Tear down that 'Old Rugged Cross' says der Bush

http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=258

Why is President Bush supporting a group trying to convince African-American churches to literally throw their crosses in the trash?

by John Gorenfeld, Contributor
12.21.04

This wintry season, as the faithful continue to receive alarming reports from the news that Republicans are all that stand between them and the outlawing of Christmas itself by hordes of secular humanists, the two presidents Bush have endorsed a powerful conservative interest group specializing in removing the cross -- not from schools or courthouses, but from churches.

Rather than the traditional egg hunt, this group, calling itself the American Clergy Leadership Conference, sponsored a nationwide "Tear Down The Cross" day for Easter, 2003. Last week, leaders in this radical cause presided over a Washington prayer breakfast featuring messages of thanks from the presidents. Former Senator Bob Dole came in person.

Mostly African-American, pastors who joined in 2003's ACLC-sponsored "Tear Down The Cross" won gold watches from the wealthy group, which unabashedly claims in its publications to have stripped churches of over a hundred crosses over the Easter holiday alone. This, movement leaders said, cleared the way for a new age and second messiah.

Speaking of messiahs, make a quick stop at the web site of the ACLC, and it's clear there's more to it than the "rapidly growing movement of clergy committed to the endeavor of making this nation the best that it can be," as the ACLC described itself in a December 8 Washington Times op-ed. It's actually a vehicle for Sun Myung Moon, the billionaire conservative donor who calls himself the True Father.

How about removing national flags from church sanctuaries?

There is a big Southern Baptist church here in Birmingham (actually the First Baptist Church of Bham), that almost always has its property ringed by many American flags. Every 20 feet or so is a flag. It is unsettling really. They have so connected their god with America that the two are interchangeable.

Frightening.

has always had an American and Ukrainian flag in it's santuary.

A lot of it - especially for denominations such as mine - was to show that we were as american as any other.

It has a lot to do with the racism and bigotry immigrants still receive to this day from the "other" americans.

There is no law saying you can't have an American flag in your sanctuary!

I'm a liberal and an Episcopal from a very liberal congregation.

We have a US flag, and a Church flag that are brought in during the Eucharist services there.

No big deal. We are in America. We live in America.

No gawdy display of a million flags.

Preacher has said he's a democrat. Never tells us what to believe.

So what if there is a flag?

I'm not ashamed of my flag.

...for somebody to complain about an activity without wishing it to be prohibited.

For example, I wish the disco fad, Huey Newton, the Olson twins and AMC Pacers never would have existed, yet I would never have been in favor of prohibiting any of them. I just think they sucked.

Don't worry -- nobody is trying to take away your flag.

??????

Is it not our flag? Or are you not from the US?
And did not the poster say they should be removed? I ASKED WHY!
Why the attitude?

barking up the wrong tree. The Christians in this country would do well to worry more about the removal of crosses, than to squabble about the flag. Could be that good 'ol Bush, the darling of the religious right, could be ushering in the Anti- Christ that they all fear so much. Ironic, ain't it?

I tried to explain it to my wife who is far from being a fundie and she had trouble believing it. I think if they read it for themselves and let it sink in, Fearless Leader's shrinking support will evaporate as fast as a WMD mirage on the deserts of the Middle East.

It would be ironic.

But on the other hand, if there is a Satan, and he/she/it were going to use a weapon, they would choose something as far away from the Christianity that Christ taught and use it against those who claim to worship them.

Let's stop broad brushing Christians as all the same.

BTW, this sub-thread started with someone complaining about flags in church.

However, if you think a law is about to be passed prohibiting flags in church sanctuaries, may I suggest you going for a little walk around the block to clear your head?

The point is that a lot of folks seem to get the two symbols mixed up, flag and cross. So mixed up, in fact, that they begin to think that their country of origin is something to boast about, as if countries and flags, national anthems and national armies, are an essential part of their being in God's eyes. As if those artificial accoutrements are somehow ordained by Heaven. They point to passages like Romans 13 to justify their nation worship and elide over the starker warnings of Revelation 13 and the parables of Jesus to excuse national excesses. Some folks, I've heard, even precede the presence of the Eucharist with the national flag, as if God's presence isn't possible without the guarantee of the American government.

I confess to a selfish aspect, as well. When people really get these symbols mixed up, good friends of mine, like Elder John Kline, Ted Studebaker, and Rachel Corrie, die. At this moment four of my friends from the Christian Peacemaker Teams are being held hostage, scurrilously accused of being spies and threatened with beheading. My congregation, the Church of the Brethren, though quite small and young by the standards of other Christian denominations, has sustained quite a bit of damage in less than 300 years from people who get the symbols of their country where they happen to live confused with the symbols of their relationship with God.

Fly the flag in your sanctuary by all means if it comforts you. But consider for a moment why it's there, and what it means. Surely in a building where it is preached that God is no respecter of persons, as noted in the tenth chapter of the Book of Acts, then there should be no disqualification of someone who bows to the cross but not to the flag. Unless you do a citizenship check at the door?

as if you were the poster who originally responded to me? (on edit I see you are who I responded to)

I'm confused.

I don't remember ever saying anything about a law being passed to take flags out of sanctuaries.

I see no problem with the flag.

I bow to the cross and not the flag.

However I live in the US, and have no problem with a US flag being in the sanctuary. I have no problem with any flag in any country being in the sanctuary if it is the flag of that country's people.

This is the US. Why do a citizenship check.

Get over yourself, geez,

Well, I'll agree with one thing you said, and that is that you are certainly confused.

It is you my friend, who are hysterical,

ranting about flags in Church sanctuaries as if that were somehow a REAL problem.

When you find some real things to complain about then let me know, we'll probably even agree!

thanks

:rolleyes:

I wasn't trolling, I was asking a legit question (read up the thread)

And I haven't seen the first substantive syllable in response from you.

1. you complained about flags in churches
2. I asked why, as they don't bother me.
3. You made some statement about not taking away my flag.
4. I responded to that (and I never said I thought anyone was taking my flag)

And now you have been reduced? to insulting me about no "substantive syllables",

I think it's time to let this one go.

Peace

You should be careful about how you recap things, especially when the evidence above contradicts you.

I asked the rhetorical question about rather than removing crosses, churches might consider removing national flags from their sanctuaries (post 1). In post 8, you excitedly conjectured that I was proposing a law banning the flag from sanctuaries -- or so I surmised from your use of the exclamation point. I, of course, made no such suggestion and said so in my response (post 20).

Your reply (post 21) couldn't fathom why I was responding to you in spite of the clear chain of posts and responses. I agreed with your statement that you are confused (post 24), and you immediately shot back (post 25) with a response that showed you hadn't yet comprehended the gist of my original post. At this point, I was beginning to doubt that English is your first language, and that you were the victim of a particularly bad internet translation program.

You re-asserted (post 30) that you had asked a legitimate question, against all evidence to the contrary and Dem Agog's mild reproof. I stated again (post 33) that I had given you a legitimate answer to your allegedly legitimate question, which answer you still seem not to have grasped (post 34). Yes indeed, the substance of my comments have flown clear over your head, and I agree that it's time to let this one go. I hope you get a better English translation program soon.

you said: "In post 8, you excitedly conjectured that I was proposing a law banning the flag from sanctuaries -- or so I surmised from your use of the exclamation point."

but interestingly enough, I actually said: "There is no law saying you can't have an American flag in your sanctuary!"

I see, and still see NO implication or declaration that I had any fears or ideas that YOU were proposing a law banning the flag from sanctuaries. Instead, I simply am stating a point that you seem to be offended by, the fact that there is no law about having a flag in a sanctuary. (As in your original post:"Instead of removing the cross from churches
How about removing national flags from church sanctuaries?"

As for your references to Post 21, excuse me for not being able to follow a thread (snicker) and I said in edit that I was confused as to who I was responding to. But obviously you are not able to let go of that.

Again, from Post 25 you claimed that I had made a "hysterical response", which I a)completely disagree with, I rather stated a FACT. and b) I took offense to your response.

My conclusion from all of this? That you are in fact a TROLL with your original statement.
(And if English isn't my first language, then I assume by your responses, that you must not take non-English speakers seriously.)
End of my part of this discussion.

I suggest you start now.

I can't seem to follow the thread
Peace

On the OTHER hand, YOU seem to be the only one that is "hysterical" here.

Chill dude.

you're saying both hate me, and that it's okay.

IT IS NOT OKAY.

Moon's followers are indirectly supporting George W. Bush's faith-based initiative at the grass-roots level, due to a common interest in increasing religious participation in government-funded social services, and in encouraging sexual abstinence as a solution to unwed pregnancy over an emphasis on contraceptive promotion. By 2003, Unificationist missionaries were working for their longtime goal of sex purity in New Jersey public schools, on a government abstinence-based sex education grant.

That same many Christian ministers began joining Rev. Moon's "take down the cross" campaign theme <8> while some Christians expressed offense that it would take place during Easter.

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

http://www.student.northpark.edu/pemente/nocross.htm

http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=258
http://www.perkel.com/politics/moonies/
http://www.thegreatseparation.com/newsfront/2004/06/us_lawmakers_cr.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html

They seem to be ashamed of the cross.
very wierd. The WHOLE POINT of the cross as symbol is remind us of the sacrifice Jesus made, and of how something even as ignoble as the cross can be transformed into a healing symbol.

this is strengthening the concept of Bush as antichrist in my mind.

and that Jesus failed by not getting married and having children. He wants to completely eliminate all traces of Jesus and replace it with himself.

So, next time your fundie friends praise Fearless Leader, open their eyes to the truth.

;(

the herald of the Anti - Christ. And Fundie Christians all blindly follow the fool - such stupidity. Oh, well. When the Anti - Christ and his New World Order come rolling down the street, the Fundies have no none to blame but themselves.

MONEY from the Moonies.

I can't imagine that there is seriously any other consideration than to take from the Moonies, and get their support through their rag of a paper, the Washington Times.

...was behind much of the rise of the religious right in this country, starting just before Reagan's election (which they were heavily involved in).

'Father Moon' has been pulling powerful strings in this country for almost three decades.

Does he have a successor?

Note the White house Happy Holidays card, and the GOP website that said Happy Holidays. The neo-cons are not fundies. Bush has an alliance with two different factions; the fundamentalist Christians on one hand, and the Neo-cons on the other. However, he is just using the fundie Christians, and they don't realize it. The neo-cons are insane, but they are not stupid. They know that that the fundies are crazy, and they welcome it. As long as they can keep a large chunk of the American public stupefied, then it is easier for them to maintain control.

Pat robem$ome, Jerry Fartwell, and all the rest of the boggies have bowed down in worship to Sun Myung Moon.

The Bushes bow down in worship to Sun Myung Moon.

Moon fulfills Biblical prophecy. He is the Beast.

In the Meringovian times the 'Beast' was referred as 'The king of the World'. Moon refers to himself as that. A lot of the royal theater that he puts on was taken from that period. One notable one is the cloak with tassels. Tradition was that the subjects of the king would grab at the tassels, much like kissing of the ring is to the church. The assassination of the meringovian king led to the rise of the church of Rome which installed their own royals to rule Europe. Before that, the Roman church was one of many 'christian' sects. Moon fancies himself as the true heir to the Meringovian dynasty and thus the true ruler.

some of the history of the Merovingian Kings can be found here:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/M/Meroving.asp

paving the way for the antichrist. (If there is such a thing)

Certainly I agree they are all beasts.

What bothers me more than the Bushes being involved is that Christian pastors went along with it. What are they teaching their congregations, then?

In many of the churches I've been in, the cross up front is the only sign that you're in a church, not a convention hall. Remove that, and you only have emphasis on the large TV screens and the pastor. That's disturbing, and I'm sure many innocents are being led down a different path than they think they're on. From the very beginnings of the faith, Christians have used symbols and artwork to express the faith, from drawings of fish and icons of Christ and His saints to candles and incense. Many of these churches have removed all of those from their sancturaries, leaving only the pastor and some plants by the podium.

Bob Dole is a hard man! So they say!

I still laugh at the thought of the Viagra commercials.

Ask Liz, eh?

The only difference here is the Moonie connection.

Probably a lot of Washington, in fact...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3355939

Plus, the guy's buying up land in Paraguay, right where there's a lot of water and minerals and cocaine.

Is it true that the Messiah will come after all the crosses are torn down?

Status: False