The W
Views: 99938696
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
@263 .beats
The W - Current Events & Politics - Dean should stop with the religion thing
This thread has 18 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.21
Pages: 1
(1587 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I don't exaclty think that this is going to win friends and influence rural god-fearing conservatives in the south. From today's WaPo:

    Originally posted by Howard Dean
    Democratic front-runner Howard Dean said Wednesday that his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it.

    "The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday. "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."


Um.....doen't that fly in the face of the whole original sin thing?

Dean belongs to a congregationalist church, which is viewed as a "liberal" form of Christianity. I have no beef with this(as I don't go to Church) but isn't playing up the religion thing becoming a tad too superficial and disingenious with him?



(edited by Grimis on 8.1.04 1630)


Promote this thread!
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3701 days
Last activity: 3360 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.54
Well, for the Christians that don't care for the "hard-ass" right version of christianity, this could be a welcome sight.


Sounds like Dean is going torwards the "Christianity = Tolerance" and Love Thy Neighbor route.

Maybe it'll be Dean is the New Testament and Bush will be more Old Testament.

And please don't start quoting bible verses to disprove that last statement. I'm thinking along the lines of:

Old Testament = Fire, Brimstone, Wrath of God

New Testament = Forgiveness, Peace, Love Thy Neighbor



I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3299 days
Last activity: 3292 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.03
Gotta give Dean props for saying whatever he wants without worrying what group gets upset or is galvanized by it... especially when it comes to religion. A few weeks ago he was going off on his love of Jesus Christ even though his own wife is Jewish.

He doesn't have a hope in Hell of becoming president, but he does have balls.



Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.59
    Originally posted by Barbwire Mike
    Gotta give Dean props for saying whatever he wants without worrying what group gets upset or is galvanized by it... especially when it comes to religion. A few weeks ago he was going off on his love of Jesus Christ even though his own wife is Jewish.

    He doesn't have a hope in Hell of becoming president, but he does have balls.


It makes perfect sense if you are ntrying make yourself "not like the others." He also didn't legalize "marriage" which in the terms Grimis is thinking of is the provenance of the church (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or whatever). It does take courage to say what you believe and this may silence the talk show hosts accusing Dean of going with the polls.

And IMO he is starting to have more of a chance than you think.



Perception is reality
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3475 days
Last activity: 3469 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.89
I don't see why Dean *shouldn't* say those things. They are no different from the other falsehoods about Christianity that liberal Christians like to espouse. In fact as a conservative religious person myself, I have always appluaded Dean for at least speaking his mind and being straight. Strange as it may seem, there are perhaps more similarities than you think between someone on the "far left" (supposedly such as himself) and the "far right".

DMC





(edited by DMC on 8.1.04 1507)


Yeah, yeah, yeah, jungle love, oh!
I think I wanna know ya (know ya)
Jungle love
Girl, I... I think I wanna, I think I wanna file my nails (Show ya)

Hey Jesse
N..now Jerome, yes!
Check it out!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.69
I certainly wouldn't want to restrict his statements. There are all kinds of people who call themselves Christians, with all kinds of beliefs, just like there are all kinds of people who call themselves almost anything.

But that kind of talk, IE:

"The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday. "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

Is going to do nothing but rile folks up. Very religious people, like, say, me, are going to, as someone said not to, quote Bible verses (can't hep it, boss? A small one? It's fairly definitive. And it's from a part of the Bible that Dean thinks is the New Testament, but is really the old. Leviticus 20:13 The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.) And people who consider themselves religious but don't get Hung up on the Bible might indeed be cool with this. And many non-church-going people might interpret this in many ways. Some will be cool with it, many won't.

I think that one thing I can say, after being in the various churches for many years is this: Though the "liberal" churches' leadership is theologically liberal as a general rule, the people in the pews aren't as a general rule. They are still concerned with what they interpret as something called sin. And Howie blowing it off is gonna sit back there and eat at them in the same way that knowing HHH is gonna interfere in a HBK match easts at you through the first adbreak. And when Trips does come down for the 479th time, we get a little pissed. Same for the "liberal" Christians. The conservative ones won't be as silent, because their pastors will be telling them about it, over and over.

And the overwhelming evidence is that the behavior is learned. Here's a good link on this subject. http://www.inet-1.com/~russs/hpl.htm
And in reality, the jury's not in. Read this excellent APA article on the subject. http://www.apa.udel.edu/ apa/publications/newsletters/ v00n1/lgbt/04.asp

Edited because some people can't seem to see that I was making FUN of Dean for thinking the OLD Testamant (jewish law) is the New Testmant (Christian). If you think that any Christian with a mind believes we ought to be in a theocracy and kill people for religious issues, you're wrong. There might be a few of them out there, but they're just as wacko as the tree-huggers on the left. Maybe, before you post a several page diatribe on Leviticus, you might READ THE POST.


(edited by AWArulz on 9.1.04 0838)


Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2829 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Barbwire Mike
    Gotta give Dean props for saying whatever he wants without worrying what group gets upset or is galvanized by it... especially when it comes to religion. A few weeks ago he was going off on his love of Jesus Christ even though his own wife is Jewish.

    He doesn't have a hope in Hell of becoming president, but he does have balls.


Why are you all treating him like some kind of bold, truth-telling kinda guy? This whole Dean/religion thing is such a transparent attempt at winning religious Southerners into his camp. I don't begrudge a politician his electoral stunts, but, please, let's not pretend he's some kind of prophet up there. His personal brand of Christianity seems to be one in which Christ endorses his policy decisions (which, by the way, is the kind of slur the left pillories Bush with. "He thinks God told him to invade Iraq!"). In one breath he claims to know "a lot" about the Bible and in the next he's listing Job as his favorite book of the New Testament.



Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
Saw a bumper sticker once: "Jesus is a Democrat, God is a Republican."



Rob asks Dave and Ric if they want to go backstage to play Hungry Hungry Hippos and Flair and Batista immediately bail. Flair wants to be Green. Man, EVERYBODY wants to be green. Except the girl in the commercials. She wanted to be pink. That either means that the ad agency was sexist or that she was communist. Of course Hungry Hungry Hippos is a rather capitalist game isn’t it? No self respecting communist would play Hungry Hungry Hippos. Except Stalin. He LOVED Hungry Hungry Hippos. God, I’ve got no clue what the hell I’m rambling about anymore.-- Matt "Excalibur05" Hocking, Raw Satire writer extraordinaire

You know, I just can't call it the "WWE." I just can't. My body's rejecting it like a bad liver transplant.-- Bill Simmons, espn.com/page2
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3299 days
Last activity: 3292 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.37
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Why are you all treating him like some kind of bold, truth-telling kinda guy?


I'm really glad you said that actually, because I'm not confusing "shooting from the hip" (which he does) with being an "honest politician" (which I definitely think he is NOT), and hoped I'd get the opportunity to clarify.

I'd vote for Alfred E. Neuman before I voted for Dean, but his approach of saying whatever pops into his head is, while not necessarily politically sound (or completely mentally stable for that matter), at least entertaining. Just wanted to thank him for that. :)



Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
I dunno. It's no more obnoxious than when every politician does it.

Democrats (I'm looking right at you Joe Lieberman) sometimes go overboard on it as kind of a shortcut to try and show that they indeed have a sense of right and wrong and morals. It's kind of the same way Republicans (and I'm looking right at you Jr.) will sometimes go overboard about how "compassionate" or whatever they are to show they aren't heartless bastards who only care a buck.

Thing is, Dean was actually doing pretty good at demonstrating he has a moral compass without resorting to the whole playing up God thing. Dean is starting to make the mistake of leaving behind what brought him to the dance. The more he pulls typical politician tricks - like talking about Jesus - the more he's not only going to turn off the Democratic party faithful (who have invested too much in this guy to jump to someone else now, but who might not come out to vote in droves like they were going to), but also lose the "not just another politician" factor that plays great with independents and swing voters.



I wonder how much money George W. Bush gave Paris Hilton.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.83
OK, this is sure to derail this thread, but I have to point this out.

Here are some other great points from Leviticus.

Chapter 1: How to prepare a burnt offering to God.
Chapter 2: Grain offerings
Chapter 3: Peace oFferings from the Herd
Chapter 4: Sin Offering regulations. Here's a highlight for the common person:

    4:27 “‘If an ordinary individual53 sins by straying54 when he violates one of the Lord’s commandments which must not be violated,55 and he pleads guilty 4:28 or his sin that he committed56 is made known to him,57 he must bring a flawless female goat58 as his offering for the sin59 that he committed. 4:29 He must lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter60 the sin offering in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered. 4:30 Then the priest must take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the burnt offering altar, and he must pour out all the rest of its blood at the base of the altar.

Chapter 5: Additional Sin Offering Regulations.
Chapter 6: Even more instructions about offerings
Chapter 7: Guilt offering, priestly portions of offerings
Chapter 8: Ordination of Aaron, priests, and annointing
Chapter 9: More sin offerings

It goes on and on...

Let's skip ahead to the part that you are quoting, and look at it in context:

    Originally posted by Leviticus Chapter 20
    20:9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 20:10 If a man21 commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 20:11 If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:12 If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned with fire, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 20:15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 20:16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.


Lots of people being put to death there. Just to make sure you aren't being selectively against homosexuals, do you feel so strongly about all of the other death punishable acts as well?

Hey wait, let's hit some other high points from Leviticus while we're here.

Leviticus 19:23-25

    19:23 “‘When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you must consider its fruit to be forbidden. Three years it will be forbidden to you; it must not be eaten. 19:24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, praise offerings to the Lord. 19:25 Then in the fifth year you may eat its fruit to add its produce to your harvest. I am the Lord your God.


You'd probably be better off quoting Leviticus 18:22 instead.

    18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.


What were the advantages of following these rules, and the punishments? According to Leviticus 26:3 - 38, you would have good harvest and kill lots of enemies. If you didn't, your enemies would eat your food and you would not be able to kill them. Also, your sins would be revisited on you seven times.

Don't most Christian religions believe that Jesus was the lamb, and that you no longer have to follow the laws as set forth in Leviticus regarding sacrifices, etc? Considering that is the context this is presented in, you'd probably make a lot better argument if you claimed that this was what Jews believed, not Christians.



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
A-MOL
Frankfurter








Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3873 days
Last activity: 3815 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
^^

To back up Guru's point, Eric S. (411mania.com) covered a lot of this when the C&W Music columnist on 411 brought up Leviticus.

On kind of the some issue, do people not see the irony of the Religious Right attacking Muslims for their "fundamentalist views"?



...full of energy. Multi-orgasmic, if you will, in a cosmic sort of way."

Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Thing is, Dean was actually doing pretty good at demonstrating he has a moral compass without resorting to the whole playing up God thing. Dean is starting to make the mistake of leaving behind what brought him to the dance. The more he pulls typical politician tricks - like talking about Jesus - the more he's not only going to turn off the Democratic party faithful (who have invested too much in this guy to jump to someone else now, but who might not come out to vote in droves like they were going to), but also lose the "not just another politician" factor that plays great with independents and swing voters.
Exactly. His talking about God is only going to hurt and not help.

Incidentally, I don't think that God talk will stop his hardcore supporters from voting for him, but it may temper their resolve in campaigning for him...



AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.69
Folks, I am never gonna do this again. Promise. So, if you don't wanna read religious stuff, press on.

Guru, I was just making light of it, so to speak. There's plenty of New Testament references to there being a problem with Homosexuality - in the same way that there is a problem with lying.

Dean Said God made 'em that way, so we should allow all this stuff.

And he said this in the context of "being a Christian." But basically, Christianity believes God made people sinless and they choose to sin. The only difference between the OT stuff you referenced (and so did I) and the New Testamant (unique to Christianity - Christians reference both it and the Tanach, or Old Testamant) is that the penelty is different. There are sin-sacrifices(which you referenced) in the Old Testamant, while there is a faith-submission to One who has made the sin-sacrifice for all. That'd be Jesus.

But that does not allow continued or willful sin. The same sins that were worthy of death in the Tanach are worthy of death in the NT. There's a point where one is "born again" and becomes a new creature. But this doesn't mean you have a license to sin like a madman. And you can look it up. There is list after list of bad sins in the NT. Murder appears in every one. So does homosexulaity. I believe Lying does too.

So to take Doctor Dean's arguement out: (inserted changes)
"From a religious point of view, if God had thought (lying)is a sin, he would not have created (liars)."

I don't see it.

I personally could give two hoots about what a person does in their bed. That's their choice and they take the consequences. But I'm not going to blame their issues on God. God had no plans for us to do anything against His will - we did that all on our own. Fortunately, He was aware that we would do that.





again, a disclaimer. If you read this far and you're pissed because there's a ton of religious stuff in here, you would do well to go back and read the 1st line of this message. And if you want to discuss it more, feel free to PM me or use my email address. (it's in the profile, I believe)



Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3701 days
Last activity: 3360 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.54
"God made people sinless"

According to many, many scientist and social researchers some people are born gay.

So is it ok to be gay if you're born that way, or are we basing this on the idea that all homosexuality is a choice?

And as far as the liar thing is concerned, there are ligitamte psychological disorders that MAKE people liars. No "free will" involved. Just something wrong with their heads. Does that make them sinners?

Too many holes in religious doctrine for me. That's why I choose faith over religion.

IMO, the whole, "homosexuals are sinners" was more of a social discrimination that was put in the Bible. There are so many things in the bible that only apply because of the times and the social sway.

To me, the only things required are...

Don't hurt others
Be nice to everything/everyone

Everything else is useless detail. Too bad soo many people now a days hold doctrine written 1000's of years ago as whole truths (even though many are oxymoronic).

It's the idea that counts, not the details.



I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3299 days
Last activity: 3292 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.37
There are also scientists and social reseachers who will tell you that pedophiles and rapists are genetically pre-dispositioned to act the way they do. If someone is gay more power to them, but the Bible is pretty darned clear on the stance it takes.



Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3475 days
Last activity: 3469 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.89
"So is it ok to be gay if you're born that way, or are we basing this on the idea that all homosexuality is a choice?"

No, as I have said many times here in the past, the religious person can argue that it ultimately *doesn't matter* if homosexuality has a genetic component. You can still argue that it is an abberation, just like any other genetic abberation, or just like any other psychological "sickness" that people would like to argue a genetic link for. Thus, it would be something that we should help someone overcome, because it can still be seen as a *problem*. In fact that is precisely how most psychologists saw homosexuality before the upswing in the "gay rights" movement in the 1970s and beyond.

Of course, liberals and homosexual proponents don't like acknowledging this logic very often, because it essentially destroys a pet argument of theirs that they think actually *proves* something. I still don't see how it does.

DMC



Yeah, yeah, yeah, jungle love, oh!
I think I wanna know ya (know ya)
Jungle love
Girl, I... I think I wanna, I think I wanna file my nails (Show ya)

Hey Jesse
N..now Jerome, yes!
Check it out!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.84
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    It's the idea that counts, not the details.

You gotta go with the way that makes sense to you. I suspect that one day we'll find out which one of us is right - if either.

My deal was Howard Dean - he said it, in the context of his Christianity, if you read the whole of his comments on this matter - and in that context, it's not the idea that counts, because Christianity isn't based on some vague set of values, but a person and a book written, more or less, about that person and his ideas. Non-Catholic Christians generally (not all of course), hole that book to be without error as a matter of faith.

and my point is that Dean makes baseless statements of all sorts - here's another.

1. The main documentation of Dean's professed religion declareres that people are created without any sins, but willingly entered into those sins
2. Homosexuality is clearly identified as one of those sins
Therefore, the first part of the statement is wrong

Then he said that it is accepted that Homosexuality is genetic.
1. It doesn't matter - see above
2. It's not at all proven, in fact it is in great dispute

You see my issue? I'm not here to debate the relative merits of the Bible, or Christianity or anything else along those lines. But Howard the Duck entered into this discussion and it is worthwhile to see the falacy of his statements on the matter.

Curt



(edited by AWArulz on 9.1.04 1327)


Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
I agree what Dean said is stupid. It basically comes down to not talking about shit you don't know about. It has nothing to do with Liberal/Conservative, GOP/Democrat. If you're Al Sharpton or Pat Robertson or Jimmy Carter, go ahead and do all the Bible talking you want. These three may disagree vehemently about interpretations and empasis and everything else, but at least they've read and studied the thing pretty heavily. Heck, even I, an athiest, feel qualified to do the bible talking since I was a religions major in college and have read and studied the thing.

But Dean obviously just isn't well versed in the whole Bible thing. So he should just stay away from it. It doesn't make him any less qualified to be President in my view, but I'm sure other's may differ.

No, as I have said many times here in the past, the religious person can argue that it ultimately *doesn't matter* if homosexuality has a genetic component. You can still argue that it is an abberation, just like any other genetic abberation, or just like any other psychological "sickness" that people would like to argue a genetic link for. Thus, it would be something that we should help someone overcome, because it can still be seen as a *problem*. In fact that is precisely how most psychologists saw homosexuality before the upswing in the "gay rights" movement in the 1970s and beyond.

Of course, liberals and homosexual proponents don't like acknowledging this logic very often, because it essentially destroys a pet argument of theirs that they think actually *proves* something. I still don't see how it does.


I totally agree. I could care less if Homosexuality is genetic or a choice or what, and I think both liberals and conservatives should stop focusing on it. I think Homosexuality and Bisexuality and Polyamory and BDSM and all that other weird shit fine and dandy because I see absolutely nothing damaging to anyone about the act. In fact, I personally see a lot of positives for both the individual and society coming out of more and more visible varied sexual practices. Other's obviously see it very differently. My view of a utopian society (in terms of sex and sexuality) is probably DMC's vision of Gommorah. Fine. But I certainly agree that arguments about genetics vs. society and what not are just smokescreens for the fact that different people have different morals.






I wonder how much money George W. Bush gave Paris Hilton.
Thread rated: 5.21
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: CNN: Dean Within 5 Pts of Bush
Next thread: Mad Cow came from Canada
Previous thread: Why do we do such silly things
(1587 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The bill as written is not THAT bad. It simply "encourages" critical discussion to be introduce into the teaching of evolution. Nothing wrong with that, evolution is a theory, and as such is not beyond criticism or critical thought.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Dean should stop with the religion thingRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.138 seconds.