From: John Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 12:04:22 EDT
You wrote to Bob (in part):
"I must point out that this thread and apparent need to involve politics
into theology was
started by a liberal."
Thank you for the label. That means, of course, that what I write must be
not worth reading.
" It would seem to me that the entire point of the so called "list" of
fundamentalists was to make the point that conservatives are less forgiving
and therefore less Christian."
If I had made that claim, you would be justified in citing it. I did not.
Deciding what motives a writer has for any particular post is dangerous
"One's politics and religious beliefs are between God and the individual
Horse hockey. When your political beliefs affect me, or my country, they
necessarily become between you and me also.
"If one believes in homosexuality or abortion, that is for them to explain
to God not I."
Of course. BTW, "the first is an orientation, not an action. The second is
"If we do things that we know God does not want us to
do, either individually or as a society, just because we feel that we are
saved, we will doom ourselves and those we touch."
Of course. One of the things God wants us to do is use our minds. That's
what they are there for.
"Some may think that being homosexual, killing our unborn, not allowing
prayer in schools, etc may be accepted by God, but then the same people who
believe this are the ones recently saying that perhaps the Islamic
terrorists had a reason for 9/11."
Balderdash. Being homosexual is an orientation that some people have. Maybe
its a handicap, like weak eyes. Are weak eyes OK with God?
Killing our unborn is an action I speak against. But there are times when
killing the unborn is the better of two very poor options. I also speak
against involving the government in the doctor-patient decisions on this
issue. Maybe God wants a draconian law on the books for this purpose. So
far, I think not.
Not allowing prayer in schools which is government mandated seems like a
decision which is reasonable and rational. There is no law against private
prayer, of course.
The last part of your comment is not worthy of analysis.
"They hate our government policies. It is our religion and more particularly
our so called
religious acceptance (forgive all) that they hate."
I know, W says this all the time. It is an easy answer. I think it is also
an incomplete one.
"Until we understand that our "liberalism" is what is destroying us, we will
end up just like the
Greeks and Romans."
Interesting claim. Can you defend it. The First amendment is an early
example of liberal thought. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why it should be
"Some may have heard of the recent beauty pageant contestant that was
rejected because she promoted abstenace instead of "safe sex". She of course
did not say to have safe sex, but rather that not having in the first place
is the safest sex."
I had not heard of that. I would observe that I'd be on her side on that
one. If the story is true, of course.
"It amazes me how liberals have no problem with violating the First
Amendment when it suites them, but them turn around and scream about their
rights when it comes to having computer generated children in the nude or
engaged in sexual conduct."
Most liberals I know are fiercely protective of the first amendment. Maybe
you can cite where they approve of violating it? As for the obscenity case,
that is a tough one. The amendment has to protect speech we don't personally
approve of, and that's how that one seems to be going. Very much like the
case of the neo-Nazi march in the Jewish town of Skokie.
I read last year a 903 page tome by Ariens & Destro on the single subject of
Religion and First Amendment Rights. It was part of the required reading for
a course on ethics here at Iliff. A much more complex subject than most
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 16 2002 - 21:14:52 EDT