Anti-Gay-Marriage Leader Resigns

conyat · November 11, 2006, 2:40pm

And just because Jesus claims for himself the right to make war and judge people doesn’t mean he wants humans doing it to each other as called for in the Old Testament.

Drosselmeier · November 11, 2006, 3:52pm

Very well. As I said, I no longer maintain this, since you’ve offered a potential correction. Now, since you claim this is true, please allow me to see your evidence. I want to see this so that I can adjust my view. Merely claiming my view “is laughable” without giving me evidence that demands a change means very little.

Well then let me see these cultures wherein the stated aim of the culture is to establish equality between women and men.

That is not what I meant. The apostle Paul was clear that women and men had differing roles and functions. But he was also clear that as far as their quality and value under God, both were equal. I don’t recall any society outside of the Judeo-Christian societies, that went this far. But, as you say, there have been many societies. Evidently you have evidence that I am wrong. I would like to see this so that I may correct my view.

Well, I think you should just chill and realize this is just one woman. Using her to hammer so many people is quite unfair. I don’t even know any theocrats, and I know a lot of Christians, fundamentalist and otherwise.

Fine. All the Christians want to do is use their rights to contend for the public will. If you disagree, then vote against them. If they win, they win.

That is because these people want to cut economic ties with China. The issue of trade came up because America wanted to establish closer ties with China against their wishes. They knew they would lose this struggle, but they made it anyway – to their credit.

Well, I don’t think we can take the actions of one little guy and then broadbrush so many Christians. It is just plain unreasonable in my view. Furthermore, many Christians may easily be unaware of the economic relationship of one guy to China. They instead are focusing on getting china to stop persecuting Christians and forcing people to abort children. We may not agree with their strategy, but to claim these people are being hypocrites is really mean spirited in my opinion.

I think it is a distinction that is completely irrelevant, when the people involved want to use the economy to force China to recognize human rights.

Drosselmeier · November 11, 2006, 4:12pm

[quote]
You cannot use the bible to defend itself. That is circular logic. You cannot use the bible to prove that the bible itself is the ‘Word of God’ because the bible says it is. You cannot prove that it was indeed GOD who did these things just because the primitive people who wrote it believed it.<a href=“sigh”>/quote</a> Please try to remember, I am simply trying to show how the Christians view these things. You may reject that God said anything. But they believe the Bible and they see how Jesus also believe it. They are being influenced by this, including with their view of homosexuality.

Not according to hundred of millions of Christians who vote.

Then vote your beliefs, and allow the Christians to vote theirs without infringing upon any of their rights to free speech and the Constitutional law separating Church and State.

You see a conflict. But they do not and they vote. If you wish to see what they believe and how it is that they believe it, I suggest you not defend against it. Try to see the whole system before going on the attack.

Great. They see this old collection as the Word of God. They have a very interesting, in many ways even attractive way of reconciling the whole thing. It is authoritative for them. It influences their votes. This is their right under our system of government.

I think you are being unfair here. The Old Testament God, in their view, is not in favor of war. He is in favor of righteousness and will destroy anything that runs contrary to it. In the past, He used Israel to judge nations like the Amalekites. He also judged Israel itself. In the future, He will use the Church to judge the world and it is gonna be a really tough time for all who are outside of Christ. That is how they see it. The God of the Old Testament is exactly the same as the God of the New. Jesus came down to earth to mediate between humans and this God, making it possible for us to escape His wrath in the Final Day. Even the New Testament warns repeatedly of this coming judgment. Jesus warns of it. Personally, I dont think we are big enough to declare to God what the meaning of loving is. But that is just the way I see it. You think you can do this? The great, and while you are at it vote your belief. My contention is, that there is no basis for denying Christians anything that any America has. There is also no basis for forcing the Church to pay for its right to free speech.

That guy was the Apostle John, the same guy who wrote the Gospel of John that you seem to respect. But the coming destruction is also included in those Gospels. I only mentioned Revelation because it si there too.

Okay. You dont think it is authoritative, and that is fine. Billions of Christians think it is authoritative. And they vote. In America, they should have no right infringed just because of their ideas.

Yes, if the person penning them is being guided by God Himself, as the Christians believe.

I have played the game, but I never really thought God was there making sure the words were faithfully transmitted from person-to-person. Millions of Christians think this is what happened regarding the Bible. Interestingly, they can make what to me is a nice case for it, especially as we compare all the differing manuscripts of the Bible.

Okay. So this simply means you reject it. Fine. Billions of others do not reject it. Millions of them are here in America, voting their beliefs. This is not wrong.

You would not take it as infallible, but millions of Christians do.

An evenhanded disinterested work, I am sure.

Drosselmeier · November 11, 2006, 4:18pm

Okay then. I guess I have lost this debate.

When I read the Bible, it is remarkably obvious that He offered Himself as a blood atonement for man’s sins. I think this conclusion is inescapable. But, then again, you see it differently.

I think to reduce Christ’s death only to this is to ignore vast sections of the Biblical text. But, if all you see is turning the other cheek, then fine. I was trying to show how the Christians saw it and why they vote as they do on issue such as homosexuality. Christ loved the law, and that law condemns homosexuality.

conyat · November 11, 2006, 4:41pm

“Well then let me see these cultures wherein the stated aim of the culture is to establish equality between women and men.”

You are seriously claiming that this is the stated aim of Christianity? You need to get a grip. The stated aim of Christianity is for people to accept Christ, be saved from their sins, and have eternal life. And I think if you read Paul’s epistles, you’ll find that establishing equality between men and women wasn’t very high on the radar.

As for finding non-Christian cultures that have equality between men and women, I admit I didn’t make it a priority to spoonfeed you links. I find it hard to believe that you’ve never heard of any. Take for example the much greater equality of women in many Native American cultures than in Christian ones. <a href=“Used, New, and Out of Print Books - We Buy and Sell - Powell's Books > Book”>Used, New, and Out of Print Books - We Buy and Sell - Powell's Books > Book;

“The author sees a poignant irony in the fact that Europeans [Christians] who encountered Native societies in which women had significant power attempted to transform them into patriarchal ones and that American women struggled for hundreds of years to achieve the kind of equality that Cherokee women had enjoyed for more than a millennium. Johnston examines the different aspects of Cherokee women’s power: authority in the family unit and the community, economic independence, personal autonomy, political clout, and spirituality.”

Sadly, she is typical of the theocrats I know. I don’t know how you’ve avoided meeting any. My state is chock full of them. Not 50 miles from here, a woman was passed over for a government job because the beaurocrat who hired her documented IN WRITING that “the last thing we need around here is another neurotic, coffee drinking Jew.” Imagine being so sure that government jobs are for Christians only that you would put something like that in writing. The same parish where this happened has been embroiled in lawsuit after lawsuit over the establishment of religion in public schools, and until quite recently, still had a public school teacher who (with full support of her principal) was scolding second graders for not bringing Bibles to school with them, and calling on students (including a Muslim child and Catholic children) to stand and pray the Protestant Lord’s Prayer.

I think what you’re trying to do is imply that I think all Christians are theocrats. This is far from the truth. But I am saying, and saying quite clearly, is that all theocrats are off-base about the establishment of religion in this country, and that the establishment of ANY religion would result in repression.

If you’re a Christian and not a theocrat, there’s no reason for you to be so het up when theocrats are criticized. If you’re a theocrat who doesn’t want to admit he is one, that’s another story altogether. But to deny that the Dominionist movement exists is a little silly, as I’m sure Katherine Harris would be the first to point out.

Drosselmeier · November 11, 2006, 5:53pm

Conyat:

</a>

Of course. I knew you had in mind Iroqouian type Natives. I have read the book you mention and think you should too. Though it glorifies these women, and seems even biased toward them in my view, it by no means supports your view. The fact is, when it came to black women, Cherokee culture was amongst the most oppressive, and Johnston points out this fact. While it is true that Cherokee women enjoyed some freedoms that were denied European women, such as the right to vote and divorce, these much vaunted freedoms existed because they were all centered around the home, a place the men essentially avoided because their domain was politics and war. The women were subject to polygamous marriages, with head wives exacting authority over others and their husbands having authority over all. Women’s political prominence later increased mainly because of displacement. Much later, the World Wars had a similar effect on European women’s rights.

The text is clear. The apostle clearly stated that in Christ all are equal. I have never seen such a thing anywhere else, not in native tribes or anywhere else. But maybe you know of something other than the Cherokee.

The apostle understood that there was a principal in operation forbidding women from sharing identical roles in the Church. But he did not accept that any one group had the right to power over others such that there was cause to lord anything over anyone. All were in Christ, and viewed as equal but different parts of the same body. He is very clear about this. I have not seen such a thing elsewhere.

C’mon friend. This is really inappropriate. This person does not necessarily represent Christians or Christian theocrats. He sounds basically like a garden variety racist. Well, you have those even in atheism.

Very well. If you insist on using isolated cases to support such a broad point, then I obviously can’t stop you. And so will not continue to try.

I do not think you have made you case, though I agree that we ought not establish any religion, since it is against our Constitution. But Jefferson had Protestant Church services in the capitol. So did Madison. And Madison was the Father of the Constitution. So I hardly think his ideas on religious establishment are like yours.

Well I am not a theocrat. In some Christian’s views I am not even a Christian. But I think your position is ill-supported and too emotional. You use strawmen to advocate the denial of the rights of the Church and the destruction of the wall separating it and the State. I am defending against this. I think ultimately your view is every bit as dangerous as those evil theocrats you keep stomping on.
But, I gotta leave town. So, I’ll let you have the last word.

conyat · November 11, 2006, 6:19pm

This was just one example. There are others from cultures around the globe, including some that were monogamous or practiced polyandry (multiple husbands) if you care to look for them, which I’m sure you don’t. And I think you’ll find that the Cherokee treatment of black women happened only after their society was influenced by European contact. And you’re conveniently forgetten that Cherokee women had much more power than Christian women, including the right to own property.

I notice that you keep picking on this one quote “The apostle clearly stated that in Christ all are equal” as evidence that Christianity supports equitable treatment of women and minorities—and conveniently forgetting two milleniums of Christian behavior that says otherwise. Talk about your isolated cases.

You can’t be serious in your contention that Dominionists don’t exist, simply because every person I mention is an “isolated case.” Dominionism is a well-documented and growing phenomenon. <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist</a>

No one is denying the Church any rights. If churches want to endorse candidates, they can do what the VFW does. They can establish separately incorporated Political Action Committees and make all the endorsements they want. But I suspect you don’t want that, because it would prevent the Church from taking money given it for religious purposes and using it for political ones. And it would prevent the church from demanding that its members vote a certain way or face eternal damnation.

The basis for the tax exemption given churches isn’t the Separation of Church and State. It’s the assumption that the church’s income will only be used for charitable, religious, and educational purposes. It’s bit much to declare that not being able to use that money for other means without paying tax on it is an infringement of your “rights.”

And why are you so certain that church members need to be told how to vote? If they are true believers, and there’s such a clear distinction between the candidates that it should be a matter of faith, shouldn’t the church members be able to spot this for themselves?

And sorry, but I haven’t seen anywhere that Madison said that churches should both be able to endorse candidates AND have an inequitable share of the tax burden. He was specifically against using tax money to support religions.
<a href=“http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm[/url]”>http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm</a>
<a href=“http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/detach.htm[/url]”>http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/detach.htm</a>

conyat · November 11, 2006, 6:50pm

Where have I said that theocrats are evil? I haven’t. I even said that if they establish their own country somewhere (without dispossessing others) and really walk the walk, I would be tempted to go join them.

I do find their views frightening, yes, because they want to do them here, in a country that’s supposed to have equity for all citizens regardless of religion. But I don’t think these individuals are evil and never said so.

Many of them, like the woman I mentioned, are, as I said, sane, well-intentioned individuals. This makes the dominion movement that much more of a concern–we can’t simply dismiss it as the brainchild of evil people or fringe nutjobs. With the exception of those calling for the execution of Wiccans and the like, it’s ordinary people like you and me, but who believe that because the consequences of religious choices are for eternity, their concern for others’ immortal souls trumps their concern for their civil rights. I don’t believe this is evil; it’s very much in line with my own religious views. But I do believe that it’s not what the founding fathers intended and that mandatory religious observance and membership in the US will serve neither God nor country well.

Have a good trip.

hereshoping · November 11, 2006, 7:53pm

<>

AMEN to that! :eek:

conyat · November 11, 2006, 7:57pm

The view that Dross is criticizing is my view that the current situation should be upheld: that churches shouldn’t be allowed to both function as political action committees AND keep their tax exemption.

This principle has been in place for quite some time without incident. In what way is this dangerous? Or do you just like labelling everyone who won’t give you license to break whatever laws you please as some sort of subversive?

To equate my position (upholding current law) with the genocide of Native Americans, the Spanish Inquisition, and calling for the execution of Wiccans and homosexuals (the only real evils by theocrats I’ve pointed out) is ridiculous.

Sam_Lee · November 11, 2006, 8:04pm

Regarding tax exemption,
conyat, well said.
Drosselmeier, you are just pulling strings with twisted logic!
<a href=“http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol2No2/IRS.htm[/url]”>http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol2No2/IRS.htm</a>

hereshoping · November 11, 2006, 8:12pm

a. Have you looked up David Kuo’s book yet?
b. You haven’t responded to my request for a link to your source for your claim that “theocrats” are “calling for the execution of Wiccans and homosexuals” and also a return to slavery. So what, for example, if “theocrats” or “Christianists” or whatever you want to call them (“fundies”?) are calling for the execution of Wiccans. The United States MILITARY recognizes Wiccan as an established religion. Does this mean anything to you?
c. Are you aware what a small percentage of the population of the United States of America fundamentalist Christians (let along “theocrats”) are?
d. Are you aware that you are (please excuse me I am using this term just to make a point) simply a “useful idiot” for the propaganda put out by a certain political and social (ist?) point of view in our society?
e. The Protestant and Catholic Lord’s Prayer are now the same, and have been for quite awhile.
f. I like that other article in your referenced publication, Sam Lee–“Something Wiccan This Way Comes.” Cool.

conyat · November 11, 2006, 9:06pm

a. No, I haven’t, but I have read a lot about Kuo’s book, and I don’t see how his experiences in the Bush White House mean that theocrats don’t exist outside of it. I also believe he’s telling the truth about his experiences.

b. Sorry I didn’t see your link request. Check out religioustolerance.org. They get emails from Dominionists advocating a return to legalized slavery, and have information about the pastors who have called for the execution of Wiccans and homosexuals.

Yes, it’s true that the military recognizes Wicca, over the strong objections of Christian fundamentalists. How on earth is that relevent to a discussion of whether theocrats call for persecution of Wiccans? No one is suggesting that theocrats run the military.

c. Simply because theocrats are a small percentage of the population doesn’t mean that they are harmless, especially when they get in positions that give them power over others that they can abuse, such as when they are making hiring decisions for government jobs, or in a position to force participation in their religion on children in the public schools and against the wishes of the childrens’ parents.

d. Sorry, hon, but the real idiot is anyone who thinks that my saying that churches abide by the agreements they made with the IRS is as dangerous as genocide, witch burnings, or Le Grand Derangement of the Acadians.

And it’s childish and about 50 years out of date to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a socialist. It’s especially funny in this context, given that the early Christians lived much as socialism calls for, sharing everything.

I think my oft expressed horror of the country that won the Cold War now going cap in hand to borrow money from Red China should say all it needs to about whether I’m a socialist.

e. I have been to services in both Catholic and Protestant churches in the last year and find this not to be true. Here is a link to the Roman Catholic version: <a href=“http://catholicism.about.com/cs/prayers/a/lordsprayer.htm[/url]”>http://catholicism.about.com/cs/prayers/a/lordsprayer.htm</a>

and an explanation that might help you understand better:

“In the Catholic mass today, the “power and glory” text is recited by the congregation, but not in the same place as in the Protestant Lord’s Prayer. The traditional Catholic prayer ends with “but deliver us from evil.” The priest then says a few more sentences before the congregation recites the phrase. (The concluding phrase is not used outside of mass, for instance when praying the rosary.)” <a href=“http://westwing.bewarne.com/queries/various.html[/url]”>http://westwing.bewarne.com/queries/various.html</a>

Though I’ve been a member of a non-denominational Protestant Church for about 15 years now, I frequently listen to the Rosary (which includes several repetitions of the Lord’s Prayer) on the radio in both Cajun French and in English. In both contexts, the prayer ends with “but deliver us from evil” and the doxology is omitted. These are live broadcasts, not old recordings from some time ago.

Any more misinformation about Catholics you’d like to tell the class?

f. It’s a neat play on words. I haven’t read that whole article. I am not that interested in Wiccan issues, per se, other than believing that they deserve the same civil rights as the rest of us, and that those rights would be in peril if theocrats succeed in replacing or co-opting our system of government.

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 9:19pm

“An evenhanded disinterested work, I am sure.”

You are flippantly dismissing it without reading it?

Are you dismissing ‘The Chalice and the Blade’ as well? It answers your question about the matriarchal societies.

mini · November 11, 2006, 9:26pm

“In both contexts, the prayer ends with “but deliver us from evil” and the doxology is omitted.”

The correct translatinng is “deliver us from DOING evil”. (It’s even clear in English, if one reads the entire sentence. - “And lead us not into temptation, but but deliver us from doing evil.” Or the whole paragraph.)

hereshoping · November 11, 2006, 9:29pm

We say “deliver us from evil” and then: “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever amen” at Mass. The priest does NOT say a “few sentences” in between. (What the heck is that westwing site?!). We don’t say it in the rosary, true-- but to be honest I really haven’t contemplated the profound meaning of this as you obviously have.

Pat Robertson (a major Dominionist/Christianist/fundie/theocrat) is okay with Wiccans in the military, and this means nothing to you?

<…and that those rights would be in peril if theocrats succeed in replacing or co-opting our system of government.>
Woops, sorry, can’t chat–gotta go catch my favorite episode of The Twilight Zone now.

P.S. mini - take your translation up with the Pope (I’m sure you know him personally, no?).

conyat · November 11, 2006, 9:39pm

Thanks, mini, it certainly fits with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount. But it’s not the way it’s prayed in either tradition. In the Catholic Mass, the mistake is even re-iterated:

Priest and all: [Catholic Lord’s Prayer as in the previous link, ending with “deliver us from evil.”]

Priest: “Deliver us Lord from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy Lord, protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.”

[Though I guess “every evil” could include that which we do ourselves. Now, finally comes the doxology that HH thinks Catholics include in the prayer itself:]

All: For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are Yours, now and forever.

Are you Roman Catholic, HH? If that’s how it’s prayed in your church, your priest is apparently not following the order of mass. <a href=“http://www.sjy.org/Church/exp_mass4.asp[/url]”>http://www.sjy.org/Church/exp_mass4.asp</a>

And yes, the difference has profound theological implications for many Catholics, since those words aren’t in the Catholic version of the Bible. Many Catholics believe that tacking them directly on to the end of the prayer as you do is putting words in Jesus’ mouth. For those of us who have experienced significant religious bigotry, the idea the government forcing Catholic children to recite the Protestant version of the prayer against their parents’ wishes is pretty upsetting, even for those of us who are now Protestant ourselves.

So because one sort of nutjob theocrat is willing to let Wiccans die for our country, it means that no theocrats would discriminate against them, despite their own public statements that they would? Sorry, I can’t buy that.

citygirlsmom · November 11, 2006, 9:46pm

for some real interesting conversation, read the God Delusion…

and I have been to several different Catholic Churches with dozens of different priests, and the Priest in every case HAS “interupted” as conyat stated…the congregation stops, the Priest says his bit, then ended all together

hereshoping · November 11, 2006, 9:46pm

Just you be clear, you couldn’t find a more everyday, run-of-the-mill Catholic than I am, conyat. I thought you were referring to the Lord’s Prayer as it is recited as a prayer at Mass, which is recited the way I said it is. The Protestant ending was added years ago now. Frankly, since I am not a Paranoid about my Church, I did not read any significance into this, other than perhaps a reaching out to Protestant denominations in an attempt to be more inclusive with other Christians. As I said, it is NOT how we say it when we recite the rosary, and as I said, I really have not attached any major significance to this, as you have.

citygirlsmom · November 11, 2006, 9:51pm

how mass is said at church is HUGE…years and years of debate goes on, and every little tweak or change ruffles lots of feathers…

when you have a kind of “routine” and its get changed, people get confused, but eventually adapt

and some Christians don’t think Catholics are Christian…interesting that

Anti-Gay-Marriage Leader Resigns

CONNECT WITH US