I've counted 16 lib journos so far tweeting snide mockery of Michele Bachmann for asking God's help in deciding whether to run for Senate.
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) January 2, 2018
Keep openly mocking people who lean on their faith when making momentous life decisions, geniuses.
Marginalize yourselves into oblivion.
२ जानेवारी, २०१८
Religious stupidity.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९२ टिप्पण्या:
Bachman was a favorite target of the "gaystapo." You don't hear much these days from them now that cakes are in play.
I'd rather she didn't, but I'm not God. (Though some of my past clients have thought so.)
Mainstream Media: Treat people with contempt, then act all surprised when they begin to hold you in contempt in return.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It wasn't religious stupidity..it was anti-Christian stupidity. Is he had said she was going to pray to Allah, or consult the Koran the Left would have stayed silent.
As an ELCA Lutheran, I am not much into religious doctrine. That's one way of saying that I am theologically liberal and still trying to figure it all out. It will be a life-long endeavor.
Asking for God's help in making a decision doesn't seem extreme or unusual in any way.
"Religious stupidity"
I'm sorry Althouse but just to be certain, which is the religious stupidity in your mind - the praying or the mocking.
I'm with CWJ: I'd like to know what is the Religious Stupidity being referred to here. I rather think that Althouse is attacking Bachmann, unfortunately. Though I suspect she also agrees with Malkin's point about the stupidity of liberals and their sneering arrogance as they purposely drive away Christians.
--Vance
which is the religious stupidity in your mind - the praying or the mocking
That's a good question. Althouse rarely expresses herself without nuance. However, there is no "civility bullshit" tag, which would apply to the Twitter flock, and disambiguate the headline.
As we say here in the land of science and reason, "Nothing fails like prayer."
Sneaky Ann. Who - which of the two "sides" - are the religiously stupid?
I have no issue with anyone consulting anyone else of their choosing regarding big decisions. But I also don't see the need to inform the public - to signal - who it was you chose to consult, unless you're trying to win points for the connection, in the which case it kind of pollutes the relationship, doesn't it.
Not to mention that God's ways are not our ways, so if God gives you a green light, that can mean a lot of things, including that an outcome of failing "bigly" was actually planned or permitted for your experience and education.
The best explanation for the purpose of life on which I've settled, is that we're all operating under a 'learning by trial and error' program, which means that any and all answers and promptings we might get from God can be very unpredictable in their immediate and temporary outcome.
Love to see those liberals mock a Muslim for their faith. Oh, right, they might be beheaded for that....
Quayle and I are on the same page.
He is more eloquent.
Resentment and hatred, not intelligence as Ann would like us to believe for her religious views. Quite telling by her decisive headline.
jimbino: "As we say here in the land of science and reason, "Nothing fails like prayer."
Filed under "Something Never Said To Any Muslim At Any Time For Any Reason."
I see virtue signalling from two competing ethical systems. A toss-up, maybe.
I don;t know how Bachman would do in a statewide race but would any other Republican do better ?
Norm Coleman certainly tanked it.
Norm Coleman certainly tanked it.
Norm Coleman lost by a handful votes, while Obama carried MN by 11 points.
So if God tells her to run and she loses (prob in primary, for sure in general) what conclusions can be draw?
I have no issue with anyone consulting anyone else of their choosing regarding big decisions. But I also don't see the need to inform the public - to signal - who it was you chose to consult, unless you're trying to win points for the connection, in the which case it kind of pollutes the relationship, doesn't it.
Agreed, but I don’t think Bachmann is telling people she’s praying about this decision because she wants to tell people that she’s a good Christian. I think she’s telling people she’s praying because she knows she’ll be attacked by the left and that will cause members of the base to rally around her in response which will give her an additional advantage seeking the nomination this year. Bachmann is already popular among a certain segment of the base and has tremendous name recognition and there is going to be some pressure to nominate a woman to run against Tina Smith this fall. The only thing that I’m not sure of is whether the people attacking Bachmann are doing so because they hate her so much they don’t see that it will help her get the nomination or if they realize that and would prefer her as the GOP nominee because they think that she’ll be easier to defeat in the general election.
The mocking. Obviously.
But I also don't see the need to inform the public - to signal - who it was you chose to consult, unless you're trying to win points for the connection, in the which case it kind of pollutes the relationship, doesn't it.
I don't see the need either, but I'm willing to believe that she thinks by sharing, other people will pray that she makes the right decision and all that prayer power will help somehow.
But I did mean to be amusingly ambiguous.
I don't really approve of politicians showing off their religion. I think Jesus recommended praying in secret and not flaunting prayer for personal gain among men.
It's mainly just politically stupid to mock a person for praying. It's so much the norm in American culture. I personally think it's a misuse of religion, but I'm not about imposing some sort of Christian religious purity on everyone.
I'm in favor of prayer and in favor of praying for our leaders. And I believe pray does bring good results. And I also believe that we see through a glass darkly, in so many things. But I'd rather have leaders who pray and try to be honest, than who connive and self-serve.
Asking God for guidance is clearly stupid. Everyone knows that what the super-brilliant people do is ask the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
But I did mean to be amusingly ambiguous.
Most of us guessed as much.
"...amusingly ambiguous."
"...politically stupid to mock a person for praying."
"I personally think it's a misuse of religion..."
The virtue of religion is to place constraints on our actions so we can be moral in those actions. Your dismissal of the public expression of looking towards religion for guidance speaks far greater than your dismissal of the "politically stupid" mocking.
Face it Miss Althouse, you're not comfortable with religion.
Everyone prays to God, gods (e.g. signals from the twilight fringe), or mortal gods (e.g. experts) for knowledge and assurance. Most people are just less vocal than others.
jimbino said...
As we say here in the land of science and reason, "Nothing fails like prayer."
Except secular atheists who pretend they do not adhere to a religion.
Face it Miss Althouse, you're not comfortable with religion.
She has a problem with organized Christianity. Her position is not that different from most people on the Left who believe in God that way. She also seems to have a need to insist that Islam can/is willing to co-exist with the West. Her position is not that different from most of the Left.
"Asking for God's help in making a decision doesn't seem extreme or unusual in any way."
It seems strange to me. Just, the idea that God is on Line 1, waiting for you to direct one of your random thoughts specifically at Him. I mean, if I thought some sentient being was paying close attention to the rubbish and worse that meanders through my inner monologue, I would be mortified. I guess a really religious person has already come to terms with that.
Only atheists can pray.
Believers praying are just ordering pizza.
I can tell the lady right now. Don't run. You're an idiot.
“The virtue of religion is to place constraints on our actions so we can be moral in those actions. Your dismissal of the public expression of looking towards religion for guidance speaks far greater than your dismissal of the "politically stupid" mocking.”
I was referring to something Jesus said.
Matthew 6:5-6New International Version (NIV)
Prayer
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
"Face it Miss Althouse, you're not comfortable with religion."
Interesting. I perceive that to absolutely NOT be the case.
"She also seems to have a need to insist that Islam can/is willing to co-exist with the West."
I think Althouse starts from the position that jurisprudence, as practiced by certain individuals she finds admirable, is a Solomonic machine that can or should be able to resolve any and all problems that can arise. The fact that the First Amendment exists demonstrates that Muslims have good intentions, or at least can be caused to behave as if they did. We would not have the First Amendment if Islam had the potential to destroy our system of government.
God wants candidates who support the patriarchy.
"I personally think it's a misuse of religion,"
This is a culturally determined matter of taste.
A rather modern and upper-class one in fact. It is a way of putting on airs.
Historically this exclusion of religion was a raffish affectation.
The older mode, even on the part of the nobility, was that religion belonged everywhere.
"Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
Except, isn't virtue supposed to be its own reward? How can it be done in secret, if your Father sees? And how is it any different from the folks praying on street corners, if you do it in expectation of a reward?
The omniscience of God poses such troublesome philosophical issues that I am really surprised at how popular it is. Don't even get started with omnipotence.
So how many male journalists complained about Michelle grabbing them by the crotch? There are many Dems who opposed Alfrankens demise, his unwilling march off the Senate floor, while a recording of Tiny Tim singing "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" played in the background. The late Tiny Tim (Herbert Buckingham Khaury) was once a Twin City resident and he was not gay.
It seems strange to me. Just, the idea that God is on Line 1, waiting for you to direct one of your random thoughts specifically at Him. I mean, if I thought some sentient being was paying close attention to the rubbish and worse that meanders through my inner monologue, I would be mortified. I guess a really religious person has already come to terms with that.
Jesus said that our Father in Heaven already knows our needs before we pray. To me that means he already knows how weak and capable we are of random rubbish thoughts. But Jesus said we should pray anyway.
The universe is ever-present, constant and silent - the mark of a really good listener. And the answers come back in a nearly imperceptible way, as one would expect from a perfect anonymous giver who never seeks to draw attention to himself, particularly when giving.
Derrida Q&A on what prayer is, lecture at CUNY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyOWAcpIaB8&t=352s
About 20 minutes, the answer to the first question, pretty good.
The democrat-media party hate Christian's just like they hate men, white people and anyone who doesn't prostrate themselves at
their feet. They are the biggest bigots in the country.
gadfly,
Care to elaborate on what the hell you/re going off on?
"
Except, isn't virtue supposed to be its own reward? How can it be done in secret, if your Father sees? And how is it any different from the folks praying on street corners, if you do it in expectation of a reward?"
Jesus says that if you do it (pray or give to the poor) to be seen of men - i.e. to elevate yourself in others' eyes - then that elevation is - becomes - your reward. And He doesn't begrudge you that reward. You wanted it and you got it.
The part Jesus adds is the unseen part - that is, He is trying to assure us that the universe has cause and effect laws we can't see with our natural eyes and senses, and which therefore at first require faith to test and verify. One of those unseen laws is that if you do it (pray or give to others) in secret and for their benefit and good, He will restore and reward you, in secret - in His own way and time.
The underlying hidden truth, then, is that God lets you have exactly what you want, the praise and rewards of men or His praise and rewards.
I'm non-religious; but I find Christians and Jews praying to Yahweh for guidance a lot less objectionable than devotees of the Cult of the State constantly supplicating Big Brother for their cut of the loot, or asking him to smite those who won't submit. Ms. Bachmann or her fellow religionists "neither pick my pocket nor break my leg" (to use Jefferson's famous saying). The Cult of the State, on the other hand . . .
Blogger tcrosse said...
Norm Coleman certainly tanked it.
Norm Coleman lost by a handful votes, while Obama carried MN by 11 points.
I was really referring to the recount in which Franken stole the election. He had to know he needed a team of election lawyers but he didn't have one.
""Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
This is the essence of the plot of "Magnificent Obsession,"
Lloyd C Douglas was the pastor of a church in Ann Arbor and wrote the novel, one of several he wrote, basing the plot on the first chief of Neurosurgery at U of Michigan.
He also wrote "The Robe" and several others that were very popular at the time.
He used Ben ginsburg, who used what he learned in that campaign to target Joe miller supporters for murkowski
Speaking of oblivion, who's Michelle Malkin?
What does she know about Minnesota?
Is there a race anywhere that Republicans won't try to nationalize? They really do seem to think that the entire country is just one big Deep South/Texas flyover.
Michelle Bachman is an idiot, whatever invisible man she prays to.
Leftist love religions that subjugate women and burn people alive in cages.
Then again, leftism is a cult.
@walter said...
gadfly,
Care to elaborate on what the hell you/re going off on?
Not sure. Perhaps I don't like to see "you/re" instead of "you're."
More likely its the Trump influence on my formerly sane mind.
Facts not on evidence, you were never sane
Leftist love religions that subjugate women and burn people alive in cages.
You mean, like Christianity for instance?
Oh, you're talking about after the West was secularized, which hasn't happened in the Middle East yet! Silly me!
Do these liberals who mock Bachman ever, I mean ever, listen to black politicians speak to their constituents? Talk about "puttin' yerself in the Hands of the Lord"! Praying on something or asking the Lord for guidance is just assumed.
White liberals assume that the Republicans are the "Party of God". The only problem is that the number one most religious community in the US are the blacks, the second are Latinos, & they both vote Democratic. It's the Dems who are the Party of God, because without minority votes there is no Democratic Party, which is true even in states like NY & MA.
But, then, if liberals knew anything about demographics, they wouldn't be liberals.
Malkin is cute and clever and would have been a well-paid MSM talking head in a less ideologically constrained industry.
Her book "Internment" (on the WWII Japanese internment) is fairly well done and a necessary corrective to a crazy American fairy tale.
My DFL friends and relations think that Al Franken's forced resignation was Bullshit, and that if he chose to run again he could win. Bachman's act would not play well outside of her congressional district.
Do these liberals who mock Bachman ever, I mean ever, listen to black politicians speak to their constituents?
Do these right-wingers who equivocate between blacks and whites ever, I mean, ever seriously think that what the Bachmans "endured" in any way compared to the many hopeless plights suffered by black Americans?
The Bachmans have had a multi-generational head start on their opportunity to get rational.
But, then, if liberals knew anything about demographics, they wouldn't be liberals.
I notice the right wing voice is especially keen on collectivization these days.
@TTR,
Do these right-wingers who equivocate between blacks and whites ever, I mean, ever seriously think that what the Bachmans "endured" in any way compared to the many hopeless plights suffered by black Americans?
So, what, TTR -- does what black people have suffered change the fact that there is or isn't a God? Does suffering or not make prayer efficacious or a reasonable course of moral action? If there is a God who listens to prayer, do you have to have a certain score on the "Suffering-O-Meter" before He listens?
You know, there really are far too many white liberals who consider snark to be equivalent to actual thinking. My assertions are factual & they stand. White liberals see their secular world-view as political rationality incarnate. The truth is that they couldn't get elected dogcatcher without the vote of their Uber-religious minority allies at the polls with them.
I'm talking about circa now. Unlike leftists, I don't need to time travel to make a relevant point on how and why leftists are assholes who support terrorism - circa now.
Leftwing proggy socialist democratics want you to pray to their god - the god of big corrupt government, over-paid bureaucratic flunkies, and global warming hysteria.
"The Bachmans have had a multi-generational head start on their opportunity to get rational."
Wow! Head and shoulders the most racist thing I've heard in the last year. I would love to hear you explain their rationality deficit to a Black person.
So Althouse, is she supposed to just lie, and deny that she prays? I don't think she's doing it to brag or suck up; she's just being honest. Those people whose faith suffises their lives tend to, you know, talk about it. Kust like you talk about Sunday talk shows, or Meade's yardwork, or coffee shops in Madison. I know you don't hang with any religious people so I hope I have helped to shed some light behind the curtain. :-)
*suffuses; sorry, on phone, whose screen I have broken
*Just
Post-normal "scientific" seculars are prone to conflate logical domains, through inference of processes and events from well outside the limited scientific frame of reference in time and space. To their credit, other groups will acknowledge their faith, observe a separation of logical domains, and refrain from exploiting their beliefs to corrupt scientific skill and knowledge. And religious or moral philosophy (i.e. behavioral protocols) is separable. As are traditions that arise with each group, in each culture, in each society.
So, pray to your extra-universal God. Pray to your extraterrestrial and terrestrial gods. Pray to your mortal gods and receive their indulgence.
Judge each religious/moral philosophy by the content of its principles. Specifically, are they internally, externally, and mutually consistent. Do they respect the moral axioms of individual dignity and intrinsic value (throughout human evolution from conception)? Do they consider or avoid reconciliation of moral, natural, and personal imperatives?
So, what, TTR -- does what black people have suffered change the fact that there is or isn't a God?
I think generations of desperation and oppression are more likely to lead to religion than rationalism. How is that controversial? Do you give desperate individuals this hard a time if they resort magical thinking? Rationalism is a luxury of those who are allowed effective mastery over their destiny.
You know, there really are far too many white liberals who consider snark to be equivalent to actual thinking.
"Snark" = sarcasm. There's nothing wrong with stating one's truths with a hint of ridicule at the person needing to hear them. I think people who want to be heard out owe it to others to hear them out as well. For the most part, when people resort to sarcasm it's because their own very obvious truths have been ignored or belittled by way too many for far too long. So long in fact, that the response is said sarcastically because the comedy in it is likely to resonate with just as many people who feel exactly the same way and have been ignored just as rudely and just as frequently.
(what I wouldn’t do for a threesome with Michele and Sarah)
It is said that God helps those who help themselves. So, unlike secular theologies and practices, those who pray to God are doing so as affirmation, not supplication. That, and separation of logical domains, is what heralded a religious/moral and technological enlightenment that followed the progress of secular faiths, religions, and traditions. The separation of logical domains, in particular, is what engendered the study and exploitation of the scientific (near) domain, where processes and events are observable, reproducible, and characterized through deduction, not inference (generalizations, extrapolations), and methods that implicitly reinforced the well understood knowledge that accuracy is inversely proportional to time and space offsets.
That said, pick your faith. Pick your religion. Pick your traditions. From the near space to the twilight fringe to the edge of the solar system (perhaps "universe") and beyond.
White liberals see their secular world-view as political rationality incarnate.
Why shouldn't they? (Regardless of color). Liberalism is grounded in post-enlightenment rationalism. That's its genesis. I'm sure you'll quibble and nitpick over trivialities but I'm pretty sure it goes back to Locke if you need the historical/philosophical/political backstory to it all. In any event, there are more than enough modern examples to back this up. Probably the most honest and sane conservative nowadays, Jordan Peterson, outlines his objection to rationalism. As did Andrew Sullivan. And whomever he got his conservative influences from. Conservatism was always a backlash that said rationalism was limited and that people and societies require irrational and institutional safeguards as well. But of course American conservatism is a contradiction in terms because what longstanding institutions can they be grounded in any way? Ethnic nationalism? That's not what America's about. Monarchy? Oh, well maybe aristocracy can do instead.
None of the reactionary American philosophical corpus is rational. Tax cuts for the rich don't increase growth more than debt. They don't lead to significant improvements for the working class, either. Remarkable how wedded to this nonsense self-styled American "conservatives" remain given how horrible it is for wealth divides and social stability, as well. Evolution is a fact. Climate science is real enough to do something more about than the serfs to the billionaire class who prefer to read about Noah's ark would have us believe. And on and on and on. Sexual orientation is not learned behavior. I think all this stuff started with Buckley (and Goldwater) in the 60s as a backlash against the very successful and very liberal state that FDR built, and an accompanying ethos in the whimsies of scientific management so pervasive in American life at the time that they were applied to government as well. Either way, the reactionaries these days seem to get their rocks off on applying a sort of psychological chaos to government and demanding the primacy of paying tribute to the billionaires and making government nothing more than a handmaiden to this prime directive. It's not working. Never has never well. They even get the glibertarians to go along with it on the basis of how their pre-industrial economic-social philosophy was once called "classical liberalism" before mainstream liberalism took account of the socioeconomic realities that the industrial revolution imposed on life. And that won't work, either.
My point above is that, given all the empirically wrong things that American "conservatives" have made into their practical religion, they obviously can't be very rational at all.
Rationalism is misunderstood. Badly. So is reason.
There is no way to reason ones way to a new social system, or any truly complex system. Designers of such are not being reasonable, and their use of reason is trivial. The fundamental problem is complexity and the inability to know, prior to the design phase, the structure of the problem. Most such plans are fantasy overlaid on ignorance.
Any complex system that works in the real world is empirically derived, by painstaking testing, failure, mitigations of failures, and problem solving. This is not sexy planning by some person claiming to champion "reason". They cannot plan, they can only claim to plan.
Public policy change especially is subject to fantastic claims while misunderstanding or being completely dismissive of unintended consequences. Unintended consequences in fact are the most significant effect of most public policies, as is usually the case when performance analyses are conducted, with correct metrics.
This is the depressing conclusion of the whole field of development economics, dedicated to reasoning (scientifically researching) its way to formulas whereby poor countries could become rich. This has not worked. There is no formula. The problem is far too complex.
As for Roosevelt, etc., if one cares to look at the international condition of the postwar period you will find that every advanced state boomed in parallel, in spite of widely divergent public policies. Even the Soviet Union. This was the consequence of the advance of technology, not policy.
It was not, btw, Roosevelt that pulled the US out of the Great Depression, but Hitler.
And etc., and etc.
Rationalism is misunderstood. Badly. So is reason.
By you maybe.
Yes buwaya, in large measure it was the industrial. Buildup to going to ear, in the us and the UK, that made the welfare and makework projects on both sides of the Atlantic pale by comparison.
FDR, to his credit, did propose smoothing functions as part of the "New Deal", which offered marginal compensation while the depression persisted. Ironically, long-term smoothing functions, and other sources of anthropogenic inertia, sustained the economic and human depression until the World War "reset", which revitalized the economy and people.
It was not, btw, Roosevelt that pulled the US out of the Great Depression, but Hitler.
After FDR the regular depression-growth boom-and-bust cycle was avoided for an unprecedented 80 years.* That was not Hitler's doing, but FDR's.
*Until the greedy Rethuglicans got their patsy Bill Clinton to repeal the depression-era reforms and ushered in another near-depression a mere 10 years later. Amazing how that happens. If I had trouble seeing the connection there I might be down on rationalism, also. But like I said, hating rationalism goes hand-in-hand with hating empiricism. The defining feature of the reactionary American right (and I don't call them "conservatives" because there was nothing conservative about America's founding and the only institutions we did create they actively attempt to destroy) is that its contempt for evidence or empiricism is about as great as its contempt for reason and rationalism.
Good thing the U.S. avoided that whole boom and bust cycle that created the most dynamic, highest productivity, highest standard of living, greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever known after FDR managed to prolong and deepen the Great Depression with his price controls.
Or, as I prefer to mention, the exact same stupid policies that Nixon followed. The ones that created stagflation -- an impossibility according to Keynes.
Good thing the U.S. avoided that whole boom and bust cycle that created the most dynamic, highest productivity, highest standard of living, greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever known after FDR managed to prolong and deepen the Great Depression with his price controls.
How many people died during the Great Depression (or any previous depression) that you apparently think should be repeated with every boom and bust cycle?
Who since Nixon ever advocated price controls and how is that a response to the deregulatory state that Rethuglicans made normative after the 1990s? Or is this just your attempt to change the subject?
Ritmo leaves out, well, quite a few recessions from 1949 on.
The 1970s and 1981 were quite bad, but short.
This was typical of the "panics" pre-Great Depression.
2008-2016 (by some measures) is notable for extended length and especially for the unprecedented impact on the labor force, which is unique to our time.
There has never been a "deregulatory state", since 1945.
The trend is a steady, often with rapid bursts, increase in volume of Federal Regulation. There are interesting metrics on regulatory accumulation.
Complaints of deregulation apply to specific cases.
The most notable deregulator of the postwar era (though it still grew) is the Carter administration. Moreso than Reagan IIRC. One must tune out the hype and hysteria to get at the facts.
Heh . . . the Toothless State-fellator is now the apostle of reason. Because the Cult of the State is just SO rational, you know.
Prayer in a hypocritical fashion, prayer to appear pious, is an affront to the Lord because you are taking the name of the Lord in vain. But prayer, done in earnest, privately or in the company of others, is an affirmation of the Lord for the person and the community.
Exodus 24:7
And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said "All that the Lord has spoke we will do, and hear" (The last word is usually translated as obey but a more reliable translation from the Hebrew is hear in the sense of understand).
In Judaism there is a belief that first you do good deeds and then good thoughts arise. It is a good deed to pray by yourself or, even better, with your co-religionists.
So when someone announces that they have prayed for guidance it is easy and postmodern to be cynical but the potential for that deed to become a good thought is there.
The most extensive empirical test of rationalism was the French Revolution---everything from metric measurement to the naming of months to the suppression of religion was rational, and yet the fruit was borne by the guillotine. The best satire on that is the Monty Python movie "The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen", where rationality is pictured as the appeasing bureaucrat dressed in black who resorts to attempted murder to have his way. As noted above the complexity of life defeats the effort to use only rationality (or expressed and specific reasons all in a system) as a guide. And so in the end living things are the enemy of those who follow only rationalism.
I see the perfesser quoted Matthew 6:5 in isolation.
But Matthew 6:5 is just an example of what Jesus was saying in 6:1 - that our prayers should be a conversation between us and God, and that anyone else who hears it shouldn't be the intended audience. It is certainly not an admonition against praying in public, or inviting others to pray for you (even if it is just by implication), but a reminder that when you do you should make it between you (and the group) and God, and not primarily for the benefit of others who are listening.
"slurp slurp" the sound of Bannon sucking the marrow out of yet another Rino's bones. I do get tired of him dancing a jig after he nails another trivial target, there are harder more competent adversaries in the deep state to nail first so our people can get their country back, so when T showed him the door he said "go get 'em tiger!" like Andrew Jackson did in his day, destroying the parties to destroy their establishments. And any politician that puts their god before their people is worshiping a false god, may the lord have pity on their souls.Number of p's grabbed? Lord doesn't care a whit.
@Ann:Matthew 6:5-6New International Version (NIV)
Why do you consider this verse to be the decisive one, and not these, uttered on the very same occasion:
14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Good thing the U.S. avoided that whole boom and bust cycle that created the most dynamic, highest productivity, highest standard of living, greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever known after FDR managed to prolong and deepen the Great Depression with his price controls.
Who had this "highest standard of living" prior to WWII' building of the middle class? Or are you just splitting the difference between the Carnegies/Rockefellers on one hand and the vast majority of America's impoverished non-millionaires on the other?
No period in American life rivaled the economy of the 1950s.
"No period in American life rivaled the economy of the 1950s."
Tax rates were certainly more progressive. But at the same time, practically no one who worked was exempt from Federal taxation. The vast underclass of people who pay no taxes yet demand more Federal benefits simply didn't exist yet.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा