This title may not bring in the kind of numbers that that preacher from Houston does, but.....
Seriously, I was reading Greg's blog over at the Parish where he has a really interesting discussion on what the church could be. At the same time, I have been mulling over an email from a conservative evangelical detailing how our religious freedom is "under attack" and explaining that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constituion.
It is old news, at least for me. I remember very well receiving a video from an aquaintance that featured David Barton on why America was Godly at one time and then ceased to be (right about the time they took prayer out of schools and stopped forcing gay people into closets).
So, I have been thinking about this for a long time. I am a historian, of sorts. I know that our nation has a complicated religious history--and that our founders were complicated men who had religious ideas that we would both recognize and find odd.
But we do know that they decided on a Constitution that doesn't mention God. This is no accident. These people understood the problems of monarchy and of theocracy. They knew that mixing church and state ends up hurting both. Church becomes more institutionalized (eh, Greg?) and state finds itself picking between competing faiths. Better to have a secular government and let the faith run free. And run free it does. To Branch Davidians and Lakewood Baptist Church. From compounds and towers to ginormous church structures in America's suburbs.
I am asking why this isn't enough for my conservative evangelical friends? They are represented in the White House, Senate and House--with friends on the high court. They are on every corner--on every twist of the AM dial, and woven into our very political and cultural fabric. Yet they are mad about, what, a stone monument to the Ten Commandments? Or taking the phrase "Under God" out of our already fascist-leaning pledge?
I know why this bugs me. Christians seem to get worked up about the silliest shit. I have yet to see conservative evangelicals march to protest poverty, or to protect the environment, but they will turn out in huge numbers to support Mel's twisted vision, or bus themselves to Alabama to support an arrogant and twisted judge. Why will they boycott Disney over same-sex benifits, but turn a blind eye to toys made by children? It isn't the outrage that bothers me, it is the priority.
October 30, 2004
October 28, 2004
Bible Bar
Have I said that I find contemporary Christianity ridiculous? See, I went to Mardels yesterday. For those of you out of state, it is a Christian Bookstore in Oklahoma. They also sell office supplies and I needed some paper. So, I buy the paper and am checking out and what do I see? The LOGIA: BIBLE BAR at the counter! Yay! It's the Bible, but in a bar form. At first I had hopes of a theology surrounding liquid bread (beer), but that clearly wasn't the issue. Instead, we have a nutritional or energy bar wrapped in the very history of Christianity all for sale. Yah!
Reading their website is a bit annoying. Read this crap and tell me how different it is from the marketing that sells diapers by appealing to women's guilt? Here, it is promising (based on vague references in Dueteronomy or some book) that their commercial product is Godly! Holy Fuck! A commercial product straight from the mind of God! I say again... Yay.
Sheesh................
Have I said that I find contemporary Christianity ridiculous? See, I went to Mardels yesterday. For those of you out of state, it is a Christian Bookstore in Oklahoma. They also sell office supplies and I needed some paper. So, I buy the paper and am checking out and what do I see? The LOGIA: BIBLE BAR at the counter! Yay! It's the Bible, but in a bar form. At first I had hopes of a theology surrounding liquid bread (beer), but that clearly wasn't the issue. Instead, we have a nutritional or energy bar wrapped in the very history of Christianity all for sale. Yah!
Reading their website is a bit annoying. Read this crap and tell me how different it is from the marketing that sells diapers by appealing to women's guilt? Here, it is promising (based on vague references in Dueteronomy or some book) that their commercial product is Godly! Holy Fuck! A commercial product straight from the mind of God! I say again... Yay.
Sheesh................
..Indeed. the concept of eating the right foods is so important to God that He wastes no time in the Bible instructing us on how to eat properly:
......And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food." (Genesis 1:29)
......The plot thickens when the first man and woman are further instructed and warned that eating improperly will cost them their lives:
.......And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
......It is easy to deduce two very important points then from these familiar scriptures as well as several others in the Bible. First of all, God most definitely has ordained a perfect eating plan for human beings – one that, when followed, will give us health, vitality, strength, long life, and yes. . . even wisdom. Secondly, eating the wrong foods can lead to unnecessary illnesses and even a premature death.
.......These two deductions form the core of what we at Logia call "Biblical Nutrition." It is our belief that God wants us to seek out these biblical principles of nutrition and diet as conveyed in the Holy Scriptures and then incorporate them into our daily lives.
......Furthermore, we believe that by eating properly, we enable our bodies to truly become the TEMPLE of the Holy Spirit and thus establish a closer bond with the LORD. Hence, Biblical Nutrition is not only about the physical needs of man, it is closely linked to our spiritual well being as well.
BIBLICAL NUTRITIONAL PRINCIPLES
All food should be eaten as close to its natural state as possible.
The more man processes his food, the less biblical it is.
Eating and drinking should always be done in moderation.
Artificial, man-made chemicals and additives should never be added to foods.
All foods should be grown organically as much as possible.
Fresh fruits, vegetables, seeds, grains and nuts constitute the principle categories of Biblical Nutrition foods.
The Bible mentions several health building foods by name. We should strive to incorporate as many of these foods as possible into our diet.
. With these principles in mind, Logia has set out to bring to the world a line of biblically based foods formulated to present the utmost in both nutritional and spiritual benefits. Our assurance to you is that each and every product we offer is made of the highest grade, all natural and purest food sources available. Furthermore, we use true organic ingredients whenever and wherever possible. Our motto is to bring you nutrition truly as God intended.
. Consequently, each of our products, such as the Bible Bar, contains all of the natural vitamins, minerals, enzymes, proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and fiber as placed in them by God Himself. None of our Logia food line is ever fortified with synthetic nutrients or artificial chemicals or additives. When you purchase any of our Logia foods of the Bible, you can have the peace of mind of knowing that they are the purest products on earth.
October 25, 2004
Ok, reality check
Yeah, it is Monday, and yes I am feeling frustrated. But it is also
time to do a little score card on this administration:
1) didn't control huge cache of weapons in Iraq. This after assuring
the world that wmd in the hands of terrorists was their worst
nightmare. And these explosives can be used in nukes.
2) speaking of nukes, the disbanded and not active nuclear program in
Iraq still had a lot of the infrastructure and means to develop
weapons. those were "looted" too. While we were guarding the oil
ministry and stopping the oil fields from going up in flames (the one
good thing they did), they allowed the insurgents to capture hugely
important assets.
so, where are we? This administration seems to be running on the idea
that their best contribution to America is keeping us safe. How have
they done that? This cache of weapons, for example, was under better
control before the war!
so, new questions:
1) when will this administration be held accountable for the huge
mistakes it has made? and one of them was invading a country on the
claims of wmd when there were none! Say you thought sure as hell they
were there, but still you have to admit you were wrong.
2) this has endangered the troops in Iraq to a horrible extent. will
the american people, even if they don't really care about the Middle
East decide that Bush is perhaps not as competent as he says he is?
3) how can anyone still give Bush credit for his honesty and truth?
listened to nPR the other day and heard this gushing woman talking
about how "honest and true" bush was. Really? He and his
administration knew about this weapons cache going missing for over a
year. but did not inform the international agency that tries to
monitor these things. And that is only one area where they have been
less than truthful. Just as they knew about the abu ghraib stuff for a
year prior (or 8 months at least) and did nothing.
Worst president ever! Starting to encroach on some of the third world
dictators for incompetence!
time to do a little score card on this administration:
1) didn't control huge cache of weapons in Iraq. This after assuring
the world that wmd in the hands of terrorists was their worst
nightmare. And these explosives can be used in nukes.
2) speaking of nukes, the disbanded and not active nuclear program in
Iraq still had a lot of the infrastructure and means to develop
weapons. those were "looted" too. While we were guarding the oil
ministry and stopping the oil fields from going up in flames (the one
good thing they did), they allowed the insurgents to capture hugely
important assets.
so, where are we? This administration seems to be running on the idea
that their best contribution to America is keeping us safe. How have
they done that? This cache of weapons, for example, was under better
control before the war!
so, new questions:
1) when will this administration be held accountable for the huge
mistakes it has made? and one of them was invading a country on the
claims of wmd when there were none! Say you thought sure as hell they
were there, but still you have to admit you were wrong.
2) this has endangered the troops in Iraq to a horrible extent. will
the american people, even if they don't really care about the Middle
East decide that Bush is perhaps not as competent as he says he is?
3) how can anyone still give Bush credit for his honesty and truth?
listened to nPR the other day and heard this gushing woman talking
about how "honest and true" bush was. Really? He and his
administration knew about this weapons cache going missing for over a
year. but did not inform the international agency that tries to
monitor these things. And that is only one area where they have been
less than truthful. Just as they knew about the abu ghraib stuff for a
year prior (or 8 months at least) and did nothing.
Worst president ever! Starting to encroach on some of the third world
dictators for incompetence!
October 24, 2004
Even fundys questioning Bush
Gives me a little pause linking to this site. Just read how they justify their questions about their "Brother in Christ" and you will understand. I am not trying to be mean, but it is wackjob theology. "God has not given to President George W. Bush the type of decisive victories He gave to the biblical men He anointed to be national leaders." What? Huh?
Christians Doubting President Bush
Gives me a little pause linking to this site. Just read how they justify their questions about their "Brother in Christ" and you will understand. I am not trying to be mean, but it is wackjob theology. "God has not given to President George W. Bush the type of decisive victories He gave to the biblical men He anointed to be national leaders." What? Huh?
Christians Doubting President Bush
Bush cousin voting for Kerry
I don't know if this means anything or not. I like the way this particular person articulates the problems with a Bush presidency v. his avowed Christian faith. My recent visitor said that Bush was a good Christian who cared about people and invaded countries to help people. Doubtful. In terms of policy, there is little doubt that Bush has favored the rich, the powerful and those at the top of the heap. He has, as a matter of policy, shown less concern for the poor, the environment, peace, and even civil discourse.
Now, will Kerry be dramatically better? I don't know. Some democrats actually secretly wonder if this election should be won. After all, whoever wins this November will have to address huge deficits and a horrible situation in Iraq. Be real easy for Repubs to just blame Kerry for things going badly.
I can't think that way. I think Bush is a very threat to our democratic process. In fact, I don't really think he believes in Democracy--and evidently, neither do his followers. And while there is little doubt that a Kerry win will not make us less divided as a country, it might stem some bleeding and allow us to incarcerate Tom Delay and some of the other criminals from the Right. Just kidding. Kind of.
I don't know if this means anything or not. I like the way this particular person articulates the problems with a Bush presidency v. his avowed Christian faith. My recent visitor said that Bush was a good Christian who cared about people and invaded countries to help people. Doubtful. In terms of policy, there is little doubt that Bush has favored the rich, the powerful and those at the top of the heap. He has, as a matter of policy, shown less concern for the poor, the environment, peace, and even civil discourse.
Now, will Kerry be dramatically better? I don't know. Some democrats actually secretly wonder if this election should be won. After all, whoever wins this November will have to address huge deficits and a horrible situation in Iraq. Be real easy for Repubs to just blame Kerry for things going badly.
I can't think that way. I think Bush is a very threat to our democratic process. In fact, I don't really think he believes in Democracy--and evidently, neither do his followers. And while there is little doubt that a Kerry win will not make us less divided as a country, it might stem some bleeding and allow us to incarcerate Tom Delay and some of the other criminals from the Right. Just kidding. Kind of.
content: "Jeanny House (Wisconsin): I'm voting for John Kerry because I'm a Christian. I know that my second cousin, George Bush, claims that he is the anointed leader of the American people and that God told him to run for office. I believe he may even believe that. I don't.
My Christian faith leads me to a concern for the poor and the marginalized, yet Bush's actions in office have repeatedly cut funding for health care, aid to failing schools, jobs programs, after school programs, Head Start, and many more services that provide real help and hope to those living in poverty. Under the Bush administration, over a million additional people have dropped below the poverty line. 1.2 million more have gone into 'deep poverty,' which is one-half the $18,810 for a family of four that defines 'poverty.'
My Christian faith leads me to a concern for the health and welfare of all of God's people, yet 45 million people in this country have no health insurance. The Bush administration, working hard to protect the interests of large, rich insurance companies, has done nothing to address the real health care crisis.
My Christian faith tells me the peacemakers are the blessed ones, yet George Bush wants to resurrect the Crusades, one of the most shameful experiences in Christian history. I fail to understand how lying to the people of the United States about any of the many justifications they have used for going to war in Iraq can be considered in any way, shape, or form a remotely Christian activity. Yes, Jesus once said, 'I come not to bring peace, but a sword.' He was talking about liberating his OWN people from within, not invading an oil-rich country out of purely selfish motives, then claiming it was for the liberation of others. The only true liberation comes when the oppressed claim it for themselves. This is something George Bush and his Imperialist cabal will never understand.
My Christian faith moves toward greater inclusiveness and acceptance, George Bush moves toward punishment, division, and exclusion. My Christian faith seeks to bring people into the circle of decision-making, George Bush seeks to keep them out. My Christian faith seeks to afford equal rights and responsibilities to all, George Bush seeks to reserve more rights for the privileged few.
My Christian faith is not looking for a new Messiah named George Bush."
October 20, 2004
Sorry!
If you came by earlier, you saw my exceptional post on Pat Robertson repeated 5 times. Cold in Laramie suggested that, while a good post, it wasn't worth repeating 5 times. I tend to disagree, but have bowed to the shaming effects of comments! :) Oh, and I experienced problems with Blogger. I swear.
If you came by earlier, you saw my exceptional post on Pat Robertson repeated 5 times. Cold in Laramie suggested that, while a good post, it wasn't worth repeating 5 times. I tend to disagree, but have bowed to the shaming effects of comments! :) Oh, and I experienced problems with Blogger. I swear.
This just in: Howard Dean is God
That's right. Robertson heard from GOD that the Iraq war was a disaster. Howard Dean was the most vocal opponent before the war, so you do the math. Plus, GWB says he talks to the real God and he was clearly for the War. Said no casualties--minimal fuss--flowers, ice cream, etc. In other news, religious morons everywhere unsure how to manage the apparent contradiction, vow to buy the Passion of the Christ on DVD or an "I Heart God (the real one)" t-shirt to show their faith and calm their nerves.
CNN.com - Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties - Oct 19, 2004: "'I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy,' Robertson said. 'I warned him about casualties.'"
That's right. Robertson heard from GOD that the Iraq war was a disaster. Howard Dean was the most vocal opponent before the war, so you do the math. Plus, GWB says he talks to the real God and he was clearly for the War. Said no casualties--minimal fuss--flowers, ice cream, etc. In other news, religious morons everywhere unsure how to manage the apparent contradiction, vow to buy the Passion of the Christ on DVD or an "I Heart God (the real one)" t-shirt to show their faith and calm their nerves.
October 19, 2004
Finally, Bush's faith challenged
American Prospect Online - ViewWeb: "This is a huge mistake, because when judged by his deeds, an entirely different picture emerges: Bush does not demonstrate a life of faith by his actions, and neither Methodists, evangelicals, nor fundamentalists can rightly call him brother. In fact, the available evidence raises serious questions about whether Bush is really a Christian at all.
Ironically for a man who once famously named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher during a campaign debate, it is remarkably difficult to pinpoint a single instance wherein Christian teaching has won out over partisan politics in the Bush White House. "
Exactly. That has been my question.
American Prospect Online - ViewWeb: "This is a huge mistake, because when judged by his deeds, an entirely different picture emerges: Bush does not demonstrate a life of faith by his actions, and neither Methodists, evangelicals, nor fundamentalists can rightly call him brother. In fact, the available evidence raises serious questions about whether Bush is really a Christian at all.
Ironically for a man who once famously named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher during a campaign debate, it is remarkably difficult to pinpoint a single instance wherein Christian teaching has won out over partisan politics in the Bush White House. "
Exactly. That has been my question.
Media v. Politics?
Jon Stewart's recent performance on Crossfire has elicited a lot of responses, most of them positive. He has tapped into a lot of discontent with the way our media responds, or doesn't respond, to the public's needs. It is very easy to get caught up in the "liberal" v. "conservative" media argument. My conservative friends swear that the media is liberal and point to Dan Rather's recent memo-gate as evidence. Lefty bloggers point to talk radio, and the fact that CNN, MSNBC and network shows, if not very kind to Bush, bend over backward to present things equally. That results with Bush and Kerry both "having problems with the truth" in the debates, where in reality Bush misled far more than Kerry. But those media outlets hate to say that, because then they are tagged with the "liberal" media charge. Brilliant, from a tactical effort by the conservatives. Evil, but brilliant.
Jon Stewart, however, lambasted both Paul Begala AND Tucker Carlson for being partisan hacks. He didn't differentiate between the two parties and said that the media wasn't doing their job. In the Rolling Stone interview (only an excerpt online) Stewart went further and said that the CNN people simply had no sense of any journalistic duty and simply repeated what they were told. I was thinking about this again the other day, and it seems that our mistake is that we assume that contest here is between the Media and the Politicos for what the Public understands. This assumes an adversarial system between Journalists and Politicians. Politicians, we assume, dissemble and mislead because that is what Politicians do. They spin and pander and do whatever to get reelected. Our mistake is assuming that the Media really operates as a different species. Perhaps our mistake is understandable. We remember (or read about) Ed Murrow taking on Joe McCarthy, or Walter Cronkite reporting that Vietnam was not going well, or think of Robert Redford as Bob Woodward serving the country well by exposing a corrupt administration.
But since then? We have seen the prominence of TV over radio, and the rise of the 24 hour news channels. This has resulted, I think, in the merging of these two classes of people. Instead of Politicians and Journalists, we just have Celebrities. Chris Matthews and Tim Russert all worry about their market value for book tours, and speaking engagements. Their concern is not really to be insightful journalists, but to be successful celebrities. Think about how easily (thanks, L, for this insight) people move back and forth between the Entertainment, Political, and Journalistic classes. Joe Scarborough leaves Congress for his own tv show. Fred Thompson hit the nationals stage in Watergate, moved from their to films (Hunt for Red October and the second Die Hard) then ran for Senate. Now he plays a DA from NY who makes statements on laws he voted on in real life. Weird. Sean Hannity does his bit on Fox then works as a voice over for the RNC video.
No one sees a contradiction with all that, yet they really expect the "media" to challenge the Pols? To be fair, there are still some real journalists out there (and I am not talking about Jon Stewart), but they are outnumbered and minimized in the new InfoPolTainment industry. I just made that up, but does anyone think it isn't real?
Jon Stewart, however, lambasted both Paul Begala AND Tucker Carlson for being partisan hacks. He didn't differentiate between the two parties and said that the media wasn't doing their job. In the Rolling Stone interview (only an excerpt online) Stewart went further and said that the CNN people simply had no sense of any journalistic duty and simply repeated what they were told. I was thinking about this again the other day, and it seems that our mistake is that we assume that contest here is between the Media and the Politicos for what the Public understands. This assumes an adversarial system between Journalists and Politicians. Politicians, we assume, dissemble and mislead because that is what Politicians do. They spin and pander and do whatever to get reelected. Our mistake is assuming that the Media really operates as a different species. Perhaps our mistake is understandable. We remember (or read about) Ed Murrow taking on Joe McCarthy, or Walter Cronkite reporting that Vietnam was not going well, or think of Robert Redford as Bob Woodward serving the country well by exposing a corrupt administration.
But since then? We have seen the prominence of TV over radio, and the rise of the 24 hour news channels. This has resulted, I think, in the merging of these two classes of people. Instead of Politicians and Journalists, we just have Celebrities. Chris Matthews and Tim Russert all worry about their market value for book tours, and speaking engagements. Their concern is not really to be insightful journalists, but to be successful celebrities. Think about how easily (thanks, L, for this insight) people move back and forth between the Entertainment, Political, and Journalistic classes. Joe Scarborough leaves Congress for his own tv show. Fred Thompson hit the nationals stage in Watergate, moved from their to films (Hunt for Red October and the second Die Hard) then ran for Senate. Now he plays a DA from NY who makes statements on laws he voted on in real life. Weird. Sean Hannity does his bit on Fox then works as a voice over for the RNC video.
No one sees a contradiction with all that, yet they really expect the "media" to challenge the Pols? To be fair, there are still some real journalists out there (and I am not talking about Jon Stewart), but they are outnumbered and minimized in the new InfoPolTainment industry. I just made that up, but does anyone think it isn't real?
Here it is: Annual Christian overreaction to Halloween
2theadvocate.com: News - Baker officials hope to ban 'satanic' holiday 10/16/04: "What disturbs some people about Halloween, particularly church leaders, is its association with witchcraft and anti-Christian values, Russell said.
At the council meeting, Russell declared, 'We are a Christian city. Jesus is lord over Baker.'"
For those who missed it, here are some quotes from the very good King of the Hill Episode on this issue. I really thought that KOTH was over the top, but now we see that it was dead on.
2theadvocate.com: News - Baker officials hope to ban 'satanic' holiday 10/16/04: "What disturbs some people about Halloween, particularly church leaders, is its association with witchcraft and anti-Christian values, Russell said.
At the council meeting, Russell declared, 'We are a Christian city. Jesus is lord over Baker.'"
For those who missed it, here are some quotes from the very good King of the Hill Episode on this issue. I really thought that KOTH was over the top, but now we see that it was dead on.
LUANNE: Uncle Hank, Aunt Peggy, I have terrible news. Halloween is a Satanic holiday! It was invented by the Druish!
JUNIE: So you told him about the Druids and the candy-corn and he still thinks Halloween is just for fun?
LUANNE: Uh-huh. I felt so stupid.
JUNIE: Oh, no. First of all, in the eyes of the Lord you're a genius. The devil likes to fool you into thinking you're stupid, because it makes it easier for him to trick you. But if you think you're smart, you can resist him. Do you see what I'm saying?
LUANNE: I'm not sure.
JUNIE: SATAN BEGONE!!! Now do you see?
LUANNE: Yes.
PRINCIPAL MOSS: We can't afford another lawsuit. We blew our budget fighting wheelchair ramps and left-handed scissors.
LUANNE: Junie Harper says a haunted house is the Devil's mousetrap, and fun is the cheese.
HANK: Luanne, just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talking.
LUANNE: Junie says I'm smart, so don't try to trick me into thinking I'm not!
HANK: "Junie Harper says, Junie Harper says" -- last time I checked, it wasn't Junie Harper's face in the stained-glass window at Arlen First Methodist.
BOBBY: I don't know, Dad, this is vandalism, and vandalism isn't cool.
HANK: Bobby, that attitude is a little immature.
PEGGY: I go to church too, and I have raffled and bingoed and bake-saled my way as close to the good Lord as you. So do not try to one-up me, because I will one-up yours.
JUNIE: "The complacency of fools will destroy them." -- Proverbs.
HANK: "Get out of my house." -- Exodus.
DALE: The vandalism upon my house can only be described as a hate crime. Somebody hates me.
COUNCILMAN: Let the record show that somebody hates Dale Gribble.
BOBBY: I heard Satanists like my dad always sacrifice virgins, so we both better be careful.
LUANNE (after a beat): Oh! Uh, m-hm.
JUNIE: I guess the old saying is true: Sex kills.
MAN: Where's grandpa?
(Enter a man in a gorilla suit.)
JUNIE: Ugh! That's your grandpa?
MAN: Haven't you heard? Our ancestors are monkeys!
WOMAN: Stop him! He's eating the baby!
MAN: We can't. It's against the law to teach creationism.
LUANNE: I think that it's better for a child to recieve wholesome impressions from established religious authorities... than participate in rituals that are conducted by people who really don't even realize that they are pawns of the devil.
PEGGY: Whoa, little Missy, I have had it up to here with your baloney! I have taken you into my home, I have sheltered and fed you, but if you step between my husband and his son, I will cast you out like yesterday's garbage!
LUANNE: But, but --
PEGGY: Uh-uh. From now on you leave the parenting to us. We get a magazine about it.
HANK: I came very close to spitting out beer.
BOOMHAUER: Hey, man, check it out, don't need no dang ol' costume, man, I'm a dang ol' mime, man, 'cause I'm tryin' to get out of this box, man... next I'll play dang ol' tug of war, man.
DALE: Boo! I am a high-priced Washington lobbyist peddling influence. Who wants candy?
JUNIE: You'll go to hell!
HANK: You'll get candy!
JUNIE: Hell!
HANK: Candy!
JUNIE: Hell!
HANK: Candy!
BOBBY: Stop! I don't care about candy! I just want to be with my dad.
BOBBY: Hey, Dad, I was just kidding before. I care about candy. I care a whole lot.
October 18, 2004
Bush is too a Christian--Streak should be nice
I had a visitor today, and cannot resist. So, Michelle, Dallas, TX (and thank you for at least signing your name), you are welcome to return. But in the meantime.....
Michelle says:
Actually, Michelle, he has not attended a single funeral and everything else you have described has no connection to Christianity. I hope he has cried with the families of the soldiers who died for his war. I have never said that he had no heart, and in fact, I said he was probably sincere when he said he had faith, but that doesn't mean action. Has he changed the way that politicians respond to each other? Maybe treated an adversary different? No. He has lied and dissembled and done the things that politicians do. But stating that you will ruin someone's reputation is not Christian. And don't forget South Carolina, where he spread a rumor that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black baby. Is that Christian, Michelle? Can you imagine Jesus doing that?
I will acknowledge that Kerry has flip-flopped on some issues, and can certainly be accused of hedging, but to say that Bush stands for what he believes, is, well, naive. Bush has flip-flopped on everything from the 9-11 commission to the Homeland Security as a Cabinet position. He said nation building was a bad idea, now he is doing it, well, badly. So, Michelle, you will need to put down the RNC talking points if you come back here. The main difference between us is that I don't worship Kerry. You worship Bush.
I have no idea what you are saying here. I guess you are arguing for the melting pot theory. Hmm. Well, speaking of naive, I am also guessing that your family background is intensely WASPish.
Oh yes, Bravo, Michelle! Family values=flag waving? I thought it had to do with families and, well, values. Michelle, did you ever think that some other people out there in the world don't love us as much as you do? Perhaps if they feel their individual interests are being endangered (maybe with our bombs) that they might not find comfort in our flag? Hmm? Or have y ou been so indoctrinated with our secular religion of American worship that you really do think that our country was somehow breathed into existence by God?
I don't remember ridiculing anyone for praying. But since you brought it up, Michelle, forcing anyone to say a Pledge is fascist. I know your parents taught you different, and you are shocked to hear it, but this is exactly the kinds of things they did in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. That doesn't make us either communist or fascist, but forcing people to love America is antithetical to our very values.
Again with the prayer. Pray all you fucking want, Michelle. It might be hard for you to read, but I believe in God too. I am a straight, married male, who pays his taxes, and treats his spouse with respect. I love my country, and respect my institutions. If you read more of my stuff, you will see that. I am critical of this President and his Christian friends for not holding him accountable for his faith. Kerry doesn't claim to get his marching orders from God. Bush does. And so I expect him to act accordingly. I expect him to not just love rich people, and to turn the other cheek on occasion, and to hate war, and to care for the sick and the needy--not just in a photo opp, but in policy. I expect him to not ridicule a woman on death row. I expect him not to act like John Wayne when describing war. I expect a President to read more than Oswald Chambers. I expect a lot from him. And I am perpetually disappointed.
But thanks for stopping by. I can see that I made you mad. Perhaps that is a good thing. In Dallas, you are probably surrounded by angry Longhorn fans and Dubya devotees. It is good that you are out on the web reading ideas counter to yours. Feel free to come back and comment.
Michelle says:
"President Bush acts as a Christian where it counts most, in his heart. Just like most of the human race, people sin, no one is perfect. He cries with families who are hurt by terrorists, that is him being a Christian. He flies to where his troops are to be with them when it matters most, that is him being a Christian. He visits the people that need help and does what he can to offer a hand and that is him being a Christian.
Actually, Michelle, he has not attended a single funeral and everything else you have described has no connection to Christianity. I hope he has cried with the families of the soldiers who died for his war. I have never said that he had no heart, and in fact, I said he was probably sincere when he said he had faith, but that doesn't mean action. Has he changed the way that politicians respond to each other? Maybe treated an adversary different? No. He has lied and dissembled and done the things that politicians do. But stating that you will ruin someone's reputation is not Christian. And don't forget South Carolina, where he spread a rumor that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black baby. Is that Christian, Michelle? Can you imagine Jesus doing that?
While Kerry will say what he 'should' say depending on what type of group he is speaking to, Bush stands for what he believes in - you won't see him 'flip flop' on the important issues.
I will acknowledge that Kerry has flip-flopped on some issues, and can certainly be accused of hedging, but to say that Bush stands for what he believes, is, well, naive. Bush has flip-flopped on everything from the 9-11 commission to the Homeland Security as a Cabinet position. He said nation building was a bad idea, now he is doing it, well, badly. So, Michelle, you will need to put down the RNC talking points if you come back here. The main difference between us is that I don't worship Kerry. You worship Bush.
I am so sick and tired of people from different backgrounds being 'insulted' by this and that. People came to America to be American's. With that comes the United States flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, and freedom of religion (and not just one type).
I have no idea what you are saying here. I guess you are arguing for the melting pot theory. Hmm. Well, speaking of naive, I am also guessing that your family background is intensely WASPish.
You note that Republicans are trumpeting their 'family values', well where were you after 9-11 when people from other countries were insulted by our very own American Flag?
Oh yes, Bravo, Michelle! Family values=flag waving? I thought it had to do with families and, well, values. Michelle, did you ever think that some other people out there in the world don't love us as much as you do? Perhaps if they feel their individual interests are being endangered (maybe with our bombs) that they might not find comfort in our flag? Hmm? Or have y ou been so indoctrinated with our secular religion of American worship that you really do think that our country was somehow breathed into existence by God?
People are entitled to their own opinion, that is one of the great things about the USA. At the same time, if I feel gay marriage is wrong; you have the choice to be for it. How wonderful is that. On that note, where did prayer in school go? The Pledge of Allegiance? If you don't want to pray then don't, but don't ridicule me for it.
I don't remember ridiculing anyone for praying. But since you brought it up, Michelle, forcing anyone to say a Pledge is fascist. I know your parents taught you different, and you are shocked to hear it, but this is exactly the kinds of things they did in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. That doesn't make us either communist or fascist, but forcing people to love America is antithetical to our very values.
You shouldn't condemn a whole political party for individual beliefs. I am proud to say that President Bush stands for something, and that something is FREEDOM! The freedom to believe in God and express his beliefs. The freedom to fly the United States flag whereever and whenever he wants to. The freedom to say a prayer and not just before supper, but during the day, perhaps at work even! Just as I would never ask someone who is Buddhist to stop saying a prayer, I expect the same respect from all nationalities. God Bless America and thank you President George W. Bush for being a Christian, an American and the best dang President you can be.
Michelle - Dallas, TX"
Again with the prayer. Pray all you fucking want, Michelle. It might be hard for you to read, but I believe in God too. I am a straight, married male, who pays his taxes, and treats his spouse with respect. I love my country, and respect my institutions. If you read more of my stuff, you will see that. I am critical of this President and his Christian friends for not holding him accountable for his faith. Kerry doesn't claim to get his marching orders from God. Bush does. And so I expect him to act accordingly. I expect him to not just love rich people, and to turn the other cheek on occasion, and to hate war, and to care for the sick and the needy--not just in a photo opp, but in policy. I expect him to not ridicule a woman on death row. I expect him not to act like John Wayne when describing war. I expect a President to read more than Oswald Chambers. I expect a lot from him. And I am perpetually disappointed.
But thanks for stopping by. I can see that I made you mad. Perhaps that is a good thing. In Dallas, you are probably surrounded by angry Longhorn fans and Dubya devotees. It is good that you are out on the web reading ideas counter to yours. Feel free to come back and comment.
Dubya's Beatitudes
Well, the election is two weeks away. I must say, this has been one of the more grueling ones I can remember. I have really grown to hate the opposition on this one, and I don't remember feeling that strongly before. And that feeling is growing--necessitating these weekly rants to keep me from running amok.
Let me congratulate the Republicans for so dividing the country further. In Oklahoma, as well as several other states, conservatives are trumpeting their "family values" nonsense by putting anti-gay marriage legislation on the ballots. Real mystery what will happen here, since we are so enlightened. It isn't that I don't understand the concern about gay marriage, but the lockstep approach that could end up endangering the kids. In Ohio, the language is so vague that even some Repubs are opposed to it. It could, from what I read, make the state not enforce any legislation for unmarried couples, and that could even include a protective service order--something near and dear to my heart. But hey, if they are unmarried, screw em! Right? Anyone who doesn't fit the white, suburban ideal of sexuality or marriage? Screw them! This is America, where differences are not tolerated! And should not be!!!!!
On other fronts, I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday. She mentioned how offended she was whenever she heard Bush say he was a Christian. Was this because she is opposed to Christians and doesn't want people of faith in office? No. She was offended because she saw actions that seemed so very opposite to the teachings of Christ, yet so many Christians seem to glow when they talk about Bush as one of them in office. I keep asking for any evidence that Bush has acted like a Christian (except talking about how "important" his faith is to him). Still no takers. Doesn't that seem odd? Evidently Bush is allowed to keep saying he is a Christian and get great credits from it, but is not expected to actually live out his faith. Really makes me respect the Christian church right now. Sure glad they are so concerned about family values and morality to support this guy. I sometimes wonder what his faith is all about, if it is even real? I suspect he thinks he is Christian and is being honest when he says so, but his ideas about Christianity are so super thin that he couldn't answer a complicated question about what his faith is really about. The fact that the church hasn't asked him means they are fine with that. Way to go, Church. You are really holding up your end in this deal. As it turns out, I think the American church is just as slutty as so many others in the country. They can be bought off with a $300 check and a few vapid words about how "God changed my heart." Really? Be interesting to know just how ruthless and amoral he was prior to that so-called conversion. But again, that is asking too many questions. I am supposed to respect his faith, and somehow overlook the fact that I have never seen him act on even the smallest portion of his supposed "relationship" with God.
So, with all due respect to those on the other side, I give you:
The Beatitudes according to GWB:
Blessed are the Rich, because I like them.
Blessed are the Poor as well, because we are getting so many more of them. God must like poor people, and he will take care of them, so that the wealthy will not have to.
Blessed are the warmakers, because it is a scary world and you have to hit them before they hit you. Thus and verily so. Killing others is good! And we will not record how many of the others we kill, because that might cause bleeding hearts to care. Caring is bad.
Blessed are the polluters, because mercury in the water and fish will only harm the infants and pregnant women (family values).
Blessed are the torturers, because we must protect ourselves in a scary world.
Blessed are those who lie for their President's sake, for their ends shall justify their means. (and if the President can lie, why not his minions?)
Blessed is John Ashcroft, and his racist little heart, for white supremacy is a good goal, and civil liberties have always gone too far.
Blessed are the gay bashers, because they will always have an audience who is scared of others.
Blessed are those who profit, because profit is the highest form of human endeavor and should be valued over people and God's creation.
Blessed are those who proclaim their Christianity without living it out.
And finally, Bless America, and no one else.
Let me congratulate the Republicans for so dividing the country further. In Oklahoma, as well as several other states, conservatives are trumpeting their "family values" nonsense by putting anti-gay marriage legislation on the ballots. Real mystery what will happen here, since we are so enlightened. It isn't that I don't understand the concern about gay marriage, but the lockstep approach that could end up endangering the kids. In Ohio, the language is so vague that even some Repubs are opposed to it. It could, from what I read, make the state not enforce any legislation for unmarried couples, and that could even include a protective service order--something near and dear to my heart. But hey, if they are unmarried, screw em! Right? Anyone who doesn't fit the white, suburban ideal of sexuality or marriage? Screw them! This is America, where differences are not tolerated! And should not be!!!!!
On other fronts, I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday. She mentioned how offended she was whenever she heard Bush say he was a Christian. Was this because she is opposed to Christians and doesn't want people of faith in office? No. She was offended because she saw actions that seemed so very opposite to the teachings of Christ, yet so many Christians seem to glow when they talk about Bush as one of them in office. I keep asking for any evidence that Bush has acted like a Christian (except talking about how "important" his faith is to him). Still no takers. Doesn't that seem odd? Evidently Bush is allowed to keep saying he is a Christian and get great credits from it, but is not expected to actually live out his faith. Really makes me respect the Christian church right now. Sure glad they are so concerned about family values and morality to support this guy. I sometimes wonder what his faith is all about, if it is even real? I suspect he thinks he is Christian and is being honest when he says so, but his ideas about Christianity are so super thin that he couldn't answer a complicated question about what his faith is really about. The fact that the church hasn't asked him means they are fine with that. Way to go, Church. You are really holding up your end in this deal. As it turns out, I think the American church is just as slutty as so many others in the country. They can be bought off with a $300 check and a few vapid words about how "God changed my heart." Really? Be interesting to know just how ruthless and amoral he was prior to that so-called conversion. But again, that is asking too many questions. I am supposed to respect his faith, and somehow overlook the fact that I have never seen him act on even the smallest portion of his supposed "relationship" with God.
So, with all due respect to those on the other side, I give you:
The Beatitudes according to GWB:
Blessed are the Rich, because I like them.
Blessed are the Poor as well, because we are getting so many more of them. God must like poor people, and he will take care of them, so that the wealthy will not have to.
Blessed are the warmakers, because it is a scary world and you have to hit them before they hit you. Thus and verily so. Killing others is good! And we will not record how many of the others we kill, because that might cause bleeding hearts to care. Caring is bad.
Blessed are the polluters, because mercury in the water and fish will only harm the infants and pregnant women (family values).
Blessed are the torturers, because we must protect ourselves in a scary world.
Blessed are those who lie for their President's sake, for their ends shall justify their means. (and if the President can lie, why not his minions?)
Blessed is John Ashcroft, and his racist little heart, for white supremacy is a good goal, and civil liberties have always gone too far.
Blessed are the gay bashers, because they will always have an audience who is scared of others.
Blessed are those who profit, because profit is the highest form of human endeavor and should be valued over people and God's creation.
Blessed are those who proclaim their Christianity without living it out.
And finally, Bless America, and no one else.
October 17, 2004
Christian stores
Both Greg, Ben and Brandon have addressed this issue recently. There seems to be an uptick in both Christian MegaSuperBookstores and even small bookstores within Church campuses. Of course, in Houston, there is a McDonalds on a church property, so perhaps the bookstore looks innocuous by comparison.
I think the central question is: Can Christianity be sold just like any other trend and fad? If so, is that good?
I posed this question to my Baptist friend and he said that there was nothing wrong with the Christian Bookstores. But what about the shopping baskets filled with geegaws and trinkets, asks me. He says, so you prefer plaques and statuettes that are maybe Satanic? So, there is nothing wrong with bibles for pregnant women or Promise Keepers, says me. He responds, so you would begrudge a person buying another Bible even if they read it and use it?
I think I am not communicating here, AND possibly channeling Fafnir in the process. So, just for grins, I went to crossings.com (not recommended) and just surfed their bibles. Here are a few titles: CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE SOUL® BIBLE, which boasts: "Take a seat at the Lord’s table and warm your spirit with this special helping of Chicken Soup! Dozens of personal stories, both classic and new, are collected and applied to the Scriptures in this complete New Living Translation Bible. 1,664 pages." Or how about this one: HOLY BIBLE: ARMED SERVICES EDITION : "Created especially for those in military service, this 2,000-page paperback edition of the Good News Translation has a camouflage cover and fits in uniform pockets. Includes a guide to relevant Scripture, hymns, a concordance and more." Evidently, the regular bible not only makes you vulnerable to sniper attack, but is lacking critical anti-Iraqi verses. Then there is a Max Lucado devotional bible which supplements the classic ancient wisdom of the bible with "new material from Max Lucado's writings." WooHoo! Then there is an eBible, which includes "One-Click technology" that allows you to "create prayers lists, reports, word studies and more." They have an African American bible, a Crossings version "includes devotionals from Max Lucado, James Dobson, and so many, many more! 1,952 pages; words of Christ in red." Whew. Thought that some might confuse those guys.
But my favorites are the Thomas and Nanette Kinkade "Reflections from the Heart of God" "woman's devotional Bible" that includes the "art and wisdom of acclaimed artist Thomas Kinkade and his wife Nanette." Evidently, not only is it a bible, but collectible art! But Kinkade's famously ipecac inspired art isn't enough. The next one is called "Holy Bible: Woman Thou Art Loosed!" edited by T.D. Jakes. Am I the only one who thinks this one might be a little kinky? But no fear, this one combines "T.D. Jakes' words and God's Holy Scripture (NKJV)." And lastly, there is the NIV Mom's Devotional Bible. For the Mother who has only 52 weeks to ordain her motherhood with Godly goodness, there is only one Bible. In fact, if you are a mother and don't have this Bible, you might not be a Christian. Ok, I made that part up.
Sorry, but this is seriously messed up. I have no clue what the Bible really means, and have little desire to read it for some time. But how far are we from the Britney Spears version (hint: it is the sexy version) or perhaps Madonna could have one (The Holy Bible with the latest writings from the Material Girl! Jesus words in red, Madonna's in puce, 1,763 pages; $59.95!!!!).
That's it. I am going to Starbucks. I have no illusions about this consumerism. I am buying the coffee because my inner voices tell me to. But I know that inner voice is my own self--not T. D. Freaking Jakes combining his stupidity with some things supposedly inspired by God.
A latte. That is what I will have. Forthwith.
I think the central question is: Can Christianity be sold just like any other trend and fad? If so, is that good?
I posed this question to my Baptist friend and he said that there was nothing wrong with the Christian Bookstores. But what about the shopping baskets filled with geegaws and trinkets, asks me. He says, so you prefer plaques and statuettes that are maybe Satanic? So, there is nothing wrong with bibles for pregnant women or Promise Keepers, says me. He responds, so you would begrudge a person buying another Bible even if they read it and use it?
I think I am not communicating here, AND possibly channeling Fafnir in the process. So, just for grins, I went to crossings.com (not recommended) and just surfed their bibles. Here are a few titles: CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE SOUL® BIBLE, which boasts: "Take a seat at the Lord’s table and warm your spirit with this special helping of Chicken Soup! Dozens of personal stories, both classic and new, are collected and applied to the Scriptures in this complete New Living Translation Bible. 1,664 pages." Or how about this one: HOLY BIBLE: ARMED SERVICES EDITION : "Created especially for those in military service, this 2,000-page paperback edition of the Good News Translation has a camouflage cover and fits in uniform pockets. Includes a guide to relevant Scripture, hymns, a concordance and more." Evidently, the regular bible not only makes you vulnerable to sniper attack, but is lacking critical anti-Iraqi verses. Then there is a Max Lucado devotional bible which supplements the classic ancient wisdom of the bible with "new material from Max Lucado's writings." WooHoo! Then there is an eBible, which includes "One-Click technology" that allows you to "create prayers lists, reports, word studies and more." They have an African American bible, a Crossings version "includes devotionals from Max Lucado, James Dobson, and so many, many more! 1,952 pages; words of Christ in red." Whew. Thought that some might confuse those guys.
But my favorites are the Thomas and Nanette Kinkade "Reflections from the Heart of God" "woman's devotional Bible" that includes the "art and wisdom of acclaimed artist Thomas Kinkade and his wife Nanette." Evidently, not only is it a bible, but collectible art! But Kinkade's famously ipecac inspired art isn't enough. The next one is called "Holy Bible: Woman Thou Art Loosed!" edited by T.D. Jakes. Am I the only one who thinks this one might be a little kinky? But no fear, this one combines "T.D. Jakes' words and God's Holy Scripture (NKJV)." And lastly, there is the NIV Mom's Devotional Bible. For the Mother who has only 52 weeks to ordain her motherhood with Godly goodness, there is only one Bible. In fact, if you are a mother and don't have this Bible, you might not be a Christian. Ok, I made that part up.
Sorry, but this is seriously messed up. I have no clue what the Bible really means, and have little desire to read it for some time. But how far are we from the Britney Spears version (hint: it is the sexy version) or perhaps Madonna could have one (The Holy Bible with the latest writings from the Material Girl! Jesus words in red, Madonna's in puce, 1,763 pages; $59.95!!!!).
That's it. I am going to Starbucks. I have no illusions about this consumerism. I am buying the coffee because my inner voices tell me to. But I know that inner voice is my own self--not T. D. Freaking Jakes combining his stupidity with some things supposedly inspired by God.
A latte. That is what I will have. Forthwith.
October 15, 2004
Pirates and Emperors, Oh My!
Clever sendup of the Schoolhouse Rock videos that addresses the arrogance of power. Pretty good, really. From Boing Boing.
Pirates & Emperors
Clever sendup of the Schoolhouse Rock videos that addresses the arrogance of power. Pretty good, really. From Boing Boing.
Pirates & Emperors
October 14, 2004
What kind of scumbag price gouges flu vaccine?
Some Suppliers Jack Up Flu Vaccine Price (washingtonpost.com): "In Fort Lauderdale, Meds-Stat offered supplies of Fluzone as late as last Friday, according to a copy of a fax offering. That same day, the company offered a Kansas City pharmacy the vaccine at a price that amounted to $90 a dose, according to a lawsuit filed by the Kansas attorney general. The pharmacy was seeking flu shots for nursing home patients. The suit accused Meds-Stat of violating consumer rights.
Meds-Stat said in a written response yesterday that it had not seen the lawsuit but was 'confident that we have done nothing wrong.'"
Some Suppliers Jack Up Flu Vaccine Price (washingtonpost.com): "In Fort Lauderdale, Meds-Stat offered supplies of Fluzone as late as last Friday, according to a copy of a fax offering. That same day, the company offered a Kansas City pharmacy the vaccine at a price that amounted to $90 a dose, according to a lawsuit filed by the Kansas attorney general. The pharmacy was seeking flu shots for nursing home patients. The suit accused Meds-Stat of violating consumer rights.
Meds-Stat said in a written response yesterday that it had not seen the lawsuit but was 'confident that we have done nothing wrong.'"
October 13, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)