OT: Wanna know why Kerry lost Ohio?

[skidmark]

The other verses make it more than abundantly clear, plus I notice you grabbed "wrath" and skipped over the "sword" part. I can't see defining the sword part as life in prison.

[Leebo33]

And since when does the term "Christian" only refer to Protestants? As a Catholic, I'm not a "Christian?"

I'm sure I never said that "Christian" just refered to Protestants.

Don't other religions have hypocrites? What is the stance of Jews regarding the death penalty? How about Muslims? I honestly don't know.

[wco81]

Good analysis of the voting patterns in Ohio in the WSJ.

Overall, total votes increased from 4.7 million to 5.5 million. Kerry got over half a million of those new votes, increasing Gore's 2000 margins in a lot of Democratic strongholds and even gaining in places like Cincy (reducing the margin of defeat). But he even won in Franklin, which is described as a former GOP stronghold.

Bush was able to almost match Kerry's gains by getting a huge turnout in the exurbs and rural counties. Deleware county near Columbus gave a big gain to Bush.

Kerry exceeded all their targets except one. Young voters didn't show up.

Apparently, patterns are similar in PA. Kerry wins the big cities, even gains in some of the nearer suburbs of Philly like Montgomery Deleware and Bucks counties which were once GOP strongholds. It appears for social issues reasons, conservatives moved further away to exurb areas

[pk500]

The person we should treat with care and respect. The sin we should call by its name.

I agree with that, in principle. Otherwise, Heaven would be empty except for God, Jesus and Mary, as we all are sinners of some sort.

I'm not sure in my mind whether homosexuality is a sin. Really unsure. That doesn't infer I'm leaning toward yes or no. I'm really torn, really am.

But if homosexuality is a sin, it's no more of a sin than any of the sins you or I have committed.

So Teal's statement above fits for everyone, whether they're gay or straight. Most of the people persecuting gay people as sinners have committed as many or more sins as those they're implicating as being gay.

There's one judge and jury for morality, and he's not in the White House. He's not in your local pulpit. He's not inside your head.

He's upstairs. So any of our judgments are pissing in the wind, a total waste of time.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

The other verses make it more than abundantly clear, plus I notice you grabbed "wrath" and skipped over the "sword" part. I can't see defining the sword part as life in prison.

So I take it that you believe in slavery, too, because the Old Testament talks about slavery. I take it that you believe that criminals should be stoned in public, because that's what happened in the Old Testament.

And I take it you've replaced family barbecues with animal sacrifice, because that was common in the Old Testament.

Either you follow The Bible literally and live your life to the same literal code or you use The Bible as a road map. You can't selectively quote Bible passages to support your stances while ignoring the lack of practicality of others.

Doesn't work that way. But if you are committing animal sacrifice annually, please send me the home movies.

Take care,
PK

[Bill_Abner]

Being gay in this country puts a target on your back along with a sign that says "Kick Me."

I was just thinking as I read this that you could replace "gay" with "Christian" and "country" with "DSP Forum."

Christian isn't the issue. At all. My uncle (I have a few and he's one of the good ones) is an evangelist. He married us actually. He's a great man. A loving man. I have the uptmost repsect for him, and I'm talking he's a serious "get on the stump and preach it brother!" kind of guy. But he's also an inclusionary kinda guy. I don't respect him for being a preacher. We have differing views about religion and its place in the world. I respect him because he doesn't use his religious zeal to promote hate, among other reasons.

When a person wants to use religion, be it Christian, Catholic, Muslim or the L. Ron Hubbard thing to divide, and to tell people that do not share those same beliefs how to live their life and if they don't they're going to burn in a pool of fire surrounded by the Lawrence Welk singers, then yeah, I have a problem with that. I especially have a problem when relgion is brought into politics because it is my feeling that it has no bearing, whatsoever, on how you govern. We all have differing viewpoints about this stuff, and it's our right to have them, but the viewpoint that I carry is that this country and the entire planet would be much better off if religion was kept on a personal level. The relationship that you have with your deity of choice should not impact another person in any way, shape or form. When someone wants to do that, then yeah, I'm all for adding the Kick Me sign.

[Leebo33]

It appears for social issues reasons, conservatives moved further away to exurb areas

I'm not sure what "social issues reasons" means. Most of the folks that I know live in exurb areas because it is a lot cheaper. They can save a ton of money by extending their commutes by a half hour to an hour. I could have saved $100k if I would have built my house in rural Perry county. I have friends that live about an hour outside Philly. I don't think they could afford to live much closer and still own the same house.

[Teal]

"The Commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill unless the person being killed has killed." "


The word kill that is used here is better translated out of the hebrew as "murder". Thou shalt not murder. That's the best translation available, and I support the death penalty. I may act like a hypocrite from time to time, but it sure isn't over the death penalty. Good grief, PK, the death penalty was commanded by God. Is He a hypocrite?

For that matter, I wouldn't suppose you'd label JackDog a murderer, would you? I know you wouldn't, and I'm not saying so, but if you carry this argument all the way out...y'know? How do you justify support of the military with the argument that Thou shalt not kill means "at all"? Just wondering...

[Teal]

"I especially have a problem when relgion is brought into politics because it is my feeling that it has no bearing, whatsoever, on how you govern."


"As a man thinks in his heart, so is he..." Separate a man from his faith, and you separate his head from his shoulders and his heart from his chest. So unless you think cadavers make good governors, I don't see this argument holding water.

[Bill_Abner]

"The Commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill unless the person being killed has killed." "


The word kill that is used here is better translated out of the hebrew as "murder". Thou shalt not murder. That's the best translation available, and I support the death penalty. I may act like a hypocrite from time to time, but it sure isn't over the death penalty. Good grief, PK, the death penalty was commanded by God. Is He a hypocrite?

For that matter, I wouldn't suppose you'd label JackDog a murderer, would you? I know you wouldn't, and I'm not saying so, but if you carry this argument all the way out...y'know? How do you justify support of the military with the argument that Thou shalt not kill means "at all"? Just wondering...

Alert! Alert! I agree with Tealboy!

I'm anti death penalty because the system is not 100% accurate and if we kill one innocent man that's one man too many for me. But I have always taken Thou Shalt Not Kill to mean ...don't murder anyone. I think that's actually one of the more clear commandments, actually.

[ubrakto]

Look, you can think what you want. The simple fact is, 11 states overwhelmingly voted gay marriage down. That's 11 out of 11. So you can have your opinion on it if you wish.

I really don't think anyone's trying to deny you your opinion, but when you support the government legislating against gay marriage you are denying people the right to theirs (or at least the right to act on theirs). That's repression against a practice (for lack of a better word) that does no harm to you. Not to mention that there are a lot of other "sins" Americans can commit that no one is arguing should be illegal.

I respect that you say you can seprate the sin from the sinner, but your argument for this is still based on a doctrine of faith. In this country that should have no basis in writing our laws. We have (or are supposed to have) separation of church and state for a reason.

Also, you talk about apples to oranges comparisons, but then you bring up Thou Shalt Not Kill as a basis for homicide being illegal in this country. I don't pretend to know what was in the framer's heads, but I'd like to think that's because murder is a violation of another person's basic rights (perhaps stating the obvious), whereas a consensual homosexual relationship harms no one. If it's well and truly wrong and against god's "divine will" then god can sort it out when they die. We don't need to legislate the matter.

And yes, you're right. 11 out of 11 states banned gay marriage on Tuesday. But in this country I don't think institutionalizing repression is cause to celebrate.

Marriage is, has always been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but it seems to me that a few hundred years ago a lot of people were saying the same thing about the Earth being the center of the universe.

Respectfully,
Todd

ps - I know I'm not a regular poster here (mostly I just lurk), but something about this topic just gets under my skin. It is not my intent to offend anybody.

[pk500]

For that matter, I wouldn't suppose you'd label JackDog a murderer, would you? I know you wouldn't, and I'm not saying so, but if you carry this argument all the way out...y'know? How do you justify support of the military with the argument that Thou shalt not kill means "at all"? Just wondering...

Pretty simple. Self-defense. I've never been in the military, but soldiers are taught not to fire at surrendering foes.

But if a soldier faces a hostile foe with a weapon aimed at him, then yes, he is firing to kill to preserve his own life. I don't believe in murder, but if someone broke into my house and held my family at knifepoint or gunpoint, then yes, I would have no problem killing that person with a baseball bat to protect my family. Again, self-defense.

Teal, here's a news flash: It is possible for military objectives to be achieved without firing a shot. But if soldiers pursuing military objectives are fired upon or face an enemy with guns trained on them, it is within their right to defend themselves by firing to kill.

Now, you may counter by saying it is within the right of the state to counter a killer by killing him. But when just as effective and I think more devastating mental punishment is available through lifetime incarceration without parole and with intense physical labor and confinement, then why kill?

I frankly find it hard to see how the crowd that preaches such love and respect for human life has no problem practicing selective killing and hatred, whether it's the death penalty or persecution of gays.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

"Alert! Alert! I agree with Tealboy!"




I'm having a Chicken Little moment right now...

[pk500]

The Syracuse paper printed a great editorial today about the election written by the minister of the First Unitarian Universalist Society in Syracuse. It was a long letter addressed to the President, and it contained this brilliant paragraph. The following is that graph, and the parenthetical phrase also is his, not mine:

<i>"My next bit of counsel concerns religion and faith. It seems religion has played a significant role in helping you face some of the demons of your personal life. That's commendable. (A cynic might add it is convenient as well.) But you are America's president, not its pastor. In the Oval Office, democracy should be your only religion."</i>

I can't begin to say how true and how brilliant that paragraph is. Hell, I might even frame it.

Take care,
PK

[skidmark]

So I take it that you believe in slavery, too, because the Old Testament talks about slavery. I take it that you believe that criminals should be stoned in public, because that's what happened in the Old Testament.

Nope, not a proponent of slavery. While the Bible does mention people having slaves, and even admonishes people that have slaves to treat them ethically... I did miss the passage that says "Thou shalt have slaves"

And I take it you've replaced family barbecues with animal sacrifice, because that was common in the Old Testament.

Sacrifice, which was called into place by God, were settled when Christ became the ultimate sacrifice. No further need of them.

Either you follow The Bible literally and live your life to the same literal code or you use The Bible as a road map. You can't selectively quote Bible passages to support your stances while ignoring the lack of practicality of others.

There were many things that were laid out for the Isrealites in the OT... I happily eat pork and all that... but there are definite princples that can be obtained from it. Many things are laid out pretty plainly in the NT as well, and ought to be followed... We can definitely get into trouble when we take one verse... and use it to support an idea that we have formed despite what other verses might say. I feel that "Thou shalt not kill" without the light of other scripture is an example of that. You may feel that the verses I took are also an example of it... but I don't believe that you'll find scriptural basis refuting it. I feel strongly about my view on capital punishment because of my interpretation of scripture in light of all scripture on the subject, and I don't believe its a hypocritical stance.

[ScoopBrady]

Addendum:
Adam, thou shalt not covet another man's ass.
Eve, thou shalt not covet another woman's bush.

My point being the fact that sexuality is not even listed in the 10 commandments. There's some pretty serious stuff there: theft, murder, taking Sunday to worship the Lord, remaining faithful in your marriage. Not one reference of sexuality. It's been a long time since I've read the Bible but I don't recall it being mentioned in there either, of course I may be wrong since I can't quote the Bible at will.

You want to know why the church has a problem with Homosexuals IMHO? The fact that gay people are bad for business. Since a majority of gay people do not have children of their own they don't produce more business for their congregation.

[matthewk]

Something just struck me as interesting. During a lot of this conversation people are qouting the Bible, and using that to justify things like the gay marriage bills and the death penalty.

Last time I checked, the US was a cultural melting pot, something we as Americans always seem very proud of. So why is it that our laws should be driven by a single religion, or ANY religion for that matter?

It's almost like if you are not Christian, then your beliefs do not matter in this country right now.

For the record, I am Lutheran, and believe in a higher power. I do not personally believe the stories of the Bible to be anything more than fairly tales, much like Greek mythology. I do agree with a lot of the morals that the Bible teaches, but not things like the Catholic belief that all Gays are going to hell.

[matthewk]

The hypocrisy of some Christians is amazing (not pointing to you Teal, just in general). If they oppose gays and abortion, then they should stand up against divorce and child abuse. Yet, what we have a 50% divorce rate and pastors coming out of the woodwork as child molestors. Oh, and the whole kill a doctor to prevent abortions idea is simply twisted as well.

Who says they don't oppose 50% divorce rate? That's kind of the whole purpose of the argument to begin with. People don't view marriage as they ought to and that's why divorce rate is so high. They think love is just an emotion that they can feel one day and then it dies off the next, rather than a commitment. Religious circles view marriage and its foundation as something that God has instituted for man. The government also recognizes this institution, and their perspective is that if gay marriage becomes recognized legally, then the definition of what marriage is will suffer. You'll then have even further erosion of marriage as a part of society which will lead to even higher divorce rates.

First, the whole purpose of my original "diatribe" was to point out that the same people who are so vocal about being opposed to gay marriage are pretty much silent about divorce, hence the hypocrisy.

Now on to your response. So are you actually saying that divorce rates will go up if gays are allowed to be married? What's eroding marriage is divorce, not gays. Most gay couples that decide to recodnize their relationship in any form of marriage usually do so for life, at least at a much higher rate than heteros.

I am also curious how many of those opposed to gay marriage actually know a gay couple? Strike that, make that "are friends with" a gay person or couple.

[pk500]

MattK:

You better study your Catholic cathecism a bit better, because your characterization of the church believing all homosexuals will go to hell is wide of the mark. The Catholic Church's position, according to the cathecism:

>>>2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.<<<

Paragraph 2358 of the cathecism says:

>>>Homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."<<<

The Church's position is the same as Teal's: The act is a sin; the person committing the act should be provided forgiveness.

I don't see that as a road to hell for gay Catholics.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

"In this country that should have no basis in writing our laws."


Stealing is against the law:
Thou shalt not steal


Murder is against the law:
Thou shalt not kill


Lying on the stand is against the law:
Thou shalt not bear false witness


Marital infidelity is grounds for divorce:
Thou shalt not commit adultery


"My point being the fact that sexuality is not even listed in the 10 commandments"

Good eye, except for the fact that you forgot Levitical law. Laws that forbid(and I can't believe that laws had to be made for some of this stuff!) sleeping with your mother, sleeping with your sister, having sex with animals, sleeping with your wife during her period, lying with a man as one lies with a woman, etc. The Levitical Laws were also given by God, not just the Top Ten. So it is mentioned in the bible, very clearly, in both Old and New Testaments. Leviticus 18:22 for an example of old testament, Romans 1:21-27 for an example of new testament.



"You want to know why the church has a problem with Homosexuals IMHO? The fact that gay people are bad for business. Since a majority of gay people do not have children of their own they don't produce more business for their congregation."


You're right about one thing...that is most definitely your opinion... [/i]

[TRI]

MattK:

You better study your Catholic cathecism a bit better, because your characterization of the church believing all homosexuals will go to hell is wide of the mark. The Catholic Church's position, according to the cathecism:

>>>2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.<<<

Paragraph 2358 of the cathecism says:

>>>Homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."<<<

The Church's position is the same as Teal's: The act is a sin; the person committing the act should be provided forgiveness.

I don't see that as a road to hell for gay Catholics.

Take care,
PK

To hate anyone is awful and it is wrong and this includes homosexuals or any human being. Anyone who says they are a Christian and hates homosexuals is a liar. Hatred is what is driving terrorism in the world.
Love and be kind unconditionally to ALL human beings!

[Brando70]

The person we should treat with care and respect. The sin we should call by its name.

I agree with that, in principle. Otherwise, Heaven would be empty except for God, Jesus and Mary, as we all are sinners of some sort.

I'm not sure in my mind whether homosexuality is a sin. Really unsure. That doesn't infer I'm leaning toward yes or no. I'm really torn, really am.

But if homosexuality is a sin, it's no more of a sin than any of the sins you or I have committed.

So Teal's statement above fits for everyone, whether they're gay or straight. Most of the people persecuting gay people as sinners have committed as many or more sins as those they're implicating as being gay.

There's one judge and jury for morality, and he's not in the White House. He's not in your local pulpit. He's not inside your head.

He's upstairs. So any of our judgments are pissing in the wind, a total waste of time.

Take care,
PK

That is really the reason I have no problem with gay rights. I'm not pro-homosexuality. I have never been attracted to a man, and if gay marriage was allowed, it wouldn't change those feelings. For all I know, homosexuals will spend eternity rotting in a pool of fire (and if that's the case, I'm probably at least in the eternal frying pan myself). But why can't they go ahead and live their lives and deal with it when they die? Why can't God judge them in the end, while they at least receive the same rights as straight people do? Gay people aren't looking for special rights. They simply want to avoid losing jobs, losing apartments, and losing legal rights such as health care decisions for loved ones because they are gay.

I would never, ever, ever support forcing a church to marry a gay couple. That completely violates the civil rights of the church and its members. But while this nation may be guided by God and Judeo-Christian principles, it is not a nation bound by them.

And many of the reasons against gay marriage do sound like the reasons that used to justify no inter-racial marriage. Yes, at least inter-racial marriage is between a man and a woman. But if you go back and read the reasoning behind those bans, it was very similar, considered an abomination before God, and so on. This country has survived a lot of things, I think the Republic will hold if Adam and Steve set up a Crate and Barrel gift registry together.

[wco81]

It appears for social issues reasons, conservatives moved further away to exurb areas

I'm not sure what "social issues reasons" means. Most of the folks that I know live in exurb areas because it is a lot cheaper. They can save a ton of money by extending their commutes by a half hour to an hour. I could have saved $100k if I would have built my house in rural Perry county. I have friends that live about an hour outside Philly. I don't think they could afford to live much closer and still own the same house.

That's what the story said. But yes there are people out here who commute over 100 miles because housing prices are so high here.

Maybe they like the schools farther away from the big cites. Or less crime. Or getting away from urban/suburban sprawl.

Out here, those outlying areas tend to be more ethnically homogenous too.

[Jared]

"In this country that should have no basis in writing our laws."

Stealing is against the law:
Thou shalt not steal

....

Good eye, except for the fact that you forgot Levitical law. Laws that forbid(and I can't believe that laws had to be made for some of this stuff!) sleeping with your mother, sleeping with your sister, having sex with animals, sleeping with your wife during her period, lying with a man as one lies with a woman, etc. The Levitical Laws were also given by God, not just the Top Ten. So it is mentioned in the bible, very clearly, in both Old and New Testaments. Leviticus 18:22 for an example of old testament, Romans 1:21-27 for an example of new testament.

I agree with Teal that it's wrong to say that Biblical laws should have NO basis in making our laws. Some Biblical law is right and important to have in our system of law. Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. and other laws are important. And the founding fathers were influenced by Biblical law in making up our system of law.

However, our nation is a melting pot (as mentioned before) of people with all sorts of religions coming from all sorts of backgrounds. And some people have different beliefs on a variety of these things. For example, there are some Christians that don't believe that homosexuality is a sin (it's interesting...I just found www.religioustolerance.org which has interpretations of passages like Romans 1:26-27 by both religious conservatives and religious liberals). And there are Christians that don't believe in hell, and Christians that believe abortion should be legal, etc.

So in making laws for a country that includes liberal Christians, conservative Christians, Mulsims, Jews, Hindus, etc. you've got to make the law with tolerance of these viewpoints in mind. So you make the things that virtually every group thinks is wrong illegal (sex with animals, pedophilia, murder, theft, etc.) and leave the rest up to personal choice.

If we were to take Leviticus as the law of the land here, we'd all have to make burnt offerings, and we wouldn't be allowed to eat pork, and we'd have to set up cities of refuge for if we accidentally killed someone, etc. etc. (And no Teal, I don't think you're promoting that...the only OT laws that are still "valid" are the ones that are repeated in the NT due to Christ's sacrifice essentially invalidating the OT...and yes, since homosexuality is in both I can see why people consider it more of a sin than, say, boiling a goat in its mother's milk.)

But the point is that we can't let things that there is religious debate on get into our laws. Because there is a LOT of variance between different versions of Christianity. And even more between Christianity and non-Christian religions. And once you start making laws based on things that different religions disagree on, you get religious conflict. Much better for the gov't to just stay out of it and remain secular.

[James_E]

Honest question, and I'm going to get a bit graphic here... but we're all adults.


Churches claim homosexuality is wrong. Is it because with persons of the same sex, the sex act has no chance of procreation? That is the same reason that some churches are against birth control right? The belief is that sex is for procreation right?

What if a heterosexual couple engages in similar acts that homosexuals do? Oral and anal sex? Are those acts wrong? They are NOT for procreation. If they are wrong, is the sin of a hetero couple engaging in these acts considered to be as grave as when a homosexual couple does?

Most of us guys... atheist, Catholic, Lutheran or whatever... all enjoy a good hummer every now and then right? Are we going to burn in hell if we're lucky enough to get one?