Tag Archives: Bible

Reason prevails in Tennessee statehouse

Old fashionet American Constitution with USA  Flag.

Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Haslam, has put his veto pen to good use.

He vetoed a bill that would have made the Bible the “state book” of Tennessee. Frankly, such a law looks like something that might one day find its way to the desk of the Texas governor.

His reasoning is interesting, to say the least. Haslam said giving the Bible such a designation “trivializes” the holy book.

I applaud the governor for making a reasonable decision.

“If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we shouldn’t be recognizing it only as a book of historical and economic significance,” Haslam said.

Indeed.

Here’s another thought: Giving the Bible such a designation quite possibly would violate the U.S. Constitution First Amendment prohibition against government establishing a state religion.

The Bible is a sacred text. It belongs in the homes of families whose faith relies on the Bible’s teachings. It belongs in churches where clergy preach its holy word.

It does not belong as a government-designated “official book.”

Don’t those fine public servants who serve in the Tennessee legislature understand the oath they took, the one that says they would support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

The Constitution they swore to uphold is a secular document. It prohibits governments at all levels from enacting the kind of law that came out of the legislature in Nashville.

And, yes, the Bible is a sacred text. Let’s not cheapen it by making a state’s “official book.” The Bible is a much more profound document than that.

 

Secular can mix with the holy

bible-Sunlight

I had an interesting conversation this morning with a young friend, who told me about someone with whom she is close who doesn’t allow her children to celebrate Christmas in a secular fashion.

Why? Well, my friend said, this other person and her husband are devout Christians and want to respect the holy nature of the holiday, which is to celebrate the birth of Jesus. She said they believe allowing the children to climb onto Santa’s lap at the mall and ask him for Christmas gifts takes away from the holiday’s spiritual meaning.

Fine, I said. “But I don’t believe there’s any exclusivity involved here,” I added. My friend agreed.

“You can celebrate both,” I said. Again, she agreed.

I’ll add here that I also believe in both the biblical version of the world’s creation and in evolution. Moreover, the Bible tells us that God created humankind through Adam and Eve, who then produced two sons. As far as I can tell, the Old Testament doesn’t specify that he created only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel — and left it at that.

My friend did add, though, a rather ironic twist to the tale, which is that the family she mentioned celebrates Halloween, allowing the kids to dress up in costume and go scarf up all the candy they can carry.

I’ll add this thought.

The Jesus I’ve read about in the Bible cherished children and wanted nothing but happiness for them. My sense is that he would approve of a Santa Claus-based celebration — as long as Mom and Dad made sure they understood as well the real intent of the holiday. He might even approve of Halloween and, oh yes, the Easter Bunny.

I am now open to any comments you might have on this subject.

Feel free to weigh in.

 

Trump earns evangelical support … how?

evangelicals

One of the many — countless, it seems — confounding features of this presidential election cycle concerns the support that Donald J. Trump appears to be gathering from a most unlikely bloc of Republican “base” voters.

I’m referencing here the evangelical voters, those folks who describe themselves as devout, “born again” Christians.

Trump’s victory in the South Carolina GOP primary this weekend came in good measure from the support he got among evangelicals.

I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances of every voting bloc in America. Nor will I jump to many conclusions about any demographic group.

What I know about those who adhere to evangelical Christianity is that they take their Scripture quite seriously. They also prefer that others believe as they do.

So, what does Trump believe? How has he lived?

He’s on his third marriage; he’s been divorced twice. More to the point is that Trump has actually boasted — in writing — about the extramarital affairs he’s had with women who were married to other men. Doesn’t the Bible frown on marital infidelity?

He’s on record at one time as supporting abortion. I haven’t actually heard him say he supports partial-birth abortion, but many of his critics have said as much and I haven’t heard Trump actually deny he ever favored such a thing. I believe evangelical voters vehemently oppose abortion. Isn’t that correct?

Trump has made a lot of money building hotels — and casinos, where people go to gamble away lots of money and, perhaps, engage in activity that is, shall we say, a good bit less than righteous.

The man’s lifestyle over many decades has featured a flaunting of vast material wealth. Again, I won’t presume to know what is in the hearts of those who believe in the principles espoused in Scripture, but I doubt seriously that Trump’s opulent lifestyle fits the bill.

And when I hear Trump talk about the Bible and its contents, he sounds for all the world — to my ears, at least — as though he’s talking about a paperback novel he bought off the used-book shelf. Am I wrong or does he sound to anyone else as though he doesn’t have a clue as to what the Bible actually says — about anything?

But here we are. We’ve been through three contested Republican political events; Trump has finished first in two of them. The South Carolina primary took place in a state where New Testament religion plays a major role in the lives of many of those who call themselves Republicans.

This has been a confounding electoral process so far. Donald Trump’s appeal among evangelical voters within the Republican Party base might be the most perplexing development of all.

What in the name of all that is holy am I missing?

 

Iowa uncertainty brings new dimension of weirdness to race

Bible2

It’s been said repeatedly for many election cycles that evangelical voters are key to the success of candidates seeking to win the Iowa presidential caucuses.

Republican candidates play to the evangelical voter bloc, realizing the critical role that devout Christians play in the Iowa political process.

The 2016 caucuses are almost here and, as has been the norm this time, some political traditions have been turned upside-down.

Cruz in trouble in Iowa

Consider this: The one-time favorite of Iowa Republicans, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, is now essentially tied in that state by none other than Donald J. Trump.

Cruz is supposed to be the golden boy for evangelical voters. He’s their guy. He’s the self-proclaimed “dependable conservative.” But now his support has eroded as Trump has gained ground and as U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio has risen as well to compete with Cruz for the evangelical vote.

What’s staggering to me, though, is why Trump is faring so well among those deeply devout voters. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that his expressions of faith sound, well, less than authentic. The “Two Corinthians” gaffe is a small, but still significant, demonstration of what I mean.

Trump talks about the Bible the way one talks about a Louis L’Amour western novel. “It’s a great book,” he says.

Well, I don’t know how this initial contest is going to finish on Monday. It’s only one vote, after all, in a long series of contests that candidates in both major parties will have to face as they fight among themselves for their parties’ presidential nomination.

But the idea that the vaunted evangelical vote is up for grabs with a candidate such as Donald Trump competing for it just boggles my mind.

I’m going to stay tuned for this one to play out.

 

‘2 Corinthians’ gaffe lingers

Bible2

The gaffe that Donald J. Trump committed at Lynchburg University just won’t go away.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump’s chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, took a poke at Trump over the verbal blunder.

The Hill reports:

“Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz joked Monday about rival Donald Trump’s flub of a Bible verse.
“While on the campaign trail in Iowa, Cruz began referencing the biblical verse 2 Chronicles 7:14 (‘Second Chronicles’) before he was interrupted by someone in the crowd at the town hall who joked he meant ‘Two Chronicles.’
“Cruz was making light of Trump’s gaffe during a speech at Liberty University last week where he referenced ‘2 Corinthians’ instead of ‘Second Corinthians,’ as it’s commonly known.
“Trump later blamed evangelical activist Tony Perkins for the gaffe, saying ‘he actually wrote out the 2’ for his speech and adding that people in other places of the world ‘say 2.'”
And to think that President Barack Obama’s critics keep criticizing him for his expert use of the TelePrompter.

DeLay’s the latest GOPer to skewer Trump

untitled

I am no fan of former U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom “The Hammer” DeLay . . . but you knew that already.

However, the fiery Texan has written an essay that conservatives such as himself should take to heart.

Take a look.

DeLay questions the Republican presidential campaign frontrunner’s commitment to Christian principles. He said the next president ought to be a conservative who bases his political beliefs on Scripture.

DeLay also takes a shot at what he calls Trump’s “clumsy” pandering to evangelicals at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., when he cited “Two Corinthians,” apparently not knowing that the common reference to that New Testament book is “Second Corinthians.”

He then wonders aloud just how a President Trump — my fingers still tremble when I write those two words — would make sure that retail outlets instruct their staffers to wish customers “Merry Christmas” during the holiday season. How would he do that? DeLay wondered. “By executive order?”

DeLay is just the latest political conservative to reveal what many of us on the other side of the fence have believed for a very long time, which is that Trump is a phony.

In this crazy, goofy and bizarre political environment, though, Trump’s brand of phoniness is more appealing to his true believers than the so-called phony rhetoric coming from “establishment politicians.”

 

 

We’re all sinners . . . and need forgiveness

donald

Donald Trump’s stumbling over the name of a New Testament book Monday seems to punctuate something many of us believed already.

The candidate’s bald-face pandering to a certain Republican Party voting bloc is unseemly on its face.

Trump stood before a “record crowd” at Liberty University and proclaimed the virtues of “Two Corinthians.”

OK, I am not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know the name of the book that contains the Apostle Paul’s “second letter” to the people of Corinth. Moreover, I’ve read “Second Corinthians” many times over the years.

Trump, though, has said something else that reveals the pandering element of his pitch to Christian voters. It is that he’s never sought forgiveness because “I don’t need it.”

Trump  didn’t say it overtly, but statements such as that suggest he believes he is without sin. Now, the Bible I’ve read my entire life tells me that we’re all sinners. Every single human being who’s ever been born needs forgiveness for his or her sins.

I don’t intend to pick apart every single thing Trump said at Liberty University, nor do I intend to question Trump’s personal faith journey. Maybe it’s the real thing. Then again . . . well, I just don’t know.

I do recognize pandering when I see and hear it.

Look, I know that politicians pander. It’s part of their DNA. They have to pander to persuade voters that they — the politician — understands them.

Some politicians do it better than others. Trump has said all along he’s not a “career politician.” His performance at Liberty University certainly proves the point — and not necessarily in a way that should make the candidate proud.

Check this out.

 

Evolution, creationism? Why not both?

Problems-with-the-Creationism-vs-Science-Debate

Polls occasionally drive me a bit crazy.

Take the one discussed in a Slate.com article that says young Americans favor Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution over the belief that God created the world in six calendar days.

May we hit the pause button for a moment?

I am a Christian. I’ve read the Bible many times in my life. I know what the Bible says about how the world came to be.

I also believe that the world was populated by dinosaurs and other creatures for zillions of years before human beings made themselves known.

Thus, I believe that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Is it possible that God created the world and allowed it to evolve into what it has become? I believe that is precisely what occurred.

The Slate article was written by Rachel E. Gross, who it is clear to me believes exclusively in Darwin’s theory. She writes: “Now, at long last, there seems to be hope: National polls show that creationism is beginning to falter, and Americans are finally starting to move in favor of evolution. After decades of legal battles, resistance to science education, and a deeply rooted cultural divide, evolution may be poised to win out once and for all.”

She adds: “The people responsible for this shift are the young. According to a recent Pew Research Center report, 73 percent of American adults younger than 30 expressed some sort of belief in evolution, a jump from 61 percent in 2009, the first year in which the question was asked. The number who believed in purely secular evolution (that is, not directed by any divine power) jumped from 40 percent to a majority of 51 percent. In other words, if you ask a younger American how humans arose, you’re likely to get an answer that has nothing to do with God.”

Read the whole story here

I get the divide over how to teach science in classrooms. Fundamentalists want to teach creationism as it is written in the Bible. They also want to present evolution as just as much of a theory as creationism. This issue has been kicked around at the highest level of public education governance in many states, none more so arguably than in Texas, where we elect State Board of Education members who run for the office as politicians.

Creationism, though, is a religious doctrine. Evolution is a secular one. That doesn’t mean — to my way of thinking — that one of them is invalid.

What it means to me is that the biblical version of creation was written as a metaphor. “Days” can’t be measured in 24-hour increments; for that matter, it might be possible that every element of time takes on meanings that we cannot comprehend.

Does any of this discount the role that God played in creating our world? Not in the least.

As for whether we should teach creationism in our public schools alongside evolution, well, I do not believe that’s appropriate.

Creationism should be taught in places of worship, which I also believe also is part of God’s plan.

‘Never bend to envy’

Bible2

Donald Trump’s pandering to Christian conservatives seems to have splattered all over him.

He told the Christian Broadcast Network that his favorite Bible verse is in Proverbs. It says “Never bend to envy,” according to Trump.

One problem has emerged. There’s no Proverb that says such a thing, according to media researchers who looked high and low for Trump’s allegedly favorite passage from Scripture.

Trump blows effort at pandering

Is it  becoming more possible — now, finally! — that this blowhard entertainer can be exposed as the fraud he is?

The litany of gaffes and goofs keeps piling up. Trump has managed to maintain his amazing poll standing in spite of it all.

I stand utterly amazed that this blowhard has gotten this far.

 

Constitution reads like … the Bible

The eruption of interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court’s two blockbuster rulings this week brings to mind a thought about two quite famous pieces of writing.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bible have something in common. You can take from either document what you want to take from them.

The court affirmed the Affordable Care Act and gay marriage. It upheld the federal subsidies critical to the ACA and it declared that gay couples can marry legally anywhere in the United States.

“Strict constructionists” have declared that the court overstepped in both rulings. More liberal thinkers say the court ruled correctly.

It reminds a bit of the debate over Scripture between the fundamentalists and those who view the Bible a bit more, um, interpretatively.

You can read both documents in accordance with your own view of the law or of your own faith.

Furthermore, you can argue that your version of the truth is correct and the other side is wrong. How many times have you had that discussion about the Bible? I’ve had it more than a few times over many years.

I am guessing we’re entering a new phase of constitutional interpretation that will be just as fierce.