home
RSS
Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate?
Delman Coates at Mt. Ennon Baptist Church is among a minority of black ministers in Maryland who have endorsed gay rights.
May 12th, 2012
08:00 AM ET

Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate?

By John Blake, CNN

(CNN) - Some people wonder if the black church will punish President Barack Obama for announcing support for same-sex marriage.

Here’s another question:

Why would the black church cite scripture to exclude gays when a similar approach to the Bible was used to enslave their ancestors?

“It’s so unfortunate,” says James Cone, one the nation’s most influential black theologians and author of “The Cross and the Lynching Tree.”

“The literal approach to scripture was used to enslave black people,” he says. “I’ve said many times in black churches that the black church is on the wrong side of history on this. It’s so sad because they were on the right side of history in their own struggle.”

Call it historical irony: Black church leaders arguing against same-sex marriage are making some of the same arguments that supporters of slavery made in the 18th and 19th centuries, some historians say. Both groups adopted a literal reading of the Bible to justify withholding basic rights from a particular group.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Opposition to gay rights is not the standard position of all black churches. Still, while several predominately white mainline denominations have officially accepted gays and lesbians in various forms, the vast majority of black churches still consider homosexuality a sin.

Black church leaders recently helped lead a successful drive to amend North Carolina’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The Rev. Fred Robinson, a black pastor in Charlotte, says most black churchgoers aren’t hypocrites. They take scripture, and sin, seriously.

“Black people are not confused,” Robinson says. “If you look at the scriptures that oppose homosexuality, Old and New Testament, they are clearer cut than the ones people used to justify slavery.”

Yet there are other factors beyond the Bible that shape the black church’s resistance to same-sex marriage.

“It’s more than scripture – it’s history, culture, how we were raised,” says the Rev. Tim McDonald, founder of the African American Ministers Leadership Council.

Some black church leaders are still fighting hard just to persuade straight black couples to marry. Accepting same-sex marriage when so many black households lack a husband and wife makes McDonald uneasy.

“I am not comfortable performing a wedding ceremony of the same sex,” says McDonald, an Obama supporter. “That’s just where I am.”

Some black pastors, however, embrace a literal approach to the Bible not just to exclude gays but to get rid of competition, says Edward Blum, a San Diego State University historian.

Some black pastors cite New Testament passages such as Paul’s demand that women keep silent in churches to argue against black women in the pulpit.

That argument is harder to make when black women’s energy and donations form the backbone of the black church, Blum says, but some still get away with it.

“The biblical literalist reading has kept male leadership in power in a church that is hugely female,” Blum says. “It keeps power in men’s hands.”

The one book that mattered

Black churches also embrace a literal reading of the scripture because of its unique history, says Blum, author of “W.E.B. DuBois, American Prophet.”

During slavery and segregation, many blacks saw the Bible as the one document they could trust. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, state and local laws – all found some way to ignore their humanity, Blum says.

The Bible, though, was one book that told them that they weren’t slaves or three-fifths of a person, Blum says.

It said they were children of God.

“Throughout the 18th and 19th century, what document could they trust?” Blum says. “When the Bible says it’s so, it’s something that black people believed they could trust.”

Their enemies, though, used that same veneration of the Bible against them. Slaveholders had a simple but powerful argument when critics challenged them: Trust the Bible.

They cited scriptures such as Ephesians 6:5. (“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling. ...”) And they said Jesus preached against many sins, but never against slavery.

Since the Bible is infallible, and scripture sanctions slavery, it must be part of God’s order, slaveholders concluded.

“Slavery is everywhere in the Bible,” Blum says. “When Americans who were in favor of slavery defended it with the Bible, they had a treasure trove of clear biblical passages that accepted enslavement.”

Blum says abolitionists found it difficult to mount an effective counterargument. They couldn’t just say trust the Bible. They preached another approach to scriptures.

They said you couldn’t enslave people based on the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do to you. (Obama cited the Golden Rule and his Christian faith in supporting same-sex marriage).

“The abolitionist turned to the ethics and spirit of the Bible,” Blum says. “They were theological modernists before modernism.”

And what are black clergy and churchgoers today when they cite the Bible to oppose same-sex marriage?

Robinson, the North Carolina pastor, says they’re not homophobes.

“It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God,” he says. “How do you explain that one away? A lot of honest Christians are not trying to hate homosexuals. They’re saying that if I take the Bible seriously, I’m not sure I can say it’s right.”

Robinson says that some opposition to homosexuality is actually based in compassion:

“If I’m concerned about your soul, I have to tell you the truth in love.”

Cone, who teaches at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, says black churchgoers opposed to same-sex marriage are instead mimicking their ancestors’ oppressors.

“I tell some people, ‘These people were against you.’ They would have lynched you. How are you going to now join them and help them lynch somebody else?’”

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Barack Obama • Christianity • Culture wars • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Homosexuality • Politics

soundoff (4,348 Responses)
  1. Shimanilami

    Governments should remove themselves from the entire "marriage" debate entirely and issue civil unions only. Let the religious freaks deal with their moral hang-ups on their own time and stop doing their dirty work for them.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • chris

      Sure... as long as anyone who has ever had a divorce can ONLY get a civil union again, as well....
      One marriage... one man... one woman. that's it... that's what the Bible says.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
  2. Scott

    Black churches aren't being hypocritical, they're following Scripture. You can debate the authenticity of said scripture, but that's all they're doing.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Ben

      Which is fine, that is their right, as long as they aren't using said scripture to infringe upon the inherent rights of citizens... oh wait...

      May 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Nathan

      Ben how are they infringing on rights? I only read the comments on these things so what is it?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • norman

      they are, you silly bigot, infringing on the right of equal protection guaranteed by the 14trh amendment. scripture is based on man made writings that many attribute to "god", but really its just stuff your parents told you was holy. Since there is no factual evidence behind god at all, it is merely a person hearing that someoen is less than they are and believing it...its "justified" bigotry, but its still bigotry. The fact that its black peopel is VERY distrubing-black people, many of tehm anywya, are very gullible and iwll do as they are told. However, most will vote for Obama because he is black so the gay issues is irrelevant...

      May 14, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
  3. snowdogg

    "many black households lack a husband and wife..."

    And who's fault is that?

    May 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • jfoster13

      Many white households lack a husband or a wife. Who's fault is that?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Louisiana Man

      your conservative cohorts are equally transgressed in lacking a husband /wife houshold..

      they stampede to the nearest gov office for...food stamps, WIC, welfare, housing, vouchers, medical, govt grants/loans.etc
      .
      palms turned upward for all the freebies that the 'loath big govt' can supply from the public trough.. H Y P O C R I T E S !!

      May 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • norman

      snowdog-its the fault of irresponsible black men and dumb black woman who dont use birth control
      to the other cat-eh, more than half of whites stick together so theyre doign something better than blacks...

      May 14, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
  4. kurtinco

    I don't give a rat's backside what blacks and whites were doing in the 18th and 19th centuries. That has absolutely no baring whatsoever accept to provide an excuse for bad behavior. It only takes one generation to change the way an entire peoples think and believe; one generation to stop preaching the bigotry of your oppressors; one generation to embrace compassion and equal human rights for ALL of God's children.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Doug

      Funny how the welfare generation is calling the kettle black.. Wow !

      May 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
  5. Ken in Texas

    Wow, black folks are getting bumped out of the top rung by the PC crowd in favor of gays. The world just keeps a changing.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Zeppelin

      Sounds like Ken in Texas is a closet case.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Louisiana Man

      Yes.. hypocrisy thrives in the black spiritual community...

      as does in the good, chrisitan, evangelical, white, conservatives' spiritual community..

      not a lick's worth of difference

      May 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Redemption23

      Ken, your a smart man. I've always said the "left" would have to pick a side one day when it comes to who is more of a victim and it seems they've chosen. As a black man, I find it refreshing that white american's aren't being blamed for bigotry this time around. The left doesn't care about equality or justice, only their agenda. Their order of importance goes likes this 1. Gays 2. Women 3. Illegal Aliens 4. Blacks. That's right, we've been demoted. You've elected their Lord and Master, now it's time to get back to the end of the line. Sorry, people you'll just have to wait for another Trayvon Martin case to come along before you have any more significance. Speaking of which, where did that case go? Do the math.................

      May 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
  6. answerman

    The answer to the question of this article is YES. Also, black people never tip. FFFF U CK them.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Yandizzy

      You must we a crappy waiter then. I always tip!

      May 14, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Argonaut

      You got that right....to them Tipping is a city in China.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • jfoster13

      And you too, bigot!

      May 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Pat F

      Black people do not tip white waitstaff – ever.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Louisiana Man

      and you too..

      May 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Tom

      Stupid that is so untrue. I tip and I'm BLACK.. Maybe its because of the child like actions that you are displaying, that's why you don't get TIP.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
  7. arun

    This militant zeal for total acceptance smacks of gross intolerance and insecurity on part of LGBT groups. Wrapping their intolerant agenda as civil-rights is an an insult that will do irreversible damage to actual civil-rights movement. Hijacking a term and forcing a re-definition is most certainly not civil rights issue. This is like breaking into someone's house and demanding "civil rights" to be able to live there. This is most militant aggression falsely wrapped as civil rights issue pushed on us with help of a deceptive media. This is very damaging and insulting to cause ofl civil rights. Gay Totalitarianism - here we come!

    May 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Jessica White

      Arun, the laws that prevented interracial marriage were in effect until the 1970's... Firstly – so that would make it a twentieth century issue. And YES, this is an issue of civil rights. When ignorant people like you get to ban children in gay families the opportunity to receive healthcare under the partners insurance, you're also affecting the well being of children.
      Get over yourself. Totalitarianism? Your version of the bible reeks of Hitler.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • James PDX

      arun, you clearly have no concept of what a civil right is. None whatsoever. You actually compare someone squatting in your home to two people getting married? And that made sense to you? You do realize that there are many definitions of marriage throughout history and different cultures, right? What makes yours the only acceptable one? Because you want it to be? Equal rights in America once excluded women from voting and blacks from freedom. Should we never have redefined that term? Your argument seems to rely on the premise "This is the way it has always been, so it should never change." At least, based on that theory, we can be sure that no one will ever want to squat in your cave.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
  8. HSHS

    After speaking with my BFF today – who is a lesbian and has been in a relationship with her partner for 17 years – she explained that for her – it isn't about being "married" – its about having equal rights. She said " I dont care what you call it – it doesnt have to be marriage per se – just allow us to have the same rights that other couples have – when I die I want her to have the same rights as your husband would to my social security, my benefits, etc...". How do you argue with that. It has nothing to do with religion and what the bible teaches. It is about her rights as a citizen. Keep "marriage" between a man and a woman if you so choose to – but give this woman and her partner the same rights. I have been married to the same man for 20 years – he is black – I am white. I am sure that those who follow the bible and its teachings can find scripture today that states that my husband and I should not be together because we are of a different race. People were able to do that many years ago – and we would have had to hide our marriage because it was a sin. Argh. Let my friend have the same rights – keep marriage between a man and a woman if you need to – but give them the same rights that we have.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Scott

      Great, no problem. I don't care who your bff picks to be next of kin, etc. Just don't go changing the definition of marriage.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • TonyB

      So let's stop calling it "marriage" which is a biblical term, and start calling it "civil unions". It is legally the same thing, but without the loaded term "marriage".

      I don't care if Jack wants to have a civil union with Fred, they are going to live together anyway so what do I care? I say this as an active Catholic. But don't use "marriage" as though it will become law of the land that my Church perform the ceremony against its will. I think that is the main objection.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • snowdogg

      "I dont care what you call it – it doesnt have to be marriage per se – just allow us to have the same rights that other couples have"

      So, you are OK with the term "civil union"?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Argonaut

      Eff the whole bible and everything to do with it or any of the other holy books. All they've done is to separate people from sanity for generations. And I'm tired of the "belief" column on CNN....people say SCIENCE or TECH is the complement...but no....that is not.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Shaggy

      Changing everything to civil unions is my idea as well, but how would using the term "marriage" force your church, or any church for that matter, to do anything against it's will. They can refuse to marry a gay couple under gay marriage laws, the couple just has to find a religious group that will marry them or have it done by some non-religious figure with the power to marry people. No one has ever proposed forcing religious figures of any sort to do anything under these laws. They are free to spend their time babbling about nonsense from centuries old works of fictions and trying to restrain the march of progress all they want.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • James PDX

      Scott, the definition of marriage has changed over the centuries many times, and there is more than one definition just as there is more than one culture and religion. It's people like you who insist that their way of doing things is the only right way who don't even realize that they are bigots.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • HSHS

      I absolutely agree with TonyB. Honestly – we are "sinning" right and left (no pun intended) when it comes to "marriage". Last time I checked we were not supposed to get divorced either. Marriages today are more similar to civil unions anyways. And the state should not dictate to a church what they must do within their walls and vice versa. Separation please!

      May 14, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • norman

      tonyb-youre completely ignorant. Marriage predates all religion by THOUSANDS of years-how do you not know this??

      May 14, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
  9. Frank Berger

    Being Jewish, I can't comment on the NT. However, Jewish tradition regarding OT slavery does not, as I understand it, allow for slavery based on race. There are two types of OT slavery. The most commonly discussed is more like indentured servitude. A debtor would go into the service of his creditor until his debt is paid off. The other form of slavery has to to do with war captives.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Scott

      Thanks for the clairification. I think most people don't bother to find out what biblical slavery means and just assume it's the same as slavery in the south during the 1800's.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • jfoster13

      So, the Jews that Moses led out of bondage were which, indentured servants or war captives?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • James PDX

      Frank, the OT definition of slavery is based at least partially on race. You'll note that there are special rules in place for how to deal with slaves who are Jewish. Jewish slaves had time limits and a severance package.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  10. George Will

    Democrats invented the laws against both interracial marriage & freed slaves owning guns. They also created Jim Crow. This lead to the destruction of BLACK WALLSTREET & KKK lynchings. Thank god for the Radical Republicans. Why? Because this country is not a Republican Democracy where 51% of the people can vote to kill 49% of the people. This country is a Democratic Republic where 99% of the people can not infringe on the CREATOR given rights of the 1%.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • snowdogg

      Huffing the Duco glue again?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • NOT MY CHAIR

      the parties have changed a lot since then especially what the parties values are. the republican were less radical back then. and when you say creator are you talking about England or our parents?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
  11. n8263

    It is immoral to impose your religious superstition on others.

    You do not believe in religion because you honestly think it is true, you believe in it because you fear mortality or are seeking meaning in your life. It does not take a genius to figure out all religion is man made, so for humanity's sake, please stop lying to yourself.

    Deluding yourself in religion does not change reality. Lying to yourself is probably the worst possible way to try to find meaning.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Ernie

      It doesn't take a genius to recognize that denial of religion is man's attempt to be his own god.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • concernedpe3

      Sorry, but there is a God! You think this (earth, people) all happened by complete accident? For that to happen it would be like 10 to the 10th billion power. We are here because of God.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • n8263

      Since all known gods were created by man it is actually the opposite. Religion is man's attempt at being god.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • n8263

      @Concerned, it's likely that that we evolved over billions of years. If you want to believe the universe and life was created by a "god," that is fine, but that does nothing to support any specific organized religion.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
  12. Shaggy

    My solution is to get rid of the phrase "marriage" from our laws. Replace "marriage" with civil unions for everybody. Same thing, different phrase. Once the religiously loaded term is removed from the conversation their effort to keep gays second class citizens will be more obvious.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • momoya

      EXACTLY!!! Perfect solution.. If you want to claim "marriage" then it'll be connected to that particular church.. Leave that church and you only have your legal union intact.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • HSHS

      Thank you Shaggy. My bff who is a lesbian and has been in a relationship for the past 17 years – agrees with you. Its not about the term "marriage" – it is about the rights that are granted to those that are married. Thank you again!

      May 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  13. Jeebus

    Perfect example of the moral decay that is destroying Black America. You would think a group of people who were denied human rights because of literal interpretations of the bible would have more common decency then to do the exact same thing to another minority group.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • concernedpe3

      This gay thing is not a minority group! It is a bunch of misguided people who need direction. If this was a civil rights issue, then what would be the next group of people who has a problem? Probably people who want to marry TWO people, THREE? There will always be somebody's "rights" being ignored because everyone has different beliefs. If we change the definition of one word, then we may as well change the definition of everything else and lets have a society where we can do "whatever we want, whenever we want"! Or as most of my liberal friends say "If it feels good, do it!"

      May 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
  14. Ben

    The struggles between the two groups are, for the most part, incomparable, but the ISSUES are the same. In both cases you have a minority group struggling for equal legal standing under US law while being oppressed by religious doctrine.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • James

      can you make the same case for the morman's who want to have more than one wife? "we're a minority, we are being oppressed because your 'laws' won't allow us to have 5 14yr old wives..."

      Where will the nations catering to "minorities" end. I don't see LGBT community as minorities.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Emily

      Agree!

      May 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • NOT MY CHAIR

      james- i dont know if you are married or not, but look at it as a favor one wife is plenty

      May 14, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Ben

      I think a major difference with gay rights and your example is the infringement upon other citizens' rights. In your example, an adult man is using religious oppression to force 5 children (in the eyes of our legal system) into marriage. And honestly, if multiple people of legal age wish to marry into a polygamous relationship that does not infringe upon the freedom or rights of any citizens then I don't care. Who am I to say that monogamy is legal and adult-aged polygamy is illegal? As long as it is consensual, go for it. Live your life the way you want to.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Pat F

      @James: You are about 100 years out of date on the Mormons and polygamy, my friend. Tell your puppet masters at the DNC that we are wise to your religious bigotry and incitement of hatred.

      And sorry to break it to you, but LGBT are no more than 10% of the population – a minority by any accounting. If LGBT had been a majority, Obama would have supported them YEARS ago – he will do or say anything for votes and power.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  15. Zeppelin

    Really makes me happy to know that these guys won't ever even have the chance to realize there is no Heaven and this is all bull because when they die, that'll be that.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Ben

      You have to admit, though, it would be pretty sweet if there were about ten seconds unaccounted for after death where religious people realized, "oh f#$%..."

      May 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Zeppelin

      That'd be awesome.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Pat F

      You are just ugly-mean. Does it make you happy, really? Or just more frustrated?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • KevinBowen

      That would be like the first 10 seconds when the non-believers get to The Gates.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Zeppelin

      The idea that a genuinely decent person that lived a good life would be denied entrance into Heaven because he didn't go to church every Sunday is exactly what makes the religious types so absurd. If there is a God and if it is anything like what the Christians paint it to be, it could be no happier than to see one of it's children living a good life and being good to others. The fearmongering that Christians and other religious types use to scare people into giving money to an outmoded social construct is what pushes so many younger people away from the concept of organized religion.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
  16. arun

    Is this the future towards which we are heading where if I disagree with something or someone and I will be charged with hate. Me: "sorry but I do not agree with your lifestyle". Other person, "you hate me. i am calling the police". Police, "you cannot disagree with gays and their lifestyle. sir, you are charged with aggravated hate crime and anti-gay bigotry and you are under arrest. your bail is set to 1 million dollars".

    May 14, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • NOT MY CHAIR

      you are an idiot their is a difference between saying your opinion and keeping some one from doing something because of your opinion

      May 14, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • DJ

      No, you can disagree all you want. You just can't oppress, which is what these people are doing (and they're certainly not alone). They were oppressed as a race in this country, the bible was used to oppress them, and now they're using the bible to oppress another group. It's twisted, it's wrong, and it's inexcusable.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • lol

      That judge sounds gay...

      May 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
  17. Mormon Expert

    People will always forget there struggle when they find someone to hate. Its just human nature

    May 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
  18. NOT MY CHAIR

    umm all church's are guilty of spiritual hypocrisy!! the amount of crap religion does to destroy progress and maintain control is disgusting we as a people need to move beyond bronze age fairy tales. but judging by the intelligent comments i see that it will not happen for some time if ever...

    May 14, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  19. Sodomite

    It's awesome to be a divorce lawyer in places where gay marriage is legal. You're expanding your client base two fold when this happens.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • NOT MY CHAIR

      lol typical lawyer approach

      May 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "It's awesome to be a divorce lawyer in places where gay marriage is legal. You're expanding your client base two fold when this happens."

      Yo moron, the percent of gay couples in our society is small which is why they are considered a minority so it wouldn't expand your base by tow fold. Duh!

      May 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • NOT MY CHAIR

      yeahright- i think hes making a joke...

      May 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • DJ

      No need to throw facts at him. It was just a punchline, not a real comment.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
  20. Ben

    Typical liberal approach.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • KWBaraka

      OK Ben......I'll bite......what exactly are you referring to when you say "Typical liberal approach."?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • NOT MY CHAIR

      i think he is referring to the idea of freedom and civil rights for all people

      May 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • DB

      Telling him something he doesn't want to hear, no doubt.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • DJ

      I'm sorry, Ben isn't available to answer right now. He's listening to Rush Limbaugh's latest show to find out what nonsensical, detached slogan he's supposed to say today. I had a parrot that pretty much did the same thing.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.