Via Crooks and Liars comes the news that Fred Phelps, the dangerously deranged fundamentalist nut, is protesting a talk by Mike Huckabee, the dangerously deranged fundamentalist nut.
Phelps is basically vermin, protesting funerals of soldiers because of his complete disconnect from reality. While real human emotions get riled needlessly and cruelly by him, he is relatively harmless beyond that — even the far-rightest of the far right ignores him. Huckabee, though, wants to change the Constitution to make it align better with the Bible. He’s a legitimate danger to this country, and the world.
Schadenfreude? Sure. But maybe this will shine a light on just how nuts this country has gotten since the far far Religious Right has put a stranglehold on one party’s politics. I tend to talk about their insane jihad against science, but they have much scarier and far-reaching goals. But now, they’re ready to detonate over McCain, and James Dobson has actually endorsed Huckabee.
I swear, you can’t make this stuff up. Remember, as I have said repeatedly here: if you are a religious citizen of the United States, it’s doubly important for you to protest these fringe people. I think the vast majority of religious people in this country are relatively moderate, but unless you speak up, these lunatics speak for you.
I sure hope that come November, this country can pull itself back from this nonsense and get to the business of actually being America again.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Westboro Baptist looks more and more like Landover Baptist every week.
Can’t these loons figure out that our soldiers die, not because we tolerate “fags”, but because we tolerate a lying son of a Bush in the White House?
February 8th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I think Phil made an excellent point when he pointed out that the “word of God” has actually been “amended” many many times more than has the Constitution. I’m not taking a side on the relative value of the two documents, merely stating that we all need to bear witness to the actual facts of the situation. The Bible was written a very long time ago by a very large number of people, and none in our own language. The Constitution was written by a relatively small group, quite a bit more recently and mostly all at the same time (plus amendments), and in our language. Now, which one requires a more “living” interpretation?
February 8th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
If I may, Phreaky Phred came here a few weeks ago.
The Boy makes similar observations about Huckabee and Phelps, and comes to similar conclusions about the need for Christians to speak out against them.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
The zealous judgment which you seem keen to pass upon some the more dysfunctional might seem to indicate that, although you may be well versed in your particular subject, a wider perspective resulting from a more balanced education may have escaped you so far.
Perhaps an understanding of memetic mutation might bring you to a more compassionate view of the cheerful dumb and their crazy ideas.
The higher the Willow grows the lower it bends…
February 8th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I’m afraid that post will require a considerable amount of “memetic mutation” before it makes any sense to me at all.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Sorry Chauncy you lost me a bit there.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, crazy is what crazy does. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how or why these fruitcakes came to be. We should treat them with the contempt they deserve. They lost the right to compassion long ago.
Slightly OT. Heh heh heh. Phil said nonsense. Sorry, prior thread reference. Like dog with bone. Must. Let. Go…
February 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Phil, I completely disagree with you when you say Phelps is relatively harmless. Tell that to the parents of the many soldiers and gays that have died, and he and his crew have protested spreading their vile hatred. While this man is a fringe element, he speaks what many fundamentalists fear to speak. If you allow your country to continue to take the course it has for the past 7 years, you will see far more Fred Phelps.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Fourth paragraph, first sentence: “I swear, you can’t this stuff up.”
Did you mean “I swear, you can’t make this stuff up.”?
February 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Yeah, the religious right, trying to get their values enacted throught the democratic process, is the threat. It’s not the animal rights wackos actually firebombing UCLA professors’ houses, or the radical Muslims using the Canadian Human Rights Commission to persecute conservative commentators ffs.
I know “Why don’t you cover this issue” is a lame complaint to make, but there is plenty of stuff to really be scared about IMHO, and these knuckleheads don’t measure up.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Peter, yeah. Oops. Fixed.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
A demand to show compassion to those who refuse to do that which even they deserve is justified. However, can the finger truly be pointed when the only inhibitions those at the business end of the finger would impose would be those that bring compassion to a more unilateral state?
To step down from our collective ennui…
How can anyone demand compassion for those who won’t give it, especially when all we do is say “Have some compassion, please.”
Confound it. My esoteric verbosity would have been better received with a name like Chauncy, Eustace or Reginald. I am fail.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
JohnW, in some instances the threat of terrorism is worse than the act of terrorism because of the reactionary legislation our politicians put in place in the guise of protecting us. That’s why animal rights wackos and al qaeda are significantly less threat to our way of life than legitimately elected knuckleheads with god on their side.
You can always move here to Australia if on the off chance the theocrats do get elected. OTOH our newly elected government is investigating the feasibility of filtering the internet to “protect the children ™” using the Chinese experience with interweb filtering as a guide…
February 8th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
If Huckabee wants to change the Constitution to make it align better with the Bible, doesn’t that soft of imply that it doesn’t align with the Bible very well, right now, i.e. this (the US) isn’t officially a Christian coutry? I wonder if that’s occurred to anyone, yet.
On a completely unrelated note, is there any possibility we could get a preview function, here?
February 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Umm… that’s “sort of imply”, not “soft of imply”. Like I said… preview function.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Okay.
That first paragraph was the best laugh I’ve had all year!
Thanks BA! You rock!
February 8th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Huckabee is not a nut. He thinks (along with many people) that the Bible is a good guide to life, that it is against abortion and gay marriage, and so (along with many people) wants Constitutional Amendments to reflect that.
You may disagree, but be civil about it.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Michael, I didn’t say he was harmless, I said that beyond the emotional damage he does he is relatively harmless. He has virtually no power in this country, and certainly cannot change legislation. If Huckabee is elected, he certainly will have that power. I fear that he need not even be elected; simply having a strong showing in the election will give him influence.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Huckabee is unquestionably a nut. Anyone who thinks the Bible is a good source for morals is either wicked or completely ignorant of what’s actually in the Bible.
I, for one, will not be civil about a religious lunatic who wants to rewrite the founding document of my country to conform to his delusions.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Ok, I got it BA. The thing that scares me about Huck, is, although he has next to no chance of being elected, IF the Republicans are elected, he is clearly making a play for the VP job. That would be a step backwards IMO.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Last week in south suburban Chicagoland, five women were murdered, execution style. This Saturday, there will be funeral services for two of the women. The Phelps clan intend on protesting the funerals. One of the funerals is only a couple of miles away from where I am. I intend on show up if only to help hold up dark sheets in order to block the sight of these scum from the mourners. I am not looking forward to it. The mourners have suffered enough. They do not deserve to have to see the Phelps clan.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
“Huckabee is not a nut. He thinks (along with many people) that the Bible is a good guide to life, that it is against abortion and gay marriage, and so (along with many people) wants Constitutional Amendments to reflect that.”
Yeah, sorry, but no. Bits and pieces of the Bible are a good guide for life. Other bits and pieces are pro-slavery and anti-mixed fabrics. It’s simply not sensible to base national law upon particular piece of Leviticus while ignoring all the rest, in an arbitrary and changeable manner.
As a religious document, the Bible can be cherry-picked in an easy-going and simple manner, taking out what elements are relevant to one’s life while letting pass the bits that no longer apply. But the legal foundation of the country should never be treated similarly. A hell of a lot more rides on the interpretations of the Constitution than does on the current fads in Old Testament Interpretations.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Phil,
This black and white world that “they” have created… this democrat, republican abomination–
there is no solution other than leaving both parties to be “independent”— if there is no indy person running, then either don’t vote, or get all your associates to do the same..
its the only way sanity will win.
besides, we all know the democrats and republians plan world affairs every summer at the Bohemian Grove in Sonoma county California while worshipping a 40 foot stone owl, and “mock” sacrificing humans to it..
do the google on it..
February 9th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Dude, Huckabee doesn’t have a chance.
Oh. My. Science.
Love to see all the h8ers come out. You guys are just the other side of the bigot coin. On one side you have the xtians, and on the other side we have you. If YOU had your way the only place people would be able to practice thier faith is in a mental hospital.
But hey, maybe a skank in a cop suit will set all those xtians right? Right?
Sad. So sad.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Ian, good job on stuffing everyone into a pigeon hole without actually reading what any of them had to say.
I’m fine with people practicing their faith. It’s when they declare that *their faith* should be the measure by which *my life* and *my legal protections* should be decided, that’s when the whole shebang goes out the window.
The constitution shouldn’t be changed based on what Richard Dawkins, or I, think is particularly fashionable at the time, either. Especially not when we base our support of that fad on a clear fallacy.
Everyone should have the right to practice their faith. That right, just like the right of free expression, ends at the tip of my nose.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:12 am
I’m not sure if McCain’s domination on Super Tuesday was a boon for moderates, or a protest against Mormons. I hope for the former, but I fear the latter.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Ian -
I don’t think you will find too many people here that are “h8ers” to the same extent as those on “the other side of the bigot coin”. Most readers and posters here would be quite happy to let folks believe and worship as they choose. The problems arise when what people believe and worship becomes the basis for public law, scholastic teachings and government policy.
Regarding Phelps & co -
Saw a wonderful BBC documentary about these folks. It is called The Most Hated Family in America (a title btw that the Westboro people are all too proud to acknowledge). Don’t know if it is available online, but it is worth a peek.
Ruprect
February 9th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Let me guess: the Westboro Baptist Church is protesting the talk of Mike Huckabee because he is not quite homophobic enough. It seems you need to spit acid when talking about gays to get along with these guys.
These people have a positively scary and depressing theology. According to their beliefs, people are predestined from birth to go to either heaven or hell. Only a small number, God’s “elect”, will go to heaven, and all the rest will end up in hell for all eternity. People are forbidden from doing certain things for the sole reason that God apparently doesn’t like them, and if people tick God off by doing them anyway, God will judge the entire nation. All the suffering in the world is due to God and the sufferers deserve it.
Why are they like this? I’m not sure; maybe it’s their immutable beliefs that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that every act, judgment and law of God in the Bible is morally right. When reality doesn’t fit with their beliefs, they ignore reality, perhaps thinking that the Devil is trying to deceive them.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Also sprach BA: “I think the vast majority of religious people in this country are relatively moderate….”
[=applause, cheering, loud whistling, air horns=] Thank you, BA!
Some of us are even proud to call ourselves liberals [=horrors!=] - or progressives, for those among us who don’t like the “L word” - not in spite of our faith but because of it. I can’t imagine being otherwise, and I’m completely baffled by anyone’s being taken in by the Fundy stuff. (OTOH, I have a brother who turned Fundy around the time he turned 40. Must have been an early-onset midlife crisis or some such.)
I love science as well. I have a degree in it from waybackinthewayback, and I still try to keep half an eye on what’s going on in the scientific world, even though it’s been decades since I worked there.
So the notion that faith and science are enemies by nature confounds me, no matter which “side” I hear it coming from.
Fundamentalism is the real enemy of both. Fundamentalism is not faith but a failure of faith, based almost entirely on fear. It’s a paradox - people gravitate to that crap because they’re afraid of the unknown, and at the same time, they don’t want to know. FAIL x 30 million.
Pseudo-faith. Pseudo-science. Both should carry government warning labels: HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED. And I’m not afraid to say so.
Obama (faith-based more-or-less liberal) for President.
Just 2 brass farthings’ worth from a Zen Baptist Existentialist Agnostic Heretic and Preacher’s Kid…..
February 9th, 2008 at 3:12 am
The detestable Phelps gang is not a church in the usual sense of he word, it is a dysfunctional family power cult. Except for a small clan recruited from the ranks of the similarly insane “Christian Identity” movement, the Westboro membership is made up of Fred and his immediate family.
Huckleberry, on the other hand, has real power, millions of followers, and a fair chance of gaining a lot more. There is even talk of McCain offering him the VP slot.
He is not as crazy as Fred by a long shot, but I agree with the BA that he is a legitimate danger to this country, while Phelps and his depraved “church” are merely a freak-show.
Phelps is a cockroach, Huck is a hungry wolf.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Thanny writes:
[[Anyone who thinks the Bible is a good source for morals is either wicked or completely ignorant of what’s actually in the Bible.]]
Yeah, look at all the evil, destructive people it influenced when they tried to take Biblical morality seriously: William of Ockham, with his concept of “natural rights;” William Wilberforce, trying to get England to ban slavery; Dorothy Day, with her soup kitchens; M.L. King, Jr., trying to get the US to treat black and white people equally; Cesar Chavez, trying to get growers to treat farm laborers decently… what a bunch of nuts!
February 9th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Themadlolscientist writes:
[[Fundamentalism is not faith but a failure of faith, based almost entirely on fear.]]
Actually, Fundamentalism refers to the churches that follow the “Five Fundamentals” published by certain evangelical denominations in the US from 1910 to 1915. I call myself a 4/5 fundamentalist, since I dissent on the first of the five (literal inerrancy in all passages).
I know quite a few fundamentalists. None of them strike me as a threat to the country.
It’s funny, when I read Phil’s editorial, I fully intended to come in here and endorse what he was saying. I have personally suffered, though in very minor ways, from the Phelps clan; and I certainly don’t intend to vote for Mr. Huckabee. But I come in here and see all the people using this issue as a wedge for their antitheist views, and my determination to join Phil’s bandwagon just melts away.
I think there are probably a lot of people, like me, who won’t openly criticize Huckabee because they know damn well it would just play into the hands of the militant Christian-haters, who would like nothing better than to turn this into a fight between Christians and atheists. I don’t think Huckabee would be anywhere near as serious a threat as he is if it weren’t for the threat Christians perceive from the Sam Harrises, Christopher Hitchenses, Richard Dawkinses, Daniel Dennetts, James Randis and Victor Stengers. Christians don’t see Fred Phelps as a threat because no one in their right mind listens to him anyway. There’s a more of a threat from the people who would use an obvious crackpot like Phelps as an excuse to move against Christians or theists in general.
Including, Phil, people who have the gall to say someone like that speaks for us if we don’t openly denounce them. I’ll just assume you think Christopher Hitchens speaks for you, since you haven’t openly denounced him. Oh, and Rush Limbaugh is white, you’re white, you haven’t openly denounced him — or at least I haven’t seen you do so on this blog — so Rush Limbaugh must speak for you. Right?
February 9th, 2008 at 6:40 am
OK, Fred Phelps is nuts. I accept that. But I didn’t for a long time. Just look at his page (can I even type the url without getting in trouble?). I swear, on the surface, it seems more likely that these people are extreme performance artists. One of the first pictures you see is a cartoon of a sign that reads “God hates you.”
As for their beliefs, consider this. Non-theists often point out that the so-called “loving God” hypothesis is disproven by The Bible itself. The Old Testament in particular is full of God’s irrational wrath. Now read the .pdf file on the Westboro Baptist Church page entitled “God Loves Everyone - The Greatest Lie Ever Told.” This document goes through the Bible and quotes every instance of God killing someone out of displeasure. It’s a 94 page document! Conclusion: God is a God of hate. They have a point, you know, as any atheist might argue.
Consider this. Non-theists often point out that religious people will thank and praise God for the good things that happen in this world, but are silent about the bad things, or accept them as God’s will. But the Westboro Baptist Church has it right - since anything that happens is God’s will, and since God is God, a true believer should praise and thank him no matter how horrible the event. Hence the signs proclaiming “Thank God for 9/11.”
The WBC folks are nuts, but on some weird level, their theology is sound. Part of me wants to believe that they’re actually a bunch of atheists putting us all on. Unfortunately, the funeral protests are too despicable to be the work of nutty performance artists.
J. D.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:47 am
More to “Is Huckabee a nut?”. Well, Paul Krugman, the respected (and liberal) New York Times economist agrees with Huckabee that infrastructure spending would be a good way out of the coming recession. Huckabee certainly has many faults, but also many strengths.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Phelps’ threat to come to the Chicagoland area for the funerals of Sarah Szafranski and Connie Woolfolk is very hurtful news.
I knew Connie Woolfolk. She was on our staff in the Village of Park Forest until December 2006. She was a warm, friendly, positive and cheerful person. Her death and the death of the other 4 women in Tinley Park last Saturday is a horrible tragedy. I interviewed some of her close friends for this piece:
Friends Remember Connie Woolfolk
http://www.enewspf.com/latest/friends-remember-connie-woolfolk-2.html
I wrote this piece Thursday evening after a friend informed me that the WBC was threatening to protest at the funerals:
Focus On The Love, Not The Protests
http://www.enewspf.com/commentary/focus-on-the-love-not-the-protests-2.html
Please keep the families in mind and prayer today. I really dread seeing these protesters. I corresponded with a representative from a group that does counter protests when the WBC shows up at soldiers’ or veterans’ funerals. He said the WBC only shows up 1 in 10 times they threaten.
I hope they all stay home. This is a day for those who loved Connie and Sarah.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:01 am
J.D., I just read your post.
The theology of the WBC is anything but sound. As I struggled to explain to my students Thursday and Friday who these people are and what they are threatening to do, one of my students asked, “Why don’t they just leave America if they hate it?” My response, “Your question presupposes rational thought.”
I’m not going to get bogged down in a discussion of theistic or non-theistic rational thought or theology. All of this misses the point that these people are full of hate, and that’s it. While one can try to use the Bible or Quran or any other religious text to justify hatred, that is a choice of the person, not inherent in any of those texts. The overwhelming vast majority of Christians I know in person or through my study of theology reject the arguments those who bombed abortion clinics. The overwhelming vast majority of Muslims I know in person or through my study of Muslim theology reject the arguments of those who try to justify 9/11 or any other act of terrorism.
Some tried to use the United States Constitution to justify the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, but no such justification exists in the Constitution.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:01 am
I didn’t want to linger very long on Phelps’ website, so I missed this: Why does he want to picket the funerals of people who died in a sugar refinery explosion in Georgia?
Free speech is a great thing, but perhaps they should do this a couple of miles away from the funerals.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Yeah, look at all the evil, destructive people it influenced when they tried to take Biblical morality seriously: William of Ockham, with his concept of “natural rights;” William Wilberforce, trying to get England to ban slavery; Dorothy Day, with her soup kitchens; M.L. King, Jr., trying to get the US to treat black and white people equally; Cesar Chavez, trying to get growers to treat farm laborers decently… what a bunch of nuts!
Natural rights? Like when the God says man has dominion over everything? or did you only mean with regards to humans, like when God tells people, through the Bible, that it’s ok to keep slaves, beat your wife, etc.?
Those people you cite who took Biblical morality seriously took only a tiny part of the biblical morality - surgical excisions to suit their purposes. We can be thankful that each of them truly had the greater good in mind, but I don’t think we can lay the responsibility for that on the Bible.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Pietr, in response to your question, “Why does he want to picket the funerals of people who died in a sugar refinery explosion in Georgia?” I would refer you back to my previous answer. Your question presupposes rational thought on Phelps’ part, and there is none.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Phil wrote: “I tend to talk about their insane jihad against science, but they have much scarier and far-reaching goals.”
Me again. Once again, why do you continue to make these statements without looking at his record here in Arkansas? I’m telling you, he made more positive contributions to the state in education and technology than any governor in our history–with Bill Clinton coming in a close second on the education side.
Never, not once, did Huckabee attempt to create any laws in Arkansas based upon his religious beliefs that I am aware of. In fact, he was hounded during his second term by many fundamentalists in the state for not being religious enough. Your rhetoric is stirring your readers into mob mentality without history to back your claims. Would he make motions to ban abortions and create a stronger FCC? More than likely. Does that qualify calling him a deranged nut? I can’t imagine many people thinking so.
On another note, I finally started reading Demon-Haunted World after all these years. Now there’s a voice that talks to me. I don’t recall Sagan ever demeaning another human being for their deep-seeded beliefs. I strive to be more like him.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:37 am
One of the reasons I left Christianity is because of the inconsistency in scripture concerning the nature of God. The whole, OT God is a jealous God/God of wrath/angry God/murdering with impunity (save it Barton, I know all the arguments AGAINST what I’m saying, as I used them myself). In the NT we have a kinder, gentler God, a God of love that expects us to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, love those who persecute us… blah, blah, blah… Until we get to the end of the book, where we find that those who don’t agree with him are toast.
Sorry, but anyone that kills his own children because they disagree with him is a psychopath. Actually, don’t Americans fry people like that? Hmmmm?
February 9th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I can’t help but notice that religious fundamentalists spend a suspicious amount of time thinking about homosexuals.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Pieter, I couldn’t agree more. After all, if the President can set up “free speech zones” a couple of miles from wherever he’s appearing, so that he can’t be bothered with seeing any opposition, why can’t rational people set up the same to keep the religious nuts from doing real emotional damage to bereaved families?
February 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
If people would ignore Phelps he’d soon disappear. If he didn’t think he was getting our collective goats he’d give up. My advice isn’t to pass laws against his protesting of funerals, instead just roll your eyes and say something like christians will be christians.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“Huckabee is not a nut. He thinks (along with many people) that the Bible is a good guide to life, that it is against abortion and gay marriage, and so (along with many people) wants Constitutional Amendments to reflect that.
You may disagree, but be civil about it.”
A good guide to life?!?! The Bible advocates murdering children, wiping out an entire village (including the animals) because some kids insulted an old man’s bald head, a man giving the females in his household to raping marauders so as to protect himself…
A good guide to life? Heaven help us.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:41 am
>>I think there are probably a lot of people, like me, who won’t openly criticize Huckabee because they know damn well it would just play into the hands of the militant Christian-haters, who would like nothing better than to turn this into a fight between Christians and atheists.<<
Or does that refusal simply give rise to the notion that all Christians think that way and agree with him? And so instead of being a debate of ideas it degenerates into a bunch of name calling.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Yannow…
thinking about this “fear of being thought of as Christian-haters” — I have to wonder why one should worry about what people whose claim to fame is getting themselves beat up over their religion would think?
As Phil says, there are many good and fine Christians. And Islamic believers. And Buddhists, and Atheists, and Pagans. Most of them live their lives as they see fit and they don’t meddle in the private affairs of others using religion as a big stick.
But… there are folks out there who turn EVERY criticism of a Christian into a “oh, you just hate Christianity/God/Jesus” kind of thing. When, of course, it’s usually patently obvious that they’re using this accusation to deflect ANY kind of rational discussion of issues. Or trying to avoid personal responsibility for something they’ve done that’s wrong.
They remind me of a kid I worked with one summer as a volunteer. He was about 15 or so and was one of the most ungainly, unfriendly, and rude young men I’d ever met. None of the young women in the volunteer group wanted anything to do with him because he was just not nice to them (or anybody, for that matter). He’d taunt people, call them names, sabotage their work, and in general just be an ass.
One day he came to me to complain that the girls weren’t nice to him and he couldn’t figure out why. I asked him if he had any ideas why, hoping he’d consider some of his rude behavior. He said, “I think it’s because I’m Christian and they’re not.”
:-0
How very self-involved was he to never even think that maybe it was his rudeness, his obnoxious hitting on them; instead he had to find an external thing to take the blame — his Christianity.
Many of the Christianists (those who want to use Christianity to legislate morals on the rest of us who may or may not be Christian) wear their Christianity like an excuse shield. And they use Christianity to excuse behavior that is, particularly in the case of Fred Phelps and his Dysfunctional Family, morally and ethically reprehensible. And then, when you call them on it, they whine about how we all hate Christians.
You know the ironic thing? If we told them we hated their sin, but not the sinner (nor his Christianity) they wouldn’t believe us. It’s far more satisfying to them to wallow in hatred and bigotry, and the blame the reaction they get from sane people on some supposed hatred of religion than it is to actually take responsibility for one’s actions and the ramifications of those actions.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I’m a “nut.” We’ll get that out of the way to start.
Won’t it be a big laugh on everyone when our progenitors return to this planet to sort out all the history from the misinterpretations found in the Bibel. Consider… the OT is a story about one group of “peoples” from somewhere a long way from here and a long time ago. We were their slaves and were required to worship them under penalty of death. If we were good children/slaves we might get delivered to their world (heaven) to live forever. The NT is about another group of “peoples” who found us being servent to the “masters” and overthrew them and freed us (so to speak) from slavery , but because of language differences and our desires to take up the place of the old masters, we have intentionally twisted and rewrote the Bible to fit our needs. We will never get this sorted out on our own - just think of the disputes we have over which is better, Ford or Chevy.
You want kookery and nut-so thinking? Talk to me. I got the market cornered.
Now, can we get back to astronomy?
February 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Anyone who thinks Christianity isn’t evil needs to stop filtering out the parts they don’t like and look at the overall picture.
This is a good start:
http://www.evilbible.com/
February 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“the Bible is a good guide to life, that it is against abortion and gay marriage”
Funniest thing I’ve read this week. Makes me want to apply attributes to books I’ve never read to try to back up an agenda that’s corrupt.
I’ll say it again: modern xtianity is not of biblical origin, it’s of cultural origin. Besides that, the bible isn’t implicitly or explicitly FOR or AGAINST anything nuless your Jewish and try to live by the Torah. Even then, Judaic laws have entirely reinterpreted the Pentateuch.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
If Huckabee wants to change the Constitution to make it align better with the Bible, doesn’t that soft of imply that it doesn’t align with the Bible very well, right now, i.e. this (the US) isn’t officially a Christian coutry? I wonder if that’s occurred to anyone, yet.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
Some of us are even proud to call ourselves liberals [=horrors!=] - or progressives, for those among us who don’t like the “L word” - not in spite of our faith but because of it.
Well, my POV is that I don’t understand pride in adherence to a particular political ideology. Sometimes a “liberal” approach to a solution is the best. Sometimes a “conservative” approach might work best. Or something else. I consider adherence to any political ideology just as hampering to progress as any religious ideology.
It’s all the the “I-word” to me.
Here in California we have the archetype situation: a Left dominated legislature that keep trying the same ideological solutions to things over and over and over despite the fact that they never work. But they can’t stop. They’re locked into their faith in a political ideology just as much as Huckleberry is locked into his religious ideology. They cannot deviate, and they’ve managed to rape budget surpluses into massive budget deficits on multiple occasions all the while not really solving any problems.
They even infected Schwarzenegger who started out as a moderate who wanted to give the taxpayers a break and make the state attractive to businesses, but has fallen into the leftist morass.
People ask me what I am politically, and my only possible answer is “Well, on what issue and whereabouts in the country in particular? Oh, and give me some time to analyze the exact situation.” I just get blank stares. The basic idea of judging things independently and on their own merits is becoming increasingly alien to people.
This is why I find my fellow skeptics so frustrating on many occasions. They grok the whole religious thing and are active against it, but ignore the same phenomena in the political sphere. They fight one cancer all the while ignore the cancer in their own minds.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“…unless you speak up, these lunatics speak for you…I sure hope that come November, this country can pull itself back from this nonsense and get to the business of actually being America again.” - Phil Plait
Well put.
I’m also seeing in some posts here reluctance from obvious conservatives to admit that their Republican party is very prone to superstition, self-serving backwardness and Dark Age insanity. The country is tired of eight years of vile Bush corruption. Democrats aren’t perfect either but they at least have a built-in potential escape hatch toward rational civic liberal altruism.
The folks in New Orleans for example would be better off today with a FEMA that wasn’t undermined with self-serving corporate corruption. Science done under government auspices would not be bent to serve a self-serving clique of greedy oil men, who ignore the threat of climate change and who have also politically used religion solely to garner support from naive voters motivated by ill-defined pseudo patriotism.
Yet optimism is in the air, here and there, peeking through many snippets and statements from the various Democratic candidates over these past months. Voters, including Independents and Republicans have an upcoming opportunity to support whoever gets the Democratic nomination based not on singular disagreements or issues, but an overall realization of rational government.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Barton Paul Levenson writes:
[[Fundamentalism refers to the churches that follow the “Five Fundamentals” published by certain evangelical denominations in the US from 1910 to 1915.]]
I’m aware of that. I’m also aware that they produced 12 volumes of mind-numbing, repetitious prose trying to “prove” their point, largely by means of tautologies and cherry-picking. A lot of it reads like they’re trying to convince themselves.
[[won’t openly criticize Huckabee because they know damn well it would just play into the hands of the militant Christian-haters]]
In all my years of hanging out with atheists and agnostics, I don’t think I’ve ever met a “militant Christian-hater.” To be honest, I prefer hanging out with atheists and agnostics. In general I’ve encountered less hate and intolerance among A&As than in many Christian circles.
And Huckleberry is a crank, pure and simple.
[[the threat Christians perceive from {list of well-known, outspoken atheists}]]
The “threat” is largely conceived in their own heads, and is fueled more by paranoia than by anything else.
“War on Christmas”: Bah. Humbug. AFAIK, no one had ever heard of such a thing until an ultraconservative Catholic priest thought it up ca.1999 and Faux News picked it up and ran with it.
Taking “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance: It was only put in 50 years ago or so. (I remember hearing some of the tail end of the arguments about it when I was a kid.) We got along just fine before that.
“America is persecuting Christians”: Gimme a break. How can 85% of people in a democracy be “persecuted” by the other 15% with any real success? The Religious Right and its supporters have been running the show, or heavily influencing it at the very least, for years.
The only threat I perceive as a Christian is the thoroughly unAmerican and frequently stated drive to legislate the dominance of (a certain “flavor” of) Christianity over public life, even to the point of loading up the Constitution with junk that not even all Christians agree with, and to make us over into a “Christian nation” according to their own criteria.
Now that’s a genuine threat to both atheists and people of faith. Religionocracy sucks, has always sucked, and will keep on sucking. Quite a few of my ancestors (and maybe yours too) came here to get away from that crap. Furthermore, if defending my freedom of religion means defending someone else’s freedom from religion - and I’m convinced that it does - I’m more than willing to do that.
[[people who would use an obvious crackpot like Phelps as an excuse to move against Christians or theists in general]]
Not bloody likely. Phelps is a loud (and foul) mouthed extremist idiot, but what he preaches doesn’t exist in a vacuum. “Milder” forms of his brand of bigotry have seeped into the wider world and have been tearing denominations and congregations apart. The only people who have been “moved against” in all this are the GLBTQ population and a number of people (some of whom I know personally) who have been forced to choose between their jobs in the denomination and their membership in GLBTQ-affirming churches.
p.s. I vote for a Preview option too!
February 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Democrats aren’t perfect either but they at least have a built-in potential escape hatch toward rational civic liberal altruism… Science done under government auspices would not be bent to serve a self-serving clique of greedy oil men, who ignore the threat of climate change and who have also politically used religion solely to garner support from naive voters motivated by ill-defined pseudo patriotism.
I just don’t understand where this faith in government comes from.
You must not live in California, because the Democrats have controlled things here for years and years, and they have brutally raped this state and its budgets repeatedly. Seems like half of them are under investigation for selling out to the highest bidder. They are hell bent on creating a state where my every breath is controlled and my every utterance analyzed for some sort of offense.
They just had a fraudulently worded proposition in primaries that, fortunately, was defeated. It was worded to sound like an improvement to term limits, but what it actually did was extend the terms of about 40 corrupt politicians who will now be termed out. Guess which 40 were the proposition’s biggest supporters? Good riddance to political filth.
I hate the Republicans, but where does this undying faith in the Democrats come from? There is *NO* empirical foundation for it. I think some of you are so blinded by how BAD Bush was that anything else seems refreshing in comparison.
Yet optimism is in the air,
Well, there’s *something* in the air.
It’s down to:
McCain: Uber Iraq war supporter and same old same old. The only good I see is he is a big opposer of pork and earmarking and is big reformist for many of the federal government’s problem areas (which is most of it). But at the end of the day he’s too much of the standard issue hegemonist who wants to remake the world in his desired image. His foreign policy, I think, would be one of perpetual conflict.
http://www.amazon.com/McCain-Myth-Maverick-Matt-Welch/dp/0230603963
Clinton: More same old same old. And here’s a video from her own web site created by *her* supporters that unwittingly demonstrates the problem.
http://hillaryclinton.com/video/87.aspx
The Government = Santa Claus. Yeah, that’s how we’re going to cut down that $9 trillion in debt.
Obama: Preachy and feel good words that, upon analysis, mean little. He seems to have more “glassy eyed followers” than “supporters”. Too much messianic rhetoric from the unwashed masses. If that doesn’t set off warning alarms for you, you need an emergency injection of concentrated skepticism. 200cc! Stat!
But you know what? I think I might vote for Obama. He’ll either turn out OK, or he’ll be a painful lesson.
I
February 9th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
QD, I find you kinda funny (in a good way, not an insulting way). Simply because, I too live in California, have all my life, and have seen all the stuff you describe, and what’s funny is that where you write “Democrats“, I would say it’s far more accurate to write “Politicians”.
I realize that you’re not a fan of Republicans, either, but to ascribe the silliness that is the California Political System to Democrats just because they’ve held a majority in the Craziness that is our legislature is, well, silliness itself.
Wilson was fine and dandy with raping the state budgets. Riordan was pretty much as corrupt as a mayor could be without actually getting convicted of it. That doofus who ran against Gray Davis in the election back before the recall was in favor of legislating what sexual activities you could legally perform in your own home, with your spouse.
And, just to combat a bit of the propaganda there, Prop 93 wasn’t “fraudulently worded”; it was very clearly worded. The handful (and yes, in our legislature, 40 is a handful) of legislators -not all of whom were Democrat, by a long shot- whose terms would’ve been extended by it would’ve been in office for another 4 years, grand total. And we would’ve finally been done with the ridiculousness we have now of legislators avoiding the existing term limits by simply switching which house they’re running for.
I don’t get where the unfettered optimism about the Democratic party comes from, either, but simultaneously I don’t get this need to ascribe all that is wrong with the universe to one part or another.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
and what’s funny is that where you write “Democrats“, I would say it’s far more accurate to write “Politicians”.
I would accept that as fair. I used Democrats because I was responding to someone who *seems* to think some sort of national salvation lies in their direction. Honestly, do I even need to give Republican examples at this point in history?
I don’t disagree with anything you say other than Prop 93. We’ll have to agree to disagree there. I won’t even mention the Legislature’s promise to couple it with redistricting (read: gerrymandering) reform which they didn’t do.
I don’t get where the unfettered optimism about the Democratic party comes from,
I’m really starting to think it’s because of how flat out BAD Bush has been. ANYTHING seems better. Even a one term senator who talks all flowery about hearts and fluffy bunnies and the “arc of the moral universe” which is, I think, a small star cluster SW of Cygnus.
but simultaneously I don’t get this need to ascribe all that is wrong with the universe to one part or another
I know. It was just a specific example.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
This thread started with another election year “Chicken Little” statement about a candidate, whom after becoming President would, “Amend the Constitution”. I take this as a “Marketing Ploy scare tactic”, against whichever candidate you DON’T want in office, because of the fantastically improbable odds at one man amending the constitution, without some serious backing, by a lot of people, that it would take.
Does anyone, (without an agenda), realize that the Constitution’s authors made changing it difficult to shelter it from such bad ideas. The U.S. Constitution, like all others, frames a structure of government and defines the appropriate relationship of citizens to it. Amending the Constitution requires that a proposed amendment be approved by two-thirds of each house of Congress. It’s then a matter for the states, three-fourths of which, acting either through state legislatures or specially called state conventions, must approve the amendment before it’s ratified. Surviving that ordeal is so difficult that we have amended the Constitution only 27 times in 215 years.
So enough with the “Sky is falling” scare tactics of “this guy is so scary, because he wants to change the Constituton…” This statement is ascribed to at least ONE politician at EVERY election cycle, in the last thirty-two years, with the same result…Step out of your “Fallout shelter”, and stop trembling…you’ll be okay !
February 10th, 2008 at 12:12 am
And again, in light of Phil Plait’s advise: “…unless you speak up, these lunatics speak for you,” nationally, the Democrats aren’t perfect but they at least have a built-in potential escape hatch toward rational civic liberal altruism. Public service is found in all their platforms, workable or not, and in their speeches, especially now with Barack Obama, who is an excellent orator.
This sense of public service is completely absent from the Republican candidates. John McCain wants to win the Vietnam War in Iraq and Mike Huckabee wants to turn America even further toward theocracy than George Bush did. As a hypothetical president, Huckabee might have trouble ruining the Constitution, a document which George Bush referred to as “just a goddamned piece of paper”. Nevertheless, Huckabee could also do great damage, as would Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Unless some Republican voters start thinking independently, their lunatic candidates will still speak for them.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Even without Huckabee, McCain will be very dangerous to this country. Regardless of his personal views, he will feel tremendous pressure from the religious right to do their bidding. Not only will the war and economic disaster continue, but he has already pledged to elect very conservative judges to the supreme court. About 3 seats may come up over the next 4 years. It would set us back to the stone age, and creationism might finally be legal to teach in public schools. Things would only be worse if the Huckster was his VP. The only candidate who has even explicitly said they believe in evolution is Hillary. Don’t know about Obama.
If we don’t elect a democrat this time around, we’re in deep do-do. And without a change in our economic policy (and the war), the dollar will keep sliding to the point where it will become impossible to leave this country. We’ll become a full-blown third world country, other countries will outsource to us, and we’ll get back all those grunt manufacturing jobs we’ve always wanted. Ultimately, I blame the stupid people who inhabit this country, not the politicians who they elected.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Down with religious tolerance. Let’s nail these guys to some crosses.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:52 am
philipjfry: Just you think because he CAN’T destroy the Constitution is hardly a reason to vote for him. The fact that he WANTS to should be enough to eliminate him from anyone’s mind who is thinking clearly and not with their party loyalty blinders on.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
The “good news” just keeps coming
These creationists fascist freaks are invading Europe also
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4267074
February 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
One must remember that the “Reverend” Fred Phelps is a disbarred lawyer. The Westboro Baptist Church” is his house. The “congregation consists of those of his immediate family who are still on speaking terms with him. Two sons, two daughters and his sister are totally estranged from him. One daughter has gone so far as to legally change her last name to avoid being associated with him.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/phelps-article.txt
Here is a link to the true Fred Phelps. Warning, it is extremely violent, distasteful and may be triggering to some readers, especially those who have suffered spousal or parental abuse.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
F___ P_____ is an annoying thorn in our butts, I’m in the next big city due east of Topeka.
Unfortunately the Freedom Riders can only get so far, they are bikers, maybe mostly veterans, who attend funerals that FP thinks are offensive. They basically make a buffer between the asshats and the funerals.
the other thing about FP is that aside from being brainwashed asshats, all of his adult children have training in the law. Which can make them more annoying.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Down with religious tolerance. Let’s nail these guys to some crosses.
Naaaahhh!
Throw them to lions. Then we can sell tickets.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Someone far up thread wrote :
“If Huckabee is elected, he certainly will have that power. I fear that he need not even be elected; simply having a strong showing in the election will give him influence.”
Sadly, this seems to have happened.
From what I’ve picked up in the Aussie news, I understand that Huckabee has won several more states :
Kansas (anybody surprised there? Scopes trial ring any bells?)
Lousinaia (Deep South sinking further down ..?)
West Virginia (Okay us Aussie haven’t even heard of that one .. ;-))
& I think a few others as well to go with Iowa …
Now the Mormon millionaire Romney’s quit I gather that Huckabee’s the only Republican rival standing now to McCain isn’t he? Plus, many on the “Conservative” Retardican Wrong side of your nations politics really hate John MCCain, the elderly old war-lover, for not being loony enough…
So Huckanutters won heaps of states, he’s the last other one standing, he’s already bene governor and thus clearly has the ability to win elections and people’s votes.
He may still get to be President - if the Relig. Wrong dump McCain now and push Huckabigot forward giving him the eliminated non-MCCain dlegates votes (can they _do_ that? I don’t know enough ’bout your system to tell.)
If not though Hucklebee’s in strong position to be Vice-President and then he’s only one stroke or cardiac arrest - of the oldest PresCan [Presidential Candidate] & perhaps President in US political history - from the leadership of the world’s most powerful nation, and the keys to the worlds largest nuclear & other WMDs arsenal.
Could we be herading towards : America - DOOOMED?
& because of that : Western “civilisation” * - DOOOMED?
I am very worried about this - & I live literally on the other side of the planet.
Please Americans - do what sane people in other nations can’t and change the direction your nation is going in before you go over this looming cliff & take much of what is good about the “West” (Incl. the South -Oz, NZ, Nippon, etc..) with you! Please!
—-
* For want of a better word. “Civilisation” may not be quite right but no alternative term really works either …
&
February 11th, 2008 at 12:29 am
As for Phelps doesn’t your a ntion have laws against inciting hatred and violence?
Surely, if you can stop Muslims from preaching jihad under your draconian and anti-democratic anti-terror laws you could apply them also to that despicable piece of filth?
Send him to Guanatanamo Bay - & put him in a cell with Khalid Sheik Mohammed - the two have so much in common they should get on very well together!
February 11th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Squid says:
[[Natural rights? Like when the God says man has dominion over everything?]]
Do you understand what that verse means, and the context in which it is said? My guess would be “no.”
[[ or did you only mean with regards to humans, like when God tells people, through the Bible, that it’s ok to keep slaves, beat your wife, etc.]]
Where does the Bible say it’s okay to beat your wife? Chapter and verse, please.
Everybody (including Christians) knows the Bible includes a slave code. But that slave code included six possible ways to be freed. Slave codes aren’t good and societies that have them aren’t good societies, but we don’t have to assume that the OT law code is meant for us or is even approved by God — Jesus specifically says some of those laws were given “for your hardness of heart;” i.e. because you wouldn’t accept better ones. But the tenor of the Bible is against slavery, which the Abolitionists knew. Consider:
1) The central image of the Old Testament is a people escaping from slavery.
2) The slaves in the United States risked beating or death to learn to read primarily so that they could read the Bible. They seemed to get an anti-slavery message out of it. Check the spirituals some time.
3) Slavery died out in the Christian middle ages. In the Byzantine Empire, it was regulated to death. In the 19th century US, it was violently abolished. That’s what some Christian societies have done, in practice, with slavery.
4) Slavery came back with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Rousseau certainly didn’t care about the black slaves in Haiti.
5) William Lloyd Garrison was sure enough what the response would be that he could yell out, after a Frederick Douglas speech, “Shall a man like this be held a slave in a Christian land?” He got a resounding roar of “NO!” of course.
In short, the practical effect of the Bible on slavery has been to lead to its abolition. With Christianity going out of style, I fully expect slavery to come back, even in western nations. It will probably be described with weasel-words; the slaves will be convicted criminals or people in financial troubles assigned to “domestic service” or some such thing.
Note, too, that the most anti-religious societies in the world, the USSR and the PRC, had vast slave-labor camps. The PRC still has them. If you buy items from China, they might well have come from a labor camp. “But with prisoners building these things, how can you be sure you’re getting good quality?” “Oh, we beat them if the quality is poor.”
But let’s both put our money where our mouth is. William Wilberforce’s British Anti-Slavery Society still exists, though it’s now called Antislavery International. Here’s the contact information:
Anti-Slavery International
Thomas Clarkson House
The Stableyard Broomgrove Road
London SW9 9TL
tel: +44 (0)20 7501 8920
fax: +44 (0)20 7738 4110
email: info@antislavery.org
I’m sure you’ll want to make a contribution, since you’re opposed to slavery.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Michael Lonergan writes:
[[One of the reasons I left Christianity is because of the inconsistency in scripture concerning the nature of God. The whole, OT God is a jealous God/God of wrath/angry God/murdering with impunity (save it Barton, I know all the arguments AGAINST what I’m saying, as I used them myself).]]
Apparently you didn’t understand them, or just don’t remember them. It’s the Old Testament where God says he doesn’t want ritual and sacrifice, but wants “justice to roll down like a river, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” And where human duty is described with “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
[[ In the NT we have a kinder, gentler God, a God of love that expects us to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, love those who persecute us… blah, blah, blah… Until we get to the end of the book, where we find that those who don’t agree with him are toast.]]
Jesus spent a LOT of time warning people about Hell. Did you miss that in your “kind, gentler” discourse?
You could get away with the “Old Testament God violent and bad, New Testament God loving and good” stuff back in the days of William Blake, but any halfway competent Bible scholar nowadays could make short work of it.
[[Sorry, but anyone that kills his own children because they disagree with him is a psychopath. Actually, don’t Americans fry people like that? Hmmmm?]]
Where do you think the Bible says God kills people “because they disagree with him?” Chapter and verse, please. The Lord’s response to an intellectual difficulty with him is “Come, let us reason together.”
February 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Oh, and don’t tell me to “save it,” Mike. Every time you diss my God or my people, I’ll be there to explain to everybody why you don’t know what you’re talking about.
There’s one person who can tell me to leave this blog and make it stick — Phil Plait. When he tells me to go, I’ll go. But I’m betting he’s a more tolerant person than you are.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Daffy writes:
[[A good guide to life?!?! The Bible advocates murdering children, wiping out an entire village (including the animals) because some kids insulted an old man’s bald head, a man giving the females in his household to raping marauders so as to protect himself…]]
You might want to read Alexander Pope some time, Daffy. “A little learning is a dangerous thing./Drink deep, or do not drink, from the Pierian spring.”
The examples you cite are either taken out of context or just plain wrong. The first reference, I suppose, is to the genocide episodes in the Bible. Everybody knows about them, including, though it may surprise you, Christians and Jews. Do you know any of the latter who think those events are supposed to be normative?
The event where God sends bears to rend the 42 children for “making fun of his prophet,” as Robert Heinlein put it, is a typical atheist distortion. These weren’t little kids, they were what the Greeks would call “youths,” and they were threatening the prophet’s life. They knew what had happened to his predecessor; why do you think they kept saying “Go up?” Read for context. It wasn’t God murdering poor little kids for joking about a guy’s bald head, it was God saving an old man from a mob.
There are two events in the Bible where a man offers his female relatives to a mob. The first is Lot. If you read the passages about Lot, you see that his behavior gets worse the closer he gets to Sodom, and better the further away he gets. (Kikawada and Quinn explain this very well; see if you can find their “Before Abraham Was” (1985).) The Bible was NOT advocating what he did. His judgment was distorted. The wonder was that he held to guest-friendship enough to be concerned about his guests. And the main point of the story was a dirty joke about the origins of the ethnic groups then said to have descended from his daughters. Read for context. There’s no shame in not knowing what the issues were in the middle east 3,000 years ago, but there is shame in assuming you do, and not checking with specialists in the area. There are people who study this kind of thing that you could have asked about it.
The other example was the man who put his concubine out and let her be destroyed to save himself. How could you possibly be under the impression that the Bible was ADVOCATING doing this? It was the act of a desperate man in a situation he wasn’t brave enough to handle. That’s like saying Stephen King endorses sucking peoples’ blood because he describes it in ‘Salem’s Lot.
What you get out of the Bible depends on what you bring to it, and how much slack you’re willing to concede to documents from a different culture than your own. A little common sense and tolerance goes a long way.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Barton,
“Blessed is he who dashes the little ones [children] against the stones.” Psalm 137:9
The Bible, in such a case, does NOT rise to MY moral standards.
But you claim I am taking it out of context. Fine. Tell me the context where you find this slaughter of innocents acceptable. Then we’ll go on to discuss Lot (whom I would call a pig, were it not that such would be an insult to pigs everywhere).
(Btw, Stephen King does not claim to be speaking for God. Your Bible DOES.)
February 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Oh, and Barton, God saved an old man from a “mob” (a debatable definition) by slaughtering men, women, and children, and animals who had NOTHING to do with anything. Nice. You worship the S.O.B.; I find Him repugnant.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Daffy writes:
[[“Blessed is he who dashes the little ones [children] against the stones.” Psalm 137:9
The Bible, in such a case, does NOT rise to MY moral standards.]]
See, again, you’re not reading for context. Read the whole psalm. The man speaking is a prisoner of war who has just seen his home destroyed and his family killed or enslaved. His new owners have heard of the high quality of Judaean songwriting and order him to make up a song for them. Psalm 137 is his reply.
The Bible is not advocating killing Babylonian babies. It’s giving you a portrait of what it does to a man to be oppressed. It’s a warning to everyone who is tempted to brutalize or oppress another person. You are not just liable for the evil acts you are doing, you are liable for what you may turn your victim into. “His blood will I require at thy hand.”
February 12th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Daffy writes:
[[Oh, and Barton, God saved an old man from a “mob” (a debatable definition) by slaughtering men, women, and children, and animals who had NOTHING to do with anything. Nice. You worship the S.O.B.; I find Him repugnant.]]
Daffy, you got that from an atheist web site or publication. You haven’t read the actual passage. Here’s the whole thing, in the KJV:
KI2 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
KI2 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
I see no mention of women, children, or animals.
And as I said, the “little children” is a KJV mistranslation; it is better translated “youths.” The same word is used elsewhere in the same book:
KI2 24:2 And the LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by his servants the prophets.
Do you think the Bible is saying the Ammonites armed little kids and sent them out to fight the Judaean army?
February 12th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Barton, I don’t even know where to begin.
First, I don’t frequent atheist web sites. I have read the Bible cover to cover 3 times (have you?). You don’t know me; don’t assume things about me.
Psalm 137:9 very clearly advocates killing babies. The fact that they are enemies does not, in my view, make it better. Perhaps to you it does. Once again, like most Christians, you cherry pick which verses you think portray your religion in a good light, and eliminate (or make excuses for) those that do not. Btw, the Bible itself says such cherry picking is a sin. Revelations.
I will grant you one thing: I did mis-remeber Kings 2:24. On that one God only killed 42 human children for the insult to Elisha’s bald head. He didn’t kill the animals. However your characterization of the group as a “mob” is demonstrably untrue:
Kings I 2:23 “And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.”
Little children out of the city. That’s what it says. Not “mob.”
Praise the Lord.
And your God killed them.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Daffy writes:
[[Psalm 137:9 very clearly advocates killing babies.]]
No, it does not. No literate Bible scholar would agree with you. Will you please READ the whole psalm? Not every statement in the Bible is normative. There are bad examples as well as good examples.
[[ The fact that they are enemies does not, in my view, make it better.]]
I didn’t say it did.
[[ Perhaps to you it does.]]
I didn’t say it did.
[[ Once again, like most Christians, you cherry pick which verses you think portray your religion in a good light, and eliminate (or make excuses for) those that do not.]]
Where did I do that? I just said, correctly, that you were misinterpreting a verse in a tendentious manner to make your prejudiced point.
[[I will grant you one thing: I did mis-remeber Kings 2:24. On that one God only killed 42 human children for the insult to Elisha’s bald head. He didn’t kill the animals. However your characterization of the group as a “mob” is demonstrably untrue:
Kings I 2:23 “And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.”
Little children out of the city. That’s what it says. Not “mob.”]]
You didn’t read a thing I wrote above, did you? And you’re really determined not to read for context.
Why would 42 little kids leave a city to insult some bald guy they’d never seen before? As I said, but you apparently missed, “little kids” is a mistranslation. The same word refers to armed soldiers in the same book. The reference to “Go up” requires some knowledge of what had happened in preceding chapters, which you obviously do not have. They knew who he was beforehand.
Do you think they had class excursions to harass the prophets in ancient Israel? They weren’t cute little kids having innocent fun, they were a lynch mob. Again, you would have to know the context to be able to comment intelligently. Heinlein was wrong and you are wrong, because neither of you has bothered to put any serious study into the matter.