31 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

What is "poverty" music?

31 Aug 2004 | Steven Garrity said...

John Mellencamp is as consistent as they come, no? Well, I guess there was that duet Me'shell Ndege'ocello - that was pretty hip...

31 Aug 2004 | Deeper Throat said...

During the DNC, P Diddy appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews. When asked why he loaned his support to Kerry/Edwards, Dids said that hip hop music was borne of the poverty of the inner-city and said his music reflected that poverty. Inadvertently, I think, he also asserted that hip hop music was an anthem for those struggling in poverty (re: Democratic constituents?) and could not be understood or appreciated by anyone in a higher tax bracket (re: Republican constituents).

I'm not going to say anything about P Diddy's music reflecting poverty, because all along I've been fooled into thinking it was all about the Benjamins.

31 Aug 2004 | will said...

So it can only be understood by people in lower tax brackets, but it is made by those in the higher ones. Riiiiight......

Last time I checked, P Diddy was a multimillionaire rap industry mogul.

31 Aug 2004 | crutan said...

John Mellencamp and P Diddy were the best you could do for the Dems?

What about Bruce Springsteen, REM, Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, James Taylor, Dave Matthews, Pearl Jam, Ben Harper or the Dixie Chicks? They're all touring in support of Kerry.

And in your list of the ever changing ocean of pop culture, please don't forget known intellectuals Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears, both of whom seem to have endorsed Bush at one point or another.

31 Aug 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Ever notice that democrats are the first to rush to defend anything they can't recognize as satire?

"Umm, no wait! REM is touring for us too! And Bonnie Raitt..."

Before everyone starts complaining about the Dem platform listed above, remember that its a joke. Learn to laugh...

It's not like the GOP fared any better with Stephen Baldwin.

31 Aug 2004 | Andy said...

Do Alec Baldwin and Stephen Baldwin cancel each other out?

31 Aug 2004 | S.A. Miller said...

Do Alec Baldwin and Stephen Baldwin cancel each other out?

Hopefully. Now if we could only find a way to cancel out all of the Baldwins.

31 Aug 2004 | Ed Knittel said...

Now in defense of Stephen Baldwin, he is not for Bush as he pointed out this morning on one of those cable news stations (I really want to say it was on Fox News). He's neither a Democrat nor a Republican - he has his own "agenda". His agenda is to get the word out about how great God is. However, he did say that he is voting for the candidate who puts his faith in God. "I'm not going to say who I'm voting for, but it's that guy."

Oh you are a sneaky one, Mr. Baldwin.

His whole born again thing was kinda creepy too. Still got me the willies.

31 Aug 2004 | Grant said...

Most importantly:

Does this mean Fled 2 is not going to get made due to objectionable content?

Don't ask why but this led me off on a tangent to C. Thomas Howell's IMDB page where I saw this plot slug for his work in "Fighting Words":

A romantic drama set against the world of slam poetry competitions.

Coupled with Side Out and about 40 more of the worst (yet sinfully delightful) movies ever made, I would emphatically vote for whomever CTH endorses.

31 Aug 2004 | matthew said...

Deeper Throat bottoms out with a post about celebrities.

31 Aug 2004 | b said...

The real question: Who is Deeper Throat?

31 Aug 2004 | SH said...

Deeper Throat bottoms out with a post about celebrities.

Oh come on, you really didn't catch any of the irony in this post? Are you kidding me?

31 Aug 2004 | matthew said...

I did catch the irony. Hard to miss that. But this is hardly "informed, curious, crude, and shockingly non-partisan... Commentary from every corner... No punches pulled..."

31 Aug 2004 | but that's just me said...

Anyone who gets creeped out by someone becoming a Christian gives me the willies.

31 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Wait, country music and wrestling (wraslin' as we say in my parts) have sounded off, but tell me who NASCAR is supporting and I know who I'm votin' for.

Nothing like drunk shirtless guys who watch cars go in circles all afternoon in the blazing sun to let me know what the pulse o' the American peoples is.

01 Sep 2004 | Carl said...

Nothing like drunk shirtless guys who watch cars go in circles all afternoon in the blazing sun

Nothing like people making ignorant generalizations about people who like to enjoy a little sun, beer, and auto racing.

01 Sep 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"ignorant generalizations "

You're a Bush supporter aren't you? The most ignorant generalisation of the past few years has been 'War on terror', and your own man has made play out of Kerry's 'nuance'.

Agree with your point about NASCAR fans though. Who cares what they like doing, as long as they're not harming anyone?

01 Sep 2004 | Andy said...

Nothing like people making ignorant generalizations about people who like to enjoy a little sun, beer, and auto racing.

So in other words, drunk shirtless guys.

01 Sep 2004 | ~bc said...

I maintain, and this third post confirms, the "Deeper Throat" is still the worst series of posts this blog has seen in its history.

What's the point? How are musicians "what a candidate is for?" Nonsensical.

I assume its some kind of satire, but I'm out on a limb with that one.

Abandon gag. Don't even mention it, just don't make Dispatch 4 and let it die quietly...

01 Sep 2004 | LNJ said...

The wraslin' comment didn't give away that I was joking? Come on, all, giggle from time to time.

01 Sep 2004 | ~de said...

Yes, I too have no sense of humor and sternly demand that there be no DISPATCH 4.

No wait, wait. I'm being facetious, I'm still laughing about Fled 2. I *do* have a sense of humor.

George W. Bush = The Tony Stewart of Diplomacy.

01 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Anyone who gets creeped out by someone becoming a Christian gives me the willies.

It's one thing to pick a religion. It's another to become a born-again-evangelical wacko.

01 Sep 2004 | Jason Wall said...

Christians have always been hated, not because they believed in a different God than everyone else, but because they believed that their God was the only real one. Historically, christians that believed a biblically accurate christianity, have been persecuted, reviled and tortured. Often times by people who preached "tolerance", something they wanted but were unwilling to give themselves.

Seriously... who really benefits from crass name calling? Its never funny, and only serves to reveal deep seated biases. In the end, its the reviler who looks the fool.

01 Sep 2004 | but that's just me said...

Well, that's true.

01 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

In the end, its the reviler who looks the fool.

You'd think that. But these days, that doesn't seem to be as true anymore.

01 Sep 2004 | SH said...

What's the point? How are musicians "what a candidate is for?" Nonsensical.

Don't you think *that* is the point? Platforms and policies and candidate's promises are burried beneath who's showing up at their conventions, their parties, their campaign stops. We've reduced ourselves to not voting along party lines, or voting for what WE KNOW a candidate stands unflinchingly for, but voting for who's the most popular in pop culture.

This election, I think, has turned into a race for homecoming king.

01 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Was it always that way or is this a new thing? I agree, few folks are basing their decision on president based on logical thinking through of issues and coming to an informed decision.

I think the GOP knows this and is doing an excellent job at marketing to this demographic. The Dems are stuck in the middle, half the time trying to pander to this group, the other half trying talk about real issues/solutions and just failing at both. Nader seems to assume everyone sits and thinks hard about which candidate to go for (and, as such, get's a small minority of votes).

01 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

BTW, aren't there any celebs backing Nader? :(

01 Sep 2004 | Phil said...

Since when have Christians been hated, reviled, tortured and persecuted? Even if they have, there's lots of payback for the Crusades. Here's a Christian's view of persecution: a person of tolerance telling them they can't force everyone to pray to Jesus in a public school filled with children of all kinds of religions. If you try to force Christianity on me and I resist, I am not "persecuting" you. If I want to eliminate religion from government in this country, it doesn't mean I hate Chrisitans. It just means I don't want ANY form of religion in my government.

02 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Phil, a more realistic current view of intolerance from a Christian's perspective is a supposedly tolerant group telling Christians they can't pray in school even if they keep it to themselves. Long gone are the days of required school prayers - at least in this country - and rightly so. If I want my daughter to be exposed to Chistian religion in school I can send her to a private school - and I do!

BTW, you can't eliminate religion from government as long as religious people are in government. I would like a government that is officially and legally neutral towards religion. For example, you shouldn't have to be a Christian to be in office, nor should you have to be an atheist.

02 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Ive been thinking about the afore mentioned creepiness factor for a bit now, and wondering why indeed anyone should find religiosity creepy (God is everything good right?). I dont think it has anything to do with Christianity specifically, now or then. Its not the particular religion, its that the onlooker is not part of it (whichever it) and it is often claiming to have exclusive access and rights to all real joy and everything good. Thats going to be unsettling notion, especially if you risk subjugation to that group. I think that, for the most part, those of different belief groups are aware of this and do their best not to raise the subject and interact on meta-empirical grounds (amazingly enough there is a lot of common ground). But when the face of Them or Us starts ranting a you, what seems innocuous for the Us can be creepy and threatening for the Them.

The whole them or us thing irks me, and always has. Ive always aspired to be and that other guy who we cant be bothered with in the Them or Us (not very civil of me I do feel guilty from time to time for it).

02 Sep 2004 | Phil said...

Why do Christians need to pray in school? There are 18 other hours in the day outside of school in which you can pray. If the one Jewish or Muslim kid in a classroom in Alabama sees the other 19 kids silently praying, don't you think that could be a bit intimidating? Don't you think that is a form passive oppression?

Sending your kid to a private Christian school is fine by me, but just don't try and divert what little funding public schools get to parochial schools. That is a very realistic oppression the Christian majority applies to the rest of us.

02 Sep 2004 | Grant said...

I find religious zealotry of all denominations fairly creepy. That doesn't mean I want you to stop, it doesn't mean I don't respect your right to creep me out, but the net personal effect is still the same. That said, this is frequently not a bidirectional thoroughfare.

Why do fanatically religious folks creep me out? Because in "giving themselves up to a higher power", many interpret this as no longer being responsible for their corporeal actions. Kill an doctor who performs abortions, and it's God at the wheel. Stone a woman for adultery, sounds harsh, but, hey, that's shariah and what can we as mortals do about that?

These are the extremes. I find the more subtle effects just as chilling. Invade a sovereign nation, bomb its people, well, I know we're right, God told me so...

02 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Religion is creepy when folks use it as a replacement for logic and deductive reasoning. The gay marriage issue being the spotlight of said creepiness for me.

A bad, washed up, hollywood, born-again celeb stating that the only criteria he's using to choose a candidate is whether or not they say 'god bless america' is just plain creepy.

02 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

A bad, washed up

I also find it a bit unsettling when someone denigrates anothers status as a warrant to their argument (but thats just me many seem to find it compelling).

02 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

I also find it a bit unsettling when someone denigrates anothers status as a warrant to their argument

We're talking about Stephen Baldwin here. A good (if creppy) guy, I'm sure, but a good actor? ;o)

02 Sep 2004 | Andy said...

One word: Backdraft.

02 Sep 2004 | Jason Wall said...

Phil: I'll admit, Christians have it good in the United States, and in a large number of the western nations around the world. We haven't had much real persecution in large numbers in a couple hundred years.

That isn't to say Christians aren't persecuted, and haven't been throughout history since their inception 2000 years ago. The Catholics during the dark ages were more a political institution than a religious one, and certainly not Christian as the bible teaches it. The Catholic Church murdered hundreds of Christians (notably the Waldenses in France). The Anglicans murdered and imprisoned the Quakers in England, and the Quakers murdered and imprisoned the Baptists in Boston... and so on and so on. Today, millions of Christians are killed for their faith in China and other eastern nations, most notable that of North Korea.

What bothers me is the crass name-calling, and the over generalization and propagation of a stereotype that doesn't describe the majority of Christians, or even the majority of fundamentalists (in Christian circles). The man who killed the abortion doctor was widely condemned among Christians. The bible doesn't teach those kinds of tactics.

I disagree with homosexuality on certain moral grounds, and I believe it is sin, as is explicitly stated in scripture. I also believe life begins at conception, and that the abortion of children is largely wholesale murder. These are divisive issues. But the Bible teaches me that regardless of what people may do, they are to be loved, because all have sinned and that makes me no better than them.

I don't see the point in calling someone who has chosen homosexuality names. Name calling feeds on stereotypes that are based on the worst humanity has to offer. Rarely if ever are they true. I'm not here to judge what motivates people. I don't know why a specific woman may have chosen to abort her child, or why a doctor chooses to do the procedure. I don't know why a man or woman chooses to forsake the God given sexual role they were born with. That isn't my responsibility. It is my responsibility to state the truth, to discern actions and to defend the truth in a gentle, peaceable and loving way.

There are extremes in every group. Pride and arrogance never fail to find someone who is willing to forsake wisdom and step out and rail against what they believe is wrong. Christians have them. Gay rights activists have them. Abortionists have them. Democrats have them. Republicans have them. But rarely does that reflect the nature of the majority.

Well, I've said less than I wanted, and too much probably for this forum. So I'll shut up now.

God Bless

02 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

I disagree with homosexuality on certain moral grounds, and I believe it is sin, as is explicitly stated in scripture.

Exactly. That's just creepy.

To me, religion, itself, isn't creepy. It's the absolute faith that the doctrine prescribed in said religion is the way and the only way and that any analysis of said doctine using logic or reasoning isn't warranted.

Even that, when kept to one's self isn't a big deal. If your bible says you can't eat Jello, and you want to take that as absolute law, fine...don't eat Jello. But to say other folks that eat jello are somehow immoral, well, that's where you cross that line into being a bit of a wacko from my perspective.

Now, if you have a sound argument as to WHY eating Jello is immoral, OK, fine, I'll engage in debate and while I may not agree with you, I'll respect the fact that careful thought was put into your decision and may even concede a few points if the arguments add up (as opposed to the 'bible said so' argument).

When we start talking about politicians, I'd rather NOT have their policy dictated by their religion. I'd rather have it dictated by them being a good, thoughtful, open minded, curious, considerate human being.

Of course, we have few policians that are actually like that. ;o)

02 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel, I don't see anything wrong with someone _believing_ that homosexuality is a sin ... or mixed marriages ... or race mixing, etc etc.

It's when that beliefs turns into _action against others_ that it's a problem.

The Quakers (here!) have it right: do what you want, we believe there's a God and that He will sort it out.

Err on the side of liberty, I say. That's why I can be a Christian and *support* gay marriage.

02 Sep 2004 | SH said...

Hear, Hear Don! (Did I get it right this time?)

02 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Phil, there is no prohibition against groups of students getting together and praying on their own time. There are stacks and stacks of case law supporting that, and school administrators that rule against voluntary prayer groups that are analogous to chess club or the like are routinely overruled by the courts. The - gasp! - ACLU even routinely defends such groups.

Where the issue comes in is that too many groups want to push it beyond private gatherings. And after-school prayer group meeting one classroom over from the French club is perfectly fine. Wanting to "voluntarily" pray at the football game makes things very gray, at the very least.

Jason, the Bible also condemns gluttony, often in the same passages that it condemns homosexuality? Do you view fat people the same way you view gay people? Do you disagree with obesity on moral grounds?

I'm not judging your viewpoint on homosexuality (even if I think you're very much in error in stating that people choose to be gay). I'm just wondering if you're consistent in your moral views about the things the Bible condemns. That's one of my biggest issues with evangelicals and fundamentalists today: they're very selective about which sins seem to warrant a lot of attention and which ones are OK (which adds to the irony that, statistically, religious Americans are more overweight than non-religious Americans).

Darrell, my point of view is pretty similar to yours. If one believes that we were created by a deity, then it stands to reason that part of that creation is logic and reasoning, tand that that was given to humans for a reason. So people should make use of it.

Religious people on the whole don't bother me or confuse me. There are a lot of very open minded, intelligent, rational people who are religious but realize that it's OK for other people to think differently, and it's OK to admit that maybe your way isn't right for everyone. (People like Don, for example.)

What creeps me out are people with 100 percent certainty that they have a monoploy on the truth. The fundamentalist atheist creeps me out as much as the fundamentalist Baptist. I'm highly suspicious of anyone who thinks they've got everything figured out. They strike me as either dishonest or intellectually vacant. But that's just me.

02 Sep 2004 | Phil said...

Jason, your post was filled with many of the hipocrisies I find objectionable with the Chrisitian movement. You claim to not judge people and keep to yourself, but every judgement you make is based on your faith. This affects me because people like Gingrich and Bush get elected based on these judgements. So my country is affected in a very negative way by Chrisitan values.

Please understand that homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexual rights groups fight for basic human rights that straight people enjoy. Homosexuals shouldn't be denied human rights any more than someone who is born with green eyes.

Your views on abortion lead you to vote for people who will make abortion illegal. Illegalizing abortions barely cuts down on the amount of abortions performed, it just makes them more costly, inconvenient and dangerous.

So hold your views, just don't claim that your religion doesn't affect anyone but you.

02 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

SH, you got it right this time! I am, indeed, a brilliant speaker (writer).

*COUGH*

For the record, I also think gluttony is a sin. I've only ever heard it preached once, and boy oh boy did it "step on a lot of toes".

Further, if *I* am gluttonous, then *I* am sinning. Thank God for grace.

But I don't support any laws the prevent people from overeating.

I like the last sentence of The Witches Credo:

"And in it harm none, Do what Thou Will!"

02 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Darrel, I don't see anything wrong with someone _believing_ that homosexuality is a sin ... or mixed marriages ... or race mixing, etc etc.

Well, what is 'wrong'? I guess I just find it creepy for lack of a better word. If a person thinks black people are inferior to white people, then the actual THINKING of that doesn't really harm anyone. But there's probably a pervasive effect from them thinking that and how they go about everyday life. And then if you start adding in written doctrine and evangelicalism (is that a word) it starts getting uncomfortable.

Certainly there shouldn't be thought police, though.

The fundamentalist atheist creeps me out as much as the fundamentalist Baptist.

Fundamentalism of any sort is rather creepy.

02 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel ... funny you should mention "pervasive effect". The latest issue of Utne Reader has a good article about "Intentions".

02 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Actually, what I'm really against is when religion turns to mob mentality. People rallying around issues like gay marriage based on the chants of the mob rather than taking just a minute to think 'umm...IS gay marriage actually a bad thing?'

You often see both religious folks and politicians use the argument 'a majority of folks in this country agree...' as if there's some magical connection between being in the majority and being correct.

02 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

BINGO! Darrel wins the cigar. Rigth on, Brother!

02 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

R-i-g-h-t ... r-i-g-h-t ... r-i-g-h-t ... I know I can do this!

02 Sep 2004 | but that's just me said...

Just a couple of quick comments from me:

The Bible doesn't say to not judge; it says to judge fairly and righteously.

And, yes, gluttony is as bad as any other sin. To God all sins are equally wrong, although the consequences of sin vary. And everyone sins, even the most devoted Christian. We can't be sinless; that's the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross.

Sorry this turned into such a heavy debate on "religion" (which Christianity is not, by the way). The word "creepy" just caught my attention on that one post. It seemed a little harsh and, well, unfairly judgemental.

02 Sep 2004 | but that's just me said...

And, Jason...Luke 23:34 :-)

02 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

BINGO! Darrel wins the cigar.

Woohoo! ;o)

"religion" (which Christianity is not, by the way)

Huh?

02 Sep 2004 | but that's just me said...

Religion is man-made. Christianity is simply a relationship with God.

02 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Religion is man-made. Christianity is simply a relationship with God.

Umm...ok...sure...sure...

02 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Don, thanks for bringing up the point about Quakers. My child goes to a Friends Christian School and I do see much more of an open viewpoint there without the dogma. I teach my daughter about personal responsibility for the choices she makes and don't want to ever hear her say "the Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Darrel, I second Don's huzzah. Appealing to mob rule as an argument is fairly pathetic. I also support equal rights for gays. The only argument that has even come close to swaying me is the one that says our entire civilization is based on the family unit of husband, wife, children. But I just ain't buying that there would be enough alternative marriages to undermine civilization.

And Phil, some of the families most in favor of school vouchers are in areas where the schools are terrible and no amount of money thrown at them seems to help. I wouldn't mind getting a tax break or voucher because my child doesn't go to public school, but I can afford to pay twice, so I don't push it or whine about it. Others can't afford to even pay once and are stuck with their brilliant children trying to learn among gang-bangers, the the children of apathetic and unengaged parents in classrooms that more resemble police states and war zones than places of learning.

Vouchers would be one approach to help caring parents get their kids a better education. Another approach would be to help take back the schools in these areas. This has been accomplished in some schools by strong Principals who are given the latitiude to expel trouble-makers and enforce strict codes of behaviour. But you need a strong individual will to deal with death threats and attacks from outside groups who confuse strong willed decisiveness with oppression..

But I digress ...

02 Sep 2004 | but that's just me said...

Darrel...there's really no need for that, is there?

02 Sep 2004 | indi said...

ummm ... not to pick nits, but Christianity is a relationship with Christ. Most religions claim a relationship with God, but I understand your meaning :-)

03 Sep 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

Religion is man-made. Christianity is simply a relationship with God.
I was raised in a private catholic school, but I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain?
I don't believe that to kill someone is as bad as eat 100 donuts. Is it? I mean to God?
I'm a little away from organized religion because it's hard to find God in the middle of other people, but I really can't remember that equality of the sin. Or maybe I do... you're talking about the 7 deadly sins? Don't you think most of the bible is written in order to have several meanings, different meaning for different people?

03 Sep 2004 | Deeper Throat said...

Hey, PAY ATTENTION TO ME!

03 Sep 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

Jez. Sorry. What can I say? It's not my fault! I'm out of context. I don't understand your post.

03 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Darrel...there's really no need for that, is there?

It wasn't meant as a swipe at you. I just don't want to dive into a debate of theological semantics.

03 Sep 2004 | indi said...

But DT, religion and politics go so well together :-)

03 Sep 2004 | Phil said...

indi, admit to yourself that the only reason you favor school vouchers is because they are designed to go to schools which agree with your values. Would you like your tax dollars to go to vouchers used for a Muslim school run by extremists? I don't think so.

You said "and no amount of money thrown at them seems to help" about troubled schools. How can you believe that? Don't you think there is a corellation between Harvard's status as one of the best schools in the world and their astronomically huge endowment? Money solves any problem in this country. If you gave a school in the south side of Chicago the budget of a Greenwich, CT school you'd see a remarkable turnaround.

03 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

"religion" (which Christianity is not, by the way)
Religion is man-made. Christianity is simply a relationship with God.

Nonsense. Christianity is a religion.

03 Sep 2004 | Jason Wall said...

One of several steves: Yes I consider gluttony a sin, although more accurately, anything not done in moderation is suspect.

Phil: I'm sorry you find my hypocritical. What I claim is to not judge peoples motivations, thoughts or intents. I don't know why people do things that the Bible condemns. I won't say you are a horrible person for doing them (beyond knowing that all are fallen, and thus equal in their unworthiness to God). Actions are different, and can be judged to be right or wrong, as specified by scripture.

I don't recall claiming my religion only affects myself. My best hope is that it will affect all men. But I have no intention of forcing my faith on anyone. Christianity is voluntary, as far as faith is concerned.

But understand also, even the founders of this nation understood that you cannot have a successful government without a strong morality in the nations citizens. Without God, no government will ever succeed or last. I vote in line with what I believe, and although you may not believe it, and it may creep you out regardless, I do consider and think about the debate regarding the issues.

Darrel: I don't have a problem with you finding my fundamentalism creepy. The feeling is sometimes mutual. I only object to crass name calling, i.e. "Crazy Fundamentalism Wacko" and stereotyping, "all fundamentalist are just like that crazy guy who killed that abortionist!".

But that's just me: On the point regarding Christianity not being a religion. I understand the desire to separate Christianity from other religions, because from out perspective there is a distinct difference. But it is a religion (see a dictionary definition, we fit ;) ), and the tenets of that religion state that a major part of it is having a relationship with Jesus Christ. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Best Regards,

03 Sep 2004 | Jason Wall said...

Don: I'm not sure how you reconcile support for homosexuality and Christianity?

Its clear enough that the Bible teaches against it. If we take Soddom and Gamorrah as an example, we know that there is the potential for a great deal of harm to come from the sin, if not the physical destruction of the nation, then almost certainly the its moral apostasy (see Paul in Romans 1:27-32). If such is true, then the consequence of encouraging such behavior could potentially be disasterous to the country. Why then is it acceptable for you, as a Christian, to encourage what you know to be sin?

03 Sep 2004 | p8 said...

Jason, the bible also teaches rape and baby killing, and burning of non-believers. Not doing so could also be potentially disasterous to your the country.

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

more

03 Sep 2004 | Phil said...

You don't need religion to be moral. I have all kinds of morals, and I also believe Jesus was a man who walked this earth just like me and nothing more. The scripture was written well after Jesus died and was created by people to motivate and control others. The bible can be interpreted any way you want it. I'd way rather hear someone say they thought about something long and hard and came to a conclusion rather than say "the scripture says so". It's such a cop out. Do the hard work and look within yourself for the answers.

The people who founded this country believed in God, but they believed more strongly in a separation of church and state.

03 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

But understand also, even the founders of this nation understood that you cannot have a successful government without a strong morality in the nations citizens.

Well, here's the problem. Morality does not need religion. Religious morality tends to come more from scripture, while secular morality tends to come more from common sense.

Granted, there's a lot of common sense in religious doctrine as well...but the problem is that religious doctrine isn't very flexible. To assume something written by some folks 2000 in a book that was highly edited and rewritten and carefully pushed to the masses somehow still applies word-for-word today for all people is nonsense.

Without God, no government will ever succeed or last

You're creeping me out now. ;o)

I only object to crass name calling, i.e. "Crazy Fundamentalism Wacko"

I do too, actually. But, again, we're talking about a Baldwin. They're all wacky. ;o)

Its clear enough that the Bible teaches against it.

I can't speak for Don, but my guess is that he can reconcile it because he doesn't take the bible ver batim. To do so is to not introduce logic and deductive reasoning into your thought process.

It's very easy to just say 'fags are bad because my bible sez so!' That is the danger in a lot of the right wing rhetoric out there.

In fact, I actually argue that the very fact the bible says being gay is bad is the very reason that gays should be allowed to be married in the US. Our constitution CLEARLY states that we have the right to participate in our own religion and that no one else's religion can be forced on anyone else. With the ONLY argument out there for banning gay marriage being the bible, clearly there is absolutely no constitutional right for our society to ban gay marriage, as doing so would be to force a religious doctrine on another human.

Now, if you can tell me why gay marriage is bad based on human values and reasoning, hey, go for it. I just have not heard a single argument based on that yet.

Now, Jason, if you REALLY believe the bible is law and that it is inflexible, then you best start sticking up for a real cause like banning Red Lobster. (One of the finer satirical protests out there. ;o)

As an aside, who's a fan of Showtime's Bullshit? Just watched the episode last night regarding the AA 12-step programs. Lots of parallels to this discussion.

03 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Well, here's the problem. Morality does not need religion. Religious morality tends to come more from scripture, while secular morality tends to come more from common sense.

I should also add that morality is much different than law. And that even secular morality has some gaps in common sense.

03 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Jason, there's no question that the Bible speaks out against homosexuality. It also speaks out in favor of slavery, it speaks out against eating pork and shellfish, it prohibits a man being anywhere near a woman during her period, and a lot of other things that are wholly irrelevant to the modern age.

I don't think God would want people to forsake their common sense and learning in favor of following customs that worked for tribal societies 5000 years ago or for the early civilizations of 2000-3000 years ago. We've come to accept that, despite the Bible's acceptance of slavery, that slavery is indeed wrong by using our logic and learning and greater understanding that we have now. The same process can be and should be applied to other parts of our lives. Under the logic of condemning something just because the Bible says so, we shouldn't be treating people for mental illness medically, but sending them to exorcists to get rid of the "demons" that posess them (most of the accounts of demon posession read very much to me like symptoms of mental illness - a concept that didn't exist for another 1800, 1900 years). That would be absurd. And, in my opinion, it's equally absurd to codemn gay people who all evidence indicates most certainly do not choose to be so. Whether it's biological, developmental or a bit of both, I've yet to meet anyone who has chosen their sexuality. Indeed, given the persecution, vilification and violence they have often faced and still face, no sane person would ever choose it.

I'm guessing that's how Don can reconcile it. It's how I reconcile it (even though I no longer consider myself an adherent of Christainity in any formal sense, I still know my way around well enough to work through its own ethos). I can also reconcile it with the idea that the dictates of Christianity apply to those who embrace it, and that God granted people the free will to choose to follow or not. And that Christ himself preached that actions are not what counts, but people's motivations.

03 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

I don't think God would want people to forsake their common sense.

That's what I was thinking. You were able to condense into one nice simple statement.

03 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Phil, if you really believe "Money solves any problem in this country" you are naive beyond belief. Money alone is not the solution. For example keeping people perpetually on welfare doesn't really help society as a whole in the long run. If you train people for real jobs so they don't need welfare they would contribute rather than be a drain. I am of course excluding those who are physically or mentally unable to work. So it's not just spending the money, it's spending it wisely that helps.

As for vouchers, there are are large number of non-religious private schools in the area. It would be up to the parents to decide where to take their kids. As long as the school is accredited by a recognized scholastic organization I have no problem with the money being used there.

03 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I don't *support* homosexuality like, say, I support a charity. It's not like I go out of my way to promote it.

I support *freedom* in this country. F-R-E-E-D-O-M. What two people *who love each other* do is their business. If there's an eternal price to pay, I'm not the one giving them the bill.

I do, as a matter of fact, pretty much take the Bible to be literal. But I also understand and apply dispensational truths.

BY THE WAY ... since you brought up Sodom and Gomorrah ... WHAT where their sins? Do you know?

03 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

For example keeping people perpetually on welfare doesn't really help society as a whole in the long run.

Welfare is a lack of money. Not an example of 'throwing more money' at the problem.

If you train people for real jobs so they don't need welfare they would contribute rather than be a drain.

Provided they could find day care. And an actual job. And that job offered benefits. And that they could afford transporation to the job. And that they also could afford housing. And that the job actually paid a living wage.

In otherwords, this is a MUCH more complicated issue than many folks realize...

So it's not just spending the money, it's spending it wisely that helps.

Certainly.

As long as the school is accredited by a recognized scholastic organization I have no problem with the money being used there.

The voucher issue is also more complicated. Offering choice is good, but once you start including schools outside of the school system, then there is little accountability. Many parents need to base their school choice on location rather than quality of the school.

There's also the issue that if our current schools are struggling on current budgets, how can private companies do any better? Some argue 'they're more efficient'. Some argue 'they cut a lot more corners'. I think both are true.

Regardless, we certainly throw less money at schools than our military, and we certainly throw more money at corporate welfare than social welfare.

03 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

I do, as a matter of fact, pretty much take the Bible to be literal

Serious question: Why? (I'm curious)

03 Sep 2004 | noodlebrain said...

it prohibits a man being anywhere near a woman during her period

This is actually quite good advice.

03 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Don, thanks for asking that question about the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here is an interesting look at the question.

Darrel, my point about welfare is that when all you do is subsidize basic living without looking to the future consequences you invite the growth of welfare. The fact that young single mothers have a much easier time getting welfare than married mothers has definitely contributed to the rise of welfare and children being born to single mothers. Sometimes there really is a father in the picture, he just lays low so the "family" can get their welfare check. There is no incentive to get off welfare. Especially when the more children you have the more money you receive.

And yeah, obviously it's more than just training. Jobs are not automatic. But what's the alternative? Permanent welfare for everyone with no way out? I am not advocating time limited welfare in the sense of "you have a year to find a job, after that you are on your own". But there should be some incentive to try to get off welfare.

As for how the money for schools is spent, I think it is well established that public schools have higher costs just in the educational bureaucracy alone. But the original issue wasn't the amount of money spent, it was that spending more money doesn't automatically make a school better. That was why the President increased funding for schools but added the stipulation that the schools must be accountable for performance.

03 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Darrel, my point about welfare is that when all you do is subsidize basic living without looking to the future consequences you invite the growth of welfare.

I don't disagree with that. Welfare (like abortion issues) are a symptom of other problems that aren't being addressed.

The fact that young single mothers have a much easier time getting welfare than married mothers has definitely contributed to the rise of welfare and children being born to single mothers.

Oh please. Where do people get this? Women do not have babies to get on welfare. Talk to a few single moms on welfare.

There is no incentive to get off welfare.

Talk to a few single moms on welfare.

But what's the alternative? Permanent welfare for everyone with no way out?

The alternative is to fund universal day care (and better before and after school programs), health care, and mass transit. IMHO, of course, but those are usually the 3 biggest hurdles that someone on welfare has to overcome.

We'd be much better off if money was spent on that. It'd certainly help the children out more.

But there should be some incentive to try to get off welfare.

I agree. For most folks, there is an incentive...human pride. The catch is that there are actually DISincentives to getting off of welfare. Many people can end up in worse shape once off of welfare as they then become inelligble for other needed programs (day care reimbursement, health care for the kids, subsidized housing, etc.)

In THAT sense, funding the system 'above' welfare would help them move their way up and out.

I think it is well established that public schools have higher costs just in the educational bureaucracy alone

Having had first-hand experience with charter schools, I can tell you there just is just as much beuracracy in the private world as well.

That was why the President increased funding for schools but added the stipulation that the schools must be accountable for performance.

Well, that's a whole other debate. A lot of folks in the education system will tell you that 'no child left behind' is not only a failure at accountablility, but was completely underfunded.

03 Sep 2004 | OMG said...

Darrel: GO GET YOUR OWN FUCKING WEBLOG ALREADY.

03 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Darrel, I have known single mothers on welfare and yes, some do have more babies to get more money. Human pride has nothing to do with it. It's a different mind set entirely. I take it back, there's a certain pride taken in gaming the system. And the ones that don't deliberately have more babies to get more money just don't go out of their way to NOT have babies, so the result is the same. And no, I'm not saying ALL single mothers on welfare do this, just enough to be a problem, especially in impoverished areas.

OMG: So stop reading already! Are you the bit meister or what?

03 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Darrel: GO GET YOUR OWN FUCKING WEBLOG ALREADY

I have one. But I just save that for web stuff. I haven't found my own talented deeper throat yet. ;o)

Oh, and OMG...either contribute contructively to the conversation or change the channel.

I have known single mothers on welfare and yes, some do have more babies to get more money

I don't doubt that some do. EVERY government program has a group that takes advantage of it. Whether that's social welfare, medicaid, va benefits, military contractors, private business, corporate tax laws, etc.

07 Sep 2004 | Phil said...

indi, your posts reek of naivete. Where did I say more money meant more welfare? Where did I say more money meant thoughtless spending? I used Harvard as an example of money producing results. It takes money to provide the people on welfare with the proper incentives to get off welfare. Darrel hit the nail on the head. You can't just give a single mom a job, you also need to give her daycare and healthcare. And you need to hold her employers accountable for giving her those things. The government and money can help in those areas. Only close-minded, naive conservatives such as yourself see government as one dimensional as welfare and taxes. Spending money intelligently is exactly what I'm talking about. Either way you still need the money to spend and the Republican party isn't tryin' to hear that.

Your disdain for the people on welfare is dispicable. You claim they have no pride and choose to live that way. Wake up and put some of those Christian values to work.

07 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Phil, you are reading my posts selectively with a predisposed opinion about me ... but I suppose you could say the same. You focused on the term "naivete". If you look back carefully you'll see I only applied that when you said "Money solves any problem in this country. If you gave a school in the south side of Chicago the budget of a Greenwich, CT school you'd see a remarkable turnaround." That is not a foregone conclusion. To be fair I should have agreed with you to a point and emphasized that money helps when used wisely, but it is only part of the solution, since that is also what I believe and stated or agreed with elsewhere. I apologize for using the the pejorative term naivete in your case. It was meaner that usual for me ... must have been a bad day.

I think that in these postings we tend to say only part of what we mean or intend due to time constraints and not really wanting to type a dissertation. Some of us are better at being short and pithy than others.

Peace.

07 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

and not really wanting to type a dissertation

For we don't want to invite the wrath of OMG! ;o)

07 Sep 2004 | indi said...

:-D