Here is another example of the influence religious conservatives have had in the Bush administration: The U.S. Department of Justice has changed its civil rights focus by "aggressively pursuing religion-oriented cases while significantly diminishing its involvement in the traditional area of race," the New York Times reported.
The Times also reported that the department "has transferred or demoted some experienced civil rights litigators while bringing in lawyers, including graduates of religious-affiliated law schools and some people vocal about their faith, who favor the new priorities. That has created some unease, with some career lawyers disdainfully referring to the newcomers as ‘holy hires.’"
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
298 Comments
It will be years after Bush retires to Texas before our government will find its way again. Very sad.
Only militant Christians like Bush will think a fundy’s inability to force their religion upon someone is religious discrimination worthy of spending taxpayer money on.
Oh Great ‚ÄìBecause of Bush, now there is favoritism in the justice dept.‚”Oh my God, a nation full of Phelps!”
Religious persecution is just as important as “racial” cases in which religious cases can also include people of color.
Of course, the Liberal Left Hitlerites and their anti-religion agenda is crying the loudest as their “race” pony of which they ridden for so many year is not in the limelight.
As one may recall their history lesson, part of the reason for people coming to the U.S. in the 1600-1800 was for religious persecution.
The Liberal Left Hitlerites mantra of late has been blaming anything and everything on anyone with religious values.
Of course, the Liberal Left Hitlerites give the militant Muslim Community a bye as they support militant fundamentalist to help overthrow the U.S. policies they want changed.
Just look at all of the Anti-U.S., anti right rhetoric on this and any other Blog to confirm this.
Examples can be provided for proof. :)
Ya got what you voted for. Bush, “The Decider”, runs the country from his gut, and has set back this country at least fifty years in terms of the rest of the world. But that doesn’t matter to the fundies. In fact it plays right into their hands. After all, the world is only 8,000 years old, so what’s another 50 loped off.
“Examples can be provided for proof. :)”
“Of course, the Liberal Left Hitlerites and their anti-religion agenda is crying the loudest as their “race” pony of which they ridden for so many year is not in the limelight.”
“The Liberal Left Hitlerites mantra of late has been blaming anything and everything on anyone with religious values.”
“Of course, the Liberal Left Hitlerites give the militant Muslim Community a bye as they support militant fundamentalist to help overthrow the U.S. policies they want changed.”
Looks like the left isn’t the only side spouting nonsense, huh? Talk about prejudiced bs with no backbone.
Examples can be provided for proof. :)
OK lying hypocrite Republican, provide the proof of what you say…
Still waiting lying hypocrite Republican…
I want to know how the left can be compared to Hitlerites when Hitler was a fascist religious dictator who did many of the same things that Bush is doing.
I have no problem with taking on cases that have religious bias, but to stack a whole government department with people whose only job is to defend Christianity- there is something so sinister about the motives behind that.
This is why we should support the ACLU. And this is yet another reason why Bush should have been impeached long ago. Was he crossing his fingers behind his back when he said he swore to uphold the Constitution?
PM, who needs to cross fingers when one already has forked tongue?
Brownlee is a fool. If he understood the fact that most of these “religion oriented cases” were discriminating “against” christians… maybe he wouldn’t be so fast to point out this “attrocity” to justice and “his” American way. Like it or not this country was founded by christian men who used their faith to build the moral structure of this great land. Mock it all you want – but one day EVERY knee will bow and every tongue will confess…
Rob Rob Rob. That’s exactly why Brownlee made the post, because the discrimination against the 80% majority in this country is a lie. BY FAR it is the Christians who trample on the religious freedoms of non-Christians. Keep buying into O’Lielly’s lies. Our nation was founded on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM…God is absent from our constitution, that in itself is a HUGE statement. Free religion is addressed in the very FIRST amendment- Christianity isn’t even mentioned.Our founders debated it before and their intent was VERY clear.
i want to thank the eagle for their massive contribution to the discrimination of Catholics for it is reminding us all that we, as followers of Christ who “they hated first”, are doing the right thing. You are the new centurions.
hitler supported abortion, gun control, government control, and said the Pope was enemy#1, sounds like the eagle ed staff to me
Of course our founding fathers debated this issue… but you are either missing the point or do not know the facts. Our founding fathers were British subjects at one time, and England had a national church, of which the monarch was the titular head, while the Archbishop of Canterbury was the theological leader… and they were well aware of the prejudice and discrimination and wars based on religion in England and in most of Europe.
So, they wanted to make sure that in the America the Congress shall not make a law establishing a single religion on the land, but to have a nation where anyone can practice freely any belief or religion he may want. No Christian will argue that the founding fathers wanted to allow religious freedom for all… “including” christians.
God IS mentioned in several documents including the Declaration of Independence… what is NOT mentioned is “separation of church and state”… it is “loosely” pulled from the first amendment that you mention above. But it not there… and the “interpretation” of the meaning of the words that are there has been the true debate… and it has been going on for years.
Rob,
First, the Declaration of Independence is not law in the United States or anywhere else. It was a nasty letter written to King George III, telling him to bugger off.
Second, “God” is mentioned only once in the Declaration, and that mention is almost pagan:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Third, in 1797, the Treaty of Tripoli was entered into by the United States and ratified by the United States Senate. From that treaty, which _is_ law in the US:
“the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”
So… does anyone need more than THIS blog thread to see the danger of devoting an entire justice system to perpetuate the tyranny of rob and mh?
What MORE could you need?
Poor persecuted MAJORITY!
“The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press — in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years.”
Adolf Hitler, The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
Nunyer,
Those words could be from any radical conservative alive today. That’s very frightening.
A WEBlog thread on religion is always a good way to start the day with a laugh.
Interestingly, Third Reich policies were distinctly anti-religious, including policies towards Christianity.
Rob,
So I guess T. Jefferson’s comments on a wall between church and state in his personal correspondence gives us no hint as to the actual intents of the founders? Or similar comments made by others involved in the drafting of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution?
“i want to thank the eagle for their massive contribution to the discrimination of Catholics for it is reminding us all that we, as followers of Christ who “they hated first”, are doing the right thing.”
Oh man, that’s good. “who they hated first”. Looks like you guys learned your lesson well, and now you are EXPERTS on hate. You demonstrate it with every post and every political action. You demonize, not enlighten.
But I guess considering the dark of your soul, it’s probably hard for you to tell the difference.
“i want to thank the eagle for their massive contribution to the discrimination of Catholics”
Uh no, catholics like you do just fine showing your asses all on your own. You dont really need any help from the WE….
And Rob,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but 1) virtually all references to God in the Declaration or Constitution refer to Providence…the standard word used almost exclusively by deists, and 2) even if God IS mentioned, who are you to say the founders had in mind the limited concept of the Christian view of God?
Agreed, Tom. As for BFAH’s claim that the policies of the Third Reich were anti-Christian . . . I agree, those policies are antithetical to Christ’s life, teachings, and His promise of salvation.
BUT those leaders used the cloak of religion to justify their actions and to unite their followers against the ‘others.’
****************”I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work”.[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people.”[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.”[Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]
“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.”[Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]
“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.”[Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]
I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it. [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. [Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]
The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
***********************Sorry to Godwinize this thread, but somebody upthread accused liberals of being Hitlerites or somesuch nonsense.
I get real tired of the “There’s no separation of church and state in the Constitution.”
Right. It’s a phrase meant to encapsulate all the law and precedent that has gone into keeping this nation free from becoming a theocracy.
Here’s a real-world example: When you’re driving down the street, and come to an intersection, what does the sign say?
This?
“City Code
Section 11.36.040 Stop signs–Yield signs.
(a) Preferential right-of-way at an intersection may be indicated by stop signs or yield signs a s authorized in Section 11.36.020.(b) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer or traffic-control signal, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop as required in Section 11.36.020, and after having stopped shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from another highway or which is approaching so closely on said highway as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection.”
Or does it just say STOP?
“BUT those leaders used the cloak of religion to justify their actions and to unite their followers against the ‘others.’”
Wow. Sounds like terry, joe and fred to me….
Nunyer,
The Third Reich implemented policies to get rid of religion completely. Barring this, they tried to control the clergy. It took very great fortitude on the parts of a minority of Catholic and Protestant clergy in Germany to denounce Hitler and Nazism from the pulpit.
Watching the crybaby, Christofascist ‘Right’ go on and on about how religiously abused it is becomes even more laughable when one considers how much contempt the Republican Power Elite has for the Fundo base. Fundos have been the foot soldiers forever and have received bupkes from the Bushes and the Republican money boys. Just listen to James Dobson cry like a bitch over the radio some time about how the Fundos aren’t being listened to, and hear him threaten to pull Fundo support from the Republican Party. CF2K listens to Dobson and Don Wildmon’s American Family Radio ALL THE TIME, though it makes him die inside to do so.
If anybody is discriminating against the Religious Right, it’s the Moneybags Wing of the Republican Party. But of course, no one wants to break up a happy marriage, so both sides can kiss and make up by scapegoating Liberals and Christian folks on the Left.
Another obvious point here is that the Religious Right is a massive constituency that has been given carte blanche by the Administration to do what it wants in many, many areas of policy, and to seed the ranks of Federal bureaucracies. A ‘discriminated against minority,’ CF2K’s left foot. That goes ditto for the Catholic victimologists like Bill Donohue and his ilk.
It never ceases to amaze CF2K how eager really, really numerous and powerful groups are to cloak themselves in the mantle of self-righteous victimology. Maybe it has something to do with covering up with their own sins: the systematic denial and cover-up of sexual abuse in the case of Catholicism, and the homosexual Red Scare within the American Evangelical movement.
The idea that the big, bad Liberal secularists are stepping on anybody’s rights by refusing to privilege one form of religion in the public square as THE acceptable form of religious discourse is nothing more than religious bigotry on the part of those who want THEIR form to be THE form. Whew–long sentence. And it’s the bigots, who want their way or the highway, who insist on being seen as a class of victims? Please.
John Stuart Mill said it very nicely in “On Liberty,” when writing of the God Bullies who would use the power of the state to compel religious belief, under the guise of redressing some perceived wrong.
“There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings; as a religious bigot, when charged with disregarding the religious feelings of others, has been known to retort that they disregard his feelings, by persisting in their abominable worship or creed. But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it. And a person’s taste is as much his own peculiar concern as his opinion or his purse.” [p. 140]
Wonder where Rob went?
Christians have been trying since the inception of the United States to turn this nation into a Theocracy, sometimes with success, but almost always reversed at some point. And it always seems to happen in the same way…a rising of Christianity- and when that backfires, a massive rush to put it back the way it was before.
I see Republican is abusing history as usual. People didn’t immigrate to this country in the 17th century because of followers of Hitler. Unless Hitler invented a time machine that’s pretty much impossible. If you are referring to the Puritan separatists they fled Europe because the people in the lands they were from rose up and kicked them out of power where they had been harassing other faiths. They moved to America to set up a theocracy where they could discriminate against others. They came for their religious freedom, not the freedom of others.
As for Hitler he was endorsed by the Catholic church and many Protestant churches, especially the right-wing fundamentalist churches. He couldn’t be considered anti-Christian considering he maintained his power by appeasing the Christian right. Once he tried taking Jews away from their Christian spouses but the people protested. Fearful of losing support from his Christian base he returned all 2,000 Jewish spouses and they never got sent to the camps. He had to maintain his pro-family image.
Also, if the liberals are anti-religion then how can we support Islam? If you haven’t noticed that is a religion too. Fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians share many of the same views. They hate gays, want to outlaw abortion, are opposed to gay marriage, want religion in schools, etc. When Bush opposes UN social policies he knows he can count on Muslim theocratic countries to give him a supporting vote.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it Doug? :D
At least I’m the one who can read a history book. Do you enjoy being wrong often?
Find those lies on the maggotpunks website yet or do you just figure you’ll keep on telling that lie often enough?
You may quote JOhn Mills, and I shall quote:
John AdamsSigner of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States
[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
John Quincy Adams 6th president of the United States
There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.
Fisher Ames
Framer of the First Amendment
Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.
Benjamin FranklinSigner of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence
have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
While it is true that often those that profess Christianity or religion, or morals, are overzealous in attempting to persuade lawmakers to do their bidding, it it Not true that any of those precepts, according to many of the founding fathers, deserves the hate and bile that goes on in any circles for the same
Unfortunately, many of these quotes indicate that the speakers themselves were products of their times. Take for example, the quote by Fisher Ames near the beginning. He posits that the existence of God, of immortality, and of rewards/punishments in the afterlife are the foundations of morality, and hence the republic.
By no fault of Mr. Ames’, he died well before many of the most important and recent developments in philosophy and moral thought. It is pretty clearly established that religion and the concept of God are not necessary for the foundation of morality. Second, even his concept of reward/punishment in an afterlife as a strong inducement to live correctly in the here and now is weak. Standard Christian thought is that there are 2 reasons for following the high road: 1) love of God, pure and simple, without regard for anything else (called “perfect contrition”, or 2) fear of the consequences of our actions that leads us to God (called “imperfect contrition”. Mr. Ames is clearly a believer in option #2…which, while nice, is inferior to #1…love of God in and of itself.
I think we need to take these types of moral statements from the Founders as indicative of the times in which they lived and the culture in which they were brought up. To do otherwise is to limit the universal applicability of the concepts enshrined in the Constitution to only those who believe in a vengeful God who watches our earthly doings and judges us accordingly.
littlejohn,
Huh. And the thesis you are advancing with this string of quotes is…what?
“By no fault of Mr. Ames’, he died well before many of the most important and recent developments in philosophy and moral thought.”
By whose definition of “Most important”?
Umm, the general concensus of those educated in such matters..unless, of course, you’re willing to disregard the last 250 years of philosophical discourse on the matter…and assume everything since the founders has been retrograde thinking.
So let me make sure I understand your post. THe most important thesis in philosphy, which is the “general concensus of thos educated in such matters”, is what? That morality and religion are not intertwined? That morality exists only as a set of agreed upon laws? THat the natural world provided all morality that we need?Some other? Please explain.
That religion and God are not necessary to morality. While religion may involve a moral system, lack of religious belief does not mean that there is a lack of a moral system…That is one conclusion.
Littlejohn, your quotes matter little since the majority of people voted that there was to be a separation of religion and government. Has it ever occurred to you that Christians also value a secular government? I’m sure every person on the First Congress was a god believer and they still unanimously voted for a bill that stated the government wasn’t founded upon the Christian religion.
How much more clear can a government be?
I doubt that chimps and benobos have a highly advanced concept of God, the afterlife, and morality. Yet, they live with a kind of social morality -a knowledge of right and wrong, so to speak – that partially comes from the necessity of rights and wrongs for the proper functioning of a social group.
Littlejohn, your quotes matter little since the majority of people voted that there was to be a separation of religion and government. Has it ever occurred to you that Christians also value a secular government? I’m sure every person on the First Congress was a god believer and they still unanimously voted for a bill that stated the government wasn’t founded upon the Christian religion.
How much more clear can a government be?
Posted by: Doug | June 18, 2007 at 12:11 PM
My quotes matter much, since they came from those who founded the country, whereas quoting you or me or means little.
“Has it ever occurred to you that Christians also value a secular government?” Umm. Yes, as a CHristian, I do value a government that is not a theocracy.
I seriously doubt that every person on the first congress was a God believer. Why would you attest to such a thing?
You ar right in the specific “this nation was not founded upon the Christian religion”
Some were Christians, some were diests, some were other things, or nothigns, I am sure. That does not decrease the importance of religious or moral philosophy of the thought processes of those who founded this country
((((((((((CF)))))))))))))
I miss you when you are not here, but I’m glad you enjoyed the land of the rising sun :)
“I see Republican is abusing history as usual. People didn’t immigrate to this country in the 17th century because of followers of Hitler.”
Hehehehe. Ya know, being a second generation American, I have often thought of our Volga German ancestors who left Germany and then later Russia. Why?
One of the main reasons was freedom of religion. The freedom to practice their religion in the face of the bolshevics and later stalin.
And the decendants of these folks? The catholics and lutherans who came here? The biggest bigots on the face of the earth. The hate amendment passed with almost 80 percent of the vote in the biggest german/russian counties in the state. BOTH lutherans and catholics.
SO… they see NO hypocrisy in denying others their freedom based on the teachings of luther and the pope?
Hell, I remember the days out here when lutherans and catholics were not allowed to date. And if they did and got married? One of the couple would be thrown out of their family, shunned forever.
And now this?
Obviously, how quickly we forget. Or maybe the oppressed just longed to be the oppressors?
They succeeded.
That religion and God are not necessary to morality. While religion may involve a moral system, lack of religious belief does not mean that there is a lack of a moral system…That is one conclusion.
Posted by: BFAH | June 18, 2007 at 12:10 PM
True, and that moral system could just as easily be “every man for himself”, as it is often in nature.
doubt that chimps and benobos have a highly advanced concept of God, the afterlife, and morality. Yet, they live with a kind of social morality -a knowledge of right and wrong, so to speak – that partially comes from the necessity of rights and wrongs for the proper functioning of a social group.
Posted by: BFAH | June 18, 2007 at 12:14 PM
I would agree that they have no particular sense of God, etc. I would also agree that their “right and wrong” is also governed, at least partially, to the survival of the fittest, and a pecking order defined by strength and agressiveness. Perhaps that should be our guide?
That religion and God are not necessary to morality. While religion may involve a moral system, lack of religious belief does not mean that there is a lack of a moral system…That is one conclusion.
Posted by: BFAH | June 18, 2007 at 12:
Very well, what is the basis for morality?
“I would also agree that their “right and wrong” is also governed, at least partially, to the survival of the fittest, and a pecking order defined by strength and agressiveness. Perhaps that should be our guide?”
Uh, lj, from observing this nation’s religious AND politcal leaders, I think you are a litte too late in asking the question.
It appears it already IS our guide! I think you described it perfectly.
BFAH,
I doubt if Chimps have a morality code. It’s most likely good or bad behavior
or
accepted or unacceptable behavior.
Behavior does not equal morality.
Take for instance a person afflicted with severe mental disorders. They stand naked out on a busy street and flash people in cars as they go by.
The person’s reasoning ability to know right from wrong has been limited by his mental state. Or better stated, acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
The issue of morality would not cross the mind of this person. His ability to offend or not to offend is not part of his mental state. He is merely acting out a behavior which may in his mind be a way of gaining attention or perhaps a deviant pattern developed from trauma or chemical imbalance.
There is no moral assignment to the issue from the perspective of the mental patient.
Hey lj, I just had a GREAT idea regarding what should be our moral system?
How about love thy neighbor as thy self?
Or how about do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
I have a great moral compass and it is NOT powered by religion. Do I fail? Certainly. But NOT because I walked away from religion.
Actaully, that isnt true. I didnt walk away. I RAN SCREAMING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION!!!!!!!
:)
Uh, lj, from observing this nation’s religious AND politcal leaders, I think you are a litte too late in asking the question.
It appears it already IS our guide! I think you described it perfectly.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | June 18, 2007 at 12:31 PM
In a realistic way, you are correct. Bullying, from either side, seems to be the order of the day.
“Behavior does not equal morality.”
Jesus wept. There IS no morality without behavior.
But thanks for pointing out that you judge by words, not by behavior.
yep. indeed. We see by your works…
Hey lj, I just had a GREAT idea regarding what should be our moral system?
How about love thy neighbor as thy self?
Or how about do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
I have a great moral compass and it is NOT powered by religion. Do I fail? Certainly. But NOT because I walked away from religion.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | June 18, 2007 at 12:33 PM
uh oh. Where did you get those two guiding lights? :)
Republican,
You make my point. The morality of which we speak has to do with the morality acceptable to society…a morality of social rights and wrongs…not religious right and wrongs. While the mental patient may be socially “wrong” for exposing him/herself, I doubt that in the eye of God, they will be held to the same level of accountability as a “normal” person. Besides, we’re speaking about those whom we would classify as nominally “sane”.
LJ,
They precede Jesus by at least 500 years.
LJ,
They precede Jesus by at least 500 years.
Posted by: BFAH | June 18, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Okay. And not to sound argumentative, but stil, where did they come from? And how about this one, that did not
“Love your enemies…”
And just so everyone knows, i believe the two statements from KsFarmgrrl should be the defining light in all our behaviors to our fellow man. WHile I do not always succeed, I try and do the same.
Well con, you made a little bit of sense there, finally.
We often laugh in our autism group that a world full of auties wouldn’t necessarily be such a bad thing, as everything is completely logical, there is very little abstract thinking.
For example, took my son with me to visit a friend, and there was a part in the interstate under construction. He started screaming “they’re over here” referencing the cars. I tried to explain to him that the other road was broken and they had to use the one next to us. That didn’t matter…he knew the cars on that road were supposed to be OVER THERE!
Just imagine how hard life was before he could TELL us what was wrong! I’ve got a million of these kinds of stories.
But I digress, the thing with them is that there is only right or wrong in how others perceive it. We mold them to perceive right and wrong in how we interpret it.
LJ,
I believe the first written exposition is found in the writings of Confucius..Confucianism isn’t a religious system.
* “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD.” — Torah Leviticus 19:18* “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” — Jesus (c. 5 B.C.E. – C.E. 32 ) in the Gospels, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:39, Luke 6:31, Luke 10:27* “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” — Torah Leviticus 19:33-34* “This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” — Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 B.C.E.)* “What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.” — Confucius (ca. 551 – 479 B.C.E.)* “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” — Hillel (ca. 50 B.C.E. – C.E. 10)
* “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
LJ, that’s a good point. I used the words of religion so the religious here would understand.
I actually LEARNED it from the adults who surrounded me. Not only my parents, but other adults, like the Wulf family and others I observed.
And I learned it by how they treated ME!
Oh, and the thing I learned from the adults in my life? (I was VERY lucky)
Honor.
The friends of my youth and I often talk about how “honor” was important in our “community”. Not the geographic one, but our real community out here in this South Downer neighborhood, with folks of all spiritual persuasions, including no religion.
It was dishonor to lie. Dishonor to steal. Dishonor not to care for your kids or your animals or your land. It was dihonor to not pay your bills. It was dishonorable to be lazy. And a HUGE dishonor to be unfaithful to your spouse.
And it was DEATH by dishonor to break your word once it was honorably given.
I was lucky that the adults in my life valued honor and instilled it in us kids too.
Unfortunately today, honor means nothing. All that seems to matter is that “he who dies with the most toys wins”.
Jesus TRUELY wept…
Unfortunately today, honor means nothing. All that seems to matter is that “he who dies with the most toys wins”.
Jesus TRUELY wept…
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | June 18, 2007 at 01:01 PM
I fully agree. And I do not mean to imply, if I had, that Christians or judeao christian ethic has the corner on moral behaviior. Their are many fine moral people of many, or no, persuasions. Something that some of my Christian brethern fail to understand. Theology is more to the relationship of God to man, and Man to God, versus man to man (women too). I believe Christian theology to be the best definition of that. I also happen to believe that it is one of the best guiding lights of the relationships of mankind. Unfortunatley, there is much more ado, in some circles, of what “Thall shall not” and what “THou shalt”.
If the US was founded as a Christian nation, why aren’t these laws incorporated into the Constitution?
Leviticus 20:9If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.20:10If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.20:13If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-1If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.
Exodus 35:2For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
of what “Thall shall not” and what “THou shalt”. should read”of what Thall Shall not” and not enough of Thou Shall”
Still, it begs the question, from whence morality?
nunyer-I have already agreed this is not a “christian” nation, but, the passages you list are Old Testament, not specifically holden to Christians, so what’s your point?
“Still, it begs the question, from whence morality?”
All cultures, religions and societies have the same sense of morality…….
Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not steal.
Etc.
Morality is not an exclusive province of Christianity.
LJ, I’m not being coy. I really think as children we get our morality from the adults around us.
I suppose you could work backwards and ask how THEY got THEIR morality, but I dont think the answer changes.
If you are raised to think you are above the law, that is what you think. If you are raised to think you are no better than anyone else, that is how you think.
If you are asking the question, “do we have inherent morality” the answer may be yes, in some biological, collective consciousness way.
I think we can assume that given the essential morality of the “do unto others” nature of most spiritual belief systems, no matter where they originated or when. It seems to be cross culture and back to the beginning of civilization.
Nunyer, another great example is the punishment of rapists in the Bible. If a man rapes an unmarried woman he has to pay a fine and marry her.
If the woman is married and bearing a child and a man attacks her causing an abortion he has to pay a fine. If she died as a result of that miscarriage he’s executed. The fine is paid to the woman’s owner, the husband since women in the bible have no property rights.
Slavery is endorsed in the Bible even telling people how to mark their slaves by putting their ear to do door and ramming a nail through the earlobe. Slaves are encouraged to be obedient to their masters.
According to the bible if a woman is raped her punishment is execution unless she cries for help in the city (if she cries for help in the country she’s still executed).
Such are morals in the Bible that we can only get through religion.
BFAH-
I see nothing wrong with your posts, or disagree with them. COnfucianism is not really a religion, but a philosophy. And because some of it correlates to Christian or judeo christian meanswhat? That the original thought didn;t originate with God,but man?Some of your other quotes come from the Torah, predecessor to the new testament, The rest I am unfamiliar with. Your point being?
Not specifically holden to Christians …huh?
The 10 Commandments?What about the prophetical literature like Isaiah?The whole reason for Jesus in the first place…scapegoat for the sins of man, etc., etc.
Maybe I missed something, but Christianity does not preclude all aspects of the OT. If it did, why do most Christian denominations continue reading the OT as part of the liturgy?
Hee hee hee.
I know I got my morality from my Mom and Dad because almost every time I have a moral dilema, I ask myself what Dad would do.
And then, unfortunately, I go out and do what I would do.
I miss my Dad….
People in Wichita (and everywhere) wonder what’s happening to the moral fabric of our country. They wonder why murders are so prevalent. They wonder why our kids are stealing, getting high, getting pregnant, and hurting each other.
Then they turn around and bash the foundation of the morals they long for. Liberals are killing us all.
LJ,
My point being that religion morality is not always the antecedent for moral thinking in general.
It may be your contention, however, that even though Confucius was not religious in the sense we define that God still influenced his thinking? That I don’t buy.
littlejohn, sorry, I missed the part where you agreed that our nation wasn’t founded on Christianity.
Yes, these are old testament quotes. And, of course, Christ brought a new covenant, based on love, charity, and His promise of salvation.
I just haven’t seen the righteous Bush administration cleave to Christ’s principles. Hiring graduates from a bottom-ranked law school to defend those vocal Christians who are supposedly persecuted seems to violate even those old testament precepts against lying, stealing (a job from someone more qualified), or coveting.
smarter,
Murders and crime are lower than they have been in decades. Maybe you need to stop longing for the “good ole days” as an excuse for dissing those who don’t believe what you do…”liberal” seems to cover every evil from social diseases to increasing crime statistics, to softness on defense to ….
I hate to throw water on your thesis, but the Founders were “LIBERAL”…if that’s even the correct word…
they had a revolution because they didn’t like a tax on paper, stamps, and tea !!
WSCLARK-
I have stated that morality is not the exclusive province of CHrisitanity. however, not all morality is the same, even to what you quoted. for instance, it was quite noble for the American indian to steal from other tribes, both women and horses. It was not noble to steal from their own, so “thall shall not steal” was a bit modified. It has been stated that it was of the Inuit that when a woman or old person had no man to care for her, it was moral for her to wander off onto the ice.It was quit moral for some cannibals to eat their captives. So much for “thou shall not kill” being a part of their systm.
Ksfarmgrrl- I didn;t think you were being coy. I think that where morality comes from is of huge importance. Why? If we can agree on where it comes from, or at least what it is, we can quit the bickering, imposing of purely opiniated ideals on each other, and solve some real problems
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know now what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry
dear smarter-than-you-are,
You’re not. Not even close.
You must think that no wrongs have ever occurred before this generation. Girls never got pregnant out of wedlock, abortions were nonexistent, nobody stole, and there were no murders before the liberals started “killing us all.”
How was it modified? The Hebrews had no problem murdering Egyptians or stealing from non-Hebrew tribes. The laws in the Torah only applied to the Hebrews, that’s a fact often ignored since those who like to reference the 10 commandments rarely mention the first lines about who the laws were intended for.
BFAH-The quotes shown were from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The rabbinical laws are not held over Christians. The one from Exodus,as part of the ten commandements, was apparently changed in the words of jesus, and none are to beput to death for not following the Sabbath.
LJ,
I don’t see that the source of morality matters at all. Governance and politics are practical affairs. If we can agree on an issue, the reason(s) why we agree are less important than the fact that we do agree and can act on that agreement.
The discussion afterwards about the reasons for our opinions are filler for smoke-filled coffee houses or bars.
“The laws in the Torah only applied to the Hebrews, that’s a fact often ignored since those who like to reference the 10 commandments rarely mention the first lines about who the laws were intended for.
Posted by: Doug | June 18, 2007 at 01:31 PM
You are correct, except for that jesus himself spoke of the commandments to be followedMathew 19:16-19
LJ,
I don’t see that the source of morality matters at all. Governance and politics are practical affairs. If we can agree on an issue, the reason(s) why we agree are less important than the fact that we do agree and can act on that agreement.
The discussion afterwards about the reasons for our opinions are filler for smoke-filled coffee houses or bars.
Posted by: BFAH | June 18, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Perhaps you are right.
The bible is one of the most violence filled books ever written. It shouldn’t be used as a handbook for morality.
BFAH-
Hit enter to soon. My post should read. Perhaps you are right. However a good amount of heat and friction is generated by arguments such as “you have no right to impose your morality on me” yes I do, no you don;t ad nauseum. A common understanding of morality versus “just because i want to or donlt want you to” would go a long ways to solve many of the hotbutton issues of today.
Gee, this has been a generally good blog…interesting discussion…differing points of view…no personal slander…very little of the “L” or “C” words….nice.
The bible is one of the most violence filled books ever written.As it is a book about how men treats men, i agree.
Posted by: political_mom | June 18, 2007 at 01:42 PM
It shouldn’t be used as a handbook for morality.
Posted by: political_mom | June 18, 2007 at 01:42 PM
And replaced by??
Yes, it has been. And alas, I must return to what my employer pays me for. Ta ta for now
“Then they turn around and bash the foundation of the morals they long for. Liberals are killing us all.”
So… how’s that “foundation” working for you all?
Big eye roll here.
LJ, I dont think the source matters either. Same with the “biology vs. choice” debate.
What difference does it make. I’m gay, no matter what the source. I’m moral, (but human :) so what difference what the source.
I think other than stopping harm from occurring to other folks, it is important not to label our “opinions” as “morals” and then impose them on others.
Just like the difference between pedophiles and adults having consensual sex. In once instance both adults agree, so no harm done to anyone.
With child molesters, the child has no choice. It is NOT consensual.
So what two adults agree upon without harming anyone else isnt moral or immoral. It just is.
No matter what the “opinions” of others might be.
hee hee hee lj.
It’s just a damn good think I dont HAVE an employer.
Other than the chickens and cats who actually RULE this place…
Cheers.
ksfg,
Excellent post..ty.
Back atchya B. You know I love your posts too!
Various posters have claimed that the American Indians were not moral in one way or another, but they fail to put it into perspective.
The Natives were moral within their tribes and societies, just like the Europeans. The English, French, Dutch, Spanish and Germans regularly wages war on each other an committed atrocities against civilians.
The colonials in the New World committed untold thousands of atrocities against the Natives, wiping out whole villages and raping Indian women and children.
To accuse the Native Americans of lacking in moral values is disingenuous at best.
… and a flat freakin’ lie at worst!
Their “morality” may not look like yours, and in some instances you may not agree with them.
But the morality is “theirs” not “yours”.
All you have is an opinion about them. They likely share that opinion about your “morals” and religion.
Remember, they thought white folks HATED their children because they hit them.
LJ, common sense?
And replaced by??
Posted by: littlejohn | June 18, 2007 at 01:45 PM
“FAITH”
Your relationship to God is private just between you and God; do not use God for your own glorification.
LJ:”And replaced by??”
If someone is cured by a disease does it make sense to replace it with another disease?
WSClark-
Since i was the one who spoke about the Native Americanss, I must assume that your post is directed at me. Notice, I did not ever say the American Indian or any other group wa inherently immoral. You precisely make my point. Many cultures have a different sense of morality.
Your post said”All cultures, religions and societies have the same sense of morality…….Thou shall not kill.Thou shall not steal.Etc.”
My point was that those particular commandment in particular are not held by “all cultures, religions, and societies”
i did not accuse the Native Americans of anything. To imply that I did is disingenous at best and at worst a flat freaking lie.
Should the U.S. become a Christian Theocracy, within five years, you’d see the Baptists fighting the Methodists fighting the Catholics, etc., for dominance.
Good discussion, guys and gals! And I didn’t chuckle once. ;)
“My point was that those particular commandment in particular are not held by “all cultures, religions, and societies”"
Which cultures, past or present, do not embrace those moral guidelines?
The Native Americans did not steal, murder or rape WITHIN their tribes, they committed those acts against their enemies, just as did the ancient Israelis, Romans and Persians and more modern Europeans societies.
Native American societies were just as moral as any European society of their time.
And your was not the only comment about Natives.
Ok lj, I went back and read your post about Native Americans. In retrospect, I see that you were not calling them immoral.
I thought it implied though, that modifying “thou shalt not steal or kill” meant they didnt have morals.Even if that isnt what you meant.
And if modifying “thou shalt not steal” or “thou shalt not kill” I think we could safely say our government is entirely immoral.
They do what they want, then squeeze in the theology afterward.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said “Stop! don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?” He said, “Baptist!” I said,”Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?” He said, “Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?” He said,”Reformed Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off. — Emo Phillips
hee hee hee RD AND BHAF!
Native American societies were just as moral as any European society of their time.
And your was not the only comment about Natives.
Posted by: WSClark | June 18, 2007 at 02:48 PM
To the first, I agree. To the second, show me another on this thread. I just went back through it. Didn;t see one. Respectfully, next time don;t accuse me of something that I didn;t say. Thanks
BFAH-
Good one!
“Respectfully, next time don;t accuse me of something that I didn;t say.”
Lj, I think all posters have the right to say that. I do find myself skimming posts from time to time, and then I do miss something.
I’m sorry if I’ve done that to you.
Clark and I and some others are a little touchy on the subject of Native Americans. Sorry for painting you with the wrong brush.
Fantastic BFAH! Love your posts!
“Respectfully, next time don;t accuse me of something that I didn;t say. Thanks”
You implied with your post that the Native Americans did not share the basic moral codes prohibiting stealing and murder.
I pointed out that they did.
I was responding to your post.
If that is not acceptable, then I will refrain from addressing your posts in the future.
As for your comments regarding Native Americans…………..
“Various posters have claimed that the American Indians were not moral in one way or another, but they fail to put it into perspective.”
Notice that my comment was about this blog in general, not this thread specifically. There have been other comments, similar to yours, on other threads on other days.
If you are going to be hypersensitive, perhaps it would be best if I simply ignore you.
Thanks, Mike, LJ, all
back atcha!! :-)
KSfarmgrrl-
Not a problem. I can be just as touchy about being misrepresented.
If you are going to be hypersensitive, perhaps it would be best if I simply ignore you.
Posted by: WSClark | June 18, 2007 at 03:11
Suits me.
I’m sorry that I hurt your feelings, LJ.
Talk about religous persecution! Why doesn’t the WE ever have a thread about the religious left?
What about all of the harm the National and World Council of Churches do?
Why is it OK for the Sojourners to participate and influence politics?
There isn’t one thread about the religious left and they are more active in influencing the government than the right is!
Hank
Sure, thanks.
For Farmie et al
“The American Indians found out what happenswhen you don’t control immigration.”
Hank,
You must be kidding…putting the groups you mentioned in the same category as Falwell, Robertson, and the even more nutty churches (like the “snake handlers”, Church of Jesus Christ Christian…), etc. is a joke.
C’mon HankSurely you are not serious. The religious right has been the base for the GOP for the last 12 years. Without the religious right the GOP would not have stood a chance in recent elections. Why else would the GOP bring out the socially divise issues such as Gay Marriage, Abortion, and illegal immigration at every turn? This makes the GOP hamster run faster in the wheel. Now that the administration has thumbed their nose at the base, the base feels hurt. Remember all the “Faith based Inititives” the president promised on the campaign trail? Surely you do. This is the funniest thing I have read all day…..”Christians” are being discriminated against.
Sol,
That’s right. The English landed in the New World with Bibles in hand and said to the Natives, “Let us close our eyes and pray”. When the Natives opened their eyes, they found that they had the Bibles and the English had the land.
I’m as serious as a stroke! Why isn’t there ever an outcry when the democrats campaign in church?
And if you don’t think the Sojourners aren’t as nutty as any on the right you’re not paying attention!
Hank
True enough BFAH.
And solly? Yes indeed. They also learned that you CANT kill them all and win, and you CANT try to ship them all back.
Too bad WE cant learn the same lessons. Killing them all and letting god sort ‘em out has NEVER worked here.
Nuts come in all stripes Hank. But influence? From the left? On ANY issue?
Yeah. Right. I want what YOU are smoking…
Why Hank? Because they are Democrites, that’s why. :)
Hank,
Giving a sermon or participating in a service is one thing. But here’s the kind of active campaigning Kline was doing last year:
TO: Bill Roche, Sylvia Chapman
FROM: Phill Kline
SUBJECT: Church efforts
DATE: 8/08/06
CC: Doug Henkle
Some items that need to be addressed on the church effort. This memo is rather direct as it is early AM – appreciate all that you are doing. Please use this as a check list to improve on our efforts in this area. Getting down to the wire and we must maximize.
The Goal and Objective – numbers. Please try to get me in front of the largest crowds as we move through the remainder of the campaign schedule. Also, please maximize my presence in a community. Where possible, get additional churches involved. Am able to preach at several different churches where service times are different.
1. Maximize attendance at the reception.
a. We must have the invites at the service to be handed out by 3- 5 hosts of the reception.
b. Attempt to get the pastor to mention.
c. Attempt to have reception as close to service time and as close to church as geographically possible. Please do not do 2 pm receptions; unless several churches are involved and this is the only option. If out before 12 noon – make the starting time before that time.
d. Get the pastor to invite 5 “money people” whom he knows can help. As much as possible get the pastor’s commitment to attend and to get these 5 people there.
i. Time should not be from 2-4 p.m. Rather just give a starting time.
ii. Must have copies of Earl Glynn’s report regarding Tiller money.
iii. Material – we are forgetting the materials we need. Must have.
1. Gideon commitment form made out for that event.
2. latest 323 information with the mug shots of our top 5 or so 323′ers. Staff, must, must, must, get everyone’s e-mail who attends. Don’t wait for them to fill something out. Go get their e-mail.
3. Always need palm cards and blueprints.
4. Now, we will have the church video. Please discuss and review. Maybe we want to start the reception by showing the video. The goal should be for folks to be willing to follow up by inviting others to their home to show video and generate support.
5. county chairman must be invited to these receptions. That way we can speak of the county grassroots plan and have folks sign up for scheduled lit drops, etc.
6. Must have invites to future events in the county. For example, this Thursday we should pass out invites to our kick off in Shawnee County.
7. Goal is to walk away with contact information, money and volunteers and a committee in each church.
a. Phillis – have mentioned to Doug – please give recontact all churches and specifically get in touch with key contact there to form a church lay committee for the campaign. Have we done this anywhere? Lay committee’s goal is to:
i. Find yard sign locations.
ii. Encourage people to contribute and volunteer.
iii. Register voters.
iv. Educate voters.
1. Distribute information to their email lists.
2. Push freestatemedia, etc.
iv. Turn out voters.
v. Sign up folks to help with lit drops, etc. Some churches have already volunteered to do this: Light of the World in Topeka, Wannamaker Woods Nazarene Church, Basehor-Linwood Church. Must work these folks into grassroots efforts. Phillis needs this information. Get church committees on an e-mail list that you and Phillis can access.
vi. Work to help the host know how to ask for money and volunteer support. Do not leave it up to me only. They know the hosts – a host, or someone local standing up and stating that they are giving and this is why and offering a challenge is effective. Try to arrange every time and let me know who that person is and how this will take place before the event.
vii. Always give me the names of the sponsors and hosts before the event so that I know who to thank. Also, should have names of any electeds or county chairs, etc. so I can mention.
viii. Get me out. I should not be the last of our campaign to leave an event. Usually we end with a plea for help. Someone from the campaign should stand up and say that they will remain to pick up pledge sheets, etc. someone should be assigned to get me out the door. I am spending too long at these events. Last night went to 9:30. Manhattan went for 2 hours.
ix. Do not schedule me for social lunches. Only working lunches were we can obtain either media, money or crucial support.
x. Work with Bob to try not to leave gaps in the schedule. If there is a gap – get me to a quiet place so I can make phone calls or write; feed me Slimfast. Do not need a sitdown meal. Takes too much time.
xi. If I am not making phone calls and there is a gap; arrange for local grassroots support and lets hit a part of town. I will walk into a restaurant, coffee shop or place where people congregate and work the crowd.
1. Best way to hit a town square. Sundays usually will not work; but Saturdays do. Walk with one other person. Hopefully local. And one staffer. Move me through the businesses. First stop is manager to let them know. Second staff is kitchen. Then the crowd. Others, in groups of 2, hit other businesses passing out information saying: “I am a volunteer for Attorney General Phill Kline’s campaign, here’s a little information about Phill who is in town today and just across the square. We would be honored by your vote for Phill.” And then move on. If someone is enthusiastic – everyone should have an envelope stuffed with a bumper sticker – hand it to them and say – great we need your help. Please fill this out. If comfortable, wait for them to complete or come back to them. Do not linger on negatives. If they offer why – receive it and say “sorry you feel that way.” And move on. We should be able to hit a town square in 30 minutes to an hour. And then move.
2. Local media – Sherriene should be coordinating with Bob to get me with local weeklies. Sitting down for 20 minutes with a local paper can be big dividends. Is Robin done with the 323, 149, Jessica’s law, key issue, media packets?
x. Maximizing exposure at every church.
a. Please try to get literature into every one’s hands. Check and work with pastor to see what is comfortable. In most instances we should be able to place materials under the windshield of cars. An invite and palm card? Can set up volunteers at or near exit of church to give out yard signs. We must heighten our profile as much as reasonably possible.
b. On receptions – please follow up contact with hosts to help them maximize attendance at receptions. One invite and one mention will not draw a crowd. Pastor and hosts must be willing to call their top 5 and get them there.
Target efforts
TBC – I must speak with Pastor. Also, speak with Marvin Spees about getting me before their men’s group.
Pastor Jerry Johnston’s church. Must get on calendar.
KCK – Effort to get in black and Hispanic church in KCK.
Bill has tape of my translated service. Get it copied and get to Spanish radio stations and also copies for distribution by volunteers in Hispanic neighborhoods. The pastor in Wichita will help. Sylvia and Doug have contacts.
Johnson County focus.
Has anyone followed up with our Emporia weekend? Had a lot of volunteers agree to do lit drops, etc. Has this information been given to Phillis?
All churches should be contacted about our Kick-off rallies.
Must rework Joe Wright and Terry Fox. Must get in their pulpit and have them personally host a reception to match Tiller’s blood money. Perhaps we can get Dobson by phone. Joe, Terry and Pat must commit to get 5-10 people there each who can drop $1,000 to $2,000. This will take a lot of work, contact, work and contact. This should be early to mid-September. Get me in their pulpits. Both have retired and they can still get me in.
Should work with Terry and Joe to get Church video to all of their church contacts.
Should prepare guidance sheet for those who are showing the church video. 2-pager that includes: goals for showing the video, IRS rules guidance regarding what they can and cannot do (this should not take long -no use of church assets – can show it at church as long as they do not deny opposition of showing their own video – no need to invite the other, just cannot deny-etc) sign up sheets, how to give money contributions, etc.
Thanks.
(sniff sniff)
I smell troll. I guess that’s the end of this thread.
Hey Tom,
Kline ain’t my man.
Hank
Hank,
I never said he was. I’m just using his memo as an illustration of how the radical conservatives use churches.
As a result of Kline’s exploitation last year, Spirit One ‘Christian’ Center is now likely to lose their tax-exempt status.
Nice, don’t you think?
Wow Tom. I have heard of this memo, but never read it.
Tell me AGAIN how terry, joe and phred dont violate the IRS code? Tell me AGAIN how they are “of god” and not “of politics”?
That memo is just an outrage. Even KANSAS voters can see through that!
We DID see through that. Hence the outcome of the 06 KSAG race.
:)
KFG — Thats the way those folks work it… Democrats tend to have more of a “community” type meeting… NOT during a worship service… Personally, I do not allow ANY campaign materials to be handed out INSIDE the church facilities… only OUTside… And IF I introduce a candidate, the opposing candidate is also informed… but neither one is invited to speak… Sometimes in small communities, a candidate is a well known member of the congregation… And still does not get the platform during any worship events… BIG difference between that and what Kline was doing last Fall!! HUGE difference!!
I have no problem with churches addressing the issues of the day, as they see them in terms of rightness or wrongness. I do have a problem with voter guides, candidate endorsement of any type, candidates being allowed to give speeches or sermons at a church, having meet the candidate sessions, or direct politicking (sic), etc. They should lose their tax exempt status. period. And if the church leadership falls prey to politicians like Kline, then they should be removed.
Then there are -
The Rev-er-rend Al Sharpton
and
The Rev-er-rend Jesse Jackson
who never specifically tell what they want voters to do in any specific manner. :D
Once again, with feelin’ – Walk on by, foolish pride………………..
Hey Tom,
One of the points I’m trying to make is that the religious left never has a price to pay in the media.
I think Kline is a crook. I believe he is a crooked politician. I have always thought the way he plays the right is shameful. Shameful because he does it and shameful because we fall for it.
He’s one of the few republicans I’d like to see go to jail.
The extreme religious left is just as looney as the extreme religious right and in my opinion (naturally) more harmful.
Hank
WS,
I’m going into the Troll-Be-Gone wholesale business. Buy it by the case!
I am somewhat disappointed in this thread. I was hoping to hear from people or groups, specifically religious Conservatives, who felt there were problems with religious discrimination in America today. I am interested in learning about specific examples of why they feel this way, and what they think should be done about it.
Religious conservatives probably avoid the WE Blog like the plague.
If you want to hear from them brian, go to their churches and see who they are.
But I doubt they will talk much about politics, except for a line or two.
And you might just get a surprise on what they think. :)
How about some examples Repub?
Publican,”The Rev-er-rend Al Sharpton andThe Rev-er-rend Jesse Jacksonwho never specifically tell what they want voters to do in any specific manner. :D”
They are subject to the same laws as all the others. The difference is that they know what they can do where, and avoid breaking the law. The RR is willing to sacrifice a few churches in their attempt to create a christian theocracy.
“But I doubt they will talk much about politics, except for a line or two”Hopefully they are not talking about politics in their church pulpits.
“The day after the party for Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama stood in an A.M.E. church pulpit in Selma, Ala., and cast his candidacy in nothing short of biblical terms, implicitly comparing himself to Joshua, known for his relative inexperience, steadfast faith and completion of Moses’ mission of delivering his people to the Promised Land.
“Be strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go,” Mr. Obama said in paraphrasing God’s message to Joshua.”
This is from the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1182312000&en=87cc5ddef3914b23&ei=5070
i guess it works both ways, Hm?
“The Religious Left” as an organized political force. What a canard. But as usual for the Right Wingers, it’s all about deflecting the blame and using “They do it too!” as a rhetorical strategy.
When “The Religious Left” has radio and television networks dedicated to promoting its ideological religious and political vision, and universities and law schools turning out graduates whose goal is to implement these policies as state and federal employees and bureaucrats, maybe we can talk about “The Religious Left.”
Hank Price’s attempt to play “If they do it, we should be able to as well” isn’t going to get him very far in the face of the real asymmetries between the Religious Right versus the Religious Left.
“Religious conservatives probably avoid the WE Blog like the plague.”
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH:::choke, inhale:::BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
That was an outright lie. There are several religious conservatives contributing to _this_ thread, not to mention other threads.
Or perhaps Meadowlark, Parkay, Outlander, Phill Kline Himself, et al, aren’t religious conservatives?
I suppose the next thing you’ll tell me is that a woman should have the right to abort a fetus growing in her uterus… Ridiculous!
Hey brian,
As a card carrying member of the religious right I don’t think I’ve ever been a victim of persecution. Myself or my church. I am truly blessed to live in the United States.
Hank
Hank,Glad to hear it. I too am thankful to live in a country where we are free to worship what we choose or nothing at all.
Hank Price,
What Brian said. Maybe you could get some of your ideological compadres to see things your way.
Hey CF2K,
You’ve completely mischaracterized my position.
My church is not involved in politics in any way. I don’t even talk politics with members when we’re away from church.
Therefore, when you post Hank Price’s attempt to play “If they do it, we should be able to as well” and imply with your quotation marks that it is a statement by me it is a lie.
You should apologize.
Hank
I love how the religious always ask me where I get my morality from as an athiest. I’ll tell you where. I get it from thousands of years of civilization and collective human experience, which is exactly where everyone else on this planet gets it from. Just because you think your morals come straight from God, doesn’t mean they do.
And if you get your morals from the Bible, fine, but if I don’t accept the Bible was written by the hand of God, then I still don’t see your morals coming from any invisible man in the sky.
Hmm, where do I get my morality.
I treat people with compassion and respect. I don’t act obnoxious in public. I don’t trash rooms when I rent them. I’m not outside screaming at the top of my lungs or playing loud music in the middle of the night.
I don’t abuse animals nor children, nor elderly. I don’t scam people out of their money. I don’t drive recklessly or speed.
How many of those aren’t in the bible, but are moral behaviors? It is simple- very simple.
Morality is simply a viewpoint through the persons eyes. Not a hard concept to understand. Even with external factors used behind those eyes, ultimately, those eyes make a choice they think best.
If you don’t think the Eagle is a neo-Nazi publication, just take a look at what Brownlee’s acolytes of hate have written today.
Welcome to Wichita, home of the Fourth Reich.
Ah, Angry Ben is back and as stupid as ever.
Lefty,
The point is that when morals have no base then there is no standard.
Yes, of course you can still be a wonderfully nice person without believing in God or reading the Bible.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you can’t be a nice moral person without being a Christian.
We are saying that there is not any standard.
God is a standard no one can change, manipulate, argue with, or through societial times change.
Just like you said, morals without God are based soley on whatever society thinks feels good at the time.
With God they never change.
I disagree with this statement “God is a standard no one can change, manipulate, argue with, or through societial times change.”
Jesus changed it now didn’t he? Do you really think we should all be living like the people you were just sent to kill? They live closest to religious teachings than any other group probably. And they all started with the same God.
Do you think all the things in the bible should still be adhered to? Think really hard about that before you answer.
Political Mom,
Before I fall into you trap, please be specific on what exactly you think Jesus changed.
Thats easy Nathan!! Healing on the Sabbath… Treating women as closer to being equals with men… Changing the ways people changed monies at the Temple… Want more???
Nathan –
Well, for starters: there an “Old” covenant and Jesus came along and presented a “New” covenant, right?
Compare and contrast the two.
Show your work.
Oh,
I thought we were talking about morals.
That was NOT what you asked for Nathan… But, what isnt a moral value, if you change Sabbath laws?? And, change economic principles… and change the way women are treated?? Do you REALLY want to claim those are not morals??
Nathan, You DO use the Old Covenant for some of your beliefs, right??
Nathan, do you consider slavery moral? Slavery is an accepted practice in the OT and the NT, that certainly hasn’t changed.
Human sacrifice is acceptable in the Bible. Do you think it’s moral to sacrifice people in the hopes to gain favor from your gods?
According to the Bible if I like a woman and want to marry her I should rape her and pay the 50 sheckels in dowry so she can be my wife. Do you find rape a moral practice?
I’m wondering if those who think the Bible is a moral guidebook have actually read it.
Doug,
You have not even read the Bible.
Time and time again you do little more than twist some verse or completely mis-represent it to bash Christianity and the bible.
As you continue to do here once again.
Funny how you bible thumpers always claim I haven’t read the bible yet you are so ignorant of the contents. Do you actually believe what I mentioned isn’t in the bible? What do you wager?
And I thought Rev. Nathan Price IS a Bible Literarist. I guess I was wrong to think that he believes in literal reading of Genesis. Or is he just a “pick-n-choose” fair-weather christian?
Well, do YOU or do YOU NOT believe that every word of the Bible a literal truth?
I believe it was Col. Robert G. Ingersoll who said that “Anyone who followed the complete Old Testament to the letter would be a criminal, and anyone who followed the Complete New Testament to the letter would be insane.”
I believe it was Col. Robert G. Ingersoll who said that “Anyone who followed the complete Old Testament to the letter would be a criminal, and anyone who followed the Complete New Testament to the letter would be insane.”
Sorry about that- every time I run afoul of that Bot Detector, it double-posts. Must mean I’m really human!
Folks like Doug and Chas would like to go back in time and change the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and ethics. Sorry guys. Our greatness as a country was derived from these standards. Standards that everyone knew and believed in, and that you didn’t need a law to define. Right and wrong. United. States. God on our side.
It is no coincidence that at a time when we are having difficulties finding our way as a nation, our traditional concept of right and wrong is being challenged by the secular left. Our unity is reduced and our nation weakened. I believe that this is the goal of the far left. To reduce our status to that of just another country. So we can all live in worldwide secular John Lennon harmony. Peace and love. Right and wrong not from God, but as we ourselves define it. Imagine there’s no heaven. God to the side.
Oh, but look over there. The radical Muslims, sworn to spread their philosophy of hate around the world. Mosques going up all over Europe. Ah, we are just overreacting. Christianity is the same thing. Muslims are really peace lovers. It’s the Christians that want to impose their will on us. Muslims won’t demand to set up Islamic rule, right? Blindness.
What size prayer rug you need?
I guess Nathan realized his fallacies and had nothing more to say.
outlander, got a little prejudice against Muslims huh? Quite a chip you seem to be carrying around.
“Outlander” –
For sure, there are “radical” Muslims. Just as there are radical “Chistians” who justify bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City, shooting abortion providers, killing Catholics and/or Presbyterians in Northern Ireland, torturing Jews and other “infidels” during the Spanish Inquisition, and lynching Blacks and Catholics and Jews under the cloak of the Ku Klux Klan.
If people of your religious intollerance were in power in America during the 1970s, all Christianity would have been banned in the US on the basis of the Klan.
Fortunately, most Americans know better than you. Muslim “radicals” constitute a minority of a vast worldwide belief system. Most certainly, they need to be dealt with; but in proportion to the threat they present. They are, by your definition, “radicals;” a fringe group.
The only successful bringing-to-justice of radical Muslims’ attacks against the United States (the 1994 WTC bombing) has been achieved by giving the accused full Constitutional rights and trial by jury. All the macho posturings of firing cruise missiles, “Bring ‘em on!” and “Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran!,” have resulted in abject failure.
Americans are, at our best, a practical people. Even when we embrace and love and worship ideology, eventually we come to grips that what we’ve been ideologically-motivated to doesn’t work, it’s time to change course.
I once had an office with a bird house just outside the window. I remember watching a wren try to build a nest one spring. She’d fly off to get a stick and would bring it back and sit on the perch and try to force an inch-and-a-half stick into the three-quarters-of-an-inch hole in the bird house. With the stick firmly in her beak she’d push and push and push and push for 10, 15, 20 minutes… until, by chance, she happened to twist her head and one end of the stick got into the hole to the bird house. Then she’d fly off to find another inch-and-a-half-long stick and repeat the whole process for 10, 15, 20 minutes.
It was then I learned the truth about ideological “conservatives.”
They’re bird brains.
For sure, there are “radical” Muslims. Just as there are radical “Chistians” who justify bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City, shooting abortion providers, killing Catholics and/or Presbyterians in Northern Ireland, torturing Jews and other “infidels” during the Spanish Inquisition, and lynching Blacks and Catholics and Jews under the cloak of the Ku Klux Klan.
How many Christians justified the bombing in Oklahoma City, how many Christians justify shooting aboriton providers, and just how many have been shot? How long ago was the Spanish Inquisition? How long ago was the last peson lynched by the KKK? THe Catholic/Protestant war, while stupid at best, has less to do about religion than territory.In the meanwhile, in the Muslim world,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1951462.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=462779&in_page_id=1811&ct=5
Your attempt to equate the two doesn’t even come close.
“I once had an office with a bird house just outside the window. I remember watching a wren try to build a nest one spring. She’d fly off to get a stick and would bring it back and sit on the perch and try to force an inch-and-a-half stick into the three-quarters-of-an-inch hole in the bird house. With the stick firmly in her beak she’d push and push and push and push for 10, 15, 20 minutes… until, by chance, she happened to twist her head and one end of the stick got into the hole to the bird house. Then she’d fly off to find another inch-and-a-half-long stick and repeat the whole process for 10, 15, 20 minutes.
It was then I learned the truth about ideological “conservatives.”
They’re bird brains.”
I like the story of the conservative little bird LTP. But I would interpret it a little different. It is a story of persistence. Although the bird wasn’t the brightest, she kept after her task. She got her nest built.
What if she were a liberal little bird? Would she would have just given up and laid her eggs on the sidewalk and hoped someone would take care of them for her?
The man sits at work hours on end watching a wren build a nest. . .
Then calls conservatives “bird brains”! I wonder why he doesn’t ‘work’ there anymore!
Hank
Oh, by the way, day two and CF2K hasn’t seen fit to apologize for mischaracterizing my position and lying about what I posted.
Hank
Just a couple of comments,
I find it soooo friggin’ funny that Hank gets his shorts in a twist over his perception of the politics of “conservative” versus “liberal” Christian churches. Funny, I always thought the Church was about bringing the Kingdom of God to fruition here on earth… Hank sees both groups as primarily political entities with their own political agendas. IMHO, if a Christian group has political lobbying as its primary or one of its important activities, then it has ceased being a church and become a political action group.
As to whether the church of past centuries has anything to do with the current turmoil in the Muslim world, I think it does.
In the Middle Ages, Islam was a picture of religious freedom. While its true that non-Muslims were taxed for being non-Muslim, there was never any pressure on “people of the book” to adopt Islam. In fact, when Spain banished its Jews, the Turkish sultan sent ships to bring them to Constantinople. There was also much open discussion about God and his nature. Christendom, during the same period, was completely radicalized…there was no freedom of religion. Crusades, even in Europe, were used to bring non-believers into line, Jews were banished and when this didn’t work, pogroms were pretty common. Christendom underwent wars of religion for hundreds of years (some might say they’re still going on).
Interestingly, after all of the religious fanaticism, wars, pogroms, torture, etc., the West exhausted itself and pretty much had to adopt an attitude of religious toleration.
On the other hand, religious fundamentalists took over in the late Middle Ages in Islam and killed the relatively open, liberal, tolerant societies of the Muslim world.
So, Christianity started as a bastion of intolerance and exhausted itself on wars over minor doctrinal differences, within Christianity itself, and with Jews and Muslims, until in the end the wars forced a view of toleration on the West.
Islam was extremely tolerant, but became increasingly intolerant, partly in response to the religious bigotry and downright aggressiveness of Christianity towards other faiths, including Islam (look at the Crusades).
What does this teach us? Hopefully, that intolerance is NEVER the answer to any problem, and that history has a long memory…echoes of events of the distant past can still be heard today.
Ah, another rant that begins by mischaracterizing my position! My church is a very fundemental Bible teaching church and we are not political at all.
I’ve never seen any political agenda from the pulpit. I’ve seen political bumper stickers from both parties in the parking lot but I’ve never involved myself in political discussions with any of the members.
He then continues to completely mischaracterize the history of the Christian church to further his delusional view of politics through the ages.
Sad,
Hank
Hank,
BFAH may have gone a little far in characterizing your individual faith practice and tradition, but on the history of Christianity, he’s pretty much right on.
If Hank doesn’t get his apology, I’m sure he going to cry.
The idea that fundy churches aren’t a huge component in the right-wing backlash that has dominated politics since Reagan could only be believed by someone who actually goes to a right-wing fundy church . . .
You’ll note, Hank, I never mentioned your Church…It was you who equated the Sojourners with the Christin Coalition, not me.
Throw the Salvation Army the Shakers, and the Quakers in there too, Hank.
…but if the shoe fits…
“Funny, I always thought the Church was about bringing the Kingdom of God to fruition here on earth… ”
Biblically, that is not actually the case. The function of the church (actually the leadership) is to train up Christians for the work of the ministry
The great commision was not to bring about anything on earth, but to go and make disciples, and do the work of the ministry
BUt you are not alone, there are many churches that have forgotten as well.
IMHO, if a Christian group has political lobbying as its primary or one of its important activities, then it has ceased being a church and become a political action group.
I would have to agree.
Good morning Capn!
“If Hank doesn’t get his apology, I’m sure he going to cry.”
I don’t really care if CF2K apologizes or not. However, I am amused by the hypocracy on the left and enjoy pointing it out in CF2K’s case.
As far as the rest of your post goes, . . . Huh?
HankHank
LJ,
It’s all in your reading, isn’t it?
Into whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat the things that are set before you. Heal the sick who are therein and tell them ‘The Kingdom of God has come near you’.
….he answered them, “The Kingdom of God doesn’t come with observation: neither will they say, ‘Look here!’, or ‘Look there!’, for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.
For in him we live, and move, and have our being…
Especially this last quote says that we live IN God…that all around us IS God. God IS what we experience….but even so much more than this.
In short, it is not unreasonable to take the point of view that this is the Kingdom of God, not some castle in the sky.
BTW, the great commission is known to be a later Christian addition to the gospel texts.
BTW, the great commission is known to be a later Christian addition to the gospel texts.
Posted by: BFAH | June 19, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Depends on whether or not you rely on codex vaticanus or codes receptus, doesn’;t it.
While I think I understand your point about the Kingdom of God, that is not the usual context. There is a doctrine that it is up to the Christian to literally bring about an earthly Kingdom of God, or theocracy. This is a false doctrine.By reading the New Testament in it’s entirty, it becomes obvious that that is neither the mission of the church, or possible.
LJ,
Not really…it doesn’t appear in several other fragments.
“Textual critics note that the portion of Mark 16 which records the commission is not found in two of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The response generally given is that this is immaterial, as essentially the same thing is quoted as having been said by Jesus in at least three other New Testament passages, and additionally that the passage in question was regarded as part of the canon of the scriptures throughout most of Church history.
Some believe that the Great Commission was already fulfilled based on the statements “And they went out and preached everywhere,” (Mark 16:20), “the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven,” (Colossians 1:23), and “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations,” (Romans 16:25-26). [1]
Since the versions of the great commission vary from each other, are attributed to the resurrected Jesus, and do not appear at all in some the earliest examples of the gospels–scholars of the historical Jesus (such as the Jesus Seminar) generally portray the statement as a later editorial addition to the text.”
Wikipedia
I will agree that there is disagreement on which texts to follow. The codex recepticus and the codex vaticanus have some disconnects. The Codex Recepticus is the basis for the King James Version of the Bible. The Codex vaticanus for the newer translations. However, the principle of disciple making is throughout the New Testament, is it not?
Yes, but I’d say it is the method at question…
I’m a firm believer in what Francis of Assisi said…not only for conversions, but for most everything else in life…
“Preach the Word of God. If all else fails, speak !! “
Morality is a LEARNED behavior. We cannot base a country on “moral” behavior because EVERYONE has a different “moral” code based on what they have lived and learned, and ESPECIALLY in a nation of immigrants like the US, everyone has a different basic “moral” code. it’s simplistic. Think of it this way – remember all the outcry over declaring English the official language of this country? And many were saying that we, like many European countries, should require our children to be bi-lingual. My argument to this is that HOW DO YOU PICK WHAT LANGUAGE TO LEARN? European and Asian and many other countries are bilingual because they have “their” language and also learn ENGLISH – since it is the language of business. If you are in an ENGLISH speaking country, how do you pick a second language? I mean, if you pick Spanish, well what about the French or the German or the Swahili immigrants. Don’t they have the right to have THEIR language be the second language? Its the same thing with morality – different countries and cultures and, yes, religions, teach different morals. They may have a similar basic code or basis, but they are DIFFERENT – so who gets to pick what morals we live by?
“Folks like Doug and Chas would like to go back in time and change the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and ethics.”
I’ll give you the slavery, racism, sexism and genocide but apart from those ethics the laws were based upon British commonlaw. If you can point out to me where the Bible extols democracy, rule by people, freedom of speech and religion then you may have a case.
Doug,
Details, details…
How can you make a case for a theocracy with thinking like that?
Its the same thing with morality – different countries and cultures “and, yes, religions, teach different morals. They may have a similar basic code or basis, but they are DIFFERENT – so who gets to pick what morals we live by?”
Posted by: anon | June 19, 2007 at 10:46 AM
you are right, which is one thing that makes a democracy, or in this case, a republican form of government messy and sometimes disagreeable. Technically, we get to select the morals we live by by agreeing to a standard of conduct that we deem acceptable to the majority of the governed. Now, it doesn;t always work that way, but that is the concept. Our mores, or countries morals, become the amalgamation of our individual morals, and what we are willing or not willing to accept in the way of behavior
BFAH,
It’s that damned “thinking” that sinks theocracies, every time.
BFAH-
I guess I lost something.
The problem with many, both inside and outside, Christendom is that they miss on of the points of this thread. Jesus did not come to establish his Kindom on earth. He did not come to set up a theocracy.In fact, in a very real way, he negated teh theocracy that had become the hebrew nation of Isreal. In addition, the jews of the day expected a savior that would redeem them from Roman rule and put them back into their rightful place. Because he did not, they rejected him out of hand. Because he basically removed the power of teh priesthood over peoples lives, they rejected him.Christians of today especially need to get that message, IMHO.
LJ,
What? You were doing great as far as I could tell…BTW you affiliated with any denomination?
LJ, then some people added some wording to the bible and established the divine right of kings. Putting a king on the same authority as the divine is no different than establishing a theocracy.
Outlander, do we vote for a new king every four years? That’s what our nation was founded as, right? A monarchy.
No, I am not affiliated with any denominaiton. Although I guess there is a loose connection of many of the churches identified the same as mine. My church is identified as an independent Christian Church, that has in it’s roots the Stone Campbell Restoration movement. There is no denomination or hierarchy in the classical sense. There is no Common standards or dogma. Each is free to believe as it believes, though there are many common threads, and some cooperation with educational materials and seminaries. However, there is no requirement to use or follow either.As to my loss, were you saying to make disciples by preaching the word of God, and lettig it speak for itself? For some reason, your post just did not connect.
LJ, then some people added some wording to the bible and established the divine right of kings. Putting a king on the same authority as the divine is no different than establishing a theocracy.
Posted by: Doug | June 19, 2007 at 11:09 AM
What?
Francis of Assisi’s quote was saying preach by your actions, it’s a universal language…only use words if everything else fails.
And I would agree with St Francis of Assissi
Brian,
Sorry I was not up all night on the thread. I simply went to bed.
Once again, this thread is full of the same typical distortions by people like Doug and BFAH.
So now, idiot people of “faith” are going to start whining as much as minorities? It would be funny were it not so pathetic!
Nathan…
And what would those distortions be, pray tell? (already giggling)
If you need some sleep, happy to wait…although I don’t think lack of sleep is going to be the problem with what you post.
It must be those distortions where someone points out things in the bible Nathan doesn’t agree with. Maybe Nathan only reads cartoon versions of the bible.
Again Nathan, what do you wager?
Doug,
I take it as a compliment to be dissed by Nathan in the same post as you.
Wager?
I wager that you will continue to distort whatever it takes to please yourself in your ability to mischaracterize the Bible.
Go ahead, show me where the Bible says you should:
“According to the Bible if I like a woman and want to marry her I should rape her and pay the 50 sheckels in dowry so she can be my wife.”
“The point is that when morals have no base then there is no standard….We are saying that there is not any standard.God is a standard no one can change, manipulate, argue with, or through societial times change.Just like you said, morals without God are based soley on whatever society thinks feels good at the time.With God they never change.Posted by: Nathan | June 18, 2007 at 10:21 PM ”
Nathan I am glad you are back, I had a question concerning your views.If we desire to base our laws on a moral standard, and we use God and the Bible as that standard, would that not have the effect of the State endorsing the Christian religion and hence be unconstitutional?
Here’s why the concept of separation of chruch and state was so important to Thomas Jefferson and the authors of the Constitution:
Any time a human envokes the Will of “God” into a political discussion, the discussion is over. “Who are you to argue with ‘God?!’”
The remarkable thing about America and the Constitution which created it is how it developed a structure for morality and an ethos of justice that steadfastly removes “God” — anybody’s “god” — from the equation.
It doesn’t make the United States superior to or inferior to religious beliefs. It simply, in the United States, “God” is not supposed to enter into the equation.
Does your personal moral code depend upon your religious beliefs? Groovy. But to apply your moral code into civil law, you can’t play the “God” card. It’s not in the deck.
Sure, the God of Moses said, “Thou shalt not kil.” But it’s not as if the Judeo-Christian theology has a monopoly over proscribing murder. Every culture and ever civilization has found it beneficial to the commonweal that murder be deemed unacceptable. The God of Moses didn’t invent the crime of murder.
All other laws of morality — cultural or theocratic or mythological — are certainly acceptable to be incoporated into a non-sectarian democratic republic such as the United States. But the enactment of such codes cannot depend on the “God” card. As Kurt Vonnegut noted, one of the great things about America is it’s become a great player in the grand poker game of history even playing without a full deck.
The Japanese lost World War II despite having their “god” on earth running the show. Hitler tried to manipulate “god” and nature into a Thousand Year Royal Flush. Western democracies defeated the Axis with mere civil law and forms of government that allowed citizens to embrace — *but prevented dictation by* — the “God” card.
I don’t care if your faith and devotion is directed to Joseph Smith or Jesus Christ or Muhammad or the Virgin Mary or Bonzo the Sun God. To be a part of this system of government — to play in this poker game — you can’t play the “God” card.
“To be a part of this system of government — to play in this poker game — you can’t play the “God” card”
And that, my friends, is why some religious folk feel ‘discriminated’ against. They want to ‘play the God card’ and are not allowed to.
Nathan,
Doug was referring to De 22:28 and onward from there
Nathan, considering you constantly call me a liar and I prove you wrong every time I figured you could actually show some balls and stand up for yourself by presenting something meaningful. But as usual you prove yourself to be the ignorant moron as usual.
Deuteronomy 22:28-2928 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
So go on with your stupid self. Perhaps if you actually read the bible you wouldn’t thump it so hard.
let’s see…God and his morality never change…
The OT prohibits the wearing of mixed fabrics…we now wear polyester/wool blends. I guess God must like polyester.
God established the sabbath as saturday…christians changed it to sunday.
God forbade the eating of shellfish..oops, excuse me, the melted butter was dripping as I put it on my steamers.
God didn’t consider the abortion of a fetus or even a child up to about 6 months as a murder…what happened there?
God said the Messiah would come from the House of David and also be from the tribe of Levi…guess he made a little boo-boo.
The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem even though Jesus was born in Nazareth.
….
One thing didn’t change, the prohibition on charging usury. The Jews could do it but in the NT it was forbidden. That was conveniently ignored.
Since we have so many bible following christians on this forum I’m surprised I never see them protesting outside EZ-Loan and Red Lobster. However, when it comes to hating gays they become very self-righteous.
Doug-I am a bible believing christian, I don;t hate gays, and I don;t charge usury when I loan money, in fact, I don;t charge an individual anything if I loan them money. I don;t protest, period. I don;t care what ez-Loan charges in a theological sense. As a practical matter, I try and steer people away from such places. and I didn;t know Red Lobster charges interest.
Red Lobster serves shellfish. Very unkosher.
and again…
“I guess Nathan realized his fallacies and had nothing more to say.
Posted by: brian | June 19, 2007 at 08:28 AM “
Red Lobster serves shellfish. Very unkosher.
Posted by: Doug | June 19, 2007 at 12:43 PM
True that they serve it, and I am so glad! But Kosher food is nota rquirement of Christian living
I have a question for all of the fundie, bible literalists. Where did your mother stay and what did she sleep on during her menstrual cycle? The bible clearly states that she should have been separated and that if she layed down on a bed, the bed would be considered unclean. I hope that you made sure to stay away from her and keep her off the furniture during that time of the month, you wouldn’t want to burn in hell or be stoned to death would you?
Most of the Christian claims of discrimination are really based on the loss of the preferential treatment that they were accustomed to. Imagine the loud outcry from the bible thumpers if the courts they were forced to attend were decorated with pagan symbols. Or if their pure Christian children had to deal with teasing and humiliation based on their refusal to recite the Koran with the rest of the class. What if the city decided to incorporate an image of the Hindu god Shiva in the official seal and displayed this on every piece of city property.
If you keep your religion to yourself, nobody will complain. It is when you think that you have some right, despite the clear admonitions of the 1st Amendment to be allowed to force others to participate in your religious rituals that you have crossed the line.
I viewed this thread and was amazed at the lack of knowlege and rancor exhibited by those who would try to discredit Christianity. I do feel bad for you folks, because you clearly do not have the peace that a relationship with Jesus Christ brings. That can be changed, you know.
But rather than join in, I will do as others are doing, and take the advise of the Paul; “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments…”.
Dear Scott,
If you are serious and really would like to have a better understanding of the ‘fundie bible literalist’ interpretation of the Bible, then I’m your man!
However, I won’t waste my precious time with someone that isn’t serious about a better understanding. I am willing to answer all of you Biblical questions in person.
As for your misunderstanding of what ‘fundies’ want from their government based on:
“If you keep your religion to yourself, nobody will complain. It is when you think that you have some right, despite the clear admonitions of the 1st Amendment to be allowed to force others to participate in your religious rituals that you have crossed the line.”
I can’t help you. The first amendment allows me to participate in the political debate. . . as a Christian. If you are so sincerely worried about some mystical “religious ritual” we fundies are trying to force on you, why don’t you give me an example?
Hank
You guys are hysterical. We brought forth an argument that you know the answer to, you don’t want these laws because you yourself don’t live by them. You don’t believe in them. So instead of answering the question you just say that you won’t argue with us stupid ones.
Whatever.
“Hank Price” –
I refer you to my 12:19 post in this thread.
Nobody’s saying a “Christian” cannot participate in this government; only that you do not have the right to impose your theology into civil law.
“I viewed this thread and was amazed at the lack of knowlege and rancor exhibited by those who would try to discredit Christianity”
Since when is questioning one’s beliefs or those of another an attempt to ‘discredit’ their religion? I don’t think any posters on here were attempting to ‘discredit Christianity.’
Outlander, would you mind if I raped your daughter, gave you 50 pieces of silver then took her as my wife? If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with your religion. If you don’t have a problem with that then you are a sick individual.
Take your pick. Thankfully our secular government took a look at your religion’s laws and decided not to incorporate them.
Hank,
Typical deflection. Everytime someone finds some of the wacky rules and other stuff in the bible that even harcore Christians conveniently ignore, you simply claim that they don’t understand with your typical smugness. If you were truthful to yourself and others, you would simply admit that a literal interpretation of the bible requires a person to adhere to many rules that are simply absurd in the modern world. Only a fool would take the bible literally and even people like yourself that claim to be biblical literalists pick and choose which sections still apply.Please provide some examples of the religious discrimination that would require the involvement of the Justice Department.
As far as my examples of items that I believe are or should be unconstitutional, I already isted three:
The display of Christian symbols on public buildings
Organized prayer in schools
Christian symbols incorporated into official government seals and logos
Hank,
I also don’t appreciate the veiled threat when you mention that you would like to discuss your religion with me in person. Go play internet tough guy somewhere else.
If you reference the Bible Doug, you should at least study it and find out if the interpretation you are using is accurate. That is the Muslim interpretation of that phrase by the way.
The verse(s) “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her…”
lay hold on her comes from the word “Shakab”
“Shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn’t forced into having sex.”
So Doug, next time you want to use the Bible as your “whip” try to find one that has at least a handle on credibility.
By the way Doug, this is just one example of how your Website is full of lies. You distort the truth and fail to do accurate research.
Walk on by, Doug, just walk on by…. nothing here but the rantings of a wannabe expert on every subject.
Just walk on by…………………
“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments…”.
Doug: In case you failed to get the memo, your latest still qualifies.
I think today, on this thread, I can say with confidence:
Now I’ve Seen It All.
MUSLIMS are being blamed for a bad King James’ interpretation of the Bible. That’s freaking HYSTERICAL.
I looked up Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in the KJV, and here’s what it says:
[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;[29] Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
The NEW King James Version, which is what Nathan uses, says this:
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
Whoops, I hit POST too soon.
The translation Doug posted was the New International Version, widely used by Catholics and others.
I really don’t see a difference, beyond semantics. I _CERTAINLY_ don’t see Muslim influence, ESPECIALLY SINCE ISLAM WASN’T EVEN INVENTED UNTIL 700 YEARS AFTER CHRIST.
Too freaking funny.
Don’t try using facts with them, Tom, the facts just get in the way of a good story.
So if I grab a woman and rape her then I can say it’s done with consent? These fundies are sick individual indeed. Apparently there is no such thing as rape in their book.
Muslims wrote the Torah now eh? Perhaps that’s why so many Muslims hate Jews, taking credit for their work. The ignorance of fundies knows no bounds.
WS,
You know I’ve been ignoring the troll for a while now. Most of its posts are scroll-over territory; they vary little from the standard personal attack. But this one was just too irresistible. I mean, I’ve seen STUPID before, but this…this…THIS!
HAHAHAHAH I’m still laughing. I’m glad everyone else has left the office for the day. It’d be impossible to explain. Who’d believe it??
Well Scott,
Seeing a “veiled threat” threat in my offer tells me a lot about your heart.
Sad.
Hank
Even when presented with facts, the Leftist Liberals go into denial.
Here’s a Muslim Website you can peruse where Muslims profess the superiority of the Koran over the Bible.
You will find down the page, the reference to the phrase from Deuteronomy.
It is a well known fact from those who study the Bible, that this is one of those phrases often misinterpreted.
I even gave the original Hebrew word for what it meant.
Yet, those who claim knowledge of the Bible, say the opposite.
You fell into one of the traps of being secular. That is using the Bible to quote phrases when you know nothing of it.
Now that is sad.
Take a closer look Tom and Doug and whoever.
The tactic Tom used goes beyond shameless, it is abominably narcissistic that one who spews profane language and deed claims to be an authority on the Bible.
oops here the Website:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/does-islam-require-four-witnesses-for-rape/
The wannabe is just looking for compliments from the religious right.
Walk on by…………………..
Yeah WSClark hates having the actual facts pointed out to him.
So he uses the “Walk on by” mantra.
Your falsetto is starting to improve Clarkie. :D
The wannabe is just looking for compliments from the religious right.
Walk on by…………………..
By the way, this is where ReplagiarCon cut and pasted “his” response without attribution as always:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
Who cares where I posted it from CapnAmerica?
Another failed attempt by the Capn to insert ad hominem into the topic with out any basis of fact or clue of what he is talking about.
But what can one expect from the Secular Progressive Hitlerites?
Walk……………………………
Repug’s new “catch-phrase” is now “Secular Progressive Hitlerites”!
What a reich-wing fool!
So, as I lay my head down tonight I will know that there is a God in heaven who cares about me personally and who is working in my life. I can cast my cares upon Him and never worry about anything.
I wish everyone the same peace, particularly you Doug.
“Secular Progressive Hitlerites”
. . . Repub sez through his flabby gluteus maximus.
Repub, I useta think ya had some sense. Until you started lying, and cutting/pasting without attribution. Capn America nailed yer flabby lyin’ ass to the wall, and yer only response is . . .
“Secular Progressive Hitlerites”
outlander, peace.
Yes, He cares, but don’t forget to do your part too.
According to Republican only true Christians are fluent in Hebrew. How many Christians would that been in America then? Certainly less than 1%. That would include how many on the Eagle forums? Probably not even Republican. So there are no true Christians here.
Apparently God couldn’t create a scripture that could be followed by a layman. In order to get to heaven one must go to a university and get well grounded in foreign languages, archeology and ancient middle eastern sociology. Only then will a person be able to attain expert status like Republican to perfectly be able to represent what the scriptures really say. No need to actually read multiple translations of the bible because those were done by ignorant morons. Only Republican is the true prophet of god and able to give an accurate translation. These true prophets only appear when a ignorant person like me reads the bible and repeats what it says.
The military is looking for some experts in Arabic translation after having fired so many for being gay. Why don’t you enlist Republican? The military could use your expertise in fighting the terrorists and you won’t even need to see combat. Why are you sitting here on the forum taking the bible out of context when you could be saving lives?
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (NIV)
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (NASB)
When a man comes upon a virgin who has never been engaged and grabs and rapes her and they are found out, the man who raped her has to give her father fifty pieces of silver. He has to marry her because he took advantage of her. And he can never divorce her. (message)
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found,
29Then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not divorce her all his days. (amplified)
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (KJV)
If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (ESV)
If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver [shekels], and she must become his wife because he violated her. (A) He cannot divorce her as long as he lives. (Holman)
Suppose a man happens to see a virgin who hasn’t promised to marry another man. And the man who happens to see her rapes her. But someone discovers them. 29 Then the man must weigh out 20 ounces of silver. He must give it to the woman’s father. The man must marry the woman, because he raped her. And he can never divorce her as long as he lives. (NIRV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels [a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (TNIV)
They all say the same thing but Republican has scoffed at all these scholars and his intensive scholarly research has said something different so we must take Dr. Republican at his word simply because he doesn’t like the fact that a liberal Atheist knows more about his bible than he does.
That’s it Doug, write a lot of the same stuff, that’ll make your case.
You still have to deal with the Hebrew word “Shakab” now don’t you? :)
Doug,
You are indeed a liberal atheist.
I would add disingenuous, deceitful, and callous in regards to what you say about Christianity.
You typically find some verse like this one and go off on a tangent making wild claims and statements.
Once again, the problem is not what the verse says, it is what you are saying.
And what part of the Bible do you discount as false or not relative to your life, Nathan?
Is that what you still think Republican? Then translate this:
Genesis 39:14she called to the men of her household and said to them, “See, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to make sport of us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I screamed.
Your word in used in this instance. Do women usually scream about consensual sex? No, but they do when they are raped.
The problem is that you want to take the verse out of context. If someone grabs hold of someone and has sex with them the context is to rape. That’s what rapists do, they grab someone and have sex with them against their will. You want to distort the passage because you want to find rape completely acceptable. You don’t know dick about your bible and that’s quite evident by the crap you are vomiting here. So much for your feigned expertise in Hebrew. That’s why so many biblical translators who have made a career about understanding these languages disagree with you. Are you just upset and throwing a temper tantrum that an Atheist knows more about your bible than you? Go wear a diaper and pout a bit more, the bible is quite clear about what it says. Funny how you think someone who reads a bible, which is advocated as timeless and a source of morals, is being misdirected. Only Republican is the true prophet of god. Yes, throw away your bibles and read Republicans new translation where rape is consensual, all those who disagree are immoral.
Doug: If you are really looking for the truth, read Ephesians 2:14-18. There Paul explains how Christ, through his death on the cross, abolished the whole system of Jewish law. If you need help with understanding it, I can help. It is a bit of a difficult scripture.
But if you are just arguing, never mind.
So far, Nathan, all you have said is that everyone’s understanding of the Bible is wrong, no matter what it is that they have said, but you have yet to give us YOUR explanation.
So let’s hear it – your explanation of the verse that Doug quoted regarding the rape of a virgin.
How did Doug take that one out of context and what is the correct context? What does the verse really mean?
Explain that, please.
Start with that one.
What am I lying about Nathan? I’ve provided a bible passage with numerous translations that agree with me. Did I write all those translations? I presented support for my case but you insist on calling me a liar yet you present nothing but accusations without evidence. That’s quite typical of fundies. I ask you for evidence of a 10,000 year old Earth but you provide nothing but baseless accusations. It’s beginning to be a nasty habit this one sided debate. I’ll take it you have nothing to support your position this time around. How does it feel to be bested by a liberal Atheist again?
Let’s examine Doug quotes from the different Biblical Versions that include the word “rape” and see what practicing Christians think about them.
Holman Translation – is of corrupted Greek Text and Germanic translation from Hebrew. Several language filters to go through and the Holman fails a lot of them.
NIRV Was made for children and is thought of to be a “politically correct” translation as it is gender neutral. In other words, they changed the original translations a lot in order to be “hip” than accurate.
TNIV- A so-called updated version of the NIV Bible. It too uses “hip” language and is careless in its translation. The hurried attempt at translation was done more to meet press than to preserve the original intent and word of the Bible. To date over 200,000,000 Christians have rejected the faulty translations and language use of the TNIV.
Outlander, what you say is nice and all but you Christians don’t believe that. When Christians are bashing gays they refer to the OT. When Christians are rambling on about the 10 commandments that is found in the OT. When Jesus says the no tittle of the laws of Moses shall pass that’s found in the NT. When people on this forum say God’s laws are unchanging that’ll be the same god that wrote the laws of the OT. Don’t blame me because your ilk can’t be consistent and will pick and choose which scripture to follow and which to disregard as inconvenient.
That’s three translations you have attacked but you haven’t mentioned why the particular translations in reference to the passage are wrong. What biblical translation is the absolute correct one in your opinion? Choose wisely because if anything in your translation agrees with the ones you claim are absolutely wrong will thusly, according to your reasoning, be equally as wrong.
Republank has NO credibility – anyone that would steal a nic and troll cannot be trusted.
Walk on by……………………..
Whether or not these verses refer to consensual sex or rape, they all agree on a few other things:
1. Premarital sex with virgins is okay
2. Said virgin is chattel property of her father, and must be purchased with 50 sheckels of silver
3. Divorcing virgins so purchased is against the law.
4. All of this is either a violation or humbling or humiliation of the virgin.
Sounds lovely. Such fabulous ethics! Where do I sign up?
Doug,
Pay attention. This will be the third time I have mentioned Hebrew word “Shakab.” and how it applies to that particular verse(s) in Deuteronomy.
“Shakab” does not mean rape, it means to lie down by or with. It also has multiple meanings when used in proper context, but that’s the nature of Hebrew.
Just for example, the TNIV, here is a Website you can look at just for the gender neutralities inflicted on the interpretation of the Bible by the TNIV writers. There are thousands of example just on gender issues alone.http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/3686.php
You need to understand why these Bibles are rejected by so many Christians. It is because supplied words that were never in the original text and only substituted “hip” words to place a context. This contextual relationship without proper translation is far from accurate.
If you don’t understand the reasons why they are not accurate Doug, I suggest you do your own accurate research.
Try not to make any more excuses Doug, you are embarrassing yourself and appearing intellectually lazy by not doing proper and accurate research.
Yada, yada, yada, walk on by…..
That’s funny Republican, so why did so many scholars translate it as rape? I know you think you are more highly educated than all these people who have actually studied the subject but you are forgetting one thing, you don’t know what you are talking about.
I really don’t think I’m embarrassing myself when I’m just agreeing with the biblical scholars and numerous bible translations. On the other hand you just keep on repeating something but just back it up with your opinion. Who should I believe? Should I believe you who happens to be constantly wrong on a number of subjects and don’t even understand your bible, or should I listen to a bunch of experts who have studied the issue? You also deny the fact of global warming and evolution which puts you in really bad footing with reality.
Poor ol’ Republican. He thinks all sex is consensual. Since rape is an act of sex it must be consensual. How easy it must be to live in a black and white world. Thanks for proving again how ignorant and immoral you are. Perhaps you should pick a religion that is a bit easier for you to understand.
When Lot’s daughters had sex with their dad who was passed out on wine was it consensual? The same word is used so you must believe that it was. Contrary to what you think a person who is unconscious can’t give consent. Or do you believe that it is? Or is it that you just don’t know what you are talking about as usual?
You are witness the intellectual destruction of Doug.
He has failed to understand and admit he was wrong about such a simple concept, so he has gone way beyond irrationality, he has delved into the abyss of self-destructive histrionics.
Yada, yada, yada, walk on by…..
Looks like Republican has run out of excuses. So very typical, ask a fundy to support their position and they can’t present anything. So relax high schoolers. When you get your prom date drunk and have sex with her when she’s passed out it really isn’t rape because Republican says rape is just make believe. All sex is with consent, even if the victim isn’t awake to give it.
Doug,
Feeding the troll just gives it the attention it craves. No matter what you or I or anyone else says, it sees every post that disagrees with its point of view as yet another opportunity to launch nasty little personal attacks. It’s not just “liberal Hitlerites” that get this treatment, either – I’ve seen it rip into conservatives who dare challenge it. And the ripping is always, always, always personal.
This troll also claims never to have been married. I can see why…
I’m an equal opportunity debater Tom. Why should I give people affiliated with the same party as I a free ride if I disagree with them?
This is an opinion forum and I’m here to give mine and defend it.
Or you can just “walk on by.” :)(bawk, bawk, bawk, bawk)
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_28.html#comment-71041282
I just want to point out the complete waste of time the last part of this thread is. Leviticus provides some interesting reading into old Jewish law and customs, but it is irrelevant to today’s Christian. It is better to just let a person make their ridiculous claims and not be drawn into a baseless debate. I think there is a saying that goes something like this: “Never argue with a fool. It becomes tough to tell who is who”.
Day 3,
Bawk, Bawk, Bawk
No apology from the liar CF2K.
Hank
Sorry this is a bit late, but typepad wasn’t accepting my posts last night. Anyways, I’m still chuckling over so much of this… where to start?
Well, Republican is always a good place. So, according to him, we have to read the OT and NT in the original Hebrew and koine respectively to get the “meaning”. So, let me get this straight, 500 years of translation into the English vernacular and they’ve still got it wrong? You still have to read Hebrew and koine to get what God really meant. I see….then by that logic, there is no rational reason for translating Biblical texts at all since they’re always wrong in the vernacular. Uh huh…Then I would claim that 99% of Christians don’t have a clue as to what they are supposed to believe or what the texts of the OT and NT say…
While we’re on the subject….Hebrew and koine were both written without vowels or punctuation. That makes even reading it in the original language prone to interpretation (a big no no for literalists, isn’t it?). To give a bad example in English, what does the following say:
GODISNOWHERE
And finally, if the texts are supposed to be free of errors because they are divinely inspired, why is it that errors have crept in (many of which can’t be corrected) because both Hebrew and koine changed over time…dipthongs, esp. in koine, were dropped over time so that the meaning of entire passages changed if one weren’t very careful…What about Bibles issued with mistakes even in the vernacular…like the “vinegar” version of KJV where the printer accidentally(???) substituted “vinegar” for “vineyard” in a very important NT passage…errors like these have occurred incalculable times in the copying and recopying of the texts…how then are the texts literally true and without error?
The Bible is not God’s infallible word to us, but exactly the reverse..it was our continuing attempt to express to God in words what we believed his morality and sense of justice would be like… at specific points in the past.
I may live to regret reviving this thread :), but I feel I must answer Dougs little tirade about the Bible condoning rape, and the less than desirable replies offered by others.
Deut 22:28 does indeed, by most translators, indicate rape. It does not however, give a pass on it, or recommend it as a way to marry, or yada yada yada as Doug would like you to believe. First 50 shekels is about 25 ounces, in this case, of silver. at todays prices, that would be the equivilant of over $300.00 A rather large fine in the days of Ancient Isreal, at least for the common man, no? Second, A woman must still be GIVEN in marriage by the father, so it still requires the fathers consent–not a great way to ask for the father’s consent, no? And Finally, marriage without the possibility is a HUGE penalty, given the rather lax divorce laws of the time, where basically all a man had to to was give her a writ and it was over. Instead, he would have to be married, and provide for, a woman that quite likely will hate him for the rest of her life. This is to be desired?Yeah, right.
Sorry, left out a word.It should have read “marriage without the possiblity of divorce”
BFAH,
No one does not have to”read the OT and NT in the original Hebrew and koine respectively to get the “meaning”
But it does help. Most formally educated Ministers know that a lot of translation distorts the original message and bring this out in their sermons and lessons they teach.
When time permitted, I took courses that provided insight into the origins of the Bible and other interesting topics. Christians have a very strong Continuing Education Program. :)
What’s your point about printer errors that are recognized BFAH? That humans make mistakes?
Evidently BFAH, you have never attended a Church, Sunday School or Training Seminars as an adult or you would have never made those assertions.
Your ignorance on what Churches do on a regular basis is showing in glaring report. That is, they study and they study a lot. :)
So what you’re saying, Pub, is that a continuing tradition is necessary to properly interpret the texts….isn’t that exactly the position the RC Church has taken from the beginning and over which the various Protestant denominations split? That being that the texts are literal and true and their “meaning” is obvious to everyone?
And, Pubby, you can’t have it both ways…you can’t say the texts are literally true and that they are God’s inspired and infallible word on the one hand, and then admit, as you just did, that we humans have introduced errors into the texts.
As I’ve commented about some people and trolls here…We live and learn…well, some of us just live.
BTW, Repuli(un)canny,
I’m sure that I understand the origins, history, and teachings of Christianity at least as well as you (that ain’t difficult). It’s just that people come at it from different perspectives. To deny that is idiocy.
Therefore, if you believe you have the “correct” meaning and every other Christian or non-Christian who disagrees with you is mistaken at best and damned at worst…well, that is the height of arrogance.
BFAH,
You are showing your ignorance again about how many Christians use the Bible in their daily lives.
Have you never attended a Sunday School Class and seen the Sunday School Paperbacks used in their lessons? Some of them are quite nice, illustrated and with captions explaining tradition and etymology of words and phrases.
Have you never heard of how Bible Books are looked at in classifications such as:
Torah (Pentateuch)Historical BooksWisdom BooksMajor ProphetsMinor ProphetsLiterary Writings
Each of which have their own divisions and subdivisions.
I’ve never stated that all of the Bible texts are literally true. Some of the verses are literary in nature and meant to illustrate a point or just to be poetry or song.
Yes, we humans have introduced errors into the text as I illustrated in my previous posts about gender assignment and using corrupted Greek translations.
Yes, Pubby,
I’ve moved well beyond the illustrated bible stories coloring book you seem to refer to….
And the “errors” go well beyond just gender mischaracterizations…
Look up the mistranslations of the phrase “Death will be swallowed up in victory”..based on the evolution of koine over time.
BTW, what does
GODISNOWHERE say?
Better yet, without vowels and punctuation…
GDSNWHR
Gawl Dang Snake no where has rights!:)
I will give you that, R…you recognize that the texts can be true without being literal.
sorry. Once again, my irresponsible juvenile humor inner child jumped out :(
:-)
“There Paul explains how Christ, through his death on the cross, abolished the whole system of Jewish law.”
So we can discard Leviticus then? Just like the prohibitions on cheeseburgers and shellfish? I mean, since those two arent “relevant” to christians, I guess the leviticus stuff about gays is also “Not relevant”?
Thank god.
Whew. THAT takes the wind out of their sails on gay bashing.
ksfarmgrrl,
As I have pointed out to you so many times it is hard to recollect:
The Bible still talks about homosexuality being wrong in Corinthians.
It was never used for gay bashing either.
Well, here ya go. The result of all the gop, kkkarl rove, fundie christian political work to pass hate amendments and to work against domestic partner registries.
You christians must be ever so proud of this. Please read the comments as well.
Well, here ya go. The result of all the gop, kkkarl rove, fundie christian political work to pass hate amendments and to work against domestic partner registries.
You christians must be ever so proud of this. Please read the comments as well.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1142773
Oh, but we are NEVER denied our civil rights by the christian taliban. No. not ever…
Nathan, please DONT click. It will make your head explode if you really dont think the bible has been used for gay bashing.
In what alternate universe DO you live?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1142773
Oh, but we are NEVER denied our civil rights by the christian taliban. No. not ever…
Well, that’s a new one! A double post inside a post….
Sorry. But you get my point.
Hank, you need to get your son in to see a doctor.
KFG,
When the Christians come to your home and execute you and your loved one for going outside without your head covered before we even realize you are gay then you can start calling us the Christian Taliban.
I am sure if the Taliban found out you were gay while dragging you off for having no head dress they would torture you first and then execute you.
nathan,
I’m sure reading your posts is like torture to kfg and she wishes someone would execute her before she has to read anything more from you.
Amazing how kfg throws gay into every post. :D
Hank Price,
I was indisposed yesterday and today. Sorry to make you wait so long for a reply.
So, the first question: did CF2K “lie” about Hank’s position regarding the appropriateness of political activities within the church?
Well, this depends on whether CF2K *knew* Hank’s position before characterizing it in a certain way. Hank Price wrote:
“Talk about religous persecution! Why doesn’t the WE ever have a thread about the religious left?
What about all of the harm the National and World Council of Churches do?
Why is it OK for the Sojourners to participate and influence politics?
There isn’t one thread about the religious left and they are more active in influencing the government than the right is!”
On this point, CF2K could quite rightly call out Hank Price as willfully mischaracterizing the relative political strength of the Religious Right versus the Religious Left. And, in fact, this is precisely what CF2K did.
He then went on to make an inference. If Hank Price was going to assert a false equivalence between the Religious Left and the Religious Right, this was probably a rhetorical setup for asserting that because the Left influences politics, the Right was within its perogative to do so as well. And, indeed, the ‘Liberals are doing it so we have to as well!’ is a staple of pre-emptive Right-Wing attack discourse. Hank Price himself not only asserts the equivalence, he insists that the Left is more damaging than the Right.
But then Hank insists that HE and HIS church would never politicize their religious practice.
And here, CF2K has no way of knowing whether Hank does so or not. Therefore, CF2K rescinds his suggestion that Hank Price mixes church and politics in the way practiced by members of the Religious Right. Apparently, CF2K was wrong about Hank’s position. But because CF2K did not KNOW Hank’s position in advance, it is going to far to say that CF2K *lied* about it.
However, CF2K stands by his claim that Hank is making a misleading comparison between the relative political efficacy of Right and Left, and that this claim is commonly the prelude to Right-Wing arguments that attempt to justify the politicizing of religion. Given the coupling of this argument with the political efforts by the Religious Right, CF2K’s imputation of certain views to Hank is not without some grounds, even if it is ultimately mistaken.
And CF2K is glad to see Hank Price call out Philllllll Kline as the crooked opportunist he so clearly is.