Jindal clearly believes that Protestantism is wrong.
Aug 22nd, 2007 by Daniel Z.
Bobby Jindal is free to believe what he wants to believe. And as long as he doesn’t try and use government to promote his religion and to force the rules of his religion on others, then it is my opinion that his religion should not be used as part of a campaign.
I also must say that as a Jewish person I am very thankful for what the Catholic Church has done, especially under the late Pope John Paul II, to help the Jewish people out. When Pope John Paul II described Judaism as Christianity’s elder brother in faith whose covenant with God has never been revoked, it verified what I had believed for a long time which was that in order for Christianity to be consistent, it would have to accept the fact that Jews have their own, separate, covenant with God and that Jews need not accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior to be viewed as being correct in the eyes of God.
I have yet to see the ad in question but there has been much debate on this issue that it would be silly for a site that seeks to cover Bobby Jindal and his candidacy to not include any comments on his previous writings.
Bobby Jindal is stating that the Democratic ads are a distortion of what he writes. He has even illogically implied that they are doing so because they are against his ethics plan. (Listen to that absurd claim at the following link http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/BATONROUGE-LA/WJBO-AM/Jindal%20Ads%20Response.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=BATONROUGE-LA&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=1178&STATION_ID=WJBO-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=1150_WJBO&PCAST_CAT=News&PCAST_TITLE=WJBO_Interviews_%26_More ). This follows the whole illogical idea I brought up the other day that the Jindal campaign supports which pretty much states that if you oppose Jindal, it is because you oppose his “31 point plan” on dealing with ethics. As I said before, one can support meaningful ethics reform without supporting Bobby Jindal Governor. I would expect that a Rhodes Scholar would understand that. Perhaps he just thinks that people are stupid and wont catch on to his illogical reasoning. I have a little more faith in people. Anyway, back to the topic at hand…
Let’s first just state the obvious. Bobby Jindal believes that Protestantism is wrong. If Bobby Jindal felt that Protestantism was correct it its beliefs then he would be a Protestant and not a Catholic, period.
However, the ad’s that attack Jindal’s comments on faith go into his articles. A copy of one of the writings has been posted at the following link (I don’t know how long it will be up)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1609536/posts
Now, let’s discuss what Bobby Jindal actually says.
“Without inflating the issues that separate Catholics from Protestants, for we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins, I want to refute the notion that Catholicism is merely another denomination with no more merit than any other.”
According to Bobby Jindal, there is a notion that Catholicism does not have more merit than other religious denominations of Christianity and he feels that notion is wrong. This is him clearly stating that the Catholic Church is “better” than other churches. Again, this is not a shocker, since he is a Catholic and obviously embraces what they teach.
“The Reformers who left the Catholic Church rejected, to varying degrees, five beliefs which continue to be upheld by the Catholic Church.”
Just keep this in mind; the people who left the Catholic Church are people who reject portions of what the Catholic Church states.
“All churches follow their own traditions, but the Catholic Church claims a continuous link to the oral tradition which preceded and formed the canon of Scripture, the same apostolic (Acts 2:42) Tradition St. Paul commanded us to abide by (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2).”
So, according to Jindal’s statement, the Catholic Church is the one true Church and is the only one you can believe to accurately interpret the Bible.
So, let’s get to the crux of the matter. Has the Louisiana Democratic Party misquoted Jindal in his writings? Or is Jindal just trying to weasel out of his words that could very well alienate non-Catholic voters in Louisiana?
“Post-Reformation history does not reflect the unity and harmony of the “one flock” instituted by Christ (Jn. 10:16; see also Jn. 17:11, 17:21-23; Acts 4:32; Eph. 4:3-6, 4:13; Rom. 12:5, 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 1:10-11, 3:4, 12:12-13; Phil. 1:27, 2:2), but rather a scandalous series of divisions and new denominations, including some that can hardly be called Christian. Yet Christ would not have demanded unity without providing the necessary leadership to maintain it. The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their “utterly depraved” minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin.”
According to Jindal, the Church is infallible (at least it its determinations of the canon of the bible) and it must be trusted to interpret the bible (one would assume that Jindal implies that it should be trusted by all).
If one does not trust the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the bible then the (only) alternative is to trust individuals with “utterly depraved minds”. In the audio linked to above, Jindal claims that they are putting words in his mouth by attributing the words of Calvin to him. Now, does Jindal call people utterly depraved or is Jindal quoting Calvin? The answer is yes. Jindal is both quoting Calvin AND stating that the only alternative would be to trust individuals who have utterly depraved minds. Why? Jindal is using the words of Calvin to back up his own point. So he obviously agrees with Calvin!
Words have meaning, and no matter how much Jindal wants to dance around what he wrote, the fact of the matter is that he wrote those words. By using the words of Calvin in that sentence he accepted and agreed with the words.
Now, what is Calvin saying? Is Calvin saying that only Protestants are depraved? No. In my opinion Calvin is saying that all people have “utterly depraved” minds and because of this they cannot be trusted to interpret the Bible. So according to Jindal, using the words of Calvin, Protestants (as well as everyone else) are incapable of determining the true meaning of the bible and should follow the Catholic Church, which is the only entity capable of determining the true meaning of the Bible.
More important to protestants would be his statement; “The choice is between Catholicism’s authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy.”
So, according to Jindal you have two choices. Believe the Catholic Church or believe someone else’s “subjective interpretation” which leads to heresy. So according to Bobby Jindal, if you believe any entity other than the Catholic Church, you are being led to heresy.
There is a lot of wordplay going on in the defense of Jindal and his writings. According to Jindal himself, “they’re absolute lies. We’re not talking about an exaggeration… They’re completely out of bounds here.”
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-5/11877622919270.xml&coll=1
Jindal doth protest too much, methinks. He may not specifically say “Protestants are heretics” but he does say that being a protestant (and therefore not accepting “Catholicism’s authoritative Magisterium”) leads to heresy.
He may not specifically say that “Protestants are scandalous” but he does say that the divisions in Christianity (that created Protestantism) where scandalous.
He may not specifically say that “Protestants are depraved and selfish” but he does imply that the way Protestants interpret the Bible is flawed because humans are “utterly depraved” and selfish and they need the Catholic Church to determine what the Bible means.
Many of the Jindal apologists point to the end of Jindal’s own writing as a defense of Jindal and his words when he states, “Nonetheless, the Catholic Church must live up to her name by incorporating the many Spirit-led movements found outside her walls. For example, the energy and fervor that animate the Baptist and Pentecostal denominations, the stirring biblical preaching of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and the liturgical solemnity of the Anglicans must find expression within Catholicism.”
They, while ironically claiming that the Democrats have taken Jindal’s words out of context, take Jindal’s own words out of context by claiming Jindal is being supportive of other sects of Christianity in this paragraph.
In this paragraph Jindal does point out that Catholicism may be able to learn a few things via the zeal that members of other Christian Sects use as they spread the word about Jesus Christ. However, if you take the paragraph within the context of the entire passage, Jindal obviously feels that the “word” Protestants are sharing is at least partially flawed since they do not listen to the Catholic Church.
Jindal ends his essay with, “but I do not want our Evangelical friends to overlook those beliefs that make Catholicism unique. The challenge is for all Christians to follow Jesus wherever He leads; one significant part of that challenge is to consider seriously the claims of the Catholic Church.”
But let’s go back to the audio. Jindal claims that he only mentions other specific denomination when he praises them. This is very misleading because yes, he only mentions specific denominations to give them praise. However, he attacks Protestantism as a whole, which include all those denominations, when he says that the Catholic Church is the only one capable of interpreting the Gospel. He says that Jesus Christ wanted “us” united. What he leaves out in the audio is that in order to truly be united, you have to follow the Catholic Church. Basically, Jindal is saying that people need to worship the way that Jindal worships or they are incorrect because they trust their own minds and doing so is flawed.
Jindal states that the Democratic Party is claiming that Jindal insulted non-Catholics. Well, I don’t know about you but if I was a Christian and Bobby Jindal told me that as a Protestant, my religious beliefs are flawed since I don’t follow the Catholic Church, I would be pretty insulted.
Jindal claims, in the audio, that he is trying to bring Christianity together. Now, if Jindal thinks that he can bring Christianity together then he is absolutely delusional, especially with the words this article. Why? Well the WAY that Jindal wants Christianity to come together is by having the other sects of Christianity abandon THEIR beliefs and accept the doctrine of the Catholic Church. There is no other way to honestly interpret Jindal’s article. He can spin it all he wants, but when it is all said and done Bobby Jindal is a Catholic. As a Catholic he believes that his religion is correct and other religions are wrong (except for maybe Judaism because Catholic Doctrine accepts Judaism as valid as well).
So here is a recap of where we are.
Bobby Jindal did not say that only Protestants are depraved and selfish. However, he views Protestant thought as flawed because all humans are depraved and selfish and therefore are incapable of interpreting the Bible. According to Jindal, the only entity capable of correct Bible interpretation is the Catholic Church.
Bobby Jindal did not say that the Protestant churches are scandalous but he did say that the rift that formed when people split from the church was scandalous.
So perhaps it would have been better for the Democratic Party to have said “Bobby Jindal believes that Protestantism is wrong because humans are depraved and selfish” instead of them just saying “Protestants are depraved and selfish”.
Now, if I had to make the decision on what sort of ads to run, would I have chosen an ad that could be construed as attacking Bobby Jindal’s faith? No, that would not have been my personal choice. I would rather have ads that are based on his flawed legislative and administrative record. However, is this a “new low” as some people are calling it? No. Just as Bobby Jindal and the Republican Party spin Jindal’s record to make him look better, the Democratic Party will spin Bobby Jindal’s record the other way in order to make him look worse. And as long as Bobby Jindal and the Republican Party lie, spin, manipulate, and otherwise distort the truth in order to get him elected, they do not come from a moral high ground that allows them to attack others for doing the same thing to them, regardless of if those claims are true or not.
(11 votes, average: 3.09 out of 5)
Loading ...
Loading ...
After viewing the ad, it really isn’t that bad or shocking. His article does, in fact, question the beliefs of protestants. He clearly states that unless you follow the Catholic Church your views are likely to be flawed.
Any minor errors that I pointed out above do not remove the facts that Jindal is a Catholic and is a very outspoken one at that. He is proud of his religion. He wears his religion on his sleeve. He campaigns around the state using his religion. He does make me feel like he would use government to push his beleifs on me. So, if it is ok for Jindal to campaign on his religion, why isn’t it ok for others to point out what Jindal has said about other religions?
And this follows the typical logic behind Jindal. He can speak about his religion while campaigning but others cant speak about his religion. He cries about the ads that attack him, but it is ok for him to create ads about other people. It is sheer hypocricy.
Would I have rathered that the Democratic party play this commercial more than the other one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckHO2tiCPfE
Absolutely. Will I put down the Democratic party for pointing out Jindal’s writings and allowing peope to then make their own determination about Jindal by providing links to the Oxford Review? No. It is better than what Jindal does. Jindal makes claims about the Democratic candidates and does not give a url to explain why he makes those claims.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QgVYjcI2QLQ
So you have the Democratic party providing the source material for their attacks, and the Jindal campaign who fails to provide their source material as to why the Democratic candidates are unable to “stop corruption”. Again, another example of the Jindal hypocricy. He claims that sourced material is a bunch of lies, yet his campaign commercial has no sources at all. It is just a flat out insult with nothing to back it up.
Yet we are supposed to just believe Jindal? I don’t think so.
This hypocricy is yet another reason why as a choice for Governor, Bobby Jindal is bad.
Can I point you to the Louisiana Democratic Party’s final link at www.jindalonreligion.com?
TheDemocratic Party of Louisiana states: Jindal argues that the interpretation of the Book of “Genesis is irrelevant.”
The article actually reads: “These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist’s interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A b eing which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature.”
In essence, Jindal is arguing, whether you believe in evolution or creation, that there had to be a Creator involved in whatever process occurred. There is no way that Jindal is arguing that “Genesis is irrelevant.”
I’m fine with the Democratic Party pointing to Jindal’s religious writings, but what is flat out wrong is the way they take these innocuous writings that would be acceptable to the vast majority of Protestants (including me as a Prebyterian) and twist them into a contrived religious warfare by a Catholic on Protestants for the sake of winning an election.
When you get to that point, no matter what you think about Mr. Jindal personally or his campaign and policies, it creates distrust among the voters and is injurious to the body politic as a whole … and all decent, patriotic citizens (whether Democrat or Republican) should stand up and say THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I was attacked earlier on these forums because I used the title “Fraud and Abuse: The Jindal Healthcare Record Revisited” (or someting to that effect).
A reader assumed that in my one sentance that I was claiming Jindal committed acts of fraud and abuse while in charge. However, a responsible reader would have read the article first and realized the context in which the title was used.
I feel that this is largely what is going on with this entire “Jindal on Religion” issue. The Democratic Party used things in a 30 second blurb to grab the attention of the viewer and then provided a link for that reader to continue on and research the topic on their own. Instead of viewing this ad and the statement as people should (i.e. attention grabbers in order get people to read the articles in their entirety), people are taking these blurbs in a vacuum and we all know that this is wrong.
Now, you state “There is no way that Jindal is arguing that “Genesis is irrelevant.”” I agree, there is no way that Jindal is arguing that Genesis is irrelevent. And you know what else, the Democratic Party is not even asserting this! The Democratic Party is pointing to Jindals flawed statement that the interpretation of Genesis is irrelevent. The interpretation of Genesis is a key portion of the discussions of “young earth” and “old earth” belief systems. To cite it as irrelevant is to not understand the discussion.
I do have to disagree with you that the statements made by Jindal would be acceptable to a majority of Protestants. So you accept Jindal’s statement that since you are human you are incapable of understanding what the gospel means and the only way for you to really know what God is telling you to do is to listen to the interpretation of the Catholic Church? If that is the case then why are you a Presbyterian?
And while I wouldn’t have run such an ad if I had to make the decision, I have to question why it is acceptable for Jindal to campaign using his religious beliefs but it is not acceptable for others to question Jindal’s statements on religion.
Daniel Zimmerman,
(This is my reponse to your comments to my article on Louisiana Conservative. I felt it only fair that your readers be allowed to read an opposing view to your comments. I am certain you will forgive me for not maintaining our conversation here.)
It would appear that the local Democrat committee has you working overtime trying to make this situation into something better than the disaster it is.
Your defense of the ad is as insulting as the ad.
It is a serious character flaw to be unable to admit a mistake, especially one as huge as this one. You gain no credit by saying you would not have run the ad IF you were the head of the Democrat Party and then go on to repeat the same lies.
There was NOTHING accurate about the ad and EVERYONE involved knew it BEFORE it was ever released. To say otherwise is to say the Democrat Party is a bunch of buffoons. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe everything about this ad was nothing less than premeditated. I believe the despicable individuals ultimately responsible for this ad seeing the light of day knew EXACTLY what they were doing and those same Democrats knew FULL WELL the ad was a myriad of falsehoods.
Your analysis of the ad bears no credibility given your past distortions of Bobby’s record. I would prefer to take the word of an independent source affording you more respect than you have allowed our readers.
(From KNOE-TV, Monroe, LA)
”ULM Political Scientist John Sutherlin says this type of attack ad is something new in Louisiana.
Sutherlin says, ”We haven’t seen anyone overtly attacked based on sayings that they’ve made with regards to religion and we’ve also not seen this selective way that they’ve targeted Jindal.”
Sutherlin is referring to this television ad which takes quotes from Jindal’s review.
………….
Sutherlin says, ”The television ad itself selects key phrases and words from some of Jindal’s writings.”
Such as the term ”scandalous.” Jindal says the word comes from a larger portion of text referring to the process of denominations becoming divided - not the actual denominations themselves.
The sentence in its entirety reads: ”Post-reformation history does not reflect the unity and harmony of the ”one flock” instituted by Christ, but rather a series of scandalous divisions and new denominations, including some that can hardly be called Christian.”
The phrase ’utterly depraved’ is also used, but according to the full text, it’s a term used by Protestant Reformer John Calvin. Jindal merely quotes that term, as well as the Calvinist phrase ”selfish desires.”
Sutherlin says, ”A lot of what is being portrayed in the ads is not quite accurate, they are a distortion of what he actually said.”
It is also very telling, Mr. Zimmerman, just how far back the hacks had to go and were still unable to come up with anything truthful to use against Bobby. With nothing at all to use against this good man, the Democrats fabricated the most despicable lies possible in an attempt to conjure up nothing less than a ”holy war”.
Perhaps your lack of Christian teachings does not allow you to understand the egregious nature of trying to pit Christian against Christian, and I do not hold that against YOU. However, Mr. Boasso is a self-proclaimed Catholic that SHOULD know better. If Mr. Boasso is the best the Democrats have to offer, then how could it be more clear that Louisiana is in dire need of change, given the Democrat control this state has suffered for too many years.
New Vern Kennedy Poll/ Not Good For Democrats
Verne Kennedy poll numbers:
54% Bobby Jindal
14% Walter Boasso
6% Ray Nagin
3% John Georges
3% Foster Campbell
Name Recognition
97% Bobby Jindal
76% Walter Boasso
56% John Georges
That poor little Catholic Indian boy is making asses out of the Democrats.
“Well, I don’t know about you but if I was a Christian and Bobby Jindal told me that as a Protestant, my religious beliefs are flawed since I don’t follow the Catholic Church, I would be pretty insulted.”
Hey friend, after reading Jindal’s article I must point out to you the essence of the the Protestant Reformation. It is occurred due to a PROTEST of the Catholic church. It would therefore expect someone who is a devout Catholic to disagree with those who protest the magesterium’s authority, just as I would expect a devout protestant to disagree with someone who views the Catholic church as being infallible. What is new here? His writings are innocuous to anyone who understands the differences between religions. For instance, you are Jewish. As a Christian, should I be insulted if you write a Jewish news article that says that Jesus is not God? Give me a break.
4union: Welcome back. For starters I need to inform you that when I blog on Jindalisbad.com I am blogging for myself and not as a representitive of the JPDEC.
I have no problem with you posting here and sharing your opposite viewpoint as long as you do so honestly and without profanity.
“Your defense of the ad is as insulting as the ad.”
The ad correctly claimed that Jindal made comments that would be insulting to Protestants.
“It is a serious character flaw to be unable to admit a mistake, especially one as huge as this one.”
I have admitted many mistakes in the past. If a mistake was made with releasing this ad it was not mine.
“You gain no credit by saying you would not have run the ad IF you were the head of the Democrat Party and then go on to repeat the same lies”
I am not repeating the same lies. I am correcting some of the minor errors that where stated in the ad and showing that the general theme of the ad was correct. It is unfortunate that the Jindal campaign and his apologists have to use partial quotes to defend him because we both know that if they used the full quotes the statements would become an attack against Protestant thought.
“There was NOTHING accurate about the ad”
The ad correctly states that Jindal questions the beliefs of non-Catholics.
The ad correctly states that Jindal made statements that would insult protestant religions.
“Your analysis of the ad bears no credibility given your past distortions of Bobby’s record.”
Your claimed distortions. Just because you claim what I say is a distortion does not make it so.
“Such as the term ”scandalous.” Jindal says the word comes from a larger portion of text referring to the process of denominations becoming divided - not the actual denominations themselves.”
And I believe I said the exact same thing. “He may not specifically say that “Protestants are scandalous” but he does say that the divisions in Christianity (that created Protestantism) where scandalous.” See.
“The phrase ’utterly depraved’ is also used, but according to the full text, it’s a term used by Protestant Reformer John Calvin. Jindal merely quotes that term, as well as the Calvinist phrase ”selfish desires.””
Sutherlin is completely incorrect here. He does not “merely” quote Calvin. He quotes Calvin to back up his views. Doing so shows that Jindal agrees with Calvin. Otherwise, he would have used other words to back his claims.
“It is also very telling, Mr. Zimmerman, just how far back the hacks had to go and were still unable to come up with anything truthful to use against Bobby.”
I have directly quoted Jindal’s writing and have made many truthful statements about this article. Of course you will claim otherwise but as a Jindal apologist I would expect nothing less. And again, I never said running the ad was a good idea.
“With nothing at all to use against this good man, the Democrats fabricated the most despicable lies possible in an attempt to conjure up nothing less than a ”holy war”.”
Actually, there is plenty to use against Jindal, as can be seen in the other ads that have been released by the LDP. They actually SOURCE their information in the ads about Jindal (unlike Jindal’s clown ad that contains no information to back up the wild claims in those)
And if Jindal was a “good man” he would not state to the Times Picayune and on the Jim Brown show that he disagrees with using attack ads and then turn around the very next week and release one.
“Perhaps your lack of Christian teachings does not allow you to understand the egregious nature of trying to pit Christian against Christian”
Well, you are correct that I have been education in the Jewish faith and my official education may not contain as much education on the Christian faith. However, I have made it a priority in my life to try and understand why people of other faiths believe the way that they do. Not only do I know the harm that can take place when you attack someone for their religious beliefs (which is one of the reasons why I have repeatedly stated that I would not have released those ads), I also know that there has been much animosity between the Christian sects.
“However, Mr. Boasso is a self-proclaimed Catholic that SHOULD know better. If Mr. Boasso is the best the Democrats have to offer, then how could it be more clear that Louisiana is in dire need of change, given the Democrat control this state has suffered for too many years. ”
I thought that anyone Baptised under the Catholic church is a Catholic for life according to the Catholic religion. Perhaps im wrong.
I do agree with you that Louisiana needs a change. I see absolutely no qualities in Bobby Jindal that tell me he will be a change (at least in a positive direction).
This is one of the most inarticulate and illogical political and religious critiques that I have read in a long time. Thanks for the laugh.
Billy: Perhaps you would like to share what you found so illogical.