Wake UP!: Obama’s Brilliant Manipulation
Wake UP!: Progressive Punditry and Action Alerts for the Apathetic Advocate
During his victory speech, Obama said, “…to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too.”
It was a brilliant line, one that was surely dismissed by those for whom it was intended. The Hillary supporters who abstained or voted McCain in protest, or the Palin groupies who want the U.S. of A to be a Christian Theocracy, both believed Obama was an empty suit: a man full of beautiful rhetoric without the substance to back it up. To them, his words were meaningless.
However, he’s been going out of his way to prove that he wasn’t just blowing smoke. First, he lobbied for the redemption of Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s Benedict Arnold. Then, he kept Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense, and named Republicans Ray LaHood and Mary Schapiro to the cabinet (as an aside, YAY NANCY SUTLEY!) There’s been a lot of liberal grumbling over Obama’s attempts to reach across the aisle, but nothing compared to his choice on a Pastor to preside over the inauguration invocation.
There’s little I can say about Pastor Rick Warren that hasn’t already been said. He wrote “A Purpose Driven Life,” which was instrumental in bringing the Atlanta murderer and hostage taker Brian Nichols to justice (Baptist Press, Hostage Reads ‘Purpose Driven Life’ to Alleged Atlanta Killer, March 14, 2005). He is the senior pastor for an evangelical mega-church in California.
He used his considerable clout to lobby for Proposition 8, and believes that homosexuality doesn’t qualify as a human right because it is not natural. He also doesn’t allow gays to worship at his church. I guess he missed that part in the book of Matthew about loving your enemies (Verse 5:44, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”)
Pastor Rick falls in line with the disturbing trend of Christians to cry discrimination whenever someone disagrees with them. He fears that Christians who speak against gay marriage will be prosecuted for “hate-speech.” He calls us “Christ-o-phobes.”
The LGBT community is outraged, and the talking heads are squeezing this juicy story for all it’s worth.
So why isn’t Obama and his staff freaking out about the fervor over Ricky-poo? Simple. Like an abusive husband and his co-dependent wife, Obama knows we’ll be back. What choice do we have?
On the other hand, he’s got a country full of conservatives who still need convincing. This is a center right country, and it’s necessary that he at least diffuse the concerns of the Christian right for him to be an effective president. They’ve seen his attempts to reach across the aisle, and have responded with a collective, “That’s all you’ve got?” They want to see him reach out to Christians, not just Republicans.
Enter Rick Warren. The Obama team is smart, and they know that conservatives of all shades love Pastor Warren. He’s in line with the major conservative Christian views, yet he has crossover appeal because he writes books, believes in global warming, and works to end global hunger, illiteracy, and AIDS.
Of course, there are plenty conservative preachers with crossover appeal, but the Warren pick is especially brilliant. See, just picking the Good Pastor to do his inauguration invocation would not be enough to convince the conservatives he’s sincere. Most would see it as we do—a transparent attempt to garner favor with conservatives. That is why Pastor Warren is such an outstanding choice.
Obama knew that choosing Rick Warren would anger the left. More importantly, it would anger a relatively small section of the left—the gays and their allies. He knew that we would be vocal about our discontent, and would demand that Obama rescind his invitation. He also knew that he would refuse to do so. This refusal gives Obama legitimacy with the conservative right: It shows that he’s willing to stand up to the far left while embracing the far right. Our outrage played right into his well orchestrated plan. We’ve been played, ya’ll.
However, I’m not sure it’s such a bad thing. This move has conservative kook Pat Robertson saying:
“I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him. But so help me, he’s come in forcefully, intelligently. He’s picked a middle of the road Cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president.” (Quote from a recent CNN interview with Suzanne Malveaux, transcript courtesy of the Huffington Post. If you’re not hip to Pat Robertson, be sure to check out the Wikipedia page dedicated to his controversies!)
If this move has Pat Robertson convinced Obama’s got what it takes to change this country, then he will certainly come into office with enough political capital to actually CHANGE THIS COUNTRY.
He’s making good on his victory speech promise; he’s trying to be everyone’s president. Here’s hoping he doesn’t screw it up.
* * * *
About Chardon Moore:
Chardon Moore is a political junkie, LGBT ally, and the webmistress of LiberalMartyr.com. She’s been a human and civil rights activist for over a decade, as well as working in broadcast media, academia, and state government. She now lives in Raleigh with her longtime boyfriend and young daughter.
* * * *
Out Impact is your gay online magazine for gay men and women in the LGBTQ community and our allies, encouraging readers to create a positive impact in the gay community. Our content focuses on activism/philanthropy; expert advice for your professional life; pet care by leading experts; a yoga/wellness column in health, spirituality and wellness; as well as columns in food, comics, fashion, an expert travel specialist; engaging features in the arts and more. We have movie, music and book reviews, as well as the latest interviews. Out Impact also produces events benefiting various non-profits around the country, as well as comprehensive media campaigns to raise awareness for various philanthropic causes while bridging the non-profit, activism, artistic and gay communities. OutImpact.com – Making a positive impact in the gay community. Make yours.
To subscribe to our free newsletter for the latest at Out Impact, as well as exclusive content and giveaways please visit: http://www.outimpact.com/out-impact-newsletter.
Related posts:
RSS
Newsletter
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
MySpace
YouTube
How does Pastor Rick “prevent” homosexuals from worship at his church?! Don’t look now, Christ-o-phobe.
From the Saddleback Church’s website:
“Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at [sic] a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church –we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.”
I made a mistake in my column, he does allow them to worship, but they can’t be members. The hope is that gay folks will hear the word of God and be “cured.” But he can’t keep people from joining if they aren’t OUT.
Interestingly enough, the Think Progress blog made an interesting discovery. For some reason, Saddleback Church has taken down all the anti-gay rhetoric. Check out their blog to see the google cache of the site, and then read what it says now: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/22/warren-gay-website/
Check out Mike Rogers’ response about Rick Warren. He really hit some key points that are very optimistic
http://beyrownqueero.com/post/67024981/calling-out-anti-gay-public-figures
On behalf of Saddleback Church, I accept your apology. Also, you should have kept quoting from that web site for the full context:
“In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a [heterosexual] couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.”
…
“Finally, a word about being judgmental. It’s not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that’s just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are … that’s being judgmental.”
Charlie,
I’m actually quite glad that you commented on this column, because it gives me a chance to write about something near and dear to my heart…something that I omitted from this column in an effort to improve its readability. As a lifelong Christian (Baptized at age 7), and the granddaughter of a Baptist Minister, I have become increasingly disturbed at the trend of modern churches towards seclusion, exclusivity, and intolerance.
I did not offer you or your church an apology, and I don’t believe you deserve one. The mistake I made was one of degree…Saddleback Church does not “forbid” gays from worshipping at their church.
However, the word you use, “prevent” (meaning to keep from happening, or to impede) is exactly what your church does in regards to homosexuals.
By refusing to offer them membership, you are singling them out as unworthy to belong. God made us social animals, and as such, we tend to avoid situations where we are made to feel unwelcomed. This is not anywhere in the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you really believe that homosexuality is a sin, you should be actively reaching out to them, not making them feel as though they don’t belong.
And about that…Do you know what Jesus said about homosexuality? Nothing. Read your bible, the whole thing, not just the passages highlighted in Sunday School and Sermons. He does say that he subscribes to the Laws of Moses, which do condemn homosexuality. Leviticus lays out a lot of laws that Jesus subscribed to, including Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Notice that this passage only condemns male homosexuality, and says nothing of lesbianism. Also, notice that Leviticus 18:19 and Leviticus 18:21 condemn being with a woman on her period and masturbation, respectively, yet I don’t see Saddleback Church denying membership to people who have relations when Aunt Flo is visiting or who masturbate. I’ll bet you wouldn’t have many members.
I am not a Christ-o-phobe, dear Charlie. I am afraid of what has been done to Christ’s teachings. I’m afraid of the perversion of his love, and the way so many have forgotten that Jesus Christ is about acceptance and inclusion, not judgment and isolation. Old Testament God, before he sent his son to save the world, did not have a lot of mercy in his repertoire. But that’s why he sent Jesus, he sent his son to bring compassion and love to the world.
Of course, I have my own thoughts, as you have yours. It is not up to me, it’s not up to you, and it’s not up to Pastor Warren to presume to know what God’s plan entails. I guess we will find out who’s right when judgment day comes.
I’m glad that you are GLAAD, and I guess we will find out who’s right when judgment day comes.
My dear Charlie, I do hope that someday you will join the ranks of allies like me. People who believe that it dosen’t matter who you fall in love with, all that matters is that you are in love.
We are lucky, my friend, in our heterosexuality. We don’t have to worry about being shunned or cast aside by churches like yours simply because of who we love.
I work for the government, and I had a wonderful young man named Gabriel call me the other day. He was bright, and motivated, and articulate. He told me about how his guardian had raised him to hate who he was. He told me that she looked him in the face and said that he was dead to her, based only on her Christian faith and the fact that he could no longer deny that he was a homosexual.
Would Jesus do this? No. But the teachings of people who twist Jesus’s words poisoned this woman’s soul to the degree that she was willing to cast out a child she had raised and professed to love, just because he was gay.
We are lucky that we don’t have to worry about people treating us like animals without even taking the time to understand. We are lucky that we don’t have to have that conversation with our loved ones, not knowing if they would be accepting or would cast us out like a demon.
I’ll pray that someday, my dear Charlie, you will come to realize that love and understanding are what Christianity is supposed to be about, not exclusivity and judgment.
“The righteous man judges ALL things …” Of course Jesus Christ loves homosexuals and died on the Cross for all sinners. That doesn’t mean He loves sin; quite the opposite. And, I don’t hate anyone, but I wouldn’t condone “marriage” between an adult brother and his adult sister (even if they were, as you think is all that matters, really “in love” ; )
Happy New Year!
Because, of course, the closest approximation to homosexual marriage is incest.
Didn’t you forget to add pedophilia and beastiality too? That’s what Pastor Rick teaches. As I said before, it’s a good thing he doesn’t preach that you’ll go to hell for masturbation or having sex with your wife while she’s menstruating. I’ll bet even you couldn’t be a member, then, oh pious one.
You are the one who argued: “all that matters is that you are in love” so it should not make any difference whether that “love” takes the form of incest, pedophilia or even beastiality, right? Christians are not bound to Old Testament ceremonial law anymore. Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (if you don’t believe me, look it up ; )
BTW: I already posted, above, that pointing out certain behavior is sin does not equate to being “judgmental”. Nice try though.
Was Jesus being “judgmental” when he told the adulterous woman “Go and sin no more”? That’s all that Rick Warren and I are saying? I would dare say that he has done more to fight HIV / AIDS around the world than any other American.
You wrote: “You are the one who argued: ‘all that matters is that you are in love’ so it should not make any difference whether that ‘love’ takes the form of incest, pedophilia or even beastiality, right? Christians are not bound to Old Testament ceremonial law anymore. Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (if you don’t believe me, look it up ; )”
It is interesting that you commented about “ceremonial law,” and the fact that Christians are not bound to it. You do realize, of course, that Leviticus is in the Old Testament? And that it is, in fact, a part of that ceremonial law that Christ delivered us from? The Old Testament is the only part of the Bible that calls Homosexuality an “abomination” punishable by death. Do you know what else it says is punishable by death? Adultery. And you can murder your bride by stoning if you find out she’s not a virgin on your wedding night. You can also be stoned to death for having sex during your wife’s cycle.
You can’t have it both ways, Charlie. You either accept Ceremonial Law, ALL of it, or you decide that as a Christian you “are not bound to Old Testament ceremonial law anymore.”
You wrote: “BTW: I already posted, above, that pointing out certain behavior is sin does not equate to being ‘judgmental’. Nice try though.”
No, pointing out behavior does not make you “judgmental.” However, cherry picking sins, and then denying membership based on your opinion about those sins, is judgmental. Preventing membership in a church takes people one step further away from salvation, which in my opinion (and really, our opinions are all we have, as God’s plan is unknown to us) is not what Jesus would have wanted.
Church membership has been denied, in Jesus’ name, for a lot of folks. Many Christian leaders during the civil rights era believed that the Bible condoned segregation. Some churches in rural America still deny membership to African Americans, based only on the color of their skin.
As for gay marriage, there is actually nothing in the Bible that strictly forbids it. But do you know what kind of marriage was strictly forbidden? Interracial marriage.
You wrote: “Was Jesus being ‘judgmental’ when he told the adulterous woman “Go and sin no more”? That’s all that Rick Warren and I are saying? I would dare say that he has done more to fight HIV / AIDS around the world than any other American.”
Firstly, the Bible tells us that God is the only one who can judge us. Since Jesus is one third of the Holy Trinity, your question is about as rational as asking if God is judgmental.
Secondly, your HIV/AIDS comment is a complete non-sequitur, unless you’re prepared to say that most gay people have AIDS, which if you based your opinion on fact instead of what people tell you, you’d know.
Charlie, can I ask you something? Why do you care? Why is gay marriage such a big deal to you? The only kind of marriage that is available to homosexuals today is a spiritual marriage, not a civil marriage. The right that they fight for is not one of spiritual acceptance, but of legal recognition. It is an issue of equality, not an issue of religion. Is it because you don’t want there to be a law on the books that is distasteful to your vision of God?
For argument’s sake (and only that…I am not conceding anything), let’s say that homosexuality is an “abomination.” Well, there are a lot of things that are legal, but are immoral according to the Bible. And there are a lot of things that are illegal, but are deemed acceptable in the Bible.
Prostitution for example. It is stated in the bible that visiting a prostitute is acceptable for men, although not for women. In the book of Corinthians, it is clearly stated that MALE prostitutes shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Female prostitutes are okay. However, I don’t see any mega-churches like yours stumping for the legalization of prostitution, because our society believes that prostitution is immoral.
Why is this so, Charlie? Because our society has changed, and we are not the misogynistic culture we were during Jesus’ life. Churches have accepted this, as they accepted that segregation was no longer a valid biblical principle.
So, since churches have made informed decisions about the validity of bible verses based on the climate at the time the books were written, perhaps it would be good to know what the climate was like in Jesus’ time in regards to homosexuality.
Homosexual behavior in the Roman Empire was not like it is today. It was typically engaged in by the wealthy and most powerful, not in the capacity of loving relationships, but rather as sexual hedonism. Powerful men, who were often married, would have sexual relationships with slaves, with or without their consent. It didn’t matter if the slaves were male or female, just as long as the man in power was acting as the male, not as the female. These relationships were largely accepted by the culture, as long as the person in the female role was either a slave or a non-Roman.
The Romans, as you know, saw Christianity as a threat. The attacks on Christians were brutal and merciless, and Christians were often taken as “slaves” or “prisoners.” As such, they were often the target of Roman guards, soldiers, and politicians for non-consensual relations. The Romans knew that Christians and Jews subscribed to Old Testament Law, so they used sex as a torture tactic.
The other type of homosexual behavior which was prevalent was used by Roman priests and priestesses who worshiped the false Gods of sex and passion, not the Hebrew God. Drunken orgies were the norm in these types of ceremonies.
This is the culture in which the Bible was written…one where homosexuality was either an extravagant indulgence, a polytheistic ritual, or a weapon of violence. This is also the reason that homosexual marriage never came into play…the Biblical view of homosexuality was not one of consensual relationships between consenting adults who want to be partners for life. Likening this type of sadistic, hedonistic behavior to modern day homosexuality is an insult.
So given that Churches have learned that some aspects of the Bible are not applicable in our modern society, including segregation and prostitution, why is it so outlandish to ask that Christian churches like yours re-evaluate their position toward modern day homosexuality? And given that our laws as a nation often conflict with moral teachings in the Bible, is it so wrong to wonder why Christians like you are more likely to lobby for constitutional bans against recognizing two consenting adults as legally married than you are to lobby for recognition of polygamy? (In fact, you often compare homosexuality to polygamy, which is really outlandish since polygamy is acceptable according to the Bible.)
So given everything I’ve said, please help me understand, Charlie, why it’s so important to you that homosexuals not have the right to marry.
I am going to answer your questions, even though you refuse to answer mine. I oppose same-sex marriage because the IDEAL to raise healthy children, and therefore future citizens, is one man and one woman, married and faithful to each other, in a stable and nuturing home. I don’t want Saddleback Church to “re-evaluate our position” toward modern day homosexuality anymore than you want your church to re-evalute your position on modern day murder. And, I couldn’t care less that you wonder why fundamentalist Christians are more likely to lobby for constitutional bans against recognizing two consenting adults as legally married than we are to lobby for recognition of polygamy.
For the record, however, I am not cherry-picking anything (as I noted above):
“In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a [heterosexual] couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.”
Yes, I realize that Leviticus is in the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, condemns ALL sex (even LUST) outside of marriage, but it does not “strictly forbid” interracial marriage, per se. Nor does it say that polygamy or female prostitution is acceptable. Both male and female prostitution are illegal in our secular law because of the harm to the individuals and society as a whole. I don’t need the Bible to defend laws against prostitution.
I believe that answers all of your questions, so we will see if you can answer mine now. I will say, in parting, that it is sad that you think it is “outlandish” or an “insult” to simply point out the Truth.
Charlie, what questions have I “refused” to answer? You asked how Pastor Rick “prevented” homosexuals from attending. I answered that offering exclusive membership sure seems to be an effective preventative measure. You asked if Jesus was being judgmental, and I answered yes, but with good reason…since he is the son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.
The only thing I can figure you’re referring to is this: “You are the one who argued: ‘all that matters is that you are in love’ so it should not make any difference whether that ‘love’ takes the form of incest, pedophilia or even beastiality, right?” When I read this, I believed it was in the form of a rhetorical question. I apologize if I was mistaken. In an effort to make amends, I will answer it now.
At a superficial level, your comparison can be compelling…if love is all that matters, why is this wrong? However, when you get to the real substance of the issue, it is clear that you’re comparing apples to oranges.
In the cases of beastiality and pedophilia, you’re talking about a non-consensual relationship. At least one of the partners will be unable to provide consent, either due to the fact that they’re an animal or that they’re too young to be able to legally consent. It’s rape. Rape is not love, it is violence. You are comparing acts of violence to a consensual relationship between consenting adults.
Furthermore, if you look at the perpetrator of beastiality or pedophilia, they almost always have some history of abuse or family dysfunction (such as alcoholism or drug abuse in the family, rejection or neglect from parents, overbearing parents that isolate their children, parents that fight constantly, severe financial hardship, etc.) This type of abuse or neglect caused them to develop a desire for sex with an unwilling partner, or a partner who is unable to reject them.
In the case of incest, there are genetic reasons why our culture looks at this as taboo. Biologically we are hardwired to be repulsed by anyone that is too genetically similar when choosing a mate. A recent study involved having individuals smell a number of t-shirts worn by strangers and then by close family members (i.e. mother, brother, son, etc.) Overwhelmingly, they rated strangers clothing as smelling more appealing. Why is this? Pheromones.
Pheromones determine who we are attracted to. When you haven’t seen your wife for a day or two, (I’m assuming that you have a wife, since you’re very concerned with the makeup of families, which I will comment on later) and you finally get to hold her, what’s the first thing you notice? More than her hug, it’s probably her smell. It’s comforting to you, and immediately picks up your mood. You’re reacting to her pheromones.
The role of pheromones is to attract us to individuals who are the best genetic matches for us. The more similar the genetic material, the less likely you are to be attracted. This is to safeguard against genetic mutations which are significantly more prevalent in close relationships. And while the smell of your family members can also be soothing, it causes a different part of your brain to react…one involved with recognizing familiarity and comfort, not sexual compatibility.
Again, abuse is at the root of this type of relationship, which is starkly different from a relationship between consenting adults. Individuals involved in incest have typically endured abuse, or a difficult family life, which caused an unnaturally close bond between siblings as a coping mechanism.
Of course, it bears mention that the relationships you compare to homosexuality are illegal. While there are states and municipalities where homosexual relationships are illegal, you won’t find anyone being arrested for having a consenting homosexual relationship in the privacy of their own home.
So there’s you’re answer.
Now, about your reason for opposing equal rights to marriage: “I oppose same-sex marriage because the IDEAL to raise healthy children, and therefore future citizens, is one man and one woman, married and faithful to each other, in a stable and nurturing home.”
Firstly, marriage does not necessarily lead to children. If you want to oppose something based on that specific reason, then perhaps you should opposed gay adoption instead. It doesn’t make sense that you would oppose something that has nothing to do with the reason you give to oppose it.
But back to the issue…healthy children. Dozens of studies have been performed on children of homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, they find that children raised in these households are just as healthy as children raised in traditional families. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html, make sure you scroll to the bottom to read their sources).
The main hurdle that these children face comes not from the fact that they have two Moms or two Dads, but because intolerant people attack them. Children of gay parents are bullied by their peers who are not taught tolerance. I hate to come back to the interracial marriage issue, but it really is quite applicable in a lot of these situations: Children from mixed-race families often complain of the same type of treatment as children of homosexual families.
The most important thing for children isn’t that who their parents are, but how they are treated.
Which brings me to a heartbreaking case I worked on when I was in government. A grandmother was asking for help with Child Protective Services. Her daughter-in-law lived with another man in a one-bedroom apartment with her granddaughter. The Grandmother’s son was in jail for raping her granddaughter. The woman’s daughter-in-law believed that free love applied to everyone, and was also convicted of raping the granddaughter…in fact, it was her idea. However, the daughter-in-law still had custody. Why? Because the only other blood relative, the grandmother, was in a lesbian relationship with her partner of 30 years. The state felt that it was better than this child stay with her rapist than go to a stable home, simply because they were gay.
If you think this case is an isolated incident, then you’re wrong.
I hate to sound like some 1960’s flower child, but a loving and supportive home is the IDEAL, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.
Now, for a biased Bible lesson regarding segregation and interracial marriage:
Please open your Bibles to the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 7, Verse 3: “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
And now turn in your Bibles to the book of Genesis, Chapter 11, Verses 6-9: “And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
And for a New Testament example, turn with me to the book of Acts, Chapter 17, Verse 6: “He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings,”
I will give you this: Earlier, when I said the Bible strictly forbids interracial marriage, I should have said expressly. I didn’t clearly represent myself in that manner… what I was trying to say is that it spells out the words, in several passages, that say God opposes it. Of course, I am cherry-picking, just as many anti-segregation pastors did in the civil rights era. I have quoted the same biblical verses they did to justify their position.
In fact, the Bible has been used by horrible men to justify inexcusable acts. Hitler used the Bible to justify his genocide against the Jews. Of course, if you read the Old Testament, the Jews are God’s chosen people. But in the New Testament, they are the murderers of Jesus. During Hitler’s time, and even today, Jews were often decried in churches as unfit, as unworthy, as impure. Because they did not believe in Christ, they were not worthy of salvation. In fact, I’d like to share with you a quote from the Nuremburg Trials (the real ones, not the movie):
“I have written such articles again and again; and in my articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should serve as an example to every race, for they created the racial law for themselves– the law of Moses, which says, “If you come into a foreign land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.” And that, Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws.. These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When after centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra demonstrated that notwithstanding many Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and civilizations have perished.”
–Julius Streicher (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol. 12)
What’s the lesson here? The Bible is often very vague. If you go into the Bible looking for justification for a belief you already hold, then you will no doubt find it.
Charlie, it’s clear I’m not going to change your mind. I haven’t even been trying to. I have, however, quite enjoyed the debate. It’s always important for people to question their own beliefs, and have others question their beliefs, to make sure that they’re not simply following the herd. It’s always important for people to think, research, and study the things they hold to be true. Even reliable sources will be wrong from time to time, so verifying and justifying information is key to being a well informed citizen…and a well informed Christian.
I’m sure that this discussion has only served to bolster your beliefs, Charlie. I’m sure that you feel you are doing God’s work by challenging things you don’t believe are right. My only hope is that in the end, people who believe in your form of Christianity will understand that being tolerant does not require you to understand. I hope that people will realize that this intolerance towards homosexuals does more harm to society than accepting them for who they are. I hope that someday, people will realize that religion and faith are very personal issues, and that deciding who is and is not worthy of fellowship is not man’s task, but God’s.
[...] to hear from you! If you’ve got the time, check out the comment section of my past column, “Obama’s Brilliant Manipulation.” There’s quite a lively conversation going on [...]
Obama may have a whole arsenal of smooth moves, and I hope he uses them. Some of my colleagues have remarked that the man is ‘homophobic’ because he has mentioned giving human right laws even where his religion and personal viewpoint differs. I sincerely doubt someone as educated and cool as Obama (or his wife) for that matter is homophobic, but he’s smart enough to not thunder out of a closet. It’s shocking enough to most that he is black, so baby steps are required for conservatives to start to see the light. Where it counts, though, he’s been right there- almost immediately in office, he put back or put in place obvious necessities against discrimination and to fund third world contraception initiatives, two moves that angered the right and brought out creeps of every ilk, calling him babykiller and homophobic slurs. He had to have a big preacher lead the prayer, and likely Rick was the least evil of them all.
That we are not currently in the hands of the far right, for a brief reprieve, is more significant than we know. You mention the Christian Theocracy. Does everyone know what that means? Everyone including my dad says, “Well, I agree with Christians but not that extreme.” No one stands up and says “Stop this.” We’re all ‘tolerant’ not Christophobic. Do you all know that Christian Dominionists want to reinstate Old Testament law and remove all nonChristian or liberal Christians from the courts and government? They’re about halfway through, and Obama has put a wrench in their plans. By OT law, I mean capital punishment for 20 plus crimes, and first on their list is our abomination. DEATH to all of us. Forget that the OT also says to execute unruly children, adulteresses, and apostates- they want that too. They want to remove the vote from ‘emotional’ women, forgetting that all the emotion in the world won’t be as strong as voting with your dick. They think women’s votes cancel their husbands.
This is not hysteria. Look up Christian Dominionism or Nationalism and you’ll be amazed what you find. Coral Ridge, James Dobson, Focus on the Family, most of the mega churches, the entire homeschooling movement, these are all arms of the parent movement. After all, Jesus won’t come until the heathens and abominators are dead, and the entire world is “one nation under God.”