The American Spectator

Alan Brooks| 12.13.08 @ 2:21PM

Maybe God will grow his sideburns and wear bellbottomed trousers.

Paleo Pat| 12.13.08 @ 2:24PM

Good point!

Jeremiah| 12.13.08 @ 2:49PM

The day I turn to a mega-church dwelling evangelical for information about what the Creator of the Universe thinks or wants is the day that pigs fly.

That you could gloze two or three versus in the Bible related to homosexuality as suggesting the highest priority of a Christian is to prevent gay marriage throws suspicion on your sanity as much as your credibility on scripture.

Remember: Ted Haggard wagged his sanctimonious finger in the faces of gays and said, Thou art a sinner.

Maybe a little moderation -- whatever it would mean for God -- would spare you all a few unnecessary humiliations and win you some good will.

Most of us think about right wing evangelicals (justly) as stupid, shallow, mean-spirited lozels, and the reason is that year after year they give us every reason to.

Be moderate. Not because God is, but because as human beings you (like anyone) are not intelligent or wise enough to be otherwise.

Also: try actually reading the Bible. No one I know is more ignorant of scripture than those who claim to take it literally.

Jeremiah| 12.13.08 @ 2:56PM

What is it with conservatives and homosexuality?

Is there anyone who doubts when they hear the news that a congressman or public figure has been caught in a homosexual scandal that the person will be a Republican?

Remember Jeff Gannon?

Gannon was the fake journalist the Bush White House hired to ask phony questions in press conferences. It turns out he was given dozens of passes (as it were) to visit the west wing of the White House.

What else did Gannon do?

He was a gay porn salesman and model as well as a male escort. Naturally!

Ted Haggard you all know was President Bush's closest "spiritual advisor." For many years they had a Monday morning phone call during Bush's presidency.

Haggard was discovered enjoying crystal meth in the company of a male prostitute whom he had been years.

There's also Senator Larry Craig, caught trying to pick up men in a men's bathroom in Minnesota.

What's wrong with you people?

Shun angry foolish bigotry. Mind your business. Be respectful of others.

You won't come out looking like hypocritical jackasses all the time. (Not to mention making everyone wonder if you're closet gays.)

Monica| 12.13.08 @ 3:28PM

1. If one follows Biblical principles they won't be judging others.
2. God is neither liberal nor conservative, but rather espouses specific behaviors to which all followers should adhere. You must actually read the bible to know and understand all of those behaviors.
3. Whether it is admitted or not, we are not all the same. We should be equal under the law, however.
4. I don't even know why gays would want to get married. It seems that the institution of marriage alone would be a huge deterrent. Add in the historical connotations of marriage, and you would think that gays with their "enlightenment" would avoid this seemingly confining institution. Perhaps the gays think that there is something missing in their lives if they want to copy this intrinsically heterosexual institution.

Mary| 12.13.08 @ 3:35PM

What I said, vigor!

Mind you, I just might be hell bound, but if I am, I'm like Lazarus: I couldn't cut it, but please take care of my brothers.

Oogedy boogedy all the way home!

Not being a registered "R" I can't really muster up the dudgeon to shout SOS. That doesn't mean I wish to see it take on more water though. I don't.

I think a lot of people (like me) are not asking anyone to leave a party they don't really even belong to. Instead, only saying that we who tend to vote the R party aren't going to be bullied by Obama Republicans, or as an IBD editorial identified, an Obamacized GOP [http://tinyurl.com/6lj3xu]. Nyet!

Maybe I should speak for myself though. I'm not the least bit interested in being ever mindful of the delicate sensibilities of those who would say, you're welcome to cast your vote for our guy, and please do continue to do the grunt work and foot soldiering, but we cannot abide the God talk. That talk, as our resident debutante has already informed you, is fit only for the ragged, standing at corners and on wooden crates. Nyet, nyet!

Tom Wolfe in his Jefferson Lecture (2006) spoke of evolution and language and many other things. Apparently evolution stopped when man began to speak and his first sentence was: God, are you there?

One of Homo loquax's first creations after he learned to talk was religion. Since The Origin of Species in 1859 the doctrine of Evolution has done more than anything else to put an end to religious faith among educated people in Europe and America; for God is dead. But it was religion, more than any other weapon in Homo loquax's nuclear arsenal, that killed evolution itself 11,000 years ago. To say that evolution explains the nature of modern man is like saying that the Bessemer process of adding carbons to pig iron to make steel explains the nature of the modern skyscraper. [http://tinyurl.com/6nr5rn]

Whether the Founding Fathers were taking a page from Plato and his noble lie, the fact remains that they understood our individual and unalienable rights had to be grounded in the transcendent. Had to be grounded in, and property of, The Creator, or any skilled rhetorician could rescind, steal or destroy them.

No secret Obama slight there. I’m so unmoved by Obama that it worries me a little. I can’t view him as president. Not that I’m questioning his legitimacy. Not at all. He’s just not convincing to me in this role. He’s convincing as a marketing manager, as a CEO, as the head of National Corporatism (no secret Mussolini link there) , but not president as I have always viewed the office and the man. Maybe it's the volatility of current circumstances that is the cause. I don’t see him as incompetent, not at all, I just see him as detached and managerial and lacking something I can’t even name. Something historically rooted, which is so odd given the historic nature of his ascendancy. But I’ve noticed how happy parts of our local black population is because of his win, and that gladdens my heart.

And moving on to Lazarus the Good...T.S. Eliot and The Love Song of Prufrock:

And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!
Smoothed by long fingers,
Asleep . . . tired . . . or it malingers,
Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.
Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,
Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?
But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,
Though I have seen my head [grown slightly bald] brought in upon a platter,
I am no prophet--and here's no great matter;
I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,
And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.

And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,
Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,
Would it have been worth while,
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,
To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it toward some overwhelming question,
To say: "I am Lazarus, come from the dead
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all"--
If one, settling a pillow by her head,
Should say: "That is not what I meant at all.
That is not it, at all."

John| 12.13.08 @ 3:42PM

Love the sinner, despise the sin.

Homosexuality is an anti-social, narcissistic condition. It's practitioners are hopelessly tied to their self-image and self-gratification. The end result of their preoccupation with recreational sex has been a cultural and physical disaster. The social, psychological, and disease pathologies are undeniable.

Sins, in a religious sense, tend to be those activities that are destructive of both social order and self. Judeo-Christian religious belief, more often than not, is a codification of common sense social behviors. Some practices are proscribed. Some are prescribed.

The balance between the two is a healthy growing and vibrant society. The reversal of any one relationship results in an irresolvable or socially destructive incongruity.

If human interaction and most especially human sexuality is reduced to merely self-gratification then the relationship between what is real and ordered separates from what is merely desired.

Maybe it is that social death spiral that religion helps us prevent. It provides a barrier to the next loop... the next level... the next step down the path of chaos.

That we fail is not excuse to remove the barrier. It is not license to abuse the person who steps over the line, however. That is where most people who are practicing Jews or Christians sit.

We are entreated to love the sinner, despise his error, and pray for him not to repeat it. That prayer is not hate, it is love.

We live in a society that has cast off self-discipline, and demanded that external discipline be removed as well. Is allowing the removal love, or is it merely indulgence for the sake of comity?

I will continue to pray for those who conduct themselves in a disordered way. If that angers them, so be it. God is right and they are not.

Peace in this holiday season.

John

John| 12.13.08 @ 3:47PM

Just to be clear about a misconception in the Christian Bible.

Christ did not tell us to cast aside judgment. He admonished us to judge prudentially.

To cast aside prudential judgment is suicidal. In essence, Jesus came to us to offer to us the ultimate challenge in prudential judgment, not relief from it.

Peace again...

John

Mary| 12.13.08 @ 4:07PM

What we're asked not to judge is the state of Grace a person is in.

But Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. He asked something of her, as He did Zaccheus and others.

He also said he came not to bring peace but a sword that would likely pit father against son, and mother against daughter.

I don't think that was an exhortation to disagreement and violence, but an exhortation to stand firm in one's Faith, and not be brought to abandon it by a love of material or spiritual ease.

Whatever communitarianism He preached, it had to be voluntary to be holy, and the community it served had responsibilities as well.

Deuteronomy caused me to have a crisis of faith, so I'm well aware that understanding the message of Jesus can be complex, if the OT and the NT are of a seamless piece.

Obama preaches the Sermon On The Mount, but I've never heard him preach on the Law of Christ and its demands. Preaching the Sermon On The Mount sans the full Man is faulty in the extreme, and so conveniently easy.

Bob| 12.13.08 @ 4:08PM

RSM -- whose God are you talking about? Islam? The many gods of Buddhism? It's interesting that you and others think that yours is the one true "God".

If you are not open to reason, you are not open to other views. That is the definition of intolerance. If it makes you feel good to be intolerant, then so be it. The only problem is that you become intolerant not only of religion, but of other political, non-religious viewpoints as well.

To the argument of homosexuality, there has been enough research done to know that most homosexuality is genetic in nature. I know you guys don't believe in research, and that is the real problem.

By the way, marriage was not a sacrament until the 15th century, I believe. Before that, it was a way to pass legacy property to your heirs and a way of acquiring and owning property -- i.e., women.

Until you can find a secular argument that is provable regarding gay marriage, there is no reason to outlaw it.

John| 12.13.08 @ 4:23PM

Plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose.

Marriage is what it is, and what it has been since before monotheism. The foundation for creating and raising children into functional adults.

That it is a Sacrament in some Christian denominations is an additional blessing, but it makes marriage no less about building the next generations of civil society.

Your definition of intolerance is sad... it speaks volumes about your level of tolerance. So, accordingly, I promise that I will pray for you, too.

May The Lord bless you and keep you.
May the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

John

Bob| 12.13.08 @ 4:40PM

John,

So you make another untrue statement. It was NOT the foundation for creating and raising children, it was to establish the rights of inheritance and ownership. In agrarian societies, the children were simply laborers. People didn't think about "functioning adults" until psychobabble became rampant.

What I find intolerant is your unwillingness to accept the contradictory beliefs of others. I don't judge you on your beliefs unless they affect me. As it relates to politics, they do. You are intolerant of my beliefs, however. I don't think you are wrong, but you believe that I am.

When someone says "they will pray for you" in the sense that you have given, it show an air of superiority that is certainly not "religious". I will not pray for you because intelligence and reason must come directly from you. Good luck.

Jon | 12.13.08 @ 4:43PM

Jeremiah said: "Is there anyone who doubts when they hear the news that a congressman or public figure has been caught in a homosexual scandal that the person will be a Republican?"

Yes, anyone who remembers Jim McGreevy.

No party has a monopoly on sex scandals, gay or straight.

ruth| 12.13.08 @ 4:48PM

Barney Frank .

Mary| 12.13.08 @ 5:06PM

The problem with homosexual marriage is that it's an attempt to glom on to the sacrosanctity of marriage.

Paglia says the same thing, and she's gay. Civil unions probably wouldn't pose near the problems. Camille is right. The government should get out of the business of marriage altogther because it is a religious institution.

If homosexuality is organic, so what? Poor Dr. Laura, a one time atheist, then theist, now I think agnostic, got her TV show pulled because she dared as physiologist to say that even if genetic, it's likely genetics gone awry. After all, union has to occur through a channel of vacuation. A channel likely to bring about grave disease.

Some of this is about homosexuals needing to force people to approve of who they are because of natural and long-standing insecurities. You can't get any higher an approval rating than by elevating homosexual union to parity with heterosexual union, in every possible way.

Their tactics in California have been fascist. By the time you realize that homosexual marriage may impact society in a deleterious way, it will be to late to undo whatever damage has been done.

And all of this will filter down into the education system in an effort to twart whatever remains of the religious argument against raising homosexual union to parity with heterosexual union.

Mary| 12.13.08 @ 5:18PM

Here's Camille from her recent piece, "What Do The Clintons Have On Obama?"

I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past. My position has always been (as in "No Law in the Arena" in my 1994 book, "Vamps & Tramps") that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.

Here's the link: http://tinyurl.com/5ht3vq

Marshall Kane| 12.13.08 @ 6:02PM

Bob,

"there has been enough research done to know that most homosexuality is genetic in nature."

There has? If so, please enlighten us with some sources. Considering how often the unquestionable "fact" of genetic homosexuality is constantly repeated, it is rather appalling how little research has been done that even claims to be conclusive. Basically you've got a couple of fruit flies and a bunch of behavioral studies.

I would think that folks who are interested in defending the wisdom science would have more sense then to sacrifice its integrity for political purposes. Otherwise, they are as dependent on faith as the religious folk they love to mock.

Besides, why does it matter if homosexuality is genetic? There is a gene for Downs Syndrome, there are supposed genetic influences for cancer, schtizophrenia, club foot and all sorts of abnormalities. To claim that it same sex attraction is a "normal" condition is just silly. And to develop a culture around this sexual disorder is flat out absurd.

Look, if someone what to live a gay lifestyle that's up to them. Nobody should be hated or live in fear or have their rights trampled on.

But the problem most people have is with the gay movement is the attempt to force this lifestyle down our throats, and even codify our validation of this behavior into our laws.

What is really sad is that the true nature of same sex attraction is close for debate. Gays constantly assert how crazy it is to suggest that they "choose" their orientation (even though I've never heard anyone actually suggest this). But, as the science shows we don't know very much about what makes someone gay. Suppose same-sex attraction is a phase of adolescence, which will, in most cases, naturally sort itself out; that is, unless the child is told by the culture that "Gay is okay!" Well, then, what may have been an awkward pre-teen moment in the locker room could lead to a lifetime of confusion. Suppose there is window of opportunity where a teen with such tendencies could undergo treatment if their choice was not to live this particular lifestyle? I don't know if this is the case, sexuality seems to become pretty hardwired at an early state; however, any psychologist who so much as suggested a treatment would be labeled a bigot, and, likely face harassment, if not violence.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but all you scientific minded people dedicated to reason should be concerned that we live in an enviornment where reasonable discussion is hysterically cut off.

Jeremiah| 12.13.08 @ 6:07PM

John --

A few responses to your pseudo-philosophical posts.

First, marriage has NOT always been between men and women. In fact, men publicly swore allegiance and fidelity to one another is ceremonies carried out at church door in Europe throughout the medieval and early-modern period. These were in effect marriages.

In ancient Greece and Rome homosexuality was widely tolerated and in some instances encouraged. Men frequently lived together in what could accurately be described as civil unions in which property was shared and day to day life decisions were made together.

I was not implying that Christians should not make moral judgments.

On the contrary. I think Christians should actually READ their Bibles and THINK about how it's stories, precepts, and teachings ought to be applied, using REASON and TRADITION as guides -- but not as dictators.

John| 12.13.08 @ 6:37PM

Bob,

I have seen your posts before. There seems to be no reasoning with you. Anyone who disagrees with you is immediately labeled anything from intolerant to stupid. Sad, you might actually have had some valid points to discuss. However, they are clouded by your anger and bitterness. No one has forced you to be or do anything. Dismiss me as you will, and call whatever names you wish. I will still pray for you, there is hope.

Jeremiah,

Love that name. Ever read about your namesake?

1. Oaths of fealty and allegiance are not marriages. To equate such things with a marriage is akin to equating a dog with a table.

2. The ancient Greek practice of pederasty was never completely accepted. There are arguments over Spartan practice within the barracks, and there is evidence in both directions.

Those activities, however, were most definitely NOT marriages. The ancient Greeks and Romans (who adopted Greek practice) are responsible for the establishment of monogamous marriage. They were well aware of the need to produce and raise children. Spartans were even required to do so to be a full member of their society.

Christians actually do read the Bible... some actually more philosophically than others.

You too might like to engage in discussion more than invective.

Peace to you both... now off to Mass... Something about keeping holy the Sabbath and all of that...

John

Marshall Kane| 12.13.08 @ 6:39PM

Jeremiah,

Considering that in Greek and Roman societies these tolerated homosexual relationships were often rooted in pedophilia, I don't know if your example is helpful to today's gay community.

Also, we might want to consider why Judeo-Christian society has surpassed the Greco-Roman age.

ruth| 12.13.08 @ 6:51PM

John, you are cool. A very holy and Merry Christmas to you, sir.

Alan Brooks| 12.13.08 @ 7:00PM

exactly, Marshall-- pedophilia is the heart of the problem, and I know because there are pedophiles in my family.
NAMBLA is a disgrace, tempting pervs with the (ill) legitimacy of pedophilia.
How can gays permit NAMBLA to exist? If there existed a NAMGLA organisation it would be chased out of existence, pronto. NAMBLA exists because enough gays want it to.
Now, if you say very few gays are pervs, then you have to admit very few Catholic priests as a proportion of the Church are pervs.

Alan Brooks| 12.13.08 @ 7:19PM

BTW,
Michael Jackson ought to be behind bars, breaking rocks in the yard.

Britcom| 12.13.08 @ 7:23PM

Try as they might, the Demo(n)crats just can't pass an amendment to the Bible.

ruth| 12.13.08 @ 7:41PM

Angry Bob and Jeremiah are so open-minded that their brains fell out. (Open-minded for everyone but SoCons--then it's off with their heads!)

Alan Brooks| 12.13.08 @ 7:44PM

Now Roman Polanski is petitioning CA. court to drop his molestation charge, so he can come to America and leave France behind.
And he'll get away with it.
Just like wacko Jacko.

ruth| 12.13.08 @ 7:55PM

Bob, you claim to be a republican, but your posts usually align with Jeremiah's (an avowed liberal), and against the conservative commenters. Fess up, you're a liberal--I've been telling you that for weeks. You're mad because you don't belong here, a square peg in a round hole, you might say. Don't get mad at us because of your identity crisis. You are confused.

Alan Brooks| 12.13.08 @ 8:06PM

disGRACEful:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Britcom| 12.13.08 @ 8:28PM

Marriage has already been destroyed by law. Marriage was originally not a contract between husband and wife, but rather it was a contract between the husband and the father of the wife to insure that (contractually) she would be taken proper care of and not abandoned. The church got involved centuries ago because an oath was involved and people wanted the oath administered by the priest in a public forum with as many witnesses as possible to insure that the husband lived up to his obligations in the marriage contract.

Since women have, of late, obtained the right to contract and own property and engage in employment and business just like men have for millennia, the original marriage contract is moot and has ceased to have any legitimate purpose and retained only sentimental value. Lawyers, seeing and opportunity to get rich, then replaced the marriage contract with a partnership agreement between the "spouses", but the agreement is not a fair contract since it creates more benefits for one party (the wife) than it does for the other. It really amounts to a license for courts and lawyers to rape the husband in the event of a divorce and take the plunder and split it with the wife.

Knowing this hook is firmly set in the jaw of the husband, the wife then rules over the man under threat of divorce and there is little the man can do to escape.

Regarding same sex couples, the issue of marriage is also moot. What need is there for a contract between those who engage in sodomy and want to play house. The very idea is ludicrous. Sodomy is a conduct, a vice, and in several states it is still an illegal conduct. What next? Shall we issue marriage contracts to poker games, or prostitution rings, or winos who inhabit the same ally? How about issuing marriage contracts to people who smoke dope from the same pipe? We live in an age where insanity is revered and sobriety and rationality is condemned. This nation has already been flushed down the toilet but don't let me interrupt your denial.

ruth| 12.13.08 @ 8:37PM

There lies the crux of my decision to be a SoCon: Morality. Homosexuality/pedophilia, assisted suicide, and the destruction of innocent human life are segments of the culture of death that now pervade the democrat party. The fact that Obama supported/supports infanticide didn't escape me. Years ago, before she was Speaker of the House, I read that Nancy Pelosi, the 'Catholic' grandmother of five, proudly marched in San Francisco's infamous Gay Pride Parade, just a few feet behind the large NAMBLA contingent. Disgusting. Tolerance gone mad.

ruth| 12.13.08 @ 8:46PM

Britcom, sorry for your bad experiences, but the divorced women I've known got absolutely screwed financially: Especially when it came to caring for children. Also, this world has always been imperfect, it ain't no Garden of Eden! That's why I treasure my Faith, it gives me hope during these dark days.

Ran| 12.13.08 @ 9:23PM

To Bob: RSM -- whose God are you talking about? Islam? The many gods of Buddhism? It's interesting that you and others think that yours is the one true "God".

Firstly, lad: Christianity, Islam and Judaism believe in the One G-d of Abraham. The forms and ideologies vary, true, but the core is what we in the West call Ethical Monotheism.

Secondly, do look-up Buddhism. It's not a "many gods" sort at all... closer to a philosophy in some ways than to a religion.

Thirdly, let us review an unfortunate statement made in these pages Dec. 05th:"I am familiar with the Pope's Regensburg speech. I studied religion when I was young and translated the original five books of Moses from the original Aramaic when I was 10."

The fact that no part of the original five books of Moses was written originally in Aramaic didn't bother you at all. You arrogantly defended your naive error with yet another: Equating the Torah with the Pentateuch. It's just silly. More than challenging one's incredulity, your comments tax one's patience.

Someone weighing-in about matters religious and philosophical ought to know what they're saying, or at least to have the 'smarts' to do some basic research before telling porkies.

ruth: Thanks.

Britcom| 12.13.08 @ 9:40PM

Re: "sorry for your bad experiences"

Ruth,
I myself, having a good knowledge of the law, have not been victimized by a divorce court, so you should not feel sorry for me, however, I have seen several friends ruined and made homeless by their ex-wive's lawyers and biased family court judges and lopsided court rules. It doesn't happen every time, but it happens often and it is a crime that it happens at all.

Children are another matter. Parents should cooperate to support their children, but the Bible states that when parents divorce, boys should go with the father and girls to the mother. Most courts do not accept this doctrine and award the children to the mother exclusively.

The Biblical answer is that a virgin is the charge of her father and then her husband and if the husband should leave or die her charge is back to her father or her own brother or to her husbands brother. Modern law has put women in charge of themselves even within marriage whether they want, or can handle, that responsibility or not. This has perverted the natural order of the family and is the root of its destruction. The real natural order of the family according to the Bible is the husband is the head of the wife and the mother is the head of the child and the child is the head of his pet. Any woman who doesn't want to submit to this kind of family structure need not marry and such a decision is respectable for no one is damaged by her independence. But when a wife or a child, or even a pet takes over the family and refuses to submit to thier head, chaos ensues and order must restored or the family fails and the house divides and someone is damaged if the division is not equitable or just. This is not the fault of the husband or the wife, it is the evil design of the lawyers and the courts. They have for decades pitted the wife against the husband, and now they are forming the laws to pit the children against the parents and even the family pet now has the jack boot of the law working to "protect" it. So the family is in a constant state of threat and war and the law baits this fight.

Bob| 12.13.08 @ 9:56PM

Ran, you keep on on stating that the original five books of Moses was written entirely in Hebrew and you are wrong. Here's the link:

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

I remember my Rabbi explaining the difference when I was young. There is not much Aramaic, but it is there.

And you really don't know that the Torah and Pentateuch (a term I never used) are the same:

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

You MUST be a gentile.

For someone who corrects others, you should learn the facts.

ruth| 12.13.08 @ 10:13PM

Uh, Britcom, I'm conservative--but not that conservative. I understand what you are saying regarding government intrusion into familial relationships, but I have a problem with the word 'submit'. I submit to the authority of my Lord, Jesus Christ, but not automatically to a man. I view men and women as equals before God, both with free will, and I have to be the one who decides whom I trust. Men are human and stained by Original Sin: They are made in God's image--but are not God, and therefore are prone to sin. Your definition of marriage sounds like slavery to me.

Britcom| 12.13.08 @ 10:15PM

Re: "Christianity, Islam and Judaism believe in the One G-d of Abraham"

Ran,

I have to disagree with you on this one. Any religion that does not accept the 10 commandments and teach people to live by them is not a believer in the God of Abraham. Therefore if a religion teaches you its OK to murder an innocent, ignore or change the sabbath, marry a divorcee, swear a false oath, kidnap, bow down to statues, disrespect your parents, shift blame to the innocent, or redistribute your neighbor's wealth; then such a religion is not of the God of Abraham. That leaves out all of the followers of Mohammad and a great portion of Christianity and even a large portion of the Jews. So I would say only some Christians and Jews believe in the same God.

ruth| 12.13.08 @ 10:16PM

Bob, you MUST be a Jew, so liberal and so arrogant.

Bob| 12.13.08 @ 10:24PM

Ruth, you sound a lot like David Duke. And yes, I am a heathen, but I married a Catholic and raised my children as thinking Catholics. By the way, they are all great human beings and have advanced degrees from Ivy League/UC schools. I didn't teach them just to believe, I taught them to question and develop their own answers. I am proud of all of them.

Britcom| 12.13.08 @ 10:53PM

Re: submission

Ruth,

Many women have the same difficulty with the word, "submit" so I understand your concern. The word translated as "submit" does not have the same connotation as we give it today. It means "to give", in the same way as we "give" the right of way to another driver in an intersection. It is something we are required to give, but it cannot be taken or a crash results. Notice also that I differentiate between a woman and a wife.

Being a woman is innate, but being a wife is a chosen occupation. In reality, some men are wives and some women are husbands, but that is not the Biblical form. I believe in the Biblical form. But, again, that is not to say that men, by virtue of their being men are automatically superior to women, but a husband is a higher authority than his wife, just as a mother is a higher authority than her child. So that does not mean that a husband has authority over all wives or women, just his own wife. That authority is not the same as slavery since the wife may speak to her husband and has the right to refuse to give in to her husband's wishes, however, she should give willingly and lovingly to her husband when he asks her to, just as we are to give willingly and in love to God's will.

If a wife's husband loves and trusts in God, can she not love and trust in her husband as God asks? If she cannot, is that really the husband's fault? Are not women as ill equipped to handle life as any man? Are not women equal in their propensity to error as a man is?

The family is like a ship and a ship must have a Captain, it cannot operate with two Captains, and it cannot sail away from the rocks if there is a fight over the wheel. So God made a choice, he chose the husband to guide the ship and the wife to be in charge of all hands on deck. That is until the deck hands get their own ships. This is way it has been since time began and it is God's will that it stay that way if at all possible. There are cases where this is impossible and that is why divorce is permitted, but not encouraged.

Ran| 12.14.08 @ 12:10AM

Bob...
Please read the Wiki yourself? Please?

Let's learn some facts: All of the original five books of Moses - what Christians call the Pentateuch, and what we Jews call the Humash - were originally written entirely. in. Hebrew. Hebrew. Got that? Not Aramaic, not Arabic, not Greek, not Latin... HEBREW. There IS NO ARAMAIC IN THE FIVE BOOKS. NOT ONE SENTENCE. NOTHING THERE TO TRANSLATE FROM ARAMAIC. PERIOD.

Now.. in what we call the Torah - which contains many modern books, post-Mosaic phase, there are Aramaic passages. In the Siddur one will find several prayers - the most famous being the Kaddish, in Aramaic. This is the source of your naive Wiki confusion.

The Torah contains Humash, Navi'im and Ketuvim, along with Mishna and the Talmud and Responsa... Torah is a comprehensive collection that contains the Five Mosaic books. [Dude, shoving the Wiki at us ain't gonna make you a Rabbi.]

Do yourself - all of us - a favor, and ask an Orthodox or Conservative Rabbi to show you the parts of the original Five Books written in in Aramaic. [Don't mind the puzzled look you'll get.] I invite anyone here to check my representations. I especially invite the American Spectator's web staff to do so.

The point being: You could not possibly in fact have translated the original five books from Aramaic. You could not possibly in fact have translated any part - not so much as a sentence - from Aramaic. You B-S'd us. Just as you B-S'd about Buddhism being polytheistic.

And, um, yeah, I'm an Orthodox Jew. Torah-Observant Jew who reads regularly in Hebrew from the original [cough] Hebrew bible... Regular at minyan, Kosher, walks on Shabbat, T'fillin, Talit. Knows a thing or two about his religion and it's history. Believes in G-d. But Hey! If You say I'm Gentile, why, on what basis could anyone here doubt your word?

Britcom| 12.14.08 @ 12:58AM

Jeremiah is right about the sanctimonious hypocrisy of religious leaders and Republicans who call themselves conservative and turn around and get caught in the sins they condemn. (@ 1:49PM above)

However, the existence of hypocrisy does not invalidate the word of God. Christianity is supposed to be a 12 step program (like AA) for sinners, not a social club for perfect people. So we all have to admit that all Christians are sinners and will continue to sin.

The purpose of the scripture is to differentiate sin from righteousness and the purpose of the Church is to teach the scriptures and support those who wish to repent of their sins and accept salvation. The Church does not have the authority to change scripture that its followers don't like and attempting to lead the Church astray from scripture is deeply and profoundly injurious to the legitimacy of the Church's role.

In fact many so called mainline Churches have been gutted of their core Christian teachings and only a dried husk is left standing in its place and instead of leading people away from sin, it encourages and condones the sins that its followers openly and proudly indulge in. Is it any wonder that people are confused about what Christianity stands for and why? The public can't tell the real Christianity from the Counterfeit one and no one is exposing the Counterfeits as Anti-Christ religions.

WendyG| 12.14.08 @ 9:02AM

>>>Bob, you MUST be a Jew, so liberal and so arrogant.

Please Ruth, don't judge Jews by Bob's posts.I'm Jewish, and I am neither liberal nor arrogant. And a Jew who "married a Catholic and raised his children as thinking Catholics" is not exactly a great example of Judaism.

John's comments on this thread are excellent.

The problem vis a vis gay marriage from a secular POV, is that the minute you make it equal to traditional marriage it becomes part what teachers teach in school, that homosexuality is a viable choice, akin to traditional marriage. Do you want your kids taught from pre-school that homosexuality is just another but equal life choice? I don't.

Also - it is under the umbrella of "tolerance" that we are being pushed to accept this. But are gays tolerant of the other POV? Not much.

I am extremely sad and angry at the absolutely hateful way gay LA has treated El Coyote and it's owners. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-elcoyote15-2008nov15,0,6294928.story

Just because a family member contributed to Prop 8, they have hounded the poor woman out of her job, and her joy, which is working at that great little Mexican food place (I've eaten there many times.) Appalling, hateful, ugly.

nottydreads| 12.14.08 @ 9:32AM

Is God...CONSERVATIVE???

Jeremiah| 12.14.08 @ 11:49AM

The thread was related to homosexuality, and why I admit that the Bible does in two or three passages condemn homosexuality, I argue for those passages to be understood at least in part proportionally:

There are thousands and thousands of prescriptions, warnings, rules, imperatives, aphorisms, proverbs, sayings, adages, parables and other kinds of teaching and wisdom in the Bible: and two on homosexuality?

How many are there on the annoyance of being around talkative women? (15? 20?) So why shouldn't modern evangelical Christianity devote 15, 20 times the energy it does fighting gay marriage to teaching women to talk less?

Anyone could spin out dozens of examples like this. I won't. You get my point.

I say remember that the Bible must be interpreted using reason and patience.

Francis Beckwith| 12.14.08 @ 11:52AM

"If one follows Biblical principles they won't be judging others."

Interesting judgment.

By the way, judging someone as good is also a judgment.

Just sayin'

ruth| 12.14.08 @ 11:26PM

Wendy, in no way was I trying to besmirch the Jewish people. I have no problem with anyone--and you are terrific! I mean that. It was the condescending way inwhich Bob called John a gentile, and I was specifically replying to Bob's insult toward John. No way do I confuse you with Bob; I think of you as my philosophical sister. I think Bob is an embarassment to the Jewish people, like liberal Catholics who support abortion. He said I'm like David Duke, even though he hurled the gentile insult first (liberals always excuse themselves from racism), and he calls Gov. Palin, Barbie--which means he's a sexist pig, too. I know that he's just an unhappy, bitter man--but sometimes he goes too far with his imperious attitude. It's about ideology with me--not color or religion. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

ruth| 12.14.08 @ 11:28PM

Wendy, you're a SoCal girl! I knew I liked you.

ruth| 12.14.08 @ 11:31PM

Britcom: The husband has to earn that trust. In that case I've got NO problems. I also agree with you regarding the boat captain analogy. We probably agree more than we disagree.

ruth| 12.14.08 @ 11:39PM

Jeremiah, the annoying talkative women (And men!) I know don't engage in risky, perverse and disease-prone sexual activities. At least to my knowledge; and if they do, you've got a point; otherwise your analogy is absurd.

WendyG| 12.15.08 @ 9:37AM

Bob, I understand Ruth's frustrations. There is so much hypocrisy among liberals, it confounds and frustrates. Many the time I have asked myself why so many of Jewish brethern are liberal - when liberalism is now in many ways the enemy of Judaism and Israel. I do understand why on some level - the whole Tikkun Olam thing - nevertheless it irritates me.

Because the fact is that there are evangelical Christians who seem to care far more for the fate of Israel than liberal Jews do.

Bob, I don't I am a bigot or a racist. I think that the people who put Clarence Thomas thorough the ringer, but slobber over Obama may be bigots. They are bigots in regard to Conservative blacks.

And I think it's circular logic to claim that not bringing your children up Jewish means you are more open-minded that a Jew who carries the tradition to the next generation.

I have respect for Christianity, and one of my all-time heroes is Pope John Paul II. But as I respect the beliefs of Christians and understand that they pass their tradition on, so as a Jew I believe it is my calling to pass my tradition on. Your belief system is obviously squishy.

WendyG| 12.15.08 @ 9:45AM

>>When Colin Powell said that he knows that Obama was a Christian, but if he was a Muslim, it should make no difference -- he was hated by the so-cons.

Bob, one of my chief criteria for judging people is based on their loyalty or lack thereof. Loyalty is huge for me. You have to have some degree of loyalty to your beliefs, and to people who have supported you.

Were is not for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, and George W. Bush, where would Colin Powell be?? Conservative leaders made Powell who he is. Now he attacks all that is Conservative. What an ungrateful wretch.

I wish he'd leave the GOP. Stop whining and just go. He's wholly for himself anyway. Such people have no character. They are all about opportunism.

J David| 12.15.08 @ 10:06AM

Retarded secular humanist God-haters foolishly equate MUTATION with "evolution", when any farmer can tell you from a lifetime of experience that mutants die.
If queer sis so genetically, it makes them MUTANT, by the "scientific" meaning, as they would be an animal that can not reproduce (unless they do indeed have a choice) and thus are doomed in their line.

If homosexuality is "genetic", then by definition of mutation, those "genes" end in one generation (unless they do, indeed, have a "choice"). The AMORAL "God-haters" make the rules of their arguments as they go along, so it is impossible to "out-reason" them, as they are the highest order, and thus infallible in everything they say and do, and answer only to themselves.

Bob| 12.15.08 @ 10:12AM

WendyG -- hypocrisy is not limited to liberals, it affects everyone. I find as much on the right as on the left. People on the right complain about big government but not about their social security or medicare payments -- after all those two items are the largest in the federal budget that makes government larger. We can both come up with left leaning hypocrisy.

Regarding Clarence Thomas, putting him through the ringer because of his use of porn or placement of pubic hairs was not relevant in my opinion. However, talking about his judicial temperament or capabilities was certainly on target. Scalia, Roberts, Alito all have significant intellects even though I may not agree with them on all issues. Thomas did not have that level of intellect. The guy that was really treated poorly was not Thomas, it was Bork -- one of the smartest jurists I've ever seen.

I was not attacking bringing up your children in your same religion. I just objected to your judgment of me based on my beliefs and actions. You make it worse by judging my belief system as "squishy". Who are you to judge? My belief system is just as strong as yours.

Regarding Colin Powell -- he grew up in the south Bronx and I grew up in South Central. The Army helped him and it helped me. Our beliefs align on almost every issue -- right of center on fiscal/military issues and left of center on social issues. Without us, the Republican party will lose even more votes.

Where would Powell be without conservative Presidents? His success was due to him, his valor in the Army, and his moral character. If you believe otherwise, then YOU are a liberal.

By the way, if you actually listened to him, he never attacked conservatives, he just said what I'm saying, and that is Republicans need us to broaden the party and win.

J David| 12.15.08 @ 11:04AM

"The FOOL has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Bob| 12.15.08 @ 11:15AM

J David -- I would like to thank you for continually proving my case about so-cons who post here.

Mike Dooley| 12.15.08 @ 11:42AM

"What is it with conservatives and homosexuality?”Jeremiah | 12.13.08 @ 1:56PM

It is the gays who are stoking the embers that are firing up the controversy. It is they who have pressed the issue. It is simply self-serving to advocate legal and social changes and then spill acid tongue when others respond--speaking as if it was the reactors who started the fight to begin with.

There is nothing wrong and everything honorable in standing up and fighting for what you believe in. If you favor "gay marriage" then say so and then hash it out. Just don't act so disappointed and indignant when someone else stands up and says "no".

Bob| 12.15.08 @ 12:22PM

Mike, you miss the point. The argument against gay marriage is based on belief while the argument for it is based on reason. The institution of marriage did not become a sacrament until the 15th Century. It started as a way to establish and inherit property rights and define ownership. The argument for gay marriage is exactly that -- for gay couples to make decisions for one another and to pass property from one to the other. From a public policy point of view, that's a pretty strong argument. However, taking it to the point of "sacrament", is, indeed, one of belief. The former is a matter of public policy and reason, the latter is a function of belief and religion.

By the way, I see no distinction between civil unions and marriage from a secular viewpoint -- they both provide exactly the same legal consequences.

The argument that if two other people engage in gay marriage it limits your rights is specious. YOU don't have to marry someone of the same sex so it does not infringe upon your rights.

There is an argument against gay marriage from a "reason" perspective. If gay marriage leads to more crimes committed (not including sodomy, of course), then you have a public policy argument based on reason. If on the other hand, it leads to strengthening relationships and families, it should be good for society.

WendyG| 12.15.08 @ 12:36PM

>>Regarding Clarence Thomas, putting him through the ringer because of his use of porn or placement of pubic hairs was not relevant in my opinion.

Those are unproven smears made by a crazy lady.

Thomas was attacked because he dares to be a black Republican, the sort of black person liberals and the media hate.

People with skills and talent to some degree move forward due to opportunites provided by people who believe in them. Many of the people who believed in Powell were Conservatives of the sort Powell now derides. Too bad Colin Powell doesn't have the same scruples and morals as the people who gave him a leg up did.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

BTW, the changes that Colin Powell advocates for the GOP were embodied by John McCain.

Did McCain win Powell's endorsement?? NO. What a hypocrite Powell is.

Bob| 12.15.08 @ 12:43PM

WendyG -- please get your facts straight. Anita Hill was never proven to be a crazy lady. In fact, those who knew her said the opposite. I do believe that Thomas probably had a darker sexual side given his background, but that should not have entered into his confirmation.

Regarding McCain and Powell -- your facts are wrong again. Powell said that the defining move that forced him to back Obama over McCain was his choice of the unqualified Sarah Palin. Look at his appearance on Meet the Press and you can verify it yourself.

Since so many of you don't know how to use Google, here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/

This is exactly what I mean about being anti-intellectual.

WendyG| 12.15.08 @ 1:50PM

>>>>WendyG -- please get your facts straight. Anita Hill was never proven to be a crazy lady. In fact, those who knew her said the opposite. I do believe that Thomas probably had a darker sexual side given his background, but that should not have entered into his confirmation.

You get YOUR facts straight. What precisely in Thomas' background shows he "probably" had a darker sexual side??? What kind of a nutty charge is that??

How "intellectual" is it to make a charge like that with NO evidence or back-up??

And Colin's Powell's *excuse* for voting based solely on race was Sarah Palin.

In fact, what Powell also said was "I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue basically the policies we have been following in recent years. I think we need a transformational figure. I think we need a president who is a generational change."

"Transformational" - this election cycle's buzzword for black.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/19/colin_powell_endorses_obama.html

WendyG| 12.15.08 @ 1:56PM

Again...Powell's words.

>>>> I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue basically the policies we have been following in recent years.

This is the same crap the Dems put out there - that McCain = Bush.

Powell could not even manage an original thought...

Bob| 12.15.08 @ 3:18PM

WendyG -- Please do your homework. I've taken this summary off of the web concerning Clarence Thomas:

"Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings that Thomas had harassed her or engaged in inappropriate conduct. Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her for impropriety, told staff of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during an interview that Thomas had repeatedly made comments to her, much like those Hill says he made to her, including pressuring her for dates and commenting on her body. Wright said that Thomas made comments about her and other women's anatomy "quite often." Wright told several senators' staff that Clarence Thomas asked her the size of her breasts. Wright said that after she turned down Thomas for a date, Thomas began to express discontent with her work and eventually fired her. Rose Jourdain said that Wright had spoken to her about Thomas at the original time of the events, but never testified before the Senate committee. Jourdain said that Wright told her of "increasingly aggressive behavior" and Wright's becoming "increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved." Jourdain alleged Thomas had made comments on Wright's bra size and legs, and of how Thomas once "had the nerve" to come to Wright's home.

Another former Thomas assistant, Sukari Hardnett, wrote a letter about Thomas to the Senate committee. Although Hardnett made it clear she was not accusing Thomas of sexual harassment, she told the Judiciary Committee that "if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."

Wendy, before you make statements, you should check them out.

Regarding "transformational" -- that was also a term used with Reagan. However, Powell indicated that the choice of Palin was his PRIMARY reason for not supporting McCain.

Facts are facts -- and they are stubborn things.

WendyG| 12.15.08 @ 4:34PM

Please Bob. THAT'S your proof that Thomas "probably" had a darker sexual side??? Lame...
Nobody believed their testimony then - and now.
But thanks for all the leftie talking points.

>>>Regarding "transformational" -- that was also a term used with Reagan. However, Powell indicated that the choice of Palin was his PRIMARY reason for not supporting McCain.

Well I am talking about what it meant THIS cycle.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-whitevote3-2008nov03,0,1297098.st
For some white voters, Obama's race is seen as a 'bonus'

"But that is the charge being levied by some conservatives. In the final weeks of the election, they have been asking voters to consider whether a vote for Obama based on his race is a betrayal of the ideals of a colorblind society.

The rise of a major black candidate may be "positive and transformational," said Colin Hanna, president of the conservative issues group Let Freedom Ring. But Hanna contends that it is also an insufficient basis for choosing a president. "Because what you are doing is electing a policymaker," he said, "not a token."

This cycle - black = transformational.

Bob| 12.15.08 @ 5:23PM

Wendy, I see facts are not your forte. I guess that makes sense. When you see a fact you don't like, you dismiss the source -- in this case multiple sources. You are a prime example of what's wrong with the Republican party.

So a conservative politico says that Obama's race made a difference. Hmmm... And you don't think that Palin's sex made a difference.... Hmmm... And you don't think that some people didn't vote for Obama since he was black... Hmmmm...

Facts are neither right or left, by the way. It is the interpretation of those facts that politicize them. Objectivity is something you should learn and strive for. ... Good luck, it's going to be an uphill climb.

WendyG| 12.15.08 @ 5:31PM

>>>You are a prime example of what's wrong with the Republican party.

No, you are Bob. Because you are neither Republican nor Conservative. Just like Colin Powell.

There is a reason Bob, that Clarence Thomas was confirmed. The charges against him were partisan and bogus.

Bob| 12.15.08 @ 5:39PM

"There is a reason Bob, that Clarence Thomas was confirmed."

Yes, Wendy. Democrats had a difficult time saying "no" to a black guy. We both know that as the ABA gave Thomas a "not qualified" rating. And the charges against him were valid and substantiated. Like I said, I don't hold his sexism against him -- you just look the other way.

Bob| 12.15.08 @ 6:08PM

"Because you are neither Republican nor Conservative."

I am Republican and a fiscal conservative/military hawk. You have a rather closed mind.

"Just like Colin Powell. "

Thank you for the compliment. I'm in good company.

ruth| 12.16.08 @ 2:38PM

Bob, just because you say you are a Republican, doesn't make it so. You are so far left on social issues that there is no way yopu are a Repub.

biniki| 8.28.09 @ 10:41PM

bikini
bikini swimwear