Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Stradee wrote:

Ashcroft and Rove may begin each working day with a prayer, but it an't guidance they're seeking.

I got a good laugh out of that one, Boss--reminds me of when Enrico Fermi said that Einstein should stop telling god what to do.

0 Replies

Setanta, yep ~ Laughing

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

scrat wrote:

Quote:
I find it amusing that anyone who makes any favorable statement about Bush is labeled a "Bushie", "Bush-lover"

I don't believe anyone here, on this thread has labeled anyone a "Bushie" or a "Bush lover."

I don't believe I suggested that anyone has written that within this thread specifically. I do know that I have run up against that particular bleat repeatedly and regardless of my actual statements regarding Bush.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I don't believe I suggested that anyone has written that within this thread specifically. I do know that I have run up against that particular bleat repeatedly and regardless of my actual statements regarding Bush.

Well for sure it has happened.

Hey, Scrat. Happy New Year.

I've never used those particular expressions -- but I have certainly been...how shall I put this...unkind...to people who say almost anything favorable about Bush.

(Actually, I did give him unqualified credit for sending aid to Iran after their earthquake -- and was tempted to write a response to my own thread castigating me for doing so -- but I thought that kind of humor might be misinterpreted.)

I think the crowd that feels about Dubya the way the crowd that felt about Clinton felt about Clinton...pretty much can be unreasonable at time. I know I can.

But I always look for the silver lining -- and in this case there are two candidates.

One, my feelings for Bush has given me a better appreciation for the feelings of the people who detested Clinton.

Two, when I can't play golf, my cranky side has complete control -- rather than just primary control -- and bashing him gives me an out for my spleen.

No need to take any of this very seriously.

I detested Nixon for six years -- but at some point during the impeachment hearings, I just decided enough was enough -- and definitely developed very conflicted feelings about the action.

But as I said: No need to take any of this very seriously.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scrat wrote:
I don't believe I suggested that anyone has written that within this thread specifically. I do know that I have run up against that particular bleat repeatedly and regardless of my actual statements regarding Bush.

Well for sure it has happened.

Hey, Scrat. Happy New Year.

I've never used those particular expressions -- but I have certainly been...how shall I put this...unkind...to people who say almost anything favorable about Bush.

Ah, an honest man found in Babylon! :wink: Frank, you're a mensch!

Frank Apisa wrote:

(Actually, I did give him unqualified credit for sending aid to Iran after their earthquake...

This is just more class action from a class act.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I think the crowd that feels about Dubya the way the crowd that felt about Clinton felt about Clinton...pretty much can be unreasonable at time. I know I can.

Bingo. When we simply decide to hate Bush or Clinton on a visceral level we cease to consider their statements and actions rationally and reasonably. That's good for no one. Oh, it feels good to hate them, but it destroys any opportunity for civil discussion of their ideas, actions, statements, etc..

0 Replies

Here's the latest email from the Family Research Council:

Quote:

There He Goes Again: Howard Dean as Theologian

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, fresh from his admission that Job was his favorite New Testament book, has waded into the theological debate over the Bible and homosexuality. The former Vermont governor said that his Christian beliefs influenced his decision in 2000 to sign a bill legalizing civil unions for homosexuals.

Dean said that he does not consider homosexual behavior to be morally wrong, offering as a rationale: "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people." As proof, he cites what he calls "overwhelming evidence" of a "very significant, substantial genetic component" to homosexuality.

Yet, at the same time, Dean says he opposes homosexual marriage. Aside from the obvious contradiction of why God should not bless such unions if He indeed "created gay people," Dean's claim of "overwhelming evidence" that homosexuality is genetic is patently false. Despite media reports of a "gay gene"--which subsequently have been shown to be overstated--to date there exists no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality is predetermined by genetic factors. We suspect that, like most of the other Democratic presidential candidates, Howard Dean shrinks from embracing homosexual marriage for one reason: polls show that Americans oppose such unions by wide margins. The populace understands what Howard Dean apparently does not--that the unambiguous Biblical testimony, confirmed by two millennia of Christian tradition upholding the Divine standard for sexuality as intended only between husband and wife, remains unshaken despite the recent moral apostasy of certain churches and denominations.

U.S. Embassy Supports Macedonian Pro-Homosexual Billboards

It is perhaps not surprising that homosexual activists are now at work even in the deeply conservative country of Macedonia, which was once part of Yugoslavia. But it is astonishing and outrageous to learn that the United States Embassy in Macedonia is actually funding a despicable billboard campaign which promotes homosexuality and group sex.

The billboards are not pornographic, but do feature photos of three male couples, one female couple, and two threesomes (one with three women, the other with two women and a man) in intimate embrace. A large headline reads: "Face the Diversity," while smaller letters advertise "The Campaign to Promote the Rights of Sexual Minorities." But perhaps the most shocking sight on these billboards is the official seal of the U.S. Embassy blatantly sponsoring this "campaign." Such an action would be indefensible in any country--but it will certainly do nothing to curry favor with the 60% of Macedonians who strongly disapprove of homosexual behavior. Macedonia's President Boris Trajkovski has called the billboards "deeply offensive." U.S. Ambassador Lawrence E. Butler should apologize at once.

This reminds me of a joke I read in Newsweek. Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show"

Quote:

COUPLE BLAMES DIVORCE ON WEDDED GAYS

After 10 years of marriage, a Montana couple filed for divorce, attributing the breakup to the lack of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Laughing.................very funny.

0 Replies

If Bible scholars, and those citing biblical teachings, were historically correct, they'd know that Jewish importance was probagaton.
Did they shun homosexuals as abominations? No. The fact is, little credence was given to homosexuals in Jewish society, as they produced no children.

The new testament kicks fundamentalist belief out the window.

Jesus taught that God loved all people! He taught patience and tolerance. Not to say he never got upset. My favorite testament was when Jesus got pissed and threw over the booths of the money changers selling their wares near the temple. When questioned he said "Give unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasars, and to God the things that are Gods". He noted, and very well, hypocracy of the church.

Homosexual marriage is a political issue.

0 Replies

it is, stradee. And it's being used as a religious issue by these guys. These folks are sick. Bush has promised to support this amendment. It's just amazing to me. How can we have such an amendment? Never..........I hope, it will never pass.

0 Replies

Lola, I don't believe such an amendment would pass the House or Senate. They may decide losing the federal allocation and call State's Rights.

What would certainly be more interesting for America to know is how many homosexual religious fundamentalist lawmakers support the anti-gay marriage amendment. Now that would be news, huh?

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

The new testament kicks fundamentalist belief out the window.

That concurs with my understanding* of Jesus' message; namely that it--the New Testament--replaced the Old Testament. It was not an addendum, but (literally) a new testament. Jesus even went so far as to reduce the original Ten Commandments to Two:

I: Love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind.
II: Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Stradee wrote:

Homosexual marriage is a political issue.

I agree that same-gender unions (or more broadly; rethinking the traditional western concept of a covenantal union between life partners) has become a political issue. It has become one because government chose to treat people who were in such unions differently than those who are not. By bestowing a special status on married people the government made this a political and Constitutional issue.

I think that any church should be able to join in a covenantal bond whomever the doctrines of that church allow them to join. I think the government should stay out of it, so far as religious unions (marriages) go. After that, IF the government insists on bestowing benefits (and punishments) on people who choose such unions, then government must allow everyone access to some form of civil union carrying identical benefits.

As usual, I would prefer that this occur at the state level, and that the feds stay out of it. Very Happy

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

If Bible scholars, and those citing biblical teachings, were historically correct, they'd know that Jewish importance was probagaton.
Did they shun homosexuals as abominations? No. The fact is, little credence was given to homosexuals in Jewish society, as they produced no children. .

Frankly, if Bible scholars were correct, they would be paying attention to the entire commentary of the Bible on the question of homosexual conduct.

Quote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

There is no wiggle room in there for "understanding" or "tolerance" of that behavior.

If people really think the biblical prohibition on homosexual activity has any meaning at all - they should be lobbying for laws making such activity a capital offense. That is what their god wants.

And as far as Jesus teaching "love and tolerance" -- yes he did. But he also had some very specific comments about the law -- of which, the quotation above is a part:

Quote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE." Matthew 5:17ff

The only way for a person living today to deal with the Bible is to make guesses about whether it appears more likely that it is divinely inspired (if the stuff contained in it seem like the kind of stuff people expect from a God such as they imagine exists) -- or if it appears more likely that it is simply a compilation of items that relatively unsophisticated, relatively unknowledgeable, superstitious ancient Hebrews might write.

I suggest that an open-eyed look at what is contained in the Bible would lead people to the latter rather than the former.

0 Replies

Just out of curiosity, how many cultures in the world condone homosexual marriages? Any? Does France? I would suspect they would...

0 Replies

I just wanted to chime in here. I also believe that it is far more likely that the bible is simply a compilation of items that relatively unsophisticated, relatively unknowledgeable, superstitious ancient Hebrews might write. Frank, that was a brilliant post. By the way, you're from New Jersey? You look like a guy who lives on a tropical island somewhere and divides his time between spearing fish out of the ocean and reading under a palm tree. Maybe I'm just projecting my own little fantasy there, since it is so damn cold lately!

later

0 Replies

Freezing my butt off, Kicky.

But I played golf yesterday!!!

Temps never got above 27!

Yeah, I would love a tropical island -- and palm trees -- and gorgeous women....ahhhh....just hapened to think. Nancy, my better half sometime reads this stuff, so I'll just stick with the island and the palm trees.

0 Replies

Isn't that picture of you a picture of you on a beach? That would explain the perception.

0 Replies

Craven, nothing gets by you, huh?

0 Replies

Nah, I just remember seeing that picture before. He's wearing shorts on the beach.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Isn't that picture of you a picture of you on a beach? That would explain the perception.

That is me on a beach. Actually, Nancy is standing right alongside of me, but she got clipped out.

That picture is now a year and a half old -- and I really should update it, but I'm afraid to dump it, because it took me months to finally figure out how to put that one in.

That...and my scanner is on the fritz.

Gotta get a new one...this one simply won't do.

New picture coming. (I may ask for help!)

Maybe in the next one, I'll have clothes on.

0 Replies

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE." Matthew 5:17ff

Matthew was referring to the old testament regarding the coming of the Messiah.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

The Muslems, not the Christians adopted the law from the old testament.

Homosexual issues today are not biblical, but political. What constituency is for or against homosexual anything. That's the deal.

The Bilble is extremely interesting as an historical document depicting the live and times of the Hebrew people.

McGentrix, the reason may be that the gay community, as a political force, relatively new. Not surprising with all the fundamentalist "ideals"
floating around Washington, the issue would be a prevalent one.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE." Matthew 5:17ff

Matthew was referring to the old testament regarding the coming of the Messiah.

1) Matthew wasn't referring to anything. Those words supposedly are the words of Jesus.

2) Jesus says that he is referring to "the law" -- and there is absolutely no reason to suppose he was referring to anything but "the law."

Leviticus is the law. Deuteronomy is the re-stating of the law.

What you are doing here is to revise the Bible to suit your purposes -- and not doing a good job of it at that.

Quote:

The Muslems, not the Christians adopted the law from the old testament.

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here.

Quote:

Homosexual issues today are not biblical, but political. What constituency is for or against homosexual anything. That's the deal.

Nonsense. The MAJOR reason given for expressions against homosexual behavior is that it violates tenets of the Bible.

0 Replies

Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know