letter to the editor

[Thats my opinion]

The following letter will appear tomorrow in the Los Angeles Times



The evangelical pastors featured in The Times' story cannot be faulted for their political activism, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. The problem is their distortion of the Christian faith.

How can any sensitive Christian support the death penalty, the proliferation of firearms, unjust wars of choice, the dismantling of the social safety net, increased riches for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, the rejection of medical coverage for the poor, the continual domination of American life by corporations and the rest of the Bachmann-Perry agenda?

When a significant slice of the church loses its hold on everything Jesus stood for, the problem is religious heresy, not political activism.

Charles H. Bayer

Claremont

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. Good letter

:thumbsup:

[Eddie Haskell]

2. I like it.

Short and to the point.

[trotsky]

3. Accusing your political opponents of heresy?

My goodness. Sounds like we're listening to a Salem witch trial. How about just accusing them of being wrong?

What if the following letter appeared in a newspaper:

The evangelical pastors featured in The Times' story cannot be faulted for their political activism, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. The problem is their distortion of the Christian faith.

How can any sensitive Christian support the murder of living babies through abortion, the restriction of personal freedom, surrendering to evil religion that wants to destroy us, the erosion of personal responsibility, preventing the creation of jobs by those who have been blessed richly by God, the establishment of government-run and rationed health care, the continual domination of American life by secular government and the rest of the Obama-Pelosi agenda?

When a significant slice of the church loses its hold on everything Jesus stood for, the problem is religious heresy, not political activism.

Aw heck, who am I kidding? I'm sure that version of your letter has already appeared in papers around the country! Who is right, and who is wrong? When will your god step in to settle the debate? How about we just argue for our positions because they are the correct and rational ones, instead of feeding the fire of a religious crusade on both sides?

[darkstar3]

7. Exactly.

[deacon_sephiroth]

11. don't bring rationale into this

This is about god, OBVIOUSLY, and he agrees with me! If you don't agree with me, you MUST be wrong, and you MUST be a heathen and you MUST be going to hell, so nanny nanny boo boo, hope you like fire sucker!

Isn't that the basis of all arguement?

[trotsky]

13. I'm pretty sure you nailed it right there.

No attempt to justify WHY god is on their side vs. their enemies, just insistence followed by outrage that someone would "attack" with the question of "What gives you the right to speak for god?"

[tama]

19. Well,

in the CONTEXT on Christianity or more generally, worlds religions, worship of Mammon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon) IS herecy, against what most religions of world teach. E.g. Islam forbids taking interest as did Catholic Church not so long ago.

I remember that when group of evangelicals came to worship the bull on Wall Street and pray for continuous growth of the stock market, the religious irony of christians worshipping the Goldan Calf personifying Mammon was not lost even for atheists. :)

And I'm also sure that you also can deduce good rational reasons to avoid worshipping money, greed and consumerism based on generally accepted ethical axioms.

[skepticscott]

4. Gee, maybe those sensitive Christians

are just following the example of their god in supporting the death penalty and unjust wars of choice. Maybe they just cherry-pick different parts of the Bible than you do.

What insight do you have into the mind of your alleged "god" that tells you they're wrong and you're right about what god thinks and wants?

[Thats my opinion]

5. that's the type of a loaded question

("your alleged 'god'") I won't ever stoop to answer. As to your first paragraph. I believe in the evolution of scientific knowledge, religious sensitivity, natural selection and the human spirit. That is why I'm not going to nail you with examples of stupid inhuman, unintelligent and outdated science. There is good science and bad science (re: global warming) and opting for good science is no to to cherry pick.

I guess i should know by now that nothing I write--even if it is quoting some folks, will never get by un-attacked.

[cleanhippie]

6. You know, there is a huge, distinct difference, between "attacks" and criticism.

You seem to think that they are one and the same, but they are not.

[skepticscott]

9. No, he doesn't know

that's the whole problem. Well, one of them, anyway.

[Thats my opinion]

14. you bet your booties I know.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist. If the purpose is to attack a particular poster, not to discuss his/her ideas, it becomes perfectly clear.

[cleanhippie]

17. Well, judging by your posts on the subject, you lost you booties some time ago.

:shrug:


Strong criticism of religion is not the same as attacking a person for believing it.



I guess if you are sure you know the difference, we won't see any more posts from you claiming that?

[skepticscott]

23. You've been challenged over and over

to show how posts you objected to qualified as "attacks" rather than criticism, and you never, ever, respond substantively. Do you wonder why everyone thinks your claims of persecution are hugely overblown?

[skepticscott]

10. Well, do you have overwhelming objective evidence

that your god exists? Or do a lot of people just claim that he does because it makes them feel good? If the latter, that would be kind of the definition of "alleged".

And no, you don't get a free pass from criticism by spreading other people's nonsense. If you post it here, it becomes your nonsense too. Everything is subject to being examined and criticized. That's the difference between reason and rationality on the one hand, and religion on the other.

As far as my first paragraph, where did I say ANYTHING about science? This is just another of your lame attempts to deflect a discussion away from a point you have no answer for. Just because YOU believe that no one should give any attention to what YOUR god said in the Old Testament (so sorry that it's so inconvenient nowadays), does that automatically mean that anyone who believes differently can't possibly be a good "sensitive" Christian? Does your supposedly open mind leave NO room for the possibility that their interpretation might be right and yours wrong?

[Thats my opinion]

15. When a responder trashes something

even when they might agree with the political substance of what the poser has said, that is pretty good evidence of the intent.

[trotsky]

16. Or perhaps some of us see just how futile and counter-productive it is...

to escalate a political disagreement into a religious war, with both sides claiming they have their god's blessing and mandate to implement their agenda?

[skepticscott]

24. My post was not about politics

It was about religion. I pointed out that god is portrayed in the Christian's holy and sacred text as a champion of the death penalty and of unjust wars, and that it was perfectly natural for loyal and devoted followers of his Word to be the same. Hence, your original question is a demonstrably silly one and simply a means of selling your agenda.

[skepticscott]

12. Do you even grasp the difference?

We have objective means for determining the best and most reliable scientific information available, and for deciding when theories should be discarded and replaced by better ones. You've consistently dodged the question of what those means are for theology, and your claim that religious understanding evolves in an analogous way is bogus. You have no means for deciding what things the Bible reports God or Jesus having said were actually said, nor for deciding which of the things they said they actually meant. You simply choose what feels good and what happens to be politically expedient for you at any particular point in time.

[rrneck]

8. So a religious organization

or member of the clergy involved in politics is just fine if they are sufficiently orthodox.

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

18. How is it you admonish us here for "personal attacks", when your LTE is nothing BUT one?

[trotsky]

20. HERETIC!

Stop personally attacking me!

[cleanhippie]

21. Oh, so it's only an attack when a NON-believer does it?

[trotsky]

22. Now you're getting it! n/t