Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I think what would be more interesting would be what do they think is more important, Jesus’s teachings or what Levictus said. Technically, Jesus would override the other in thought and practice. Yet, people still decide to pick and choose their passages and I think this letter below which was sent to Dr. Laura, a very conservative christian, shows what has happened over time.

“Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.”

If most of everything out of Levictus has been forgotten, why continue the rest? On top of that, ever faithful John had stressed in his gospel blind faith and if you accept Jesus as your savior you will gain acceptance into heaven. Not your ehtics, morals, or actions in life will really save you except for faith in Jesus. So the way I see it, if you are chrisitan and have faith in Jesus you should be okay regardless of sexuality. That is, of course, if people actual follow their “good book.”

Woody,I think what your thesis is, but you never get around to is that the two issues you present are related to a greater battle/discusion (however much hyperbole/academese you want to use)on secularism vs traditional society. on the one hand you have those like yourself who do not see value in organized religion oposed to those that see the church/synagog/temple/mosque as and integral part of their lives because of the values they espouse. I also believe that reducing the jewish-cristian debate to the level of the redsox yankees rivalry is not applicable, because Judeism and xianity are not in conflict. Judeism is not out trying to convert more follower, while xianity is very much trying to do that. Also xianity and juedism share so much because jesus said he was not comming to change the law but reinforce it (I dont remember the passage exactly, but he basicly says that in the gospels). Just because I am a redsox fan does not mean that I am a anti-semite, I think you too easily gloss over what the implications of that statment mean. I think you need to delve a little deaper, and become more informed about christian-jewish relations especially since Vatican II. Next are you going to say that Hitler was a Christian? (which he absolutely was not)?

Everything can not be taken at face value ie: violence is violence, without acknowleging that the situations are different. The passion of the Christ is rated R. An R rating is an R rating, we have the rating system to make sure parents know what they are getting themselves into if they take their kids.

Adam: I believe that Dr. Laura coverted to Judism some time back, so I don’t think she qualifies as a conservative Christian.

I don’t have time to respond in detail, but a couple of quick comments:

1. I don’t see the world as a conflict of religion vs. nonbelief. As I acknowledged, there is a lot of variation even within Christianity. A lot of religious people support gay marriage.

2. Judaism (J-U-D-A-I-S-M) and Christianity have to be in conflict to be some degree, because they are theologically incompatible. I realize that Jewish-Christians relations have warmed in recent decades.

Jesus was a jew! the christians God was a Jew! I don’t understand how a christian could be anti-semetic, their God is a Jew! I think the Catholics have a affinity towards the mother of Jesus, Mary (the virgen) mother og God I think the bible says, she is even a saint! She was a jew, jews and christions have one major disagreement, and that is that jesus is god or he isn’t, but no matter what, they both say beleave, think, the Jesus was jewish!

Also I am pretty sure Jesus, would not be about limiting peoples choices and freedoms. He seems like a more understanding guy than that.

How does judaism HAVE to be in conflict with eachother when they share so much, neither really steps on eachothers toes when in comes to prostletizing? Yes, the jews await a massaiah and xians believe that massaih has already come, but there is no reason for jews to hate xians on theological grounds (history is certainly a different story). And this whole discussion is not about the movie the passion of the crist, but the history that has surrounded xians going out and beating and killing jews with the pretext that the jews killed christ. Either we are going to attack the text of the bible (which would be so un-pc) or are we going to attack the xians who go out and do un-xians things like kill and hurt people.

Woody:

I agree with you 100%!! Of course, our area of agreement is when you say that “Organized religion baffles me.” It very apparently does, based on your essay.

First of all, Mel Gibson’s movie has been only PURPORTED to be anti-Semitic, and only by some people. This does not make it actually anti-Semitic. The movie, in my opinion, makes it clear that Jews were involved in Christ’s death (no one disputes that), that Romans had the legal authority at the time to make the actual decision to crucify (again, no one disputes this), and that Christ’s death was pre ordained by God (this last is recognized by those who see Christ as the son of God, but not by those who do not believe—-either way, its sort of unprovable).

The “cons” that you refer to do not feel the need for concern over the charges of anti-Semitism that do not appear to be well founded by those who have actually seen the movie.

Secondly, as to your point about violence, it is well established that slasher movies include violence for the sake of violence. Yet this movie uses violence to convey what actually happened. It conveys the truth. And it does so in the same way that “Saving Private Ryan” conveyed the carnage, confusion, and brutality of Normandy. Had that movie been sanitized of any of the violent imagery, it would simply have been an empty shell of itself. As would Gibson’s “Passion”.

Gibson’s reasons for creating this film are to share a story of great personal impact with others. Gibson himself was transformed by this story and we now see that others are full of awe at the story. I wonder what so many are afraid of—could it be that many of the “tolerant liberals” are afraid that this type of movie might encourage people to consider a level of religion they have not yet reached?

Boy, have you put you foot in the bees nest Woody!

You have started an argument with people who are never wrong! A political zealot is sedate compared to a religious fanatic

When dealing with religion logical persuasion is useless. If their sect has a logistical setback (like having the leader struck by a bolt of lightning) it was Satan. If a car hits the opposition’s leader it was gods will. How do you argue with something like that? Pointing out the other guy thinks the lightning bolt was gods will and the car accident was Satan’s work is not a viable strategy. (Try it if you don’t believe me). Nor is pointing out that this country was founded on religious tolerance.

ouchmyhead, I would like to point out that you are blatantly stereotyping religeous people. If you substituted any racial, ethnic or religous group that is not white, male or christian for “religous zelot” you would be compleatly politically incorect! why dont you tone down the hate speech and have a logical argument. and btw I am not religious, but I respect those that have faith in god and are not just “spiritual.” The arguments that I made were not religously dogmatic. You can defend the possition that Woody has made without attacking the aptitude for logic of the people who disagree with you.

When I sat down to write this, I didn’t have a strong idea what I was driving at. I was mainly trying to communicate a feeling of bewilderment.

It looks like a lot of people took this essay to be an anti-religious screed, and felt appalled or delighted accordingly. I probably set myself up by contrasting “medieval superstition” with “post-religious libertarianism.” The truth is that I am not against religion. Religion brings out a lot of good and bad in people, and I think it is too early to make a verdict either way. What I am against is dogmatism and hypocrisy, qualities that can be found in abundance among both the religious and non-religious.

As I confessed earlier, I find religious faith largely incomprehensible. Maybe it’s me. Ultimately, none of us know the answers to these questions. Pardon the hackneyed sentiment, but I think that the best we can do is try to understand each other and get along.

In keeping with your theme Woody, I would like to add some divergent quotes and news items:

-Bill Maher continues to insist that our country’s fundamentalist Christian’s support of Israel is an attempt to insure the Jews will be around for the Rapture, to take the blame.

-There actually exists a black man (Armstrong Williams) who condemns ‘activist’ judges who ‘…short curcuit the democratic process to assert thier will on our culture.’ I assume his argument includes the Civil Rights Act and the end to interracial marriage case.

- A Conservative Christian pastor in Denver, energized by the ‘Passion’ release, posted outside his church ‘The Jews Killed Jesus!’.

- Newt Gingrich appeared on Bill Reilly blasting the San Francisco gay marriage as an afront to the sanctity of marriage.

Lastly, my prediction is that we are at the tail end of the ‘Passion’ frenzy. Yes, the movie will debut with a $30-50 mill box office, but will drop off dramatically, thereafter.

There are going to be some people who are going to see this film to spite the liberals who demean it. I pity them, for it’s not going to be an easy film for them to watch.

But is that the sole reason? I doubt it. I think What Saving Private Ryan did for making the suffering of the soldiers in WW2, the Passion is intended to do for the suffering of Christ. And you know what? I think it’s necessary.

I’m a liberal myself, but I’m in the odd position of also being a newly confirmed Catholic and Christian. So let me explain: for every film like this, which seriously engages Christianity head on, and are assaulted with controversy (like The Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma, and The Passion of The Christ), there are many that a pop culture view of it that tends to water down, denigrate or downright vilify it that draw no such criticism.

The result is that very few people have a real cultural notion of what religion means, even if on an instinctual level they grasp onto the undertones of Movies like Lord of The Rings, Star Wars, and The Matrix.

I think what people are yearning for is Something more than an impossibly legalistic code of conduct, or an academic, seemingly irrelevant bunch of pronouncements on the spiritual nature of the universe. I think they yearn for something that has a mystery to it we can only define at it’s edges. We see it in the sacrifices, the turning points, the epiphanies for certain characters, we see it in how certain characters lose their way, in how others redeem themselves, and in that see ourselves anew.

I think what Gibson is trying to do is make an outwardly religious film that does just that with it’s subject matter. If he succeeds at that, he will have added greatly to our culture. We do not improve the marketplaces of ideas by letting the supply of religious thought on a cultural level run dry.

Stephan,

I think that many of your liberal colleges equate christians and republicans as being one in the same. I believe that is a tragedy, the message of Jesus is not wholely the property of the republican party, or any political party. Actually, Catholics have had a long tradition in the new world of promoting social justice. This tradition is conveniently omitted from the attacks on christianity.

Slight retraction re my “not a peep” comment.

In The Daily (i.e., the Weekly) Standard, Jewish writer Larry Miller expressed some apprehension about the portrayal of Jews in the movie. He does not, however, tie it in with any of the larger anti-Semitic trends that conservatives have been warning us about. Having trouble getting the link to work, but it’s at www.weeklystandard.com.

Miguel,

You make a good point. There is indeed a (so to speak) Christian Left, although it is not as organized as the Christian Right. It includes, as a minimum, many African-Americans and Catholics (and people who are both, I suppose). The Catholic tradition of “liberation theology” is sadly ignored.

I think the media tends to underrate these elements because they don’t fit neatly into a
polarized view of politics.

> There actually exists a black man (Armstrong Williams) who condemns…

Bert,

I really have to take exception to this. Mr. Williams is first-and-foremost a human being, and he is entitled to espouse whatever political beliefs he wishes. I am sure you would be offended if someone said that all white people should vote Republican.

In regard to Loving v. Virginia, I imagine that he would say that it was a straightforward (not activist) interpretation of the 14th amendment, which gives people of all races the equal protection of the law.

Woody, your comment “There is indeed a (so to speak) Christian Left, although it is not as organized as the Christian Right. It includes, as a minimum, many African-Americans and Catholics (and people who are both, I suppose).”

There must be, according to the 2001 Aris Study 77% of people in the U.S. consider themselves to be Christian. If only 45% of the country is Republican you can do the math.

Re Christian Left:

I meant people who are committed, regularly attend services, perhaps think about political issues in religious terms.

No problem. Here are the CNN poll results from 2000 (click my name). Gore got about 34% of the vote from Protestants who attend more than once a week and 40% who attend weekly.

My point is that Christians are regularly painted with an ultra conservative brush when in fact they (we) are quite mainstream.

Having seen the movie, this is my analysis: While there is sustained, graphic and wince-worthy violence throughout the film, it is not primarily about the violence done to Jesus.

It is about Jesus’s suffering, and those who share it, and have sympathy for it. The film takes the horrors inflicted on him as a starting point for a series of scenes concerning mercy, responsibility, and the flaws and evil in human nature.

Much of the violence is implied through editing, sound, the reactions of the audience, and other means. What is not implied is the makeup, which is horrifying to look at. But it’s meant to be, so it does its job. It’s clinically accurate, to say the least.

I look at the Pontius Pilate character, and though he seems like a calm, level headed guy at first glance, I think underneath the whole facade of civilized manner is a man who is willing to torture an innocent man, let a guilty man go free, allow the same innocent man to be executed in painful way, and act as if he had nothing to do with the whole thing. How many of the perpetrators of the holocaust thought likewise?

As for the question of anti-semitism, there are any number of balancing portrayals for all the negative. I mean, if we are shown Jesus forgiving Caiaphas, the worst of them all, and we are shown a Jew helping Jesus carry the cross, and growing sympathetic as he does, can we look at the film as condemning the Jews? No.

On the whole, the film is well shot, well detailed, and filled with any number of appropriately inventive supernatural sequences.

Again, the violence is not the point of the film, nor is any traditionalist agenda, as far as I could tell, besides highlighting the suffering of Jesus.

For my money, It is a very good film.

>I really have to take exception to this. Mr. Williams is first-and-foremost a human being, and he is entitled to espouse whatever political beliefs he wishes. I am sure you would be offended if someone said that all white people should vote Republican.

Woody,
Just as I agree Mr. Williams is entitled to espouse Conservative beliefs, I am entitled to be angry that a Black man doesn’t recognize the similarity to his ancestor’s struggle for civil rights. Same goes for Clarence Thomas’s opposition to Affirmative Action, which he benefitted mightly.

No, I would not be offended if someone said that all whites should vote Republican. I could probably do a Google search and come up with several white supremacists, Aryan Nation sites, etc, that espouse just such a statement.

And, don’t get me started on the fact that 1 million gay people voted for Bush in 2000.

My incredulous response to likes of Mr. Williams and the Log Cabin Republicans stems from the disbelief that they belong to a party that fails to condemn the Confederate Flag, whose candidates show up on racist websites and whose leaders go out of thier way to condemn the gay lifestyle.

Re Gays and African-Americans

Bert,

I have to agree with you about the Log Cabin Republicans. They are entitled to vote for whomever they want, but they should give a lot of thought to supporting a guy who scapegoats them so shamelessly.

As the for connection to the earlier civil rights era, I think that that is the $64K question: Is being gay akin to belonging to a race? You and I may see an analogy, but Mr. Williams apparently does not.

It occurs to me now that gay rights activists should also pursue the religious freedom angle. If gays can get a religious wedding, I see a strong argument that the state should recognize it. Otherwise the government is arguably favoring more conservative religious sects.

This is kind of unrelated but very important for Dems! Stop this guy from ripping us off and taking Florida in 2004! OK?

As you may or may not know Mel Martinez Republican is running for the Senate from Florida in 2004. Mel among other things was the chairman of HUD from 2001-2003. During Mel’s reign at HUD there is 59 Billion missing in government payouts that can not be traced! You can help win back Florida for the Dems by putting Mel on the hot seat. Don’t let him get away with it. In addition to this gross mismanagement of YOUR MONEY …

Mel is a Republican Candidate for Senate in 2004. Martinez will need to convince Florida voters that he is fiscally responsible and can be trusted to represent people and their families.
The following questions are intended to help illuminate Mel’s performance by “following the money trail” through key areas of Martinez’ personal responsibility:

As Co-Chair of the ‘Bush for President’ Campaign in Florida (Election 2000)

Who made money from the improper “cleansing” of 57,000 legitimate voters from the Florida voting rolls in 2000?

Who got the money that Florida state pensions “lost” on Enron after Enron helped finance the Florida 2000 Presidential election and recount?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/melmartinez.htm

As HUD* Secretary (2001-2003)
Why is $59 billion missing from your Agency, namely HUD[*], and who has it?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/melmartinez.htm

$59 billion missing from HUD!
Where is the money, Mel?

As Cabinet Secretary & Spokesperson for the Bush Administration (2001-2003)
How many US jobs & small businesses have been lost since your campaign in Florida delivered the Presidency to George W. Bush?

Who has made money moving those jobs offshore while moving immigration in?

Why was a HUD-DOD contractor with a known record for employee involvement in white slave trafficking & pedophilia given a $500 million sole source contract to manage the prisons, judiciary & enforcement in Iraq?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/melmartinez.htm

As Candidate for US Senate (Florida 2004)
Cui Bono (who benefits?):

Who will make money if you help deliver Florida for the Republicans in 2004?

Cui Bono(that’s latin!): Who will make money if you help deliver Latino voters nationwide to the Republicans in 2004?

Cui Bono: Who manages the $500 million - $1 billion (est.) of money laundered through the US financial system?

Who is financing your campaign?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/melmartinez.htm

Now you can help. Let’s put Mel on the hotseat and keep him there until the voters in Florida get the answers they deserve. Don’t let up on these criminals until we get our missing cash back. There is no reason on the face of this planet why our government officials should not report to the penny where and why our money was spent. If you had a babysitter and sent him/her to the store with a twenty and they bought 10 bucks worth of stuff and brought you back a 5 you’d want to know, where is the rest of my money? This guy let 59 billion slide through his hands straight into the pockets of his mobster friends. Stop this corporate gangsterism and blow the whistle loud and long!

Keep Mel Martinez on the Hot Seat and make the WWW a hostile environment for these crooks by going HERE. http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/melmartinez.htm

Put Mel Martinez in google prison until we find the rest of our cash!

$59 billion missing from HUD!
Where is the money, Mel?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/melmartinez.htm

Heywood,

You must be putting me on. You’re a Jew for Jesus, and your moniker is Heywood Jabangme? Doesn’t that violate a few commandments?

As for my allegedly ludicrous statement — I guess no matter how mild and namby pamby you are, someone is going to think you are going too far. But I’ve learned my lesson. Never again will I imply that two religions are anything less than logically equivalent.

Now excuse me, I need to send Saddam a belated Hanukah present. ;)