You get four-times the usual cake serving because you have to wait four years between birthdays? I should try to pull that one off sometime even though Halloween is every year.
That's John 1:3, not Psalm 1:3.
I know some people really don't like confrontation but sometimes it's inevitable. I'm not saying you should be confrontational just to be confrontational, but it never pays to hide yourself behind fears of consequences or only say what you know will win approval. When you do that, you're not showing who or what you really are but rather who and what you fear. Since you're "quite fantastic," there's nobody or nothing to fear.
PS: It's never too late to go to college, even if you only want to take a few courses.
PS: Hope you feel better soon.
I don't hate Christians. I don't hate Muslims. I don't hate Jews. I don't hate Hindus. I don't hate Jains. I don't hate Buddhists. I don't hate anyone.
I have a big problem with (a) fundamentalism of ANY stripe, and (b) the desire of religious extremists to control the politics and laws of a country. That goes for the Taliban as much as it goes for American fundamentalists. Yes, they're comparable at least in degree because both groups have the same goal: to use the force of law to enforce narrow interpretations of religious texts on everyone. I don't think you can make a nation of sinners into "heaven on earth" -- you're more likely to make it hell.
I don't think we would be any better as a nation if the agenda of the Religious Right were to prevail (I think the Religious Right's power in the GOP is eventually going to lead to its collapse). I think in many ways we would be worse off.
You mentioned Falwell and Phelps. Both were cut from the same cloth and both preyed politically on specific groups of sinners in most uncivil manners. I don't find either of their appeals convincing, just hateful of sinners. Not sins, sinners. Phelps and Falwell have done all they can to make life more difficult for all kinds of sinners. What have you done to make life easier for those even if you don't agree with them? Are you for increased HIV/AIDS research funding? Are you for anti-discrimination laws that extend civil rights to ALL citizens equally? Or are you just like those two and think that your beliefs should allow you to deny rights to others if you disagree with them?
As a Christian, I'm not commanded to make civil laws to try and keep sinners from being sinners. I'm commanded to love and not judge. The verses you're most likely to quote to me (e.g., Romans 1) in this context are about eternal punishment; far from telling me to also punish people temporally, those verses are usually followed by admonitions to not judge others (e.g., Romans 2).
So let me ask you. Am I not as good a Christian as you because instead of gay-bashing, I support programs that offer guidance to gay youth and hospice programs that care for AIDS patients? Am I not as good a Christian as you because I can't bear to deny someone the liberty to decide if and when she decides to have a child? Am I not as good a Christian as you because I defend a candidate I won't vote for against the false witness of Christians who don't care about that particular commandment? Or are you like some of those who tried to give me a hard time at Bl*gster and can't even consider me a Christian because I don't agree with you or with mixing religion and politics?
Islam is hardly the first religion to wield some kind of political power. Maybe you need to read your Bible about religion and politics. Ever read about nice Jewish guys like King David and Solomon? Their power was theocratic.
More history? It was inconceivable even after the Reformation to consider a secular Europe. The papacy had power over the civil rulers. There are still state churches in Europe -- a vestige of a time when religion and politics were intertwined.
There are many examples of secular Islamic countries. Like Turkey. And Singapore. And Malaysia. And Indonesia. Even Pakistan, with all its recent violence, leans to preference of secular leaders over avowedly religious ones.
If we adopt your "concern," we won't be allies with anyone. Congressman Ellison isn't calling for beheadings or anything of that sort. Maybe you should read his speeches and learn more about him before invoking such emotive rhetoric in relation to a post about his use of a Koran at his swearing in.
I would love to discuss the Founders' religious views with you. Some of them were Trinitarians. Most of them weren't. Their own writings prove as much. There are some people (David Barton), who glom onto "god talk" and allusions to Jesus and Christianity and deduce (stupidly) that men like Jefferson would feel right at home in the local Non-Denominational Holy Roller Tabernacle of God. No! They would send letters commending civic virtues stemming from religion and stay the hell away.
Finally, I'm not left wing. I'm libertarian. Big difference. Ask eky.
I have no objection to anyone wanting to run for president in either major party or the third parties. If Ron Paul wants to carry his 5% from the GOP primaries and water it down to 1.5% as a Libertarian in the general election, fine. It's his money and his ego. Dittos for any other fringe candidate. Those candidates don't carry much sway with the moderate or independent voters who end up deciding elections, but they can whittle away fringe voters who are put off when the two major candidates have to moderate their stands from their party platforms.
In the final analysis, it will still boil down to whether the Democrat or Republican can sway the middle ground of voters. I don't think Obama will end up carrying that demographic whether Nader runs or not because the "change" he's seeking isn't very moderate at all. When voters get beyond his oratory and platitudes, they'll see the same kind of message they've already repeatedly rejected when it came from less exciting candidates like Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale. The best hope for the Democrats are DLC-friendly candidates, not those who shun the more mainstream DLC -- and thus demonstrating that he's hardly a "big tent" kind of guy who can unite the nation.
I, too, love history. I'm amused when others presume to know more than the "Average Joe" and then base their own knowledge on very limited sources that confirm only their narrow agenda.
As far as the issue of Barbary piracy and US intervention, we have the Founders on record that this is not a Christian nation. Treaties are US law, yes?
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: "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 tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."
So there you have it before 1800 with many of the Founders on record saying this is NOT a Christian nation. Not to mention that this treaty -- US law -- declares that the US doesn't require any religious agreement as pretext for peace. Strange how many who share your political inclinations are at odds with the Founders despite suggesting you're carrying their water today.
Also, I found this at the Library of Congress website: 'In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."
'In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810....
'That ordinary citizens shared these positive views is demonstrated by a petition of a group of citizens of Chesterfield County, Va., to the state assembly, Nov. 14, 1785: "Let Jews, Mehometans and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious liberty…thrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys and weaken this infant state. It is mens labour in our Manufactories, their services by sea and land that aggrandize our Country and not their creeds. Chain your citizens to the state by their Interest. Let Jews, Mehometans, and Christians of every denomination find their advantage in living under your laws."
'The Founders of this nation explicitly included Islam in their vision of the future of the republic. Freedom of religion, as they conceived it, encompassed it. Adherents of the faith were, with some exceptions, regarded as men and women who would make law-abiding, productive citizens. Far from fearing Islam, the Founders would have incorporated it into the fabric of American life. " https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html
This nation does *not* have religious tests for candidates or elected officials -- I dare say the Founders would be elected to office in any of the "red states" because many of them weren't Trinitarians. Nevertheless, they're on record supporting reliugious tolerance and would undoubtedly have supported Congressman Ellison's right to be sworn in with the Koran.
Congressman Ellison's religious liberty is as inviolable and Constitutionally protected as yours. Rather than demeaning him and his right to be sworn in with his preferred religious text, you should be defending his right to do it. Because some day he may have to defend your right to be sworn in with your preferred text. Thus far, he's demonstrated himself to be as tolerant to other religions as the Founders were.
Why haven't you?
First, sounds like this young man has some issues. Besti-necrophiliac?
Re: revocation of probation because of "sexual relations with another adult" -- Don't they want to ENCOURAGE that? If he's banging some chick (or dude), that's less time he's out killing animals to have sex with.
You object to "hate crimes" as thought control even though it only enhances the penalty for a violent crime (not separately, but *as a unit*). Where do you stand when judges forbid things like sexual relations in sentencing offenders?
I want some of those!
Heh!
Sorry you have to deal with such misanthropy on your blog. I don't know if his comments remain in his own comment section, but it's probably a good idea if you're keeping your blog there to keep screenshots and document his violations with Kendall or whomever. At some point they have to weigh what constitutes harassment. I'm kind of surprised that hasn't happened yet.
Niiiiiiiiice.
Welcome to mybloggers!
Congrats on the weight loss. Enjoy the race (if they race) later.
Profile
Photos
Comments
