Bob Jones: You owe the liberals nothing

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/11/2004 05:10:40 PM · #26

Originally posted by magicshutter:

First of all, this is america. People have the right to believe anything they want and express that freely. What I said was it's wrong to expect anyone (even the president) to acknowledge your God if and when they are not the same God (I use the term 'same god' lightly as I believe all religions embrace the same God, just interprit (spelling?) God's words differently) Again, I am not against the freedom to speak your religion or believe in what you speak. I am on the other hand against holding it against someone when they believe differently and fail to acknowledge 'YOUR God' as in any religion it's blasphemous to do the work of God (which is judging souls).

It's really a catch 22. You're not allowed to acknowldege other religions, and also not allowed to judge another soul based on their belief or lack there of.

Joe.

edit: spelling (did my best)

Ahhh. I think ( hope ) that I see now what you are referring to. It's Bob Jones requesting that the President honor the (same) Lord ( that he ( Bob Jones ) does ). Is that it?
If so, you should be aware that Bob Jones already knew that President Bush shared belief in the same Lord and God as he did. To be sure, President Bush and Bob Jones do not hold all values and beliefs in common. But both acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, so Jones was not making an unreasonable request.

magicshutter

Nikon D70

11/11/2004 05:52:55 PM · #27

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by magicshutter:
First of all, this is america. People have the right to believe anything they want and express that freely. What I said was it's wrong to expect anyone (even the president) to acknowledge your God if and when they are not the same God (I use the term 'same god' lightly as I believe all religions embrace the same God, just interprit (spelling?) God's words differently) Again, I am not against the freedom to speak your religion or believe in what you speak. I am on the other hand against holding it against someone when they believe differently and fail to acknowledge 'YOUR God' as in any religion it's blasphemous to do the work of God (which is judging souls).

It's really a catch 22. You're not allowed to acknowldege other religions, and also not allowed to judge another soul based on their belief or lack there of.

Joe.

edit: spelling (did my best)

Ahhh. I think ( hope ) that I see now what you are referring to. It's Bob Jones requesting that the President honor the (same) Lord ( that he ( Bob Jones ) does ). Is that it?
If so, you should be aware that Bob Jones already knew that President Bush shared belief in the same Lord and God as he did. To be sure, President Bush and Bob Jones do not hold all values and beliefs in common. But both acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, so Jones was not making an unreasonable request.

I think you understand what I'm saying. :) Bob Jones knowing what faith the President is, for the most part is irrelevant. It does make his request a little less off the wall. Had Mr. Jones not known what faith the President followed, this request would have been unreasonable in a religious fashion.

-joe

MadMordegon

11/11/2004 05:55:54 PM · #28

Originally posted by kevinf:

The religious theme was upsetting to me because it tells me there are people who believe our President should be ruling bible in hand. I disagree with that. I don't know, is that a logical enough reason, to wasn't a separation of church and state?

Yes.
Democracy does not mean Theocracy.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" -Thomas Jefferson

11/11/2004 08:32:14 PM · #29

Originally posted by magicshutter:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by magicshutter:
First of all, this is america. People have the right to believe anything they want and express that freely. What I said was it's wrong to expect anyone (even the president) to acknowledge your God if and when they are not the same God (I use the term 'same god' lightly as I believe all religions embrace the same God, just interprit (spelling?) God's words differently) Again, I am not against the freedom to speak your religion or believe in what you speak. I am on the other hand against holding it against someone when they believe differently and fail to acknowledge 'YOUR God' as in any religion it's blasphemous to do the work of God (which is judging souls).

It's really a catch 22. You're not allowed to acknowldege other religions, and also not allowed to judge another soul based on their belief or lack there of.

Joe.

edit: spelling (did my best)

Ahhh. I think ( hope ) that I see now what you are referring to. It's Bob Jones requesting that the President honor the (same) Lord ( that he ( Bob Jones ) does ). Is that it?
If so, you should be aware that Bob Jones already knew that President Bush shared belief in the same Lord and God as he did. To be sure, President Bush and Bob Jones do not hold all values and beliefs in common. But both acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, so Jones was not making an unreasonable request.

I think you understand what I'm saying. :) Bob Jones knowing what faith the President is, for the most part is irrelevant. It does make his request a little less off the wall. Had Mr. Jones not known what faith the President followed, this request would have been unreasonable in a religious fashion.

-joe

I agree - had Mr. Jones not known, his request would have been more than inappropriate.

11/12/2004 11:04:24 AM · #30

Originally posted by RonB:

I'd like to pose a serious question to those who "have a real problem" with the letter from Bob Jones III to President Bush.

The question is, apart from stating his opinions ( which we SHOULD all be entitled to do, wouldn't you agree? )what specifically do you find wrong with what he espouses?

Ron, here's what I object to:

Bob Jones and his ilk -- which compose our own American brand of radical clerics -- have declared a war of civilizations against those that do not share their worldview. These radical clerics have issued fatuahs against modernity and progress, and -- if it were up to them -- these radical clerics and their followers would impose an authoritarian Theocracy on one of modern history's greatest exponents of Liberty, Reason and Progress: America.

Ron, I know that you -- and millions more -- are a conservative Christian that firmly believes in the correctness of your convictions. Well, I -- and millions more across this nation -- firmly belive in correctness and righteousness of our convictions, too. And, of course, both our camps stand diametrically opposed on many issues -- especially in regards to the strict separation that must exist between church and state.

As I sit here, it is perfectly clear to me that the single greatest impediment to social progress, peace and "modernity" in the Arab world is a constant flirtation with Islamic Theocracy. In 2001, just before our forces went into Afghanistan, there was a lot of talk about being engaged in a war of "civilizations"; and that we would be liberating Afghanistan from the hands of a group of "strict interpreters of spiritual scriptures," the Taliban. Well, many Americans have died -- in part -- to liberate the Afghan people from the clutches of an authoritarian Theocratic regime; and it would be a shame if, as our military tore down such a regime abroad, that radical clerics here erected a theocracy at home.

I'm afraid that many on my camp have not yet taken the threat of our radical clerics here at home seriously enough, and by the time that they do, it might be too late. Already these radical clerics have marshaled millions to more rapidly tare down the center pillar of our nation: the separation between church and state.

LindaZ

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

11/12/2004 12:01:59 PM · #31

For those interested, I have a much more interesting, offensive, and fun letter but I do not dare to post it here. Email me or PM me and I'll forward it.

If you dare...

teehee

Message edited by author 2004-11-12 13:27:21.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

11/12/2004 12:19:26 PM · #32

Just one post to this and then I'm hiding again :)

I am Christian, have been all my life, God willing always will be, yet I do not have anything in common with Bob Jones or his thinking. I think words such as his have a lot to do with politics but little or nothing with Christianity, and that they give Christianity a bad reputation.

OK, I'm off :)

davidbedard

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

11/12/2004 01:00:04 PM · #33

Originally posted by ursula:

Here! here!

11/12/2004 01:14:07 PM · #34

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
I'd like to pose a serious question to those who "have a real problem" with the letter from Bob Jones III to President Bush.

The question is, apart from stating his opinions ( which we SHOULD all be entitled to do, wouldn't you agree? )what specifically do you find wrong with what he espouses?

Ron, here's what I object to:

Bob Jones and his ilk -- which compose our own American brand of radical clerics -- have declared a war of civilizations against those that do not share their worldview. These radical clerics have issued fatuahs against modernity and progress, and -- if it were up to them -- these radical clerics and their followers would impose an authoritarian Theocracy on one of modern history's greatest exponents of Liberty, Reason and Progress: America.

Ron, I know that you -- and millions more -- are a conservative Christian that firmly believes in the correctness of your convictions. Well, I -- and millions more across this nation -- firmly belive in correctness and righteousness of our convictions, too. And, of course, both our camps stand diametrically opposed on many issues -- especially in regards to the strict separation that must exist between church and state.

As I sit here, it is perfectly clear to me that the single greatest impediment to social progress, peace and "modernity" in the Arab world is a constant flirtation with Islamic Theocracy. In 2001, just before our forces went into Afghanistan, there was a lot of talk about being engaged in a war of "civilizations"; and that we would be liberating Afghanistan from the hands of a group of "strict interpreters of spiritual scriptures," the Taliban. Well, many Americans have died -- in part -- to liberate the Afghan people from the clutches of an authoritarian Theocratic regime; and it would be a shame if, as our military tore down such a regime abroad, that radical clerics here erected a theocracy at home.

I'm afraid that many on my camp have not yet taken the threat of our radical clerics here at home seriously enough, and by the time that they do, it might be too late. Already these radical clerics have marshaled millions to more rapidly tare down the center pillar of our nation: the separation between church and state.

I'll make two points, and then I'll sit down.
1) The theocratic regimes of which you speak were not established via democractic processes. At last look, the U.S. still operated using democratic processes - hence, for a theocratic regime, as you call it, to be empowered, it would have to attain such power by the agreement of a majority of the people, or at least a majority of those who vote ( or at least by a majority of electoral votes ). Hence, you should have no fear that we will become like Afghanistan was, unless the majority, not just the leadership, approves. I don't see that happening.
2) The U.S. Constitution nowhere prevents individual states the right to establish official state religions. It only says that Congress ( the U.S. Congress, that is, not the individual state congresses ) shall pass no law establishing religion. Individual states can do whatever they wish. It may come to that, who knows.

On a side note: were you all aware of a movement to 'take over' an entire state? It's called the 'Free State Project' and its aim is to have 20,000 or more voting age people move to New Hampshire and effectively 'take over' the states politics reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates, and restore constitutional federalism. So far they have 6,191 people committed to ACT as soon as the number hit's 20,000.
In case you don't belive me, here's the link

Message edited by author 2004-11-12 13:15:07.

MadMordegon

11/12/2004 01:27:24 PM · #35

Originally posted by ursula:

Thanks for sharing :)

11/12/2004 02:10:17 PM · #36

Originally posted by RonB:

On a side note: were you all aware of a movement to 'take over' an entire state? It's called the 'Free State Project' and its aim is to have 20,000 or more voting age people move to New Hampshire and effectively 'take over' the states politics reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates, and restore constitutional federalism. So far they have 6,191 people committed to ACT as soon as the number hit's 20,000.
In case you don't believe me, here's the link

Yes, I was aware of that particular group and, too, of the wider "secession" movement that exists amongst the fundamentalist Christian right. Many secularists and mainstream Americans are simply refusing to believe that such radicalism can exist in our country, but it does. And, from what I've observed, it is this right-wing Christian-fundamentalism that the Republican Party has tapped into to amass electoral power. Moreover, I think that the Republican's "Southern Strategy," now infused with strands of the fundamentalist Christian-right, while electorally successful, has the potential to tear our nation apart. As an example, like with the Free State Project, here's another right-wing organization that advocates secession:

CHRISTIAN EXODUS

ChristianExodus.org is coordinating the move of thousands of Christians to South Carolina for the express purpose of re-establishing Godly, constitutional government. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christians to withdraw our consent from the current federal government and re-introduce the Christian principles once so predominant in America to a sovereign State like South Carolina. [ //www.christianexodus.org/ ]

The president of that organization writes the following:

Mr. Jim Taylor and Mr. Cory Burnell founded ChristianExodus.org in November 2003 as a response to the moral degeneration of our nation and the lack of any determination by the Republican Party to return our nation to its Constitutional moors.

Now, this is but one organization, but clearly the fundamentalist Christian-right sees their electoral futures tied to one party, the Republican Party. And these groups would not be incorrect in presuming that they've been actively courted by the Republican Party, especially by the Southern strand of that Party. Again, I'm afraid that I and of my fellow secularists have been caught with our pants down on this issue, and now need to assert the rock-solid separation between church and state that MUST exist, or we risk a "war of civilizations" (euphemistically referred to as the "culture wars") in our own backyard.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/12/2004 02:33:34 PM · #37

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
On a side note: were you all aware of a movement to 'take over' an entire state? It's called the 'Free State Project' and its aim is to have 20,000 or more voting age people move to New Hampshire and effectively 'take over' the states politics reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates, and restore constitutional federalism. So far they have 6,191 people committed to ACT as soon as the number hit's 20,000.
In case you don't believe me, here's the link

Yes, I was aware of that particular group and, too, of the wider "secession" movement that exists amongst the fundamentalist Christian right. Many secularists and mainstream Americans are simply refusing to believe that such radicalism can exist in our country, but it does. And, from what I've observed, it is this right-wing Christian-fundamentalism that the Republican Party has tapped into to amass electoral power. Moreover, I think that the Republican's "Southern Strategy," now infused with strands of the fundamentalist Christian-right, while electorally successful, has the potential to tear our nation apart. As an example, like with the Free State Project, here's another right-wing organization that advocates secession:

CHRISTIAN EXODUS

ChristianExodus.org is coordinating the move of thousands of Christians to South Carolina for the express purpose of re-establishing Godly, constitutional government. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christians to withdraw our consent from the current federal government and re-introduce the Christian principles once so predominant in America to a sovereign State like South Carolina. [ //www.christianexodus.org/ ]

The president of that organization writes the following:

Mr. Jim Taylor and Mr. Cory Burnell founded ChristianExodus.org in November 2003 as a response to the moral degeneration of our nation and the lack of any determination by the Republican Party to return our nation to its Constitutional moors.

Now, this is but one organization, but clearly the fundamentalist Christian-right sees their electoral futures tied to one party, the Republican Party. And these groups would not be incorrect in presuming that they've been actively courted by the Republican Party, especially by the Southern strand of that Party. Again, I'm afraid that I and of my fellow secularists have been caught with our pants down on this issue, and now need to assert the rock-solid separation between church and state that MUST exist, or we risk a "war of civilizations" (euphemistically referred to as the "culture wars") in our own backyard.

Wow, I hadn't heard about that. But, now that I have, I'm in such a quandry - how do I decide between New Hampshire or South Carolina? :-)

Just kidding, of course.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

11/12/2004 03:50:52 PM · #38

I'll bet my bottom dollar that George Bush will nominate judges to sit on the Supreme Court who strongly sympathize and will side with the Christian right agenda. I know that Anton Scolia is a member of Opus Day already. And I'd also bet that Congress will approve whomever GW nominates now that both houses are controlled by the republicans. This gives the Christian right a foot in all three branches of government with the president and many members of Congress already taking money and help from the CR.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/12/2004 04:08:39 PM · #39

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Just one correction, Olyuzi. All three branches of government had been controlled by the Republican Party since 2000 elections; then, when the moderate Senator Jim Jeffords renounced is membership to the Republican Party to become and independent, Democrats controlled the Senate very briefly; thereafter, in the mid-term elections of 2002, the Republicans regained controlled of all three branches of government. Now, after the 2004 elections, they've amassed even more controlled -- but, basically, the Republican Party has been firmly at the helm of our government for the past 2 years; and, therefore, the Republican Party is 100% responsible for the policy decisions our nation, for better and for worse -- with no excuses, period.

MadMordegon

11/12/2004 05:04:51 PM · #40

Good post bdobe, thanks for the info, scary but important.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/12/2004 08:47:02 PM · #41

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Good post bdobe, thanks for the info, scary but important.

What's scarry to me is the amount of hate you guys have towards christians. No wonder people are terrified and trying to escape you're persecution. Can't wait till you bring out the lions...

11/12/2004 09:22:08 PM · #42

Originally posted by ScottK:

What's scarry to me is the amount of hate you guys have towards christians. No wonder people are terrified and trying to escape you're persecution. Can't wait till you bring out the lions...

What's scary is any ideology that's strictly based on FAITH, and which is then politicized by a faction to amass power. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has tapped into a strand of Christian fundamentalism that's been clearly politicized.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/12/2004 09:23:21 PM · #43

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Your post makes it sound suspiciously like you would apply a "litmus test" to any nominee to the Supreme Court. Seems like some Senators were chastened for advocating a "litmus test", as well they should. Would you care to list all the groups that judicial nominees can affiliate with? Or religios beliefs they may not espouse?
Religious intolerance is still intolerance - and this from those on the left who CLAIM to be tolerant.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

11/12/2004 09:23:46 PM · #44

Religious Preference % June 1996 % March 2001 March 2002
Christian 84 82 82
Jewish 1 1 1
Muslim * 1 *
Other non-Christian 3 2 1
Atheist * 1 1
Agnostic * 2 2
Something else (SPECIFY) * 1 2
No preference 11 8 10
Don't know/Refused 1 2 1

I think if the Democratic party was smart (and wanted to win the election in 2008 ) it may not be in their best intrests to appeal more to the Cristian ideals. If they go further left....and I dont think they will, they are smarter then that, they will not win in 2008.

I am not some religious freak, I have not been to church in years.

But the numbers suggest, you darn well better appeal to 80 % of the country.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

11/12/2004 10:39:28 PM · #45

Yes I am tolerant, Ron. My friends are of many races, ethnicities and creeds. I see them all as different and the same simultaneously, but as persons with feelings and human needs and characteristics above all else. When I speak of the Christian Right I am referring not to the practitioners, believers and followers of Christ and Christianity, but to those leaders of the CR who have taken it upon themselves to form alliances with politicians from the Republican party in order to amass power in their movements and promote their agendas.

Amazing that you have suggested that I may not be tolerant having criticized this "unholy" (forgive the pun, I couldn't resist :) alliance when in fact, Bob Jones University has had a longstanding history of intolerance towards gays and African Americans, and barred blacks from entering the school for many years and when they finally gave into pressure they did not allow inter-racial dating or marriage until recently. In fact, George Bush was criticized harshly for speaking to the university during the 2000 election campaign for not citing any of those university policies.

Of course I don't believe that Congress should apply "litmus tests" on who should be approved for the Supreme Court based on their religious affiliations, just based on their fairness, and merit for the job. Question is will George Bush nominate people of merit or will he use those nominations to "pay back" those groups who generously supported his candidacy...and the CR have generously supported Bush financially for many years.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'll bet my bottom dollar that George Bush will nominate judges to sit on the Supreme Court who strongly sympathize and will side with the Christian right agenda. I know that Anton Scolia is a member of Opus Day already. And I'd also bet that Congress will approve whomever GW nominates now that both houses are controlled by the republicans. This gives the Christian right a foot in all three branches of government with the president and many members of Congress already taking money and help from the CR.

Your post makes it sound suspiciously like you would apply a "litmus test" to any nominee to the Supreme Court. Seems like some Senators were chastened for advocating a "litmus test", as well they should. Would you care to list all the groups that judicial nominees can affiliate with? Or religios beliefs they may not espouse?
Religious intolerance is still intolerance - and this from those on the left who CLAIM to be tolerant.

LindaZ

11/13/2004 08:41:38 AM · #46

I see no difference between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.
They're both wacko and dangerous, and shall be kept out of political power. End of story, simple as that. Jefferson, Madison, et al. knew that as well. Too bad they aren't here, or maybe I shall say, luckily they are not, because they would be crying.

And now: the most offensive letter you'll ever read. Scold or laugh, your choice. I laughed. Be warned: It's offensive, and I didn't write it.

Message edited by author 2004-11-13 08:43:45.

paganini