What Exactly Is “Moral Imagination”?

By Miri

We’re all by now too familiar with the wonderful speech that Barry gave at the Tucson 2012 Campaign Rally Memorial Service at a stadium at the University of Arizona, complete with the Jumbotron flashing “applause signs“, bizarre “memorial t-shirts” sporting a campaign motto, “Together We Thrive”, which was previously on an Obama website, circa 2008, and also on “anti-racism” t-shirts for sale at this site in December, 2010.  Earlier still, the same site featured “Together We Thrive”anti-racist baby clothing.  [Indoctrination in "right think" can never begin too early.]  Curiously, it’s difficult to discover who picked up the $60,000 tab for those shirts.  One blog claims that the U of AZ will pay for the shirts (will they really or will it simply be made to appear so?) and also that a U of AZ student designed the shirts.  If so, I wonder if the red bubble folks are concerned about copyright infringement?  Or might they be the source of these shirts, given that the manufacturer has not yet been determined?

One is left to wonder why an anti-racism motto was used as the theme for this “memorial service” (who ever heard of branding a funeral?) when racism had NOTHING to do with this atrocity?  The shooter did not act out of racism.  There’s nothing apparent about the victims to indicate any racial motivation for his acts.  Can we be forgiven for concluding that this event was used to roll out Obama 2012, whose theme doubtless will be Post-Racial, Post-National POTUS, Redux?

All this is neither here nor there.  What piqued my interest, because it’s cited so often now, is this phrase from Barry’s wonderful, brilliant, Kumbaya, bring-us-all-together, memorial unity speech:

“Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

Curious, I decided to search the Web for the phrase “expand our moral imagination.”  I figured, rightly as it appears, that in no way did Obama not plagiarize this thought, as he (or his speech writers) so often do (remember those shirts?).  Oh, what a treasure trove of interesting articles I found!

Moral imagination is code amongst a certain set:   some religious leaders, social justice progressives, as well as secular humanists, in particular.  Where to begin?

First, no surprise, this is a retread from Barry’s other brilliant, wonderful, globally unifying, yadda-yadda-yadda speech in acceptance of that woefully undeserved Nobel Prize.

Quoth Barry,

“It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance. Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.”

For the curious, according to Barry, Kennedy said,

“Let us focus on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” 

The New World Order?

Going further back in the time machine, I came across a “resource for deliberation on attitudes regarding immigrants and a resource to interpret and apply ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America] policy related to immigration.”

As defined in this document, “immigrants” are “all newcomers who now live in this country,” so that would include illegal aliens.  This 1997  “resource” stated, “Recalling that our families were once the ‘stranger’–and remembering our Lord’s call to love our neighbors as ourselves–can expand our moral imagination, enable us to see the new ‘stranger’ as our neighbor and open us to welcome today’s newcomers. … This is a fitting time for us to … continue to advocate for immigration, refugee, and asylum laws that are fair and generous [an oxymoron?].”

It should come as no surprise that this policy guide also speaks of the need to reunite newcomer families, to find “flexible” and “humane ways” for illegal aliens toadjust their legal status,” and to remember that border enforcement should always respect the human dignity of persons attempting to cross.”

So it should also come as no surprise that He Who Speaks In Codes would use this phrase that may be quite recognizable to the many “immigrants” to whom Barry panders, especially in the great state of Arizona.

This church has a booklet of “talking points” for Christian-Muslim “relations.” [You can only imagine the talking points concerning women in Islam. Read at your own risk.] The church was formed in 1988 and has its administration in Chicago.  Suffice it to say that it broke from “conservative” Lutheran churches, which now comprise the MO Synod, if I remember history.  This church recognizes the “pro-choice” position on abortion.  

Their website states: “Twin problems–excessive consumption by industrialized nations, and relentless growth of human population worldwide–jeopardize efforts to achieve a sustainable future.”  Reading through their site, one sees that they support social justice and Obamacare, and oppose “global warming.”  Their “e-Advocacy Network” encourages church members to write Congress, the POTUS, and others on issues such as (I’m not making this up) telling the president to support a UN resolution AGAINST Israeli settlements.”

Readers are free to correct me; this isn’t a post about any particular church, but I wanted to supply some background so one needn’t go looking to satisfy curiosity.  Perhaps Red Pill, our resident religious scholar, can provide more insight.

Given that Barry and the Democrats, in 2008, co-opted religion, particularly the “Christian right”, by attempting to equate “progressive policies” with what Jesus would do, successfully in too many instances, it’s very likely that Barry knows of this church, their administrators  in Chicago, and their work specifically amongst “newcomers,” aka illegal aliens.

Let us be forewarned: with their quotes from Job and all the other Biblical references at the Tucson “memorial”, progressive Marxists intend to use this tactic again, in 2012.  Thus, this week you hear Obama, Napolitano, and Holder quote Christian Scripture.  Be ready to learn more Scripture over the next two years!

But what is the source for this concept, moral imagination?  I found this article, “The Moral Imagination” by Russell Kirk which explains that the phrase was first used (if this author is correct) by Edmund Burke, oddly enough, in a critique of the secularist nature of the French Revolution, in which he decried “the destruction of civilizing manners by the revolutionaries,” but also seemed to despise the equality promoted by them:  “On this scheme of things, a king is but a man … ” 

To me, this sounds as if he prefers the idea of an educated elite, with wise rulers; but then again, I’m no student of “humane letters” nor am I a “humanist.”  So it may be that Burke, who wrote at the time of the Founders, circa 1790, despised the notion that a human being is merely an animal, like every other, and nothing more.

The author, Kirk, who wrote a book in 1981 entitled “The Moral Imagination”, explains that “moral imagination aspires to the apprehending of right order in the soul and right order in the commonwealth. … It is the moral imagination which informs us concerning the dignity of human nature, which instructs us that we are more than naked ape.”

But who shall determine the “right order?”  I’m sure that Barry has a fitting answer for that question.  Barry, his czars, his handlers, Soros, the literati, the elite, but above all, NOT the “common folk”, we who so pathetically cling to guns, religion, and xenophobia.

There is also this article, Obama and the Moral Imagination,” written over a year ago, and that Barry assuredly noticed.  The author, John Couretas, explains exactly what Barry the “Storyteller” was doing with his [to us, well known, bogus] life narrative.  He writes,

“Any effort by religious conservatives or free market advocates to counter Obama’s agenda in the cultural or economic spheres will have to come to grips with the way in which the new president is using the grand narratives of American history — and key figures like Washington, Lincoln and King — to connect and inspire supporters who see the Obama phenomenon really more as a social movement than political campaign. Obama the story teller has tapped into powerful currents of feeling, touched the deepest aspirations of millions, in a way that has given him tremendous political momentum.”

Indeed.  And now he’s doing the same with religion.

Couretas says, “When Obama invokes, as he did in his inaugural address, Washington’s inspiring words at Valley Forge about ‘hope and virtue,’ … it is not Obama’s story to do with as he pleases, one he can freely make use of without anchoring it to how Washington understood ‘hope and virtue.'”  Certainly, Washington’s story is NOT  Barry’s story to rewrite to suit his own understanding of “hope and virtue,” but that won’t stop him from doing it.  He will co-opt it.  Yes, he can.  Yes, he will.  Yes, he has.

Couretas goes on, “Little wonder, then, that Obama has so heavily employed references to Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, a president who looms like an Old Testament patriarch over the great moral struggle of the American people over slavery. And with his many references to Martin Luther King, Obama also positions himself as the inheritor of that legacy, adapted to a 21st Century transnational multi-culture. This is something close to a universal narrative … For this reason, the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery … has described Obama as ‘the first global president.’

So he hopes.  Couretas warned, “If there is to be an alternative telling of the American story against Obama’s narrative, it will have to be rooted in the moral imagination, what Russell Kirk described as ‘the bank and capital of the ages, the normative knowledge found in revelation, authority, and historical experience’ which offers as touchstones the great works of art and literature on questions of morals, politics and culture.”

Sadly, the Repblicans didn’t get the memo;  Barry is beating them to the punch.  He himself will now present the “alternative telling” to his very own bogus 2008 narrative.  Their bad!

Couretas informs us that “Obama’s inauguration‘s theme, ‘The New Birth of Freedom,’ is drawn from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. … Obama started early on adopting the Lincoln narrative. He announced the start of his presidential campaign in February 2007 on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill. — the site of Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ speech.”

Barry knows exactly what he is doing.  Couretas asks, “Will those who work in the tradition of the moral imagination provide a counter-narrative on those questions where there is a fundamental clash? Do they understand, as Kirk did, the need for ‘the renewal of our awareness of transcendent order, and the presence of the Other’? Will they find their voice?”

God, as opposed to secularism, if I understand his point correctly.  Perhaps there will be an alternative voice to counter Barry’s interpretation, but only if it’s the voice of the Tea Party.  Don’t look to the Republicans to understand, much less be able to fight this “narrative”.  Not on Barry’s level.  Yet Sarah Palin seems to “get it.”  Thus, their hatred for her.

Another person who frequently uses the phrase moral imagination is journalist, author, and speaker Robert Wright.   Wikipedia tells us that he writes about “evolutionary psychology”, religion, and game theory, among other topics.

Notably, one of his books is entitled, “The Evolution of God”.  Wright is an agnostic and argues, apparently, that any “deity”, if one should exist, “would be realizing moral progress through evolution’s creation of the human moral sense (and through the subsequent development of that moral sense via cultural evolution, particularly technological evolution).”

If I understand his touchy-feely, secular approach, he seems to argue that it’s well and good to patronizingly allow people to have their superstitions (my word) because ultimately, if nothing else, religion can serve to promote expansion of the “moral sense.”  But never forget that the “creator” is evolution itself.

I suspect that Robert Wright has a huge influence, not only on the words that Barry uses in speeches, but also on Barry’s habit of appeasing the Muslim world.  This article by Wright, “Why We Think They Hate Us:  Moral Imagination and the Possibility of Peace,”  specifically addresses how Wright views America’s relationship with the Muslim world (or vice versa) as a “zero sum game”, which basically means, if I win, you lose. His belief seems to be that if we all hold hands together and sing Kumbaya, if we’re all interconnected, all the same (nobody better off than anyone else), all dependent upon each other (in a global economy?), then this would be a non-zero sum game (I win, you win, too) and all will be hunky dory in the NWO.

Wright contends, “If Muslims get less happy with their place in the world, more resentful of their treatment by the West, support for radical Islam will grow, so things will get worse for the West. If, on the other hand, more and more Muslims feel respected by the West and feel they benefit from involvement with it, that will cut support for radical Islam, and Westerners will be more secure from terrorism.”

Wright holds a cynical view of human morality.  He believes moral truth is nothing more than an evolved Darwinian advantage working through kin selection, based, when all is said and done, upon self interest alone.  So free will is a myth!  Good and evil?  Myths.  He views “intuitions” that lead us towards compassion and altruism as little more than reflexes encoded into our genes.  This is a quintessential secular humanist view, otherwise known as “reciprocal altruism.”   It denies religion except for an arguably useful role in indoctrinating (again, my word) via “emotional” inveiglement, so that the congregation can be brought to recognize the need to “expand their moral imagination” along the route predetermined by progressives (and evolution, aka, the mindless universe).  Humans can be perfected but we aren’t there yet; progressivism will lead to perfection if only we’d all (globally) get with the program.

In Wright’s view, America is not to blame for the 9/11 attacks, but there’s an “asterisk” to his statement.  He wrote an entire “online appendix” to further explain his point, which is basically that there’s no such thing as blame:  “In the Darwinian view, blame is a kind of epiphenomenon, a byproduct of core strategic calculations.”   Aren’t you rubes impressed with those big words?

His bottom line:  “America could serve its interests by doing fewer things that are perceived as arrogant,” so that’s what we should do.

You must read the entire essay to understand why I call his view cynical.  Again, be forewarned:  Wright has an irritating habit of making pronouncements like, “We tend to feel guiltier over minor slights we’ve committed against a high-status acquaintance than against a low-status acquaintance.”

Uh, no “we” don’t, Mr. Wright.  You may, but we all don’t.  Elites might, as well as those who believe that class divisions are the natural order, and thus they may then “normalize” such beliefs to the entire human race.  But that doesn’t make it so.  However, Wright’s belief about high-status versus low-status individuals must hold true, else his theory about the evolution of morality falls apart.

Wright’s solution for America after 9/11:     When we deal with other countries, especially those who hate us, American politicians must engage them in economic pursuits, so  that our fates are intertwined.  We must “respect” them and “be aware of the signals we’re sending out.” Americans must learn via expanding our moral imagination how to put ourselves in the Muslims’ shoes.  Wright believes, apparently, that Muslims who hate us do so because of our disrespect of them; they perceive that we disrespect them and want to “dominate” them.

Wright’s prescription for USING moral imagination: “Option one is the moral imagination template. Here you manage to relate to the perspective of [Muslims]who deem America arrogant, come to appreciate what a natural and thus powerful grievance this is from their point of view, and conclude that America would be wise to change its behavior.” [I substituted "Muslims" because it's more apt to his thesis and because, inexplicably, he used "flag burners" in his example.]

So what’s my point in boring you with all of this?  Read again the two quotes I cited from Barry’s Tucson speech and his Oslo speech.  Some, or all of the above, is echoed (some would say plagiarized) in Barry’s speeches, as well as seen in his behavior.  He believes this stuff!   This is

  • why he turns his back on our former allies;
  • why he kowtows to and tries to make sworn, unregenerate enemies into allies;
  • why he uses religious terms to emotionally inveigle (aka fool) religious people into believing that his policies are what Jesus would do;
  • why he goes out of his way to “respect” Muslims (as if his faith and personal history aren’t explanation enough);
  • why he turns a memorial service into a campaign rally with a theme of togetherness, with special meaning for those newcomer illegal aliens who simply crossed what should be an open border;
  • why he doesn’t seem to care if socialized medicine, cap and tax, or onerous business regulations damage our economy;
  • why he wants to unilaterally disarm us and share our defense technology;
  • why high unemployment in AMERICA is not a priority; but, above all,
  • why he tries so hard to cut America down to size.

This is why he and the rest of the NWO secular elites embrace the fallacy of “global warming” (currently “climate change”, but quickly evolving into “climate instability”, as myth collides with reality), because through this excuse, they can cripple our economy, redistribute our wealth and resources, and prevent us from becoming energy independent.

Why does our president want this country to be dependent (interdependent, co-dependent) on other countries, when it need not be so?  This POTUS uses every trick in the book, any excuse (global warming, pollution regulation, snails and owls and darters, oh, my!) to prevent development of OUR energy resources so that we MUST remain energy dependent and so that Muslim “allies” can continue to be profitable, to have a place in the global society, to be “respected.”  It’s probably also why he’s giving Muslims a place in our space program.  This is an elementary-school-style, self-esteem program, on steroids.

This POTUS actively seeks to MAKE us dependent upon other countries, instead of superior to and independent of them.  This is why “American Exceptionalism” is anathema to the man.

I never imagined that this post would become so long.  My apologies.  But what now?  I envision this as a place to document examples of the use of this concept, moral imagination, as well as the inevitable cynical attempts by progressives to use religion, especially Christianity, to further their secular progressive New World Order in the upcoming election.

More links where you can read about Robert Wright;  I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t one of Barry’s speechwriters:

http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wright_the_evolution_of_compassion.html

http://www.ted.com/speakers/robert_wright.html

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1902851,00.html

Note: To any who may wonder why I refer to the POTUS as Barry, it’s simple:  First, it’s his name.  Second, when he shows respect for We the People, his employers, then I shall call him Mr. Obama.  Until then, it’s Barry.

About these ads

105 responses to “What Exactly Is “Moral Imagination”?

  1. A relative of mine wrote one of his senators, asking the senator to vote against the Dream Act, when it was being considered during the lameduck session of Congress. He received a reply, after the Senate reconvened in January. I won’t reveal the name of the senator in question, in case this wasn’t a form letter written by a staff member. I don’t want to “out” my relative. Suffice it to say that the senator is one of the Democrats. Here’s the pertinent part of the letter, seeking to explain why this senator supports the Dream Act:

    My faith also played a big role in my decision. As a Christian, I found guidance in the Bible, which speaks of not penalizing children for the wrongdoing of their parents. Ezekial 18:20 reads: ‘The son shall not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.'”

    This senator purports to be Catholic, which should inform your analysis of the credibility of this blatant use of religion to further progressive ideology. Readers who are Catholic will be able to provide insight into the probability of this particular senator, who is also pro-choice, of course, citing the book of Ezekiel. Do note that even I know how to spell his name. Silly me; here I thought that progressives believed in “separation of church and state” and that they particularly became incensed when GWB cited his Christian faith and how it informed his policies. I thought Senators were supposed to be guided by the wishes of their constituents, not their own personal so-called beliefs. At least we should be gratified that the senator seems to admit that being an illegal alien is a sin, wicked, a crime, something that carries “guilt.”

    • Do you notice the inference one can draw from this insulting response? This progressive Democrat senator, a devout acolyte of He Who Speaks In Code, concludes that a constituent who wants to STOP illegal immigration, to seal the border, and to deny amnesty (backdoor or otherwise) that rewards illegal acts, ASSUMES that that constituent MUST BE a member of that class of rubes who cling to guns, religion (Christian right), and xenophobia. Therefore, to reach out to that constituent, to FOOL the constituent, and to use that constituent’s presumed beliefs against him, this senator deceitfully uses the language of evangelical Christianity, pretending that this is the reason for voting FOR the Dream Act, when in actuality the goal is to increase the number of voters for the NWO Marxist agenda.

      But, again, they think We the People are stupid, thus their transparent, patronizing, insulting way of speaking to us. This is a twofer for secular humanist Marxists–they can snark at our beliefs while at the same time think they’re putting one over on us.

  2. Your exposé is worthy of American Thinker! I didn’t hear Obama use the term moral imagination, but you certainly have provided the background for interpretation.

    Once again, the intelligence of Obama is questioned, and his lofty words are stolen. Moral imagination is not a term that is often used and it certainly isn’t one that is discussed at cocktail parties. Personally, I think it is about his paygrade. A person speaking at that evolved level of understanding wouldn’t say to Pres. Hu, “we want to buy your stuff.”

    Wright’s view that “Muslims who hate us do so because of our disrespect of them; they perceive that we disrespect them and want to ”dominate” them” is just his opinion. Isn’t it the other way around, their goal is to dominate us, and they disrespect us because they are being taught to do so. Since 9- 11, what have Muslims done to deserve our respect? They have done nothing to tap down the Islamic rhetoric against the west. They do not denounce those who falsely claim jihad is required in the Koran.

    They are the ones that have chosen their paths in their multiple third world countries. They are the ones that have remained tied to their religion and promote the use of jihad to prove their thoughts superior. Until they become enlightened and their behavior mirrors this century, they will get little respect from democratically enlightened countries.

    That Obama’s circle of vile miscreants try to cut America and her citizens down to size does not make them part of the elite that they aspire to emulate. Instead their actions show they are as lowly as the degenerates who rule over despotic third world countries.

    They haven’t risen above us, they are as stilted in thought as the barbarians they covet and think of as equal. They think in the collective, and the truly awakened believe in the individual.

    • Thanks, Bridgette. If not for 14 inches of snow that kept me housebound, I might not have finished this too LOOOOONG treatise. American Thinker? I’m American and I can think (I think), but I don’t know if I can run in those circles; but thanks for the compliment.

      At first, I thought that Barry simply echoes words that “sound good” to whatever audience he has at the moment (or his speechwriters do), but the more I read about this secular humanist cooption of the concept of moral imagination, the more I saw in his actions that he truly does seem to believe it. Or else his handlers do, which is more or less the same thing. THEY are committed to foisting the NWO upon We the People of these United States of America, whether we want it or not, no matter that we elect representatives so they will oppose it, and regardless of what we vehemently SAY and WRITE in opposition to it. No matter what our Constitution says about it, let me add.

      Virginia delegate (state rep.) Scott Lingamfelter wrote an email to his supporters in 2009, entitled “Obama Code: “The Continued Expansion of Our Moral Imagination”. He said, “It’s been hard to put my finger on it. During his campaign for the presidency, I was struck by the volume of empty rhetoric (now) President Barack Hussein Obama got away with without media scrutiny or press investigation. It really bothered me because the man clearly lacked a moral center on any number of issues. He would speak long lines of meaningless paddle while people and press alike marveled at the guy. I can’t honestly tell you how many folks I spoke to would say after hearing him speak ‘what did he just say?’ Now comes what I have been looking for; some indication, some glimpse inside why Obama thinks and says so much signifying so very little.”

      He mentioned how Obama quoted Kennedy, specifically his words about moral imagination. Then he wrote, “Morals are not something you ‘imagine’. … Indeed, morality is based on code of conduct, a set of beliefs that distinguish between right and wrong. And morals are not ‘expanded’, they are embraced, unless of course, you prefer to be unencumbered by those very rules, maybe setting for a ‘designer’ set more suited to your individual purposes.”

      Proving that there’s never an original thought, in this article that I hadn’t read until this morning, Lingamfelter does a far better job than I in summing up why Barry’s use of moral imagination makes me queasy about and outraged at his audicity.

      Lingamfelter wrote: “Deceitful liberal politicians in Washington use ‘moral imagination’ to justify spending our nation and our grand children into a legacy of life-long debt and ‘expanding’ government dependence that will lead to the socialist state they idealize and we reject. … And really, should we be surprised that Obama has such an ill-defined concept of moral development? After all, he doesn’t subscribe to the view that America is exceptional. To do so would be to acknowledge that this nation was founded on Christian principles—which he has publically rejected— and that those Christian principles have led to unparalleled tolerance for other faiths, respect for the dignity of mankind, and a commitment to freedom and justice for all. On the contrary, Obama spends most of his time abroad apologizing for us, possibly as he ponders ‘new morals’ that would be better for us than the ones that have governed right actions since Moses received the Ten Commandments. … If he can get the Nobel Peace Prize for simply showing up, who says he can’t create a new moral order?” http://citizentom.com/2009/12/11/moral-imagination/

      Where Lingamfelter and I diverge is that I believe that not only does Barry think he can create a new moral order, he thinks he can create a New World Order, imagined by, controlled by, and overseen by himself and his ilk–the GLOBAL ELITE.

      Citizen Tom, who wrote the article that brought Lingamfelter to my attention today, touches on that issue in his analysis of Barry’s beliefs and how they mold his actions as POTUS: “These are men and women who arrogantly believe they know the truth and have the right to impose this truth upon others.” I agree with both Lingamfelter and Citizen Tom, but they fail to make the explicit connection between Barry, the New World Order, and all of the forces behind it (Soros, our enemies, our economic competitors, among others) that are “nudging” us, against our will, into accepting it. Not to mention all their actions that seem designed specifically to “level” the United States, in the anthropological sense of leveling, which is, for want of a better word, bullying behavior that seeks to restrict ascendency (in other words, to bring the US down to the lowest common denominator, so we are no longer a superpower). Our leaders in Congress, most especially, must recognize and fight this infiltration of our society (academia, politics, elementary schools, some churches, the media) which has the ultimate goal of overthrowing our Republic in favor of a MARXIST world regime. This is what some, notably Joe McCarthy, feared from the communists in the ’50s; it’s come back in a new form in the 21st century.

      To win a war, one must first know who the enemy is.

    • Bridgette said, “Isn’t it the other way around, their goal is to dominate us, and they disrespect us because they are being taught to do so. Since 9- 11, what have Muslims done to deserve our respect? They have done nothing to tap down the Islamic rhetoric against the west. They do not denounce those who falsely claim jihad is required in the Koran.”

      Exactly, but this is the Blame America First Crowd. We’re the ones who must accomodate. Who must change OUR behavior, our way of speaking to them, when we’re the victims here. You have to wonder why they extend their moral imagination to enemies while at the same time they don’t do the same here at home, with We the People. Especially the Tea Partiers.

      Do you see them trying to put themselves in the shoes of the Tea Partiers? Trying to understand OUR grievances? Trying to show us RESPECT? No, indeedy. Quite the exact opposite. Why is that?

      Because for all their hoity-toity philosophy, their grandiose beliefs about man as a product of insensate evolution, and nothing more, this is simply a ploy. A way to rationalize what they’re doing and to hide why they’re doing it–to impose the NWO, and for no other reason at all.

      I’m not saying that Mr. Wright or any others I cited have that as a goal, but I am saying that their ideas are being USED to promote that end.

      What they do believe, unfortunately, is that religious people are simply WRONG. Their beliefs are nothing more than the supersitions of ignorant folk. Progressives are the intelligent, rational ones, who KNOW what’s best for the rest of us. We NEED to be led, like lemmings if necessary, by coopting religion and our own religious leaders to nudge us along.

      They truly do believe, apparently, that man is perfectable. That there IS no such thing as evil. That there is, conversely, no such thing as virtue. In their view, virtue is nothing more than disguised self-interest.

      I believe they are wrong. They believe I am wrong. However, they do NOT believe that I have a right to respect for my beliefs. They will NOT tolerate them. It’s their way or the highway. This is why it’s so easy for someone like Rep. Cohen to equate anyone who opposes the progressive agenda with Goebbels. He believes it. He believes we are that bad. That’s how much they hate us and what we believe.

      Their moral imagination does mean that they want to imagine a NEW morality. A SECULAR one, where NOBODY makes judgments about right or wrong, not even God. They are atheists, plain and simple. They believe that atheism is the ONLY rational way to think. Therefore, if someone believes in God, that person is IRRATIONAL by definition. If someone doesn’t believe as they do, that person is IRRATIONAL by definition. In other words, STUPID. And a stupid person must be saved from himself, against his own will, if necessary.

    • doesn’t the Alinsky method come to mind. That was it played out so scenically.

  3. Miri, good post. Funny I was researching last night and came across this name – Rev Chas. E. Coughlin, turns out he a was a controversial Roman Catholic priest at Royal Oak, Michigan’s National Shrine of the Little Flower Church during the 1930s. He founded the National Union for Social Justice (NUSJ), a nationalistic worker’s rights organization.

    More @ below on Chas. E. Coughlin on wiki –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_for_Social_Justice

    • I was surprised to find he is also listed on the Social Security Online site under history –
      http://www.ssa.gov/history/fcspeech.html

      • “Two years hence it [Democrats/progressives] will leave the courtroom of public opinion vindicated and with a new lease on life, or will be condemned to political death if it fails to answer the simple question of why there is want in the midst of plenty.”

        Yes, the question remains ..why the Democrats want in the midst of PLENTY. Their policies and attitudes created most of the entitlements that the nation now relies upon, and instead of teaching self reliance they helped to create the very groups that can’t stand up for themselves. Forever they will want, for the Democrats NEED them to want. Just like Rev. Jessee Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, NAACP, and the unions, they NEED people to stay racist, to remain impoverished, and uneducated, and to believe they can’t do anything for themselves. For if their followers rose up and called them on their greedy game and their deceitful ways, these people and organizations would become totally irrelevant and useless. They don’t lift people up, they keep them down INTENTIONALLY. Let them become irrelevant!

        • AMEN TO THAT! They do need dependent, aggrieved people so they can victimize them. Let’s hope they do get “condemned to political death.” Gee, can he say that? That sounds like violent rhetoric to me.

        • yes Bridgett, and its the same methods, whether it is the south side of Chicago, the ghettos here as it is in Haiti right now. It saddens me that I don’t know what to set in motion to make it change. But it makes you realize what leeches these people are that will keep the weakest weak. True scumbags .

    • Thanks, Leza. I was afraid nobody would read this! I really am sorry it turned out to be such a treatise.

      Social justice religious leaders. Yep, there are a lot of them! The Roman Catholic church had a bunch of “liberation theology” acolytes (like “Rev.” Wright) a few decades ago, in Central/South America but Pope John Paul II put an end to that, which explains why so many progressives didn’t like him and continue to attack him. God rest his soul.

      After 2004, I do believe that the Dems. went on a fervent crusade to coopt religious leaders, especially evangelicals, for votes. But remember, too, that SADOS and her parents attended the “Little Red Church” in Seattle, so named because it had a communist agenda. So this is really nothing very new.

      • You’re right, a crusade but it shouldn’t be a suprise . If you go to Gamaliel’s home page, its dripping with religiosity meshed social justice in all it’s glory. Here is an old site that’s a treat. It is worth looking thru. Then go yourself to Gamaliels home page. C:\Documents and Settings\Roach\My Documents\I Went Looking For Valerie And Found Gamaliel… Logistics Monster.mht

  4. I didn’t read Obama’s speech nor did I hear him talking about moral imagination. I would have questioned those words also, as the Left does use coded words. If they didn’t, they couldn’t make themselves different nor could they feel so superior. They also didn’t want their real anti-American, unlawful, radical, communist agenda known, so it was best to keep it and themselves under the radar. We have let the sunshine in and every little code that is exposed adds to our knowledge about these despicable creeps. We have only started decoding their revolutionary/radical messages.

    A couple years ago would we have noticed all the symbolism they use to get their wicked messages out? The Acorn cookies served at the White House, Michelle’s blatant use of red and black dresses, flying the Chinese flag over the White House, and the Mao Christmas bulb come to mind. Would we have been aware of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and how they are implemented and used? Even the use of the word global now has significance. NWO was a conspiracy theory and now we see it operating.

    If there is one thing good about Obama being elected it was to expose all of the corruption and the “people shuffle” among like-minded radical organizations, and the multiple scams that have been perpetuated upon all citizens. Would we have known that our schools and our children were being taught revised history according to the progressives viewpoint? Would we have known how the Communist Goals and the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals are so alike? Would we have known about George Soros and his 500+ organizations that were created to destroy the US? Would we have needed the Tea Party? Yes, God gave us Obama to get “our house” back in order. And that we are doing. Our baby steps have turned into giant steps!

    • How I do hope that our knowing what they are doing translates into more people knowing. With the lamestream media, it’s hardly likely. This is why they try so hard, at every opportunity, to gain control over the Internet, talk radio, “fair and balanced” TV programs. Like cockroaches, they can’t stand the light.

      It has become apparent to many of us, over these past few years, that Barry was tapped for this role specifically for his symbolic value, his ability to read TOTUS, and also for his community organizing skills, which seem to be the only skill he has. He’s community organizing the progressive army. And in those WH meetings, he’s leaning on, I mean, community organizing tribes, religious leaders, business leaders, etc. This is a huge machine, long in the making, now set into motion. Can we stop it?

  5. I used to be an a member of the American Lutheran Church and got a National Council Of Churches magazine because the American Lutheran Church was a member. MY mom called it the “National Council Of Churches Communist Propaganda Magazine,” and got a kick out of reading various articles out loud as I tried to watch TV. She was a John Birch-er, so I tried to ignore her even though I knew she was right. She was too dogmatic and she was bothering me.

    Oh, if only she were well enough to bother me with her political diatribes now..

  6. What is moral imagination? Maybe it is the act of fantasizing. Who can tell? Moral Relativism? Universism? Emotivism? The list is longer than my wife’s cloths line. Finally I found: “Awakening the Moral Imagination: Teaching Virtues Through Fairy Tales.”

    Maybe moral imagination is just that, fairy tales. Didn’t Bill Clinton mention something about Obama’s image being a “fairy tale”?

    “You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. There’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

    I think I will stick with the Moral Code found in the Holy Bible @ Exodus 20: that left nothing up to the imagination of worldly men, especially the immoral imagination of a Marxist disciple.

    Adolph Hitler, the socialist, was a man with his own brand of “moral imagination”. He “imagined” himself to be the modern day Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. “Seig und Heil” the Nazi salute meaning “Victory and Salvation”.

    Benito Mussolini, the fascist, “imagined” himself to be the modern day Caesar of the Roman Empire.

    “Therefore, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Caesar, at that time Tiberius, was the most vile, most perverted, and one of the most hated Emperor’s in the histoy of Rome. That is what the socialist man with the moral imagination of a worm would try and have us believe is representative of the character of Christ and the Young Christian church.

    • His entire life is a fairy tale. Whoops. I didn’t mean the double meaning when I wrote it, but …

      The way I understand it, moral imagination used to be, basically, the Golden Rule and every way that it was expressed in art, literature, poetry, fables, myths. Ways to imagine morality and pass it down to children, as in parables, etc.

      But Barry and his ilk corrupt the concept, as they corrupt all, and turn it to their own uses. Thus he uses this false parable of himself as messiah, global citizen, to promote the commie NWO. When you bring up Hitler, Mussolini, especially Tiberius Caesar, you got it!

      • ah yes , fairy Tales, moral imagination, the Golden Rule….be careful though, this is how deceitful words can be,,,, the Golden Rule…..is equivilent to the Golden Mean….and art and fairly tales are symbiotic, but this derives itself from mysticism. Good and Evil are always intertwined. Then imagination can become immoral ,rather having the ability to use sound judgement . SCratch all of that hogwash…I just said, where is Lewis Carroll when you need him.

  7. Miri, I intended to say how much I liked your article but my mad thoughts outran my other thoughts. You are right, Obama speaks so many words, yet says so very little. At least very little that is worthwhile.

    • Thanks, skeeter. I appreciate it. If you do notice any examples of progressives speaking in code (meaning talking like religious Christian conservatives), please come back here to this thread to catalog it. Just this morning, I read about how MLK’s daughter decided against heading up the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Here’s the interesting thing: I didn’t know that there’s a National HISPANIC Christian Leadership Conference. These conferences work together to “launch initiatives.” I know not much about either organization, but dollars to doughnuts, they are community organized by the Organizer in Chief and they DO work to lauch initiatives to support his progressive causes, especially social justice, reparations, and redistribution of America’s wealth to the “oppressed” persons of color.

    • I tend to think of the term moral imagination as akin to the period of enlightenment.

  8. Will do. I do recall, 2-3 years ago, there was a long article about one of the largest and fastest growing “christian” groups in the US–I don’t know whether to call it a denomination, church, organization or what. It was Pentecostal and it was hispanic, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. OOOOOOOPS! Make that 18,000,000 , nationally. They are the National HISPANIC Christian Leadership Conference. They seem to be a potpourri of dems/repubs. Maybe they will surprise us.

    http://hispanic.cc/hispanics_increasingly_drawn_to_pentecostal_church.htm

    They go under Assemblies of God. Claim a membership of 63,000,000 world wide. Pentecostal had its beginning in 1906, in Azusa California, by William Joseph Seymour, a former slave from Louisiana, and Charles Fox Parham. Hey, this is really an interesting read:

    http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/library/asusa_street_revival.htm

    I went to a Pentecostal church a couple of times when I was a kid with two of my friends who were the preachers sons, but they scared me when they talked in “tongues” so I didn’t go back, even though I sort of liked being scared :). I mean in the mid 1940s, anything for entertainment.

    • It’s surprising to me the number of Hispanics who left the Catholic church. I do think this was the result of a deliberate outreach to them from some of those “social justice” progressive churches. Evangelicals do tend towards the conservative side, but that’s exactly why they’re targeted (can I say that?) by left-leaning, more activist sects of some Christian denominations. It’s always irritated me that there’s a double standard with regard to churches, supposedly not being able to engage in political speech or activities, or else they SHOULD lose their not-for-profit status and have to pay taxes like the rest of us. “White” churches are held to a high standard on this; the IRS and other government entities (as well as “separation of church and state” people like the ACLU) look the other way when black churches, and now probably Hispanic churches, actively stump for progressive, mostly DEMOCRATIC candidates. The race card always comes in handy.

      See, here ya go: “The Assemblies of God pastor is also president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, an advocacy group that serves 18 million evangelical Hispanics. … Rodriguez described his group as having the conservative theology of Billy Graham with Martin Luther King Jr.’s commitment to social justice issues. … An estimated 1.3 million Hispanic Catholics have joined Pentecostal congregations since immigrating to the United States. … Rodriguez loves to preach but admits that most of his time is spent running the advocacy group. As president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Rodriguez speaks out on topics important to Hispanics, such as immigration. His group is against illegal immigration but believes the issue should be dealt with more compassionately and that churches should play a bigger role.”

      Let me guess: They should “expand their moral imagination” and put themselves in the “newcomers” shoes and have “empathy” and “respect” and it’s up to the preachers to use “emotion” to promote this idea amongst the congregation (while activists groups make sure the newcomers get all sorts of free goodies, courtesy of grants from the US taxpayer).

    • Once I went to a Pentecostal church in TX (5,000+/- people) with my friend who was the wife of a Pentecostal minister in Ohio. She had begged me to go multiple times and I refused. I finally gave in. In the sermon, the minister was demonizing sex of all things. I remember looking around and thinking how did all of you people get here if sex wasn’t involved! He wasn’t talking about premarital sex or teenage sex for that I would have understood. I was awe struck. Then they started the prayer, and then people all around me were waving their hands in the air, swaying, and speaking gobbley gook. Yes, I had opened my eyes to look around. I thought I was surrounded by insane people. My first reaction was to be frozen in place, and my second was to flee. I saw them as a cult of some kind, and I wanted out. The service ended right after that prayer as I sped quickly for the door with my friend trying to comfort me. That was my first and last time to attend that church. People can believe whatever they want to believe, that is surely their choice. That church would never be my choice ever. never.

      That story reminds me of Obama being questioned about why he would be in a church that spouted inflammatory language like Rev. Wright does. He said he never heard him. I guess that immediate reaction of fleeing (like I did) never hit Obama during those 20 years, so he had to agree with the sermons and their doctrine. That the Marxists co-opted different denominational churches and added their Black Theological spin to its Christian doctrine was intentional. Do you know of any other Christian churches that see “Whites as Enemies” or where “Whites should be killed?” It makes perfect sense to me when Obama saw those that opposed him as enemies…that is called transference. It is what he heard for 20 years. That is pure hatred…straight up! ( That’s a take off on that leftist B-movie actress)

      • “How did all of you people get here if sex wasn’t involved.” Now that’s funny! Good question.

        I’ve always wondered about people who “trance” and speak in tongues, like the Pentecostals. It would be interesting to know what’s going on in their brains. Is it acting? Mass hysteria? Mass hypnosis? If it’s a religious experience, what exactly is the point? I’m not trying to offend anyone who’s Pentecostal but I truly am curious about it. I don’t think the people are acting.

        We used to uncharitably call them “Holy Rollers.” When I was a kid, sometimes they’d come around, like a traveling circus, put up a tent on vacant ground and hold “revivals.” Some kids (mostly the boys) from the neighborhood would sneak out there and look under the tent. They’d come back to tell us stories of people rolling in the aisles, like John Belushi in The Blues Brothers. I played softball with some girls who were Pentecostals. The league had to make an exception so they could play in their long skirts and long-sleeved shirts. They weren’t allowed to wear shorts like the rest of us. They always looked so hot. (We looked “hot”, too, but in a totally different way!) They also couldn’t cut their hair so when the rest of us had “fashionable” short bobs, flips, or bubble hairdos (remember that?), they wore very long ponytails. They were nice girls, but their parents were weird. Stern. Not talkative.

  9. that was good miri, Once read a great google book written by a protestant missionary in Africa. Just sort of a historical diary. I always wanted to remember a paragraph or two in which she explained liberation theology as it related to the catholic church and how and when the change evolved in Africa, really to enhance the church’s numbers and and appeal to the africans. What I wish I could remember was how she explained the difference in the anthropologist’s understanding as opposed to her interpretation was execellent. Too bad I can’t repeat it. Any way just as that change was taking place in Africa it took off in the catholic venues of Central and South America, then slowly evolved into many Christian avenues. Along with it was the new zeal for social justice.The catholic church can be responsible for Liberation theolgy. The Catholic church has been responsible for just about every break down or schism you can think of in my view of course. Not catholic people but the Church itself. Really, if you think about it progressives and the like are happy to attach their support for anything that amalgamates, consolidated, or homogenises denominations all under the guise of brotherly love and christian values, but what better way to weaken the real CHURH, that is the body of christ ,than to homogenize it, liquidate it and call SoCIAL Justice the one real body of Christ. Don’t you see what is happening everywhere. The so called social justice of today is the replacement for the real church. The social justice theology,will replace our true value and we will all be just a bunch of do gooders and we can pat ourselves on the back and feel good. The progressives couldn’t be more pleased. Look at people like Nancy Pelozi, Bill O reilly. They use the church to back up their values when it behooves them giving themselves a sense of righteousness . The first signs I say that things are twisted. Woooooo sorry went off on some tangent.I’ll stop. Looking at the beautiful snow blizzard we are getting.

    • Thanks, alfy. You weren’t off on a tangent. You were right on point! That was what I was trying to convey. How progressives like Pelosi and Barry USE the rhetoric of religion (whichever suits) as CODE to make people think, “They’re like us. Barry is one of us.”

      Long ago, it seems ages now but it can’t be much more than two years, when Barry first came on the scene, neurolinguistic programming was brought up frequently to explain how so many people went gaga over him. As Lingamfelter asked, why were people so entranced by him when he basically said nothing? If you simply read his speeches, parsing the sentences, they read like so much blather. They say nothing. In fact, some of the sentences are laughable in their inanity.

      But they’re linguistic symbols. They are meant to connect with people on an emotional level, NOT on a rational, logical level, so it doesn’t matter that they don’t mean anything. They SOUND good on a gut level. He’s PROGRAMMING people. It’s PROPAGANDA. He and his speechwriters know what’s going on. It’s what they do. It’s their intent. He’s a persuasive speaker, along the line of far too many charlatans. Compare him to Jim Baker or Ernest Angley. For that matter, Jim Jones. (In no way do I mean to disparage the first two men; I add them only as example of persuasive, charismatic speakers who attract fervent followers. Jones? Say no more.)

      We discussed, somewhere long ago, exactly WHY Barry cocks his head when he’s cajoling someone like Bill O’Reilly and why he reaches out to touch his knee. Body language is employed, too. Whether he’s trained in these tactics, as Dean M. believes (Dean is a sometime commenter, who believes Barry was CIA) or whether he came by them naturally out of need (a neglected, possibly abused child often needs such skills to survive), it doesn’t really matter. Either he’s the master, or he’s the puppet and some other master is pulling his strings. The end result is the same.

      As someone who was raised Catholic, I will respectfully disagree with your premise that the Catholic Church has been responsible for “every break down or schism.” Yes, liberation theology was a huge mistake, as only a Pope like John Paul II, who knew Nazis and Communists too well, could fully recognize. The Catholic Church, like every human institution, is not perfect. It’s huge, which means that many of its “factions” can in some ways go their separate ways. I attribute liberation theology to too many 60’s counterculture-minded people entering the priesthood in the USA.

      In the same way, and I don’t mean to offend, the pedophilia problem in the church has to do with a plan, mostly in the US, to actively recruit homosexuals into the priesthood. Around the same time as liberation theology was taking hold, Church leaders believed that so long as a man took a vow of celibacy, it didn’t matter what his sexual orientation was. There was a problem with heterosexual priests dilly-dallying with female congregants, fathering children, breaking up marriages. The leaders falsely believed that heterosexuals were more strongly tempted to break their vow of celibacy. Big mistake.

      For those who insist that the sexual abuse problem is not a problem of homosexuality and IS a problem of pedophilia, look at the sex of the abused and look at the typical age of the abused; these were not pre-pubescent children, or females, for the most part. They were underaged, surely, but most were post-pubescent teens and many had “recovered memories” of the abuse, more and more often once the Church began to pay up.

      I point this out because it’s true; gay activists, especially, deny and hide these facts, pressuring the complicit media to refer to it as “child abuse” or “pedophilia”, because the gay community hates the Catholic Church and they don’t want to focus on the sexual orientation of the offenders, for obvious reasons. They hate the Catholic church because of its stance on homosexuality. They use the “child abuse” issue to beat the Church over the head and to damage its reputation as well as its finances. This is because the Church believes that homosexuality is a sin. The progressive, lamestream media, likewise, hate the Catholic Church for its stance on homosexuality but also because of its anti-abortion stance.

      It would seem to be cognitive dissonance: Why would they recruit homosexuals as priests if they believe homosexuality is a sin? The answer is because they hate the sin but not the sinner. They believed that by making them priests, they would be saving them, removing them from temptation, helping them to not sin, while at the same time lessening the problem of heterosexual priest breaking their vows with women. btw, when a priest had a child, then the Church supported the child, a crass rationale to want to reduce the number of such children, but it makes a certain kind of sense.

      This isn’t to say that I believe that the priests who had sex with MINORS should get off. They should have been prosecuted and sent to jail, as would any other adult who had sex with a minor. They should have gotten the maximum sentence, too, because it was a violation of their position of authority, the same way teachers are held to a higher standard.

      Church leaders should have simply reported the offenders to the police. If you notice, in most cases, the victims did not report the incident to the police, either. But the Church also thought they could “reform” the offenders, so they moved them to places where they thought they could be reformed and they paid settlements to victims. In some instances, even when there wasn’t enough evidence for charges to be pressed or for the story to be believable.

      They did this out of compassion for the victims, in some cases, because they believed that even if the abuse didn’t happen, the victim believed that it did, so to help the victim recover, they paid the settlement so the person didn’t have to go through the stress of a trial. But they also did this in cases that they believed were unfounded, because the media and gay activist groups (look at the makeup of SNAP) excoriated them in news stories, saying that by disputing the accusation, they were causing more pain to the victims, doubly abusing them.

      So accused priests were guilty until proven innocent, but they weren’t allowed to prove their innocence, because if they disputed the accusation, the media wrote stories along the lines of, “How DARE he? How dare the Church?”

      You can believe me or not. I’m simply telling it the way I saw it. It may sound specious to you that the Church would act this way, but believe me, it’s right in character. In many cases, these people are extremely naive. In some ways, they’re like RINOs. Those guys who don’t have a CLUE how to stand up to the media, like people like Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani do. Like too many RINOs (McCain comes to mind)–when the media goes into attack mode, they cave.

      The Church had no clue that by paying off some questionable victims, the effect would snowball and “victims” would come running from everywhere. Naive, as I said. Human nature should have given them a clue. Remember the childcare sex abuse scandals? They snowballed, too. Only years later, after people’s lives were ruined, did the truth come out that the abuse didn’t happen. It’s the same with the priest “child abuse” issue. It snowballed, and it goes on today. Overseas, now. Where now NUNS are being accused. Where SNAP, like ACORN, has gone international. Some cases were legitimate. Those offenders should have had the book thrown at them. But every progressive activist and every “journalist” with a grudge against the Catholic Church smelled blood in the water. They treat the Catholic Church like they do Sarah Palin. Don’t believe everything you read in the paper or see on TV news.

      So now I’ve gone off on a tangent! :)

      • Miri, you said above:
        Long ago, it seems ages now but it can’t be much more than two years, when Barry first came on the scene, neurolinguistic programming was brought up frequently to explain how so many people went gaga over him. As Lingamfelter asked, why were people so entranced by him when he basically said nothing? If you simply read his speeches, parsing the sentences, they read like so much blather. They say nothing. In fact, some of the sentences are laughable in their inanity.

        But they’re linguistic symbols. They are meant to connect with people on an emotional level, NOT on a rational, logical level, so it doesn’t matter that they don’t mean anything. They SOUND good on a gut level. He’s PROGRAMMING people. It’s PROPAGANDA. He and his speechwriters know what’s going on. It’s what they do.

        BINGO Miri.

        • some may not care for webster Tarpley, but in his “unauthorized biography of Barak Obama” ,Renee , he speaks to this issue of how He and Michelle speak from the term you used Renee , from the GUT; it’s a special Fascist’s linguistics if you will. Tarpley’s take on them in this area keeps coming to mind as you all are talking about it. It’s in the biography probably into page 200 or so. It is worth reading.

      • yeah , but I was getting preachy saying do”don’t you see what is happening,as it seems you folks do get it, probably in verbal context much better than I. Thanks anyway.

        • Renee, just noticed your mention of Scott lefforge and yes exactly and his focus in his writings were on ” CHANGE” ! yikes

      • Will neurolinguistic programming work its magic once again in 2012? I don’t think so. They can’t seem to fill up the chairs in the speeches he has given in the last six months. The cameras never pan the audiences anymore to show the weak attendance, yet the word leaks out. Unfortunately, the word leaks is exactly how the word has reached the masses about Obama’s Marxist/communist policies. It is still leaking and we need a flood!

        How did they get all those students to attend a memorial service? Freebies offered.. T Shirts! Did the Obama obots send out emails to all their pals at the university and tell them to come see the president and get a free T shirt? I doubt it was an email saying, “Please come to the auditorium to pay your respects for the dead and wounded people of Tucson that were killed by a Marxist doped up former leftist student that was kicked out of school. Proper attire required. “

        • Miri, I read before on Scientology when writing on L. Ron Hubbard. They have this e meter thing that is freaky. They compare it to a drug.
          It gets” happy” going in your brain. It uses some sort of system. Sounds like mental control also.

          • Scientology engineers manufactured a similar type of E-meter device, and this began usage in the movement in 1958. The version of the E-meter developed by Joe Wallis and Don Breeding was powered by a battery and was smaller than Mathison’s device. This device was called the “Hubbard electrometer”, and was seen as a necessary part of the Scientology practice of “Auditing”. In 1966, Hubbard received a patent in the United States for a “Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in Resistance of a Living Body”

          • is it like some sort of radio waves, or electric nueron stimulator or what. How does it work. Been meaning to read on Scientology. Was that why Tom Cruise was so happy and standing on chairs and stuff on Opra that time? I know he is a scientologist.

            • What I don’t get is why they make such a big deal of Cruise standing on Oprah’s couch. Is it discrimination on account of his quasi-religion? I have no problem with Scientologists, unless they’re bugging me on the street to take a personality test. Then I just tell them I don’t have a personality, and move on. But still, nobody similarly and repeatedly attacks Drew Barrymore when she did far worse: She stood up on David Letterman’s desk and flashed him. Remember? Flipped up her shirt to show him her boobs. Do you hear that brought up EVERY time anybody mentions her name? No. I like Drew and I like Tom, so why the double standard? I like John Travolta, too. Who cares what they believe, so long as they’re not infringing on other people’s freedom? btw, Oprah has Travolta on her show, too. Is Oprah a Scientologist? Just curious. I saw that her new TV network isn’t doing very well. Look to see her back on network TV, in a new incarnation.

          • It is called dianetics and it describes a relationship between the mind and body metaphysically.

          • The e meter sounds like electrical therapy to me. L Ron and group were very odd and had odd connections.

          • What, like shock treatments? A lesser version of the same thing?

      • Tangent Wangent, It made me think anyway… Whew ,though don’t get me started .I would take issue with a few things you said, but my memory is too short and besides when it comes to the church and it’s homo, phedo tendencies I probably wouldn’t really know what I was talking about. But one little thing. I think you just gave the Catholic church too much credit for thinking it brings in homo priests to protect them from their sins. Heavens no…the C. Church has always been about power and claiming itself Christian since the time of Constantine. It doesn’t care about protection of anything but it’s power. It has it’s own set of laws, the cannons and those priests are married to the church and it’s hierarchy .While there has been good and bad in Catholicism’s history I think we should all study it and see how it made and transformed itself and some of it’s wicked power it has demonstrated over it’s lifetime. The church itself is strife with the symbolic pagan demons of the past, so it is no wonder the perversions we outwardly see today are a symptom of something with much more breadth and depth than I can fathom. My sister inlaw is Catholic and she agrees, so hope I am not offending anyone. Any religion can have their fallacies so If I have an opinion it is only that.

        • You’re entitled to your opinion, alfy, but the way you put it does come out more offensive than thought provoking. You can’t paint with such a broad brush. To suggest that the Church founded by Christ is not Christian is, well, silly. I dare say that having spent 13 years in Catholic schools, I’ve “studied” the Church more than you have. Since all churches are made up of imperfect human beings, it’s not likely that any church is free from the sins to which all humans are prone. Can you name a church that better meets your criteria? Study up on all the good that the Catholic Church does through Catholic Charities.

          • Miri, 8yrs in Christian Schools >me< :-)

            My mother was Catholic, so I can understand the points both you and Alfy are trying to make.

            Great discussion on this thread!

            Alfy, it's great to see you open up in discussion and allow us in! Im glad your here. Skeeter that goes for you also!

          • You answered your own statement, Catholic church founded on the proclomation to be founded by Christ……Not…….. First fallacy of the premise of The catholic . I

          • lets converge on the last of your statement that the catholic church has done much good all over this world. You are right. Lets leave it at that. That is a good broad statement.

            • It also happens to be true. In addition, I qualified what you term a broad statement. I said it does much good through Catholic Charities.

          • Let’s see just what should I say. Well, I haven’t taken offense at anything posted about pentecostal holy blabbers , which I could be one , or any other preponderances or observations of faiths that other people have discussed here . I didn’t mean to upset the moral imagination thread. Let’s see ,having been christined in the episcopal church, growing up in every kind of church in my neck of the woods, from pres, methodist ,Loads of em , babtised twice in two different Babtist churhes(guess the first one didn’t take) , getten saved at a holy roller revival on salvation, spending most my teen years in every youth church organization of all denominations, (as teens we weren’t concerned what denomination we were),going to the Lutheran church with my girlfriend almost every sunday in my later teen life. My college girlfriends father was a bishop of the Episcopal church , while my parents ,still members of that denomination broke away in the 1970’s when the prayer books were changing and they were giving money to the Black Panther organizations and all that sort of thing. My father and another man built a church for the New Anglican Orthodox Episcopal church. At the same time my father attended most all the Babtist churches all over. He didn’t hide the fact that he wasn’t too hip to the formalities of the Episcopal church. Many friends were catholic but didn’t attend many till my Brother married one. Studied religion in college spent a little time in Jewish synagogue. Then low and behold I marry a follower of Guru Maharaji, the follower of some eleven year old guru that came here in the 60’s, and my husbands brother was part of this commune and official religion. Maharaji was just like Mohammad , a modern day incarnation of Jesus Christ and my brother inlaw believed in obeying his commandment to share “satsan” with me, to the unbeliever that I was.This group was called the “Divive Light Mission” My husband had come back from the service in Hawaii and joined this group and spent weeks in the mountains of Colorado with this cult.This group started when the Beatles brought some of these people to the states. Anyway ,my husband, but not his brother, slowly came back around, but not without an imprint that it has left on him to this day. But , I think this is the first time I had to really come to a reality check about what was this thing , religion. I was being bombarded constantly from my husbands brother with a new dialogue about God. Well , anyway to make this shorter I did alot of searching , reading. It made me look at what had I learned and what had really soaked in all the years I thought I was a CHRISTIAN. Well,I am still learning 40 or so years later. Of course I think I left out all the Pentecostal churhes I went to. Have many Charismatic friends, Catholic friends. There’s a small Islamic group in my area and , funny , their children go to the catholic schools here and the church for functions. The most prominent source for the seed (if yu will) of my faith is my grandfather though. He was born in late 1800’s .He is the only Saint that I am aware of . He learned to read by reading the bible. He was never an ordained minister, but it didn’t seem to matter. He was an interem preacher for many churches mostly babtist but many other denominations of the christian faith.everywhere. He helped to start many churches. The coolest thing is the black churches asked him to preach in their churches as well. He preached when he was younger at all the black “tent meetings” and revivals and guess what. He didn’t preach like the mythical fire and brimstone holy roller that everyone depicts a Babtist preacher to preach. In his later years, I saw him preach at a few Ribbon cuttings for churches as paying tribute to him. There are a few later tapes of some of his sweet sermons. In his later years, I would read for him the Bible as that was a pass time for him. Well, not much sooner than I would start, I could just put the book down, because he would just continue it without me, word for word. All the children were drawn to him, as they passed his house from school in the afternoon. Some one will tell me sometimes,they remember a poem my grandfather taught them as a child. He walked everywhere to visit the sick and the poor with his cane. My father was the baby of 14 of his children, and so my grandfather just called everyone son or daughter, because not only was there a house full of his children but all the rest of the neighborhood were his as well. I can hardly tell you a scripture that he quoted but it was the love and happiness and smile he spoke it with that will remain as my witness to how much love and grace and happiness comes from understanding the word.

        • All of the churches have good and bad. Just like the people in them. Unfortunately, they are sometimes used in corruption, politics, greed and other unsavory things. We all know that. I never trash any religion because their basics are usually based on good intentions, but we know too about those paved roads. I think with the up and coming wiki leaks we will see alot of negative focus on the Catholic church. You must take the information with a grain of salt and remember that if one were to focus on ANY religion there would be troubling and sad parts. We may have to focus a bit of light on all religions to balance it out. There are alot of good leaders and people in all of the churches. The good should not suffer for the other less honorable ones we have read about and will always read about.

  10. By Steve Cooper
    The Conservative Monster.com

    I guess being the leader of the ANTI-BIRTHER movement has burned Glenn? His fans that can think for themselves left when they saw him defend the Usurper, rather than Question with Boldness. Beck used Alinsky tactics against his own fans for asking if their president was eligible to be in office.

    He is a disgrace and I would not watch his show if it was the last one on FOX. That loser Shepard Smith even beat him…..

    Drudge Report.com

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    THURS. JAN. 20, 2011

    FOXNEWS O’REILLY 2,918,000
    FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,079,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 1,940,000
    FOXNEWS SHEP 1,786,000
    FOXNEWS BECK 1,780,000
    FOXNEWS GRETA 1,460,000

    And apologies if you already wrote about this weeks ago!

    • I can’t think of anybody that has put more information out to the public about the people surrounding Obama besides Beck. Getting on the bash Beck parade is ridiculous. The reason people got angry was he isn’t allowed to mention that Obama is not an NBC. (The CWers and CM – both saying, “He is a disgrace”.) Basically they want someone, anyone to stand up and tell the truth! Some tried when Obama was a fresh face and they got nowhere. Now people are listening! We are in this together ..why Bash those that are doing it in their own way? It makes no sense.

      He has done far more for the country than anyone else I know because he had a forum! If it weren’t for him, many of the connections we know about from blogs, the majority of the public wouldn’t know. He has a boss too who might be inhibiting him. Glenn is telling people other things they need to know that go further than just Obama. He has named the enemies..the progressives, George Soros, Unions, etc. He has shown how they all connect. If fools want to remove one of the only voices we have in the media then they aren’t seeing the whole picture. Instead of blaming him, praise him. People associate thugs with thugs, criminals with criminals..and Obama is surrounded by them. It is just another way of outing Obama as a Marxist, communist, and enemy. Beck got the audience and showed the connections in a way people understood. Rush, Hannity, and Levin were saying it too. All together they were a formidable group telling the truth against the Soros machine. Look how the worm has turned against him in 2 years! Normal people with values do understand associations. Associate with the wrong kind of people and you are branded. People know this from their own lives. Obama is getting branded!

      We have had all the major networks against right thinkers and talkers as well as most of the major newspapers. Yet, there was a breakthrough of their nonsense and lack of reporting..the public has gotten the message. They proved it in November. Don’t kill one of the messengers. Would you rather have Olberman in his place? He is looking for a job now, you know.

      • Bridgett , I agree with you, although I have had my questions regarding trusting all his motives. This is not to say he isn’t to be trusted , I am saying I have come to realize we must not put our faith in anything without having our faith in the Omnipitant God first, and not to be decieved if we can help it by any one or anything. It should go without saying but it has to be said….that THe DEVIL,The boogy man , the deciever, what ever anyone calls him, is playing hardball, and his greatest triumphs are using good souls to do his dirty work, and that the devil doesn’t dally long or hang out with bad guys; no need to and there’s not vicory there. His greatest triumphs and trophies are the cream of the crop churches and good men. That is where the devel likes to see his best work performed. So that is why we have to be discerning everything and not to trust that Glen Beck or any other well meaning person is going to anwer all our prayers . Really ,I’m off to the kitchen for something soothing.

      • I agree about Beck. He has bigger fish to fry. We shouldn’t cut off our noses to spite our faces. He’s doing his thing and we’re doing ours. Same for Limbaugh. The good they do far outweighs the “bad”. They’re not going to stick their necks out and destroy themselves and their ability to reach people by falling for what MIGHT BE a trap. I’m not saying it is, but they’re afraid it may be. Like good lawyers, never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. Given that NOBODY KNOWS THE TRUTH ABOUT BARRY’S BIRTH, they’re taking the best route they think is right for themselves and their ability to keep shining the light on the cockroaches.

  11. Miri was reading your s. In reference to Obamas style of lingquistic neuro….somthing or other.. you have it pretty right on. It is noticeable,the simplistic , emotion magnate. I have to say I notice something and it has become more pronounced to me now because I guess I have picked up on it , but I notice in Barak’s and Michelle’s speeches , they are alike in there method. It is as (now I really pick up on it) they practice speech making 101 together. The emotion in there own speeches are practiced . Try it right now, just like you were trying out for a play (haven’t you done this).If you say some emotional words right now and try to gesture , speak with emotion to an invisible audience, gesture in front of a mirror. See how it feels. You know you are acting. Well that is Michelle and B. to a T.. Notice as the crowd claps or cheers they escalate at the right moment the temperment. Now , I can tell that Michelle has coached him, and that may go both ways, right down to the hand gestures. And of course moments in there speaking when they gear it up and ask the crowd basically “are you with me, are you with me”, then they tempure back down to a soft slide ball and hit home emotionally sweet what they are trying to convey. Just to see what a bag of helium Barack really is, you remember in that address speech and who was it called out “LIE”,,,,, well maybe it is me,,,but By the time it was repeated again “LIE”, you could see his eyes get wide and his eyebrows go up just like a little kid that has just told a big one to his dad or mom and was caught . If that guy had said he was LYING one more time we would have seen Barak deflate and go blowing off around the room!!!! Once you begin to pick up on his emptiness it starts to become more obvious. No?

    • Yes! You make me laugh, alfy. He is just like a little kid, especially when someone challenges him. You’re so right on. I can’t say that I’ve made a study of Barry’s speeches or his wife’s. I’ve NEVER watched her speak. She’s irrelevant, in my opinion. As for him, I turn the channel any time he’s on. Way back two or more years ago, we warned each other not to watch him speak because that neurolinguistic programming is a type of HYPNOSIS. He or his speechwriters have studied it. If you search on Obama and neurolinguistic programming, you’ll find links that explain how it works and how it’s a tactic used by people who want to MANIPULATE others. I recognized it as soon as I first saw him speak, so I don’t watch him because it is mesmerizing, even if a person knows what he’s doing. It’s seductive, if you know what I mean. That’s one reason why I can’t stand the man. To do something like this is to deny the other person (your victim) his individuality. It’s a form of disrespect. A HUGE act of disrespect.

      • I hate to listen to his speeches or hers as well, but I gotta tell ya, I sometimes make myself so I know what type of amunition is needed for his next pu pu on the nation. Believe me, it doesn’t mesmerize me or hypnotize me, it makes my hair stand on end. I have listened to a couple addresses and I caN TELL YOU WHAT HIS NEXT SENTENCE IS GOING TO BE. fOR Awhile there during his campaign especially , I was sick of hearing him, but I had to listen because it was like an open book or a scripted plan he was clearly working. By the time the election was over I had to cool it listening, but once again ,the only thing that drew me in was I like to be ready when the shoe drops. I get spooked easily. I half listen now, because you can pretty much guess how it’s going to go, but if the radio or TV is on I still have an ear out for CODE words. I do feel a little squeemish that I actually paid so close attention at first. Another thing I noticed is when he has taken questions, of course we all know about the teleprompter and his ability lessens without it, but just recently I realized he looks to his right at the podium alot. He has a gift of pausing as if in thought . And now I realize some of his uhs and stammers are for pausing to read something I believe down to the right of the podium .I just noticed.

        • Yes, when he looks to the right he is reading the word, ” PAUSE.” And sometimes he is so enthralled with the word, he says “Uhhh.” Or if he needs more time, it is two Uhhh Uhhh’s. His own words resonate in his head as if he is programmed or being programmed. What is really behind the scar on his head? Duhhh.

        • There’s probably a puppeteer somewhere behind the dais, or off in a “green room”, who feeds him the answers to impromptu questions via the TOTUS. Unless there is some apparatus inside his head or elsewhere on his body that feeds him audio of what to say. He acts very much, sometimes, like reporters do when they’re listening to their “feed” while trying to “report” on camera. Barry the Bobblehead.

  12. And just recently on the news ,a look back at some of his answere to reports was replayed where he was being asked some questions , I guess, you know, VIA satellite. I hadn’t noticed before, but as he was dodging answering some questions of course that the reporter was asking , as he stammered and paused I noticed his eyes were darting back and forth and Could plainly tell he was reading . It is amazing how good he is. But not anymore.. Cause I call him on it. I tell my son watch him. He sees it now.

  13. I had read about L. Ron Hubbard, and also a sad story his son wrote. I had to refresh my memory though and went to wickipedia. Maybe Renee or someone could answer this for me. When I was first checking out Wicileaks, they are affiliated, it seems, with this watchdog group against scientology. What gives. I checked out some of the stuff, and I almost had this feeling they were a watchdog for scientologists for some other purpose than just exposing them . Something just didn’t seem on the up and up. I remember thinking are they looking for a particular type of person for a purpose, or does Assange himself have anything to do with this . Have any of you checked out any of that ?

  14. I can see that I am blabbing alot so I will check out for a bit and let you guys talk. Tonight it has just been a wee bit of therapy . Hey what do you all think about Webster Tarpley. I know he has been associated with the La rouche guy way in the past, but He is dead on about Assange, I think. There is a great uTube and it links him to Soros and so on. I have wondered if ole Mark Ndesandjo is even in bed with Assange….I mean that figuratively.
    Here is the one I think on Assange, if anyone is interested.

  15. This has nothing to do with moral imagination, but everything to do with our current prez allowing our nation to be insulted, and his disrespect and disregard for all the American Patriots who have died defending our allies and freedom around the world. On second though, it has everything to do with his morals and/or lack thereof, or maybe he is just so damned stupid he doesn’t know better. Take your pick. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/49822/

    • Heal her ? ………
      Here we go with the faith healer part again ?

    • Listen, we joked about this when we first heard it but I cannot BELIEVE that this man (Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo) actually suggested this in the lamestream media. “God working through President Obama?” Whether or not, after reading through the entire story, in the end he dismisses it, the headline and that suggestion at the very beginning, plants the notion that GOD works THROUGH Barry. This is not only sacrilegious, it’s outrageous, insulting, and extremely DANGEROUS. WTF (pardon my French) are these people doing? Setting up Barry, yet again, as a quasi-messiah? “Now he’s not a messiah; he’s just a holy instrument of God’s will.”

      It’s a COMPLETE LIE, first of all, that that’s the first time she opened her eyes, else the doctors were lying earlier in the week when they said she opened them. Secondly, she didn’t open them when Barry was there. How insulting to her husband to suggest that she opened her eyes first to the likes of Barry and Pelosi (who she just voted against for minority leader). Pelosi, at least, was in the room at the time. Barry WASN’T THERE.

      I wonder how long it’s going to take Gifford’s husband to say, “Enough!” IMHO, he should never have shown up at that disrespectful campaign rally, I mean, memorial, and he shouldn’t have given permission for Barry to spout that lie about Gabby opening her eyes for the first time after he was there. I wouldn’t have let those people into her room, in the first place. Of course, remember, Barry is ultimately his employer, so what else can he do?

      This is SO disgusting. I can’t even imagine that man writing that article. God answered Barry’s prayer, but not the prayers of her husband, her family, millions of Americans? How simply disgusting.

      He wrote, “Thus, if Obama, a man with a strong personality and a deep faith, touched the spirit of Rep. Giffords with his prayer that does not make him into a saint. [I could just as easily have posed this question about daily communicant Nancy Pelosi, the Catholic Kirsten Gillibrand and the Jewish Debbie Wasserman Shultz who were actually in the room when Gabby opened her eyes. Moreover, her husband has also been present in the hospital room. Still, the point is the same, no matter the person present.]”

      Sir, that’s a HUGE IF. IF Obama has a deep faith. Well, maybe he does. Remember he famously said, “My Muslim faith.” Does Allah work through Barry to heal the sick?

      This writer claims to be Catholic. A short bio from cuny says, “Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is Professor of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College and Distinguished Scholar of the City University of New York. Widely published both in English and Spanish, he has written more than 40 scholarly articles and authored 9 books, including the four volume PARAL series on religion among Latinos/as. His 1980 book, Prophets Denied Honor, is considered a “landmark of Catholic literature.” With his spouse, Ana María Díaz-Stevens, he authored Recognizing the Latino Religious Resurgence, which was named an Outstanding Academic Book for 1998 by Choice Magazine. A spokesperson for civil and human rights, he has testified before the US Congress and the United Nations and was named by President Jimmy Carter to the Advisory Board of the US Commission of Civil Rights for two terms. Presently, he directs the Research Center for Religion In Society and Culture (RISC).”

      His “landmark” book is available at Amazon for $1.97. It’s an anthology about the Hispanic Church in America, whatever that is. Here’s all you really need to know about the writer to determine exactly where he stands POLITICALLY:

      “The battle over illegal immigration gets personal for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Some religious leaders are saying he should not be allowed to receive communion at church anymore because of his stance. A well-known Catholic scholar has written an article suggesting bishops deny Holy Communion to the sheriff and other supporters of SB 1070. In the Catholic church, receiving communion is one of the Holy Sacraments.” http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/denying-communion-immigration-6-18-2010

      So here’s a PERFECT example of leftist progressives using religion to further their own progressive political issues as well as to HAMMER BARRY’S OPPONENTS. Thanks, skeeter.

      • And this was the point I was trying to make on the Gifford’s thread, that they want it to “appear” that GOD works THROUGH Barry. Putting the thought into peoples minds that Barry’s visit somehow healed Gifford, using the tragedy to further the progressive’s agenda. And yes, the question remains, to me at least. WHY has Gabrielle Giffords husband not spoken out, made any kind of statement calling them on it? believe me, my heart goes out to the Giffords, but WHY would Mark play along to such non sense?

        • It is so blatantly, sincerely evil that words fail. Who can be blamed for thinking that a certain someone is involved? Pleased to meet you; won’t you guess my name?

        • And, Leza, now we have proof that the lamestream media has picked up the ball and intend to run with it. To place the notion into people’s heads. First, the story was that if you don’t vote for Barry, you’re a bigot. Now, if you don’t vote for him, you’re not doing God’s will. Evil, evil, evil. I’m sorry, but it is freaking EVIL.

  16. Miri, read that article again “Did Obama heal——” Whoever wrote it is “charismatic Catholic” -speaks in tongues, and ETC. Read the following link. They seem to have a lot in common with the Pentacostals, hope this does not offend anyone. Seems as if we always need an apology on hand for everything we say any more.

    http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

    • Kind of weird, but what can I say? There’s a Catholic Church in my area that has a nearly all-black congregation. They sing gospel songs, clap hands, dance in the aisles, a lot like you see in The Blues Brothers. Go figure. I suppose the pastor figures, whatever it takes to reach the people.

      What exactly is speaking in tongues? Blabbering (I can do that!) or do they actually speak in real languages? Some of these Catholic charismatic churches have been pitched out of the Catholic Church; I don’t know about that one in particular. I have heard of the “movement”. One thing Catholics did do in the past and probably still do: syncretism. Actively absorbing parts of the local culture and even a pagan religion, into their celebrations. Thus, you see All Hallow’s Eve and the Dia de los Muertos.

      • Their tongues speaking is a result of the charismatic hype. This has been searched-researched-blow dried-sanitized and viewed from every angle imaginable. The people in the bible did speak in tongues but it was foreign languages and not some sort of heavenly angelic speech.
        Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth “If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.” Cor. 14:27.
        I mean, like, they do the same at the UN today, else who could understand what anyone is talking about? Paul was trying to keep order in that church. There isn’t much order in a lot of pentecostal orgs today.
        “And when the day of Pentecost had fully come , they were all with one accord in one place. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans”? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya and adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs____ we hear them speaking in our ownTONGUES the wonderful works of God.” Acts 2:1,4-11.
        These people didn’t need interpreters because they understood their own language, their own tongue. However, in Corinth the tongue speaking was for the benefit of the foreign visitor and the interpreter was for the benefit of the locals, those who did not understand what was being said to the foreigner or questions asked by the foreigner.
        All those people from all nations were people who had gathered to celebrate the Holy Day Festival of Pentecost. And this day was the beginning of the New Testament Church-40 days after Jesus had been crucified. Pentecost means “Fortieth, fortieth day”.
        The number of those who spoke “in tongues”, the foreign languages, was no small number, Acts 1:15 and in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty-.” These were all Galileans, so indeed there was a miracle that occurred on that day that enabled all those Galileans to speak in foreign languages. There is more to this but I need to stop before I begin to sound like some sort of preacher.
        Many churches today (especially the mega churches) have interpreters and some even have those skilled in sign language for the deaf. No one says these people are speaking in tongues but that is exactly what they do. Some of the Catholic Popes (as you certainly know) had learned several languages and many times they use interpreters also. Enough already, I am going back to my rat killing.
        Right now I am interested in all the socialist/communist that are infiltrating and recruiting members and activists in the christian churches.

        • This might be what you are thinking about. Frightening how many of their goals they have attained or are in process now.

          Communist Goals for the USA Takeover

          27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

          28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

          http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/communist-goals-for-usa-takeover/

          The Muslim Goals mirror in many ways those of the Communists.

          http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/muslim-goals-to-infiltrate-and-destroy-the-u-s/

        • Very interesting history. It makes sense. But in the US where they speak English, they said they were divinely inspired? They didn’t know where the words came from.. that is what I was told. In other words, I wasn’t channeling as well as they were able. They had a better connection to the Spirit.

          • Holier than thou. It’s disturbing because it does have an element of one-upmanship. Sounds to me as if they misinterpret something they read (speaking in tongues–lots of foreigners and they needed an interpreter) or that the “miracle” is supposed to work the opposite way. People speaking foreign languages but the miracle is that you “hear” them in your own language. Doesn’t that happen on Star Trek? I don’t mean to be flip, but I doubt that the miracle is supposed to be people blathering in a language that neither they themselves nor anybody listening can understand.

          • Bridgette, “channeling” is the appropriate word. In America today that babbling in tongues may in fact be a spiritual act:
            “Mystery,
            Babylon The Great,
            The Mother Of Harlots
            And The Abominations
            Of The Earth.” (Revelation 17:5)
            The Mystery Religion of Ancient Babylon? The Mother of Harlots, maybe the Mother Church and Her Harlot daughters? Some may say, the Catholic Church and the protesting daughters, called Protestants (think Martin Luther)? I don’t think so.
            Babylon and the Tower of Babel, where God confused the language.
            “Ba·bel (bā′bəl, bab′əl)

            noun

            1.Bible a city in Shinar in which Noah’s descendants tried to build a very high tower to reach heaven and were prevented by God from doing so by a confusion of tongues: Gen. 11:1-9
            2.an impracticable scheme
            3.
            a.any confusion of voices or sounds; tumult
            b.a place of such confusion
            Origin: Heb bavel < Akkadian bābilu, altered (by folk-etym. assoc. with bāb, gate & ili god) < pre-Akkadian city name babila, Babylon"
            Webster's New World College Dictionary

            The Babylonian "Mystery" religion better explains the Pentecostal Movement to me. To babbel or utter incoherently, confuse. There are thousands of these in the US and worldwide.
            The babeling tongue speech in church is not biblical, niether in the early church nor in today's churche(s).
            Pentecost, the Hebrew Holy Day commemorates the First Fruits of the harvest. More to the point is it represents when the death angel "Passed Over" all the "First Born" of the children of Israel but killed all the first born of the Egyptians. That was the very first PassOver. That very same day the Israelites departed Egypt, Fifty days later they arrived at Mt Sinai when and where God gave them His Ten Commandments.
            Pentecost means "fifty or Fifthiest", or fifty days after Passover. From Pentecost you can figure when each and every Jewish Holy Day will fall on the Hebrew calender. So fifty days after Jesus was crucified all the disciples were gathered together when the day of Pentecost had fully come and begin speaking in tongues. Hence, the Pentecostals co-opted that name for their church and they have been babbling ever since. But hey, whatever turns em on. I think I said Pentecost means "forty" (above comment) but it means fifty, fifty days after passover.
            Now I'm babbbbling again. scuse me :(

        • Pretty good Skeeter.

  17. I just remembered, awhile back I read something about both the socialist and communist parties USA were urging their members to infiltrate and become active members in ALL the churches. I think we are beginning to witness that infiltration now. What better place(s) to begin than the Pentacostal Movement?

    • This might be what you are thinking about. Frightening how many of their goals they have attained or are in process now.

      Communist Goals for the USA Takeover

      27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

      28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

      http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/communist-goals-for-usa-takeover/

      The Muslim Goals mirror in many ways those of the Communists.

      http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/muslim-goals-to-infiltrate-and-destroy-the-u-s/

      • Exactly. I was thinking last night about that “Catholic” writer who wrote the story proposing that possibly God works through Barry because Giffords opened her eyes after he visited her. I wonder if it’s coincidence that this “miracle” occured in Arizona, the site of so much illegal immigration turmoil? This is why Barry jumped on that mass shooting, in particular. The site of it, I mean. There was a shooting in a police dept. in Detroit over the weekend. Four cops shot. Will Barry go there to make a speech? I wonder about the perp, considering the paper said they declined to identify him.

        Anyway, what’s next? Will they discover that when Gabby was moved, the sheet underneath her miraculously held an image of Barry, dressed in a Superfly hat and cape, standing on a crescent moon with a Islamic star, pregnant with the NWO? I’m only half joking. This is subliminal messaging to religious Hispanics. “God wants you to vote for Barry; God works miracles through Barry; vote for Barry and miracles will happen for YOU.” It’s no surprise that the Communists, who believe religion is the opiate of the masses, would try to hook people on “social religion.” Good point, Bridgette.

        • Has someone already found his face in a cup of tea leaves?

          I don’t think the fraud can get away with the Messianic message this go around.

          People are very emboldened when they are shooting inside a police department. Another tragedy. It saddens me what has happened to Detroit. They spent millions trying to renovate the downtown. But they kept voting for the corrupt mayors and representatives.

        • Superfly hat and cape- no Miri a Suparman hat and cape !

        • Ah , the joys of spiritual,I mean spirited dialogue. right on right on…

    • a good short read, “the Corinthian catastrophe” and I have the book ,but can’t find it or I would provide the author. Letters to the church at Corinth and discussion on the fruits of the spirit, and lots of references to the pagans practicing their faith in the new church at Corinth. Never completely dispells that a form of speaking in tongues was not of the spirit, but does explain the problem of the pagans babbeling and misleading the christian practices. Blah, bla, bla…

  18. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-cites-faith-buttressing-support-go-0

    And so it begins. All from the story:

    During his speech at the prayer breakfast, Obama stressed the importance of faith in his life and presidency.

    “It is my faith then, that biblical injunction to serve the least of these, that keeps me going,” Obama said. “And it keeps me from being overwhelmed. It’s faith that reminds me that despite being just one very imperfect man, I can still help whoever I can, however I can, wherever I can for as long as I can, and that somehow God will buttress these efforts.”

    Obama also called for expanding the federal government’s involvement with faith-based organizations, an initiative started under President George W. Bush and continued by Obama.

    “Sometimes faith groups can do the work of caring for the least of these on their own,” said the president. “Sometimes they need a partner, whether it’s in business or government, and that’s why my administration has taken a fresh look at the way we organize with faith groups, the way we work with faith groups, through our office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.”

    “And through that office we are expanding the way faith groups can partner with our government,” he said. “We’re helping them feed more kids who otherwise would go hungry. We’re helping fatherhood groups give dads the support they need to be there for their children.

    “We’re working with non-profits to improve the lives of people around the world. We’re doing this in ways that are aligned with our constitutional principles. And in this work, we intend to expand it in the days ahead, rooted in the notions of partnership and justice and the imperatives to help the poor.”

    The president further stressed the need for humility as a means of calming heated political discourse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s