I use long titles because I am too undisciplined to write a coherent essay. On the other hand, lack of coherence is the coin of political discourse, so maybe my own lack thereof is a benefit in following politics. Discussion of politics and religion is way beyond incoherent, so we are all on our own there.
Romney is an interesting case. On one hand, his current ideology appears to be such that he is the only true conservative among the four frontrunners. He has a better resume than anyone else in the race, even marred as it is by the insufficiently pro-choice tack he took as governor of Massachusetts. He has repented, an option open to both Mormons and Christians. OK, I have implied that he is not a Christian and I confess I have not investigated that thoroughly. In fact, except for a brief and fairly distressing turn through the Book of Mormon, I don’t have much to go on. I will say that the religion of a candidate is important to me. So for instance, as a Catholic, I am interested to know that Giuliani is also. He is a Catholic in much the same fashion as Bill Clinton is a feminist. He is also an abortion rights and gun control candidate. The combination of his disdain for his own religion and for basic conservative principles is a deal breaker for me. I would certainly vote for him over any conceivable Democrat, but I sure wouldn’t like it.
Romney is a Mormon. We are told by many, including Romney, that religion should not be a factor; to which I say "Good luck." In fact, the biggest strike against Romney for me is that he is apparently a practicing Mormon. I can’t help what I think, and I think Mormonism is a religion that can best be described as goofy. On the other hand, Romney and other Mormons I know don’t strike me as similarly goofy, so I temper my opinion by the thought that Romney may be no more influenced by his religion than Giuliani.
Anyway, I much prefer Romney’s current polical philosophy to Giuliani’s or Huckabee’s. McCain may have a conservate philosophy, but it doesn’t translate well to his politics. I factor their religions into my equation, along with everything else, and Romney comes out on top. Not because I am disregarding his religion, but in spite of the big negative his religion represents to me. If I had a choice between Romney and and similarly qualified mainline Christian, it would be no contest.
I am very suspicious of the motives of people who tell us religion should not be a factor, including my current favorite candidate person, Romney. What they are saying is that religion isn’t important. I am sure many of these people believe that. I could just as easily argue that political affiliation is not important, but like you, I tend to look at the political affiliation of all the candidates. I figure that since religion is more important than political affiliation, I should look at that also.
I am not trying to convert anyone here to Romney. I would rather convert you to the idea that you can look at any factor you like when you pick your nominee, and you shouldn't feel the least bit bad if religion is high on the list.
Adding to the incoherence here, did you know that Tony Blair recently converted to Catholicism? Of course you didn’t, the media think religion is not important. Would they have reported his conversion to Islam?
John
He [Giuliani] is a Catholic in much the same fashion as Bill Clinton is a feminist.
Ha ha! Dude, that's priceless.
Seriously, Romney's positions may be your positions, but are you sure that they are really his? And if they are his, that they will stick?
"Adding to the incoherence here, did you know that Tony Blair recently converted to Catholicism?"
I did, actually. Evidently he's been effectively Catholic for a long time, but had put off converting "officially" because there's some old English law that may prohibit a Catholic from serving as Prime Minister - which I found anachronistic, to say the least.
Mormonism is white Islam - that may actually help a President Romney in foreign dealings down the road.....
So you are saying that you wont concider Giuliani because he does not embody the "Christian Enough" concept but you support Romney, who is not Christian, because it is clear that his "Goofy" religion seems to be as important to him as Giuliani's religion is to Giuliani? Huh?
Dear anonymous,
I am saying that religion was a minus for both men. Romney at least for the moment seems more in line with my conservative principles. My point, as I said, is more about the legitimacy of using religion as a criterion than an apology for Romney.
John
"Romney at least for the moment seems more in line with my conservative principles."
Just wait five minutes, and he'll be in line with the exact opposite of your conservative principles. ;-)
Which one of the conservitive principles does Romney believe that has not changed over the passed few years? I am sure he sounds good on paper but he only stands for what his polling says. I would prefer to vote for a candidate who at least stands for something that he belives in.
Romney does not appear to be a very good Mormon.
He favoured abortion when it was politically advantageous for him.
The Mormons are quite strongly opposed to abortion.
*
We are generally too satisfied with the way things are now.
- de Bono
I don't see where you are going w this. I see the problem w Romney, et al, is the fact that they're figure heads subbing for the corp interests. I think all religions are goofy, including mine. The deficit is huge due to Bush's mismanagement. The next president has got work cut out for him/her. I don't see that great a difference between Dem/Rep as far as the issues go. The "Morman Issue" is houy, that's not an issue. Fox broadcasting would like you to think it was.
Jim Brinkmann
Whereas wrestling with angels, demonic possession, speaking in tongues, a woman being made from a man's rib, a flood with enough water to cover the entire earth (then disappear), and talking donkeys ... well, those are all perfectly rational things to believe in.
Dear Narc,
You are citing examples from the Bible, not a religion. Different religions treat these bible excerpts differently. You make my point excellently however. You apparently also think religion is important.
John
I don't care so much about a candidate's religion a I do care about his or her principles and honesty. If I like your principles and can trust you to adhere to them, then your religion (or lack thereof) matters not to me.
I think we pay too much attention to public figures' religion at the expense of their actual beliefs. An example – both John F. Kerry and Patrick Buchanan are members of the Roman Catholic faith. Though they share the same faith, they share little in terms of political philosophy.
What matters to me is not how they practice their faith – that's between them, God, and their parish priest; rather, what I care about is their stance on issues of public policy that affect my life and my country. No doubt their faith contributes to their views, but it is what views come out of that process that is what I will judge as a voter.
My point is that a huge percentage of the American public claims to take the Bible literally. They genuinely believe these things. These aren't members of fringe groups, but largely the mainstream. Yet all of the absurd and ridiculous things they believe aren't "goofy," just the equally-ridiculous beliefs of a small Christian sect.
And no, I don't think religion is important. I rather think religion -- though it gives people comfort and a sense of community -- is nothing more than commonly-held superstition and self-delusion.
If you consider Mormons "goofy" for believing that Joseph Smith found some holy golden plates buried in his backyard, what do you call people who think Jesus Christ fed a whole crowd with some bread and a fish and then rose from the dead to sit on a cloud with his daddy?
Dear Anonymous,
I am not suggesting that my view of the Mormon religion be adopted by anyone else. I am suggesting that I would be an idiot to ignore my own opinion about a religion. And with regard to those golden plates; what did they say and what have they contributed to human society?
I believe Jesus fed a whole crowd. I am interested in where you got the part about sitting on a cloud with Daddy. Perhaps that is something peculiar to your religion. I have to say, it sounds implausible and a little boring. Try the bible for something a little more exciting.
John
All I've got to say is anyone who so much as doubts a single word of the Holy Bible (King James Version) can look forward to being sodomized by demons on the bone-riddled beaches of the lake of fire for all eternity. Forget all of this scientifical method nonsense, what people need are good, traditional stories and reliable Christian hearsay passed down as the true, inerrant Word of our Father in the Good Book.
Adding to the incoherence here, did you know that Tony Blair recently converted to Catholicism? Of course you didn’t, the media think religion is not important.
Of course I did, since I read newspapers. It was in most of them (NYT, LAT, Washington Post, AP reports in much smaller papers, CNN, MSNBC, and so on), and often highlighted. But you never let truth stand in the way of your prejudices, do you?
Narc,
It is a clever comment you make.
Nevertheless, regarding the woman made from a rib...
the original Hebrew word here translated as "rib" is tsela.
Tsela is translated in other contexts as a room or chamber,
and it is indeed the word from which we get "Cell".
Do you think it is so far-fetched that the woman was cloned from a cell?
Regarding glossalia, it is not wise to blaspheme when one is ignorant.
And regarding the "ass speaking with human voice" that hardly seems unusual at all.
We are generally too satisfied with the way things are now.
- de Bono
"Of course I did, since I read newspapers."
Seconded.
"Of course I did, since I read newspapers."
Of course I did, since I don't read newspapers. At least not on paper. ;-)
EW, what is your source for tesla giving us the english word cell?
Here's what the dictionary says: Etymology: ME < OE < OFr celle < L cella, small room, hut (LL(Ec), monastic cell) < IE base *kel-, to conceal > hall, hell, hull, Goth halja
English gets far more words from Latin, Greek, Germanic than from Hebrew
I dont belive that this should be an argument that explains the legitimacy of peoples personal religions. All this sort of argument can do is drive wedges between people and create devitions in the R Party. What is important to remember is that we need to nominate a candidate that will be honest with the american people. Looking at ones religion and personal belief's is nutts. We should be looking at what they want to do to solve problems that have been getting worse over the last few years. Stop arguing about the etymology of a word in the Bible and start arguing about who can solve our out of control spending and our looming ecconomic crash!
Ultimately, these two things are interrelated. I don't think it's a coincidence that a huge fraction of our population believes in superstitious nonsense like 6-day creation and talking donkeys (though I suspect ewjohnson was really ignoring the point and calling me an ass) and that the US lags behind the rest of the world in science and math education.
For an interesting addition to this topic, I'd highly suggest a look at this new movie:
www.article6themovie.com/index.php
You can watch the film online Jan 18 and 19 for free. It runs 88 minutes.
I won't post any spoilers here, but suffice it to say the film "is mean to promote discussion about the role of faith in politics" -- not something we are lacking on IP, I know. If you'd like more information about the film, feel free to contact me privately.
Some believe, the current down trend in this country is directly related to the seperation of church and state. The society that denies the very presence of the God that the founders of this country prayed to. If the God of the bible is the true and only God, imagine his impatience with this great country turning their back on him. This belief is held by many and prophesied in that very book.
Ones knowledge does not gaurantee understanding or wisdom. It is only one piece of a very complicated puzzle. Those of you who deny the existence of God feel intellectually superior, when in fact you may be as much a fool as any, time will tell. Organized religion has its fair share of issues, being of men, as does this election. The outcome is a mute point, as are the hours wasted on blogs. But, it is fun, for what thats worth. Your minds will not change, nor will mine on most issues. (It is interesting to see the train of thoughts.) I will always vote for a Christian, I will never vote for a Muslim, am I to be labeled, or recognized as a patriot? Its an American thing. What do you think my knowledgable leftists?
narc,
there are hebrew dictionaries online
look for tsela (not Tesla as in Nikola)
In Strong's dictionary tsela is [6763].
Hebrew is more ancient than Latin.
We are generally too satisfied with the way things are now.
- de Bono
Using the term "cell" for basic units of living organisms dates to the 17th century... based on a latin term for a small room. Perhaps it was intended as a cruel joke upon humanity to use a homonym to confuse them into thinking the opposite sex was created from a rib bone as opposed to divinely cloned from a living cell. Perhaps the divine thought we'd be really impressed by confusing humanity for thousands of years by using a term that didn't gain the intended meaning until far more recently in our history.
Or it's a desperate attempt to find a rational explanation for the blatantly absurd in hopes of justifying believing in it. You can imagine what my guess would be.
As far as Fred Phelpish style theories of America's doom for our sinful ways, my only response would be: yikes.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Hebrew is more ancient than Latin. -- so is chinese, but we don't get many words from chinese.
EW, you're simply wrong
looking at Strong's, it doesn't say cell is from tsela
"Hebrew is more ancient than Latin."
True, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that this particular Latin word came from Hebrew. I suppose that it may be possible that they shared a common IndoEuropean root, but that's another premise altogether.
Fred Phelps -- prophet of doom and gloom. Yikes! seems like a reasonable initial response,
but not too logically to be an "only response". I am glad Fred and his family are there doing what they do
to point out those out-of-kilter elements that threaten the well-being of our society. Of course
God doesnt hate Fags per se, its the sin of being a practicing Fag that is despicable.
Tsela is pronounced similar to cella (latin). We get a lot of
words from hebrew through greek and latin. Tsela is a hebrew word meaning a small room.
Look at strongs again and you will see that.
It is true enough that Latin and Greek got rather little contact with China and the far East.
One word we got from Cantonese is Catsup (ketchup) which originated from the Cantonese "ke jap"
which means juice or sauce of the tomato.
*
We are generally too satisfied with the way things are now.
- de Bono
I'd boggle... but I think I just threw up a little.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Fred Phelps -- prophet of doom and gloom. Yikes! seems like a reasonable initial response,
but not too logically to be an "only response". I am glad Fred and his family are there doing what they do
to point out those out-of-kilter elements that threaten the well-being of our society. Of course
God doesnt hate Fags per se, its the sin of being a practicing Fag that is dispicable.
Words fail me.
This is a classic example of "delete vs. allow the idiot to embarass himself."
I think I'll vote for the latter. Any objections?
John Bramfield. I have always been envious of your writing ability and your letters to the editor. I am very happy you raised a topic that interests me.
I was a little late joining the Romney bandwagon and must confess I really never heard of him until Topinka suggested my name to Dan Rutherford, his chairman in the State of Illinois. I go back a long way with Judy to her days as head of Health and Human Service in the Senate. I was very flattered during the campaign when she asked me to me to be an advisor on children's issues, so when she told me that Romney had also proposed a non-government form of universal health care for children in Massacusetts, I decided to look a little deeper. I was asked to meet him at the airport when he flew in, and when I mentioned to him that I had proposed a non-government universal heath care fro children, he almost fell over. I still wasn't sure that I wanted to take on the task, so I passed on Jimmy John's fund raiser and told Dan that I would get back to him.
Being the investigative type, as you are, I first read his own book-- Turn Around. It is the story of his invovement with the scandal plagued 2002 Olympics in Utah. Utah apparently got the games because of bribery. This was the winter games that followed 9/11 and it was 470 m in the hole without a plan. Because he is a Morman, and a rather good one at that-he is in charge of a "stake" in Boston which is the equivalent of being the bishop/chancellor of a dioceses. In order to get to that postion you have to tithe and be a real good person, at least this is what I learned from the Hewitt book, A Morman in the Whitehouse?. But I digress.
He turned Utah down cold. Why would someone worth 1.2 billion (according to Forbes), need that anyway? He was at least polite enough to listen, and when he turned them down, they asked him to go back toBoston and use his consulting company (Bain Capital) to find someone else. He cannot find anyone better and agrees to take on the task himself . He turns it into a 100m profit. By the way, he never took a salary for that nor did he take a pay check as governor of Mass. I looked at his web-site, (google mitt romney website) and became absolutely convinced that he is a good decent and honest man. But like yourself, I was troubled by the "cult" and "goofy" comments. So I went to the library and got two really fat books on Joseph Smith: One written by a Mormon and one written by a Mormon critic.
The story of the lost tribe of Joseph as related by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormons may seem fraudulent, but us Catholics do not believe that every word in the bible is, excuse the expression, gospel. But what must give one a little pause, is how a 24 year old with very little schooling, could essentially dictate to a scribe, this bible in that length of time. And if a large part of the books were set to take place in 600 B.C. the story was not much different from other stories of in that time frame.
But it was the Huckabee comment that really took me to the internet. Huckabee supporters questioned whether the Mormons had baptismal ceremonies for the dead.
So I looked up what a southern baptist believed in contrast and boy was I surprised. Mormons do not believe that a child should be baptised until they reach the age where Catholics make their first communion. But baptists don't even believe in baptism as Catholics or Mormons do. Mormons will baptised babies that die because they believe that baptism is necessary to enter heaven. Baptists believe that baptism is not a sacrament, but rather an ordinance. It is not necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven. All you have to be is "born again" . The baptism part is simplly an initiation ceremony. They further do not believe that communion is a sacrament (like many other Protestants like my wife). This too is an ordinance to them. And baptists do not believe in evolution for the most part. Don't baptists believe that Adam and Eve were beamed down from the Enterprise? (to quote the analogy to Christ and the devil being brothers)
Baptists believe that only those that have been "born again" can call themselves Christians. So Jjohn, neither you, nor I nor Mark Randall, nor Mark Shelden are reallly Christians. But all this is ridiculous anyway. One needs to look at someone based on the content of their public and private character. Romney does not drink coffee, tea, or alcholol. He has no warts. One might be envious of his wealth, his family, or his life, but it is envy, not a criticism. .
The flip flop argument goes back to the 1994 race for the Senate against Kennedy. He believes, as I do, that Roe vs. Wade is a State issue. In other words, he believes there is no basis in the constitution for a "right to privacy". But there is a basis to allow abortions during the first tri-mester based on religious grounds. The issue is when a fetus acquires a soul. Catholics take on faith the fact that this happens at conception: ergo birth control is wrong. But how do you explain the Catholic Bishops in Africa allowing birth control because of Aids? If your religion believes that a fetus only acquires a soul when there is a fetal heartbeat, then the regulation of that issue is up to the States. Archbishop Burke notwithstanding, don't Catholic pols represent people of all religions? His conversion, on this issue, is not public, but I will tell you how it came about.
His wife was originally a non-mormon. She was active in planned parenthood in Massacusetts, a very liberal, although Catholic State. She developed MS. One of the abortion issues is stem cell research. People with MS, generally do not recover from this, but Ann Romney did through prayer, a miracle, luck, or good medicine. That little miricle might scare the shit out of me too. Sometime when you ask God for ssomething, something is expected in return. (To whom much is givien, much is expected).. Anyway, that is the rest of the story. While he was -while he was Governor- he never came down on the side of choice.
Fred and family offer only the prognosis, no diagnosis, no treatment for the problem,
and offer the prognosis repeatedly.
Eventually fags die off because they do not produce offspring, but they continue
to recruit... I dont want them recruiting.
I am surprised that anyone is offended by positive comments on the scriptures
and negative comments on homosexuality in a Conservative Blog.
The Bible is very clear about homosexuality. There is nothing new or
unique or modern about homosexuality...its the same old junk.
It is rather appalling to see opposition of fags being raised to discredit
a literal interpretation of scripture.
We are generally too satisfied with the way things are now.
- de Bono
IlliniPundit said: "This is a classic example of "delete vs. allow the idiot to embarass himself." I think I'll vote for the latter. Any objections?"
It's probably extremely unlikely he'll be embarrassed given his devotion. It may be reasonable to let at least these initial comments stand as an example to other more objective minds to see just how repugnant fundamentalism can get if left unchecked. Bigots who justify their bigotry through the divine rarely ever see the errors of their ways, regardless of the evidence. They have God on their side, how can they be wrong?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I too am a Catholic,
But abortion rights/or non-rights are NOT at the top of my agenda( we're not voting for a Pope), and neither is whether Mormons are Christians.... They say they are, the rest of Christendom says they're not...who cares? If abortion is a sin of murder ( and I think it is) then it's between the penitant and the priest to make that right. But the state doesn't have the same interest here... I digress and I don't mean to thread jump this issue... so I will leave it there.
What I DO care about is : are you going to bring us out of recession, or are you going to promise to redistribute wealth.. And by that I mean, are you going to buy yourself votes by promising other peoples money?
Do you see tax cuts to the "rich" as unfair, or do you see it as an incentive to create jobs. This is not to say that the "rich" don't owe a "substantial something" to society, but creating jobs does not NOT count either!! the "working class" may pay the majority of taxes, but that's only IF they have jobs. Renters pay more than land owners too, but both "workers" and "renters" take substatially less risk in doing so. Job creation does WAY MORE for the economy, and individuals, than raising taxes...
I am a small bussiness man, and I know that creating a job costs more than a tax increase, BUT there is an opportunity there to produce/sell more goods, and that is a GOOD investment... A tax increase has NO such opportunity.. It just raises my risk, with very little and perhaps no return... a BAD investment... Damn near ALL I have is invested in my business. Am I going to ALWAYS assume that I am ALWAYS going to make more by hiring more, that would be silly. If I see taxes going up faster than a return on the INVESTMENT of job creation, I am going to cut back... Does that make me a bastard?! I have my own mouths to feed too.. and paying more and more employees to the point of bankruptcy doen't help anyone.
We CAN'T keep adding to "entitlements"!!! Bills need to be paid...ON TIME... and ahead of time if we are to see any long term advancement of the economy!! PAY DOWN THE DEBT!! And that's gonna hurt, duh...but it's gonna hurt a WHOLE lot worse the longer we put it off....or increase entitlements... I am ALL FOR giving to "the less fortunate"or however you want to phrase it, BUT when government takes it out in taxes and soaks up %90 of it, I'm not feeling very charitable!
It's not private business that stands in the way of affordable healthcare, it's the government continually spending more than it takes in!!!! Or force insurance companies to allow people from different "groups" to form their own groups... Let ANY group of, oh hell pick a number, 10, but no less than 8 (I'm pulling numbers from the air, but who cares, as long as we can deliver "a number"consistantly) form a group plan. As long as we keep our number of paying members up, who cares?!
And ANYONE can buy stocks, and take some risk, and share in a Capital Gains cut!!! ANYONE can buy mutual funds, or bank stock, or "spiders" and generally do OK if they leave it alone... It's NOT just the "rich" that can tap these sources....
The problem with GW, is that IF he is fighting a war for oil, well we lost... Oil prices are through the roof... Not that I think it's a bad cause, because next to fresh water, there is damn near no natural resource as important as that, currently... but the bastard sold us out.
If he's fighting a war against terrorism.... well how does one win that !?!?!
And "GREEN", well green is as green does... I'm NOT against going green, BUT If we devoted the entire agricultural growing capacity of this country to ethanol, fuel would be $.15 cheaper...big whoop... but food would be WAY more expensive... we need carrots and broccoli too folks!
The "rich" can turn their dollars into Euros, but a falling Dollar kills everyone else! (in this country)
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!! I'm a Republican, but given the choices, I'd take Bill Clinton back in a snap! (NOT Hillary, EVER! ) and I'd take JIM EDGAR TOO!!
FIX...THE...ECONOMY!!!!!!
You know, I was going to reply, probably with a very family-unfriendly response, but I agree with IP. There's just not a lot of point.
"So I looked up what a southern baptist believed in contrast and boy was I surprised."
John: You should know that at least some of what you found is not representative of all baptists, or even all Southern Baptists. There has been a prolonged and intense struggle within the Southern Baptist Convention over the last decade or two between the fundamentalists and, for lack of a better term, the "moderates." For a long time, the fundies had the upper hand at the top, but there has recently been a resurgence of something closer to mainstream common sense.
I was raised in a Southern Baptist church which my parents and sister still attend (Winstanley Baptist, originally in E. St. Louis but now in Fairview Heights). At least while I was there, and as far as I know now, none of that congregation has ever been "born again." In fact, they had a pronounced cynicism toward it when the concept began to spread in other denominations in the late sixties and early seventies.
The reason that baptism itself and The Lord's Supper (the baptist term for what the Catholics call "communion") are ordinances rather than "sacraments" is because baptists don't accept what they see as the underlying premise of sacraments. Baptists see sacraments as blessings bestowed on parishioners by an intermediary in the form of the priesthood.
Baptists don't need or want priests. Each individual forms his or her own relation with God and Christ without any middlemen. As such, the ordinances are voluntary acts performed by the individual, rather than received from a priest. They must be the result of choice and free will in order to have true meaning. That's why baptists don't sprinkle babies.
Having said all that, there are certainly Southern Baptist congregations that are as conservative and fundamentalist as anybody. Since a large number of the churches in the Convention have traditionally been in the south, there have for a long time been noticeble cultural differences between various congregations across the country.
In fact, my church gradually participated less and less in Convention activities over the years. They still belong, but they had little use for the extremism of the folks running things for a while, viewing them essentially as misguided souls. A significant number of other congregations shared that view, and the pendulum has slowly started to swing back away from the excesses of the last few decades.
Fred and family offer only the prognosis, no diagnosis, no treatment for the problem,
and offer the prognosis repeatedly.
Eventually fags die off because they do not produce offspring, but they continue
to recruit... I dont want them recruiting.
Wow, you seem to be even more immune to embarassment than other Ron Paul supporters I've seen.
English is a Geramnc language with Celtic influecnes. At the time of Jesus, Britian was conquered by Romans who forced Latin on them.In 1066, they were conquered by French-speaking Vikings called Normans. French is a direct descendant of Latin.
In the Rennaissance. English philosphers added Greek and Latin words to our language for concepts thast had not yet been named.
Few Englsih Chrisiians knew every a few words of Hebrew until the late Renaissance. They read, if they could read, the Bible in Latin -- St. Jerome's Vulgate. Not even most scholars could read Hebrew or koine Greek in the West.
THat changed about the time of Shakespeare, by which time our langugage was it its nearly present state
English does have a few loan words from Hebrew, most in a religious context such as seraphim.
For all that Chinese is ancient, English has yet to borrow morev than a handfull of words. That may change.
Also, calling people fag is quite clever for a 12-year-old, but most of us have outgrown that. THere is no instance of Jesus ever using the word
Uh ... why is this homophobe allowed to continue posting? If you substituted the "N" word for the "F" word that he is using I seriously doubt he'd be allowed to keep writing this hate-filled trash. Why the double standard?
Shut him up quick. It is making this site look really, really bad.
ewjohnson:
Did it take a conscious effort to create the doublethink necessary to reconcile these two statements?
There is nothing new or
unique or modern about homosexuality...its the same old junk.
Eventually fags die off because they do not produce offspring, but they continue
to recruit... I dont want them recruiting.
Are you completely oblivious to the fact that homosexual lifestyles have been embraced throughout history, even during the eras when "recruitment" wasn't exactly safe? How exactly have these people managed to avoid dying off? Were we simply not vigilant enough in our attempts to supress their perversions? Did we drop the ball in not scaring our kids enough? If we round up those repeat offenders who persist in sleeping with the people they love even though God told them in letters of fire delivered to Moses that homosexuality is bad (and also encouraged a guy to throw his virgin daughters to an angry mob to have their way with them in order to keep them from sodomizing his divine houseguests), will gay people finally become extinct and leave the world in a Golden Age of Love and Harmony?
Unreal. Just unreal.
Kem
I'm quite impressed with his "Christian" beliefs - focus on the parts of the Bible dealing with homosexuality (lying with another man), but ignore everything Jesus taught (love the sinner). Sounds like a pretty fair and thorough reading of the scripture.
/sarcasm
Yikes, I did'nt see that coming, could these be the famous last words of many on this sight? Eyes to see, ears to hear, anything that science proves is to believed. Without science there is no truth. Not to discredit science, as it has made huge strides, as knowledge is increasing at a record pace. Yet, my friends, I urge you to seek and you will find, (like science) the truth that is at the foundation of this world is available to all, as a free gift to those who seek in earnest. To those who don't, your call. Your smart enough to make up your own minds. Just sucks to see this country pay the price of unbridled secularism, as seems to be the direction we are heading. Forgive me for promoting jesus on this blog, I get a commision, thats all. If your life is on sinking sand, just ask. God bless, or should I say good luck, so confusing.....
Science is handy in figuring out how things may behave through observation and testing. Religion assumes a guiding hand behind that behavior. Conflict can occur when they do not mesh. It creates doubt on both sides... how can this be true if this is also true? Doubt in scientific analysis is a perpetual process that leads to further observation and testing to confirm, negate, or amend prior theories. Doubt on the religious side can lead to mental and/or eternal torment depending on who you ask. It's generally unpleasant to have ones foundations shook. The scientific theorists face much less risk by creating doubts of long held beliefs, theories, etc.
I sought, I did not find. I sought more, I found more nothing. I sought even more and ended up finding far more evidence of sociological/societal explanations for religious fervor and nothing to show it is based on some greater understanding of "truth" or understanding.
And quite frankly, if promoting Jesus includes promoting bigotry, I'd prefer you take his blessings and flush 'em.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
reactivist:
And may the wisdom of the Bodhisattva Manjushri, revealer of truth, guide you on your path as he does for the roughly 388 million Buddhists who praise him and seek guidance from him. 2 + 2 still equals 4, no matter how firm your belief that only one faith can make it equal 5. If it feels good to you to intuitively grasp that 5 is greater than 4, then by all means, be comforted. But you're not the first person to come up with this answer, and there are multiple solutions to the problem once you throw evidence out the window.
It may be a humbling thought to realize that there are fewer Protestant Christians on the face of the planet than there are Buddhists.
Then again, it might not. For all that humility is one of those things that all religions teach, there's nothing quite like the topic of religion to make people not the least bit humble.
Kem
Bah. All you athorists will just bring down the wrath of His Mighty Hammer upon all our heads.
You're all wrong, and I'm right, for I have been blessed by His Noodly Appendage.
Narc,
I don't believe we will, but I've heard His Noodly Appendage is pretty frightening. Fortunately, the FSM doesn't smite people for thinking. He only gets irate with people who don't believe in pirates.
Kem
Arvid;
Arrgggh.
Kem
ewjohnson,
Please consider yourself warned.
I allowed your one comment to stand as a testament to your own idiocy. Posting anything similar is both disgusting and a clear attempt to troll, and I will ban you. Please make some attempt to be both reasonable and topical.
Thank you.
Like fish in a barrell, that was as expected. Just don't call me Fred or a bigot. Do you folks believe in aliens, seriously, do you people believe in aliens and abductions. Please respond to this, it is for my personal understanding of your mindset, based on knowledge. Seriously now, all of you. There are TV shows and everything.
By the way, I have been more than blessed, This is a reaction from the reactivist just for k and any Buddhists on the thread, power in numbers is only one concept, one omnipotent God beats a million impotent false Gods, btw. (Its a poker thing.) ( who is he to say.........) You and I have had this run, that was enough, so be it, its not about me. Aliens-ufo's?
Sorry, your comment about aliens and ufo's got me thinking about the good old days, before creationism begat the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or was it the other way around!?). Back to the hour of slack. The link does contain useful information about aliens and UFO's from a Christian perspective. Or at least a Christian writing voice. In either case, you'll probably find it darkly amusing from the opposite side of the fence, and it's worth a read.
Praise Bob.
Kem
ractivist: What...?
K, I cant say I read it all, I'd be lying, or Bobing I guess. Amazing that people write such things, and that it gets in print, even a dedicated web site. Amazing. Not surprising though. The concept that it is funny is lost on me as well. I suppose if one looks at it from a sarcastic angle one can see a point... and if one comes from an unbelieving background its easy to make fun of people, a common personality trait. I understand the agnostics point of view, based on scientific facts, never minding the ultimate truth to the bible is based on faith in what can't be seen, which is stated over and over in the bible. I urge you all to seek the truth through your mind, your direct connection to god. As a Christian we are given the Holy Ghost, which is God inside of you. If you earnestly seek god through his name, Jesus, he will manifest his presence in your heart and mind. The proof will come as your heart becomes true. Gobldeegook, you say. It is not my soul on the line, its yours, (assuming you have one). Who among you would not help a fellow man who is fallen, I have given you the words that could help you stand, whether you accept or not is of your mind. In that lies the problem, it is truly a choice of the heart, not the mind. May the truth come to light before you die. Sincerely, The Ractivist, reacting for k and k
Happy Maritn Luther King day, a bold man with a great message, a preacher at that. A Chriistian at that. Enjoy the day off on us Christians, it is the least we can do for you.
Property Rights:
"What I DO care about is : are you going to bring us out of recession, or are you going to promise to redistribute wealth.. And by that I mean, are you going to buy yourself votes by promising other peoples money?"
Amen.
I'll add to that by saying that the creation of more government jobs to handle the workloads more efficiently (preventing the needless cycle of paperwork that isn't completed by the deadline, gets rejected, recycled, and then started over from square 1) and holding government employees to the same standards that a business would need to follow (you know, ethics, productivity, genuine concern about doing the job right the first time and making sure that the goals set are goals that can be met, etc...) would ease my mind about the "redistribution" that does take place.
I'm not in favor of eliminating the social safety net. I don't have that much faith in human charity to meet the needs of people who would contribute to the economy if they had a way to do it. I am in favor of making sure that the social safety net is not working on broken springs and tattered webbing. Too often, the people who fall into it land with a thud, not a bounce... and that's coming from someone who bounced after taking food stamps when I needed them to feed my family. And yes, new jobs in the private sector are the best way to allow that spring to happen... as long as they are paired with effective public education so that that people who come from paycheck to paycheck families are an asset, and not a liability.
The difference between my brand of pinko support for failing systems is that I'm neither content with their failure nor altruistic in my justification for their existence. Good social programs provide hope where there is no other source of hope, partly because it's the "right thing to do", but mostly in light of the fact that entire communities of people who have no hope create breeding grounds for crime fueled by despair.
*How* to fix the economy?
That's the million dollar question. A pragmatic approach that doesn't make all sorts of flowery promises about unrealistic economic "possibilities" (like, say, the manufacturing sector coming back to the way it was in the eighties and nineties) doesn't strike me as a good solution. Pumping more money back to business owners so they can try to hire some of the unemployed who are scraping by on public aid seems like a good solution, but if I were a business owner, I'd have real reservations about hiring some of these people. I might just take that tax break and invest it in real estate instead... which creates its own problems.
In the end, I don't think it's possible to meet the needs of all of those who do not produce anything other than more children who are equally unemployable in a service/information economy. I'd like a candidate who was able to say that to my face, but who also understands that the systems we have in place right now are in need of serious reform.
I'd love to see a social welfare system for parents that gave incentive to parents for success in school (not scraping by in school, but actual high acheivement) through vouchers to a high quality resale shop for new clothes. Or incentives to parents tied to their ability to demonstrate that they are purchasing nutritious and economic food items with their food stamps, not pop tarts and pizza rolls... give them cooking classes, or something else that rewards them for what they're doing well and encourages them to build skills that are marketable... skills which will help them to get the good jobs at small businesses that the tax cuts are designed to open up.
Just some thoughts.
Kem
"If you earnestly seek god through his name, Jesus, he will manifest his presence in your heart and mind."
Been there, done that, not going to waste any more years of my life on it, nor am I going to fear imaginary realms of torture and fire anymore. I was raised Apostolic, grew up in fear of damnation. In retrospect it was a horrible psychological thing to do to a kid. I wouldn't do that to anyone I care about. You can't scare me into believing through fear. Been there, done that too.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
What Glock is referring to I have sometimes called "Spiritual Vaccination".
The victim is given a massive dose of Religion.
Religion, being dead, or weak, or defective, is unable to produce a true conversion.
The victim may be ensnared in the rituals of religion and thus unable to receive anything new,
or,
the victim may escape and develop such an immunity to anything that looks like religion,
that they are unable to "catch" the Real Thing.
reactivist,
I cant say I read it all, I'd be lying,
Heh. That's a common problem that people have with any religion, new or old. If you read it all, it will begin to make sense to you! Or, possibly, it will begin to sound even more absurd. I dunno. How did you feel when you read the story of Lot? I was 9 when I went through it the first time. It didn't shake my faith in the slightest, but it sure did make me question just what God meant by family values. It was a problem for me.
The concept that it is funny is lost on me as well.
The concept is called irony, and I'm sorry that it's lost on you.
The part that was funny was the part where any one group or organization claims to have exclusive rights on true happiness, rights that can only be secured by joining the organization. Whether it's sending a $1 to a PO Box or putting a dollar in the plate, it's the same thing. You're supporting an organization that you feel is worth supporting with what you can afford, not buying happiness. Bob Dobbs promises happiness for $1, and sex goddesses from space for $30. The Church promises eternal salvation for 10% of your monthly income, given in four monthly installments. How many people tithe without saving for retirement or working on eliminating their debt? How many churches tell them not to?
Wonder if those Indulgences actually worked...
Happy Maritn Luther King day, a bold man with a great message, a preacher at that. A Chriistian at that. Enjoy the day off on us Christians, it is the least we can do for you.
His greatness was largely based on his extraordinary intellect and his passion for finding a solution to the philosophical problems of his day in spite of the status quo. I could say a lot here, but I think I'll let Dr. King speak for himself. He's a much better wordsmith than I could ever hope to be, and I'm sure that words coming from another Christian would have far more impact on you than words coming from a non-Christian.
From his Letter from Birmingham Jail:
"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. [...] Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appaling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right."
One of your Christian brothers has recently advocated the death penalty for people found guilty of homosexual acts three times in a row. You may not take it as far as that, but your inability to articulate or even accept the fact that your homosexual black Buddhist neighbor is every bit as much your brother as your straight white Christian neighbor, deserving of the same respect and courtesy, is precisely what Dr. King was talking about in that passage. Read it again if you don't understand why. If you want the rest of the context, please do read it in full. I'll even give you the link. And, thank you very much, I won't feel the slightest bit guilty about taking the day off in rememberance of his contributions to society.
If there's one thing that this world needs more of, it's more people who are moderate in their beliefs and passive in approaching the things that make them uncomfortable becoming passionately involved in changing the world, and unafraid of approaching the hard questions that make them nervous.
Faith is only helpful in that context if it doesn't lead to silent acceptance of an intolerable status quo.
Kem
So I'm going to burn in hell because I got a massive dose of religion? Riiiight. And if the "real thing" is the bigotry you were spewing, I'd rather "catch" e-coli..
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock:
That must be it. My capacity for rational thought recognizes the "surface proteins" of true religion, which seeks to unravel my thoughts and recode them to suit the continued survival of the meme at the expense of my ability to avoid cognitive dissonance. It sends an alarm signal to the bullsh*t detectors, which then respond reflexively with probing questions to determine whether or not what I'm being fed is actually healthy for me to swallow.
If only I could realize that embracing the meme, which is truly alive and wants to help me be more content to let other people answer my questions for me, is the only way that I can ever acheive happiness, then I could truly be happy!
And all this time, I thought critical thought was a virtue.
Down with the sickness...
Kem
D. Boon:
"If you substituted the "N" word for the "F" word that he is using I seriously doubt he'd be allowed to keep writing this hate-filled trash. Why the double standard?"
Possibly because ignoring the sickness doesn't make it go away, and because homosexuals still deal with the perception that they are morally inferior in today's enlightened society.
"Shut him up quick."
That's what the honorable clergymen in Alabama said.
Kem
"If only I could realize that embracing the meme, which is truly alive and wants to help me be more content to let other people answer my questions for me, is the only way that I can ever acheive happiness, then I could truly be happy!"
You're getting tired... verrry sleeeepy... Here, let me just push this pod under the bed, out of the way...
If this thread is any indication of the superiority of the non-religious over the religious, or vice-versa then Lord help us all.
It might be possible, in some far away distant galaxy, to disagree with each other without sinking to the levels of mockery, self-aggrandizement, and judgement. But apparently this is not the time nor the place for that discussion. The born-again Christian reminds us that "fags" are going to burn in hell, the atheists declare their obvious intellectual superiority, and civility takes a back seat to the projection of defense mechanisms into typed words. Yay! What a rare treat!
If anyone would like to discuss the economy I would humbly suggest that Bob Herbert over at the NYTimes hit the nail on the head with this column, published yesterday. He quotes the work of David Cay Johnston, who is an old pro at articulating the current levels of corruption involved in corporate welfare. I haven't read "Free Lunch" but "Perfectly Legal" was a brilliant.
Stay warm!
Game time, you win.....or do you?
Which is basically just another way of saying "If you are a believer, you will believe." It's a tautology. You've got Glock21 right here saying that he sought God, but nothing manifested itself. You could maybe argue that he just wasn't earnest enough about it, which is the same thing faith healers say when your cancer comes back. You just didn't have enough faith. Somehow, it's just his fault.
What I've never really been able to understand about fundamentalist and evangelical Christians is their apparent belief that their religion is somehow inherently different or better than all the others. That all I really need to believe is to read the right Jack Chick tract or be witnessed to. Do you really believe that people in other religions have less faith in their beliefs than you do? It's not that I'm unaware of the theology; it's not like you'll find many people in the US who say "Jesus? Who's that?" I'm with Thomas Jefferson, the philosophy? Admirable. The superstition? Not so much.
I'm aware of the story of Jesus. And Mohammed. And Thor and even Osirus. I just don't find one any more credible than the other. It's not like I have a choice in the matter; I couldn't wake up tomorrow and decide to believe Jesus is the son of God any more than I could wake up tomorrow and believe the sun was Apollo's fiery chariot.
"If this thread is any indication of the superiority of the non-religious over the religious, or vice-versa then Lord help us all."
I'm not the one claiming some supereme insight into absolute truth. I'm pointing out my experience and perspective on the evidence at hand leads me to a different conclusion. I'm not claiming superiority. I'm stating what I think is correct. There's a difference.
"The born-again Christian reminds us that "fags" are going to burn in hell, the atheists declare their obvious intellectual superiority, and civility takes a back seat to the projection of defense mechanisms into typed words."
I think I've been extremely civil considering that someone was just arguing for execution of homosexuals. If that's the bar for civility then I feel, strangely enough, far above it. And arguing one's point of view isn't the same as claiming superiority. If you're feeling inferior it's of your own doing.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"
Like fish in a barrell, that was as expected. Just don't call me Fred or a bigot. Do you folks believe in aliens, seriously, do you people believe in aliens and abductions. Please respond to this, it is for my personal understanding of your mindset, based on knowledge. Seriously now, all of you. There are TV shows and everything. "
TV shows and everything? Huh. Qhat we need is something to translate this into English
"Qhat we need is something to translate this into English"
Good luck with that. He lost me at the bakery...
I'm back. I happened to be watching tv and low and behold up pops "alien abductions" the show. I think, hum, so many people believe this stuff, is it another fact that negates religion. As I had this target audience in grasp I thought lets just throw it out there. Got it Kevin, simple as that, answer the question,do you all believe? Is it true or is it a possibility? What are the odds in your minds? Prove this and you can really put a dent in most religions. What are all your thoughts. Certainly there is a percentage of chance here, how much everybody.
On another note, I am relatively calm when it comes to projecting my beliefs, I'm earnest but not overly agressive. I'm not luke warm, there is a time and a place, kinda like politics. I am not ordained to preach, I just feel when an opening is present I might as well drop a couple of pennys, some cents. I do believe in corporal punishment, for murder, the most egregious acts, not homosexuality. I am not here to judge, homosexuals or atheists. I do believe some things are definetely wrong, whether it is a fluke of nature, or nurture. Something is wrong when men kiss men on the lips, as women, let alone the porkn thing. Thats an opinion. Tolerance is a buzz word that the left promotes heavily, tolerance is reasonable to a point. I would'nt tolerate killing homosexuals. Nor should I have to tolerate gay men in boy scouts. We have had this discussion, but I thought it relavent to my point. I will tolerate atheists, I will not tolerate Muslim extremists.
Like fish in a barrell, that was expected--translation--it was easy to guess the response I would get for my post, cant miss. Glock referred me to Fred the extremist and someone tied me to the fag post, of which I don't understand either association at the time. I already explained the alien thing. OK already kevin and anonymous, get with it fellas and possible ladies.
I leave you with one thought. So many of you use the argument that history is full of false gods. You say, who are you to say or have any moral superiority over the next "God"? What if, mind you only a thought, what if there is but one God, what are the odds we got it right, you know compared to the rest of the world. Just going by doctrine, the doctrine of the new testament. I know, I know, it too has been abused in history, and even today by zealots. But the point remains, what if one is the right one. Youd think we might know by now, really it is 2008 AD. Could one of us be right, and who?
Glock, Just Kem, both of you have traveled the road, both have chosen to leave it. I don't have the answers why, nor the details. If I was a catholic priests boy toy I could see why one may never come back. I do know that my path is not a bed of roses, yet I find comfort and joy beyond understanding, beyond your understanding. Me I know, and can't prove a thing. It's a faith based religion, take it or leave it. We all are going to leave this world, so I guess this talk at this time and place is irrelevant, right. Don't lose any sleep over it, I won't. I have said my peace in this year 2008AD.
So what about those aliens, let me hear it folks? Seriously, put yourself out there, do you believe?
"I do believe in corporal punishment, for murder, the most egregious acts, not homosexuality."
I know what you meant here, but it was pretty funny to read that murderers deserve spankings more than homosexuals. As far as belief or non-belief in God or whatever philosophy makes the most sense to you with the world as you see it, it's all good. I'm just unlikely to change my own philosophy given the arguments I've heard for Christianity. It's a free country though, and I like it that way. So believe on... I'll not believe on. And we can both be free to vote against ewjohnson's Shari'a Christianity nonsense. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
D. Boon:
It might be possible, in some far away distant galaxy, to disagree with each other without sinking to the levels of mockery, self-aggrandizement, and judgement.
It's not only possible, but there have been volumes written on the topic. This is a political blog, though, and the only time that religion really factors into political discussions is when people get concerned about whether or not an elected official will rely on religious beliefs to inform political decisions. The arguments for this type of merger rarely begin with the admission that Divine Law is subjective, and largely dependent on one's country/culture of origin. The arguments against nearly always begin precisely there, and for good reason. It's not about superiority or self-aggrandizement, but it absolutely is about judgment. I'm not sure why it's okay to hold a strident position on something like the war on Iraq and care deeply about the social and moral ramifications of a war without end, but somehow taboo to have equally strident views on the relative equality of all religions and the importance of focusing on whether or not the lessons we take from those religions will lead us to a better tomorrow.
But when it starts on the note of "human life is inherently lacking/inferior without [insert x dogma here]", and is followed up with, "Oh, and by the way, we should enshrine the execution of those who do not follow the orthodox ways of [insert Deity of Choice Here], or risk another 9/11 as God expresses his displeasure at our disobedience" I do feel a bit of a knee-jerk impulse to point out both the absurdity and the outright danger in statements like that. Which God? The comments about Manjushri were not meant to preach the superiority of Buddhism as a philosophical system. They were meant to illustrate a useful ritual that stresses finding the truth by recognizing and eliminating the illusions that surround us. It's religious in origin, but that neither diminsishes nor enhances how valuable it is to the person who finds meaning in it.
Likewise for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vision of one nation United under God and his frustration with the moderates who would rather shove the tough questions into the attic and forget about them. You don't need to follow a Judeo/Christo/Islamic God's guidance in order to appreciate the wisdom there. It transcends religious boundaries.
The endless attempts to convince homosexuals that they would be better off embracing God and pretending that the types of relationships that make them happy don't really make them Truly happy? Not so transcendent. It's worth repeating, because people truly struggle with it.
Yay! What a rare treat!
If you don't enjoy it, why participate?
Kem
reactivist:
Did it occur to you that the reason you're hearing crickets chirping here on the aliens issue is that nobody else believes for a second that a civilization intelligent enough to find us in the vastness of space would be too stupid to outwit the CIA coverup?
Kem
Intelligent life elsewhere in the universe: almost certainly. Catch and release tagging of humans: probably not.
capital punishment, my bad. So Kevin says yes, kem says.......... lets hear it folks.......... Is there intelligent life in the form of aliens from outer space?
fyi, I know and have had many gay friends/aquaintnces, young and old. I don't condem them, I know that that lifestyle is very difficult, whether by choice, or circumstance. I don't judge them, I try not to judge anyone, except the boys my daughter is around, you all can understand that, right? Is profiling judging? Nevermind.
Aliens. are they real? Vote early and often! The American way.
I thought capital punishment was making TOO MANY words in ALL CAPS.
My gay friends just say they are quite happy rather than admit to being openly gay,
and none of them dare to ask one another if they can "Bum a Fag",
particularly not in C-U where smoking is taboo, even in the Dens of Iniquity.
I think its out of vogue to use the term "Aliens" these days...
immigrants is probably better to avoid offending the Semantically Challenged.
Todays Aliens are all about Green Cards, not Green Skin.
Alienation is something else, indeed.
Is there intelligent life on Earth?
So why are y'all looking over here like I am from Mars?
ew, somehow I doubt you have any gay friends, tossing around "fag" the way you do