Faith News Politics

5 faith facts about Harriet Tubman: ‘American Moses’ is coming to $20 bill

Harriet Tubman portrait. No date indicated.

(RNS) Harriet Tubman will replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, the Treasury Department has announced.

The move will make Tubman the first African-American, the first woman in more than 100 years and the first unabashed Christian to be portrayed on a bill. (Martha Washington briefly appeared on a $1 silver certificate, and Pocahontas, on the back of the $20 bill, according to The Atlantic.)


RELATED: Harriet Tubman at 100: Emancipate yourself from mental slavery


While the faith of some presidents featured on U.S. currency may be in dispute, Tubman, who was born in slavery and died in 1913 a free woman, had impeccable faith credentials.

Here are five faith facts about the abolitionist and famed conductor of the Underground Railroad.

1. Her nickname was “Moses.”

Harriet Tubman was born in slavery around 1820 in Maryland. After escaping in 1849 to Philadelphia, she returned to the South more than a dozen times, helping to lead hundreds of slaves to freedom along the Underground Railroad.

This earned her the nickname “Moses.” And it came from her faith in God.

“I always tole God, ‘I’m gwine to hole stiddy on you, an’ you’ve got to see me through,'” she said.

2. She believed she had visions.

As a teenager, Tubman received a blow to the head that would cause her seizures, vivid dreams and hallucinations throughout her life. She believed these “visions” came from God and she relied on them to lead herself and others out of slavery and into the North.

“For in truth, I never met with any person, of any color, who had more confidence in the voice of God, as spoken direct to her soul,” Thomas Garrett, an abolitionist and Quaker who knew Tubman, wrote.

3. Her favorite hymn was “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.”

The gospel song “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” was reportedly one of Tubman’s favorites.

It was sung at her funeral and is also one of the hymns in her personal hymnal — an 8-by-5-inch book inscribed “Harriet Tubman Davis Book” — recently donated to the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture by historian Charles Blockson.

“Swing low, sweet chariot, comin’ for to carry me home . . . ,” says the hymn, a favorite in both the antebellum cottonfields and 21st-century churches.

4. “The Lord” told her to go on a hunger strike for $20.

Shortly after the announcement that Tubman would replace Jackson on the $20 bill, The Atlantic’s Washington bureau chief, Yoni Appelbaum, tweeted a story recorded by the abolitionist’s first biographer, Sarah Hopkins Bradford. It goes like this:

Sometime after Tubman escaped to freedom, she learned her parents, still enslaved in Maryland, were in trouble, according to Appelbaum. She staged a sit-down hunger strike at the New York office of abolitionist Oliver Johnson in order to secure the $20 she needed to rescue them. The Lord had told her to, she reportedly said.

“Well, I guess the Lord’s mistaken this time,” Johnson said.

Tubman replied, “I guess he isn’t, sir. Anyhow, I’m gwine to sit here till I git it.” And she did: Supporters slipped $60 into her pockets while she slept, and she was able to lead her father to freedom.

Another fun $20 fact — Congress awarded her a monthly pension of $20.

5. Her dying words referred to heaven.

At the end of her life, Tubman was active in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn, N.Y., where she settled and where you can visit her home. According to her obituary in the Auburn Citizen, the last words she uttered were also ones of faith: “I go to prepare a place for you.”

About the author

RNS staff

117 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “I always tole God, ‘I’m gwine to hole stiddy on you, an’ you’ve got to see me through.”

    What’s with the Gullah dialect?

  • You’re talking about her face? Wow. Never mind that she not only escaped slavery, she went back into the Confederacy over and over again, risking her life each time to lead her family and hundreds more slaves to freedom. And she served as a spy for the U.S.!

    Harriet Tubman was the most courageous, most daring, most freedom-loving, most passionately compassionate hero I’ve ever heard of. I can’t even imagine that degree of bravery and selflessness.

    Ms. Tubman on the $20 bill will serve as an unparalleled beacon of light to us all — reminding us of what goodness, rightness, morality, and patriotism are all about.

    And you feel it necessary to insult her physical appearance? And then to dismiss her worthiness to receive this most-deserved honor? Wow. Your words speak volumes.

  • Unlike the wealthy princesses shrieking at each other on the Orwellian telescreen, Harriet Tubman is a true heroine whom all can admire – and I say this as the great-grandson of a Confederate soldier.

  • Sad that you have to equate a not so pretty face with her being on the $20 bill! You spend it not marry it.

  • PLEASE tell me John Keller is just a troll sitting in his parent’s basement in his underwear…

  • “Unabashed Christian”? Her nomination to the $20 bill will get torpedoed for sure if THAT gets around.

  • From history we know:

    – She was a Republican
    – She was an Evangelical Christian
    – She was an original conceal and carry member
    – She believed in personal freedom
    – Placing her on the $20 bill displaces a Democrat

    I’m good with that…

  • Always politics have to enter each discussion. But since you did choose to get political over this announcement, thedonald (who may be the next GOP candidate running for office) states that this person was chosen to be “politically correct”….apparently he does not agree with any of your points.

  • Betcha the whole lot of people on currency were Christians…..no outcry to kick the Christians off the bills.

  • Each of those (minus the last comment which was just too good to leave out) speaks to her character. I genuinely believe she was a great person who is a wonderful role model.

    I don’t really care what Donald thinks about it. I don’t see it as a PC move at all.

  • But if your comment “that was too good to leave out” was important enough for you to mention it, then apparently you have a positive view of the GOP…..just wanted to let you know what your front runner is saying about this decision….in case you missed it.

  • I’m actually independent, but her party is a historical fact and it rubs Dems the wrong way.

  • As were, of course, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Ulysses Grant, and Benjamin Franklin.

  • I’m thrilled with this choice, both Tubman on the front and Jackson shrunk to a small spot on the back.

    I can do no better than echo all the wonderful things G Key said about the Great American Hero — Ms. Harriet Tubman!

    Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

  • Not my point. Currently in the U.S. there is a general denigration of Christians and conservatives, and an atmosphere of disrepute projected upon them. Given this I simply find it ironic that an outspoken Christian would be considered for such an honor. I’m sorry you didn’t see the humor in it.

  • Don’t forget that yesterday’s Republicans are today’s Democrats.
    This dramatic and historic change took place during the Kennedy-Johnson era, though the groundwork was laid by FDR and Truman.

    As for “rub[bing] Dems the wrong way”, I consider the political Exodus of civil rights-oriented Republicans to be a moral victory for the Democrats.

  • Maybe they will put Tubman’s quote on the new 20:

    “Quakers almost as good as colored. They call themselves friends and you can trust them every time”

  • Sorry, I don’t see “disrepute projected upon Christians/conservatives” Unless, they choose to push their beliefs on those who may not agree with them. There are a lot of Christians (and conservatives) who are very religious, live their faith, but do not push their beliefs on others. I know many of them.

    But, it is disturbing when public officials push their form of religion and beliefs on those who do not share their views….even enacting laws that are religion driven, when clearly their is a separation of church and state. I work hard and pay my taxes….I don’t want a public official using the excuse of “religion” to choose not to do their job.

    I worked for a religious organization (Baptist) for a number of years and there were some very religious people who worked there and lived their faith. But they did not push their views on others and worked closely with people from all walks of life who did not share the same religious and moral views. In contrast, I worked in another private organization that I (along with other employees) were inundated with religious preaching, bible thumping, and of course attempts of conversion. Even polite “not interested” comments were ignored, until finally I had to become very angry with this “religious” person who was pushing his beliefs on me. Most people do not appreciate being preached to and getting “preached at”. Great if a person is religious…..some see great value in it….but if you “choose” to push it on others, than expect a great deal of “push back”…..which is happening in this country when laws are being based on religion or views of morality that all of us do not agree with. If people would mind their own business and “live and let live”, we would have fewer conflicts in this world. And if religious folk or conservatives continue to try to push their views on people who are clearly not interested and choose to enact nonsense laws that are religion driven, expect that they will be made to look like the fools they are.

  • What I find curious is why I have never heard of Ms Tubman. I can’t think of any reporting on Black history that ever mentioned Ms Tubman. I asked my kids and G-kids about her. Same story. Black Americans dropped the ball. Now government is picking it up.

  • If you never heard of her, it means you weren’t paying attention. There have been many stories about her over the years.

  • Who said the following : “It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purpose”

  • I don’t know how anyone can, in good faith, see it as anything but a PC move. The decision was made, first, that “a woman” would be on the bill, long before a decision was made on who it would be. If you’re picking someone explicitly on the basis of their sex, it’s PC by definition.

  • Please excuse the ‘boomer’…their schools focused on different matters in the 1950s and 60s.

  • I agree with some of your thoughts. I would like to bring to everyone’s attention that “separation of church and state is not in the constitution or laws. It is ironic, that people who use that phrase, think that they are promoting such separation. However, “separation of church and state” is a Baptist doctrine. So by demanding the separation, they are uniting church doctrine with government laws. The very opposite they claim to want.

  • “But, it is disturbing when public officials push their form of religion and beliefs on those who do not share their views….even enacting laws that are religion driven”

    Pretty much what William Wilberforce’s peers said about him. The abolition of slavery was entirely religion driven.

  • Fixing a glaring omission caused by a glaring bias (“only men count”)
    is simply and obviously “correct”.

    Adding “politically” neither negates the need for the fix nor diminishes the value of the fix. But it certainly makes that fix look bad, doesn’t it?

  • H.Tubman? If saving slaves is the criteria why isn’t the 20th Maine volunteer regiment on a bill? They were said to have prevented a Union loss at Gettysburg. Without that victory the Civil war may have ended.

    Or why not John Brown, the abolitionist? Or are crazy people not allowed?

  • To be fair, Brigham Young was called the “American Moses” before Harriet Tubman. He gained the nickname by both members and critics because of his actions in leading the Mormon Pioneers across the American frontier from Illinois to Utah from the late 1840’s through the mid 1850’s. He gained the name because he led the Mormons in a similar fashion to how Moses led the Jews, and the exile of the Mormons has been nicknamed the “Mormon Exodus”.

  • Hell, I’m a Democrat, and this is the first comment that has made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckles! ☺

  • Again, I’m a Dem and couldn’t care less about her party affiliation. Good people is good people. Some of my best friends are conservative, Christian Republicans, but that doesn’t make them bad people. A little misguided maybe… but not bad.

  • The “general denigration of Christians and conservatives” is a self-inflicted condition. And the ” atmosphere of disrepute” is not projected, it’s earned:

    1) Jim Bakker (used PTL Club to bilk believers out of million$, and paid $265,000 to cover up an affair he had with his church secretary)

    2) “I have sinned” Jimmy Swaggart (in 1988, it was revealed that the adulterous Swaggart had been cheating on his wife with a New Orleans prostitute – had the audacity to call Jim Bakker “a cancer on the body of Christ”),

    3) Newt Gingrich (hahahaha – insisted on discussing the terms of divorce from his SECOND wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery),

    4) Rush Limbaugh (a general stain on humanity),

    5) Larry Craig (served as Congressman and Senator – was arrested for lewd conduct in a men’s room stall at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport; an undercover police officer said that Craig’s behavior indicated he was seeking a sexual encounter (Craig pled guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct). And in December 2007, no less than eight gay men alleged to the Idaho Statesman that they had either had sexual affairs with Craig or that he had made sexual advances to them

    6) Ted Haggard (frequently engaged male escorts and was fond of using crystal meth,

    7)Laura Schlessinger (posed for nude photos and preached “family values” when her mother died in 2002. It was widely reported that Dr. Laura hadn’t spoken to her mother since 1986),

    8)Mark Foley (served in the House of Representatives from 1995-2006, got caught up in a gay sex scandal involving teenage male congressional pages)

    I could go on all day, but you get the point.

    If Christians and conservatives are going to continue to attempt to influence public policy, the least they can do is quit with the “do as I say, not as I do” lifestyles. By dropping their “holier than thou” attitude, they might not get quite as much pushback as they are currently experiencing.

    Just sayin’…

  • Maybe we disagree on whether Kennedy and Johnson were behind the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (or whether Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats), and on whether George Wallace was the one standing in the school’s doorway to oppose and attempt to prevent desegregation (or whether Wallace was a Republican)?

    At any rate, I wholeheartedly support the socially-minded decisions, actions, and justifications of Tubman, Lincoln, Kennedy, and Johnson. The fact that the first two were Republicans is perfectly fine with me, and it speaks well of the Republican Party of that era.

  • You bring up a point that you did not realize. When a conservative or a Christian does something wrong, it makes the news. If a Democrat does the same thing, or worse, no big deal. Example: Clinton Why the double standard?

  • I’m one of the more liberal Democrats, and I think Harriet Tubman was a wonderful, courageous and remarkable woman. There have been many respectable Republicans, especially prior to the 1960s.

    My point is, you’re wrong about Democrats being ‘rubbed the wrong way.’ Just take a look at who’s complaining about her choice for the $20 and you’ll see who really doesn’t like her.

  • Are PC and Equality the same thing to you? Is it possible to right a long injustice, not giving women their proper due, simply as that? Or any time past racism, classism, etc, are righted, is that PC? Does that make it less worthwhile?

  • I’m a Boomer and we studied Harriet Tubman and other great American heroes in my Great Plains public school.

  • I lived in the South growing up. Democrats, who had ruled in the South forevermore, we’re segregationists who mostly believed blacks were less human than their white selves. Johnson came up with the belittling plan to put them all on welfare as many as possible to “keep them voting Democrat from now on”. Sure enough, too many fell into the trap. Blacks had voted Republican before that. They mistakenly believed then that Democrats were their real friends. Many of them still mistakenly believe so. Republicans stood for freedom for all then. And now.

  • You must be retarded. I heard of Harriet Tubman by first grade. Of course, I’m 52. So maybe you were schooled by the politically correct…

  • You’re defining “evangelicals “. I’m speaking of Christians. They’re two different things, you know. You do know, don’t you?

  • I believe the Mormons also gained recognition as the church which recognized blacks as the cursed rebellious angels who joined Satan.

  • Thank you, “Her Leftness”!! Ben Carson’s remarks on this issue turned him into someone who should be referred to as”The dumbest doctor in existence,and Donald Trump’s parroting of Carson’s idiocy speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

  • Your ignorance is blatantly obvious here,Ignatz…an examination of the culture in which Ms.Tubman was raised,a culture that molded her linguistic patterns,would have informed you concerning her speech patterns,which had nothing to do with “Gullah”,something that I doubt you have little real knowledge of.Since its common historical knowledge that few Blacks could avail themselves of the nation’s educational system,Ms.Tubman’s poor command of English would be understandable to any well-informed,educated person.

  • So if you are talking about Bill Clinton and his affairs……you actually think that none of this made the news, it was no big deal and he was not impeached over it? What were you exactly doing during his last year of being president…..hiding under a rock? It was on the news CONSTANTLY.

    I think that his indiscretions were a fairly big deal. Now, if some are willing to tolerate it, that is up to them. The same way as when conservatives (many religious folk) also have affairs and people choose to tolerate it. No double standard. Most of us realize that none of us are perfect. But I for one is more concerned with hypocrites like “Newt” who was condemning Bill for doing the EXACT same thing he was doing with his newest honey while his wife was lying in the hospital trying to recover from cancer. People who fool around (which the great majority of Americans do) I can stand…..hypocrites who say one thing, but do EXACTLY the same thing they are hollering about are the ones that I can’t stand. And I think many people believe the way I do. And hypocrites come in all political parties and religious forms…..just seem to be more outspoken with the conservatives who think they have some type of high ground of morality.

  • Great way to rationalize it. Yes, I have known evangelicals who have NOT tried to badger me into going to their church and believing the way they do. So just keep making excuses for the Christian nuts who harass people who do not believe their way.

  • You should see “My Big Fat Mental Health History”. No delusions, but there’s enough material to supply you with insults indefinitely. 88-)>>>

  • And religion was used to rationalize slavery. Taking those savages and preaching to them about Jesus was the good Christian way to bring civilization to those savages….and also keep them enslaved since they were considered sub-human. Spanish gave American Indians two choices: become Catholic or die.

    Religion has been used and twisted throughout history to justify just about any action. And it is still being used this same way.

  • Sorry, the Supreme Court does not agree with you. The term “separation of Church and State” may never
    appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of
    Everson v. Board of Education stated “the clause against establishment
    of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between
    Church and State.’”

    So, yes, it is considered part of the constitution unless the Supreme Court in the future finds a reason to throw it out.

  • I think you are a bit paranoid……most of us know that the GOP during Lincoln’s time was fairly progressive in their views on slavery. But political parties evolve and the GOP along with the Dems have evolved over the last 150 years or more.

  • “Gullah” is the correct name of the slave Creole dialect of South Carolina and Georgia. Apparently, I’m not the one who’s ignorant.

    And you don’t put quotations in dialect in a serious article. Whether Gullah, Southern or Brooklyn.

  • And yet Christianity is the only thing in all of human history that ever came up with a compelling rationale for abolishing slavery — not once but twice.

    Every faith and every worldview has had slavery. But only Christianity has produced abolitionists.

  • And how many of those “good Christians” added to the deaths and misery of all of those heathen slaves and Indians in their pursuit of the “good book” when they were killing off the native population and enslaving others? And most if not all of the Southern plantation owners where Christian…..how many of those Christians turned away from slavery willingly? So don’t get on your high horse about so called Christians when slavery was abolished, there were most likely many more Christians who pushed for slavery than opposed it. Christian history has nothing but vengeance and oppression in its history.

  • Since Ms.Tubman was born in Maryland,as the article clearly stated,your “Gullah ” comment still hasn’t gained any relevance,Ignatz; as an African-American born and raised in the State of Mississippi, I’ve heard that particular linguistic inflection my entire life; and again, said dialectic patterns have NOTHING to do with the regions in which slaves found themselves! As for your quibbling over quotation marks–Seriously? One would assume that the author of the article could craft it as he saw fit,no?

  • “Since Ms.Tubman was born in Maryland,as the article clearly stated,your “Gullah ” comment still hasn’t gained any relevance,Ignatz; “said dialectic patterns have NOTHING to do with the regions in which slaves found themselves!”

    Then why did the author of the article clearly use it for Ms. Tubman? “‘I’m gwine to hole stiddy on you” is, indeed, Gullah.

    And yes, if you’re writing a serious biographical article about (say) George M. Cohan, you’re not going to have him saying, “Yiz kin be dere at toity-toid street.”

  • Many of them turned away from it willingly. My husband’s great-great-grandfather was one.

    “there were most likely many more Christians who pushed for slavery than opposed it.” Yet all who opposed it, both here and elsewhere in the world, were Christian. Why didn’t any OTHER faith or worldview, throughout all the many centurues of human history, cone out against it?

    “Christian history has nothing but vengeance and oppression in its history.” HUMAN history is full of vengeance and oppression. The very fact that you see anything wrong with vengeance (considered a sacred duty by most pre-christian cultures) is the result of Christian influence upon our culture.

  • I’m not sure that non-Christians of that era could publicly identify themselves without facing serious consequences ranging from evictions and loss of jobs to beatings and lynchings. There may well have been many closeted non-Christians who openly opposed slavery and worked the Underground Railroad hand-in-hand with Christians.

  • Other “Democratic affairs” since 2000 involved Gary Condit (Rep. D-CA), Tim Mahoney (Rep. D-FL), John Edwards (Sen. D-NC), Eric Massa (Rep. D-NY), Anthony Weiner (Rep. D-NY), and David Wu (Rep. D-OR).

    (ref Wikipedia, “List of federal political sex scandals in the United States”)

  • You think like the Judges of the Supreme court. They think they can make law. They may not. They have not changed the Constitution. My comment stands.

  • What a truly remarkable Christian woman she was, after I meet my Lord and Savior Jesus The Holy Christ, I will love to meet my brother’s and sisters in the Lord, Thank you Jesus.

  • Your ignorance knows no boundary. You obviously don’t have a clue regarding Carson’s larger point. Get a life … period!

  • You’re missing the larger point, GKey. Slavery is the natural default setting of fallen humanity. It existed in every society, in every place, all over the entire world. Up until a certain point, around about the 4th century AD, when suddenly a certain faith in a certain place gained enough influence that people started paying attention — and introduced the completely novel concept that human beings are of equal value before God by virtue of their creation in his image and independent of any tribal or social ties. And that place, gradually and steadily and voluntarily, repudiated slavery until it stood alone among the world’s civilization in so doing.

    Until the age of exploration, when Christendom came into close contact with the booming Muslim slave trade and the “default” was triggered again. And who stepped up on the world stage to oppose it again? Not the “Enlightenment Men,” of course, many of whom were non-Christians and faced no particular danger from it — they were far too “reasonable” and lukewarm about it all because their heroes, the classical philosophers, had myriad natural law arguments justifying slavery. It was left to the “zealots,” as their peers called them, like Wilberforce to take up the challenge once again and their reasons for so doing were exclusively religious, as everyone knew and many deplored. Such as the prime minister of Wilberforce’s day, who said: “Things have come to a pretty pass when one should permit one’s religion to invade public life.” Sound familiar? It should, for c.g. just said much the same thing above.

    But I think we’re all glad that the Christian religion and its unique views of fundamental human worth, which are and always have been the crux of the whole issue, DID invade public life that time. Or else we might have permanently fallen back in with the rest of the non-christian world– where there are more people enslaved today than ever before.

    This is why it is difficult to take seriously the invariable squeaks the sidelines that “Christians had slaves too!” It screams ignorance every time.

  • Ignorance means that one doesn’t know,”CoreConservative”—I’m more than willing to let you enlighten me as to Carson’s”larger point”. GO!!

  • I guess we’ll just have to disagree on some things, Shawnie5.

    I believe that some people think they’re so much better than others that they feel entitled to subjugate others into slavery. Rather than a “natural default”, I believe slavery is a willful act, a crime against humanity carried out by those humans who violently reject the equality of, respect for, and empathy toward their equals.

    I believe that neither Christians nor non-Christians have any exclusive claim on morality. Just as I previously stated that some non-Christians and some Christians were undoubtedly Abolitionists, I also have no doubt that other non-Christians and other Christians were slaveholders.

    Some people — happily a small minority — choose to mistreat others and disrespect their beliefs. But most people — a great majority — follow the Golden Rule by respecting others, their personal boundaries, and their private beliefs. (Yes, I deliberately cited Christianity’s Golden Rule, and I “zealously” follow it!)

  • “I believe that neither Christians nor non-Christians have any exclusive claim on morality” I never said Christians had an exclusive claim to morality. There are all kinds of moralities. I said that the Christian view of every human being’s identity and fundamental worth is at the base of morality as we understand it (and very much take it for granted) HERE, in the west.

    “But most people — a great majority — follow the Golden Rule by respecting others, their personal boundaries, and their private beliefs. ” That sounds very nice. But unfortunately it is not the prevailing theme of five millenia of recorded human history.

  • Re “But most people — a great majority — follow the Golden Rule by respecting others, their personal boundaries, and their private beliefs”, I should have clarified that I was referring to the present day.

  • But you did mention “Clinton” in your first comment, didn’t you? Those who choose to have affairs outside of their marriage come with all religious affiliations, political parties, ethnic backgrounds, and sexes….it is not just a GOP or Dem thing… it is a “human” thing. And I could give you a list of GOPers who have had affairs, but would be the point? I don’t care who has any affair with anyone….that is between that couple and it is THEIR business if they choose to work thru it, or end the marriage. And if it is a political figure, as long as it does not interfer with his or her job….it is no ones business but that couple. I do get upset with HYPOCRITES…..who say and condemn those who have affairs, yet have their own affairs either at the same time or have had affairs. But if you want to know some GOPers (since knowing the political affiliation of who fools around on his spouse is what floats your boat) let’s look at Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush SR for starters.

  • Their are judges on the Supreme Court whose only job is to interpret the constitution and this is what has happened through out the history of this country. If not, any one can read whatever they want into what the constitution says. I for one, believe that no one should be allowed to have a gun unless you are part of a “well regulated militia”…….but that is not how the Supreme Court judges have ruled, have they? And if we did not have the Supreme Court, who would make the judgements? Or is just how anyone believes they know what was meant in the constitution? So that everyone just does what they want based on what “they” think the constitution means. This is nothing different than the Bible….it can be interpreted in various ways and different religions do this routinely but they have no “Supreme Court” that make the decisions on what it means, do they?

  • Peter, please see the latest comment posted to this thread by c.g. It was accidentally posted to me.

  • c.g., I notified Peter of your immediately preceding comment. He’s the one who mentioned Clinton. I posted my previous comment to you only to support your rebuttal to Peter’s claim that Democratic politicians aren’t held to the same “sex scandal standards”(?) as Republicans. ?

  • Yes I was around during the Bill Clinton impeachment. The sexual acts of B. Clinton was ignored. It was more of a “so what?” attitude by the media. He got away with it. But every time a conservative even says something not political correct, the press balloons it to something horrid. Have a Republican saying something negative about immorality today and see what happens. But let H. Clinton say killing babies is ok, what happens? Where have YOU been?

  • You have a pretty sketchy memory during the Clinton years….maybe dementia is kicking in. All the news around the clock for MONTHS was about Monica and Bill. All of the sordid details were coming out almost daily about their exploits and her so called “friend” (Tripp) was on national TV daily talking about how Monica was “taped” by her without her knowledge. Recall the blue dress and trying to find it so that it could be tested? And the GOPers were in front of the news DAILY (especially Newt who was dong the SAME EXACT thing as Clinton that he was condemning Clinton for) to say how horrible this all was and that Clinton was a “sx addict”.

    So sorry, this story was in the news daily and the GOPers were on the nightly news talking about all of it and poor Monica was hiding as much as she could to stay away from the press and her so called “friend” who stabbed her in the back.

    Yes, the poor GOP conservatives are so “picked on”…..sounds like the lines that come from thedonald every time he gets bad press. And if you want to chastise anyone supporting a woman to choose to have an abortion that is protected by the LAW..so be it since that is at least 50% of ALL Americans who support abortion…..so go against 50% of the country and the Supreme Court that has ruled that it is LEGAL.

  • Human history is Christian history in many parts of the world….especially in the Us and Europe where there was much “vengeance and oppression” based by Christians usually to other Christians. When did I state that vegeance was wrong? It is a historical fact of how people were treated by Christians based on their religion. Religion has been the casue of most of the problems in the world and throughout history…..another historical fact.

  • So you think the erasure of religion would lead to paradise? Sorry — that experiment has already been tried and failed miserably. The world’s “problems” are located within the human heart itself.

  • Humans want to believe that there is something better after they die……political/religious leaders use this “belief” to keep their flocks in line, some political (kings,czars, royalty, emperors, etc..) and religious leaders (Popes, cult leaders) use religion to keep themselves in power and living better than everyone else. And those who belong to a religion “know” that theirs is the true one, they are the chosen ones (not just Jews), and only their god is the real one…..so it is easier to discriminate, enslave, many times kill those who don’t believe the way they do. And many religions rationalize behaviors in the name of their doctrine and what they think their god wants. Organized religion in general breeds this type of nonsense. But, no, religion is not going to go away ……but in this country, keep it OUT of government totally and leave people alone who do not believe in it. And don’t use it to discriminate against people…..especially with nonsense laws.

    And if a person was a true “Christian” …..leave all organized religion alone and do what Jesus said to do…..no one needs a preacher/priest to instruct anyone or tell you how to act. Live you life by his teachings and there would be less problems in this world.

  • Don’t go along with with the “preachings” of Shawnie5……most if not all of the slave owners in the South were Christians……plus Christians since our country was founded used slaves and enslaved the Indians if they could, or killed them off in the name of Christian religion. He is looking thru rose colored glasses and not being historically correct.

  • I remember Bill Clinton was guilty. He was not removed. Because of the bias of the media and Democrats he maintains political well being. The media and Democrats blamed the Republicans for pressing the issue, rather than condemning B. Clinton’s criminal conduct and shaming the Office of the President. That was the headlines I remember. If a Republican had the same guilt, they would have been removed from office and he would never be able to hold another office. Yes, I indeed remember.

  • I wonder where you get the idea that anyone has the right to end another’s life? If you think that a person has to be born to be alive, ask a mother to be if their baby is living. You have a false idea that a person that is not a citizen has no rights. Try murdering a citizen of another country. A woman has a right to choose. They made that decision at conception. Some women claim their body is their own. Not true. There is a higher law that says that you are NOT your own. So even though something was made legal by a mistake of the Supreme Court, it is still wrong. You think you are “protecting” a woman’s right. What about the female baby?
    Why doesn’t a male have rights? We are supposed to have EQUAL rights. There are many things this country does that is wrong, but legal. Does that make it right?…

  • I think you have your story wrong about Newt. Newt never disgraced the office Of President, nor any office he held. It was media bias in that gave you that impression. Newt resigned his office, even though he did nothing wrong legally. That is very different from Clinton.

  • “Live you life by his teachings and there would be less problems in this world.”

    So say you. However, the Teacher Himself warned that those who DID follow His teachings (and I don’t mean the phonies) would have problems in this world because His ways are a reproach to the fallen world — “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,” as Peter put it.

    Without religion political leaders will simply use something else to keep their subjects in line and themselves in power — the 20th century taught us that quite painfully. The problem is and always will be within us.

  • And all those you mentioned were conservatives by the standards of either party today. Well maybe FDR was a liberal but he at lest had some restraint unlike the liberal totalitarian fascists of today.

  • Christian nut harassing is irritating, true; it doesn’t worry me, however. Democrats who are so convinced they are right about everything that they want to literally prosecute or destroy the livelihoods of people who disagree with them are much more bigoted and worrisome in every way. It is far beyond irritating. You want a rabid religious fanatic in the United States today? Scratch a liberal, and that’s what you’ll find under the veneer of sanctimonious superiority.

  • I think you have the wrong party that is trying to legislate morality and what they think is the way that all should live…much of it based on religion. The GOPers are making nonsense laws based on their religious views and are trying to take freedoms away from people, especially woman who they make do invasive medical treatments that are not only expensive, but embarrassing. It is the so called “morality police” of GOPers who push their views thru nonsense laws. Most prevelant with anti-gay legislation and woman who want to get LEGAL abortions.

  • Now where is Larry, with his bloviations about how it doesn’t matter what the framers intended, and that whatever is not in the text of the Constitution (and some that is, for that matter) may be airily disregarded–unless it suits your own agenda, of course?

    Funny that in the letter from which that famous church-state separation language is taken, Jefferson said that although he sympathised with the Danbury Baptists in their desire for such a “wall,” he as part of the federal government could do nothing about because church-state relations were a state matter. Seems to me that if said”wall” were part of the constitution then Jefferson would not have been expressing regret at the lack of one.

  • That is why we have a Supreme Court and they don’t always rule the same…do they? If all of these issues were so easy to determine, than all of the justices would always rule the same way. And issues that are resolved at one time (you think) can be looked at years later, and they can be resolved differently.

  • And of course “you” decide who the phonies are. Ha!! Do away with organized religion…..best way to end a lot of violence in this world. Believe what you want, just don’t throw it at other people.

  • You need to “read up ” on old Newt. He has been married 3 times…..and both of his 2 divorces were because of him fooling around with a new “honey”. His last “new honey” that we know of, was his asst and he went to his wives bedside after her cancer surgery to ask for a divorcee…..what a “stand up” guy!! And this is when he was on TV every nite ranting and raving about how awful Bill was for foolin around with Monica…while he was doing the exact thing….typical GOP HYPOCRITE. I actually “forgot” his ethics violations….just more evidence of what a “stand up ” guy he is…..If Bill disgraced his office for his affair, didn’t Newt also? Or are Dems held to a different standard than GOPers?

  • Abortion has always been around…..many times at the insistence of the fathers….and it always will be. It is just legal. If it was illegal, med students would supply the meds to get abortions (like they have in the past), rich gals would fly to Mexico for the weekend, and poor girls would use coat hangers.

  • Baloney….he was not removed from office due to the votes …..nothing to do with media. And most Americans didn’t care if he was fooling around and he had the highest popularity of any outgoing president. GOPers just upset because the people loved him….even with nonsense impeachment. Bush should have been impeached for LYING to us to get us into Iraq. I care when lies are told that end up KILLING Americans and costing us billions of my tax money. Most of dont’ care who fools around with who.

  • We all have a responsibility to exercise discernment wrt “phonies.” Christ stated this quite matter-of-factly.

    “Do away with organized religion…..best way to end a lot of violence in this world.” Yeah, that created so much peace and prosperity in the USSR, China, Albania, Cuba, Korea, etc…

  • Your comment proves my point. You got your information from biased media that tried to claim Newt’s actions were as bad as B Clinton’s. No even close. If you check out the story of when Newt brought up the divorce, you will discover another deception by the media. I stand by my post.

  • You made my point again, Media did not condemn B Clinton’s action. They supported him. Clinton should have been voted out in his impeachment. The Democrats refused to vote him out. B Clinton DID have sex in the oval office. He disgraced the office of the president. He lied about it. He should have been removed. Bush did not lie. He believed the information he was given. If you check it out the Clintons also voted for the war. Very few Americans were killed during the war. If you check it out, more people have been killed because Obama with drew troupes that were needed to protect the reconstruction. Obama’s with drawing troops has killed people and cost us Billions. Where is your outrage??? Media continue to call the reconstruction WAR. That is a lie, and media has continue to report the lie. It seems you have fallen for the media lie.

  • Not everyone believes that abortion is wrong…..and it will continue whether it is legal or not.

  • So Newt was not having an affair with his asst when he was still married to his 2nd wife? He did not ask his wife for a divorce to marry his new sweetie while they were still married? Is that what you are implying? But if Bill gets a bl job by some sweetie while he is married, and ole Newt gets the same (most likely more than an ocassional bl job), then somehow they are so much different? Or are they so much different because you HATE Clinton, and like ole Newt? Sorry, if having an affair/bl job/roll in the hay…..with some sweetie when you are still married is wrong……why is it only wrong for Bill and not Newt? You got any logic here going? Now if your memory is a bit sketchy…..check this out:

    “Gingrich also acknowledged cheating on Ginther (his 2nd wife) while leading the
    impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for allegations of
    perjury involving the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil case and the
    president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

  • What a well-thought-out “rebuttal.” Hope you didn’t lose too much sleep thinking up that one. Adios.

  • Newt did not disgrace the office of the President. He did not try to lie his way through his ordeal. Clinton did. Newt did wrong, but media presented him as doing something horrid. as compared to B. Clinton. The media had a “so what” attitude on Clinton and condemned the accusers instead. Clinton used his authority to abuse M. Lewinsky, a junior in his office chain. There is a difference.

  • And Newt used his authority to abuse his assistant….a junior (22 years younger than old Newt) in his office. So he also disgraced his office in the House and should have also been impeached…..or does it make a difference because he is a GOPer and Clinton is a Dem? The media did not present Newt as “horrible” for his affair with his honey…..they didn’t even KNOW about it until after the Clinton impeachment when Newt was on the nightly news scolding Clinton for the EXACT thing he was doing.

    To refresh your memory: “Gingrich, who led the fight to remove Clinton from office, didn’t just have one or two affairs. The New Republic reported in 2011 that Gingrich’s record of sleeping with women that just so happened to not be his wife went way back to 1974, when staffers complained his first campaign for office was derailed in part by a widely known affair he was having with a young staffer. Gingrich is now on his third marriage to Callista Gingrich, who he began seeing while married to his second wife, Marianne Ginther, during the Clinton impeachment hearings.
    He divorced his first wife, Jackie Battley, while she was recovering from a tumor operation in the hospital. By his own admission, he cheated on her too. Gingrich claims the affairs were the result of working too hard in the Capitol for his constituents.” So yes, Newt is a real “stand up” guy when it comes to morality and pointing his finger at others, isn’t he?

    Most Americans do not care who has affairs with who…..that is between the married couple. Since at least 50% if not more, spouses cheat while married, it is fairly common. I don’t care if Newt cheated on all of his wives and found new honeys…..I don’t care if Clinton cheated…….I do care if a person is a HYPOCRITE……which Newt clearly is.

  • And where did you get your information???… from the biased media! You fell for their bloated news articles. You are so wrong to think that Monica was one of few. Did Newt destroy any person that he had a relationship? Clinton did, many times, even when he was in Alabama, years before being in the White House. There are reports Clinton had someone murdered. Did Newt use his authority to have females delivered to his office? Clinton did. The story of Newt’s wife being in the hospital has been stretched by the media. You fell for it. Trying to compare Clinton to Newt does not impress me. Get a life.

  • Re: “Currently in the U.S. there is a general denigration of Christians and conservatives, and an atmosphere of disrepute projected upon them.”

    As I see it, what there is, is some Christians being critiqued, then using their Christianity as their defense and as something of a shield. As if to say, “How dare you criticize me! If you criticize me, you criticize Jesus, and we just can’t have that!”

    I suppose, if one wishes to, one can sit back and whine that a supposedly-small number of extreme Christians are making all of Christianity look bad, and be all offended and everything whenever any of them are critiqued and snivel and pout about it. That’s the easy way out, I suppose. Doesn’t take much effort to do that.

    The more courageous — but also more effective — route would be to deal with those extremists. Take them on, rein them in, discipline them, make them less extreme, so that their behavior doesn’t reflect poorly on one’s religion. Having done that, one can then participate in the criticism of extremism, rather than bellyaching that one’s co-religionists are being critiqued.

    Unfortunately I don’t see enough of that sort of courage. I could be wrong, but I suspect it’s in short supply among Christians (as well as among the believers of pretty much every religion that exists). Most believers would rather be offended that any of their co-religionists are being critiqued, than deal with whatever it was that drew the criticism in the first place. But hey, what could this cold-hearted, cynical, godless agnostic heathen possibly know about such important, sacred things?

  • Re: “Pretty much what William Wilberforce’s peers said about him. The abolition of slavery was entirely religion driven.”

    Ah. So, you’re saying pretty much anyone’s attempt to use the public sphere to push his/her religion on others, is the moral equivalent of Abolition? That all such efforts are, by definition, positive, and can never possibly be harmful or deleterious? Really!?

    As for religion being behind Abolition … one certainly can say it was, because religious arguments were offered against slavery. But … religious arguments in favor of slavery were also offered by its proponents. Support for slavery even propelled the founding of entire Christian denominations (e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention).

    Let’s be honest about it: There were lots of Christians on both sides of the issue! The occidental world in which the Abolition movement played itself out, was overwhelmingly religious (and Christian at that). Yes, there’s no way Abolition could have prevailed without the support of Christians. But, had it been defeated, it would have been defeated by Christians, too.

  • Re: “However, ‘separation of church and state’ is a Baptist doctrine.”

    Indeed, this is worth noting! The phrase comes from something Roger Williams — a Baptist preacher and the founder of Rhode Island — said in his treatise, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience. Lots of people forget him, but they shouldn’t. They also shouldn’t forget that he was an extremely devout Christian.

  • Clinton didn’t make the news??? What planet are you living on? They’ve never NOT been on the news. You’re just frustrated that the consequences of their perceived bad acts didn’t result in a conviction or loss of position.

  • I perceive you did not READ the media support of Clinton concerning his misconduct. The media would not have supported the same conduct from a conservative. If you had READ the media, you would have read how much they condemned the horrid conservatives for pressing charges. I call that a bias. It is sad that Clinton was not convicted… after all, he WAS guilty.

ADVERTISEMENTs