Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Catholicism and Buddhism | Main | To radical Islam and back »

Monday, June 25, 2007


Celestial SeraphiMan

Let me ask a question. Didn't religious conservatives demand segregation? Didn't they claim that divine and natural law demanded racial purity? Wasn't segregation traditional?

Thank you for your time.


Some did, some didn't. Impossible to generalize.

Celestial SeraphiMan

I appreciate the response, Tom.

John Herreid

Let me ask a question, CSM: didn't you ask this question several times and get several answers already on numerous other posts?

Gary Aknos

Violation of church and state?

Check out full coverage of this at

And send an email to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State ([email protected]) demanding that the UCC lose it's 501(3(c) tax exempt status because:

From the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State perspective, a political speaker at a religious event has one of two distinct roles: Either they are 1) speaking as a candidate for office or 2) speaking as a non-candidate. If Obama was speaking as a non-candidate (since he was supposedly invited over a year ago before he declared) then his reference to campaign pledges if elected to office clearly violates AU's standard for separation. If he was speaking as a candidate, AU's standards call for equal access by the other candidates for the same office... which didn't appear to happen. In either case, his speeches before the Iowa Conference and the General Synod were a violation of separation by AU's own standards.

From the UCC perspective, there should be no confusion as they publicly advocate for the same rules on separation as AU. Furthermore, UCC leaders and conference ministers understood Obama's status as a declared candidate for some time and, by virtue of their reporting on the Iowa speech a week earlier, also understood that Obama's address would be a campaign speech. The UCC clearly and knowingly violated AU's standard for separation.


Looks like Obama's version of Christianity never included Matthew 10: 34-36: Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. The Gospel necessarily brings division because it's message is so counter-cultural.

People such as Obama, Rick Warren, and Jim Wallis seem to want unity & peace in the culture at all costs. That is why they decry the culture wars as a bad thing. Instead of unity & peace, orthodox Christians seek to announce truth, no matter what it costs them in the end.


>Didn't religious conservatives demand segregation?


And they also led the abolitionist movement and the womens suffrage movement.

Celestial SeraphiMan

I had the impression that only liberals abolished slavery or granted the vote to women.

Oh, by the way, must we shatter unity and peace forever? Must we be always paranoid and angry? Must we always preach truth without love or mercy or human sympathy? Doesn't Christ offer unity and peace in the Him and the Church? What's wrong with offering unity and peace in Christ? Please be careful with your rhetoric and how you use Scripture.

Even if I did ask the questions before, I need to be absolutely certain that I reach at the truth instead of the opinions on one set of pundits.

John Powers

Here is a sad statement, "prompting quick criticism from the Christian right"...why is it up to the Christian Right to condemn political grandstanding aimed at Religion? Shouldn't the Left, Center, and Right be nose-to-nose against Obama for using a secular campaign to attack ANY Religious belief?

I wouldn't like it if Sam Brownback attacked the belief of the United Methodists, nor would I like it if Rudy Giulianni attacked the Mormon Religion. Politicians can take the first step in the separation of Church and State, by refraining from attacking the sacred beliefs of others.

One of the good things about Liberalism, in my opinion, is the generally healthy skepticism towards State Sponsored Religion. Obama has taken this to a new low, in using the power of the State to attack the Religious beliefs of those that disagree with him politically.

And for this, he wants to be President?


don westervill

Thanks Gary, I've never understood why Demo candidates get to speak in churches but Repub's are held up to high scrutiny if they do...your comment helped me understand the double standard at work.


Oh, by the way, must we shatter unity and peace forever?

In a word, yes! The gospel message brings out virtues in those who hear and live it but enmity in those who reject it. That is precisely the point of Matthew 10. Of course, one should preach with mercy. It's not the tone of the messenger that the liberals disagree with, though, it's the message itself! Liberals don't want to hear that many of their sacred cows (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage) are contrary to the natural and moral law.

Deacon Harold

Back in 1989, Janet Jackson led a "Rhythm Nation" ( Now, unless orthodox Christians who prefer Truth over politics make their voices heard in 2008, we will have an "Obama Nation" (

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad