community that these congregations provide and for the ministers and other employees, there's a check. Having State approval I think will ensure them a place. There'll be fewer people in the pews, but the lights will stay on and the ministers will still do their thing. And that's not all bad from a community standpoint because there will be charitable operations run out of these congregations.

As my Baptist uncle said, we lost our way.

I am afraid you are right. The days of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's is over. I remember our church being big and vibrant. I go home on a visit, 15 people in the pews. I asked dad what happened, he said that people don't believe in God anymore but their own lust and gratification.

Think about the last sentence and why we fought, yet those who made this are the ones who he admires politically and he refuses to see it.

Slow erosion of the church and morality will cause destruction eventually of this world. Through social sins and individual greed will be the end of humanity.

[AerchAngel]

Agreed - and that's why I said "de facto" earlier. By that I mean, that I think the only churches that will maintain tax-exempt status will be those that reflect the States' thinking vis-a-vie SSM (and whatever comes next). Others will be allowed, just taxed and possibly harassed more by zoning boards and the like - especially as the church moves more and more toward a house church model. I don't think that's necessarily bad for the church, but I do think it's what will happen and is happening.

If they want SSM let them, just don't force the church to acknowledge. The Catholic Church don't honor our marriage in their church even though they would put my name on any envelope.

I am happy with that.

[Oklahomahawk]

As my Baptist uncle said, we lost our way.

I am afraid you are right. The days of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's is over. I remember our church being big and vibrant. I go home on a visit, 15 people in the pews. I asked dad what happened, he said that people don't believe in God anymore but their own lust and gratification.

Think about the last sentence and why we fought, yet those who made this are the ones who he admires politically and he refuses to see it.

Slow erosion of the church and morality will cause destruction eventually of this world. Through social sins and individual greed will be the end of humanity.

I think your Uncle has at least most of it pretty close to right. Of course it's a general statement and shouldn't be meant to include 100% of any church or group, but I think he's pretty darn close. I also stand by my previous statement that religion and politics should be strictly separated, way more than any person on the other side of the aisle thinks church and state should be separated to protect the state from the church. Politics is poison, period. It's like hard drugs, everybody thinks "it's OK I can handle it" but it never works out that way, though I know many would disagree.

As for forcing churches to marry Same Sex couples I am firmly against it, as far as letting them get married, as far as legal rights, etc., goes I say why not? I've got enough to answer for come judgement day I don't need the guilt over keeping people apart who want to be together. I usually describe it as "My plate is going to look like Michael Moore's plate after he goes through a once through only trip at an all you can carry buffet line. I don't need one more chicken leg on there.

I'm not saying "it's OK" by God's rules I'm just saying I"m not going to try and stop them as long as they don't try to run over churches and ministers who don't want to marry them. That should never happen, but it will, sooner or later. As for losing tax exempt status, or any other sort of real persecution I think it would actually do the church good, or at least do Christianity good. We've gotten too comfortable (collectively) and we've placed too much faith in mammon and not enough in a being we claim created the world and can do literally anything for his people. Then look at these gigantic cathedrals all over the place, gigantic structures that make the Taj Mahal look like an army tent from the War of 1812.

[50PoundHead]

If they want SSM let them, just don't force the church to acknowledge. The Catholic Church don't honor our marriage in their church even though they would put my name on any envelope.

I am happy with that.

Heck, the Catholic Church is just becoming familiar with the concept of divorce. My guess it will be light years before they bend on same-sex marriage. I think the trickier part is whether or not homosexuals should be barred from receiving Holy Communion, but the church isn't a club.

[BedellBrave]

I just don't see how any Supreme Court could totally abolish the Wall of Separation that, while not officially part of the Constitution, has clearly dictated the country's approach to religious observance. If anything, I think the Wall has gotten higher, making it ever more difficult to meld the two. There may be--long after we are both dead--a backlash against some of the recent court decisions on religious practice and how it affects observance of secular law (i.e. Hobby Lobby case), but I think very narrow grounds will be used to rule on those cases, much like it was in the Hobby Lobby case. Both sides will try to do end-runs on the overall framework, but I don't think there will ever be an erosion. You have to remember, I am in my 60s. I can remember when school prayer was banned and recall all the apocalyptic hand-wringing that accompanied that.


So you think tax-exempt status will remain even for those who won't publicly accommodate what is deemed to be now a fundamental human right? Again, you've got more faith than I do. Hope you are right, but in my mind losing tax-exempt status isn't that bad of a thing.

[BedellBrave]

As my Baptist uncle said, we lost our way.

I am afraid you are right. The days of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's is over. I remember our church being big and vibrant. I go home on a visit, 15 people in the pews. I asked dad what happened, he said that people don't believe in God anymore but their own lust and gratification.

Think about the last sentence and why we fought, yet those who made this are the ones who he admires politically and he refuses to see it.

Slow erosion of the church and morality will cause destruction eventually of this world. Through social sins and individual greed will be the end of humanity.


I don't actually think we are seeing terrible declines in Evangelical churches. Declines in some, stagnation in some, but growth in many others. The predominate losses have been in liberal (mainline) churches - and I understand that theologically, and as a historically orthodox Christian, that doesn't really bother me all that much. Nor will I be saddened much by the decline of mega-churches with vacuous messages and materialistic excesses.

[AerchAngel]

I think your Uncle has at least most of it pretty close to right. Of course it's a general statement and shouldn't be meant to include 100% of any church or group, but I think he's pretty darn close. I also stand by my previous statement that religion and politics should be strictly separated, way more than any person on the other side of the aisle thinks church and state should be separated to protect the state from the church. Politics is poison, period. It's like hard drugs, everybody thinks "it's OK I can handle it" but it never works out that way, though I know many would disagree.

As for forcing churches to marry Same Sex couples I am firmly against it, as far as letting them get married, as far as legal rights, etc., goes I say why not? I've got enough to answer for come judgement day I don't need the guilt over keeping people apart who want to be together. I usually describe it as "My plate is going to look like Michael Moore's plate after he goes through a once through only trip at an all you can carry buffet line. I don't need one more chicken leg on there.

I'm not saying "it's OK" by God's rules I'm just saying I"m not going to try and stop them as long as they don't try to run over churches and ministers who don't want to marry them. That should never happen, but it will, sooner or later. As for losing tax exempt status, or any other sort of real persecution I think it would actually do the church good, or at least do Christianity good. We've gotten too comfortable (collectively) and we've placed too much faith in mammon and not enough in a being we claim created the world and can do literally anything for his people. Then look at these gigantic cathedrals all over the place, gigantic structures that make the Taj Mahal look like an army tent from the War of 1812.

If I can put a million thanks on this I would. You absolutely nailed it on both sides.

[AerchAngel]

I don't actually think we are seeing terrible declines in Evangelical churches. Declines in some, stagnation in some, but growth in many others. The predominate losses have been in liberal (mainline) churches - and I understand that theologically, and as a historically orthodox Christian, that doesn't really bother me all that much. Nor will I be saddened much by the decline of mega-churches with vacuous messages and materialistic excesses.

It bothers me at this time. But you are a pastor and you are exuberant and positive thinking. When Libs are in charge it is always negative, always looking for an angle to either control you or punish you if you don't like their edict.

[BedellBrave]

I think your Uncle has at least most of it pretty close to right. Of course it's a general statement and shouldn't be meant to include 100% of any church or group, but I think he's pretty darn close. I also stand by my previous statement that religion and politics should be strictly separated, way more than any person on the other side of the aisle thinks church and state should be separated to protect the state from the church. Politics is poison, period. It's like hard drugs, everybody thinks "it's OK I can handle it" but it never works out that way, though I know many would disagree.

As for forcing churches to marry Same Sex couples I am firmly against it, as far as letting them get married, as far as legal rights, etc., goes I say why not? I've got enough to answer for come judgement day I don't need the guilt over keeping people apart who want to be together. I usually describe it as "My plate is going to look like Michael Moore's plate after he goes through a once through only trip at an all you can carry buffet line. I don't need one more chicken leg on there.

I'm not saying "it's OK" by God's rules I'm just saying I"m not going to try and stop them as long as they don't try to run over churches and ministers who don't want to marry them. That should never happen, but it will, sooner or later. As for losing tax exempt status, or any other sort of real persecution I think it would actually do the church good, or at least do Christianity good. We've gotten too comfortable (collectively) and we've placed too much faith in mammon and not enough in a being we claim created the world and can do literally anything for his people. Then look at these gigantic cathedrals all over the place, gigantic structures that make the Taj Mahal look like an army tent from the War of 1812.


Bingo. Those will be hurt if they don't go along with the State's codification of a progressive morality (there's no real wall between the State and a secularist faith) - but my suspicion is that the Joel Osteen's of the world who already can hardly even mention the world sin - will conform. They'll get in line - too much to lose if tax-exempt status is yanked. The mainliners are already more and more on board, many of them actively pushing the codification of that progressive morality. Those who don't capitulate are the ones, imho, that will be forced to pony up property taxes - local municipalities will salivate over that revenue stream. Some will be able to survive that. Many won't - in present form. But again, that's okay. There will be more house churches and bi-vocational ministers and that can be a great thing - it'll just look different. And it's the latter model that actually can penetrate and reach further into urban areas that are already cost prohibitive to begin new church buildings projects. The side affect though to more and more house churches will be zoning battles. One of our churches just won a Supreme Court case, so those zoning issues are already on the table. They'll only increase.

[AerchAngel]

I don't actually think we are seeing terrible declines in Evangelical churches. Declines in some, stagnation in some, but growth in many others. The predominate losses have been in liberal (mainline) churches - and I understand that theologically, and as a historically orthodox Christian, that doesn't really bother me all that much. Nor will I be saddened much by the decline of mega-churches with vacuous messages and materialistic excesses.

Oh, the Southern Black Baptist church, I don't think will ever change, heck even in Illinois the pastors are still against gay marriage. Obama did not like that and made a deal to have them acknowledge it. They don't have to allow it but acknowledge it.

All my pastoral uncles and cousins are against it, but sadly vote Democrat because they still believe in 1965 and that Republicans are evil and want to keep us in chains.

[BedellBrave]

It bothers me at this time. But you are a pastor and you are exuberant and positive thinking. When Libs are in charge it is always negative, always looking for an angle to either control you or punish you if you don't like their edict.


I just look outside the West where the Church is booming and vibrant and a joyful - and I don't seen mega-church complexes and Western materialism. And I think, you know, the Lord loves, dearly, truly, loves his Church - so much that all this in my own country that is concerning, will ultimately be for the Church's good here. I've read what I think is the end of the story, and it's beautiful Hard to be a "Debbie Downer" you know?!

Thanks for letting me "preach" a little bit.

[AerchAngel]

Bingo. Those will be hurt if they don't go along with the State's codification of a progressive morality (there's no real wall between the State and a secularist faith) - but my suspicion is that the Joel Ostend's of the world who already can hardly even mention the world sin - will conform. They'll get in line - too much to lose if tax-exempt status is yanked. The mainliners are already more and more on board, many of them actively pushing the codification of that progressive morality. Those who don't capitulate are the ones, imho, that will be forced to pony up property taxes - local municipalities will salivate over that revenue stream. Some will be able to survive that. Many won't - in present form. But again, that's okay. There will be more house churches and bi-vocational ministers and that can be a great thing - it'll just look different. And it's the latter model that actually can penetrate and reach further into urban areas that are already cost prohibitive to begin new church buildings projects. The side affect though to more and more house churches will be zoning battles. One of our churches just won a Supreme Court case, so those zoning issues are already on the table. They'll only increase.

Whoa, what?

Nice that you see the evils of TV Evangelism. Steve Martin's movie nails this and then some. They are no better than Trump and Clinton, using position for power and money.

[AerchAngel]

I just look outside the West where the Church is booming and vibrant and a joyful - and I don't seen mega-church complexes and Western materialism. And I think, you know, the Lord loves, dearly, truly, loves his Church - so much that all this in my own country that is concerning, will ultimately be for the Church's good here. I've read what I think is the end of the story, and it's beautiful Hard to be a "Debbie Downer" you know?!

Thanks for letting me "preach" a little bit.

I always enjoy your preaching. I just wish I could see it in person. You are a good man.

I am of this world for 47 years, been kicked out of churches, belittled priest, got in fights with Imans. I am as a true Christian, a person to reckon with. If you don't know your schit I am going to challenge you. You've known me for 13 or 14 years and you know I don't play around and you know why I don't choose a religion or a message. As Mark Henry from the WWE is say "That is who I am". I am hated at home, hate by blacks, hated by Dems, hated by Republicans, I am just hated and hated by as you mainline Christians, but you know what I don't care, "That is who I am". You see my post, Sav sees my post, Dalyn see my post, I don't care. Because of respect of my dad and him saying don't piss everyone off, I do not trash Liberals in Christians views and I love Dalyn a lot so I won't disrespect him either if I did.

He is an atheist, so is 57 and probably Zito, Dan is not Cool, Runnin, but if they feel that way I respect it. This is why I am not even worse than I am now. I love all of them even if they don't like my views.

The difference between me and them, I love them, as humans, but they don't respect my views and that is why I am harsh, bitter and mean, they like to silence. On other boards which I am a moderator, they absolutely HATE me, not because I can delete their post, but hate my views, but they notice I don't delete it and they hate that even worse because they can't scream at management. I just do what I do here. Acknowledge and move on and make my views known. Management is like, they have issues you don't.

'

[50PoundHead]

So you think tax-exempt status will remain even for those who won't publicly accommodate what is deemed to be now a fundamental human right? Again, you've got more faith than I do. Hope you are right, but in my mind losing tax-exempt status isn't that bad of a thing.

I doubt anyone would touch it. To me, the thing that ensures religious freedom in this country is that if one side or the other overreaches, the pubic (churchgoing and otherwise) push back. I know it doesn't seem that way to the various sides right now, but we've always found a balance--uncomfortable that it may be--in this country. I agree that tax-exempt status may or may not be necessary (or good), but it's a third rail. If you get rid of tax exempt status, it would affect all denominations and sects across the spectrum of belief and practice, so it would include everything from mainline to narrow (and sometimes odd). I see it as a non-starter.

[AerchAngel]

I doubt anyone would touch it. To me, the thing that ensures religious freedom in this country is that if one side or the other overreaches, the pubic (churchgoing and otherwise) push back. I know it doesn't seem that way to the various sides right now, but we've always found a balance--uncomfortable that it may be--in this country. I agree that tax-exempt status may or may not be necessary (or good), but it's a third rail. If you get rid of tax exempt status, it would affect all denominations and sects across the spectrum of belief and practice, so it would include everything from mainline to narrow (and sometimes odd). I see it as a non-starter.

And you can't really enforce it. It is not like the church is providing a service, they are not, so it can't be taxed because of CONTRIBUTIONS. Every church in this nation would get money back because of what they give back in the community. I am sorry Democrats do not like helping at food pantries, giving money to wives that are beaten, those who are homeless, they expect the rich to do it and some do. Churches take care of those who Democrats refuse to because it is not a person's responsibility but the rich. Church by proxy is the rich in doing these services and if they are taxed, they cannot provide a critical function in society.

[BedellBrave]

I doubt anyone would touch it. To me, the thing that ensures religious freedom in this country is that if one side or the other overreaches, the pubic (churchgoing and otherwise) push back. I know it doesn't seem that way to the various sides right now, but we've always found a balance--uncomfortable that it may be--in this country. I agree that tax-exempt status may or may not be necessary (or good), but it's a third rail. If you get rid of tax exempt status, it would affect all denominations and sects across the spectrum of belief and practice, so it would include everything from mainline to narrow (and sometimes odd). I see it as a non-starter.

I don't think you're younger Ds do.

[zitothebrave]

There is an issue with tax-exempt status, its' one that has to be looked at. But there's always gonna be an important question. What is a religion? If I start a religion called Bradyism, and it's dedicated to the worship of Tom Brady, does that mean I should be tax exempt?

I think a more serious example is Scientology. It was invented as a tax dodge. What about hate group religious groups like WBC? Could go on of course.

[50PoundHead]

I don't think you're younger Ds do.

They will never be a majority.

If you look at post-WW II, the religious v. non-religious impulse has flipped back and forth. Right after Post-WW II, we saw mainline denominations grow because of (1) folks came out of the war, moved to the suburbs, put down roots, raised families, and the organized church was a bigger part of that than it had been pre-WW II and (2) the Red Scare. Reaction in the late-1950s with the school prayer case (and a lot of other religion in the public square cases) pushed back against that consensus. Then came the 1970s in the wake of the liberal push of the 1960s and you saw the Moral Majority spring up. That brand has really hung on pretty much until now and we are witnessing the inevitable push-back from some quarters on the left. I think the struggle is just more visible now and with the intellectual tribalism that is facilitated by mass media and enhanced communication methods, both sides have become more strident.

[BedellBrave]

They will never be a majority.

If you look at post-WW II, the religious v. non-religious impulse has flipped back and forth. Right after Post-WW II, we saw mainline denominations grow because of (1) folks came out of the war, moved to the suburbs, put down roots, raised families, and the organized church was a bigger part of that than it had been pre-WW II and (2) the Red Scare. Reaction in the late-1950s with the school prayer case (and a lot of other religion in the public square cases) pushed back against that consensus. Then came the 1970s in the wake of the liberal push of the 1960s and you saw the Moral Majority spring up. That brand has really hung on pretty much until now and we are witnessing the inevitable push-back from some quarters on the left. I think the struggle is just more visible now and with the intellectual tribalism that is facilitated by mass media and enhanced communication methods, both sides have become more strident.


Yeah, I probably shouldn't let this board taint my impression of the yutes too much.

I still don't have the faith in your tribe that you do.

[50PoundHead]

Yeah, I probably shouldn't let this board taint my impression of the yutes too much.

I still don't have the faith in your tribe that you do.

I can't remember the exact book, but Shailer Matthews wrote several books in the early-20th century that contended the church mirrors society in its organization. I read parts of one of his books and I wish I could remember the title. His basic contention was in the feudal era, the church structure mirrored that of the economic/political structure. The Reformation comes along (which was fueled at least in part by changes in the political and economic landscape and the rise of the bourgeois). And on it goes.

Matthews died in 1941, so he wasn't around to see post-WW II America, but I think the church in that era really took on the look of corporate America. The movement was to build churches, make them big, and have your pastor be a CEO as much as a spiritual leader. Patterns in community growth helped fuel that. I'm not saying the 1950s were anti-democratic, but they were built on a solid normative consensus that left a lot of folks on the edge of--if not out of--the circle. Then comes the 1960s and the consensus starts to fray and the church starts to look different in its organization, largely due to the changing demands of the people in the pews. I just think we are in an era of somewhat wild democratic (with a small "d") impulses and that spills into church structure. People vote with their feet and the mainline denominations have suffered defections from both ends of the political spectrum. I could go on, but that's my two cents. As long as Joel Osteen is filling his arena, I don't think the church is in danger of losing any tax-exempt status.

[goldfly]

well, that was a fun lie for 11 days that does nothing good at all:

Netanyahu retracted his accusation that it was a Palestinian cleric who gave Hitler the idea of annihilating Europe’s Jews.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/middleeast/netanyahu-retracts-assertion-that-palestinian-inspired-holocaust.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

[goldfly]

I think Netanyahu should leave his position as Prime Minister of Israel and pursue his dream of becoming a Congressman from Texas. Sounds like he'd be a perfect match with Louie Gohmert.

Seriously, here's the best thing I've read/heard yet on the comments.

Takeaway Podcast: http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/holocaust-and-misuse-history/

I seriously think Ted Cruz is running for Netanyahu's job half the time i listen to Cruz speak