The "Christian" right

[Alexander Hamilton]

And, like I said, I was roundly castigated for pointing out the obvious fact that the attackers were Muslims.

 

Yet, somehow, I think if I'd have attacked a Christian for something or other, there would be far less of an outcry.

 

Just a hunch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speaking of attacking Christians, I was reading revelations the other day and found the following:

 

In the Fall of 2008, 3 years from today,

 

(1) We'll be on the verge of electing a black guy. You've never heard of him but Revelations says he's got a good jump shot.

(2) Running against the black guy are McCain and some woman who is not yet on the political map. In 3 years, you still won't have heard of her until McCain announces her name

(3) We'll actually be talking about some real issues on this board (Yes, Revelations predicts PPP).

(4) VABills will still be short.

(5) I will still be right.

 

There's more but I just wanted to go on record.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

No. You said that the attackers were Arab, when in fact all you could see from the video was that they were dark-skinned. And from that, you concluded that we should all be suspicious of Arab-looking people, whatever that means.

 

Boo hoo. Thr unfairly persecuted Christians in the US, who can barely show their faces for fear of their civil liberties being trampled. You know: poor George Bush, John Ashcroft, Alito,... and on and on. Christians hardly have any voice in this country at all.

 

Time for a jimshiz post. Or a post from shorty McShortenstein-- tell me how the Catholics are under attack.

500521[/snapback]

 

Arguing with you is like running a special olympics relay. No matter who wins, they're still "Dawgged". As such, I'll cease and desist.

[OnTheRocks]

No. You said that the attackers were Arab, when in fact all you could see from the video was that they were dark-skinned. And from that, you concluded that we should all be suspicious of Arab-looking people, whatever that means.

 

Boo hoo. Thr unfairly persecuted Christians in the US, who can barely show their faces for fear of their civil liberties being trampled. You know: poor George Bush, John Ashcroft, Alito,... and on and on. Christians hardly have any voice in this country at all.

 

Time for a jimshiz post. Or a post from shorty McShortenstein-- tell me how the Catholics are under attack.

500521[/snapback]

 

 

this is a good example of why i get peeved everytime i hear someone say GWB is responsible for "dividing the nation". The nation was divided and on the road to extreme positions long before President Bush came along.

[finknottle]

Yeah, so go ahead and feel good about anti-Christianism. Maybe this same attitude will swing full circle and attack whatever belief YOU hold.

500450[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I can't wait for the day when we religious people finally get up the nerve to criticize atheists.

[erynthered]

Maybe in the Sudan and Gabon and India they should use the Dec. 25th angle.

499920[/snapback]

 

 

Or maybe they should read this:

 

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

 

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

 

 

[Mickey]

Or maybe they should read this: 

 

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

 

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

500604[/snapback]

 

So to prpoerly assimilate, one must become a christian? Iwould have thought that religious freedom would mean that you don't have to have a clue what some one ele's religious observances were all about let alone their schedule.

 

I know, the nationwide shortage of attention paid to christmas is certainly a travesty and all but somehow, we all must endeavor to persevere.

[OnTheRocks]

So to prpoerly assimilate, one must become a christian?  Iwould have thought that religious freedom would mean that you don't have to have a clue what some one ele's religious observances were all about let alone their schedule.

 

I know, the nationwide shortage of attention paid to christmas is certainly a travesty and all but somehow, we all must endeavor to persevere.

500750[/snapback]

 

 

this isn't about making someone a Christian. I am not so extreme that I think, "if you are in America you have to speak English".....

its about in America, we celebrate Christmas. It is a national holiday. We take Christmas off.

This year Christmas is on a Sunday. What are you going to do? Tell people all state and federal offices are closed on Monday the 24th because Sunday is the 25th? Sure....that makes a lot of sense.

 

Yoy are asking Americans to change what we do for the benefit of a a minute percentage of people visiting our country?

Besides.....your position is not the reason companies are changing from "We're closed on Christmas" to "We're closed on Dec. 25th".

[Mickey]

this isn't about making someone a Christian.  I am not so extreme that I think, "if you are in America you have to speak English".....

its about in America, we celebrate Christmas.  It is a national holiday.  We take Christmas off. 

This year Christmas is on a Sunday.  What are you going to do?  Tell people all state and federal offices are closed on Monday the 24th because Sunday is the 25th?  Sure....that makes a lot of sense.

 

Yoy are asking Americans to change what we do for the benefit of a a minute percentage of people visiting our country?

Besides.....your position is not the reason companies are changing from "We're closed on Christmas" to "We're closed on Dec. 25th".

500775[/snapback]

I'm not asking anyone to change, you are the one bemoaning the fact that some business put up a sign that said "closed December 25th" instead of "closed for christmas". In one breath you cite that as a problem and with the next point out that it is such a pervasive, quintessentially American holiday that even someone from Gabon should know that christmas falls on December 25th inorder to be a good American.

 

Really, what in the world is the problem with some business deciding, for their own reasons, to put up whatever sign they want?

[OnTheRocks]

I'm not asking anyone to change, you are the one bemoaning the fact that some business put up a sign that said "closed December 25th" instead of "closed for christmas".  In one breath you cite that as a problem and with the next point out that it is such a pervasive, quintessentially American holiday that even someone from Gabon should know that christmas falls on December 25th inorder to be a good American. 

 

Really, what in the world is the problem with some business deciding, for their own reasons, to put up whatever sign they want?

500802[/snapback]

 

 

what i stated was only an example. if you don't think the ACLU is looking to remove the word "Christmas" from our vocabulary your are silly.

however I am sure you are aware of it and clearly in favor of it so you paint some ridiculous scenario around it about people from other countries not knowing what Christmas is as being the reason the word needs to be removed. smoke and mirrors. you say one thing but the root of your philosophies is to remove anything "Christian".

 

i don't understand why people like the ACLU don't just come right out and say why they want these changes rather than hiding behind false excuses.

[Adam]

Well, be sure you talk to muslims too, because I'm pretty sure they're against homosexual marraige too.

 

Maybe the Hindus or Buddhists will take you in with warm and accepting embraces.

 

You sound like a bigot, btw.

 

Substitute "&#33;@#&#036;s" for "christians" and the limpwrists around here would be throwing a fit.

499256[/snapback]

What are you so upset about- the loudest people usually are the ones to ignore

[Mickey]

what i stated was only an example.  if you don't think the ACLU is looking to remove the word "Christmas" from our vocabulary your are silly. 

however I am sure you are aware of it and clearly in favor of it so you paint some ridiculous scenario around it about people from other countries not knowing what Christmas is as being the reason the word needs to be removed.  smoke and mirrors.  you say one thing but the root of your philosophies is to remove anything "Christian".

 

i don't understand why people like the ACLU don't just come right out and say why they want these changes rather than hiding behind false excuses.

500856[/snapback]

Feeling a little paranoid? So you really think the ACLU is out to "remove the word 'Christmas' from our vocabulary"?!?!?! Now who is being silly? What, have they petitioned Webster's to pull it?

 

Funny, I checked their web site and didn't find anything about that particular effort. Maybe it is written in code only you can understand? Or perhaps you can see through to their evil, evil, christ hating hearts despite all their fancy talk of preserving religious freedom by keeping government, historically the greatest enemy of religious freedom, out of the religion business. Ach, it iss all liesssss.

 

I did find a note on their site about how they filed an amicus brief in a New Jersey case supporting a child who was barred from singing "Awesome God" at an after school talent show. Must be a feint to put off the torch bearing mob. I also found that they have to devote a part of their web site to debunk lies and hoaxes circulating the internet on conservative freak show web sites about their actions.

 

Of all the problems we have in this country to fret over, worrying that the celebration of christmas is in danger of being stilted has got to be the biggest waste of worrying time I can imagine. Maybe you could find me evidence of a lawsuit, a single one, where the ACLU successfully went after a business for using, *gasp*, "closed Decemeber 25th" instead of "closed christmas".

[buckeyemike]

The ACLU has its place. Preferably, under a rock.

 

That's not to say that the organization hasn't done some good, but in recent years, it seems that its purpose is to keep God out of public discourse.

 

I am a devout Christian. However, I will call a spade a spade and criticize where needed. Pat Robertson, for example, is prone to idiotic statements because he knows that if he says something like he did last week, he gets press. Problem is, he's 75 years old and is largely irrelevant in the public eye these days.

 

I used to be a fan of James Dobson, who is an extremely intelligent man. However, I think he's gone off the deep end in recent years. I think, deep down inside, he wants to advise Presidents and be close to Those In Power. No one can say a word about his morals (there's never been a hint of impropriety on Dobson and he's been married to the same woman for 45 years), so his politics are attacked, often justly, at times not.

 

Former Alabama Justice Roy Moore is a political hack who came upon the brainstorm that if he posted the 10 Commandments in his courtroom and he was "persecuted" for it, he could run for higher office and be a hero to the Religious Right. And dang if he wasn't right. My view is that the 10 Commandments are something to be on our hearts. If a church wants to put the monument on its front lawn, all the better. But there are better ways to fight battles than picking fights with the ACLU.

 

The "religious right" is a loose term. Am I a member of the "rr" because I'm a Protestant Christian and pro-life Republican? It would seem I fit the definition. But, as anyone who goes to church with me can attest, I can be an iconoclast. I will the first to admit that my tastes can be somewhat worldly.

 

I try to live a life that Jesus would live. I'm not always successful, but I prefer that life than the alternative.

 

Mike

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What are you so upset about- the loudest people usually are the ones to ignore

501064[/snapback]

 

I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisies of the left.

 

Racism is OK, so long as it's driected toward whites. Religious bigotry is OK so long as it's driected toward christians. Sexism can be tolerated so long as it's not against women.

 

It's Orwellian double-speak. Say one thing, mean something entirely different.

[RkFast]

I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisies of the left.

 

Racism is OK, so long as it's driected toward whites. Religious bigotry is OK so long as it's driected toward christians. Sexism can be tolerated so long as it's not against women.

 

It's Orwellian double-speak. Say one thing, mean something entirely different.

503544[/snapback]

 

See my thread below about Intelligent Design being called "dumb design." Same thing there.

 

There is talk of "tolerance", "understanding" and "acceptance." But that only applies to specific groups at very specific intervals.

[Mickey]

I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisies of the left.

 

Racism is OK, so long as it's driected toward whites. Religious bigotry is OK so long as it's driected toward christians. Sexism can be tolerated so long as it's not against women.

 

It's Orwellian double-speak. Say one thing, mean something entirely different.

503544[/snapback]

That's not the case at all. A type of racism that has zero effect is wrong, but not really something to worry about now is it? White on black racism both historically and presently is far more of a problem than the reverse. Further, institutional racism only works when one race is in charge of all or most institutions of power. Historically and presently, just about every powerful institution whether it be a corporation, a bank or a police department are run by whites. Not all but certainly most, especially when you move away from large cities, the one area where minorities predominate. What is curious is the degree and frequency with which so many here complain about reverse discrimination, the least frequent and least effective discrimination out there. Also, the degree and frequency of complaints hereabouts as to false charges of racism are surprising. Comparing that with how often the same people express their outrage about genuine discrimination against blacks and other minorities, which is by far the bigger problem, is equally curious.

 

As for "religious bigotry", I'm not sure what you are talking about. I think it is religious bigotry if one beleives the myths/facts of their religion are better than those of others. I don't think it is religious bigotry to take the position that there be no prayer, not a Hebrew prayer, a muslim prayer, a christian prayer etc, in school. I also see no bigotry in pointing out that from a scientific standpoint, intelligent design/creationism is ridiculous and that those who see scientific merit in them are fools. I wouldn't tread on anyone's creation myths in church but if they are going to make their faith their science or make their faith their politics, its fair game. Scientist who base their positions on facts, experiments and the like, are subject to rigorous examination and critique. They don't have the luxury of resisting criticism by lableing their critics as "religious bigots". I base my political positions based on the facts as best I understand them and the merits of initiatives, ballot measures and the like. My positions are open to criticism based on their merits or lack of same. I too do not have the luxury of roping off my positions from all criticism by calling my critics "religious bigots".

 

Both political and scientific ideas are open to debate, examination and proof. If you are going to make your religious beliefs the basis for your political or scientific positions then you have to accept being held to the same standard as everyone else without whining about religious bigotry. Frankly, the alternative would be expressing favoritism, not bigotry, towards one religious view.

 

Lastly, on the sexism thing, puhleeeez. All sexism, in principle, is wrong. However, again, women discriminating against men simply is not really a problem. In the few areas where it is, progress is being made to the extent it can using legislation. For example, there has always been a built in prejudice in favor of the mother when it comes to custody in a divorce case. Most states have passed legislation mandating that the sole criteria be the best interests of the child and that gender bias be entirely removed. Has it had the desired effect? Of course not. It has helped, very much so but it hasn't been prefect (often legislation written to stop racism has been condemned by the right as a failure simply because it wasn't 100% effective). What is helping even more are academic studies and books, etc, which show that the best custodial parent is not always the mother. So gradually, the built in discrimination here is fading away.

[Mickey]

See my thread below about Intelligent Design being called "dumb design." Same thing there.

 

There is talk of "tolerance", "understanding" and "acceptance." But that only applies to specific groups at very specific intervals.

503610[/snapback]

Why is someone a religious bigot for calling bad science "dumb"?

 

A scientific position is not a religion and is not a race and is not a sex. Stupid science is stupid and if the people who accept stupid science are offended by being called stupid, then they should get out of science class and go back to church and pray for some brains.

[OnTheRocks]

Why is someone a religious bigot for calling bad science "dumb"? 

 

A scientific position is not a religion and is not a race and is not a sex.  Stupid science is stupid and if the people who accept stupid science are offended by being called stupid, then they should get out of science class and go back to church and pray for some brains.

503627[/snapback]

 

 

is any of this Science dumb?

 

Why isn't Creationism allowed to be referred to as Science? My best guess is because you would refer to it as a Biblical teaching. Is it okay then to teach the Golden Rule? Which is also a Biblical teaching?

[OnTheRocks]

A type of racism that has zero effect

 

 

there is no such thing.

[RkFast]

Why is someone a religious bigot for calling bad science "dumb"? 

 

A scientific position is not a religion and is not a race and is not a sex.  Stupid science is stupid and if the people who accept stupid science are offended by being called stupid, then they should get out of science class and go back to church and pray for some brains.

503627[/snapback]

 

Thank you for proving my point. Couldnt have done it better.

[Campy]

Is it okay then to teach the Golden Rule?  Which is also a Biblical teaching?

503684[/snapback]

You'd have a great point if it were anywhere close to accurate. Aside from the fact that things like the Golden Rule should be taught at home - long before a kid enters a school.

 

It's not exclusively a Christian teaching, in fact, it's been around longer than there was Christianity. It's a main part of all major religions including, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. It was also a major component of Taoism and Zoroastrianism which dates back to 650 BCE.

 

Creationism, as it is being debated via ID, is specific to the Judeo/Christian religion, not a basic tenent of human compassion which also happens to be taught by all of the world's religions.

 

Damn, I knew that Religions of the World class would pay off one day...