Pajamas Media

263 Comments

1. fnord:

Umm, sir, while I agree with you, isnt this just a mirrorposition of the republican pov that anyone who supports Obama is a anti-american socialist liberal who hates the troops? And propably dreams of sharia in the US?

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:57 am 2. lee:

The liberals often selectively point to the bygone eras of Christian Crusade or the Inquisition to perennially shake at the evils of religious oppression. One look at “Jesus Camp” type of institutions, and they’ll lose sleep for a month.

But surprise, Christians die by droves in North Korea, and many silently suffer in places like China, Burma, and Vietnam. Secular governments routinely persecute those who simply practice their faith. Look at the Japan empire during WW 2 and the Kim Jong IL regime as examples. They rightfully feared the chruch in potentially undermining their power. Christians in North Korea who are found to be preaching anything that can be even remotely interpreted as questioning the regime are shot down in their own front doors as an example community.

Christians, buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Jehovah’s witness, Mormons, muslims – in civilized societies, none of these terrorize or kill people. I suppose in some hindu countries you can go to jail for eating the wrong meat, but they observe a modicum of democracy. Christians who would like prayer and evolution reintroduced in the classroom would do so through peaceful grassroots activities and debate. Some might employ ugly rhetoric, but surely that’s a minor nuisance compared to a bullet to your heart from above.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:06 am 3. RE:

It’s not childish nonsense. It’s malicious dishonesty and a whole lot of projection.

They need a bogey man, so they strain to create one.

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:01 am 4. Realist:

No ‘fnord’ not at all we consider those who despite all that has been revealed about him and all the actions he has taken which expose him continue to blindly worship the LIAR Messiah as gullible, hysterical, emotional sheeple unable to think for themselves and for that we pity them.

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:32 am 5. Terry Gain:

Comparing the Christian right with the brutal ayatollahs in Iran is childish nonsense.

Not quite. Frankly, it’s insanity.

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:14 am 6. Ed Wallis:

Mr. Fleming puts into very nice words the whole Democrat “thought approach”
(I can’t bring myself to call it “logic”) to demonizing any opposition
for the purpose of deligitimizing it – so as not to have to question their own propagandized platforms seriously.

Humor is indeed powerful…but often it is just as necessary to point out the emperor has no clothes.

As Frank Mr. Fleming does.

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:18 am 7. Proud_Kafir7908:

Bruce Bawer couldn’t have contrasted any better the differences between those who are referred to in America as Christian fundamentalists and practicing muslims when he wrote that, after having moved to Europe “to be away from it—away from the idiocy, the intolerance, the Puritanism. More and more, I felt I belonged in Europe.

(…)

Europe was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their Protestant counterparts look like amateurs… Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right. How could they ignore it? Certainly as a gay man, I couldn’t close my eyes to this grim reality. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn’t fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamentalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death.”

But your average leftard in the USA will either remain in denial of this fact, or parrot that sickening mainstream media line that “islam is just like Buddhism in turbans and niqabs” (Britain’s “The Economist” goes to unimaginable lengths to get its readers sold on that load of camel dung.)

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:24 am 8. David Levavi:

Schaefer is pig-ignorant. Blind, deaf,dumb and stupid.

The Founding Fathers, Deists, Freemasons and Protestant Christians, were all Bible literate and learned. The debate recorded in the Bible between the Prophet Samuel and the Israelites regarding the installation of a king and a kingship was central to their discussions as they prepared to dump George III.

American law is rooted in British Common Law which is rooted in Biblical law. American society and American power were built on the Protestant Ethic of piety and hard work.

Christian ministers in England and America were largely responsible for bringing an end to slavery.

Schaefer eats, lives and sleeps in a comfortable world resting on a Biblical foundation. He just doesn’t know it. One more spoiled lefty moo-cow contentedly chewing its cud in a field, happy in the knowledge that the delicious green slobber in its mouth has nothing to do with the sun overhead.

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:34 am 9. forrest:

Our constitution enshrines religious impartiality. With a few exceptions, we’ve been able to maintain the separation. Bush43 allowed formal government/religious overlap and right wing politicians have been clever in selecting folks with appropriate religious credentials for silly things like lifetime judicial appointments.

I am very liberal, and very live-and-let-live, but I think we got a taste of the destructive potential of too much religion in the public sphere with the last administration. It’s divisive and should not be part of the assessment for leaders of a diverse nation. It’s private and should stay that way.

The last administration wore its christianity on its shirtsleeves, and its actions did nothing to the credit of their religion. If you disagree that it wasn’t a key factor in the Bush era, it is you being disingenuous, not the lefties. If you think the last adminstration was a success, why is it that we’re digging ourselves out of two wars (one unncessary) and an economic collapse? Why is it that we’re having a debate on the best kinds of torture to use? And why is it that folks with such solid right wing attitudes shoot doctors performing legal procedures instead of using the ballot box?

It looks like the days of the right are waning, and hopefully, the days of the religious are finally coming to an end, too. A critical mass of intellect seems to be shifting folks way from superstition generally, and thsi does not bode well for political parties who rely on it excessively. Stick to economics and other arguments and we can have an intelligent discussion and come to compromise. The minute there is an imaginary god in the room we lose the ability to reason to sound conclusions.

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:50 am 10. Marie Claude:

j’en connais quelques uns comme ça, des noms ? LMAO

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:16 am 11. North Country Rev:

It has been sad to watch Frank Schaeffer’s plunge from orthodox Christian theology into the morass of his new-found moral relativism. Though I have not yet read “Crazy for God”, I know well the story of his upbringing as part of the famous evangelical family of Edith and Frances Schaeffer. I have always thought it very odd that folks on the left often painted the elder Schaeffer with the broad brush of Christian reconstructionism.

This is the “narrow-minded” guy who, along with his whole family, took in burned-out hippies wandering Europe in the 60s and 70s at their L’Abri Christian community–hardly the action of a small-minded far-right fringe Fundamentalist pastor.

Furthermore, Schaeffer severed ties with Carl McIntire, of the Bible Presbyterian Church fame, in order to follow his vision of ministering to the hippies. The elder Schaeffer taught these young “babes in Christ” in a brilliant fashion–not only helping them build their faith on a firm orthodox doctrinally-Biblical foundation, but he wove into his teaching observations from his reflections on the arts.

While it may be true that, later in his life, the elder Schaeffer was a naive tool of some elements of the Pro-Life movement, it is sad that his son cannot see how his Dad (had he lived a decade or 2 longer) might have become the spark for a “kinder, gentler” evangelicalism in the USA. There is a way to “speak the truth in love”, and yet not compromise one’s Biblical beliefs.

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:25 am 12. RandyChandler:

That the Obamacrats try to demonize Christians and conservatives shouldn’t be surprising during the reign of the Community Organizer-in-chief himself, Hussein Obama (it’s OK to call him that now that he has discovered his Muslim roots and bowed to Muslim muckamucks).

We must remember that these ObamaZombies are mentally defective or they wouldn’t have voted for Hussein in the first place. It is our Christian duty to stand up for their human rights when ObamaCare white-jacket death squads try to euthanize them as “life unworthy of life.” [I know it doesn't make sense that Dems would want to kill off their political base but you must have noticed by now that a great deal of the behavior of Democrats doesn't make sense at all. Like: Why would Hussein and the Obamacrats want to destroy the US economy? Who the hell knows?]

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:49 am 13. Craig:

Liberal moral relativism. That is all it ever is. If at first you don’t marginalize, try try again.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:17 am 14. muffler:

The example being proposed is that:

1) when you have any group of people who claim to act in the behalf of a deity for the good will of everyone

2) justify their actions (which includes breaking the law) as though they know best because they are special in the eyes of that deity

3) Treat everyone else as children who need to be shown the “way”.

4) Propose to enlighten everyone as long as they follow blindly while demonizing all or any opposition.

Then you have the makings of a comparison. The desire to do this is rooted in Human behavior and history. The US is not exempt from this and we must protect our liberty internally as well as externally. The Founding Fathers understood this from a humanistic point of view as the country is also founded on the writings of the Humanists and the Age of Enlightenment. Our founders warned of this and the separation of religion and state are not an accident.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:20 am 15. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Frank J. Fleming
RE: No It’s NOT!

Comparing the Christian right with the brutal ayatollahs in Iran is childish nonsense. —

It’s outright disingenuous propaganda.

Where’s gus3? HERE is the venue to discuss his hate-speech against christians.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....and gus3 is going to look VERY 'interesting'.....]

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:23 am 16. hM:

While I will admit there is a decidedly nutty bunch of Christians who take themselves way too seriously, I tend to find those who pick on Christians to be infinitely more odious. At least the Christians are sincere in their following of their faith and overall keep to themselves; I find that most liberals who claim no religion are less accepting of different opinions and beliefs and pick on Christians because Christians, despite the left’s blustering, are far less likely than, say, a Muslim to pin a note to your chest with a knife they just used to stab you because you insulted or questioned their religion.

As a Christian myself I find it more than just a little bit irritating to have a rather large group of people write me off as a crack-job because I believe there is a God. First of all, religion is a very personal thing to me, so while I may make it known that I am LDS (in the interest of explaining there are certain things I won’t participate in), I also don’t shove it in other people’s faces the way the global warming and the God-is-dead crowds like to. You ask me a question, I’ll answer it. However, if you decide to attack my religion, we’re going to have words. I respect you, I expect the same respect in return.

Why is a belief in God so scary to a bunch of people who think He doesn’t exist, anyway? You don’t want to believe in God, fine. Everybody is free to make up their own mind. Is the fact that I don’t drink alcohol somehow a large, overarching factor in your life? Or is the fact that I don’t believe in sex before marriage somehow affecting your sex-life? If you don’t want to hang out with somebody who doesn’t drink, don’t. If you want to get some play before you’ve said “I do”, don’t date a Christian who has that written into their moral standard. Is it really so bad to let people have a moral code they abide by? Does it really affect your life so drastically (or at all) that you have to ridicule it and them? If so, you’ve got a problem much bigger than that big, bad Christian family down the street.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:24 am 17. Chuck Pelto:

TO: fnord
RE: No

Umm, sir, while I agree with you, isnt this just a mirrorposition of the republican pov that anyone who supports Obama is a anti-american socialist liberal who hates the troops? — fnord

Not quite.

Many of those who support Obama are just useful fools who put him in power to be ‘thrown under the bus’ afterwards.

Many elected dictators do this. Read Shire’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and see how Hitler used the homosexuals in the 1920s then ‘used’ them in the 1930s, after he’d come to power.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Are we learning yet? -- young John Connor in Terminator 2]

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:27 am 18. Ms. Attitude:

Wow, HuffPo sure is limiting their readers with type of garbage. I know liberal Christians. I know Christians that voted for Obama. It isn’t about Christianity it’s about politics. They can be seperate and they should be.

I argued with my mother, years ago, about prayer in school. She was all for it, I wasn’t. I always felt, even as a teenager, that if you push your beliefs on others that one day another group would become the majority and would use the laws we created against us. She now agrees when she sees that Islam prayer could be required at schools.

Christianity looks bad when we make it laws, it becomes like Islam, political. But Christianity is NOT meant to be political.

My political views that some accuse of crossing the line include abortion and creation theories.
But I don’t think I cross the line because abortion is murder and the big bang is just another theory so teach all of the theories…

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:27 am 19. fred:

I sense that there was something not quite right in the relationship between the elder Schaeffer and the son. We will never know what it is, but clearly the younger Schaeffer is unbalanced and engages in heavy scapegoating. Anyone who has read M. Scott Peck’s book, “People of the Lie,” knows that scapegoating is one of the signs of personality disorder and of evil itself.

I’m a Roman Catholic, and not a conservative one (theologically moderate and sometimes traditional). In my politics I would say that I am moderately conservative as well. I do in fact know quite a few of the Christians who are textual literalists and I do not see in them the things that Mr. Schaeffer and his HuffPo fans fulminate about.

My guess is that the editors of HuffPo decided to let Schaeffer’s missive pass muster and function as red meat thrown to the dingo pack.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:32 am 20. Larsen E. Whipsnade:

2. lee: “Christians, buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Jehovah’s witness, Mormons, muslims . . . none of these terrorize or kill people.”

Well, almost, except for Hindus, who are fond of massacring Christians in India from time to time.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:35 am 21. Self-hating Boomer:

Somebody needs to go wake up the trolls.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:07 am 22. trangbang68:

Schaeffer has a lot in common with Ariana Huffington. Both were once self promoting “rising stars” of the right ,but once they sensed a change in the winds they stuck fingers in the air and became daring leftists fawned over by the know-nothings . Now their screeds against the right and the church are thought courageous when in reality they are pathetic media whores. It is no doubt personal. Huffington tried to ride her ex-husband’s media friendly looks to power and was no doubt humiliated when he kicked her to the curb for another guy. Who knows who peed in little Frankie’s Cheerios. Wretched a-holes, the both of them, in my opinion.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:12 am 23. MMKS:

Let’s take a look at recent history:

Throughout the entire nineteenth century, people who claimed to be conservative, evangelical Christians pretty much ran the United States. It was far from perfect, and some bad things were done, but there were no great repressions or purges. In fact, there was a good bit of exploration and invention. Slavery and serfdom were greatly reduced.

Some later secular governments were, however, not so good. Bolshevism, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge – these were all pretty harsh. Speech codes at many current U.S. colleges and universities are pretty harsh. Hate crime legislation imposes harsher sentences for the same illegal actions.

I personally prefer individual freedom and free exchange in the “marketplace of ideas”. I do not much like anyone to use hell as a stick and heaven as a carrot. But honestly, times of dominance by professed evangelical Christians – even if you throw in fanatical Puritanism – have been relatively gentle periods of human history.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:23 am 24. 1MPTomb:

My relationship with Jesus touches everything I do. I cannot seperate my relationship from Him when I go into the polls. I don’t look at Him and say, “Please wait outside, I have to vote.” I look at all the candidates and try to choose the one who best aligns with my philosophy of life, which is shaped by my relationship with God. I beleive in God because of certain events in my life that prove to ME that He exists. If you choose not to beleive in Him, as an adult, you may choose not to believe in Him. I am sure there has been a plethora of information about God to allow you to make that choice. After reading many, many of these comments about my “shoving my religion down people’s throats” or “forcing my religion on me”, I have to come to the conclusion that atheists are afraid. Afraid that people in a relationship with God are correct in having that relationship and they don’t want to be wrong. What it boils down to is, if atheists are correct, when I die I will simply turn to dust, but have lived a very good life with my family. If I am right, when I die, I will go to be with God and the atheist will go to be with….well, you get the picture. So, If my surmise is incorrect, then I am at a loss as to why atheists want to silence any mention of God in the public sphere. You are all like children when He is mentioned who put their fingers in their ears and hum, cry or scream loudly so you can’t hear. Allow prayer in school, those who don’t want to, don’t have to. We have a moment of silence in our schools. Do with that moment what you want. I pray all day. I don’t have to have a designated moment in which to pray, and I’ll bet the children around me don’t even know I’m praying.
Atheists can cry and moan and complain about God until He returns. It won’t change my belief in Him. They can change all the laws they want to fly in the face of God. It won’t change the way I feel about Him. I will be a follower of God until my last breath. If by my testamony I can help one person find peace through Him, then I am happy.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:25 am 25. antaine:

forrest – no, the “waning” is largely a false perception fueled by media/movies/etc. The “right” and the “religious” are a lot more “live-and-let-live” than you give credit for. By NO means consider the loud evangelical/fundamentalist stuff representative of Christianity or Christians in general – they are given pride of place by the media because it helps to undermine the “right” and the “religious” as a whole, and your expressed ideas are proof of how well that works.

Now, however, the mainstream “right” and “religious” see their freedoms (even their religious ones) under assault. They have for quite some time, but things seem to have sped up. They won’t continue to sit on their hands for long

They are a powder keg and the current administration is setting off firecrackers all around them. It is only a matter of time before one of those firecrackers prompts the explosion of conservatives and (mainstream) religious movements that will make the “tea parties” look like…well…an actual tea party.

Whether it will start in 2010 with the midterms or not, I have little doubt that within the next 10 years (although I tend to think it will be much sooner than later) you will see a resurgence of “right” à la 1980-88. All that has to happen to foment it is the Democratic party just keep behaving the way it’s behaving now.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:29 am 26. Sapwolf:

It already is happening in America. The religion is secularism. The theocracy is all over our schools, universities, culture, etc.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:36 am 27. Aureliano:

Anti-Christian bigotry is primarily a white liberal thing. It’s not even a Democrat thing, even though liberals make up a large portion of the party. Blacks and Hispanics, for instance, aren’t anti-Christian bigots, and they DO make up the majority of the party (Registered Donks are now at only 30% of the electorate).

No. It’s white urban liberals — especially gays — who fulminate about Christians. The funny thing is that most of them don’t have any real contact with Christians — most of their opinions are based on movies, television shows, and CNN-type ‘news’ broadcasts (CNN likes to trot out the Fred Phelps’ of the world and paint them as somehow mainstream).

Not long ago I was watching one of those well-crafted but essentially throwaway indies called “Wendy and Lucy”. The scope of the movie is quite small — a ’snapshot’, if you will — and well-done given its range. But the most clumsy scene of the movie by far — in fact the ONLY clumsy scene — is when the protaganist is busted for stealing dog food at a market. The store clerk who caught Wendy for stealing dragged her into the manager’s office, and despite Wendy’s pleas that she’s just trying to feed her dog and she’s in a bad place, the clerk kept spouting overly emphatic variations of “we can’t make any exceptions — the rules apply to everyone”.

And of course he was wearing a cross necklace. Prominently displayed.

Setting aside the fact that Christians are far and away the biggest contributors to charity, what incoherent nonsense. What does Christianity have to do with rigid adherence to rules, and what does that have to do with calling the cops when somebody steals something from you? Would a secular or liberal clerk and manager really act any differently?

The answer is that the insulated white liberal director, Kelly Reichardt (a lesbian, naturally), was making the fundamental error by conflating conservative, Republican, Christian, and in her mind everything bad in the world, in addition to at least another half-dozen other category errors.

Apparently this nutty director has never been to San Francisco. I guarantee you that a secular liberal Democrat clerk who catches a homeless person stealing will take said homeless person to a secular liberal Democrat manager who will then call up a secular liberal Democrat police officer who will book them at the jailhouse by a secular liberal Democrat duty officer. And granted not ALL those players will be secular liberal Democrats, but San Francisco is surely as close a liberal utopia as this lesbian liberal will ever know.

But no, to the Kelly Reichardts of the world, homelessness and financial difficulty would disappear only if those dastardly conservative Christians would be less rigid and adopt socialism, or at least let everybody steal things from their stores who claim to be having a hard time (homeless people never lie, apparently).

Sheesh.

It’s this sort of thing on which your average liberal Democrat nose-picker bases his/her views of Christianity.

It really isn’t any more complicated than that.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:38 am 28. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ms. Attitude
RE: Not Quite….

It isn’t about Christianity it’s about politics. They can be seperate and they should be. — Ms. Attitude

….if you look at it as a chain of logic.

As someone once said….

Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one nor the other. — John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn

What’s the point?

All law is based on politics. All politics is based on morality. All morality is based on ‘beliefs’, religious or a-religious.

Religious beliefs, whether you believe in God or gods or no-god, it drives your morality as to what is right and what is wrong. If you get into politics, you base your votes on laws as to what you believe is right or wrong.

Therefore, you cannot, logically, separate Law from Belief. Your Beliefs drive what Politics and Laws you support or oppose.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. -- Thomas Jefferson]

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:43 am 29. JR1C3R:

Frank,
You rock.
I read the aticle and was so confused I had to read it three times to figure out who the evil monster he was hating on was. I’ve been a Christian for many years now and have heard all the “crusader” names but who the heck is this Rushdoony dude? He’s apparently the father of Christian Reconstructionism and the “modern home school movement” I’ve never even heard of him… AND I was even home schooled part of my high school career.
It’s great to be hated…
Keep up the great bloging!
~Jennanana

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:46 am 30. scott:

Christians are commanded by Christ to be good citizens who don’t make trouble. Salt and light yes. Revolutionaries no. Read the Sermon on the Mount and THAT is what we are supposed to be about.

It’s right there in red print. The Left paints us all as brothers to Tiller’s murderer however and THAT is the label we wear for most of the world.

Count it as blessing.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:51 am 31. Scott:

Interestingly enough I’ve moved from an anti-religion viewpoint to a somewhat “pro-religion” view-point. I attended a Baptist School in Maryland for 2 years but was raised as a Methodist though we didn’t go to church that often. How I got there is a long story that is irrelevant to the discussion. Those two years left me very averse to any religion, and for the very reasons the left often cites about Christians. There was rampant hypocrisy, intolerance (I can’t even remember how many times I was disciplined for asking questions like, “What about Dinosaurs?”), immense pressure to adopt Baptist views, hatred towards any other religious group (especially Jews & Catholics). In addition there was censorship & confiscation of music, reading materials, or anything else deemed “Un-Christian” by the school’s faculty and even bus drivers.

These are the type of “Christians” that a) people find scary and b) give other Christians a bad name. However these people tend to focus solely on the “Jesus died for you” part of Christianity and tend to ignore his teachings. While the Old Testament is part of the Bible, Christianity is based upon the New Testament and often the “ammo” the left uses to equate Christianity to Islam comes from he Old Testament. You will be hard pressed to find such ammunition in the New Testament.

Anyway, religion can be a good thing as long as vile, greedy, power hungry, petty, and ignorant people are not running the show. Any group ideal system can become twisted and malign with the wrong people at the helm, just look at the “Green” movement. It is the responsibility of the “flock” to make sure their “Shepard” is genuine and true, and if he/she is not then to require them to step down or leave the congregation themselves if they will not.

The church (temple, synagogue, etc.) used to be the cornerstone of the community and provided both social and charity functions. It still can and should be, and thus has value.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:55 am 32. John:

You wrote:

“…the whole article is basically fevered ranting about how Christians want to round up and imprison and execute anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus and use the government to crush dissent — all the usual paranoid stuff you’d expect from someone who decides to demonize some group he doesn’t like.”

Funny, I forsee the day that people like the author “round up and imprison and execute ” us Christians because we don’t believe in their humanistic vision of life. But perhaps I’m just as paranoid as the author…

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:57 am 33. 1MPTomb:

No, John, you are not paraniod, if you believe what God said about us being persecuted! They hated Him, now they hate us.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:03 am 34. Self-hating Boomer:

Anti-Christian bigotry is primarily a white liberal thing.

Yeah, it doesn’t seem to bother Rev. Wright. But then again, he’s got a rather different concept of who Christ was, and what he stood for.

Despite the vileness of his antisemitic BTL replacement theology, there’s at least something refreshingly honest about his out-of-the-closetness. I guarantee you, he’s not guilt-tripped about anything.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:05 am 35. Chuck Pelto:

TO: scott
RE: Heh

Christians are commanded by Christ to be good citizens who don’t make trouble. Salt and light yes. Revolutionaries no. — scott

Please explain THIS….

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. — Some Wag

Christ Himself was a ‘revolutionary’. Especially in the eyes of the Sanhedrin.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. But it is a revolution of ideas and ideals….for the most part…..

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:06 am 36. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Self-hating Boomer
RE: If You Built It….

Somebody needs to go wake up the trolls. — Self-hating Boomer

….they will come.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Yoooo hooooo, gus3....where be thee?]

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:08 am 37. Self-hating Boomer:

The left likes to insist that it’s illegitimate for religion to opine on political issues, at least when the issue is abortion.

When you point out that abolition and the civil rights movement were basically religiously inspired movements, they say “that’s different”.

Strange.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:09 am 38. macko:

Whether it’s the religous right, plain conservative values, beauty pageant winners or professional athletes the lefties are just plain angry. Personally I think it’s their emotional development. They simply spent way to much time on the bhong.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:09 am 39. 1MPTomb:

Scott- it’s terrible that you faced that kind of intolerance. I attend a Baptist Church and my church is no where near as bad as what you suffered. I am saying that so people don’t get the idea all Baptist churches are that fundamental. I attend church to mingle with other Christians and feel spiritually renewed, but my source comes from God. I am just as comfotable worshipping in any denomination until their doctrine conflicts with biblical writing. Then I go somewhere else. Do I agree with everything the Baptist church believes? No, and if I don’t feel I God’s spirit there I will move my membership somewhere where I do feel His presence.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:10 am 40. JHM dba ''Internet Critic":

A curious specimen of “political humor,” though I daresay it would be even less impressive taken as expertise on Middle Eastern affairs.

Happy days.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:13 am 41. Aylios:

Schaeffer seems to be a guy that gravitates towards extremes. By his own account he used to be an extreme right-wing fundamentalist christian and now he’s … an extreme left-wing fundamentalist liberal.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:16 am 42. Thomas L......:

What a load of nonsense. While any one Christian can be as good or bad as one of anything else, anyone who is equating Christianity to Islam vis a vis danger to self or nation is insane. Forrest meet trees.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:25 am 43. Ms. Attitude:

28. Chuck Pelto:

I’ll admit, Chuck, that when I vote I vote as a Christian, when I speak, I speak as a Christian. I try to live my life according to my religion but I fail and fail a lot! But when we make Christianity the focal point of our politics we turn it into an Earthly thing. Christianity becomes a weapon that others feel they must defend themselves from. It’s a fine line. My favorite childhood song has this verse:

We will walk with each other, we will walk hand in hand
We will walk with each other, we will walk hand in hand
And together we’ll spread the news that God is in our land
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:29 am 44. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Frank J. Fleming, et al.
RE: This….

….HuffPo anti-christian hate speech is astonishingly similar to what is described in that Left Behind series of movies. Albeit they haven’t quite got to the point of rounding us up and making a public display of killing us during half-time during the football season. But if the vehemence and vitriol increase, as I suspect they will, I see the distinct possibility that all those prophecies will be coming true in the not too distant future.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And they’ll likely call me ‘paranoid’ for saying that, but if it comes to pass…….then what?

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:38 am 45. Bear:

forrest:

You write on this blog yet in your verbosity, you say absolutely nothing. It’s all opinion with no specifics (re: Bush). I am not a practicing Christian, but am very articulate in religion, and I resent liberals that make baseless accusations, and sweeping generalizations that in reality mean nothing. I was liberal once, but realize it’s a sham, a nouveau clique. And the author is absolutely correct.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:39 am 46. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. As an additional thought….

….all those people on the Left who put Obama into power bear a striking resemblance to the people who put the Anti-Christ into power in those movies, with their dog-like worship…..don’t you think…..

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:39 am 47. blotto:

Forrest#9: I feel pity for you. Being ignored is terrible…LMAO

I just want you to know that such blatantly ignorant, baseless drivel is not to be debated, which is why nobody has responed.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:44 am 48. Michael:

Obama wants change, in effect a new revolution in what America is about. That is what his most ardent followers desire above all else.

The revolution they want isn’t the American Revolution type. It is the French Revolution type. The type that “purifies” the country. Hey, even the world! If it takes imprisonment or some version of the guillotin it would be a small price to pay. Bill Ayers himself, their patron saint, has said it may take the death of 10 or 20 million wrong headed Americans to fix this country.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:46 am 49. Scott:

Please note that Scott and scott are not the same individual.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:48 am 50. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ms. Attitude
RE: Focal Points

But when we make Christianity the focal point of our politics we turn it into an Earthly thing. — Ms. Attitude

Not quite.

When we make POLITICS our focal point, then we get our PRIORITIES mixed up.

As a young captain in the 4th Infantry Division, I saw a ‘water-walking’ brigade commander relieved for cause by the CINC FORSCOM.

The CINC made a surprise visit to the installation to check on the division and his ‘water-walking’ fair-haired ‘children’, i.e., soon-to-be flag-grade officers.

He stopped by each brigade commander’s office to ‘chat’.

In this brigade commander’s office there was a framed list of the commander’s priorities. The first item on the list was “Command Image”.

According to reports of eye-witnesses, the CINC looked at list for quite some time. He then took out his pen and scratched a big X over it. He turned around and told the flabbergasted colonel, “If your first priority was your last, all the others would fall into place automatically.” Then he left.

Two weeks later, that brigade had a new commander.

What’s my point?

That if we have Him as our “focus” everything else falls into place automatically. And that includes our politics.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I get GREAT guidance from Him. My problem is that sometimes don’t follow it as I should…..

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:50 am 51. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Scott and scott
RE: My Apologies….

Please note that Scott and scott are not the same individual. — Scott

That previous missive should have been addressed to “scott”.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The only Guy I know who was perfect, got nailed to a tree.]

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:52 am 52. Stogie:

A response to Forrest the Liberal:

“I am very liberal, and very live-and-let-live, but I think we got a taste of the destructive potential of too much religion in the public sphere with the last administration. It’s divisive and should not be part of the assessment for leaders of a diverse nation. It’s private and should stay that way.”

Nonsense. How did Bush use “too much religion” in his administration? This is a typically unproved and unprovable leftist accusation. You, typically of the left, give no facts or specifics to support your gross generalization. By the way, none of the early presidents of this nation hid their religious faith and there is no reason to suppose that doing so is required by the Constitution or harmful in any way to democracy or religious freedom.

“The last administration wore its christianity on its shirtsleeves, and its actions did nothing to the credit of their religion. If you disagree that it wasn’t a key factor in the Bush era, it is you being disingenuous, not the lefties.”

Once again, blatant, unsupported nonsense. Bush’s making war on the architects of 9/11 has nothing to do with his religion and everything to do with a reality that you liberals refuse to face, i.e. that we are in a war with religious fanatics that is not of our own making, but one that was forced upon us.

“If you think the last adminstration was a success, why is it that we’re digging ourselves out of two wars (one unncessary) and an economic collapse?”

Wars are sometimes necessary and the war with Islam was forced on us. At least you admit that one of these wars “was necessary.” The economic collapse was clearly a result of Democrat policies, namely, forcing lending institutions to make mortgage loans to high risk borrowers on the basis of their race instead of their credit score. Bush attempted to intervene in the coming collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was prevented from doing so by the Democrats, who insisted that nothing was wrong and nothing needed fixing. You can read all about it in Thomas Woods’ book “Meltdown”; but then you would be informed and that is a strange situation for a doctrinaire liberal like yourself.

“Why is it that we’re having a debate on the best kinds of torture to use?”

We aren’t. Waterboarding is not torture and never was. Torture is the (false) term given to it by partisan Democrats such as yourself, who would rather lose a war to barbarians than allow any Republican administration to succeed.

“And why is it that folks with such solid right wing attitudes shoot doctors performing legal procedures instead of using the ballot box?”

I don’t know, why is it that people with leftwing attitudes assassinate presidents (Kennedy) or try to (Ford)? Why is it that people with leftwing attitudes always support our enemies instead of our troops? Why do these leftwingers hate and fear Christianity so much?

And if you are referring to that late-term abortion doctor, why would you object? It was merely an extra-late term abortion in the 236th trimester. Yes, the aborted person had no say-so in the operation, but then they never do.

“It looks like the days of the right are waning”

That’s what you think. We’ll be back stronger than ever. Politics are cyclical but your time in the sun will be quite short, for the simple reason that liberal politics destroy both human freedom and economic prosperity.

Now chew on that, you foolish liberal.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:02 am 53. "progressive"watch:

Fleming’s article is not watered soup but red meat on the ravening of the left; he is right about how mentally and morally ridiculous they are,but wrong in thinking that this makes them harmless. I’ve found over the years that those things about which the progressive-left protests too mch about in others are basic things in themselves.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:04 am 54. e:

I’m sure if you asked the question you could get more than a few liberals to agree that the religious right is worse than the Iranian Mullahs. I’m not sure how they’d be able to explain this rationalization, maybe something about racism or how the Iranians are actually just victims.

American social norms are their only enemy.

I don’t agree completely with Mr. Sayet’s explanation, but I think it gets awful close: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:05 am 55. Jeff:

I have a problem with the whole “Christian = Conservative, Secular=Liberal” connotation.:

It IS possible to be conservative and secular/atheist at the same time. I’m quite comfortable living there. I believe in limited government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, personal liberty and the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects. I also believe that (all) religious dogma is silly nonsense. Now, before you start hyperventilating, I also believe that MOST of the new testament’s philosophies are good for the world. Love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc. etc. are all good concepts. The sermon on the mount is a great example of philosophy to live by. The problem is that there are an equal number of vile and hateful things in there as well – and people looking to the bible largely take from it what they’re looking for. Modern Christianity cherry-picks the good stuff and ignores the bad stuff, much to its credit – but the other things (mostly old testament stuff) can be used to justify closed-minded and violent behavior.

So, yes… I am a conservative atheist. I don’t hate christians or any other group just because of their beliefs, but I cringe every time I hear someone use “god” as a justification or argument in support of their argument. There are many other reasons that conservative philosophy is superior that will win you allies rather than alienating them because their dogma is different from yours.

And, before you start, yes… I was raised as a Christian. I’ve read the bible – all of it. Cover to cover.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:14 am 56. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff, et al.
RE: True

I have a problem with the whole “Christian = Conservative, Secular=Liberal” connotation.:

It IS possible to be conservative and secular/atheist at the same time. — Jeff

But, in order to promote their (1) deconstruction of christians, (2) cause people to distance themselves from both christians AND conservatives and (3) cement their control of the political discussion, they will continue to equate “Christian = conservative” and visa versa.

It’s a clever political approach. Especially amongst people who have no clue about christianity in the first place. Don’t you think….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. -- Mark Twain]

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:23 am 57. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff
RE: See?

….but I cringe every time I hear someone use “god” as a justification or argument in support of their argument. — Jeff

It’s already working on you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The reason why the world lacks unity, and lies broken and in heaps, is, because man is disunited with himself. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:26 am 58. Anonymous:

Nah, it’s not like Christians have conducted 2000+ years of pogroms, inquisitions, and maybe even a holocaust. Nothing to see here folks. Move along…

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:33 am 59. Self-hating Boomer:

You can try to use God as a justification for a political position, if you wish. MLK, among others, did. Just beware that you’ll lose most people in the process.

I’m with Jeff; if you’re going to argue against abortion, for example, leave God out of the argument. Otherwise, not only do you lose most of the people, you also confirm these stereotypes.

You need to understand the Calvinball rules: A Christian arguing against abortion on religious grounds: mixing church and state. Rev. Wright hollering about how God hates whites: righteous free speech.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:35 am 60. 1MPTomb:

It’s sad that you read the Bible “cover to cover- all of it” and chose to reject God. True believers do not “cherry-pick” the Bible. I believe the “good, the bad and the ugly”. Jesus come to fulfill the Law, not change it. God has a reason for the good, bad and ugly in the Bible. I “use” God because I beleive His morals are the standard to which I am held. If He said, “Do not murder”, then I choose not to kill my baby in my womb. I will always vote, when I am allowed, not to allow others to commit murder. At this point in American history my point (and God’s) has been overruled by the will of the Supreme Court. I will continue to fight this law as it within my rights, just as it within the rights of non-believers to fight for the death of unborn children. This is one of the most prevelent arguments in society today where the majority of Christians “use” God, so I choose to give that as an example. Just because a human law was made, does not make it right and acceptable to all people.
BTW, we realize that not all conservatives are Christian, just as not all liberals are atheists, we speak to the majority who are.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:36 am 61. Lynn:

I agree with the commenters who believe that lumping all faiths into one “illusion” is the goal of many critics of Christianity. With the life of Jesus being blameless, it is also their goal to further the idea that he never existed, a fairytale of an ideal. With other religions, this is not necessary since some were elected by the people, or lived a life seeking power on this earth whether with the sword or condoning debauchery, making it more palatable for it’s followers who wished to do what they wanted with a Deity’s approval.

I think that it why it is so necessary to erode the Judeo/Christian belief and partnership and bark viciously at anyone who brings the Judeo/Christian G_d into a topic. Please, I don’t need anyone to point out the problematic past and sometimes present between the two as I am aware of our history together.

The partnership and root/branch relationship between them is one of the reasons I believe that of all the world-wide faiths Christianity is often the most under attack and mocked by some leftists. If that faith and partnership can be toppled then all is won and the humanistic/atheist belief system they so wish for, will have an empty field to plow. Unfortunately other beliefs would be longing to fill the vacuum and would not in fact be as tolerant as Judeo/Christians are taught to be.

It is also true that if the founder of a faith is rejected, then it also makes perfect sense that the followers would be, also.

I think that it must be very frustrating for them, that while they can point out the faults and wrongdoings of Christians, they cannot find fault with it’s founder. This explains perfectly why they need to prove he never existed.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:37 am 62. Frank J.:

Anonymous:

Yeah, look out! We’re going to holocaust you! We’re going to rip you right out of your parents’ basement and holocaust you good!

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:39 am 63. 1MPTomb:

SHB- I may lose the abortion argument with secular humanists, but I won’t lose it with my God, when He says,”Well done, My good and faithful servant.”

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:39 am 64. Jeff:

TO: Chuck

…It’s already working on you.

You don’t have to worry, I’m not going over to the other side. Still, when it comes to the debate of ideas and philosophy, you should not use “because god says so” in support of your position. It is the weakest argument of all and if you’re trying to persuade someone of a different faith (or lack thereof) to agree with you, you could lose them right there.

The point that I’m trying to make is that atheist != evil or liberal. I probably agree with you on 90+% of concepts right off the bat. I’m just giving you a tip on winning friends and influencing people from the perspective of a dirty, unwashed heathen. I try to debate and convince liberals every day and I’ve been successful in a number of cases. I’ve never had to use god a single time to convince them. Good ideas are good ideas regardless of how dogma feels about them.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:40 am 65. kathy:

“…but then I read the comments to the article. There were people actually agreeing with this.”

Of course there were: it’s a residual BDS meme. Remember the years & reams of print regarding the Coming Evangelical Fascist Thugocrocy? Poor W. never followed through on delivering that pet paranoid delusion & these cranks are not about to admit they were wrong all along.

As Obambi’s Messianic thang gets further along on its Epic Fail path, expect ratcheting up by all the usual suspects as they try do deal with their anxiety.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:44 am 66. RogueIV:

In response to (14) Muffler…
“The example being proposed is that:
1) when you have any group of people who claim to act in the behalf of a deity for the good will of everyone
2) justify their actions (which includes breaking the law) as though they know best because they are special in the eyes of that deity
3) Treat everyone else as children who need to be shown the ‘way’.
4) Propose to enlighten everyone as long as they follow blindly while demonizing all or any opposition.”

Muffler, congratulations – that is probably the most concise description of the Obama Administration I have ever read. You are very clever, sir – your comments even dovetail with Evan Thomas’s recent description of the President as being “sort of God”. Bravo.

Seriously though, the behavior that many of you ascribe to Christians is not Christian behavior – it is unfortunate human behavior. There are morons, thugs, wannabe despots and self righteous crusaders of every religious and political flavor. Read the teachings of Jesus sometime – His message has never been about religious tyranny. The Christians that follow Christ’s example tend to not make it into the news because forgiveness, love, charity, honesty, faith and humility are not sensational concepts. Unfortunately, they still get painted with the broad brush of those “Christians” who do make headlines.

By the way, the Founder’s concepts of freedom of religion and their warnings against factionalism that were eventually morphed into the concept of “separation of church and state” were not intended to limit the church’s influence on governance, but vice-versa.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:46 am 67. Aureliano:

Nah, it’s not like Christians have conducted 2000+ years of pogroms, inquisitions, and maybe even a holocaust.

Oy yes, I just dodged a pogram last year, and just this morning returned from an inquisition.

Heck, although Nazism and Fascism were secular, anti-religious political ideologies, nevertheless I’m sure that somehow those dastardly Christians were responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews by secular Nazis.

Oh well. Who needs an education or even the slightest understandinig of history and basic Christian theology when you’ve got Hollywood movies? — and text-messaging friends with 95 IQs who watch Hollywood movies (and Keith Olbermann). What could be more reliable sources of information than these?

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:48 am 68. 1MPTomb:

Jeff- I am not trying to win friends to my side of the political debate. My number one goal is to tell people what God has done in my life. If they reject Him, that’s on their heads. The fact that I engage in political debate is very small potatoes in the larger scenerio. It’s fun, but I could care less about it, really. So, my argument will ALWAYS be based on what God says about the issue, whether you agree with me or not.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:48 am 69. Thomas L......:

So, it was dirty rotten Christians who committed the holocaust crimes? Silly me, I thought it was the freakkiing nazis. Wow, 2000 years of pogroms! Jesus came down from the cross and the fun began!
Frank J – Nah, I’d prefer to inquistion him. Where’s my holy water-board? Dang! If he wasn’t anonymous, we’d get him too. Sheesh! Too smart for the likes of us.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:59 am 70. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Anonymouse

Nah, it’s not like Christians have conducted 2000+ years of pogroms, inquisitions, and maybe even a holocaust. Nothing to see here folks. Move along… — Anonymouse

As if someone who doesn’t follow Christ’s commands is a ‘christian’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And, according to Anonymouse….’shut up!’…..

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:06 am 71. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

Holy water board.

I’m stealing that one.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:11 am 72. Trouble:

Nah, it’s not like Christians atheists have conducted 2000+ 100 years of pogroms, inquisitions, mass murder of 100 million of their own countrymen, and maybe even a holocaust. Nothing to see here folks. Move along…

“God came not in the person of Jesus Christ, but in the person of (you know who).” – Josef Goebbels

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:14 am 73. David S:

Apparently Frank F did not understand what Frank S wrote. Let me summarize.

Iran is one example of what can happen when religious conservatives control the political landscape. The author was formerly part of an American Christian movement with aims very similar to those of the Iranian Muslims currently ruling that country.

Mandatory prayer in school, anti-gay laws, abortion bans, elective wars, capital punishment, rolling back civil rights, defeating the union movement – all of these are issues that the Iranian Mullahs and the American Christians would see eye-to-eye on.

Frank Schaeffer provides a unique insiders perspective into the motives and tactics of the fringe elements that promote theocracy in the USA. Oppressive religion is offensive to American values, whether Christian or any other faith.

The similarity of Christian Fundamentalists with Islamic Fundamentalists is not imaginary – it is real, and a very serious threat to the Republic. Our secular government is our greatest innovation, and the basic reason that the American system has been so successful, and so widely emulated. Continued vigilance is required to protect and defend our Constitution from being perverted in the service of religion.

Peace.

DS

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:15 am 74. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff…and Self-hating Boomer
RE: Going Over

You don’t have to worry, I’m not going over to the other side. — Jeff

You’ve already taken the first step. And it IS something of a ’slippery slope’.

RE: The Proper Use of Arguments

Still, when it comes to the debate of ideas and philosophy, you should not use “because god says so” in support of your position. — Jeff

So, if we say we get it from the Bible? Isn’t that the same as saying “because God says so”?

So what about such ‘commandments’ from that Old Book as:

• Thou shalt not kill? [Note: Meaning 'murder'.]
• Thou shalt not steal?
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

Are they bad arguments “because God says so”?

Furthermore, what other parts from what God said in that Old Book are ‘bad’? And why?

You want us to limit our sources of data to what YOU define as legit? Just because you don’t agree with it? And because you don’t care for it, you call it ‘illigit’? What if I turn the tables on you and say you can’t admit as evidence that I don’t care for?

In truth, I’ll accept as evidence any argument you—or anyone else—present in a debate. However, all too many people won’t reciprocate.

Who here has the more ‘open’ mind?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. More to follow….time to get back into writing code….

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:18 am 75. muffler:

RogueIV:

I think you are misapplying my points.

First the Obama Administration has not invoked God or any Deity for cause of it’s agenda or policies. Second it was majority elected and is not calming other than secular majority it’s positions.

I also disagree with the your interpretation about the influence of the church on government. The freedom of religion was to prevent the use of government to advance any one’s particular religion by outlawing or restricting other religions.

Since the Humanists felt that Religion and ones relationship with their Deity was a private affair, the government cannot have the power to restrict the spiritual travels of anyone.

The power to govern is assigned by people through elective representation to the government. The constitution prevents anyone elected from attempting to limit the exercise of anyone else religious rights. It is unamerican to impose anyone religious dogma on anyone else and so there is a separation of church and state.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:18 am 76. Horatio Parker:

I’m not worried about Christian mullahs because the power of the evangelical fundamentalists is waning. People want a belief system not based in magical thinking. There is a growing rationalist movement within Christianity which will sweep away the fire breathers.

Thomas 3 “If those who lead you say to you, ‘’See, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. “

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:19 am 77. Tennwriter:

Using ‘God said it’…

1. Calvinball rules: This should be resisted. Its blatantly unfair, and probably bigoted. Don’t play by the Left’s rules.
2. God is frequently at the center of the issue. Bringing up God gives the other person the chance to showcase their intolerance and venom.
3. More people will be sympathetic to a well-made appeal to God’s authority than disaffected by such.
4. I’m glad to have you as a Conservative Atheists, but look at the numbers. 9 of 10 Americans are religious. And of that last minority, another minority is like you. Most atheists are liberal, I’d say, and a fair chunk of them are militantly vicious for which the appropriate remedy is #2.

A well-made apppeal to God’s authority, not just ‘God said it.’ will frequently be helpful in advancing correct ideas.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:24 am 78. BettyBlue:

#67 Aureliano, LOL, good post!

The Nazis were anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, race worshipping pagans. The Marxists were officialy atheist. Together, they killed off more than the Inquisition ever did.

As for the Crusades, Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini killed off more Moslems than the Crusaders did, in the Iran/Iraq war.

Going back the Middle-Ages/bronze age to dig up dirt on Christians/Jews is reaching back way too far.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:28 am 79. BettyBlue:

And, speaking of religious freedom in America, it’s un-American to restrict the freedom of Christians, to worship as they will.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:30 am 80. Jeff:

1MPTomb:

I see that you’re a pro-life kinda person, and that you’re passionate about it. Me too, but not because god says it, but simply because killing innocent people is wrong, regardless of their age, race, religion, sex or propensity to eat potted meat. And who is more innocent than a baby yet to be born?

Killing people who have murdered other people does not make me lose one wink of sleep. People who murder innocent people have forfeited their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That includes garden variety criminals, terrorists and Iranian Basiji thugs.

I do not need god to tell me this is wrong, basic human instinct tells me this.

I’m glad that you’re happy with your relationship with god. I’m truly happy for you that you’ve found a philosophy that helps you live your life in a positive manner. As long as you don’t force it on other people, you’re a part of the solution and not the problem.

See, we can agree on issues even though we arrive at our viewpoints from different angles.

Just because I’m a “heathen atheist infidel” and you’re a “kooky christian” doesn’t mean that we completely disagree on everything. Since this is a political thread and not a religious one, I was offering that advice from the context of a political discussion. If you choose to live your life purely from a religious standpoint, and reject people and ideas simply because they are not in the context of your dogma, then you are not far from the islamist oppressors. It is possible to work together toward a common goal despite dogmatic differences, and that is the epitome of a free and open society “With liberty and justice for all(tm)”.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:35 am 81. Thomas L......:

Pee Wee – Well, you’re welcome to it. I thought it was pretty darn clever meownself.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:35 am 82. amsron:

I, for one, have never been able to tell the difference between a fundamentalist Jew, Muslim, or Christian. Sometimes it seems to me that their whole reason for being on this Earth is to provide an example of how NOT to be spiritual.

As for the whole Republican-Fundamentalist-baby eating thing…just remember that because they’re “forgiven,” a Christian is liable to do and say anything that promotes their religion including, but not limited to stoning, piling rocks on your chest until you die from the weight, eating the dead flesh of your enemies (see Crusades), burning people alive, beheading them, locking them in prison…do I have to go on?…shooting, stabbing, bombing, beating unbelievers…it’s people like Fleming that give religion a bad name…The horror!

Oh, and “Thomas L?” Nazis were also Christians. I know you won’t believe that because you’re living in world where black is white but it’s true, and you need to understand that reading books written by Christians? Well, see above.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:36 am 83. 1MPTomb:

There is no “seperation of church and state” in the Constitution. Just because the left says there is, doesn’t make it so. The founders’ sole idea toward religion was there would be no state-mandated religion/denomination. The Constitution says you can’t force someone to say prayers to your God, but you can’t restrict people from praying to their God either. How can someone in America impose their religious dogma on anyone else? We are a free country, the last time I looked.
David S.- I know you’ve probably been indoctrinated by our public schools and universities, but our government was not founded on seculariam. Repeat that to yourself serveral times and you may understand what conservatives have always understood.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:39 am 84. Tennwriter:

And to the person who was disciplined for asking ‘What about the Dinos?’ in a Baptist college, well, I’m a little surprised and dissapointed. They should have books in their college library to fully answer this.

The appropriate response is “Read ‘Bones of Contention’, and turn in a thousand word summary of its arguements and and your evaluation of the same in two weeks.” (Or one of several dozen other books on Dinosaurs…One can start with the Book of Job in the Old Testament.)

I’m a little skeptical of this story as there is a lot of good books out there, and Christians tend to be open to questions.

For the other side, I reccomend ‘Expelled’ which shows intolerance.

And I would ask the Evo, ‘what about the fossil record which supports Special Creation?’

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:40 am 85. Delia:

“HuffPo’s usually studious editors”

Was that snark?

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:48 am 86. billslayer:

Part and parcel to “liberalism” as we know it now is self hatred, especially a hatred for the culture that the liberal himself has come from. Add to this the requisite (and strangely anti-evolutionary) view that all cultures are somehow equal in some way, and voila! See? I just explained it in two sentences.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:51 am 87. Teleprompter Jesus:

First the Obama Administration has not invoked God or any Deity for cause of it’s agenda or policies. Second it was majority elected and is not calming other than secular majority it’s positions.

Testify, brother! Nobody ever said that I was the second coming of Jesus. ‘Xept that spiritual mentor dude whom I can’t name (cuz he’s under that bus, and the Jews won’t let me talk to him)…

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:52 am 88. Anonymous:

“So why point these people out if we don’t need to do anything about them?”

It is not laughter that should be sought: that is not addressing the issue of what is done.

We are, as citizens, given the Peace of Westphalia to uphold that we then agree upon, via the Constitution, to expand to all religions. To do that we dare not deny any person the freedom of speech via religion, nor use religion as a means to invalidate their views of the world. If we truly believe that each individual is to be given their space, as individuals, to the belief of their choice, including no religion at all, then we dare not keep silent when those who break the Great Peace step forward to do just that. By attempting to associate odious practices of one group of religious zealots with any other religion, those doing so are pointing to their own lack of understanding of religion AND not allowing what others say and practice to stand for them.

That is not something to laugh at as it is not only uncivil, but becomes a turning point for religious progroms should any large number of individuals seeking to stifle any practitioners of any religion based solely upon their religion then feel free to do more than spew venomous slander but then take up arms to back that ill-founded slander. Those who seek moral equivalence fail themselves and the rest of society in breaking from our common understanding that we only have an individual’s words and deeds to judge them by. Individuals may speak much of ‘motive’ but that is unknowable to us without the ability to read minds. By imputing similar motivations to dissimalar individuals and religions, a false and repugnant moral equivalence is drawn so as to demonize some group or portion of society.

To speak up is to point that out and bring attention to such individuals trying to do that demonizing.

The backers of radical Islam in its main forms clearly state what they seek as an end to their terrorism, and then enforce not just that but a horrific form of despotism to deprive any under their control of all rights and leave the individuals to be preyed upon by those that come to power. Speaking of those who DO NOT say those things, who evince no love of doing that, who want no end to make their fellow man capitualate to their rule… that is horrific. It bespeaks of oneself no longer agreeing to civil terms of society and wishing to break society up so as to punish a minority for their religion and imputed end goals.

It is necessary to speak up against those who wish to have government wield such power across not only religion but politics, as we are to ensure the civil process of society continue. To impugn those who do not support religious dictatorship but for a guidance that must be agreed to by ALL parts of society without coercion but via reason, we are to reason out wisdom no matter its source… why would ANYONE speak up against that as a process? To do so through any implication of association should be a reason to turn your back on those doing that association as they have no good ends in store for those they associate like that, or for YOU as they are willing to objectify anyone to reach their ends. Because stepping over that line of moral equivalence and associating people with things they do not say, act upon or profess any want for is pure objectification… and once individuals start to see their fellow citizens as mere objects, then anything becomes permissible.

Laugh at that?

It gets you a gun to your face, in the end, if you do not stand up for the Great Peace and our expansion of it as members of society.

Only you can do that as it is entrusted to you as a civil member of society. If you can’t uphold it for yourself and speak of it to ensure that others understand the end of their actions, then do not expect civil society to last very long. Civil society starts with civility and a civil tongue. And many laughed at that funny man with the moustache in Germany… yes, they did.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:52 am 89. Jeff:

Chuck,

—>snip/snipsnip/snipsnip/snip<—

No, I was just offering advice on how to be more successful in persuading people who may or may not proscribe to your dogma and to point out that you may actually have more in common than you think with some people… and to not immediately write someone off just because they have different views on god than you.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:52 am 90. ajacksonian:

“So why point these people out if we don’t need to do anything about them?”

It is not laughter that should be sought: that is not addressing the issue of what is done.

We are, as citizens, given the Peace of Westphalia to uphold that we then agree upon, via the Constitution, to expand to all religions. To do that we dare not deny any person the freedom of speech via religion, nor use religion as a means to invalidate their views of the world. If we truly believe that each individual is to be given their space, as individuals, to the belief of their choice, including no religion at all, then we dare not keep silent when those who break the Great Peace step forward to do just that. By attempting to associate odious practices of one group of religious zealots with any other religion, those doing so are pointing to their own lack of understanding of religion AND not allowing what others say and practice to stand for them.

That is not something to laugh at as it is not only uncivil, but becomes a turning point for religious progroms should any large number of individuals seeking to stifle any practitioners of any religion based solely upon their religion then feel free to do more than spew venomous slander but then take up arms to back that ill-founded slander. Those who seek moral equivalence fail themselves and the rest of society in breaking from our common understanding that we only have an individual’s words and deeds to judge them by. Individuals may speak much of ‘motive’ but that is unknowable to us without the ability to read minds. By imputing similar motivations to dissimalar individuals and religions, a false and repugnant moral equivalence is drawn so as to demonize some group or portion of society.

To speak up is to point that out and bring attention to such individuals trying to do that demonizing.

The backers of radical Islam in its main forms clearly state what they seek as an end to their terrorism, and then enforce not just that but a horrific form of despotism to deprive any under their control of all rights and leave the individuals to be preyed upon by those that come to power. Speaking of those who DO NOT say those things, who evince no love of doing that, who want no end to make their fellow man capitualate to their rule… that is horrific. It bespeaks of oneself no longer agreeing to civil terms of society and wishing to break society up so as to punish a minority for their religion and imputed end goals.

It is necessary to speak up against those who wish to have government wield such power across not only religion but politics, as we are to ensure the civil process of society continue. To impugn those who do not support religious dictatorship but for a guidance that must be agreed to by ALL parts of society without coercion but via reason, we are to reason out wisdom no matter its source… why would ANYONE speak up against that as a process? To do so through any implication of association should be a reason to turn your back on those doing that association as they have no good ends in store for those they associate like that, or for YOU as they are willing to objectify anyone to reach their ends. Because stepping over that line of moral equivalence and associating people with things they do not say, act upon or profess any want for is pure objectification… and once individuals start to see their fellow citizens as mere objects, then anything becomes permissible.

Laugh at that?

It gets you a gun to your face, in the end, if you do not stand up for the Great Peace and our expansion of it as members of society.

Only you can do that as it is entrusted to you as a civil member of society. If you can’t uphold it for yourself and speak of it to ensure that others understand the end of their actions, then do not expect civil society to last very long. Civil society starts with civility and a civil tongue. And many laughed at that funny man with the moustache in Germany… yes, they did.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:53 am 91. Jeff:

Sorry… it cut off most of my comment…

Chuck,

–snip–
So what about such ‘commandments’ from that Old Book as:

• Thou shalt not kill? [Note: Meaning 'murder'.]
• Thou shalt not steal?
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

Are they bad arguments “because God says so”?
—/snip—

No, they are great ideas but the reason I think they are good is not because god commanded it, rather that it is based on the ethic of reciprocity which far predates any dogma.

—snip—
Furthermore, what other parts from what God said in that Old Book are ‘bad’? And why?
—/snip—

How about the 20th Chapter of Leviticus? There is an awful lot of minor offenses for which you should be killed in there. Some are not specified, others specify burning as the method.

that is just one example, I could go on for hours about what is morally wrong with the OT.

—snip—
You want us to limit our sources of data to what YOU define as legit? Just because you don’t agree with it? And because you don’t care for it, you call it ‘illigit’? What if I turn the tables on you and say you can’t admit as evidence that I don’t care for?
—/snip—

No, I was just offering advice on how to be more successful in persuading people who may or may not proscribe to your dogma and to point out that you may actually have more in common than you think with some people… and to not immediately write someone off just because they have different views on god than you.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:59 am 92. Professor Guvinoff:

Looks like Glenn Beck is not going to run out of material anytime soon!

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:02 am 93. Chris:

As ridiculous as it is to draw up a moral equivalence between Christians or Republicans and Muslims, let alone Iranian clerics, it’s a bit hypocritical to draw up the same equivalence between those mullahs and the one who drew up an equivalence first.

And then, to top it off, add a confirmation of Godwin’s Law.

I paste here my comment on Jihad Watch’s link to this post:

Christianity has been largely defanged by the Enlightenment, the seeds of which existed in Christianity (and Christianity’s influences, especially Hellenistic) itself. For evidence of that heed Spencer in comparing the person of Jesus to “al-insan al-kamil.”

However, there is a true “minority of extremists” in this country who are Christian and who have expressed opinions every bit as odious as any mullah. Judge Roy Moore implied that homosexuals should face prison or even execution -

“The State may not interfere with the internal governing, structure, and maintenance of the family, but the protection of the family is a responsibility of the State. Custody disputes involve decision-making by the State, within the limits of its sphere of authority, in a way that preserves the fundamental family structure. The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?...

That should be at least somewhat chilling considering that he once held a position of great power and influence in Alabama law.

There is also something to be said about being more concerned about the moderate threat that is proximal as opposed to the extreme threat that is more distant (or at least perceived to be). By that I mean I am more worried about pagans getting beaten up with approval from authorities who should protect her one county over (India Tracy) than I am about homosexuals being hanged in Iran, even though the latter is more appalling (but really only in degree, not in kind). I am also worried about Eid replacing Labor Day at a Tyson chicken plant, but I have no real fear that the Stealth Jihad will succeed long term. Demographics might overwhelm Europeans, but I am confident that Americans will continue to insist on basic assimilation.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:03 am 94. Professor Guvinoff:

Whoops! That post was intended for the Atlanta tea party article. Too much multitasking @ guvinoff…

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:04 am 95. 1MPTomb:

Jeff- again, as an adult, you are free to choose God or not; I cannot “force my religion on you’, any more than an atheist can “force his religion” on me. I present my views on my relationship with Christ and you choose to accept or reject those views. The whole reason I have these views is because of who God is and how I beleive He shaped my life. I cannot pick and choose what I believe. If, as I do, believe God moved events for me, and I accept Him, then I have to accept the Bible too. I too, am glad we share many of the same morals, even if you did not glean your philosophy from the pages of the Good Book.
So, as I have said before, choose to accept my views or not, it’s no skin off my nose.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:11 am 96. Scott:

I have some very mixed feelings about legislating the legality of abortion. There are some few instances where I believe it is a justifiable course of action. The mother’s life being at risk, severe physical/mental disability, rape, and incest being the instances. Thus I don’t feel it should be wholly illegal, but it should not be used as birth control or because of an “accident” as there are other avenues for those children.

I know some will disagree with my position but it is what it is and here is my reasoning:

1) I could not condemn the woman I love to death to have a child and wouldn’t expect others to, a later attempt to have a child can be made if it is possible for her to carry to term without a similar situation occurring. Otherwise you stop trying and adopt.

2) I am against people living off the taxpayer for their entire lives, and often severely physically/mentally disabled children require government assistance from cradle to grave. I do not believe it is right to force others to support an individual all of their lives, just as I think it is wrong for a woman on welfare to keep having children that she cannot support herself. If you have the financial resources to provide care to the child while they are growing up and after you’re gone then by all means do so. On top of that there is no guarantee that that the child will not be in constant mental, emotional, and physical pain all their lives due to their disabilities.

Now I’m sure some idiot is going to assume that I believe that means I think all people with disabilities don’t deserve to live, and that is not the case. Personally I pray I’m never faced with this dilemma, and if I am then I will have to answer to my Maker for my decision. Also people are going to trot out Stephen Hawking, the man is an exception rather than the rule so that gains no traction with me.

3) The mental/emotional damage caused by rape or incest is severe, IMO forcing a woman to carry to term a product of such a crime is tantamount to 9 months of mental torture, possibly longer. If the woman chooses to carry the child to term and either keep it or give it up for adoption then more power to her, but not all women are capable of dealing with that. Second, its usually difficult enough for a child to find out that they are an “accident” or adopted. Add to that the emotional trauma of finding out that they are the product of rape or incest and its just psychologically brutal and could lead to some very anti-social behavior.

This doesn’t mean I believe that others should be forced to have abortions in these cases, it just means these are MY reasons for keeping it legal but very limited. Furthermore, for those who oppose abortion for religious reasons, I believe that in those instances above where God wants that child born they will be.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:20 am 97. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff, et al.
RE: Your Point

The point that I’m trying to make is that atheist != evil or liberal. — Jeff

On the one hand, you are, unfortunately, mistaken.

On the other hand, you fail to understand that from the get-go, NO BODY IS ‘GOOD’. Not even the most devout christian.

We are all—everyone of us—fouled up beyond all recognition.

The only difference is that christians, the REAL ones, recognize they’ve got a very serious problem. Sort of like being in AA.

On the third hand, it’s nice to know that the godless, leftist christian-haters, recognize that in christians. They just don’t recognize they’ve got problems themselves. But that’s to be expected of them. After all….they think themselves as ‘god’.

RE: Agreement, Anyone?

I probably agree with you on 90+% of concepts right off the bat. I’m just giving you a tip on winning friends and influencing people from the perspective of a dirty, unwashed heathen. — Jeff

It’s not part of my duty description to “win friends and influence people”. All I’m supposed to do is speak the truth and love my neighbor. This despite their level best effort to make me disobedient.

Whether or not they accept my honest report is their decision.

RE: Debate Techniques

I try to debate and convince liberals every day and I’ve been successful in a number of cases. I’ve never had to use god a single time to convince them. Good ideas are good ideas regardless of how dogma feels about them. — Jeff

Well….

…in the first place only the Roman Catholics use Dogma. At least as far as I know.

And as for ‘good ideas’ being ‘good’ is totally in the mind of the beholder. Certain homosexuals think that having sexual relations with young boys is a ‘good idea’. And, of late, our friends in APA have been publishing articles that support such an idea as ‘good’.

However, from my perspective, I remember THIS passage….

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. — Some Wag

So. If my understanding of your desired limitation on my arguments, I cannot bring that one forward.

What do YOU offer as evidence that NAMBLA is wrong? That is if you think NAMBLA is wrong. Is it as powerful as what is being published in the APA journals?

And do they listen to you?

That’s just an example.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The debates of that great assembly are frequently vague and perplexed, seeming to be dragged rather than to march, to the intended goal. Something of this sort must, I think, always happen in public democratic assemblies. -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, c. 1835]

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:21 am 98. RogueIV:

Muffler (75),

I am purposefully changing the application of your points – I think you are missing my sense of humor.

My point was that your description of self righteous, sermonizing, belittling condescention is not limited to, and in reality is not even typical of the Christian community. It happens all over, with groups of various agendas and belief systems. I would contend that the Obama administration is more easily describable by your 4 characteristics than are most Christians. ( substitute Mr. Obama himself for “God” in your statements ). Perhaps my humor was too vague. I never intended to assert that the administration has invoked God – I believe that Mr. Obama’s proclivities run quite contrary to that idea.

As for the Freedom of Religion subject, I think we are saying similar things. The founders intended to prevent government from preferring a state sponsored sect to the legal detriment of any other religion. They never imagined, however, that this policy would be changed to disallow religion from informing government policy in general. That latter concept of “separation” in fact, runs directly contrary to what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the foundational strength of the American system and culture.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:22 am 99. Chuck Pelto:

TO: amsron
RE: Yeah…Right….

Nazis were also Christians. — amsron

….and Joe Stalin was one too.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before…..

A tree is known by its fruit. — Some Wag, around 2000 years ago

In other words, as I explained to someone else here. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and but doesn’t act like a duck, it’s not a duck.

It’s something else.

And the Nazis that countenanced the massacare of the Jews are not christians.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If they objected to the holocaust, they probably joined them in it…..

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:27 am 100. David S:

@83. 1MPTomb:

“There is no “seperation of church and state” in the Constitution.”

Call it what you will. I call it the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It seems pretty clear about Congress making no law…

“How can someone in America impose their religious dogma on anyone else?”

Via law, via coercion, and occasionally with force, sometimes deadly. Religious dogma has been imposed in schools, in medical treatment, at public events, ad nauseam.

“I know you’ve probably been indoctrinated by our public schools and universities, but our government was not founded on seculariam. Repeat that to yourself serveral times and you may understand what conservatives have always understood.”

Thanks for revealing something profound about the way you understand the world. I suppose if I kept repeating to myself “Jesus loves me”, that someday I would probably believe that, too. Fortunately, I have the sense to distinguish between a delusional mantra and reality. Religious dogma has no place in our government.

Officially called the “Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,” most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796.

I don’t really know why there is such an obsession among some folks to deny the outrageously secular nature of the founding of the USA. It was, and apparently still is, a “revolutionary” idea that a country could be founded in secular humanism, at least to some.

Peace.

DS

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:33 am 101. trangbang68:

DavidS, If I said you didn’t have a clue about the mission and motives of Christians I would be understating the case. Let’s look at your pointless points.
First off, If you had even briefly examined the writings of Francis Shaeffer, you would know that his mission at L’Abri was to provide a refuge to the drug ravished flower children wandering Europe in the sixties and early seventies. His thesis, which I believe, was the cure for the spiritual ennui and emptiness that led to cheap sex and drug abuse ,is found in the abundant life Christ gives. I found this myself as a drug battered Viet Nam vet with no hope for the future. The love of Christ rescued me and gave my life significance.
Your points: mandatory prayer in school- Christianity by definition can only be volitional .No one can force you to pray or believe. What we object to is mandatory secularism and anti Christian bullying by public school teachers and administrators.
2)anti-gay laws- Propositions approved overwhelmingly by the population even in liberal states that define marriage as between a man and a woman are not “a not-gay” but the will of the people. Ramrodding deviancy down the public’s throat (bad analogy) is fascist and anti-democratic.
3) abortion bans- the general consensus in Christian circles is the only rollback of the abortion bloody tsunami is through winning hearts and minds. I personally believe that the issue should be turned back to the states to decide its legality through referendum.
4)elective wars-huh? How in the world is that considered a Christian position? Other than debating just war doctrine between pacifist and more pragmatic believers, this is utterly a ludicrous argument on your part. Muslims war to make unwilling converts; Christian preach Christ crucified and present him as the answer for mens’ sins.
5) capital punishment- got me there- I believe that capital punishment is merited in certain instances as punishment for horrible premeditated murder. I believe Khalid Shaik Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef and any other mass murdering terrorists should have been hung. The difference in me and you David is I believe in killing the guilty (murderers) and sparing the innocent(babies in the womb) and you believe the opposite.
6) rolling back civil rights- that would be a hoot if it wasn’t so wrong headed. The American Civil War to end slavery was spurred in the pulpits of churches in New England, the civil rights movement was largely peopled by Christians and Jews. Those white folks getting their heads cracked opened in Selma were largely church folks. Bull Connor, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Orville Faubus and the other segregationists were members of your beloved Democrat party.
7) defeating the union movement- What????? Do you have any evidence of that being an orthodox Christian position?
“The similarity of Christian Fundamentalism with Islamic Fundamentalism is not imaginary -it’s real.” Only in the fever swamps of your imagination,David. Of course you could cite all those instances of Baptist suicide bombers. You know who really resembles Islamic fascists, leftwing terrorists like the Unibomber and friend of Obama, Bill Ayers.
Peace,or whatever

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:54 am 102. trangbang68:

(2) make that anti-gay not a-not gay

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:57 am 103. 1MPTomb:

Where does the law force someone to conform to religious dogma or be imprisioned or killed in America, David? If it is something that goes on in th U.S.A., I want to know where. When have you ever been forced to pray to a god in which you don’t believe, David? The U.S. was founded on moral laws that come straight out of the Bible, David. All of the Founding Fathers at one time or another wrote about the importance of the Bible and God’s laws of morality, David.
You don’t HAVE to repeat anything you don’t want to, David, that’s the whole perpose of the First Amendment, but you also don’t have the right to take away my right TO worship as I please, including the right to shout it to the rooftops in the public square if I want to, David.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:58 am 104. Mongoose:

Scott: Christ was not peacenik, he was not a liberal and he was not a communist:

Do not think that I come to bring the peace upon earth:
I came not to send peace but the sword.
For I come to set a man at variance against his father,
and the daughter against her mother,
and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and the man’s enemies shall be they of his own household.
He, who loves father or mother more than Me,
is not worthy of Me; and he, who loves son or daughter more than Me,
is not worthy of Me.
And he, who does not take up his cross and follow Me, is not worthy of Me”
(10: 34-38).

Wonder what he would say about “laying down pubescent neuroses”

You have a yet a ways to go in your religous instruction, I think.

Christians are commanded by Christ to be good citizens who don’t make trouble. Salt and light yes. Revolutionaries no. Read the Sermon on the Mount and THAT is what we are supposed to be about.

You are putting words in Christ mouth here (that is know as Blasphemy, BTW).

“Good citizen”? Well sometimes that requires being a revolutionary, ask Sam Adams.
Sometime it requires making trouble. Some times it requires breaking the law, as those Christians that harbored Jews in Nazi Europe well understood.

That is a clear misreading of the Gospels you have made. What was under discussion here, it that one may not use one’s faith as an excuse for anarchy or criminality (”criminality” in the moral sense of the word, not the legal sense), and note that here this teaching is clearly in relation to the Pagan world.

The whole notion of citizenship changes radically in the Juedo-christian world civilization that has been created these last 1600 years or, and this icertainly reflect in our history, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in the teachings of other Christian confessions. Our whole notion of the citizen is formed by this heritage. What we call “liberalism” is really just a sort of heretical form of it.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

And some other points:

However these people tend to focus solely on the “Jesus died for you” part of Christianity and tend to ignore his teachings.

Prove that. Sounds like a persoanl bias to me.

Wrong. It is based on both. Christ fufilled the old Covenent and offers the New One.

One cannot understand the oen with out the other–not spitritually, not historically. Where does Christ contradict the Old Testament in and profound way?

He may refine the teachings, but does not contradict it.

The Sermon on the Mount:

This is not an analysis of Man’s social state or how he relates to state or society. just the opposite in fact. It is an articulation of the spiritualist state of man and that as a creature of God, though fallen in nature, he has value beyond what men can know. Jesus was not telling us to learn to be humble so we could inherit the earth. He was telling us that the humble will inherit the earth.

It was not an instruction manual. It is about how man realtes to God’s will.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:00 pm 105. mhr:

In the 1940’s and 1950’s when the USSR was on the move in Eastern Europe and threatening the West, when Americans in Stalin’s service were stealing US atom bomb technology and hundreds of Soviet agents in the US took their orders from KGB agents, who became the enemy-in-chief of US liberals? The Soviets? Of course not. Their enemy was an American senator named McCarthy. Liberals today reject the threat from totalitarian islam in the same way they laughed away Americans’ concern then about Soviet expansionism. Liberals can’t help it- it’s in their DNA. There is something about foreign totalitarian systems that fascinates them.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:01 pm 106. Trouble:

I don’t recognize Godwin’s Law. I didn’t vote for Godwin. Hell, I don’t even remember the election he won.

If it’s a valid point I’ll use it, thankyouverymuch.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:02 pm 107. Thomas L......:

82. Amsrom – Nazi Christians? So to you it was the Christianity in Germany and not the nazism that caused the death of over six million people? Sort of like if your sister dies of cancer, you blame the bad case of athlete’s foot that was plaguing her. If a rapist happens to be a football fan, you blame the rape on football. If a murderer is also a Rotarian, you blame service clubs. That about the sum of your “thinking”?

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:20 pm 108. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff
RE: An Additional Thought On….

I try to debate and convince liberals every day and I’ve been successful in a number of cases. I’ve never had to use god a single time to convince them. — Jeff

Winning people to YOUR ’side’ of a debate is an interesting idea.

I prefer winning people to God’s side. I think it has a more long-lasting, i.e., ‘eternal’ affect on their lives.

RE: Thinking ‘Eternally’

And if you doubt the concept of eternal life, why bother being ‘good’ in the first place? Do what you will.

I’m reminded of Loki’s argument to that nun in Dogma…..

I know, I know. You should take all this money that you’ve been collecting for your parish and go out and buy yourself a nice dress. — Loki to a Roman Catholic nun, in Dogma

What?

You don’t care for the concept of ‘carrots’ and ’sticks’? That’s interesting. It seems to work so well with the rest of mankind….in practice.

Heck. We use such a concept in EVERY LAW WE WRITE in this land. Do/Don’t-Do this or we’ll ruin your life….one way or another…..

Maybe you should take that up with Congress…….

After all, Albert Einstien had a similar conundrum on his hands. For he said….

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty — Albert Eistein

And he was a ‘genius’….with ‘math’. Apparently not with respect to God. You could well be in the same ‘boat’ with such a great man as that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A man is the prisoner of his power. A topical memory makes him an almanac; a talent for debate, a disputant.... -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:28 pm 109. 1MPTomb:

Mongoose- thanks and also don’t forget, when Jesus comes back it will not be as a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. He will come as the Jews hoped He would the first time.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:29 pm 110. G Alston:

#78 BettyBlue — The Marxists were officialy atheist. Together, they killed off more than the Inquisition ever did.

Argument Fail.

This was the result of superior technology and a larger population to dispose of, not motivation. If the medieval religious warriors had today’s technology, it would have been used to the same (or greater) numerical result.

Just because you’re innumerate doesn’t mean you should boast of it.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:29 pm 111. Chuck Pelto:

TO: trangbang68
RE: DavidS and ‘Understanding’

DavidS, If I said you didn’t have a clue about the mission and motives of Christians I would be understating the case. — trangbang68

Be advised….

….DavidS is a ‘minister’. And, to the best of my understanding of him. His ministry relates to The Church of the Poisoned Mind.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy and know yourself and in one hundred battles you shall never know disaster. -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War, mandatory reading at Benning School for Boys....last time I was in those hallowed halls of Building 4]

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:31 pm 112. Dave Surls:

“I don’t really know why there is such an obsession among some folks to deny the outrageously secular nature of the founding of the USA.”

Probably has something to do with the fact that the founding document of the the United States says that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that the purpose of government is to secure the rights the Creator endowed all men with.

The Declaration of Independence also twice references God or the power of God in its closing paragraph:

“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

There was nothing secular about the founding of the United States, atheist fantasies notwithstanding.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:31 pm 113. Jeff:

Chuck:

Dogma is not just a Catholic thing. Dogma is, by definition:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek δόγμα “that which seems to one, opinion or belief” and that from δοκέω (dokeo), “to think, to suppose, to imagine” The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.

In other words, your religious teachings. Every denomination has it’s own dogma.

On the one hand, you are, unfortunately, mistaken.

On the other hand, you fail to understand that from the get-go, NO BODY IS ‘GOOD’. Not even the most devout christian.

We are all—everyone of us—fouled up beyond all recognition.

UGH. That reeks of self-esteem issues. If you think that I am evil simply because I do not believe in organized religion, then you and the mullahs have a lot in common.

Certain homosexuals think that having sexual relations with young boys is a ‘good idea’. And, of late, our friends in APA have been publishing articles that support such an idea as ‘good’.

Sexual relations of any kind with a child is wrong, homosexual or not. A minor cannot consent to sex, medical procedures, enter into a contract or any number of other things because those things can be harmful to the child and because the adult has an undue amount of influence over a child. However, what two consenting adults do in private is none of my business, and none of yours.

All I’m supposed to do is speak the truth and love my neighbor.

If it cannot be independently proven and observed, it is not truth – it is opinion. You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own truths.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:34 pm 114. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mongoose
RE: ‘Revolutionaries’ R US!

“Good citizen”? Well sometimes that requires being a revolutionary, ask Sam Adams. — Mongoose

Not just Samuel Adams. Christ Himself!

As I stated in a comment in this thread earlier…..

…..Christ brought a ‘revolution’ to Earth. He was dealt with, by the proverbial ‘powers-that-be’ in the manner that Communist China at Tiennanmen Square did a while back and the Ayatollahs are doing in Tehran today with people with such ‘revolutionary’ thoughts. They murder them.

So…..

….how do we christians….I mean the REAL ones….foment His revolution?

Just by keeping on, keeping on…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ride hard, shoot straight and always tell the Truth. -- Cyrus the Great]

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:38 pm 115. muffler:

Rogue IV:

I understand your humor, but I don’t agree with application to Obama since this introduces the “messiah” rant that is ridiculous. You did completely understand how Human behavior adapts and corrupts religion for personal human gain. Anyone who runs around proposing to directly know what an invisible Deity wants should be placed in a padded room for our safety.

Regarding the protections of Religion – we must remember that the founding fathers wanted to protect the United States from foreign influence of kings, tyrants, popes and other non-representative non-citizen’s of the United States. This is were the “church” (which does not just mean Christian) part of the separation is in play. Following ones convictions versus following ones religious leaders convictions is an important distinction.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:42 pm 116. G Alston:

#131 trangbang68 — 2)anti-gay laws- … Ramrodding deviancy down the public’s throat (bad analogy) is fascist and anti-democratic.

Once, a longstanding (greater than 1 millenia) tradition based on superstition and ignorance was touted as “right” with much the same language as yours. A deviant named Galileo used newfound scientific principles to prove the heresy of heliocentrism.

Today you culture warriors are once again standing against science and waving the flag of superstition and ignorance and calling it “tradition.” (Increasingly, we’re seeing that gays don’t choose to be gay, hence they’re not deviant; they’re normal.) Care to wager how this will turn out for the side of those flogging a tradition based on superstition and ignorance?

If *anyone* is anti-democratic here, it’s the side that wants to deny others based on fear and ignorance i.e. your side. Democracy is not equivalent to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It’s not sheer (or shear) numbers.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:44 pm 117. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff
RE:

–snip–So what about such ‘commandments’ from that Old Book as:

• Thou shalt not kill? [Note: Meaning 'murder'.]
• Thou shalt not steal?
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

Are they bad arguments “because God says so”? — Chuck Pelto—/snip—

No, they are great ideas but the reason I think they are good is not because god commanded it, rather that it is based on the ethic of reciprocity which far predates any dogma. — Jeff

As I pointed out in a later comment in this thread, ‘good’, or as you said here “great” ideas are all in the minds of those who think them.

I look forward to reply to my NAMBLA argument.

—snip—Furthermore, what other parts from what God said in that Old Book are ‘bad’? And why? — Chuck Pelto—/snip—

How about the 20th Chapter of Leviticus? There is an awful lot of minor offenses for which you should be killed in there. Some are not specified, others specify burning as the method.

that is just one example, I could go on for hours about what is morally wrong with the OT. — Jeff

That’s the OT.

Why is it you are deliberately forgetting that the NT tells us something different here and there?

You said you’ve read that Old Book “from cover to cover”. Why don’t you understand what you’ve read?

—snip—You want us to limit our sources of data to what YOU define as legit? Just because you don’t agree with it? And because you don’t care for it, you call it ‘illigit’? What if I turn the tables on you and say you can’t admit as evidence that I don’t care for? — Chuck Pelto—/snip—

No, I was just offering advice on how to be more successful in persuading people who may or may not proscribe to your dogma and to point out that you may actually have more in common than you think with some people… and to not immediately write someone off just because they have different views on god than you. — Jeff

Au contraire, mon cher, you’ve told me that any arg I offer with biblical basis is worthless.

Still looking forward to your response to my comment about the NAMBLA situation.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Why should I take YOUR advice….when I’ve another Advisor who is so much better?

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:51 pm 118. 1MPTomb:

Jeff- “What two consenting adults do in private is none of my business and none of yours.” I would love to keep it none of my business. Unfortunately, homosexuals keep bringing it up, over and over and over again.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:54 pm 119. scott:

Chuck,

Just look into that ’sword’ thing. Where in the Bible do we see Christ literally coming with a sword?

That’s His job not ours. We are to be as lambs. Harmless as doves although shrewd as serpents.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:58 pm 120. Leatherneck:

Yep, those evil Christians waiting to cut your head off, or blow up buildings in the name of Jesus. The next thing we will see is moraity trying to be taught to America’s children. Just the thought scares me.

Sarc/ off!

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:08 pm 121. Jeff:

Chuck:

That’s the OT.

Why is it you are deliberately forgetting that the NT tells us something different here and there?

You said you’ve read that Old Book “from cover to cover”. Why don’t you understand what you’ve read?

I don’t want to insult your religion, because I believe it’s a deeply personal thing. But… you asked, so…

There’s a big incongruity between the OT and the NT. Some things are directly contradictory. If the bible is/was the word of god, and god is perfect and timeless then there was no need for the NT because god should’ve gotten it right the first time. Why the change of tone and teaching?

Why do people deliberately forget that the OT tells them to slaughter, dismember and burn animals because it is “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Why are Christians not out stoning homosexuals, or adulterers? The bible says to do it… Is the book not the word of god? For every passage of goodness and light in the NT, there is one of violence, cruelty and depravity in the OT. This lack of consistency baffles me especially with all of the genocide that supposedly “righteous” men committed.

How do I know what is “right” and what is “wrong”? Hard to say, but I know what Joshua did at Jericho is wrong, regardless of what the bible says about it.

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:12 pm 122. AThinkingPerson:

I think the venom displayed in the comments here are proof that there is no happy “medium”. When one forces the “acceptance” of their religious views (whatever they are) on a population, they become no different than any number of oppressive regimes throughout history.

Notice I used the word “acceptance” and not “tolerance” which are two completely different issues. This great country was founded on the premise that we enjoy the freedom of and FROM religion. I am always amazed at the extent we will go to to “prove” our religious views are “right”. This country was founded on the Constitution, not the Bible. When we operate within the boundaries of the Constitution, it falls nicely within the confines of the Bible, be that their intention or not, good or bad. It should never be vice versa or we are no better than countries like Iran that operate under the vision of a Mullah.

As a Republican, I felt the need to voice what seems to be a minority opinion here but an important one going forward. Republicans are NOT exclusively Christian, nor are Christians exclusively Republican. We are a POLITICALLY based group with the ideals of State’s rights, MORE personal freedoms, LESS government intervention in our lives and the ability to decide what’s best for ourselves. If I wanted more boundaries on my personal life/viewpoint, I would have become a Democrat. For the record (not that it should matter here), I’m not an atheist, I’m a Deist. We need to broaden our scope a bit wouldn’t you agree?

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:13 pm 123. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff
RE: Dogma

Dogma is not just a Catholic thing. Dogma is, by definition:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek δόγμα “that which seems to one, opinion or belief” and that from δοκέω (dokeo), “to think, to suppose, to imagine” The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.

In other words, your religious teachings. Every denomination has it’s own dogma. — Jeff

A very broad definition. Don’t you think. It can likewise be applied to secularists.

Rather, I point out the concept of Papal Infallibility as Dogma. Or better yet, the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

I can argue better points strictly from that Old Book.

RE: FUBAR

On the one hand, you are, unfortunately, mistaken.

On the other hand, you fail to understand that from the get-go, NO BODY IS ‘GOOD’. Not even the most devout christian.

We are all—everyone of us—fouled up beyond all recognition. — Chuck Pelto

UGH. That reeks of self-esteem issues. If you think that I am evil simply because I do not believe in organized religion, then you and the mullahs have a lot in common. — Jeff

Yeah. A BIG one. Sometimes it shows up as my commenting on certain ‘gifts’ I’ve been given; lieutenant colonel, airborne-ranger-infantry, member of Mensa, commissioner on two city and two city-county panels. Minor stuff like that.

And yet, I still recognize that I’m fouled-up…..

By the way….you are STILL failing to recognize the basic premise…..”you’re fouled up because you’re you”. Just like I’m “fouled up because I’m me”.

In other ways…..you’re still in ‘denial’.

RE: The NAMBLA Situation

Certain homosexuals think that having sexual relations with young boys is a ‘good idea’. And, of late, our friends in APA have been publishing articles that support such an idea as ‘good’. — Chuck Pelto

Sexual relations of any kind with a child is wrong, homosexual or not. A minor cannot consent to sex, medical procedures, enter into a contract or any number of other things because those things can be harmful to the child and because the adult has an undue amount of influence over a child. However, what two consenting adults do in private is none of my business, and none of yours.
— Jeff

The ‘consent adults’ arg is so much dust thrown into the air.

So. You say it’s wrong. Good on you.

Please support your argument with something more than a ‘minor cannot consent to sex’. After all, I do believe that articles in the APA discounted that argument. So, unless you’ve got something more convincing than the APA…..

….you ain’t got squat.

RE: Duty Responsibilities

All I’m supposed to do is speak the truth and love my neighbor. — Chuck Pelto

If it cannot be independently proven and observed, it is not truth – it is opinion. You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own truths. — Jeff

I’ve proven it to myself on several occasions. The problem is that you, and others like you, won’t accept my honest reports.

And I CAN have my own truths. Especially those you aren’t willing to accept. I mean just because you don’t accept the truth, doesn’t mean it isn’t….you know….‘truth’.

Remember those who refused to accept the idea that the Earth was….ROUND?

Or how about the time the AMA spent denying that chiropractic techniques work? More recently acupuncture. Then we have the fact that since the 1970s, the FDA refused to admit that there were medical benefits to drinking alcohol in moderation.

You see…..

…..Truth has MANY deniers. Including, apparently, YOU.

Hope that helps…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In this world, Truth can wait; she's used to it.]

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:16 pm 124. Chuck Pelto:

TO: scott
RE: The ‘Sword’ Thingie

Just look into that ’sword’ thing. Where in the Bible do we see Christ literally coming with a sword?

That’s His job not ours. We are to be as lambs. Harmless as doves although shrewd as serpents. — scott

Patience, compadre. Patience.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[First came the Lamb. Next comes the Lion.]

P.S…..

And He shall rule the nations with an iron rod. — Revelation

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:18 pm 125. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. A sword is a variation on an iron rod….just sharper….

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:23 pm 126. scott:

Mongoose,

No. It’s an instruction manual. The meek shall inherit the earth in the thousand years of Christ’s reign on earth after the Second Coming. But then you probably don’t believe in that either.

Just an aside: The whole ‘cosmic destiny’ idea is a gnostic heresy. The redeemed shall be given resurrected bodies and inhabit a new earth and a new Jerusalem.

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:26 pm 127. Ms. Attitude:

David S. Mandatory prayer in school, anti-gay laws, abortion bans, elective wars, capital punishment, rolling back civil rights, defeating the union movement – all of these are issues that the Iranian Mullahs and the American Christians would see eye-to-eye on.

How many time do I have to point out to you that you are wrong when you prejudice people. It makes you look dumb. PS: Abortion is murder, it has nothing to do with religion.

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:31 pm 128. Cichawoda:

The only thing that the Christian right lacks is power. Whenever they have had the power they be behaved just like the brutal Ayatollahs in Iran and to deny that is just childish nonsense.

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:34 pm 129. Magic Dog:

Christian fundamentalism is similiar in its essential characteristics to other fundamentalism, be it Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or communist. It insists on rigid aherence to a specific doctrine, and rules those who differ as “the other,” to be scorned and dehumanized.

For this reason, it wasn’t too hard for the mullahs Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to take the same position as Osama bin Laden in the days after the 9/11 attacks. Like Bin Laden, the American mullahs attributed the attacks to God’s justice. God had withdrawn his protection from America for our having tolerated feminism and homosexuality, said Falwell and Robertson.

George W. Bush, and the majority of the Republican Party, are Christian Zionists under the sway of the “Rapture heresy,” which holds that the existence of an Israeli state is a necessary precondition for the return of Christ to earth, as foretold in the Book of Revelations. This heresy was a guiding force in U.S. Middle East policy during Bush’s terms in office.

Bush gave government aid to fundamentalist Christians while in office, and aggressively pursued fundamentalist social policies. Fortunately, we’ve had a change in direction, but the danger of Christian/Republican religious fundamentalism is merely dormant, not extinguished.

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:37 pm 130. 1MPTomb:

Jude calls Christians to persevere in 23:17- to the end of the chapter. Jesus’ return is described in Rev. 19:11-the end of the chapter. The description of the end times is described in various places in the New Testament (as well as Daniel).
If you want to know about the Bible Jeff, I would recommend that you actually study the Bible and not just read it. If you have an open mind about it, God will give you discernment. It is impossible to get into all of the supposed contradictions in the Bible on this thread and it’s not really what we’re discussing here.
I for one, never forget that the OT commands us to put to death those who do not follow His commands about homosex and other abominations. Is that what you would like for us Christians to do? Jesus said all men will be judged in the end of days and will have to account for their lives. I, for one, am willing to let God judge unrepentant homosexuals. I beleive homosex is a sin, but if people don’t believe in God, why is my believing it is a sin cause atheists such agony?

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:38 pm 131. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff
RE: Heh

That’s the OT.

Why is it you are deliberately forgetting that the NT tells us something different here and there?

You said you’ve read that Old Book “from cover to cover”. Why don’t you understand what you’ve read? — Chuck Pelto

I don’t want to insult your religion, because I believe it’s a deeply personal thing. But… you asked, so… — Jeff

You can’t “insult” my religion. Let alone me. So don’t bother yourself with such a sallow excuse.

RE: Incongruity

There’s a big incongruity between the OT and the NT. Some things are directly contradictory. If the bible is/was the word of god, and god is perfect and timeless then there was no need for the NT because god should’ve gotten it right the first time. Why the change of tone and teaching? — Jeff

Only because you don’t care to understand in the first place.

And I find it an interesting ‘indicator’ that you’re becoming more defensive with each post here.

RE: Again….

Why do people deliberately forget that the OT tells them to slaughter, dismember and burn animals because it is “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Why are Christians not out stoning homosexuals, or adulterers? The bible says to do it… Is the book not the word of god? For every passage of goodness and light in the NT, there is one of violence, cruelty and depravity in the OT. This lack of consistency baffles me especially with all of the genocide that supposedly “righteous” men committed. — Jeff

More indications of failure to comprehend.

The truth is coming out.

You’ve read that Old Book. But you refuse to understand, let alone recognize, what is in it.

Thanks for confirming my understanding.

All you do is twist it to support your arguments. But, since you originally indicated that nothing in there can be used in an argument, you’re a hypocrite.

RE: I Can Understamd

How do I know what is “right” and what is “wrong”? Hard to say, but I know what Joshua did at Jericho is wrong, regardless of what the bible says about it. — Jeff

All you’ve got to go on is what you make up for yourself. You have nothing else to ‘go on’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Thanks for playing…..

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:39 pm 132. Cichawoda:

126. scott:
“after the Second Coming”
I’ve always been curous about this Second Coming thing – how long are Christians willing to wait? Seems that since the last days of Jesus it is going to happen any second.

“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” – Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27) – it’s been over 2000 years and like the geek jilted by the prom queen the Christians keep looking at the clock – “I know she will come in the next 10 minute.”

Deep down you know he is not coming. But, if you still believe shouldn’t you set yourself some reasonable limit? Something like “If he doesn’t come in the next 15 min or 15 years or 150 years or even the next 1500 years we can assume he is not coming and I will stop ruminating about it and get on with the real world.” Can we agree to something like that?

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:49 pm 133. Becky:

Don’t underestimate the danger of this type of hatred. The Mullahs have used this type of hatred for CENTURIES to get the entire Muslim world to direct their anger at the Jews rather than at real problems that need real solutions.

The fact that many of these people are otherwise nice, well-meaning people doesn’t make them harmless. Their willingness to de-humanize millions of people they have never met, into a group they consider to be “fair game” for atrocities, makes them dangerous.

Think about the housewives in the Arab world who watch that Mickey Mouse-like show that teaches children to hate and blame jews and I think it is easier to understand just how dangerous this mind-set really is.

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:52 pm 134. Thomas L......:

Gee Cichawoda, your Obamessiah came, didn’t he? How long were YOU willing to wait?

Jun 25, 2009 - 1:53 pm 135. Jeff:

Chuck:

Yeah. A BIG one. Sometimes it shows up as my commenting on certain ‘gifts’ I’ve been given; lieutenant colonel, airborne-ranger-infantry, member of Mensa, commissioner on two city and two city-county panels. Minor stuff like that.

And yet, I still recognize that I’m fouled-up….. -Chuck

This is exactly what I’m saying: You are a man with many positive accomplishments, most likely a great positive influence on many people (Lt. Colonel), are endowed with a brain that functions in the top 6% or so of the population (Mensa), and are looked to for leadership in your community (Commissioner). Still, because you were indoctrinated at a young age with the self-loathing concept of Christianity, you still feel “fouled up”. I think I know why they do it… probably to keep you on a path to continual improvement, but why can you not count these gifts among your positive accomplishments and continually strive to be a positive force without being self-deprecating?

Remember those who refused to accept the idea that the Earth was….ROUND? -Chuck

…or those who base their entire lives on a book that was written when the earth was thought to be flat? Like when god held the sun in place so the attacks on the city could go on… (Joshua 3) Or that bleeding and gutting birds and smearing their blood all over you could cure leprosy (Lev. 14)?’

I don’t speak for the AMA or the APA, so I will not defend their findings, but I will speak for mine: ANY sex with a child is wrong.. homo or hetero, for the reason that a child has no understanding of the nature of sexuality and are easily bullied by adults. It is akin to rape, using any of various means to ply sex out of an otherwise unwilling party or one incapable of making a sound decision in that regard.

As far as accepting ideas, I will graciously let those comments slide, as I don’t want to be offensive to people’s sincerely held beliefs.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:01 pm 136. Cichawoda:

“why is my believing it (homosexuality) is a sin cause atheists such agony?”
It is only agony when you try to impose your beliefs on others by creating “faith based” laws that discriminate against people for not sharing your beliefs. This is something that all religions and believers are guilty of and that is why we have the 1st amendment. Basically it is a law that disallows “faith based” laws established by the government.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:01 pm 137. Becky:

“The only thing that the Christian right lacks is power. Whenever they have had the power they be behaved just like the brutal Ayatollahs in Iran and to deny that is just childish nonsense.”

Your ignorance of the atrocities against women, gays and children happening ON A DAILY BASIS in the Muslim makes you look like the ignorant, uneducated person that you are.

And here is another tip for you: now that the Liberal Left has the power, you are the very mirror image of those whom you claim to hate.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:01 pm 138. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cichawoda
RE: The Second Time Around

“after the Second Coming”
I’ve always been curous about this Second Coming thing – how long are Christians willing to wait? Seems that since the last days of Jesus it is going to happen any second. — Cichawoda

We’ll wait until He comes back. What’s your point?

However….

….would YOU please explain to me how a man, John, of the First Century, could describe a runaway nuclear reactor—an advanced technology of the Twentieth Century—to his contemporaries. AND provide a proper noun name for the location of such an event.

RE: That Guy

“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” – Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27) – it’s been over 2000 years and like the geek jilted by the prom queen the Christians keep looking at the clock – “I know she will come in the next 10 minute.” — Cichawoda

Again, patience rules.

But with that comment about “who shall not taste death until”….

…..It’s an interesting comment. I’ve been discussing this matter with my Friday Morning Mens’ Bible Study Group for a number of years now.

More and more of them are looking around them and recognizing the proverbial ’signs of the times’. Likewise, some of them are beginning to recognize the idea that John IS still walking the Earth.

RE: Deep Down, Indeed

Deep down you know he is not coming. — Cichawoda

You are SUCH a ‘fool’…..

…and you remind me so much of the sort of twerps in the Left Behind series, trying to convince us that we’re the ‘fools’, when indeed….you’re just ‘projecting’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. You have my sympathy……and my prayers….tonight…..

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:03 pm 139. Trouble:

“The only thing that the Christian right lacks is power. Whenever they have had the power they be behaved just like the brutal Ayatollahs in Iran and to deny that is just childish nonsense.”

You’re obviously unfamiliar with Dutch history; religious tolerance has been a Dutch creed since the middle ages in (what was at that time) a Christian nation. The same could be said of many of the American colonies – New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in particular.

Religious organizations lack this “power” (in the USA) because, in 1788, they voluntarily surrendered it when they signed on to the U.S. Constitution. The mullahs eventually will do the same in their countries, as the process of reform is now underway in the Islamic world.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:18 pm 140. Trouble:

Why are Christians not out stoning homosexuals, or adulterers? The bible says to do it… Is the book not the word of god?

“He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”

That’s why not.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:23 pm 141. trangbang68:

“why is my believing it (homosexuality) is a sin cause atheists such agony?”
It is only agony when you try to impose your beliefs on others by creating “faith based” laws that discriminate against people for not sharing your beliefs.
Tick,tick,tick, okay Chichawoda or whatever your name is, you’re on the clock. Name one “faith based law that discriminates against people for not sharing our beliefs” We’re talking about here in the USA not Iran or Saudi Arabia. (crickets chirping….)
You can’t name one because they’re are none and you’re a hysterical fool.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:25 pm 142. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cichawoda
RE: Heh

….creating “faith based” laws that discriminate against people for not sharing your beliefs. — Cichawoda

You obviously missed the comment at item #28 of this thread.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[All law is based on beliefs. — CBPelto]

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:30 pm 143. Dave Surls:

Addressing Frank Schaeffer’s nonsense:

“Picture the harshest Old Testament laws applied at home and the harshest neoconservative military policy abroad and that would be America if the Republicans had everything they wanted. We’d be in three wars now instead of two – Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.”

I don’t know about you Frank, but all other things being equal, I’d rather fight two small Republican wars in Iraq and Afghanisrtan (around 5,000 US dead), then fight four great big Democrat wars (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam…around 600,000 U.S. dead).

“It would be open season on domestic surveillance.”

You mean the kind of domestic surveillance the liberal Democrats employed in WWI, WWII and during the Cold War? Go read about what THEY did, Frankie boy. Or, are you talking about the kind of domestic surveillance the I.R.S. employs every day of the week? Spying on people and watching their every move is a hallmark of liberalism.

“Torture would be legal.”

What kind of torture are we talking about? Roughing up captured terrorists at Gitmo (Republicans) or burning 100,000 Jpabnese civilians alive at Hiroshima (Democrats)?

“Habeas Corpus would be a thing of the past.”

The liberal Democrats locked up tens of thousands of American citizens who weren’t guilty of anything except having ancestors who came from Japan (and the kindly old liberals killed some of those who resisted being locked up too). As far as I know, none of them were granted a writ of habeas corpus. When have the Republicans ever done anything that even remotely approaches that? Never. That’s when.

“Women would be in prison for having had abortions.”

Possibly, but I can’t think of any precedent. When abortion was illegal I don’t recall either Democrats or Republicans putting large numbers of women in prison for having had abortions. And, I don’t think anyone is proposing putting women in jail for having abortions now. Straw man argument.

“Gay men and women would be hounded and if they were murdered there would be leaders saying they had it coming.”

Are Republicans proposing that homosexuals be hounded? What Republican leaders are saying that murdered homosexuals had it coming? I’ve heard loonies like Fred Phelps saying that “God hates fags” and that homosexuals who died from the effects of AIDS had it coming, only Phelps is a liberal Democrat, not a Republican. I would imagine that there are some people as loony as Fred Phelps with associations with the Republican Party (though I can’t think of any that are as insane as Phelps off the top of my head), but Republicans hardly have a monopoly on hatred of homosexuals.

“The CIA and FBI would be operating inside the USA to crush dissent.”

I see no evidence of the Republicans using the power of government to “crush dissent”. I do see evidence of the liberal Democrats doing so during WWI and during the Truman prosecutions of CPUSA members after WWII. Since the Republicans haven’t done so, and the Democrats have done so, I see no reason to suspect that the Republicans would do so in the future, but I see plenty of reason to suspect that the liberal Democrats would do so.

“Blackwater (and other companies like it) would be taking over more and more military duties and operating internationally as a mercenary death squad.”

Blackwater and other companies are being employed (for security and LOC duties) because the Democrats cut back the size of our military, so private companies are now doing jobs that used to be carried out by the military. As a PBS report puts it: “American troop strength is still close to the lowest levels since the beginning of the Cold War — the high for active duty Army personnel was reached in 1968 at 1,570,343. In December, 2004 that figure stood at 494,112.” The liberal Democrats have been making the army smaller and smaller ever since the Vietnam War…and, now the liberal Democrats are complaining about the results of their policy? Typical.

And, what evidence is there that Blackwater is operating as a “mercenary death squad”? None, that I’m aware of.

Frank Schaeffer is a typical liberal…a liar and a total hypocrite.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:33 pm 144. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. By the way…..

….what are the most important ‘Laws’ for Christians?

[1] Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart and all thy mind and all thy soul and all thy strength.

[2] Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

I’ve had neighbors who denied God…..I still love them. Despite their hatred of my talking to them about God.

[Neighbor, n., One we are required to love, but does their utmost to make us disobedient.]

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:34 pm 145. Cichawoda:

137. Becky:
“atrocities against women, gays and children happening ON A DAILY BASIS”
Lets look at the history of Christianity from Constantine (about 313 CE) when it gained power to say 1791 when the 1st amendment made America the first, new, Western Culture, non Christian nation. In those scant 1478 years Christians have accumulated enough atrocities in the name of their religion to last another 10 millennia. Even today institutions where Christians hold real power (Catholic schools to name one) are rife with mental and physical brutality and abuse.
All ideology driven institutions seem to fall into this trap – Christianity, Islam, Dictatorial Communism – because of a lack of real world solutions they have to resort to brutality to enforce their ideology.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:36 pm 146. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff
RE: Self-Esteem – Twisted Around

Yeah. A BIG one. Sometimes it shows up as my commenting on certain ‘gifts’ I’ve been given; lieutenant colonel, airborne-ranger-infantry, member of Mensa, commissioner on two city and two city-county panels. Minor stuff like that.

And yet, I still recognize that I’m fouled-up….. -Chuck

This is exactly what I’m saying: You are a man with many positive accomplishments, most likely a great positive influence on many people (Lt. Colonel), are endowed with a brain that functions in the top 6% or so of the population (Mensa), and are looked to for leadership in your community (Commissioner). Still, because you were indoctrinated at a young age with the self-loathing concept of Christianity, you still feel “fouled up”. I think I know why they do it… probably to keep you on a path to continual improvement, but why can you not count these gifts among your positive accomplishments and continually strive to be a positive force without being self-deprecating? — Jeff

First my situation is ‘UGH’. And now it’s “positive accomplishments”.

What was I saying about ‘hypocrisy’?

By the way, it’s 2%. Not 6.

And, actually…..

….I was not ‘well indoctrinated’ as a youth.

I came to my beliefs after an encounter with a Southern Baptist pointed out certain passages in that Old Book that made sense.

Then, I noticed that all the passages I didn’t understand SUDDENLY began to make sense to me. After that…..more and more things began to happen. Things that brought into light all the promises in that Old Book.

RE: The Deniers

Remember those who refused to accept the idea that the Earth was….ROUND? -Chuck

…or those who base their entire lives on a book that was written when the earth was thought to be flat? Like when god held the sun in place so the attacks on the city could go on… (Joshua 3) Or that bleeding and gutting birds and smearing their blood all over you could cure leprosy (Lev. 14)?’ — Jeff

Denying ‘miracles’? Interesting…..

Actually, I’ve lived through several personal ‘miracles’. You try plummeting out of black-night sky with a malfunctioning parachute and be able to walk away. Or how about getting into a ‘snit’ with an 18-wheeler at interstate speeds and the POV is still ‘street legal’.

As for curing leprosy…..you’ve got it back-assward. You sacrifice AFTER you’ve been cured. [Note: Are you sure you read-understood what was in that Old Book?]

RE: Speaking ‘For’?

I don’t speak for the AMA or the APA, so I will not defend their findings, but I will speak for mine: ANY sex with a child is wrong.. homo or hetero, for the reason that a child has no understanding of the nature of sexuality and are easily bullied by adults. It is akin to rape, using any of various means to ply sex out of an otherwise unwilling party or one incapable of making a sound decision in that regard. — Jeff

Actually…..as with all of your ilk….

….all you do is speak for yourselves. And you have no better argument than what you can dream up on your own. No supporting documentation, whatsoever.

The APA has better arguments supporting NAMBLA than you have rejecting it. It’s just that you don’t have the courage to admit you’ve got ‘nothing’….other than your own thoughts.

RE: Letting It ‘Slide’

As far as accepting ideas, I will graciously let those comments slide, as I don’t want to be offensive to people’s sincerely held beliefs. — Jeff

Have no fear of offending me. I’ve been abused by the best. And you don’t hold a candle to Colonel ‘No Slack’ Stack.

And I doubt if other christians are easily offended either. After all….

….it has been my observation that only people with REALLY ‘low self-esteem’, i.e., confidence, take offense easily.

You know….

….people like you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:37 pm 147. Jeff:

Trouble:

Yes, but why the shift in paradigm? That was the question. If god is omniscient and eternal, why the change? He told Moses to do it in Leviticus, then Jesus came along and he got all touchy-feely. If god is benevolent, eternal and infallible he would not need to change.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:37 pm 148. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Talk about ‘Projection’

The only thing that the Christian right lacks is power. — Cichawoda

And yet, what we’re witnessing today, in this country, is exactly what the Left is attempting to accomplish.

After all….

….they HAVE the ‘power’. And look what they’re doing with it. Something to do with silencing the ‘opposition’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:43 pm 149. Cichawoda:

139. Trouble:
“religious tolerance has been a Dutch creed since the middle ages”
Religious tolerance did not start in the Netherlands till 1568 when the Dutch decided to kick out the Spanish and the Catholic Church with them. The remaining religious institutions where fractured and never regained the power the Catholic church once held. Even so Catholics and Jews were prevented from full civil and economic liberties.
A better example of a religiously liberal country is Poland from its inception in the late 900s to the final partition and disappearance in the late 1700s. Although buffeted by political tides it remained a refuge for disenfranchised and persecuted Jews, Protestants and even Muslims. This was only possible because religious institutions where held at arms length from real power.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:53 pm 150. Strawman:

Remember those who refused to accept the idea that the Earth was….ROUND?

Yeah, I remember. That was a long time ago, when we determined things by a consensus of the experts. Not like now, when we determine scientific fact by experiment, without any interference from the authorities.

Things were better back when the debate was over. We all felt so much more comfortable in our certitude.

/And if you can’t see the sarcasm in that…

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:55 pm 151. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Cichawoda & History Lessons

Lets look at the history of Christianity from Constantine (about 313 CE) when it gained power to say 1791 when the 1st amendment made America the first, new, Western Culture, non Christian nation. — Cichawoda

Interesting that he draws the line at the Founding Fathers. Isn’t it.

And how odd that this nation, founded on such ideals as expressed in Christianity, had florished up until the time we turned our back on God. Now look what we have…..

• rampant fatherless households
• gang-bangers
• rampant teenage pregnancy
• and so much more ‘fun’

Oh well….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every people gets the governance they deserve......]

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:57 pm 152. Chuck Pelto:

TO:
RE: You ‘Left’ Out….

All ideology driven institutions seem to fall into this trap – Christianity, Islam, Dictatorial Communism — Cichawoda

…Socialism/Communism.

After all, the Soviet, Communist Chinese and their supporters, e.g., Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot, massacred more people than all the Inquisitions put together.

Joe Stalin did 10 million on his own. That’s more than the total count of the Holocaust (6 million).

You obviously have SERIOUS problems with ‘percpetion’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....and Cichawoda isn't going to look very good as a result.....]

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:04 pm 153. hawg-farmer:

re:67

By the way, the Founder’s concepts of freedom of religion and their warnings against factionalism that were eventually morphed into the concept of “separation of church and state” were not intended to limit the church’s influence on governance, but vice-versa.

Amen, oops can I say that!

This is pointed out in the 5000 Year Leap!

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:04 pm 154. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Strawman
RE: Heh

/And if you can’t see the sarcasm in that… — Strawman

The more things ‘change’….

….the more they remain the same.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is nothing new under the Sun. -- Ecclessiastes]

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:06 pm 155. Jeff:

Chuck:

“Actually…..as with all of your ilk….

….all you do is speak for yourselves. And you have no better argument than what you can dream up on your own. No supporting documentation, whatsoever.

The APA has better arguments supporting NAMBLA than you have rejecting it. It’s just that you don’t have the courage to admit you’ve got ‘nothing’….other than your own thoughts.” -Chuck

Yes, I speak only for myself… I do not pretend to speak for the AMA, the APA, god, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, or you. I am instantly wary of anyone who claims to speak for god and claims that I should live a certain way because “god says so”.

If the reason I gave before is not a good reason to reject sexual predation of children, then one sentence in the bible should not be a good reason either.

….it has been my observation that only people with REALLY ‘low self-esteem’, i.e., confidence, take offense easily.

You know….

….people like you. -Chuck

I have not been offended by anything you’ve said. I simply am trying to avoid having to offend people who read this thread by pointing out the absurdity of many things in the “old book”.

We’ve deviated off the point, though. The point is that secularists and one-god believers can agree on POLITICAL matters, if we drop our religious biases to do so. To carry those biases makes us no better than the ones we claim are intolerant and backward.

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:08 pm 156. Trouble:

Jeff –
Thanks for your response.

The Law of Moses can be regarded as civil law in addition to ceremonial law – for instance, our civil laws against theft do not have a “repentance clause”. Also, God used the Law of Moses to accomplish a specific end. Once this was accomplished, the scriptures could be put to another purpose.

There is indeed a shift in paradigm – on the part of we humans. Pretty much the whole 30th chapter of Jeremiah discusses this, but 30:24 sums it up:
“The fierce anger of the LORD will not turn back, until He has executed and accomplished the intents of His mind. In the latter days, you will understand this.” (RSV)

God is eternal and infallible, and if by ‘benevolent’ you mean that all God’s actions are good and perfect, He is that as well. However, our understanding of God’s actions is both temporal and fallible. This isn’t ’self-loathing’, it’s just reality. I’ve yet to meet a person who has never made a mistake.

‘Benevolent’ is sort of a subjective concept: all human understanding is subjective to a great extent (IMHO) since we’re each of us locked up in our own skulls.

$0.02

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:21 pm 157. Saltherring:

“….what do you think they’d do to Christians and conservatives if they ever got into power?”

Take a look at the political makeup of Washington DC. “They” are already in power.

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:22 pm 158. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Heh

#78 BettyBlue — The Marxists were officialy atheist. Together, they killed off more than the Inquisition ever did.

Argument Fail. —

So…..

….show us the body-counts from the Inquisition.

Do they measure up to the 10 million Joe Staling a ’socialist/communist’ killed in Ukraine?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and G Alston is going to look rather 'foolish'.....]

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:29 pm 159. Saltherring:

“The only thing that the Christian right lacks is power.” – Chicawoda.

True Christians have all the power of heaven…..what do you have, Chicawoda?

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:29 pm 160. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff
RE: Yeah….Right….

I have not been offended by anything you’ve said. I simply am trying to avoid having to offend people who read this thread by pointing out the absurdity of many things in the “old book”. — Jeff

…and where did I say YOU were ‘offended’ by what you said?

Again you’re twisting the discussion around in order to avoid admitting you’ve got NOTHING with which to engage the APA and NAMBLA about raping young boys.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. You’ve pointed out NOTHING from that Old Book as being ‘absurd’. Indeed, all you’ve done is demonstrated your lack of reading-comprehension skills vis-a-vis what’s written in the old portion vis-a-vis the new one.

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:33 pm 161. Chuck Pelto:

TO: gus3
RE: Where….

…ARE you?

Or are you as gutless as your noms des blogs would imply?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:38 pm 162. Trouble:

149 Cichawoda:
“religious tolerance has been a Dutch creed since the middle ages”
Religious tolerance did not start in the Netherlands till 1568 when the Dutch decided to kick out the Spanish and the Catholic Church with them. The remaining religious institutions where fractured and never regained the power the Catholic church once held. Even so Catholics and Jews were prevented from full civil and economic liberties.

I should have said Renaissance; I stand corrected. The Netherlands were officially Catholic under most of Holy Roman rule, but dissent was widely tolerated and the Dutch Lutheran and Dutch Reformed churches date from the time of Erasmus. The subsequent Eighty Years’ War was in large part about tolerance (William of Orange and others) vs. repression (Philip II).

A better example of a religiously liberal country is Poland from its inception in the late 900s to the final partition and disappearance in the late 1700s. Although buffeted by political tides it remained a refuge for disenfranchised and persecuted Jews, Protestants and even Muslims. This was only possible because religious institutions where held at arms length from real power.

Quite true. I was more familiar with Dutch history since I’m of Dutch descent.

The authors of the 1st Amendment would agree that religious institutions should not seek political power, and that people should not be forbidden from public office on account of their faith (or lack thereof). I think that 99.9% of American Christians would not wish to live in a theocracy (I’m one of that 99.9%). The problems which arise from mixing religion with politics are one of the lessons of Western history.

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:50 pm 163. Ms. Attitude:

122. AThinkingPerson:

I’m a Christian and we think a lot alike…I want my freedom to practice my religion just like I want others to have the freedom to practice theirs. It is my belief that the only way to convert others to Christianity is to live it and have others say, “I want what you have.” Condemning others or fighting about Christianity is a BIG turn off to those who don’t understand the it. It’s a religion of love and peace and some people hijack it.

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:57 pm 164. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: How ‘Timely’ Can You Get?

According to THIS REPORT christians cannot point out the truth of a matter.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Thinks progress apace.....]

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:00 pm 165. Christopher Nicholson:

And how odd that this nation, founded on such ideals as expressed in Christianity, had florished up until the time we turned our back on God. Now look what we have…..

• rampant fatherless households
• gang-bangers
• rampant teenage pregnancy
• and so much more ‘fun’

When did the US “turn our back on God”? Was it after the abolition of slavery? Was it before 8 year olds were working 18-hour days in textile mills? Was it when lynching was a common occurrence? Was it when miscegenation laws were struck down? Before a vaccine for Polio?

Good ol’ days my ass. The world is getting better every day by just about any measure imaginable.

Btw, TNS member here – that’s upper 0.1%. Maybe the cutoff for not believing in the mythologies of our culturally inferior ancestors is cut off at three sigma. Never mind, we have some god botherers in TNS too.

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:19 pm 166. Will:

ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS !!!!

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:26 pm 167. Becky:

“All ideology driven institutions seem to fall into this trap – Christianity, Islam, Dictatorial Communism – because of a lack of real world solutions they have to resort to brutality to enforce their ideology.”

As do you.

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:36 pm 168. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Christopher Nicholson
RE: When?

When did the US “turn our back on God”? Was it after the abolition of slavery? — Christopher Nicholson

Personally?

I would suggest Roe v. Wade. But that’s just my personal opinion-observation. When selfishness became more important than selflessness.

What do YOU think?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and I suspect the mass murder of the innocents will be a key indicator.....]

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:48 pm 169. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. I don’t care about your fourth-point-of-contact.

Share THAT with your friends in SanFran….

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:49 pm 170. RickS:

“If you think the last adminstration was a success, why is it that we’re digging ourselves out of two wars (one unncessary) and an economic collapse? Why is it that we’re having a debate on the best kinds of torture to use? And why is it that folks with such solid right wing attitudes shoot doctors performing legal procedures instead of using the ballot box?” Oh Forrest, where to begin? How many times have were heard this garbage? Please stop with the Femocrat talking points, will you. All wars are wars of choice. Afghanistan didn’t attack us so why was that necessary? And haven’t we all but won in Iraq, despite Barry O’s desire to see our troops fail. There is a vibrant democracy now in a place where it has never existed before IN HUMAN HISTORY. For life of me, I can’t figure out why you liberal women think it would be better to have Saddam and his sadist rapist sons still in power there. And you are blaming Bush for the recession? Good grief, have you heard of the housing bubble? Who created that? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, girlfriend. As for torture: Come on Sally it was three fricking scumbags that got waterboarded. Big deal. Do you have any idea what they do to our guys when the capture them? How about electric drill to the eye socket, traumatic amputation, blow torch to the genitals, etc. And shooting abortion doctors? Are you seriously trying to pin Tiller the Baby Killer’s death on conservatives? Ma’am, seriously, if our goal was to incite abortion doctors to be killed don’t you think we’d be doing a little better than 5 in 35 years. Meanwhile you guys have slaughtered over 45 million innocent babies. Plus, in just the last eight years you antiwar fems have succeeded in convincing the jihadists to kill almost five thousand of our soldiers. Most recently, your efforts resulted in the shooting death of a soldier on recruiting duty in Little Rock. So congratulations (I guess). You guys are way ahead of us in inciting your fellow travelers to murder. So, as you can clearly see Irene, you don’t have a leg to stand on. Now quite embarrassing yourself and get back to DK where you belong.

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:52 pm 171. Paul of Alexandria:

35. Chuck Pelto:

Christians are commanded by Christ to be good citizens who don’t make trouble. Salt and light yes. Revolutionaries no. — scott

Please explain THIS….

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. — Some Wag

BEEEEEP. Back to Sunday school with you.
The conflict that Christians are experiencing today (and have for the past 2000 years) is precisely what Jesus was referring to above. Christians are not to initiate hostilities, we must be ever concerned with the wellbeing of our neighbors – even (especially!) the non-Christian ones.

However, we are not going to live in peace either. We will be persecuted and the sword will be raised against us; parents will be turned against children and friend against friend because one will accept Christ and the other will not. The governments will hate us because we do not accept their political gods; neither Ba’al, emperor, or Gaea.

Jesus was not a revolutionary. He didn’t come to lead the Jews against the Romans, nor Americans against the liberal left. While we can and must use any peaceful means possible (especially our votes) to work for good government and an ordered society, anybody who believes that a Christian can initiate violence against somebody that he merely disagrees with doesn’t understand the fundamentals of the faith.

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:13 pm 172. Paul of Alexandria:

Self-hating Boomer (37):

The left likes to insist that it’s illegitimate for religion to opine on political issues, at least when the issue is abortion.

The left – being primarily secular in nature – intrisically cannot understand religious faith. This is why they will never understand, nor cope effectively with, Islam.

I would like to recommend the books by Tom Kratman, especially “A Desert Called Peace.” It’s science fiction, but he has a lot to say about this subject.

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:17 pm 173. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Paul of Alexandria
RE: Uuuuuhhhh….

BEEEEEP. Back to Sunday school with you.
The conflict that Christians are experiencing today (and have for the past 2000 years) is precisely what Jesus was referring to above. Christians are not to initiate hostilities, we must be ever concerned with the wellbeing of our neighbors – even (especially!) the non-Christian ones. — Paul of Alexandria

….you must of have missed the ‘P.S.’ item in that comment…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For the power of paradox opens your eyes;
And blinds those who say they can 'see'. -- Michael Card, God's Own Fool]

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:30 pm 174. BettyBlue:

G. Alston, neither the Crusaders, nor the Inquisition, had the technology. So—they did not use it. So—we really don’t know what they would have done with it. So, basically, you’re asking us to accept a “what if” fairy tale. If pigs had wings, they’d be able to fly; if money grew on trees, we’d all be rich and if wishes were horses, we could all enter the Kentucky Derby. Maybe they would have outclassed the Nazis/Marxists in killing; maybe they would not. Myself, I think they would not have. It takes a special sort of mind set to say things like, “To make an omelette, some eggs must be broken”, or to seriously believe that some people are so racially inferior they must be wiped out.

And, of course, if Martians had invaded, say, sometime around 200 B.C., we wouldn’t be debating any of this, because history would be totally different—do you see what silly B.S. you’re arguing here? It’s not numbers, it’s foolishness.

Also, are you denying that the Nazis didn’t kill (rough estimate) 6 million, or that Communist governments in the 20th Century haven’t killed many, many more, and that this might, just might, have something to do with the ideologies they followed?

As I said before—if you’ve got to go back to the Inquisition, or Old Testament times, to get dirt on Jews and Christians, you’re digging too far.

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:30 pm 175. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Paul of Alexandria
RE: An Interesting ‘Question’

Christians are not to initiate hostilities…. — Paul of Alexandria

When should Christians bring forth the ’sword’ that Christ commented on when He said…..

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. — Christ

….and why?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Come.....let us reason together. -- God to Job]

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:33 pm 176. BettyBlue:

And here are some statistics on the Inquisition: Torquemeda was a piker, compared to Stalin. http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spanish-inquisition/death-tolls.html

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:34 pm 177. Paul of Alexandria:

Anonymous (58):

Nah, it’s not like Christians have conducted 2000+ years of pogroms, inquisitions, and maybe even a holocaust. Nothing to see here folks. Move along…

Nope, they didn’t.
Of course some people calling themselves Christians (and the Nazi’s didn’t even do that) did some nasty things, but primarily for political gain – which is expressely forbidden by the fundamental teachings of the faith. It’s funny how religion can be abused, isn’t it?

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:36 pm 178. BettyBlue:

. . . Not to mention the death toll racked up by Islam in the 20th Century; the Algerian bloodshed, the Iran/Iraq war, as well as gangs like Hamas, Hizbollah and Al Queda—all those groups we’re not supposed to be afraid of. (But be afraid, be very afraid, of Christians! They practice black magic, hate the emperor and steal Roman babies to eat—oops, sorry, wrong century!)

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:37 pm 179. BettyBlue:

Meanwhile, sneaky aliens from another galaxy snuck in, right under G. Alston’s nose, and completely changed history by giving the Inca the atomic bomb!

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:38 pm 180. Teleprompter Jesus:

Behead the infidel named “Mr. Slave” who speaketh my name in vein! And doeth unspeakable things to creatures of my creation. And Paris Hilton. Ok, never mind Paris Hilton. That other dude created her.

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:41 pm 181. Paul of Alexandria:

Jeff (80):

1MPTomb:

I see that you’re a pro-life kinda person, and that you’re passionate about it. Me too, but not because god says it, but simply because killing innocent people is wrong, regardless of their age, race, religion, sex or propensity to eat potted meat. And who is more innocent than a baby yet to be born?

Jeff, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis to you, especially “Mere Christianity”.

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:44 pm 182. Rashputin:

“I, for one, have never been able to tell the difference between a fundamentalist Jew, Muslim, or Christian. Sometimes it seems to me that their whole reason for being on this Earth is to provide an example of how NOT to be spiritual.”

Let me help you out just a little bit. The Muslims are the ones murdering people in the streets in order to stay in power in Iran. They’re also the ones the liberal volk refuse to say negative things about and that HusseinO can’t call evil because they’re his own folks.

That makes it pretty simple for you since it’s open season on Jews and Christians ever since The One started running last year. You only need to check out who is being called evil by the liberal media and the progressive crowd who love The One, and you know that they’re either Jewish or Christian. From there it’s not too tough to separate Jews from Christians, now is it?

It’s interesting to see the “progressives” foaming at the mouth in support of the current incarnation of the most murderous religion in the history of the world. It’s even more interesting when you realize that they’re being used by religious fanatics without having the brains to know they are. It looks like their constant contention that religion has no place in politics has made them patsies for a religion they now serve far better than most who they decry serve their Christian faith. Funny how that happens, a group insists that religion isn’t paramount and ends up serving a religion that believes there is no such thing as a separation between church and state since the state only exists as an extension of the church.

The really interesting part, though, is yet to come.

Have a nice day

Jun 25, 2009 - 5:46 pm 183. Bohemond:

GAlston:
“Once, a longstanding (greater than 1 millenia) tradition based on superstition and ignorance was touted as “right” with much the same language as yours. A deviant named Galileo used newfound scientific principles to prove the heresy of heliocentrism.”

GA, I actually find most of your posts interesting, I really do, but this one was unworthy. If you’re going to raise an historical point please base it on actual history, not the Comix Illustrated version.

For a thousand years after the fall of Rome the Church was the patron, the protector, the advocate, the center of scholarship in the West. Classical authors were preserved and copied (and analyzed) in monasteries while the secular state’s illiterate avatars butchered each other outside. Aquinas’ magisterial Summa Theologica was the ultimate synthesis of Aristotelian with Judaic thought- the foundation of Western intellectual life as we know it. Of course St Tom (a monk) was working in a university- which were, again, Church foundations. Meanwhile ecclesiastical courts moderated the savagery of royal justice and formed the foundation of equity.

Ironically Urban VIII was a promoter of science and, early on, of Galileo himself. Galileo’s problem was that he got caught up in the politics of the Counterreformation, a period when the Roman Church thought it needed to crack down on free thinking. But that reactionism was an aberration and a breach with the Church’s own traditions.

Please don’t fall for the silly Protestant/atheist propaganda story about vile, conniving priests deliberately fostering ignorance. It just ain’t so.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:12 pm 184. libarbarian:

They all seemed convinced that Christians were waiting outside their rooms to strangle them with rosaries

Does this even make sense? I thought only Catholics use rosaries and, at least according to a few fundamentalist acquaintances of mine, Catholics are not real Christians.

Dave Surls: Yes, Clinton trimed the armed forces (with the help of the GOP Congress) but I don’t recall Bush or the GOP Congress doing a damn thing to reverse this, despite our involvement two wars, when they had the chance. Furthermore, the Conservative movement didn’t say peep about this. Actually, they attacked those who urged an increase in the size of the armed forces as denigrating the troops by implying they couldn’t do the job with the resources they already had. Of course, now that a Dem is in the WH, the rules are different. Attack Away.

BettyBlue: comparing raw body counts of the pre-industrial 15th century Inquisition to the industrial 20th century Soviet Union is meaningless. Primarily attributing the difference to ideology, rather than objective circumstances, is just stupid.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:25 pm 185. Paul of Alexandria:

David S (73):

…
The similarity of Christian Fundamentalists with Islamic Fundamentalists is not imaginary

Unfortunately to refute this properly, David, you’d have to understand the fundamental differences between the doctrines and natures of Christianity and Islam. If you’d like I could point you towards some good reading, but essentially the Mullahs in Iran are working within the basic tennents of Islam, while any Christians that act like them (especially if trying to achieve a christian theocracy) is working against the fundamental tennents of Christianity. Islam has no equivalent statement to Galatians 5:14: The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Islam may summed up by its own name, which means “submission”.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:35 pm 186. scott:

Betty Blue,

Good point. Given the fact (near as we can tell ) that half the people who have ever lived are alive right now …. the great wars of aggression ( fought for political gain not religion ) in modern times and the pogroms of the communists have surely killed many many more folks than all the ‘religious’ wars throughout history.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:46 pm 187. Jeffrey:

The Great Father in Heaven, The I Am who is the ONE God. Has aready judged us all. If you have not Jesus Christ in you and therefore the Holy Spirit then you are none of His unless you are part of the first covenant an Israelite in which case it won’t be long before you receive Yeshua as your messiah.
A person can read the bible all day and all night and still won’t get it until that person is guided by the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is available for the honest asking 24 seven. Quoting scipture does not make you right or holy.
God the Father is in the process of separarting for Himself the wheat to bring into His house and the tares for burning. Those who have not God will of course suffer the consequences. As it is written so it will be. It doesn’t matter if you are mostly good or bad nobody is perfect enough, what matters is did you receive the gift of salvation He has offered.
We pray for those who despitefully use us, we turn the other cheek when assaulted. We help the helpless. Our ememies have the deck stacked against them they are in a no win situation they are already judged by their own actions, by their own unbelief.
If you go to church on Sunday it may not help you. There are plenty of dead churches out there these days but real Christians are not that hard to find.
Find a quite corner somewhere and ask yourself where you want be.
The Heavenly Father has allowed us all to make our own choices.
This judgment is final.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:46 pm 188. Paul of Alexandria:

G Alston(110):

#78 BettyBlue — The Marxists were officialy atheist. Together, they killed off more than the Inquisition ever did.

Argument Fail.

This was the result of superior technology and a larger population to dispose of, not motivation. If the medieval religious warriors had today’s technology, it would have been used to the same (or greater) numerical result.

Another non-student of history, I see. Stalin’s primary weapon was starvation, hardly a state-of-the-art weapon. If by “medieval religous warriors” you mean the Crusaders, they weren’t out to kill people per se; they sought to free the Holy Land from Islam. If you meant the Muslim Caliphate, then they were out to conquer, not massacre. If you meant the Inquisition, they were out to stop heresy. Funny thing: the only one of the above who deliberately set out to kill large numbers of people was the atheist dictator!

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:55 pm 189. Paul of Alexandria:

Jeff(113):

Chuck:
…
We are all—everyone of us—fouled up beyond all recognition.

UGH. That reeks of self-esteem issues. If you think that I am evil simply because I do not believe in organized religion, then you and the mullahs have a lot in common.

No, it’s a fundamental principle of Christianity: all humans are inherently evil from birth. Nobody is innocent, all are guilty.

Again, the mullahs don’t actually care about sin or guilt. All Islam cares about is obedience to the words of the Qu’ran. (In Christian terms, it’s all Law and no Gospel).

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:09 pm 190. Paul of Alexandria:

G Alston (116):

…
Today you culture warriors are once again standing against science and waving the flag of superstition and ignorance and calling it “tradition.” (Increasingly, we’re seeing that gays don’t choose to be gay, hence they’re not deviant; they’re normal.) Care to wager how this will turn out for the side of those flogging a tradition based on superstition and ignorance?

Is this spillover from the “Same-Sex Miscarriage” article? In any case, you might want to go and review some of the postings there regarding this topic; I don’t care to rehash it here.

You don’t make rules based on what people actually do, you base them on what you want them to do; in particular, what is the best balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the society. Whether homosexuals chose their “orientation” or not is irrelevent (although I’ll argue the point with you as to whether they do or not). They certainly chose their actions. (Homosexuals can certainly marry and have always been free to do so; somebody of the opposite sex, of course).

One other point: With certain exceptions (primarily the Jewish ceremonial laws) the rules and customs passed down by Judeo-Christianity are not arbitrary. They are a pretty good summary of the guidelines necessary for a civil and ordered society. I defy you to find any society in which you’d want to live that does not follow the basics of the Ten Commandments, for instance. If you want to argue for public acceptance of homosexuality, then you had better be prepared to argue against a lot more than merely “God says so”.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:23 pm 191. sheesh:

It’s not that we don’t like Christians. We just don’t trust them. They’re too angry to be trusted.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:46 pm 192. Yaakov Watkins:

Personally, I would compare the anti-religious left to Stalin.

I think it is high time we started talking about the bigotry and intolerance of the term anti-religious left.

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:46 pm 193. Paul of Alexandria:

Jeff (121):

Chuck:

That’s the OT.
…
There’s a big incongruity between the OT and the NT. Some things are directly contradictory. If the bible is/was the word of god, and god is perfect and timeless then there was no need for the NT because god should’ve gotten it right the first time. Why the change of tone and teaching?

Jeff,
Like Chuck said, how is it that you read a thing and don’t understand it? I’d really suggest a good Bible study before you proceed with your arguments.

I don’t know the Jewish arguments, per se, but from a Christian Perspective there are three important things to know:

1) First and foremost, that “perfect and timeless” bit is an Islamic notion. The Bible is a little more complicated than the Qu’ran; primarily, it is not (for the most part) direct dictation from on high. Rather, it is inspired history of the Jewish people and God’s dealings with them (the OT) and a collections of Jesus’ teachings and the history of the early Christian Church (NT). Certain things in the Bible were given to or meant for particular people at particular places in particular times. The Bible must be read in context if it is to be understood properly.

2) You have to divide the laws given in the OT to the Jewish people into two parts: the Ceremonial Law, and the Natural Law (I think that those are the proper terms). The Natural Law are those rules, as I mentioned earlier, which are applicable to all people at all times, the Ten Commandments being the foremost example. I might point out that breaking “Thou shall not murder” is punishable by death in most societies.

The second part, the Ceremonial Law, was given only to the Jews, to keep them separate from other peoples as God’s holy people. (To keep the path for Jesus to come, from a Christian perspective). They were not and are not meant for us.

3) Finally, Christians understand that Jesus’ death and resurrection freed us entirely from the OT Law. We are bound only by the Great Commands: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Luke 10:27)

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:48 pm 194. Alexander Hine:

The article did have a point though, the one being criticised I mean – surely no-one would deny that if the loonier wing of the evangelicals actually seized power then America would start to look pretty doomed, but Bush Jr. (a neocon bogey-man) was in power for 8 years and I don’t recall any gays shot against the wall. Just as Obama (who some conservatives really do go over the top about) hasn’t started murdering kulaks, he has some bad policies (just as Bush did) but I think as long as your fine country doesn’t succumb to a coup – like Iran did – from the far left OR the far right, then this idea that the republicans are America’s mullahs and the democrats some kind of freedom fighters is slightly hallucinogenic …..well that’s my two Aussie cents anyhow

A. Hine

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:51 pm 195. Ms. Attitude:

How many muslims have Christians killed in the US? How many Christians have been killed by muslims abroad? Add 1 to the muslims….

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529034,00.html

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:52 pm 196. Paul of Alexandria:

AThinkingPerson (122):

As a Republican, I felt the need to voice what seems to be a minority opinion here but an important one going forward. Republicans are NOT exclusively Christian, nor are Christians exclusively Republican. We are a POLITICALLY based group with the ideals of State’s rights, MORE personal freedoms, LESS government intervention in our lives and the ability to decide what’s best for ourselves.

You are, of course, absolutely right. While the Founding Fathers may all have been Christian, they were not all of the same branch of Christianity, and there is (unfortunately) almost as much venom between Christian denominations as there is between any two other religious groups.

Unfortunately, in our zeal to avoid any semblence of a state church, we have gone too far in the other direction, to the point where we castigate our political leaders for even following their own faiths in their own lives. Just look at the scorn heaped upon the Presidents Bush! I would certainly expect that any president that is elected will follow the tenets of the faith that he claims as his own both in his own life and in his public office. (If people cannot accept that he(she) will do so, then they should not elect him/her).

I might also point out that while our country may or may not be considered a “Christian” one on the basis of the population, it certainly is when you consider its legal structure. As has been pointed out before, our laws and customs are based on English Common Law, which in turn descends from the laws of the Holy Roman Empire. Consider, for instance, the laws of Saudi Arabia – where slavery, what we would call abuse of women, and other practices unacceptable here are fully lawful and proper.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:01 pm 197. myth buster:

Funny how some people appeal to the “world is flat” argument as a charge against the Bible, when the Bible itself says the Earth is round.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:02 pm 198. Left Coast Mike:

With a muslim in the White House why wouldn’t the liberal loons bash Christians.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:07 pm 199. Paul of Alexandria:

Cichawoda (128):

The only thing that the Christian right lacks is power. Whenever they have had the power they be behaved just like the brutal Ayatollahs in Iran and to deny that is just childish nonsense.

If they do, it’s because they’re human, not because they’re Christian.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:12 pm 200. Paul of Alexandria:

Cichawoda (145):

ets look at the history of Christianity from Constantine (about 313 CE) when it gained power to say 1791 when the 1st amendment made America the first, new, Western Culture, non Christian nation. In those scant 1478 years Christians have accumulated enough atrocities in the name of their religion to last another 10 millennia.

Yep. Let’s list a few of them:
Martyrdom at Soviet hands:
1921-50: 15M Christians in prison camps
1950-80: 5M Christians in prison camps
Orthodox: 14.5M k. by Stalin, 2.7M of them martyrs (1929-37)
Roman Catholics (1925): 1.2M martyrs
By Mongols
1214: Genghiz Khan massacres 6M Christians: 4M martyrs
1214: Diocese of Herat sacked by Genghiz Khan: 1M
1258: massacre in Baghdad by Hulaku Khan: 1.1M
1358: Tamerlane destroys 15-million-strong Nestorians: 4M martyrs
Christians executed by Nazis in death camps: 1M
Kurds massacre 20,000 Nestorians (1843)
Massacre of 40,000 Vietnamese Catholics (1970)
ca. 400,000 Chinese Christians died during the Cultural Revolution.
ca. 100,000 Christians k by Idi Amin (out of 300,000 total k.)
Up to 500,000 Rwandan Christians died as witnesses to their faith (out of 700,000 total k.) (1994)

And, of course, we have no idea of how many were killed in the first and second centuries by the Roman Empire or in the middle ages by the Vikings.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:30 pm 201. 4 of 7:

When Jesus talked to his disciples about the end of the world, it was in response to them asking him to explain his prediction of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. (Matthew 24:2).
His answer goes beyond just the destruction of the temple and looks back to the visions of Daniel and forward to the visions of John.
The temple Was destroyed by the Romans before that human generation had passed away (about 60 AD).
As used, the word “generation” can also be translated as “race” IE the human race, so could also apply to the rest of his predictions.
However, in Matthew 24:34 he said, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.”, and in Matthew 24:36 he said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Again, he may have been talking about two different series of events, one (from our point of view) which happened soon after, and the other still pending.
C.S. Lewis pointed out that this apparent mistake in knowledge comes only 2 verses before his admission of ignorance on the specifics.
Personally I’d give the Lord a break on this, considering that he knew he was only 2 days away from being crucified and he probably had a lot on his mind. (Matthew 26:1-2).
Hi Frank!

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:27 pm 202. BettyBlue:

184 libarbarian

Actually, what’s stupid is pretending you can read the minds of people who lived centuries ago, and making up sci-fi scenarios wherein you claim to “know” what you can’t possibly know—that, if they’d had our modern day weapons, they would have outdone modern tyrants in genocide.

For one thing, this is a completely make-believe scenario. They didn’t have such weaponry, so we honestly don’t know what they would have done with it. So it’s a pointless argument. as Paul of Alexandria points out, the main weapon of Stalin was starvation—the same weapon that Pol Pot used, and a weapon the medievals could have used on a large scale, had they really wanted to.

Secondly, it doesn’t excuse the brutality of modern regimes which have killed people, not in the name of religion, but the name of the state.

Western Crusaders and warriors were far less violent than, for instance, the Aztecs, the Mongols or the pagan Vikings, all groups with similar technology. They were far less brutal than the Moslems in their jihad against civilizations such as India, Persia and the Byzantines. As for the Jews, whatever the violence depicted in the Old Testament, the fact is, they’ve been oppressed throughout the course of history, far more than they’ve been oppressors.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:27 pm 203. BettyBlue:

And Paul of Alexandria, #188, is right when he points out that the Crusaders, the Inquisition and Islam were all trying to achieve ends other than simply killing off vast numbers of people.

The idea that you can bring about Utopia by destroying society, and killing off large numbers of the “wrong” sort of people: Jews, Christians, capitalists, non-Aryans, Kulaks is a very modern one.

Jun 25, 2009 - 9:33 pm 204. Realist:

The ‘moral equivalence’ of the left wing multi culti Moonbats is pathetic. All religions are not the same there is no mandate and instruction in Buddhism, Christianity or Hinduism to rule the world and convert or subjugate all others as there is in Islam. Islam alone stands as a political control CULT and you cannot use ‘moral equivalence’ to pretend otherwise its all there in the Koran read it and weep for the ignorant ‘neolibs’.

Jun 25, 2009 - 10:27 pm 205. Cichawoda:

172. Paul of Alexandria:
“being primarily secular in nature – intrisically cannot understand religious faith.”
So Muslims, Christians, Hindus etc having a faith based world view – intrinsically cannot understand a secular world?

I can’t see any difference between the so called “religious” wars of the past and the battles fought for political ideologies in the present. They where all fought for political and economic power and the ideologies where used to justify all possible means to achieve their goals. Some of the ideas contained in the Abrahamic religions, in Communism and even in Fascism can and have been used to promote positive solutions to humanities problems but every time they have grabbed the mantel of political power the results have been tragic.

Dogmas and ideologs who promote them are inherently evil and must be avoided at all cost – that is the purpose of democratic political systems.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:03 pm 206. Cichawoda:

199. Paul of Alexandria:
“If they do, it’s because they’re human, not because they’re Christian.”
Yes and the Ayatollahs are human too.
All the Abrahamic (desert) religions are particularly intolerant and brutal – maybe it’s that jealous God thing and all the genocide, infanticide and rape just to get a small plot of land for the “chosen people”. It’s a bad start for getting along with others.

I know Christians like to bring up Stalin, Pol Pot and even Hitler as secular mass murderers. I would like to point out that Stalin spent the first 16 years of his life studied in a seminary to become a orthodox priest, Pol Pot was raised a Christian and attended Catholic school till he was 19 and Hitler simply was a Christian all his life. I am 3rd generation Atheist. My 3 grown children are now 4th generation Atheists – I wonder if you realize how rare that is. I hope one day, when the majority of people in this world have dumped their superstitious, faith based world view and embraced a rational, scientific approach to solving our common problems and challenges, we will be able to see which approach yields results with the least force and brutality. We have been heading in the right direction since the Enlightenment but it is clear we still have a very long way to go.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:28 pm 207. Cichawoda:

200. Paul of Alexandria:
“Christians executed by Nazis in death camps: 1M”
The Nazis were Christians.

Genghis Khan didn’t kill “Christians” but Poles, Russians, Germans, Persians, Chinese etc. he had no interest in their religion and in his court he was very tolerant of most religious dogma.

Just because the majority of civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki where Shinto and Buddhist you can’t say that it was an act of aggression aimed at these people because of their religion. Same can be said of most of the examples you mention.

Christianity and Islam are both particularly aggressive religions. In there zeal to convert they have never shy-ed away from the most vile forms of brutality. I am sure that ultimately this stems from their common source and the foundation of their world view – the first 5 books of the Torah.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:47 pm 208. Cichawoda:

151. Chuck Pelto:
“Interesting that he draws the line at the Founding Fathers. Isn’t it.”
With the 1st Amendment the Founding Fathers established the first truly secular government – at least in legal terms. This and the Enlightenment in Europe will one day be remembered a the beginning of the end for the “faith based” world view.
Well, unless the Second Coming comes first ;-D.

Jun 26, 2009 - 12:00 am 209. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: [OT] That….

….was an interesting blockage. I wonder what caused it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jun 26, 2009 - 8:39 am 210. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: More Obfuscation

Christianity and Islam are both particularly aggressive religions. — Cichawoda

I wonder if Cichawoda can give US a compare and contrast analysis of the two religions. Particularly of the NOW.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prevaricator, n., a liar in the maggot stage of development.]

P.S. I won’t hold my breath…..

Jun 26, 2009 - 8:41 am 211. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Paul of Alexandria
RE: Rwanda 1994

Up to 500,000 Rwandan Christians died as witnesses to their faith (out of 700,000 total k.) (1994) — Paul of Alexandria

I’d thought that mass-murder was a tribal think. Was there religious aspects to it as well?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....but sometimes it takes time.....]

Jun 26, 2009 - 8:51 am 212. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cichawoda
RE: Yeah….BUT…..

With the 1st Amendment the Founding Fathers established the first truly secular government – at least in legal terms. — Cichawoda

….show US exactly WHERE in that amendment does it read “freedom FROM religion”?

RE: In Truth….

This and the Enlightenment in Europe will one day be remembered a the beginning of the end for the “faith based” world view. — Cichawoda

….the only way that will happen is when you start rounding up the christians and killing them. Like in that series of Left Behind movies.

Schaeffer’s article over at HuffPo reads like an early call for that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that instructs him to be bad. -- Thomas Paine]

P.S. I guess Mr. Paine was not very familiar with Islam. Or maybe Mr. Paine believed in spreading the ‘Word’ via the sword…..

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:17 am 213. Paul of Alexandria:

205. Cichawoda:

…
I can’t see any difference between the so called “religious” wars of the past and the battles fought for political ideologies in the present. ….

There isn’t, unless (as with most wars between the Christian nations and Islam) the wars are being fought in self defense (usually by the Christians).

Dogmas and ideologs who promote them are inherently evil and must be avoided at all cost – that is the purpose of democratic political systems.

A dogma is simply a basic set of assumptions. Everybody has them, and you can’t get rid of them. Dogmas are basically analogous to Gödel’s Theorem: any axiomatic system of arithmetic has true but unprovable [within that system] statements — and that any formal system is therefore always incomplete.

I’ll agree with you on ideologs, though.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:37 am 214. Paul of Alexandria:

175. Chuck Pelto:

When should Christians bring forth the ’sword’ that Christ commented on when He said…..

[Luke 22:36]

….and why?

Read the rest of the chapter – this was a single instance in preparation for the betrayal at Gesthemene. I’d have to check, but I suppose that it could be extrapolated to warn us that things are going to be turning nasty and to expect persecution, and to have to defend ourselves.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:44 am 215. Paul of Alexandria:

Chuck Pelto (173):
…
….you must of have missed the ‘P.S.’ item in that comment…..

Yeah, sorry. Got carried away.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:46 am 216. stanley:

The argument that compares Christians to the mullahs of iran commit the logical error known as the straw man fallacy. This fallacy depends on misrepresenting the other persons views so to create derision. Certainly any one can except a leftist can distinguish how Christianity differs from islam for example Christians are told to love your neighbor while islam teaches wage jihad against neighbors who differ from you. This skill of being able to distinguish similarities and differences is learned in kindergarten. Apparently leftist flunked kindergarten.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:49 am 217. Paul of Alexandria:

Alexander Hine (194):

The article did have a point though, the one being criticised I mean – surely no-one would deny that if the loonier wing of the evangelicals actually seized power then America would start to look pretty doomed,

True. But, remember that it wouldn’t be because they are practicing their religion, but because they are ignoring it. They – like many other despots – would be using “religion” as an excuse to pursue power.

This is why the whole “religion is bad because it leads to religious wars” argument is false. The fundamental breakdown in humanity is our lust for power over others. Getting rid of “religion” would not get rid of this flaw, indeed it would only get rid of the main constraint on it.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:53 am 218. G Alston:

#183 — If you’re going to raise an historical point please base it on actual history, not the Comix Illustrated version.

The point is that since before Galileo the church side of things has never been correct about scientific matters. Einstein and others have commented on the “god of the gaps” regarding how religion takes refuge in gaps of knowledge and/or evidence; the gay issue is just another example of this. Superstition and ignorance are touted today as tradition, which seems like a curious argument to take pride in. Science and reason will prevail in the case of gays just as it has *always* prevailed since The Enlightenment.

Check out the graph on this page. Snarky but accurate.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

#188 — Another non-student of history, I see.

Another innumerate, I see. Comparisons between the medieval era and the 20th century are disingenuous because population density and technologies are unaccounted for. Give today’s jihadis western technologies and there would wage a religious war with death totals that would make Stalin seem quaint. The ultimate point is that current era religious wars are over only because of the decided advantage the christians have, piggybacking atop the products of the age of reason. Had the age of reason flowered in the islamic world, current roles would undoubtedly be reversed.

e.g. if the leadership take was that 9/11 was the result of allowing homosexuality and sin etc as claimed by Robertson and Falwell etc and these just happened to be the people with their fingers on “the button” I don’t think their motivations are more pure merely due to the deity they worship (or not.) It’s a matter of who has the technology and when. Everything else is either a lie or ignorant handwaving.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:59 am 219. Ms. Attitude:

Darn Christian….wait these are Islamist….

Associated Press June 25, 2009: MOGADISHU, Somalia — An Islamic court in Somalia on Thursday cut off a hand and foot from each of four men convicted of stealing phones and guns, drawing hundreds of onlookers as the weeping men were punished at a military camp.

The Shariah court that carried out the sentences is run by the powerful insurgent group al-Shabab, which is trying to topple Somalia’s U.N.-backed government and install a strict form of Islam.

“The men were bleeding and crying when the man cut their hands and feet off with a long knife,” said one witness, Liban Ali. Journalists were not allowed to cover the sentencing. The four were convicted earlier this week in the capital, Mogadishu.

The U.S. considers al-Shabab a terrorist group with links to al-Qaida, which al-Shabab denies. The group, which controls much of Somalia, is joined by hundreds of foreign fighters.

Somalis traditionally observe Sufi Islam, a relatively moderate form of worship. But in recent years, insurgents have begun to follow austere Wahabi Islam — rooted in Saudi Arabia and practiced by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Jun 26, 2009 - 10:01 am 220. David S:

@185. Paul of Alexandria:

The similarity of Christian Fundamentalists with Islamic Fundamentalists is not imaginary

“Unfortunately to refute this properly, David, you’d have to understand the fundamental differences between the doctrines and natures of Christianity and Islam.”

Regardless of any differences between Christianity and Islam, the fundamental similarities are overwhelming. The most basic tenet of both religions is that they are the correct path to God, and that other paths are wrong. This kind of thinking diminishes God, diminishes religion, and most worrisome, diminishes all of us. Any differences are incidental in this context.

“If you’d like I could point you towards some good reading, but essentially the Mullahs in Iran are working within the basic tennents of Islam, while any Christians that act like them (especially if trying to achieve a christian theocracy) is working against the fundamental tennents of Christianity.”

One of the core beliefs of both religions is that theirs is the “true” and “only” path to God. You can point to any “good reading” you like, but the ten commandments aren’t really in dispute – and both religions include ample justification for religious violence on the premise that they have a divine right.

“Islam has no equivalent statement to Galatians 5:14: The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Islam may summed up by its own name, which means “submission”.”

Alternative translations are somewhat more subtle – the meaning of Islam is “submission to God”, which is eerily similar to the commandment “Do not have any other gods before me.” Essentially the two religions are based on the very same core premise of an omnipotent being that demands complete obedience of his worshippers. You can summarize Christian doctrine in whatever way you like, but the basic idea of divine revelation and monotheism is common to all Abrahamic faiths.

The title of this article sums things up nicely.

Peace.

DS

Jun 26, 2009 - 10:09 am 221. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Paul of Alexandria
RE: That’s…..

…I suppose that it could be extrapolated to warn us that things are going to be turning nasty and to expect persecution, and to have to defend ourselves. — Paul of Alexandria

….my understanding as well.

As supporting arguments to this understanding I offer the following:

[1] John the Baptist, when asked by members of the Sanhedrin guard what they needed to do in order to do God’s will, did not say, resign. Rather he told them to (1) do their duty, (2) not complain about their pay and (3) not bear false witness against others.

[2] What was the profession of the first Gentile converted to and baptized in the name of Christ? Was it not a company commander, i.e., Centurion, of a Roman Legion? Cornelius?

The point being that if military personnel are not told to give up their sword, I suspect Christ has no complaint about honest soldiers doing their military duty. Therefore civilians should be able to honestly defend themselves as well.

Otherwise, christianity would probably have been wiped out quite some time ago as being pacifists in a world full of ‘tigers’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Only two forces hold [human] nature in check: the restraint of conscience and the restraint of the sword. The less that citizens have the former, the more the state must employ the latter. — Tom DeLay]

Jun 26, 2009 - 10:40 am 222. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: An Observation

If christianity is as bad as Islamofascism or the Iranian Mullahs….

….why aren’t DavidS, G Alston and the rest of their sort DEAD?

One would think that their executions would have been part of half-time shows at football games. Like the Taliban did on the soccer fields of Afghanistan.

So…..why are they still with US?

RE: An Additional Thought

I think they’re all ‘projecting’ when they accuse christians wanting to kill them. And, given the opportunity and power, they’ll be doing it to the christians.

Why do I say that?

Look at the ‘progressive’ president we have. And the people who put him there. Remember how they decried the “Culture of Corruption” in the Bush administration?

Now look at what’s coming about about the Democrat-run government.

Then again, we have the ‘moral urgency’ need for openness and transparency in government as these same people decried was lacking in the Bush administration.

Where is the ‘moral urgency’ for such now? The Obama administration is more closed than the Bush one was.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Jun 26, 2009 - 11:03 am 223. G Alston:

#222 — If christianity is as bad as Islamofascism or the Iranian Mullahs…

…why aren’t DavidS, G Alston and the rest of their sort DEAD?

Because we don’t live in a christian society. We live in a secular society in a deliberately secular nation governed under secular rules and laws.

Jun 26, 2009 - 11:26 am 224. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Very…..

Because we don’t live in a christian society. — G Alston

….phony.

Explain away how the vast majority of the people in this country….that is IF you live in the US….describe themselves as “christians”.

Whereas the vast majority of people who live in Afghanistan describe themselves as Muslims.

Furthermore, the most significant of our laws are based on christian morality.

Just because you don’t care for it, doesn’t make it any less true.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Secular laws continually put-down the ideas of ‘freedom of religion’. If you doubt that, you’re either more ignorant/stupid than advertised or much, much worse…..and I suspect the latter…..

Jun 26, 2009 - 11:38 am 225. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. I propose you test your theory….

…..move to Pakistan and try what you do here…..

We can start a pool on how long you live.

Jun 26, 2009 - 11:39 am 226. Scott:

Nice attempt at cherry picking there in #104 Mongoose.

Jesus was speaking of the fact that faith in Him will cause family turmoil. As families will be split as Christians will be persecuted and their own parents, siblings, and relatives who will scorn, persecute, and even betray them to those that would imprison and harm them.

You have to read ALL of Matthew 10 to get the message, you like the ignorant “Christians” of my youth cannot see the forest for the trees. You’re like a man at a symphony who chooses to only hear one specific note.

Jun 26, 2009 - 12:08 pm 227. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: What Was I Saying Earlier Here?

Take a look at THIS!

How much ya wanna bet this guy is a secularist?

Oh. He can claim to be a ‘christian’. But from Duke University? And a high official from the place that villified a bunch of ‘innocent’ young men by accusing them of heinous crimes?

I doubt if they’d actually hire a practicing christian for such a position.

On the other hand….a practicing secularist? I suspect they’d hire such in a heart-beat.

And….oddly enough, the laws against pedophilia align well with christian morals.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Moral dignity requires no equipment beyond the will to do what is right. -- Alan Keyes]

P.S. The question becomes….

….on what does one base their knowledge of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’?

Jun 26, 2009 - 12:50 pm 228. G Alston:

#224 — Furthermore, the most significant of our laws are based on christian morality.

Wrong again, Pelto. Are you ever right about **anything**?

From the page provided by DavidS –

According to the Constitution’s 7th Amendment: “In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.”

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

“For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

“. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

Jun 26, 2009 - 1:03 pm 229. Strawman:

…..move to Pakistan and try what you do here…..

Try the Magic Kingdom (KSA). In my five months there, not practicing any religion at all, I was accused of everything from being an Israeli spy to a communist. And I was keeping my mouth shut.

And they were particularly tolerant of Americans. The Pakis and Egyptians (not to mention Palestinians) were the ones who really got the shaft if someone looked cross-eyed at them.

Jun 26, 2009 - 1:18 pm 230. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Yeah?

Wrong again, Pelto. Are you ever right about **anything**? — G Alston

Common Law is based on a lot of thinks. Including the lots of what’s in the Ten Commandments and other Christian morals.

Or are you in support of that Duke University official trying to sell sex with his 5 year-old son on the internet?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Jun 26, 2009 - 1:23 pm 231. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Strawman
RE: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Try the Magic Kingdom (KSA). — Strawman

That thought had crossed my mind, but they still are careful about some Westerners….unless they get too close to Mecca.

Maybe G Alston would oblige US by trying to sneak in there.

On the other hand, maybe she should go to Iran and try her form of ‘freedom of expression’ in blasting religious beliefs in the public venue THERE.

She’d probably be imprisoned quickly. However, if she went to Pakistan, especially the northwestern provinces, she’d probably become a YouTube ’special’.

What’s my point?

That she claims we’re a ’secular nation’ and that christian ethics have nothing to do with our laws. And yet she is still alive, despite her thoughts that we christians are all a bunch of blood-thirsty, power-hungry monsters.

This despite the fact that she is still alive here. When she would be given short shrift there.

Then again, if she wants to demonstrate how wonderful life is in a TRULY ’secular’ and ‘non-christian’ nation….

…..maybe she could go the Communist China and try her tricks there. Or North Korea.

Let’s see her “speak truth to power” where said power has no christian-ethics to restrain them.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....G Alston has serious problems.....]

Jun 26, 2009 - 1:45 pm 232. Rashputin:

Cichawoda (207)

Christianity is a particularly aggressive religion?

“… stems from their common source and the foundation of their world view …”?

You really do just make this kind of thing up as you go along, don’t you? I thought you were using, “The Big Pop-Up Book of Liberal Lies” as your resource, but now I realize you’re actually being completely creative and just pulling things out of thin air.

It’s obvious to anyone who cares to look that there is an immense difference in how aggressive the two faiths are as well as there being no “common world view” between them. Spreading lies like that can only be a form of apology for the horrors Islam continues to inflict on humanity. Since you can see no difference in the two, then, it follows that you are either intent on keeping people from realizing how terrible Islam is, or you’re completely insane.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and make a simple suggestion. We realize that tossing such senseless and baseless comments around may win you points with your fellow inmates, but please, in the future don’t take your turn at the computer until after your medication starts working. At least then you might be able to stay somewhat in touch with reality.

Have a wonderful dhimmi sort of day

Jun 26, 2009 - 1:56 pm 233. chris/independent:

these are people Norman Thomas would have been proud of…

Norman Thomas is the person Sotomayer quotes…

one of his most famous …

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened.”

Then the bread lines can start…Acorn and Obama and the boys will be there to institute their programs…”for your own good”..b.s.

I suppose it will be like being a chrisitian in ancient times..you have to hide it behind closed doors, underground etc..don’t let it happen…

Jun 26, 2009 - 2:12 pm 234. Chuck Pelto:

TO: chris/independent, et al.
RE: Don’t You Mean….

….Acorn and Obama and the boys will be there to institute their pogroms… — chris/independent

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[History repeats itself.....]

Jun 26, 2009 - 2:27 pm 235. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Rashputin
RE: Actually….

You [Cichawoda] really do just make this kind of thing up as you go along, don’t you? I thought you were using, “The Big Pop-Up Book of Liberal Lies” as your resource, but now I realize you’re actually being completely creative and just pulling things out of thin air. — Rashputin

….I suspect it’s much more than that. It looks like ‘talking points’ to me.

You REALLY should take some time to watch the Left Behind series. The parallels between Cichawoda and his ilk and what is portrayed in those movies is really quite ‘interesting’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Whereas Good can tolerate the existence of Evil. Evil cannot tolerate the existence of Good, as Good will continually be pointing out Evil's problems. Therefore Evil must always try to destroy Good.]

Jun 26, 2009 - 2:35 pm 236. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Lest I Forget….

….Schaeffer’s article isn’t the first such item of hate-speech directed against christians and conservatives.

We recently had the Playboy article on ‘hate-f—ing’ conservative women.

Are we seeing a ‘pattern of behavior’ here?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The plot 'thickens'.....]

Jun 26, 2009 - 3:47 pm 237. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. That’s sort of like the way the Islamofascists punished a woman in Pakistan…..

….they gang raped her.

Soooo….G Alston…..

….when was the last time a bunch of REAL christians punished a woman that way?

Jun 26, 2009 - 3:48 pm 238. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. Ahhh….yes…..

HERE is the article.

And here is the interesting text within it….

The WISE participants were a who’s who of Muslim women lawyers, writers, and rights advocates. Perhaps the most affecting speaker was Mukhtar Mai. She is the Pakistani woman who, in 2002, was gang-raped by four men because of crimes allegedly committed by her brother. After the rape, which was sanctioned by an all-male village council, Mukhtar Mai was expected to preserve the “honor” of her family by killing herself. Instead, she and her family went to the police, even at the risk of being charged for the “crime” of being raped.

Jun 26, 2009 - 3:55 pm 239. Wayne Schaeffer:

There is a fine line between religious stubborness, and the use and enjoyment of religion as a moral and ethical standard. Too often, religion is (and has been) used as a bludgeon, rather than as a tool to elevate, enrich, and improve a persons life. Though I believe that religion should not play an overt role in politics, by its very nature it will affect one’s political stance by the sheer force of moral persuasion. Whether that religious belief be Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, apparently (and quite obviously) makes all the difference in the world!

Jun 26, 2009 - 4:20 pm 240. Caestal:

Any time I see any sweeping generalizations about Party X = Ultimate Evil, I tend to be a bit annoyed. Certainly, rational people on either side can’t honestly believe that, which leaves me with the choice of believing they are completely irrational or they think I am so simple I can’t think critically.

Certainly, there are people on the far right who have a bolt or two that could use tightening, and act exactly as the article discribed. There are people who believe that this is a “Christian nation” and that anyone who is any other religion is here on the sufferance of Christians… just as there are are people who are agnostic or just anti-Christian, who believe that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to profess their faith in public.

Sadly, many of the replies in this very topic reinforce the stereotypes the Far Left disseminate about the Republican party.

Jun 26, 2009 - 10:18 pm 241. m.a.:

I have been an honestly practicing Catholic my whole life; I’m in my 50’s now.I do not believe that the Constitution has enshrined a “separation of church and state”. I am pro-life, anti-abortion, pro prayer in schools; your typical conservative Catholic.
I have gay friends, liberal friends, conservative friends. I have no desire to round anyone up, throw them into camps or kill them because they disagree with me. Most Christians, by far, feel the same way. Most people do, in fact.
I do believe that the leftists in this country are working very hard to divide all Americans, whether by sexual orientation, race, ethnicity religious affilliation, whatever they can think of.They pit group against group, individual against individual, all in an effort to create chaos and a society that simply cannot come together. They are succeeding at a rapid pace.
Americans better wake up and come together before it’s too late. Because a house divided cannot stand.

Jun 27, 2009 - 6:47 am 242. Nosingin:

Whatever the verdict may be… I only have my experience in this human body on this earth. My comfort comes from a close personal relationship with God, a Higher Power, the perfect order of the Universe. When I die, I do not assume that my experience will resemble it’s current form in any way. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that if there is such thing as heaven and hell-the only way for me to experience it is here on earth. And I have experienced both-I try not to create the latter-I have no power to create the former. Only to experience it. It wasn’t until I was shown a way to rely on the underlying power of God, Universe, Higher Power-whatever form it appears to take in any given instance that I began to experience a sense of peace, the feeling of fitting into my own skin the feeling of live and let live, peace and serenity. Something I had briefly found- ‘in spirits. Having attended Catholic schools all of my life, I was faced with these questions daily. I was not allowed NOT to think about it-these were greast schools-it’s just that we were commanded to believe in certain stands and I just wasn’t able to hear the message. So I do believe that Religion is man-made. But don’t deny it’s comfort to the masses who use it for a compass. I am so happy and relieved to have one. For those who don’t think they need it, they will be so amazed to find out that they do have God. It’s just that they have turned their backs on it- others of us have stood and faced it. Facing it is much preferable and highly enriching to experience on earth.

Jun 27, 2009 - 7:13 am 243. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Wayne Schaeffer
RE: Really?

There is a fine line between religious stubborness, and the use and enjoyment of religion as a moral and ethical standard. Too often, religion is (and has been) used as a bludgeon, rather than as a tool to elevate, enrich, and improve a persons life. — Wayne Schaeffer

Got any examples?

Or just merely saying, “That’s wrong,” such a ‘bludgeon’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Is this just another way of saying “Shut up”?

Jun 27, 2009 - 7:49 am 244. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. Are you any ‘relation’ to Frank Schaeffer?

Jun 27, 2009 - 7:49 am 245. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Casetel
RE: Heh

Sadly, many of the replies in this very topic reinforce the stereotypes the Far Left disseminate about the Republican party. — Casetel

Check out THIS comment.

And get back to US.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

P.S. By the way…..

…..’stereotypes’ are just another form of prejudice. And all too often that’s what the ‘progressives’ believe in……e.g., uneducated, illiterate, mentally-inferior, cultural low-brow red-necks who only do what they are told are what make up the conservative-christian-Republican culture.

I suspect they’re projecting……

Jun 27, 2009 - 7:53 am 246. sheesh:

245 Chuck Pelto

Really, you gotta try a little harder . . .

Just above you give us this . . . “P.S. By the way…..

…..’stereotypes’ are just another form of prejudice. And all too often that’s what the ‘progressives’ believe in”

But on Sanford, you give us this . . .

” . . . Democrats have no morals in the first place.”

As a self-professed man of gawd, you are exactly why so people don’t respect Christians. Because you’re full of . . . oh what’s the word I’m looking for . . . perhaps one of the right wing scat freaks can help me out . . . full of . . . darn it . . . It’s kind of like turd but not quite . . . I’ll think of it.

Please, continue. And Chuck, first you think, THEN you type . . . How many times do I have to tell you that?

Jun 27, 2009 - 10:30 am 247. Anonymous:

Amazing how many want supresion of Christians, progroms on Christians. So afraid of Christians ethics in the US.

So afraid, so afraid.

So much easier to make up whatever rules, morales that are convienent. To pretend that all the ills of the world are the fault of something they claim is so silly in the first place. They just don’t want to admit the problems of the world are do to people and people are not perfectable.

Jun 27, 2009 - 9:36 pm 248. Caestal:

And then, of course, Sheesh lives up to the stereotypes of liberals so well you have to wonder whether he is a sock puppet.

Sterotypes are what they are; nonsense — and yet folks in these kinds of anonymous venues seem to do their best to be more radical than their worst enemies make them out to be.

I have met folks who claimed themselves to be Christians whose kindness shone out like a light in the darkness; I have met self-proclaimed Christians whose evil was evident to most who met them… the Westboro Baptist Church folk who picket military funerals come to mind, just offhand. To lump all Christians together with them would be like lumping all Germans together with the SS or all Muslims together with the Al Qaeda fanatics. Personally, I don’t choose to judge people based on what religion the belong to, or if they are left/right/middle politically. I judge people on their actions, and on what they say — not their “leaders” or “spokesmen,” but them.

I see posts on this site and others that range from a reasoned discussion of issues to streams of invective that have nothing to do with anything but the poster’s own venom, to stream-of-consciousness stuff that seems a pretty clear indication of mental illness. I would not consider the latter to taint the former, but it makes it more likely that posters at any given site are pretty much “preaching to the choir.”
And folks like me who are basically moderates (not moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats, but moderate people)often get quickly driven away.

Jun 28, 2009 - 1:12 am 249. Lynn:

This is for David S

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,…”

It appears that in the beginning the founders gave a nod to…

umm…

G_d

Peace

Jun 28, 2009 - 5:12 am 250. David S:

@249. Lynn:

“It appears that in the beginning the founders gave a nod to…

umm…

G_d”

Yes, you might notice the reference to “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. Not exactly the same as an endorsement of biblical veracity. Despite the persistent efforts of historical revisionists, it is pretty clear that the founders were deists who believed in a very different kind of G_d than the born-again.

Peace.

DS

Jun 28, 2009 - 6:21 am 251. Rashputin:

David S (250)

“Yes, you might notice the reference to “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. Not exactly the same as an endorsement of biblical veracity. Despite the persistent efforts of historical revisionists, it is pretty clear that the founders were deists who believed in a very different kind of G_d than the born-again.”

Yet even the deist perspective is anathema to the majority of current liberal folks who believe only in a random number generator that periodically electrocutes a pile of warm feces and somehow ends up with life being created. The fact is, “the born again” or the deist type of God isn’t the issue, the issue is that either one is inherently superior to man himself, something that the current “progressive” crowd can’t abide.

Liberals want us to believe that while mankind itself is the result of blind random chance, only carefully managed societies are worth building. If blind chance is really responsible for producing superior “progressive” folks, then by all means we should rely on the same process to produce our entire society. Yet, the first thing the progressive folks insist on is eliminating chance and randomness in everything from diverse state laws to diverse slang. Something is badly wrong with either the theory that blind chance produced a superior group of people to rule the rest of us, or that the elimination of chance and randomness in society is a good thing. Societies are groups of individuals and if superior individuals are produced by blind chance, the elimination of chance and randomness means the elimination of the engine of creation. Progressives say they want to build a better society yet they seek to begin by destroying what they claim is the engine of creation. In other words, progressives are nothing more than suicidal narcissists, the perfect example of which we now have at the helm.

It’s no use to defend the liberal/progressive view of religion or anything else. Until they are willing to admit that their goal is suicide, they are simply jumping from one false rationalization to the next in hopes of keeping themselves from being exposed for what they really are. They are the social and political equivalent of suicide bombers, plain and simple, thinking they’ll be rewarded with paradise on earth if they succeed in sacrificing themselves in order to destroy their society. When such folks claim that Christians are terrorists or totalitarians of some sort, they are really saying that the constructive nature of Christianity is terrifying to them and their goal of self-destruction.

If you ever wonder which philosophical approach best defeats the current self-destructive liberal/progressive animal devouring our society, simply listen to which philosophy they defame the most and you have your answer.

Have a nice day

Jun 28, 2009 - 12:01 pm 252. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Casetel
RE: Funny

Sterotypes are what they are; nonsense — and yet folks in these kinds of anonymous venues seem to do their best to be more radical than their worst enemies make them out to be. — Casetel

Just a while ago, you were touting the ‘christian’ stereotype as being bad.

And here you are saying that ALL stereotypes are “nonsense”.

The question becomes, which is it for you? Or do you just think stereotyping the likes of sheesh is bad?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....and I suspect we'll see more equivocation from you in the not-too-distant future.....]

Jun 28, 2009 - 12:11 pm 253. klrtz1:

This is ridiculous. Frank J. gets over 250 comments? This is some kind of trick isn’t it? Admit it, Frank, you spent all afternoon sock puppeting these comments, didn’t you?

Good article though. Thanks for the warning. I’m going to watch out for them even more now. No reason to let 3 year olds get any more power than they already have.

Jun 28, 2009 - 12:23 pm 254. sheesh:

252. Chuck Pelto:

You got burned and turned out on the stereotyping thing-a-ma-jigaboo, didn’t you, deacon? Yeah, ya did. It’s OK. Nobody’s perfect, unless you count some wag from 2,000 years ago, the same wag you so consistently disappoint with your ping pong morality. Better to admit your failings than to assign them to someone else . . . and on the sabbath no less. I suggest you find another methodology, one that isn’t so blatantly blasphemous. Remember, God is watching . . . and he knows how to read, too. I don’t think he’s a fan of your particular kind of fiction.

And now, the passing of the plate. And please, no prune pits this time, Chuck.

Jun 28, 2009 - 1:16 pm 255. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Rashputin
RE: Great Points….

….in item #251 (above).

Too bad DavidS, sheesh and other ‘progressives’ won’t accept it. After all, as you accurately stated….

….the issue is that either one is inherently superior to man himself, something that the current “progressive” crowd can’t abide — Rashputin

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish. -- Albert Einstein]

Jun 28, 2009 - 2:08 pm 256. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. The big difference between the ‘wise’ and the ‘fool’ is that the former recognizes it, while the latter rejects it…..

Jun 28, 2009 - 2:09 pm 257. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: sheesh, the Racist

….jigaboo…. — sheesh

Jigaboo, n., racial slur regarding Blacks.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You can't make this stuff up.....]

Jun 28, 2009 - 2:19 pm 258. sheesh:

257 Chuck Pelto . . . Wow, nothing gets by you . . . except irony . . . and subtlety . . . and consistency . . . and accountability . . . and humility . . . and logic . . . and the lessons of Jesus.

Maybe you should try a different religion, one that doesn’t hamstring you into these relentless contradictions you trowel out. Maybe you go back a bit further in history, try on some Zoroastrianism. Or maybe something more contemporary, like Scientology. In either case you can say whatever you like and not be plagued by the self-doubts and the wholesale dismissal by others. Release your burden. Reconsider worshipping the one true true god of your craven imagination – Mensa.

But hey, you’re making progress in you. At least you didn’t try to deny the habitual stereotyping I pointed out in you.

Baby steps, Pelto. It’s gonna take a while for you to learn that 1s and 0s aren’t enough to navigate a world of 2s.

Jun 28, 2009 - 3:42 pm 259. caestal:

“Just a while ago, you were touting
the ‘christian’ stereotype as being bad.”
I think you misunderstand me. I do, indeed, find all stereotypes to be bad. Of course that includes stereotypes of Christians. Living up to those stereotypes is also bad. I don’t have a problem with Christians; some of my best friends are Christians.
I do have a problem with evil people, whether they call themselves Christians or not.

And for the record, there is not stereotype involved with Sheesh, though he is so far gone into his shtick he reads like a stereotype. I don’t care if he is a “leftist,” but he is, has been and remains an idiot. That’s not because he is liberal, it is because he is a flamer and a flame-baiter. That’s why I can’t help but suspect he is just a sock puppet, put there to whip folks up into a frenzy and give them something to react to. You will notice that a lot of the more extreme posts come in after he (or Vivo, or other local trolls) posts obvious bait.

Jun 29, 2009 - 1:31 am 260. Chuck Pelto:

TO: caestal
RE: Stereotyping

I do, indeed, find all stereotypes to be bad. — caestal

Stereotyping is, as I stated earlier, prejudicial decision making, generally speaking. It is coming to an opinion without adequate information.

As for sheesh and his ilk, they manifest themselves well enough to know what their agendas are. So, as you say, it’s not stereotyping, it’s factual, based on the evidence they themselves provide.

RE: Some My Best Friends Are….._____________(fill in the blank)

I don’t have a problem with Christians; some of my best friends are Christians. — caestal

Careful.

In the 60s that was a indicator phrase for someone hiding their prejudice against Blacks or Jews.

RE: The Problem with ‘Evil’

I do have a problem with evil people, whether they call themselves Christians or not. — caestal

Evil comes in many forms. The challenge is (1) having a good set of rules to recognize it by and (2) the courage to call it what it is when you recognize it.

RE: sheesh, vivo, DavidS, et al.

….he is a flamer and a flame-baiter. That’s why I can’t help but suspect he is just a sock puppet, put there to whip folks up into a frenzy and give them something to react to. — caestal

Could be. It IS a plausible explanation for the shear stupidity manifested by them. But I know that there are people that behave like they do in real life. I had one in my house last December. We had a ‘discussion’ similar to the sort of think that sheesh and others have on these threads. So they DO exist in reality.

She’s just another of the useful fools that helped put Obama in the Oval Office….to the detriment of the rest of US. [Note: I wonder what she's thinking of how her electrical bill is going to skyrocket with this Cap and Trade bill....if it passes. We're using coal-fired electricity here.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I 'Hope' everyone is enjoying their 'Change'.....]

Jun 29, 2009 - 5:40 am 261. JD:

gOod lord….do you people have lives?

Jun 29, 2009 - 10:40 am 262. Michael:

This whole discussion is pointless. Anyone who is claiming that Christianity and Islam are indistinguishable is either intellectually dishonest or invincibly ignorant. Either way they aren’t interested in other viewpoints but only in verbally assaulting anyone that disagrees with them. Of course they will claim the same of those here but they did seek out this venue for their own purposes.

Jun 29, 2009 - 11:14 am 263. Chuck Pelto:

TO: JD
RE: Yes….

gOod lord….do you people have lives? — JD

….I do.

And a significant part of it involves telling people good news.

What do YOU do?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Good news is just life's way of keeping the 'progressives' off balance.]

Jun 29, 2009 - 5:09 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: