What hath God wrought?
For years, the conservative movement in this country has increasingly used religion as a weapon, sometimes with extreme Machiavellian motives. Now, of course, it’s impossible for anyone to get elected to any position of authority — Repub or Dem — without declaring themselves not just as religious, but as a certain type of religion. If you’re not Judeo-Christian, you might as well give up now.
This is coming back to haunt them.
Right now, John McCain is dealing with backlash from being endorsed by John Hagee, an extremely venomous far-right snake. Hagee is many things: a bigot, a misogynist, a war-monger, and a plain old creepy guy who wants us to attack Iran to bring on the Biblical end times.
I think it’s not only OK to jump on McCain for accepting such an endorsement, it’s required. Worse — far worse — is that McCain actively sought Hagee’s endorsement for months. McCain wanted this.
But it gets more interesting. Hagee, who claims his church is non-denominational, is not so enamored of Catholicism. To say the least.
Enter Bill Donohue, a guy who is the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and himself a bigot and something of a nutbag. He has been railing against Hagee and McCain, saying that McCain should reject the endorsement of Hagee. Mind you, Donohue has been clear that it’s only Hagee’s hatred of the Catholic church that he finds so offensive. Apparently, all the other horrid things Hagee has said are fine with Donohue.
I forget. In which part of the New Testament does Jesus preach unbridled hatred?
I would find this situation funny if it weren’t so deadly important. The far-right religious groups have slowly and very successfully grown to be a huge influence over the political landscape in the past 20 years or so. To become a leader in this country it’s simply accepted that you have to brownnose them.
But look what that cozying up to these fundamentalist hate-mongers has done. They are feeding on their own now. And it gets crazier: there have been numerous attacks by the far right on Obama, intimating he’s a Muslim, but Obama is himself Christian. Self-proclaimed moral arbiters have no issues slinging as much mud as they can, hoping it sticks, despite the Bible having some pretty clear things to say about such issues.
There is a clear lesson here: when you beg for the hand of fundamentalist hate-mongers, you will suffer the slings and arrows of the other fundamentalist hate-mongers. Perhaps, then, it’s best to reject them all.
McCain did reject them, back in 2000. But now he is actively and quite hypocritically courting them. He brought this on himself, the end-product of kowtowing to fundamentalism. They have been actively engendering such a disaster for years, so they too have brought this on themselves.
The vast majority of religious people are good, decent folks — we may disagree on some of the basics of their religion, but I know these people want to do good, and that hypocrites like Hagee and Donohue don’t speak for them. But as I have pointed out time and again, if you don’t speak up, then these people speak for you. It’s very hard to find moderate religious people in the media, but they exist. Support them.
And finally, I would suggest the hate-mongers among the fundamentalists actually sit down and read Galatians VI. Because even after supposedly reading the Bible their whole lives, and supposedly basing their lives on it, they still haven’t quite figured out that as ye sow, so shall ye reap.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
The equation is simple: Politics != Religion.
Disgraceful things happen when this simple law is ignored.
Decisions that affect all cannot be made by those would believe the power of the universe is on their side, for such vanity is surely insane.
Oops… preach mode off!
March 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
*sigh* This really depresses me. I don’t support Clinton and Obama because of the policies that they want to spearhead and bring before congress. I think hands down McCain would be best suited to act as Commander and Chief and to administer the government, which I feel are the primary responsibilities of the President. So I’ve support McCain so far, but the things he’s willing to do to attempt to build support with the far right – it’s making me sick.
Somehow I get the feeling that McCain is going to keep this up, hoping to gather strength in his own party, and end the end, not only will most of those people STILL not vote for him, but he’ll lose his moderate support – especially if Obama is the Dem. Nominee.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
While a agree whole-heartedly with your criticism of McCain, Obama is at least as bad. McCain’s embrace of Hagee is reprehensible, but appears to me to be purely a political ploy. On the other had, Obama’s embrace of Pastor Jerimiah Wright (who espouses Black Liberation Theology and is a buddy of Louis Farrakhan) seems to be a genuine spiritual relationship. Far-right and far-left religious kooks scare me about equally.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
pedant, I actually had quite a bit about Obama in the original version of this article, but it became too unwieldy and took away from my main point, that embracing hatred is a bad idea.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
So how long do you think it will be before the political nuts who’ve never heard of the site show up and hijack the thread?
March 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am
can us skeptic really sway the election, seeing we only make up about 10 mabey 15% of the populase.
i agree with aerimus for the most part, thought i dont think much of mcCain. he’s soft on the terror issue and the war (without opening a can,o,worms, we started iraq, now lets finish it, but we didnt start their ideology. that will live on like a cancer for decades spreading hate and death) odd givin the fact that he was in the military. though boths side of the politicol street needs it nutjobs and clowns
as for the dems and there back and forth bickering. it is nothing more then a distration tatic wasting time while not doing anything to talk about the real issues, only what that person and so-so isnt doing, or blablabla.
an age ole saying goes “talk is cheap, and action speak louder then words”. thats all politicains do, bla-bla-bla
March 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Hi BA,
In addition to the link you gave to the AU website, there is another, possibly even more effective group that deserves support, the International Religious Liberty Association. http://www.irla.org/
This group has been working for religious freedom (including freedom FROM religion) since the late 1800’s.
They publish a magazine called “Liberty”. http://www.libertymagazine.org/ I am sure that you would find much to support in what they publish. I would particularly recommend to you the editorial in the most recent edition, “The Man on the White Horse!”. http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/715/1/105/
Regards,
Ozprof
March 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I was raised a Catholic (but I got better). Every time someone asks me what my religion was and I tell them, they go “Oh, well that explains everything.” I really hate that passive-aggressive answer. Being in the heart of the Bible belt, my stock answer is that I’m agnostic just so I don’t get preached at (though by a strict Christian definition I would definitely be an atheist).
Anyway, I remember hearing jokes growing up about Protestants. On how they believed the Catholic Pope eats a Protestant baby for breakfast every morning. Although looking at the current pope one might be inclined to believe that myth. Hagee is the type would believe this type of story and spread it around. One hopes Mr. Hagee’s body temperature will soon match with that of Jerry Falwell’s.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Given one extremist and ten moderates, who are the media going to approach for a quote whenever something happens? Quite.
Then the moderates get accused of not speaking out.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:02 am
McCain was once the hope of liberal conservatives (yes, there was such a thing – now the term seems ridiculous,) but he has long since sold out to the very people who attacked him. Someone willing to do anything to be President will do anything as President and now I see him as just another rightwing fundy madman.
Hillary Clinton, by attacking Obama is just providing fuel for the Republicans and is looking more like Rove/Clinton/McCain/Bush Inc – part two.
When Obama got an unsolicited endorsement from Farrakhan he was quick to disavow it despite Mrs. Clinton’s semantic swiping. The more rightwing lies spewed forth about Obama the more I like him, (and that’s not the only reason I think he’s the one.) No one is perfect and its good to have concerns about every candidate but for now I think he, and those he’d bring in, would do a lot of good for this country. The current disproportionately right-leaning Supreme Court justices and the future choices of nominees will loom as a danger to science and policies of social freedom in the coming years.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
“I thought this was an astronomy blog…”
Why is it that in EVERY political or religion post someone has to say this? Outside of all the standard arguements (i.e., it’s his blog, he can post what he wants; no one forces you to read the politcal post, etc), the political and religious post do have a connection to science, and considering that the BA’s website got its start being about dispealling misunderstood astronomy ideas in popular culture, I think that such post are very much in keeping with BA’s message for the last ten years.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I’m also waiting for a smack-down on Obama.
He’s far far far far better than the religious fundamentalists, but he has shown some worrying signs.
In particular, he’s trying to be all things to all people. He sometimes poses as a secularist, but then talks of the importance of bringing religious people into government. He has consistently brought up his Christianity in debates and he gives speeches detailing his liberal theological views. It also seems very probable that he wants to continue Bush’s policy of doling money out to faith-based charities.
I’m aware that he wants to get elected and that he politically feels the need to deny the ‘Barack is a Muslim’ rumors. However, whenever he uses his religion to back up his arguments, he is excluding everyone who doesn’t share his faith.
Recall, Bush also posed as a compassionate Christian before he got elected. We need to start asking the tough questions now. I for one would like to know just how strongly Obama feels about the separation of church and state.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Oh, and in addition to the “I thought this was an astronomy blog…” that always shows up in the political/religious post, every post also seems to have someone that post something along the lines of “I second an edit function.” I shall now be that person. Or maybe I should just start proof reading….
All we need now is an “I will never read your blog again” post and we’ll hit the trifecta.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Same kind of stuff could be said about the left and Moveon.org and their ilk.
All politicians have to make (sometimes) tough calls on pandering to some groups while risking alienating others.
It’s part of the process, folks. I’m not happy about it, but I haven’t heard many other ideas…
March 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am
@Tom:
I’ve been trying to propose a new idea for years, and I can promise you that I this political mud slinging will end when I am named Dictator and Lord Superior of the Earthican Empire.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Oh, and I don’t know about Jesus but there are plenty of places where the Biblical God does go in for ‘unbridled hatred’.
Having said that, I consider the NT to be one of the most important humanist documents of all time. Passages like the story of ‘The Sermon on the Mount’ are classic works of compassion and tolerance. The problem is that if you go looking for nasty things in the Bible you can find them with ease as well. (There’s also the problem that it’s all a pack of lies.)
March 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am
@Christian X Burnham:
“Oh, and I don’t know about Jesus but there are plenty of places where the Biblical God does go in for ‘unbridled hatred’.”
Part of the problem is that there are a lot of people out there calling themselves Christian who want to enact the OT punishments for the sins that they are against (note: not all sins, just the ones they fear). It’s as if they completely ignore that those punishments have already been executed, in the form of the crucification of Christ. Their worldly punishments have already been dealt with.
Or at least, that’s my view…
March 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Bon Appétit
March 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I for one welcome Aerimus as our new supreme overlord
)
March 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I suffer from Electile Dysfunction. I can’t get excited about any of these nutjobs running for president.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I’m all for mildly religious folk that still have a grip on reality and I agree, it’s time they speak up. All religions are getting generalized thanks to the fanatics. Unfortunately, these folks usually have a life and don’t have time to be activists. That’s the massive problem with activists… Most of them make a profession out of it. The moderate folks, people like you and me, cannot find time for this. We have families to take care of, jobs to go to, lives to live. It’s a tough handicap to overcome.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Wow. When I think of all the blood and dismembered bodies that we have produced in our short history because of relegion, I just get all warm and fuzzy feeling. Hey, where are the horoscopes at this site anyway?
March 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
This is an attitude I find infuriating.
It’s okay for John McCain to fully embrace the endorsement of a religious extremist because “we all know he doesn’t really mean it”, but it’s not okay for Barak Obama to receive an endorsement from another religious extremist even though he categorically rejects him because of some form of indirect guilt by association. Talk about a double standard.
Whatever happened to the “Straight Talk” McCain is so famous for? Was that all “just politics” too?
The bottom line is that after eight years of Bush, the administration is packed, top to bottom, with right wing ideologues who have been waging a war of denial against science and rational thought on many fronts from global warming to the EPA, even as far as NASA. McCain may be slightly better than Bush in that regard, but do you really believe he is going to clean house and suddenly rid the administration of these people (and it’s not just a few heads of department, the infection runs deep, as the number of graduates from Pat Robertson’s “Liberty University” employed there shows).
The only way to be sure that we get back on track with reality (and the rest of the world) is to get a Democrat back in the White House. Once the current virulent infection has been cleared up, then I might be willing to trust a Republican with the nation’s scientific legacy again some day, but the politics of science has been skewed so far to the right in Washington, that we desperately need some balance in there.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I hate to say it, but this is a flawed analysis. Why? Well, for one thing, most Fundamentalist Christians in the GOP went for Huckabee more as a “None of the Above” option than anything else. McCain has not exactly endeared himself with Fundamentalist Christians, more because of issues like Feingold-McCain than anything else. Second, those Fundamentalist Christians who didn’t vote for Huckabee were split over McCain and Romney, and again it was more of a non-of-the-above thought process. Third, the Obama-is-a-Muslim meme cuts across religious and secular groups (oddly enough, pointing out that Obama is a member of a Christian church does nothing to dispel this meme, which I’ve heard repeated both by avid church-goers and nominal Christians who lean toward secularism).
Fourth, and perhaps most significant, is an apparent misunderstanding of what is Fundamentalist Christianity and how Fundamentalist Christians wound up in the GOP. Fundamentalist Christians hold that the bible is inerrant. Under that broad tent you’ll find Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth (Earth is several billion years old) Creationists, several varieties of evolutionists, members of the far left and the far right, and political leanings in between. As a case in point, Billy Graham, Fred Phelps, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush can all be considered Fundamentalist Christians. And note that it’s members have been pointing fingers at each other and saying “You’re not really a Fundamentalist” for *years.*
Now, not all Fundamentalist Christians migrated to the GOP. Nor are all the Fundamentalist Christians who wound up in the GOP politically conservative. What it does mean is that a large number of Fundamentalist Christians became uncomfortable with the DNC’s stance on moral issues and voted with their feet.
Once a political observer understands that, two things come into focus. One is that most Fundamentalist Christians do not practice hate (please note the word “most” – for those that do, may I recommend an intense study of 1 John). This means if the radical elements who *do* hate wish to duke it out, we’ll grab a bowl of popcorn and watch. Two, it means that the GOP doesn’t have a hammerlock on the Fundamentalist Christian vote. If the DNC ever figures that out, you’ll see quite an exodus from the GOP. Were it not for Obama’s stance on abortion and gay marriage, you’d see it this election year. You still might.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I don’t expect to see much of it in the news. Why? Because it opens up quite a can of worms. Farrakhan has endorsed Obama and while Obama had the good sense to reject it, his church holds to some rather curious beliefs. Note that the pastor of Obama’s church has given an award to Farrakhan. Look hard enough and you’ll probably find some interesting endorsements for all the candidates.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I come here for the astronomy, not the political I’M JUST KIDDING!!!
pedant, I actually had quite a bit about Obama in the original version of this article, but it became too unwieldy and took away from my main point, that embracing hatred is a bad idea.
Don’t you really mean: pedant, I actually had quite a bit about Obama in the original version of this article, but he’s a liberal democrat.
All politicians are whores.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Hmm…we’re talking about politics and religion…all in one thread. It’s a good thing we’re not discussing this in a bar!
March 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
In the past few years McCain has completely alienated many of us moderates by ho-ing himself out to the far right. I wonder what the actual percentages of etremists and moderates are, and of course, how many are just plain stupid (that’s the majority I think).
March 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Yes, too many ‘believers’ did you catch Senator Obama saying ‘I pray to Jesus every night’ ! I’m sure we will never see Senator Clinton claiming to believe in a god. I was leaning toward Obama until that moment.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Beachmaster,
Enjoy,
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/334482.aspx
March 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Well said!
Very frankly, AFAIK, religion was meant to be the next field of study after physics – metaphysics, mystics, miracles and other stuff called “paranormal” should have been the central point of scientific investigation in societies like ours where basic needs are more than fulfilled and we should have been looking towards answering bigger questions.
Astronomy is man’s first attempt at answering the final questions. So, contrary to what some hateful “religious” people have to say here, please continue talking about religion on an astronomy blog.
It makes a LOT of sense when you see the astroLOGY angle on the one hand and the almost confrontationist stances of science and percieved religion on the other.
A basic task of a scientist is to clear superstitions and investigate and explain natural phenomena to others who cannot or do not.
Talk of religion and politics is perfectly valid on a science BLOG because if it weren’t for the scientific attitude, we’d all be back in the medieval times, which is where these clowns are really trying to take us.
Surely, we shouldn’t allow that. Good astronomy.
Besides, how many of these religious zealots have actually studied the life of Jesus? How may think of Kent, Mark Twain?
Of stigmatists? Of mystics and Santa. Santa was real – St. Nicholas.
If He went around making toys for poor kids, why aren’t these guys doing the same?
Why are they allowing these spoilt brats to kid us as a society?
Does anyone care to look up history and see how many times zealots and extremists have misused the Bible as a tool for oppression by simply replacing Jesus’s words by their own?
An honest study of the _real_ history of the distortion of the Bible will reveal very shocking truths – that all religions actually say the same thing.
Which by logical extension means that all religions come from the same source or set of similar sources. Which we refer to by saying that there is one God. We call him A, you call him B, they call him C.
A = B = C
The problem begins when people cannot sit peacefully with A,B,C. They say: no B and no C , only A. Multiple names are so hard to handle?
Do these people ever learn a second spoken language?
I mean, how can you allow any other language than your own to be spoken as a standard across any continent?
The French, the Germans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Irish, they’re all scum, they don’t speak English! They’re not of the real religion. Canadians (Quebec) too are outcasts. They don’t speak English!
They don’t say Good Day. They say Bon Jour!
That’s not religious! I hate them.
Come on, say with me:
“Only those who speak in the divine English tongue will be taken as truly human. The others are an inferior species, a danger to us and our society!”
How’s that for a nice “religious” thought?
March 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Okay, so she didn’t take all of her medication on that day, we all make mistakes. I just can’t ‘believe’ that was the real Senator Clinton! Who would I vote for? This is the reason this country is so messed up. The middle class without jobs, more and more cancer and more deaths from our polluted environment. Some times I wish for that cleansing strike from space and a new beginning.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
This article smacks of hypocrisy. How can you on the one hard chastise McCain for his allegiances and fail to mention the *more than questionable* associations of Clinton and Obama? Article length and unwieldy-ness aside; it’s pretty plain you are pushing a political POV.
Using a site supposedly dedicated to science to further your political agenda is shallow and wholly disappointing.
: (
March 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
on the one *hand*, I meant.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Mr. BA, I must inform you: “science” can not demonstrate that “hate” is a “bad” thing. Are you too one of those religious skeptics? Please stick to science and leave philosophy to those who are intellectually honest enough to recognize and admit when they are engaged in matters of philosophy.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Eh? Of course she has:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/117043.aspx
(That was just the first link on Google, there are plenty of others.)
Obama made that comment in response to being dogged by malicious rumors about him being a closet Muslim in an attempt to link him with Muslim extremists.
Frankly, I don’t really know how much of this religious talk from the candidates is real or just pandering. I’m realistic enough to understand that you can’t win an election in this country without it. (Oh, to be back in the UK at times like these, where such trivialities don’t really matter.) All I do know is that there is only one party that is truly beholden to a religious power base, and that’s the Republicans, and that is John McCain’s cross to bear (so to speak).
March 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I, for one, don’t give a hoot about who endorses who.
In the end, it’s all about your policies and your past.
I’m voting for Obama. If you’d like to know why, feel free to drop me an email.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Hypocrisy?! Please find another outlet. It is clear that you ‘believe’ in the GOP and don’t want to see the truth. Yes, at times the Dems slip-up, they are human. The GOP is not, they focus on how to make money without regard to mother earth. We can not continue on the path we are on. Senator Clinton knows how to lead the country toward peace and harmony with the earth. I’m sure in private Clinton could be more open and would not support the misguided worship of imaginary friends. It is time to stop our war on the rest of the world and live as mother nature ‘designed’ … on local resources without leaving footprints.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Dan
This is actually a blog by an astronomer. There’s a difference.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
@ Beachmaster: You need professional mental help. Seriously, you should really see someone.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
So, vortex, we should all just sit back and ignore the blatant attacks that the scientific establishment has received at the hands of the Republicans these past eight years? It is the right-wingers in the form of the Bush administration and their cohort of neocon advisors who have continually been pushing their political agenda in direct opposition to what the science has been telling them. And you want the scientists to shut up and go away.
Do you honestly think that Obama’s religious ties and allegiances would be as big a problem for the scientific community than the ones McCain is now actively seeking? (Or are you another of those Obama is a closet Muslim crowd?). Who do you think is the preferred candidate for the “faith-based education” crowd, the “abstinence-only” crowd, the “traditional marriage” crowd, the “global warming is a conspiracy” crowd, etc. etc. It’s certainly not Barak Obama.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
And perhaps you would be able to make a better argument if you didn’t resort to personal insults.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Thank you vortext. It is so typical of extremists to resort to personal attacks when exposed to the truth.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
BA,
I am a catholic (also a republican and in the military…..no, please don’t bash me bloggers). So many times I read the blog and just shake my head because I feel like my “beliefs” are being unfairly attacked by the blog members (I believe whole heartedly in evolution, but I also believe in God)….But you nailed this on the head. “Pastor” Hagee is one of the most hateful people out there, and Sen McCain needs to distance (REJECT) him and quick. There is no room for his venom and he certainly does not deserve any free press.
I see that “pendant” has mentioned already Sen. Obama’s (who I really like) embrace of Pastor Jerimiah Wright…but your reply is baffling. Why didn’t you mention it? Your reply was because of room…hmmm, me thinks not =)
Anyway, I appreciate what you said about the majority of religious folks being good and deceint. Some of your readers need to understand that as well. Unlike a few other bloggers, I will keep coming to your site, but BA, try to be a little more fair when the left side (I won’t use the label Liberals, becasue I don’t consider myself a conservative) screws up and does something that you don’t agree with, please. I did read an article about Hillary Clinton feeling the Holy Spirit several times in her life. My response…good for her.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Uhmm…just to clarify on my Hillary Clinton has felt the Holy Spirit…Good for her was meant in a sarcastic way….I also read that people are blaming the right wing hate machine for saying that Sen Obama was a Muslim….if I’m not mistaken, I think it was Sen Clinton’s whisper campaign that is putting a lot of that out via emails and inuendo (sp).
Thanks
March 7th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
In quite a few, actually. He repeatedly calls on people to hate even their parents and siblings if they’re unbelievers, which, I suppose, is what Donohue and Hagee regard each other to be in this context (though when it comes to opposing Islam or even atheism, they’re one big happy Christian family, of course).
People like to pretend the crucifixion and the “New Covenant” and the like get rid of all the OT nastiness, but there’s nothing in the Bible to suggest that’s what it was supposed to do.
On the contrary, Jesus was quite clear that all the laws in the OT (including the ones against homosexuals, clothing made out of more than one material, and shellfish) still apply.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Do you really think the two situations are equivalent? What are the personal views of John McCain’s Baptist pastor, for example? Does Wright have the same sway and political power as Hagee obviously does? Hagee is a huge booster of Israel (while bizarrely blaming the Jews for their own history of persecution at the same time) and has repeatedly called for the US to “bomb, bomb, bomb…, bomb, bomb, Iran” (to use McCain’s own words). Did Obama actively seek out Wright’s endorsement as McCain did? What Obama policies do you think his pastor will have influence over should he be elected?
All I see is a false equivalence. The two sides of the political equation simply don’t add up in this case.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
tacitus. perhaps you have a point, I get so caught up when I think people have been drinking the koolaid. I meant no disrespect to an individual just the group think of the GOP and the dispoilers of mother earth. Science has shown us the path and I find it hard so to understand how people can ignore the truth.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
It was a right-wing slur months before anyone in Clinton’s campaign is accused of taking advantage of it. And even if you believe the worst about Clinton, none of their behavior has come close to the constant barrage of inuendo coming from the disreputable parts of the right. (And, yes, I do believe there are plenty of honorable conservative who would never stoop to such tactics, but I don’t think you can lay the blame at Clinton’s door on this one).
March 7th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Quote from Beachmaster:
“Yes, at times the Dems slip-up, they are human. The GOP is not…”
To claim that a group of people are not human based on their political party is completely insane. How can you guys defend that?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Nice, BA. I see my logic is too strong and you therefore must resort to moderating my comments. Yet, a person that claims that the GOP are not human goes blathering on.
This is *exactly* what I meant about your hypocrisy. Shame on you, and you’ll never get back on Coast to Coast AM as far as I am concerned.
Yes, I am a screener there.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I am a huge proponent of state/church separation.
I don’t see that Obama would inject any religion into government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35sGJrWKcmY
I am worried about McCain appointing conservative judges…
March 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Obama has given the heads up to non-believers, gay people, etc. more than ANY other candidate. Also to secularism and decisions from reason. He said this in his speech in the church to the congregation. As an atheist I was listening very carefully.
Why don’t people listen or read these speeches? His saying he prays to Jesus every night, whether he really does or not, does not wash away his VERY clear acknowledgement of NON-BELIEVERS. That was his term (not atheists).
Hagee is quite repulsive, and Tom Delay and Joe Lieberman have pandered to him too. This is why Mark Twain said in one of his books that it was better to have a lot of churches rather than one central powerful one. Let ‘em at each other.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
B.A. This sort of argument just doesn’t work with right-wing fundamentalists. They have long since compartmentalized their faith so that anything Jesus says about turning the other cheek, and loving your neighbor has been relegated to the backwaters of direct one-to-one personal relationships.
When it comes to issues of politics and governance, they believe that it’s the Old Testament that shows the way, no matter what Jesus might have said. In that way, a godly Christian man can kidnap a suspected terrorist off the street and subject them to torture during the day and be a loving husband and father to his family with a clear conscience when he goes home in the evening. In that way we can justifiably bomb our potential enemies, killing tens of thousands of innocent (Muslim) men, women and children in the process, because it is in the interests of keeping our good (Christian) men, women and children safe.
Such acts would be impossible if you take Jesus at his word, so you find a way to make them not apply in those cases.
(Again, like BA, this is not an attack on all Christians. My parents and other family members are believing Christians and I love them dearly. But Christian fundamentalists (who, in this case *are* right-wingers) are a very different breed.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
tacitus, all I am saying is wrong is wrong and it should be pointed out on both sides, that’s all. Like I said, I disagree with Hagee and Sen McCain. Yes Hagee has a bigger audience, but hate is hate.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Heh – I’m not sure George Noory would be too happy to hear that you would use personal grudges to keep an interesting caller (and previous guest) off his show.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
@Cairnarvon:
“He repeatedly calls on people to hate even their parents and siblings if they’re unbelievers…”
I believe you are referring to (from Luke 12):
49″I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
From what I can tell, there’s nothing in there saying that we should hate anyone. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you’re reading into it something that is not there. (Or maybe the translation that I use is inaccurate. Or maybe I’m missing something. Or maybe…)
“On the contrary, Jesus was quite clear that all the laws in the OT (including the ones against homosexuals, clothing made out of more than one material, and shellfish) still apply.”
Perhaps you are referring to Jesus’s comment that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. So yes, the laws still apply. Supposedly, God still find homosexuals, clothing made out of more than one material, and shellfish offensive to him. In the old days, you might get stoned, or at least have to slaughter some perfectly good animal for it. Now? Well, Jesus has taken their place in the stoning, and he has allowed himself to be the slaughtered. God took the ability to punish sins out of our hands and reclaimed it himself.
Ultimately, as Jesus says, Christians are supposed to love God, each other, and their neighbor. We are supposed to reserve our judgment, because judgment will come from God himself, and instead work on ourselves. My apologies that so may of us Christian don’t do this.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
vortex, censorship is the tool of those without a leg to stand on, IMHO.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Phil,
Great Post. This kind of nonsense is why many people are leaving the Christian churches. They are just too full of lunatics who want to bring on the apocalypse. There are moderates in religion, people who have the common sense to see the fanatical for what they really are. I initially thought McCain might be ok but now I see that he’s not that different from Bush.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hey vortex, point out where I censored you. Go ahead!
Oh wait, you can’t. Because I didn’t.
I am really, really tired of people who don’t understand that spam filters put some posts into moderation, and then accuse me of censoring them.
And vortex, your threat doesn’t mean a whole lot. Even if I believed you about C2C — and I’d love to see some evidence of your claim — I would find it hard to imagine someone who screens calls at C2C not knowing that guests are invited on the show, and don’t call in through the switchboard.
Also, your logic isn’t all that strong in this case. As I said early on in the comments, I had some things to say about Obama in the original draft of this post, but took them out because it was diluting my main point about fundamentalists. And the point I am making in this post, in case you missed it, is that the fundamentalists have taken over discourse in politics, and the conservatives have been courting them. Obama has not been wooing any fundamentalists to endorse him, as far as I know. McCain did, after saying in no uncertain terms back in 2000 that he never would.
Next!
March 7th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Somewhat related is Republican conservative too quickly forgiven for plagiarizing, the Pope no less. It was actually many un-atrributed passages. They applaud too soon, but yet some of these conservatives are quite harsh about shaming others. Such double standards.
I know there are folks like JR here that are reasonable, but this kind of so-quick-to forgive people, no less applaud them, is part of a greater systemic problem with these people. An ordinary person would suffer a bit more than these clowns.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Sorry for messing up the link tag.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Don’t worry, vortex. Some of us know how to get past AM radio screeners. Even the vaunted Rush Limbaugh’s screeners can be had. You’d probably be a piece of cake.
As it is, McCain’s character, or more appropriately, his lack thereof, is his fatal flaw. He’s not the maverick he claims to be. Very rarely has he actually gone against any Republican position. His voting record and other final actions bears this out. Worse, he’ll make a big show about issues that he makes a big show of caring about, thanks to his Vietnam experience, then he’ll do something that completely disavows it, like, oh, paying lip service to not supporting torture…then voting for bills that perpetuate it (especially if it’s for brown people). Bashing the fundaloons then kissing one of the fattest ugliest loony asses out there (Hagee), wiretapping innocent Americans, screaming for weeks to protect prisoners of war then revoking their right to habeas corpus, proffering fairness and compromise and bipartisanship then yanking it away when push comes to shove for his side (the nuke option mess the Republicans were willing to effect if the Dems didn’t roll over and play dead for them–unless they’d play by McCain’s only slightly better version of the same…that somehow ended up tying the other side’s hands more)–that’s McCain for you.
Plenty of words describe that kind of behavior: Lying. Hypocrisy. Flip-flopping. Selling out. Back-stabbing.
Of course, most politicians are liars and wafflers and sellouts and panderers and backstabbers. But McCain does things that end up hurting this country, and the people in it (unless you happen to be rich and white). And never mind what it does to those outside it. He’s a small, mean-spirited man, and if he were elected, he’d be a small, mean-spirited President.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“Yes, I am a screener there.’
No. You’re not.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
BA, Point well taken, and my sincere appology (on your last paragraph, that is). You are right, fundamentalists ARE taking over my party…and they are not leaving room for critical thinking individuals.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Aerimus, I wasn’t referring to that passage, actually.
Luke 14:26:
And Matt 10:35-36:
There are others as well.
And the sin Jesus came to forgive was the Original Sin, not the things people get stoned for. I’m not sure where that misconception came from. God is the final judge, sure, but there’s nothing in the NT to suggest sins shouldn’t be punished by people anymore.
If that story about casting the first stone is what you have in mind, that seems to be rather more recent than the rest of the NT.
According to the Bible, Christians are supposed to love God and other Christians, but that’s about it. Jesus himself certainly didn’t have any love for non-believers (as Matt 15:22-28, among others, shows).
March 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Aw man… I wanted to be the one whining and moaning about religion and politics on a science blog. I guess I’ve got to start checking the site earlier. o_0
Great post, Phil!
As for those of you whinging about Hillary and Obama even mentioning their beliefs, we live in a nation where greater than 80% identify as Christian. That they’re believers isn’t shocking and neither is their being open about it, especially as they doubtless recognize the importance of some sort of delus…. err, religious belief as criteria for many voters. Remember that poll from late 2001 where at the height of post 9/11 Islamophobia people would still vote for a Muslim rather than an atheist or agnostic? Of the entire House and Senate, there is 1 openly atheist member, despite the irreligious constituting approx. 10-12% of the population. To get elected, you have to profess belief. However, I do see a big difference in Hil and Obama’s professions of their faith and McCain’s actively courting and seeking the endorsements of the worst of the religious bigots, hatemongers and anti-intellectuals. If McCain was the man of integrity he claims to be, the man he was some years ago, he’d tell Hagee and AIPAC to F@#& the hell off.
Clinton and Obama are both far from my perfect candidate, but I’ll happily support, promote, and vote for either knowing damn well that each would be a much better champion of the issues most important to me (and IMHO, the nation) than Mr. BS Express. As someone mentioned above, even if you believe McCain still has integrity and would be a good executive, if you think he’ll scour all the far-right fundy scum out of the system, you’ve got to be deluding yourself. He’s selling himself to these people to get elected. He’s not going to be able to just turn his back on them Jan. 20. Lots will keep their positions, and many more will get appointed. That’ll mean even more anti-science types in positions to do real harm to the environment, education, research, public health, and who knows how many other fields impacting the nation and the good of the public.
I used to be a big fan of McCain and was infuriated and disgusted the way he was treated by Rove/Bush/Cheney, but he has since completely sold himself to the machine, forsaking principle for presidential aspirations.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I have long come to the conclusion that someone’s religious beliefs usually play second fiddle to their political beliefs (and not the other way around). If you are a conservative or a liberal, it is rare that any debate over religion will sway you to change your political views. You believe that your version of religion (Christianity in this country, mostly) gives you added justification for your political positions, no matter what they are.
That’s the amazing thing about Christianity. From the tree-hugging pacifist to the neocon warmonger, the religion they supposedly have in common works for them all just fine.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Ragutis: Maybe there’d be less whinging from some of us if the choice of candidates were a little more varied than:
Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian and Christian,
Which has now been dramatically narrowed down to the big three:
Christian, Christian and Christian.
Of course, the Democrats are presently having to decide between:
Christian and Christian,
But when they finally make their choice, the presidential race will ultimately be between
Christian and Christian
Leading to a president who’s
Christian, and a Christian vice president.
Gee, thanks democracy!
(Yes, and I do enjoy typing my own name.)
March 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
[...] 7, 2008 Click HERE for a good post from Bad Astronomy. Posted in Uncategorized [...]
March 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Man, Phil, you always have an infuriating comment stream… I’ll toss in my two cents.
If you’re not an experienced writer, you might have a hard time believing that Phil left the Obama stuff out sheerly for writerly reasons. If you’ve never written for a living, it’s easier to think it’s for political reasons.
Maybe his politics agree with his cut, but I can tell you that the cut was correct. It would have diluted his point. As he is an experienced writer, I can believe he thought it through.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
@ Christian X Burnham
Oh, obviously. I’d be ecstatic to see a much more varied candidate pool, especially if we could get some atheists/agnostics/humanists elected. Hell, I’d probably rather have a Wiccan Pres. over a non-believer just to revel in the schadenfreude of watching the fundies go apoplectic at the idea of a witch in the White House. But, I’m not going to jump too hard on Clinton and Obama for mentioning, even using, their faith when it’s the ones McCain is catering to that are waving the torches and pitchforks. As far as I’m concerned, Barack and Hilary can appeal to all the tree-hugging, pro-diplomacy, pro-choice, care-for-your-fellow-man, pro-science, compassionate, tolerant liberal Christians they want to. A candidate that doesn’t believe in an invisible father-figure in the sky is a bit much to expect right now, but for the time being, I’ll settle for one that doesn’t pander to extremists.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Tacitus:
You paraphrased my comment thusly:
“It’s okay for John McCain to fully embrace the endorsement of a religious extremist because “we all know he doesn’t really mean it”, but it’s not okay for Barak Obama to receive an endorsement from another religious extremist even though he categorically rejects him because of some form of indirect guilt by association. Talk about a double standard.”
I don’t think you read what I wrote. I said that McCain’s embrace of Hagee is reprehensible, and I said that I agreed whole-heartedly with the original article. How can you read that as saying it’s “okay” for McCain to do it?
Also, I was not commenting on any unwanted endorsement by a religious extremist. I was noting the fact that Obama’s pastor and spiritual advisor for many years is Jerimiah Wright. I don’t think anyone disputes the close relationship between Obama and Wright.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Phil,
You obviously are a low level skeptic… as you would know the true history behind the catholic church..
just do a google on the “black pope” otherwise known as the “jesuit general”..
lets just say that the regular pope has to report to the jesuit general… and the jesuits are in control of the freakin’ world
its the mother of all conspiracies… the black pope conspiracy
they control the different branches of “science” since the enlightenment (if not before then), and control George Bush, and all the secret societies..
Some even put forth evidence that the Catholic Church (jesuit general/black pope) controls the various muslim sects… and even STARTED the Islamic faith by Augustinian monks in 7th and 8th centuries.
The catholic church IS evil unfortunately… I mean, really, the pope sits in a throne with an upsidedown cross on it… and there are pictures of catholic mass being celebrated beneath the 40 foot stone owl IDOL god at the Bohemian grove in Northern california.
Jesuits were kicked out of Iraq before we invaded, as a matter of fact if you look back in history, you will see that the Jesuits were the so called MIRACLE survivors at Hiroshima (another conspiracy in itself— the conspiracy that there are no actual atomic missiles… that the Jesuits built the Abomb in the city of hiroshima)
Every country the Jesuits have been kicked out of has been attacked by either england, spain, or the USA…
Phil, if you really want to be blown away by how evil the catholic church is… just do a google on the Jesuit Oath that all jesuits must take before being sworn in officially… scary stuff.
Hagee is wrong on a lot of things, but not on the evil vile nature of the catholic church..
March 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Sorry to be pedantic (
) but I believe my parsing of your comment was reasonable.
You qualified your condemnation of McCain with “but appears to me to be purely a political ploy.” i.e. “he doesn’t really mean it”. That sounds like a rationalization of his position to me, and lets him off the hook.
Then you point out that Wright “is a buddy of Louis Farrackhan” i.e. Obama is guilty through indirect association. Fine, I’m not defending Obama’s relationship with Wright, but I failed to see how makes Obama “at leastas bad” when he had explicitly repudiated Farrackhan. Do we even know what sort of creeps John Hagee is friendly with? (Perhaps it would have been better to leave Farrackhan out of it altogether).
But I am certainly happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and that your comment doesn’t accurately reflect what you meant to say (hey, it happens to me all the time), and I would like to learn more about Wright’s views from a reputable source (the only one’s I have found so far are right-wing hatchet jobs — does anyone do any real reporting anymore?).
March 7th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Just wanted to reply to the comment from the person who stated that science has shown us the true way:
That’s what everyone who truly believes in their religion thinks.
I loved this blog post. My mother was actually going to vote for Mcain if Clinton didn’t win, but after showing her these posts I’ve managed to convince her otherwise(She believes he’s too inexperienced, so no amount of promised policy was going to sway her. Also, my dad lived in South America when a minor communist dictator took hold, making him a bit pessimistic about anyone like Obama. The commie dictator promised equality for all, an end to bipartisanship…and then took off with the entire country’s treasury after milking it so dry that a hamburger cost thousands of dollars in currency.)
March 7th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“I forget. In which part of the New Testament does Jesus preach unbridled hatred?”
To be fair, there are only a handful of passages in the Bible in which Jesus preaches hatred, such as
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
and
Luke
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
I believe the former is one of Ann Coulter’s favourite Bible verses. But it’s odd that conservatives pay attention to these, and not the myriad other passages in which Jesus preaches love, such as
Matthew
7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
and
Matthew
22:39 …Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
etc.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
[...] Phil Plait calls out McCain for accepting the endorsement of a religious extremist, but, thankfully, unlike some atheist bloggers, he also reminds us that there are lots of moderate and reasonable religious people out there who may diagree with Phil about the details of religion, but are good folks for whom the extremists do not speak. He does, however, extort us moderate religious types to stand up and remind everybody that the extremists do not speak for us. [...]
March 7th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Mike J. said:
You obviously are a low level skeptic…
Followed by a bat-guano insane conspiracy rant.
And I thought staying home tonight would be boring. Got the best laugh of the year so far. Thanks Mike!
And Phil, maybe your DM can help you with your leveling. Maybe give you a few opportunities to pick up some extra xp.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Phil, not everyone on the right or the religious right for that matter buys into this intelligent design, the earth is 6,000 years old nonsense. I, for one, trust NASA and my faith is alive and well, thank you very much.
http://memo-to.blogspot.com/2005/12/memo-to-proponents-of-intelligent.html
March 7th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I wouldn’t say that the vast majority of religious people are good people trying to do good. The majority (perhaps slightly over 50%), maybe, but not the vast majority. Many religious people simply tolerate others while secretly despising them because of their differences. They are simply tolerating their imaginary way to a better place.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Once again it’s between the [bleep]hole who wants to control my morality and the [bleep]hole (or hole-ette) who wants to control my wallet.
Why can’t we have anything different? Why? Why am I forced to view the government as a personal enemy hell bent on controlling as much of my life as they can?
And it’s even worse now because the lines are blurring. The Reps are becoming big spenders and the Dems have their whole creepy thought crime bent going on.
You just watch. Telling an off color joke will some day be considered a subversive act. Someone telling a blonde joke will be fined for “verbal violence against women”. Think I’m nuts? You just watch
Just wait until the schools teach the kids to spy on their parents. Think I’m even nuttier?
OOPS! That’s already happened!
http://reason.com/news/show/119476.html
Today recycling “violations”. Tomorrow, subversive humor.
You just watch. Especially you Dem fans who think that party holds some sort of salvation for the country. Oh, my, have you got a surprise in store for you!
/rant
March 8th, 2008 at 12:14 am
And SWAT teams will be sent in to break up DANGEROUS charity poker games.
Ooops! That happened too!
http://reason.tv/video/show/172.html
Or the almighty WAR ON DRUGS will actually allow citizens to be murdered in the name of their holy war.
Oops!
http://reason.com/blog/show/121692.html
Eventually just standing around on the sidewalk will become a potential lawbreaking situation.
OOPS!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/nyregion/18movealong.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
So can you see why I get impatient about James Randi still beating the spoon bending drum? There are far more serious issues that require an immediate injection of reason and skepticism. Stat!
We are allowing the politicos to try and make EVERYONE a criminal by passing so many laws that it will be IMPOSSIBLE not to break one. This is a form of control, and it is happening now while some of you are doing righteous battle with spoon benders and TV psychics.
The skeptical community has created its own opiate.
/rant (for real this time)
March 8th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Nihilism
March 8th, 2008 at 5:16 am
I wouldn’t say that the vast majority of religious people are trying to do good. The majority, maybe, but not the vast majority. Many religious people simply tolerate their way through life while internally disliking others who are different. I think it’s rare that a religious person is truly good and truly trying to help others for any reason other than their own personal gain (getting into heaven, for example… or because their holy books tell them so).
March 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
What a hit piece. I don’t like McCain or any other candidate, but your article did convince me of one thing for sure: you’re a true low life.
You say that you see and yet are so blind. You can with a good deal of accuracy strain out a gnat when it comes to (some) things science, but willingly swallow a camel when it’s convenient for your political and religious denialism (though it’s purely religion based).
If in keeping with your sense of wit we call you the “BadAstronomer”, we must now also dub you the “GoodManOfIntegrity”.
Truly no excuse.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
@Brent -
Wow… that was truly enlightening. Truly. Which “camel” is he swallowing, exactly? And in what way does he show a lack of integrity? If you’d like to qualify your rant with something more than just ignorant vitriol, please do so… otherwise I urge you to take the advice of one Samuel Clemens: “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought of a fool than open it and remove all doubt”.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Brent, you want to give some actual specifics there, instead of just insulting me? I’m curious about what mistakes I made in that post, given how copiously I linked my claims.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Phil, this post has really enlightened me as to who you really are. Because of that I’ll just point out some basics as surely anything more will only be more of a waste of my time.
First, I’ve never seen or read where you’ve started out with any other premise than that anyone who believes what the Bible says is anything but a lunatic. Yes, I know you throw in a blurb about it not being everybody, blah, blah, blah … But that’s a weak attempt at shielding yourself from the obvious conclusion that you’re a hypocrite.
You say that people who believe their Bibles are far right (insert offensive word such as “lunatics”, here), and then you use the Bible to counsel them on how to behave. Nice!
You link to an article (hit piece) about Hagee that insists he is practically the devil himself, but only because he believes the Bible means some things that others don’t like. I’m not saying he’s right. I’m not saying he’s a good guy even; I don’t know. But the article simply said he believes the Bible teaches A, B, and C, and therefore he hates certain people and is a war-monger and whatever else.
That would be like me saying that any scientist who believes the universe to be billions of years old hates Christians. Some may, and some may just think what they believe is nonsensical, but it cannot and should not be inferred that believing one thing about any person or group of people means that someone is automatically a bigot, for example. You absolutely know better than that, but willingly put your blinders on because you are trying to advance your cause even if it means compromising some of the very traits about yourself that you, apparently, hold dear; i.e. being critical and skeptical. Wow! Truly, wow!
March 9th, 2008 at 4:14 am
@Phil
“In which part of the New Testament does Jesus preach unbridled hatred?”
Does it matter? The reason these people have power is because they have followers that don’t actually read the bible, that prefer someone interpret it for them and tell them how to think.
@Phil
“The vast majority of religious people are good, decent folks”
Most? Including the 57 Islamic countries without church/state-sep whose religion tells them to kill unbelievers? Doesn’t this imply they’re good because their religious*? Show me a decent person in our own country and I’ll show you someone who would still be decent if they fully embraced rationality. Credit where credit’s due.
*I know it’s not what he meant but am making a point
@Blu-Ray-Venon
“we started iraq, now lets finish it”
Defining “finish” is exactly the problem. It was defined as :
+Dismantling WMDs, then it was
+Removal of Hussein
American presence will continually destabilize any country whose very religion dicates their governmental beliefs. There’s only one sane way to say “we’re finished, objectives achieved”.
@Cairnarvon
“Jesus was quite clear that all the laws in the OT (including the ones against homosexuals, clothing made out of more than one material, and shellfish) still apply.”
Yes, Jesus was Jewish and preached Judaism. He never conceptualized an entirely new religion. How on Earth could he say anything to/for christians when the religion didn’t even exist yet? He was a Jewish preacher and his “bible” is our Pentateuch/Torah. Funny how most xtians don’t even know this, eh?
Check (and yes, I know apologists reinterpret these):
Matt. 15:24 ; John 4:22
March 10th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Gee, Brent…
Did your read the same blog I did?
March 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Brent, everything you just said is completely wrong. You appear to be incredibly biased.
I never say people who believe the Bible are lunatics. I say people who take it literally are wrong, and people who use it to legislate morality are wrong, and people who use it as an excuse to hate are evil. See the difference?
I never say people who believe the Bible are far right, either. That’s ridiculous. Instead, I make a point of calling out those on the far right who use the Bible to hate or to restrict my freedoms. See the difference?
I link to a piece about Hagee that lists the facts about him, and how he is an unbridled monster who uses the Bible to preach his brand of hate. See the difference?
Your claims about me are based on false reasoning and incorrect evidence, and your conclusions are wrong.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:33 am
You say: “I never say people who believe the Bible are lunatics. I say people who take it literally are wrong, and people who use it to legislate morality are wrong, and people who use it as an excuse to hate are evil. See the difference?”
Well, it’s very gracious of you to allow people to believe the Bible … as long as they believe it the way you want. And you call me biased? Yes, Phil, you say they are wrong, and you are obviously completely entitled to your opinion, but do you really always put it in just so simple and non-barbed language? That is where the problem comes in, and even if you never do put it in just such a ridiculous way, linking to that slimy article is as if you had typed it yourself.
One of the things I’m getting at also, and I don’t know if you’ve caught it, is that you clearly don’t believe the Bible, but then pretend to know what it is supposed to mean! THAT ain’t right!
I agree that using the Bible to legislate morality is wrong, at least in the sense you mean it. No question. However, the problem with the term “legislating morality” is that you have to realize that we already have done that for a long time, and everyone agrees that we should. Wouldn’t you say that laws against murder should be considered “legislating morality”? So, when everyone happens to agree on a moral issue, legislating morality isn’t a problem. Of course, when you have just a group of people who happen to agree on a moral issue, that group will not see the problem with trying to pass legislation against it. It happens all the time, and it’s not only Christians who are guilty of this. You, however, then become the hate-monger against those groups, at least when they are Christian, apparently. Hypo…
As for hate? I certainly hate when my kids do certain things, but I don’t hate them. Jesus hated that some people had made His Father’s house a den of thieves, but He didn’t hate them. It would have been hard to tell, however.
Hate is a strong word, and I’ve seen it being tossed around a lot lately whenever anyone expresses their opinion that someone doing something is wrong. That does not show hate, and you know it. This is exactly what is wrong in the article, and your claiming not to see it.
You say: “I link to a piece about Hagee that lists the facts about him, and how he is an unbridled monster who uses the Bible to preach his brand of hate. See the difference?”
Lol @ “facts”. Good one!
So, why is Hagee slanderously reported to hate certain people just because he believes the Bible teaches that they were and have been mistreated as a result of their own disobedience to God? That holds no water. Yet, your critical eye cannot find this glaring weakness in the article you’ve linked? Why don’t you see that though Hagee believes that such and such is going to happen, that it isn’t something that he rejoices at happening or hopes for. The article tries to say that he secretly must because he is joyously awaiting his rapture, but that is a complete farce, and recognizably so by anyone who isn’t too busy drooling over reading of a Christian being ripped to shreds, however unfairly.
From the article: “Pastor John Hagee’s Christians United For Israel”.
All this talk of how Hagee is racist and a bigot and rejoicing at the slaughter of the Jews, and yet He has a ministry to try to rescue them. Very interesting way to hate someone, wouldn’t you say?!
Does your critical eye catch this, Phil?
And you call these “facts”? Oh, Phil! You’ll excuse me if I don’t bow at your “critical thinking”.