Bad news: Cabinet members study Bible together weekly

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

From the article:

CBN News reported that once a week, about a dozen members of the Cabinet gather to study Scripture. Among those who regularly attend: Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2017/08/01/cabinet-members-get-together-for-weekly-bible-study/

If anyone wants to study the Bible, or anything else, do it at home or outside of work. This gives the obvious false impression that Christianity is the approved belief system in the US when we all know that capitalism is the approved belief system.

On edit:


https://www.facebook.com/CapitolMinistries/

If you listen to the CBN story, it is clear that these studies take place in Government facilities.

[wryter2000]

1. This Episcopalian thinks that sucks

Keep your religion out of government

[guillaumeb]

8. Agreed. Keep it to yourself. eom

[DURHAM D]

2. .

[bullimiami]

3. Gods. What a nest of antichristian vipers

[njhoneybadger]

4. Woe to you

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and make long prayers just for show. This is why you will receive a harsher punishment.

[guillaumeb]

6. No matter their beliefs, I would rather that they realize that their actual jobs

are what they were appointed to do.

Although given how destructive they all are, it might be better that they attend these meetings.

[Motley13]

5. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from

faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

This is the best I could do on a quick search

Jesus Cristo, all of them are hypocrites
pretend to be Christian & then act like Satan himself

[guillaumeb]

7. I do not care what they call themselves,

the Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion. I would prefer that they follow the Constitution.

[atreides1]

53. We'd all prefer that

But, it's not going to happen with this group...besides they follow the Constitution, they pick and choose the parts they like!

[Zoonart]

9. Ring The Bells

I can't run no more
With that lawless crowd
While the killers in high places
Say their prayers out loud
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
A thundercloud
And they're going to hear from me.


Leonard Cohen

[guillaumeb]

10. One hopes that 2018 will be that "hear from me (us)" moment for the GOP.

And that the Democrats will control the House.

[marylandblue]

11. Bible study at work is not prohibited if you do it on your own time

And a lot of people at all levels of government do it. I am more concerned about who is teaching the bible study. My understanding it's a a ravist pastor who was deemed "biblically unqualified" to teach by his own church.

[guillaumeb]

12. I know this, but it sends an implicit message which conflicts with the Establishment Clause.

When Cabinet level employees are behaving in this way, it sets a tone and an example and the line between work and non-work will inevitably be crossed.

My view.

[Dustlawyer]

52. May I suggest everyone send them selected bible verses to study?

I personally do not believe, but there is so much in the bible they are against I think it would be good to point it out to them. Then send them the Constitutions separation of church and state!

[trotsky]

13. You were doing so well up until your last line.

Capitalism isn't a religion or a belief system. It's an economic model.

That you (evidently) believe some people treat it like a religion is wholly irrelevant, and again just part of your continuing attempt to portray belief in gods as noble and pure, and never responsible for bad things.

[guillaumeb]

14. A belief system is any system that requires a belief in its validity.

Your last sentence is proven untrue by the simple method of reading what I actually post. Including, ironically enough, this post.

The post is editorially titled "Bad news: Cabinet...etc".

And given that the Bad News part represents my personal editorial comment, it should be apparent to most how I feel about this mixing of Church and State.

[trotsky]

15. You are equivocating again.

It appears to be your favorite rhetorical tool.

Your made-up definition there is also perfectly circular, and therefore meaningless. A belief system is a system that requires belief? LMAO!

But you go right on ahead thinking you've made some kind of point.

[guillaumeb]

16. You are promoting your agenda, and your own beliefs again.

And continuing to reframe what I write so you can argue against it.

You insisted that capitalism is not a belief system. It is an economic philosophy, and if you feel and/or argue that it is a correct one you are demonstrating that you believe in its validity.

Judging by your arguments, do you believe that only religion can be classified as a belief system? If so, that would explain why you argue as you do, but it does not make your arguments true.

[trotsky]

17. As you promote your agenda, and your own beliefs. Not sure how this is supposed to hurt my point.

You are equivocating, plain and simple. You are creating definitions of words that are meaningless, solely to make sure that belief in god(s) can never be blamed for anything bad in the world.

This is why trying to have a dialog with you is impossible, because when your arguments are destroyed and you are humiliated yet again, you simply claim that wasn't what you really said, and try to engage in personal attacks and accusations to distract from reality.

I'm not playing your immature game. Defend your position - quit equivocating and launching personal attacks.

[guillaumeb]

18. I liked how you launched yet more personal attacks, even as you call for

civility. A nice touch.

[trotsky]

20. Right. OK, here, I'll give you yet another chance.

Here is your definition of "belief system":

A belief system is any system that requires a belief in its validity.

According to this definition, telling the time is a belief system. It is a system that requires belief in the validity of measuring the passage of time.

Driving is a belief system, because it requires belief in the vailidity of using chemical energy to create physical motion.

Masturbating is a belief system, because it requires belief that engaging in the physical act of stimulating one's own genitals will result in sexual climax.

Compare and contrast to Christianity, which is a set of statements about non-physical "truths" outside the universe (namely that a god exists, and that it has specific attributes), combined with a belief that said god delivered its message to us in a text we call the bible, which contains instructions about how that god wants us to behave.

Are you saying that last item is EXACTLY THE SAME as the other examples I gave?

[guillaumeb]

22. Your examples are ridiculous.

But if you feel that they help you to win whatever argument you are waging, congratulations on your victory!!

[trotsky]

35. How so?

Clarify (and expand, if necesssary) your definition of "belief system" if you find my examples ridiculous.

Otherwise I will just assume you are surrendering once again.

[guillaumeb]

37. Please accept my congratulations on your tremendous victory.

Almost as big a victory as when you attempted to reword my statement in another thread about drive-in Jesus.

[trotsky]

39. Thanks!

I gave you an opporunity to clarify your definition, and you declined. You can't complain about me "reword"ing things if you won't clarify what you mean.

Thank you for the confirmation that you aren't actually here to constructively dialog, but instead just pontificate and judge others.

At least I can say that I honestly tried.

You may insult me again if you wish.

[guillaumeb]

40. As to "rewording", all anyone here can do is look at the post about drive-through Jesus

and read my original post, including my final comment, and then read what you seized on as the meaning of my final comment.

And after reading the thread, I would be quite surprised if anyone interpreted my editorial comment as you did. My comment was quite clearly positive, yet you managed to find it to be a negative. In that light, what amount of clarity is needed?

And this is not a judgement of you personally, nor is it meant as an insult, but if I make a positive comment and you interpret it as a negative, as you clearly did in the thread about the drive through church, it makes me wonder where the miscommunication is.

[trotsky]

41. "it makes me wonder where the miscommunication is"

If you want to discuss your disparaging comment about people who attend church in cars, address it in that thread. Stay on topic here, please.

Good day.

[guillaumeb]

43. Well, now I know. eom

[trotsky]

46. It's good you have your own personal view of why there is miscommunication.

Remember though, it's just your unsupported personal opinion.

[guillaumeb]

48. Well, it is supported by the actual post to which I referred.

And the interaction there between us.

[trotsky]

50. Again, that's just your personal opinion.

It's no more valid than anyone else's.

[guillaumeb]

55. Are you at war with sentence construction and word usage?

Please let me know how that turns out.

[trotsky]

58. Clearly I hit a nerve.

I'm sorry you are feeling hurt and need to lash out with personal attacks again.

[guillaumeb]

60. No, it is an observation based on what you felt that you read in another post.

If you take an observation such as this as a personal attack I cannot understand why. It is merely an observation that your reading of my post is unsupported by the language of my post.

Edited to add:
I cannot imagine any other at DU being at all interested in the specifics of this, but if anyone is, here is a link:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218252574

[trotsky]

61. Yes, please, drag your other thread into this one.

It's what you do.

I am quite content to let anyone interested judge for themselves both your put-down of people who choose not to worship like you do, and your pathetic attempt to pretend you didn't really mean the words you typed.

[guillaumeb]

63. Sometimes you amaze me.

And I meant every word I typed.

[trotsky]

67. Yeah, thanks, but if there is one thing I've learned in trying to dialog with you...

it's that you cannot be trusted.

[guillaumeb]

68. What a coincidence!! eom

[trotsky]

69. Aw, the old "I know you are but what am I" defense.

Another thing I've come to expect.

Tell me guillaumeb, is this really the way you think Christians should act in order to be good examples of their faith?

[guillaumeb]

70. No, simply a recognition based on a few years of dealing with your "questions"

and comments.

As to your "question" about behavior, remove the beam from your own eye before talking to me about mine.

[trotsky]

71. Oh, I see.

I deserve it. Because reasons.

Thanks for being a great example of a Christian, g. You are doing the lord's work for sure.

[guillaumeb]

73. "Deserve" is irrelevant.

As I noted, it is an observation of behavior.

[trotsky]

74. Yes, I understand that you judge others.

Just like a good Christian should, evidently.

[guillaumeb]

75. Judging others is a human characteristic.

So if you essentially are criticizing everyone for being human I fail to see the relevance of your comment in this group, except possibly as being indicative of what seems to be your agenda.

[Act_of_Reparation]

76. Did not your deity instruct you not to judge?

Seems relevant.

[guillaumeb]

78. But if one only notices the act of judging when it is done by a believer,

that selective noticing might be indicative of an agenda.

As to my point about judging being a human characteristic, do you disagree with that opinion?

[trotsky]

77. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Do you know what that's from?

[guillaumeb]

79. And do you feel that this admonition is applicable only to Christians?

Or is it a good practice for all people, theists and non-theists alike?

[trotsky]

80. There you go with your whataboutism again.

Answer my question. Where does one find that specific admonition?

[guillaumeb]

81. There you go again.

[trotsky]

82. Yeah, I know.

Pointing out religious hypocrisy. I'm pretty good at it.

[Lordquinton]

19. Some people aren't fans of your heavy handed framing.

And no, Capitalism is not a belief system, it's an economic model. There are people who believe that it's the best model, or that it has no flaws, but it requires no belief inherently.

[guillaumeb]

23. But if you believe in the economic model of capitalism that is a belief in capitalism.

We all choose what we believe. Those beliefs can be called economic, or spiritual, or philosophical, but they are beliefs.

[Lordquinton]

24. Whether you believe in it or not it exists

You're conflating religious belief with a colloquial usage of the term. Like someone saying they don't believe in evolution, their belief doesn't matter, it's fact.

Not believing in capitalism doesn't really matter because that's our economic model.

Words have meanings, and you can't just redefine them on the fly to win arguments.

[guillaumeb]

25. I am not redefining, I am insisting on the plain meaning of the terms "belief" and "belief-system".

They are not limited to religion. A belief system is what allows a person to define how he/she perceives the world, and how he/she interacts with the world.

[Lordquinton]

26. You're redefining things to fit your agenda

Capitalism exists. You can choose not to believe in it, but that doesn't change it's existence. You can refuse to believe in evolution, but it's still fact.

However if you don't have a belief in god, then you're an atheist, and well... There is no proof of any supernatural divine being, so god may as well not exist outside of fiction. Sadly capitalism doesn't require people to believe in it to exist. Fortunately neither does socialism.

[guillaumeb]

27. No, it is you who is insisting on one single definition.

If capitalism exists, post a picture of it.

Capitalism exists, if we can agree to call it that, because it has been invented, discussed, debated, and changed. As does socialism exist and every other political and economic system. But it has no physical, observable existence. And capitalism is a belief system because it is a way of ordering the world, and ordering how one interacts economically.

Gravity exists, even if it cannot be photographed, because we can intuit its existence by how objects behave. It is unnecessary to believe in gravity because it exists independent of our belief.

[Lordquinton]

28. Ok, so you ask for a picture of something to provide proof

then give an example of something that you cannot have a picture of.

Thanks for making my own argument for me.

[guillaumeb]

30. I gave you an example of what a belief system actually is.

It is something that requires a belief. I made the same argument I have been making here for months.

First, that there are things that we know, not because we can see them, because we cannot, but because we can observe them in action and intuit the existence therefrom. Gravity is one example. Evolution is another. Faith or belief in gravity is unnecessary.

Second, there are things that we believe in the absence of any pictures or direct physical proof because we have faith in their existence. And these beliefs determine how we interact with people. Just as a belief in capitalism determines how we interact economically and politically with people.

[Lordquinton]

32. Capitalism is the word we use to describe this specific economic system

Like Gravity is the word we use to describe the force that causes objects to fall.

When you lack a belief in god you're an atheist; a person with no belief in gods.

When you lack a belief in capitalism you're still someone living in that economic model. There is no word for it because it doesn't exist. socialists know full well that capitalism really exists and actively harms people.

Oh, and here's a picture of capitalism:



so anything else you need clarified?

[guillaumeb]

33. I see buildings and sports facilities, and vehicles.

Proving only that the aforementioned things exist.

Just to clarify for you.

Does your atheism define in any way how you approach things, or how you see yourself in relation to other people, or how you behave, or how you relate to the universe?

If it does, it just might be a belief system because it rests on your own thoughts and feelings, and it is unprovable.

[Lordquinton]

34. You don't see the inequality?

the stark difference between the rich and poor that has arisen and is allowed to continue because of capitalism?

PS. Atheism is not a belief, to say that it is is a gross misunderstanding, and to persist that you are correct after being told, by multiple atheists, over the course of months, is willful antagonism.

[trotsky]

36. It's wonderful when he commits himself to his ridiculous definitions...

and then ends up sputtering and humiliating himself trying to pretend he's not wrong.

[guillaumeb]

38. Ah yes, the inequality.

One also sees inequality in non-capitalist countries.

And your comment about multiple atheists is not proof of anything other than that a small group of online atheists agree about something.

If atheism represents how anyone interacts with the world, and if it affects how anyone perceives the world, what would you call it?

[trotsky]

42. The key problem here is that you really don't understand what atheism is.

Atheism doesn't represent how I interact with the world. It doesn't affect how I perceive the world.

I simply reject your claims about the existence of god(s). That's all. That's why it's not a belief system. Rejection of YOUR beliefs doesn't constitute a belief system.

[guillaumeb]

44. Thank you for explaining your personal view of atheism.

And that personal view is useful in that it reveals how you personally perceive it.

[trotsky]

45. Oh not this nonsense.

I guess we found another point of yours you can't defend, so you back away claiming "personal views" allowing you to arrogantly keep your own arbitrary definition of someone else's views.

Do you do this same trick to people with a different sexual orientation or skin color, or do you refrain from defining them the way YOU prefer?

[guillaumeb]

47. Are you the official spokesperson for atheists everywhere? No.

So we are left with you explaining how you define atheism.

[trotsky]

49. I'm closer to one than you are, that's for damn sure.

You don't get to define others to your liking. You wouldn't dare do that to other groups, so why do you insist you can do it to atheists? It's hateful and disrespectful.

[guillaumeb]

54. Your framing, again.

And you are entitled to do so.

[trotsky]

57. Yeah, sure, it's "framing" to point out that what you do to atheists,

you wouldn't do to other groups of people.

Very telling.

[guillaumeb]

59. People can read what I say and judge from that.

Do you feel that people are also reading what you say here and judge that also?

[trotsky]

62. Indeed they can, and indeed they do.

I am quite content to let them judge my posts next to yours. As long as they remember that you are a True Christian, and that your posts are a reflection of what Christianity means, and how Christianity teaches you should treat others.

That would make me very happy indeed, for everyone to know that you are good example of how Christians behave.

[Lordquinton]

64. What countries are you using as an example here?

Atheism is defined as non-belief, if you want to call it a belief, then you are completely making it up and being downright offencive to atheists.

[trotsky]

72. He doesn't care.

He wouldn't force a definition on any other group of people (LGBT, etc.) but it's A-OK to do to atheists.

I think everyone knows what that means.

[Angry Dragon]

21. I see they like fiction

goes well with the fake president

[SummerSnow]

29. when the money plate goes around, Trump collects it.

[guillaumeb]

31. He does seem to worship himself. So it is fine if he takes the money. eom

[riversedge]

51. Anyone know if this takes place on WH grounds??

[guillaumeb]

56. The article reads as follows:

Drollinger founded Capitol Ministries in 1996. Since then, he has started Bible studies in state and foreign capitals and does weekly studies with members of both the U.S. House and the Senate.

So there is no explanation if these studies take place in Government buildings or not.

On edit:

https://www.facebook.com/CapitolMinistries/

If you listen to the CBN story, it is clear that these studies take place in Government facilities.

[riversedge]

65. Thanks for the links (I had read the story to no avail). Still unclear but hard to believe all of

would wonder outside of their offices or gov. buildings IMHO.

[guillaumeb]

66. I find it difficult to believe also. eom