Election retrospective

[robin shepherd]

I am not totally convinced by the labels and during a campaign by
occasional name-calling and character attacks.


The Democratic candidate repeatedly praised the Republican for his
military service, his personal suffering in Hanoi Hilton, called him a
real, American hero.

On the other hand, when the Republican picked a running mate whose
daughter (unwed teenager) suddenly came under fire for her pregnancy,
who put a stop to it -- both Barack and Michelle asked the media to
respect the privacy of the teenaged couple (still not officially
married), and commended the pair for choosing to keep the child.

There were moments of kindness and decency. When one citizen at a
rally said how dangerous Obama was, being an Arab, Senator McCain
immediately corrected her.

Interestingly, Christianity has played a salient role (on or off the
headlines) in this election. Reverend Wright's ultra fundamentalist
black gospel church became center of a scandal for his Bible-thumping
denunciation of the KKK attitudes of white America. Barack Obama
(unlike McCain a regular church-goer there at Wright's Chicago
Church), felt compelled to repudiate Wright's fire-and-brimstone
rhetoric, praising America as the greatest nation on earth, commending
America for the long steady progress (of our Godly heritage) toward
greater tolerance and inclusion and racial healing.

Obviously, there is a political payola in reaching out to
conservatives and red-states.

James Dobson, an evangelical spokesman, denounced McCain for his
criticism of the hard right evangelicals. McCain had warned that hard
right conservative Christians are all too often AGENTS OF INTOLERANCE.
Dobson said, "I pray we don't get stuck with McCain."

Today, Barack and Michelle Obama are being hosted at the White House
by George and Laura Bush. Bush, in my opinion, is not a Marxist. Yes,
he has far outspent every previous administration. The Blackwater
method was an extremely expensive way to fight a war, but can Bush be
blamed for Katrina?

President Bush said, "When people are hurting, government has got to
act."

[**Rowland Croucher**]

Post by robin shepherd
I am not totally convinced by the labels and during a campaign by
occasional name-calling and character attacks.

<>
Good article, thanks Robin

You might be interested in Martin Marty's take on which Christians voted=20
for whom...

*Sightings* 11/10/08

Base Rebuilding

-- Martin E. Marty

If you trust the blunt instrument of exit polls, you will have followed up
after the presidential election by reading somewhat contradictory
observations by experienced columnists. To put an old clich=E9 to work, Naomi
Schaefer Riley in the November 7th *Wall Street Journal* sees the glass half
full for those who notice "Evangelical" and "Catholic" cohorts "staying the
course" and not deserting the Republican ranks. Looking at the same
statistics but parsing them differently, Laurie Goldstein in that same day's
*New York Times* sees their glass half empty, since Mr. Obama had "succeeded
in chiseling off small but significant chunks of white evangelical voters
who have been the foundation of the Republican Party for decades, especially
among the young."

The exit polls left a mix of data that will keep analysts busy for a long
time to come, especially since the Republican campaign for November 2012
began November 6. What else did *Sightings* observe? Catholic voters this
time around switched, and their majority voted Democratic, as they did in
olden days. It is hard to be sure about trends, however, since this time a
large component in what a long time ago had been *the* Catholic bloc is made
up of Hispanics, whose agenda is not the same as that of non-Hispanic
Catholics. Anti-abortion rights and anti-same-sex-marriage rites are the
two enduring warm-button issues for many Catholics, but only one-fourth of
them say that the abortion issue is highly important for them, however their
bishops instruct them to vote.

Mainline Protestants are always the hardest group to analyze; evidently a
slight majority of them voted Democratic, but they do not line up so
predictably on the two issues that keep Catholics and older Evangelicals
"loyal." While mainliners tend to be very politically involved, in the main
they do not choose their congregational or denominational affiliation on the
basis of partisan directives on any issues, including the two which are up
front on the right flank among the culture warriors. African-Americans went
hugely for the Democrats, even though they are usually typed as "social
conservatives." Their divided mind confuses the scene, creatively, I might
add.

The Christian Right has been pronounced dead or dying after the elections of
1964, 1976, and 1988. Now their setbacks, intra-partisan divisions, and the
re-settings of agenda priorities among "Evangelicals" and "the Born Again"
may tempt some commentators to write first drafts of obituaries again. While
their base is too small and their themes too narrow for them to attract
coalition partners and thus win electoral majorities in any near future, it
is firm enough to demand notice. Some of us who look for good signs in
these bad economic times might hope that the desperate economic (and
health-care and educational and foreign-policy) crises would push the
warriors to the edges of the stage. Those who are wearied by the attack ads
of the recent campaign and deafened by media distortions on the religious
front all around might hope that political combat would replace culture
wars.

Could we be so fortunate? While nobody asked me to formulate Laws, I offer
my long-held observation and thesis, *Marty's Law: No one ever wins culture
wars*. The political public may move on and return to other focuses. Those
who think they have "won" religiously-based culture wars never really
vanquish the opposition, and those who have "lost" come back to fight
another day. When the dust of battle settles, nothing but that dust has
been settled, and national life continues on bloodied ground.

*Sightings* comes from the Martin Marty
Center<http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/>at the University of
Chicago Divinity School.

Attribution

Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author
of the column, *Sightings*, and the Martin Marty Center at the University of
Chicago Divinity School.
--=20


Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ (20,000 articles 4000 humor)

Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/

[B]

Post by robin shepherd
I am not totally convinced by the labels and during a campaign by
occasional name-calling and character attacks.
The Democratic candidate repeatedly praised the Republican for his
military service, his personal suffering in Hanoi Hilton, called him a
real, American hero.

...

Post by robin shepherd
There were moments of kindness and decency. When one citizen at a
rally said how dangerous Obama was, being an Arab, Senator McCain
immediately corrected her.

..

Post by robin shepherd
Interestingly, Christianity has played a salient role (on or off the
headlines) in this election. Reverend Wright's ultra fundamentalist
black gospel church became center of a scandal for his Bible-thumping
denunciation of the KKK attitudes of white America. Barack Obama

...

Post by robin shepherd
James Dobson, an evangelical spokesman, denounced McCain for his
criticism of the hard right evangelicals. McCain had warned that hard
right conservative Christians are all too often AGENTS OF INTOLERANCE.
Dobson said, "I pray we don't get stuck with McCain."

...

B - it's been a beautiful thing to watch and I respect the actions of
both candidates and their demeanor. I wondered at the stupidity of
some Republicans thinking Obama a muslim and the racists in that
particular party which unfortunately reflect on the other good folks.
It is wonderful that Mr. Obama won. Now we only have to mourn what has
happenned in California with them going backwards in regards to human
rights....I wish them a good win...and they will.
Bren, for the rights of all adult non-related human beings to marry.

[d***@aol.com]

Now we only have to mourn what has

Post by B
happenned in California with them going backwards in regards to human
rights....I wish them a good win...and they will.
Bren, for the rights of all adult non-related human beings to marry.- Hide quoted text -

Marriage is a right ???
Since when ???
It is either an instrument created by the government to acomplish a
specific purpose or a religious sacrament instituted by a higher
power, again for a specific purpose. How and when did it become a
right? How many other "rights" are we going to discover and have
imposed upon us against our will?

I personally have no quarrel with gay marriage, have no particularly
strong feelings about it either way, it is not an issue for me, but I
do not like the idea that the judiciary can create rights and change
the obvious intent of the people, as well as millenia of tradition.

Daryl

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B
Now we only have to mourn what has

Post by B
happenned in California with them going backwards in regards to human
rights....I wish them a good win...and they will.
Bren, for the rights of all adult non-related human beings to marry.- Hide quoted text -

Marriage is a right ???
Since when ???

Since Loving v. Virginia. But what the corrupt want us to forget is that the
civil right defended in Loving v. Virginia was OBVIOUSLY marriage between a man
and a woman. It was certainly not the Court's intent to protect a fictional
right for a man to 'marry' a man.

Post by B
It is either an instrument created by the government to acomplish a
specific purpose or a religious sacrament instituted by a higher
power, again for a specific purpose.

No, no, no! Marriage was 'created' before there even WAS a government.
Governments have regulated marriage, but they rarely were so presumptuous as to
claim the created it.

We know this because Book I Chapter 1 of the Politics of Aristotle describes the
historical background, which can be confirmed by syntopical reading of other
sources: marriage is the nucleus of the family, which itself precedes the state.

As for it being a religious sacrament, you seem to be aware that the Roman
Church has long considered it a sacrament. But are you aware of who it was in
the Protestant movement who denied that it is a sacrament?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B
B - it's been a beautiful thing to watch and I respect the actions of
both candidates and their demeanor. I wondered at the stupidity of
some Republicans thinking Obama a muslim

Ah! but who has really be dupped or is really misinformed? He
was sent back to Indonesia when it was only accepting within its
borders those who were citizens. Also, there he was educated in
and learnt to read fluently from the Koran. It really doesn't take
much internet investigation to verify this.

Also, most of the country doesn't understand "Chicago politics."
Obama didn't attend Wright's church because the Bible was
rightly being divided there; he went because it was the biggest
church in his district where he could garner the most support,
i.e. votes. The reason he didn't leave wasn't because he agreed
or disagreed with what was being espoused from the pulpit. The
reason he stayed was that it benefitted his goals. Cynical? No,
it's just how the game is played in Chicago.

Post by B
and the racists in that
particular party which unfortunately reflect on the other good folks.

Cough! Just which party has a Grand Wizard as its longest surviving
member of the Senate? Bird is the word. And does Duke ring a bell?

Working in union shop where a fair percentage of labors are black, it
has often fascinated me why, almost without a single exception, hold
to the Democratic Party in an almost religious fervor. Just listening
to them talk at lunch over the years, especially this year with a
black man in the race, it has become patently obvious. In a word,
entitlements. Yes, this is something of the union mentality as well
but there is something there that goes beyond the union. Often
their conversation turned how much their candidate was promising
to return to them and how they were going to spend it. When asked
where they thought that money was coming from, I felt like a fly
buzzing about a bull frog convention.

Post by B
It is wonderful that Mr. Obama won.

What has he ever done politically? I mean really? I am wary
of the man. He's like an empty bottle waiting for some thing
or someone to fill him and bend him this way or that. Will he
be the puppet of his party or of the leaders of House or Senate?
Or will he be possessed by something more dark and dangerous?
I certainly don't sense any kinsmanship with the man in regards
to his faith, not after how his campaign was run. Very subtle,
almost beyond human means.

Post by B
Now we only have to mourn what has
happenned in California with them going backwards in regards to human
rights

Backwards? Yes, back to the Bible. Back to the construct
that this nation was built upon. And as far as "human rights,"
since when does sinful moral choice become a "right?" Human
rights have to do with gender, race and those things which are
born to us. Are we to protect polygamy as well as a "human
right?" Where does it end?

[d***@aol.com]

Post by robin shepherd
I am not totally convinced by the labels and during a campaign by
occasional name-calling and character attacks.
The Democratic candidate repeatedly praised the Republican for his
military service, his personal suffering in Hanoi Hilton, called him a
real, American hero.

Which he was free to do since his cronies and the press were doing his
hatchet job for him, however independent auditing groups found Obama
was running far more negative ads than was McCain.

Post by robin shepherd
On the other hand, when the Republican picked a running mate whose
daughter (unwed teenager) suddenly came under fire for her pregnancy,
who put a stop to it -- both Barack and Michelle asked the media to
respect the privacy of the teenaged couple (still not officially
married), and commended the pair for choosing to keep the child.
There were moments of kindness and decency. When one citizen at a
rally said how dangerous Obama was, being an Arab, Senator McCain
immediately corrected her.
Interestingly, Christianity has played a salient role (on or off the
headlines) in this election. Reverend Wright's ultra fundamentalist
black gospel church became center of a scandal for his Bible-thumping
denunciation of the KKK attitudes of white America. Barack Obama
(unlike McCain a regular church-goer there at Wright's Chicago
Church), felt compelled to repudiate Wright's fire-and-brimstone
rhetoric, praising America as the greatest nation on earth, commending
America for the long steady progress (of our Godly heritage) toward
greater tolerance and inclusion and racial healing.

There are people, including Rev. Wright that make a living pandering
to victimhood, the world is against us type of thought. It powers the
leaders of the Palestinian repatriation movement as well. I think some
African American leaders were actually dissapointed Obama won so they
couldn't continue to deride everyone white as being racist.

Post by robin shepherd
Obviously, there is a political payola in reaching out to
conservatives and red-states.

The author evidently cannot tolerate the idea that there may be people
of good will who simply disagree with their point of view. That is
typical of the Left, you have to be evil to hold any ideas other than
ours, and you shouldn't be allowed to openly express those ideas.

Post by robin shepherd
James Dobson, an evangelical spokesman, denounced McCain for his
criticism of the hard right evangelicals.

Oh, those abhorrent evengelicals, they are such bigots, imagine, they
believe in the sanctity of life, individual responsibility, morality,
family... how dare they???

Post by robin shepherd
Today, Barack and Michelle Obama are being hosted at the White House
by George and Laura Bush. =A0Bush, in my opinion, is not a Marxist. Yes,
he has far outspent every previous administration. =A0The Blackwater
method was an extremely expensive way to fight a war, but can Bush be
blamed for Katrina?

Marx wanted government ownership, not just government spending, I
would suggest people look at the fundamental actions of Communism from
someone who lived it, try Ayn Rand's "We The Living".

Post by robin shepherd
President Bush said, "When people are hurting, government has got to
act."

People are always hurting, but manyof the Christian Right churches you
deride helped a multitude of people after Katrina. Go figure

Daryl

[B]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by robin shepherd
I am not totally convinced by the labels and during a campaign by
occasional name-calling and character attacks.
The Democratic candidate repeatedly praised the Republican for his
military service, his personal suffering in Hanoi Hilton, called him a
real, American hero.

Which he was free to do since his cronies and the press were doing his
hatchet job for him, however independent auditing groups found Obama
was running far more negative ads than was McCain.

Post by robin shepherd
On the other hand, when the Republican picked a running mate whose
daughter (unwed teenager) suddenly came under fire for her pregnancy,
who put a stop to it -- both Barack and Michelle asked the media to
respect the privacy of the teenaged couple (still not officially
married), and commended the pair for choosing to keep the child.
There were moments of kindness and decency. When one citizen at a
rally said how dangerous Obama was, being an Arab, Senator McCain
immediately corrected her.
Interestingly, Christianity has played a salient role (on or off the
headlines) in this election. Reverend Wright's ultra fundamentalist
black gospel church became center of a scandal for his Bible-thumping
denunciation of the KKK attitudes of white America. Barack Obama
(unlike McCain a regular church-goer there at Wright's Chicago
Church), felt compelled to repudiate Wright's fire-and-brimstone
rhetoric, praising America as the greatest nation on earth, commending
America for the long steady progress (of our Godly heritage) toward
greater tolerance and inclusion and racial healing.

There are people, including Rev. Wright that make a living pandering
to victimhood, the world is against us type of thought. It powers the
leaders of the Palestinian repatriation movement as well. I think some
African American leaders were actually dissapointed Obama won so they
couldn't continue to deride everyone white as being racist.

Post by robin shepherd
Obviously, there is a political payola in reaching out to
conservatives and red-states.

The author evidently cannot tolerate the idea that there may be people
of good will who simply disagree with their point of view. That is
typical of the Left, you have to be evil to hold any ideas other than
ours, and you shouldn't be allowed to openly express those ideas.

Post by robin shepherd
James Dobson, an evangelical spokesman, denounced McCain for his
criticism of the hard right evangelicals.

Oh, those abhorrent evengelicals, they are such bigots, imagine, they
believe in the sanctity of life, individual responsibility, morality,
family... how dare they???

Post by robin shepherd
Today, Barack and Michelle Obama are being hosted at the White House
by George and Laura Bush. =3DA0Bush, in my opinion, is not a Marxist. Y=

es,

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by robin shepherd
he has far outspent every previous administration. =3DA0The Blackwater
method was an extremely expensive way to fight a war, but can Bush be
blamed for Katrina?

Marx wanted government ownership, not just government spending, I
would suggest people look at the fundamental actions of Communism from
someone who lived it, try Ayn Rand's "We The Living".

Post by robin shepherd
President Bush said, "When people are hurting, government has got to
act."

People are always hurting, but manyof the Christian Right churches you
deride helped a multitude of people after Katrina. Go figure
Daryl

B - I can only respond from my own personal experience. I can see that
some see their views one way and the others their way. It is all about
giving each his/her chance to be heard. I've had as many right wingers
want people to think their way as some think left wingers do. Actually
the whole jist of the left is to tolerate the differences in the world
and that is what they are generally angered at some right wingers in
regards to. The one difference they have a hard time swallowing is
that need for some others to control them and their own personal
business. I appreciate all acts of God, caring for another,helping
out. I don't appreciate lies told about one another and each other's
characters....speaking as one voice for a whole religion, and quickly
labeling one another. I've seen it on both sides of the bird. I don't
like another human being telling me what I can do with a fetus or egg
in my body...to me that is between God and myself...not
you..especially not a man. I don't like some left wingers being
insensitive to right wingers any more than the reverse. I don't like
right wingers telling which adult human being can marry which other
non-related adult human being...that is up to the couple. There is no
harm that comes of it and there is more than Christians in North
America and religion should never be sullied by politics. People must
dig deep within themselves and ask why certain things bother
them...and see it resonates with what Jesus would do...or whatever
higher self they believe in...or not a deity if they are atheists. Be
truthful to yourselves and let go of your ego which is the Ha-Satan.
See the God in all of us...and show love..not hate. For me what two
adult non-related human beings do in the privacy of their own bedroom
is between them and God. I don't think that any pastors or ministers
etc. should be forced by law to go against their own beliefs either.
No one should be forced to marry homosexuals if they don't believe in
it. I also believe we must think about those older children waiting in
orphanages just waiting for an adult to take them home and love them.
They want to be loved and many could not care less if the adult is gay
or not. Being gay does not make one a pervert anymore than being male
makes one a killer and rapist. Just use your truth when you find it
and trust that God knows the content of your hearts. There is no
hiding from God.
I wish for legal and safe abortion for those under 5months pregnant
(before the quickening or when the soul attaches to the body)
I wish for Gay people to be able to be married everywhere on earth and
adopt children if they do so wish.
I wish for children born into this world to be treated well and not
denied basic food and care (do we only care when they are born and not
after?)
I wish for love to spread throughout this continent unimpeded by ego,
fear,hate,distrust,one-wayisms.

Bless the right and left
In my own opinions,
Bren

[DKleinecke]

Post by d***@aol.com
Oh, those abhorrent evengelicals, they are such bigots, imagine, they
believe in the sanctity of life, individual responsibility, morality,
family... how dare they???

Now merely by yelling sarcastically you can prove nothing.

Does the religious right really believe in "the sanctity of life". Not
hardly - that is just a code for opposing abortion. They are generally
(a few exceptions) in favor of capital punishment and support the
pointless killing in Iraq. So much for respecting human life. Note
that they do not support the rights of cows and chicken and pigs to
life - they don't mean "life", they mean "human life". And they only
mean life before birth. They could care less what happens to children
once they are born. I would describe that as hypocrisy. They would
call it opposing the liberal agenda.

Does the religious right really believe in individual responsibility?
Not hardly - that is just code for denying welfare benefits to the
poor and unfortunate. It allows them to feel smug and ignore massive
human suffering (miserable lives being lived in their supposed
sanctity). I would describe this as narcissistic rather than
hypocritical.

Does the religious right believe in morality? It all depends on what
you mean by morality. The religious right appears to feel it more
immoral to be a homosexual than a wife-beater. Interesting set of
values - to a sociologist. There is no absolute measure of morality.
It all depends on what society as a whole accepts or rejects. The
religious right seems to want to substitute their idea of morality for
that of society. This is where they earn the title bigot.

Does the religious right believe in family? This one is funny. They do
not seem to favor gay marriage. They do not disparage divorce (unless
you include the Catholics in the religious right which I think is a
mistake). This is somewhere beyond hypocrisy - it is sheer farce.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Let each person, right, left
or upside-down, be as moral as they can be in their own way. And let
them allow every other person the same privilege. And let society
handle any cases where one person's morality hurts another. The
pedophile believe children enjoy sex and he is trying to help.
Society protects the children.
There is a church somewhere in the mid-west that wants to make life
miserable for homosexuals. Society forces to back off from bothering
homosexual. There is an organization called the KKK that wants to
return the African-Americans to slavery. Society now condemns them.
Examples go on and on.

Simply denouncing something as immoral rarely accomplishes anything.
Drunken driving was immoral long before MADD was started to do
something about it. Smoking was immoral long before society
recognized the fact and rejected smoking. More examples go on and on.

Fortunately for the United States and the world as a whole the
religious right is now in eclipse.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by d***@aol.com
Oh, those abhorrent evengelicals, they are such bigots, imagine, they
believe in the sanctity of life, individual responsibility, morality,
family... how dare they???

Now merely by yelling sarcastically you can prove nothing.
Does the religious right really believe in "the sanctity of life". Not
hardly - that is just a code for opposing abortion.

You go too far in making this sweeping generalization.

Post by DKleinecke
They are generally
(a few exceptions) in favor of capital punishment and support the
pointless killing in Iraq. So much for respecting human life.

You are missing a vital difference. Capital punishment is NOT the same
disrespect for human life that killing the innocent unborn is. Not even close.
That you could even suggest equating the two suggests that the hypocrisy you
complain about on the religious right, really belongs to you.

Post by DKleinecke
Note
that they do not support the rights of cows and chicken and pigs to
life - they don't mean "life", they mean "human life".

You are quibbling over their justifiable brachylogy.

Post by DKleinecke
And they only
mean life before birth. They could care less what happens to children
once they are born.

This isn't even close to true.

Post by DKleinecke
I would describe that as hypocrisy.

No doubt you would. But this could indicate your own hypocrisy, since you can
ONLY reach that conclusion by disregarding too many facts to explain it any
other way.

[snip]

[d***@aol.com]

Post by DKleinecke

Oh, those abhorrent Evangelicals, they are such bigots, imagine, they
believe in the sanctity of life, individual responsibility, morality,
family... how dare they???

Now merely by yelling sarcastically you can prove nothing.

Yelling????

Post by DKleinecke
Does the religious right really believe in "the sanctity of life". Not
hardly - that is just a code for opposing abortion.

And assisted suicide, and terminating the lives of those who cannot
speak for themselves (sometimes just to harvest their organs,) and
destroying young humans for the sake of their tissue.

They are generally

Post by DKleinecke
(a few exceptions) in favor of capital punishment

Which affirms the value of life, if, by your actions you destroy
another life, if you have thus declared that life to be of no value,
yours is forfeit.

and support the

Post by DKleinecke
pointless killing in Iraq.

Tell that to a Kuwait, or a Kurd, where was the author when they were
justifying "the pointless killing" in Serbia??

So much for respecting human life. Note

Post by DKleinecke
that they do not support the rights of cows and chicken and pigs to
life - they don't mean "life", they mean "human life".

Well, yes.

And they only

Post by DKleinecke
mean life before birth.

They could care less what happens to children

Post by DKleinecke
once they are born.

That is simply a lie, they are considerably more charitable than
liberals, if you like I can provide sources.

I would describe that as hypocrisy. They would

Post by DKleinecke
call it opposing the liberal agenda.

Liberals are very caring, as long as it is with someone else's money.
What was Al Gore's excuse for not giving to charity again???

Post by DKleinecke
Does the religious right really believe in individual responsibility?
Not hardly - that is just code for denying welfare benefits to the
poor and unfortunate. It allows them to feel smug and ignore massive
human suffering (miserable lives being lived in their supposed
sanctity). I would describe this as narcissistic rather than
hypocritical.

When you have several generations on welfare there is something wrong
with the system. Again,even poor conservatives are more generous on
average than liberals, it is only when they can take money they
haven't earned that the left feels great about "helping the poor."
Then they can feel good about themselves without any personal
sacrifice whatsoever, who is the hypocrite here???

Post by DKleinecke
Does the religious right believe in morality? It all depends on what
you mean by morality. The religious right appears to feel it more
immoral to be a homosexual than a wife-beater.

Where in the name of ___ do you come up with that bit of bigoted
fabrication. I hope you can cite some instance of a conservative
church excusing wife beating. Typical.

Interesting set of

Post by DKleinecke
values - to a sociologist. There is no absolute measure of morality.

Exactly, there is no objective good or bad, whatever you do is OK if
it feels right. That is the position the conservative church rejects.

Post by DKleinecke
It all depends on what society as a whole accepts or rejects.

"Society" is a construct, it has no objective existence, there is no
group mind, we are not Borg. Only individuals can accept or reject an
idea, if ten individuals accept a principle and one does not, are the
ten always right ??? I think not. If murdering Jews was accepted by
most in Nazi Germany was it the moral thing to do? I think not.

The

Post by DKleinecke
religious right seems to want to substitute their idea of morality for
that of society. This is where they earn the title bigot.

If morality is simply the current whim of the loudest voices, (which
are what most people take to be "societal" norms) then the Quakers who
opposed slavery were bigots. If there is no objective standard there
is really nothing right or wrong, Saddam Hussein and Mother Teresa are
morally equivalent

Post by DKleinecke
Does the religious right believe in family? This one is funny. They do
not seem to favor gay marriage. They do not disparage divorce (unless
you include the Catholics in the religious right which I think is a
mistake). This is somewhere beyond hypocrisy - it is sheer farce.

Not all of the religious right oppose gay marriage, some do, they feel
that sanctioning that relationship in the same way as traditional
marriage undermines the value of the institution. BTW since people who
oppose gay marriage are in the majority in this "society" does that
make you a bigot by your own definition? I don't think so, you might.

Post by DKleinecke
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Let each person, right, left
or upside-down, be as moral as they can be in their own way.

Does this apply to Charlie Manson? I really disagree, there are
objective moral standards, the Founding Fathers accepted that, our
laws depend on it. Leaving everyone to make up their own morality is a
recipe for chaos.

And let

Post by DKleinecke
them allow every other person the same privilege. =A0And let society
handle any cases where one person's morality hurts another. The
pedophile believe children enjoy sex and he is trying to help.

But that is his morality by your definition, why are you condemning
him

Post by DKleinecke
Society protects the children.
There is a church somewhere in the mid-west that wants to make life
miserable for homosexuals. =A0Society forces to back off from bothering
homosexual. There is an organization called the KKK that wants to
return the African-Americans to slavery. =A0Society now condemns them.

It didn't always, were they in the right when Robert Byrd was a young
KKKer?

Post by DKleinecke
Examples go on and on.
Simply denouncing something as immoral rarely accomplishes anything.

Remaining silent acomplishes much less.

Post by DKleinecke
Drunken driving was immoral long before MADD was started to do
something about it. =A0Smoking was immoral long before society
recognized the fact and rejected smoking.

Smoking was "immoral?" It is "immoral" now? "Society" rejected
nothing, people (individuals) were able to get laws passed to keep
smokers from forcing them to breathe the smoke. Do you really think
smoking is a question of morality?

More examples go on and on.

Your examples are at cross purposes, you say that people should accept
gay marriage then give examples of how people enacted their own moral
standards into law. Please decide if you think that is a good thing
(in which case it would apply to opponents of gay marriage as well) or
a bad thing, which would negate your examples.

Post by DKleinecke
Fortunately for the United States and the world as a whole the
religious right is now in eclipse.

And we are left without any morality except doing what feels good. I
wonder if God agrees with you, do you really believe that?

Daryl

[**Rowland Croucher**]

<>

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by robin shepherd
James Dobson, an evangelical spokesman, denounced McCain for his
criticism of the hard right evangelicals.

Oh, those abhorrent evengelicals, they are such bigots, imagine, they
believe in the sanctity of life, individual responsibility, morality,
family... how dare they???

When I was writing my book on Evangelicals, I found both conservative
and progressive Evangelicals to be highly selective re little lists of
'what we believe'...

Eg. 'Sanctity of life' - maybe *before birth* but conservatives go light
on sanctity of life *after birth*. Social justice has a hard time
getting onto their agenda (as it was on Jesus' - Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42).

See http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12125.htm
--
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ (20,000 articles 4000 humor)

Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/

[d***@aol.com]

Post by **Rowland Croucher**

Oh, those abhorrent Evangelicals, they are such bigots, imagine, they
believe in the sanctity of life, individual responsibility, morality,
family... how dare they???

When I was writing my book on Evangelicals, I found both conservative
and progressive Evangelicals to be highly selective re little lists of
'what we believe'...
Eg. 'Sanctity of life' - maybe *before birth* but conservatives go light
on sanctity of life *after birth*.

That simply isn't true, at least not in my experience, nor when it
comes to personal charity. Exactly how do you mean they "go light,"
the typical liberal would say that because they don't support
confiscatory taxes to support a failed welfare system ( but that does
keep a lot of liberals in work) they don't believe in helping people.
The facts simply show that personally they are more giving.*


Social justice has a hard time

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
getting onto their agenda (as it was on Jesus' - Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:4=

2).

Matthew 23:
23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You
give a tenth of your spices=97mint, dill and cummin. But you have
neglected the more important matters of the law=97justice, mercy and
faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting
the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a
camel

This is not "social" justice, this is directed at individuals, not at
what they can take from others to disperse at their whim. Who do you
think is more giving??? I know :-)

And the same is true for Luke 11:

39Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the
outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and
wickedness. 40You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside
make the inside also? 41But give what is inside the dish [j] to the
poor, and everything will be clean for you.

42"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint,
rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and
the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving
the former undone.

And just look a little further down

46Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you
load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you
yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

and

52"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key
to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered
those who were entering."


It is not kindness to take someone else's harvest and distribute it as
you wish. It is not socially just to bind people to a system of
welfare that robs them of their personal worth and fattens the pockets
of bureaucrats.

*Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide -Who Gives, Who Doesn't,
and Why It Matters
by Arthur C. Brooks



Daryl

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by robin shepherd
Bush, in my opinion, is not a Marxist. Yes,
he has far outspent every previous administration.

When are you people going to learn your American system of
government. The Executive branch does not appropriate funds.
It is the Legislative branch that dispenses the monies and sets
the laws while the Judicial branch is to adjudicate (as opposed
to interpret) those laws.

This is the biggest claw in my throat when it comes to promises
brandished about during the presidential elections. Each
candidate states he is going to do either this or that to the
good people if they will but elect him. The problem lies in the
fact that 98% of what they promise must first past through
both the House and the Senate. Again, it is not the Executive
branch that legislates.

BTW, I don't know what this is doing on SRC, but I felt compelled
to straighten out this misunderstanding which once had to known
and tested before graduating from high school. Apparently that
is no longer required!