Going To The Chapel

maybe you could poll the various churches interested in the First Attendant and identify a question of interest to them for the next presser.

Amy, the real story is not about the chapel, it's about the chaplain, the pastor at the chapel. As the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has found, Lt. Carey Cash is a member of Bob Dees' Campus Crusade for Christ's (CCC) Military Ministry, part of a campaign to evangelize and theocratize the military as a means to theocratize the nation.
.
This Is Not Good.
.
You can find more of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's reporting on this insidious cabal here here.

More on Lt. Cash saying "First we get the military, then we get the nation" here.

Amy Sullivan:
.
If the White House had wanted to call into question my reporting, it certainly could have. The reason it didn't is that...your reporting on this subject is mindbogglingly irrelevant in terms of the issues facing this Administration and the country.
.
Although I continue to find it odd that there was so little press interest in whether or where Bush attended church...
.
The only interest any of us in this blog's community (pro or am) has in the details involving the private faith of government officials is you, Amy Sullivan. I hope that "It probably won't come as a surprise to hear" that no serious person finds your reporting to be useful in terms of connecting to their government and its policies --the purpose of a free press in a democracy. Playing gotcha over whether the Bush family was sufficiently pious enough to warrant their self-righteous image as "regular, church-goin' folk" isn't really the point. It's not the attendance record at Camp David, or the robustness of its worship facilities that should call into question the professed religiosity of the former President, it's issues like the moral relativism necessary to his having established an official torture regime. Only a shallow imbecile with a total lack of self-awareness could confuse the two for being equally important.
.
The only possible value in exposing facts for or contrary to the public confessions of faith on the part of politicians would be if such observances were the declared the sole basis of policy decisions, which should be examined in the light of officials' commitment to pluralist democracy, and their oaths to the Constitution.
.
Other than indications that particular church doctrine supplies the framework for decisions made on behalf of all citizens, there's no use whatsoever in a supposed political journalist examining whether or not "Camp David chapel could provide a robust worship community" for anybody, except perhaps in ridiculous, tabloid, personality-profile fluff pieces cloaked in pseudo-solemnity --ones like the faux-pious, empty-headed rot with which you routinely bore Time's readership, Amy Sullivan.

" ..I continue to find it odd that there was so little press interest in whether or where Bush attended church, I was far too skeptical of the idea that the Camp David chapel could provide a robust worship community for the president."

Pardon me, it it is patently obvious.
Why should a president, or anyone else attend or be a member of a church, let alone a "robust" one - whatever that means?
Why is the issue worth noting - if an atheist can be president of these secular USA?

Stuart - but haven't we learned, explicitly from Republicans and especially the last president, that faith experiences and points of view do affect policy decisions? That is probably inevitable, as our world view affects how we think governance should happen.
.
I think in general the jockeying for the Obamas to attend a church, and what seems to me the just sub rosa suggestion that they must attend a church to, you know, prove they're Christians, is an interesting political issue, and worthy of a post here.
.
At least Amy admits to being "too skeptical," - something she often is but rarely admits.

Amy - a "robust worship community?" Are you serious? I have belonged to several worship communities over the course of my life, some for many many years. They have been many things in themselves and many things to me, but "a robust worship community" wasn't something I required. At best it conjures up victorian images of bracing cold showers. At worst it's theological sophistry. Having children and two choirs makes it "robust"???? In truth I suspect I wouldn't disagree with what I suspect you meant - that it is an ongoing community of some commitment, rather than an ad hoc "let's meet for worship because the president's here" sort of thing. But you cannot seem to write without some judgmental crap about other people's religious approach. I hope you'll take your own "mea culpa" seriously.

this wasn't something the White House was looking to publicize
.
ooh, Amy, did you "break" the story wide open?
.
It used to frighten me that Bush asked god for advice on governing, but lately I really don't care how or who a president gets spiritual advice or refuge from, as long as they ultimately own the decisions they make. Unless we can get inside their hearts and their heads, we don't have control over their beliefs anyway. They could worship a potato, talk to a psychic, or go to the chapel at Camp David, I don't care as long as they govern the way I elected them to.
.
Any church that lobbies someone important to attend is just another example of why organized religion is such an unfunny joke.

Amy - oh and kudos for reassessing your prior position, and being willing to say so here.

The only benefit to an AS post is that they are rarely hijacked by the person who is ruining the Swamp IMO. Since I do twitter, I realize how many formerly regular commenters no longer bother here.
.
The main reason I have been here since nearly the beginning is that I have learned so much from the commenters. For example, I am pleased that Exileathome (the former neorationalist) has recently posted very cogent discussions about his point of view. That sort of thing will help to keep things going in a way that allowing every thread to degenerate into irrational nonsense won't.
.
Some have begun their own very good blogs and pourmecoffee has truly found his metier, but even the bloggers would likely come back to the swamp if the discussion were interesting enough. We have some new commenters who had been lurkers and that's great. I would like to see us get back to interesting posts and well thought out comments - with a share of welcome snark (I'm looking at you sacredh!)

Since it's an open thread... I know that the Dixie Cups' version is the most prominent, but I prefer Darlene Love's Phil-Spector-produced version.
-
What does everyone else think?

I realize how many formerly regular commenters no longer bother here
.
I've noticed that too. Do you think it has something to do with the overall mood of the country? Some of the more current threads have a tone of frustrated argument rather than deep discussion. When I think back on the months building up to the election they seemed to have a passionate yet positive tone. I've never read comments as routinely as I do with Swamp, so I'm not sure if the comings and goings of commenters is average or if something else causes it.

duned - several have indicated that it has been the fact that so many threads have been taken over. If people don't respond to provocateurs and focus on a real discussion, the discussion will be the point. The comments are usually dependent on the quality of the post, but...

Amy Sullivan: "I was wrong to dismiss it five years ago and would be wrong to do so again now."

-

Translation: Sullivan HATED Bush and thus produced a tale for the New Republic completely void of any evidence (what's new?), but now that someone who shares her ideology is in the White House, it's time to forgive and forget.

-

In the linked New Republic tale, note Amy Sullivan's use of fabricated quotes, alleged "prominent Bush partisans" and alleged defenses used by alleged "prominent Bush partisans": "'You don't have to go to church to be a good religious person,'" argue his defenders. And they're right. They have made much political hay, however, over polls that indicate Democratic voters attend church less frequently than Republicans, so even the most brazen feel compelled to offer explanations for Bush's absence from church membership rolls." The names of the "defenders" who uttered said words? None identified by Sullivan ....

"The first excuse conservatives provide is that Bush can't possibly be expected to have time to go to church, what with being leader of the free world and all." The names of the alleged "conservatives" using the alleged "excuse"? None identified by Sullivan ....

-

I read Time magazine online, so I know that it is evidence free, but I was unaware that the New Republic was evidently as committed to publishing such unsupported garbage. I'll keep a better watch in the future ....

Ivy –

A number of the comments aren't just dependent on the quality of the post; they've been about the quality of the post. AS, of course, sees herself as above such concerns, as demonstrated by her persistent refusal to interact with commenters.
.
Swampland continues to have good posts and good discussions, albeit not uniformly so in either case. My view is that it's best to call "b*llsh!t" on junk posts, and to ignore junk comments entirely; chacun à son goût, though, I suppose.

When I Amy Sullivan wrote an entire Time's story about the Obama's attending church. My first thought was what would the Jesus General think about the fact that Amy wrote this story? Not an article, but a story. But, alas all Jesus General has up is a post about the Dickwhisper getting his own trading card.
.
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/

FO - I agree, it has just become somewhat like having Question Hillary back but engaging other commenters rather than simply blathering.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/29/coups-interference-and-the-shifting-standards-of-obama/

I think the Obama's are wise in using Camp David for their worship. There is far too much emphasis on where he should attend services. The whole objective is the message, not the site. The congregation at Camp Davis is military personnel and camp staff, all people involved in serving our country. I don't know why he wouldn't consider Camp David as the permanent site. No circus. No see and be seen. Just worship.

I miss some of the commenters who have disappeared from Swamp, but I still benefit greatly from visiting here. There are intellectual thinkers who express their opinions in a way I truly admire. It's a source of daily empowerment to hear from people who care deeply about what's happening to/in our government and the media. I see how trolls can stir up emotions and give commenters a great platform for arguing their points, but we all know a troll opinion cannot be swayed, so let's stop bothering and get on with the discussion.

Thanks for the snark comment Ivy-B. So many of the politicians or newsmakers don't deserve to taken all that seriously, so I don't. Clowns make it easy to laugh at them.

Wow Tom, that is scary. For the same reason that I thought Mike Huckabee was scary.

apollyon07: I agree Huckabee was scary. I have a hard time believing he was a serious contender in the republican primary considering his statement about changing the constitution in order to allign more closely with the teachings of the Bible. He's got his own show on Fox. Want to bet someone at the DNC isn't recording every show just in case he runs again as President or would get a VP nod?

Gee, take a few weeks off from the swamp and what do I find? Absolutely nothing. As usual Amy rants and raves about some "religious" diatribe or matter that really does not mean a hill of beans to anyone anymore.
.
What you should be asking Amy, is why hasn't Rev Wright been invited to Camp David to give a sermon. Not a sermon on the mount, but one of his pulpit humping, "down with whitie" sermons.
.
But, I guess as time goes by, and you are President, you no longer need the likes of Rev Wright to ensure a political victory in South Chicago. It still never ceases to amaze me that no one reported on the fact that the only reason Obama was in Church to begin with was for political purposes, only.

Wow, I have forgot about rev wright. Welcome back Rusty!