The Decline of Faith

re:

The Decline of Faith

By Tom Bethell from the June 2011 issue

Mark30339| 6.30.11 @ 10:06AM

As Mr. Bethell takes a nostalgic look back to nuns in habits and warnings of eternal damnation from the pulpit, I think an appropriate phrase for then and now is: "Many who belong to God, do not belong to the Church, and many who belong to the Church, do not belong to God. While I agree that the increased comfort of this age may contribute to increasing detachment from religious faith -- I think the real culprit is the obsessive focus on the ego-centric self. What I know, what I think, what I have, what I want, what I do, what I feel, what I say -- these matters have crowded out all others. And who can blame us, given the inundation of media that compels self-absorption. We are so ego driven that perhaps we are no longer able to devote heart and mind, body and soul to anything (let alone to faith in Jesus Christ).

Ponder, for example, the Solidarity movement in Poland. After suffering under great privations for decades under Soviet rule, the workers dedicated their bodies and souls to confront the injustice with a non-violent dedication to Christ. A decade after the Soviet collapse, John Paul II was chastising Poles vigorously for having let their society slip into the amoral ethos of license embraced all over the West. Instead of being a people in solidarity with each other and in Christ, they've been reduced to individuals pre-occupied with their own comfort. Contrary to Mr. Bethell's unfair dismissal, social justice is about belonging to your neighbor and your neighbor belonging to you; it begins by being in relationship with the other -- rather than being absorbed in the self. Our adventure is to act justly with our neighbor, to embrace and love mercy, and to walk with our God with an honest and humble sense of self -- statistics on Church attendance in the West may be interesting, but they don't diminish the adventure in the least.

P Naylor| 6.30.11 @ 3:25PM

Here is something I found in an old book, one published for use by the military in 1941.
Washington’s Prayer for the Nation

Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in thy holy protection, that Thou wilt incline the heart of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large.
And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.
Grant our supplications, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
(Written at Newburg, June 8, 1783, and sent to the Governors of all the States.)

Comments to Pacifism & Bin Laden Killing

Comments to

Pacifism and the Bin Laden Killing

By Alan F.H. Wisdom on 5.16.11 @ 6:07AM

Mark30339| 5.17.11 @ 4:17PM

Christ centered non-violent confrontation is still CONFRONTATION. The first non-violent response to 9/11 should have been a conversion to natural gas fuel and an end to significant US oil imports, thereby collapsing the market that feeds terror. Another would be to intensify exposure of state terror on its own citizens with air-drops of twitter ready devices and wifi band boosts along borders. Another would be firm US support for opposition groups committed to non-violent confrontation via worker strikes, civil disobedience and general non-cooperation. Instead we marched into wars that have led to at least 150,000 deaths so as to compensate for 3,000 killed in America. Americans show no appreciation for the hugely disproportionate pain we caused in reaction to our own pain. It is precisely these kinds of death multipliers that Christ is calling us to stop, for Christ's sake.
Leaders of Christian nations have concluded in the past (and no doubt will continue to conclude in the future) that it is a necessary evil to deploy deadly force to carry out objectives -- and in such events, Christians should see the deployments as a serious human failing, and express regret for the resulting bloodshed -- even if Christians concur on the necessity of the deadly force. Recently, intelligence handed America a trump card for turning the world away from war and toward peace; orders should have been given to take Bin Laden alive AT ALL COSTS and to detain him at Guantanamo for the remainder of his natural life. Instead we proudly announced the use of kill squad tactics that no doubt are to be deployed ever more vigorously by our friends and enemies alike. The seeds we have sewn with this act not only set us back as Christians, they set back all of humanity.

simon templar| 5.17.11 @ 6:09PM

Once in a while someone writes a comment out here that is such a load of ignorant, twisted, pious sounding, inaccurate, propagandistic crap that you really just do not know where to begin. Yours Mark00000 is such.
For the sake and respect for truth I am going to only address two of your statements.
The first:
Recently, intelligence handed America a trump card for turning the world away from war and toward peace; orders should have been given to take Bin Laden alive AT ALL COSTS and to detain him at Guantanamo for the remainder of his natural life.
So, keeping Bin Laden alive would have turned the world to peace? That is beyond sophmoric....perhaps a sign of serious immaturity or perhaps mental illness...definitely intellectual dishonesty.
Second:
Americans show no appreciation for the hugely disproportionate pain we caused in reaction to our own pain.
Really. You were in a coma when for the last century whereby we not only financed out of our treasury the rebuilding, feeding, and clothing of all of Europe through the Marshall Plan of an enemy that really did not deserve a damn dime. The financial investment and aid given to multiple enemie countries and countries in civil war from Vietnam to Korea to Japan just seemed to pass right by you. The millions of refugees from conflicts all over the world welcomed to our shores and taken care of by our nation. The nation rebuilding and financing of Iraq and Afghanistan out of our treasury to the point of bankruptcy. The billions of aid to countries that would soon as spit in our eye if we were in trouble seemed to escape your notice. Yeah, we are SOB's. You are a sick M.F. Guess what abbreviation that is...if you are so ashamed of and hate your country to this level of delusion then I suggest you pack it up and find the utopia you are looking for.
Now, as far as the Christ thing. Please do not use his name or anyone else. It is sickening that you freaking liberal trolls and lefties love to trot out the Christ on these issues while the rest of the week he is sitting in a jar of urine.

Mark30339| 5.19.11 @ 1:19PM

The point of Mr. Wisdom's article is to address Christian "pacifism" and the apparent lack of a pacifist response to the Bin Laden kill squad. Clearly it offends you that I responded on point, so much so that you abandon the profound and gracious dignity embodied by your namesake. Why are you so rattled? I do not expect non-Christians to agree (and you will be shocked to see my May 12 post at http://tinyurl.com/3vtjy4f that partially agrees with you on the Marshall Plan). But let's be very clear, it is you dumping the Gospels -- particularly chapter 5 of Matthew -- into a jar of urine. It is my sincere and good faith wish that your post leads others to see just how disproportionately offensive Americans and America can be.

My Comment to:

Moral men and immoral society and the death of bin Laden

[this is a reply to a 12May2011 post by Mackrimin, his/her post is repeated further below]

Mark30339 12May2011 in reply to Mackrimin

If we are serious about following Christ, then we have to reconcile the government policies we support with the gospels, and particularly with chapter 5 of Matthew. It is odd that you mention post-war Germany and Japan because it was precisely a sense of love of enemy that was a catalyst to their recovery from devastation -- how else do you make peace? I think most would conclude that the Nazi and Japanese menace had to be confronted with force, and a follower of Christ would confess this path to still be a human failing in terms of what we are called to do. But God does not abandon and opportunities to embrace love of enemy continued to arise and a lasting peace with Germany and Japan was established.


Pope John Paul II watched the slaughter of his people with their armed uprising against the Nazis in 1944 and then fell under the Iron Curtain for 45 years. Under your theory, the West should have confronted the Soviets with force and put nuclear armageddon in play (which JFK actually and perhaps foolishly did with Cuba). But with Poland (under your calculus) the IMPOSSIBLE happened: a bloodless defeat of the entire Soviet Union was accomplished through a focused commitment to non-violent confrontation forged over 45 years of many evils endured.


The kill squad hit on Bin Laden and his companions was a shocking lost opportunity to begin closing the book on the War on Terror and to show America as a powerful country able to restrain its vengeance in order to embody how supremely important life is. Bin Laden should have been taken alive at all costs. This is not because Bin Laden deserved it, this is because a super-power can rise above the values of its enemies and prove it stands for something better.

[Mackrimin

Otherwise, for me, being a German, I have no argument. I have only the

most primitive of arguments and that is that a state under no

circumstances must be entitled to kill anyone off, for any reason,

period. You had tens of thousands of cases of capital punishment under

the Nazis, you had a systematic program for exterminating

schizophrenics in the euthanasia program, and you had a

state-sponsored, organized, monumental crime in the Holocaust, killing

6 million people. Language doesn't have an adequate word to describe

this monstrosity. For me, there's no debate. However, America has not

had this experience. And I'm a guest in your country. If I were a

voting citizen, I probably would have a more combative attitude.

Yes... And if that fine principle had been followed, then Nazis had won World War 2. After all, they were stopped by various states _killing_ enough of them that the rest surrendered. The Holocaust was not stopped by moral arguments or love, it was stopped by indiscriminate use of even more brutal violence against the perpetrators. And the Japanese Empire - which was every bit as nasty bunch of murderous thugs as the Nazis, which nobody seems to care of, presumably because their victims were Asians rather than Europeans - was finally forced to surrender through nuclear war.


And it worked: both Germany and Japan are peaceful and productive nowadays. As your quote shows, they have been conditioned to associate reverting back to type with an epic asskicking. That's why we have Germany and Japan rather than Nazi Germany and Japanese Empire nowadays.


Nonviolence worked for Gandhi because the British were decent people who didn't just kill him. The Jews also tried it, and were murdered, for the Nazis were not decent people. There's a lesson there.


Mind you, killing _is_ an extreme method only justified in extreme circumstances, and Osama's execution may or may not have been one - we don't have enough information to judge. However, the claim that the state can never do so in _any_ circumstances is absurd. States exist, first and foremost, to protect their members, and sometimes that means killing evildoers. To deny them the right to do so in any circumstances means sacrificing an unlimited number of your fellow citizens at the altar of
your principles - and then what's the difference between you and Osama?]

Hypocrisy shrouds the gay marriage debate?

So says Kirsten Powers in USA Today

First, many thanks to Ms. Powers for having an honest conversation about institutional anti-gay stances within Christianity. Her arguments are pointed, but civil and respectful. One would hope that commenters would follow in kind.
.
Second. There really are 2 different issues here that have been muddled together. I think the primary issue is what are the basic human rights due gays and non-gays alike. The secondary issue is why have humans failed, for thousands of years of civilized society -- both Christian and pagan, to divine that "marriage" is an institution that must stop discriminating against other combinations of human affection.
.
The official Roman Catholic stance is that gay sex is highly disordered and engaging in gay sex is a sinful failing. Engaging in other conduct like pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex is also deemed a sinful failing. Pundits like Ms. Powers cannot change these core teachings, yet the political left is so endeared to their political beliefs that conflicting spiritual beliefs must yield to the prevailing politically correct view. Still, Christians can certainly choose to refrain from calling out this sin (just as they tend to refrain from calling out pre-marital and extra-marital indiscretions), and treat all people with dignity (but not to the point of clearly endorsing or dignifying behaviors that are sinful failings).
.
My view is that gays have always had the right to to gift and bequeath property amongst themselves and to establish rights between them by contract. Historically, insurance and retirement plans have carved out special arrangements for persons who were married -- but now it is common that these plans allow for same sex beneficiaries. It should be noted that other types of combinations are still blocked from benefit (such households with adult siblings and/or other adult relatives). When do these groups get Act Up advocates to cry out about discrimination against family members who pool resources to share income and maintain one household? These households have existed for generations without complaint -- they never considered the benefits afforded married people to somehow be discriminatory against their choice of an alternative household.
.
Yet the Act Up crowd turns the tables and says that American marriage is essentially gay bigotry. While untrue, it has become an effective tactic. For thousands of years civilization has supported the married union of one male with one female as the preferred environment for having and raising children. Social science affirms this view. Now the Act Up crowd wishes to tear down these traditional understandings to espouse a living standard just short of "anything goes." This is a damaging disservice to the vast majority of American families and children. The puzzling part is this: if a gay couple has a civil union or similar form of private contract, how does gutting the traditional understanding of marriage create more esteem for that union? I can't help but sense that the only esteem is the retaliation meted out on the majority community by toppling an essential and meaningful pillar of their tradition.

Dance with the Divine

Amy Grant's "Better Than a Hallelujah" hints at a grand truth about our time in this life. That time resembles a game of musical chairs; we don't know when the music is going to stop, but for most of us, a chair keeps our place while the music is lost. We know a day is coming when the chair to keep us in this life's place is gone. This isn't necessarily good or bad, but just is. So what do we do with this time and music while we have it? Perhaps the quest is to bring dignity, love and Grace to our movement with the music -- and to remain in wonderment of the music that still plays.

Vulgar, but effective

[this comment responded to radaronline.com's mischievous report on Justice Roberts]

Dear Radar Online:

………… ….……./´¯/)
………….……..,/¯../
………. ………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(’(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…

Sincerely,

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

jp on March 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM

. . . they wouldn't be the Left, would they?

Any conservative who thinks that the Left is interested in a rational discussion of facts (whatever the facts may be) needs to wake the hell up. Please pardon my French, but if they actually cared about facts they wouldn't be the Left, would they?

Stacy McCain