Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 300 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Clinton’s Church Says Children Deserve To Be Burnt As Sacrifices To God

Some liberals are upset at the way that the religious statements of one of Barack Obama’s ministers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ, have been used to taint Barack Obama’s political campaign for President of the United States. Me, I’m not upset at that at all.

It was Barack Obama’s choice to link his political campaign to his Christian identity. He’s cited his religion as a proof that his character is good enough for the Presidency. Barack Obama has used Christian churches in many states as proxy campaign organizations. If Barack Obama wants to go ahead and reap the benefits of mixing religion and politics, then it’s only fair that people judge Obama’s character according to the wacky things his Reverend has said in church.

Of course, Barack Obama isn’t the only one who has mixed religion into his presidential campaign. I think that the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s comments opens up a very useful opportunity for Americans to examine all the bizarre kinds of things that are taught in presidential candidates’ churches. Whenever a presidential candidate cites their religion as a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign, the churches that they have attended become part of their campaign resumes, and become open to political critique.

Let’s start looking at the churches of Hillary Clinton and John McCain too, and see what kinds of weird ideas they preach.

That’s a pretty big task, so I’ll have to take it on a little bit at a time. I’ll start today with a statement that really ought to be quite controversial – especially given Hillary Clinton’s book that advises that “It takes a village to raise a child.” Oh, but just what is the village raising that child for?

Human sacrifice?

You may think I’m kidding, but the following statement is up, in full public view, on the web site of the Foundry United Methodist Church, the church that Hillary Clinton has been attending for the past several years:

In this reading, God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham binds Isaac to the altar, has
the knife at ready—and then God stops him:

Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place, “The LORD will provide.” (GENESIS 22:13-14)

If God were more just than merciful, we would suffer more for our wrongs. We should suffer on a cross. But on Good Friday, what began in Advent is completed: God offered a substitute: Christ. Like the ram Abraham sacrificed, Jesus was our scapegoat. The sacrifice that God prevented Abraham from making, God made Himself. Although my father could not take away my physical sickness, our Father can take away our spiritual sickness, sin.

That’s pretty far out, isn’t it? Child sacrifice, condoned.

Let’s be clear: In this message, the Foundry United Methodist Church is not saying that children should have their throats slit and be burned as sacrifices to God. No, what the Foundry United Methodist Church actually is saying is that children deserve to have their throats slit and be burned as sacrifices to God… either that, or children deserve to be crucified.

The whole point of the lecture given on the Foundry United Methodist Church is that Isaac was such an inherently wicked child, as all children are sinful by nature, that he deserved to be executed, even by his own father. According to the Foundry United Methodist Church’s teaching, God is completely within his rights to demand that parents kill their children as a punishment for their sins. Hillary Clinton’s church apparently believes that it’s only because God has decided to go easy on human beings that we are not routinely called upon to actually slaughter out children, although they deserve it anyway.

It’s right there in the public statement by the Foundry United Methodist Church: “If God were more just than merciful, we would suffer more for our wrongs.” Divine justice, according to Hillary Clinton’s church, demands that children have their throats slit by their fathers. It’s only mercy that prevents that divine justice from being carried out.

“We should suffer on a cross,” Hillary Clinton’s church says, and in that statement, “we” includes children. Hillary Clinton’s church believes that children deserve to be crucified, because children are born sinners. When Clinton’s church says, “our Father can take away our spiritual sickness, sin,” they’re talking about the sin of children, and even little babies, not just adults.

I don’t care whether you’re a Christian or not. I want you to stop for just a second and ask yourself if you really believe this kind of controversial idea. Do you really believe that children are born deserving to be crucified, born deserving to have their throats cut and their bodies cooked by their parents? Do you really believe that babies have sinned so much as to deserve such a fate?

Hillary Clinton’s church does believe it. They’ve said as much in writing.

Just like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has cited her religion, and her church attendance, as a reason that she has a character that makes her qualified to be President of the United States.

Well, now it’s accountability time for Hillary Clinton. I think she ought to be asked to explain the passage I’ve cited, the teaching from her church that babies are so morally corrupt that they deserve to be crucified.

Do you think that this teaching is merely symbolic, merely metaphorical? Well, I don’t see how a statement so blunt as “If God were more just than merciful, we would suffer more for our wrongs. We should suffer on a cross,” has any symbolism to it. Hillary Clinton’s church isn’t saying “It is as if we should suffer as if we were on a cross.” They don’t use the phrase “So to speak.” They say straight out that “We should suffer on a cross,” and that it’s only because God is merciful that we, and our children, do not suffer crucifixion, or some other form of gruesome execution.

But let’s give Hillary Clinton’s church the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say that this whole idea that children are so wicked that their throats should be cut and their hands should be pierced with nails is just meant metaphorically. Well, then, what’s the metaphorical lesson? The metaphorical lesson remains: Children are born evil. Babies are evil little, sinful wretches.

Do you believe that? Do you really want to elect a President who believes that?

Furthermore, if you’re willing to say that the wacko anti-child teachings of the Foundry United Methodist Church are just metaphorical, are you willing to say the same about the teachings of Barack Obama’s Reverend, Jeremiah Wright?

No? Why not? Why should one church’s preachings be accepted just as metahors, while another church’s preachings are interpreted literally?

11 comments to Clinton’s Church Says Children Deserve To Be Burnt As Sacrifices To God

  • Iroquois

    You’re reading it wrong, jClifford. It says “we” not “our children”. Methodists don’t typically join the church until they are 16 or so and can understand enough about religion to know what they’re getting into. In my opinion the Methodists have been on a bit of a gruesome kick ever since that Mel Gibson film came out. Damn Catholics.

  • Yes, Iroquois, it says “we” as in “we human beings”, which includes children, and the tale is told, symbolically or not, in the context of a child sacrifice. There is nothing in the story that excludes children, as you claim, and quite a bit that leads one to focus on children.

    But, do you want to make the story about adults, about what makes it a good idea for a parent who hears a disembodied voice command the killing of a child to obey that disembodied voice? The questions I ask in the article still apply then.

    YOU, Iroquois, have gone on at length about Obama’s church. What makes this kooky statement from Hillary’s church not subject for the same level of scrutiny?

  • Iroquois

    When did I say anything about Obama ‘s church? You’re just being silly.

    You really need to brush up on your Abraham story. Everybody sacrificed their first born in those days. It was the local religion. Then Jehovah comes along and he does away with child sacrifice. Tells Abraham to use a sheep instead. Then a few centuries later Jehovah comes up with the Jesus thing and you can now keep your sheep too. Double whammy. And let me point out that Jesus was 33 years old at the time he was sacrificed, which in those days was old enough to get a driver’s license. Not a child sacrifice at all.

    So when the Methodists say “we”, it doesn’t mean kids. Their children are off somewhere else coloring little Jesus pictures. But here’s something I bet you don’t know about Methodists. When they say “we” they DO mean pets. Cats, dogs, gerbils, everything. Did you know Methodists are allowed to flush goldfish down the toilet? It’s right on their website.

  • Actually, I have done my research. There are many claims of child sacrifice cults in the Near East, but no solid archaeological evidence to back up those claims. It appears to be just ancient propaganda by one group against another – much like how Christians used to accuse Jews of drinking babies’ blood.

    There is no evidence that “everybody sacrificed their first born in those days”.

    In the Bible story, God keeps the moral power to command parents to kill their children, and Abraham is celebrated as agreeing to kill his son. God just decides to play nice with the sheep instead, after seeing that Abraham would indeed slit his son’s throat in obedience to God. God could just as easily, on another whim, decide that the whole child sacrifice by Abraham is back on. The moral code is all according to God’s sense of whimsy.

    It’s as plain as day that this story, as told on the web site of Hillary Clinton’s church, focuses on whether people should be sacrificed. The web site clearly concludes that people are sinful and deserve to be sacrificed, and as an example, Hillary Clinton’s church talks about the attempt by Abraham to sacrifice his son, who was a child.

    The argument Hillary Clinton’s church makes is quite clear: That we all deserve to be executed – “If God were more just than merciful, we would suffer more for our wrongs. We should suffer on a cross.” – even children like Abraham’s son.

    I’d really love for you to explain more about why I should suffer on a cross. Why should I be crucified, Iroquois? I’m not part of this Methodist Get-Out-Of-Crucifixion-Free-Club, with its special Jesus exemption. So why should I hang from a cross? Because I won’t accept Jesus as an idol of worship?

    As for you never having said anything about Barack Obama’s church, Iroquois, please don’t insult my intelligence with such a claim.

    Here’s one example of you making accusations about Barack Obama’s church: “Then there’s his Trinity church with it’s Black values system (they capitalize the word black) and pledging allegiance to Africa. The preacher, who is a personal friend of Obama, has also been quoted as admiring Louis Farrakhan. Whoever writes the Obama website says Obama supports the right of Israel to exist, but….what about that Syrian developer he’s done so many favors for?”

    That’s at http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2008/02/23/iseman-mccain-paxson-ion/

    Go read your own words, Iroquois.

    My larger point is this: NO church, if its religious doctrines and preaching is subjected to rational scrutiny of the kind that accompanies a political campaign, is going to come out looking sensible. Not Barack Obama’s, and not Hillary Clinton’s.

    That’s a very good reason for leaving churches completely out of presidential campaigns. Unfortunately, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been too tempted by the political power wielded by churches to leave the pulpit alone. They opened up this Pandora’s box. They are going to have to deal with the consequences.

  • Iroquois

    The Trinity-Wright-Farrakhan statements are in the public domain. Questioning a presidential candidate’s foreign policy attitude toward Israel is totally kosher, especially when he spends twenty years on the fringe of the anti-semitic crowd.

    You’re over-simplifying the Abraham story. If you’re really curious read “ABRAHAM: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths” by Bruce Fieler, even more interesting to read the book in a mixed religion group.

    The particular devotional exercise you’re referencing is about
    “substitution theory”
    http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitution_theory_of_the_atonement

    What I know about the “substitution theory” is that people can study that stuff for years on end without being able to explain it satisfactorily. But just in case, maybe someone better run over to Hillary’s church and do a little archaeological work in the graveyard.

    I’m sure YOU’VE never done anything wrong, JClifford.

  • Jim

    Why don’t you, Iroquois? After all, you continue to say you haven’t endorsed a candidate and you really haven’t made up your mind, even though voting already happened in Illinois. And you were the one who was saying a candidate’s church’s leadership’s positions were so vitally important. Is that only true for you when it comes to Barack Obama?

  • Iroquois

    I said what? Your post doesn’t parse at all, I think you need to edit something.

  • Iroquois,

    I’m not writing about Bruce Fieler, or some abstract “substitution theory”. I’m writing about the argument that was made by Hillary Clinton’s own church. The logical structure of that argument, on the church’s own web site (mock horror) is very very clear. It says that children deserve to be crucified, just like everyone else, and they’re lucky that God is compassionate enough not to follow through on their deserved punishment.

    Is it okay with you that Hillary Clinton goes to a church that preaches such things?

  • Iroquois

    Now you’re just being silly.

    Did you notice the church prints at the bottom of the each page “A Reconciling Congregation”? This is code for a church that actively encourages gay membership. Maybe it’s time for you to rework the anti-Lesbian theme that Obama’s fans keep posting about Hillary on his official campaign website.

  • sean

    Are you completely retarded?!? i hate the Clintons…they totally suck ass. But that church is NOT advocating child sacrifice! HOW GAY ARE YOU for making such a false claim?!! You should be sent to Guantanamo for taking something out of context that badly.

  • How can YOU take what I said out of context? I said that this church is teaching that children DESERVE to be sacrificed, but that God has given wicked children a loophole. There’s a difference.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>