God's Politics

God's Politics


Ryan Beiler: Your Comments on Walking the Sensitivity Tightrope

posted by gp_intern

I’ve attempted to distill the most helpful elements from the rather heated comments on Tony Jones’ post on Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, much of which focused on this sentence: “I’m skeptical of a religion that admonishes its adherents to wear sacred undergarments … that didn’t allow non-whites to be clergy until 1978, and that follows the teachings of Joseph Smith, whose scriptures I find highly dubious.”

The strongest objections came from blogger Faithful Progressive, who has repeatedly asked for apologies from Tony and Diana Butler Bass for what he considered “mocking,” “insensitive and ultimately intolerant remarks,” though he has since moderated some of his original criticism.

I’ve defended Tony’s post as honest inquiry – especially since he bracketed his questions with a confession: “My ambivalence stems, I suppose, from my ignorance,” and an acknowledgement of the strangeness of his own beliefs: “I know that much of orthodox Christianity is irrational, too: I eat flesh and drink blood every Sunday.”

Many of the most balanced and insightful comments came from Mormons themselves:

Unfortunately I have met far too many people who seem to imagine that Mormons worship Joseph Smith (or even Satan), using that as a basis for their arguments against our being Christians. Aside from that, I wasn’t trying to beg into the club. I am proud of our doctrine, its materialism, its progressive nature, its undercurrent of gnosticism, its belief in a God who is willing to extend ALL his blessings and glory to his children. …

Also, for the record, I found out about this post thanks to Faithful Progressive. I’m afraid he made it out to sound worse than it was, and I wish he could have toned down the rhetoric. Diana’s comment could easily be read in a positive light, depending on your opinion of Stanley Hauerwas. Many of us in the LDS church (myself included) have ancestors who were tarred and feathered, forcibly relocated, even hanged from their own porches on account of their Mormonism. Some of us can feel small in comparison to these heroes in our past, and will look for persecution anywhere we can get it. Perhaps it is an attempt to prove our mettle.

Though not without some pointed criticism:

As a Mormon and a liberal I was disappointed in Tony Jones’ comments. I can appreciate that some Mormon thought is “out of the mainstream” but one should keep in that the fundamental belief of Mormonism is in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer. Tony is right; he is ignorant of Mormonism. But ignorance should in thoughtful Christian people motivate an effort at greater understanding instead of disrespect.

As I’ve reflected on these comments it’s occurred to me that from a Mormon perspective, such questions, however intentioned, can be offensive when they’re perceived through the lenses of those who’ve endured patterns of ridicule or condescension. And as a member of the majority dominant culture, I generally want to give extra credence to the testimony of those who’ve been marginalized in these ways. I felt a creeping double standard as I reflected on my own words regarding the Biden blow-up:

Choose your words carefully, and be aware of how they may be interpreted. And if challenged, be honest with yourself about your own prejudice – the prejudice that infects all of us. I am the chief of sinners, and confess that I constantly grapple with the stereotypical fears, lowered expectations, etc. that I’ve inherited from a society permeated with prejudice. This may seem unfair, but it is the responsibility of those who have been given unfair privilege and power by that society to go the extra mile.

While I still think it’s inaccurate to call Tony’s comments “mockery,” insensitivity may be the fairest criticism. I get the sense that between the two of us, he’d rather err on the side of candid inquiry, and I’d rather err on the side of sensitivity. He’s volunteered to grow a thicker skin for these conversations – I’m just not sure it’s always fair to ask that of the minority in any given situation. But above all, I believe we both want to strike a balance between honesty and sensitivity while walking the tightrope of true dialogue.

Ryan Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(34)
post a comment
Kris Weinschenker

posted February 27, 2007 at 3:42 pm


I don’t think it will make any difference who gets elected President. When Federal Courts (like the Third Circuit) unilaterally SUPPRESS complaints made against their own Officers from the public record (like 0405cv2006 and 0914cv2006), we might as well name a dictator like Hillary.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 27, 2007 at 5:41 pm


Ryan, Thank you for your awareness. p



report abuse
 

carl copas

posted February 27, 2007 at 6:42 pm


Thoughtful postmortem Ryan.



report abuse
 

Faithful Progressive

posted February 27, 2007 at 7:44 pm


Thanks Ryan, I mostly agree. The Mormon LDS response to Tony’s post certainly is strong evidence that his post WAS insensitive. I especially agree here: “While I still think it’s inaccurate to call Tony’s comments “mockery,” insensitivity may be the fairest criticism. I get the sense that between the two of us, he’d rather err on the side of candid inquiry, and I’d rather err on the side of sensitivity. He’s volunteered to grow a thicker skin for these conversations – I’m just not sure it’s always fair to ask that of the minority in any given situation. But above all, I believe we both want to strike a balance between honesty and sensitivity while walking the tightrope of true dialogue.” For my full response to Tony, please see my new post: There Are More than Three Approaches to Pluralism: Response to Tony Jones Thanks again for your thoughtful and fair response. FP



report abuse
 

bob carlton

posted February 27, 2007 at 10:04 pm


I am thankful for Reyan’s generosity and even-handed summary – solid for SoJo to play that role. That said, its strikes me that much of pluralism can often turn to a brown-grey mush of “respect” & “tolerance”, with very little understanding – precious little to **stand** on, very rarely surrendering **under** another. The world needs scolds, candid inquiry, even hard questions that can offend and inform.



report abuse
 

dlw

posted February 28, 2007 at 2:46 am


I guess you could say by my comment I made on FP’s original post that I have a view that is anti-mormonism but not against individual mormons. I personally believe that it was because of the violent unloving responses of Christians to Mormons that Mormonism has flourished, in part because of their long-standing influence on the politics of Utah and how that has helped to fund their aggressive missionizing. I am not saying that Mormons are going to hell or that there is no truth therein, but there still is plenty of heresy that potentially disrupts the advancement of the kingship of God, IMO. And I don’t have a problem with shining some uncomfortable questions about the LDS church for apologetic purposes and to handicap Romney’s candidacy for prez. dlw



report abuse
 

S

posted February 28, 2007 at 11:12 am


I’ve read the book of mormon, and it does state that people who are good turn white, and people who are bad turn dark, and that dark skin is a curse from God. I’m sure this embarassing doctrine is shunned today by most Mormong, but it is there in their scripture.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted February 28, 2007 at 11:43 am


Mormon “ism” has nothing to do with the “Faith delivered only once to the Saints.” In modern words: It is not Christian. Deal with that on a logical basis. Joseph Smith created a religion “based” on things “in” the Bible and that is a fact. No different than Mohammad. Mormoms are not Christians no matter the use of words spelled with J’s and C’s in them. If we are to “test all things” and hold firmly to the truth,” than whatever interesting religion the “Latter Day Saints,” (an insulting title to Christians, the world over, to say the least) or “Mormons” believe in, they have a different idea than the one written down by the writers of the New Testament. Peter and Paul, John and Jude, certainly do not agree with Joseph Smith’s works. Study LDS religious works, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, successive “prophetic” utterings, Mormons are no different than Wiccans.Nice people but practicing a non-Christian religion. Only Wiccans are more honest about their religion.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 28, 2007 at 4:45 pm


There was a Gallup poll published last week that indicated 72% of Americans would vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. This contrasts radically from a Nov. 2006 Rasmussen survey that indicated “Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate.” And only 45% would ever consider voting for an atheist! This is revealing because it shows how far away from the promise of there not being a “religious test” for public office Americans have gone. It is so sad to see America reneging on its “promises”. Heck, even gay people are more likely to be voted for (at 55%).



report abuse
 

Hali

posted February 28, 2007 at 6:28 pm


As a Protestant Christian, I have problems with the word “heresy.” Jesus himself was accused of it, and Christians have burned people at the stake for it. A belief system that claims to hold exclusive title to God’s One and Absolute Truth crosses the line from faith to dogmatism. If Mormons self-identify as Christians, then they are Christians. Sure, if Jesus were preaching on earth today, he probably would have some points to clarify with them. But I’m sure that’s true for all of us.



report abuse
 

zt

posted February 28, 2007 at 6:56 pm


“If Mormons self-identify as Christians, then they are Christians.” Yeah…and if I call myself a fish…then I’m a fish…



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted February 28, 2007 at 6:59 pm


“A belief system that claims to hold exclusive title to God’s One and Absolute Truth crosses the line from faith to dogmatism.” No, that system crosses the line from dogma to ideology. Dogma is a very good thing, because without you are just a floating spec of dust in the wind, blow about this way and that. Dogma says, “Some things I know with certainty.” Dogma says God is triune and Jesus Christ died for our sins. Dogma is flexible. Dogmatic orthodoxy recognizes the essentials but remains flexible in a way that ideology is not. Dogma leads to interaction and understanding. Ideology leads to death. So, in closing: *Dogma = good/flexible/necessary to any serious exchange seeking understanding *Ideology = bad/inflexible/rules out understanding allowing only adherence or death



report abuse
 

Pacific231

posted February 28, 2007 at 7:22 pm


Getting back “on topic” – specifically Mr. Willard “Mitt” Romney: I do not want to comment on his religion, only because it is far less relevant than his flip-flopping sniveling to the far right.Romney has repudiated his pro choice moderate Republican persona of just a few short years ago. It was this moderate Republican persona he used to win election as Governor of Massachusetts — a job he decided he didn’t want any more by 2005, IIRC, when he suddenly had stars in his eyes. In the epitome of bald opportunism, he reinvented himself as a “pro life” far right Presidential candidate, casting aside Massachusetts and the Governor’s office like yesterday’s newspaper. In fact, Romney spent virtually the ENTIRE year of 2006 out of state, badmouthing the Mass. residents he was supposed to be representing to religious right mucky-mucks of various red states. The good news is just about everyone in Massachusetts now recognizes Romney as a flip-flop fraud and fool. Even better, Democrat Deval Patrick easily defeated former Lt. Governor and ex-Romney ventriloquist dummy Kerry Healey for Governor in the November elections. Romney does not deserve to represent America at a kaffeeklatsch, much less to the world as its President, not because of his religion, but because of his pathetically complete lack of ethics, character, and integrity.



report abuse
 

Hali

posted February 28, 2007 at 7:33 pm


Mark, Just curious – why did you waste an entire post entirely on questions of definition (and note that I did not say “dogma,” but “dogmatism”), without at least having verified your assertions by checking a dictionary? I shall not address it here, because a definitional debate is both useless and boring, but I suggest you check dictionary.com or a similar reference. If you believe some things with absolute certainty, so be it, but recognize that “absolute certainty” and “flexibility” are necessarily incompatible. Recognize also that other people who are just as reasonable, intelligent and conscientious as you believe with absolute certainty that you are dead-ass wrong. In my personal opinion, those who claim to be in sole possession of God’s Absolute Truth are indeed displaying dogmatism ” noun dogmatic character; unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths.”(“dogmatism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 28 Feb. 2007. .)



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 28, 2007 at 8:20 pm


“This is revealing because it shows how far away from the promise of there not being a “religious test” for public office Americans have gone.” American voters are beholden to no such promise. We may vote based upon whatever criterion we choose. “In the epitome of bald opportunism, he reinvented himself as a “pro life” far right Presidential candidate, casting aside Massachusetts and the Governor’s office like yesterday’s newspaper.” Why is it inherently wrong to change your political position based upon what voters want? As long as he will govern as a pro-life president, then what difference does it make that he brings a different set of policies to the table? He ran for governor as a pro-choice candidate, and governed as such. “Romney does not deserve to represent America at a kaffeeklatsch, much less to the world as its President, not because of his religion, but because of his pathetically complete lack of ethics, character, and integrity.” How so? Politicians change their views all the time (many Dems flip to become pro-choice). If my political viewpoints force candidates to oppose the sanctioning of the death of babies, all the better.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 28, 2007 at 9:39 pm


“Dogma says God is triune and Jesus Christ died for our sins.” Time to relegate that ideology to the “dogma”house. How are one’s religious beliefs relevant to his political qualifications?



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 28, 2007 at 9:42 pm


kevin s., I said: “This is revealing because it shows how far away from the promise of there not being a “religious test” for public office Americans have gone.” Your reply: “American voters are beholden to no such promise.” Like I said, so much for the fact that: “The “no religious test” clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that: …no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” You again: “We may vote based upon whatever criterion we choose.” Yes, appararently a person is a ‘better’ politician if they’re anti-gay. How interesting that you choose to sh!t on your own Constitution (you know, the one you HAVE, not the one yer “president” wants to change it to). Like I said – sad.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 28, 2007 at 9:43 pm


“Why is it inherently wrong to change your political position based upon what voters want?” Um, howzabout SEGREGATION? The voters wanted THAT.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 28, 2007 at 9:46 pm


“How interesting that you choose to sh!t on your own Constitution (you know, the one you HAVE, not the one yer “president” wants to change it to).” a) I didn’t say I would not vote for a certain religion. b) There is nothing in the Constitution that says voters are required to ignore religion when electing officials. Officials of all religions may run, but we are under no obligation to elect them.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 28, 2007 at 9:48 pm


“Um, howzabout SEGREGATION? The voters wanted THAT.” But they don’t now. Aren’t you glad Robert Byrd flip-flopped on that one, or would you rather he still advocated racist policy?



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted February 28, 2007 at 10:33 pm


‘If you believe some things with absolute certainty, so be it, but recognize that “absolute certainty” and “flexibility” are necessarily incompatible.’ I can be absolutely certain that I need water to survive but be flexible as to the place of multivitamins in my diet. I can be absolutely certain that God is Triune and yet be flexible as to whether God supports welfare or not. Absolute certainty in specific areas, flexibility in others. And I can be absolutely certain about a number of things without requiring or forcing others to hold the same certainty. That is dogma. Ideology, by comparison, requires rigidity in all areas. Mixing the two terms reflects muddled thinking and/or ignorance. — Additionally, definitional debates ARE important. Clear speaking reflects clear thinking… muddled word-usage reflects muddled thought. Boring, maybe — if you’ve lost the significance of Jesus Christ being called the Logos in John 1… but useless? Never. I didn’t consult a dictionary because dictionaries are indexes of common usage. If you get enough people to hijack a word, it gets in the dictionary. Using a dictionary is like quoting Wikipedia to determine a historical event. What I’m concerned about is not a reflection of common vernacular use, but preserving the true meaning of a word, particularly a good one like “dogma.” For a deeper-than-Random-House understanding of dogma, see: -“Do We Need Dogma?” by Samuel MacComb in The American Journal of Theology -“Pluralism as Dogmatism” by WJT Mitchell in Critical Inquiry (Mitchell, a progressive, writes this: “Dogmatism…has had a very bad press, some of it deserved, some it based in misunderstandings and ignorance… If ‘dogmatism’ is a synonym for irrationality, inflexibility, and authoritarianism, the fault lies as much with pluralism as it does with any actual dogmatism.”) -“The Relation of Theological Dogma to Religion” by OA Shrubsole in International Journal of Ethics (in which he uses JE McTaggart’s definition of religious dogmas as “those whose acceptance or rejection by anyone would alter his religious opnion”) I think those three scholarly works are sufficient to overrule dictionary.com I side with John Henry Cardinal Newman in asserting that without dogma, faith cannot and does not exist. [I’m wondering if dogmatism is even a good term, because it implies a dogma made into an ideology. Hmm…] — curiouser, don’t twist the Constitution to make it fit your ends. The Constitution says that you don’t have to take an exam to reflect your religious leanings in order to sit in office. It has ***nothing*** to do with whether people can or should consider a person’s religious leanings in voting.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted March 1, 2007 at 3:40 am


Ryan, May the day arrive, and soon, that individuals rise above the various dogmas of the various religions that persuade us all to regard our beliefs as superior to the beliefs of others. And the related beliefs that: we should convert others to our beliefs; and, that we should silence blasphemers by whatever means possible to prevent them from expressing ideas that might lead “the faithful” astray and result in the damnation of believers. “The saw cuts both ways”, as a wise person I knew from West Virginia used to say.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted March 1, 2007 at 2:58 pm


Mark P., You advised: “don’t twist the Constitution to make it fit your ends. The Constitution says that you don’t have to take an exam to reflect your religious leanings in order to sit in office. It has ***nothing*** to do with whether people can or should consider a person’s religious leanings in voting.” My point was that, despite the Constitution guaranteeing that there shall be no religious test for public office, America obsesses with the religion of its leaders. (‘Would you or wouldn’t you vote for someone who is an X?’) I keep wondering why a person’s religion is still a factor, instead of the person’s character. Likewise the American obsession with race: ‘Would you, or would you not,vote for someone who is black?’ Whatever happened to MLK’s dream where one is judged not on the colour of his/her skin (or their religion, or their sexuality) but the content of their character? I still think it is a legitimate question.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 1, 2007 at 5:54 pm


I agree the race question should be irrelevant. I’m not sure you can separate religion and character so easily. What you believe about God and morality determines how you attempt to live your life, in the very least, and what you value.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted March 1, 2007 at 9:58 pm


Mark P, “What you believe about God and morality determines how you attempt to live your life, in the very least, and what you value.” What one believes about God and morality MAY determine such a thing. It also MAY NOT. Besides, plenty of atheists are still moral people who live their lives appropriately, and live out good values. My point is, despite the Constitution saying there won’t be such a religious test, Americans still love to apply one – their own. I say religion has WAAAY too much influence and, from the evidence, not always to the good, either. I wonder WHICH religion is the “right” one?



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm


So how moral atheists live their lives has nothing to do with their morality? Further, it’s silly to think that what you essentially and truly believe about the Universe cannot effect how you live.. (I’d additionally argue that an atheist’s belief in no god makes him the ultimate arbiter of himself; now, there are plenty of atheists who have a very high moral standard for themselves, but it’s still a factor) The right religion is the one that aligns with reality (*dances*)



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted March 2, 2007 at 3:06 pm


Mark P., “So how moral atheists live their lives has nothing to do with their morality?” Um, you must have missed the part where YOU typed: “What you believe about God … determines how you attempt to live your life, in the very least, and what you value”. It was your inclusion of the “God” part I took issue with. Buddhists can be moral too. Sikhs can be moral too. Jains can be moral too. And atheists can be moral too.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 2, 2007 at 4:59 pm


And like I said, if you don’t believe in an ultimate authority over you, you believe that you are responsible — morally — to your own self. That’s not at all necessarily “immoral” — like I said, you can hold yourself to a high standard, but it’s a standard of your own creation and thus subject to your determination.



report abuse
 

tt

posted March 2, 2007 at 5:30 pm


Okay I know from an atheist or non-christian many christian doctrines and beliefs seem ‘incredible’. However, let’s be clear – Mormons believe we will all be the “Jesus”, a god, of our own planet someday (well at least the males). That Jesus and Satan were created beings alike and are brothers. Joseph Smith was an incredible womanizer and frequented prostitutes and vulnerable women in his role as “God’s Prophet” – this is documented fact. When caught in his dealings and lies, he had a ‘revelation’ from God on the whole plural marriage thing. Funny how what God consistently ‘told’ him matched exactly up with the lifestyle he wanted to live. And his followers bought into it. A great book by the fine author Jon Krakaur “Under the Banner of Heaven” is a good documentation on the origins of Mormonism and the many, many fundamentalist mormons still in our country who adhere to all of the original teachings including plural marriage and the nature of women and blacks. If the government hadn’t came down hard on them, all of these things would still be practiced and I believe are secretly held in high esteem by Mormons. May not be pretty – but it is what it is.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted March 3, 2007 at 6:45 pm


“And like I said, if you don’t believe in an ultimate authority over you, you believe that you are responsible — morally — to your own self. That’s not at all necessarily “immoral” — like I said, you can hold yourself to a high standard, but it’s a standard of your own creation and thus subject to your determination.” Interesting ‘thought’, Mark P. Tell us where this “ultimate authority over [me]” comes from? I still insist one does NOT need to be a Christian, or a person of ANY faith whatsoever to believe in fairness, equality, etc – all moral values. In fact, doing to other people how we would have them do to us is a credo anyone can embrace and be totally moral.I guess I see the problem emanating when the tenets of any one person’s “faith” gets imposed on anyone else, regardless of the other person’s adherence to or membership in said faith – or ANY faith, or NO faith denomination.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 4, 2007 at 4:57 am


“I guess I see the problem emanating when the tenets of any one person’s “faith” gets imposed on anyone else” To an extent I agree and I think Christianity agrees (Paul says to stop judging outside and purify the Church in 1 Corinthians 5), but I’m still okay with not allowing others to steal or kill even if that’s cool with their religion. “I still insist one does NOT need to be a Christian, or a person of ANY faith whatsoever to believe in fairness, equality, etc – all moral values.” I never insisted otherwise.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted March 5, 2007 at 3:37 pm


Mark P. I said: “I still insist one does NOT need to be a Christian, or a person of ANY faith whatsoever to believe in fairness, equality, etc – all moral values.” You replied: “I never insisted otherwise.” You didn’t? Gee, I scrolled up and found these words posted by YOU: “What you believe about God … determines how you attempt to live your life, in the very least, and what you value”.” Doesn’t “What you believe about God” identify one as a person of faith?



report abuse
 

tt

posted March 5, 2007 at 4:42 pm


As an outsider to this part of the conversation – I would say yes it does identify someone as a person of faith – and I think mark’s statement is true – it does – but the statement does not necessarily assume that if you believe other than he does about God you cannot have a moral system to govern your affairs, but that belief or lack of does inform your values.



report abuse
 

tt

posted March 5, 2007 at 5:07 pm


What does keep us moral, doing the right thing, etc, without God? I ask that as a honest question. There are people who are good without ‘god’ in their life – but many are not and as ‘society’ tends to devolve from a common culture of what is right and wrong – I see more and more people thinking that things like lying, stealing, hurting other people are okay and even the thing to do if it benefits you or your group of people. I think it will continue in that direction – we will not move in the direction of a ‘utopia’ as atheists theorized in the last century – we will contiune to get worse as a society because we don’t have something or a reason to keep us moral or to do the right thing.Am I right or wrong on this? I wrestling with God – but as I do – I wonder where I would be and what I would do without the idea of God in my life. Why do the right thing? Why not life just for myself if there is no God? I know it seems like a sad commentary on my personal life, but it’s what I feel like? I too am curiouser and curiouser.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.