Democrats & Liberals Archives

PC or Not PC

What is PC? Political Correctness, of course. But really, what is PC? PC is a club with which conservatives attack liberals. Republicans consider liberals to be punching bags. For decades conservatives have been deriding liberals, the ideas of liberals, the literature of liberals, the organizations of liberals, the party of liberals - the Democratic Party. PC is just another weapon with which to destroy liberalism, so conservatives would remain supreme.

Conservatives have successfully painted liberals as the scum of the earth - "atheists," "communists," socialists," and "traitors." Then conservatives went about tarring any newspaper, radio program or TV station that did not conform to their views, as "liberal." Any newspaper person, politician, writer or commentator that presented an independent point of view they did not like, was labeled a "liberal" and therefore to be shunned and abhorred.

So what's next? Conservatives are attacking academia, where there are too many professors that happen to be "liberal." What a horror. Look at all the men and women these nasty professors are seducing into a life of "liberalism"?! Can anything be worse than this? What to do? PC is the answer.

It is liberalism that conservatives do not like, not PC, as this quote from John Ziegler's book, "The Death of Free Speech," shows:

"It is nearly impossible to separate political correctness from liberalism because 'PC' has become a tactic of that dying philosophy to help them 'win' arguments by making it against the 'rules' for the other side to use all of their artillery."

Conservatives do not like what they perceive as PC by liberals. It's Ok, however, for them to use PC of their own. The title of conservative David Horowitz's book is "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Professors in America." What makes these professors dangerous? They do not agree with Horowitz on some issues? They are liberals? They do not conform to Horowitz's PC?

Sure, there is some PC among liberals. But the conservative platform is firmly grounded in PC. The basic idea of conservatism is a respect for tradition, that is, this way is OK and this way is not. Translation: this is PC and this is not PC.

Republicans have adopted PC in a big way - and not just in academia. No matter what liberals say they are not PC because, well.... because they are liberals. Anyone criticizing Bush about the Iraq War is not PC because they are unpatriotic and don't care about the "war on terror." Any media outfit that criticizes our Commander-in-chief is not PC and deserves to be scorned.

Fox News is PC because it is "fair and balanced." The New York Times and the L.A. Times are not PC; for God's sake, they are "liberal newspapers."

PC is another weapon with which to change the world to fit the conservative's image. Democrats indulge in it occasionally. Republicans swear by PC all the time.

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 15, 2006 6:21 PM
Comments
Comment #133691

The PC issue bugs Rpblcns because they are interested in creating and encouraging prejudice, instead of combatting it. Prejudice exists in our society. What people want to do about it says everything about their character. When someone comes at you with negative stereotyping, you must counter it. Silence can be read as acquiesence.

The fair and balanced baloney was refuted by Al Franken in Lies and the Lying Liars, and in a video called Outfoxed. They keep repeating their propaganda points, making dialogue or discussion impossible. Thinking for yourself is not using language as a mechanism of control.

I have notice that this seems to work better below the 37th parallel, a drawback perhaps related to decreased danger of MS.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #133694

I believe it is the far left that does things like this:

This Goes Beyond Being Politcally Correct
The Liberal Christians have been trying for years to make the Bible gender neutral, by making God a He/She or an It, but now a new publisher has gone too far and changed Jesus to a woman - Judith Christ.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44563

That is causing your problem with PC.
Taking God, Xmas, and such out of the public debate. etc. the far left is your problem.

Just like the extreme environmentalist hurt any real environmental causes. like protexting a weed to stop apartments being built on an empty lot. locking a mans tractor up so he cannot farm his land because of a rare rat.

look them up on the web. you will find them

Posted by: Scott at March 15, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #133695

Paul,

You just hit the nail on the head! Especially beginning with the Gingrich crowd we liberals have been painted into a corner which is ridiculous. We “libbys” have many individual ideas, but now we’re painted as having no “unified” idea.

Hells bells! I don’t want my party to have just one limited idea. Anyone in the business world knows that it takes many diverse ideas and opinions to come up with the best solutions. Somehow it’s not PC to have any opinion between right and left.

Joe Biden’s not PC. He made a speech at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum in Austin, Texas on February 23, 2006. The text is here:
http://uniteourstates.com/about/speeches?id=0005

Many liberals might find his ideas too conservative, and vice-versa. Just not PC!

It’s time to replace PC with CC, ‘constituent correctness’! It’s not just the leaders who are at fault it’s the idiots that help them get there. The Repugnicent’s insist that dissent = treason! Nonsense!

I am a Liberal and I’m proud of it! I’m a Moderate Liberal and I’m proud of that! PC be damned!

BTW, it’s not so much that the Democrats have no ideas as it is that you see few of them in the “so called liberal main steam media”.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 15, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #133706
Taking God, Xmas, and such out of the public debate. etc. the far left is your problem.
Just like the extreme environmentalist hurt any real environmental causes. like protexting a weed to stop apartments being built on an empty lot. locking a mans tractor up so he cannot farm his land because of a rare rat.

Why is it Scott that its okay to push prayer in Public Schools as long as you’re not praying to Allah or Buddah?

The Republicans don’t want to build on empty lots thats why they changed the Eminent Domain Laws. Now the Government can take your house, your neighborhood and hand it to a developer to put up a shopping mall. I’d rather save the weed.

There is no such law that prevents a farmer from farming his land to save a rat… but the Republicans don’t mind destroying a few million acres of old growth forest and destroying hundreds of species of birds and animals.

“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.” Mark Twain.

Posted by: Pat at March 15, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #133711

Scott,

Correct me if I’m wrong. The first line of your link say’s:
“A publisher is touting a new edition of the Gospels that identifies Christ as a woman named Judith Christ of Nazareth.”

Exactly who is “A publisher”? I’d like to read more of his work. Oh, and also more of the works of: “Billie Shakespeare, vice president for the publisher”

Thanks in advance,
Haywood Jeblome

Posted by: KansasDem at March 15, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #133723

Paul, well said.
And of course, you’re absolutely right.

Kansas Dem:
:^) Your post just gave me a belly-laugh. Thanks!

Posted by: Adrienne at March 15, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #133725

“The Liberal Christians have been trying for years to make the Bible gender neutral, by making God a He/She or an It” So, in other words, your god has a penis?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at March 15, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #133732

Nutty,

Yes, He does have a penis. “In the image of God created He HIM.”

Pat,

I would venture to say that you probably don’t care for Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or the late William H. Renquist.
It’s probably safe to say that you admire David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens. Guess who decided for imminent domain? Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy.(all Roe v Wade supporters, by the way.)The evil right wing racist, big brother bigots Scalia, Thomas, and Renquist, along with Sandra Day O’Connor were in dissent. Don’t try to frame imminent domain abuse as a conservative issue, because this decision has been called a liberal decision by people on all sides of the political spectrum.

Posted by: Duano at March 15, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #133734

///
Pat, Eminent Domain is being used where I live to put up condos as well. The municipality where I live bought up property valued at 6 million $ and GAVE it to a developer to build condos and a shooping center.

I started reading the new Anne Rice book about Jesus, and kept waiting for him to turn into a vampire, but someone told me she got religious, and it was not going to happen. I will probably read it later. Apparently she is going to do a series of religious books, instead of Porn, Vampires, and Witches.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #133735

So your god has a penis, which is a physical quality, or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spiritwhich means he/she lives in the physical world, has a physical body?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at March 15, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #133740

Kansas:

I think I put a link right below it. And just google it.

Pat
“Why is it Scott that its okay to push prayer in Public Schools as long as you’re not praying to Allah or Buddah?”
Who said that? I didn’t!

“There is no such law that prevents a farmer from farming his land to save a rat…”

Happened in Bakersfield- Google it!

“The Republicans don’t want to build on empty lots thats why they changed the Eminent Domain Laws.”

Starting with the supreme court- then on to around the country to find out who is behind this!
Google it!

“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.” Mark Twain.

Posted by: scott at March 15, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #133755

Paul

You are probably responding to my post on the other side. If so, you are misunderstanding it. I never say that the liberal (I don’t even use the word) professors will trick or seduce good people. My point is that PC is making universities (which are one of our most important assets) less relevant.

I will say again that I support people saying whatever they want short of incitement to violence or the classic yelling fire in a crowded theater. I firmly believe that we can’t understand the truth unless ideas are freely discussed. But when you say something, you have to expect some people won’t listen and others will ridicule you and some will call you names.

It is ironic that we hear so much from people who claim they are being silenced. Some people think their free speech means others have to listen. This is not true.

A major problem with academia is not liberalness but cravenness. They try so hard not to offend everyone and to celebrate every experience of every ethnic, gender and religious group, on matter how silly or improbable the claim.

A general rule should be that we should trust but verify everything and never respect anything until we have checked it out. But this is not encouraged anymore if you can trump up a victim group.

Let me give one example. I have heard and read over and over that white settlers spread smallpox by giving Indians infected blankets. People who study bioweapons say that smallpox is not an ideal bioweapon because it requires a living human host to pass (i.e. can’t be passed in a blanket) So what does that say about the common story?

Posted by: Jack at March 15, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #133758

Nutty,

Yes, He has a physical body. “HIS HEAD AND HIS HAIRS WERE WHITE LIKE WOOL, AS WHITE AS SNOW. HIS EYES WERE AS A FLAME OF FIRE. HE WAS CLOTHED TO THE FOOT WITH A HEAVENLY GARMENT, AND GIRT ABOUT THE PAPS WITH A GOLDEN GIRDLE” These seem like the traits of a physical body.

Posted by: Duano at March 15, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #133762

Kansas….here is the link you asked earlier for..
Kansas……here is the link you asked for…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44563…. and it was published by the “Leo Beck Institute for the study of the history & culture of German-speaking Jews.”

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 15, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #133765

>>“HIS HEAD AND HIS HAIRS WERE WHITE LIKE WOOL, AS WHITE AS SNOW. HIS EYES WERE AS A FLAME OF FIRE. HE WAS CLOTHED TO THE FOOT WITH A HEAVENLY GARMENT, AND GIRT ABOUT THE PAPS WITH A GOLDEN GIRDLE” These seem like the traits of a physical body.

Posted by: Duano at March 15, 2006 10:49 PM

Duano,

It also sounds like someone marching in a GAY parade…maybe God is a homosexual?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 15, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #133766

WOW! So the Bible should be interpreted literally? Everything inside is factual? Hmmm. I’ll stick with my original thought, WOW!

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at March 15, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #133767

Marysdude

I don’t care who you are. That’s funny.

Now I will have that picture in my mind whenever I think of the subject.

Posted by: Jack at March 15, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #133772

>>I don’t care who you are. That’s funny.

Jack,

I don’t care who I am either…thanks for the left handed compliment.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 15, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #133773

Marysdude

I can’t give a left handed compliment, since I have only a right hand and a far right hand.

It is really a funny image. I can picture a couple dozen such guys marching down the road.

Posted by: Jack at March 15, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #133774

Okay, I’m not trying to be difficult, it’s just that this stuff is confusing to me. God has a physical body; if I give you that it only leaves me a few more questions, where does God live? Does he have to eat and breath? A physical body that takes in fuel must rid itself of waste, does that explain the Bush Administration?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at March 15, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #133776

news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060314/cm_usatoday/theliberalbabybust

Jack,

You’ve been worrying way too much about ‘liberal’ collegians, etc. Read this post, and you’ll see you can relax for a millinium or so. Maybe by then us ‘intellectuals will have started breeding again…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 15, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #133777

GOD is the 1st lawgiver and the only one that matters.!!!!!!!!!Morality comes from GOD not man!!!!Jer 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.


Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phi 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Phi 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Phi 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
GOD IS!and One day all who ever lived will admit it but for those who did not believe while they were alive will be sorry forever.MORALITY comes from GOD not man.That is why man can’t get it right!!!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at March 15, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #133778

>>A physical body that takes in fuel must rid itself of waste, does that explain the Bush Administration?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at March 15, 2006 11:43 PM

Nutty,

Now THAT’s FUNNY! Yours is a lot funnier than mine. This post has turned into Comedy Central…wonder if they’d take on a few new writers???

Posted by: Marysdude at March 15, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #133781

>>MORALITY comes from GOD not man

RDAVIDC,

Nope, wrong again. Morality has zero to do with God or religion or Christianity or Isalm or Judisam or any other outside influence. Morality comes from within an individual and is only influenced by these things, as well as life’s experiences, expectations of others and good old common sense.

I’m an athiest and will compare my morality with anyone I’ve come in contact with in sixty-six years.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 15, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #133788

“GOD IS!and One day all who ever lived will admit it but for those who did not believe while they were alive will be sorry forever.MORALITY comes from GOD not man.That is why man can’t get it right!!!”

Yeah but, where does he live? If you say, “in the hearts of true believers,” that means they have a white man with dreads crushing his penis with a golden girdle living inside them?

And my wife tells me to get my Ph.D. in theology. This stuff just confuse me.

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at March 16, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #133794

Marysdude…you’re right….about the last few things you said on here , and others in general. Jack….gotta admit, you even made me smile tonight. Just maybe…there is hope…
Goodnight all…hopefully that golded girdle won’t invade my dreams !!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 16, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #133795

OOOps…..that would be goldeN….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 16, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #133813

Paul & Jack,
The problem that the Democrats and Republicans both face is their inability to take a Debate on an Issue to the point where the words that are spoken is Politically Unalienable Correct (PUC). Not perfect, but based on what We the People know to be Right by the Common Knowledge of the Day.

Yes, I remember well why both political parties had to learn and understand why you must be “Politically Correct” in the way you approach a Issue. And just as many Americans had to teach Our Parents Right from Wrong based on a more open Society, the time is ripe for a Demo-Publican Party to take a political stand splitting the two so Americans can put this Country back on the Right Track.

So like it or not the Youth of America is going to have to learn and understand why “We the People” want to PUC the World or face the fact that America is no better than any other Nation of Humanity and We All Know that is Wrong by Nature.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 16, 2006 3:23 AM
Comment #133818

Nutty little nut nut, ROFLMAO, That’s awesome and what size shoe does he wear??—ten bucks says it’s in the Bible somewhere.

“The lord weareth a size eleven in a half loafer and he shall smite ye Philistines with it, thus sayeth the Lord.” Pissed Hebrews 7:11

Real bad idea to talk religion on a liberal thread.

Posted by: Translator at March 16, 2006 4:33 AM
Comment #133819

“Our lord has very little feet but big hands for smiting!!!! And he loves to smite!”

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2006 4:38 AM
Comment #133821

“Republicans consider liberals to be punching bags. For decades conservatives have been deriding liberals, the ideas of liberals, the literature of liberals, the organizations of liberals, the party of liberals - the Democratic Party.”

Yes, and liberals are much different. They simply consider conservatives to be fist receptacles. And not for decades but rather just multiple 10 year periods have they been deriding conservatives, the literature of conservatives, the organization of conservatives - the Republican Party.

Paul, I’m glad we’ve finally squared away all of those differences.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 16, 2006 5:18 AM
Comment #133825

“Real bad idea to talk religion on a liberal thread”

Yes, I think I’ll just let liberals talk so confidently about their detailed knowledge of an Almighty. Or, more likely, I’ll let them talk about their distinct and unassailable knowledge that no God exists whatsoever.

You wouldn’t call it “faith” if God was as tangible as concrete.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 16, 2006 5:40 AM
Comment #133827

Ken C,

If God was concrete that would be awesome, but would he wear the golden girdle around his paps? If so that would be a God I’d fear, honestly. Let’s hope he outlaws “fist receptacles” as they truly are an abomination before the Lord.

Why in the Bible didn’t God say that time archs light due to gravitational pull?

Posted by: Tanslator at March 16, 2006 6:13 AM
Comment #133830

Translator,

Why does light exibit partical and wave properties? I’ve read some where that light could be a vibration from the 10th or 20th dimension (I’m not sure why those two). Maybe that is where God is? And light is a vibration of his word (“Let there be light”).

Posted by: JimmyRay at March 16, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #133831

Paul:

Political correctness is neither liberal nor conservative in nature. It can be practiced by anyone and everyone. But when we see it, we generally know how stupid it is.

Here is perhaps the perfect example of Political correctness (there are so many to choose from, but this is my personal favorite).

[Wilmington, North Carolina]
“Last week, teacher Stephanie Bell said she used the word “niggardly,” which means stingy or miserly, during a discussion about literary characters. But parent Akwana Walker, who is black, protested the use of the word, saying it offended her because it sounds similar to a racial slur…Tannis Nelson, president of the N.C. Parent-Teacher Association and a New Hanover County resident, … added that this incident shows the need for effective diversity and sensitivity training throughout the school system. “Incidents such as this can polarize the community,” Mrs. Nelson said. “We can’t allow that to happen. This can be captured as a teachable moment, and we can learn from it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm

http://www.adversity.net/special/niggardly_again.htm

To be unable to use a word simply because others might misunderstand it is the height of political correctness. I can only thank God that I am not from the country of Niger, that I don’t comment on Firetrucks, and that I don’t know any poison ivy covered Satanists (itchy witches). I do however spread joy liberally—I wonder how much trouble I’ll get in for THAT.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 16, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #133838

Render to God what belongs to God
( Soal and Deeds)
Render to Cesar what belongs to Cesar
( Money and Property)

Jesus himself said to keep
Religion and Politics seperate.

History has shown the mixing of
the two is damaging to both.
It has proven to be the downfall
of nations.

Beware the scribes which desire to
walk in long robes, and love greetings
in the markets,and the highest seats
in the churches ,and the chief rooms
at feast. They devour widows houses
and for wealth make long prayers
they shall recieve greater damnation.

This sums up the Religious Right.

Keep church and state seperate.

Posted by: Honey P at March 16, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #133839

As far as PC verses truth.
Perhaps the term PC does not apply.
I prefer the term Spin forth Lies.
This can be brought to light if
any Person not in alinement with
the GOP media begins every interview
with (We know you support a one party no choice America)
(Well we know who pays you.)
(We know what side you are required to
back to get your check.)( We know you
report right wing and so my opinions
will be twisted) OR THE SINGLE STATEMENT.
I have no comment so you have no spin.
The right wing media has effectavly
made opposing opinions look weak.
If forced to cover only Right people
they soon will have little ammo left.
Forceing them to become the transparent
propaganda machine they are.

Posted by: Honey P at March 16, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #133844

Joe,

“I do however spread joy liberally”

Where can I get a jar of that?

What kind of bread is it best on?

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #133846

I concider myself a spitiral person, and there are certain things that we should and should not do for just man kind in gerneral, but I think most people are taking religion too far. Especially when trying to run the government.

We founded the nation with the idea of church and state seperate, but somehow over the past six years or so this nation has become a church based state, and look where we are now, name one good thing going on in our world. Religion in the govenment seems to take the logic and reason out and replace it with beliefs. I am not saying take religion away from people, I think religion is good, it gives something for people to believe in, and that is great and needed. But I do not think that it has a place in the government, there are too many people with different ideas and beliefs, and it will just cause us to go to war for different ideas, (ohh-wait, we are)

Posted by: Jason at March 16, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #133849

I will pray for all those who have blasphemed the name of the Almighty on this thread. May He have mercy on your souls. Everything in the Chronicles of Gilgamesh from ancient Sumeria is taken as fact. Egyptian heiroglyphs are taken as historical documents. The writings of Jewish historian Josephus are taken as factual. Why is the Bible, an ancient document compiled from historians throughout millenia, always seen as a book of fairy tales? I saw something on the Discovery Channel a while back that says that all humans descended from a single man after a global catastrophe. Ever heard of Noah? THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART “THERE IS NO GOD” God exists. He doesn’t need liberals to believe in Him for that fact to remain. Can anyone explain what caused the “big bang”? God can. Can anyone explain how there could be no time, no space, no matter? God can. Everything you have said on this thread to defame the Eternal One will be used against you in the court of the True Law. Morality doesn’t come from people. The morality that atheists have still came from God. Weather or not you believe in God, you will bow before Him and declare Him King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I hope you have changed your tune by then. Just one more thing, would you say the things about Allah to a Muslim that you have said about the Christian God on here? I guess PC only works for Religions that behead you if you criticise it.

Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #133852

Duano,

“Why is the Bible, an ancient document compiled from historians throughout millenia, always seen as a book of fairy tales?”

Gee, let me think……

That wouldn’t be because there are too many fingers making too many translations, would it?

Or could it be that those that had the translations made had too much to gain by having those translations say what they wanted?

Or could it be that there are thousands of versions and few of them say the same thing?

Or could it be that unlike the hieroglyphs, there is no original?

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #133854

“somehow over the past six years or so this nation has become a church based state”

Care to share some examples of this?

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #133856

Duano,

Onward Christian soldiers
Marching as to war
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before….

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 16, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #133857

Rocky,

There is an original. It’s called the Jewish Torah. The Dead Sea Scrolls are also with us, and they don’t deviate from the translation of th King James Version of the Bible. I only read the KJV because it is a strict translation from language to language. All other have attempts at interpretations in them, which have changed the meaning of the original texts. Do you honestly believe that the writers of the other ancient documents had no agenda whatsoever, besides writing history for posterity?

Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #133858

Duano,

“There is an original. It’s called the Jewish Torah. The Dead Sea Scrolls are also with us, and they don’t deviate from the translation of th King James Version of the Bible.”

So you totally discount the New Testament?

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #133859

Oh, and BTW,

Just so I get this straight.

We’re talking about the Torah that was translated from Hebrew to Greek, then to Latin, then to Olde English, then to new English?

Wow, there’s no way that no mistakes were made there right?

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #133863

Rocky:

Joe,

>“I do however spread joy liberally”

Where can I get a jar of that? What kind of bread is it best on?

Sometimes it is best served on when eating crow.

So you totally discount the New Testament?

You made this comment to Duano, in response to his assertion that the Dead Sea scrolls are an ‘original’ copy of the Bible. You are correct that the scrolls do not contain the New Testament, yet they are an extremely important link nonetheless.

Since the Old Testament continually refers to what will come about (that which is written about int the New Testament), and the Dead Sea scrolls are a historical proof regarding the Old Testament, wouldn’t logic continue that the scrolls are important in confirming the New Testament as well?

When subjected to the historical and literary proofs as other manuscripts, the Bible does very well. Whether people have faith in Christ as a result is a very different thing. Proof, evidence and history will take you only 99 steps out of 100 on the ladder towards belief in Christ. The last step—-the true blind step off the ladder knowing that you will step onto solid roof or land—-requires faith.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 16, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #133865

Joe,

Yet the Hebrews only accept Christ as a prophet, not the “Son of God”.
Also if the Jews are considered God’s chosen people, what difference does the New Testament make at all, and what does that say for Christianity?

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #133867

Duano:

I firmly believe that God has a sense of humor, just look around!

Posted by: womanmarine at March 16, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #133870

Duano, RDAVIDC and others,

would it surprise you to know that Genesis was handed down orally for several thousand years? How about the fact that most Jewish denominations do not treat it as literal story of creation, but rather as an allegory of humankind’s condition and of the awareness that distinguishes us from animals.

Many Jewish scholars reject a literal interpretation of Genesis because it presents a story of a God who is a trickster, which is an unacceptable interpretation.

And you can’t translate the Torah literally, specifially because ancient Hebrew has no vowels. There are many passages where a misinterpreted vowel changes the meaning.

Without a literal interpretation of Genesis, original sin isn’t possible, so we immediately run into some real defensiveness at the highest ecclesiastical levels.

And this is a Catholic writing here (all the way through my Jesuit law school education).

Anyway, I have found it quite difficult to reconcile evangelical Christians’ literal reading of the English translation of ancient Hebrew texts, especially since most Jews say that the stories are not meant to be read literally.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 16, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #133873

CPAdams,

I was raised a Catholic, and was taught by Fransiscan nuns, and Holy Ghost fathers.
I haven’t been a practicing Catholic since I started asking questions that couldn’t be answered by anything but “faith”.

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #133875

My last comments don’t even get into the issue of bias in the various translations of the bible, as discussed here or here or here.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 16, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #133876

Whoa. God’s got a penis? And here I always thought he had a burning bush…

Sorry, couldn’t resist!

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #133878

(crickets chirping)

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #133881

Rocky,

I hear you. Anyway, I don’t expect a response from the Christian right because my commentary marks me as apostate.

The notion that anyone other than God is divine is basic ten commandments idolatry(which was why Jews could not accept Jesus as God incarnate). But when he preached, it wasn’t an issue. It wasn’t until the 6th century under Constantine that Jesus was discussed as divine and immortal.

Anyway, more reasons why my posts will lead mostly to silence or scathing attacks.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 16, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #133882

Did Moses part the Red Sea or the Reed Sea? An example of misinterpretation.

Commentary

The “Red Sea” by which Moses led Israelites on their exodus from Egypt was not the body of water now called the Red Sea. The Hebrew word is Yam Suph, meaning “Sea of Reeds.” It is now believed that the Sea of Reeds “was perhaps located at the S extension of the present Lake Mensaleh.” (The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962, page 21)

G. Ernest Wright (Biblical Archeology, Abridged Edition, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960, page 38) writes,

…They chose ‘the way of the wilderness by the Reed Sea’ (Ex.13.18) This, and not ‘Red Sea’, is the correct rendering of the Hebrew Yam Suph, and it is highly improbable that we should identify it with the northern arm of the Red Sea known today as the Gulf of Suez. In the first place there are no reeds in the Red Sea. in the second place the biblical account implies that the Reed Sea was the barrier between Egyptian soil and the desert: if the Red Sea were meant, it would have been necessary to cross a considerable traact of desert to get to it. In a text describing the wonders of Rameses-Tanis, however, mention is made of a ‘Papyrus Marsh’ near the city, a name which immediately recalls the biblical ‘Reed Sea’. Thus the crossing was made not far from Rameses. This is confirmed by the identification of Baal-zephon (Ex.14.2) with Tahpanhes, the modern Tell Defneh, in the same region, on the basis of a Phoenician letter which mentions the god ‘Ball-zephon and all the gods of Tahpanhes’. The reference in the account of Exodus willl be to the town which contains the temple of this god.

A footnote in The Harper Collins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version: with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (edited by Wayne A. Meeks and the Society of Biblical Literature, New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1993, page 96) states:

Red Sea, the “Sea of Reeds,” possibly one of the lagoons along the Mediterranean coast of the Sinai Peninsula;… Few of the geographical sites in the Exodus narrative can be identified, and it is possible the Red Sea is meant; although it is unrealistic here, it may have been adopted to present a later Israelite audience with a well-known body of water.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 16, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #133886

Rocky:
(crickets chirping)

:^0

One day God said to Adam, “I have some good news and some bad news. What do you want to hear first?”

Adam says, “Give me the good news first.”

God told him, “Well, I’ve given you a penis and a brain. From these you’ll derive great pleasure and intellect.”

Adam replies, “Fantastic! But what’s the bad news?”

God says, “I’ve given you only enough blood to work one at a time.”

:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #133890

CPAdams,

Facts require logic, faith requires, well… faith.

Religious discussion is an emotional, not logical, discussion.

Virtually every Christian sect belives it is the one true sect, and those that don’t belive are doomed to hell.

So much for logic.

Adrienne,

Glad you liked it.

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #133893

Rocky:

“Adrienne,
Glad you liked it.”

Aww! (shuffles away dejectedly)

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #133895

Adrienne,

Sorry.

(it’s an old joke).

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #133896

Sorry, Rocky. I know it was wasted and unnecessary, but I couldn’t help myself.

Faith requires that you never question who is telling you to have faith and what their motives are.

Adrienne, you are very funny! Thanks for keeping this one light.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 16, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #133899

CPAdams,

Constantine and the Council at Nicea took place in the 3rd century. Constantine was long dead in the 6th. St. Paul said, in the FIRST century: BEWARE LEST ANY MAN SPOIL YOU THROUGH PHILOSOPHY AND VAIN DECEIT, AFTER THE TRADITION OF MEN, AFTER THE RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST. FOR IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. Sounds pretty divine to me.

Regarding the Jewish people as chosen: BRING FORTH THEREFORE FRUITS WORTHY OF REPENTANCE, AND BEGIN NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, WE HAVE ABRAHAM TO OUR FATHER:FOR I SAY UNTO YOU GOD IS ABLE OF THESE STONES TO RAISE UP CHILDREN TO ABRAHAM.

All of you have made my day today BLESSED ARE YE, WHEN MEN SHALL REVILE YOU, AND PERSECUTE YOU, AND SAY ALL MANNER OF EVIL AGAINST YOU FALSELY, FOR MY SAKE. REJOICE, AND BE EXCEEDING GLAD: FOR GREAT IS YOUR REWARD IN HEAVEN:FOR SO PERSECUTED THEY THE PROPHETS WHICH WERE BEFORE YOU.

The King of the Universe, Jesus, loves everyone who reads this. I usually don’t wear my religion on my sleeve, but if I don’t tell you the truth, God will ask me to account for your life. My job here is done. It’s up to you to decide. CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE.

I’m done with this conversation. AND WHOSOEVER SHALL NOT RECEIVE YOU, NOR HEAR YOUR WORDS, WHEN YE DEPART OUT OF THAT HOUSE OR CITY, SHAKE OFF THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, IT SHALL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR THE LAND OF SODOM AND GOMORRHA IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT THAN FOR THAT CITY.

Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #133900

Adrienne,

I gotta admit, that’s pretty funny. LOL

Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #133901

Duano,

“St. Paul said, in the FIRST century: BEWARE LEST ANY MAN SPOIL YOU THROUGH PHILOSOPHY AND VAIN DECEIT, AFTER THE TRADITION OF MEN, AFTER THE RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST. FOR IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. Sounds pretty divine to me.”

So what you’re yelling is, “beware of any man that is capable of rational, logical thought, that might require you to provide proof, that doesn’t take anything at face value?”.

Please, you’re entitled to your opinion and your beliefs, but this not the place for prostelization.


Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #133925

I don’t know about being politically correct, but I can talk about someone being incorrect politically…I just returned from the mailbox with a mailer from the RNC (Jacks’ emplyer?), and the header on the mailer reads…“Winning the War on Terror”’ “Securing our Borders”’ “Growing the Economy”, “Restraining Government Spending” . And goes on to solicit votes for the right in the upcoming elections.

How could they be so wrong and still be on the far right?

1. They sent this thing to a staunch Democrat…

2. The so called War on Terror is far from being won, and is not even winnable…

3. Our borders are more open now than ever before…

4.Our economy is not good now (Jack?) and is ready for the big slide…

5. AN unrestrained Republican government has just voted us an additional 30,000 dollars per citizen into debt…

Who ARE these people?????????????

Posted by: Marysdude at March 16, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #133931

Is God white? How big is his penis and how much time does the right wing spend contemplating it? Does that explain the homophobia of the right?Did god use his devine phallus to impregnate Mary? If so how could the claim of virginity be supported?OH,so many mysteries to ponder.

Posted by: BillS at March 16, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #133938

CPAdams:

Faith requires that you never question who is telling you to have faith and what their motives are.

That’s a bit more cynical view of faith than I have. There can be blind faith, and there can be faith that is ‘earned’, in a manner of speaking.

I jhave faith that my wife does not cheat on our marriage. You could show me all sorts of incriminating ‘evidence’ of her cheating, and I would not believe it. You see, I have faith in her. Part of that faith is because I know her character, and part is that I’ve seen evidence through our marriage of her character. (On the lighter side, how could she possibly find someone better than me anyway, and she’s smart enough not to bother trying…)

I have faith in Christ as well. I’ve seen enough historical evidence, as well as evidence in my own life to cement that faith. Some things that I’d call evidence, you might call coincidence. I understand that. This is not to say that I understand everything or know everything. But I have faith that I’m right on the big picture of Christianity.

The real deal is that someday we’ll all know the truth. Since I believe that the road diverges into Heaven or Hell, I hope for the high road for all, though unfortunately I know it won’t happen.

We’re all free to believe what we wish. I’d hope that people’s desire for tolerance would cause them to allow me to believe as I do without mocking my beliefs. This too, unfortunately, I know won’t happen.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 16, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #133951

jbod,

I was talking about blind faith in response to what I consider valid questions of established dogma. I do have problems with “blind leading the blind” faith.

I was raised in Catholicism, so I believe I earned the right to question Christian dogma, particularly when it contradicts itself or when it is offered as a defense to a position.

That said, my faith is between God and me, unless I use it support a position, in which case it is open for debate.

jbod,

I know for a fact I have no historical knowledge of Jesus. I have my own history and what the experiences mean for my faith and the interpretations I have given to them, but that is all.

Your lamentations that I am bound for damnation are a bit condescending. For me, I am not satisfied that God is Paul’s God or Muhammad’s God.

Here were my points:

- their are many translations of Torah and New Testament whose correctness theologians have argued about for millenia
- as Christians we have reinterpreted Jewish religious texts for our own benefit, against their meaning to Jews (this irritates me)
- the literal interpretation of the Bible is quite difficult because of the many conflicting versions
- I struggle with many evangelical, literal readings of the Bible in light of my points above, especially with meaning ascribed to Torah in contradiction to Jewish thought.
- I have the same problem with Muslim misinterpretation of Christian themes (not mentioned in previous posts, but I thought I’d add it here)
- people misinterpreted God’s word

Those are my thoughts. Hope they weren’t insulting. I think they weren’t meant to be, but as I re-read my points, I guess it might be difficult to discuss beliefs without offending someone.

Why don’t we get back to something easy - like politics?

Posted by: CPAdams at March 16, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #133953

Rocky:

Facts require logic, faith requires, well… faith.

Facts don’t really require logic at all. Putting facts together so that you can reach a conclusion takes logic, though. Its interesting that two people can look at the same group of facts, and logically come to different conclusions. That shows that facts and logic alone don’t always bring about the correct answer .

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 16, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #133956

OH,so many mysteries to ponder. Posted by: BillS at March 16, 2006 03:23 PM

Good line. It looks like some religious group has targeted this site for spamming. I found out about watchblog because Rpblcns were trying to organize a boycott of the site, claiming the moderators were against them.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
A.Sorkin, TWWS4ep19

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #133957

Marysdude

I get solicitations from Howard Dean and even Teddy Kennedy. They go after the demographics.

Re RNC - I give money to them and to Republican candidates. That is it. The flow is in that direction only. Actually, I don’t think they have much of a staff. If they would be willing to pay me a decent salary, I would be happy, but I got no offers from anybody. (I am not sure I would hire me either)

Re your points.

The war on terror is not winnable in the sense of an ordinary war. Terrorism is like piracy or an infestation of roaches. You can control it and if you don’t it will get worse, but you can’t get rid of it.

Borders are less open than they used to be, but they are still very open. We don’t have the political will to close them on either the left or the right.

Our economy is good. I am reasonably certain it will remain good for at least another year. Predicting accurately farther out is not empirically possible. We have a big challenge of entitlements and Federal spending is too high. Otherwise the prognosis is good.

We are spending too much. But the only people who want to make cuts are the Republican conservatives. The Dems are not lining up to cut anything except defense. That is the big cut of the 1990s when the world seemed safer.

Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #133969

>>We are spending too much. But the only people who want to make cuts are the Republican conservatives. The Dems are not lining up to cut anything except defense. That is the big cut of the 1990s when the world seemed safer.


Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2006 04:35 PM

No, Jack, Republicans are not after cutting the budget or it would get done. Remember, it’s the Repbubs who have the votes and the power and the bully pulpit. All the Republicans want to cut are taxes on the rich, which has been done and will be done again because Cheney/Bush wants it so.

Of course that will again raise the debt…oh well, I guess a hundred years of paying off debt to the Chinese at twenty percent is a good conservative thing to do.

Okay, mea culpa, you may NOT be on the payroll…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 16, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #133971

And I was always brought up with the notion that god was a beneficent and kindly god.
He doesn’t smite anyone.

Posted by: jack p at March 16, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #133985

>>And I was always brought up with the notion that god was a beneficent and kindly god.
He doesn’t smite anyone.

Posted by: jack p at March 16, 2006 05:10 PM

jack p,

Your God is beneficent, My God does not exist, and RDAVIDC’s and Duano’s smite almost everyone. I wonder which of us ,if anyone, is right…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 16, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #133989

Hey,
Forget God’s penis, whether he smites or doesn’t smite, and that sassy “golden girdle” of his (though I know that’s hard to do).
Here is some news:
32 Congressmen are calling for a committee to probe whether or not Bush committed impeachable offenses in leading the United States into war with Iraq.

Copy of the resolution: H. RES. 635

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #133993

Adrienne, loved the burning bush joke. Please oh please, why can’t it be a burning Bush?
And Duano, nice of you to give Ade her props for the good joke. Seriously, that was nice of you. I was pleasantly surprised.

Posted by: ray at March 16, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #133997

I was talking about the second joke. As for the burning bush joke, (crickets chirping)

Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #133999

Duano,

“All of you have made my day today BLESSED ARE YE, WHEN MEN SHALL REVILE YOU, AND PERSECUTE YOU, AND SAY ALL MANNER OF EVIL AGAINST YOU FALSELY, FOR MY SAKE. REJOICE, AND BE EXCEEDING GLAD: FOR GREAT IS YOUR REWARD IN HEAVEN:FOR SO PERSECUTED THEY THE PROPHETS WHICH WERE BEFORE YOU.”

Please feel free to point out how you have been persecuted here.

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #134001

>>I only read the KJV because it is a strict translation from language to language.
Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 10:48 AM

Duano,

Wrong again! Think about this for a minute…King James VERSION of the Bible. Please look up the word, Version, and repeat after me…my Bible is a BOOK, my Bible is a translation of a BOOK, my Bible is a version of a BOOK that a king could not understand and asked that a VERSION be prepared that he could comprehend, my Bible is a BOOK that has been translated, revised and bastardized until it barely resembles anything that was originally written by a bunch of old Jews.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 16, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #134005

Duano,

I forgot to use the word, compiled. The Bible isn’t even a BOOK, it is a compilation of several BOOKS, and each one has been revised and translated several times. Plus, just to add a little confusion to this issue, several chapters/books/verses of the original writings have been left completely out…what did you say about the infallibility of God’s word as written?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 16, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #134008

Oh yea - Well my God has bigger feet than your God. (And ya know what that means… whah whah whah)

OK, if God is physical, does he have a belly button? Where’d him/her get it from? If not, why do we have one?

Posted by: tony at March 16, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #134009

ray,
Glad you liked my joke (you too, Duano).

But what do you think about a committee to impeach the president for lying us into the Iraq war (and possibly also for illegally wiretapping American citizens)?
How much you wanna bet none of the Bushies will say “Bring it On” to that!

Okay, back to God’s penis…

Why would He have one?
Does it… uh… you know, work?
If He does have one, and He can make it work, wouldn’t that mean their is an equally powerful female Goddess with whom he might consort?

As BillS said, so many mysteries to ponder…

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #134010

tony:
“OK, if God is physical, does he have a belly button?”

Good question. I couldn’t begin to guess.
But if he’s got a penis, I’ve got a hunch that He’s also got a twinkle in his eye!

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #134020

>>But if he’s got a penis, I’ve got a hunch that He’s also got a twinkle in his eye!

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 09:12 PM

Twinkle eyes…twinkle toes…now we’re back to the gay parade…with the pappies girdled.

Adrienne, is there a suggestion or link for helping push the impeachment movement?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 16, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #134023

///
OMG, King James version of the bible. The KJV is 80 percent William Tyndale, executed about 1536, which is why much of the language is so archaic. It was considered unacceptable by the puritans at the time, who continued to use the Geneva bible for generations. BTW, for all the bible thumping religious hypocrites out there, King James was gay. Francis Bacon, who was a pedophile, was the most significant member of the translation commision.

And the topic is what? PC or not PC?

King James received a large pension from Queen Elizabeth. Her second largest pension went to Stanhope, who ran the whole post office. Her third largest pension went to Edward De Vere, 17th earl of Oxford, who did not do anything at all, except writing some plays. The Earl of Southampton, patron of Shakespeare, was in prison in 1603, but King James released him, only to arrest him again in 1604 on the day that the Earl of Oxford died. The publication of the first Folio of Shakespeare is dedicated to the heads of the families of Oxfords children, who probably paid for its publication.

We can write about anything, right.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #134024

So much for intelligent, value added conversation.

BTW the KJV was translated from Hebrew to English(OT) Greek to English(NT) “Translated out of the original tongues”

Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #134026

And good luck getting a Republican Congress to impeach a Republican President.

Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #134030

Marysdude:
“with the pappies girdled.”

Yeah, aren’t “pappies” kinda high up on a man for Him to be sporting a “girdle” around them? I mean, wouldn’t that be an awful lot like wearing a golden bra then?
Oh well, I guess there’s just no accounting for Divine taste! ;^)

“Adrienne, is there a suggestion or link for helping push the impeachment movement?”

I don’t know of any yet, but I’ll keep you posted if I hear of one. In the meantime, you can sign Feingold’s petition to censure the president here.


Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #134032

Guys, forget the censure. Feingold doesn’t play nice with anyone in his party and he’s a loose cannon. The censure and impeachment debate is waking up the right. Let’s forget the symbolic gestures and work on getting some power back!

Only president censured - Andrew Jackson

yep, that made a world of difference.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 16, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #134034

CP:
“Let’s forget the symbolic gestures and work on getting some power back!”

I know what you’re saying, and I agree we need to focus… But don’t you think that maybe these symbolic gestures might be the very things that’ll get the word out?
Let’s face it, liberals have enough trouble bringing our issues to the attention of the public, and so, these gestures are one way to convey our overwhelming dissatisfaction with the presidents “leadership”.
Just a thought.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #134037

Btw CP, I think I should also comment on this statement you made:
“Feingold doesn’t play nice with anyone in his party and he’s a loose cannon.”

I really couldn’t dissagree more. I think Feingold’s demeanor and attitude is exactly what has been sorely missing among the Democratic Senators in Congress. Take a look at his press briefing on the Bush Censure — I think you’ll see and hear exactly what I’m talking about.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #134038

///
translated out of the original tongues by William Tyndale for his 1534 version. The Geneva bible corrected this version in 1557, but King James liked the older version better, which is most of what was authorized in 1611. The thees and thous were already obsolete, and would not have been translated that way after 1600.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #134041

Adrienne,

I looked up that HR 635 and it was a bill to out Poland the Poles or some such.

I think you’re right about getting a loud as we can (strike while the iron is hot), i.e., The Squeaky Axle Gets The Grease, etc. I’ll check in on the censure thingee.

Are you trying to say He isn’t gay, but a cross dresser? Then He oughta stay out of those parades…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 17, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #134047

CPAdams:

I was raised in Catholicism, so I believe I earned the right to question Christian dogma

As far as I’m concerned, you (and anyone else) has the right to question Christian dogma. I don’t think you have to earn that right. I’ve questioned much about it as well. We just seem to have come to different conclusions about it. But I have no problem, nor should anyone, with people questioning Christianity in any way.

Your lamentations that I am bound for damnation are a bit condescending.

I did not intend it to be condescending, nor do I think it really was. I simply told you my belief: those who have a saving relationship with Jesus go to Heaven and those who do not, do not go to Heaven. There’s nothing condescending about it. You certainly have the right to believe I am wrong, and I have the right to believe what I believe. Its not condescending for you to tell me what you believe, so the reverse certainly shouldn’t be true either.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 17, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #134052

An excellent example of PC gone bad:

One of the recent news issues is the PC that I hate. An Ohio child rapist of several years who pleaded guilty was allowed to receive up to 10 years in jail. The judge gave him 4 years probation so the criminal could get “treatment”. As if we don’t have enough data already regarding the repeat nature of sex offenders! And when did punishing people for horrible crimes become non-PC??

The other PC I hate happened to me on the other thread. People can joke God has a burning bush, can call God names, and that’s fine. The watch blog editor has no problem with it. And I don’t have a problem with it either, if people want to say garbage like that it doesn’t change my faith. But if you defend the US military and tell someone their comments are stupid, or call someone ignorant … WHOAH!!! NOW THAT’S GOING TOO FAR!!! …. and you get a warning from the BLOG editor that your comments are no longer welcome. ROFLMAO!

Blaspheme against God is fine but isololated personal name calling is going too far? PICK A SIDE EDITOR!!! YOU CAN’T THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON AN ISOLATED EXAMPLE OF NAME CALLING AND THEN LET PEOPLE’S FAITH GET TRAMPLED AND OFFENDED AD NAUSEUM WITH OUTRAGEOUS, HORRIBLE JOKES.

Please note: I personally think everything should be allowed since I’m a firm believer in the freedom of speech. But I find the current line in the sand, well, a tad wavy to say the least.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 17, 2006 1:27 AM
Comment #134064

Joebagodoughnuts,

Okaaaay ummm well, Joe if there is a “hell” don’t you think the line should be drawn a little closer to those who have actually done horrible things on this earth as opposed to merely personal sentiment? If you don’t worship “God A” like we do and have a firm abiding relationship with the man we claim is “right” about the meaning of life then you go to an evil gulag with flames and monsters. Good to see you’re building a bridge to the 14th century, way to go Aligheri! (Joebago-Dante)

Heironymus Bosch depicted for us what happens to us liberals at the fates of bird faced fiddle players. But here’s an interesting token, in the recent child-sex ring that was just uncovered by the F.B.I there was a rather devout Sunday School Teacher as one if the 14 apprehended. Franco was a religious man as well, they both walked in christ-faith. So they both get redeemed by their beliefs alone and not their actions? Given that there is this hell or “other place” as is claimed for not following a prescribed path of belief doctrine in a personal savior? So if you are a Christian you are allowed to kill or molest the innocent—wow that is quite a liscense! Will Bush serve no time where I with my lack of faith and no mass-murderous notches on my belt be more subject to judgement? That “God” is a made-up God Joe to serve the self-interests of man’s idle pettiness and any given ruler’s self-interested heinous acts. Much the same as Islam—that is my moral objection to such notions of Gods of selective justice.

Posted by: Translator at March 17, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #134078

Boy, this post went everywhere but to these real significant questions:

What is good about PC?
What is bad about PC?
Why or why not should we accept PC?

Don’t whine about what conservatives are trying to do to liberals and vice versa. Analyze it properly and skip the invective, hyperbole and just plain ad hominem.

We don’t need to listen if all you do is resort to any of those three items to convince us of your premise. Resorting to those is just proof you don’t have a good argument.

Posted by: ILIndCon at March 17, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #134100

Ken C.:

The other PC I hate happened to me on the other thread. People can joke God has a burning bush, can call God names, and that’s fine. The watch blog editor has no problem with it. And I don’t have a problem with it either, if people want to say garbage like that it doesn’t change my faith. But if you defend the US military and tell someone their comments are stupid, or call someone ignorant … WHOAH!!! NOW THAT’S GOING TOO FAR!!! …. and you get a warning from the BLOG editor that your comments are no longer welcome. ROFLMAO!

Blaspheme against God is fine but isololated personal name calling is going too far? PICK A SIDE EDITOR!!! YOU CAN’T THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON AN ISOLATED EXAMPLE OF NAME CALLING AND THEN LET PEOPLE’S FAITH GET TRAMPLED AND OFFENDED AD NAUSEUM WITH OUTRAGEOUS, HORRIBLE JOKES.

Please note: I personally think everything should be allowed since I’m a firm believer in the freedom of speech. But I find the current line in the sand, well, a tad wavy to say the least.

God doesn’t post to Watchblog Ken, but if he did, none of us could say an insulting word against him personally. You, on the other hand insulted me personally and got banned from this blog for doing so. Let me explain why:
At the top of every column is the ONE RULE required of everyone to participate in this blog: Critique the Message, Not the Messenger.
Obviously you’ve been posting here for over a month without ever reading what is prominently and boldly printed three times across the face of each of these columns. And because you didn’t, you ignorantly broke that one rule. As a result, your posts are now going to be banned.
This blog is owned by someone, Ken. He made that rule so that this blog didn’t become a flamebaiting slag-fest like all the other blogs in the blogosphere are. He has a manager here to inforce his rule. You talk of free speech, but this is not like the rest of America where you are free to insult people and then claim it is just your freedom of speech. Instead, this blog is more like a select club, where the members who post here have to abide by this rule which the owner laid down with Watchblog’s inception.

The manager is a busy person, the man is not chained to his computer, and his is not a paid position, but when he sees that you’ve returned to post in defiance of his decision, he will block you from posting again. And again. And again. Until you are gone for good.
So why don’t you just run along now, Ken? There are plenty of other blogs where you can insult people personally as much as you like.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 17, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #134110

Marysdude
“I looked up that HR 635 and it was a bill to out Poland the Poles or some such.”

Really? Huh. I don’t get that. It’s being referred to by that number everywhere I’ve seen it mentioned.

“I think you’re right about getting a loud as we can (strike while the iron is hot), i.e., The Squeaky Axle Gets The Grease, etc.”

I think that bringing up censure and the possibility of impeachment is definitely expressing a great deal of the American public’s sentiments. Check this out: A new poll finds that a plurality of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.
Here is the direct link to that poll: American Research Group Inc.

“Are you trying to say He isn’t gay, but a cross dresser? Then He oughta stay out of those parades…”

Well, let’s just say it seems clear He’s got quite a flamboyant and extravagantly over-the-top sense of style!
But seriously, I think that God (if He exists) is probably extremely Gay-friendly. After all, He’d have made those folks, too, right? And isn’t everything He does supposed to have a divine reason?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 17, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #134126

I believe the heighth of PC was reached in Aurora Colorado was reached by the extremist right when a geography teacher was suspended (with pay) while the school board investigated a complaint that he “disagreed with the president”. The teacher has come back, but he won’t be getting into any more student discussions because of this. I am sure if he had praised Bush to the sky that no complaint would have been lodged about his discussions being one-sided. The mainstream is happy to have discussions having both a an extremist and mainstream view; but, the extremist right demands that only their side be heard.

The teacher was supposed to have compared bush to Hitler. That was wrong. Bush is SHOULD have been compared to Stalin-paranoia gulags and all!

Posted by: Betty at March 17, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #134131

>>But seriously, I think that God (if He exists) is probably extremely Gay-friendly. After all, He’d have made those folks, too, right? And isn’t everything He does supposed to have a divine reason?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 17, 2006 12:02 PM

Adrienne,

I couldn’ta said it better myself. I poke fun, but think pc has its place. Using some words to deliberately hurt someone is a no-no, but speaking to an issue using satire/sarcasm/irony should be exempted from the pc police. Communication is the issue to me, and sometimes nothing else fits. This is especially true when the point you are making is in rebuttal to something someone has said that is too far out to require serious debate, as in, “Blaspheme against God is fine but isololated personal name calling is going too far? PICK A SIDE EDITOR!!! YOU CAN’t THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON AN ISOLATED EXAMPLE OF NAME CALLING AND THEN LET PEOPLE’S FAITH GET TRAMPLED AND OFFENDED AD NAUSEUM WITH OUTRAGEOUS, HORRIBLE JOKES.”

When someone uses their faith as part of an argument in an attempt to defeat someone elses point of view, they lay their beliefs out as part of the debate and as such that faith is fair game. I have no problems with anything anyone else chooses to believe, and if the belief is strong enough it will survive some poking and prodding.

By the way…my saved profile disappeared and I can’t seem to get it to stick again. Is anyone else having that problem on this site?


Posted by: Marysdude at March 17, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #134143

Marysdude,

I am also having the same problem.

JBOD,

Religion has it’s place, and those that “truely” adhere to the tenents of Christianity should be able to turn the other cheek.

That said, I don’t condone making fun of folks for their beliefs. They are entitled to them just as they are entitled to their opinion.

Asking serious questions about faith cannot be viewed as harassment or persecution, and anyone that takes it that way, IMHO, has serious issues about how they view their own faith.

Posted by: Rocky at March 17, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #134150

Marysdude:
“Using some words to deliberately hurt someone is a no-no, but speaking to an issue using satire/sarcasm/irony should be exempted from the pc police.”

I couldn’t possibly agree with you more, dude.
Personally, I tend to strongly dislike the PC (fundamentalist extremist) mindset whether it comes from the Right or the Left side of the political isle. And the very reason for that is that most of these people seem to have a serious lack of all sense of humor.
In my opinion, in life should be a fun endeavor, and we’ve simply got to laugh at all kinds of things — perhaps most importantly ourselves and our own beliefs sometimes!

“When someone uses their faith as part of an argument in an attempt to defeat someone elses point of view, they lay their beliefs out as part of the debate and as such that faith is fair game. I have no problems with anything anyone else chooses to believe, and if the belief is strong enough it will survive some poking and prodding.”

Let me return the compliment you gave me earlier by saying that this was perfectly said, and I couldn’t possibly have stated it any better myself.

“By the way…my saved profile disappeared and I can’t seem to get it to stick again. Is anyone else having that problem on this site?”

I know that WB switched servers recently and there have been some temporary bugs, but so far, all of them have been dealt with in not too long of a time frame.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 17, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #134156

Joebagofdonuts,

I jhave faith that my wife does not cheat on our marriage. You could show me all sorts of incriminating ‘evidence’ of her cheating, and I would not believe it. You see, I have faith in her. Part of that faith is because I know her character, and part is that I’ve seen evidence through our marriage of her character. (On the lighter side, how could she possibly find someone better than me anyway, and she’s smart enough not to bother trying…)

But that’s different. You personally know your wife, she obviously exists, and she’s earned your trust. On the other hand, have you ever seen God? Has he come down or given you a solid reason to believe he exists? This is a God no one has seen, much less proven he exists. Some people claim to see him, however there oddly isn’t any proof and it can be explained by the placebo effect or wishful thinking. I’m personally not sure what to believe in, and am open to the possibility that a God exists.

However the world would be a much better place if people decided to question their beliefs and base decisions on reason rather than emotion and blind faith.

On a separate matter, I find how the neocons are attacking academics now truly scary. The US is now a very anti-intelletual country where half the people don’t believe in evolution.

There is rampant PC in politics and the media. But it’s not from the liberal side. The neocons have made it un-PC to criticize the president, question the government, or not be a conservative. They’ve taken over the media and made “liberal” as well as leftist ideas like environmentalism a dirty word. Liberal is something irrational, an belief to be ashamed of. PC is very much alive. The new political correctness is to be conservative and nothing else.

Posted by: mark at March 17, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #134157

Joe:

I have faith that my wife does not cheat on our marriage. You could show me all sorts of incriminating ‘evidence’ of her cheating, and I would not believe it. You see, I have faith in her. Part of that faith is because I know her character, and part is that I’ve seen evidence through our marriage of her character.

And suddenly your position on Bush becomes much clearer to me…

Posted by: Jarandhel at March 17, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #134210

Jarandhel:

I seriously doubt my position on Bush is clear to you. You might have created a caricature of my position, but I doubt that its wholely accurate.

Mark:

As I said in an earlier post, proof of God or faith in God is not blind. Yet it also cannot totally be seen either. I’ve seen enough things in my life that appear to me to be God-led, and I’ve studied enough scholarly writings about the Bible to believe it has veracity. That’s not to say that you need to believe as I do, but it certainly is to state unequivocally that my faith is anything but blind or without reason. You might not agree with my conclusions, but I think you’d certainly see a level of logic, tinged with faith, in my thought process.

Rocky:

Serious questions are fantastic opportunities for people to share their thinking. It opens up the ability to learn things from others. Unfortunately, many of the questions I see in WB are not all that serious. They are more of the set up type of question like “have you stopped hitting your mother yet?” There is no seeking to understand another point of view—simply an attempt to sabotage any possible answer. As far as turning the other cheek, I doubt you’ve seen me in this thread having any semblance of an attack on anyone, despite some of the comments.

Translator:

Okaaaay ummm well, Joe if there is a “hell” don’t you think the line should be drawn a little closer to those who have actually done horrible things on this earth as opposed to merely personal sentiment?

Looking at Christianity in this manner is to look at it from man’s point of view, and not from God’s. To look at it from God’s point of view, you need to study the Bible, because that’s where his point of view is found. If one chooses to simply not believe, then they won’t bother studying the Bible, but neither will they develop a better understanding of Christianity.

Here’s the rub: God says anyone who has a relationship with Christ is ‘forgiven’ and given grace. In the truest sense of those words, it means that even though we have committed transgressions (and we all have and do) and are therefore do not qualify for Heaven on the basis of goodness, we are forgiven by Christ’s actions. So yes, people who have done bad things get into Heaven if they have such a relationship. It might seem unfair at first, but when you consider that none of us can meet the requirements, then it starts to become more fair. After all, if there is a “goodness quotient”, then how would it be defined? And what about the person who misses the bar by 1/1000 of a point—should they be given entry despite not being quite good enough.

Translator, I’m not saying you have to beleive all that I say. What i AM saying though is that this is what I believe. You are free to believe as you choose, as am I. That’s a great part of our country. I wish you the best.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 17, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #134211

To respond to Paul’s letter — the one at the very top:

He notes that the word “conservative” means something along the lines of respect for tradition and retaining traditional ways. I’ll go along with that.

Which makes it puzzling why people on the Republican Right call themselves “Conservatives.”

What is really conservative about these people? They seem intent upon smashing tradition by destroying programs that have been in effect for up to 100 years.

Like, whatever happened to the Sherman Antitrust Act of the 19th Century? This federal law was intended to break up monopolies. The spirit of the law was in effect when the government forced AT&T to break up its monopoly over long-distance phone lines and Bell Telephone’s monopoly over local phone companies.

Now, we see AT&T absorbing Bell South and SBC absorbing other “Baby Bells” around the nation. Looks pretty monopolistic to me. And when was the last time you heard about the feds breaking up a merger because it was in restraint of trade? Me, I can’t remember.

It would be conservative to retain Social Security. Yet we have seen the Bushies attempting to cripple it. It would be conservative to retain regulations that keep our food and our workplaces safe. Yet we see Republicans refusing to provide the funding to maintain an adequate workforce of inspectors in meat packing plants; we see the so-called “Conservatives” handcuffing OSHA. Workplace injuries and E. coli poisonings are on the rise.

We could go on and on about how the “Conservatives” during the Reagan and Bush Administrations have been doing their worst to destroy traditional safeguards. (Because of the massive debt he inherited and the opposition he got from a Republican House, Clinton was too crippled to do much about rebuilding safety nets and protections either.)

So, if these people are not really conservative, what should we call them? They seem to have few, if any, productive ideas on how to improve programs, so we can’t call them Progressives. (That’s us, isn’t it?) No, they simply want to destroy programs, then take the money saved and put it into tax cuts for the least deserving among us — themselves, their corporate backers, and their base of wealthy voters.

These are not Conservatives. Let’s call them what they really are: Arch Reactionaries who long for the return of the era of the Robber Baron, when it was the right of the rich to steal as much as they could from everyone else.

In fact, while we’re at it, let’s go on and give the members of the Bush Administration an additional title. They encourage the torture of prisoners and the denial of habeas corpus to whomever they capture or arrest. So let’s call them what they really are: Totalitarian Thugs.

Posted by: Martin at March 17, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #134228

Martin,

The fact that you can call them “totalitarian thugs” without being jailed or tortured or shot proves they’re not “totalitarian thugs.

Posted by: Duano at March 17, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #134236

JBOD,

“Serious questions are fantastic opportunities for people to share their thinking. It opens up the ability to learn things from others. Unfortunately, many of the questions I see in WB are not all that serious.”

Unfortunately I don’t see much in the way of discussion. I see a lot of prostilizing (though not from you), and not much else.

This is a statement that I made earlier in this thread;

“Virtually every Christian sect belives it is the one true sect, and those that don’t belive are doomed to hell.”

Why is that Joe?

If Christian sects belive this, and you and I both know the truth of that statement, why would someone like myself take it seriously or even give it a second thought?

BTW, I added the second to make this point more clear.

Posted by: Rocky at March 17, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #134262

Marysdude, etc……for several days now I’ve been having probs with these pages. They are loading, “done, but with errors on page.” Someone trying to tell us something???? ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 17, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #134288

In response to Martin, the Right is even more revolutionary in its intent than you have pointed out. Nothing illustrates this more than the alliance between the Southern Baptist Convention, the Dominionist movement, and the leadership of the Republican Party.

First, the Southern Baptists. Few non-Baptists have been paying attention to the 2000 rejection by Richard Land, et al, of the most important tenets of the Baptist faith since the 1600s, especially the freedom of conscience that God grants to everyone. The leadership has been promoting an openly theocratic agenda for the country, and control of individual congregations by a “theological thought police” for the Baptist community.

Second, the Dominionist movement, which has close ties to the Southern Baptist leadership and other demoninational leaders with similar ideological views. Dominionism promotes government by Bible-believing males only, with which Southern Baptists agree wholeheartedly.

There is nothing remotely conservative about such an agenda, and those who have it are not at all reticent about admitting its true nature on their websites and discussion boards. The influence of the Southern Baptist Convention and Dominionism on the Republican Party is becoming more obvious every day.

Oddly, the best sources for this information are the Baptists who have refused to knuckle under and instead have walked away, as individuals, and as whole congregations, from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at March 17, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #134331

Robert Benjamin, you said:
“The influence of the Southern Baptist Convention and Dominionism on the Republican Party is becoming more obvious every day.”
and you are sooooooo very right.

This is a quote from:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/yurica_weyrich_manual.htm

“To get a sense of how revolutionary the political fight for power in the U.S. is, we need to look at a few quotes from what has been dubbed, “Paul Weyrich’s Teaching Manual,” the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement,” the document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundation’s website for obvious reasons. But excerpts are published at the Yurica Report . The excerpts explain why the Dominionists are winning; the tactics they endorse are sheer Machiavellian:

I have paraphrased the four immoral principles of the Dominionist movement as the following:

1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.

2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of “goodness” whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as “evil.”

3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.

4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.”

Any of this sound familiar?
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 18, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #134334

>>Martin,

The fact that you can call them “totalitarian thugs” without being jailed or tortured or shot proves they’re not “totalitarian thugs.

Posted by: Duano at March 17, 2006 07:19 PM

Duano,

Wrong again…It’s exactly how the Brown Shirts started. Martin can expect a visit for voicing his opinions, in the very near future. The charges will have to do with aiding and abetting the enemy or some other manufactured national security issue. We can expect it because there are not enough of us who realize the seriousness of the situation to do anything about it. Cheney/Bush has created so much fear in our citizenry that most will assume the arrests are valid.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 18, 2006 3:12 AM
Comment #134341

Rocky:

Have you read the Bible? If you have, then you’d understand where the belief in Heaven and Hell come from.

“Virtually every Christian sect belives it is the one true sect, and those that don⦣x20AC;™t belive are doomed to hell.”Why is that Joe?

With all due respect, I see that your comment above is incorrect. Allow me to explain what I believe, rather than talking for others. I believe that a relationship with Jesus Christ is the only means for a flawed mankind to enter into Heaven. Without this saving relationship, mankind cannot access Heaven.

Its not correct that others have to believe exactly as I do. They don’t, and there are many areas of difference. But since I do believe in the one way to Heaven, that one thing is immutable. But that’s true of other religions too—they all have their beliefs. For instance, Hinduism maintains that you “work” your way towards perfection, being reincarnated over and over again until you achieve perfection. A Hindu would claim that until you achieve a level of knowledge and perfection, you will continue on earth. Were I to suggest my belief to a Hindu, the Hindu would think I was wrong.

Who truly is wrong? That’s truly not my decision. IFFF i need to work my way forward, then the Hindu is right. IFFF a relationship with Christ is needed, then I am right. I choose to believe I am correct on this, but thats obvious—-why would I believe in something that I thought was wrong?

Others believe there are multiple methods of attaining Heaven, while still others believe there is nothing after death. Who is right? We will all find out some day…but I hold my belief in my version, just as others hold their belief in their version. We all think we are correct, or we wouldn’t believe what we believe.

Allow me to ask you: How will you attain Heaven, if you in fact believe in it? What are the requirements that you believe in?

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 18, 2006 6:53 AM
Comment #134343
Allow me to ask you: How will you attain Heaven, if you in fact believe in it? What are the requirements that you believe in?

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 18, 2006 06:53 AM

Joebagodonuts,

I realize you were asking this question of someone else, but I feel that now is as good a time as any to add my two cents to the conversation by answering your question.

Answer: Love.

That is all.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at March 18, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #134371

JOBD,

“Allow me to ask you: How will you attain Heaven, if you in fact believe in it? What are the requirements that you believe in?”

If I were to think of a way to attain Heaven, and I am not really sure if there even is such a thing, my example would be closer to that of Mother Teresa, than that of Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, or Jimmy Swagart.

When I look at the examples of “Christianity” in this country, I see many contradictions, and few of them are Christlike.

I see a lot of “an eye for an eye”, and not much of “treat others as you want to be treated”

I don’t see a lot of selflessness, but I do see a lot of pride, and a lot of folks that say they are saved, but do nothing for their fellow man.

I see a lot of folks that are willing and able to quote “chapter and verse”, but are also willing and able to take those same verses out of context to make themselves right.

I am 53 years old. I have been all over the world, and I have seen and met a lot of folks that would be considered pagans in this country, that are far more “Christlike” in their everyday lives than any “Christian” I have ever met in America.

Posted by: Rocky at March 18, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #134377

Joe,

Just one more thing.

I didn’t write the post above as an attack on you personally, though we sometimes disagree, you seem a decent fellow.

These were just my observations of people from a lifetime of dealing with the public.

Posted by: Rocky at March 18, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #134384

Rocky:

I think more highly of Mother Theresa than I do of someone like Jimmy Swaggart. She was a truly remarkable woman. As someone who grew up in India as the son of a missionary, I have perhaps a better understanding of what she faced, though her experiences far surpassed mine as far as the sheer poverty she saw and lived in.

My belief, though, is that our “works” do not qualify us for Heaven. Its really that no matter how good of a life we live, we still don’t get over the bar. My belief is that only our relationship with Christ boosts us over the bar.

A Christian should want to live a good life and do good deeds, but those are not the things that get us into Heaven. Recall the two thiefs on the cross with Christ—-both lived truly bad lives, but one repented and one did not. I believe that the repentant thief went to Heaven despite having lived a terribly bad life—-simply because of his relationship with Christ. We cannot earn our way in—we need help.

That’s my belief. It needs not be yours. You seem like a good person as well, and I’m sure we both have done many good things in our lives, and many not so good things. I’ve done plenty of things I’m ashamed of, and I’ll undoubtedly do more bad things in the ensuing years. I know I am forgiven. That does not allow me to commit bad deeds without impunity, nor should I take that approach. But I know that I will fall short of the ideals and therefore my efforts to earn my way in will fall short.

Liberal Demon:

Love is a wonderful thing. And if you look at Christ, you see a remarkable definition of love. He said some hard things to people, but he did so consistently out of love. Love is a great attribute—-its not my definition of how to get into Heaven, but it certainly is something to strive for.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 18, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #134389

JBOD,

“My belief, though, is that our “works” do not qualify us for Heaven. Its really that no matter how good of a life we live, we still don’t get over the bar. My belief is that only our relationship with Christ boosts us over the bar.”

I guess this is where we disagree.

I see a lot of “drugstore” Christians out there that treat their fellow man like shit. They do nothing to further themselves or their fellow humans down the road toward enlightenment besides prostilitize.
They are bigoted, racisit, hypocrites that screw folks left and right, all the while thinking that they will repent later, and that act alone will make everything “right with God”.

If this is the case, what exactly is the point?

Sorry, I just cannot in good concience, ascribe to that way of thinking.

There are just too many self rightous assholes out there that hose people every day of every week and repent on Sunday, then repeat it all over again.

If that is all it takes to be a Christian and to be saved, I just don’t get it.

Posted by: Rocky at March 18, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #134409

Adrienne, In reference to your quoted comment below: leave the explanations and enforcement of our policy to WB management. Your comments below to Ken C. are insulting and flame baiting in their own right. Flame baiting others on this site will not be tolerated.

Consider this your only warning on this issue.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at March 18, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #134438
Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 12:46 PM:

My job here is done … I’m done with this conversation.

Thank God!

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 18, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #134444
Adrienne, In reference to your quoted comment below: leave the explanations and enforcement of our policy to WB management. Your comments below to Ken C. are insulting and flame baiting in their own right. Flame baiting others on this site will not be tolerated.

Consider this your only warning on this issue.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at March 18, 2006 03:34 PM

This is heavy handed, and an unnecessarily nasty and over-the-top rebuke.

*I* may not be the coolest head on the block - but Adrienne certainly is. She has tirelessly put countless hours into extremely well-informed and well-argued posts which only serve to enhance the viability of this `blog. And this `blog, unlike many on the web, puts a Filter on what may, or may not, be expressed by the poster.

In fact, I rather doubt that this post will be allowed to stand: it will be a pleasant surprise to me if the WatchBlog Managing Editor has the courage to allow a critique of his “Message” to Adrienne, above.

The very tone of your nasty slap in the face is brim-full of the sort of powermad totalitarianism which characterises repressive dictatorships. Congratulations, WatchBlog: you have stared into the Abyss; it has stared back into You - and you have become the Monster that you sought to slay.

I am outraged at this verbal bludgeoning of someone who has tried so hard - and so very successfully - to play by your Rules. Now, here’s a lesson on Free Expression:

If you only tolerate the writings you like, then there is no Free Expression. I can see the case for a moderated forum: just as I can see the case against abortion. But the fact is that *Liberty* trumps both of those Cases! What you have done, by moderating this forum in such a heavy-handed manner, is to exchange the Liberties of the posters for a measure of Security for the forum.

In my view, this makes this forum not worth a Tory’s Fart in a Nor’east Gale.

So go ahead: delete my words; hide my thoughts; censure me for speaking out; ban me from your Exclusive Club. You know what you are if you do: and you will carry that knowledge inside yourselves (O Secret and All-Powerful Editors OF Expression) until the day you and your little internet-toy die a mean, cowardly, self-loathing death.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 18, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #134449

Rocky:

With all due respect, I don’t think you do get it. You see, you are looking at Christianity from the signs of people doing good. There are non-Christians and Christians who do good, and non-Christians and Christians who do bad.

Where Christianity differs from every other religion is the concept of undeserved grace. Take the premise of not being able to earn your way to Heaven, and you are left with the only means of getting into Heaven being grace.

They are bigoted, racisit, hypocrites that screw folks left and right, all the while thinking that they will repent later, and that act alone will make everything “right with God”.

This kind of thought would no more count as true repentance than a child who sarcastically says “Soorrrrrryyyy” because they are forced to. True repentance is not in the act of saying sorry, but by truly meaning it. If you were, for example, to give your wife flowers only because you wanted to get her off your back. While it might look like a loving act from the outside, from inside your heart it would look like a craven act.

I can’t see in people’s heart, nor can you. But God can. He is the judge of our true intentions. If our intentions are as craven as you depicted, then that would not be a true redemptive relationship with Christ—it would be a sham.

My apologies for going down the religion trail in this thread. Not sure anymore how we got onto that topic, but I wanted to express my thoughts on it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 18, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #134461

Hey, Betty — no need to get your undies in a bunch on my behalf, really. But thanks for saying you like my posts. I appreciate that. The truth is, I don’t really have a cool head. I do have a temper that I’m always struggling to keep on the shortest leash possible.
Obviously from the managers point of view it’s seriously out of line for someone besides himself to give Ken C. the lowdown on why he’d been banned. From my own, I viewed it as being remarkably civil after the guy had personally insulted me a bunch of times in another thread. Besides, he really did seem confused about the matter.

But what are you gonna do? This blog really is like a club, and the behavior of the guests determines whether they’ll remain welcome here or not. It’s got to be a pretty tough job for the manager to have to always decide where the line is supposed to be drawn on these things, and it is strictly his responsibility, not mine.

So, warning taken, Manager.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 18, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #134464

JBOD,

Sorry to push the thread in that direction.

Thanks for the responses.

Posted by: Rocky at March 19, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #134593

Adrienne, thanks for all your good posts and information. Many times I have come into this forum, Watchbog democrats, and the posts are overwhelmingly by Rpblcns, who seem to have a strategy to stifle and divert the forum from legitimate discourse on the topics as they come up. The end result is that we end up defending eachother and attacking them, instead of discussing our own differences of opinion. I prefer to ignore the Rpblcn posts, but sometimes
they go too far, and you have to say something.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 19, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #134623

Insulting remarks about a person’s religious beliefs especially about their God is a personal insult similar to insulting a persons family.
I have little respect for people who insult sweet people who don’t retaliate.
How about making vulger jokes about Allah? It doesn’t happen here because it isn’t politically correct with you. Also because it takes courage due to their history of violence.

Posted by: Kruser at March 19, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #134645

Rocky:

I hope I didn’t send the message to you that I wasn’t enjoying our conversation. I simply was hoping that we weren’t hijacking the thread for our personal conversation.

Also, no intent to disparage your ideas in any way by saying you don’t get it. From your comments, it seems to me that you are using a different scorecard for Heaven than I subscribe to. You seem to say that good works in the form of a good life are the requisite for entrance. I say that good works are wonderful, but are not the scorecard for getting into Heaven. The scorecard is whether one has a personal relationship with Christ.

Think of it this way: If we play a 5 set tennis match and you win 21 games, while I win 30, who wins the match? If you score by total number of games, I’d win…but that’s not the proper scorecard. You might have won 3 sets(06,06, 7-6,7-6,7-6), which wins the match.

We disagree, it seems, on which scoring method to use for entry into Heaven. I hope if nothing else, I’ve helped you understand what my belief is. YOu’ll be your own judge of how closely you want to align with what I believe in.

Thanks for the conversations. I look forward to more in the future.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 19, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #134656

I am considering writing some scenes for March 25, 9 months before Kratzmer, on the day of the impregnation of the blessed virgin miriam by the holy ghost. The angel gabriel will be the cameraperson for this somewhat pornographic event.

Would this be considered too politically incorrect by our sensitive religious friends who worry about getting into heaven, or landing in a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem? [sillychildishvoice]
I am going to heaven and you are not. [/sillychildishvoice]

Another chick named miriam supposedly had an intimate relationship with Joshua bar Joseph, and there is actually a lawsuit going on about it in London this week, even though it is mostly unprovable mythology. I am for Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh. I guess Henry Lincoln is not party to the suit. Dan Brown is a thief.

And for Islam, many of the worst aspects of the middle ages actually came from that culture, which was more advanced than the European dirty sloppy drunks of the time, but the guys that came before them were no bargain either.

Please let me know if there is anyone else who needs to be offended, in order to preach to us about the path of righteousness.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 19, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #134662

Hmmmmmm,
I have always used the definition of PC or Political Correctness to mean people are tired of suffering in silence everytime some moron tells a racial, ethnic or sexist comment.

When a person is blowing smoke he is called on it and because he is, he responds that it is political correctness… that liberals are the ones supportive of “ideas and free speech until it disagrees with them.” Poor me… those mean liberals won’t listen to my spewing out unreasoned, biased, bigoted, mean and nasty comments.

No.. not really. Liberals will discuss and debate based upon reason and logic… prejudice, stereotypes, blind devotion to a political party agenda instead of thinking for one’s self… those are very difficult for a liberal to stomach.

When it comes to professors I have had both liberal and conservatives with agendas. I am really really interested in hearing suggestions from the “get rid of the liberal professors” crowd.

Should we borrow the NSA snooper software and have it do word recognition on lectures for certain key words that you wish banned? How many of each word will be acceptable? 10 “environments” 5 “greenhouse” 25 “effects” 2 “multicultural”. I am serious. Where do you draw the line personally?

Is the professor supportive of the President? I never knew that was in the job description. Does that include Republican as well as Democrat Presidents for the conservative professors?

Should the community, the state or a political party evaluate each test for correctness to a political doctrine? How liberal is too liberal? Is just a little okay if the students really like his class? Do we prorate liberalness based upon whether it is a “Humanities” class or not? Because we all know that the humanities classes are “liberal.”

Do we, in fairness and balance do the same for conservative professors? Except for maybe the business and economic classes.

“Political Correctness” is like “Tax and Spend Democrats” Terms with a lot of emotional impact and absolutely no relation to reality.

The only time that there has been a major “Tax and Spend” and significant governmental involvement by the Democrats was in the 1960s with the introduction of the Civil Rights acts.

Here it is about 40 years later and the Republicans are still pulling that boogey man out of the closet to scare people with! Geeeez. Get a new tune.

Oh, wait, there is no discrimination or prejudice because the Republican said there isn’t. They are also probably wanting to take credit for the advancements made by women and minorities. You know, if they say it enough it will become real.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 19, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #134670

No offence taken. Just a loss of confidence in the liberal ability to engage in free discourse.
Many comments were childish. Penis jokes are for five year olds.
The preaching showed genuine care for people’s souls dispite ridicule. This is noble but off subject.
There is a PC problem with sattire concerning gays,muslums or even scientology with you all but no problem ridiculing Christians even with the vulgarity used here.

Posted by: Kruser at March 19, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #134681

Darren
Here’s a link to a report on the civil rights act of 64.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
From 1933 to 1964 republicans voted for civil rights 96% of the time. Dems voted against it 80% of the time.
Strongest opposition was southern dems. Reps only feared the federal expansion required but compromised due to the obvious need.
Eisenhower passed the first act in 57 to guarantee voter access.
Dems like Johnson do get credit for seeing the need for more and worked to get it through dispite the split in his party over it. Few republicans voted against the final bill when their concerns over the expansion of federal powers were addressed. The biggest obstacle was getting around the democratic filibuster. They are still obstructing with it today.

Posted by: Kruser at March 19, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #134690

Kruser, you are not very familiar with the internet, if you think liberals are not critical of scientologists. They are usually referred to as clamheads, I think.

I suppose you are really trying to point at lack of criticism of Hollywood, the home of the fuzziest math on earth, until GWBush became king. I am proposing a tax of one million dollars per act of violence, shown in a motion picture or television program. That should teach them to behave themselves.

As for lack of satire of gays, virtually all programmming including gay characters is satirical. About 1999 a terminology came into use on the internet called hoyay, or ho-yay, which stands for homoeroticism yay, to jokingly refer to overacting between male actors. It became popular enough among fans to be written into scripts deliberately, but it is still satire.

Hatred of gays is taught in churches, read this forum for a while longer if you do not believe that.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 19, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #134699

JBOD,

“We disagree, it seems, on which scoring method to use for entry into Heaven. I hope if nothing else, I’ve helped you understand what my belief is. YOu’ll be your own judge of how closely you want to align with what I believe in.”

For me it seems that a good life, and treating folks as you wish to be treated should be enough, though others may find that trite. I feel that being a good man is, in itself, it’s own reward.

As I said in another thread I was raised and schooled Catholic, and lost interest when my questions could only be answered by “faith”.

Thanks for the conversation, Joe, we’ll talk again.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #134706

Adrienne Wrote:

This blog really is like a club…

Yes. A club with armbanded Block Wardens on every corner, determining what may be said, or not…

It’s got to be a pretty tough job for the manager to have to always decide where the line is supposed to be drawn on these things…

Not really. He just waves his mouse over people’s posts: Rechts and the post stays - Links and it is sent off to the ovens. It’s quite simple, and it keeps everything very Orderly…

They don’t deserve you.


Still Seething,

Betty

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 20, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #134707

Kruser Wrote:

Insulting remarks about a person’s religious beliefs especially about their God is a personal insult similar to insulting a persons family.

Actually, it’s more like insulting a person’s Invisible Friend.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 20, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #134719

Rocky:

Thanks for the conversation, Joe, we’ll talk again.

Thanks to you for keeping a difficult conversation civil. As we both can see, many are unable to do so. Therefore, huzzah huzzah to both of us :) Self congratulation is sometimes necessary when no one else comes forward with congratulations.

You said that you feel that “being a good man is, in itself, it’s own reward.” I’d agree with you 100%—maybe even 1000%. It most certainly is its own reward. Perhaps we simply disagree on specifically what reward one gets.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 20, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #134883

Betty:

True tolerance involves not mocking someone’s beliefs. It doesn’t mean that you need to agree with them or believe similarly, but I’d think it wouldn’t include disrespect of any kind.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 20, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #135056

Kruse,
I know about the Dixiecrats… they were still living the civil war when I lived in Birmingham Al. in the early 1970s. The only reason they considered themselves demoracts was because it wasn’t republicans, who they saw as the party that defeated them and freed the slaves.

I believe that as the democrats moved into issues such as civil rights the dixiecrats switched over to the republicans which may be why the republican party has turned so nasty, bigoted and narrow in their view. They brought all that garbage with them. Notice how many want to afffect a sourthen accent? President Clinton did but he was from Arkansas.

When it comes to the fillibusters of today it is not in relation to the legislation of 40 years ago. The fillibuster is a desparate attempt to stop legislation that is often used by the party in the minority… sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat.

I do know that the movement for the actual voter registration and the civil rights marches on Selma, Montgomery and Washington were not heavily populated with conservatives.

Back then, there really was a difference between the Republicans and the Conservatives…. today that line has been blurred.

Because of the failures of the current President the conservatives are now distancing themselves as fast as they can… which is another topic on this weblog.

When it comes to Christians… well… gee. It seems that because they are the majority they want special treatment. They believe that the government and the schools need to endorse their religous holidays. They want Christmas trees in the schools and city squares, bibles in the science class (some fundamentalists believe in a literal 6 days to create the world and they believe that it should be taught as a reasonable alternative).

Muslims and Jews in American do not have a tradition of proslytizing. There is a Christian student group’s “Prayer Box” in the school’s hallway. But… there is absolutely no identifying features to show who it belongs to… which gives an implicit impression that it belongs to the school.

Christians believe they are being persecuted because they are being ingnored… and if a person responds because of the imposition of their beliefs on others then they feel as though they are being picked on.

I have heard Christians claim that they are being censored in America. I have tried to get them to give examples of what they mean… but they never respond. I have never been aware of the government censoring religion. Even when one of its most influential leaders call for the assination of a foreign leader on national television.

Possibly some Christians have misinterpreted the term Evangelical to mean going out and pressuring everyone to believe as they believe.

When it comes to political correctness, all it has to be is a simple, “Excuse me, I believe that the comment you just made was inappropriate and uncalled for.”

As I have said before, if we want to make a government reflective of the majority of the people… then as one blog here talks about a Christian getting his hand cut off (which I haven’t read yet because I am having trouble taking the right hand column too seriously right now)… then we need to be prepared to accept this.

We need to go to Iraq and be honest with the Sunnis to shut up and quit their whining because the Shiite is the majority and they call the shots.

This is why we need to maintain the most pure secular for of government that we can.

The President’s office of Faith Based Initiaves, his inclusion of Faith Based organizations in the federal No Child Left Behind Act, his offer to repay the charities and churches that helped victims of Katrina blur those lines.

If a charity or a church donates time, goods or money to help fellow human beings out in a time of need, then it is no longer charity from the heart… it is a short term loan. Talk about doing the good services of Christians a disservice… I have not had the time to investigate if there were any churches that took him up on his offer.

Let me be very clear. I am a Christian. However, I believe that He gave us the most simple message ever bestowed on this world and man has been messing it up ever since. “Love they neighbor as you love yourself.”

I paraphrased, but because the biblical text was written a long time after Christ… most of it is a paraphrase anyway.

I have read the bible and numerous historical texts of the bible, Christianity, the church and I just got a book from the library today about Paul…

The Republican party has proclaimed itself the party of morality and the Christian people of America… insinuating that you cannot be Christian and belong to another party. I have not seen Christian nor even a lot of moral behavior on their part.

Possibly that is why they are having a hard time. But heck… as I have said before… the only reason that Christians of different denominations are working together is because of their fight against “secular humanism”. Once they have won that war then it will start to be who are the “real” Christians… I hope that you and I do not belong to the wrong one.

I am not Catholic, but I have met quite a few people who are honest and sincere in their belief that Catholics are not Christians… wanna guess where that will lead?

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 21, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #135225

Darren:

I have heard Christians claim that they are being censored in America. I have tried to get them to give examples of what they mean… but they never respond.

Two examples, so that you will never again be able to honestly claim that “they never respond”.

1) School sells bricks for the front walkway to the school. People buy the bricks, have them inscribed with a name and then the bricks are placed as part of the walkway. One person inscribed “Jesus” on the brick. The brick was not allowed to be placed.

2) Grade school child in Central New York draws a picture along with classmates. The subject is on the ecology. The picture includes recycling bins, trees, people picking up litter etc. In the upper right corner, the child included a picture of a bearded man in white robes looking down over the entire earth (presumably Jesus). The picture was allowed to be hung on the wall with the rest of the pictures ONLY if the upper right corner was folded over.

In my mind, neither instance would indicate that the schools were supporting or endorsing a religion. They were condoning the fact that some of their students support a certain religion, but that’s vastly different from the school doing so.

You can most likely google these issues to find more about them if you care to.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 22, 2006 8:18 AM
Post a comment