[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Famous Speeches

[Jeff Harkins]

Oh Nick, you are predictable - the carrot and stick again.

I did find your comments interesting, but I see 
no point in pursuing a dialogue on this 
topic.  We are not of a common world view and it 
is unlikely that either of us would persuade the other to alter that view.

I don't accept your view that my review of the 
invocation of God into famous speeches was a 
flop, In contrast to your statement that I was 
attempting to " ... do the theology of political 
leaders ...", I was merely pointing out that many 
famous leaders have invoked or called upon God to 
assist them in their decision making.

Is it your position that Churchill, Kennedy, 
Johnson, King and others were pandering to their constituents?

As to your view that you are not on the "left", 
that does seem to be a catalyst of cognition 
among Americans during this election cycle.  It 
is alarming concept to many of us that the "real left" is left of you.

Finally, we both benefit from a Constitution that 
preserves religious freedom - neither of our 
views, nor the views of others can be silenced by intimidation.

Maybe we can talk about the health insurance 
benefits and life insurance for UI faculty and staff.

Haven't seen much from you on this.

At 11:23 PM 9/15/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Jeff:
>
>I'd rather have you skip the comments about 
>interesting and enjoyable and actually engage 
>what I wrote, because you obviously did not 
>comprehend the difference I tried to draw 
>between an innocuous "God Bless America" and 
>comments that imply that God is working on our 
>side and no one else's.  Contrary to Palin's 
>former minister's opinion, Jesus is not in "war 
>mode" and he is not our Commander in Chief, as 
>one sign outside an LA fundamentalist church said after the invasion of Iraq.
>
>I consider your attempt to do the theology of 
>political leaders a real flop, and this time I 
>will not thank you for the dialogue.
>
>And for the last time, Jeff, I do not consider 
>myself to be on the "left."  After living among 
>Danish Marxist students, who boycotted by 
>classes, I know what real leftists are like.  I 
>didn't like them and they didn't like me.
>
>Nick
>---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > I tend to agree with you that public political
> > and military speeches can be (and probably 
> should be) taken somewhat likely.
> >
> > Too bad a lot of folks on the left want to attack
> > Palin for the mention of  God and God's plan in her speeches.
> >
> > And ... interesting writing - I enjoyed it.
> >
> > At 04:01 PM 9/13/2008, you wrote:
> > >Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > >First, I would take public political and
> > >military speeches that refer to God with a grain
> > >of salt.  Even the least religious of our
> > >presidents would have it in their addresses for
> > >window dressing.  Give me excerpts from the
> > >private writings or personal statements on good authority.
> > >
> > >George Washington, however, had the courage to
> > >stick by his guns and the Constitution.  Once a
> > >speech writer gave him a draft of a talk to the
> > >Delaware Indians and he crossed out "God" and
> > >replaced it with "Great Spirit Above."  Bully
> > >for you, George!  Too bad our current George is
> > >not as perspicacious, not that he would know the meaning of this word.
> > >
> > >Washington usually used Providence, the most
> > >impersonal word for deity possible, to refer to
> > >God.  This God is theological light years away
> > >from a God whose "task" it is to go to war or to
> > >build a gas pipeline from Alaska to
> > >Canada.  Palin clearly crosses a constitutional
> > >line of appropriate use of theological language
> > >and she should be condemned for it.
> > >
> > >In previous post you refer to classical
> > >Christianity and its imperative that we are to
> > >discern the will of God, but Washington would
> > >warn us that this is for one private or church
> > >affairs, not for the affairs of state.  And as
> > >Paul Rumelhart has so nicely pointed out: if God
> > >wills all events as God wants them to be (I
> > >personally reject this type of theology), then
> > >God willed the 9/11 attack and willed that the
> > >Russians build all their pipelines to Europe.
> > >This type of God is therefore responsible for
> > >all the evil as well as the good in the
> > >world.  Human free-will goes down the tubes as well.
> > >
> > >Preachers that Palin favors still say that 9/11
> > >was America's punishment for allowing abortions
> > >and gays to marry, and a guest speaker at
> > >Palin's church in Wasilla declared that
> > >terrorism against Israelis is punishment for
> > >their sins.  McCain was finally forced to disown
> > >his newly found friends on the Religious Right
> > >(he once called them "agents of intolerance")
> > >and now Palin will have to cut the strings to
> > >her own religious fanatics. See my column on
> > >McCain's phony religion at
> > >www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/McCainReligion.htm.
> > >
> > >Jeff, you must have missed my e-mail to Crabtree
> > >about the God of the Declaration of
> > >Independence.  The phrases "Nature's God and
> > >God's Nature" are just as impersonal as
> > >Providence and appear to be drawn from the deist
> > >Lord Bolingbroke.  Again Palin's God is
> > >interventionist and partial, definitely not the
> > >deist embodiment of the natural and moral laws
> > >of the universe.  And please remember that the
> > >Constitution, the only document for the laws of
> > >our land, does not mention God at all.
> > >
> > >Republican leader Jesse Fell and close friend of
> > >Lincoln stated that he “maintained that law
> > >and order, not their violation or suspensión
> > >[as in Palin's theology], are the appointed
> > >means by which . . . Providence is exercised."
> > >David Davis, Lincoln’s presidential campaign
> > >manager, maintained that Lincoln "had no faith,
> > >in the Christian sense of the term,” but that
> > >he “had faith in laws, principles, causes and
> > >effects," just as a good deist would believe.
> > >
> > >These lines are taken from a column I wrote last
> > >year celebrating Lincoln's birthday.  You can
> > >read this column as well as my article
> > >"Religious Liberalism and the Founding Fathers"
> > >at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/lincoln.htm and /foundfathers.htm.
> > >
> > >In closing I ask you to read the following
> > >passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural
> > >Ardess.  Given Lincoln's well documented
> > >religious liberalism, I ask you to consider the
> > >real possibility that if the U.S. were somehow
> > >still at war with the Muslim Barbary pirates,
> > >Lincoln would have said the same thing,
> > >namely,that the soldiers on each side read their
> > >own scriptures and still "their prayers are
> > >unanswered."  He would never have said, as that
> > >clown Gen. Lieutenant-General William G Boykin
> > >did in dress uniform, that "Our God is bigger than your God."
> > >
> > > >From Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:
> > >
> > >"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same
> > >God, and each invokes His aid against the other.
> > >It may seem strange that any men should dare to
> > >ask a just God's assistance in wringing their
> > >bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but
> > >let us judge not, that we be not judged. The
> > >prayers of both could not be answered. That of
> > >neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
> > >
> > >How dare Palin presume that it was God's will
> > >that we invade Iraq or that the pipeline she
> > >negotiated was God's plan.  This is preacher
> > >talk (bad theology to boot), not presidential
> > >talk. If God exists, God would allow his
> > >creatures to choose their own ways and take the
> > >consequences for their own actions.  I would not
> > >consider believing in a God that didn't allow this freedom.
> > >
> > >Here is a passage from John Fowles, one of my favorite authors:
> > >"The novelist is still God, since he creates. .
> > >. . What has changed is that we are no longer
> > >the gods of the Victorian image, omniscient and
> > >decreeing; but in the new theological image,
> > >with freedom our first principle, not authority.
> > >. . . There is only one good definition of God:
> > >one freedom that allows other freedoms to exist"
> > >("The French Lieutenant's Woman," filmed to
> > >perfection and starring Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep).
> > >
> > >Thanks for the dialogue,
> > >
> > >Nick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >=======================================================
> > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >                http://www.fsr.net
> > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >=======================================================
> >