Thursday, September 25, 2008

The Second Coming of Salem?

Ok, I know that I am going to catch heat for this, but I still think it is worth discussing. Sarah Palin's Alaskan pastor, Reverend Thomas Muthee, apparently believes in demonic possession and witchcraft. I guess the Republicans were jealous of the fact that Obama was the only candidate with a controversial pastor. I think that I am beginning to agree with fellow blogger Tom Van Dyke when he states that not much has changed (in terms of religion) from the founding generation to today. Looks to me like we still have overzealous pastors attempting to influence our candidates. The only difference I see is that Washington, Jefferson, etc. didn't give in to the demands of their pastors. As Jon Rowe has pointed out regularly on this blog, Washington ignored the admonitions of Bishop White, Dr. Abercrombie, etc. And as Brad Hart has stated, it is as if religion is a "must-have" for today's candidates. Turning a blind eye to one's faith or pastor just doesn't fly in 21st century American politics.

Here are the videos. Thanks to Brad Hart for sending them my way:


36 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Bishop Thomas Muthee isn't Sarah Palin's pastor. Let's get that fact on record.

I admit being disappointed to see the polemicist Keith Olbermann on our pages. Anyone who wants the rest of the facts, and there are some, will have to get them from an honest source.

Ok, I know that I am going to catch heat for this...

I'm cool, Lindsey. I'm getting used to this sort of thing. I'll content myself with addressing offenses against facts and aesthetics.

There's not an American with an IQ above the the number of eggs in a dozen who believes a McCain-Palin administration will bring about a rerun of Salem in 1692.

But quite a few miss the irony of Olbermann invoking "McCarthyism," and thereby guilt by association, insinuation of base motives, and trial by innuendo.

bpabbott said...

"But quite a few miss the irony of Olbermann invoking "McCarthyism," and thereby guilt by association, insinuation of base motives, and trial by innuendo."

Politics is what it is.

The overly enthusiastic conservatives have also passed a verdict of guilt on Obama for those he has associated with.

Ray Soller said...

Over at Belief.net, Steve Waldman has a Sept.25, 2008 blog entry, Tough Questions for Sarah Palin About Her Faith. Waldman starts off with the video tape showing Bishop Muthee blessing Palin and moves on to presenting a list of seven questions for Governor Palin.

Phil Johnson said...

.
But...
.
We're watching one of the most telling maneuverings in the history of American politics.
.
The fact is that the Christian Nation crowd KNOWS that God is in control. That IS what counts for them.
.
They see the problem with Jeremiah "Bull Frog" Wright as his questionable membership in the Body of Christian believers. Obama might even be a closet Muslim.
.
What's good about Muthee is that he is preaching the power of God's eternal plan to rid the world of evil. (Note McCain's view on evil).
.
So, the Theo-Cons are not really concerned with their candidates' knowledge of economics, foreign policy, or anything else as God has a plan and "He" is in control.
.

Tom Van Dyke said...

If Murthee actually were Palin's pastor, the questions would be more legitimate. And no, I don't think it makes it a wash for Obama. I don't think he bought the "black theology" stuff, but it makes him an opportunist, sitting there for 20 years with it. Neither am I happy with Rev. Wright's "white man's greed" riff, which I take as racist or at least racialist, and for which Obama seemed to be awake for, since he repeated it in his book.

Ben, I agree in that I'm pretty unfazed by all the hyperbole that flies around during an election as well. I'd just hoped not to drag it all onto this here blog, especially in the form of Keith Olbermann, who makes his living in division and derision, not honest discussion.

Ray, the comments section gives some pretty good answers to Waldman's 7 questions, the premises of which are not particularly well-informed in my view. {As the response in the comments section makes clear.]

Ray Soller said...

Tom, Waldman's questions are simple questions, well-informed or not. I doubt whether Palin would answer all seven questions the same way Noodle Beach did. The End Time question is important, because it likely effects how one would act as a steward over the resources we share on this planet.

This came out yesterday. I'd like to know what Governor Palin meant by saying, "They [federal judges] will take the phrase 'Under God' away from me when my cold, dead lips can no longer utter those words." Did she mean that, say, as Governor she would call out the Alaska National Guard to keep federal officials from investigating how school children were reciting the Pledge in public schools in Alaska?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Oh, Ray, do you really think she meant that she'd call out the Alaska National Guard? I saw that too, and I found it quite funny and pithy. I almost printed it here myself.

For those who didn't see it, it was a letter she wrote to a San Francisco paper in 2002, after Michael Newdow's 9th Circuit victory, I believe.

We get so literal these days, mostly in trying to make a non-existent point. Me, I don't even take Barack Obama seeming endorsement of Rev. Wright's "white man's greed" as literal. I just see it as ugly and divisive. And gander-and-goose thing, you understand.

Ray Soller said...

Tom, this is what I think: since the Ninth Circuit is taking another turn at deciding the suitability of including "under God" in the Pledge, we just might actually see what her reaction will be. Circumstance might even have it that she'll still be the Governor of Alaska.

bpabbott said...

Phil: "Obama might even be a closet Muslim"

More likely an atheist, me thinks ;-)

bpabbott said...

Tom: "Neither am I happy with Rev. Wright's "white man's greed" riff"

I watched the entire sermon/lecture/presentation/or-whatever and came away with the impression that Wright was speaking of a common opinion among "blacks" of past generations.

I did not infer that he was speaking of his opinion or that of the present generation.

bpabbott said...

Tom: "especially in the form of Keith Olbermann, who makes his living in division and derision, not honest discussion"

That's his job, yes?

No different than Bill O'Reilly.

I don't expect much from the peanut gallery. It is unfortunate that we can't expect much (regarding integrity and competence) from our public servants :-(

It appears to me that they are all engulfed with politics and have lost sight of the ideals and sentiments that launched them in such careers :-(

bpabbott said...

Ray: "I'd like to know what Governor Palin meant by saying [...]"

Pandering to those who do not think for themselves I suspect.

bpabbott said...

Ray: "since the Ninth Circuit is taking another turn at deciding the suitability of including "under God" in the Pledge, we just might actually see what her reaction will be"

Given Newdow wins, I suspect there will be outrage, some school will discipline students to exercise their right to insert the words, they will win in court (as they should) and victory will be declared by all sides.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I wouldn't think of quoting Bill O'Reilly around here, much less putting a YouTube of him up in support of my position.

Actually, Ben, I was so hoping you were going to actually exert yourself in looking up Joseph Priestley's theology of Christ's resurrection and contribute to our joint inquiry, instead of lazily challenging Jonathan Rowe's account of it. Your questions are not questions.
__________________


Ray, I'm quite interested in the 9th Circuit taking up the question again than Sarah Palin's reaction to it.

Please keep us informed, although the 9th is the most overruled circuit in the country, and Steven Reinhardt's mockeries of the Constitution ["they can't overrule them all!"] betrays a certain cynicism.

We look forward to your updates on the, um, progress, of the case, as it's quite relevant if not essential to the stated purpose of this blog.

bpabbott said...

Tom: "Actually, Ben, I was so hoping you were going to actually exert yourself in looking up Joseph Priestley's theology of Christ's resurrection and contribute to our joint inquiry, instead of lazily challenging Jonathan Rowe's account of it."

If you object to the Jon's qualification, please respond to his post.

You'll note that I *did* respond. If you wish a more informed response ... please to. I look forward to your contribution.

Lindsey Shuman said...

"I wouldn't think of quoting Bill O'Reilly around here, much less putting a YouTube of him up in support of my position."

It was just to get a discussion going, Tom. You of all people should understand this.

Tom Van Dyke said...

If you say so, Lindsey. When things start leaning the other way on the partisan spectrum on occasion, I'll be more assured such things are to "just to get a discussion going." In the meantime, invoking Keith Olbermann is an invitation for heat, not light, as he's in the heat business.

Yes, it seems a legitimate question, so I apologize, Ben. I'd have preferred you hit the books yourself and provided a counterargument, so we all could have learned something besides your personal opinion of the Resurrection. Unfortunately, our opinions and feelings are not helpful or relevant, as we all have them, and one is good as the next, eh?

Brian Tubbs said...

I find it ironic that people who condemn David Barton as deceptive, agenda-driven, or whatever would turn around and post a video from Keith Olbermann. All I can say is "Wow."

Brian Tubbs said...

I don't have anything to say about Thomas Muthee, and I am not comfortable with the approach he takes in the YouTube video. There are some pastors who sensationalize things like demonism and witchcraft and that should be avoided. Again, though, I'm not familiar with Muthee, so I'll reserve any further comment on that.

On the issue of witchcraft itself, though, surely Lindsey and others here aren't saying that it's a disqualifier for a candidate to have a pastor who believes in demons. Good grief. ALL evangelicals believe in the supernatural, and that includes the devil and demons as well as God and angels.

Please tell me that you all aren't saying that a candidate's pastor (and Muthee isn't Palin's pastor, as I understand it) must not believe in the supernatural. For if he (or she) does, then that should disqualify the candidate from any serious consideration.

Again, all I can say is "wow."

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, mebbe Lindsey gets the discussion she wanted after all, Brian. I'm quite a defender of religion in the public square, but I set the bar pretty high for the admission of supernatural claims to it.

I wouldn't vote for anyone who believes that witchcraft has any active power in this world, whether they're Wiccan or Christian. Sorry. This world has enough toil and trouble without the double double.

Brad Hart said...

Aaaaahhhhh! I am so tired of returning from a trip and finding that I have YET AGAIN missed out on a discussion! That does it...I am no longer traveling on the weekends!

TVD states: "invoking Keith Olbermann is an invitation for heat, not light, as he's in the heat business."

Amen! I get so tired of people -- on both sides of the isle -- who are nothing more than spin artists.

TVD also states: "I wouldn't vote for anyone who believes that witchcraft has any active power in this world, whether they're Wiccan or Christian. Sorry. This world has enough toil and trouble without the double double."

Perfectly said. It's the 21st century people! Let us try to AT LEAST move past witches, sorcerers, demons, etc...if we can! Doesn't the Bible even tell us that we are to put off childish notions? I remember reading that in some book of the Bible, but can't remember which one.

Phil Johnson said...

.
Try I Corinthians 13:11.
.

Brian Tubbs said...

Let's set up a distinction here. If we had a political candidate who was asking for federal money to combat witchcraft, then -- Tom, Brad, et al - I would agree that we've got a candidate who is a cause for serious concern. He or she would not get my vote.

But if you go back and read what I said....

I was talking about a candidate whose PASTOR believes in witchcraft, demons, etc. Now, let me make something clear....all evangelicals who say they believe the Bible must then accept the existence of the devil and demons. That does NOT mean we have to develop government programs to deal with them, so don't start throwing up red herrings like that. Let's stay focused here, okay. So...

Are you all saying that a PASTOR who preaches that the devil and demons are real is caught up in "childish notions" AND that a candidate who sits under such a pastor should be considered unfit for office?

Is that what you're saying?

I would like a straight answer, please.

Brian Tubbs said...

FYI - Here's a link to an article that modern day Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft wrote on the subject of angels and demons. In fact, Kreeft has written a book on the subject as well.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/angels.htm

And if anyone here tries to take jabs at Kreeft's intelligence, you will be exposing your own ignorance. Kreeft is a brilliant intellect and renowned apologist for the Christian faith.

Brian Tubbs said...

Just as FYI, in case anyone's curious, my personal view on demons is pretty much along the lines of those held by John MacArthur (one of my favorite Bible commentators). You can read MacArthur's answer to a question about demons and casting out demons at the following link...

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/2002SC-01.htm

I am not a charismatic or anything along those lines, so I'm not the kind of pastor that's at all comfortable with public prayers over people allegedly "demon possessed" or sensationalized campaigns against witchcraft or anything remotely like that.

Since it's easy for people in Internet forums to get lumped in and tagged with certain things, I want to set the record straight on my views.

I'm not defending the YouTube video that Lindsey posted. So, please don't lump me in with the that particular preacher. Nor should I be lumped in with the likes of Benny Hynn or Pat Robertson or any of those guys.

My theology is more along the lines of John MacArthur, Charles Stanley, Rick Warren, etc.

Okay, I'll stand by for your all's answers.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I dunno if I'd vote for you, Brian. I'd have to hear more. I'd want to hear more. I'd need to hear more.

That's not to say I wouldn't attend your church. But if I were running for office, that might also carry a risk in itself depending on your answer, wouldn't you agree?

Phil Johnson said...

Brian says, "I would like a straight answer, please."
.
My answer is, no.
.
But, I sure would look a little deeper.

Phil Johnson said...

.
Somewhere, I posted a link to a video in which a store owner had an American flag on his wall while he was wearing a t-shirt with a quote from Nietzsche, "God is Dead.".
.
And I also complain about so much focus on the religiosity of our Founders.
.
Actually, our Founders were philosophers; so, attempts to focus on their religiosity are going to end up down dead end streets. At least, I think so.
.
Sometime in the near distant past, philosophy has been declared to be the dead one. Perhaps as a reaction to Nietzsche's point about churches being tombs wherein God lies in state?
.
So, it is no wonder to me that America is struggling with a values problem in which the dichotomy is an argument between determined religiosity and philosophy which is considered to be dead.
.
Are we afraid to defend the Founder's driving philosophies here?
.

Brian Tubbs said...

In his letter to the church at Ephesus, Paul writes: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12, NKJV).

It sounds to me like some of you (not Phil) are saying that any candidate who believes that is unfit for the presidency.

And, of course, there's all the stories about Jesus casting out demons. Now, I shouldn't have to remind folks here that Christians (by DEFINITION) believe in Jesus Christ, and evangelicals accept the biblical record of Jesus as being true. That includes Jesus' miracles. So...

What some of you (Tom, Brad, Lindsey?) appear to be saying (in effect) is that any candidate who believes in the Bible (or who has a pastor who believes in the Bible) is unfit for office.

Incredible.

Phil Johnson said...

Just a minute, Brian.
.
My response was to your question about a person that had a preacher who preached sermons about demons, etc.
.
I said that wouldn't disqualify such a candidate and said that I would have to go deeper.
.
The entire twentieth century was under the influence of Sigmund Freud who taught that there was such a thing as the subconscious and that the Superego struggled with the Id and the Ego. That is something that the apostle Paul was not privy to almost 2,000 years earlier. So, the subconscious was not a concept they could relate to--they didn't have the concept available. Neuroscience continues to teach us about how we obtain our ideas and values. There is much we should heed. Going back into history and applying ancient values on our present day experiences leads us into dark waters.

Human beings do have "evil" thoughts; but, they don't come from some little red devil sitting on their shoulder and whispering into our ears any more than there is a Godly angel on the other shoulder blessing us and giving us good thoughts. Those ideas come straight out of our history and we can trace them back with ease. If we will only put out the effort.
.
Discussion on this subject is good for us as we delve into our American history and learn how we are set apart from other people in other cultures. Our American history is our personal history. It is how we get to know who we are.

Phil Johnson said...

.
Think about Pinocchio.
.
He was a wooden boy without any history.
.
We can be wooden puppets and live on lies if we so choose.
.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Believes in the Bible literally? As in young earth creationism and all that?

Well, I didn't say unfit, Brian. But I wouldn't vote for them. Certainly you respect that your vote might go to someone who holds the same creed as you; but hell, I don't vote for, I vote against.

Brian Tubbs said...

Once you accept the existence of God, you LOGICALLY have to accept the reality of the supernatural and the fact that our senses are not able to relate with or interact with all of what there is to existence.

That opens the doors to miracles being possible and the Bible being plausible.

If, however, you close the door to the supernatural, then, well, I'd understand your views, Tom.

But if God's real, then the miracles of the Bible are on the table.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Everything's always on the table, Mr. Tubbs. If we put our beliefs and belief systems out there for public inspection, then they will be inspected.

For me, belief in the parting of the Red Sea isn't an issue unless somebody thinks it might save our troops from a military disaster. So too, if we believe witchcraft has actual power in this world, then logically we would have to fight it.

Well, there are views of God as reality that obviate the term "supernatural." The questions of angels and demons can become symbolic and therefore we need not take them literally. [See Maimonides on angels, for instance.] God works through nature, and what we might call "miracles" are simply overcoming incredibly prohibitive statistical improbabilities.

Which works fine as a definition of "miracle" and in no way denies God's active hand in the world, as you begin to look at the even more improbable stack of improbabilities that we call "reality."

Brad Hart said...

Brian states: "What some of you (Tom, Brad, Lindsey?) appear to be saying (in effect) is that any candidate who believes in the Bible (or who has a pastor who believes in the Bible) is unfit for office.

Incredible."


Not quite.

Brian, I think you may be twisting our words here a bit. As TVD states above, EVERYTHING is on the table when it comes to elections in this country. If a candidate embraces a religious figure that believes in witches, I believe it is wise to AT THE VERY LEAST question why. The same is true of any candidate who follows a minister that shouts out in his sermon, "God Damn America."

I think you are missing our point, Brian. Nobody said anything about believing/not believing in the Bible. What I believe TDV was saying -- and what I am trying to say -- is that the specifics of a candidate's personal creed -- i.e. if they believe in witches, the creation, etc. -- is more than fair game and there is nothing wrong with that.

For me personally, I have no problem with a candidate who embraces the Bible as a moral guide of sorts. However, if that same candidate believes in witches, a literal seven-day creation, that dinosaurs lived with man, etc., then I think I am well within my right to ask why.

Brian Tubbs said...

There are self-described witches. Whether they have actual supernatural power is another matter. I tend to think that most, if not all, do NOT have any such power. But since I do believe in the devil and in demons, I'm not closing the door to the possibility that there are supernatural mysteries we do not understand or fully comprehend. In any case, though, I would certainly not vote for a politician that wanted to allocate taxpayer money in some campaign against witches or who wanted to instigate Salem Witch Trials II or anything like that.

As for six-day Creation (God rested on the seventh), that interpretation of Genesis is indeed possible - IF you embrace the possibility of God's existence and thus a supernatural element to the creation of the universe AND if you posit that God created the universe with the appearance of age. Accept those two things and a six-day Creation scenario is not ridiculous. It's very possible. Reject those two premises and, I agree, you'd have to conclude that anyone who believes in young earth Creationism is believing in a fairy tale and shouldn't be taken seriously in public life.

This is the tension, though, between faith and science. Science has to deal with the material universe. Faith is under no such restriction. But this does NOT mean that science is more credible than faith. It just means that both need to be respected and understood for what they are.