I really don’t get it! What I don’t get is why do you both want to impose your moral views on the USA. You both think that the US needs moral guidance from the top and that it needs to be legislated for. It’s as if you want to usher in a Holy Kingdom of America. Whilst a great set of laws does seem to create a lovely society to live in, I can’t get my head round the idea that we, as Christians want to impose our morality on people who don’t want it. I mean, it’s not like it makes people better at the level of their relationship with God. It might seem, from a human point of view, that it is a good thing, but the only good thing is to have a relationship with God and to do his will – that is the only good in our world, everything else is a cheap imitation that doesn’t really bring life at all. Jesus lived in a country that was occupied by foreign forces. Did he bother himself with that? No, he knew that freedom wasn’t in the laws of the land, but could only be found in a relationship with God. Did he try to control people by imposing laws? No, he came to make the law (and indeed laws) obsolete – to bring God into our hearts. He worked from the bottom up, not the top down. He aligned himself with the downtrodden. Even when he did get to talk to the most powerful men in Israel, he didn’t try to get them to alter their laws, he stood quietly, a testimony to the new Kingdom that he was ushering in, a Kingdom that stood in contrast to their kingdom. Jim, Ralph, stop wielding worldly power and focus instead on wielding Godly love. Cheers, Mark>

Ralph, If you read this, very, very well said. I can guarantee the nuances of your argument will be completely ignored by posters here, but not by me. I am actually surprised at the level of seriousness with which you are taking this debate. Mark, Jesus didn’t have the opportunity to influence government, and so he didn’t. But why can’t our faith inform our politics. Jesus never asked us not to engage in politics.>

Ralph Reed said: “We worked for passage of a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class, working families which Bill Clinton opposed and vetoed twice and tax credits for charitable giving to the poor. We also worked for the most sweeping reform of the welfare system since the New Deal, moving 8 million people from welfare to work and replacing a culture of dependency with self-reliance and dignity.” I don’t remember the Christian Coalition working on a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class working families – which Bill Clinton opposed and vetoed twice. Please provide a reference for this. Charitable contributions have always been deductible as far as I can remember, so how and when did the Christian Coalition achieve this? As far as the sweeping reform of the welfare system, I remember the poor being swept out of the welfare system but I don’t remember any jobs being created. These are just distractions away from the heartless core of the Christian Conservative movement. The Conservative Christian position on poverty parallels the Libertarian position – that the poor in our society deserve to be poor and that if they would only turn to Christ they could lift themselves out of poverty. This is the basis of the Conservative Christian / Libertarian political coalition that brought us the corrupt Bush administration In reality, the funding given to “faith based” poverty programs by the Bush administration is dwarfed by the funding cuts in social programs made by the Bush administration. No wonder John D’Iulio resigned from his position heading up the Bush “faith based” program. Are these “faith based” programs making any progress in alleviating poverty in America? I don’t think so. .>

Yes, quite well done, Ralph. Abortion and gay marriage is important. And last time I checked, setting priorities is not a sin.>

By the way, what has the Christian Coalition been working on lately?>

First of all, Mr. Reed, your post is so full of incorrect half-truths and Republican talking points I couldn’t even start to point them all out (can the rest of y’all see what I’m talking about?). Second, how can you speak of the Democratic party’s rhetoric not matching it’s record in being “pro-family” when EVERYTHING the Republican party has done in the last 6 years is anti-family? Tax cuts for the rich? Supporting countries like Saudi Arabia who have deplorable human rights records? Allowing people to go without health care? Supporting the torture of your fellow human beings? The list goes on, and on, and on (anybody else care to add to it?) You are one to talk about abortion…I won’t even get into the Mariana Islands stuff as I can see others have done on the previous day’s threads. If religious right-wing nuts would actually stop treating single mothers like sluts and would actually care about children once they are here (funny, I never hear a word about bombing Iraqi children – is that pro-life?) then maybe I could take your “pro-life” arguments seriously. You are also one to talk about the sanctity of marriage – seeing how you cheated on your wife and left her for a younger women. You can denigrate gay families all you want, but you are still a hypocrite. And not being a Christian myself, I would like to point out to y’all that the most oft-mentioned marriage arrangement in the bible is…polygamy! Imagine that! Or I guess we can go back to the “traditional” way of marriage by treating women as property, which I’m sure right wing Christian men would love. Sorry to personally attack you, Ralph, but I don’t take kindly to complete hypocrites who see fit to act with hate in their heart instead of with the REAL love of Christ. That being said, as a long-lapsed Lutheran who is happy to be free of the shackles of what passes for Christianity these days in America, it is refreshing to see liberal-minded Christians on this site and Mr. Wallis speaking about the world’s real problems – poverty, social justice, hunger – and actually getting active about it. I recommend reading “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell. MNW, you especially if you haven’t read it. It opened my eyes to the man-made origins of god/gods and it discusses religion in a very rational way. Good stuff. Peace out.>

Abortion and gay marriage is important? Aargh! Me fail English? That’s unpossible!>

Dear Ralph, Would you explain to us the Christian Dominionist Movement’s plan for America after the takeover? .>

Hi Kevin S. God had the opportunity to do exactly what he wanted with Jesus. In fact the Jews thought that they were going to get a political King, a freedom fighter. However, I do believe that Jesus was deeply political. He made his statements by mixing with Samaritans, tax collectors etc. By loving the unloved, by doing good on a Sabbath. I fully recommend this info from the UK Religious Think Tank ‘Ekklesia’: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/article_060724redeeming.shtml Cheers, Mark>

at 6:42 PM justintime wrote: The Conservative Christian position on poverty parallels the Libertarian position – that the poor in our society deserve to be poor and that if they would only turn to Christ they could lift themselves out of poverty. Uhh, well, not exactly. Actually, our position is that government has historically done a poor job of providing assistance to the poor and that private charities do this better. That bit about “turn[ing] to Christ” is closer to the truth — we do think that religious faith and moral guidance can help poor people escape poverty, but education and self-control are more complicated than simply responding to an alter-call. (I would also point out that libertarians themselves are all over the map when it comes to the value of religion) As far as I know we have never claimed that “the poor in our society deserve to be poor”, at least not in any general sense. (You wouldn’t happen to have a cite for that would you?) We do pay attention to self-responsibility and may be true in some individual cases that a poor individual has made his or her own situation worse. But we are quite aware of societal pressures (such as poor schools) and the effects of failed families. Every poor person has a different situation, which is one of many reasons why one-size-fits-all government programs aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Hope this clears up any misconceptions you might have about our approach to poverty.>

It’s all illegal…it’s all bull…and the only way it will end is in blood shed. I am disgusted with it all…because it is so NON CHRISTIAN…Christ would say you have become the evil you fled from and seek to create an evil empire. I could care less …I will vote as it is my duty. However I leave unto ceaser ….that which is ceaser’s. Christ said these words…why do you not hear them is he is your Messiah truly. Or do you serve another purpose supposedly in the name of God. Listen to God’s son…if you believe in him and act as though you believe in him…you will enter heaven. It is apprent that they have little faith or they would allow God to move the hearts of people towards his will. Instead they wish to indoctrinate the youth to their fascist bent.>

Actually, in response to Kevin S. and others… Jesus was very clear about the priorities of Christians, and trying to create a nation where the laws revolve around our moral values was not one of them. The example Christ set for us was that of living a grace-filled life, one which works to bring justice and hope to people in the midst of whatever political system we happen to find ourselves. Grace triumphs over law is not just a spiritual truth, it is a pragmatic one as well. The problem is that often we don’t really believe that. Many great Christian writers (Bonhoeffer, Ellul, Yancey, etc) have pointed this out. It is time that more Christians (I’m including myself here) actually took our faith seriously instead of relying on a political system to make Christianity easy for us. Geoff>

OK, Wolverine, I don’t have any exact quotes about the Conservative Christian position on poverty. Perhaps you could help us out on this. Quotes from other than Ralph Reed would be especially helpful. But actions speak louder than words. I will stand by my statement about the Libertarian position on poverty. They do believe the poor deserve to be poor. And from a policy perspective, the Conservative Christian position on poverty followsr to the Libertarian political position. Again actions speak louder than words. I also make this statement: “In reality, the funding given to faith based poverty programs by the Bush administration is dwarfed by the funding cuts in social programs made by the Bush administration. No wonder John D’Iulio resigned from his position heading up the Bush faith based social programs. Are these “faith based” programs making any progress in alleviating poverty in America?” Any comments on this, Wolverine? .>

… Jesus sought to *serve* those he met, and serve those that followed by living the example of what we should strive to be. Kevin S., Jesus (the Christ) is divine he was and *is* perfectly able to influence politics … and yet he did/does not. It is *not* about opportunity, it is about choice. Wolverine, Christ led a constructive life. He never did anyone harm. Live you life the best you can and let others do the same. The law of man is not God’s. It is ours. Your inference that our laws can in any way reach the level of the divine is insulting to my concept of God. If a man does another man harm, it is man’s concern. If a man does God harm, it is *God’s* concern. There is not one of use who can speak for God … I realize that your post was a misconception of your intent … but I decided to address it anyway … apologies to you. justintime, Libertarians, at large, strive for a minamalistic federal government. They generally embrace the idea that the private sector is better suited for most of what the government does today. This is not the same as every-man-for-himself. Churches offer a tremendous breadth of charitiable services … none of these are government organizations, and all are examples of Libertarian-style initiatives.>

Jesus didn’t have the opportunity to influence government, and so he didn’t. But why can’t our faith inform our politics. Jesus never asked us not to engage in politics. As others have pointed out, while Christ speaks out against the governmental and societal abuses of his time, he did not spend his time on earth rallying his people against them or forming political parties. He was, in fact, very contrary to what his disciples expected: they sought a political hero, he gave them a spiritual leader. I am frustrated by the increasingly political nature of religious discourse in America. We need to stop thinking about what is best for our country and start thinking about what is true to Christ’s example. And why must this discussion spiral away from the idea that moral values are important to discuss to petty quibbling between Republicans and Democrats. I don’t like either party and I don’t like the idea they both assume: the problems of the US can be solved by passing the correct laws and instituting the right programs. The moral degradation in the United States can only be addressed by a Biblically enveloped person or organization, one that cares more about knowing God and making him known than scoring another point in the culture war.>

“We need to stop thinking about what is best for our country and start thinking about what is true to Christ’s example.” Amen. Herein lies the moral dilemma for Christian politicians. Their secular duty directs them to put America’s interests first, but their Christian duty directs them to love EVERYONE, regardless of nationality. Sometimes these directions head the same way, but sometimes they do not.>

Hi Ben Abbott, Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia entry for Libertarianism: “Most libertarians oppose forced economic ‘redistribution’ and any other form of government welfare because they consider forced redistribution a form of ‘legalized theft.’” This sounds a lot like “every man for himself” to me. The political coalition of Christian Conservativism with Libertarianism brought us the corrupt Bush administration, which immediately made enormous cuts to social programs for Americans and then threw a much smaller bone to the Christian Conservatives in the form of “faith based” social programs. These faith based social programs have been, in large part, a failure – leaving an enormous gap in the social safety net for Americans. Check the poverty statistics if you’re really interested in this issue. By the way, Ben, are you a Libertarian Christian? .>

Interesting that the early Church lived a life totally different from that of the government around them, and one much closer to Communism then Libertarianism. But there is no bigger bogeyman in US politics than the C-word. Well…perhaps not any more. >

Hi Andrew, There are a lot of really interesting things in the early Church about which modern Christian Conservatives seem to be ignorant. .>

Yeah, didn’t the early Christians live in virtual “communes,” living together and sharing their possessions in common? Seems to me the Bible preaches community, while America preaches individualism.>

Someone please explain how these policies, championed or passed by the Republican (not conservative) government, reflect good Christian values: 1) Bankruptcy “reform” which makes it harder for those in debt to come clean with their debtors… including those with catastrophic medical issues. 2) Waging a war of choice and endorsing torture as a way to extract “confessions” from “enemy combatants”. 3) Failure to raise the minimum wage to even keep up with our nations level of poverty. I could keep going, but I think these first three should be enough to get people started.>

Conservative people of faith care about a broad range of issues, including tax relief, education, poverty, racial reconciliation, crime and drugs, welfare reform and, yes, protecting innocent human life and defending marriage. If this is the case, then conservatives must be ashamed of their broad range of concers. They certainly hide them well. And I would like to make the point that lobbying for a reversal of Roe v Wade does not make one a protector of innocent human life. Similarly, restricting marriage rights does no make one a protector of marriage.>

Also, Mr. Reed’s continued use of the term “pro-family” to describe conservatives, which implies that progressives are anti-family, is slick and disingenuous. Please, Mr. Reed, a little honesty and integrity is appreciated here.>

Hi Spinter, I certainly can’t square any of the Bush administration policies that you list with the Christian values that I was raised with. 1. The bankruptcy bill, or rather the “usury bill”, was written by the corporate credit card industry and passed by a corrupt Congress, to the detriment of all Americans, not just the poor. 2. Ralph Reed merely parrots the Bush administration’s lies with regard to the immoral “preemptive” war against a sovereign nation, Iraq, that was no threat to America whatsoever. Christian Conservatives should do some serious soul searching for their role in promoting this war and the needless killing and torturing of other human beings. 3. This failure to address the needs of the poor by raising the minimum wage just illustrates the heartless core of the Conservative Christian movement. .>

R. Reed says, “they agreed with Reagan on the need to grow the economy, strengthen national defense, and promote conservative values.” Can’t argue much there. And I’m sure it won’t do any good to tell you that the birth of this wild and irresponsible economic blitz is why we are seen as an empire today. Why we have such an outrageous defense budget? Why the right imagines Clinton as a subversive radical and much of the liberal left chooses to view him as a hero? And why greed and ratings are shamelessly promoted in the media? If we could go back to that moment wouldn’t we have directed our great American experiement much differently?>

If there’s an essential message from the Conservative Christian movement that I can recognize, it’s… …FEAR Fear – of terrorists, of gay Americans, of illegal immigrants, of immoral liberals, of becoming sick, of being poor, of not being wealthy, of original sin, of eternal damnation and of just having a normal happy life. .>

justintime wrote: Dear Ralph, Would you explain to us the Christian Dominionist Movement’s plan for America after the takeover? Hey Ralph, don’t worry, I got this one. Okay, here’s our top-ten list of things to do after taking over: 10. Cover up those nude statues at the Department of Justice. 9. Invade Canada, execute Terrence and Philip. 8. Abolish the Designated Hitter Rule. 7. Nuke Vegas. 6. Destroy all evidence of the “Left Behind” movie. 5. 24 hour Veggie-tales channel 4. Harvard University renamed “Bob Jones University-Cambridge” 3. Abolish all speed limits ‘cuz God wants us to drive fast. He told me so in a dream last night. 2. You can’t be too careful — nuke Vegas again. and the number one item on our to-do list… 1. Put Jesus face on the $20 bill. Thanks everybody, I’m off to catch the rest of the Tigers-White Sox game.>

Pro-life. Pro war. Pro torture. These three just can’t be spun so they fit together in a Christian statement.>

What about care for God’s creation? What about the rising gap between the rich and the poor? Where was the Christian Coalition when Roman Catholics, the National Council of Churches, and other moderate/progressive religious organizations were standing up against the impending war with Iraq? Mr. Reed I am tired of the excuses, tired of the twisting of the facts and selective readings of history. Finally moderate and progressive spiritual voices are on the rise. America is waking up and things are going to change.>

Ralph, Good response. Even though I differ, I thank you for putting your thoughts into this debate. But I still am concerned of the things you mentioned: * Tax relief- which benefits the poor. Doing away with the estate tax will better help top CEO’s like Wal-Mart has so they can get money back. They sure need it, too. * Education- you mean “No child left behind?” How come education people hate it? They hate the legislation because everything is now geared towards standarized tests which a good number of students have trouble with. Children with special needs often can’t do a standardized test, but according to NCLB, they and the school fail. NCLB is the failure. * Poverty- then how come tax cuts favor the rich? How come food stamps, medicaid, student loans, etc. have been cut by the Bush Administration? Who do you think the poor are? They depend on these “liberal” services? * Racial reconciliation- tell that the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, where poverty and race were shown to still be in the same league. * Crime & Drugs- sorry, I must have misunderstood you. What have you done about that? * Welfare reform- you mean like those well-documented cases where single moms get on a bus and ride 2 hours a day to work at a $7 and hour job? Great. * And all the things you haven’t mentioned: immigration, healthcare, etc. * The war in Iraq has spoiled America’s image around the world and don’t forget the WMD’s never found because of “bad intelligence.” Thanks Ralph and Jim for the dialogue. By the way, I encourage everyone to watch CBS evening news Thursday night. There’s a segment on “Evangelical Liberals.”>

But has Ralph approved this agenda? Go White Sox! .>

“If there’s an essential message from the Conservative Christian movement that I can recognize, it’s……FEAR” I agree completely, and have long thought that myself. In addition to the fears you listed, it seems there’s also a fear of trusting in God and His ways, which can seem foolish and impractical in the face of real-life threats.>

Does anyone here actually take Reed s claim to being Christian with family values seriously? Beyond the body bags and the Casino deceptive nastiness, he has also worked, like so many conservative Christians, to promote Sun Myung Moon s goals and organization. You can see Ralph helping Moon change the name of his political front from the Unification Church to the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification in the introductory video found here. My Bible says to expose false teachers and then stay away from them. Ralph, does yours say to work with, support, and promote false teachers? If not, why have you and so many Christian conservatives sold the nation out by empowering and accepting Moon the past 25 years? Just because his goal was to turn America into a right wing, homophobic, theocratic nation like your goals? so it was just fine to help him? Accepting him? how about honoring him like the Christian right did at the luncheon where Moon was given an award for his family values an AWARD for the man who has broken up countless families worldwide and swindled much of cash to put the right inpower by targeting widows in Japan with his cons AN AWARD and it was presented by who? Here s who: The Rev. Billy McCormack, a Christian Coalition board member and long-time Religious Right activist from Louisiana, assisted in presenting Moon with the award. Other attendees at the event included TV preachers Jerry Falwell, Robert Schuller, Kenneth Copeland and Paul Crouch as well as Don Argue, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Former pop star Pat Boone provided entertainment. Yes, there have been a few liberals over the years that have been caught up in Moon s web; he makes sure he smudges just enough to keep them quiet. But thanks to years of the right mainstreaming Moon, giving him face, accepting his propaganda paper as their voice, Moon is now digging his claws into black ministers and the world s political structures thanks to conservatives. Quoting: U.S News and World Report March 27, 1989 Rev. Moon’s Rising Political Influence His empire is spending big money trying to win favor with conservatives. On New Year’s Day, 1987, South Korean mystic Sun Myung Moon, who considers himself to be the son of God, told his Unification church followers that he wanted to expand the church’s political influence in the United States. His aim, Moon said, was “the natural subjugation of the American government and population.” the [Unification] church has established a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation, the largest of the conservative think tanks and an important source of government personnel during the Reagan administration. As the Washington Times has become the voice of capital conservatives, the Heritage Foundation has become far more tolerant of church ties “Most people are afraid to address the issue because they don’t want to publicize the extent of the church’s involvement,” says Amy Moritz of the Conservative National Center for Public Policy Research. Because almost all conservative organizations in Washington have some ties to the church, conservatives also fear repercussions if they expose the church’s role. That happened when one organization, the Capital Research Center, published a newsletter last November warning of the church’s attempt to create a “centralized world theocracy.” One of its board members, who was also on the board of the International Security Council, resigned in protest, and conservatives charging that the paper was creating discord on the right, besieged the center with angry calls. “We got a very, very strong reaction — almost as if we were the enemy — because we raised the issue,” says CRC Chairman Willa Johnson, a former president of the Heritage Foundation. >

D4P, Right on! Being afraid to trust in God is the fear of all fears. .>

Besides Moon claiming that he is THE Messiah, that he is here to fulfill Jesus Christ s failed mission and that he actually says he is better than God, let me remind you agina of who we are talking about here: Qouting: By the mid-1980s, Moon s Unification Church had carved out a niche as an acceptable part of the American right. In one speech to his followers, Moon boasted that without knowing it, even President Reagan is being guided by Father (Moon). Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and America s democratic form of government. History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him. Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. That is Father s tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population. This idea that the Christian right is about family values is laughable at best. The Christian right is nothing more than an authoritarian, homophobic, theocratic political movement lead by faux Christians. The religious right has ridden to power on the back of their True savior s front groups and political operatives and billions of dollars their savior, Moon, brought in from overseas to manipulate our political process and use these so called Christians as his tools. Tell me Ralph, are you proud of where the billions of dollars that put the theocratic right in power came from? Read about that here. Just like what the right has done to our once great nation, it isn t pretty. Tell me Ralph, why has the Republican party worked with the Moon, the man who says his job as messiah is to raise up the Christian right tpo control the nation, why have you worked with Moon to tear down the wall between church and state? Can you say “>http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5684&abbr=cs_“> Moon Tool? The “faith-based summit” itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization. Why is the Republican Party working hand in glove with Moon front groups? The partnership stems largely from Moon’s phenomenal ability to make inroads in GOP and Religious Right circles. Despite his unorthodox theological views Moon teaches that he is the new Messiah, sent by God to complete the failed mission of Jesus Moon has had little difficulty penetrating the upper echelons of American conservatism. While a number of Republican-aligned private organizations have promoted President George W. Bush’s religion funding scheme, only Moon won an official relationship with the Republican leadership to rally grassroots forces on behalf of the “faith-based” summit. This enhanced status enabled him to do grassroots political organizing and religious recruitment with the apparent blessing of Bush and his GOP allies in Congress. Moon specializes in the creation of “Astroturf organizations” groups that appear to have grassroots power but that in reality speak mostly for Moon. Moon has used these groups to curry favor with Republicans for more than 30 years, Clarkson said, and is revving them up again to help the new Bush administration. “Whenever the conservatives identify an issue as important to their agenda, Moon creates an Astroturf organization to create the appearance of grassroots support for these initiatives,” Clarkson said.>

justintime, The child tax credit was enacted, after two vetos from the president. Look it up yourself. Reed’s not just making it up. A tax credit is different from a tax writeoff. Don’t pin your ignorance regarding the nuances of tax code on conservatives. As far as job creation, you don’t remember ANY jobs being created in the 1990s? Really? Where were you (elementary school, I’m guessing?)>

From a pragmatic view, is it really possible for the Bush administration to create a sustainable peace? Just today our president was called the “Devil” by Chavez in the UN. This is what much of the world thinks of the current administration. So just how willing do you think leaders representing extremist populations are to sign a pact with the devil? It’s time for America to look at itself, and decide what we as a people really stand for. Beyond that, we need to demonstrate to the world that we are a nation built on a solid foundation, before the torrent sweeps us away.>

So Sad to see all the dissention…this country needs unification and strong leadership now more than any time in our history…We face an enemy more deadly and sinister than most people in this country realize…The social issues we argue about are nothing compared to the problems and atrocities which we are going to face if we don’t unify and present a strong, solid front….Religious or not does not matter in the face of radical Islam…we are all the enemy if we don’t convert….Let’s stop bickering, splitting hairs and fighting….we need to Unify…period.>

The real crime is that the conservative right has turned Christ’s beautiful teachings into soemthing so offensive and unappealing. They all talk from the same script like a bunch of clones. They are obssessed with other people’s sex lives — the issues of abortion and homosexuality are always the primary focus. They all hate with a passion Al Gore for his environmentalism, Al Franken for his “liberal’ radion station, anyone who isn’t a Republican. I recently had a friend confess to me that she was fond of her employer even though it turns out he was a Democrat. It was as though she was violating the conservative right code. And there is always that just below the surface bigotry, against non-whites, poor people, “the undesireable elements”. They have a cult-like allegiance to anything Republican, anything the President says or does, anything the preacher tells them. No thinking, just following.All that anger. This is not the way Christ taught us to live and certainly not the way to interest others in getting to know Christ.>

Justintime, If you are a White Sox fan, that explains a lot. Nice game tonight. Go Tigers! Someone asked “if NCLB was so great, why do educators hate it so much?” Are you really ignoring the fact that teachers unions are complicit in the problems facing public schools? We have a system that is completely unaccountable, and NCLB (a Ted Kennedy bill, btw) was a small attempt to introduce acountability to the classroom. The problem with public schools is that we have a situation in which teachers are compensate without any regard for their ability. When I was in school, there were a handful of great teachers who stood out from the majority (who were barely competent). Those great teachers earned the same as the incompetent ones. When we have a system such as this, what kind of people are going to be drawn to teaching? The mediocre. What kind of people are going to be promoted to lucrative principal, superintendent-type positions? Those who love the flawed system. If the president’s solution wasn’t correct, what is the right solution? I know everyone who has a friend in teaching (as I do) is going to get hissy, but my point is still valid>

“This is not the way Christ taught us to live and certainly not the way to interest others in getting to know Christ.” The latter point is key. What is it about the hatred shown by so many Christians to homosexuals, environmentalists, “secularists,” “liberals,” etc. that is supposed to make them attracted to Christianity? What do conservative Christians care more about: a homosexual’s sexual activities, or their salvation? I get the impression that many Christians care more about converting homosexuals to heterosexuality than they do converting them to Christianity.>

There is no doubt that ones religious, philosophical and moral views also influence ones political views. The founding principles of the country however where those of limited government, personal freedoms, protection of minority rights and respect for human dignity. Legislating personal moral views essentially removes those rights from those who disagree.>

I don’t really desire to get into a discussion so I leave my thoughts here in one post. I don’t plan to respond, because I don t believe intelligent discussion is being conducted here. Debate amongst yourselves. 1. Jesus did not get involved in ANY political discourse. Every time it was brought up, he skirted the question. The bible tells us often that he did things because it was not his time. Besides, every time politics came up, it was used to try to trick Jesus. What does this mean? It means we can’t use Jesus’ words to determine a Christian view towards government, because he didn’t say anything about our view towards government. Jesus’ purpose was singular: to bring salvation to the world. There is plenty of instruction in the other books of the bible. Should we ignore these because Jesus didn’t say them? Do we assume that because Jesus taught forgiveness that the call for justice in books like Micah should be ignored? No. We take Scripture as a whole, and in regards to government, Jesus gives us no instruction except to give the government what belongs to the government. 2. The bible DOES tell us very explicitly what our view towards government should be in Romans 13, as well as the purpose for government (i.e., to carry out justice). Also, it gives us a model for government in the Old Testament, since it was set up by God, and many of the prophetic books speak as to God’s desire for a society (lots of calls for justice, I might add). Although any ideology will have its flaws, the modern ideology that is closest to the system set up by God in the Old Testament is the libertarian-conservative-Christian movement in America. You may disagree with its method, but its theory is generally right. 3. Ephesians 1:10 speaks of bringing EVERYTHING under the authority of Christ. This means our society, our government, our laws, our lives… even our political views and associations. I, for one, don’t believe that this is carried out by institutionalizing religion (in case you thought that) – I think that does the opposite – but part of it does involve “legislating morality”, as some say, in areas that affect others (i.e., abortion, gay marriage, etc.). 4. The early church was in NO WAY close to communism. The early communal (to be distinguished from communist, which is very different) church was (1) voluntary, (2) on a small level, and (3) it didn’t last. The first is important because communism is forced on a people and is one of the most evil government systems derived by mankind. “But it’s never been practiced in its true form.” That’s because it cannot exist in its intended form, since it denies human nature and desire (God given and sinful), as well as differences in people. Anyway, I’m off topic… The second trait is important because communism is always practiced on a large scale. It becomes a very inefficient bureaucracy, impersonal, and (again) tyrannical. The early church is much more comparable to a family. Just because dad makes the money but the rest of family eats doesn’t make the family communist. That would be an absurd conclusion. The third trait is important theologically, since Acts is often confused as a book of instruction, when it is rather a book of history. Scripture never tells us that the initial community is what God intended for the general church. In fact, God made the church spread, and didn’t allow it to remain in its communal form. Take this for what it’s worth. I doubt many here will truly seek to understand anything I’m saying, and will throw me off as some Ralph Reed fanatic (I barely know anything about him). – Chris>

“The problem with public schools is that we have a situation in which teachers are compensate without any regard for their ability.” Some would say the same about politicians, corporate CEOs, actors/actresses, singers, etc. etc. etc. That’s pretty much the way of the world.>

Sorry for all my double posts. Don’t know why that keeps happening.>

Chris, I’m sorry, but in response to the OT government most resembling conservative/libertarian worldview, how do you explain the year of jubilee in which every fifty years, all people were given back their original landholdings and set free from being indentured servants? That sounds like land re-distribution…is that a conservative idea? I disagree.>

Based on my own personal, long time, up close and extensive experience with conservative Christians, I want to vomit when I hear the name of Jesus. The way conservative Christians have treated gay people, among many other groups, should have descredited the Gospels for all time. If this has not happened, then what about learning from experience? Why don’t the liberals and progressives simply go find another religion. UUA is a fine group of people, UCC is another. Why do they stay and try to rescue something that has been so thoroughly trashed?>

*Why don’t the liberals and progressives simply go find another religion* Because they believe in their current one…? The fact that some conservative Christians give Christianity a bad name is not a surprise, nor should it reflect poorly on Christ. The conservative Christians in the Bible (see: the Pharisees) cared more about rules than relationships, more about laws than love. They focused heavily on other people’s sins, while ignoring their own. When they tried to get Jesus to condemn a woman caught in adultery, His response included (1) pointing out that the Pharisees were sinners too, and (2) having compassion on the woman. As a Christian, I try to follow God, not other Christians. Their behavior doesn’t impact my view of God.>

I am staggered by the anger and self-righteousness in the posts from the left in this thread. At various time Christian conservatives are accused of “acting with hate in their heart (sic) instead of the REAL love of Christ.” We supposedly “hate with a passion Al Gore for his environmentalism, Al Franken for his “liberal’ radion (sic) station, anyone who isn’t a Republican“. And finally there’s “the hatred shown by so many Christians to homosexuals, environmentalists, “secularists,” “liberals,” etc.” (Italics added) Well. The awful thing about this whole “hate” business is, it’s nearly imposible to disprove. After all, we do have serious disagreements with most of these people, so there’s bound to be heated statements out there that can be lifted out of context and turned into indicators of hatred. We can’t exactly tear open our hearts to show the absence of hatred. We can do what we can to help these people, but because in so many cases we can’t offer them exactly what they want, our help isn’t always well received. For instance can help gays leave the gay lifestyle, but if you’re absolutely convinced homosexuality is okey-dokey, then you will probably think we’re trying to destroy the “gay lifestyle”, hence we still hate gays. No, I don’t hate any of these people or groups. But I’ll never be able to prove it to your satisfaction. Your just too invested in seeing us as bigots. I could accuse you of hating America, of hating Conservatives, let you bang your heads trying to prove the impossible for a while, but there’s just too much real hatred out there and I don’t want to muddy the waters further by adding more fake hatred. Plus I’m tired. Good night kids.>

I don’t understand what your saying Chris, for the following reasons, ” I don t believe intelligent discussion is being conducted here” so you are unwilling to listen to anyone else? “Jesus did not get involved in ANY political discourse.” “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you to do.” Matthew 23:3 “the modern ideology that is closest to the system set up by God in the Old Testament is the libertarian-conservative-Christian movement in America” Do you have any supporting evidence for this statement? The old testament supported the ideology of an eye for an eye, christ taught, But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6: 27-31 “communism is forced on a people and is one of the most evil government systems derived by mankind.” I thought the cold war was over? Clinging to conservative rhetoric based on an outdated mode of economic reform, directed at solving the question of how to deal with the stagnation of the market seems counter-productive. Wouldn’t it be better to state that communism was not capable of promoting the economic demands of the world economy, because it did not sufficiently address the question of aggregate demand? It sounds more like your a Rush Limbaugh fanatic.>

kevin s. I just looked up the child tax credit and then remembered the reason why Clinton vetoed two omnibus tax bills – in which the child tax credit was embedded. These omnibus tax bills (part of Gingrich’s so called “Contract with America”) had many features incompatible with working class families and a Federal balanced budget. One of these objectionable features was the repeal of the estate tax, which Republicans are still trying to get passed in spite of the astronomical Bush budget deficits. If the President had a line item veto, the child tax credit would have been passed the first time it was offered. To insinuate that Clinton was against the child tax credit in principle is typical of right wing tactics of deception. And for Ralph Reed to take any credit for the child tax credit or the jobs created because of Clinton’s fiscal responsibility is an outright joke. It’s a fact that Republican fiscal policy benefits the wealthy at the expense of the average American family and is a cruel legacy for our children who will have to bear the burden of profligate Republican fiscal policy. The Republican strategy is to run up such an impossible debt that social programs for Americans will have to be completely eliminated. They call it their “starve the beast” strategy. Republican strategist Grover Norquist wants to “shrink the government drown to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”. .>

“Republican strategist Grover Norquist wants to “‘shrink the government drown to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.’” I propose we start by eliminating Big Government military spending. Are ya’ with me, Grover?>

D4P, You make the statement that CEOs, actresses etc… Get paid regardless of their ability. I don’t think that is true. While CEOs get a bad name, most (Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for example) earn their money by performing well at their jobs, and earning money for their companies. Many companies don’t earn money of course, but a C-level executive does not have long to turn his/her companies fortunes around before he is gone. The same certainly goes for actors/actresses. If you don’t bring in box office, you’re done. If you are a teacher, and you don’t produce, what happens? Depends on how long you have been at your school. Entirely. That isn’t right.>

Although any ideology will have its flaws, the modern ideology that is closest to the system set up by God in the Old Testament is the libertarian-conservative-Christian movement in America. You may disagree with its method, but its theory is generally right. You’re seriously advocating a governmental system based on the OT Israelite system? A system of law and government that was specifically designed to show God’s nation just how much they would always fail to follow him exactly? Christ came to abolish the OT reliance on law (c.f. the Religious Right’s reliance on legislation of morality) and to fufill that law’s ultimate purpose by changing hearts, bringing them under His mastery. In the Kingdom of Christ, all is grace. Which kingdom do you think we ought to emulate? But for a moderating word: while the Religious Right is so often wrong by virtue of legalism, the Liberal Left is so often wrong by way of antinomianism. As far as the Big Two Issues (c) go: A cursory reading of the Bible would inform anyone that homosexual activity is condemned and that human life is said to be previous even in the womb. While the Left likes to excise these bits from the bible, the Right cannot pretend it doesn’t use the scissors liberally too. (I made a funny!) Where is the condemnation of divorce or heterosexual activity that does not take place between a husband and wife? And why is some life (rich, white Americans) considered worth spending more money preserving than other life? (poor, non-white, and non-American) I would equally challenge the left to recognize the sinfulness of the behaviors they condone and the right to talk as much about divorce, fornication, and the plight of starving babies around the world as they do about gay marriage and abortion. Unfortunately, neither is likely to happen.>

Wolverine, If you want to feel some really intense hatred, just tune in to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter or any number of the other right wing motor mouths. By the way, what happened to the Sox? .>

“The same certainly goes for actors/actresses. If you don’t bring in box office, you’re done.” I’m not equating ability with “bringing in box office.” There are plenty of terrible actors/actresses who nevertheless draw lots of people to their movies and still make millions, despite their poor acting skills. Same goes for singers. Teachers are hardly the most egregious case of not being paid according to ability. And I would also caution against measuring teacher’s ability by examining their students’ test scores.>

Justintime, You claimed that the credit was never vetoed, and that it never passed. You know acknowledge that it was, and it did. Yes, it was part of a larger tax relief package. I’m all for the line-item veto. The courts have found it unconstitutional. there you go. A large part of Clinton’s fiscal responsibility had to do with legislation passed by Republicans (how else could it have happened). His welfare reform package would be a prime example. I think you are deliberately misunderstanding the “starve the beast” concept.>

kevin s, Please reread my posts. I said I couldn’t remember Ralph’s story about the child tax credit. Now that I’ve looked it up, I remember how it happened. And it didn’t happen the way Ralph tells it. And please explain what ‘starve the beast’ means to Republicans. .>

Okay, I’m a little late to the fracas. I have a single question: Has Wallis considered the possibility that the religious right is more concerned about abortion that the poor because no one is killing the poor? Leaves out the gay marriage question, but I think it’s a point worth considering. Cheers, Doug>

“Has Wallis considered the possibility that the religious right is more concerned about abortion that the poor because no one is killing the poor?” This seems to ring hollow for at least 3 reasons. First, many members of the “religious right” support killing in other situations. Second, the Bible talks about poverty A LOT, and commands Christians to serve the poor (even going so far as to sell our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor). Third, poor people around the world die every day because they lack food, water, etc., while wealthy people in the US and elsewhere hoard their wealth and have more than they need.>

And PS: like I’ve said before, it’s much easier to focus on an issue like abortion or gay marriage that doesn’t impose any costs on yourself than an issue like poverty, which convicts all of us and forces us to confront our own greed and lack of concern for those less fortunate than ourselves. Most people in the world will never have an abortion (whether it’s legal or not), and most will never attempt to marry a person of the same sex. But, according to the Bible, everyone has a responsibility to serve the poor. Focusing on issues that don’t implicate oneself (like abortion and gay marriage) is easy and doesn’t require personal change. But focusing on poverty forces one to ask difficult and unpleasant questions, like “Do I spend $50,000 on another SUV to fill my 3-car garage, or do I donate that money to feed starving children?” “Do I buy nice things for my house, or do I settle for less?” “Do I meet my needs AND wants, or do I live simply that others may simply live?” Who among us wants to argue that Jesus would prefer us to spend the $50,000 on luxuries for ourselves rather than on necessities for “the least of these”?>

If there is anything that politicians fear,its responsibility.The genocides,world wars,military coups,bloody regime changes,TERRORISM,world economic imbalances are art works of politicians.Its sad when people of faith want to be partners in that,in the name of Jesus.The Jews are strategic about Muslims,while christians engage them in a passive manner,behind a veil..yet Muslims have a crystal clear perception of all other faiths and demography measures places them at vintage point for power.They have to be fully engaged if we truely want progress.Humans of all faiths are predisposed to weakness.God did not create Israel in six days,He created the world.>

it’s much easier to focus on an issue like abortion or gay marriage that doesn’t impose any costs on yourself than an issue like poverty, which convicts all of us and forces us to confront our own greed and lack of concern for those less fortunate than ourselves. I couldn’t have said it better myself.>

Hi Chris Hill, Regarding your point 2: Israel in the Old Testament were the Children of God. Therefore the example of Israel should be used to illuminate the Children of God today – the Church. Where Israel was ruled by the written law, the church should now be ruled by the law on our hearts. Babylon and Egypt in the Old Testament are the equivalent of the wider world today. Old Testament Israel should not be used as an example of how we must rule the world today! Far from it. Here is a post about why we sometimes want to take political power: http://www.sundaypapers.org.uk/?p=253 Cheers, Mark>

“Most people in the world will never have an abortion” Yeah, but it’s pretty close. Anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of women will have an abortion in their lifetime (this is cited on both pro-choice and pro-life websites), and even more if you count morning-after pill methods. The reason the bible doesn’t talk much about abortion is because there weren’t easy ways to have abortions until recently. Yes, it does speak a lot about giving to the poor. This should never be ignored, and conservative Christians don’t ignore this. They just believe it is better for the hearts of everyone if we all CHOOSE to give, rather than be forced to give (that’s like when you parents made you say sorry when you really weren’t). Anyway, regarding God’s preferences using the bible, do you remember Molech? People would sacrifice their children to him. As a result, God wiped out ENTIRE RACES of people. It wasn’t just the idolatry; God condemns them for slaughtering innocents. I think stopping abortion is MORE (yes, I said more) important to God than giving to the poor, although to overlook that is always wrong.>

For what it’s worth, homosexual activity is listed immediately after sacrificing children to Molech and right before beastiality in Lev. 18. I thought the biblical connection between killing babies and homosexual activity was interesting. Anyway, that’s probably getting off topic.>

Ralph Reed says: By any objective measure, the religious conservative agenda seeks to enrich, strengthen and respect human life. Their witness of faith is part of what is right about politics in America, and most of the complaint against them is political fodder. The Bible says: no mater how good ones agenda, if it is done without love it is worth nothing. I Corith 13 I would argue that the hatred, fear and anger driving the conservative agenda has nullified any good intention just as the Bible said it would. We are witnessing the results of this without-love agenda in the polarization in our country and the polarization of the world against the US. By dominating the agenda with fear and anger we are now getting back exactly what was sowed and preached; fear, anger & hatred. This is neither the agenda nor the priority of Jesus call on our lives as Christians. We are to draw others to Jesus not pushing them away. We are to love our enemies, not hate nor kill them literally or figuratively. A witness of faith it may be, but not a witness I am proud of. It seems to be a faith in government and law rather then in God, just as the Pharisees relied on laws for salvation. Yes, we are to prioritize and Jesus tells us that love is the top priority. Wrong priorities is just that wrong. How we spend our money shows or values and priorities. I do not know how I am going to stand at the pearly gates and explain why I dedicated weeks each year to the paying of taxes that were used for an unnecessary war that God s followers promoted. Isaiah 31:1[ Woe to Those Who Rely on Egypt ] Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel, or seek help from the LORD>

“By any objective measure, the religious conservative agenda seeks to enrich, strengthen and respect human life. Their witness of faith is part of what is right about politics in America, and most of the complaint against them is political fodder.” Interesting assertion. I agree with most of the rest of what you say in this last post, but, this … The conservative agenda is publicized by people like Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. and as a former conservative / libertarian I have to admit I would be ashamed to be counted in the same group as them. To me they come across as intolerant, foaming at the mouth bigots. Hypocrites too. Limbaugh was anti-drug, ahem, who was caught abusing drugs? AND tried to justify that it was not a bad thing? Ann Coulter says she is a Christian first … yet she is explicit in her claims to hate anyone that does not agree with her agenda. Not the ideas they have, the people themselves, you know, liberals … Sorry, either she is Christian and loves her neighbor, or she is not. Her writing says NOT. Political satire to make a point does not have to be cruel nor derogatory. Doonesbury shows that, as did Art Buchwald … For those that seem to wonder why, ahem, liberals seem to spend so much time concentrating on issues like abortion and homosexuality is that much of what the conservatives seem to focus on are these two issues. You don’t want to have an abortion, then don’t. Don’t like the idea of homosexuality, well, don’t do that either. The plain fact is this, if you TRULY cared to eliminate abortion, well, easily done. But, no church yet has stood up to make that step. Which, unfortunately shows that elimination of abortion is NOT the issue. Quite simply if you want to eliminate abortion all a church has to do is to guarantee the life and financial well being of any unwanted child. And prior to that, to support contraceptives. Prevent unwanted pregnancies and where that fails, provide for the child. A church that committed to providing for the fostering and economic well being of every “unwanted” child, and that followed through, would eliminate the need for an abortion. Face the fact, most abortions are for a child that the mother has no way to support. But, churches, and conservative politicians are only interested in stopping the abortion. Not in the mother’s health, nor the child’s, nor the child’s life after being born. As far as the govenment not being good at welfare, well, I have not heard of any church that has comitted to the elimination of poverty in their city. Nor any that had accomplished this feat. Nor any that even tried. If private welfare is better, where has it been proven? Where indeed has it been tried?>

Wikipedia: “Most libertarians oppose forced economic ‘redistribution’ and any other form of government welfare because they consider forced redistribution a form of ‘legalized theft.’” justintime wrote: This sounds a lot like “every man for himself” to me. Then you’ve missed the point. and no. I’m no a Libertarian. However, as a man of principle I find it reprehensible to misrepresent the intentions of those that I do not agree with inorder to garner support against them. oh, and while speaking of Libertarians, I’d be very surprised if Bush was ever popular among them. Regards>

I don’t really know where Wallis and others are getting the idea that Bush does not care about those in need. As this article in the USA Today notes, “Spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, has risen faster [during the Bush administration] than at any time since the 1960s.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending_x.htm Believe me, no conservatives are happy with the spending of this president. Because Bush spends less than what liberals want to spend, he is painted as a conservative, but he isn’t one. As far as domestic spending goes (prescription drug bill anyone?), he is one of the most liberal presidents in history.>

I agree with Jessie. Bush doesn’t know how to manage a budget. I didn’t vote for Bush, but when he was elected in 2000, I tried to remain optimistic and thought that perhaps the Republicans could make our social programs more efficient and cut some costs. Instead, they came up with programs(faith based initiatives) that throw money willy nilly across the board. What did Norquist mean by “starve the beast?” I’d like a conservative to answer that question. mb, great posts on Rev Moon and the Christian Coalition. I wasn’t aware of any of that. The Christian Coalition gets money from Moon(who claims that he’s the Messiah), and what does Moon get in return? I missed that. Power and a seat at the table. But what else does he want? I stopped calling myself a Christian because the religious right convinced me that my views on God and Jesus were too heretical to fit the bill. They have a point. However, I must say that the posts on this blog from Christians really warm my heart and make me proud of Christians in America. And they give me hope. Sometimes I’m missing hope….. and faith in mankind. Thanks, especially(but not exclusively)to D4P.>

One more thing, I don’t mind when Christians speak about Christianity. I really hate it when they make comments about Judaism and “the law.” Christians who get their education on Judaism from Sunday School and the New Testament know so little about Judaism that it’s safe to say that they know nothing. Focus on Christianity and let the Jews focus on Judaism.>

this country was founed on the seperation of church and state. We need to keep religion out of the state,and the state out of religion.The only thing we need is to have faith in man to do the right thing and work together for peace and harmony. Our children and our childrens children are our future. So keep the faith that God is watching over all of us to do the right thing for all of our futures.>

Ralph: Your point that Democrats need to change is well-taken. As George Will said, when we lose political contests we tend to see it as stupidity on everyone else’s part. But I’d like to challenge about whether those policies you’ve mentioned actually express your values. (1) Leave no millionaire behind. The Bush tax cuts are regressive – bigger cuts for those who need it the least. Given the free market principle of diminishing marginal returns there is no wiggle room on this one. A poor person’s 1,000th dollar is far more valuable than my 50,000th. To my knowledge, Jesus did not instruct us to minister unto the working middle class. (2) Leave no tree behind. This President has gutted the EPA’s enforcement mechanisms and allowed unsustainable increases in logging. In his first 40 days he repealed protections for arsenic in the water as a gift to mining companies. He reduced the Clean Air Act’s requirements on all but one pollutant and called it the ‘Clear Skies Initiative.’ Is caring for creation not a priority? (3) Praise the LORD and pass the ammunition. The budgets you have supported have been largely geared toward escalation and fueling a arms race. This while the administration in power believes in deterrence as a strategy for peace, as opposed to Micah or Jesus’ view that offering your enemy security without fear of retaliation is the way to go. (4) Relativism. The Christian Coalition supported Ronald Reagan while we were funding Saddam Hussein to fight Iran. Donald Rumsfeld wrote back then that we knew Saddam was using that money to buy chemical WMD to liquidate Kurds but that the strategic need to fight communist expansion meant we should just turn a blind eye. Now you want to take the moral high horse? I’d like to suggest you think about applying the virtues of humility, repentance, and contrition to this topic. (5) Blessed are the lucky. Reducing welfare rolls is not the same thing as moving people from welfare to work. There is substantial evidence to suggest these people are slipping through the cracks. You support the people who have prevented increases in child care for welfare mothers – care that makes it easier to keep families together. (6) Health care. The Christian Coalition has made no attempot to support health care for the poor. Think about this – it is literally a policy based on Darwinism. (7) Pro-death? Evidence says that sex education and prenatal care for poor women reduce infant mortality and abortions. You knowingly supported the budgets that cut both of these programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy. You are obsessed with baby’s lives – unless they are poor. Or already born. I challenge you to seriously think about the value of a life consistently. If you won’t ask the working middle class to invest in saving lives how pro-life can you be? What say you?>

Apologies for not fillinng in a name, the 7-point challenge to Ralph Reed by anonymous as 9:47am was mine.>

By dominating the agenda with fear and anger we are now getting back exactly what was sowed and preached; fear, anger & hatred. This is neither the agenda nor the priority of Jesus call on our lives as Christians. We are to draw others to Jesus not pushing them away. We are to love our enemies, not hate nor kill them literally or figuratively. Spot on. This IS the elephant in the room. The message at the forefront of the “Christian movement” (lead by conservative/Republican “Christians”) in this country, is that there is no room at the table unless you pledge allegiance to THE faith. People may be drawn to “Christian” mega-churches and conservative churches today more than they were in the past…but there are just as many, if not more, people turning away from the Christian faith or looking upon it and/or “Christians” in complete disgust. Part of that disgust grows out of the repulsive blending of religion and politics that has been so blatantly created and exploited by the Republican party. If it isn’t obvious to you that Christians in this country are being exploited by their own “Christian leaders” and by members of the Republican party…then you are either completely ignorant, willfully ignorant, willfully in denial, or all of the above.>

There are a couple of themes in this thread I frequently see among so-called progressives that I think bear some discussion. The first is the use of Christ’s gospel to justify a “live and let live” attitude about sin. Yes, Jesus dined with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors. Yes, he said judge not. But continually, and foremost he said “Repent.” He didn’t say to the woman caught in adultry, “Whew, that was a close call. Be careful next time.” He said, “Go and sin no more.” We cannot judge our fellow men because only God can do that, but we have to make judgements about how best it is to live and how we are to behave, and if we love our fellow man we have to repeat Christ’s call to repent and live it ourselves. To progressives, the only sin is to believe in sin. Next is the constant accusation that conservative Christians are somehow imposing a theocracy in the US. This idea is so ridculous that it is surprising that it is so often made. Yes, I tremble at the coming Christian Taliban every time I look at MTV or FOX. Their encroaching influence is evident everywhere. I can see it in my children’s mandatory “diversity” codes in high school and college curriculuum requirements. I am terrified every time a state supported artist drops a crucifix in a jar or urine or a huge entertainment corporation puts out a movie like the Da Vinci Code lest these Christian zealots burn down the theaters and art galleries – they are running wild! Our society is practically run by the Pope don’t you know. Theocons my eye.>

So many thoughts…not enough time. Ralph…I love how you keep saying that the Religious Right is pushing to support Israel…like that is a good thing? There are two sides in the conflict, and they have both committed atrocious acts. And supporting abstinence? Sounds good in theory, but every study shown on absitence programs have found taht they simply do not work, and my even lead to more issues (such as not using protection). And opposing terrorists? I would agree with you, except for the fact that this nation’s actions in Iraq has led to a greater number of terrorists, not fewer. And where is Osama bin Laden, anyway?>

Sean H, Is divorce a sin? If so, where is the movement to “protect marriage” by amending the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states with verbiage that would make divorce illegal? Is adultery a sin? If so, where is the movement to “protect marriage” by amending the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states with verbiage that would make adultery illegal? Why do Christians pick and choose the “sins” they wish to enforce with the law and which ones they don’t?>

Questions for Dave – Evidence that abstinence programs don’t work? After three deacades of Planned Parenthood-type sex-ed, a three-fold increase in abortions and a more than 100% increase in teen pregnancy and illegitimacy and you are demanding those that want to try something different prove their way is better? It reminds me of the educrats who have overseen the destruction of one of the few successful government-run efforts – public education – and now accuses anyone who wants change of not caring about kids. On Israel, yeah, maybe we should consider the other side, the side that seeks the complete destruction of Israel – yeah, that’s the ticket. At least the problem wil go away.>

Sean, I think you’ll find that religious progressives agree with you about sin. I love the fact that we define sin as doing God’s will and not ours. But it’s not the body politic’s place to administer retribution for sin – that would be theocracy. In a political context, we believe that justice is not about retribution but about acting collectively to help shape a society based on fairness, dignity, integrity, life, and civil liberty. I don’t think the fear of theocracy is as far-fetched as you do. Read Jim’s chapter in God’s Politics called “Dangerous Religion.” The President says he thinks he has been tasked by God to rid the world of evil. If that’s not theocracy then we have different criteria….>

I’d just like to see what a definition of ‘pro-family’ is. Though I may have deep disagreements with Reed’s political ideology, as well as some theological disputes, I can respect his views on some issues despite those disagreements. However, isn’t ‘pro-family’ open to interpretation? Isn’t it something different for each different family? If one family thinks it’s in their best interest to eat lots of green beans and that such actions keep them together, isn’t that ‘pro-family’ to them? I know that’s a glib example, but my point is that when we try to narrowly define what something is and what something isn’t – all in the name of scoring political points – we tend to miss the picture all together.>

You’re right MNW – I’m for both of your measures. Why do liberals do the “hypocrite” dance everytime someone challenges their position. No issue is ever all or nothing. Most conservatives don’t insist all of their views be enshrined in law. I, for one, wish divorce laws were more stringent, but those laws were changed – THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. That’s what I am for, having the debate and going through the process. I am against same sex marriage, and I am willing to have a vote on it as we did in the cases you cite.>

After three deacades of Planned Parenthood-type sex-ed, a three-fold increase in abortions and a more than 100% increase in teen pregnancy and illegitimacy and you are demanding those that want to try something different prove their way is better? OK, but Sean you’re taking one portion of a very complex problem – one which ranges from everything from parental responsibility to poverty to education to etc. – and then using that to justify your argument. Dave was right in saying that abstinance programs have done little to deter these. It’s more than merely saying ‘don’t do it’ or ‘don’t do it, but if you do, do it this way.’ Same thing with your public education example.>

Nice cop out Sean. The “Christian” movement to deny gay couples the legal recognition of their marriages is supposedly founded on the idea that “Christians” wish “only to protect marriage”. If the purpose of denying gay couples the legal recognition of their marriages is to “protect marriage” and the amendments to the constitutions are meant to “protect marriage”, then why do NONE of these amendments or laws include language that would outlaw divorce and adultery? Are divorce and adultery not “attacks” on marriage? Why are you “against same-sex marriage”? Do you believe “outlawing” same-sex marriage will somehow prevent gay couples from marrying? My marriage is not legally recognized…but I am still married. Why do liberals do the “hypocrite” dance everytime someone challenges their position. Why are conservative “Christian” positions always so blatantly hypocritical? Is hypocrisy a sin? Does Jesus approve of hypocrisy?>

Dear Mr. Reed, Could you please reference where tax policy is covered in the New Testament? I thought we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar s? Matter of fact, could you also please elaborate on why free market ideals are more moral than Keynesian economics? I was taught not to store up treasures on this earth and not be anxious? Why are you teaching the opposite? Isn’t true that the Bush Administration had very close ties to Enron and Ken Lay? Is this the moral leadership and the sort of people that you think make a Christian businessman? Why can t you accept that we Christians have been misled by this administration? How can you rationalize the treatment of prisoners with for I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ ” How are you looking after these prisoners from Iraq? I prey for you Mr. Reed. One day you are going to realize what you are doing and how what you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me How can you not oppose the reality that the top 1% of Americans are accumulating an increasing amount of wealth, while the middle class does not keep up? How can you not oppose greater environmental laws? How can you allow the administration to slash programs (such as the children s health study) and think that this is being a good steward? You cover yourself in false doctrine to hide what we all can see: you are a phony. As someone who is a religious conservative and believes in a literal translation of the Bible, I am saddened how you have maligned our image and have turned us into a political movement. I live my life to serve God, not special interest groups like yours. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are moral: they were created and operate to serve worldly interests. The reality is Mr. Reed is that you, like so many other great men before you, have fallen and have allowed your ego and worldly desires to take precedence over serving our Lord, Jesus. I will prey for you and hope that one day you will understand the story of the Good Samaritan. CD>

Yes, Jesus dined with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors. Yes, he said judge not. But continually, and foremost he said “Repent.” He didn’t say to the woman caught in adultry, “Whew, that was a close call. Be careful next time.” He said, “Go and sin no more.” We cannot judge our fellow men because only God can do that, but we have to make judgements about how best it is to live and how we are to behave, and if we love our fellow man we have to repeat Christ’s call to repent and live it ourselves. So, Sean, do you admire Ronald Reagan? Would you dine with him? Do you judge him? Do you demand that he repent? Ronald Reagan…”star” of the “right”…dreamy pillar of conservative ideology…hero and idol of conservative “Christians”. A divorced man…who lived most of his life “in sin”…and as a married again man, he was obviously not repentent of that sin. Everyday he lived married to Nancy, was a day he lived in unrepentent sin. But “Christians” don’t give one shit about that.>

I prey for you Mr. Reed. CD, I trust you mean ‘pray’ because the latter is kinda funny, but also weird. I kid. I kid. MNW, the bigger question regarding banning same-sex marriages is, as you allude to, why is that singled out? As a Christian, I wanted my marriage to be done in a Christian ceremony because I believe marriage is a religious institution and a beautiful example of God’s love for humankind on earth. However, I accept others share differing views on marriage and seeing that we live in a society which permits freedom of association and speech and religion, I am content in respecting those differing beliefs while embracing and practicing my own. So the question is then why would religious convservatives who are so against gay marriage so narrowly limit their focus? Why wouldn’t they advocate banning all marriage except for Christian marriage? This is what I find hypocritical in this entire debate. If someone wants to get have a ceremony and say they’re married, that’s fine. Who am I to stop them, particularly when I hold my own personal beliefs of what marriage is and what marriage isn’t.>

We obviously do have different ideas about theocracy, because if Bush is imposing one, he is doing a pretty poor job. Just because a man says his faith imposes some obligations on him doesn’t make him a theocrat. And yes, I do believe most liberals have a very different idea about sin. Most of them take the view that sin is whatever I say it is and that anyone who suggests there might be some objective right and wrong – at least on the things they care about – is intolerant. Finally – liberals should really stop with the theocracy argument. I live in Boston, and as we have gone through the whole same-sex marriage debate, liberal religious groups have been at least as vocal in their support as conservative religious groups and the Catholic Church has been in their opposition. What this comes down to is – my theological vision (the liberal one) informs my views, but yours (conservative) imposes them on others. If one of my kids went to school here with a T-shirt with an anti-same-sex marriage message on he or she would be sent home, but the school itself sponsors a gay support group that puts posters up supporting SSM. Who’s views are being imposed?>

I actually heard quite a bit about Reagan being a divorcee. Martin Luther King Jr. was chronically unfaithful, and basically expected his wife to be a housefrau while he did his important work, but you don’t hear much from progressive Christians about that either. Sometimes we set those things aside when we admire a man’s accomplishments, for better or worse. The conservative explanation of starving the beast is not that we tank our social programs, in hopes that they cannot recover. Starving the beast refers to reducing taxes, which (temporarily) reduces the flow of revenue to the government. Therefore, government is forced to trim the fat from ALL projects, not just entitlements. It is a theory that is proposed to counter government’s tendency to expand in good economic times, which creates unmanageable debts in leaner times. For the record, Bush is clearly not an advocate of this theory, as he has not made the massive cuts to entitlements that everyone assumes he has, which is why libertarians (by and large) loathe him.>

Sean, I’ll concede there are some mixed messages coming from liberals involving religion, particularly along the lines of the ones you speak. I think we need to do a better job of being more tolerant of other views, no matter how much we disagree with them. The only caveat that I’d add to your specific example of T-shirt (aside from the question I have about what child would really want to wear an ‘anti-gay-marriage T-shirt’), is that – according to our society’s understanding of discrimination laws and hate speech, whether you agree with it or not – is that something which is ‘anti-….’ is going to be viewed as disparaging and discriminatory toward a particular group, while a shirt that is supporting a particular group or view wouldn’t be. I’d venture to say that if the child wore a ‘Protect Marriage’ shirt, he/she would be deemed ‘OK’ to wear it. However, wearing something which is patently insulting to another group ventures into new territory. Well, that and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled a while back that children don’t have the same protection of free speech that adults have.>

I think we need to do a better job of being more tolerant of other views, no matter how much we disagree with them. That depends, doesn’t it? I’ve no intention of EVER being tolerant of intolerance. The anti-gay platform of the modern “Christian” movement is nothing but intolerance, pure and simple, and I will never be tolerant of such views. If “Christians” want to believe that having gay SEX is a “sin”, then they can go right ahead…I really don’t care. But I’ll be damned if I will tolerate them using their religious beliefs as a basis for denying me my civil rights…which is exactly what they do today. They’ve no rational (read: non-religious) argument for denying gay people their rights. It’s their prejudiced religious beliefs that is the basis for this denial…it’s their ideas about “sin” and their ability to exploit the deep-seated prejudice towards gay people harbored by the populace that allows them to get away with it. Thankfully though, the populace is waking up and recognizing how hateful and bigoted these beliefs are and the tide is changing. It’s only a matter of time before gay people will legally marry in every state…but like a rabid dog cornered, their attacks on gay people will get more and more insidious. I mean…that is the “Christian” way, isn’t it?…at least that’s the “Christian” way as I have experienced it.>

Sean said, “Most of them take the view that sin is whatever I say it is and that anyone who suggests there might be some objective right and wrong – at least on the things they care about – is intolerant.” You clearly don’t understand my idea of sin. We might agree on what’s sin and what isn’t. It’s extremely important to me because it determines how I live my life, and how I feel about myself. But I think that we might disagree on how far we should go in imposing religious beliefs upon others. I have no difficulty in separating my personal code of ethics (let me call it my personal laws)from what the government permits or imposes(civil law). Where I draw the line is where civil laws force people to violate their personal laws, or where people who have a different set of personal laws are negatively impacting others. We live in a very diverse culture. It makes America interesting.>

Paul Buck – beautifully said. That has always been one of my big problems with the religious right and the abortion issue. I have yet to see a really, really big movement among Christians to promote adoption in a big way by *gasp* actually adopting a child/ren themselves. I have a conservative Christian aunt and uncle who constantly let me know how terrible abortion is. However, they only have one child of their own and, even though they are blessed with plenty of money, have yet to adopt any needy children and have no plans to. Talk about hypocrisy. I challenge every single church in this country to adopt 5 single mothers and their children, and, as individual congregations, take care of all their educational, monetary, and spiritual needs for as long as they need it. If I ever actually saw churches putting their money where their mouths were concerning single mothers and their children, I might take their anti-choice arguments seriously. While the government isn’t the perfect way to help the poor all the time, the religious people of this country sure are doing an awful job of filling in the gaps for as much as they like to dis the government. And for anyone who rips on gay families, just remeber that many times gay couples are the first ones in line who are willing to adopt and love the disabled and emotionally disturbed children that are abandoned by their heterosexual parents. Can’t say I see a lot of straight Christians doing that.>

And, I might add, legalizing civil unions if fine with me. It has no impact on how I live my life. It doesn’t affect anyone but gays and corporations(pay out more benefits) and attorneys(less work since gays are covered under the law for things that they might otherwise need a legal document to have). Kevin, Thanks for the explanation on “starving the beast.” The beast is starving. I don’t know if it’s that Bush doesn’t buy into libertarian ideology, or if he realizes that’s it’s political suicide in our country. People are happy to have tax cuts. People aren’t happy to see cuts in services(whether it be entitlements, environmental restrictions, defense, health programs, educational programs, etc). Americans want it all but don’t want to pay for it.>

What is really disappointing about this thread is the amount of personal attacks and the accusations of impure motives by so many people in their posts. Knowing that we are all sinners, I am certainly not surprised by this but I AM amazed that anyone would take the time to specifically respond to someone making these absurd claims. My rule is simple: the first time someone start to impugn the motives of someone with whom they disagee, I stop reading and will not read anything that the person posts again because they have lost all credibility and cannot be taken seriously. They are not interested in debate, just unsubstantiated perosnal attacks. I do not care what political or religious leanings that you have, you cannot seriously believe that people who disagree with your positions are, as a class, motivated by some hatred or evil. If you do, I would suggest that you take a very close look at yourself in the mirror. I may disagree (strongly, in some cases) with my liberal friends on public policy but I do NOT think that they “hate America” or some other such nonsense. This is exactly the problem with political debate in America today. Take the question of tax cuts. The left wants to describe them as “tax cuts for the rich” as if lower wage earners are being asked to shoulder a disproportionate burden of taxes. This is not supported by the facts. If you would go to the IRS website, you will find that the top 10% of income earners in this country, pay over 85% of income taxes. The bottom 30% of income earners, after deductions and exemptions, pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX whatsoever! In addition, the bottom 15-18% of wage earners not only pay no federal income tax, they are GIVEN money in the form of the Earned Income Credit (“EIC”). This is an easily verifiable fact. In addition, if you look at the mechanics of the tax cuts, middle to lower class taxpayers actually get a larger percentage reduction in what they pay than to the top taxpayers. Of course, given the hugely disproportionate amount of taxes paid by the upper 10%, they do receive more benefit in terms of gross dollars. Could it be instead of favoring the rich and oppressing the poor that the Republicans sincerely believe that returning more dollars to the free economy might generate more investment, create jobs and opportunity for more people? They have some historical facts to support that belief in that EVERY time there has been a major decrease in taxes, the total receipts to the federal treasury have increased not declined. This was true under Kennedy, Reagan and the current President. Budget deficits have never been the result of tax cuts but of uncontrolled spending. Another canard on this topic is that Republicans have drastically “cut” spending on social/welfare programs. Without exception this is not true. Most of the time when you hear the term “cut” used, what truly happens is that the rate of spending GROWTH of a program is slowed but the actual dollars allocated for the program continue to increase. If that is a “cut” sign me up for one. If we are ever to get to true debate, then both sides must cease the childish name-calling and attacks on motives, actually arm themselves with empirical facts and reasoned logic and address the problems. Form this Christian conservative’s viewpoint, I believe that the idea of limited government is fully compatible with Christ’s teachings. Christ’s commandments to his followers talk about changing the world starting with yourself. He understood that real life change occurs when people are in relationship with each other and hold each other accountable. I simply believe (sincerely) that mostly unaccountable and often impersonal government bureaucracies are ill-equipped and ineffective in solving social problems which are mostly caused by our own sin nature. If you do not change the condition of the person’s heart, the sin continues and so do the resulting problems. I do NOT think that holding people accountable for their sin/mistakes is s sign of hate but instead is a sign of love and compassion. If someone that you love is engaging in self-destructive behavior, you do not show them love by enabling and/or subsidizing the behavior. Instead, you confront them, instruct them, love them and if necessary, bring others alongside them to change they behavior. This requirement is on ALL followers of Christ. We are COMMANDED to hate the sin but to love the sinner. One minor correction to CD, men were NOT “created” to serve worldly interests. That is the sin within us and it does not originate with the Creator but with each of us in the free will that we were given.>

MNW, You are wrong. I don’t judge Mr Reagan himself – that is whether he was or was not in a state of sin – but I do believe abandoning a spouse in favor of another is probably wrong (without knowing any details). And sure, I’d “dine” with him or you, or anyone else. We have an obligation to be civil and kind to everyone. My example about Christ is based on the frequent claim by liberals, that conservatives are like Pharisees and liberals are like Christ by citing this example from the Gospels. The problem with this is that while Christ accepted these people and loved them , as we are all supposed to, he didn’t approve of what they did. The Gospel is about forgiveness, but you can’t be foregiven if you don’t think anything you do is wrong.>

For Kevin S. from Wikipedia: ____________________________________ Starve-the-beast or choke-the-beast is a conservative political strategy which uses budget deficits to force future reductions in government expenditure, especially spending on socially progressive programs. The term “beast” is used to denote government and the social programs it funds, including publicly-funded health care, welfare, and educational financial aid, the implication being that expenditure on such programs, or the programs themselves, is wasteful or destructive. It appears the earliest reference to “starving the beast” as a doctrine was made during the Reagan administration by White House budget director David Stockman, to describe its fiscal philosophy. A current example is the tax cutting policy of the Bush administration in the United States. He said on 24 August 2001 “so we have the tax relief plan, which is important for fiscal stimulus, coupled with Social Security being off limits except for — except for emergency. That now provides a new kind — a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that’s good for the taxpayers, and it’s incredibly positive news if you’re worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been.” [1] A well-known U.S. proponent of the strategy is Grover Norquist. [2][3] Some empirical evidence shows that the strategy may actually be counterproductive, with higher taxes actually corresponding to lower spending: “Controlling for the unemployment rate, federal spending [from 1981 to 2000] increased by about one-half percent of GDP for each one percentage point decline in the relative level of federal tax revenues.” The article (written by William Niskanen and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute) shows that “a tax increase may be the most effective policy to reduce the relative level of federal spending,” though the authors oppose tax increases for other reasons.[4] Additionally, some economists and politicians see the budget deficits created by this strategy as harmful to the economy. _____________________________________ .>

I challenge every single church in this country to adopt 5 single mothers and their children, and, as individual congregations, take care of all their educational, monetary, and spiritual needs for as long as they need it. If I ever actually saw churches putting their money where their mouths were concerning single mothers and their children, I might take their anti-choice arguments seriously. Family Promise, which oversees the Interfaith Hospitality Networks (of which I serve on the board of the one for Athens, Georgia). They’re collections of congregations which assist homeless families, doing all of the things you suggest. I believe there are 125 networks across America, but I may be a bit off.>

Dave referring back to your 12:14 AM post: I think the year of jubilee was meant to perform a role similar to that of bankruptcy in the modern economy — allow people relief from debt and provide a safety net for families and tribes (Israel being, at that time, a tribal society) This is not a libertarian idea at all, but then again there are relatively few Christian Libertarians as opposed to Christian Conservatives. Conservatives do understand the need for some limitations on the workings of the marketplace. As an aside, I got a chuckle out of earlier references to Grover Norquist and his desire for a government he could drown in a bathtub. Norquist has never, ever, been considered a leader of the Christian right. One note about bankruptcy. I studied bankruptcy in law school, so I know whereof I speak here. The main thrust of the bankruptcy law reform was to prevent the misuse of chapter 11 (reorganization — meant mainly for businesses) by individuals to cancel debts they could handle on their own. The law closed a loophole used by middle-class taxpayers who had gone overboard on credit card debt. The poor mainly use chapter 7 (liquidation) and they were hardly affected at all.>

If you do not change the condition of the person’s heart, the sin continues and so do the resulting problems. I do NOT think that holding people accountable for their sin/mistakes is s sign of hate but instead is a sign of love and compassion. If someone that you love is engaging in self-destructive behavior, you do not show them love by enabling and/or subsidizing the behavior. Instead, you confront them, instruct them, love them and if necessary, bring others alongside them to change they behavior. This requirement is on ALL followers of Christ. We are COMMANDED to hate the sin but to love the sinner. Drew, Please define “self-destructive behavior”.>

Drew, though we will more than likely disagree on ideology and public policy, let me applaud you for your cautious and well-thought-out explanation. I have an honest question for you, posed without any intention of trying to ‘trap’ you. This quote … I simply believe (sincerely) that mostly unaccountable and often impersonal government bureaucracies are ill-equipped and ineffective in solving social problems which are mostly caused by our own sin nature. If you do not change the condition of the person’s heart, the sin continues and so do the resulting problems. … suggests you oppose programs designed to combat poverty because they’re not effective means to help those in need, as Christ commands us to do. Again, disagreements aside, I can respect that position. In fact, I agree with and applud your notion of calling for societal reform in terms changing hearts and minds rather than enforcing legislation. I wonder, than, how can you not extend this viewpoint of changing society into terms of legislation against, say, gay marriage or overturning Roe v. Wade? That, why not roll up your sleeves and set out to change those hearts and minds rather than rely on legislation which, more than likely, will do little to curb these things as well as potentially inflame those you disagree with, thus hindering your ability to engage them in constructive dialogue.>

Sean H. We have an obligation to be civil and kind to everyone. I am married. I am married in my heart. I am married in the eyes of my church. I am married in the eyes of my God. I am married. Do you, Sean H., believe that a person who fights to prevent my marriage from being legally recognized is being “kind and civil”? It’s not the impression I get from this side. The impression I get from this side is FEAR, bigotry, and pure hatred. Kindness and civility are not detected in the least. My example about Christ is based on the frequent claim by liberals, that conservatives are like Pharisees and liberals are like Christ by citing this example from the Gospels. The problem with this is that while Christ accepted these people and loved them , as we are all supposed to, he didn’t approve of what they did. Nice strawman. The Gospel is about forgiveness, but you can’t be foregiven if you don’t think anything you do is wrong. Another strawman. Do you honestly believe that liberals “don’t think anything they do is wrong”? Do you think “Christians” will be forgiven for their prejudice of gay people if they never admit, much less recognize, that their prejudice is wrong?>

I wonder, than, how can you not extend this viewpoint of changing society into terms of legislation against, say, gay marriage or overturning Roe v. Wade? That, why not roll up your sleeves and set out to change those hearts and minds rather than rely on legislation which, more than likely, will do little to curb these things as well as potentially inflame those you disagree with, thus hindering your ability to engage them in constructive dialogue. Heh.>

“If private welfare is better, where has it been proven? Where indeed has it been tried?” I’ve wondered about this too. A lot of folks like to criticize government social programs, saying that they “don’t work” and pointing to the continuing existence of poverty as evidence. They go on to claim that private charity “works better.” However, if you’re gonna say that the continuing existence of poverty “proves” that government programs don’t work, don’t you have to also say that said poverty “proves” that private charities don’t work either? I get the impression that people who prefer private giving over government spending are telling me that, if they were not required to pay taxes, they would donate all of that money instead to private charities. I don’t buy that for one minute. Some people might, but the total amount of giving would almost certainly be significantly less. Most Christians do both: pay taxes and tithe. If you let them keep their tax money, they may tithe a portion of it (e.g. 10%), but I doubt they’d give it all away.>

Sean, I’d like to present an alternative viewpoint – that liberals are far more orthodox in their definition of sin. The traditional definition of sin is doing my will, not God’s. The strategy for enacting that will is always relative to circumstance – if killing will save a life we say it becomes a moral action. (See Ralph’s commentary on Iraq and terrorism.) Yet the commandment not to kill is absolute! The conservative position is that we can violate the commandment and still be moral, you see? This even though you uphold Scriptural Law as the standard for judging sin. On the other hand, liberals accept the reality that actions are relative to context and base themselves in the two ‘commandments’ with which the Torah is supplanted. Thus, Paul’s laws can only be seen as his own interpretation of the best strategies to enact those two commandments. But not all are equally authoritative. We’ve had 2,000 years of further disclosure from the paraclete – not to acknowledge this is to say that the personal relationship with Christ is a meaningless concept. Will you do that just to win an argument? Or would that be objectively wrong?>

Can we get some other voices on the front of the God’s Politics blog? Ralph Reed’s numerous visits to the Bush White House seem to reveal that he’s more of a political consultant than a prophetic minister. There are such great voices from the progressive Christian community worth sharing with the wider public — such as Brian McLaren, Diana Butler Bass, Walter Wink and Desmond Tutu. Haven’t the Religious Right dominated the conversation long enough? Why not provide space for emerging leaders like Shane Claiborne and Ched Myers? There’s also Rabbi Michael Lerner from Tikkun — why not a voice from the progressive Jewish community? I am so grateful to Sojourners and Jim Wallis for being so willing to engage the conservative side, but we also need to realize that the progressive voices of faith need much wider exposure.>

“Yet the commandment not to kill is absolute!” If the Bible is God’s Word, which represents Absolute Truth, is it “relativism” to think that killing is sometimes wrong and sometimes right?>

Jmac, my answer to your question is very simple. While I am not necessarily opposed to legislation that tries to define some societal standards and indeed, that is the proper role of a democratic government, I do NOT believe that legislation on these issues will actually change anyone’s behavior. As I stated, the responsibility that Jesus gave to His followers is a personal one and it is our duty, as Christians to reach out to others PERSONALLY and invest in them. I am fully aware that many Christians do not do this and they will be held accountable to Christ himself at the seat of judgment. As Jesus himself, said, “Why do you call me Lord, yet do not do what I say?” Our response to the gift of salvation is to love and follow Christ and he told us to “Love one another as I have loved you and, by this men, will know that you are my disciples.” So to summarise my view, I do think that Christians should oppose legislation that is counter to God’s word because it often seeks to “normalize” and valdiate what is sin according to His word. However, we should not rely on government to solve problems that are caused by our own sin.>

“Why not provide space for emerging leaders like Shane Claiborne” Sojourners sent me a copy of Shane’s book, “The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical,” which I highly recommend.>

To the extent that there will always be some measure of poverty, neither government programs nor private charities are going to “work” to end poverty. The fact that private charities cannot alone solve the problem is not a reason to support social programs. The Wiki article on starving the beast was obviously written by someone who views it in a negative light. There is nothing about the idea specifically targetted toward social programs. It is as much about preventing more “bridges to nowhere” as it is preventing prescription drug benefits, not that Congress has done either. Either way, I’m not advocating the theory, and I don’t think the Christian Conservatives are either. We’re to busy worrying about gay marriage, remember?>

Is Claiborne the one who wrote about helping Mother Teresa? The chapters I read from the website were unbearable. Maudlin and self-aggrandizing. Apologies to Mr. Claiborne if I’ve got the wrong author.>

Daniel, I have to disagree on many – if not most – of your assumptions. First, the ten commandments were not supplanted by the two great commandments. This is not the view of any Christian faith. They encompass the old law, they don’t replace it. The fifth commandment is not an absolute. It never has been under either the Christian or the Jewish tradition. Many scholars have said a more proper translation is you shall not murder. This in fact aligns with Christ’s own teaching that anger, that is malice, is encompassed in that commandment. I am not sure what you meant by the last paragraph, but I have to ask, if the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is telling us today that things that most (really all) Christians held as sinful for two millenia are now not sinful – indeed that they are positive goods, why should I believe that. As you said, the paraclete is there from the beginning of the Church. Does God change his mind about sin?>

“The fact that private charities cannot alone solve the problem is not a reason to support social programs.” And vice versa. I have to wonder though: some people believe that social programs are harmful because they encourage dependence, and that cutting these programs will mean that people will become self-sufficient and get jobs. But correct me if I’m wrong: the gap between the rich and the poor typically gets larger (not smaller) under a president who cuts social programs, cuts taxes, etc. It seems clear that these actions benefit the rich, but not nearly as clear that they benefit the poor.>

“The fifth commandment is not an absolute. It never has been under either the Christian or the Jewish tradition. Many scholars have said a more proper translation is you shall not murder. This in fact aligns with Christ’s own teaching that anger, that is malice, is encompassed in that commandment.” Do you mean to suggest that if you are not angry when you kill someone or do not kill them out of malice, you are not sinning? Which other commandments are not absolute? Which ones do I not have to obey if I don’t want to? And where does the Bible tell me which ones are absolute and which ones are not? I’m not interested in what “traditions” say about the absolute nature of God’s commandments: I’m interested in what GOD says. And to think: it’s usually Christians who criticize relativism…>

Sean, The problem with this is that while Christ accepted these people and loved them , as we are all supposed to, he didn’t approve of what they did. What does this have to do with the conservative push to enact civil laws enforcing a personal moral code? Christ may have called out sin, but he wasn’t a political lobbyist. You’re trying to connect two completely unrelated approaches to promoting morality.>

Good morning Wolverine, Regarding Libertarian organizations such as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and the Cato Institute: I don’t think anyone would disagree with you that Grover Norquist is not a leader in the Christian Right. However the point we’re trying to make is that the political coalition between Libertarians and the Christian Right brought us the corrupt Bush administration. And heartless Libertarian concepts provide cover for the Christian Right’s indifference to the poor in America and around the planet. And there’s a lot more to the bankruptcy bill than what you mention. While closing loopholes for the middle class, loopholes for the wealthy remain. And I must disagree with you that the poor are unaffected by the bankruptcy bill. Procedures for all forms of bankruptcy have been made more difficult for the debtor. Unexpected costs for catastrophic health problems are not exempted. Limits on interest rates have been relaxed. All in all, this bill is bad for most Americans and good for the credit industry. After all it was written by the credit industry and rubberstamped by the Republican controlled Congress. What happened in the White Sox – Tigers game? .>

if the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is telling us today that things that most (really all) Christians held as sinful for two millenia are now not sinful – indeed that they are positive goods, why should I believe that….Does God change his mind about sin? Is slavery considered “sinful” today? Was slavery considered “sinful” two centuries ago? Does God change his mind about sin? Do (rational) humans become more enlightened and change their mind about sin?>

To D4P, President’s Bush’s Faith Based Iniatives program congressional debate provided quite a bit of facts and data on how private programs with a faith component were much more effective at solving societel problems than government programs. I will give you just one really good example but there are lots and you can go to the Congressional Record to find them. Chuck Colson’s prison ministry has been in operation for over 20 years and the published recidivism rate of those inmates who participated in Colson’s program is over 7 times lower than the general prison population. For those inmates who not only participated but accepted Christ, the rate is more than 20 times lower. I do not believe that the success of Prison Fellowship Ministries is simply a result of private versus public, though. I believe that Colson’s success is in emphasizing heart change and personal accountability by the PERSONAL interaction and witnessing of Christians with inmates. On the subject of poverty, again it is not so much an issue of public versus private but of impersonal versus personal and accountability versus no accountability. Study after study shows us that the number one factor in creating poverty in America is single parent homes. Sadly, this falls primarily on the failure of men to take responsibility (as well as, obviously the practice of sexual intercourse outside of the institution of marriage in violation of God’s laws). So if we know this to be a chief cause of poverty, how do we address the problem? For over 30 years, the federal government simply gave single mothers a check. In fact, the more illegitmate children you had the bigger the check you were given. What behavioral change did this produce? Did the welfare rolls increase or decrease during this time? This was an example of what could be categorized as the “subsidy of further sin.” There was little, if anything, done to address the underlying behavior. If anything, the government gave an incentive to encourage more of the same. Now, if I opposed this madness, I am called a “hater” or “judgmental.” Perhaps I just think that it is better for me to get out of my middle class comfort zone and invest of my money and, more importantly of myself, with the poor. To show them that I care about them so much that aside from meeting short-term needs, I am going to tell them when they are making foolish choices and share with them a way to make wiser ones. For me, the best way to do this is to bring them into a personal relationship with Christ and to be in relationship with them.>

The bankruptcy bill as aimed at curbing fraud (10% of bankruptcy claims were determined to be fraudulent at the time of the bill’s passing). Further, it closed loopholes which allowed men to use bankruptcy to shirk alimony/CS payments. For these reasons, the bill passed with substantial majorities in the House and Senate. Hillary Clinton, for example, supported the bill.>

Kevin S. I’m aware of what you said. And I stand by my comments. .>

I find it completely disingenuous that Ralph Reed keeps using the phrase “pro-family” as if those who aren’t in his group or don’t agree with his way of thinking are somehow “anti-family”. What a bunch of horse-hockey. He needs to be called on his divisive framing and language. Have a real discussion instead of name calling like a playground bully.>

Study after study shows us that the number one factor in creating poverty in America is single parent homes. Sadly, this falls primarily on the failure of men to take responsibility… The fact that women make approximately $0.67 to a man’s $1.00 wouldn’t have ANYTHING to do with it…right? Conservatives, in particular “Christian” conservatives, always like to come across as having all of the answers to the world’s problems…the problem is that you rarely recognize the entirety of the problems.>

I have another bone to pick with the Christian Right – their war on science. Evolution is wrong, creationism is right. Stem cell research is murder. Global warming is a hoax. .>

Drew – I don’t doubt that private programs can be more effective than government programs for addressing certain types of problems. In fact, I think Jesus would prefer that each of us contribute our time and effort to serve the least of these, rather than just sending a check to the government and retreating to the safety and comfort of our American Dream. However, I don’t think the issue is as simple as either private or public. For one thing, I think there are probably some things that government is better suited for than private groups. Also, like I said before, I cannot believe the implication that, if social programs were eliminated and all that tax money given back to the tax payers, those tax payers would then give all that money to private charities. It’s much more reasonable to believe that they would spend much of it on themselves. And I also don’t believe that all of the persons who had been supported by the social programs would automatically get jobs, as we’re evidently supposed to believe. For one thing, there’s not enough jobs to go around, and for another, the jobs that many of them would get probably pay worse than the social programs do. Thus, even if they got jobs, many would probably be worse off financially than they were when they were supported by the social programs. There are plenty of people in our society who work full-time yet still live under the poverty line. And I reject the argument that “Well, those people should just go get better jobs.” Our economy and our lifestyle depends on people working jobs that don’t pay well, and it’s both naive and offensive to tell those people to get better jobs. A better option would be paying them more money, given that each one of us benefits so much from their efforts. Plus, is it really “pro-family” to force single mothers to get jobs, leaving their children at home with a babysitter or by themselves all day? Is that really in the best interest of the children? Seems to me that one’s opinion on these matters hinges largely upon which “mistake” one thinks is worse. Is it worse to help someone who didn’t actually need it, or is it worse to fail to help someone who did?>

Study after study shows us that the number one factor in creating poverty in America is single parent homes. Sadly, this falls primarily on the failure of men to take responsibility … Thanks for your earlier response Drew, but like MNW I’m kinda confused by this one. I would disagree with the assertion that it’s the No. 1 of poverty in America. Single-parent homes can be a factor, but again, we’re being very narrow. To simply solve single-parent homes wouldn’t erase poverty because a variety of factors – from everything from personal responsiblity to environmental factors – contribute to poverty. To adequately address poverty, you’ve got to attack numerous causes and they’re not always simply ‘personal responsiblity’ as, through Family Promise and IHN (which I linked earlier in this thread), I’ve encountered several families which have plenty of that, but are stymied by a variety of other factors. I applaud your efforts in reaching out personally (we need more of that), but it’s also important to comprehend that society itself plays a factor in this. However whenever we start asking those questions, the old saying by Dom Helder Camara pops up … ‘when I give food to the poor, they call me a saint … when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.’>

Here is the deal. The same book that says being Gay is bad (Leviticus) also says you can not wear clothes made of more then one fabric, you can not eat shellfish or pork, you can not plow a feild with an ox and a donkey at the same time, and you cannot charge intrest on loans to people of the same nationality, and a host of other crazy restrictions and rules. How can you decide that one rule still needs to be in effect but you toss the rest out the window? If you are condeming people for not following one rule, you have to follow them all!>

D4P, I don’t advocate eliminating all social programs. Because of our selfish culture in the US and our increasing move to secularization, you are no doubt correct that many people would not give their money to helping the poor. My main point here is that God calls us to not only personally reach out to His children but also to be good stewards of the gifts that He gives to us and a great deal of the money that we (or more accurately, the higher taxpayers) give to the government is wasted on things that do next to nothing to benefit the poor. However, let us give credit where credit is due and this fact goes back to my earlier point on increasing secularization. A study of Western countries done in 2000 showed that the United States, on a per capita average, gave more money (as a percentage of income) to private charities than any other Western country. I do not think that is is a coincidence that we are the most religious of those Western countries not one of the least taxed. Again, it will come down to our personal commitment to follow Christ and when we stand before Him, He will ask us how we used the gifts that He gave to us (including our treasure) to serve Him and His children. I think we need a better answer than “Well, I paid my taxes.”>

Kevin S. One more thing on the bankruptcy bill, which I sometimes call the usury bill because,l in spite of its few good provisions, I think overall it’s a bad bill for most Americans You said: “For these reasons, the bill passed with substantial majorities in the House and Senate. Hillary Clinton, for example, supported the bill.” Yes and my Congressional Rep also voted for it. That doesn’t make it a good bill – for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Again, it was written by the credit industry and rubberstamped by a corrupted Congress. To me this just illustrates how corrupted Congress has become. The corporate credit industry wrote the bill and bribed (legally) Congress to pass it without any substantial amendments. .>

Justin, Have you examined the case for intelligent design? It hardly constitutes a war on science. Was the resurrection of Christ a war on science? Or did it just not happen?>

I don’t know why you would call it a usary bill. the credit card industry supported the bill because it established that they have just as much right as anyone to collect from the bankrupt. We may not like credit card companies, but fair is fair (I know that phrase will be used against me). The system was previously setup such that a judge would make subjective decisions about who got what after a bankruptcy. Of course, under this model, credit card companies got the shaft. As a result, credit cards became a very popular last resort for those intending to declare bankruptcy, since consumers knew (often from previous bankruptcies) that they wouldn’t have to pay it back. If we want to ban credit cards, or further adjust usary laws to make them more difficult to use, make the case for that. But if they are to remain legal, then they have a right to collect the money they lend, yes?>

“a great deal of the money that we (or more accurately, the higher taxpayers) give to the government is wasted on things that do next to nothing to benefit the poor.” Like military spending, for instance…? Yes, it is no doubt the case that much government spending is wasted. I read the other day that the average CEO of a company providing “defense” services currently makes $7 million a year. Mr. Halliburton CEO has made some $100 million since we started bombing Iraq. And, apparently, the “private” employees of companies like Halliburton working alongside the soldiers often make significantly more money than the soldiers themselves. But I digress. Determining whether money spent by the government on the poor is “wasted” or not is a difficult task, primarily becuase it is difficult to construct a counterfactual that we can agree upon. In other words, it’s difficult to know what would have happened had that money not been spent. It’s easy to identify people who abuse the system and conclude that the entire system is a waste of money. But it’s more difficult to identify people who would have died had the system not been there to help them, not because they don’t exist, but because it’s hard to know who they are. Which number is greater: the number of abusers, or the number who would have died? I don’t claim to know that answer, and I’m guessing that no one does. Government programs inevitably help some people who didn’t need it and some people who did. Private programs are probably no different in that respect. It seems to me that “conservatives” tend to think that helping people who didn’t need it is a greater mistake than failing to help those who did, whereas “liberals” tend to think that failing to help those who need it is a greater mistake than helping those who didn’t.>

Buddy, The complex series of rules laid out in leviticus regarding food etc… were the old law that we are no longer under because of Christ’s death on the cross. It is not an arbitrary distinction that Christians chose. The new testament also describes homosexuality as perversion.>

D4P, the Iraq war has cost less than half of what the prescription drug benefit will cost through 2015.>

“D4P, the Iraq war has cost less than half of what the prescription drug benefit will cost through 2015.” That doesn’t change the fact that the Iraq war has constituted a massive welfare program for “defense” CEOs, who have no doubt abused the system.>

About religious Dems in office, Reed says: “I applaud them for speaking authentically about their faith. We need more discussions of faith in public life, not fewer. But their rhetoric does not always match their record.” This is the height of hypocrisy from a man who takes Indian gambling casino money to fight the gambling interests of a rival tribe by telling constituents that they should vote to end the evils of gambling. He manipulates the conscience of people of faith and moral values and gets paid handsomely for it, all the while denying he ever took gambling money. Lee S. http://www.anagnosticchristian.com>

Jmac, I never said that illegitimacy is the only factor in causing poverty and I think that your post acknowledges that point. There are many recent studies by both progressive and conservative groups that show the correlation between single parent homes and poverty. If you would like, I can find you some links to them. I don’t understand the “confusion” though. Of course there can be many factors that cause poverty and the actual truth is that poverty is typically not a permanent situation in this country for the vast majority of people. A devastating illness or sudden loss of a job can quickly push people below the poverty line and I certainly support programs, even government ones, to provide a safety net for those folks. What I do not support is any program that does not put primary responsibiity for the situation in the hands of the individual and any program that removes the incentive for the individual to help themselves. People need to work not only as a moral obligation to support themselves and their family and to not be an unjust burden on society but also to retain their human dignity. St. Paul was very adamant about the fact that while he appreciated those people who supported his ministry to the Gentiles, he felt that it was his moral obligation and duty as a follower of Christ to work right along side of those to whom he was ministering. William Penn, paraphrasing the Scriptures, said it more bluntly, “Those who do not work, do not eat.” While this may sound harsh, God in His divine wisdom understands that none of us has a moral right to subsist off of the efforts of others and that we need to use the talents that He has given to provide for ourselves and our families. That being said, should we ignore the plights of those in need around us? Of course not. But can we at least make sure that we are solving the problem in the best and most permanent way, “helping someone to help themselves?” While solving the problem of rampant illegitimacy would not eliminate all poverty, it is at least a place to start. Again, let’s look at God Word that clearly states that sexual relations outside of marriage is immoral and in violation of God’s law. We now see the societal consequences of violating this law. Let’s not, as a society (amd as we so often try to do), attempt to ignore the results of our sin and try to put a temporary “band-aid” on the consequences without a way to address the underlying behavior. We will NEVER solve the problem of poverty until Christ returns. Jesus stated “The poor will always be with you.” Because of our sinful nature, I believe that is true. However, the command is to each of us to help the poor and I simply believe that there are better ways to do it than the methods employed by our government these past 70 years or so.>

Wow… the lack of biblical understanding and logical reasoning by those on the left here is astonishing… To set the record straight, Reagan did not desire to divorce his first wife. She left him against his desires, and many who know him have documented how hard the divorce was as a result. I don t know his wife s spiritual state, but I Cor. 7:15 says that if an unbeliever desires to leave, a believer is “not bound in such circumstances.” Is divorce wrong? Certainly. I haven t heard any Christians say there was nothing wrong with Reagan divorcing. Maybe some have, but they’re wrong. I don t excuse him completely, but we must understand it in context. All sins are not equal. Murdering your friend is worse than stealing a dollar from him. And believe it or not, but homosexual acts are considered worse biblically than divorce (I bring this up because people keep comparing the two as if conservatives are ignoring divorce for the sake of homosexuality – I think it is rather an issue of priorities). Both are condemned strongly, but homosexual acts carry the death penalty in the Old Testament (although a learned scholar will tell you this wasn t usually carried out – it was understood that the death penalty, except in the case of murder, was more to explain the severity of the sin) and are expressed as one of the final steps away from God in Romans 1 in the New Testament. Some have claimed here that conservative Christians ignore divorce for the sake of focusing on homosexuality. I think that s true to some extent – especially that Christians have ignored divorce. We have to our own detriment. The solution, however, is not to ignore homosexuality (the solution of the left), but ADD focus on divorce. So the complaints about conservative Christians focusing on homosexuality are completely unfounded when retorting with “why don t you focus more on divorce?” Yes. We should… WITHOUT ignoring the focus on homosexuality. Oh, and adultery is considered illegal in many places still. It s just not enforced unless there are other things involved (property in a divorce, for instance).>

kevin, Yes I have examined intelligent design – thoroughly. Proponents of ID placed a “trojan horse” biology teacher in our local high school. They had stealthily placed a majority on the school board who wanted ID in the curriculum. The biology teacher proceeded to substitute ID for the theory of evolution. I consider ID a matter of personal faith, not science. I think ID belongs in a course on comparative religion, not in a science curriculum. I want my children to learn the arguments of the theory of evolution. Why? Because it has advanced mankind’s understanding of God’s creation. I have no quarrel with Christians trying to prove the existence of God, but that’s not the point. These Christian literalists were using the public school system to force their faith on my children. We voted in a new school board and the biology teacher was fired. This is a separation of Church and State issue. .>

Sean, Thank you for your response. You’re quite civil and I know that has been a challenge on this blog. Props to you. We have different soteriological ideas, and I’d like to get some clarity on what you believe if you are open to that kind of discussion. This is sort of a quick inventory to help me get clear. 1. Paul argues to Peter in Galatians 2:21, “If righteousness could be gained through the Law, Christ died for nothing!” Would you mind helping me understand what you make of this verse as it relates to the Torah? 2. Do you aviod fabric blends like cotton and polyester(Lev 19:19)? Should we ban them from America? 4. Was it objectively good for Joshua and the Hebrew warriors to launch an unprovoked attack on Jericho and slaughter their innocent children (Jos 6:21)? If so, is the only ground for objecting to Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein that they are infidels? 5. Do people who do bad things get punished by God on earth, as it says in the OT histories and in Proverbs, or not, as it says in Ecclesiastes and Job?>

Regarding the “war on science”: I have seen a number of interviews with scientists who work(ed) for government agencies such as the EPA who have detailed the extent to which the Bush administration has squelched their research. They have been forced to alter their findings, and have had their documents altered by other officials. Among other things, the findings are altered to (1) paint a rosier picture of (for example) the overall health of the environment, (2) communicate less certainty (or more uncertainty) on global warming and related issues, etc. A number of scientists have evidently resigned their positions because of this censorship.>

Kevin S. “The complex series of rules laid out in leviticus regarding food etc… were the old law that we are no longer under because of Christ’s death on the cross. It is not an arbitrary distinction that Christians chose. The new testament also describes homosexuality as perversion.” Could you give us chapter and verse on the homosexual references? And also the part about how we are no longer under the “old law”. Thanks .>

I know I’m a little late to this dialog and I haven’t read all of the posts, but . . . Ralph Reed says “I hope you and I can have a constructive dialogue based not on criticizing this constituency or that for whether their agenda is narrow or broad, but whether it promotes sound public policy” and yet he spends all of his time taking partisan cheap shots and scraping together every bit of anecdotal evidence he has to prove that his cronies are the kings of compassion. I have to ask, is it even possible for Ralph Reed, George W. Bush et al., who are always the first to throw out accusations of partisanship (this is the Rove playbook–always accuse your enemy ["opponent"] of the thing you’re doing; the truth doesn’t matter, only that you were first, loudest and most virulent in your attack; it sure seems like they’re asking not WWJD, but “What Would Machiavelli Do?”) is it even possible for them to consider anything that is truly bipartisn or non-partisan? C’mon, Ralph. We get it, Republicans and Conservative Christians aren’t the devil. But neither are liberals and neither is the GOP God’s own party. Deep breath, Ralph. Repeat after me: “This isn’t a game. My Republican buddies don’t have to win. The Kingdom of God is bigger than all of this.” And, Ralph, we get that you can spin your way out of most any corner. It’s just that it doesn’t impress some of us; it simply sickens us. Still believing, still praying, still hoping for transparency and a little honest dialog.>

I think Mr. Reed is overlooking a key part of Mr. Wallis’ concern: The current conservative administration is hardly making an agenda of the items discussed. Case in point: ‘Culture of Life’ policy would dictate obvious stances toward not only abortion but the death penalty (which conservative policy ironically supports!), and a desire for humane treatment of detainees (again lacking in administration policy makers). The contrast between a stated stance and it’s opposed application (e.g., Abortion vs Dealth penalty) brings the validity of the stance into question altogether.>

Kevin S. “Was the resurrection of Christ a war on science? Or did it just not happen?” Don’t be absurd, Kevin. .>

D4P tells the truth about the Christian Right’s war on science. .>

PS: If you’re interested in the allegations that the Bush administration has forced scientists to alter their findings, simply Google “epa bush alter findings.” This will get you started.>

And regarding the alleged “pro-life” stance of the current administration: did anyone else read the stories within the past year about how womb fluid has been found to contain literally hundreds of chemicals, includes various flame retardants, industrial chemicals, etc., many of which have been found to contribute to cancer? Evidently, the emission of many of these chemicals from industry is either not regulated, or the regulation is not adequately enforced. Seems to me a “pro-life” stance rings hollow if it says “I want you to carry that baby to term, but it’s fine with me if the baby is swimming in a vat of cancerous goop.” The refusal on the part of the Bush admin. to strengthen and enforce environmental legislation coupled with the rollback and abolition of such legislation based on the rationale that is “hurts the economy” makes their “pro-life” rhetoric ring hollow, and is just another example of the “wealth over health” philosophy of the current administration.>

The issue of military spending is a difficult one because the federal government is specifically and exclusively empowered by the US Constitution “To PROVIDE for the common defense” of our country and its citizens. As a Christian, I wish that there was no war, at all, ever or anywhere. War is a direct manifestation of our sin nature as is violence in any form against innocent people. However, with that sin nature comes the violence and we are left with the question of what to do about it? I won’t get into the morality of the current war in Iraq because of space limitation and quite frankly, my own reservations about it, other than to say that clearly the intelligence findings of nearly every western government about Iraq was horribly flawed. That is not entirely the fault of either Clinton or Bush but as Presidents when the intellgience was gathered, they share some reponsibility, at least for the US piece of it. However, I do not believe that you can address a threat to the safety of our nation by simply ignoring it and praying that it goes away. Not that prayer isn’t effective and we all SHOULD be praying for wisdom for George Bush and our leaders to seek God’s Will in making these difficult decisions, but one of God’s blessings is that he works through people (imperfect and fragile vessels) to accomplish things. There are times when we have to take action to protect our nation. I am not sure that Iraq was one of those times but one can only make such a grave decision based on the best information available. I cannot second guess the Bush administration’s decision here because I did not have access to the information that they were looking at when the decision was made. In retrospect, I would admit that it may not have been a wise move. You raise an excellent point when you bring up the dilemna of determining whether our tax dollars are wasted on the poor or not. This relates back to accountability. The federal government is practically DESIGNED to avoid accountability. I won’t even get in to the proclivity of the two major parties to construct programs that are designed to create long term, individual dependence upon government assistance in order to “buy” future votes. However, should we just meekly accept this lack of accountability in how our tax dollars are spent? In the private sector, if we create a project, we specifically define the end result of the project, we assign roles and responsibilities to real people and hold them individually accountable, and then we measure the progress to project completion and measure the end results to make sure we accomplished what we set out to do. That is not really rocket science but it is clearly not the way that Washington works, is it? Take the 9/11 Commission report. The report lists a lot of breakdowns in our intelligence, our military and civilian defense structures, and in our government officeholders but did the report assign specific blame to anyone? Did anyone lose his or her job over these breakdowns or are we do assume that it was all due to flaws in system that occurred spontaneously. For the 9/11 Commission Report to be worthwhile in the least, it should have assigned specific blame to individuals in government and then held those individuals accountable. It did neither and is thus not worth a dime, much less the millions of dollars we wasted on its preparation. Oh yeah, did anyone happen to notice that almost all of the reccomendations coming out of the 9/11 report call for increased spending and increasing the size of government to consolidate even more power at the federal level? Does anyone think that we now have more accountability built in? Final point, D4P, we have a Christian duty to be good stewards of the gifts that God gives us. This duty includes, I believe, to see that the money that God has given us the ability to earn, is used wisely. Our government does not use the money entrusted to it wisely and this is a proven fact. I read a commentary a few years ago that cited a report concluding that the US government could identify every single person in the USA, living at or under the poverty line, and simply write them a check to bring them above the poverty line for two years for less than 10% of what the US government currently spends on social welfare programs. Similarly, I saw another watchdog organization report on charitable giving that measured the effectiveness of the charity on how many cents of every dollar given gets to the intended recipient. The really good private charities were somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 cents on the dollar. The report said that caomparatively, the federal government only got 15 cents on the dollar to the intended recipient. I think that we can do better than THAT don’t you?>

The new testament also describes homosexuality as perversion. Did Christ?>

“one of God’s blessings is that he works through people (imperfect and fragile vessels) to accomplish things. There are times when we have to take action to protect our nation” But to me, this just begs the question. I don’t dispute that God works through people, nor that protection is a “good” thing. The issue, though, is HOW God works through people, and HOW protection is achieved. For example: are we really comfortable believing that God would work through people by having them commit acts that are forbidden in God’s word? Saying that God uses people through means that the Bible identifies as righteous (e.g. Mother Teresa serving the poor) is one thing; but saying that God uses people through means that the Bible identifies as unrighteous (e.g. Bush and his army killing people in Iraq) is another. And protecting our nation is fine if it means fostering positive relationships with other countries so as to reduce their desire to harm us. But protecting our nation becomes cloudier when it means killing people, and in the process determining that our own lives are more valuable than those of other countries, or determining that protecting our own lives is more important than serving others or showing Christ to the world. Killing someone else to protect myself just doesn’t seem “Christ-like” to me, particularly if the person I am killing is not a Christian and I am. If I kill the non-Christian, s/he presumably goes to hell, and I have ended any chance of him/her repenting and going to heaven. If s/he kills me, and I am a Christian, I am presumably going to heaven, while s/he remains alive and still has a chance of repenting and accepting Christ someday. In situations like this, why does it make sense to think that God would prefer the Christian to kill the non-Christian, if we assume that God’s ultimate goal is to have as many people in heaven as possible…?>

justintime: “Could you give us chapter and verse on the homosexual references?” Lev. 18:22 describes homosexual acts as “detestable.” This is significant in that most of the law in the O.T. is stated as merely a law that must be followed. This issue, however, is described with comparative words (i.e., detestable). Lev. 20:13 also describes homosexual acts as “detestable.” It lists them along with child sacrifice and bestiality. Romans 1:26-27 describes homosexual acts as “unnatural” and a “perversion” that will be punished (implied: by God). This is listed as one of the final steps away from God. I Cor. 6:9 lists homosexuality as a “wicked” act, along with sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, and male prostitution.>

As much as I appreciate what is trying to be done here, this is a pointless effort. Christianists like Ralph Reed arent interested in dialogue, they are interested in domination. They feel that they are right in all things because they believe they have received the one true revelation of Christianity. There is only one true Christianity for them and that is voting and contributing to the Republican Party. Ralph Reed is a Republican first and a Christian second and in this “dialogue” we should never forget that. The truth about Ralph Reed was borne out in his marriage of convenience with people like Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist and others in the political world who had no interest in promoting Christianity. Ralph is not an innocent in this — and this dialogue that gives him some level of legitimacy bordering on embarassing. There can be no dialogue with people who think they know the absolute TRUTH and how that truth is implemented in public policy. Jim, stop wasting your breath.>

D4P: PS: If you’re interested in the allegations that the Bush administration has forced scientists to alter their findings, simply Google “epa bush alter findings.” This will get you started. And if you’re actually interested in truth, don’t reference Google searches to present fact.>

Some have claimed here that conservative Christians ignore divorce for the sake of focusing on homosexuality. Nope. Read it again. I think that s true to some extent – especially that Christians have ignored divorce. We have to our own detriment. The solution, however, is not to ignore homosexuality (the solution of the left), but ADD focus on divorce. So the complaints about conservative Christians focusing on homosexuality are completely unfounded when retorting with “why don t you focus more on divorce?” Yes. We should… WITHOUT ignoring the focus on homosexuality. Nope. Why do you completely ignore the context of what has been written? The argument from “Christians” on the “right” is that we must “protect marriage”. This is their attempt to make it appear as if they are not singling out homoSEXual couples from legal marriage. It’s an attempt to make it look like they don’t harbor the prejudice, bigotry, and contempt that they harbor for homoSEXuals and homoSEXual couples. It doesn’t work. It might, if they placed as much focus on outlawing divorce and infidelity…but they don’t…AND, the fact that “Christians”, particularly evangelical “Christians”, divorce at higher rates than other demographic groups doesn’t add much evidence to the contrary. It’s not about “protecting marriage”. Denying the legal recognition of the marriages of homoSEXual couples is not at all about “protecting marriage”…it’s about continuing the demonization and maligning of homoSEXuals in American society. Period.>

HAC, Do you agree with the Levitical law that women who have given birth to a boy are unclean and must sacrifice a goat and stay away from church for 33 days lest they be wrathfully tortured and murdered by God (Lev 12 & 26)? If so, do you support amending the Constitution to prevent new mothers from entering a church until they have waited 4 weeks and sacrificed a goat? (It is a far more widespread problem than gay people trying to get married, after all.) If not, by what standard do you cherry pick verses from the OT?>

The Google search brings up news articles. Whether or not you believe them is obviously your prerogative, but the fact you can find them via Google doesn’t seem relevant to their accuracy.>

MNW: Did Christ? Your question shows ignorance towards Christian understanding of Scripture, that being that the entire bible is inspired by God. Jesus is called the “Word of God,” and Scripture is called the “word of God.” Christ’s words are not to be held higher than the rest of Scripture, because all of Scripture comes from God, including Jesus’ words. Christ said nothing of homosexuality, but he was never asked. He also said nothing of government (relevant here). Your point is moot unless you seek to throw out the rest of the bible. Is that your desire?>

MNW and others: how do you bold and italicize test in this forum?>

HAC, Your Leviticus examples are negated by similar Levitical calls to put disobedient children to death (we don’t DO that anymore), and to deny communion to the disabled (we don’t do THAT anymore, either), and with the fact that Leviticus calls eating shrimp and lobster an “abomination”. Do YOU picket Red Lobster? Do you call for its patrons to be denied marriage? Your Romans example talks of turning against natural uses (sounds to me like Paul waas addressing heterosexuals who dabble in gay sex with lust, which, of course, is NOT what WE are discssing). No where in it does the word “homosexual” appear. Likewise your Corinthian example does not speak of “homosexual” anything. It does talk about drunkards though. Are you willing to forbid drunks (and ex-drunks like George W(armonger) Bush from getting married now??? It also talks about “the effeminate”; does this mean Karl Rove won’t get into heaven? It refers to “adulterers” which would eliminate about half (or more) of Congress from heaven – thank God for small mercies at least. And since these last 2 examples were both written by Paul, would you care to address Paul’s support of slavery? His wish that women not be allowed to prech or teach? You’d better, or you should be prepared to be called ‘selective’ in your (ab)use of Scriptures. Besides, do you follow Paul, or Christ? (Oh, and while I’m at it, care to address the ‘thorn in the side’ Paul had (you know, the one most Biblical scholars believe referred to Paul’s latent homosexuality)? Paul wouldn’t be the first self-loathing closet f@g in history. And what you (and others) ALWAYS fail to address is, why should ANY Bible verses, pulled out of context, (mis)translated ad nauseam, be used as a basis for denying people equal treatment before the law? What of those who do NOT adhere to YOUR particular version of the Bible (or any other Holy Scriptures), or your particular religion, for that matter? America is NOT a theocracy (thank God). It DOES (still, I hope) have freedom of (and from) religion. Why should YOUR religious beliefs trump others’?>

The issue of military spending is a difficult one because the federal government is specifically and exclusively empowered by the US Constitution “To PROVIDE for the common defense” of our country and its citizens. That’s DEFENSE…not WAR MACHINE. Are you going to now try and convince us that the trillions upon trillions of dollars that we spend on our military is for “defense”? Go ahead and try…but I wouldn’t waste my breath if I were you.>

Jesus refused to take up arms against the purveyors of evil. Instead he told his followers not to use the sword. But Ralph Reed and others who claim to be Christian support the wars of the U.S. government which are mostly not directed against anyone who has even threatened the U.S. How can he say he’s pro-life, and support the killing of hundreds of thousands, largely civilians, many of them children through the ghastly policies of the U.S. and Israel? It really bothers me that someone claims to be Christian and supports the terrorist-like tactics and torture policies of the U.S. and Israeli governments. This is such a perversion of the Gospel.>

Daniel, Of course not. I’m sorry but if you ask those kinds of questions, you don’t understand Christian doctrine, nor do you understand the levitical law, nor do you understand anything I’ve said. We as Christians are NOT BOUND by the laws of the OT. I didn’t cherry pick anything. I said: Lev. 18:22 describes homosexual acts as “detestable.” This is significant in that most of the law in the O.T. is stated as merely a law that must be followed. This issue, however, is described with comparative words (i.e., detestable). Lev. 20:13 also describes homosexual acts as “detestable.” It lists them along with child sacrifice and bestiality. Do I really have to explain how one can determine that homosexual acts are wrong from these verses while saying we aren’t bound by following the OT law? Please try to understand what I’m saying here. God is the same since the beginning of time. His moral codes do not change. For a time, in order to govern the Israelites (and to serve as a way to direct us towards Christ [Gal. 3:24], who did not abolish the law but fulfilled it [Matt. 5:17]), God gave the OT law. But because of Christ’s fulfillment of the law’s requirements, we are not bound by its code (please read Gal. 3). However, the law remains in order to teach us (Rom. 15:4), and these verses declare homosexuality as “detestable.” Also, the context of the Lev. 20 passage cannot be ignored. Most of the OT law does not use comparative words like this. These words are not the law; they are the reason for the law. Here’s an example: “We should put murderers to death because murder is wrong.” Do you agree? Let’s say you don’t believe in the death penalty. Does that mean you believe murder is ok? Of course not. You disagree with the law portion, but the premise is sound. In the same way, God gives us the reason for condemnation of homosexual acts: it is detestable. Regardless of all of this, your point is moot because I cited New Testament verses as well.>

Your question shows ignorance towards Christian understanding of Scripture, that being that the entire bible is inspired by God. Jesus is called the “Word of God,” and Scripture is called the “word of God.” Christ’s words are not to be held higher than the rest of Scripture, because all of Scripture comes from God, including Jesus’ words. Your response shows ignorance towards OTHER viewpoints in the world. I prefer to call myself a “Follower of Christ” (if we must resort to labels). I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what the rest of the bible has to say…nor do I care what you believe makes one a True Christian (TM). I only need to know and follow two things to follow Christ: Love God above all things. Love my neighbor as myself. Do you disagree? Christ said nothing of homosexuality, but he was never asked. He also said nothing of government (relevant here). Your point is moot unless you seek to throw out the rest of the bible. Is that your desire? Sure. I don’t need the bible to know and follow Christ. Do you? I don’t get it. Why do so many people who claim to follow Christ give such importance to a book? A book, mind you, that DIDN’T EVEN EXIST WHEN CHRIST WALKED THE EARTH. You’re free to follow the bible. I choose to follow Christ. How, specifically, is a gay man in a loving, monogamous, committed marriage not abiding the two commandments upon which all of the laws hang?>

HAC, Thanks for the homosexual references. I guess Kevin S. has left us. But maybe you know where Kevin found the part about, “old law that we are no longer under because of Christ’s death on the cross”. .>

D4P, Italics: (i)text here(/i) Bold: (b)text here(/b) Underline: (u)text here(/u) Replace the ( with >

HAC, Thank you for your assessment of my understanding of Christian doctrine. I hope you’ll allow a little more ignorance on my part, because I’m confused. You said: We as Christians are NOT BOUND by the laws of the OT. I didn’t cherry pick anything. But then you said: God is the same since the beginning of time. His moral codes do not change. *scratch head* Okay, so underlying your statements there is the belief that the OT contains “God’s moral codes.” You believe that they were delivered verbatim to Moses and they express God’s unchanging, eternal moral purity standards. So far so good? You also said we are no longer bound by the Law. Which means that we aren’t bound to follow “God’s moral codes.” You believe this so fully you even rejected my question about a specific Levitical law, saying it doesn’t bind you. And yet the condemnation of homosexuality IS binding. According to what you’ve said, it reveals the eternal will of God in a way other Levitical laws do not. Here’s my question: By what standard do you determine that the law on uncleanliness after birth is irrelevant to modern times but statements about homosexuality are the eternal will of the LORD?>

Thanks, MNW.>

Re; “Protecting the nation of Israel” Sorry Ralph, but your outdated and shaky dipensationalist theology doesn’t impress me. Please take a look at the following links by Anti-Zionist Jews: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/opposed.html Please read the folowing links regarding the falseness of dispensational theology: http://www.pickle-publishing.com/books/end-time-delusions-wohlberg.htm?dd A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Paperback) by Kim Riddlebarger (Author) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080106435X/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/002-5460730-9460815?v=glance&s=books&st=* http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/ “>http://www.ingodstime.com/Excerpts.htm>

I am really sick of hearing people say that giving to the poor should be voluntary because that is better for us (we should give out of our hearts and not because we are forced to). It seems that we are stilll stuck in our own selfishness. The question shouldn’t be “what is better for our hearts?” but “what is better for the poor?” That is a question not answered well by either conservative or liberal ideology. It’s simple and complicated. The poor need to eat. They need homes. They need the self-respect that comes from work. They need opportunity. They need clothes. They need training. We need to ask them what they need instead of talking in our oh-so-superior conservative/liberal way. The question should never be what is better/more effective for us, but what is better/more effective for the poor, to get justice? Sorry not to respond to all the ad nauseum homosexuality debate. I don’t believe that the religious liberals I know believe that nothing is sinful. They do believe that we are ALL sinners. Perhaps a liberal Christian who is a homosexual doesn’t believe that her sexuality is a sin. But I would bet that this person still belives that she is a sinner. She perhaps commits the sins of selfishness or lust or coveting or pride. And I am hearing as much hatred from the right as from the left. It’s equal opportunity out there.>

D4P, I really appreciate you taking the time to engage in this interesting dialogue with me. I used to have some of the exact same questions as you regarding the whole “Thou Shall Not Kill” dichotomy until about 10 years ago, I listened to an Old Testament scholar who had studied the Torah in the original Hebrew(Aramaic) language. His discussion was on exactly the apparent contradiction in the OT where in some places a violation of God’s Law was punishable by death but in Exodus 20:13, the commandment is “Thou shall not kill.” The explanation for this apparent contradiction is actually quite simple: the original Hebrew word in the Torah actually translates more to our word “murder” not kill. The Hebrew word meant the taking of INNOCENT life or the “spilling of innocent blood” which the OT tells us that “God detests.” It did not mean that the Jews could not, for example, have the death penalty for certain crimes which they clearly did as outlined, for example, in Leviticus. IN fact, many translations of the Bible today, the New Revised Standard Version for example, actual use the word “murder” not “kill.” So, if we know that there are circumstances under God’s Law, where the taking of life IS justified (i.e self defense or as punishment for a crime) then we are left as a society to do the best that we can to try to discern the judicious use of this knowledge. War, especially, raises a lot of tough questions because as we all know, “innocent blood” is spilled in wars all too frequently. A personal example of this is during WW II. My father in law was in the US Army (having been drafted) and was in training for the ground invasion of Japan. The military had stimated that this ground invasion would likely result in a minimum of 250,000 Allied casualties and over 1,000,000 Japanese lives, both miltary and civilian since it was anticipated that the Japanese civilian population would react to the invasion by picking up whatever weapons they could and fighting to the end. Before launching this ground invasion, Democratic President was faced with what had to be a terrible decision. Do I drop atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children? Or do I go through with the ground invasion and then explain to the families of all of the dead American soldiers that I could have prevented ALL of their deaths and also reduced the Japanese total deaths by a factor of 5 (casulaties from the bombs was estimated at somewhere between 150,000 to 215,000) I decided against it? (P.S. – I know that there is debate about whether the bombs actually ended the war but I am assuming that Truman was acting on the best intelligence he had available to him at the time). These are extraordinarily tough decisions and thank God most of us do not have to make them ourselves. Applying this to the Iraq War, which as I stated earlier I do not really support for a variety of reasons, let’s just say that the best intelligence we had, from a variety fo sources, indicated that Saddam Hussein, had WMD’s (he clearly had chemical weapons in the past and had not accounted for them) and Hussein had demonstrated that he was willing to use them against his enemies and had even plotted to assasinate a former President of the US. Bush looks over all of this data and make the call to do nothing. Let the UN keep talking about it but doing nothing substantive. A month later, an Al Queda operative smuggles a suitcase bomb into dowtown Chicago and detonates it killing 5 million Americans. It turns out that Iraq had supplied the Al Queda operative with the bomb. What is the result now? Bush is universally blamed for sitting on his rear and doing nothing, costing millions of American lives. Should we then just turn the other cheek to Iraq. “Hey, Saddam, you slapped Chicago, let us know offer you Atlanta.” I do not believe that following Christ whole heartedly leads to such an absurd and evil result.>

curiouser and curiouser, You seem to desire to throw out the entire bible. That’s fine. You disagree with it, and I might add that you really don’t understand it. Without accepting the bible as authoritative, we will get nowhere in a discussion. I’ve already answered your primary concern. You seem to have a hatred towards Christian ideas and the bible itself. This is shown in things like this, which is completely false: “the ‘thorn in the side’ Paul had (you know, the one most Biblical scholars believe referred to Paul’s latent homosexuality)” Very few scholars believe that. Most believe he had trouble seeing. Please read the Scripture you cite and tell me where that implies homosexuality (I mean this rhetorically because it doesn’t imply it at all). I will actually reply to this: “And what you (and others) ALWAYS fail to address is, why should ANY Bible verses, pulled out of context, (mis)translated ad nauseam, be used as a basis for denying people equal treatment before the law? What of those who do NOT adhere to YOUR particular version of the Bible (or any other Holy Scriptures), or your particular religion, for that matter? America is NOT a theocracy (thank God). It DOES (still, I hope) have freedom of (and from) religion. Why should YOUR religious beliefs trump others’?” 1. No one is implying different treatment before the law. Laws should not discriminate, and defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not discriminate against anyone. A man can still marry a woman, regardless of his sexual orientation. To say this is the law discriminating is to not understand the word “discriminate.” 2. Those who do not believe this is important regarding society can VOTE against making marriage btwn one man and one woman. When it is voted on, the vast majority support a traditional view of marriage and desire it to be officially defined as such. This is primarily a reaction to those who wish to redefine marriage. The homosexual movement brough the issue up and are pushing it on a society that doesn’t want it, not conservative Christians. 3. America is not a theocracy, it should not be a theocracy, and I don’t know ANY Christians who think that. Why would we want that? Most CHRISTIANS came to America initially to flee state-imposed religion – I can’t think of any theocracy that hasn’t persecuted Christians. You’re not understanding me at all if you think I would ever support a theocracy. 4. Let me answer your final question with a question: “Why should YOUR values of justice trump mine? I believe everyone under 5 ft tall is smarter, and only THEY should be able to vote (btw, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids Congress from restricting voting based on height – plus, if they passed a constitutional amendment, it wouldn’t matter, because the constitution can be amended however we want it to be). Don’t impose your religious views on me that God created all people equal.” That’s just about as reasonable an argument as yours. D4P, If I type out what you have to do it doesn’t show. Use the letters “i” for italics or “b” for bold, and replace this example’s parentheses with less than and greater than signs: (i)your text(/i), or (b)your text(/b).>

Several people have made reference to Christ saying that we are no longer subject to the “old law” because of Christ dath on the cross. This is not really accurate. What the referenced Scripture means is that those who have accepted the gift of God’s salvation are no longer under CONDEMNATION for our transgressions under the law because Christ’s death has paid our penalty (death or eternal separation from God). What Jesus actually said was the He did not come to destroy (or replace) the law but to fullfill it. Additionally, when Jesus gave Hiscfollowers the Great Commandment to “love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength” and to “love you neighbor as yourself” He said this summarized the rest of the law. He did NOT say that it replaced it.>

Thanks, HAC.>

Luthern Pastor, Sorry not to respond to all the ad nauseum homosexuality debate. Ad Nauseum? Sorry if it makes you sick, dear pastor, but you haven’t a clue how sick I am of it. Perhaps there’s a topic that affects your life EVERY DAY, that you’d prefer to talk about that will make the rest of us sick talking about it. I’d expect something more from a pastor that claims to follow Christ…but in this day and age I don’t hold my breath. To some of us, the continued discrimination and injustice we receive at the hands of OUR government, because some religionist bigots can’t take their focus off of our lives and what we do with our dicks makes us sick. But nothing makes me more sick than knowing that these same religionists claim to follow the moral guidance of one who espoused love…instead of contempt…for others…and that somehow they believe they’re also reflecting love, when all I get from them is spit.>

MNW: Do you disagree? Yes. Emphatically. So does Jesus: Matt. 5:17 Matt. 22:29 Mark 12:24 Luke 16:17 Luke 16:29-31 Acts 9:5-6 and Gal. 1:12 Here are some others: Matt. 8:4 Matt. 23:2-3 Mark 1:44 Mark 7:10 Mark 12:26 Luke 5:14 Luke 20:37 Luke 24:26-27 Luke 24:44 John 3:14 John 5:46 John 7:19>

MNW, Yes, the Bible CAN be an idol. Particularly so if anyone makes it a requirement of the Christian faith. That said, I think the Bible is the essential book for the Western spiritual seeker. Don’t read it like a newspaper. It’s wisdom, it’s history, it’s legend, it’s mythology, it’s apocalyptic, it’s prophetic. To quote Marcus Borg, “It’s all true. And much of it actually happened.”>

You seem to desire to throw out the entire bible. That’s fine. You disagree with it, and I might add that you really don’t understand it. Without accepting the bible as authoritative, we will get nowhere in a discussion. I’ve already answered your primary concern. How typically “Christian”. Either agree with what I believe or the discussion cannot advance. Such arrogance. And you wonder why so many people are turned off by “Christians” these days.>

HAC, Like I said. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what the rest of your book says. It’s a book. It isn’t God. All that matters is these: Love God above all things Love your neighbor as yourself>

I would suggest that those people who reject the authority of the Bible are left with making up their own moral code and that is EXACTLY why God gave us His Word. God does not change with the shifting of political parties and societies nor is God apt to change His code so that people can be more comfortable in their own particular sin issues. Very simply, if we have no moral code higher than that of our own reasoning, then we either have around 8 billions different moral codes or, in truth, we have none at all.>

Well, I was referring to ad nauseum comments condemning homosexuality as sinful.>

Drew, Thanks for the clarification: Several people have made reference to Christ saying that we are no longer subject to the “old law” because of Christ dath on the cross. This is not really accurate… I agree. It was a misunderstanding and wrong use of semantics on my part. Daniel, Refer to Drew’s comments. I was about to say the same thing in response. MNW, I apologize for any Christian who has spit on you (literally or figuratively). That is wrong and not relective of Christ. However, please show me where you have received “discrimination and injustice” from the government, and how this is caused by religious people.>

All that matters is these: Love God above all things Love your neighbor as yourself Yes, but isn’t part of what it means to love God to obey His commandments? And don’t you need the rest of “the book” to know what those commandments are? That being said, those commandments are not necessarily always crystal clear, and there is not even agreement as to which commandments still apply and which do not.>

That said, I think the Bible is the essential book for the Western spiritual seeker. I disagree. Don’t read it like a newspaper. Who can? Please. It’s wisdom Some of it anyway. it’s history Some of it anyway. it’s legend Perhaps. it’s mythology Mostly. it’s apocalyptic If you believe in such nonsense. it’s prophetic Possibly. To quote Marcus Borg, “It’s all true. And much of it actually happened.” Now that was funny…especially given that the men who put it together, and decided what would and would not go into it, had absolutely no ulterior motives whatsoever in their decision-making process. Wanna buy a bridge?>

Very simply, if we have no moral code higher than that of our own reasoning, then we either have around 8 billions different moral codes or, in truth, we have none at all. Then I guess we have none at all. Because, CLEARLY, not everyone agrees on what exactly God’s moral code is…or did you miss that? If what you say were true, then there would only be ONE understanding of it all…but, byt he grace of God, we are blessed with REASONING…and free will to choose our own destiny based on our own reasoning.>

Lutheran Pastor, Thank you for the clarification, but until the rights of gay people are respected in this country I will continue to discuss it “ad nauseum”, and I would hope you would as well.>

Drew, Traditionally, Paul’s position from the Apostolic Council recorded in Galatians 2-3 has been accepted: we are no longer to follow the commandments of the Law.>

D4P, Yes, but isn’t part of what it means to love God to obey His commandments? And don’t you need the rest of “the book” to know what those commandments are? That being said, those commandments are not necessarily always crystal clear, and there is not even agreement as to which commandments still apply and which do not. Exactly. All that is required is to know Love. Love God above all things. Love your neighbor as yourself. Is that not clear enough for you? How, pray tell, did the world survive before the bible was created? Do you beleive the world to be any more corrupt than it is today? I don’t understand why so much emphasis is placed on a book…a book that hasn’t even been around that long (in the big picture of things). Do you not know the law (commandments) already? I found it exactly where Christ said he put it…and it wasn’t in any book.>

MNW, Why do you believe those 2 things? Do you think Jesus said them? Why would you think he did (if you do)? Besides the Acts and Galatians verses (which claim quite emphatically Paul is speaking on behalf of Jesus himself – I could also reference Peter, one of Christ’s closest, if not THE closest, followers where he declares Paul’s words “Scripture”, but you probably won’t believe it because it’s in II Peter), I only cited the gospels. Do you not believe these recorded words of Christ are what he said? If not, how do you know he even said the 2 things you follow? You can’t have it both ways. Either you just decided to follow those 2 things arbitrarily because someone else (not necessarily Jesus) said them, or you accept the gospels as accurately recording Christ’s words. If you do, you have to take the REST of the bible seriously, because Jesus certainly did. The bible isn’t God. Not at all. It is the words of God, though, which means something in my mind. It even puts itself up pretty high in importance, saying it is more powerful than a double edged sword (Heb. 4:12). Psalm 119, the longest book in the bible, is a love song about the bible. Think of yourself as a soldier in WWII. You are thousands of miles away from home, and you have a single letter that the love of your life wrote you. You will hang onto that letter like nothing else. You will love that letter, and read it again and again. You don’t love that letter because you love the letter. You love it because you love the person it came from. In the same way, loving the bible comes because we love God.>

“Is that not clear enough for you?” Like I said, loving God doesn’t only mean singing songs to Him and such, it also means obeying Him. I don’t have a problem with the belief that God puts knowledge of His commandments in our hearts, as I would like to believe that persons without access to a Bible can nevertheless follow God. If a person is loving God and loving others (and themselves), then I think it inevitably follows that they will be obeying God. But again, a lot of this hinges on what it means to love God. If a person is breaking a commandment of which they are unaware, they may think they are loving God, but with respect to that commandment, they are technically not loving God in that respect.>

MNW, I choose to follow Christ. What does that mean? Love God above all things. What does that mean? How, specifically, is a gay man in a loving, monogamous, committed marriage not abiding the two commandments upon which all of the laws hang? Because it is not loving God above all things when you break his commands. D4P, Well said.>

New thread.>

Drew & HAC: As CS Lewis successfully argues in Mere Christianity and in “The Tao,” objective morality does not derive from the Bible – it is ubiquitous and written in each of us. The Bible adds requirements to that objective morality. I see those requirements as often very culturally influenced. But, if you insist on reading the whole thing literally and infallibly you are left with two problems: 1. The Problem of Pain. The Torah and Proverbs claim that God punishes the wicked and rewards the good in this life. Ecclesiastes and Job says God’s punishment and reward in this life are mysterious and unrelated to our righteousness. 2. The Problem of Jewish Exclusiveness In the Torah only Jews can follow God. By the time we get to Jonah [but not yet to Christ] God is available to their worst enemies. In each case, only one of the positions can be right. If you accept all parts of the Bible as equally authoritative and infallible, there is no way to evaluate either. This causes no problem for me because I see the Bible as the record of the early part of an eschatological process. The Jews’ understanding of God clearly grows through time, just as ours has and will continue to.>

Drew, Correct. That is what I meant. Because he fulfilled the law, we are not beholden to, for example, wearing tassles. But, we are forbidden to sin. For the record, I do not consider homosexuality to be any sort of special category of sin, or any better or worse than any other form of (biblically defined) adultery. The references to passages condemning the act are meant to illustrate why scripture would not allow for gay marriage.>

justintime, Sorry, this is from earlier in the discussion. Read Gal. 3 to see what Kevin was refering to. MNW, In rereading your previous post, I must clarify. I DO agree that those 2 things sum up the entire law. However, we can also sum up the US legal code as “do what is just” (if you don’t think it’s just please just stay with me for the sake of argument). This is a good foundation, but it gives us very little understanding of what that law actually is. In the same way, the law can be summed up in 2 commandments that are foundational. “Foundation” means something to BUILD on. In other words, with those as our foundation, we can understand the rest of the bible. In regards to that, I emphatically disagree with you.>

Something the Christian religious right seem to forget is that throughout the Bible, Christians are taught moderation — in ALL things. Extremists on both sides — liberal and conservatives — claim that only their extreme viewpoint is correct and all others including moderates are wrong. Interesting that the majority of Americans consider themselves moderate and are growing very tired of the two extremes. Frankly, except for the weapons being used, I see a lot of similarity in the battle between conservatives and liberals in the US and the battle between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq — both are deadset against the other and want total power for their side. When will the “silent majority” finally stand up and say that enough is enough to these two groups who have caused too much division in this country?>

Daniel, So you’re a CS Lewis reader. Wonderful. I love his work. I believe you have misunderstood his entire point with “The Tao.” Lewis is essentially extrapolating on Romans 1, which speaks to the fact that morality is written on the hearts of mankind. That is why, I believe, many who follow the homosexual lifestyle and believe it is ok strike out so fervently at those who say it is immoral. There is still something in the conscience of man that speaks to our imperfection. Lewis was not throwing out the bible, however. He was rather pointing out the realities of absolute truth and the need for God. Your 2 disputes require much discussion, since they speak to nuances in seeming contradictions. Suffice it to say that God is much grander than us and is complex and hard to understand. That doesn’t mean what Scripture says of him isn’t true, only that it must be taken as a WHOLE to understand God. Here’s an example: relativity makes motion relative. Does that mean Newton was wrong? No. He was describing physics on a different level. Better yet, relativity and quantum physics seem to contradict. But they’re both true! Thus, it is not the physical reality that is wrong; rather, we are yet unable to comprehend and explain the truth of what is happening. In the same way, Scripture describes God on different levels, and from different perspectives. They do not contradict (although many seeks to find contradictions). They rather beautifully describe an infinite God who is much greater than our understanding. We must, therefore, understand God in a manner in which we can grasp, which seems to make contradictions, but that is only because it takes effort to understand God. The difference between you and me is that when I think the bible makes a contradiction, I believe that my understanding is wrong and the bible is right, whereas you believe the bible to be wrong.>

I see a lot of similarity in the battle between conservatives and liberals in the US and the battle between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq … except we don’t kill each other.>

HAC, First, don’t forget that I prefaced my similarity comment with a difference in weapons. True, those in Iraq use weapons that kill people, while we just use words and the ballot box to battle our enemies here. But the point still stands — both “battles” are primarily about extremists who believe that only their side is right and all others are wrong. In fact, to add further fuel to the flame, I see a similarity in stance (not in literal doctrine) between the liberals and conservatives here and the Pharisees and Sadducees of the New Testament.>

The law of the United States is the constitution. It is not the bible. We can bring Christian worldview, but the law is the law. We are all guaranteed rights without regard to…of all things…one’s sexual orientation. Quote the bible all you want…in the United States, the Bible is not the law — the constitution is and the contitution guarantees equal protection under the law. If conservatives want to demonize homosexuals, have at. That is not what Jesus did, but there isnt much that today’s conservatives have in common with Jesus, so its OK. Jesus loved and calls us to love everyone. Period. You want to hate gays and couch it in the Bible…fine. God is love and if you don’t love (everyone) you dont know God. Hide your hatred behind the flag…but God knows the hearts of all men. And Yes, that means YOU!>

Mike, Yes, but that’s a big difference.>

Almost There, The law of the United States is the constitution. Yes, which is why conservatives are trying to change the Constitution. I haven’t met a Christian yet who hates homosexuals. You think saying homosexuality is wrong means Christians hate gays. By that reasoning, you saying conservative Christians are wrong means you hate conservative Christians.>

Ralph Reed is a riot isn’t he? Just listen to his comments below! “That is why I hope you and I can have a constructive dialogue based not on criticizing this constituency or that for whether their agenda is narrow or broad, but whether it promotes sound public policy.” In particular the final sentence which states,”Promotes sound public policy” Giggles! Just what planet is he from? Sound Public policy?? Let me get this straight now…. he is a strong Bush supporter, as are most other ultra conservative Republican types, right? So that must mean that he believes that invading a sovereign nation like Iraq and utterly destroying normal life for millions of Iraqi’s and presiding over it’s collapse into civil war is SOUND PUBLIC POLICY?? That gutting our Constitutional rights to privacy through fear-mongering is SOUND PUBLIC POLICY?? That instituting rendition policies that allow the CIA to capture people off the streets with little or no evidence and then ship them off to foreign countries where they are imprisoned indefinitely and tortured is SOUND PUBLIC POLICY?? That trying to pass legislation designed to retroactively protect those same CIA agents and other military personnel who have participated in these acts of illegal detention and torture, from prosecution for their crimes, is SOUND PUBLIC POLICY?? That trying to force Congress to pass legislation that will allow those prisoners held on flimsy or non-existent evidence to be tried, convicted and put to death by a kangaroo court where evidence does not have to be shown for them to defend themselves from, is SOUND PUBLIC POLICY?? That making it a priority to offer a few thousand ultra wealthy citizens the chance to pass on more of their mega-fortunes to their spoiled children by voiding the estate tax, while our government ignores the needs of millions of the less fortunate and bankrupts our nation through the war in Iraq, is SOUND PUBLIC POLICY? Hello… Earth to Ralph Reed…. are you listening to yourself? Why don’t you try listening to the vast MAJORITY (65-70%) of Americans who find fault with your support of Bush’s ‘Sound Public Policy’???>

HAC You would change the constitution in a manner that fundamentally contradicts its underlying principles. I will take Thomas Jefferson over you anyday. Read these posts…if you dont think there is hate there, you are deceiving yourself. You are putting words in my mouth…if you want to have a debate with yourself, knock yourself out.>

I also noticed Ralph Reed skirted around Jim’s point about putting aside differences and working for the common good on abortion. I have always felt I would rather vote for a Democrat who supported healthcare and a well-cinaced, wel run soicla service system – the best environment for a woman to not have an abortion- then vote for a Republican who is pro-life but cuts her safety net, Sorry, but I’ve nver been shown ny real reason to change that. So if the 2 sids want to decide to work towards a common goal of fewer abortions, I think that’s the best way> I remember during the 80′s you couldn’t talk about a candidate’s postion on something like South Africs or the Nuclear Arms race without some misguided Christian saying “Yeah but look at thier stance on abortion or gay rights.” What a shame.>

Why do you believe those 2 things? I don’t believe them. I know them. There is a difference. Do you think Jesus said them? Does it matter who said them? Why would you think he did (if you do)? Why would you think it matters who said them? Do you not believe these recorded words of Christ are what he said? The law is written on your heart. Do you not believe these recorded words of Christ are what he said? If you do, then why do you need a book? Do you not trust your own heart? If not, how do you know he even said the 2 things you follow? Does it matter who said it? I am alive. I experience life…and living. In my experience, everything that matters can be summed up in these two things: Love God above all things. Love your neighbor as yourself. It isn’t complicated. Men have complicated it. You can’t have it both ways. Either you just decided to follow those 2 things arbitrarily because someone else (not necessarily Jesus) said them, or you accept the gospels as accurately recording Christ’s words. If you do, you have to take the REST of the bible seriously, because Jesus certainly did. What? Why? A) the bible did not exist when Jesus lived. B) Based on what I’ve written throughout these threads, do you REALLY believe I “just decided to follow those 2 things arbitrarily”? Y’see, the difference, I think, between me and you is that you look to your book for guidance…I look to my life…and my experience of life…for guidance. There isn’t anything arbitrary about me recognizing the validity of “those 2 things”. Not. At. All. It is the words of God, though, which means something in my mind. That’s your belief…which might have something to do with it meaning something to your mind. It’s not my belief, so it means absolutely nothing in my mind. You can claim all day that the bible is “the words of God”…but I will simply counter your argument, all day, that they are not the words of the God that speaks to me…not all of them anyway. Y’see, you seem to believe that God only spoke to ancient men…and that God only spoke to those who decided which writings should go into the bible and which should not…whereas, I, because of my experience…in my relationship with God…know that God STILL speaks to men (and women).>

Mike, I’m not sure the biblical perscription for moderation implies that we have to be politically moderate. Realistically, there are four political strata which define the American political landscape, conservatives, liberals, libertarians and populists. Regardless of what stand you take on an issue, you are, nonetheless, taking a stand. I’ve never understood why being in the political center is inherently better than being conservative or liberal. It sounds nice though. Who doesn’t want to be moderate?>

Like I said, loving God doesn’t only mean singing songs to Him and such, it also means obeying Him. Obedience? Is that like the way a wife is supposed to obey her husband? I don’t have a problem with the belief that God puts knowledge of His commandments in our hearts, as I would like to believe that persons without access to a Bible can nevertheless follow God. Is it just a belief to you that God has put his laws in our hearts? It’s not a belief to me. It’s something I clearly know. If a person is loving God and loving others (and themselves), then I think it inevitably follows that they will be obeying God. But again, a lot of this hinges on what it means to love God. Interesting. To me, what you’ve stated is almost like “what does it mean to torture”? As if it’s such a difficult thing to determine. Where is God, to you? If a person is breaking a commandment of which they are unaware, they may think they are loving God, but with respect to that commandment, they are technically not loving God in that respect. Do you think God would hold you accountable for “breaking a commandment” that you were unaware of? Look, it comes down to this… You either believe the bible is “God’s handbook to us”..or you don’t. But if you do…you better be damned careful about what you do or do not do. To me, the bible is a book. And like ALL books, it is a creation of man. What would you have without the printing press? What would you have without language? What would you have without words and letters? Why is it so difficult to recognize that God, and his message for us…to us…is so much more than the result of man-made creations?>

Almost there, Sorry, I meant to say that you “might.” I think I wrote that, then accidently deleted the “might” when rephrasing. Sorry, I know you didn’t say that. Changing the Constitution in order to stop leftist judges from infringing on stated laws is actually in line with the constitutional principles themselves. Judges have been declaring gay marriage a right, not legislatures. Actually, judges have gone against the stated will of legislatures and the people. THAT is unconstitutional, since the Constitution never allows for judges to make laws… ever. Show me where the Constitution allows for this? It actually allows for amendments, which is a much more constitutional process than what judges are doing. Because judges have gone against the law, and have taken out abstract implications from the Constitution, it becomes necessary to make something very clear in the Constitution itself. In this way, judges have no ability to overrule it, because they are bound by the Constitution. I don’t think Jefferson would have a problem with this. Besides, he didn’t write the Constitution… Oh, and I have read the posts, and none of them imply any hatred towards homosexuals. You’re putting words in other people’s mouths, now.>

Former Christian Coalition Director, Ralph Reed should not be permitted to post a blog given his record as it pertains to Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay. Ralph Reed took $4 million dollars from Abramoff. Tom DeLay was the keynote speaker for “Vision America” when he was being investigated and indicted! Giving Ralph Reed a platform, or elevating him on a pedestal after his ulterior motives have been exposed is ludicrous. Too many policy makers cognizantly succumb to sin, but its’ dynamics enslave them. Fidelity is not present in this administration; if it were, policy would be built on fact rather than falsified reports to justify an end. Regarding issues such as poverty: The obvious and immediate need is food, shelter, and medicine. However, to raise people out of poverty, energy and opportunity must be established. Energy provides water to sustain life and crops. Energy provides light for academic study for children. Energy provides modernization and economic possibilities that will permit these infant economies to grow.Opportunity parallels modernization. However, it begins to fail when globetrotting multinationals create global monopolies; resulting in a stranglehold on working people. To counter corporate entities with less than noble motives; we neeed to establish global “unity unions” of people – to balance the power. Without balance, there can be no peace.>

Ralph Reed says we “need more discussion of faith in public life. This summer I interned at an organization called Faith in Public Life that works to broaden the discussion about religion and politics in America. Check it out Faith in Public Life here.>

I choose to follow Christ. What does that mean? I Love God above all things. I Love my neighbor as myself. Love God above all things. What does that mean? Do you not know? MNW: How, specifically, is a gay man in a loving, monogamous, committed marriage not abiding the two commandments upon which all of the laws hang? HAC: Because it is not loving God above all things when you break his commands. That’s a circular argument, HAC. You’ll have to do better than that. What you’re saying is…It is not loving God when you break his commandment to love God. I asked for specifics.>

HAC, Thanks for the Galatians 3 reference. .>

For the record, I do not consider homosexuality to be any sort of special category of sin, or any better or worse than any other form of (biblically defined) adultery. The references to passages condemning the act are meant to illustrate why scripture would not allow for gay marriage. Come on, Kevin S… What utter BS. Shall I provide plenty of references to (red-lettered) passages condemning the act of divorce, in order to illustrate why scripture would not allow for legal divorce…much less the subsequent LEGAL second (3rd, 4th, 5th, nth…) marriages of divorced persons? Does JUSTICE mean nothing to you? Do you think it just to use the bible to justify the illegality of same-sex marriage, yet throw out the very words of Jesus and his condemnations of divorce to allow the legalization of divorce…and even more….to allow the legal marriages of people who have been divorced? Give. Me. A. Break.>

MNW, You have not understood me. I am trying to understand you, which is why I asked what you mean when you say you love God above all things. How does this play out practically in your life? How does this affect your decisions? How does it make you different from anyone else? My argument is in no way circular. My point is that it is not loving God when you break his commandments, which forbid homosexuality. You have forced it into a circular argument with your premise that the instructions in the bible have nothing to do with loving God, and God’s ONLY commandments are the 2 you have stated. That is why I wanted you to define them. By your reasoning, you can justify anything as being ok by God except for the explicit ideas of not loving God and not loving your neighbor as yourself. You refuse to define either rule except by themselves. You are saying, “these are true because they’re true.” I don’t buy it.>

In rereading your previous post, I must clarify. I DO agree that those 2 things sum up the entire law. However, we can also sum up the US legal code as “do what is just” (if you don’t think it’s just please just stay with me for the sake of argument). This is a good foundation, but it gives us very little understanding of what that law actually is. In the same way, the law can be summed up in 2 commandments that are foundational. “Foundation” means something to BUILD on. In other words, with those as our foundation, we can understand the rest of the bible. The US legal code is not defined by the written law alone. No, not AT ALL. Instead, it is precedent that clarifies the written law in the United States. It is through settled cases that the law is determined. It is through experience that the law becomes more clearly defined. It is through living in the law that the law is better interpreted. In other words, the law is fluid….until it’s not…and it is never in stone…unless it is (and even then it really isn’t). Do you think perjury…lying…will ever be accepted in a court of law? Do you think that might be a law that’s fluid…or stone? How about murder? I guess my point is that you seem to think you can read a book and tell me the law of God…when even the law of the land isn’t determined by reading a book…it’s determined by seeking justice…always moving towards what’s right…and correcting where it’s previously been interpreted wrong.>

RE: Low Expectations Met I’m not at all trying to discount the importance of serving the “least of these,” &c. But few responded to my query, and D4P seems to have been shooting at a different mark. But at least he or she replied. Thank you. D4P, I don’t suppose you’d say that if, on a certain (highly dangerous) street corner, were we to see one person starving to death and one person being stabbed to death, you wouldn’t agree that we should go first to the aid of the person a) in the most immediate peril and b) the person suffering most directly at the hands of another. Again, I do not mean that Christians are not called to aid both, only that legal murder of the innocent and helpless is reasonably assigned a high priority by the religious right. Makes a kind of sense to me. But maybe I’m some kind of wingnut. Cheers, Doug>

You have not understood me. I am trying to understand you, which is why I asked what you mean when you say you love God above all things. How does this play out practically in your life? How does this affect your decisions? How does it make you different from anyone else? How does it make me different? Is that your goal? To be different? I’m no different from anyone else. Do you think you are different from everyone else because you believe something? I think you believe you’re different from everyone else…but guess what…YOU’RE NOT!!!! As for playing out practically in my life…my life is filled with Love. I can think of nothing better to evidence I’m doing something right. Can you? My argument is in no way circular. My point is that it is not loving God when you break his commandments, which forbid homosexuality. Nope. That’s your interpretation of “God’s commandments”. And, yes, it’s circular reasoning. Here’s the only commandments: Love God above all things. Love your neighbor as yourself. How, specifically, does having gay sex (because that’s the meat of it) break either of God’s commandments? You have forced it into a circular argument with your premise that the instructions in the bible have nothing to do with loving God, and God’s ONLY commandments are the 2 you have stated. I didn’t state those 2…Jesus did. In other words, when Jesus says “on these hang all of the laws” what does that mean to you? To me, it means every law will find it’s basis in these. They are not a measure of the law, they are the root of the law. Other than reading it in a book, why do you think God would forbid gay sex? Do you think God just makes up “rules” willy nilly? Or do you think he uses logic and reason when developing all of those “rules”? That is why I wanted you to define them. By your reasoning, you can justify anything as being ok by God except for the explicit ideas of not loving God and not loving your neighbor as yourself. You refuse to define either rule except by themselves. You are saying, “these are true because they’re true.” I don’t buy it. What’s the difference between what I’ve said and you saying “the bible is true becasue it’s true”? I don’t buy it. I don’t trust a book. I trust my heart. I think that’s the core difference between us. You’re the opposite. You trust a book…but not your own heart.>

HAC I was out there, you know, having a life, but not Im back to respond. And of course, you demonstrate exactly who you are…you are a person who spits terms like “leftist” just like you spit the word “homosexual.” Like I said, hate is behind most of these posts. The will of the people cannot contradict the constitution. We live under a constitution and just because a legislature passes something doesnt mean it cant be illegal. Judges interpret the constitution…that is their job…and if that is their job and the constitution enshrines equal protection, it is you who are wrong, my friend, not them. And let me be clear, whoever wrote the constitution is more capable than you are to amend it.>

In case the folks still posting on this thread weren’t aware, Jim Wallis posted a new response earlier this evening with a new comment thread.>

Ralph Reed is pure evil…>

Woe unto you who call good evil and evil good…anonymous is right…Ralph Reed is PURE evil!!!>

Wow… where do I begin? MNW, You are not understanding what I am saying. You have read right past my points. I ll try to be succinct. 1. Fine, you can say it s legal precedent. That doesn t change anything I said. You contradict yourself later when you say that the law is based on seeking justice, but that s beside the point. It doesn t matter what the US legal code is based on for my example, only that it s based on something. My point is that there is a foundation, and you build on that foundation. Christ said (but by your understanding of the bible, we don t even know if he said it) that all the law (i.e., the Old Testament) is built on those 2 things. I have continually tried to ask you what you think these 2 foundational principles mean. I believe loving God above all else includes following what is written in the bible. You don t. I believe loving God and following after Christ makes me a better person. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE listen to me when I say I don t have more value than someone else, or that I m more important, or that I am better intrinsically. I am a sinner like everyone else. But following after Christ and loving God make me do better things, and I honor God in that process. If not, there is no point. I become better in the way I treat others and myself. I become better in my attitude towards life. Yes, my goal is to be different. My goal is develop good character. My goal is to become a better human being. I find joy and fulfillment in this. It brings me satisfaction to say I was able to do the right thing even when I didn t feel like it. 2. Of course I believe God uses reason when he gives us his laws. They are for our benefit. It is to our benefit that we don t murder. It is to our benefit that we love our neighbor. These moral codes make us better people. God forbids gay sex because it is a perversion. The sexual act is a spiritual act, and its intent is for a man and his wife. The perversion of this can destroy one s soul. God can repair and redeem, but a lifetime of sexual perversion will destroy one s soul. 3. You say I trust a book but not my own heart… Just tell me why trusting your heart is more valid than trusting a book? Is a murdered right when he trusts his own heart that leads him to murder? If trusting one s heart is the source of truth, then I am right. I trust that my heart is right when it tells me the bible is true. Besides, the writers of the bible trusted their own hearts when they wrote the books they wrote (they also trusted external revelation, I might add, but by your reasoning this came out of a trust from their own hearts). The Apostle Paul was right because he trusted his own heart when he said he received what he wrote by revelation from Christ (Gal. 1:12). By your own standards, I am right is saying homosexuality is immoral. My conscience confirms it (Rom. 9:1). Almost There, I was out there, you know, having a life,… Was that some attack on my profession? Anyway, I digress… The will of the people cannot contradict the constitution. We live under a constitution and just because a legislature passes something doesnt mean it cant be illegal. Judges interpret the constitution…that is their job…and if that is their job and the constitution enshrines equal protection, it is you who are wrong, my friend, not them. Show me where the Constitution says that it is the job of judges to interpret the Constitution. Also, can you show me when the Constitution says gay marriage is guaranteed? Regardless, the Constitution can be amended if the people so decide that it should be, and follow the legal process to do so. That is what many are striving to do, because they feel that judges are reading into things that aren t there. You may disagree, but no one is doing anything unconstitutional in this regard. And let me be clear, whoever wrote the constitution is more capable than you are to amend it. That doesn t make any sense. I am not any more capable than you or anyone else to amend it. The Constitution itself gives a procedure to amend itself (which, ironically, could be amended).>

HAC, I dont know or care what your profession is. Do you really not understand what the role of a Federal judge is in our society? No wonder Christianists are so easily led astray…you dont understand how our government is even structured or works. And again, you like putting words in my mouth and debating with yourself. Go ahead, but I never said gay marriage is guaranteed in the constitution…I said that equal protection is guaranteed. And yes, the ONE thing that you are right about is that the constitution can be amended. Congratulations. Now just go and figure out what a judge is supposed to do and we will almost be at a point where you can discuss this issue intelligently.>

And finally, just because you dont understand what I was saying doesnt mean that it didnt make sense. But if I have to spell it out… You and your type shouldnt be allowed near the constitution with a 10 foot pen…>

Here HAC…learn something. “>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf>

And learn some more… The U.S. Courts Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches. The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes. The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies. The Founding Fathers of the nation considered an independent federal judiciary essential to ensure fairness and equal justice for all citizens of the United States. The Constitution they drafted promotes judicial independence in two major ways. First, federal judges are appointed for life, and they can be removed from office only through impeachment and conviction by Congress of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Second, the Constitution provides that the compensation of federal judges “shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office,” which means that neither the President nor Congress can reduce the salary of a federal judge. These two protections help an independent judiciary to decide cases free from popular passions and political influence. From the US Courts Government Website>

Almost There, …hate is behind most of these posts… It would be very easy to classify things you have just said, such as: “You and your type shouldnt be allowed near the constitution with a 10 foot pen” as hateful. What if I had said this about you? You would most certainly classify this as hate. Why do you discriminate against Christians? Are we not an equal part of society? You speak like how Hitler spoke of Jews, or how white supremacists speak of blacks. I carry a copy of the Constitution with me in my car everywhere I go. I’ve handed out copies to people in the hopes that others will read and understand it. Have you even read Article III? Or for that matter, any of the amendments? How does equal protection mean gay marriage is guaranteed? I’ve already shown in previous posts why this is absurd.>

I knew everything you just posted… what’s your point?>

I knew Hitler would come into this conversation…just a matter of time. The last refuge of a losing argument…the Nazi slur. BTW: I am a Christian, so it would be kind of self defeating for me to also be the Hitler as well…(try to wrap your mind around the fact that I am a Christian who ALSO believes in the authority of the courts and in separation of church and state…) Yes HAC…Im not exempting myself from the hate…I hate ignorance. I hate those who use Christianity as a club to beat others with…I hate those who speak like they know what they are talking about when in fact they are completely clueless and are being led like a sheep to the slaughter… So what if you carry around the constitution? If you dont understand the concept of “judicial review”, your constitution is a scrap of paper. You cant understand the constitution without understanding how it has been interpreted by the courts…Article III is the beginning, not the end. And who cares what you say in your previous posts…if you fail to understand a basic concept like judicial review, why would I think you understand anything about the concept of equal protection?>

So then you understand that the role of the court is to be independent and decide cases free from popular passions and political influence? Gay marriage is the epitome of a “popular passion”…a pitchfork wielding mob hunting the latest boogeyman and using the pulpit as a shield. God bless the courts that stand up to you bullies… I dont think you understand anything. Of course, even if you didnt, your pride wouldnt allow you to admit it.>

God forbids gay sex because it is a perversion. What evidence do you have that “gay sex is a perversion”? (and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t quote your book) Prove, with logic and sound reasoning that there is an intrinsic “evil” in gay sex. Quoting your book does absolutely nothing to prove your point. It just makes you look gullible. It makes you look like you are incapable of using your God-given ability to think or to apply rational thought. Claiming something is “perversion”, when in reality all you’ve done is interpreted that whilst reading your book, is the utter definition of laziness. Prove that gay sex is perversion. The sexual act is a spiritual act, and its intent is for a man and his wife. Why? Are you so arrogant that you believe only a man and a woman can share in the spiritual intimacy of sex? How absolutely crass. It’s my experience that what you believe is completely wrong, and quite the opposite for me…but I’m not so deluded as to think that only two men can share such an intimately powerful moment. For crying out loud. Are you so closed off to the world around you that you are unable to witness that gay people LOVE? Are you so completely imagineless that you can’t fathom that when a gay couple have sex they, too, make love? The perversion of this can destroy one s soul. God can repair and redeem, but a lifetime of sexual perversion will destroy one s soul. Why are you so afraid, HAC? You seem to think that I, and the rest of the planet, are supposed to be as fearful as you, but you don’t seem to comprehend that I don’t fear God. I am not afraid of God, HAC. Do you comprehend that? Do you recognize that as a difference between you and me? You fear God. I Love God above all things. I Love God…even above fear. What I sense in you…is that you fear God above all things…even above love. Why else would you be so focused on “the rules”? Isn’t it because you are afraid of breaking them? Isn’t it that you are afraid of what will happen to you, or your soul, if you violate “the rules”? Do you recognize the polarity of love and fear? How many people do you know who love what they fear? Any? How many people do you know who fear what they Love? Any? Is there any fear in Love? Can you fear something and love it simultaneously? In my experience, I can’t.>

my goal is to be different. My goal is develop good character. My goal is to become a better human being. I find joy and fulf>

my goal is to be different. My goal is develop good character. My goal is to become a better human being. I find joy and fulfillment in this My goal is to… Love God above all things Love my neighbor as myself Nothing else really matters.>

Almost There, So the courts can say whatever they like and they’re right? What if they declared it unconstitutional to discriminate against those who sacrifice humans for religious reasons? Technically, and constitutionally speaking, they could do this. Could, perhaps, just maybe, courts overstep their bounds at some point? The bottom line is that you don’t even read what I say. I used the Hitler comparison to describe your comments that “my type” shouldn’t be within 10 feet of the Constitution. It’s a perfectly fair comparison. You completely ignored my point, though, and went onto something else. You accuse me of not understanding judicial review, but you don’t even come close to understanding anything I have just said, nor do you seem willing to try. I do understand the concept of judicial review, by the way, as I do common law and judicial precedence and that even though the Constitution doesn’t say the courts are to interpret it (my point from before, that you completely overlooked when you responded), it has been commonly understood that the role of courts is to apply the law in its intent, as explained in Federalist No. 78 for instance. I see interpretation as something much less powerful than you do. Unless the Constitution explicitly says something, judges cannot say it does. Call me a strict constructionist, but that’s what interpretation is. For what it’s worth, you brought up Jefferson before. This is what he thought of judicial review: “there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power [judicial review] to them [the Supreme Court] more than to the executive or legislative branches.” Which, again, was my point that you completely ignored. Thus, the power of interpretation can only be taken in its strictest sense, which means taking the Constitution literally. You may disagree, but don’t call me ignorant. You admit you are speaking out of hate. I’ll just leave it at that.>

You say I trust a book but not my own heart… Just tell me why trusting your heart is more valid than trusting a book? Is a murdered right when he trusts his own heart that leads him to murder? If trusting one s heart is the source of truth, then I am right. I trust that my heart is right when it tells me the bible is true. Besides, the writers of the bible trusted their own hearts when they wrote the books they wrote (they also trusted external revelation, I might add, but by your reasoning this came out of a trust from their own hearts). The Apostle Paul was right because he trusted his own heart when he said he received what he wrote by revelation from Christ (Gal. 1:12). By your own standards, I am right is saying homosexuality is immoral. My conscience confirms it (Rom. 9:1). Does my heart speak to you, HAC? If not, then why do you believe your heart speaks to me? I’m not sure where your relationship with God exists, HAC, but mine exists within my heart…within the infinite depths of love I’ve found within my heart. Do you believe God speaks to you in order to give guidance to others? Or do you think, perhaps, that God speaks to you to give guidance to you? and that he speaks to me to give guidance to me? It’s about one’s individual relationship with God…not whether or not one abides “the rules”. There’s a reason Christ said not to judge others…I think that might have something to do with what he was talking about. In other words, HAC, you judge your relationship with God based on how well you abide “the rules”…and you apply that same measure to others. You claim I violate God’s commandment when I have gay sex…and that will cause my soul to be destroyed…meanwhile, my soul has never felt so alive…so loved…as it does today. You can believe whatever you want. You can judge my behavior all day and night. You can measure my obedience and my success at abiding “the rules” ’til the day I die. But you will never…NEVER…know my relationship with God. Yours is just a guess…and “the rules” do nothing to make your guess any more accurate. The best unit of measure you have at your disposal is not how well one lives up to “the rules”…but rather, the fruits one bears in life. My life is filled with Love, HAC. Does Love not measure up in your book? Does Love mean nothing? Are “the rules” more important than love?>

Of course 2 men can love each other the way a man loves a woman. I never said otherwise. It will still destroy your soul. I cannot convince you of this because you have rejected my premises. My reasoning is sound if you accept the foundation I have built upon. The bottom line is that you reject that, so you will never agree. MNW: I am not afraid of God, HAC. Do you comprehend that? Do you recognize that as a difference between you and me? You fear God. Yes. I do. But not in the way you describe fear. I respect God, and love him more than anything in this world. You do not. You do not love him. You can’t. You cannot love someone you do not know.>

“The best unit of measure you have at your disposal is not how well one lives up to “the rules”…but rather, the fruits one bears in life.” Right, which is why I asked what difference loving God has made in your life, to which you said: “How does it make me different? Is that your goal? To be different? I’m no different from anyone else.“>

Of course 2 men can love each other the way a man loves a woman. I never said otherwise. It will still destroy your soul. I cannot convince you of this because you have rejected my premises. My reasoning is sound if you accept the foundation I have built upon. The bottom line is that you reject that, so you will never agree. You’re right, HAC. I will never agree. I will never accept the “foundation” upon which you’ve built. I will never accept that a book is more true than my own experience in life…and the truths that experience has shown me. It will destroy my soul to disregard what experiencing life has shown me…what God has shown me…and to choose instead a book. I’ve been there before. I’ve done that. It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t fun. It definitely wasn’t healthy…physically, mentally, or spiritually. Yes. I do. But not in the way you describe fear. I respect God, and love him more than anything in this world. You do not. You do not love him. You can’t. You cannot love someone you do not know. I do not know you, HAC…and I love you. Are you not my neighbor?>

MNW, I suppose you can love me, but in what manner? You can love me as another human being. You do not love who I am because you do not know who I am. If someone asked you who you loved, you couldn’t give them my name because you wouldn’t know it. Thus, you wouldn’t even know the object of your love. You certainly don’t love what I believe and say. So I would say that you really can only love me to the extent that you know me, which means you can love me as another human being and that’s about it. God requires a complete submission of self to him – a love that is above and beyond anything else (one of the 2 things you say you live by). This is sometimes described as “fearing” God, which is a form of honoring or respect. Loving God means seeking him out. However, you reject God’s revelation of himself. You reject his moral code. You do not seek to understand him. You have said yourself that you do not fear him. You do not know him. Thus, you cannot love him.>

HAC…I wake up and you are still putting words in my mouth and arguing with yourself. Do you ever win an argument? You really dont get it…the courts, like you and me, have to follow the constitution. But you have to set up these straw men and red herrings to make your point and confuse the issue…the fact is, you are wrong. So you are a strict constructionist…do you believe that we should have a Food and Drug Administration? That’s not in the constitution. Do you believe that we should have a USDA that protects the quality of our meat? That’s not in the constitution. Do you believe that we should be providing grants to service organizations (including faith based organizations) to help the poor? That’s not in the constitution. All of these things make our life better…they promote the general welfare, which is the express statement of one of the purposes of our constitution. You and other strict constructionists would have us live in a barbaric world where the people with the loudest megaphones and the most money and the biggest mob rule. Thank God the founders had the foresight to create the judiciary as the last line of defense against the ignorant and spiteful mob. The fact is that you and all strict constructionists want to read the constitution the way you like it…which is as it was written 200 years ago. But the founders are smarter than you and your entire gang of Christo-patriots…the world changes and the founders realized that (and so many conservatives want to deny it). If it was supposed to be a static interpretation, why did the founders put in place the mechansisms to revise and interpret the constitution as they did? It doesnt matter if one sees judicial review how I see it or you see it…we are inconsequential. The precedents are based in 200 years of court decisions…not our little blogging conversation here and not your “Justice Sundays” or your James Kennedyesque rants about how this country was founded or Article III. The world changes and our founders created the judiciary to ensure that the law changes along with it. HAC…in a challenge to your heartfelt love of gays, I dare you to make a real heartfelt proclamation about your love for gay men and lesbians. You say that you dont know any Christian that hates gays…so come out and proclaim your love for homosexuals in this blog. And not some “love the sinner hate the sin” BS…show me some real and genuine statement of love for gays among us. Can you do that? And yes, I do hate ignorance and intolerance. But I think it is too much for me to ask you to join me in that hatred. (And no snappy comebacks about how I should be tolerant of intolerance…it doesnt wash.)>

As far as the war against terrorism goes, Reed did not see fit to fight against Saddam Hussein in 1991, communism, Manuel Noriega, the old regime in Grenada, or any other enemy of the US or freedom. Nor has he ever seen fit to turn out during floods, blizzards, or hurricanes. In short he is a non-veteran by choice. What right does he have to advocate sending others when he chose not to serve himself?>

I suppose you can love me, but in what manner? You can love me as another human being. You do not love who I am because you do not know who I am. If someone asked you who you loved, you couldn’t give them my name because you wouldn’t know it. Thus, you wouldn’t even know the object of your love. You certainly don’t love what I believe and say. So I would say that you really can only love me to the extent that you know me, which means you can love me as another human being and that’s about it. Do you always place so many conditions on love? I pity you, HAC. It’s quite obvious from your posts that you place what you believe to be love in a box…and then you use it to measure the world. If something doesn’t conform to your silly little ideas or your silly little rules, then you toss it aside without any examiniation whatsoever. You use your book in the same manner. If something doesn’t conform to your silly little book of rules and ideas, then it isn’t worth your time or effort to try and comprehend. It’s because you believe that your book is the end all be all user manual for life and living…and I pity you because your book is but a mere speck in the universe…your heart contains so much more….but you will never find anything there, because you believe you’ve already found everything you need in your silly little book. It’s pitifully sad and heartbreaking, HAC, that this is what religion does to people. It’s truly saddening that so many people never look beyond their book to find the truth. It’s truly pitiful that so many have convinced themselves that their book is God’s revelation…all the while refusing to see God’s revelation right in front of their face and in their own experience of life. It’s pathetically sad that so many believe that the experience of God in the lives of others, as told in your book, is enough for them…that they never seek the experience of God themselves. I pity you, HAC…for you are lost in your book, unable to find your way in the world without it…unable to walk side by side with God on your own…always needing to hold the hand of those who have come before you…always needing to ask them for guidance, instead of Him. It truly breaks my heart that the most glorious path to God…to love…has been so perverted by mankind and man’s churches that all that has been accomplished is a welfare state of spiritually bankrupt humans who can’t make it through life without the direction of their church, their book, or their cult leaders. It’s ironic that it’s most often “Christians” who rail against “the welfare state” in the physical world…and the dependency it creates…when they themselves are exactly the same in the realm of the spirit. God requires a complete submission of self to him – a love that is above and beyond anything else (one of the 2 things you say you live by). This is sometimes described as “fearing” God, which is a form of honoring or respect. Loving God means seeking him out. Do you believe you completely submit yourself to God? Because I don’t buy it. What I witness in you, HAC, is someone who is completely submitted to a book. Enamored with it. In love with it. In you I do not witness someone honoring or respecting God, I witness someone honoring and respecting a book. In you I do not witness someone seeking out God…I witness someone seeking out words, instructions, and rules in a book…and somehow you’ve come to the belief that this is God. It is not. It’s a book. A book written by men. Created by men. Edited by men. Translated by men. Altered by men. It is not God, HAC. It’s a book. However, you reject God’s revelation of himself. Why? Because you think I reject the bible? I reject the bible as “God’s word”, HAC. I still recognize that it is a book. I do not reject it’s value as a book…as a partial history lesson…as a record of the expereince of others…as a record of the fantasies of others…as a record of the imaginations of others. All of these are useful, HAC, but it’s a book. It is not God. It is not authored by God. It is not created by God. It is a creation of men, HAC. It would behoove you to do some serious study on the bible itself. Not what is written in it…but, rather, how it came to be. It’s quite obvious you know very little about that aspect…and if you do know about it, yet continue to place such emphasis on it as “God’s revelation” for all of eternity, then there really isn’t much else to talk about. I’ve no need to continue to try and explain to you my experience of God, if all that matters to you is the experiences of those in your book. A limited, hand-picked, cherry-picked, idealized account of the experiences of others brought together into one book to serve, not the people, not God, but the church. You reject his moral code. I Love God above all things. I Love my neighbor as myself. If you want to judge that as “rejecting his moral code” go right ahead. My relationship with God himself tells me otherwise. You do not seek to understand him. I seek to Love him…and, as promised, I have found it. You have said yourself that you do not fear him. What is there to fear of Love? You do not know him. In your judgment, perhaps. My experience shows me that I do. Do you think your judgment of me is more important than my own experience? Thus, you cannot love him. God is greater than you or I or anyone could ever imagine. He is beyond the limited comprehension of man. Based on your ideas and beliefs, no man could ever fully Love him…for no man could ever fully know him. I must disagree with your assertions. I choose instead to follow my heart…to follow Love…to follow Him…instead of you and your book…instead of you and the grandiose ideas you have about yourself, your “knowledge”, and your obvious limited experience of God.>

I just don’t understand the self-righteousness of the Christian right with respect to gays. Surely, if Jesus were alive today, his love for the outcasts would encompass gays and lesbians. There are only six passages in the Bible that mention homosexuality, but those versus are suspect. If you actually read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, there is no clear link between homosexuality and the destruction of the cities. In fact, Ezekial tells us that the sin of Sodom was a sin of arrogance…of the overfed ignoring the plight of the poor and the needy. Isn’t that exactly what’s going on in America today? While hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans are homeless, our President’s #1 priority is borrowing money to give whopping tax cuts to some of the wealthiest people on the planet. Further, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the men who wanted to “know” the angels staying with Lot are clearly not interested in a loving, consensual sexual relationship. This is gang rape! How is this story a condemnation of gays? Meanwhile, there are hundreds that discuss our duty to the poor and to pay workers a fair wage. Yet, you just applaud the 8 million people being dumped off welfare as being a victory for dignity and self reliance. Yet, the minimum wage has remained frozen at $5.15/hour for the last ten years. Meanwhile, CEO salaries have skyrocketed. How many of the people kicked off welfare are unable to find daycare and are forced to neglect their children? How many have actually found work? How many have become homeless or committed suicide? Does anyone know or care?>

Seems to me that some of the millionaire preachers of the Christian Right have taken 30 pieces of silver to sell out their faith. They preach the word of the ruling class: pro-rich, pro-war, pro-torture, anti-environment. What this has to do with the teachings of Jesus is beyond me.>

HAC, “However, you reject God’s revelation of himself.” No, we reject YOUR interpretation of God’s revelation. “You reject his moral code.” No, we reject YOUR interpretation of God’s moral code. “You do not seek to understand him.” That’s a bit arrogant for a “christian”, don’t you think?>

Even worse, HAC, “You do not know him.” Says YOU. The God I know looks nothing like the God you seem to know. Thank God. “Thus, you cannot love him.” Frankly, I wouldn’t WANT to “love” a restrictive, exclusionary “God” like the one you put forward. If loving that kind of a “God” results in behaviours and attitudes like yours sene here on these boards, I would run so fast from such a “God” it would leave dust on your sandals for you to shake off ;{O)>

Name one time that religion of any kind has helped anyone, anywhere, at any time. Religion of any kind is a selfish and delusional aspect of humanity that, at it’s heart, does not search for a closeness with god but seeks to divide and control the masses. Governments manipulate religion to sway their populations to act certain ways. This has never been more apparent than in the present day US administration, that is enslaving the christian right to do their bidding. If there is a hell then you are already on the guest list.>

Almost There, You still just don t get it. You like to put me in a little box that you can hate. It just doesn t work that way. Your level of rhetoric and hatred are not worth responding to because you haven t even given a reasoned response to anything I have said. You don t listen. You re not willing to. You re a very unhappy person. I ve tried to be reasonable with you. You have shown ignorance (the thing you hate) towards what I have said. How can you be so caught up in yourself in regards to things such as the law, when you can t even understand someone who disagrees with you? You are not worth talking to. — MNW, Did you read what I said? You quoted it, so I assume you did. Where do you disagree? God s revelation is an integral part of my life. He reveals himself to me through other people, through creation, through prayer, and yes, through Scripture. I oftentimes here his voice in meditation. It is usually words of encouragement from Scripture – sometimes not. He told me to pursue the woman who is now my wife, and that revelation has brought great joy to my life. My spirit is completely submitted to God because his Holy Spirit is in me. I as a whole am not and cannot be completely submitted because sin still haunts me. I still am tempted to do what is wrong – to hurt others that hurt me, to be selfish, to be greedy, to lust… But God requires that submission in your heart. You say that my study of Scripture and my love of it indicates I do not love God. I believe it says the opposite. This may be a bad example, but follow me here: You really love your car. As a result, you read the car s manual – you go online and read message boards about tips and tricks to take car of it – you talk to mechanics about the best way to drive it. Does that mean you love the manual, the message boards, or the mechanics more than you love the car? No, of course not. You do those things because you love the car. In the same way, I read and love Scripture because it speaks of the One I truly love. I tried explaining this before, but I guess you didn t read that… So you don t throw out the bible completely. Good. How much of it have you read? Do you really understand it? I ve studied it since I was a child and still don t understand everything. I won t. There is more there than one can get in an entire life, which is part of its beauty. I do understand this, though: the bible was written by God at the hands of man. At least the bible describes itself that way, but you won t take any authority outside of your heart. You say, Based on your ideas and beliefs, no man could ever fully Love him…for no man could ever fully know him. I agree. But to those who truly seek God, he reveals himself to them. As we learn more of God, we are able to love him more. If you don t seek to know him at all, you cannot love him at all. You have criticized my reliance on the bible. Yet I study it to know God more so that I may love him more. I think it is the epitome of ignorance to say you trust your heart over the authority of someone else s words. By what authority can you claim your heart is true? You have no authority but yourself. I rely on things outside myself. This includes God himself. You do not rely on anything outside yourself. You will not take instruction. This is to your peril. You do not see that you do not follow God. You cannot follow him if you do not listen to him. — Tegan, I do love gays. God loves gays. Neither God nor I (because I follow him) love homosexual activity. Almost There will hate this, but we do love the sinner while not approving of the behavior. If you can t see this distinction, you re not trying. You can t just throw out some blanket statement that conservative Christians hate gays, because they don t and you have no proof. Oh, and the verses you refer to are not very suspect. Have you studied them? You have to do a lot of reading into them to say that they are suspect. The tax cuts increased government revenue because more money in the economy created more wealth. An increase in the minimum wage will increase unemployment and make more people homeless. The only people a minimum wage hike won t hurt are the rich. Think of it this way: I am worth $5.50 per hour to an employer because I only bring in $5.60 per hour. The minimum wage increases to $6.00 per hour. As a result, I will either be fired, or prices will increase, or both. If I am fired, I am unemployed. If not, the prices of whatever business I am in (let s say, food service) will go up. But what usually happens is both. So now I am out of work AND food costs more. Minimum wage hikes hurt the poor, and thus it is more Christian to oppose them.>

curiouser and curiouser: “Frankly, I wouldn’t WANT to “love” a restrictive, exclusionary “God” like the one you put forward. If loving that kind of a “God” results in behaviours and attitudes like yours sene here on these boards, I would run so fast from such a “God” it would leave dust on your sandals for you to shake off ;{O)” Your words are a witness to your decision. I am truly sorry. — Christopher Paul, Do you, then, agree with the Venezuelan President that Bush is the Devil?>

MNW, To clarify, this: Did you read what I said? You quoted it, so I assume you did. Where do you disagree? was in response to the first paragraph you quoted.>

I think it is the epitome of ignorance to say you trust your heart over the authority of someone else s words. It is the epitome of delusion to trust a book rather than your own experience in life. It is the epitome of foolishness to trust someone else’s words over your own experiences…over the truths you’ve learned through living and life. You deny the Love within your heart…and according to your book, HAC, God is Love…so when you deny the Love within your heart, you basically deny God. If a book tells you fire does not burn, yet you touch fire and get burned…you would still claim that fire does not burn, but only because the book tells you so. You would disregard your own experience of getting burned, only to continue the delusion that your book is always right. Yet you claim that I am ignorant? It is you who have not learned…touch fire…and get burned! You choose instead to believe your book…than to learn the lesson of the painful blister. By what authority can you claim your heart is true? You have no authority but yourself. I rely on things outside myself. This includes God himself. Ahhhhh…the crux of the problem exposed. Y’see, HAC, the authority I find within IS God. He isn’t out here, HAC…he’s within. You believe that God exists outside of you…which is evidence to me that you really haven’t found God at all. Because everyone I know that exemplifies a depth of understanding of God, has found God within themselves….not in a book…not in a church…not in someone else…not sitting on a fluffy cloud somewhere. God is within, HAC…and he cannot be known ANYWHERE ELSE. God is Love, HAC…and Love cannot be known ANYWHERE, but within your own heart. You do not rely on anything outside yourself. I’ve no need to rely on anything outside of me, HAC. I’ve found everything I need within my heart. I have Love to guide my way, can you think of anything better than letting love lead the way? You will not take instruction. This is to your peril. You do not see that you do not follow God. You cannot follow him if you do not listen to him. Your continued judgment of me, my life, and my relationship with God is to your own peril. At least, not according to me, but according to Christ. What’s that you say about listening? Apparently, HAC, you’re projecting again.>

MNW: Based on your ideas and beliefs, no man could ever fully Love him…for no man could ever fully know him. HAC: I agree. Uhhhmmm….of course you agree. It’s your idea and belief…not mine. What you’re agreeing to is the idea that “no man could ever fully Love God”. However… Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. So tell me, HAC, why would Jesus tell you to Love God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind…if “no man could ever fully Love God”? Does all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind not equate to “fully” according to your book? But to those who truly seek God, he reveals himself to them. As we learn more of God, we are able to love him more. If you don t seek to know him at all, you cannot love him at all. You have criticized my reliance on the bible. Yet I study it to know God more so that I may love him more. Did the bible exist when Jesus walked the earth? Jesus did not require study of the bible in order to know God more in order to love God more, HAC. That’s a completely man-made notion and idea, especially given that the bible did not exist for several centuries after Jesus died. God is Love, HAC. No book is required to know Love.>

HAC, Even if we accept as fact that the Bible condemns gays, the Bible condemns a lot of things, including war, exploiting workers, usury, and oppressing the poor. I’m left wondering why the Christian Right puts so much emphasis on gay, but is silent on these other issues. Why the obsession over sex—unless it is that the monied interests that support the Christian Right don’t want those issues talked about? Tegan I do love gays. God loves gays. Neither God nor I (because I follow him) love homosexual activity. Almost There will hate this, but we do love the sinner while not approving of the behavior. If you can t see this distinction, you re not trying. You can t just throw out some blanket statement that conservative Christians hate gays, because they don t and you have no proof. Oh, and the verses you refer to are not very suspect. Have you studied them? You have to do a lot of reading into them to say that they are suspect.>

HAC, I also find your arguments about the minimum wage to be laughable. You parrot the arguments of the Republicans who never show any concern for the poor unless they are “saving” them from unions or “saving” their jobs by keeping their wages at poverty levels. Try to live on $5.15 an hour sometime, HAC. Tegan>

Why the obsession over sex It’s not an obsession over sex, Tegan. It’s not about sex at all. It’s about temptation…THEIR temptation.>

I always thought we were supposed to worry about purifying ourselves, and not about what others do. When the mob dragged the woman caught in adultery before Jesus, asking for his approval of them stoning her to death, Jesus basically told them to mind their own business. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her.” Then, he said, “I do not condemn you.” Tegan>

I’m just wondering why people who claim to love gays so much would want to prevent them from enjoying equal protection under the law. Or why they would want to do the same to the children who live in gay households. Sure, the Bible contains passages about homosexuality, but it also condemns eating shellfish, pork, rabbits, and so on. Those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. It says women are unclean during their menstrual periods, and no one should touch them. Quite obviously, we ignore many things in the Bible. Why do we cling to these few passages that discuss homosexuality, while overlooking the overarching message of Christianity–at least the Christianity of the Bible: love, sharing and acceptance?>

MNW: Y’see, HAC, the authority I find within IS God. He isn’t out here, HAC…he’s within. You believe that God exists outside of you…which is evidence to me that you really haven’t found God at all. Because everyone I know that exemplifies a depth of understanding of God, has found God within themselves….not in a book…not in a church…not in someone else…not sitting on a fluffy cloud somewhere. God is within, HAC…and he cannot be known ANYWHERE ELSE. Then we do not worship the same god. Your god is in your heart and nowhere else. Your god is you. I have stated here in this discussion that God is in my heart. But he is there because he entered it from the outside. God exists outside of me, and has come to dwell in me, that we may be together forever. I speak only in the authority given from him who is more powerful and above all things. That is, through his word (the bible) and through the revelations he makes plain to me. You set up a straw man argument regarding the bible and I don’t buy it. That would be fine… except the bible doesn’t say that fire does not burn. Regardless, if something in this world seems at first to not agree with what Scripture says, I believe that my understanding of either the world or of Scripture must be wrong. Do you understand the seeming contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics? Yet they are both true. There are things in this world that don t seem to be right, but they are. I can t know relativity is true from experience. I can t know quantum mechanics is true from experience. I only know these things from learning from others. In addition, just because something seems to contradict doesn t mean it is not true. Experience only goes so far, and if you are not willing to trust anything beyond yourself, you will know very little. Let me be straight with you, MNW. I hold a masters degree in aeronautical engineering (aka, rocket science, which isn t as hard as some make it to be…). I am very critical in my thought process, and very rational in my conclusions. However, I also understand that there are things that cannot be fully understood, and it is vital to trust the work of others for guidance. I can understand things for myself, but only if I am willing to believe something beyond myself. In my spiritual life, I trust the bible to be true. It has shown itself true, and God has revealed himself to me in it. Whenever I see a difference between my thoughts and the bible, I believe that I am wrong and the bible is true. You believe that the bible is wrong and you are true. I trust the collective wisdom of 1400 years of writing from 40 or so writers, all whose writing agrees, showing it was inspired by a single source: God himself. We are at an impasse because we do not even worship the same god. I say you do not know God, because you do not know the god who is above and beyond all things – the One who revealed himself in the bible – the One who came to earth, died, and physically rose again. Do you believe in that god?>

Tegan, You ignored everything I said. Minimum wage creates unemployment and inflation. Please show me where and explain why I am wrong. Jesus basically told them to mind their own business. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her.” Then, he said, “I do not condemn you.” And he told her to leave her life of sin. You apparently haven’t read the story. Here’s what happened (John 8:3-11): The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” First, this was a trap for Jesus. Strangely enough, these people weren’t following the OT law. They weren’t seeking justice but had evil in their heart. Second, Jesus didn’t answer right away. He didn’t want to get involved. Rather, he ignored them and wrote on the ground. Third, Jesus showed them the evil in their hearts – that they were all sinful as well. He never said she did nothing wrong. Fourth, Jesus told her to change her life – to stop sinning and do what is right. He never excused her actions.>

Marco, You don’t understand Christian doctrine or what the New Testament says in regards to your questions. I encourage you to search out these answers because they are very rewarding for those who are willing to listen. Gays do have equal protection. A man can still marry a woman, gay or not. A man cannot marry a man, gay or not. This is the same for women, I might add. The law treats everyone equally, regardless of sexual preference. I, as a straight man, cannot marry another man. Equal protection is not denied.>

Regardless, if something in this world seems at first to not agree with what Scripture says, I believe that my understanding of either the world or of Scripture must be wrong. But apparently, HAC, you KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that your interpretation regarding homosexuality can’t possibly be wrong. You, like so many other “Christians”, refuse to hear the truth from gay people. You ignore us. You decry that we do not believe in your “oh so powerful, one and only true God” (TM)…blah blah blah blah Vomit. You know without a doubt that gay people are all going to “destroy their souls” if they commit gay sex. Blah blah blah blah Vomit. Get over yourself, HAC. You know absolutely NOTHING regarding my life or my love…you know absolutely NOTHING in regards to whether or not God approves of my love for another man. All you can do is spout your vomit from your book. You, and the rest of the oh so self-important-self-aggrandizing-can’t possibly-be-wrong-in-interpreting-scripture-when-it-comes-to-anything-and-everything-GAY continue on your march of hate and prejudice…without EVER stopping to think that you might possibly be WRONG and that your position…your “interpretation” of your silly little book might be WRONG…Oh NO…you couldn’t possibly be wrong about that. Right? Well hear this, HAC… You’re fruits…your wickedness in regards to how you disrespect us and our love is all I need to witness to know that you are absolutely positively WRONG on this matter…and NOTHING…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING…will ever convince me that your wickedness and your prejudice and your hatred of those you condemn is somehow godly and loving and kind and generous and unselfish. Because it’s not in any way, fashion, or form reflective of the Love I know within. Got that?>

MNW, I do not hate you and I have said nothing to indicate that I do. Why do you think I hate you? Tell me this: what is the difference between my treating of your homosexual lifestyle, and your treatment of my love for Scripture? You have extreme prejudice against me and others like me. I have not condemned you. Your own words have revealed your heart. I have only told you what you have told me. I cannot condemn you, and would not do that anyway. Only God can. Judgement is his and his alone. And you have told me that you do not follow him. God has declared judgement for those who do not follow him. Could I be so bold as to ask you where your hope for salvation lies?>

HAC, I’ve nothing else to discuss with you. I’ve no desire to continue attempting to enlighten someone who refuses to be enlightened. I’ve no desire to continue trying to explain how your ideas of “righteousness” cause immeasurable pain. Yours isn’t love, HAC…it’s wickedness. And I can only hope and pray that God will show you this…as apparently, I am not the person capable of doing it. I feel that if I attempt to continue to try and persuade you it will only cause more harm than good…to me…and perhaps to you. I leave it in his hands. I’m done. Adieu>

HAC, Obviously, that is not equal protection under the law. Gays are not given the right to live with a person of their choice and enjoy the legal benefits. Most experts in human sexuality agree that we are born withour sexual preferences and cannot change them if we try. You would want someone to have to choose: 1) Be alone and celibate; or 2) Live a lie and marry someone of the opposite sex, even though they do not love that person and are not attracted to them; or 3) Marry someone of the same sex that they do love, but know it is an abombination in the eyes of God–and it is impossible to get legal protections for themselves and whatever offspring may be involved in these relationships. What kind of God would create that situation…..and what kind of nation?>

I’ve no desire to continue trying to explain how your ideas of “righteousness” cause immeasurable pain. No pain was intended. Why do you think you have pain? I believe it comes from one’s conscience: the knowledge that behaviors such as homosexual sex are immoral. I have no pain from your harsh critique of my love for the bible, since I have full confidence before God that it is his word. I leave it in his hands. As do I.>

HAC, One last comment…and I’m done. You have correctly copied the story, but I think you miss the point. You are right that he didn’t say she did nothing wrong. The point is, worry about your own sin, and let gays worry about theirs (if being gay is in fact a sin).>

Marco, The point of people being born a certain way is moot. For the sake of argument, I’ll agree that people are born with sexual preference. That doesn’t matter. People are born with tendencies towards alcoholism. Does that justify alcoholism? You missed my point about equal protection. Equal protection says that the law must be applied in the same manner to everyone equally (as it currently does in regards to marriage). It does not mean that the law is to make everyone happy. You can argue that, but equal protection isn’t the issue, so don’t try to use it to make your point. I don’t have the legal right to marry multiple wives if I want to. Should I? It’s consensual. What if I could prove that an animal desired to marry me? If I proved consent, should I not be allowed to marry under equal protection (by your reading)? The bottom line is that the law, which states that you can marry one person of the opposite sex, is perfectly in line with equal protection. It does not discriminate at all, because it treats everyone by the exact same standard.>

Tegan, Then you worry about your own sin and don’t criticize my beliefs regarding homosexuality. Also, don’t criticize those who oppose minimum wage hikes, or tax those who make more money than you, or criticize the decisions of the President (I mean this to say that your point is somewhat absurd). I would be happy to leave gays to their own sin. I would like them to change their ways because I care about them, but you are right to the extent that that is their sin, not mine. Regardless, I speak the truth so that it may spread. The problem is that the homosexual agenda is being pushed on Americans. Conservative Christians are not the ones that started the nationwide debate and the legal process. Those who have rejected the law and have pushed the public recognition of gay marriage onto the rest of us are the ones who made this a national issue. For you to say I should worry about myself means that I must also speak publicly to this issue, and fight politically to oppose the agenda being pushed on Americans.>

HAC, Recently, a program on PBS that featured kids with two mommy’s or two daddy’s. The right wing screamed that this was advancing the homosexual agenda. In my son’s day care classroom, there are two kids who have same sex parents. I ask, is this pushing the homosexual agenda—or is it just reporting helping kids to deal with a very real situation. I wonder what harm it does to you if the people down the street are gay and married? Does it really harm marriage–or anything else–if two men or two women love each other? On the other hand, the selfishness of America’s elites hurt an awful lot of people. We have guys like Michael Eisner paying himself $4M a week, at the same time his min. wage workers can’t get health insurance.>

RJK, It does me little harm as an individual when the people down the street are gay and married. It does do harm to children, however. It destroys one of the basic foundations of a society – the family. Children need both a mother and a father, and those who do not have both often have psychological problems. Also, sexual identity is less hard wired than we might believe. If little Billy is told before he even matures physically that he can marry either Suzy or his best friend Timmy, he ll choose Timmy. He doesn t understand, and this creates major problems in a child s development. Ironically, this is proved when gays tell of how hard and confusing it was on them when they were told they had to marry someone of the opposite sex. So I will err on the side of protecting the majority. Besides, I believe homosexuality to be sinful, and do not think our society should encourage it (please don t think I m saying we should hurt gays because some in this discussion would read into what I just said and conclude that I hate gays and want to kill them or some nonsense like that). Regardless, I believe homosexual activity to be a perversion. If it is kept in secret, I guess I really don’t care in regards to public policy (I mean, I do care for their sake, but that doesn’t really affect anyone). It is when it is thrown out in public and anyone who thinks it is immoral is vilified that I have a problem with it.>

RJK, Why do you care how much Michael Eisner gets paid? You shouldn’t judge him. I mean this rhetorically to prove the fact that you and others here are doing the exact same thing I am accused of doing: getting involved in the affairs of someone else because you think it harms society. Your critique of Michael Eisner is on the exact same level as my critique of the homosexual agenda.>

…I believe homosexuality to be sinful, and do not think our society should encourage it (please don t think I m saying we should hurt gays because some in this discussion would read into what I just said and conclude that I hate gays and want to kill them or some nonsense like that). HAC, Throughout this thread you adamantly defend the idea that what the Bible says regarding homosexuality is God’s word on the matter. Did it ever occur to you that gay people might believe you want to kill them or bring harm upon them because the Bible’s punishment for homosexuality is “they should be put to death?” You’ve given no indication whatsoever that you don’t wish to fulfill “God’s punishment” as dictated in the Bible. I don’t think gay people are “reading into” what you say and interpret it as a threat. I think they hear your threat loud and clear. According to you, the Bible is “God’s commandment”, and he commands you to kill all the gay people. Does he not?>

HAC, I don’t know what research exists on this, but from my personal observation, kids of same sex parents are not so confused on this issue. In any case, kids in these relationships are a fact of life. There are many, perhaps millions, of such households. If you think it is wrong, that is your right. Others don’t think so. Why don’t we let people make their own decisions on these matters and take it up with God when the time comes? In the meantime, God’s word is VERY clear about what we are doing to the poor in America. That is surely a much worse abombination. The pages of the Bible practically scream in protest>

Geezus: “You’ve given no indication whatsoever that you don’t wish to fulfill “God’s punishment” as dictated in the Bible. I don’t think gay people are “reading into” what you say and interpret it as a threat. I think they hear your threat loud and clear. According to you, the Bible is “God’s commandment”, and he commands you to kill all the gay people. Does he not?” No. You are wrong. I didn’t put my name down before (perhaps the confusion), but I did say: “but homosexual acts carry the death penalty in the Old Testament (although a learned scholar will tell you this wasn t usually carried out – it was understood that the death penalty, except in the case of murder, was more to explain the severity of the sin)” — RJK, I believe we are harming children. You do not. I would rather err on the side of tradition – what we know doesn’t hurt children. You would rather risk destroying the lives of children. You may say this is your or my prerogative, but the fact that people are being hurt matters to me. I have said nothing about not helping the poor in America. You think saying homosexuality is sinful somehow negates helping the poor. That is ridiculous.>

“but homosexual acts carry the death penalty in the Old Testament (although a learned scholar will tell you this wasn t usually carried out – it was understood that the death penalty, except in the case of murder, was more to explain the severity of the sin)” Oh really? How convenient. It always amazes me how A learned scholar will always find such convenient loopholes for those of you who believe the Bible is “God’s commandments”. It’s fascinating how the loophole always creates a scenario where you never have to confront your prejudices. Many learned scholars have determined that the biblical references to gay sex one might find in the bible have absolutely nothing to do with the committed, monogamous, loving relationships shared by the gay married couples of today. But I guess they haven’t a clue about what they’re talking about because that would mean you’d be confronted with your prejudice, right HAC? And we can’t have any of that now can we?>

I don’t know what research exists on this, but from my personal observation, kids of same sex parents are not so confused on this issue. Many professional organizations agree with your observation. Among these are: American Academy of Pediatrics A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. American Psychological Association Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children.>

HAC IF YOU BELIEVE WE ARE HARMING CHILDREN BY LETTING THEM GROW UP IN GAY HOUSEHOLDS, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT, BUT NOT ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS. PERHAPS I BELIEVE THAT GROWING UP IN AN EVANGELICAL HOUSEHOLD WARPS KIDS. ALSO MY RIGHT, BUT NONE OF MY BUSINESS. AS FOR NEGLECTING THE POOR, THESE TWO ISSUES ARE LINKED. TO LISTEN TO THE MILLIONAIRE PREACHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, YOU WOULD THINK ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY ARE THE ONLY “EVILS” FACING AMERICA TODAY. THEY PURPOSELY AVOID THE ECONOMIC ISSUES SO AS NOT TO OFFEND THEIR RICH BENEFACTORS WHO WOULD LIKE THEM TO DISTRACT US WITH TALK OF GAYS. YOU ARE SO OFFENDED BY A CHILD GROWING UP IN A GAY HOUSEHOLD….IS IT NOT MUCH MORE HARMFUL FOR KIDS TO GROW UP IN DIRE POVERTY–ESPECIALLY THE MANY KIDS WHO ARE HOMELESS? LET’S GET OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.>

RJK, The caps lock really made your point. TO LISTEN TO THE MILLIONAIRE PREACHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT… Can you name me any church pastors who are millionaires? I don’t know of any. If you can, tell me where the majority of their money comes from (cause it won’t be their church), and how much they give away. Or are you so pompous that if anyone makes more money than you it is evil. …YOU WOULD THINK ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY ARE THE ONLY “EVILS” FACING AMERICA TODAY. Have you ever considered that perhaps people who are opposed to abortion believe that killing 4000 babies a day in the US alone is, oh, I don’t know, a really really bad thing? It could be perhaps WORSE than poverty? Honestly! If you lived in the 1850′s, you’d be complaining about these radical anti-slavery Christians, who are only concerned about slavery and don’t really care about the poor people who don’t have masters to give them food. AS FOR NEGLECTING THE POOR Every church I have been in has had it a priority to help the poor, and I’ve been in a lot of conservative evangelical churches. You are making up things from thin air. Give me hard facts. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1222/p15s01-ussc.html >Here are some. The most conservative states give the most money away. The most liberal give the least. Your argument holds no water. YOU ARE SO OFFENDED BY A CHILD GROWING UP IN A GAY HOUSEHOLD….IS IT NOT MUCH MORE HARMFUL FOR KIDS TO GROW UP IN DIRE POVERTY–ESPECIALLY THE MANY KIDS WHO ARE HOMELESS? LET’S GET OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT. Yes, I am offended by a child growing up in a gay household. I care more about the heart and soul of a child. You care more about their finances. I care about eternity. You care only of this world. Yes, I would rather a child grow up in poverty than in a gay household (when presented with only those 2 options – i.e., we re assuming the child does not die and does grow up ). You would hurt a child just so they may have money. How cruel. — MNW, I thought you were done. The interpretation you speak of I learned from a Jewish scholar who goes around teaching the Torah verse by verse (I ll give him credit: http://www.dennisprager.com >Dennis Prager). He is by no means a Christian. He has shared the traditional (i.e., the tradition that goes back to Moses) Jewish understanding of those verses. Let me explain. The only time these seemingly strange death penalty laws are recorded as being carried out is when a man goes out to work on the Sabbath. It is clear in context that what he did was essentially a rebellion against the new law from God – his act was overt and meant to be seen by many. He was executed for treason. Thus, the traditional reading of these verses indicates that God is telling people the severity of the sins they are doing – that these sins deserve death. This is no loophole, unless you think an explanation is a loophole. In that case, I can explain nothing to you.>

Sorry, The links didn’t work. Here they are in order: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1222/p15s01-ussc.html http://www.dennisprager.com — RJK, I wanted to add: why is it always about the money? The left is always focused on money. Jesus said, “You cannot serve both God and Money” (Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13). Why don’t you focus on the hearts of people for once, rather than on their pocket books.>

One more thought: Show me where God intended for two homosexual parents to raise a child. Is it when he made it possible for them to procreate? Of course I’m being facetious here, because they can’t. Say what you want, but you can’t disagree that it is not natural, and thus not God intended.>

Have you ever considered that perhaps people who are opposed to abortion believe that killing 4000 babies a day in the US alone is, oh, I don’t know, a really really bad thing? 4000 babies a day? Whatever… Anyway…assuming that’s accurate, how many of those 4000 babies are unwanted, HAC? Most, probably, wouldn’t you say? Let’s say half of those babies are born (given a woman’s constitutional rights are denied). That’s 2000 babies a day, HAC. Currently in the United States, there are over 125,000 children in foster care and in need of a home. Based on a birth-rate of 2000 unwanted babies a day…that will be an additional 730,000 babies per year placed in foster care and in need of a home. Ok…so let’s say that only half are put up for adoption. That’s still 365,000 babies per year that need a good home, HAC. Are you a foster parent? Have you adopted any of the current 125,000 children in need of a home, HAC? How many “Christians” of your sort do you know that have stepped up to adopt these children, HAC? Perhaps if those of you who are so adamantly opposed to a woman’s right to choose were as adamant about giving unwanted children a good home, you’d have a much better case in your arguments. As it is, none of you care one bit about these children once they are born. If you lived in the 1850′s, you’d be complaining about these radical anti-slavery Christians, who are only concerned about slavery and don’t really care about the poor people who don’t have masters to give them food. Nice try, HAC. But the “Christians” of your sort…you know…the bible-believing, heart-ignoring, self-aggrandized “Christians” who think they know what’s best for everyone because only they know what a silly little book says and that means God said it kind of “Christian”…your type of “Christian”, HAC, were the “Christians” that fought to have slavery continue in this country…you know, because THE BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY AND THAT MEANS GOD DOES kind of “Christian”. Try as you might to make yourself look like one of the “good” Christians….you fail…horrendously.>

I thought you were done. God changed my mind. The only time these seemingly strange death penalty laws are recorded as being carried out is when a man goes out to work on the Sabbath. So why aren’t you advocating that everyone who works on the sabbath be executed? I mean, if the bible (ie God) says that anyone working on the sabbath is to be executed, then why aren’t you advocating that? Or do you have some other “scholar” that explains that “commandment” away for you? It is clear in context that what he did was essentially a rebellion against the new law from God – his act was overt and meant to be seen by many. He was executed for treason. Thus, the traditional reading of these verses indicates that God is telling people the severity of the sins they are doing – that these sins deserve death. This is no loophole, unless you think an explanation is a loophole. It is clear in context, HAC, that you refuse to listen to any biblical scholar that would explain to you that the references to “gay” sex in the bible have nothing to do with modern same-sex, loving, committed, monogamous marriages…because that would mean you would no longer have any biblical/religious basis for your prejudice. And we can’t have that, right? You believe anything anyone tells you about the bible if it makes you more comfortable…but if someone explains something to you about the bible that makes you uncomfortable (ie makes you feel tempted) then you disregard it and choose instead to believe the bible allows for your prejudice (mainly because your prejudice is what keeps your temptations in check). That’s really what it’s all about isn’t it, HAC? You are tempted by the idea of gay SEX…aren’t you? I mean, what good is something being a “sin” if there’s no temptation involved, right? In that case, I can explain nothing to you. Oh you’ve done a lot of explaining….but not to me. Do you really think your explaining away of all of these inconsistencies in your beliefs is for me or my benefit? Ha! It’s your way of convincing yourself, HAC. It explains absolutely nothing to me. I read between the lines of what you write for the real explanation…because it’s quite apparent that you write all of this gobbledy-gook for your own benefit…not mine.>

Why don’t you focus on the hearts of people for once, rather than on their pocket books. Why don’t you focus on the hearts of people for once, rather than on your silly little book of rules?>

Show me where God intended for two homosexual parents to raise a child. I have friends that are raising a child. The child was left on their doorstep. Do you think God intended for them to leave the child on the doorstep? Is it when he made it possible for them to procreate? Of course I’m being facetious here, because they can’t. You’re not being factious, HAC, you’re being ignorant…mainly because gay people procreate. We aren’t mutants. We have all of the same equipment other humans have. I know several gay couples who have procreated…and are raising their children in loving homes. Say what you want, but you can’t disagree that it is not natural, and thus not God intended. Did God intend for you to drive a car? Because surely a car is not natural. The “it’s not natural” argument is way run out of gas, HAC. Especially given that “gay SEX” has been observed in over 450 species in the wild….you know…IN NATURE.>

MNW, My apologies. It s closer to 3500 official abortions (the numbers provided are voluntary, meaning not all abortions are recorded – thus the actual number is probably closer to 4000, but we ll keep 3500 because that s the only official one). These data were taken from an affiliate of Planned Parenthood: http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm You somehow justify killing thousands of babies per day because they were what? Unwanted? How ridiculous. What if we could determine if an unborn child was going to be gay, and the parents aborted that child as a result. Is that ok? The bottom line is that you are brushing off infanticide as acceptable. Every 5 years we have another Holocaust in America (death wise regarding babies). You are choosing a position that is worse than those who supported slavery in America! The bible does not condone slavery. Please show me where it does. I ve read every single word in the entire book. The topic of freedom is significantly more prevalent in Scripture than slavery. The abolitionists in America were mostly evangelical Christians who believed in the bible and saw how slavery was evil and opposed to the will of God (here s an example of one such man in the British Parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce). Those who used the bible to support slavery were like you: they did not understand Scripture and took a few verses out of context. The bible allowed for slavery in Israel at certain points because of the predominance of slavery in the culture it was written to (i.e., when Israel was fighting wars, it allowed for prisoners of war to be kept as slaves [versus killing them], however the rules God gave for how slaves had to be treated were so strict that it essentially wiped out slavery in Israel), but it never condones it. In fact, the slavery it allowed for was very different than that in the United States. And, as stated in the parenthetical comment above, these rules regarding slaves essentially wiped out slavery. The New Testament speaks of slavery only a couple times. The instruction to slaves who follow Christ is to live godly lives and serve their masters well in order to win them over. A slave couldn t just run away. If he did, he could be killed. So the instruction is essentially in line with turn the other cheek. In other words, do such a good job in your work, even if you are treated unjustly (oh, I might add that slavery in the Roman world was often because a debt could not be paid, or you somehow got yourself in trouble – not the horror of generational racial slavery like in the US), because you may win over the heart of your master that way. In fact, Paul instructs slaves, although if you can gain your freedom, do so (I Cor. 7:21). So why aren’t you advocating that everyone who works on the sabbath be executed? Because that instruction was for Israel, not for us. I already explained this. Did you not read what I wrote? You completely missed the entire point. The issue was not executing anyone who worked on the Sabbath, the issue was execution for treason (something we still do and something I do advocate). you refuse to listen to any biblical scholar that would explain to you that the references to “gay” sex in the bible have nothing to do with modern same-sex, loving, committed, monogamous marriages First off, have you had a monogamous relationship since you determined you were gay? Regardless, the scholars you speak of are quite rare, and many other scholars disagree with those scholars. I have listened to both arguments, and I believe that the bible is quite clear: gay sex is detestable. Please show me the ambiguity in these words: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable (Lev. 18:22). Gay sex is compared one-on-one with straight sex. It doesn t matter if it is in marriage or not. ALL gay sex is detestable. but if someone explains something to you about the bible that makes you uncomfortable … then you disregard it and choose instead to believe the bible allows for your prejudice I could say the same about you. The fact is that I believe the bible and what it says. If someone says something I don t believe to be a correct understanding, I disagree with reason. I look at context as well as other passages of Scripture in order to understand what a verse means, and if the explanation given doesn t fit biblically, yes I do disregard the explanation because it is wrong. I don t disregard any part of the bible. You throw out the whole thing. You disregard it because you don t like it. I disregard explanations because I believe they are biblically wrong explanations. I disagree with 1+1=3 because it is wrong, not because I merely don t like it. You are tempted by the idea of gay SEX…aren’t you? Not at all. I don t really know why you would think this, unless the whole idea of gay sex has taken over your mind to such an extent that you think about it all the time nonstop. I wouldn t be surprised, because the act is a perverted act. I read between the lines of what you write for the real explanation Ahhh, here is why you don t understand me. Why not just read what I say? You do yourself and anyone reading this a disservice when you don t even listen or try to understand anything I ve written. Why don’t you focus on the hearts of people for once, rather than on your silly little book of rules? Good comeback, I must say (no really, it was pretty good). But unfortunately, twisting words in a witty manner doesn t make them true. I do care about the hearts of people, and have said so repeatedly. Do you think God intended for them to leave the child on the doorstep? Perhaps. I wouldn t discount it. But God s plan for individuals is often only understood in hindsight. Perhaps that child will be used to bring the message of Christ to the homosexual community. I don t know. God s plan for society and people in general, however, is revealed to us quite clearly. It seems clear to me that his intent was never for homosexual parents to raise a child. Besides, you ignored my entire point. Were you reading between the lines again? Honestly, just read the lines. Everything is right there. Nothing is hidden. “gay SEX” has been observed in over 450 species in the wild So we re a bunch of animals? Mates eating each other has also been observed. Is that natural for humans, then? For what it s worth, these probably won t be read. They were written by the Jewish writer/speaker/scholar I cited before. They re good and succinct. I include them in the rare chance one might read them: Biblical Roots of Right and Wrong: http://www.dennisprager.com/rightandwrong.html The Divorce-Threatens-Marriage Lie: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0405/prager_same_sex_marriage.php3 Same Sex Marriage: Good for Gays, Bad for Children: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38331 College Taught Her Not to be a Heterosexual: “>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17766>

Oh, and for what it’s worth, I don’t have to adopt a baby in order to be able to say that killing them is wrong.>

Substantial scientific evidence exists indicating that “gayness” is associated with physical differences in brain structure and is not learned behavior. If incontrovertible evidence became available on this, what would the Christian Right have to say about it? Why would God punish for characteristics determined by genetics? I haven’t read all the comments about same sex love. Maybe this has already been mentioned? .>

I already conceded the point that it could be genetic. It is a complete moot argument, in my mind, and has no consequence in determining the ethics of homosexual sex.>

HAC says: I already conceded the point that it could be genetic. It is a complete moot argument, in my mind, and has no consequence in determining the ethics of homosexual sex. HAC, if you’ve conceded the point that gayness could be genetic, then the point is not moot and certainly not inconsequential for gays. Why would God punish part of His own creation? Do you think God could be sado-masochistic? And why should you participate in denouncing and punishing God’s creation, if you really don’t know whether or not gayness is genetic? .>

justintime, Here’s what I wrote before (9.22.06 – 6:05pm): The point of people being born a certain way is moot. For the sake of argument, I’ll agree that people are born with sexual preference. That doesn’t matter. People are born with tendencies towards alcoholism. Does that justify alcoholism? I might add: People are born more genetically inclined towards violence. Does that make murder right if it is done by someone who couldn t control themselves ? Replace this example with almost any vice, and the conclusion is the same: Genetic tendencies towards behavior do not justify the behavior. Sin exists in this world, and I don’t doubt that some are born with certain tendencies. Yes, I am saying that some could be born with the tendency towards homosexuality, even though it is a sin. Your question speaks to the greater question of why does God allow people to be tempted by sin? The answer is much greater than this blog discussion will allow for. But suffice it to say, God’s creation has many nuances and diversity. Although his moral code is consistent for all, he has given us freedom to choose our actions. To me, being “born gay” does not change the ethics of the issue. If you think God is a sado-masochistic, then you don t believe that sin has power in this world.>

HAC, “You can t just throw out some blanket statement that conservative Christians hate gays, because they don t and you have no proof.” That is an outright lie, and we have PLENTY of proof – so much so that it makes me physically sick… In her book, ‘Kingdom Coming: The Rise of the Christian Nationalism’, Michelle Goldberg describes a Sunday morning worship service in Ohio before the 2004 presidential election where the confregation listened to “how Jesus wanted to ‘save marriage from the hell-spawned forces of homosexuality”. – source, The Globe and Mail, 23 September, 2006 This is NOT love. “Christians” testifying at the Justice Committee hearings on same-sex marriage compared loving, committed, consenting, adult relationships to, among other things, beastiality, necrophilia, child molestation, rape, polygamy, incest, cannabalism, pornography, adultery, and even “having sex with babies”. THIS is NOT love. The “reverend (NOT!) Jimmy (2 whores) Swaggart said that “if a man so much as looked at me ‘funny’, I’d kill him and tell God he died’. THIS is NOT love. The “reverend” (NOT!) Jerry Foulwell blamed hurricanes and even 9/11 on gays. THIS is NOT love. If it is “love” you “christians” sure have a funny way of showing it.>

Tegan Smith, You said, “You can t just throw out some blanket statement that conservative Christians hate gays, because they don t and you have no proof.” Please see my above post to HAC to see just how wrong you are.>

HAC, You said, “Gays do have equal protection. A man can still marry a woman, gay or not. A man cannot marry a man, gay or not. This is the same for women, I might add. The law treats everyone equally, regardless of sexual preference. I, as a straight man, cannot marry another man. Equal protection is not denied.” Ever hear the one about bearing false witness against your neighbour??? During those same Parliamentary Justice Committee hearings, Gwendolyn Landolt, the head of ‘REAL’ Women Canada called my relationship “false”. Yet I am being true to myself since I am a gay man. YOU would HAVE me lead a truly false relationsip if I were to marry a woman. WHY on earth WOULD a gay man marry a woman? That doesn’t make sense. As far as your statement, “A man cannot marry a man”, this is also patently and demonstrably false. In Massachusetts, in Canada, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Spain, soon to be in South Africa, (and even in Latvia, I hear). I know you don’t LIKE the fact that not only CAN we get married, we ARE getting married – by the thousands. I am married. Is’t telling lies one of the Big 10??? “The law treats everyone equally” Sorry, but you are wrong. There are more than 1,100 rights, benefits, privileges and obligations that heterosexuals recieve automatically when they marry someone of the opposite sex, and that are denied to those of the same sex. “I, as a straight man, cannot marry another man.” Actually, you COULD – if you lived in Massachusetts. Otr if you came to Canada (where no residency requirement exists). Etc. “Equal protection is not denied.” Bald, outright lie. That’s SOME ‘love’ ya got there Mister “christian” man.>

Terrific questions, HAC… “Tell me this: what is the difference between my treating of your homosexual lifestyle, and your treatment of my love for Scripture?” Because 1. we don’t HAVE “lifestyles”, we have LIVES, and 2. your “love of Scripture” is quite selective. You do NOT put disobedient children to death, you do NOT put victims of incest to death, you do NOT deny communion to the disabled, you do NOT own slaves, you do NOT picket Red Lobser, condemning its patrons as “abomination”. ETC. “You have extreme prejudice against me and others like me.” You are free to worship and live your life (lifestyle???) as you choose. You do NOT accord the same privilege to me. “I have not condemned you.” Another of your lies. Your own words have revealed your heart. I have only told you what you have told me. I cannot condemn you, and would not do that anyway. Only God can. Judgement is his and his alone. And you have told me that you do not follow him. God has declared judgement for those who do not follow him. “Could I be so bold as to ask you where your hope for salvation lies?” In Jesus Christ, whho’s only commandments were to love God and to love my neighbour as myself. Would that you followed His advice. And thanx 4 askin’.>

HAC, To “I’ve no desire to continue trying to explain how your ideas of “righteousness” cause immeasurable pain.”, you have the nerve/gall to say, “No pain was intended.” Sorry, but that is VERY hard to believe. “Why do you think you have pain?” He already explained that – because of the hurtful things you post, imposing your idea of “righteousness” on others. “I believe it comes from one’s conscience: the knowledge that behaviors such as homosexual sex are immoral.” Well your ‘belief’ is WRONG. God has not convicted ME that my love is “immoral”. (And perhaps the ‘pain’ is caused by you constantly reducing us to “behaviours” and sex acts and “lifestyles”. Is YOUR marriage, or should I say “marriage”, merely sex acts? Merely a “lifestyle”? Mer “behaviours”? Can you not even see how hurtful your condescension is?)>

HAC, “People are born with tendencies towards alcoholism. Does that justify alcoholism?” Yet another ‘loving’ comparison from a “christian”. Alcoholism is a disease. And it causes considerably harm. My love does not. Thanks anyway. “I don’t have the legal right to marry multiple wives if I want to.” Nor do gay people. DUH! We AREN’T DISCUSSING POLYGAMY, in case you hadn’t noticed. Such ‘wondrous’ ‘love’ is this. Sheesh!>

HAC, “The problem is that the homosexual agenda is being pushed on Americans.” No it isn’t. This is yet ANOTHER lie of the ‘right’. If you don’t think same-sex marriage is right before God, then by all means, DON’T HAVE ONE. NO ONE is trying to force ANY person of faith to go against his or her religion’s tenets – except the radical extremist ‘religious’ rightwing. In fact, your denominations aren’t even being asked to perform marriages for gay couples. OTOH, YOU are very much trying to deny gays the rights you take for granted. SOME religions DO (or would) perform same-sex marriages. YOU are fighting not to let that happen. I can quite clearly see just WHO is forcing an agenda, here, and it ain’t the gays. “Conservative Christians are not the ones that started the nationwide debate and the legal process.” Well “Conservative Christians” aren’t the ones whose rights are being denied or taken away. “Those who have rejected the law and have pushed the public recognition of gay marriage onto the rest of us are the ones who made this a national issue.” It is an UNJUST law, like the segregation laws were unjust. Did those in favour of equal rights for black ‘force’ their ‘agenda’ on America???>

HAC, “It does me little harm as an individual when the people down the street are gay and married.” Thanks for finally admiting this. “It does do harm to children, however.” This is a prepostrous, monstrous LIE! “It destroys one of the basic foundations of a society – the family.” How ahs even 1 single “family” been “destroyed” by my marriage? Gay people form families too. “Children need both a mother and a father” So you’re against single parents adopting? What of widows and widowers? “and those who do not have both often have psychological problems.” And your “proof” of this would be..??? “If little Billy is told before he even matures physically that he can marry either Suzy or his best friend Timmy, he ll choose Timmy.” Only if Billy is gay would that happen. Would YOU have ‘chosen’ Timmy, HAC? “Ironically, this is proved when gays tell of how hard and confusing it was on them when they were told they had to marry someone of the opposite sex.” This isn’t irony; it’s stupidity. The gay person in this scenario is being forced to live a lie. THAT is what is ‘hard and confusing’ – to not be allowed to be true to one’s self. “So I will err on the side of protecting the majority.” The ‘majority’ isn’t under threat from loving gay people who wish to commit to one another publicly through marriage. If you believe oterwise, you need help. “Besides, I believe homosexuality to be sinful” So what? I don’t. Why would your religious beleifs get to trump mine in a land where we supposedly have freedom of religion? “and do not think our society should encourage it” One cannot ‘encourage’ being gay- one either IS or one ISN’T. Could YOU be ‘encouraged” to ‘switch’? I doubt it. “(please don t think I m saying we should hurt gays because some in this discussion would read into what I just said and conclude that I hate gays and want to kill them or some nonsense like that).” Yes ‘Pastor’ Swaggart. we ‘believe’ you. NOT! Your very words are spiritual bashing and sould destroying. “I believe homosexual activity to be a perversion.” Again, so friggin’ WHAT? Others DON’T! Why do your religious tents trump ours? “If it is kept in secret, I guess I really don’t care in regards to public policy” Well clearly from all of your postings you DO ‘care’ about public policy. But what you’ve just said is, in essence, ‘if you live a lie or in secret, it won’t bother me’. The HECK with THAT, I say. “(I mean, I do care for their sake, but that doesn’t really affect anyone).” Well you got THAT right. It DOESN’t.>

HAC, “Show me where God intended for two homosexual parents to raise a child. Is it when he made it possible for them to procreate? Of course I’m being facetious here, because they can’t.” Sorta like the sterile betterosexual couple who can’t procreate and resort to adoption. Or the widow/widower who does the same. Or the single parent who does the same. “Say what you want, but you can’t disagree that it is not natural, and thus not God intended.” I certainly CAN disagree – and DO! Are you saying homosexuality is “not natural”??? ‘Cuz if you are, you’re gonna hear a lot of people point out the error of your ‘thinking’.>

HAC, “First off, have you had a monogamous relationship since you determined you were gay?” Has Prince Charles? George W(armonger) Bush? Half of Congress? Yer point? “Regardless, the scholars you speak of are quite rare” Not at all. “and many other scholars disagree with those scholars.” So it ISN’T unanimous after all! Speaking of slippery slopes, should the United Church of Christ, believing that discrimination against women is a “sin”, insit or be able to force the Catholic Church into having women clergy? Or should the Catholic Church, be able to force the United Church into NOT being able to re-marry divorced people? Where will it all end? To parody your own words, ‘I have listened to both arguments, and I believe that the Bible is quite clear: eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination. Please show me the ambiguity in these words: “And all that have not fins and scales in the ses, … they shall be an ABOMINATION unto you.” (Lev. 11:12). Eating shrimp and lobster is compared one-on-one with eating pork. It doesn t matter if it is in Red Lobster or not. ALL eating shrimp and lobster is ABOMINATION. See how selectivity in Scripture quoting works.>

While I appreciate the discussion, I must bow out completely at this point. I’ve been neglecting some work for too long. Since we will not agree, and since clarity is often more important than agreement, here are my closing thoughts: I do not hate gays. Very few conservative Christians hate gays. We hate the lifestyle. It is a perversion. This distinction is vital in Christianity, but one that offends people greatly. I care about our society. I believe the US Constitution is the best form of government set up in the modern world. I believe gays deserve equal protection. I believe they have it right now. I believe in the courts, but that they cannot make law. I believe the best thing for society is the public recognition of marriage being between one and one woman. I believe that changing this harms society, especially children. I believe in God. I believe in the bible. I believe there are true things outside of myself, and that I would be a fool to think otherwise. I would never learn if I didn’t. As a result, I believe homosexuality to be sinful and opposed to God. I do not believe someone can live a persistent, unrepentant homosexual lifestyle and follow God. I believe salvation comes through Christ alone, and for those who follow him, God gives them his Holy Spirit, who brings our hearts to conviction. Thank you for the conversation. Please know I don’t have you or anyone else who is gay. I merely believe your lifestyle is leading you down a path you don’t want to go. May God bless you.>

I should really preview my writing… I meant to say: I believe the best thing for society is the public recognition of marriage being between one man and one woman. and Please know I don’t hate you or anyone else who is gay. That was me in the last post, btw. May I also add that I have studdied Scripture all my life, and the prohibitions for homosexuality are quite clear. Food regulations are explained explicitly in the New Testament (so your example is nullified). Again, I’ll end with what I said before: Thank you for the conversation. Please know I don’t hate you or anyone else who is gay. I merely believe your lifestyle is leading you down a path you don’t want to go. May God bless you.>

HAC, “I do not hate gays.” – Then stop posting hateful things about us. “Very few conservative Christians hate gays.” – Then tell them to stop saying false things about us. It’s a “sin”, dontcha know? “We hate the lifestyle.” – We don’t HAVE “lifestyles”; we have LIVES. Do try to get it straight. “It is a perversion.” – In YOUR not-so-humble opinion. Other people of faith disagree. What gives YOUR faith ‘legal precedent’ over OURS? “This distinction is vital in Christianity” – But we aren’t discussing “Christianity”; we are discussing equal rights. “but one that offends people greatly” – I am offended that because you disapprove of me and the way you think I live my life that you would deny me equality before the law. “I care about our society.” – Trust me, so do the gay citizens who must try to live in it too. “I believe the US Constitution is the best form of government set up in the modern world.” – Would that be the Constitution the way it stands now, guaranteeing ALL citizens equality? Or the “constitution” after George W(armonger) Bush gets through with ‘amending’ it so that discrimination becomes legal? “I believe gays deserve equal protection.” – You CLEARLY do NOT. “I believe they have it right now.” – Then you ‘believe’ a LIE. “I believe in the courts, but that they cannot make law.” – courts concern themselves with what is JUST, not what is popular. If legislators pass unjust laws, it is the duty of the courts to strike them down. “I believe the best thing for society is the public recognition of marriage being between one and one woman.” – And I believe that any 2 consenting adults, within the consanguinity considerations, should be allowed to marry. Why does YOUR ‘belief’ trump mine before the law?>

cont’d… “I believe that changing this harms society, especially children.” – Your side keeps saying this, but when we ask why, or for proof, we are met with a deafening wall of silence. Why that? “I believe in God.” – So do I. “I believe in the bible.” – Well, we’ve seen that you believe PARTS of it. You do seem to ignore its central message of love thy neighbour, though. “I believe homosexuality to be sinful and opposed to God.” – As we’ve said (many times) before, you are entitled to your beliefs. Other people of faith disagree with your belief. What we want to know is WHY your religious beliefs should get to trump mine before the law? “I do not believe someone can live a persistent, unrepentant homosexual lifestyle and follow God.” – Well, you can ‘believe’ what you want, but in this instance, I believe you are WRONG. I cannot ‘repent’ of loving someone. I do NOT have a “lifestyle”; I have a LIFE. And I DO ‘follow God’ – MY understanding of God, not YOURS. “I believe salvation comes through Christ alone, and for those who follow him, God gives them his Holy Spirit, who brings our hearts to conviction.” – God has NOT ‘convicted’ me that my love is a “sin”. Be that as it may, your interpretation of how we achieve salvation is irrelevant to the discussin of whether or not gay citizens ought to be treated equally before the law. “Please know I don’t [hate] you or anyone else who is gay.” – Then STOP bearing false witness about us. “I merely believe your lifestyle is leading you down a path you don’t want to go.” – Once again, you are entitled to ‘believe’ what you want. And once again, I do NOT have a “lifestyle”; I have a LIFE. And trust me, it is based on MY (and my husband’s) own personal relationship with God as we understand God, and we very much DO want to go down this path together. Frankly, you have a very distorted perception of gay people.>

HAC/Anonymous, “May I also add that I have studdied [sic] Scripture all my life, and the prohibitions for homosexuality are quite clear.” You may say it, as may I. I, too, have studied Scriptures for most of my 55 years, and I, as well as many other Biblical scholars, DISAGREE with you. The question you need to address now is, why does YOUR interpretation of Scripture, and the laws that you wish would stem from that interpretation, trump MY interpretation, and the inherent rights that flow from it? “Food regulations are explained explicitly in the New Testament (so your example is nullified).” No, my example isn’t “nullified”; it is illuminated. I trust you are referring to the revelation to Peter wherein God said, “Call NOTHING that I have created unclean.” My interpretation of that allegory is that the RRR should stop calling god’s gay and lesbian children ‘unclean’ (or “abomination”, etc.), and should start treating them equally before the law, as in ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.>

But we aren’t discussing “Christianity”; we are discussing equal rights. No, we’re discussing the fact that I don’t hate you. You believe that me hating your actions means I hate you. I draw a distinction between the 2, and believe it is a core distinction in Christianity. George W(armonger) Bush gets through with ‘amending’ it so that discrimination becomes legal? He has no more authority than you or I do to amend it. Read Article V. If legislators pass unjust laws, it is the duty of the courts to strike them down. Not even liberal judges believe this. The courts strike down unconstitutional laws, not unjust ones. MY understanding of God, not YOURS. Fine. But we both can’t be right. The question you need to address now is, why does YOUR interpretation of Scripture, and the laws that you wish would stem from that interpretation, trump MY interpretation, and the inherent rights that flow from it? This is a good question. My interpretation has no more validity than yours if we base our interpretations on who we are. I’m not right just because I am me. We do disagree, however, and both of us can’t be right. Thus, since our validity is not based on ourselves, we have to look outside ourselves to see who is right. I believe my understanding of Scripture in this regard is right. You do not believe I am right, and rather believe that your understanding of Scripture is right. We are both doing the same thing (in saying that we are right), and I resent your constant critique of me saying that I am right. You do exactly the same (may I also add that I have been condemned for condemning… kind of ironic). As a result of us both thinking we are right, we must seek clarity in our beliefs, not agreement. I have tried to be clear in my conclusions. Disagree if you like. I have done my best.>

HAC, SUCH DEVILISH USE OF THE SCRIPTURES. HE WASN’T TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING THE RICH TO EXPLOIT THE POOR….HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MONEY BECOMING A DOMINANT FORCE IN YOUR LIFE TO WHERE YOU LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT IS IMPORTANT. PEOPLE’S HEARTS ARE IMPORTANT….BUT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND HOUSING THEIR FAMILIES ARE PRETTY CRITICAL. I wanted to add: why is it always about the money? The left is always focused on money. Jesus said, “You cannot serve both God and Money” (Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13). Why don’t you focus on the hearts of people for once, rather than on their pocket books. HAC | 09.23.06 – 2:22 am | #>

RJK, I agree completely. So we must both be using the Scriptures in a devilish way.>

HAC, I said, “But we aren’t discussing “Christianity”; we are discussing equal rights.” You replied, “No, we’re discussing the fact that I don’t hate you. You believe that me hating your actions means I hate you.” You have NEVER ‘discussed my actions’; you don’t know how I live my life (oops, sorry, “lifestyle”). You cannot possibly know what actions I take in my daily life and my personal walk with God. You assume a great deal, and you are wrong. If you truly don’t ‘hate me’, then stop making false assumptions. It is not a charitable thing to do. I said (regarding the Constitution), “George W(armonger) Bush gets through with ‘amending’ it so that discrimination becomes legal?” Although he may not have any “more authority than you or I do to amend it”, he’s sure giving it his level best to try to, and to influence the American public to accept his efforts to trash it in the guise of, and I quote, “protecting the sanctity of marriage”. Since when are Constitutional guarantees of equality doled out on the basis of the ‘sanctifiability’ of one’s relationships? I said, “If legislators pass unjust laws, it is the duty of the courts to strike them down.” You replied, “The courts strike down unconstitutional laws, not unjust ones.” Same difference, merely semantics. Me: “MY understanding of God, not YOURS.” You: “Fine. But we both can’t be right.” What gives you the right to force me to follow your interpretation of God (and God’s laws) in the first place? I thought we had freedom of (and from) religion, no? I asked, “The question you need to address now is, why does YOUR interpretation of Scripture, and the laws that you wish would stem from that interpretation, trump MY interpretation, and the inherent rights that flow from it?” You replied, “This is a good question.” Thanks. Although you admitted, “My interpretation has no more validity than yours”, I still don’t have an answer to my ‘good question’. You also said, “We do disagree, however, and both of us can’t be right.” Trouble is, your side is insisting that laws governing ALL people be passed that adhere to YOUR interpretation, right or wrong. Sorry, but that’s un-Constitutional, imnsho. HAC, how can you say you “resent [my] constant critique of [you] saying that I am right” when you continue to reiterate, “I believe my understanding of Scripture in this regard is right.”??? “You do not believe I am right” This is true, but it ignores the issue: I am not trying to force YOU to live by MY faith’s tenets. YOU, otoh, are clearly trying to force me to live by YOURS. You want laws based on YOUR interpretation. I want laws that allow us both to follow our hearts and beliefs. THAT is the difference. “As a result of us both thinking we are right, we must seek clarity in our beliefs, not agreement.” I am perfectly clear in my beliefs. And yes, you have been “clear in [your] conclusions” – and I find them un-Constitutional. Thanks for the permission to “Disagree if you like.” I do. Howzabout, you go to your Church and I’ll go to mine? If you can allow that, then your campaign to forbid my Church (and others) from following its tenets and performing its rites must stop.>

You replied, “The courts strike down unconstitutional laws, not unjust ones.” Same difference, merely semantics. NO, NO, NO, NO! It is a HUGE difference! The Constitution is not the source of morality. It is the source of laws. Courts deal in laws, not morality. The difference is huge. I am not trying to force YOU to live by MY faith’s tenets. Are we speaking of government? Then tell me this: what are the current laws regarding marriage? Now who is trying to change them? Are we speaking of morality? Then you are telling me that my views regarding your behavior need to change. Is that not you trying to force your faith on me?>

HAC, I spoke of un-Constitutional and unjust laws. Morality has to do with how we treat one another. The Constitution promises that we will treat one another equally before the law. When that doesn’t happen the laws are not only unjust AND un-Constitutional, they are also immoral, imnsho. “Are we speaking of government? Then tell me this: what are the current laws regarding marriage?” Well, in Massachusetts, the law allows same-sex couples to marry. They also do in the numerous countries I have previously (and repeatedly) mentioned. “Now who is trying to change them?” Justice-seeking people, that’s who. Just like we did when blacks couldn’t vote, or when they were forced into separate (and VERY unequal) schools. Just like we did when Catholics weren’t allowed to marry (in my jurisdiction). And like we did when Jews weren’t allowed to marry (again in my jurisdiction). And when blacks weren’t allowed to marry whites. Etc. Amending unjust laws is a just and righteous cause, imo. Just because YOU don’t like it or happen to agree doesn’t make it so. “Are we speaking of morality?” At times, yes indeed we are. Trouble is, you see me as de facto immoral. “Then you are telling me that my views regarding your behavior need to change.” First of all, you know nothing OF my behaviour. Secondly, I know your views will never change. Might I suggest that henceforth when you post, you simply say, ‘These are my views.’, or ‘My religion states that …’. We already know what your views are and what your faith teaches you, but this way, you won’t offend nearly as many people as you do when you say outright, “X is a SIN.”, knowing full well that other religions do not agree. That way, we can say, ‘Gee, HAC, that’s terrific that you believe that, but I believe differently.’ Or, ‘My faith teaches differently. Now go and live by YOUR faith’s tenets, and allow me the same right.’ “Is that not you trying to force your faith on me?” Nope. Like I have said (again, numerous times before) you are entitled to your faith’s beliefs. If you think gay marriage is wrong, then don’t have one. If your faith thinks gay marriage is wrong, then it shouldn’t perform them. Nor should they ever be forced to. On the other hand, you do NOT return the same entitlement. You would force your faith’s tenets on me. You would deny MY faith the right to have its own tenets, to perform its own sacred rites, and to have our relationships acknowledged by the State, when they are blessed within the confines of our religion/faith, the same way your relationships are acknowledged by the State when they are blessed within the confines of your religion/faith.>

I spoke of un-Constitutional and unjust laws. Again, they are not synonymous. Well, in Massachusetts, the law allows same-sex couples to marry. Only because it was changed by the courts (not by the people of Massachusetts) due to gay marriage activists. This example supports my point that you are forcing your beliefs on society. Amending unjust laws is a just and righteous cause, imo. Yes it is a righteous cause… for Congress. There is a process for this, and the courts are not it. Courts do not make law, they uphold it. Might I suggest that henceforth when you post, you simply say, ‘These are my views.’ Is that not implied? Besides, there are multiple examples just in your last post where you did not say, these are my views when making statements with which I disagree. We already know what your views are and what your faith teaches you, but this way, you won’t offend nearly as many people as you do when you say outright, “X is a SIN.”, knowing full well that other religions do not agree. That way, we can say, ‘Gee, HAC, that’s terrific that you believe that, but I believe differently.’ Or, ‘My faith teaches differently. Now go and live by YOUR faith’s tenets, and allow me the same right.’ Apparently you don t know my views. My views say that I CAN say X is a SIN. You missed my point that your statements, such as above, are self-contradictory. You would deny MY faith the right to have its own tenets, to perform its own sacred rites Has this even been suggested? You say you know my beliefs, but ascribe to me something I neither believe nor implied.>

There has been some discussion whether religious right organizations do or do not support a broad range of values. The following: http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/WebPublish/controller.aspxSiteName=FOTF&Definition=Resources&XSL=Resources&SV_Section=Resources are the resources that Focus on the Family provides. It all addresses gay marriage. Also, if you enter your nine digit zip code in the box on the upper right corner you will obtain the contact information for the president and vice president, members of congress, state officeholders, and state legislators. http://www.focusaction.org/ is the “separate” organization that is not tax exempt and that advocates for issues in a partisan way. The list of actgivities http://www.focusaction.org/activities/ is primarily anti-gay marriage. I’m not aware of a bi-partisan organization that provides comparable resources.>

Seeing Red: A Journey Through the Moral Divide a film by Gerry Corneau and Leah Belsky This month, the new documentary Seeing Red: A Journey Through the Moral Divide is being released in homes, schools and churches, across the US. (www.seeingredthemovie.com) On September 11th a preview screening was held in Boston, with the official theatrical world premiere scheduled for October 14th at the Dixie Film Festival in Atlanta, Georgia. The film tells the story of three Americans and a Brit who, disillusioned after the 2004 elections, set out to investigate the power of evangelical Christianity in American political life. From megachurches in Texas, to Christian music festivals in New Hampshire, to MTV protests in New York, they discover that the fanaticism with which mainstream media characterizes Christian America shows only one side of a diverse and fascinating story. Shot in red and blue states across America, “Seeing Red chronicles the many and varied answers to the questions: is America truly divided by morality, and why are the democrats failing to connect with religious Americans? Experts, scholars, and authors unravel the mystery even further. Featured in the film are Alan Wolfe, a leading scholar on religion and politics in the US, David Domke a communications expert who presents a compelling case for the conflation of God and war leading up to the conflict in Iraq, and George Lakoff, a leading scholar on how Americans shape, define, and apply morality. The making of the film is also a story in itself. The movie was made by two Jews, a Hindu, and a searching Christian. In the midst of the 60+ interviews, 90 hours of shooting and 80,000 miles of travel- squeezed into rental cars and rustic motels, the team spends endless time speaking about their own faith. Two months in to the project, Gerry , the co-producer/director was born again. In partnership individuals and with national political and religious organizations, Seeing Red will continue to launch pre-election screenings house party style, in an effort better understanding of religious Americans and their diverse political orientations. Recent Pew Forum statistics show that in the past year, the percentage of Americans who think either Democrats or Republicans are friendly to religion as fallen from 29% to 26% (Democrats) and 55% to 47% (Republicans). Screenings will be facilitated through the breakthrough distribution website. (www.seeingredthemovie.com). The site allows individuals and groups to purchase DVDs and organize screenings, using technology created by Brave New Theatres- a new progressive film screening forum started by Robert Greenwald and Jim Gilliam. In addition to house party screenings, the film will appear in festivals throughout North America till early next summer, when a nationwide network broadcast is anticipated. Overall, Seeing Red presents a fresh and balanced picture on a topic that will only grow more heated as the November election campaigns continue.>

Seeing Red: A Journey Through the Moral Divide a film by Gerry Corneau and Leah Belsky This month, the new documentary Seeing Red: A Journey Through the Moral Divide is being released in homes, schools and churches, across the US. On September 11th a preview screening was held in Boston, with the official theatrical world premiere scheduled for October 14th at the Dixie Film Festival in Atlanta, Georgia. The film tells the story of three Americans and a Brit who, disillusioned after the 2004 elections, set out to investigate the power of evangelical Christianity in American political life. From megachurches in Texas, to Christian music festivals in New Hampshire, to MTV protests in New York, they discover that the fanaticism with which mainstream media characterizes Christian America shows only one side of a diverse and fascinating story. Shot in red and blue states across America, “Seeing Red chronicles the many and varied answers to the questions: is America truly divided by morality, and why are the democrats failing to connect with religious Americans? Experts, scholars, and authors unravel the mystery even further. Featured in the film are Alan Wolfe, a leading scholar on religion and politics in the US, David Domke a communications expert who presents a compelling case for the conflation of God and war leading up to the conflict in Iraq, and George Lakoff, a leading scholar on how Americans shape, define, and apply morality. The making of the film is also a story in itself. The movie was made by two Jews, a Hindu, and a searching Christian. In the midst of the 60+ interviews, 90 hours of shooting and 80,000 miles of travel- squeezed into rental cars and rustic motels, the team spends endless time speaking about their own faith. Two months in to the project, Gerry , the co-producer/director was born again. In partnership individuals and with national political and religious organizations, Seeing Red will continue to launch pre-election screenings house party style, in an effort better understanding of religious Americans and their diverse political orientations. Recent Pew Forum statistics show that in the past year, the percentage of Americans who think either Democrats or Republicans are friendly to religion as fallen from 29% to 26% (Democrats) and 55% to 47% (Republicans). Screenings will be facilitated through the breakthrough distribution website. (www.seeingredthemovie.com). The site allows individuals and groups to purchase DVDs and organize screenings, using technology created by Brave New Theatres- a new progressive film screening forum started by Robert Greenwald and Jim Gilliam. In addition to house party screenings, the film will appear in festivals throughout North America till early next summer, when a nationwide network broadcast is anticipated. Overall, Seeing Red presents a fresh and balanced picture on a topic that will only grow more heated as the November election campaigns continue.>