<p>“We are just saying it makes us uncomfortable to have a group who is convinced that so many americans are godlesss and damned in charge of <em>all</em> of us.”</p>
<p>Yes, democracy is like that, multiple views, it’s kind of a multi-cultural thing…seems to work, though no one is compelled to like it. Relax, everyone will be fine, even with little Patrick Henry doing its own thing.</p>
<p>but democracy is getting lost…and these groups, while espousing democratic views out of one side of the mouth, says that we are godless heathons out the other…and do I trust someone who thinks I am a lesser person because I am a sinner to treat me fairly…not really</p>
<p>“while espousing democratic views out of one side of the mouth, says that we are godless heathons out the other”</p>
<p>That does sound mean…I mean the “heathen” thing. Although, I missed the part where they said it.</p>
<p>Pesonally, I wouldn’t get within a hundred mile of the PHC, but I have no problem with the people who do choose to. I guess I’m a sucker for real diversity, as opposed to the make-believe kind.</p>
<p>
Exactly how I feel–Or at least, I wouldn’t have chosen it for myself, or my daughter. But I’m far more troubled by the bigotry demonstrated against these folks than the idea that a creationist may someday work for a congressman. Of course many already have, and have gone much further without any threat to the republic, as they have for many, many years…this is something that people who watch Michael Moore movies shiver over over their popcorn about in the theaters. It’s almost comical to think about, but then you’re reminded about similar progaganda and uses it has been put to, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and then some of the rants don’t sound so funny any more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure you’ll tell me I’m exaggerating, but how about this analogy: If you want real diversity, then you should be totally OK with a school that promotes discrimination of other forms - say skin color. Maybe someone could start a school of white supremacists, whose beliefs will simply be that only whites are capable of ruling, and whose purpose will be to reach the highest levels of government and to try to promote people “of their kind” there. I’m sure that you, as a proponent of “real diversity” will absolutely support the existance of such an institution.</p>
<p>hi! how do you know all christians believe you’re a lesser person because you’re a sinner, citygirlsmom?</p>
<p>An analogy:</p>
<p>Your very young child asks you where they came from. You want to tell them The Truth, but you know that with their limited experience, you must explain it in terms they can understand. You tell them that Mommy and Daddy met, they fell in love, and got married. Then the child began to grow in Mom and was finally born and that’s the story of how the child came to be. And this story is The Truth and explains the essentials of the Why without the details of the How. But it is a Truth that the small child can undeerstand. There is a large gap between the mind of an adult and the mind of a child, and - while staying within the Truth - the story is told in a way the child’s mind can comprehend.</p>
<p>Now I ask one question: How much larger must be the gap between the “mind” of God and a human mind? Can we not accept the Why as The Truth, yet understand that the story is more complicated - MUST BE MORE COMPLICATED - than we can ever know? The detailed complexities of how God works cannot ever be known in all of its detail. Why can’t the How of the development of the universe and of mankind be complicated, yet the story of the Creation still be true?</p>
<p>To say that the story as told to us humans is the Truth is fine. To say that there is no more to the story denigrates God’s power and unknowable complexity. It would be as if that child, even after growing up, continued to say that she was the result of a virgin birth because the story did not include the sexual part that she was unable to understand when she was a child. That would be bad enough, but to also say that those who did not accept the absolutely literal story were condemned to Hell is even worse.</p>
<p>Can people not see that devout Christians can believe in the unknowable complexity of How God carried out the Creation and still believe in the Why of God’s Creation, yet disagree with those who insist God must only work in simple way that humans can understand?</p>
<p>Here’s an article that I think makes some good points…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050623/bushs_empathy_squeeze.php[/url]”>http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050623/bushs_empathy_squeeze.php</a></p>
<p>you must read almost the whole last link to get to the main point, where religion fits into government and is being used by government to change society…NOT FOR THE BETTER. Well worth the long read.</p>
<p>WOW>…that was powerful…thank you</p>
<p>Glad you liked it, it really rang a chord with me yesterday…I just hope the people who should be reading it the most give it a chance and keep an open mind…and think analytically, not emotionally and don’t go into denial.</p>
<p>Denial…no, some people will say, it is bigoted…that is what anyone is called if we question anything</p>
<p>Anyone still in denial:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050624-120919-5576r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050624-120919-5576r.htm</a></p>
<p>it has started</p>
<p>During the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, American evangelicals made no secret of their desire to follow the troops. Samaritan’s Purse, the global relief organization led by the Rev. Franklin Graham – who has called Islam an “evil and wicked” religion – </p>
<p>yep, no bigotry here</p>
<p>“Evangelicals come here and I would like to ask: Why do you come here? For what reason?” said Patriarch Emmanuel Delly, head of the Eastern rite Chaldean Catholic Church, Iraq’s largest Christian community.</p>
<p>In interviews, Delly and Sleiman were torn between their belief in religious freedom and the threat they see from the new evangelicalism. They also expressed anger and resentment at what they perceive as the evangelicals’ assumption that members of old-line denominations are not true Christians.</p>
<p>ome Iraqi Christians expressed fear that the evangelicals would undermine Christian-Muslim harmony here, which rests on a long-standing, tacit agreement not to proselytize each other. “There is an informal agreement that says we have nothing to do with your religion and faith,” said Yonadam Kanna, one of six Christians elected to Iraq’s parliament. “We are brothers but we don’t interfere in your religion.”</p>
<p>Delly said that “even if a Muslim comes to me and said, ‘I want to be Christian,’ I would not accept. I would tell him to go back and try to be a good Muslim and God will accept you.” Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, he added, “is not acceptable.”</p>
<p>Sheik Fatih Kashif Ghitaa, a prominent Shiite Muslim leader in Baghdad, was among those who expressed alarm at the postwar influx of foreign missionaries. In a recent interview, he said he feared that Muslims misunderstand why many Christians talk about their faith.</p>
<p>©<em>2005</em>The Washington Post Company</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202335_3.html?nav=rss_world[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202335_3.html?nav=rss_world</a></p>
<p>Excellant quotes CGM
As a non-religious, but extremely moral spiritual person it all scares the “Hell” out of me. I swear Jesus and all the other past world religious leaders have to be upset…where ever they may be, over what people have done in their names. Most past religious leaders were for peace and kindness and helping the unfortunate… What we have done with ALL the leaders’ wise words astounds me. For being such a supposedly religious person, Bush has so basterdized the meaning of Christ how can he say he is religious. As for The conservative theory on the modern world…lets say the Shiavo case…in past centuries they COULDN’T keep someone artificially alive after they were brain dead, how could anyone say what Christ would have thought. He might have thought that it was monsterous for someone to be kept alive after dying. And they take religion into government and say that the words written centuries ago are relevant in running a modern country with things happening the religious leaders could not have imagined. We scoff at the Taliban taking things back to the 1400 century…our leaders want to run thing as in the first century… If they were trying to pattern it on the great messages it would be wonderful…Love they neighbor etc, but if we loved our neighbor we wouldn’t bomb the heck out of them all the time…and hate them if they disagreed with us or were different. The great leaders could not have meant this.</p>
<p>In reading through these posts, there seems to be a common thread among the anti-fundamentalist crowd: First they can’t stand the “certainty” of the beliefs as expressed by the fundamentalists. Secondly they can’t stand the belief amongst the fundamentalists that only those who believe in Jesus will be saved; others are doomed to damnation. </p>
<p>But, this is a contradiction. By vigorously denying the second point, the anti-fundamentalists are guilty of the first point since they are the ones who are now “certain” that they are right - that people of all religions and good nature are saved from damnation.</p>
<p>Religion by its very nature is a BELIEF system around a relationship with God. Evangelicals believe that the passages in the Bible that point to Jesus being the only way are literal. They are also not so egocentric to believe that they are the ones who are making the rules; they believe that God made this place and God gets to make the rules - even if they seem distasteful to us. Yet, people are fearful of them for following rules that they firmly believe are dictated by God. </p>
<p>Quite frankly it doesn’t bother me one bit how Jews, Buddists, Muslims, Wiccans or whatever believe about my eternal life. They can think that I will become dog meat and it doesn’t bother me. However, if they start treating me like dog meat (not just telling me that I’m destined to become Alpo), then I have a problem. That is why comparisons to the Taliban are not only over the top, but rooted in bigotry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who is hysterical here?</p>
<p>How is it bigotry to identify troubling, offensive–and yes, bigoted-- parts of any religious faith and to profoundly disagree with them? </p>
<p>Is it bigotry to say clitorectomy is wrong? For that matter, is it bigotry to say abortion is wrong? Or is it an acceptable, as a strong personal conviction? </p>
<p>We are NOT saying their beliefs should not be protected. We are saying that an extreme belief system that judges all outside it to be damned is, in our view, problematic when those people wish to govern. </p>
<p>This is opinion/conviction, not bigotry. Nobody is maligning Christians in general, nobody is saying PH should not exist, nobody is doing anything except take a very clear part of the school’s doctrine and mission and say, “this bothers us! we disagree!”</p>
<p>Much as a developer stacking the planning commission might raise eyebrows, a religious group trying to stack a governmental body MUST be watched carefully and OUGHT to engender concern. Maybe not paranoia, but concern. </p>
<p>You might question someone from the coal industry running the EPA. You might question the ability of a klansman to run Alabama. You might question the ability of a misogynist (?sp) to run a girls’ school. </p>
<p>I question the ability of an evangelical to best respond to the needs of a multi-cultural country and of a multicultural world.</p>
<p>BTW, FF, I am not certain I am right. I may well be headed to eternal damnation. It is a risk I will take, based on who my company’d be for eternity. ;)</p>
<p>I think FF nailed it rather well. Evangelicals believe that they themselves will end up in hell if they stray from the path they’ve chosen. Now, by extension, you can reasonably assume that they probably think that’s where I’ll end up, along with SBMom, and most especially, Citygirlsmom. So, why care? Because it’s not directed at us…it’s not what they wish for us. It’s a belief, not an advocation. And it doesn’t mean they want to force us onto their path. But I think they have a right to participate in our representative government. And I would frankly prefer hearing any Amish, Pentacostal, Nazarene, you name it US Senator over Barbara Boxer.</p>
<p>I’m not throwing the word bigotry around lightly, and I’m using it in the context of those who seem to feel that these fellow citizens should be shunned for their beliefs. That there’s a problem with them participating in our process. And bringing up clitorectomies in this context is just not helpful.</p>