The Standards of Christian Fundamentalism.

[Proud_Democratt]

Where does the line of fundamentalism start.....and/or end?
Who has that authority to say which of Jesus's quotes are valid?
Who decides what is literal and/or metaphoric?
"Pick and choose" seems to be the most popular method.

[lonehalf]

1. The Bible

Just look at the Bible.

How many versions are there?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. A whole slew of versions, but it's more than that...

You can take any verse and look at the various Christianities, and even Judaism. That verse will be interpreted in myriad ways.

How people interpret the verses of the Bible, depends on which Bible interpreter they choose. Some might love the Falwell-Robertson type of interpretation. Some might like the Vatican interpretation. Some might like the traditional Methodist organizations' interpretations. And so on, and so on. There are various interpretations church people have come up with, and we pick and choose which leader we like best.

Even worse, Bible literalists (or those who pretend to be literalists) are only literalists with the verses they want to take literally, and they're not literalists with the other verses.

For the most part, if the preachers dress like a CEO, have a wife and kids, a nice, large home, and go skiing in Switzerland, you know their preaching is a bunch of hogwash, and a money-making game of bullshit.

[Proud_Democratt]

3. Jesus didn't dress like a CEO?

:wtf:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. ? I meant preachers, not Jesus. Isn't Jesus supposed to be a god?

Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[Proud_Democratt]

5. I was highlighting on the word, Christian...

meaning ..of Christ or Christ-like.

[Lerkfish]

7. preachers aren't allowed to have a wife and kids?

in many denominations they are. You seem to be saying, in your litany of litmus test for hogwash preachers, that having a family means you can't be a man of god.
I would disagree with that particular one in your list, certainly.

[okasha]

16. In some denominations, preachers are even allowed to have husbands

n/t

[Lerkfish]

6. Are those real questions?

not sure if you're more interested in castigating fundamentalists (which is ok)
or really want serious answers.

I'll try, anyhow (though I'm a liberal christian, not a fundamentalist, I have some in my family)

Where does the line of fundamentalism start.....and/or end?
---not sure how to answer that. fundamentalism is a label, oft misused. In reality, to be a "fundamentalist" is supposed to mean a return to the religious texts as inviolate and unmistaken. However, if our current day "fundamentalists" really were, they'd be applying the bible whole cloth, instead of being selective about what they wish to adhere to. Our current day crop are more akin to Pharisees, who wish to impose the rules of the scriptures on OTHER people, while considering themselves above the rules and not obligated to them. Also, the current Pharisees have become seduced by the judgement and letter of the law, and completely bypassed the spirit and redemption of the law.
In other words, what we call "fundamentalists" in modern christianity, aren't.

Who has that authority to say which of Jesus's quotes are valid?
--- no one. Authority implies direct knowledge, but religion is faith instead of knowledge. As we all know, the details and wording of different translations of the same texts appear to have differing shades of intent. However, the spirit of the point survives intact for the most part.
See my first response about why current Pharisees seem to think they and only they have the "authority" to enforce law and speak for Jesus.
In case you can't tell, I disagree with them.
Ultimately, in the end, only Jesus has the authority. But I would clarify for you that if you take what Jesus actually said, and subtract what the Paulists believe (Paulists adhere to Paul's letters without considering their chronistic background), you'll find that Jesus only ever condemned those who condemned others. Everyone else he opened the door to. An example that would be good for all of us to consider.


Who decides what is literal and/or metaphoric?
--- You do. Others can say what THEY consider literal. But like any document, individual interpretation determines how it is received.

"Pick and choose" seems to be the most popular method.

--- Amen. If all christians read the ENTIRE bible, cover to cover, and gave it all equal thought, we'd all be liberal christians.

[papau]

8. Well said :-)

:-)

[Proud_Democratt]

9. I agree with your

outlook on Paul and "Paulists". Paul's writings are much more "lawful" and authoritive than Christ's. "Ye must conform or else" was his basic message. He never met Christ personally. Why did the early church pick his writings to be part of the NT? Probably, it's because they met their standards of conformity.

[Lerkfish]

10. the problem with Paulism is that they take Paul's letters out of

chronistic context.
Most of what Paul wrote was to specific people or churches, and reflect the mores and culture AT THAT TIME. In that way, the rules he mentions should have little or no relevance to today, since we no longer live in a culture where, for example, its a humiliation for women to have their hair cut.

However, if you read Christ's teachings, you'll see that what he said transcends the time period and the message is more universal and can be applied to today quite easily: the sermon on the mount is a good example, and the parables by their very nature are meant to speak to greater truths.

Don't get me wrong, Paul has a lot of really good advice and thought provoking things to say, but Paul is not my saviour. I consider him a very good preacher and I consciously frame his sermons in the time they were delivered...as such, much of his letters have resonance today, but some does not.

[Lerkfish]

11. another thought about your post:

I don't get the impression that Paul is saying "conform or else" as much as he is tailoring his letters to specific churches with specific problems. For example, his letter to the church at corinth is concerned with their practice of almost being seduced by speaking in tongues, but overlooking other things that are more important. Therefore, he framed his letter to address "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not love, it has become like tinkling cymbals"

His letters are those of an itinerant preacher, making a circuit and trying to address specific concerns and problems of individual churches. As a result, since he is trying to "fix" problems, it will come across as "preachy".

:shrug:

[SPKrazy]

12. Reminds Me Of A Book

read a long time ago

"The Greatest Salesman In The World" by Og Mandino

Paul had to "sell" (by his beliefs) Christianity to a wide variety of people, and cultures.
There was no Christianity in those places he went to look back on.
He was competing in a sense with the cultures that he went to and tried to address their culture and this new church.

[bluesbassman]

45. Paul was originally a Pharisee.

So his writing naturally has a legalistic tone. However, being highly educated in the law and prophecies, he was singularly well equipped to comment on Jesus' ministry. If you dig a little deeper into Paul's writing, you'll find that (aside from the congregation specific admonitions) Paul's overwhelming theme is directed toward following Jesus. Paul was not establishing "his" own religion, but was in fact proving the case for believing in Jesus based on Jewish law and prophecy.

[Lerkfish]

51. right. I'm not "dissing" Paul, I'm dissing Paulists

as I said, much of what he said is extremely valuable. What I'm saying is that some of what he said should be considered in chronistic or situational context.

the problem with Paulists is that that are overly keen at applying the letter of his letters, so to speak, and overlook the spirit and inspiration of them.

It would be better if Paulists concentrated more on Christ and his teachings. If one only concentrates on Paul's letters, and only the anachronistic exhortations, then we get what we have today.

[bluesbassman]

75. Well said.

I think you have a good perspective on Paul and his writing, and I hope you didn't take my previous post otherwise. :)

What you've said about Paulists focusing on the legalistic aspects of Paul's writing is on the mark. I would expand on that by pointing out that these same people glean bigotry, intolerance and legalism from the Old Testament as well. I think that this type of mindset would and does use any scripture to bolster a regressive agenda.

Paul gets a bad rap for the misapplication of parts of his writing. A more thorough examination reveals Paul extolling God's love for all of mankind, with the pinnacle of that love being expressed through Jesus.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. Even withIN fundamentalism

you have vicious factions: the Mormon, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Assemblies of God...each saying the others are damned.

Pick and choose to the max.

I'm a cafeteria Christian, myself. I skipped over the part about giving away everything I own. And never cutting my hair. Not wild about that whole submissive thing, either.

[kwassa]

14. Fundamentalists believe in the inerrency of the Bible

Every word is literally true

here is how it all started:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Nelson_Darby

A "particular interpretation of Christ's return ... was developed by an Irish Protestant, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)." Darby saw a second coming of Christ, which he "believed would precede the time of troubles, or 'tribulation,' mentioned in several New Testament passages, he called the 'secret rapture.

John Nelson Darby spread his beliefs while visiting the United States and Canada 1862-1877. "He was a very appealing speaker and also intolerant to criticism. At first he tried to win members of existing Protestant congregations to his sect, but met with little success. He then spread his end-times message to influential clergymen and laymen in churches in major cities without insisting they leave their denominations." <2> (http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/pre-trib.htm)

"Geographically, the doctrine moved from its original foothold in the large cities of New York, Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis to the northeast and Midwest. Later it spread to the West and South, where it is very strong still. The doctrine is not taught in the liberal Protestant denominations but is taught in independent nondenominational and full-gospel churches and in some evangelical churches. Fundamentalist churches do not realize how relatively new the doctrines are." <5>

[Proud_Democratt]

15. Wasn't Darby the father of

the Rapture?

[SPKrazy]

24. Yes He Was

in the 1800's

Newest theology that is in Christianity that I'm aware of.

And it's followed by about 20% of the population.

[Critters2]

17. "The Five Fundamentals"

The five "fundamentals" of Christian belief that were enumerated in a series of 12 paperback volumes containing scholarly essays on the Bible that appeared between 1910 and 1915, entitled The Fundamentals. Those included:

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. The belief that Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth, which came to be known as the Millennium.

1) A strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible;
2) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and implications of modern critical study of the Bible, and
3) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really "true Christians"

They also believe in "six-day" Creationism, the doctrine that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago, rather than the billions claimed by modern science, and that God created man and woman and all the species outright, rather than by a process of evolution. Also included is the belief that only King James Version Bible of 1611 is the only correct text

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/index.htm

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. Thank you for the sullivan-county website. I've saved it in my favorites

Whose website is it? It's great.

[SPKrazy]

22. Glad You Like It

Take Note from the site:

Today fundamentalists make up about 20 percent of the American population.

20%!

I've read that 70 to 80% of Americans believe in God.

I don't know how many are Christians

but only 20% are fundies!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud_Democratt]

20. I agree...

because of the Christian majority's vote and rhetoric, Bush won both elections. Maybe, this is one of the reasons why many people view Christians as hypocrites?

[SPKrazy]

23. The Christian Majority's Vote And Rhetoric

as the web site sited above states:

Today fundamentalists make up about 20 percent of the American population.

Now assuming that all 20% voted, and all 20% are voter age and eligible (not likely) There still were a lot of other people voting for Bush

Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.

Quit blaming it all on Christians when it is only a subset of Christians that are Bush supporters

it's really getting old

[Proud_Democratt]

27. Here's some stats....call it

broad-brushing if you want.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103

[SPKrazy]

28. Thanks For The Site

It further substantiates my point!

The rising political clout of evangelical Christians is not the result of growth in their numbers but rather their increasing cohesiveness as a key element of the Republican Party. The percentage of the population who are white evangelicals has changed very little (19% in 1987; 23% now) and what growth there was occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

However, in 1987, white evangelical Protestants were divided in their partisan attachments, with 34% identifying as Republicans and 29% as Democrats. Today, Republicans outnumber Democrats within this group by more than two-to-one (48%-23%).

This shift toward Republican identification among white evangelicals came in two stages. In the late 1980s, white evangelicals in the South were still mostly wedded to the Democratic Party while evangelicals outside the South were more aligned with the GOP. But over the course of the next decade or so, the GOP made gains among white Southerners generally ­ and evangelicals in particular ­ virtually eliminating this regional disparity

Seems the rest of the page discusses how Bush has made inroads among all other types of voters

Pretty funny that you post your response with something that just substantiates what I've been saying!

Of course it would be interesting to see what the results will be after the 06 elections.

Bush has lost support in all areas.

[Proud_Democratt]

29. My point was ...the Christian vote. in 2000 and 2004, not 1987.

The Christian vote(most types) got Bush elected. This is proven.
You decipher who and how, if you'd like. That's up to you.

You can call it broad-brushing, but my opinion is based is based on this link. under
"Presidential Vote 2000 and 2004", the chart on the right side.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103

BTW, this is not a religious site.

[SPKrazy]

30. Thanks For The Site

You are still missing it:

in the text from your site

President Bush's successful reelection effort owed much to the support he received from highly religious voters, especially white evangelical Protestants. But what has been largely overlooked is Bush's success with less religious voters. In fact, compared with four years ago, Bush made relatively bigger gains among infrequent churchgoers than he did among religiously observant voters.

Voters who say they attend church at least once a week backed Bush at the same high rates as in 2000. But he made inroads among those who seldom if ever attend religious services, although John Kerry maintained a sizable advantage among these voters.

Trends in the religious vote in this election defied the conventional wisdom in other ways as well. Bush's support among white evangelical Protestants, already quite substantial, increased markedly from its 2000 level. However, there is no evidence that evangelicals comprised a larger share of the vote this year.

Moreover, while Bush drew more support from evangelicals, he increased his share of the vote among other religious denominations as well. Bush fared better among Jews and Catholics ­ especially Catholics who do not attend church frequently ­ than he did in 2000.

It looks to me like according to this site, Bush fared better among everyone.

So your thesis that it is all the "Christians" fault is weak at best.

There is no doubt that the evangelicals (who voted for Carter in the 70's) have turned to the GOP because of the false promises of banning abortion, stopping gay marriage, and other "wedge" issues that if actually were ever solved would cause this "base" to take another look.

I still say, it will be interesting to see where the 23% of Americans that are considered fundamentalists come out in 2006 as they are increasingly pissed at Bush.

Note also from your site, it is far from 100% of these fundamentalists, and nothing like you and Sarah want to imply, that voted for Bush.

[Proud_Democratt]

34. I 've got 5 people right here,,,next to me

looking at the chart. They all agree with me. Looking at the chart, it was Christianity (as a whole) that got Bush elected and re-elected.
The only thing I implied was.....the majority of Christians(all types) in our country voted for Bush. It is true.......no one can change it. Sorry, we cannot see eye-to-eye.
Good bye and good night.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

40. If you're implying that if christians as a majority had not voted for *,

I would have to agree, since they *are* the majority.

However, I don't agree that * being elected can be blamed on christians.

I blame the 51% who were too stupid or scared to see what a pathetic posturing little dictator-wanna-be he was.

Most of them may have been christian, but I can't see how anyone can prove that their religious beliefs were the reason why all or most of them to voted for him.

[Proud_Democratt]

48. That's exactly what I

was trying to convey. Since Christianity(as a whole) is the religious majority in this country, it's very obvious that's why **** won the elections...and just maybe, for that reason, many Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, Buddhists, and other religious minorites have a little more resentment towards Christians. WE know that not all Christians voted for ****. We also know that the liberal to moderate Christians most likely did not vote for him.

My intention was not bigotry, nor intolerance.

[beam me up scottie]

53. I have more resentment against Nader voters than christians.

But I don't hold either one responsible.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SPKrazy]

55. So Why Don't You State Your Resentment Towards Fundies

instead of blanketing all Christians with the "blame" for Bush

since I didn't vote for him, and have never voted for a Republican starting with Carter when I first turned old enough to vote. Since most of the people in my Church didn't vote for Bush either time.

I have a hard time with this "if the Christians" didn't vote for Bush.

I have still looked at your charts and see where you get your perceptions.

Perhaps if you were to read the text alongside it, you would discover that while Bush made gains among the far right Christian fundamentalists, it doesn't amount to much.

Now your chart shows other Christians voting majorities for Bush. I'm skeptical, but I'll say it might be true. (Although they are relying on exit polls, which out of the other side of their mouth the right wing is saying are inaccurate, but this is Pew Research, not out of a church pew, but named after someone named Pew)

It also shows Jews, and other religions picking up for Bush as well!

So, I agree with BMUS, I blame the Naderites more than the Christians for this. The fundies weren't going to vote for Gore or Kerry, because abortion has become a wedge issue for them.

[beam me up scottie]

74. "My intention was not bigotry, nor intolerance."

That's why I said as much in my post #43.

The poster we both originally responded to (#18) had their post deleted. She was the one who was lumping all christians together, not you.

Nobody here accused you of being intolerant.

[NMMNG]

44. I have to agree with you

While the Evangelicals came out in droves for Bush both times (10% more in '04), Bush gained 6% of the Jewish vote and even 1% of the Secular vote in '04. It wasn't only Christians who helped him with that one.

[SPKrazy]

59. Thank You!

Finally someone that reads the tables, and the text!

You're right too!

:yourock:

[SPKrazy]

33. Where Do You Get It "Is A Religious Site"?

Pew research site is a religious site?

I've searched all over their site, and the Pew charities site, no mention of being religious.

They claim to be non-partisan. No religous attachment listed at all.

Do you have something to back that statement up?

[SPKrazy]

36. 30% Secular

31% in 04

WTF?

You mean, it wasn't just Christians????????
\

no, that won't fit your agenda

[SPKrazy]

38. 25% Jewish Voters

but that doesn't fit your agenda either or other religion 23%

you know, of course evangelicals voted for Bush

and other Christians did too

But you want to blame it all on Christians

[SPKrazy]

21. I Wish You'd Quit Lumping Right Wing and Christians Together

It really isn't fair

I'm a Christian

I didn't vote for this administration ever

The vast majority of people in my church didn't either

Lots of Christians aren't right wing fundies

lots of atheists vote republican as well.

I agree that the handing out of lists is wrong.

But that isn't "the Christians in the US"

that is the fundies in the US

they don't believe in separation of church and state

that brush you have must be heavy as hell

[beam me up scottie]

25. You're going to feel my "outrage" if you keep implicating all christians

in your accusations.

Why do you keep making such bigoted statements after being asked to stop?

[SPKrazy]

26. Yeah

What's up with that?

:yourock:

[beam me up scottie]

31. Since no explanation has been offered,

I'd have to go with religious bigotry.

Extremely offensive coming from someone who is quite clearly not a christian, and should know better since minorities are usually all too familiar with what it's like to be on the receiving end of intolerance.
:mad:

[SPKrazy]

32. I'd Say It's Something Like That!

bigotry, or ........

maybe something else?

[beam me up scottie]

37. If the mistake had only been made once, ignorance may have been a factor.

But to broad brush a group repeatedly, despite being asked (politely no less) to stop, I'd say it would have to be willful ignorance, if not actual intolerance.

[SPKrazy]

39. And It Isn't Just One Poster Here

Check out some other posters here that agree with this one above

[beam me up scottie]

41. I just weighed in.

See my post #35.

The "moral" majority may have voted for Little Lord Pissypants because of their religion, but I seriously doubt that was the deciding factor for most of the christians who voted for him.

[bluesbassman]

42. You rock bmus.

Didn't we go through all of this about a month ago? Deja vu all over again I guess.

[beam me up scottie]

43. You rock too, bluesbassman.

:hi:

I just want to add that I know that poster and I don't believe Proud_Democratt is intolerant of christians.

I don't think he was being very articulate.

[bluesbassman]

47. Thanks. And I concur with your assessment.

The OP was a great question, that provided the basis for some lively discussion. I look forward to the next one.:)

[NMMNG]

46. Fundies

Allegedly Fundamentalists adhere to five standards:

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)


The current batch, however, have a special way of dealing with the "Inerrancy of the Scriptures". The scriptures are inerrant, to be sure. However the only ones that matter are the ones that must be enforced against other people. These they scream about from the pulpits, on radio and TV, on the street corners and everywhere else. They also do everything they can to get these made into laws to enforce against the entire nation.

The ones that the fundies don't want to follow themselves (like the prohibitions against divorce, the directives to help the poor, Jesus' instruction to love thy neighbor and to pray in private, the countless admonishments against material wealth, etc.) are blatantly ignored. Anything that is inconvenient, unpleasant or otherwise an impediment to them is invisible when they open their Bibles.

[Ih8dashrub]

58. You ought to be happy when they open their Bibles

they don't follow the proscriptions in the Bible to kill all the people who engage in perverted and immoral sexual practices.

[NMMNG]

64. You mean what *they* consider to be perverted and immoral sexual practices

Or what you consider to be perverted and immoral sexual practices? From the wording of your post it was unclear.


And just because they don't do it doesn't mean they don't want to:

TOLEDO -- Merrill Keiser, Jr., is a trucker by trade, and he's hoping his next journey takes him all the way to Washington. His goal is a seat in the US Senate, but first he has to make it through the primary that will determine which Ohio Democrat will be the November ballot.

The Fremont man is causing some controversy with one of his beliefs. He tells News 11 homosexuality should be a felony, punishable by death. "Just like we have laws against murder, we have laws against stealing, we have laws against taking drugs -- we should have laws against immoral conduct," Keiser says.

Keiser has no political background. He says the only reason he's running as a Democrat is because that's how he was registered the last time he voted.

Keiser will face Democrat Sherrod Brown in the May primary.
http://www.wtol.com/global/story.asp?s=4590031

[SPKrazy]

68. Well He Went Down In Flames! LOL

Brown 572,319 Keiser 160,940

Bye bye, couldn't happen too soon!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. Percentage of bornagainers in the U.S. has skyrocketed

And look at this chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

It shows that the growth of U.S. evangelicals, Church of God, pentecostal, non-denom, and all those other like "churches" (same stuff, more or less) has grown extraordinary amounts. The percentages scare the hell out of me. U.S. Christians have been running to non-denom and evangelicalism by leaps and bounds. Part of the problem is that a number of groups like these are given different names, when they really should all be grouped into one group (I'd call it, "white bornagainers"), for purposes of polling. It's incredibly deceptive when the polling is done by subdividing these into smaller groups.

[Lars39]

50. One encouraging note:

I read recently that the Southern Baptists are experiencing the lowest numbers of baptisms in 12 years.

[SPKrazy]

56. Instead Of Being Scared

why don't you and me, and other Democrats figure out how to win them back to the Democrat side.

They cart out abortion and gay marriage and never do anything about either one, for if they do something they lose!

I think that in 06 we have a chance to win some of them back. But not by being afraid of them. They are just people who have beliefs that are different about religion than I have, and I take it than you have.

Reach out to them. Talk to them. You might find you have more in common than you have differences with them.

They aren't all "domimionists". Some may be, but mostly that is a very far rightist viewpoint that most fundamentalists don't share.

Most of them are just good hard working people that are trying to make ends meet just like the rest of us.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

60. I don't think that's possible....

1) Because their religion tells them to be against freedom for people (gay rights, abortion rights)
2) Because their religion causes them to try to turn their religion into laws of the U.S., they're doing a good thing because it will shove their religion down all our throats.

[SPKrazy]

61. Their Religion "Tells them"

no, their preachers, and current "scholars" in their churches

I know "fundies" who don't look at gays any differently than anyone else. I know "fundies" that are pro choice, or that don't want the government involved in it. (personally pro life, but don't believe the government should have any say in it)

I know fundies who are embarrassed that * and the theocrats are acting like they have a mandate to turn our country into a theocracy.

Not all fundies voted for *.

Certainly not all Christians did.

I'm a liberal Christian, and I say if you throw the baby out with the bathwater, then you miss the opportunity to reach out to potential Democratic voters.

Remember, Carter won with the evangelical vote in 1976 (or maybe you don't remember, but he did)
It was hijacked by the Reaganites and is now a commercial venture to keep the fundies rallied with red meat. But not all are like that.

Labels, are bad things really.

[charlie]

62. Carter, in a lot of ways

proves to me the futility of Democratic pandering for the hardcore religious vote. Carter was genuine, his views and statements arose from his convictions, not some grafted-on ploy to assuage voters that he was "Godly." And look what it got him. He's regarded as just another standard-issue liberal menace, no different than the rest of us godless commies.

[SPKrazy]

63. Carter Got Swiftboated Before There Was Swiftboating

I agree we shouldn't pander for the hardcore religious vote

but I like the idea of canvassing precincts and actually talking to people.

I live in Arkansas, it is a very red state. Although, truly it is more purple and blue in a lot of areas.

Some places are lost causes here, but I believe that grassroots is where it has to happen.

Speak to people's concerns, their fears, (not create fears) and their hopes.

People will respond. Even Fundies will respond. 30% of fundies voted for Gore. 21% voted for Kerry.

I think that there are more fundies that will vote democratic next fall.

[charlie]

67. True, I agree

And by all means, every believing Democrat needs to assert clearly and without reservation that they're members of a party largely comprised of believers. Believers who actually live more congruently with their religious convictions than Republicans. No more of this idiotic business of just reacting to Republican slander -- "but we do believe in God, we're not hostile nihilists." But I wince when I hear the likes of heretofore secular Hillary suddenly making "godly" noises and people like Michael Lerner cheering them on for doing so. I think that sort of disingenuous calculation is a recipe for disaster.

[SPKrazy]

69. Hillary And Bill Have Always Included Church Attendance

in their playbook

Bill got kicked out of his Baptist Church in Little Rock when he was President (might have been Monica?)

Hillary grew up a Methodist I believe.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a Hillary fan. I live in Arkansas and I just don't think she can pull it off.

She's brilliant, no doubt. She's also even more likely to go anyway the wind blows on her opinion.

Besides, she's an Iraq war supporter.

Anyway, Hillary bashing can be saved for other threads.

My point is, that perhaps, Hillary really can speak about her religion.

[charlie]

73. I only mentioned her as a visible example

Ever since the "values" meme took flight after 2004, there's been an influential and fervent faction that thinks More God is the cure for our ills. Michael Lerner made a giddy prediction that "God" will come from the lips of every Democratic candidate this year. As if it's some sort of hi-glo coat that can applied to draw in buyers. They need to knock it off, nobody likes a huckster. Especially when it comes to something as deeply felt and contentious as religion. Let the ones who feel genuinely moved to speak of the spirit do so, and coach the rest how to address the believing public without fearing they'll lose if they don't go that extra mile into inauthentic salesmanship.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Pres.Carter also consistently separated his personal beliefs from his job.

And you're right, look where it got him.

I work and live around hard-core southern baptists, and they hate him as much as they hate President Clinton.

Maybe more, since they believe he "betrayed" them.

These people cannot be reached.

However, the more moderate ones can be, if you talk about what affects them.

Their wallet is always a good starting point.

[SPKrazy]

66. Wallets, Wars, Jobs, Healthcare

ought to be the rallying cry for Democrats in 06!

Eliminate the tax cuts for the rich!

Get the hell out of Iraq!

Economic incentives to hire and stay in America, tarrifs for companies that don't!

Healthcare for all! (we spend more money on healthcare than anyone else in the world per capita. We get less for our money than anyone else. We need nationalized healthcare!)

Even fundies need money, jobs, healthcare, and a lot of them aren't too hot on the war anymore.

I live in Southern Baptist world too. There are a lot fewer "W" stickers around. Of course the election was nearly 2 years ago, but for a while there were plenty of them anyhow, even new ones going on cars, suv's, and trucks. Now, not so many.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Okay. I just put on my flame-proof panties.

When Dean made the comment about gay marriage on the 700 Club, I was just as angry as anyone else that he got his facts wrong.

However (ducks behind bunker) anyone who knows these people knows that gay marriage was a HUGH!!11! part of why they would never have voted for Kerry.

It was the DECIDING factor for many of them.

So by speaking directly to them, and telling them that Democrats do not support gay marriage, he was doing his job, and doing it well.

I know Howard Dean and I know being on that stage was as repulsive to him as it would be to any of us, maybe more so since he lived in fear for his life after signing the Civil Union bill into law in Vermont.

What he did was give the Democrats a chance to win in '08.

The fundies have one less major issue to clog up their narrow little minds when they go to the voting booth.

[SPKrazy]

71. LOL- They Make Flame Proof Ones Now?

Didn't Dean apologize for making that statement?

But then, who knows if the 700 club covered his retraction.

They may take their pointy little heads down to the voting booth and vote Democratic?

[beam me up scottie]

72. Yes.

But he was drawn and quartered by some people who acted like he was a raving homophobe.

Having to wear a bullet proof vest and constantly worry about the safety of your family because you stood up for the rights of homosexuals was enough for me to know that I can trust the man.

I gave DU a wide berth that week.

I understand the anger, but he did the right thing. He did his job.

Just like President Carter.

And I couldn't stand to watch the left do to Dean what the right did to Carter.

[SPKrazy]

90. Yeah, Dean Got Pretty Much

swiftboated before the swiftboaters hit

and he still gets it here on DU

I'll admit, I supported Clark, Edwards, then Kerry as they got whittled down. (I only got to vote for Kerry because no one else was in the race still by then that I recall for our primaries)

But Dean shook things up, and continues to shake things up.
And the thing is, from what I read about him, he was a pretty moderate leaning governor.

But he also obviously took a brave stand for a governor to take:

Having to wear a bullet proof vest and constantly worry about the safety of your family because you stood up for the rights of homosexuals was enough for me to know that I can trust the man.

I hadn't realized that. My respect for the man just went up.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Oh, yeah.

You should have seen what hate did to our little Green Mountain state.

Randall Terry moved to Vermont and led the charge.

Funny thing is, most Vermonters who were against the whole civil union thing wanted Randall gone as badly as we did.

He found out that few were going to follow him and eventually slunk away.

[SPKrazy]

96. Randall Terry

:grr:

operation rescue

I wonder how he looks at himself in the mirror, or if he even casts a reflection?

[beam me up scottie]

98. How'd you like to be his son?

I'm amazed the kid didn't commit a murder/suicide after growing up in that house.

[SPKrazy]

104. Geez

hadn't thought that far through the life of Randall Terry

but his son may still have time to go on a murder/suicide spree or something

hope he gets some help

also, maybe a GPS tracking device so we know where he is at all times?

[beam me up scottie]

106. I haven't heard much about him since Terry disowned him.

I hope he realizes how much better off he is now.

[SPKrazy]

107. What Did He Try To Form A Civil Union?

or pay for an abortion?

or just realize his old man was a grade A a**hole?

[beam me up scottie]

109. He's gay.

I can't imagine the hell that kid went through growing up.

[SPKrazy]

118. Oh My Goodness!

I can't imagine that either

So Terry disowned him?

What a parent!

what kind of an asshat disowns a child because they are gay?

You love a child, you raise them, and then disown them because they are gay.

Where did the love go?

[charlie]

119. Ask Alan Keyes

He also booted out his daughter and won't have anything to do with her. She getting back on her feet, but was on the street for awhile. His loss, she's a charmer.

http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=Xmisled0youthX&tab=weblogs&uid=196061776
http://absolutverve.blogspot.com

[SPKrazy]

120. I Had A Friend When I Was Younger

I was barely in my 20's

He had run away when he was around 15 or 16 because he was gay.

I don't really know if his parents disowned him, but it was pretty sad.

He'd gone out to LA in the early 80's when he ran away.

He ended up like so many on the streets do, selling himself to survive.

He also ended up with AIDS (back around 1985) when it was still not understood well at all.

He eventually died.

As a 20 something, I didn't understand how/why people would disown a child because they were gay.

As a parent, I can't imagine that at all.

I ask again, what happens to love for the child?

Is it wiped away by some ridiculous religious belief?

It isn't hard, when I think about things like this, to think that organized religion has often done terrible things to people. Well, let's say, people, in organized religions have done terrible things to people. Even their own children.

Keyes is a piece of shit.

Terry is a piece of shit.

No other words for them.

[beam me up scottie]

126. Love going away would have been kinder.

According to Terry, his son BETRAYED him.

It's not even about Jamiel's homosexuality, it's all about how he ruined everything for his father.
:mad:

And he went even further and claimed that Jamiel was already "ruined" before he adopted him, so there is no way anyone can blame Terry for how he turned out.

How anyone let this fucker adopt kids is beyond me.

IMO, never being born at all is kinder.


Imagine how different his life would have been if he had been adopted by a loving homosexual couple.

[SPKrazy]

127. Terry's A Narcissistic Piglet

it's all about him

he would have been better off with probably almost anyone

a loving homosexual couple might have been able to help him deal with his homosexuality better than "it's all about me Terry"

[beam me up scottie]

130. See, that's the thing.

According to our laws, heterosexuals like him are encouraged to adopt children, while homosexual couples are considered unfit parents because they are "perverts" and child molesters.

I just can't stand it.

[beam me up scottie]

121. It's much worse than just that.

He also threw his 18 year-old daughter out of the house because she was pregnant.

Excerpts from an interview with Terry and his son:

At the time, Jamiel was beginning to wrestle with a far greater inner conflict -- his own sexuality. Asked if he tried to broach this subject with his parents, Jamiel returns a look that suggests you're on crack. As he noted in Out magazine: "When you grow up in a house where to be the thing you are is an abominable sin, you tend to try and shed those behaviors."

In Randall's view, most -- no, make that all -- of Jamiel's problems arise from his formative years in his biological mom's home.

"Tragically," Randall writes in his online essay, "by the time we got him as a foster child, he had already learned a lifestyle of deceit. . . . My hope was that providing a loving safe home, his life would be spared. . . . Unfortunately, my hopes and prayers were not realized."

Here's the link to Jamiel's interview in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32934-2004Apr21?language=printer

[charlie]

122. Yes, Terry the philanderer

Ditched his wife and family for a younger chippie who worked on his congressional campaign. Even his fellow fundies found that indefensible. He's a low, low man.

[beam me up scottie]

123. I hope his trophy wife leaves him for

a younger, richer opportunist and he dies alone, a very bitter old man.

[charlie]

124. Better

I hope his unrequited ardor for Alan Colmes consumes him, he leaves his second family, and spends his doddering years singing songs of love under Alan's window.

(Terry once made an out of the blue "joke" about his and Colmes' past history as homosexual lovers on national TV. It was such a weirdly apropos-of-nothing showstopper that he beat a "gotta go, I'm due elsewhere" retreat at the first break)

[beam me up scottie]

125. That is bizarre.

But I like the ending in your story better.

Can we make sure he's not senile?

I want him to die slowly and painfully, from unrequited love.

That is similar to the fate he wished on his son.

[SPKrazy]

128. Although I Am Not An Alan Colmes Fan

I wouldn't wish Randall Terry on anyone

much less, the token "lefty" of Fox News.

[charlie]

129. Bizarre and depressingly familiar

The pillars of rectitude always turn out to be freakier than their scapegoats, the poor saps who want to hold their sweetheart's hand without getting their heads caved in.

Imagine if he joked with Kyra Phillips about the times the two of them did the horizontal tango. Suddenly, "mainstream" America would see what a clownshow Terry is and he'd be busted back to being the local dork everyone ignores.

[beam me up scottie]

131. People from my neck of the woods

don't consider him a local dork.

Kopp lived a few miles from where I grew up.

Terry coached him.

They should both rot in jail.

[charlie]

132. My sympathies

I'm in Virginia Beach. I can smell Pat from here.

[beam me up scottie]

133. I'll bet you can hear the flies, too.

:D

[charlie]

137. Ayup. He's the Lord of the Flies

One more amusing tidbit about Terry. I remember reading a Rolling Stone cover article on him back in the 80s, when he was riding his first wave of infamy. The reporter found him to be such an odious creature that when he accidentally let loose a fart, she reported it in the article. Funny as hell.

Hey Randall! BRRAAAP! Where's your fucking manners, boy? BRAAAP! Your parents raised you wrong, you're unsalvagable. Ruined. BRRRRAAAP! Unadoptable, 4F, USDA-UNapproved!!! BRRRRRAAAAAAP!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

78. Christianity is right wing. Christ wasn't, but Christianity is. nt

[beam me up scottie]

79. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in here.

And that's saying a lot.

[SPKrazy]

81. Where Do You Get That?

Christianity is right wing?

That's a heavy broad brush Sarah.

You seem to use it over and over again without any evidence.

I'm a Christian.

I'm a liberal.

I know dozens of liberal Christians from my Church and people I know otherwise.

In fact most people I know who are liberal are also Christians.

Explain that?

Are they truly "right wingers" who just think they are liberals?

[beam me up scottie]

89. She made that comment in reply to my post about President Carter

and President Clinton.

That tells you all you need to know, doesn't it?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

77. I agree. I see it as pretty pointless to appeal to the Christians.

I see Christian ideology as going hand-in-hand perfectly with right wing ideology. I don't see how Christianity is not right wing. Where is it not right wing?

[beam me up scottie]

80. Loving your neighbor is right wing?

Explain.

[SPKrazy]

84. Because It Just Is

Christians are all right wingers

and that's the truth!

:sarcasm:

[beam me up scottie]

86. WTF???

Every time we think we've made some progress in this forum, that happens.

This time it's one of my "brethren".

The next will be one of yours.



Care to join me?

[SPKrazy]

88. Sure

Just hangin' out!

[beam me up scottie]

91. Quicker.

More humane than the fate of this poor guy:

[SPKrazy]

92. Ouch! n/t

[bluesbassman]

97. You guys have all the fun! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

100. Woo hoo! BBM is here!

Although you seem to be the only one who thinks we're having fun.

I love how when we're fighting, everyone piles on, but when we're getting along, everyone disappears.

[bluesbassman]

102. Shhhh!

Don't let the secret out.

[SPKrazy]

82. Let's See Now

as has been said

love they neighbor as thyself
the meek shall inherit the earth
the whold of the sermon on the mount

in fact, just about all of Jesus's preaching as recorded in the gospels of the new testament sound pretty liberal to me.

I think you have some kind of wrong interpretation of Christians and that they aren't liberals

take away the Christians from the Democratic party and you won't have very many voters

why shouldn't Christians be appealed to?

Open your mind please

[Sarah Ibarruri]

76. The idea that labels are bad is absurd.

Labels are required for every form of communication, written, spoken, and all.

Races: Hispanic, Black, White.

Labels are required in grocery stores: Spaghetti, Cheese soup, Crackers, etc.

Labels are required for each occupation and work type: Clerical, Professional, Outdoor occupation, Blue-collar, etc.

Labels are required for personality tendencies: High-strung, Angry, Obsessive-compulsive, etc.

Labels are required for political leaning: Anarchist, Democrat, Socialist, Fascist.

Labels are required for religious beliefs: Evangelical, Catholic, Lutheran, etc.

Labels are required for socioeconomic standing: Poor, rich, middle-class, etc.

Labels are required for everything. Another name for labels is categories.

Every time someone doesn't like what someone else says, it's become popular to say, "Labels are really bad things." I'd like to hear people say, "Categories are really bad things."

On the other hand, if what you're referring to is "badmouthing", then we can part from a point of discussing why you consider what I'm saying as badmouthing. Is what I'm saying a lie? Is what I'm saying a truth? But label? Labels are categories, period.

[SPKrazy]

83. Labels Can Be Obstacles To Coming Together

and your expamples of labels in the store is just silly

I'm talking about labeling people in ways that separates them and makes them different than you.

That's how people are able to commit atrocities towards people, through labels.

I label someone "different", everyone agrees. Soon they are less human because of their label. Soon it is easier to harm them because they have been dehumanized.

Labeling children as "hyperactive" when they aren't, as deviant in some way, changes how they are treated. Often this is not change that is for their own good. Sometimes it is.

You dispute that labels are bad.

I say that labels make us "different" even "rich" "poor", etc. We can't see that we are all humans?

I'm giving up.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Your point is actually one of the problems

I have with organized religion.

Religion separates believers, just like labels.

Kind of ironic that Sarah supports that type of division, eh? ;)

[SPKrazy]

87. Some Religions Separate Themselves

maybe they all do to different degrees

but then, any group of people does that to some extent (clubs, other organizations)

Some Christian groups have organized themselves in adversarial relationships to those that don't belong to their religious group

(usually groups that have very rigid boundaries, strict controls on dissent, etc. similar to cults are the ones like that)


Others have relationships of trying to help the larger community, and while they invite people to come to church, they don't actively go out and recruit, etc.

It is odd that this person continues to find any way they can to say Christians are different than everyone else. (in what is a negative way to me, but would be probably okay with a right winger to hear-that "Christianity is more in line with Right Wingers" :puke: )

[beam me up scottie]

93. Remember when I said christianity was

morphing into something else?

That's a good example.

Fundamentalists seem to dwell on the differences; they're going to heaven while you and I, and everyone else, fry in Hell forever and ever.

And ever.


Liberal christians highlight the things we all have in common, while celebrating diversity.

[SPKrazy]

95. I Think You Are Right

as I understand and believe

diversity is good

keeps the pool flowing in

you know, the old emptying out old wine bags to fill them with new wine

stagnant pools and all

(of course, maybe the fundies will all decide to only bear children with other fundies and in time will die off from lack of genetic diversity?)

[beam me up scottie]

99. You mean they'll be like the dinosaurs?

Unable to evolve and eventually become extinct?

Be still my heart!

[bluesbassman]

101. More like buggy whips.

They'll still be around, just useless and irrelevant!:crazy:

[SPKrazy]

105. Good One

buggy whips are useless, irrelevant, and don't reproduce

and they look good in museums with buggies

[beam me up scottie]

110. Useless and irrelevant.

Like bigots should be.

[SPKrazy]

103. Well, I Was Thinking More Like Mules

or jackasses

Mules are sterile

but that really isn't relevant because that doesn't fit with the small gene pool comments

okay, dinosaurs.

You know they were here 6000 years ago.

Moses prolly rode one!

[beam me up scottie]

108. Hey!

Don't make fun of our famous Kentucky museum!

Creation
Explore the wonders of creation. The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bible’s clear—heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards.

Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all!

God’s Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There’s no room for compromise.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/

[bluesbassman]

111. Oh My Gawd!

All this time I thought that was a joke. *sigh* I live such a sheltered life.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Nice, eh?

Teach the kids that scientists are lying to them.

That's exactly what we want them to do.

One generation closer to becoming Fundie-Rexes.

[bluesbassman]

113. Un-effing believable!

I just spent about 10 minutes cruising around the website. Those people are serious! One I picked at random talked about how the dinos were at the bottom of the sedimentary layer because they were so heavy that during the great flood 4500 years ago, they sank faster than all the rest of the critters.:rofl:

I really never gave the extreme creationists much thought before, but these guys are crazier than shithouse rats!

Thanks for the link bmus, I'll visit there whenever I need a good laugh.:silly:

[beam me up scottie]

114. It's okay to visit.

As long as you don't have to live here.

[bluesbassman]

115. It's a tough gig....

but somebody has to do it!:applause:

[beam me up scottie]

116. Once I have the money,

I'm going home where I belong.

This state is whacked.

And if all goes as planned, my home state will secede and join Canada.

[NMMNG]

117. Bwahahahaha!

:rofl:

A review of the most prominent late 19th century writings by biologists focusing on Charles Darwin reveals that a major plank of evolution theory was the belief that women were intellectually and physically inferior to men.

<snip>

Less widely known is that many evolutionists, including Darwin, taught that women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as homo frontalis and females as homo parietalis.

<snip>

Darwin’s contemporary anthropologist, Allan McGrigor, concluded that women are less evolved than men and ‘… physically, mentally and morally, woman is a kind of adult child … it is doubtful if women have contributed one profound original idea of the slightest permanent value to the world.

<snip>

In short, Darwin believed, as do some sociobiologists today, that biology rather than the environment was the primary source of behaviour, morals and all mental qualities.34 Obviously, Darwin almost totally ignored the critical influence of culture, family environment, constraining social roles, and the fact that, in Darwin’s day, relatively few occupational and intellectual opportunities existed for women.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/females.asp


Yeah, and women were given such equality in the Bible, historical Christianity and modern Fundamental Christianity. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

134. It's something, isn't it?

Did you take the tour?

Bible Authority Room
The Bible is true. No doubt about it! Paul explains God’s authoritative Word, and everyone who rejects His history—including six-day creation and Noah’s Flood—is ‘willfully’ ignorant.

[NMMNG]

135. No they didn't!

The Bible is true. No doubt about it! Paul explains God’s authoritative Word, and everyone who rejects His history—including six-day creation and Noah’s Flood—is ‘willfully’ ignorant.



What about the people who reject science with mountains of empirical evidence and peer replicated experiments? What are they? :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

136. They call them

Creation Scientists.

Here's one of their best and brightest scholars:

What the future holds!

Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 @ 08:51am by Jonathan Sampson
Hey families! Dinosaur Adventure Land has got so many wonderful events coming up that you may want to stop in sometime! Since the success of our Home school Appreciation Day of 2006, we have decided to do more themed-events at Dinosaur Adventure Land. To start things off, we have decided to make April fool’s Day (April 1st) “Darwin Day”. We will have tons of great rides, puzzles, treasure hunts, and prizes to fill out the day. We sure hope to see all of you here at Dinosaur Adventure land, where Dinosaurs and the Bible meet!

Dinosaur Adventure Land is a Theme Park, Science Center, and Museum - It is run by Creation Science Evangelism, the world-changing ministry of Dr. Kent Hovind who travels internationally speaking (and debating) on the Creation vs. Evolution controversy.

http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/index.php

[NMMNG]

138. WTF???

CSE has been working to fulfill the commands of Christ in evangelizing and teaching His Word especially in the area of creation, dinosaurs and the Bible since 1989.

http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/index.php


I can safely tell you that Jesus never said one word about dinosaurs. What he may or may not have said about creation I don't recall.




They go on to boo-hoo about how several of their attractions have been closed over a permit issue, and how what is being done to them is illegal. They then state: The Church ministry has consistently taken the position that the head of the church is Jesus Christ and for the church to pay what amounts to a tax for a building permit is in violation of the constitutions of both Florida and the United States.

My heart bleeds for them (not). They're sitting there all tax exempt while raking in money from their propaganda spreading theme-park. Then they get all whiney because they don't want to pay a little money for a building permit that any other facility would have to pay. Let their buildings stay closed while they sit on their high horses. :shrug:

[charlie]

139. Guess how much the onerous building permit costs

50 bucks. 4 years in litigation over 50 bucks. He just lost, BTW. Pled nolo contendre and has to pay $225 court costs and I assume arrears on the permit nonpayment.

[NMMNG]

140. You're kidding me

:rofl:

What a fool.

[charlie]

141. Want a bigger laugh?

He spent $40,000 fighting it. Whatta maroon.

http://www.richardsayshome.com/county/6-Demandtodismiss.doc

The link is to a Word document. Here's the money quote:

Restitution Sought

The costs I have incurred in this wrongful action have exceeded $40,000 to date

Itemization of costs

Legal Expenses $38,500. Gas $150. Postage, phone, copying and courier fees: $350.

[bluesbassman]

142. Just wondering...

Wouldn't that money have been better spent feeding the poor or helping widows and orphans? Sorry, I forgot, that's what Jesus would do.

[charlie]

143. He *is* feeding them

He calls it GOD's TRUTH, though most of us would call it something else. Kenny's just another one of those self-styled "warriors" in the titanic technicolor sensurround struggle against Evil. It's a whole lot more exciting than buying clothes for orphans.

[bluesbassman]

144. I call it Amway Christianity.

"Give your life to God, and you too can have a Rolex, an Armani suit, and drive a Mercedes just like me".

Not that I've got anything against having nice stuff, I just don't think that's what Jesus was talking about when he said "ask and you shall receive".

[charlie]

145. That's a good one

I call it Cargo Cult Christianity. Going through the motions without a clue as to what you're doing. With a keen interest in securing schwag from the sky gods.

Even an atheist like me can't miss that these guys are utterly lost. They're Christians in the same way Lysenko was a scientist.

[NMMNG]

146. Some people do the dumbest things

In the document he stated twice that the building inspectors had been proceeding "under color of law". Since he seemed so outraged by this I decided to look up the definition of this term.


UNDER COLOR OF LAW - When a person acts or purports to act in the performance of official duties under any law, ordinance, or regulation.

Um, so the inspectors were acting in the performance of official duties. What exactly was the guy's problem with that???




He has no problem with the law when it's on his side (e.g., exempting them from taxes), but when it wants him to pay a puny $50 permit fee he gets all bent out of shape. Now he's out over $40K because of his stupid antics.

[charlie]

147. Stay tuned

There's more trouble for Hovind simmering on the back burner, as the guy hasn't paid personal income taxes in years. He takes legal advice from a fellow named Glenn Stoll, a non-lawyer. Stoll has this novel scam where you answer 5 online questions and if your answers indicate total fealty to God and no recognition of authority higher than God, you're accorded a legal trust. Appoint a trustee and your future earnings are considered solely for the benefit of this ministerial trust, and are untaxable:

http://www.remediesatlaw.com/declaration.htm
http://www.remediesatlaw.com/livingministry.htm

It's codswallop of course, but an astonishing number of looney-right "ministries" have taken advantage of it. And natch, state and federal tax agencies aren't thrilled and regularly haul these clowns into court.

Edit: spelling

[NMMNG]

148. Don't any of these twits read their Bibles?

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's".

Even Jesus directed people to pay their taxes to the government. This stuff is blatantly illegal, and those who try to get away with it deserve whatever penalties they receive.

[charlie]

149. Hah

You bet they read their Bibles. And they know where all the escape clauses are. There's probably a snippet somewhere about denying the Whore of Babylon to counter that Caesar quote. There are few things more entertaining than watching fundies in a scriptural battle, they go at it hammer and tong and neither can nail the other. It's all legalisms to them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

150. Labels are what we use to communicate.

Re-read my post. Labels are the way we communicate. As I said, labels are categories. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise. We require categories in order to do everything from communicate, to function, to make advances in everything from technology to medicine.

[TreasonousBastard]

52. "Seems to be" but...

every major religion has its variants, and no religious scripture, be it the Bible, the Upanishads, the Koran, or the Book of the Dead exists on its own. Thousands of years of commentary and tradition, enlightened or otherwise, are the real backbone of belief.

While "Christianity" may be broadly defined as followers of Jesus who take the New Testament as their primary scripture, no one but the individual decides just how far to take scriptural inerrancy. Groups have formed from those who believe every word in the King James version is literal truth to those who believe the whole thing is myth and allegory and must be interpreted on a personal level. But, in the end, it is one's personal choice how to read the Bible-- many, if not most, of us do feel it is a spiritual guidebook, not a rulebook.

Yes, there is a lot of cafeteria Christianity, and there is a lot of bending of the meaning of scripture to fit one's own viewpoints. This is what we as humans tend to do with everything (note the various theories on something as relatively recent and simple as our constitution, or how we obey traffic regulations). But, serious study of religion and one's reading of scripture involves at least trying to sort out some measure of truth from the prejudices.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. It's *always* pick and choose.

Even fundamentalists do it.

I don't think we can know what's historical, what's meant to be allegorical... judgement has to come into it at some point.

For me, I'd say there needs to be some logical cohesiveness wrt to the overall tenor of Jesus' teachings. For instance, using his supposed words to promote hate wouldn't pass that test.