Sunday, August 22, 2010
Move to Latvia?
Given that nearly half of Americans approve or strongly approve of Obama's performance in the presidency to date (with slightly over half disapproving or strongly disapproving) I have become concerned about my future in the United States. This is not the America to which I was born and it is not the America to which my grandparents and great grandparents moved. I do not have children, but still, I am concerned that the nation has lost its way badly enough that I need to look into other options, such as eastern Europe. Although America is still freer than most other countries (some argue that Hong Kong and Singapore are freer), eastern Europe is catching up. I did a search on Latvia in Google and came up with this photo that appeared in a BBC article. The article says that blond Latvian women go on this march each year to fight recession. Although I doubt that the march will stop an economic recession, it looks like my kind of country!
National Gallery Exhibits New Painting of Michelle Obama
 |
| New Photo of Michelle Obama at the National Gallery, h/t Curmudgeonly Skeptic |
Blog impressario Larwyn's back from a long illness. Her grandson is at Princeton and her latest blog excerpts are a riot. This one is care of The Curmudegonly Skpetic.com. The one below is courtesy of Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Obama Lied About His Religious Affiliation
Because of recent poll findings (reported in Newsweek, for example, with factual errors) that as much as 31% of the public believes that Obama is a Muslim, there has been a spate of publicity concerning an issue that surfaced on my blog during the election campaign: whether then-Senator Obama was lying about his religious affiliation. The Democratic Party's media refused to ask this question (Newsweek insists, without evidence, that the claim is factually wrong. Unlike Newsweek, I look for evidence when I claim something to be a fact), and otherwise hard headed analysts such as Mayor Ed Koch happily allowed themselves to be duped. It seems that party affiliation, political correctness and anger about George W. Bush made many eager to be conned. The propaganda characteristically part of the Democratic Party's media also played a role. For instance, Newsweek reports (assuming that they were able to get this straight, which is dubious) that the editors of the Atlanta Constitution now believe that a presidential candidate's religious beliefs ought not to concern the public. Rather, I would suggest that the Atlanta Constitution's opinions ought not to concern the public.
Sharad Karkhanis has forwarded Madeline Brooks's Canada Free Press article article to me (see below). For me, the question is not whether he is a Muslim or a Christian but whether he misrepresented his religion as well as his position on Israel, the Middle East and Pakistan-India conflict. No issue is off limits with respect to a presidential race, and the fact that the Atlanta Constitution's editors think otherwise suggests that they are not an important or useful source of information. The gullible willingness of many Jews and Hindus as well as Christians to believe the Democratic media's propaganda concerning Obama shows a serious weakness in our educations and in common sense.
Madeline Brooks called Obama's church to learn that, contrary to logic and any possible interpretation of either Christianity or Islam, Jeremiah Wright's church sees no conflict between Islamic and Christian doctrine. Hence, the fact that Obama had produced no evidence of conversion is entirely consistent with his legitimate membership in Wright's church. He need not have converted to Christianity to belong to Wright's church, and the church says that many members are Muslims. No one in the Democratic media ever asked Wright's church whether a Muslim could belong. It turns out a Muslim can belong. Hence, his membership, far from being evidence of Christianity as the flightless birds at Newsweek claim, is actually evidence of his Muslim faith. Nor is Obama's assertion of Christianity evidence of a thing.
Obama’s Unique Form of ‘Christianity:’ No Baptism Or Renunciation of Islam Required By Madeline Brooks Saturday, August 21, 2010
New questions arise lately concerning whether President Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, as Mr. Obama gives his partial support to the mosque at Ground Zero.
We’ve all heard by now that Obama became a Christian mostly to expedite his political career and that the Trinity United Church of Christ he joined, presided over by Reverend Jonathan Wright, was not exactly mainstream. We’ve heard about Wright’s damning of America and we know that the church was – and might still be - a hot bed of black nationalism. But what is not as well known is that no baptism is required, nor must Muslims renounce Islam to be accepted as full members in that church.
On a tip from a pastor, which I wrote about here I called the Trinity United Church back in February, 2010 to ask about the requirements of membership. The church receptionist transferred my call to the Director of Membership, who told me that baptism is optional and that Muslims who believe in the prophet Mohammed can be full members. In fact, she reassured me cheerfully, they have plenty of Muslim members.
Never mind that this is theologically impossible, except when one makes one’s own rules. The doctrines of Christianity and Islam are incompatible. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is one with the Creator, through the doctrine of the Trinity, and that Jesus died on the cross in order to redeem humanity from its sins. Islam calls the Trinity ‘idolatry’ because it sees the Trinity’s three parts as separate entities – three distinct gods – instead of one divine being. Islam also denies Christianity’s claim that Jesus Christ died on the cross, or that he is the unique savior of humanity.
Baptism is central to Christian practices, both as a way to mark the convert’s entrance into a new life and as a washing away of sinful practices from the person’s past. The core of the new life as a Christian is a renunciation of other religious beliefs. The World Council of Churches is an umbrella organization for Protestant churches that represents about 550 million Christians throughout more than 120 countries. It has declared the centrality of baptism for a Christian, and notes that no matter how much churches may differ in other ways, the vast majority of churches agree on the importance of baptism.
Why would a Muslim want to join a church that proclaimed these Christian beliefs? It would be a betrayal of his own convictions. Besides, the word “Trinity” is in the name of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which should discourage a Muslim who thinks the Christian trinity is blasphemous. What’s going on here?
The Trinity United Church of Christ is affiliated with the mainline United Church of Christ which branched out of Congregationalism, and going back even further, that denomination had its roots in Puritanism. All these connections are very traditional. The affirmation of faith of the parent organization, as found in their constitution begins with, “The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior.” However, when the black pride movement burgeoned in Chicago during the 1960s at the time when Malcolm X made that city the headquarters for the Nation of Islam, the Trinity United Church of Christ appears to have made doctrinal adjustments to accommodate its constituents. They were African Americans who wanted a veneer of Christianity, which many of them had been raised with, to cover their newly acquired black nationalism and Nation of Islam inspired faith. At the same time, the church needed new members because church attendance was falling off.
So a new syncretic religion was born, Muslim Christianity. Never mind that it makes a mish mash of theology – in order to suit the emotional and cultural needs of the parishioners. Obama may have been telling the truth when he called himself a Christian, even though he has not apparently spent much time in any church since leaving the tutelage of Rev. Wright. But for the rest of us, there is confusion, a confusion that is sure to grow as not only the President but possibly many others influenced by him, take the side of Islamic political entities while still calling themselves ‘Christian.’
Sharad Karkhanis has forwarded Madeline Brooks's Canada Free Press article article to me (see below). For me, the question is not whether he is a Muslim or a Christian but whether he misrepresented his religion as well as his position on Israel, the Middle East and Pakistan-India conflict. No issue is off limits with respect to a presidential race, and the fact that the Atlanta Constitution's editors think otherwise suggests that they are not an important or useful source of information. The gullible willingness of many Jews and Hindus as well as Christians to believe the Democratic media's propaganda concerning Obama shows a serious weakness in our educations and in common sense.
Madeline Brooks called Obama's church to learn that, contrary to logic and any possible interpretation of either Christianity or Islam, Jeremiah Wright's church sees no conflict between Islamic and Christian doctrine. Hence, the fact that Obama had produced no evidence of conversion is entirely consistent with his legitimate membership in Wright's church. He need not have converted to Christianity to belong to Wright's church, and the church says that many members are Muslims. No one in the Democratic media ever asked Wright's church whether a Muslim could belong. It turns out a Muslim can belong. Hence, his membership, far from being evidence of Christianity as the flightless birds at Newsweek claim, is actually evidence of his Muslim faith. Nor is Obama's assertion of Christianity evidence of a thing.
Obama’s Unique Form of ‘Christianity:’ No Baptism Or Renunciation of Islam Required By Madeline Brooks Saturday, August 21, 2010
New questions arise lately concerning whether President Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, as Mr. Obama gives his partial support to the mosque at Ground Zero.
We’ve all heard by now that Obama became a Christian mostly to expedite his political career and that the Trinity United Church of Christ he joined, presided over by Reverend Jonathan Wright, was not exactly mainstream. We’ve heard about Wright’s damning of America and we know that the church was – and might still be - a hot bed of black nationalism. But what is not as well known is that no baptism is required, nor must Muslims renounce Islam to be accepted as full members in that church.
On a tip from a pastor, which I wrote about here I called the Trinity United Church back in February, 2010 to ask about the requirements of membership. The church receptionist transferred my call to the Director of Membership, who told me that baptism is optional and that Muslims who believe in the prophet Mohammed can be full members. In fact, she reassured me cheerfully, they have plenty of Muslim members.
Never mind that this is theologically impossible, except when one makes one’s own rules. The doctrines of Christianity and Islam are incompatible. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is one with the Creator, through the doctrine of the Trinity, and that Jesus died on the cross in order to redeem humanity from its sins. Islam calls the Trinity ‘idolatry’ because it sees the Trinity’s three parts as separate entities – three distinct gods – instead of one divine being. Islam also denies Christianity’s claim that Jesus Christ died on the cross, or that he is the unique savior of humanity.
Baptism is central to Christian practices, both as a way to mark the convert’s entrance into a new life and as a washing away of sinful practices from the person’s past. The core of the new life as a Christian is a renunciation of other religious beliefs. The World Council of Churches is an umbrella organization for Protestant churches that represents about 550 million Christians throughout more than 120 countries. It has declared the centrality of baptism for a Christian, and notes that no matter how much churches may differ in other ways, the vast majority of churches agree on the importance of baptism.
Why would a Muslim want to join a church that proclaimed these Christian beliefs? It would be a betrayal of his own convictions. Besides, the word “Trinity” is in the name of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which should discourage a Muslim who thinks the Christian trinity is blasphemous. What’s going on here?
The Trinity United Church of Christ is affiliated with the mainline United Church of Christ which branched out of Congregationalism, and going back even further, that denomination had its roots in Puritanism. All these connections are very traditional. The affirmation of faith of the parent organization, as found in their constitution begins with, “The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior.” However, when the black pride movement burgeoned in Chicago during the 1960s at the time when Malcolm X made that city the headquarters for the Nation of Islam, the Trinity United Church of Christ appears to have made doctrinal adjustments to accommodate its constituents. They were African Americans who wanted a veneer of Christianity, which many of them had been raised with, to cover their newly acquired black nationalism and Nation of Islam inspired faith. At the same time, the church needed new members because church attendance was falling off.
So a new syncretic religion was born, Muslim Christianity. Never mind that it makes a mish mash of theology – in order to suit the emotional and cultural needs of the parishioners. Obama may have been telling the truth when he called himself a Christian, even though he has not apparently spent much time in any church since leaving the tutelage of Rev. Wright. But for the rest of us, there is confusion, a confusion that is sure to grow as not only the President but possibly many others influenced by him, take the side of Islamic political entities while still calling themselves ‘Christian.’
PSC Bungles Rangel's Tangle
Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns just published my article "PSC Bungles Rangel's Tangle."
The Professional Staff Congress (PSC), a union that purports to represent CUNY's faculty, has allowed City College's (CCNY's) public relations calamity involving the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service to spin out of control without voicing the slightest concern or faculty perspective. CCNY's ethical and public relations breaches are attracting national attention while the PSC pontificates about a litany of dogmatic pieties concerning the Afghan War, the Bush administration, the Iraqi War, the Tea Party and the Republicans' sub-prime lending policies. Likely, the PSC's flower child president, Barbara Bowen, and her New Caucus band of Merry Pranksters find potential ethics breaches at CCNY as too "off the bus" to warrant their time, which they see as best spent praising sociopaths like Hugo Chavez, Syed Hashmi and Sami Al-Arian.
In an August 10th article, Inside Higher Education writes that CCNY exercised questionable ethics with respect to Congressman Rangel's fundraising. Paulette Maehara of the Association of Fundraising Professionals says that "higher education fund-raisers are ethically bound to disclose conflicts of interest and they should also ensure anyone working on their behalf is similarly free of conflict." Not all experts agree. Moreover, the article points out that CUNY's fundraising policies do not prohibit obtaining gifts unethically. But it requires a fetishization of bureaucratic rules and an indifference to bad ethics to claim that a CUNY policy gave former CCNY president Gregory Williams and his staff latitude to entangle the university in Congressman Rangel's corruption. The New York Post began reporting on this story in 2007. It involves use of Congressional letterhead to raise millions of dollars from Verizon, AIG, New York Life and Nabors Industries, all of whom were asking for quid pro quo legislative favors from Mr. Rangel, possibly while CCNY's representatives were in the same room.
Ought not a faculty union provide a moral voice for the faculty it purports to represent? And if so, why is the PSC deafeningly silent about Democratic Congressman Charles B. Rangel's corrupt "monument to himself" at CCNY? Instead of honoring dishonorable politicians who serve in the PSC's partisan clubhouse, the Charles B. Rangel Center and its associated conference centers and libraries ought to be renamed as the Centers for the Study of Ethics in Public Service. As well, CCNY should refuse Mr. Rangel's papers. If Riker's Island has no room for them, perhaps Mr. Rangel can strong arm a donation for a new wing to its jailhouse.
The Professional Staff Congress (PSC), a union that purports to represent CUNY's faculty, has allowed City College's (CCNY's) public relations calamity involving the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service to spin out of control without voicing the slightest concern or faculty perspective. CCNY's ethical and public relations breaches are attracting national attention while the PSC pontificates about a litany of dogmatic pieties concerning the Afghan War, the Bush administration, the Iraqi War, the Tea Party and the Republicans' sub-prime lending policies. Likely, the PSC's flower child president, Barbara Bowen, and her New Caucus band of Merry Pranksters find potential ethics breaches at CCNY as too "off the bus" to warrant their time, which they see as best spent praising sociopaths like Hugo Chavez, Syed Hashmi and Sami Al-Arian.
In an August 10th article, Inside Higher Education writes that CCNY exercised questionable ethics with respect to Congressman Rangel's fundraising. Paulette Maehara of the Association of Fundraising Professionals says that "higher education fund-raisers are ethically bound to disclose conflicts of interest and they should also ensure anyone working on their behalf is similarly free of conflict." Not all experts agree. Moreover, the article points out that CUNY's fundraising policies do not prohibit obtaining gifts unethically. But it requires a fetishization of bureaucratic rules and an indifference to bad ethics to claim that a CUNY policy gave former CCNY president Gregory Williams and his staff latitude to entangle the university in Congressman Rangel's corruption. The New York Post began reporting on this story in 2007. It involves use of Congressional letterhead to raise millions of dollars from Verizon, AIG, New York Life and Nabors Industries, all of whom were asking for quid pro quo legislative favors from Mr. Rangel, possibly while CCNY's representatives were in the same room.
Ought not a faculty union provide a moral voice for the faculty it purports to represent? And if so, why is the PSC deafeningly silent about Democratic Congressman Charles B. Rangel's corrupt "monument to himself" at CCNY? Instead of honoring dishonorable politicians who serve in the PSC's partisan clubhouse, the Charles B. Rangel Center and its associated conference centers and libraries ought to be renamed as the Centers for the Study of Ethics in Public Service. As well, CCNY should refuse Mr. Rangel's papers. If Riker's Island has no room for them, perhaps Mr. Rangel can strong arm a donation for a new wing to its jailhouse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
