I remember watching the political conventions in 2000. I always watch as much of both the Democratic and Republican conventions as I can. At the Republican convention that year, an openly gay congressman got up to address the delegates. A smallish group of Christian Evangelicals who were also delegates to the convention stood together and bowed their heads to pray for him, because they considered his homosexuality sinful.
Commentators in the media virtually had conniptions at the show of "intolerance." All I could do was roll my eyes. Man, can you think of anything more awful than praying for someone? Gosh, what Nazis. Next it's concentration camps for sure!
I am often stunned at the sheer and unapologetic ferocity of verbal abuse spewn by many people at evangelical Christians. Even common terms like "religious right" are loaded with the assumption that, somehow, if you're a devoted Christian and are even vaguely right-of-center in your politics, there's something sinister about you. But if someone verbalized that kind of withering criticism at a Jew, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, most people would be shocked and appalled.
I remember telling a friend of mine named Jeff that although I was baptized, I had long ago come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, that it is a work written by men and often contradictes itself. I said, "I suppose that makes me an apostate." Jeff seemed to find that upsetting, although we didn't talk about it much.
A day or two later, I was with my friend Ed, and as we walked up to my car I noticed a note under the windshield wiper. It was from Jeff. It said, "Dude, you are not an apostate. God loves you. Jeff." I smiled, and showed it to Ed. Ed freaked out, and thought there was something sinister about the note. I was bemused. What on Earth is so awful about that? He's showing concern for me. Okay, so we don't see the world the same way. But wasn't it awfully nice of him to worry about me like that?
I remember a similar incident, where a friend of mine found himself stuck in a strange city with no money, no food, and no place to sleep. He called me on the phone to ask if I could wire him some money, but I was broke. But I told him I had some friends in the area. "Don't worry," I said, "they're Christians. They'll help you out." I just assumed he'd understand: if you know real Christians, you know that they're always ready to lend a hand to someone who's having problems. But he was weirded out and wasn't sure he wanted anything to do with them. I thought, "You're stuck in a strange town, no food no money no shelter no ticket home, and you're afraid of Christians?"
I confess that when I was younger, I went through a phase where I shared this mentality. I thought of Christians as harsh, judgemental, brainwashed cultists trying to ram their values down everyone else's throats. But as I got older, I realized that bigotry is bigotry, and I needed to get over it. It was my problem, not theirs. Anyone who's read the New Testament knows that Christians are required to tell others about the gospel, and try to get people to accept Christ. It's part of their religion. So, you know, if a few of them are a bit pushy about it, you just tell them, "look, I'm not interested, okay?" In my experience this works just fine 99.9% of the time. And it's also my experience that 99.9% of Christians don't even let it get to the point where you have to say that.
So it was with some interest that I read an essay called Everybody Hates Us by evangelical minister Michael Spencer. I frankly think he's too tough on his faith. I've encountered the sort of Christian he talks about, but it's been my experience that they are a distinct minority. I also think he may miss the influence of fairly shady characters who work as televangelists, who may influence perceptions more than everyday Christians do.
Still, it is an interesting essay, and perhaps some Christians could learn from its message. At the same time, though, I like to go out of my way to remind people: Bigotry really is bigotry, and prejudice is prejudice. That goes for Christians as well as anyone else.
And I encourage people to remember: when a Christian wants to tell you about his faith, he's trying to do something nice for you. Just remember that, and keep it in mind, even if you should decide you're not interested. It's only part of their faith, and no one said you had to listen, or convert.
The most effective evangelism, religious or otherwise, comes from the heart, not the head. As the old saying goes "A man, convinced against his will, is a man of the same opinion still."
Thanks for the great link to a wonderful article.
I am an athiest. But the Christian Church has been a great comfort to my mama since my father died, and I sometimes envy her faith. She sings in the choir, goes on field trips with the "Ageless Wonders" and keeps a busy social schedule through the church.
There's not a Got-Damned thing wrong with that.
One of the entertaining aspects of being a liberal Protestant is that, in my experience, many anti-Christian bigots aren't even aware that liberal Protestantism exists. Thus, I am invisible on their radar screen. I've had many an entertaining hour, conversing with people who simply cannot wrap their minds around the fact that I'm a Christian but I'm not a fundamentalist. :-)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to run through my sermon one last time, before the 9:00 service at St. John's next door.
Oops! That's 9:00 Central time, Dean's blog runs on Eastern time...
I'm reminded of the old saw about the son who killed his parents and then begged the court's mercy because he was an orphan.
The initiating act in your story was that a bunch of bigots decided to make a mockery of their 'religion' by 'praying' for someone who is gay.
We're all sinners, Dean. Yet, these bigots decided somehow this fact didn't warrant their prayers--only the gay guy does. Did they huddle in prayer for the soul of John McCain, who has been known, on numerous occasions, to covet his neighbor's wife. Did they quickly convene a 'prayer' group for virtually every GOP speaker who bore false witness? Did Laura Bush get prayers for violating the "shalt not kill" provisions?
Nope. Only the gay guy gets the treatment.
And the Good Book also admonishes those who would use prayer and piety for ostentacious displays.
Pointing out hypocrisy isn't bigotry, Dean.
Apparently, Guy, your prejudice exceeds your understanding of Christian theology.
In the eyes of a Christian, if you're admitting to being gay, actively so, then you are admitting that you are currently sinning and unrepentant about that fact. You aren't seeking forgiveness, and it's not something in your past. It's something that's actively part of your life.
You either accept that this is part of people's faith, and let it go in the spirit of religious tolerance, or you stand guilty of the kind of bigotry you seem to deplore.
By the way, there was nothing particularly ostentatious about their behavior. They simply held hands and bowed their heads and said a silent prayer for him. I thought it was awfully nice, and don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. The congressman didn't have a problem with it.
Funny how you would assume it was ostentatious.
Dean:
I don't care if Christians pray openly for gay people, but when they do it at a political convention, the implication is, well, unmistakable: religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making.
And that is wrong.
When John Ashcroft says "we" have no King but Jesus, that doesn't sit well with me for a variety of reasons, most of which I won't go into right now.
I understand that the evangelists' mandate is to preach the Gospel to everyone. I understand that Ascroft's religion is important to him.
Aschcroft believes (as do all truly born again Christians) that unless you receive Jesus as your savior, you will be cast into the pits of Hell for eternity.
If you believe it, that's fine for you. I happen to find it objectionable, but then again I'm not a Christian.
So, fine for those who buy it.
What's most definitely not fine is when intense adherence to this kind of religious fervor worms its way into the highest levels of government and policy is set according to it.
Me, going to hell, if I don't accept Jesus? What's next? Me going to Hell if I don't vote Republican?
Dean:
I'm very comfortable in my understanding of theology.
As for your assertion In the eyes of a Christian, if you're admitting to being gay, actively so, then you are admitting that you are currently sinning and unrepentant about that fact. --that's false. Only certain folks purporting to be 'Christian' believe this.
Again, pointing out hypocrisy and hatred isn't bigotry, Dean. The only bigotry is on the part of those who demand we accept their prejudices and biases.
I'd also second Ara's comments.
Ara and Guy,
You are religious bigots. Period. Don't waste my time with sophistry intended to prove you aren't. (Look up sophistry berore you reply.)
Dean,
An interesting fact that has not been covered AT ALL by the media....
A scientific study was done a couple of years ago that revealed that prayer has healing powre. It was a standard "double blind" study. A group of subjects afflicted with a disease (don't remember which one) was divided into two. The names of all the people in one of the two groups was given to a third group, (a group who did not know or have any relationship with the test subjects) and they were asked to pray for these people by name each day.
The people who were prayed for recovered about 40% faster than the group who were not prayed for.
What does this prove? It proves only that prayer is effective, at least, in curing disease. It proves nothing more. It doesn't prove the existence of God, ANY God. It doesn't prove the non-existence of God either. It doesn't prove one religion better than another, it doesn't prove that prayer wins football games or lotteries. It only proves that prayer helps cure disease.
I think maybe I'll pray for Guy and Ara, perhaps thier mental infirmity can be cured by prayer. :)
Gary:
Maybe prayer can correct your spelling errors, too.
Dean,
Kudos for the comments.
"Bigotry is bigotry" is absolutely correct.
Most of the folks who have such a problem with Christianity are Secular Humanists, even if they don't admit it. And yes, Guy, Secular Humanism is a religion and it probably describes your belief system. Even being an atheist is a religion as it requires an article of faith (there is no g*d) which cannot be proved. The only way to escape religion is to be apathetic (Maybe there is, maybe there ain't, who gives a sh*t? Did you bring more beer from the store?).
I have a problem with the Humanists trying to dominate my government, by excluding any viewpoints but the ones they espouse. Pagan Greenies use the government to further their worship of Gaia, Athieist Socialists with their vision of a perpetual "Free Lunch" program and there are many other examples I am too apathetic to list.
Get honest about it. You have a dog in the fight. You want your religion to be dominant.
What the hell, the pendulum keeps swinging and our system keeps it from swinging all the way to either side.
Mike S
btw I'm not a Christian. I was an agnostic Buddhist for many years and have degenerated into a Southern Taoist (One must find one's own way or rot in hell). I am not as offended by Christians trying to convert me as I am by those who will not even admit that they are practising a religion, as they try to shove that religion down my throat. At least the bible thumpers are honest.
Why, how un-Christian of you, Gary. Perhaps we could all pray for your heart to open and your head to heal.
It's an intellectually dishonest argument you're making, Mike. Trying to cast no religion or respect for all faiths as a religion, in and of itself, is a logical fallacy.
Moreover, our secular laws permit people to act as bigots as embodied by Dean's 'prayer group.'. The same laws permit us the freedom to point out those bigots.
Somehow, I doubt Dean would be whimpering about 'bigotry' if the prayer group had been Muslim or Wiccans.
Well, I'm not a Christian or even a believer, but it seems to me that if the liberals (tolerant of everthing except Christianity) bash you, then bash them right back.
Sir Walter Scott's 19th century classic novel about medieval England, "Ivanhoe" had this overwhelmingly passionate and heroic scene, in which the Rebecca, the Jewish damsel and daughter of Isaac, has been spirited off to the Templar Preceptory of Templestowe by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert, who has fallen in love with her -- a high crime in the measure of the Templars as priests and because of her religion.
Lucas Beaumanoir, Grand Master of the Templar order and also an intolerant and misanthropic Norman noble, chooses to punish Sir Brian by putting Rebecca on trial for sorcery, a trial in which she is quickly sentenced to death by burning.
Sir Brian passes a message to her at the end of the trial: "Demand a champion". She does so, throwing her glove to the floor as her gage of battle in her innocence and the Grand Master obliges by ordering a trial by combat. She has until the setting of the sun for an armed knight to appear and kill or be killed on her behalf. Beaumanoir rubs salt into the would by naming de Bois-Guilbert, the lovestruck Norman, to do combat on behalf of the Templar Order.
Near the end of the day, Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe, still wounded from an earlier joust in the "Gentle and Joyous Passage of Arms at Ashby de la Zouche", rides into the tilt-field at Templestowe, and challenges Brian de Bois-Guilbert to mortal combat on behalf of Rebecca.
The Grand Marshal announces, "Let God defend the Right", and the armed knights, encased head to foot in chain mail, ride toward each other with their lances. Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert collapses, either from a heart attack or stroke, and Beaumanoir, the Grand Master of the Order, with his eyes toward heaven, declares: "This is truly a judgement of God. Release the maiden." At which point, King Richard I rides onto the field at the head of his barons and other followers, and takes charge like the overwhelming deus ex machina that English history has thus treated him for so many centuries.
So that, more or less is my answer. If there truly is a God, let Him defend the Right. And if you feel strongly enough about it, given Him the assistance He needs. Each of you can be your own Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe. Religion or any other philosophy cannot be saved from attack merely by caving in and whining about the unfairness of it all. That wouldn't have saved Rebecca from Beaumanoir's auto-da-fe and it won't save Christianity from the modern assaults mounted against it by enemies a lot more subtle than the late 12th century Norman barons of England and northern France.
And, damn, that was and is a great novel. It still makes me shudder to read some of the great passages!
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Guy, you lose your bet. Dean has consistently defended Muslims on his blog despite the general climate of "Muslims are all bigoted terrorists."
I think you took a low shot with the crack about Gary being un-christian. I'm not disputing his actual status, but I find it sarcastic and destructive of your credibility. I know I have trouble taking someone seriously when the main thrust of a post is just to crack on someone (Ara, about that spelling crack... [heh]).
Your definition of "real" Christanity is incorrect, and your habit of putting quotes around certain words (e.g. "Christian") is dishonest. If you don't think that they are following the dictates of Christianity, then say so.
And claiming to have final knowledge of "real" Christianity (such as your remark about people who purport to be Christian) is, well, funny. This position ignores the wide variety in the forms of Christianity. Consider the differences between Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Greek Orthodox. I suppose if you hold (say) the Catholic dogma to be the defining description of the faith, then all Protestants and Orthodox are merely purporting to be Christians, but are actually hypocrites.
I would like to see support for your contention that claiming atheism is a religion is a logical fallacy. Or should we just take your word for it?
Since it seems to be obligatory for these discussions, I'm agnostic. :)
Casey, I don't recall giving a definition of Christianity. But I will cop to placing 'Christianity' in quotes to describe these bigots as markedly un-Christian.
I simply do not believe people like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Lou Sheldon are 'Christians.' They are bigots and scam artists. They prey upon the elderly and pander to the haters.
As to atheism not being a religion, one only need look at the origin of the word. -theism: referring to a religion. -A: the negative or opposite. The word literally means not a religion. Thus, to claim it is in the context of an argument is a logical fallacy: a fallacy of false analogy where two things being compared are relevantly dissimilar.
I find it curious you would immediately take Gary's side after he initiated the pejorative comments. Then you coyly claim you are unaware of his status.
The initiating act in your story was that a bunch of bigots decided to make a mockery of their 'religion' by 'praying' for someone who is gay.
No. The initiating act was that a group of people with a certain faith decided to show love for a fellow human being by praying for his soul. THey did so because it is their belief that he is an unrepentant sinner. They showed him an act of brotherly love. They disagree with his lifestyle because their faith say's it's sinful. Yet, rather than boo & hiss him - they silently pray for him. What on earth is bigotted about that?
Many different religious groups find things sinful. Drinking, drugs, premarital sex, sex for reasons outside of procreation, masturbation, swearing and much more are sinful to some religious group.
I am guilty of being a sinner to many different viewpoints - I assure you. If I announced that I enjoy masturbating every day and a group of Christians prayed for me I wouldn't think that they were bigots - I might think that they were wasting their time...but not bigots.
Bigotry: The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
Intolerant: Not tolerating difference of opinion or sentiment, especially in religious matters; refusing to allow others the enjoyment of their opinions, rights, or worship; unjustly impatient of the opinion of those disagree with us; not tolerant; unforbearing; bigoted.
Praying for his soul, listening to him speak and politely applauding him when he was finished was very TOLERANT OF THOSE EVIL CHRISTIANS.
It is a belief and labeling someone a bigot for being a good Christian is really intolerant of you.
The only bigotry is on the part of those who demand we accept their prejudices and biases.
Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING???????
Your arguments are classic Christian bashing. Which, by the way, makes you an intolerant bigot.
I simply do not believe people like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Lou Sheldon are 'Christians.' They are bigots and scam artists. They prey upon the elderly and pander to the haters.
Where was it written that any of these men were in the prayer group? You labeled people other than these bigots...and you do it solely because they prayed for the soul of a gay man. You are ridiculous.
Ara,
"Maybe prayer can correct your spelling errors, too."
Tsk tsk, that's really a lame response. Totally ineffectual too. I spel bad just to pizs you auff, you no. Keeep whatching, I'm gonna do it again, and again, and again...
Guy,
"Why, how un-Christian of you, Gary."
Wow, talk about a cut that does not bleed. Where did I say I was a Christian? I'm not. My religion is so far from Christianity that even a theologian wouldn't be able to find a connection.
I KNOW who God is, and he is not a bearded vengeful Jew with an unpronounceable name. He isn't even a "he", that's just a convenient referent for me. (Needless to say, he is not a "she" either. Nor is my God asexual, or homosexual. But "he" IS human, for we created him in our image.
In my book, Southern Baptists and Papists and Muslims and HIndus and Taoists and Buddhists and Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists and every othe religion in the world has just about an equal share of the truth. Only the Zoroastrians and Wiccans have a bigger piece than anyone else, but even they don't have the same peice.
You know who the only people who DON'T have a single stinking shred of the truth are? The secular humanists who think that when you die, you die, and nothing more.
Those people are fools and bigots.
Meanwhile....
"As to atheism not being a religion, one only need look at the origin of the word. -theism: referring to a religion. -A: the negative or opposite."
That's crap. Many words, when broken into thier roots have a technical meaning other than that defined by current usage. Current usage is that an athiest is one who believes that there is no god. That belief MUST be based on nothing more than faith, just as religion is (unless you have some objective PROOF that there is no god whatsoever).
The proper description of one who does not have an opinion on the matter of God is "agnostic". "Atheism" is as much a religion as any other. Your ritual is not weekly prayer meetings, it is constant criticism of those foolish enough to hold an opinion differing from yours.
You have little worth, and less credibility.
Gary:
When religious fervor works its way into the highest levels of government policy making, then that is wrong.
P.S. Where did you get the idea that God was a Jew?
Ara,
When religious fervor works its way into the highest levels of government policy making, then that is wrong.
Well, no, actually, it's not. It's not even unConstitutional. It MAY turn out to be a Bad Thing, or it may NOT. There are good laws and bad laws, and religion has not much to do with it one way or another.
Now you can say that whenever a law is passed to enforce a precept of a given religion, that is a Bad Thing. But then, laws against murder would be Bad. Laws against stealing would be bad, etc, etc, etc.
In fact, while you can, no doubt, come up with examples of why you think "religious fervor" is "bad" when it comes to government, I can come up with countervailing examples for every single one. (And I won't even re-use murder and stealing.) The purpose of having a representative government is so that a small group of fanatics cannot push through thier own laws.
The system works just nicely, it kept us from living in a theocracy for more than 200 years, despite the fact that virtually every member of the Federal Government was a devout Christian for at least half of that period.
P.S. Where did you get the idea that God was a Jew?
Pay attention, I said that "he" was NOT a Jew.
Well, this is interesting! I finally find the time to return to this thread, and what do I find but a food fight?! :-)
Moreover, to my liberal Protestant eyes every single person in this thread, except for Guy, seems thoroughly simpático. Guy, a simple clue: intolerance on behalf of tolerance is not tolerance.
Sorry I missed the fun, but I was leading the 9:00 service at St. John's next door. Then drove seven miles down back country roads, gravel most of the way, and led the 10:30 service at Mt. Hope. Then I tore up to La Crosse, stopping for gas along the way and getting a sandwich to eat as I drove. Made a hospital visit at Gundersen Lutheran. Then down to Mt. La Crosse for the Youth Fellowship's annual ski trip, which ran the rest of the day and late after dark. Then the 45 minute drive home, getting in the door around 9:45 PM Central time.
Since I make a few last runs through my sermon starting around 6:30 Sunday mornings, that means today I've put in something over a 15-hour day on behalf of my religion. And what do I find when I return to this thread late into the evening? Why, a food fight!
Albeit an interesting and entertaining food fight.
Up at the ski chalet, I was running through my mind various possible remarks I might post about Christianity and homosexuality. But I think a food fight is not the venue for my remarks. Maybe some other time! Right now, I'm exhausted, and about ready to collapse.
I remain, your humble liberal Protestant (though not really that liberal!), your stealth liberal Protestant, who doesn't even register on the radar screen of many a self-anointed anti-religious bigot... ;-)
Guy,
I can see your point about Robertson, Falwell, etc.. I have trouble considering them Christian myself, but I don't know that I would refer to them as "Christians" unless I was being deliberately sarcastic or disrespectful.
I don't see the point of referring to the group that Dean originally mentioned as "Christians" (in quotes), except that you don't approve of their behavior. I also don't see any justification in comparing that group with Falwell, et. al., unless you can establish a connection. I therefore question how you can imply that they aren't really Christian. As I pointed out before, there is a wide variety among different points of view about 'true' Christianity, and advocating one does not necessarily negate another. Somehow I suspect you just don't like this particular group, and are impugning the authenticity of their faith for petty reasons.
I don't see any mystery in (as you say) 'immediately take[ing] Gary's side' except that of random chance. There were some points in this thread I wanted to post on before I left for work this afternoon. It was possible that I would not decide to post until tonight (which I have done before) in order to have more time to spend on the topic. In fact I clocked in 2 minutes late. :) As for 'coyly' claiming anything: I still don't know what his "status" is. I suppose you mean his personal philsophy? I can now read his 7:29 post to see that he claims not to be a Christian, but that's the first hint I've had of his philosophy. I think in this case you are seeing some wierd concordance that really isn't there. The only reason I seem to be 'on his side' is that I think your remark "how un-Christian of you" is beneath you. If you don't understand why I think so, please re-read my first post.
As for your claim of a logical fallacy: um, no. :)
Your definition of atheism is not based on logic, but on semantics. Upon reflection, poor semantics. The root word of theis does not refer to religion, but God. For example, Monotheism refers not to "one religion" but "one God. Similarly so for Polytheism for "many Gods"; please also refer to the root of the French Dieu and the Spanish Dios. They derive from theis, which is... Damn. Hey, Dean & Rose, theis is a Greek root, isn't it?
In other words, "atheism" means "no God", or "not God", not "no religion." By contrast, religion is defined as:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
The above is from dictionary.reference.com from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition.
I don't think folks will argue with the above. What I find interesting is the fourth definition: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Does this not describe most atheists perfectly?
I never really thought about this until a few years ago, when British author Terry Pratchett wrote Feet of Clay, which includes a clay Golem that gains self-awareness. One of his comments was that atheism is a belief, in that the atheist expresses his belief as a constant denial of God. Upon reflection I decided this makes sense. Nearly all professed atheists that I've met, heard of, or read their works, spend all of their time attacking the idea of God, or at least denying Him. Why? Why spend any time worrying about, or discussing an "outmoded belief system"? Simple. The belief system of the atheist based upon the statement "There is no God." In other words, their belief system is based on denying another belief system. The position that there is no God is, in itself, an act of faith since it cannot be falsified.
And (this is the really cool part):
-Since the claim that God does (or cannot) exist cannot be falsified, this makes the the claim non-scientific, since one cannot use the scientific method to verify a non-falsifiable claim.
-Since the claim that God does not exist is non-scientific, and cannot be falsified, it is not addressable strictly through reason.
-Since the claim that God does not exist is non-scientific, and cannot be proved (or disproved) using reason, then the atheist position is based upon faith, not reason, and is therefore itself a religion.
Whaddya think Dean? Rose? Nicely fisked? Heh.
Ara: I have a question for you. You say you that "religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making. And that is wrong."
Are you going to say that to the folks over in Israel who refer to the West Bank as "Greater Judea and Samaria?" Are you, in fact, going to question the legitimacy of the Israeli government, since (if memory serves) is has never been anything but the political expression of the Jewish State of Israel? Or does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?
Come to think of it, since when is is "fervor" for an American politician to explicitly refer to the Christian faith?
Was it "fervor" when Jefferson referred to "Nature's God", or that "men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?"
Was it "fervor" when Lincoln said "that this
nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom?"
Or does it only bother you when Ashcroft says something?
The people who were prayed for recovered about 40% faster than the group who were not prayed for.
There was also a great study done where a group of patients with a blood disease were randomly divided into two groups and one was prayed for and one was not. The outcomes for the prayed-for group were in general significantly better than the mortality rate of the non-prayed-for group.
The only flaw to the study (an intentional one) was that prayers began six years after the patient outcomes were already known. In other words, the researchers set out to prove not the power of prayer, but that a statistical fluke could be "evidence" of for God's intervention. Needless to say, they succeeded admirably.
This was a serious study published in the British Medical Journal. One wag wrote a letter suggesting that they swap the two groups and see whether prayer could now retroactively bring some of the control group back to life. ;)
The only flaw to the study (an intentional one) was that prayers began six years after the patient outcomes were already known. In other words, the researchers set out to prove not the power of prayer, but that a statistical fluke could be "evidence" of for God's intervention.
That "study" was fraudulent. Think about it. The only way they could get the results they were looking for was to stack the deck in advance.
Which makes them, not scientists, but jerks.
This is a great discussion.
1) Saying "When religious fervor works its way into the highest levels of government policy making, then that is wrong," is not, in my view, particularly different from saying, "when darkies make their way up to the highest level of government, it's wrong."
2) When Ashcroft said, "we have no King but Jesus," he was speaking evangelical Christians like himself who were in government. He was making it perfectly clear to anyone who would listen with an unprejudiced ear: this is a constitutional democracy, and he respects that first and foremost.
Attacking him for that line shows an unwillingness to even try to understand the religious viewpoints of others.
3) Anyone who understands evangelical Christian theology--or who cares enough to try--knows that there was no hypocrisy by the Christians who prayed for the congressman. They would have done the same thing if he were a striaght man who was on record as currently having a mistress. Or living with a woman outside of marriage.
And what a kind and decent thing for them to do!
4) 85% of the world's Christians are Catholics. They hold that homosexuality is sinful. Add in the Orthodoxy and at least half the Protestant groups, and it becomes apparent that only a tiny minority of Christians feel that homosexuality is not sinful.
But once again, so what? You don't have to be a Christian! Or you can join a minority sect. That's what that 1st amendment thingy is all about. (Said first amendment having been written, by the way, by a fundamentalist Baptist of the same exact school as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.)
You don't have to agree with their view. But you should tolerate it. And if you want to be a liberal, you should try to respect it as a difference of opinion.
Or you can just be a bigot about it. The choice is yours of course.
Oh, and by the way, Guy said: Somehow, I doubt Dean would be whimpering about 'bigotry' if the prayer group had been Muslim or Wiccans.
Someone who brands prayer as hateful would probably leap to such conclusions. So I'm not surprised by this comment--it shows a similar, indeed common, form of prejudice. ;-)
You're all right, Guy, but you're acting kind of silly. :-)
I offer you my comments as a gay Englishman who lived in the US for a decade and now lives back in the UK. Absent a statement by the group involved, I would assume that the act of prayer was both religiously sincere and a political statement. I have no problems with either. The prayer is certainly not offensive (how effective it might have been I find a rather quaint subject for discussion for anyone not expert in the theology of such matters); the political statement was peaceful and non-threatening, though I doubt if it would have been recommended itself to gay people. Since political parties are large, diverse and loosely organised, it is inevitable that any group not at the core of the party's established support will experience some degree of opposition from those who do not wish to lose power and influence (generally or to specific interests). That is what getting active in a party involves. Anyone active in the Republican Party will know who its core supporters are, and the issues that are important to them. A gay man active in the RP will know that he is a pioneer, and can expect active opposition. Such opposition is not bigotry. Nor do I believe Christians who have sincere views that homosexuality is sinful are bigots. We just have to live with them. Only when they try to make bigotry a specific policy it is necessary to oppose it, and them. (Oh yes, and I'm an atheist too).
"Darkies?"
Oh, Dean, get over yourself.
On one hand, your defense of praying Christians is admirable.
But let's get real: This isn't Rome and the Christians aren't being fed to the lions.
I am not bashing Christians. So please don't talk to me like I'm someone else.
You are missing my main point which is this: When the tenets of Christianity become the foundation of government policy, when the rights of US citizens are decided by viewing the world specifically thru the prism of Christian theology, that is wrong.
And saying so does not make me a bigot or anti-Christian. If you think it does then you better think twice.
Of course I understand and acknowledge the simple historical truth that the US was founded as a Christian nation. No problem; although Deism is a more accurate description of the religion that the Fathers adhered to. Whatever.
What I find onerous is that our government, in times of fear, uncertainty and doubt, is increasingly relying, not on faith in God, but on Christian theology specifically to implement social and economic policy.
Why is this bad? Because it is exclusive in the truest sense.
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:
Think back to Rosemary's response to a question of mine some time ago in this thread:
Ara: If a majority of the people decide to outlaw Bhuddism, by referendum, would that be OK? What if the vote were unanimous? Would that be more OK?
Rosemary: Yeah it would. If the Buddists didn't like it they would be free to move to an area that hasn't outlawed it. That's not the America I signed up for when I came here on the boat. And ironically, it isn't the America that Rosemary signed up for either.
So if you think there's something wrong with her statement, then you have an inkling of what I'm getting at here.
But if you think there is even a germ of common sense in her comment then we don't have much else to discuss on this topic.
Casey, you're correct, theos (with an o)-- spelled theta, epsilon, omicron, sigma-- is indeed a Greek word.
Gee, I wake up this morning and it's still a food fight... :-)
This public service announcement was brought to you by that dude, that "stealth" liberal (but not so liberal) Protestant, who in the eyes of many anti-religious bigots "doesn't exist" 'cause he's a Christian but he's not a fundamentalist...
As a licensed Minister, as well as a born-again Christian, NOT ASHAMED TO DEFEND, PROTECT, AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, I could no longer hold my peace on this is.
First of all, most of these comments, and views of being a Christian and how to avoid going to hell, and being saved are TOTALLY OFF BASE! It is clear to me that most of you do not truly know the plan of salvation.
In the book of Romans, Paul emphasizes to the church of Rome how to get to heaven. The first step is to admit sin (Romans 3:23). We all fall short, and there is no one that is perfect but God. Next, you need to acknowledge the presence of God, and that through his Son, Jesus, you shall be saved (Romans 5:6). Then, you choose which path you are going to take, either deny God, and face death IN HELL, or Accept God, turn from your wicked ways, and have eternal life (Romans 6:23).
Now as far as Ara and Guy are concerned, I feel that your comments regarding Christianity, and as far as how to go to hell, are frankly blasphemous. I fear to be near people like yourselves. To me, you are toying with the power and the word of God. Now, I don't know what your religious background is, but if there were a debate going on regarding your preference, I would respect whatever beliefs you have, and not disrespect them. I would appreciate if you do the same for my religion, considering that you have no sound proof to back up your claims.
As far as the prayers being lifted up for the homosexual congressman... The last time I checked, the first ammendment to the constitution (also known as the bill of rights-ammends 1-10) states freedom of religion. It does not state where the freedom or when the freedom, but it states FREEDOM! The persons offering prayer for that individual may have felt in their hearts that he needs to know God. And, yes, Homosexuality for those who are unaware, is a sin. Not saying that I judge those who participate, because I do not have a heaven or hell to put them in... or for anyone else for that matter. However, it is my job to inform them that if they are trying to live right, that is not a righteous way. Again, I do not judge anyone's way of living, because sin is sin.... be it fornication, lying, adultry, stealing... whatever, and I am less than perfect also. John Ashcroft is absolutly correct with acknowledging God. President Bush, on 911 told Americans to pray... which means talk to God.
I will also say this.... the day that America took God out of everything, from schools to even trying to take God off of our currency, and out of the pledge of alleigance, we have been in HELL! Not the hell talked about in the Bible, but the confusion, wars, division among people... ect. It troubles my spirit when I read things of this nature. Especially when most of you do not have factual evidence to back up your claims. Dean, I respect what you have said, and it holds backing and the thought of many people lost in the darkness of Christianity. I would not be a right person, if I did not try to at least introduce God to someone who I felt were lost. How dare anyone feel that I am wrong, or trying to force my religion on anyone. You do not have to repond to anyone's religion, but that does not make their values any better or worst than yours.
I take my hat off to anyone, who is not ashamed to do what was done by those Christians praying. I would have done the same thing, and am doing the same for those tho said those outlandish and incorrect comments.
P.S., Ara, you are saved from hell if thou will confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe with thine heart that God has raised Him from the Dead (Romans 10:9-10). It does not matter what party affiliation, color, or background. Your sarcastic remarks are unecessary.
Oh, and by the way Ara, Most of the politicans in high offices are Christian. They respect the fact that the United States is a "melting pot," with many cultures and religions making this country beautiful. They are not trying to force anything on anyone. The Christian foundation that this country was founded on, makes us even more beautiful. If you cannot accept that, my suggestion would be to get back on the boat.
Casey:
[What] are you going to say that to the folks over in Israel who refer to the West Bank as "Greater Judea and Samaria?"
Are you, in fact, going to question the legitimacy of the Israeli government, since (if memory serves) is has never been anything but the political expression of the Jewish State of Israel?
Or does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?
Excellent questions my friend. I knew there was a reason I liked you.
1. "[What] are you going to say...to the folks over in Israel who refer to the West Bank as 'Greater Judea and Samaria?'"
Here's my response: You folks better look seriously at the precept of separation of Church and State. That precept is central to the long-term survival of your young nation. Look at the one nation you seek to emulate (consciously or otherwise): the USA got that right from the beginning.
I think Israel is getting it right, too. Look at what's happening now: The Shinnui Party made dramatic gains in the last election. Their platform? Reducing or eliminating the power that the Orthodox infrastructure has over everyday life in Israel. In brief, I think that is a good and necessary thing.
I hope someday that Israel can embrace all nationalities and religions under the umbrella of a strong Jewish state. The USA did. We are fundamentally a Christian nation, yet we have not (yet) embedded a religious infrastructure into our government policy making. We tolerate and encourage plurality and diversity of opinion and religious freedom, for the most part.
Israel must do the same or it will not survive in the long term.
Remember: It isn't just about "In God We Trust." We also believe "E Pluribus Unum."
2. "...does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?"
With all due respect, please stop confusing me with someone else.
:^)
My point has nothing to do with public expressions of religious faith. If you go back and read my comments on this you'll understand.
I don't want to bore everyone with yet another expression of my views on this.
3. "Was it 'fervor' when Jefferson referred to 'Nature's God', or that 'men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?' " etc etc.
Oh for crying out loud. Please go back and read what I said. It has nothing to do with an expression of belief in God or religion.
It has everything to do with majority rule allowing one religion to make government and economic policy that negatively effect the adherants of minority religions.
Just read my comments again.
Ara: If a majority of the people decide to outlaw Bhuddism, by referendum, would that be OK? What if the vote were unanimous? Would that be more OK?
Rosemary: Yeah it would. If the Buddists didn't like it they would be free to move to an area that hasn't outlawed it.
You want irony? I'm probably one of the most conservative people here regarding religious affiliation and observance.
I'm a real square, you guys. Really.
Oh, and one other thing:
I'll cut you Christians some slack and acknowledge that when you say "Jesus" you mean "God" and vice versa.
That is, after all, a central tenet in your faith.
But don't assume everyone believes that.
Jefferson understood that, Lincoln understood that (see above, Casey's comments and my response).
Only John Ashcroft seems to miss that point.
And before I get flamed, I just want to say that I don't have anything against Jesus. After all, he always was a nice Jewish boy.
:^)
Ara,
As long as the first ammendment is in place, you do not have to worry about anyone forcing Christianity on you.
It has everything to do with majority rule allowing one religion to make government and economic policy that negatively effect the adherants of minority religions.
Just read my comments again.
Ara: If a majority of the people decide to outlaw Bhuddism, by referendum, would that be OK? What if the vote were unanimous? Would that be more OK?
Rosemary: Yeah it would. If the Buddists didn't like it they would be free to move to an area that hasn't outlawed it.
You want irony? I'm probably one of the most conservative people here regarding religious affiliation and observance.
We are talking about religious bigotry.
You are taking a conversation about State's Rights - one that I was being hugely sarcastic in and changing the scope to fit your own political motives.
First off the only way what I said could happen would be with a constitutional amendment - Federal or State Constitutional amendment - maybe both.
So, when you said what if the vote were unanimous and I responded with yeah. It was with the assumption (my bad) that you understood that a unanimous vote would allow for a constitutional amendment to take place.
That isn't really what's on tap here, though, its bigotry baby - let's get back to it.
But let's get real: This isn't Rome and the Christians aren't being fed to the lions.
No, there's none left after the liberals chew on them...
It has everything to do with majority rule allowing one religion to make government and economic policy that negatively effect the adherants of minority religions.
Where exactly do you see this happening? It's not going on here in this country.
2. "...does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?"
With all due respect, please stop confusing me with someone else.
Wasn't it you who said this: "I don't care if Christians pray openly for gay people, but when they do it at a political convention, the implication is, well, unmistakable: religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making. And that is wrong."
There is no implication beyond the fact that Christians attend political conventions and that since we have freedom of speech and religion praying there was well legal and acceptable. To non-bigots anyway.
Since when is a CONVENTION high levels of government policy making...
Should we be concerned that NARAL or NAMBLA attends the Democratic convention and speaks their agenda there. I mean wouldn't they be influencing the highest levels of government by attending?
Yeah, sounds stupid. I agree. Your argument is silly and so is mine. I hope my point isn't so sarcastic that you are missing it.
(Gosh, I'm so glad that I can sit up without too much pain - I miss arguing with Ara!!)
<Romulan cloaking device off>
This is developing into a very interesting and highly entertaining thread...
And I've held my tongue, I haven't even said yet what I, as a Presbyterian minister, think about homosexuality-- an issue which has bitterly divided my denomination in recent years.
Naw, I'm just gonna wait a while longer, and keep reading everyone else's posts... :-)
<Romulan cloaking device back on again>
Skip one weekend and everything hits the fan!
Rosemary,
If I announced that I enjoy masturbating every day and a group of Christians prayed for me I wouldn't think that they were bigots .
I'd probably just pray that Dean spent a little less time blogging... :-)
Guy,
I don't think Fred Phelps is a real Christian, either (and I'm a wild-eyed raving fundamentalist. Just ask Dean). I think Falwell and Robertson probably are Christians, but they've done and said some stupid things; however, I certainly wouldn't die to defend that belief.
The problem with this entire topic was nailed on the head by that grandson and son of preachers, Nietzsche, who said something to the effect of, "The Christian is going to have to look a lot more redeemed before I look at his redeemer." We as Christians carry much of the blame, as Dean's original linked article admitted. A lot of Christians are idiots, but then again, so are a lot of atheists, agnostics, pagans, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims...come to think of it, congenital idiocy appears to be a common human condition.
Casey,
>theis is a Greek root, isn't it?
Actually the Greek word is theos, and yes, it means "god" and not "religion."
Ara,
This isn't Rome and the Christians aren't being fed to the lions.
Not in North America, but overseas Christians are being martyred at a record pace.
I'll cut you Christians some slack and acknowledge that when you say "Jesus" you mean "God" and vice versa.
Without that, it's not Christianity anyway.
After all, he always was a nice Jewish boy.
You think the moneychangers were thinking that when he cleaned out the temple? I know you were being humorous, but when the mobs wanted to stone him for blasphemy, they weren't thinking of him as nice. As C.S. Lewis wrote in his Narnia series, "Aslan is not a tame lion."
Ara,
As my friend Meir Weingarten of Ariel Tours would cheerfully admit, it's hard to find a non-Jewish group more supportive of Israel than evangelical Christians. Does that bother you?
Ara: thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my remarks. I should have said "does it only bother you when Christian politicians are publicly explicit in their faith? My intent was to focus on that group. I obviously didn't proofread my post carefully enough.
Same thing for "#3": my intent was to demonstrate that Jefferson was both Christian and a political leader who was very public about his faith. In neither case was I talking about (as you say) with merely an expression of belief, but an expression within a particular political context.
Thank you for helping me clear that up. :)
Fair enough, on my questions about the Israeli parliament.
I can see where we might be talking past each other just a bit. You don't object to faith per se, but someone with political power who acts upon their faith politically. In other words, that Ashcroft (say) may try to stuff his beliefs down your throat. Close?
I suppose this is where we diverge. Going back, I see you object to "this kind of religious fervor worms its way into the highest levels of government and policy is set according to it." (emphasis added)
Which part of fervor is "bad"? The part that says we are all God's children? Or the part where we are supposed to love another as we love ourselves? Since the ethics of our society are based upon something that has come to be called "Judeo-Christian beliefs", I'm not sure to what you object. :) Ok, I'll stop being disingenuous now.
Apparently you believe that people like Ashcroft in government can, and will, take the opportunity to force other people to conform to their own beliefs. Close?
This is where we disagree. As far as I know, the currently-elected "fundamentalist" politicians are not trying to pass legislation to spread those beliefs, unlike the conservative party in Israel promoting Greater Judea and Samaria.
I don't feel threatened by Ashcroft's faith, any more than I feel threatened by Lieberman's, or by those of a Catholic senator.
I can see your point: a lot of people were concerned about Kennedy's Catholicsm (say that 10 times fast!) during the 1960 election. Apparently he reassured the voters, since he was elected.
I suppose the difference between us is that I'll allow someone like that to hold office, and see if they "try" anything. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer that they didn't hold office at all. Or at least, hold office but not act on their faith, which presupposes that they will act, given the opportunity. Close? ;)
I still think Wiccans are kinda loopy, though.
I'm not going to say I have the answer but here's some observations on the discussion above.
Arnold Harris: >>Well, I'm not a Christian or even a believer, but it seems to me that if the liberals (tolerant of everthing except Christianity) bash you, then bash them right back.
So now all liberals are anti-Christian? That's nice. And wrong.
Mike S. No religion is a religion? (paraphrase) C'mon - You're really Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aren't you? No evidence is evidence? This is how Republicans argue? Answer, no not always otherwise debate would be minimal.
>>You are religious bigots. Period. Don't waste my time with sophistry intended to prove you aren't. (Look up sophistry berore you reply.)
I knew this was Gary, before I read who wrote it.
Later, Gary: When religious fervor works its way into the highest levels of government policy making, then that is wrong. Well, no, actually, it's not. It's not even unConstitutional. It MAY turn out to be a Bad Thing, or it may NOT. There are good laws and bad laws, and religion has not much to do with it one way or another.
It IS wrong. Do you want a government that fervently acts on faith that a god, any god, has the answer and not work toward answers based in reality?
Ara: I don't care if Christians pray openly for gay people, but when they do it at a political convention, the implication is, well, unmistakable
my view exactly. No more of the typo cracks though - see how it enables people to disregard what you say.
Rosemary: Many different religious groups find things sinful. Drinking, drugs, premarital sex, sex for reasons outside of procreation, masturbation, swearing and much more are sinful to some religious group.
Which would seem to point to the malliability nature of "faith."
Then there are those Christians who say, "I'm not judging you, but I feel sorry for you" as if the two weren't the same thing.
PS type in B-L-O-G-P-S-O-T.com and see if you agree with that. It's religion, too.
Casey TompkinsAra: I have a question for you. You say you that "religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making. And that is wrong."
Are you going to say that to the folks over in Israel who refer to the West Bank as "Greater Judea and Samaria?" Are you, in fact, going to question the legitimacy of the Israeli government, since (if memory serves) is has never been anything but the political expression of the Jewish State of Israel? Or does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?
Casey, I don't think we want to be Israel do we? I mean, they just wallow in peace and barely cause a ripple of disension in the world. [again a pre-emptive strike against charges of Anti-semitism - they have EVERY right to defend themselves].
Dean:They would have done the same thing if he were a striaght man who was on record as currently having a mistress. Or living with a woman outside of marriage.
You would like to think so, but it's never happened. If so, I will gladly send in a list of Rs and Ds who've had mistresses and they can do so at the next RNC.
Deonna:I will also say this.... the day that America took God out of everything, from schools to even trying to take God off of our currency, and out of the pledge of alleigance, we have been in HELL! Not the hell talked about in the Bible, but the confusion, wars, division among people... ect.
Prove it. Or to put it another way: -- There were no wars, no disagreemnts in America before that? Or is it that there is greater freedom and more opportunity today for people who have disagreements to speak up. Enjoyed the rest of your post.
By the logic that atheism is a religion, then it must also be an article of faith that the sun will come up every morning and set every evening. By the same logic, homosexuality is a religion because gays are only "acting" on faith that they are attracted to the same sex.
Lastly, if religion is all about faith, then why spend so much time defending it? People who disagree that a god exists could still be right or they could be wrong. Right? Logically speaking. Of course, logic and faith are two incompatible ideas so it is interesting but ultimately fruitless to try and make religion "logical."
Hey Dimn,
I am not saying that the world was perfect and that there were not any wars, I am saying that the condition of this country, even the world started to further deteriorate. And you are absolutly correct... religion is all about one's faith. If you have faith, and belief in your God, then that is all that matters.
Onward 'Christian' bigots,™
Marching as to war,
With the Cross of Jeeeeeheeee-bus,
Going On Before
Yes, there are literally hordes of homosexuals running about pouncing upon innocent Christians as they lovingly pray for the salvation of souls, beating them senseless, and abandoning them to die on a desolate stretch of fencing in Wyoming.
Our secular world grants you the freedom to be as bigoted as you wish. It also grants us the freedom to point out that bigotry and condemn it for what it is. So...isn't it time you quit hiding behind a veil of feigned oppression and just revel in your hatreds?
it's hard to find a non-Jewish group more supportive of Israel than evangelical Christians. Does that bother you?
Do you know why evangelical 'Christians' are supportive of Israel, Randy?
Hint: The answer's in Revelations.
Hint2: Not a real happy ending for the Jews.
Well, THIS liberal Protestant is uncloaking his device (nobody get alarmed--I mean that in reference to what Paul said, NOT that I will be uploading anything gross).
Ha ha.
Ok, so here's a prime example of some of what I think Ara is getting at, when she refers to religious fervor "creeping into the highest level of government policy making:"
Gay marriage.
Nothing could be more clearly based on religious discrimination at the governmental level than the Right's on-going refusal to permit homosexuals to marry.
I have yet to see a secular reason for denying two consenting adults the right to marry whomever they choose, straight, gay, lesbian, otherwise.
I fully understand that many people regard homosexuality as immoral. That is completely each person's prerogative, in my opinion. Just as it is each person's free prerogative to pray whenever and however they choose, with certain legal restrictions (with good reason, i.e. the circumstances under which one may pray in public schools).
BUT that doesn't mean that some peoples' morality ought to be legislated above other, opposite views of morality. Especially since there doesn't seem to be a compelling, secular reason for this discrimination in the first place.
Unless anyone would like to offer theirs...?
Tom (above): as they would with murder, they would likely say, homosexuality is damaging to the public good. But let the "they" here speak on that further, not me.
Ah, the food fight continues!
And, good "invisible" liberal Protestant that I am, I must now slightly amend one statement that I made: I find every single person who's posted in this thread so far, whatever their stance, thoroughly simpático-- with the exception of two individuals.
A simple clue: Intolerance on behalf of tolerance is not tolerance.
25 bonus points if you can guess which two individuals I'm talking about. No, on second thought, don't bother guessing-- it goes without saying.
Memo to self: Self, stop taking advantage of the fact that many anti-religious bigots can't even see you on their radar screen; that's no excuse to sneak around behind them and kick them in the ass...
Nobody ever expects the Liberal Protestant Inquisition! :-)
dimn--
Let "them" come. If "they" can manage to come up with an argument that can't be refuted by a literate teenager, I'd love to hear it. Valid legislation based on blanket statements like "homosexuality is damaging to the public good" requires a LOT of evidence.
P.S. It is often amusing to encounter the "persecuted majority" standpoint. It is interesting to me how many people cry "reverse opression" whenever the statements, beliefs, or actions of someone from a widely accepted majority get called into question. I think I would feel more sorry for said majority folk if more people with privilege actively sought to irradicate other injustice than just that which is directed against themselves.
To comment on Tom's post....
Homosexual marriages are totally immoral, and frankly speaking, downright disgusting. Again, I do not judge anyone's preference, but let people know that this is not mine. First of all, when God made man and woman, he made them to be together as one, and reproduce. You cannot reproduce with anyone who has the same equiptment that you have (frankly speaking, I could not see getting any kind of satisfaction from anyone with the same stuff that I have). I am a heterosexual, and I love men, especially the black man. Men have strength, knowledge, and a sense of protection... something that most women want and need. The opposite sex is here to enhance and help the other sex. Now for the liberal women out there, I am not saying that we're weak. I am saying that there is a certain strength about a man that.... in my opinion, makes them even more attractive to me. It was not God's intention for man to marry another man, and I feel that any state that allows that is making a grave mistake.
In the suburb that I grew up in, there will be an issue on November's ballot allowing public officials and employees of that city to add their partners and same sex lovers to their medical, retirement, and life benefits. I will be voting against that issue. In fact, if a committee is formed to encourage voters to vote against it, I will probably join it. It is time to be about what is honest and true in God's sight. It is not my belief that God is condoning or is pleased with this living, especially when His word talks against it.
It is my prayer, that as long as strong Christian leaders with strong values, or any person, not matter what the religion, that believes that right is right and wrong is wrong, will continue to stand on solid values, this issue will not pass.
To those who feel that homosexuality is God's way, and He created you to be like that, might I suggest that you either A)Read the bible, and find out what is really said, or B)Show me biblical evidence that this in morally correct.
I address my comments to proponents of marriage between two persons of the same sex:
If such a union could in fact be legalized and recognized, what reason could be given by the rest of us -- or the homosexual community -- to stop an individual from marrying his or her own parent or child? Let us take this a step further. There are some truly bizarre people in this world. Suppose some of them should wish to sanctify marriage partnerships with animals?
After all, they would argue, if ordinary homosexuals can freely conduct practices that most people and societies condemn as aberrations, and even arrange for these practices to be recognized as 'lifestyles', why cannot they do the same? What principle of law would be left to inhibit such behavior on demand, other than that of prevention of cruelty to animals?
Perhaps this is too unthinkable for any of you to contemplate, but so was industrialized mass murder in gas chambers, with multiplexed crematories operating 24 hours per day, before a modern government actually effectuated just that.
Homosexuality has, to varying extent, made its appearance in every society and in every era throughout human history, despite that the overwhelming majority of human beings regard its practices simply as sexual perversions.
The most basic function of any living organization, from the simplest amoeba to the most complex human being, is to reproduce itself. We live for a generally predictable period of time, bear offspring, then pass into death.
For those of you who champion outright atheism, one would think this process important to you. After all, without children, you have no form of immortality at all. Nothing. You live. Hopefully you enjoy. You grow old, sick and ignored. You die. You rot in the ground like a dead cockroach. You are forgotten as if you had never lived.
I am neither a Christian nor a believer. If there is a God, which I hold entirely possible, I find it difficult to determine His (Her/Its?) relationship to the human race or even to our part of the universe in particular.
But I hope and believe I was brought to birth in 1934 for some purpose beyond merely that of consuming food, amusing myself and occupying space on the surface of this planet for the next few score years, until ill health, an accident or simply old age should put me into a grave.
That purpose, in my case, was to constitute a family with my wife, and to build upon that foundation by bringing to life and raising our four children.
Of course, as homosexuals, some societies and even states in this country probably will allow you to adopt and raise children. And admitedly, some of you will do a fine and purposeful job of that. But will they be your children? Will they be the continuation of your own body and genes beyond your own death? Will they be YOUR regeneration, or will they be someone elses?
The homosexual community in this and other western countries has demanded and received not only widespread toleration but social acceptance. But there are times that I listen to your arguments, and perceive that some of you wish destruction of the institutions, religious beliefs, and basic social structuring of the majority of your fellow humans who can never and shall never join you in homosexuality.
That perception, and any societal actuations stemming from it, would be a tragedy for you, and for us.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
This is a great discussion - but let me throw a few wrenches into the works.
I'm an atheist, but unlike most, I didn't abandon religion: I was raised as an atheist. This has given me a rare perspective. I sought out religion when I was young because it was advertised to answer big questions and offer deep insights into life. But when I read about actual beliefs, I couldn't understand why anyone would accept them. For example, the Christian doctrines of the virgin birth, of Jesus' miracles, of Jesus ascending into heaven - these made no more sense to me than any other superstition. Likewise for virtually all other major religions.
So here's the first wrench: I sincerely invite others here to offer me a compelling reason to believe that any conventional religious doctrine is true. Don't feel you have to nail down a complete argument in a post; just point me in the direction of a book or source that you think is convincing. (Please don't suggest the Bible. I've read it.) What convinced you that God is real? I understand that faith is a personal experience, but I don't understand how it is begun.
Second wrench: I think religion is essentially un-democratic. The problem with combining religion and politics is that it produces leaders who rely on a belief in the supernatural to inform their decisions. And the supernatural, by definition, can't be supported with available evidence. So when a politician says his actions stem from his faith in God, there is no evidence to evaluate - no way for others to argue on the merits of the case. For example, if John Ashcroft says his antiabortion stand is based on his religious beliefs, there is no way for me to respond unless I know enough about his religion to argue - and I shouldn't have to know that to participate in a democracy. (An example of this kind of argument is Deonna Moore's post. I emphatically disagree with her, but since she bases her view on her religion, how can I argue with her?)
Third wrench: I don't believe leaders who claim they can separate their religious convictions from their public duties, as John Ashcroft and several others state. If their faith is the truest thing they know, then why in the world wouldn't they want to guide the public towards that truth? I sure would. I can only conclude that they do indeed let religion guide their decisions and are trying to hide that fact, or they don't really believe as strongly in their faith as they claim. I think congress is filled with both types, the first are typically republicans, while the latter are typically democrats. What I'd like to see is a politician stand up and say he's an atheist and doesn't let religion influence his decisions. The fact that this would be political suicide speaks volumes about the reality of the separation of church and state in our democracy.
Finally, a point about what atheism is or isn't. All this talk about atheism being a religion or a belief based on faith is silly. Atheism a non-belief, and we all have an infinite number of non-beliefs. Do you believe I have a life-size purple elephant in my office? No? That's a non-belief of yours, something you take on faith. If we're discussing god, I'm an atheist. If we're discussing the Wicca faith, I'm an awiccian - I don't believe witches exist. If we're discussing Santa Claus, I'm an aclausian - I don't believe Santa Claus exists. Religious people are so obsessed with God they think everyone else is too, and that atheists go around constantly thinking "not-God" thoughts. But because atheists don't believe in God, most of them don't think about him much at all. That's certainly been my experience. My non-belief in God doesn't guide my life any more than your non-belief in my purple elephant guides your life. It's only when religious people raise the issue of God that it becomes an issue in the first place.
Well now, lets see what the Good Book has to say about public prayer:
From the KJV, Matthew Chapter 6:
5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
-------------------
I think those praying for the Rep. at the Convention were of the Verse 5 variety above...as has been pointed out by others already, many of the other politicians on that stand were Adulterers, or worse!
They were praying for the PR, let's get real, and they have their reward.
I'm guessing that the Rep. in question was Jim Kolbe, whose District I live in, as he's about the only gay Republican I can think of (and it's a mostly Dem. District...when he got forcibly outed, his strangle-hold on the seat got tighter, as he gets many cross-over votes from otherwise left-leaning Dems...Tucson has one of the highest percentages of gay population outside of SF in the US).
If the person in question was Kolbe, I'd say his soul would be in peril more for conducting a sham of a marriage for years, and then ripping his family appart when outed, than it is for being gay.
Ara,
When the tenets of Christianity become the foundation of government policy, when the rights of US citizens are decided by viewing the world specifically thru the prism of Christian theology, that is wrong.
The tenets of Christianity are ALREADY the foundation of government policy, as you are well aware. And while I see you hyopthesising outrageous scenarios, I do not, in fact, see the government deciding the rights of US citizens by viewing the world specifically thorugh the prism of Christian theology. I am a lot more worried that they might be decided by viewing the world specifically through the prism of socialism and secular humanism, as they were so often during the Clinton years.
And saying so does not make me a bigot or anti-Christian. If you think it does then you better think twice.
It only makes you a bigot if you truly believe that there is danger of Christian theology running this country.
Dimn,
It IS wrong. Do you want a government that fervently acts on faith that a god, any god, has the answer and not work toward answers based in reality?
Why do you assume that faith that a god has the answer is not based in reality? Can you support your assumption with anything other than opinion?
By the logic that atheism is a religion, then it must also be an article of faith that the sun will come up every morning and set every evening.
Oh dear, your training in logic is defective, it seems. Note that we can OBSERVE the sun coming up every morning, and setting every night. Note that we have records of it happening that way EVERY SINGLE DAY OF RECORDED HISTORY. Of course, that is no guarantee that it will come up TOMORROW, but if it doesn't, we won't care, because we'll all be "dead".
(Note: sunrise/sunset is caused by the rotation of the Earth. The only way for sunrise to not happen would be if the Earth stopped turning. If THAT happened, we would keep moving at the same speed we had been before the Earth stopped. This would be painful, as the Earth is actually turning quite rapidly.)
People who disagree that a god exists could still be right or they could be wrong. Right?
Right. However, this being America, those who DISbelieve should refrain from making negative comments about those who DO believe and how silly thier beliefs actually are. (And the religious should likewise refrain from making negative comments about those who DON'T believe. A policy that the "Arab street' would be well advised to follow as well. )
Deonna,
Homosexual marriages are totally immoral, and frankly speaking, downright disgusting.
Welllll, THAT'S a matter of opinion. Certainly the disgusting part is a matter of opinion. Most of my homosexual friends are "married" (in all but legal terms), and I find them pretty much indistinguishable from my married hetero friends in thier behaviour. As for being immoral, ummmm, that depends on your moral standards. Homosexuality is just fine in MY moral universe.
In the suburb that I grew up in, there will be an issue on November's ballot allowing public officials and employees of that city to add their partners and same sex lovers to their medical, retirement, and life benefits. I will be voting against that issue.
As is your right. A large part of the opposition to homosexual marriage lies in the fact that such coverage would be automatic if a gay couple were legally married. I think it is less a case of people fearing thier helth insurance will be compromised than just thier unreasoning fear and hatred of something they don't understand. More bigotry, in other words.
Ara again,
I inserted several spelling errors in this post, just to keep you occupied trying to find them. Get your Funkin Wagnalls ready annnnnd GO! :)
Gary,
>>Dimn,
It IS wrong. Do you want a government that fervently acts on faith that a god, any god, has the answer and not work toward answers based in reality?
Why do you assume that faith that a god has the answer is not based in reality? Can you support your assumption with anything other than opinion?
Here I bow to the expertise of the ordained Deonna Moore (from comment above):
you are absolutly correct... religion is all about one's faith. If you have faith, and belief in your God, then that is all that matters.
Faith = "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," according to one definition in Merriam-Webster. That's what I meant. It is not tactile. As an influence on people's lifes it is, of course, real.
It's unfortunate that this had to turn to a discussion of gay marriage, which is not a related subject at all.
In point of fact, if you look at ANY survey done on the matter, or ANY time the issue has been put before voters via referendum, the general population opposes it by margins of 60-70%, sometimes higher. It can't even get off the ground in highly left-leaning states like Hawaii or Massachussetts. Therefore, either most Americans are members of the Religious Right, or, the question is more complicated than that.
I also observe that, if you want to talk people into accepting your position, blasting them as bigots and extremists is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Which is why people like Andrew Sullivan have been so successful in making people take the gay marriage argument seriously, rather than just laughing about it -- because Sullivan is decent and respectful and makes cogent arguments, and does not blast people as bigots for disagreeing with him.
---
As for the argument that the tenets of the Christian religion don't belong in government:
The tenets of the Christian religion led millions to oppose slavery.
The tenets of the Christian religion led people to oppose child labor.
The tenets of the Christian religion led people to support the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s.
In fact, the Christian religion was indispensible to all sorts of things which are part of the law of the land now. Good and bad, like it or not.
Let's tell the real truth here:
If a man ran for office saying, "I am a buddhist, and I intend to use the tenets of my Buddhist faith to guide me in the decisions I make in office," no one would wig out. Even if he said, "Well, I am a buddhist, and because of my buddhism, I oppose the death penalty." Or "Because I am a buddhist, I believe we have to have more spending on social services."
But let him say, "Because I am a Catholic, I oppose abortion," certain people wig out and start mouthing platitudes about separation of church and state. But they get no free pass from me: they're either hypocrites, or bigots. No other choices, sorry. Choose one and live with the label.
By the way, no one DID wig out when Joe Lieberman said things just like this about his Jewish faith.
---
By the way, nothing in the Bible actually forbids praying in public. The verses quoted above are to attack people who pray public ONLY for show. If that verse were to be taken literally, then 99.99% of all Christian church services would be in violation. Ridiculous.
Presuming that anyone who prays in public is doing it just for show is simply another example of prejudice.
People's paranoia and contempt for Christians is exactly what I was complaining about, and I see very obvious examples of it here in this thread.
---
So let's be resolved, then:
1) There is nothing, absolutely nothing, zero, zip, nada, with bringing the tenets of your personal faith into the very highest offices of the land, and using your faith to guide you in every single decision you make while in office.
2) Nothing, absolutely nothing, zero, zip, nada, in the Constitution or in any principle of government, including "separation of church and state," conflicts in any way, shape or form with #1.
People who don't get this need to get over the prejudices, paranoias, or bigotry that makes them say otherwise.
Just noticed Deonna's anti-homosexual acts statement and her/his? stance on homosexuality. I used to feel that way, but then I stopped wasting my hate/dislike. I grew up.
Sorry, didn't mean to post again.
Dimn,
Having read Deonnas post more thoroughly than you did, I have ascertained that Deonna loves men. This is stated as part of her reason for thinking homosexuality wrong. Therefore, either Deonna is a woman, or he is the most seriously confused person here.
Deonna,
Just joshin' :)
Dean, I agree with you about many VERY good things about America that wouldn't have happened without very sincere Christians acting from within their faith. And I agree with you about those who think that being religious and holding high public office is violating seperation of Church and State.
I just doubt the motives of those who prayed on TV to get seen being such good Christians.
And they weren't in a Church, they were at a political convention...and as one who's mother always says she'll "pray for me", because she sees things I do as "sinning" that I do not, I don't think the Rep. in question appreciated the manner they went about praying "for his soul".
I still maintain that they did it to be seen doing it.
I have NOTHING but the utmost respect for Christians I have and continue to meet who live up to even a fraction of the ideals that Christ himself laid out in the New Testament, but I also have nothing but contempt for hate mongering followers of Paul who call themselves Christians.
(Jesus never said women should be silent in submission to their men, that was Paul. Nearly all of the tendencies of Christians and their Churches that have lead to the contempt for them you deride springs from the teachings of Paul.
Don't believe me? Re-read your New Testament).
It's the genuine kindness and non-judgemental attitude of a number of true Christians I've met when I was at the low points of my life that made me re-evaluate the kind of bigotry you deride that existed in myself, and also caused me to take a closer look at who the hate-mongers in the Churchs liked to quote that opened my eyes about Paul.
Christians I have respect for and would gladly see in any high office..."Paulians" (for lack of a better word) I fear, for they would see a Panopticon Nanny State the likes of which John Ashcroft is trying to implement, and WOULD like to see a Theocracy here in the US.
So I suppose I am in near total agreement with you Dean, anti-Christian bigotry is bad, you need a discerning eye to tell them apart.
Just take a look at who they like to quote, Jesus or Paul, helps immeasurably.
And there is evening and there is morning, another day; and still the food fight continues... :-)
Dean:
I also observe that, if you want to talk people into accepting your position, blasting them as bigots and extremists is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Which is why people like Andrew Sullivan have been so successful in making people take the gay marriage argument seriously, rather than just laughing about it -- because Sullivan is decent and respectful and makes cogent arguments, and does not blast people as bigots for disagreeing with him.
Yes, precisely. Or as I've been putting it, "Intolerance on behalf of tolerance is not tolerance."
My observation is that most of us here are communicating and holding a conversation, regardless of our opinions on religion or homosexuality or gay marriage or whatever. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree. Regardless of our own beliefs or disbeliefs-- liberal Protestant, evangelical Protestant, atheist, fundamentalist Protestant, agnostic, Southern Taoist, Catholic, Zoroastrian-slice-of-the-pie-ist, nonbelieving reader of Ivanhoe, whatever-- we may be quarreling and disagreeing, as intelligent people of good will may do, but basically we're holding a civil conversation. With the exception of only two individuals.
And Dean, I think it demonstrates your initial contention quite nicely that these two (Guy and dimn let's not name any names) are precisely the two who are foaming at the mouth on behalf of tolerance, as if somehow, intolerance on behalf of tolerance can be made to amount to tolerance, if only one foams at the mouth rabidly enough.
I still haven't said what I, as a liberal Protestant, think about homosexuality, or gays and politics, or gay marriage, etc. And I'm not going to, at least not in this thread. For all Guy and dimn these two know, I may well be in basic agreement with them on those particular topics. But why the heck should I go along with a couple of rabid bottom-feeders, when there are a gazillion and one people out there-- of every stripe of belief or unbelief, as we've seen in this very thread-- who are able to discuss and disagree and even quarrel over these issues, with a measure of civility and good humor and mutual respect?
What I notice about some Christians is that they seem to think that the words "some," "many" and even "a few" mean the exact same thing as the word "all." Some Christians are harsh, judgemental, brainwashed cultists trying to ram their values down everyone else's throats. But if you say that it never fails that one of those kinds of Christians will come along and accuse you of bigotry and no matter how many times you clearly state that you did not mean all Christians they will keep insisting that you are bigoted against all Christians. I would suggest that before accusing anyone of bigotry (of any kind) you should listen to what they are really trying to say.
What I find interesting is that people who didn't see the event would describe it a certain way.
Why wouldn't you assume that there was some discussion, some Christians were perterbed and didn't know what to do, no one wanted to be rude and walk out but felt they had a Christian duty to note something that imperiled a man's soul, got together and decided to do something nice for him--and that the object of their prayers didn't mind a bit?
Why would you presume anything more than that?
(Aha. You see? Gotcha. ;-)
---
As for Aschroft: I don't believe for so much as a nanosecond that he has any interest whatsoever in imposing a theocracy. Indeed, he has made it very clear on countless occasions as Governor, Senator, and Attorney General that he finds the very idea abhorrent.
Attorneys General of the U.S. are always lightning rods for civil liberties concerns. And I do mean always. It's part of their job function. It gets worse during wartime. I've frankly never seen an AG work harder to address civil liberties concerns, but still he gets bashed--even for things over which he has absolutely no control at all, like the TIA program.
I think the man's doing a fine job in a difficult situation, myself. I also understand that he'll be at odds with civil libertarians the entire time he's on the job. That's fine, it comes with the territory. I just wish more civil libertarians would recognize that it comes with his job, and stop demonizing him rather than criticizing policies.
>
--Actually, Dean, I feel that this subject is quite relevant: this topic is a specific example of legislation with roots in one type of religious discrimination. (I believe I mentioned that originally, but sorry for the confusion.)
>
--Hmm...I seem to recall slavery being popular right here in America for upwards of two hundred years. I don't know what the polls were, but I suspect that at the time of our Constitutional forefathers, the idea of black people being equal in creation to white people did NOT have 60-70% of the vote. Surely you're not suggesting that the majority viewpoint is always correct, moral absolutism be damned.
>
Incidentally, religious (Christian) arguments were used extensively in support of slavery. (Wasn't it Mark Twain who mentioned that any fool can say anything whatsover and find scripture to back him up?)
I think the real point you're getting at is that it was Christians changing their "Christian" stance on slavery that brought about mainstream acceptance for the idea to end slavery. Similarly, since legislated discrimination against gays and lesbians is so rooted in certain Christian ethics (which are NOT universal to all Christians), it will take Christians relinquishing their own unreasonable claim to the liberty of others before change is to be made.
P.S. Yes, I said unreasonable. I guarantee that however strongly you feel against gay marriage, it can't possibly matter as much to you as the two people you seek to deny this basic human liberty, that our government has no business standing in the way of.
I will continue to maintain that "praying for someone" in public is merely a thinly disguised form of public condemnation.
And how is Ashcroft maintaining that an American citizen arrested on US soil shouldn't be tried for Treason, but is instead subject to closed military tribunal, being an "AG work(ing) harder to address civil liberties concerns"? (the Jose Padilla case).
Have you also read the draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act ("Patriot Act II")?
That's NOT the work of someone concerned with civil liberties, its the work of someone fashioning our country into a military despotism, theocratic or not.
Sorry Tom, but no.
1) Slavery was not started for Christian reasons. It was started for purely economic reasons. Christians started the abolitionist movement. As it became obvious that their influence was spreading, some slaveholders, In reaction to the abolitionists, began trying to put together biblical support for slaveowning. Their arguments didn't wash with most.
Historically you cannot escape that the main thrust for human freedom started first and foremost with Christians. The origins of slavery were economic.
2) You're playing a slippery game when you claim that opposition to gay marriage is "based on religion." Yes, it would be for some people, but so is opposition to rape and murder.
There are entirely secular reasons that atheists might well accept as valid for having doubts about the matter. You may wish to argue passionately for it--and indeed, there are passionate Christians who would support your arguments, based on their religious beliefs.
That doesn't change the fact that it is not wrong for someone to argue for or against a law based on their religious beliefs. It is, in fact, entirely and completely legitimate. And the fact that it's religious does not make it one whit less valid in a democratic system such as ours.
Liberalism and democracy require dealing with people and their beliefs in a respectful and tolerant manner, even when you disagree with them.
(Note, by the way that, like others, I have not given you my opinion of gay marriage. I don't intend to do so in this thread, either. Because this isn't about gay marriage.)
I'll be brief.
For the record, I am not for or against homosexual marriage (as in the context mentioned above).
As far as I'm concerned that is a red herring in this discussion. Let others argue about that; I don't have a dog in that hunt.
Here's why I think mixing government and religion is destructive to the body politic:
Given: Born-again Christians believe that you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless you accept Jesus as your Savior.
In other words, Christians believe that non-Christians are doomed to go to Hell after they die. The non-believer is, after all, "godless."
Note: I realize that there might be similar teachings you could cite in other religions that don't leave you any wiggle-room.
Perhaps we'll discuss that if a Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist candidate gets a major party nomination. But then you still have Congress and the Supreme Court, you know?
The fact is this is a Christian nation and so that's why I'm focusing on the teachings of Christianity.
Bottom line? Christianity leaves no room for compromise on this issue.
Christian? Heaven. Non-Christian? Hell.
It's a done deal!
But speaking of compromises and deals....the fundamental nature of our body politic is to seek consensus and compromise for the purpose of closing a deal.
So...
...can a true Christian compromise his beliefs when negotiating with a non-believer?
If so, can they call themselves a true Christian?
If not, why are they in politics?
And I will continue to maintain that you are prejudiced, David. :-)
No, I have not read the Patriot Act. I have simply read a lot of paranoid-sounding things about it. I also know something about how legislation is crafted. I'm aware of how things which are perfectly normal can sound very scary, and how other things are often put in a bill for the specific purpose of having them stricken out later, just to give people negotiating room.
As such, I will not take the fears seriously until the bill as submitted to committee is ready, and even then wouldn't pay a hell of a lot of attention until it looks like it's going to get to a floor vote.
And by the way, there is precedent for trying US citizens in military tribunals already. So this isn't something new that Demon Ashcroft has come up with. You can disagree with it, but it's not some fancy new innovation or a "rollback of liberties." This is our first real war since World War II, and I expect there to be frictions over things like this. Why wouldn't there be?
Oh and another thing:
Whoever thought "Ara" was a female name -- you really ought to get out more often.
I'm just saying, you know?
Ara: Given our history as a nation since founding, I woudl think the answer to your question is self-evident: Christians with uncompromising beliefs have been part of our government from the very beginning, and were instrumental in crafting the Constitution, including all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Indeed, the most uncompromising fundamentalist Baptists were the primary instigation for the 1st amendment. They were the ones who wanted it most badly.
Yes, a not-inconsiderable segment of Protetant Christians believe that you and I are going to hell.
I think they're wrong. So, I imagine, must you.
So what's the problem?
If you're afraid of forced conversions, you're afraid of a bogeyman.
Perhaps if you'd heard John Ashcroft speak on this issue, you'd understand. Or if you just go to know more fundamentalist evangelicals. Like I have. Shoot Randy Brandt a note some time, I'm sure he'll straighten you out. Although he'll still tell you he'd love to tell you about Jesus, if your heart is willing. ;-)
Yes, I'm very sure you can look hard enough to find someone somewhere who wants to make everyone in America be a Christian. I can find you some Marxists who voted for Gore, too, if I look hard enough.
So what?
WOW! I WAKE UP AND THE DEBATE STILL CONTINUES!!!!
Dimn,
Uh... The last time that I checked, I believe that I was a female. You're absolutely incorrect when you say that I hate homosexuals. I never said that I hate the person.... I dislike the principle. I know people, even one of my cousins, who is gay. I still love him with all of my heart, but he understands how I feel with his lifestyle. I respect it, because, again, I cannot change a person, only advise them of what I feel and know. He is also aware that I will not tolerate him or his friends trying to turn that lifestyle onto me. I am not at any anti-gay rallies, or do I hold a Gay repellent. The fact is it is present everywhere, and if I were to be prejudice like that, then I would not have a life.
Dean, you are absolutly correct. God asks that not only do we retreat to our closets, or private room to pray, but that we also fall to our face in public also. As with anything, God will not tolerate lip service, or praise to him that is not real.
Dean continues to cite 'Christian values' as leading to the end of slavery. Perhaps Dean would be so kind to point out the specific passages in the Bible which proclaim slavery as 'wrong' or 'sinful.' Frankly, the Bible takes a laissez faire to moderately favorable stance toward slavery.
The fact is, if we elect to take the Bible literally, there are many, many things which could be construed as 'wrong' or 'sinful'--and some things that many might find to be objectionable that the Bible advocates. For example, I wonder how many of us took our wives-to-be to a temple to see if she was a virgin and compelled her to partake of that strange cocktail described in Numbers? And how many of us really believe it's ok to kill our children if they're unruly.
Of course, Christian Bigots™ don't seem to recognize the Bible contains prohibitions against eating shellfish, wearing dissimilar fabrics, mixing meat aand dairy products (oh no! No more pepperoni pizza!) No, Christian Bigots™ are only worried what consenting adults might be doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
Let's pray for them.
Yes, Dean, but not on American soil! I"m aware of the history of Enemy Combatant law in the US and internationally, and also aware of past Treason prosecutions. The other Enemy Combatant designations the administration has made besides Jose Padilla, I don't have an issue with, those citizens were on foreign soil in a war zone, in open arms with the enemy.
THAT is an Enemy Combatant, not a US citizen in plain clothes in Chicago.
David: No, there were Nazi spies who were caught on American soil and were American citizens.
Do I worry about these things? Yes. But then, I worried about Janet Reno and Waco too. But I still don't believe we're on a slippery slope toward a fascist state.
Guy: Scriptural debate is irrelevant, and a fool's errand. I suspect you know this, and would rather claim that this, that, or the other thing is a matter of interpretation. That dog won't hunt. The historical reality is that the abolitionist movement was PRIMARILY Christian, whereas the economic phenomenon of slavery was not started primarily as a religious movement. That is reality, and that is history.
If you don't know anything about the abolitionist movement, I suggest you pick up a book or two on the subject. You may want to read this interesting history of the anti-slavery movement, and you might further want to investigate the history of the Quakers, of John Brown, and of the rest of the abolitionist movement in Britain and in America.
i note that not a single discussant has seen fit to comment on the views of the one self-described homosexual to take part (briefly) in this debate. i think that is possibly revealing. not that i think my comment was especially insightful. but i do wonder if anyone really care what gay people think, or what quality of life they have? or how homosexuality is properly related to a Christian theology of sin? or is homosexuality simply a convenient peg on which to hang a set of pre-conceptions? as i suggested initially, i don't think anyone is properly recognising the specific context in which the original subject of this debate arose -- the proceedings of a political party. nothing at such an event is without a party-political significance, and everyone there knows it. one approaches political conflict and debate in a quite d