June 22, 2005
Religion and "The Right"
What is it that the people who call themselves Conservative Republicans have that I don’t have? I go to church. I believe in God. Why is it that because I’m a Democrat I am not as moral a person as they are?
John N. Hostettler (R.) Indiana accused democrats of "denigrading and demonizing christians." What makes Mr. Hostettler so spiritual and us morally bankrupt Democrats so, well,not?
Could it be that I have learned (incorrectly) from my church that God loves us all and sees us all as equal. He sees us as his children and that God will not abandon us no matter what our imperfections are? No way! Why would the morally superior not like that.
It's not like they would use religion to judge others or to force their opinions on other people...would they?
Maybe it's the problem that in a Democratic church(I did not know they existed)I was taught not to kill my fellow man no matter what race,religious belief or color? That can't be it! The morally superior would never support or defend an attack on another country killing thousands of people. They would never get behind a man who would lie to convice us to do so, or torture, sometimes till death, Muslim prisoners....Right?
I was taught at my obviously left wing church that a persons relationship with God is based on their interpretation of the Bible and their understanding of Gods love and their love for God. I was short changed because I was only able to learn about God at home and in church.If only I could be one of the morally superior. I would force those darn schools to abandon that old seperation of church and state thing. I would leave my childrens religious future in the hands of somebody other than my family and church.
God help all of us morally and spiritually lesser individuals aka.The Democrats.To the morally superior who we all wish we could be, I say this, Hypocrisy is not one of the Ten Commandments so keep on truckin and keep the faith.
Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at June 22, 2005 10:20 AMAndre,
Although there are a number of counterpoints to segments of your article I would be quite surprised if you get very many arguments from those of us right wing conservatives.
Posted by: steve smith at June 22, 2005 11:31 AMAnswer is simple. For some Republicans and conservatives, as a democrat, you sympathize with the enemy. The enemy is anyone who is not a conservative/Republican. Just couldn’t be simpler. Those conservative/Republicans, I mean.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2005 11:37 AMYour right it really is not fair. I am a Christian conservative myself and I see it. Recently Evangelicals began aligning themselves with the right because of issues such as abortion and prayer in school. We saw an alliance form begining with the moral majority in the 1980’s. Many consider social issues to be religious. Don’t worry some of us except your faith.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 11:37 AMAndre,
I’m not sure what religion you’re talking about, but, it’s not Christianity.
Christians do not believe “that God will not abandon us no matter what our imperfections are” I’m not sure where that belief has come from; I see it quoted more and more from the left. That “Jesus would never turn away a homosexual” and so on. The truth in the Christian belief is that, when the end comes, all non believers will be abandoned, and some of the believers as well. See, just believing is not enough.
Jesus, will not turn away any sinner…..who repents and “sins no more”. See, you cannot be a thief ask for forgiveness and then steal again.
The morally superior would never support or defend an attack on another country killing thousands of people We had a choice, support the candidate who supported the war or support the candidate who supports killing a million babies every year. Andre? Can there be murder on both sides?
old separation of church and state thing There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. What the constitution does say is “will make no law respecting a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Which means: Congress cannot force you into religion or stop you from practicing, anywhere!
The separation of church and state came about when a supreme court justice (a KKK member, appointed by W. Wilson I think) (he might have been chief justice at one time too) in the early 1900’s wanted to make sure that the government could never force a religion to allow blacks members.
How it has come to mean that children cannot say God in their High School Valedictorian speeches, I don’t know.
How it came to mean that boy scouts can’t camp on government owned land, because they believe ion God, I don’t know.
What I do know is: If the democrats would change a few things, Christians would probably vote with them.
1. A women’s right to reproductive control means that rape is against the law. Not that she can kill with impunity. Andre, if you cared at all about lives being killed in Iraq, why don’t you care that 40 million people have been aborted since roe v wade.
2. Stop forcing our 6 year children to learn why Billy has 2 dads.
I’m sure there are a few more, but …
The separation of church and state came about when a supreme court justice (a KKK member, appointed by W. Wilson I think) (he might have been chief justice at one time too) in the early 1900’s wanted to make sure that the government could never force a religion to allow blacks members.
What the??? I just gotta hear more about this.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 11:46 AMI would like to see where it says God will turn away some believers. I don’t know what bible your reading.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 11:46 AMto all above
there are more than one religion that state you have to believe in their “religion” or you will go to “hell”
the musliums believe all cristians are going to hell no matter what! and christians believe the same about muslims. not to mention the jewish religion and cathloics and ortadox and countless others.
what does this all mean? place your bets because EVERYONE is going to hell!
more people are killed in the name of “GOD” than for anyother rason in the history of the world!
try finding a belief structure that allows everyone to live in inner peace and not fear of eternal damnation!
Posted by: true conservative at June 22, 2005 11:51 AMLawn boy,
“Men in Black” (the book not the movie) by Mark Levin (sp) it’s a book about the Supreme Court.
chi chi, lawn boy , dave, d a n, Aldous and stephen
you need to tell me when your going to change the subject!!!!!!!!!
go back and read my last 2 comments.
Posted by: true conservative at June 22, 2005 11:59 AMTony,
If you believe in God and still sin, you’re not going to heaven. Believing is not enough.
Do you think Lucifer believes in GOD ? Of course he believes in God’s existance. Do you think he is going to heaven ? Maybe, but only if he repents
Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 12:00 PMJames
“How it came to mean that boy scouts can’t camp on government owned land, because they believe ion God, I don’t know.”
The controversy over boyscouts is that they recieve public money yet discriminate against atheists and homosexuals.
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 22, 2005 12:05 PMThe biggest problem I have with the evangelical movement/religious right is that they continually use quotes from the Old Testament to justify their actions, when there are in fact quotes in the New Testament that will go against them. While I would not say that I am a devout Christian, I have extensively studied the Bible. Jesus’ life/ministry/prophetic fulfillment was the conclusion of the Old Law (the Jewish Law), at least as it is said in the Bible. Christians should pay much more attention to the words of Christ than the laws of the Old Testament, as the words of Christ are those upon which Christianity was founded.
The religious right continually uses quotes like “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” from Leviticus to justify the death penalty. They disregard the fundamental and central aspect of Christ’s radical ideology: “turn the other cheek” and “he is who without sin shall cast the first stone”. They use quotes from Genesis in which God “tells” Adam and Eve that they have dominion over the birds of the sky, the beasts of the land, and the fish of the sea, to justify their destruction of the environment. I find these uses of the Old Testament over the words of the New Testament to be very hypocritical on behalf of the religious right.
Raised as a Catholic, I guess I was exposed more to the idea of analyzing and studying the Bible rather than blindly following it. I was exposed more to the quote of Jesus that show His compassion for the sick, the poor, and the sinners. Those of the Protestant faiths, because of their religion’s historical foundings, tend to focus more on blindly following the words of the Bible, rather than understanding them. And those words that they blindly follow tend to be more from the Old Testament than the New.
I am sorry if I seem hostile here towards the religious beliefs of Protestant and Evangelical faiths, but I believe that anyone who rejects the fundamental teachings of Jesus and instead quotes words from a work written about 1000 years earlier and still carries the name Christian is very hypocritical. Remember, the biggest threat posed by Jesus’ ministry during his life was to the land and power holding priests of the Jewish faith. This is exactly why he was executed by them.
Posted by: Ryan Eckberg at June 22, 2005 12:07 PMJames,
Do you have an online source or summary?
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 12:07 PMtrue conservative:
Buddhism is the only non-violent religion around.
Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2005 12:09 PMConservatives and Right Wingers using religion to make a point in the discussion is doing nothing more than inviting the Democrats, Liberals, agnostics and atheists to salivate while preparing their counterpoints.
This situation is amplified if politics is even hinted in the argument.
Sometimes it is better to pick up your marbles and go home.
Posted by: steve smith at June 22, 2005 12:10 PMChristianity does have the root term Christ who I believe came to forgive our sins. You will sin today you must be goin to hell.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:12 PMnothing in the New Testiment contradicts the old testiment.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:17 PMBack to the topic to say Christian Democrats are not really Christian is wrong and this is only a fringe belief accepted by some less intelligent.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:19 PMI don’t think many republicans think that christian democrats arn’t christian except like some of the ultra conservative ones. Like that one church that kicked out the members who voted for john kerry
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 22, 2005 12:23 PMAldous:
Actually, there are quite a few nonviolent religions other than Buddhism. Wicca is one, it’s primary tenet is “An it harm none, do what ye will”. (emphasis added) The Quaker version of Christianity is another, though occasional exceptions in that philosophy have been made for situations so monstrous they could see no other route than violence, such as during World War 2. Jainism and the Baha’i Faith are other religions which are apparently nonviolent, though I know little about them. I’m quite sure there are others… there are many many more religions in this world than can easily be studied by any one person.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 12:26 PMWhile I am 100% pro-choice, I can at least understand where pro-lifers are coming from (although Ironically abortion is drastically higher in conservative communities and under republican presidents… I guess telling teenagers that condoms don’t work is a tad naive)
But what I will never understand is why the christian fundamentalist believe they have the right to treat gays and lesbians as as second class citizens who are somehow not worthy of the rights and freedoms we take for granted.
You don’t see gays and lesbians telling Christians they are not allowed to go to church. Why can’t the religious right exercise the humanity and respect they claim to preach?
Is it just me, or does anyone else miss the Christianity of Jimmy Carter? Carter uses Christianity to spread a message of peace and social justice. Its hard to believe Carter belongs to the same faith as the intolerant (and powerful) Christian Coalition.
I live in liberal Canada, and as crazy as this sounds we have a lower abortion rate than conservative America. And atheist Europe has an even lower rate!
If you truly sincerely about reducing abortion, than forget morality, just look at the numbers.
The numbers show that to lower abortion…
1. Teach teenagers safe-sex education
2. End the failed “abstinence-only” (specially in Africa!)
3. Vote for a democrat (go ahead, compare abortion rate under Bush and Clinton…)
nothing in the New Testiment contradicts the old testiment.Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:17 PM
Old Testament: “Anyone who commits adultery should be stoned to death.”
New Testament: “Let he who is sinless cast the first stone.”
Old Testament: “These are the animals you are forbidden to eat, they are unclean.”
New Testament: “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”
Christ was *constantly* getting in trouble with the Pharisees for actions which contracted parts of the Law of the old testament. He always refuted these with quotes of other parts of the old testament, but to say that the new testament contradicts nothing from the old testament is clearly in error. In fact, the old testament contradicts itself, as is seen by him quoting one aspect of the old testament and the pharisees quoting the other.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 12:32 PMNobody wants to treat gays as second class citizens we just don’t the government supporting there actions. To us it would be the same as the government allowing animal to human marriage.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:33 PMJames,
The reason I’m so curious about your theory is that it appears nowhere in standard explanations of the separation of church and state.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 12:34 PMJarin,
Those were laws in place to govern the Jews similar to our laws as a nation they are not all biblical. These were implemented by God as a control because Christ had not come yet. It’s not a contraction just the way it had to be for the time. No one now is using that passage to say we should stone an adulteress.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:37 PMOh and the Pharisees laws were not biblical.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:39 PMTony:
Jarin,Those were laws in place to govern the Jews similar to our laws as a nation they are not all biblical. These were implemented by God as a control because Christ had not come yet. It’s not a contraction just the way it had to be for the time. No one now is using that passage to say we should stone an adulteress.
Then why are you using laws from the same section of the bible to condemn homosexuality? Why are only the laws you disagree with set aside by the coming of Christ?
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 12:39 PMSex is between a man and a women anything else is not moral. Our government should not support imoral actions. And don’t go off on some crap on how the war is imoral.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:40 PMJordan:
Your wasting your time. Trying to throw facts at Religious Fanatics is pointless. I would believe their “Sanctity of Marriage” Line more if they banned Divorce.
Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2005 12:41 PMChrist never rejects the condemnation of homosexuality. Nowhere does he axcept it. Should you not love someone because they are homosexual - of course not, but that doesn’t mean you should condone it.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:42 PMThanks interupting a good debate by labeling me a religious fanatic. You don’t know me. I believe this site is made to debate and discuss not to toss insults around.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:44 PMBack to what I was saying, those laws were a governing tool not the ten comandments. Huge distinction.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 12:46 PMYou only need to get to page 2 of genesis to find there are two completely different stories of creation. I still dont understand the explanation for those take a literal interpretation.
Posted by: Stik at June 22, 2005 12:47 PMTony
“Sex is between a man and a women anything else is not moral. Our government should not support imoral actions. And don’t go off on some crap on how the war is imoral.”
Why do you think same gender sex is immoral yet unprovoked war is moral.
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 22, 2005 12:48 PMTony:
The pharisees laws were not biblical?
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
The law of Moses they’re referring to is found in Leviticus, the same chapter of the bible used to condemn homosexuality.
Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 12:49 PM
Freud, believe that belief in a god is a result of a common psychologicaldependancy upon a figure who monitors and protects people at all times, much like a parent does with a child.
Aldous
Buddhism is the only non-violent religion around.
you are very wrong there.
hindusim
mormans
jahova’s witness
Native American
shakers
amish
quakers
Feng Shui
pantheism
Back to what I was saying, those laws were a governing tool not the ten comandments. Huge distinction.
Both were given to the people by God. Choosing one over the other is purely a matter of personal preference. It’s interesting to note that no prohibition against homosexuality is made in the ten commandments, if that’s your standard, yet you seem vehemently opposed to it anyway on religious grounds.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 12:55 PMlevitical law is not the pharisees law its God’s. The pharisees had there own additional laws to which Christ was disputing due to tehm being hypocrytical in judging others before themselves.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:01 PMIt’s not personal preference. Those laws were written as an example, and to understand the extent of God’s holyness which is why Christ was necessary.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:03 PMLaws are there to show our sin and to be a guide for our lives. This is called santification. We are not to issue judgment on others because of these laws that is God’s job and Christ tells us this. But God does give the sword to the goverment(read Romans) to punish the sinner having an impact on others lives. Levitical law is an example of this.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:06 PMthe problem i see with the bible is it can be used to argue either side of any discussion
Posted by: true conservitive at June 22, 2005 01:07 PMTony:
No, the levitical laws were written as dictated by God, same as the ten commandments, if you believe the words of the bible.
Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. 8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11”Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 01:09 PM
Religion is an abstract concept based on faith and can be interpreted many ways by many people.The fundamental problem when you let the responsability of religious teaching outside of your family and chosen church is you are now subjecting your children to an interpretation that may not coincide with yours. I have always used religion to denounce hunting. My argument is that I should not kill Gods creatures. Some people believe that our dominion over animals gives us the right and duty to hunt. There are differences that are subtle,some are dramatic and I would not like shared with my children.That is why the seperation is so important.I want my religious beliefs to be introduced as the primary beliefs in the lives of my children.
Think about some of the historical issues religious leaders have used God to justify ex. slavery,denial of womens rights,segregation. I don’t see eye to eye with alot of the so called moral rights views, therefore I don’t want to have to have them forced on me.
Your correct in that they are equivilant in value but very different in use. The ten comandments are things we should not do. Levitical law is made of punishments. Again an example of governing. You have to look at the context.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:16 PMAndre,
I agree. Take a look at luthers teachings on two Kingdoms. It falls right in line with what you are saying.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:18 PM“What is it that the people who call themselves Conservative Republicans have that I don’t have? I go to church. I believe in god. Why is it that because i’m a Democrat I am not as moral a person as they are?”
I don’t go to church and I don’t believe in God. Dos that make me immoral?
Posted by: Polanco Consuling at June 22, 2005 01:19 PMwow guys
call your dad a dick for beatting the shit out of you and its onto the expressway to hell
have sex with the hottie nextdoor because the oldman is out getting drunk so he can come home and beat the snot out of her… jump on the a train to h-town
have homosexual sex and all is forgiven
kill your unborn baby because it will “cause a inconviuace” in your life, and the pearly gates await
but if you say well “that was wrong” all is forgotten.
no wonder you guys drive yourselves crazy tring to prove your “worthiness” to get into the “promissed land”
take a break
accept that no one is perfect and life IS the point!! blind faith is great if it floats your boat, but calm down a bit.
nature is the world and truth
when you die your body returns to the earth and the cycle of life continues. the “afterlife” maybe your legacy and your memories by loved ones.
dems say its not a cut and dry/black and white world, but its either heaven or hell?
republicans say its our way or hell?
whats the point
whos keeping score?
Whats the point of living You’ll just end up in the ground. Really what do you have to live for. Take a look around buddy. This isn’t all coincidence.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:24 PMTony:
The main difference between the laws of leviticus and the ten commandments is actually just that the Ten commandments were dictated by the literal voice of God, and then while he was speaking the people drew back and said to Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” (Exodus 20:19) In that same chapter, then, Moses goes to speak with God and begins to get a list of laws for the people, continued from the ten commandments:
20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. 21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. 22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. 24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon. Exodus 21 1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. 12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
I think that’s enough to prove my point. There is no real separation between the spiritual laws and the laws you propose are for government, because the government of Israel in the bible is supposed to be a true theosophy… government not by religion, but by God, even to the point of God dictating the laws rather than men deciding upon them.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 01:29 PMLawn boy: Sorry i was away, I have a lunch date with the wife everyday, we do the crossword puzzle.
Anyway, I don’t have a web site, but the book is listed on amazon. I didn’t make up what I said and my quote from the book is fairly accurate, but from memory.
Jarin:
I believe Jesus told the Jews that all of the old laws (old testament) are still in effect. Jesus brought the new concept of forgiveness.
Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 01:30 PMTony
you said”Whats the point of living You’ll just end up in the ground. Really what do you have to live for. Take a look around buddy. This isn’t all coincidence.”
I’m an atheist yet I find a point too living. Just because i don’t believe i have an imortal soul doesn’t mean i cant enjoy the time i have. As for your “this isn’t not a coincidence” comment. I think you mean chance not coincidence. How ever yes i do believe this is all chance . With quaddrillions of planets life was bound to appear on at least a few
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 22, 2005 01:32 PMYour missing the point. Look at the context of those laws. Our government has no use for most of them. We originally started on this to find a contraction of the old and new testiment. I’m saying there is none. Christ came to fulfill the old testiment not to contradict it. This is what he was explaining to the pharisees.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:34 PMDear True Conservative,
Why is it that you can’t respond without one, ignoring what was written to go on some mindless tirade that has nothing to do with the discussion? Two without grade school,WWF monologue?
I’m sure you have something to say.I’d like to hear it.
James:
True, he did say that. However, I’ve yet to see a Christian conservative who treats eating shellfish the same as homosexuality, even though according to the laws of leviticus they’re both abominations. And he also said that nothing that goes into the body defiles a man, only what comes out of it, yet that is a clear contradiction of old testament law about diet and uncleanness. Guess that also means he contradicted himself, actually, or at least the words that are ascribed to him by the authors who wrote the new testament are contradictory.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 01:39 PMWell for mister voice of reason good for you. I need more than just enjoying myself. Its hard for me to argue with you because I will admit its faith.
Oh and forgiveness was not a new concept. This was brought up many times in the old testiment infact more. Mostly regards sheep.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:40 PMIf we are all an accident, then life isn’t sacred and the law of nature (survival of the fittest) should rule. Meaning if we can conquer Iraq, then we should, nay, we must! The strongest should eliminate the weakest to perpetuate the race.
If you believe we are not a mistake, then there is a reason or purpose…then each life is sacred.
The chances that life on earth is an accidental occurance:
Take enough bricks to build a house. Under those bricks place some explosives. Blow up the bricks. The chances that those bricks land in the form of a perfectly built house are the same chances that life on earth just … happenned.
I think we really are a garden.
Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 01:41 PMagain no contraction. Christ tells us our body is a temple of the lord. No contraction just difference in purpose. justification vs. sanctification.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:43 PMandre
acording to your non judgemental beliefs you just punched your ticket to h-town
what i said is my beliefs not “your grade school,WWF monologue” or “some mindless tirade”
its hard fo me to “stay on the subject” when i dont agree with either side of your bickering.
you are a hipocrit. what i choose to post is my bussiness. if it causes you such inner tromoil of your faith than dont read it.
Posted by: t c at June 22, 2005 01:45 PMJames:
That’s one interpretation. Of course, the other is that if life is an accident then it’s even more sacred than if it was planned, because the chances of it happening again are very remote.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 01:47 PMAndre is just saying we’re trying to debate a subject and your making it diffult. If you don’t like the topic or can’t relate to it leave.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:48 PMWell we are quickly getting lost in meaning of life discusions. Somebody please get us back on track because I don’t know where to begin
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:50 PMYou religious followers are all wrong. There is no God. How can every religion in the world have the only true god? And all the other religions are just superstition. Get real…. They are all superstition and you all are just wasting your time and energy worshiping your superstitious nonsense. Think about it sometime instead of just blindly being faithful. I am an atheist and I believe all of you should be able to worship and believe what you want. Just don’t try to shove your superstitions on me, and that includes our government.
Posted by: Dane at June 22, 2005 01:52 PMWhy can’t I post in the Red “stop kidding yourself” ???
Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 01:52 PMJames
one does not have to believe in a deity to think that conscious life is special and needs to be protected. As for your blowing up a house and it landing back in shape isn’t a good example of the creation of life because like i stated there are quaddreillions of planets not one and the animals we see today didnt just appear they slowly evolved.
“I think we really are a garden.”
Isn’t it enough to see a garden and think it’s buetiful without having to believe there are faries hiding in it.
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 22, 2005 01:53 PMtony
kinda exclussionary isnt it?
for a bunch of
‘non judging people’ to say “If you don’t like the topic or can’t relate to it leave.”
lets look back at the last 10 threads and see how many different topics are discussed in each thread. im sure its more than one.
my religion makes no claim to be nonjudgemental yet im not the one calling people names.
i could think your a “simple minded dolt” for believing in something you have no proff of. but i dont
Posted by: t c at June 22, 2005 01:55 PMFine I give up.
Secular Humanism is a religion. The belief that there is no God is a belief. Your written word - Darwin. You have no proof, its not science. An no one is forcing anything on you. You are forcing it on us, by kicking us out of every aspect of society.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:56 PMagain thank you but you also believe in something with no proof. I only choose faith in something worth it.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 01:58 PMI could call you an “uninformed ignorant dunce” but I won’t
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 02:02 PMYou are forcing it on us, by kicking us out of every aspect of society.
Do you really believe this? America is the most Jesus-believing of the major developed countries. There Christian mini-series on bradcast TV, many churches in every town, paid holidays for many people for Good Friday, etc.
Christianity is the assumed subtext for most of American life. Do you really feel Christianity is kick out of society?
Darwin. You have no proof, its not science.Actually, it is science by any standard definition. I’m curious what your definition of science is. Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 02:03 PM
Tony, scientists prove evolutionary theory in the laboratory all the time, with medicine and dealing with mutating bacteria and viruses which renew their threat to us in generations that take only days, weeks, or months, to propagate depending on the organism.
To claim evolution is not a science is to claim ignorance of all that medicince has wrought since Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine. To claim evolution is not science is deny the first hand knowledge of evolution in animal husbandry and race horses, and food animals, and the immense production of new species of plant hybrids.
I know evolution cramps your style, but, claiming ignorance of the world about you and all that is taking place in it because it cramps your ideology is … well, you fill in the blank.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2005 02:03 PMTony my belief in evoulution is not on faith it is for the following reasons
1 it makes sence
2 though nothing can be proven in science that is why plate tectonics is still called the theory of plate tectonics there is compelling evidence for evolution
“I only choose faith in something worth it.”
what really happened is not decided by whether or not we think it worth it
if your beliefs are based on cross benifit analysis i wonder how sincerere they can be
Posted by: Voice of Reason at June 22, 2005 02:04 PMtony
“Secular Humanism is a religion”
maybe but its not mine.
“again thank you but you also believe in something with no proof.”lol
i believe in life and nature. last time i looked out the window or in the mirror it gave me all the proff anyone could ask for.
before you continue making non educated statements you might want to ask what my beliefs are and look into what they mean!
I do believe in Micro Evolution just not Macro. It is not science. Science must be repeated. It can’t be. One species has never been succefully changed to another.
“The strongest will survive because the strongets have survived” a major tautology. You can’t proof something with its own definition.
Mount saint Helens carbon dated to over 100,000 year after the eruption. Formed in 2 weeks.
The cambrian Explosion. All fosiles are dated back to the cambrian age with the same species selection of today. Nothing has been found before that.
Look at all the evidence before you argue with me about the origin of life in a political blog.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 02:10 PMNobody is saying you cannot personally believe homosexuality is “immoral”. You can believe whatever you wish.
But by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry (or even health insurance for g-d’s sake), you are stating that your PERSONAL morality triumphs all others, and justifies non-violent persecution.
What I find amazing about the religious right is their arrogance in believing that their own morality IS superior simply because they were randomly born into the correct religion (luck of the sperm I guess)
It is not Christianity that’s the problem! Communist (or any ideology) have enforced their superior morality with devastating violence. The seduction of superior morality is overwhelming.
Anyone who who believes they have the right to enforce their superior morality on to others is a threat to freedom and the American republic.
Posted by: Jordan at June 22, 2005 02:13 PMi happen to be a scientific pantheist.
“Question: What created the universe?
Pantheist: The universe is intrinsic to being.”
its perhaps the oldes “religion” on earth. it predates christianity.
here are a few links to look at if you care to
http://www.pantheism.net/
http://www.pantheist-index.net/
http://home.utm.net/pan/panorama.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5675/
One species has never been succefully changed to another.
Look at all the evidence before you argue with me about the origin of life in a political blog.And I make the same challenge to you. Evolution is as real as anything science knows about. This has been argued to death here on WatchBlog, but I guess we’ll go through it all again. Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 02:17 PM
Tony,
I gave you a link with a lot of information about macroevolution.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 02:41 PMAgain science must be repeated. Evolution can not be with is why it is a theory. I’m not saying creation has been either but don’t call me ignorant when you know less than I do.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 02:43 PMI saw that link and I still don’t see a documented report of one species changing to another.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 02:44 PMSo typical of liberals. Always making statements without backup or evidence. I tired of it. It like brain surgery libs are the doctor. They keep picking at different parts of the brain to see different body parts twitch. I have yet to have an educated debate with a liberal.
Posted by: Tony at June 22, 2005 02:52 PM“Religion is the opiate of the masses”.
Several postings on here…Tony…prove this theory to be true.
Keep those blinders on buddy, that way you can ignore anything on either side of the road…and you won’t fall into the abyss that is reason and understanding.
P.S. IF you happen to believe in the literal interpretation of the Old Testament…I have some great campfire stories from my days in the Boy Scouts to share with you sometime!!!
Posted by: Big Kahuna at June 22, 2005 03:08 PMTony:
Liberals are like *brain surgeons*, but you’ve never had an educated debate with one?
… hate to break it to you, but if you’ve never had an educated debate with a brain surgeon that probably has less to do with the education he’s bringing to the table than it does with the education you are.
Then again, that’s pretty obvious when your idea of brain surgery is “picking at different parts of the brain to see body parts twitch”.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 03:16 PMFinally consider the so-called “purpose” the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam has planned for us: to struggle through a miserable brief spell on a stage designed as a testing ground for eternity, and prove we are good enough to get into the real show which only starts when we’re dead. What on earth would be the “purpose” of setting up such a show, creating little puppets and seeing whether they’re good enough and burning the ones that aren’t for all eternity? The truth is that theists cannot provide any convincing purpose for life or for the universe either.
Posted by: t c at June 22, 2005 03:16 PMAnd Tony, I have had no success in having intellectual debates with Bible-thumping radical conservatives!!!!
Let me stick the label squarely on you…you and your ilk are extremists. Plainly and simply…you are NO DIFFERENT than the Taliban.
Liberals offer no proof? Sure we do. We make logical decisions and offer relevant opinions, but you refuse to listen because they are not what you want to hear or what you believe.
Here’s another of my two cents…if you don’t like my opinion…TOUGH!!! I don’t give a damn. If you don’t want to hear what I have to say, DON”T ASK ME!!!
Don’t believe in abortion? DON’T HAVE ONE!!!
Don’t believe in public-schools? DON’T SEND YOUR KIDS THERE!!!
Again science must be repeated. Evolution can not be with is why it is a theory. I’m not saying creation has been either but don’t call me ignorant when you know less than I do.
Besides your arrogant proclamations of superiority, I have no reason to believe that you know as much as or more than I do, and you certainly have no reason to believe that I know less than you do.
Since you seem not to know what the word “theory” means in the context of science (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”) instead of the general vernacular (a hypothesis), I have reason to believe you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It’s not true that science must be repeated. Are you saying that plate tectonics are a theory because we can’t repeat the 1980 Mt. St. Helens explosion? I’d hope not. Of course, we can’t reproduce the exact circumstances of that explosion, but other evidence that can be repeated that shows that plate tectonics is the best theory to explain the phenomena.
Evolution is the same. We can’t go back to the exact circumstances, but there are hundreds of experiments every day that have results that are those anticipated by evolution.
That’s the great strength of evolution over whatever you believe instead. Evolution has been shown to be useful for everything from medicine to animal husbandry to genetics counseling to… No other “theory” comes close.
I saw that link and I still don’t see a documented report of one species changing to another.Here’s another one: link.
So typical of liberals. Always making statements without backup or evidence. I tired of it.
This is the amazing thing about debating with you: your arrogance. You have done nothing to demonstrate your intelligence or capacity at debating, and yet you insult anyone who tries.
You insult us for not providing evidence when we’re the only side in the debate to have done so. You’ve done nothing but proclaim your correctness and insult us for having the temerity to consider debating with you. Well, it’s time to put up. What’ya got?
I have yet to have an educated debate with a liberal.Frankly, I’m not surprised, but I suppose not in the way you mean. Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 03:19 PM
The Macro link, the one that is suppose to convince someone that it is really that. Basiclly said since no one had ever found a reason that it couldn’t happen then it has to happen. That’s kinda silly.
Evolution is a Theory, and for every piece of evidence saying it is fact, there is at least another piece of evidence that it is absolutely wrong.
As for facts, a man name Jesus existed. There are historical documents from many sources (Roman, Musleum, Jewish and others) confirming this. With this fact it puts forth the question “What exactly was he?”
Was he the Son of God, a madman, or a con man.
Musleum say he was a prophet that never said he was the Son of God.
Jew say he was a prophet that never said he was the Son of God.
Budist say he was a prophet that never said he was the Son of God.
Mormons say he was the God incarnated.
Universalists say he is everything, everyone says he is.
Posted by: Alan Winship at June 22, 2005 03:32 PMVoice od reason,
A garden has been planted
Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 03:37 PMIf I may add my two bits. It seems to me that we Democrats need to show that we “get it” — that religious belief is an important part of our society, that many people hold strong religious beliefs, etc.
That said, I think that those of us Christians who are also Democrats need to advance a view of Christianity that is in contrast to what is heard from the extreme religious right. They want to talk about Leviticus and biblical condemnations of homosexuality? Then lets talk about Jesus’ advice about judging others, placing the Bible in historical context, and God’s continuing revelation in the world (i.e., that all major moral issues were not necessarily resolved by 60 AD). Lets argue that the Bible was divinely inspired but created by humans and subject to error (and thus should be taken, in Marcus Borg’s words “…seriously, but not literally”). This would place us in line with the vast majority of main-line biblical scholars.
Let’s talk about how the Bible places much more emphasis on how we should treat the poor than it does on narrow issues of sexual morality. Let’s argue that the core Biblical values of compassion, love, and justice are being undermined by the extreme religious right.
I also think that the major Christian religions need to return to a moral ground where they are capable of applying moral criteria to both religious parties, not “giving slack” to the Republicans because they happen to be against abortion (e.g., failing to criticize their stance on capital punishment, social justice, etc.). Christianity can (and IMO must) be separate enough from politics that it can criticize both political parties based on a wide variety of issues.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 22, 2005 03:46 PMSteve Westby:
If I may add my two bits. It seems to me that we Democrats need to show that we “get it” — that religious belief is an important part of our society, that many people hold strong religious beliefs, etc.
I don’t think that will work, for one simple reason: part of our beliefs as democrats is to respect all religions, that the religious beliefs of all religions are important parts of our society, and that all religions hold strong religious beliefs, etc. Showing this will only further energize the conservative base, who appear to believe that only their own brand of Christianity is acceptable and anything else is the work of Satan. It’s not a coincidence that pagans were among those blamed for 9-11 by Falwell. Religion alone is not enough for these people, they want it all to be THEIR religion.
That said, kudos and thank you to the Christian Left for speaking out and presenting an alternative view of Christianity directly counter to the radical Christian Supremacy of the far-right conservatives. It’s refreshing, and something that IMHO has been far too absent the past few years.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 04:03 PMCount me among those who wake up every day knowing that there are problems throughout the world but, that because I live in AMERICA I have the freedom to believe, practice, discuss whatever religion I hold as my own.
The truly amazing thing is that in AMERICA I can practice a religion that has it’s roots and in many cases the greatest number of followers in another region of the world.
If I want, in AMERICA I can elect to have no religious beliefs at all. I can even campaign against religion if I so choose.
What a place this AMERICA.
Posted by: steve smith at June 22, 2005 04:12 PMHe’s not a Democrat, but John Danforth (former Republican Senator from Missouri and former ambassador to the U.N.) had a very interesting opinion piece in the New York Times on Friday called Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers. I want to post an excerpt here, but I can’t figure out what to leave out. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 04:12 PMJarin:
I don’t think that will work, for one simple reason: part of our beliefs as democrats is to respect all religions, that the religious beliefs of all religions are important parts of our society, and that all religions hold strong religious beliefs, etc. Showing this will only further energize the conservative base, who appear to believe that only their own brand of Christianity is acceptable and anything else is the work of Satan. It’s not a coincidence that pagans were among those blamed for 9-11 by Falwell. Religion alone is not enough for these people, they want it all to be THEIR religion.
First of all, thanks for your response to my post. I believe our disagreement on this point may boil down to this: I’m concerned not about convincing the extreme religious right (who usually won’t vote democratic anyway), but convincing many Americans who seem to feel that the Democrats are out of touch on issues of religion and morality. We can no longer afford to have ourselves labelled as against “people of faith” — we have to show that many of us ARE “people of faith,” we just don’t believe the same way that Falwell does (for example).
LawnBoy,
Thanks for the link. I enjoyed Danforth’s comments on this topic immensely.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 22, 2005 04:24 PMSteve Westby:
Actually, I think it may boil down to me not believing in the existence of a large crowd of moderate Christians that are somewhat alienated by the Christian right’s interpretation of Christianity but more alienated by the perception of Democrats as non or anti religious. If they exist, I’ve yet to see evidence of them.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 04:28 PMJarin,
Hmmm…that would make an interesting study, wouldn’t it?
My sense is that it can only help Democrats to get rid of the label of being against “people of faith.” Bush used this very effectively to gain support and martial significant voter turnout last election. The issue becomes much less motivating when the best they can do is to argue that Democrats “have different beliefs about Christianity than we do.”
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 22, 2005 04:57 PMSteve:
That would make sense if the arguments used to portray democrats as being against “People of Faith” weren’t things like supporting the rights of homosexual couples, being against school-led prayer, being for the teaching of evolution and against the teaching of creationism as science, enforcing a separation of church and state, and abortion. None of the arguments really show an intolerance towards faith, they only show a resistance to a radical conservative interpretation of Christianity being allowed to dominate government. The whole idea of being “against people of faith” is little more than a code word for endorsing a secular government and a pluralistic society. The only way to be considered “for” people of faith by those spouting this rhetoric is to endorse exactly the same brand of radical conservative christianity as the ones spewing the accusations. The fact is, they don’t consider other branches of Christianity with differing interpretations on this issue to BE people of faith. There are branches of CHRISTIANS who endorse homosexual unions IN THEIR OWN CHURCHES, but this issue is often rhetorically framed as being one of faith-based morality vs secular immorality, and alienating to people of faith.
Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 05:18 PMTony,
It seems to me that many people on this blog have been doing their best to present their points in a logical manner, and you aren’t responding in the same manner. It’s unlikely you are going to influence anyone with the approach you are taking.
I respect your religious beliefs, but based on your responses I don’t think you really understand WHY you believe some of the things you believe. You are really doing a disservice to your religion. Perhaps instead of blogging you should attend a regular bible study group.
Posted by: Loren at June 22, 2005 05:32 PMLet’s all believe as our conscience dictates and we will see (or not) who ends up in hell.
What I object to are those who haven’t thought about it much at all. God accepts everybody doesn’t make a lot of sense. Hitler and Mother Teresa, in other words both are equal. You have to work at living a good life, not just drift into doing what feels good at the time. I don’t know for sure what that will get you in the afterlife (not having actually visited) but I do know that people without inner direction are losers on earth.
It is true that we are all sinners, but it is our duty to try to be better.
The oft-quoted story about not throwing the first stone ends with Jesus saying, “Go AND SIN NO MORE”. A lot of people leave that part off of the story when they tell it.
Jordan,
I’m a little behind on reading all the posts, but you might want to look here regarding abortion under Bush on a (I hope) credible site: http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html
Posted by: Sam Steele at June 22, 2005 05:55 PMTo true conservative.
I had just thought that a more meaninful response would have added to the debate. Your name calling and your shout out first think later conversation style are your business. I am not trying to regulate what you post, only to suggest that you would not come off as a mindless dope (which I assume you are not)If you join in the debate rather than try to throw cheesy shock bombs meant to get folks in an uproar and take the focus off the fact that you had very little(thought out or useful)information.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 22, 2005 06:03 PMThe thing is, we should look out for the other’s we can help. And respect
Their point of view, and respect their feelings about what they believe in
and feel strongly about.
I’ve been a silent guest here for almost a year and first off, let me commend you on a mostly excellent and highly addictive venue for political discourse. I have yet to find anything resembling this blog in my country (Sweden - here we spend our time abusing each other and the government and no one posts anything constructive) and being lazier than most, I have not summoned the passion and the perseverance to start one in your image. Therefore I pass a good deal of my spare time following your threads and at this point I simply have to throw my piece into the mix:
Hailing from one of the most, if not the most, atheist country in atheist Europe I am - no surprises there - an atheist by birth, upbringing and conviction. However, as a child I was taught that there were a few basic rules of morality that I should live by:
- Thou shalt not kill
- Thou shalt not steal
- Do unto others what ye would have them do unto ye
- (S)he who is without sin, cast the first stone
I was also taught that I should try not to:
- covet my neighbour’s husband
- covet my neighbour’s possessions
And in addition, if my conscience bid me to do so:
- I should give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar
- Honour my mother and my father
The Bible is a remarkable book, it contains so much wisdom that is equally applicable today as it was 2000 or 3000 years ago; the very fact that my religiously atheist (pun intended) parents saw fit to implant in me and my siblings rules and guidelines from the very same book tells me that this is a publication not to be lightly discarded. Nonetheless, there are many rules and guidelines they forewent with silence - ‘an eye for an eye’, for instance - and I think this is the root of the problem (Ryan Eckberg, touched on this in a previous post):
Many of us who read the Bible savour the parts that are agreeable to us and we frame our understanding of it based on this and this alone. Most of us - atheists and Christians alike - will also have preconceived notions of the contents based on what we’ve been taught, allowing for even less freedom of interpretation.
I don’t think this is a bad thing, as long as we keep in mind that while we are free to interpret the Bible (or any other text/speech for that matter) we must not presume to know the mind(s) of the author(s).
My point obviously being that I don’t view the topic of this thread as a specifically religious problem - it is just another instance of the same problem that has been debated time and time again: we must learn to quench the urge to promote our personal beliefs to absolute truth.
Now, I don’t live in the States and I appreciate that I - being a Swedish atheist - cannot relate to the main issue of the article: that there is a sense amongst Democrats in the US that their religious belief is put into question and discounted on a more or less regular basis - if SW engineers were under constant attack in Sweden I dare say I would feel every bit as exasperated. Also, please don’t take offence at my highly secular view - I have the utmost respect for other people’s beliefs - especially Jews, Christians and Muslims, we are raised on a subset of the same rules after all. All I’m saying is that to me, this is no different from any other example of overly zealous people attempting to sell their convictions as the one and only way.
Thanks again, for a great blog.
Posted by: malin at June 22, 2005 06:15 PMThanks for joining in, Malin. I appreciate your perspective.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 06:18 PMTony, science is hypothesis testing. You are arguing the philosophy of knowing. If there were no humans to witness the universe, would the universe exist? That is a philosophical argument.
Science if one accepts empiricism and extrapolation and the testing of extrapolation via the null hypothesis, which after all is an extension of our natural innate senses of detection, then it follows that scientific theory like evolution, having been tested against a large number of life forms, is extrapolatable to all life forms including human.
Now, you personally don’t have to accept scientific theory, but, you do enjoy the benefits of it in your everyday life and unless you reject its benefits, you do in fact, accept its premises even if you don’t wish to confess to doing so. This is the illogical nature of all religious conviction in creationism, whether it be Hindu or Christian.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2005 06:19 PMMy apologies… I stand corrected. That being said, it is clear that at best, the 25 year decline seems to be flattening out.
My primary concern is Bush’s willingness to export his “abstinence-only” policy to third-world countries that can’t afford HIV medication.
Teaching a 15-year-old girl, who uses sex to buy her daily bread, to not use condoms is an economic and medical desaster. It is death in the name of religion.
As well, the idea that humans will simply stop having sex because they are told to demonstrates the Christian Coalition’s inability to create responsible policy for a non-Utopian planet.
Fortunately, African nations have adopted a policy of lying, misdirecting funds, or rejecting US support altogether in order to combat the Bush’s fundamentalist views and the damage it causes.
I don’t think Bush desires an increase in HIV, I just think he is indifferent. He sees this as an opportunity to spread religion. Better to die as a Christian than to live as a sexually active atheist.
Posted by: Jordan at June 22, 2005 06:21 PMMailin,
I have enjoyed reading your comments from not only an atheists but, non-citizen perspective.
It is interesting that the teachings of atheism and morality that you learned from birth (the “shalt nots”) are remarkably consistent with those of christianity.
Posted by: steve smith at June 22, 2005 06:25 PMFunny thing,
today is the anniversary of John Paul II’s apology and lifting of the edict of the Inquisition banning Galileo’s works. The apology took place in 1992 and was 359 years late.
Galileo’s work was viewed heretical in that it proved there were planets other than Earth. It raised the question: if the Earth were just another planet, how could it be special, and how could God’s plan as revealed be for the special benefit of mankind? How could all creatures with souls have descended from Adam?
Galileo’s work was thought to have undermined the Book of Genesis. Four hundred years ago it was held as the word of God, literally. Top theologians also believed that if any part of the Bible was not literally true, then none of it was true.
I think the most conservative Christian today would have been deemed a heretic over the great majority of the Christian Era(I need a religious history major or theologian for a ruling on this one). We are all children of the enlightenment and it permeates the very existence of all of us. It is so profound that I’m not sure we are capable of fully understanding it.
Like it or not, our faith has evolved. That it has evolved also means that the nature of faith must be open for debate. The conservative right today does not have the exclusive rights to the truth (ask Martin Luther or Aquinas or many others - all of us would be absolutely wrong by their standards).
So all that conservatives can acurately argue is that they think they are more right than anyone today, that the understanding of our faith can only evolve to their viewpoint - but no further.
As you can see, it’s a slippery slope.
I can’t skip over this next point from past entries.
Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
NIV John 8:1-11
Jesus did not turn over responsiblity for judgment of the adulteress to ANY of us - because NONE OF US QUALIFIES TO THROW THAT FIRST STONE.
Even if she were to return to her life of sin, we are left with the first question - OK, who gets the rock? (not I)
At least in the parable, the crowd was honest enough to admit that none were without sin.
I’m not so sure we see that in the conservative movement.
Posted by: Rusty at June 22, 2005 07:00 PMLawnBoy, Steve Smith, thanks.
Steve - I agree; this was one of my points: regardless of what religion or philosophy you subscribe to, the Bible is a fantastic source of rules and guidelines.
I’m not a bible thumper, but I do think it’s one of the most chronically underestimated books of all time.
There are reasons for this, I think.
People miss the intent of the authors. In all our big hurry to apply the bible to modern times, we often try to rationalize the work scientifically, or apply it unfiltered to the modern day. The trouble is, the bible belongs to a culture that thought differently from that, whose paradigms of understanding and knowledge differen considerably. One example, and an interesting one at that, is the controversy over the Red Sea in Exodus.
It doesn’t translate as Red Sea in the original. That’s a more contemporary term for the body of water. Today’s scholars often translate it as “Reed Sea”, giving the notion that the crossing was through marshlands, and that the water could have been pushed back by mechanical means. My professor for Old Testament Survey brought out a more challenging notion. His translation read “Chaos Waters”
Given that translation, one cannot scientifically rationalize it. Chaos Waters means the primordial water from which the world was said to be born. In Genesis, this is what is referred to when it speaks of the waters being separated from the waters- The waters of the sky from the waters of the ocean. Then, and only then is dry land created, separated from the primordial waters. What we have with the splitting of the Red Sea is God essentially taking control of the very primordial chaos that many gods are reputed to be formed from.
Genesis and Exodus become demonstrations of ancient, far reaching power, rather than mere exposition about Israel’s history.
I think that’s when the notion of faith in God intuitively came across to me. What we have in the pentateuch, especially Exodus are not the scientific observations of scholars steeped in minutia, but instead the tales told by word of mouth where the meaning of the stories was more important than their journalistic or scientific accuracy. These people believed these things to be true because the stories helped shape the fabric of their lives. This was their heritage, the best history they could manage when most could not read or write.
I don’t have faith in the God portrayed in the in the bible because I believe it to be the documentary truth, but because I believe it to be spiritually true. There’s something in there that is right whether or not the stories of the miracles are true, and I feel that is where God, the holy spirit, and the word made flesh can be found. Not in the flashy displays of power, but the meaningful relation of what it is to live a life in friendship or in conflict with God.
That, I believe, is relevant no matter what the times are, no matter what scientific knowledge we have. Everything else is just vanity.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2005 08:05 PMHi All:
“My primary concern is Bush’s willingness to export his “abstinence-only” policy to third-world countries that can’t afford HIV medication.”
Great quote Jordan,
timely I might add!
I look at it this way, when the citizen’s of Africa All die, There will be Oil, Diamonds, and other exotic items “Ripe for the Taking”. Hell I’d be surprised if KBR, isn’t training up for just that occasion. Should be ready about the Time Bush 46 is ready to assume the throne.
Posted by: Wayne at June 22, 2005 08:25 PMThis is to Jordan who has a post dated June 22, 2005 12:27 PM. Jordan I am a church alderman who sits behind you as you preach to the congregation. As such I took your challenge, I looked into the abortion rates under the ‘shrub’ and President Clinton. Please read
The Biography of a Bad Statistic
Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be -and lives on.
May 25, 2005 Modified: May 26, 2005
Unfortunately part of your posting was not founded on facts.
As a gay man I appreciate your stance, plus your attitude toward the fundamentalist extremists right wing protestant terrorists.
Posted by: Earl at June 23, 2005 02:49 AMGod accepts everybody doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Sure it does. If the scope of Yahweh’s plan is infinite, why would he torture someone for all eternity for bad behavior over such a short period of time? Sounds rather intolerant. Yahweh’s plan as espoused by the Bible is the ultimate in genocidal thinking. Separate out the “worthy” from the “unworthy,” reward the former with the riches of heaven and damn the latter to eternal torment in hell. Screw that.
I would rather have faith in humanity. We need to solve our own problems and stop looking to aliens to solve them for us.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at June 23, 2005 08:01 AMLife is less sacred without god(s), an afterlife, and some divine itinerary? Hardly. If this is all we’ve got, that makes it infinitely more sacred than if the flesh were simply some transient manifestation of an eternal plan. As I’ve said before, those who believe in an afterlife are inherently less invested in the flesh than those who don’t. “Kill ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out,” was not coined by a materialist.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at June 23, 2005 08:12 AMJoseph Briggs,
If you believe life is so precious, without there being a holy spirit, then why does the left vote with the idea of pro abortion ?
If you believe we are an accident, (life just happened) then you must fall in line with Darwinism, evolution and survival of the fittest. And if that is true, do you think that one day, we are going to abort the one child who has “evolved” and has cells that the HIV virus cannot penetrate ?
I mean the left is always crying that while we allow the rain forest to burn down, we are losing so many cures to diseases that have yet to be discovered. Can’t you say the same thing about abortion.
In fact, if your belief is true, shouldn’t we start testing all babies, prior to birth, for any genes that might suggest a propensity for disease or any other weakness ? Then we can slaughter those “weak” babies and use their stem cells to further help the race.
Posted by: James at June 23, 2005 08:54 AMtrue conservative,
Buddhism is the only non-violent religion around.you are very wrong there.
hindusim
mormans
jahova’s witness
Native American
shakers
amish
quakers
Feng Shui
pantheism
Eh? Mormon doctrine states that you should comply with the laws of the land. The law of this land advocates war, thus Mormonism is doesn’t inherently qualify as non-violent.
“Native American” is not a religion. Neither is Feng Shui.
Pantheism might be seen as a religious philosophy but not necessarily an organized religion. Also, the standard definition of pantheism states that god, the universe, and nature are equivalent. Nature is violent, extremely so.
Hinduism is myriad. You point out Quakers and the Amish, sects of Christianity, but you clump Hinduism in one big category. Also, one of the major texts of Hinduism is the Bhagavad Gita. The setting is a conversation between the warrior Arjuna and Krishna. Let me quote Wikipedia:
Arjuna hears the conch shells signaling the start of fighting as he and Krishna ride out. As he looks at the opposing armies and sees his relatives, teachers, and friends fighting on either side, he is heartsick at the thought of killing these beloved persons. He turns to Krishna for advice.Krishna counsels Arjuna, beginning with the tenet that since souls are immortal, their deaths on the battlefield are just the shedding of the body, which is not the soul.
My emphasis.
Now, none of this means that any of the actual religions you assert are non-violent are, in fact, violent, or to be more precise, actively advocate violence, but there is ample evidence in their doctrines that violence is well within their scope of acceptable behavior. Just wanted to set some things straight.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at June 23, 2005 08:58 AMJames,
If you believe life is so precious, without there being a holy spirit, then why does the left vote with the idea of pro abortion ?
Well, I can’t speak for the left but I can for my self. I’m pro-choice because I would rather leave the law out of the reproductive choices of women. More technically, I do not qualify the unborn as life, per se. Also, I am more inclined to serve the life at hand, i.e. the woman, than potential life, i.e. the unborn.
If you believe we are an accident, (life just happened) then you must fall in line with Darwinism, evolution and survival of the fittest.
This is an assumption on your part, though it happens to be mostly correct in this instance. I do not believe, however, that evolution is the equivalent of “survival of the fittest.” That is merely a byproduct. Evolution is about adaptation of DNA through mutation to environmental circumstance; it has no purpose.
And if that is true, do you think that one day, we are going to abort the one child who has “evolved” and has cells that the HIV virus cannot penetrate ?
This presumes that I hold humanity on some evolutionary pedestal. I do not. If humans become extinct due to AIDS or any other circumstance, that is directly in line with evolution. Secondly, this assumes that our only chance of adapting to HIV rests on one organism. This is not a precept of evolutionary thinking.
I mean the left is always crying that while we allow the rain forest to burn down, we are losing so many cures to diseases that have yet to be discovered. Can’t you say the same thing about abortion.
No. See above. Abortion will never be a cause of extinction.
In fact, if your belief is true, shouldn’t we start testing all babies, prior to birth, for any genes that might suggest a propensity for disease or any other weakness ? Then we can slaughter those “weak” babies and use their stem cells to further help the race.
Materialism does not entail a lack of ethics. The eugenic philosophy you speculate a materialist might advocate, I believe, is unethical, especially if instituted by the state. And though I might find the behavior distasteful, I also do not think the state should legislate against such actions if persons feel it is in their interests to pursue such options if available in the market.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at June 23, 2005 09:21 AMJoseph,
It all comes down to the belief of when a human being is a human being.
I guess we disagree on that. Since we only have a two party system, i further guess we’ll never agree.
I see the need for national health care, better education, I’m not too concerned about same sex marraige, I think the environment is an important issue. But I’ll never vote for a candidate that supports the murder of preborn children.
Reproductive choice? Rape is illegal right ?
If a woman gets pregnant and the man doesn’t want her to have his child, can he kill her ?
I know this sounds like “the crazy right winged jesus freaks” or at least that is how we are marginalizd, but the simple fact is… we believe the child is alive at conception and has the same constitutional rights as any other american.
Posted by: James at June 23, 2005 09:45 AMAldous wrote:
Buddhism is the only non-violent religion around.
BZZZT! Sorry, you are wrong. It is a non-violent religion, but it is not the only one around.
Taoism, for example, is also non-violet. It is not the only exception either.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2005 12:58 PMI cant understand why supposedly intelligent people get all twisted out of shape by this nonsense. Religion is baloney. Not Christianity, or Islam, or Mithraism…ALL OF IT! Allowing your life to be run or dictated by a fantasy of some “supreme being” is simply not having the maturity to live without some form of surrogate parent. The brainwashing begins at birth, so by the time one is old enough to think, this nonsense becomes part of the reality structure. And people actually are killing each other over this twaddle. We will never survive as a species unless we learn to relegate religion to the trashpile where it belongs.
Posted by: capn mike at June 23, 2005 01:56 PMcapn mike,
Thanks for a very penetrating look at free speech at it’s best.
Posted by: steve smith at June 23, 2005 04:07 PMSomething I’ve always found interesting about Christians in America:
Why is the only two “moral” (and I just love the way that zealots use this word…) issues in America are abortion and gay marriage? Abortion is, at best, a highly debatable issue, and homosexuality, while it is an enormous preoccupation for American Christians (but seldom for Christiansin other nations….) is mentioned (I believe) twice in the Bible, and fleetingly, at that?
On the other hand, poverty is something mentioned by Jesus time and time again (remember that whole, “what ye do to the least of ye, ye do to me” spiel?), and yet taking care of the poor is something that is almost never mentioned by Christian evangelicals? The amount of people starving and dying of tuberculosis on the streets dwarfs both the number of homosexuals seeking to be wed, and the number of women seeking abortions in this country. Why is poverty not a moral issue? Why are christian right wingers desperately clinging to their wealth, clamoring for more of it, and petulantly demanding that what is theirs, is theirs, trying to lower their taxes, and the like?
So shut up about gays, and shut up about abortion, pay your friggin taxes, and go work at homeless shelters. Jesus never once talked about babies or gay folks. He talked an awful lot about the impoverished… hell, he was one.
Otherwise, I’m guessing your own chances at getting into heaven are about the same as that of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Remember that one, Bible-thumpers?
And for the love of sweet, ever-loving, ruddy-faced baby Jesus, stop equating rape laws with reproductive freedom. It’s insulting to women, and doesn’t lead one to think much of your intelligence.
Posted by: unkind k at June 23, 2005 09:18 PMwe believe the child is alive at conception and has the same constitutional rights as any other american.
Can you tell me the reason why a zygote (the first stage in embryonic development) has more rights than a sperm or ovum? I see why a fetus has to life even if the mother thinks otherwise because it has enough brain devlopment to become a concious human instead of a blob of stem cells that just happen to have human DNA. And besides, the mother had enough time for an abortion before the embryo became a fetus. On a religious note, as a liberal Christian I believe that a human soul inhabbits our brain, therefore the brain must be a prerequesite for any Constitutional Rights. I also think that the best way to limit abortions is more education of teenagers like myself; you can’t even imagine all the myths about sex that are floating about at my school.
I see the need for national health care, better education, I’m not too concerned about same sex marraige, I think the environment is an important issue. But I’ll never vote for a candidate that supports the murder of preborn children.If I ran for office perfectly following the above, except I followed the belief that any human without a brain has not yet obtained the rights of the Constitution and advocated greater education to limit unwanted pregnancies in order to make abortions Safe, Legal and Rare. Would you vote for me? How about if my Republican opponent was in direct disagreement with the first four issues you mentioned? Who would you vote for? Posted by: Warren P at June 23, 2005 09:26 PM
One more thing:
I’d like to request that people refrain from using the term “life” when refering to abortion. Technically life starts as soon as the ovum and sperm are created, they are in fact living cells. If you mean distinct life, independent from the mother’s, please say so instead of just the ambigious term “life”. Thank You all in advance.
Posted by: Warren P at June 23, 2005 09:30 PMI READ ALL THE CONSERVATIVE OPPINIONS N HERE AND I KNOW WHY I CHANGED PARTIES. I WAS PRESIDENT OF OUR REPUBLICAN MENS CLUB THEN I SAW POLITICS AS THEY REALLY WERE AND THEY WEREN’T NICE.THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT ALWAYS HAVE THERE OPPINION OF RIGHT AND WRONG AND THATS GRRRREAT BUT THEN STOP. THE BIBLE I’VE READ DOESN’T ALLOW FOR US TO JUDGE ANYONE PERIOD AND I THINK GOD KNEW SOMETHING WHEN HE TOLD THE AUTHORS OF THE BIBLE TO WRITE IT.WE WILL NEVER KNOW ALL THE VARIBLES IN OTHERS LIFES TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IF THEY ARE WRONG OR RIGHT IN THEY’RE SITUATION. THE SAME PEOPLE THAT TRY TO PUT CHURCH AND STATE TOGETHER WILL ONE DAY TRY TO SEPARTE IT BECAUSE CHRISTIANS MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE THE MAJORITY HERE.I HOPE YOU GUYS ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT. I WILL STOP HERE THANKIS FOR ALLOWING MY VIEWS RANDY
Posted by: randy at June 23, 2005 09:36 PMThe distortions and lack of understanding of the theory of evolution in many of the postings above requires as time-out for some real science presented by a scientist and theologian:
(1) The theory of evolution is supported by the scientific evidence. No scientific evidence exists which contradicts or even suggests any doubt in the theory.
(2) Scientists, by their very nature, are dedicated to scientific evidence. They are not beholden to political or religious idealogy. If new scientific evidence contradicts a heretofore accepted scientific theory, they are the first to shout it from the roof tops.
(3) Repeatability is a methodological requirement in scientific experimental designs. Repeatability is not (and never has been) a methodolological requirement in the observation of natural phenomenon. That being said, evolutionary theory has been confirmed in experiments, both in and out of the scientific laboratory, repeatedly.
(4) The theory of evolution does not deny the existence of a Supreme Being. In fact, the theory supports an understanding of a Supreme Being far more supreme and awe-inspiring than any offered by fundamentalist religionists which is decidely anthropomorphic, exceedingly small, and certainly not very Supreme.
(5) It is helpful to understand the current agenda of the fundamentlist religionists in an historical context: religious fundamentalism has always been invigorated when some persons become fearful in the face of objective knowledge (i.e., science) which they are unable to understand due a lack of education or intellectual sophistication. Consider, the mean (average) level of education in Republican voters in November 2004 was nearly 3 years less than that of Democratic voters. Consider, the nearly all “Red” states have substandard science education curriculums and the least qualified public school science teachers as well as fewer college graduates per capita.
(6) Faith does not depend upon the rejection of science. Rather, science only strengthens faith as the evidence of God’s creation becomes more and more evident is all its beauty and complexities. Faith cannot exist in a black-and-white world view. In fact, a black-and-white world view is contrary to faith. In a black-and-white world, there’s nothing about which to have faith. Rather, faith flourishes where complexities, uncertainity, and the struggle for an understanding of the world around us abounds.
Posted by: pgbach at June 24, 2005 12:25 PMReligion is an albatross around our necks. It always has been. What humans don’t know or can’t explain, have always attributed it to a god, supreme being, “the will of god”. When myths and faiths became institutionalized, it set up a class of people, priests, shamans, etc. as powerful superior people in society. Hense, this class of people, in order to sustain and gain more power, instilled fear and retribution from their god if not believed in, adheard to and followed. Every positive event that happened in society was attributed to that god, and when events went sour they were attributed to non-believers or the failings of believers. Progress in societies were delayed, punished as the works of the devil, science and advancement for the human condition stiffled, “Inquisitions”, burnings at the stake, called heritics and witches. Millions killed in the name of a god. When will we humans who live on ONE PLANET, learn to throw of the yoke of a system that has divided, inhibited growth and mutual understanding, constrained and prohibited human inner growth, strength, and intellect? Hasn’t our human history with religions taught us anything? Any system, with a history of failure, a history of division, hate, mistrust, and death SHOULD BE discarded and thrown into the circular file. We should take credit for our successes and failures in this world. Giving credit to a god, for our success, or accepting a god’s punishment because we failed to follow its teachings, takes away from our own inner strength, intellect, and talents. So here we are, living in a world filled with hate and mistrust. Controlled by Religious zelots from both Christianity and Islam claiming they are on the one true god’s side. Maybe they should ask if THEIR god is on their side?
Posted by: klkmemphis at June 25, 2005 10:39 AM1. It is the far right,the evangelicals, the Christian Coalition, etc.that give everyone a hard time about what is moral and righteous and what is not. Most conservatives/Republicans don’t get wrapped up in that stuff. Unfortunately, the politicians suck up to the right wing as they are a hard working, concerted voting block. I got tired of them a long time ago. I get tired of those who think they know what God thinks. I get tired of those who think God was made in man’s image. I am a long time Republican that gets pretty discouraged with the Party on this matter. If you read the platforms put out by counties and states that are influenced by the right wing, you may find parts of them laughable.
By the way, Aldous 6/22, Buddhism may be a non-violent religion, but its adherents have their share of bad guys.
Posted by: Dee Lee at June 25, 2005 04:26 PMDee Lee, then they are not abiding Buddhists. I am an American Buddhist, which means my pacivism has a limit, and my weapons are loaded. That means I am not an abiding Buddhist, which is painful to admit. It must be just as painful for many to admit they are not abiding Christians which is why so many who should, won’t.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2005 05:11 AMWhat I just don’t “get” is the determination of the religious right folks to let government into their lives. Into their churches. Into their homes. To me, the last thing I’d want is to ally myself with any government, to be beholden to bureaucrats and politicians and lobbyists and the whole of the governmental apparatus for doing something for me. When you get government on your side, you make your religion or practice or your morality something that is subject to a vote, a vote that can be traded, bought or sold, like a salami..
In the words of the country song, “What was I thinking? I can see why politicians, whose whole persona, whose whole existence, whose daily mantra, is “get and keep control,” would like to capture a body of religious people, and keep them blinded to reality through manipulation of religious symbols, but why would a religious people put any trust in these tin-pot Caesars?
Do you not trust God? Must you try to make the world over into some other image — an image foisted on you by power-hungry politicians — without God’s help? And don’t think you have God’s help simply because the politicians you aid are telling you that you do; they are working against God’s will the world over, importing death and fear and famine, for the sake of money and moneyed interests. I say you do not have God’s help when you sup with the devil. Remember, ‘Whatsoever you do unto these, the least of mine, thou doest unto me,” if I have the quote correct.
Again, I ask “WHY?” Are you truly that blind?
Ed
