Monday, October 08, 2007

A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation (below)

This is a great article..I agree with it wholeheartedly! All of these evangelicals are saying that America was founded on Christian principles. However, if you read a history of the religious beliefs of most of the founding fathers, you will find that most of them were deists or Unitarians, NOT Protestant Evangelicals. Many of them did not even believe that Christianity was the "only" way or that Jesus was more than a man.
As for the creation of the American brand of Protestantism, I highly recommend the book "The American Religion" by Harold Bloom.
Two articles that cover a lot of such information are here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
and here
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html


The 1st article is a less-reputable opinion piece, the 2nd article a more valid source in my opinion.
And here is the NYTimes Article:


A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation

October 7, 2007

By JON MEACHAM
JOHN McCAIN was not on the campus of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University last year for very long — the senator, who once referred to Mr. Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance,” was there to receive an honorary degree — but he seems to have picked up some theology along with his academic hood. In an interview with Beliefnet.com last weekend, Mr. McCain repeated what is an article of faith among many American evangelicals: “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”

According to Scripture, however, believers are to be wary of all mortal powers. Their home is the kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly things, not any particular nation-state. The Psalmist advises believers to “put not your trust in princes.” The author of Job says that the Lord “shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they are all the work of his hands.” Before Pilate, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” And if, as Paul writes in Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then it is difficult to see how there could be a distinction in God’s eyes between, say, an American and an Australian. In fact, there is no distinction if you believe Peter’s words in the Acts of the Apostles: “I most certainly believe now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him.”

The kingdom Jesus preached was radical. Not only are nations irrelevant, but families are, too: he instructs those who would be his disciples to give up all they have and all those they know to follow him.

The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.

A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: “A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.” Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury, “come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, not a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it.”

While many states maintained established churches and religious tests for office — Massachusetts was the last to disestablish, in 1833 — the federal framers, in their refusal to link civil rights to religious observance or adherence, helped create a culture of religious liberty that ultimately carried the day.

Thomas Jefferson said that his bill for religious liberty in Virginia was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination.” When George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789, Gershom Seixas, the hazan of Shearith Israel, was listed among the city’s clergymen (there were 14 in New York at the time) — a sign of acceptance and respect. The next year, Washington wrote the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., saying, “happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Andrew Jackson resisted bids in the 1820s to form a “Christian party in politics.” Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed “Christian amendment” to the Constitution to declare the nation’s fealty to Jesus. Theodore Roosevelt defended William Howard Taft, a Unitarian, from religious attacks by supporters of William Jennings Bryan.

The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry.

In the 1790s, in the waters off Tripoli, pirates were making sport of American shipping near the Barbary Coast. Toward the end of his second term, Washington sent Joel Barlow, the diplomat-poet, to Tripoli to settle matters, and the resulting treaty, finished after Washington left office, bought a few years of peace. Article 11 of this long-ago document says that “as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” there should be no cause for conflict over differences of “religious opinion” between countries.


The treaty passed the Senate unanimously. Mr. McCain is not the only American who would find it useful reading.


Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, is the author of “American Gospel” and “Franklin and Winston.”

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

my enneagram results...yeah..they seem pretty accurate!

Main Type
Overall Self
Take Free Enneagram Personality Test

Sunday, July 15, 2007

no not the tea!!! this article made me feel a bit ill. You would think as a former Soviet Agent, drinking tea with highly questionable characters, he would have noticed that the tea he drank was "yellow" "thick" and "gooey"....so perhaps he was forced to drink it or decided it was for the best to let himself die????
I am just a little shocked, because as such an outspoken critic of the Kremlin, it seems ridiculous he would just submit to drinking the tea if he knew it was contaminated. I feel like there must have been some pressure there or some other part of the story we clearly don't know about.......

please, Condi, do tell what really happened!

yours,

sarachka

Tea Poison Killed Former Spy, Waiter Says

LONDON (July 15) - The poison that killed former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko was sprayed into his tea, a waiter who served the man's table at a hotel bar said in an interview published in a British newspaper on Sunday.
The witness account in The Sunday Telegraph is the first to be made public, and provides new details on how the poison, a highly radioactive substance called polonium-210, might have been delivered.

Norberto Andrade, the head barman at London's Millennium Hotel, said he believes he was deliberately distracted as he tried to serve a gin and tonic to the table where Litvinenko was sitting with Andrei Lugovoi, a Russian businessman and former KGB agent, and two other Russians, Dmitry Kovtun and Vyacheslav Sokolenko, on Nov. 1, 2006.

Though he did not see it happen, Andrade told the Telegraph he believes that at that moment the poison was sprayed into a pot of green tea on the table. He said investigators later told him that traces of the poison were found all over the table and floor and on a picture above where Litvinenko was sitting, leading him to conclude that the poison must have been sprayed.

"When I was delivering the gin and tonic to the table, I was obstructed," the paper quoted him as saying. "I couldn't see what was happening, but it seemed very deliberate to create a distraction. It made it difficult to put the drink down.

"It was the only moment when the situation seemed unfriendly and something went on at that point. I think the polonium was sprayed into the teapot. There was contamination found on the picture above where Mr. Litvinenko had been sitting and all over the table, chair and floor, so it must have been a spray."

The barman said that after the men had left he cleared the table and noticed the tea had turned an unusual color.

"When I poured the remains of the teapot into the sink, the tea looked more yellow than usual and was thicker - it looked gooey," Andrade said.

Litvinenko, who had become an outspoken Kremlin critic, later fell ill and was taken to a London hospital. He died Nov. 23, and in a deathbed statement accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of being behind his killing - a claim that Russia has denied.

Britain has sought to extradite Lugovoi to stand trial in the killing, but Russia last week formally refused to transfer him. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Tuesday that Britain was considering ways to respond.

Alexander Goldfarb, who was a friend of Litvinenko's, said the waiter's account provides "extremely significant" evidence.

"This sort of detail, how he served them, how the tea changed color, is clearly very serious evidence," Goldfarb said.

Goldfarb, who is co-authoring a book on the death of Litvinenko, said that investigators have asked witnesses not to talk to the press, and he speculated that the barman would not have done so without permission.

"Up until now they asked all of us not to say anything publicly which might be constituted as evidence at the trial. Possibly, they have decided that they're not going to get Mr. Lugovoi and have him stand trial."

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

sometimes, when you embrace your pain
it actually feels really good.

how strange.

but also,

a relief.

i know on an intellectual level it will go away eventually. But sometimes it is hard to believe, such as the last few months.
laugh at me for it, it feels good.

Monday, June 04, 2007


i really DON'T want to know. i just don't.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

time wasted may be time well spent



makes me feel better about wasting time. i think a certain amount of time wasting is necessary for proper brain function, really. you just have to find a balance.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

bright eyes and gillian welch

etch a sketch, originally uploaded by sarahjoie.

went to see bright eyes/gillian welch at town hall for their 5/29 show.
it was nice to see that conor appeared to be sober and the aesthetics of the set was awesome. they used a standard school projector to project different things up behind the band. the one in this photo is an etch-a-sketch.
wasn't a huge fan that he played so much of his new music, and so little of his old music, but it was awesome anyway.
Anne Drummond, a now-New York based jazz virtuoso from Seattle, who I have quite a few friends in common with, was in the band on flute, which was awesome. I also have 2-degree connections with the trumpet player/orchestration mastermind Nate Walcott.
Two people I see around the LES quite frequently, Miss Norah Jones and Mr. Richard Julian, played a few songs in the middle of Conor's set as the Little Willies.
When Richard came on stage I screamed, "Yeah Richard!" and Conor, perhaps, not remembering Richard's name, said, "Hi Richard!" My only kind-of conversation with Conor Oberst ever, haha.

Gillian Welch was awesome- her cover of "Jackson" was the highlight in my opinion.
Very glad I went, but just sad that Maria Taylor wasn't on drums- but those two girls on drums kicked butt anyway. Girls on drums is hot.
Not the same as Maria though.




p.s. conor, please get a hair cut!

Monday, May 28, 2007

i've had a platonic crush on jennifer garner since I was a sophomore in high school. I even had a nickname for her that I used with my hs boyfriend:
jenny g.
example: "Do you want to go see Jenny G's new movie with me? I know its horrible, but come'n! You gotta!"
over the years I've kept track of the odd things I have in common with her. We have both worked on the same block. (77th between CPW and Columbus-her waitressing at Isabella's, me at the N-YHS)
Our dads worked for the same company at the same time. (union carbide)
We were both raised rather conservatively. Our parents are both from the Midwest.
We both like dogs and think Michael Vartan is hot. Other than that, not so much in common.




here's a photo I found recently of her and her daughter Violet, who is a little over 1 year.
okay, jenny g is so freakin awesome! and her daughter is so adorable.
I hope i'm like her when i'm 35.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

this is janie


yum, originally uploaded by sarahjoie.

janie is my dog. she is super cute. she is the cutest thing ever. really. she got a hair cut. its not so good. but she's still adorable.
isn't her nose just the cutest thing ever?
and she has nice whiskers too.

tea with the times


tea
Originally uploaded by sarahjoie

i like tea. tea on sundays is also lovely.

Published: May 22, 2007
The way people talk about their pasts reveals a lot about how they approach and write the future.

This is a pretty interesting article I just read in the NYTimes
While reading it, I partially analyzed it from a psychotherapy perspective, and then also saw it from another perspective as an artist and storyteller.
Psychologists and social scientists of all kinds have written numerous articles and books on the subject of art and storytelling- why we do it, what benefit we receive from it, what its purpose is-- such inquiries and hypotheses are endless.
Direct quotes from the article are in italics.

In the article, the scientists suggest the therapeutic power of narrative in recovery from trauma, general talk therapy etc:

At some level, talk therapy has always been an exercise in replaying and reinterpreting each person’s unique life story. Yet Mr. Adler found that in fact those former patients who scored highest on measures of well-being — who had recovered, by standard measures — told very similar tales about their experiences....
The findings suggest that psychotherapy, when it is effective, gives people who are feeling helpless a sense of their own power, in effect altering their life story even as they work to disarm their own demons, Mr. Adler said.

However another study, psychologists at OSU interviewed college students about traumatic high school experiences. They had half the students tell the story in a 1st person narration, and had the other half of the students recall the story in 3rd person.
The study showed that the students who recounted their high school embarrassment in the 3rd person were more sociable and able to feel like they had grown and learned from the experience:

Two clear differences emerged. Those who replayed the scene in the third person rated themselves as having changed significantly since high school — much more so than the first-person group did. The third-person perspective allowed people to reflect on the meaning of their social miscues, the authors suggest, and thus to perceive more psychological growth.

And their behavior changed, too. After completing the psychological questionnaires, each study participant spent time in a waiting room with another student, someone the research subject thought was taking part in the study. In fact the person was working for the research team, and secretly recorded the conversation between the pair, if any. This double agent had no idea which study participants had just relived a high school horror, and which had viewed theirs as a movie scene.

The recordings showed that members of the third-person group were much more sociable than the others. “They were more likely to initiate a conversation, after having perceived themselves as more changed,” said Lisa Libby. She added, “We think that feeling you have changed frees you up to behave as if you have; you think, ‘Wow, I’ve really made some progress’ and it gives you some real momentum.”

Of course its been an often noted belief that acting and storytelling allows you to step outside yourself, put yourself in a more objective place, and telling your own story in the 3rd person perhaps allows yourself to have adequate distance in order to see your overall improvement, or maybe to just see the positive in general.
There is something about storytelling which so cathartic and undeniably therapeutic.
I find this study reassuring, because it helps to reinforce the ideas of how helpful self-expression and the narrative process can be in establishing yourself and your identity.


my favorite "overheard" of the day:

Guy #1: Dude, I think I'm finally starting to sober up.
Guy #2: How can you tell?
Guy #1: Because all of a sudden I can do square roots in my head again.

--Dorm elevator, Columbia University

all the time I overhear conversations, especially at my wacky library job, which are so hilarious and I consider submitting them. 99% of them are "you had to have been there" kind of jokes. which, if you weren't there, just aren't funny.
oh well.


Saturday, May 19, 2007

been feeling better...

Guy: So I just wrote, 'John Locke was a great guy.'
Girl: That's all you wrote? How many points did you get?
Guy: He gave me eight out of ten! He must have felt sorry for me.
Girl: Wow. I hope the professors at my school are that easy.

--Fordham University, Lincoln Center

no, that wasn't me. my profs aren't that easy.




Comedy club promoter: Hey, you guys want free beers and some laughs?
Teen tourists' chaperone: They're underage.
Comedy club promoter: How about free sodas and a few giggles?




Friendly young clerk: It's terrible news about Vonnegut, isn't it?
Old woman: I think he deserved to be fired! He shouldn't be saying that racist stuff on the radio!

--Thrift Shop, 23rd & 3rd