Woman to Woman

By John C. Snider

December 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Yes, for goodness sake, if you’re a Christian parent, do not under any circumstances let your children read anything that will make them think. Don’t let them read anything that will expose the religion of their parents as the elaborate fairy tale that it is. Keep them in the house. Keep them away from The Golden Compass. That way I can go to the movies in peace.

www.americanfreethought.com

By kimberly

December 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

So… metaphor and symbolism are acceptable elements in the works of C.S. Lewis, but not in the works of Phillip Pullman and J.K. Rowling? Who gets to decide? Oh yes, Shaunti Feldhahn and the Catholic League. Yes, thanks for thinking for us, so we don’t have to!

By P. Robertson

December 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Go see a good wholesome family Christmas movie.

By St. Nick

December 9, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

Dark material that leads up to killing God? “Passion of the Christ” anyone?

And the last Harry Potter book has nothing on Revelations.

By Craig

December 10, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Trust me Shaunti, your kids will face much more serious threats to their faith than “The Golden Compass” as they grow up.

It’s sad sometimes, Christianity grew up in a culture that was openly hostile to it, and it thrived. Now, Shaunti and the Catholic League cower in fear because of a movie.

Is Christianity so weak that it can’t stand an attack by a movie?

By JohnF

December 10, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

They are warned..it’s a PG rating…parental guidance…

It’s up to the parents to determine if the movie isn’t right for their family…it’s not the responsibility of the movie producers, the advertisers, nor the theaters to put in extra effort to coddle the frail sensibilities of the religious.

By lovelyliz

December 10, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

Should parents be warned? That’s what the rating system is for. Then there is the internet which is full of sites that will inform anyone who cares to do the least bit of research into the content of films.

Why do evangelicals have so little faith that encouraging thought and discourse will instantly make all their children heathens?

If you want to look at films that young children shouldn’t see because of content, how about The Passion and The Left Behind Series?

By Anonymous

December 10, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

I love how Shaunti tries to co-opt the term ‘family-friendly’ to apply to its religious content… not sex or violence, which is what age-appropriate movies concern themselves with. In Shaunti’s dictionary, “family friendly” apparently means explicitly pro-religion, or better yet, pro-Christian.

But I welcome the hysteria and protests. There’s no better way to ensure publicity and attendance than for tiresome fanatics to try to ban it. Hysteria is hype, so thanks for the free promotion!

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

john C Snider

Children do not read the way adults read. They do not have the maturity or the education to determine what is real and what isn’t real.

Let children read whatever they want seems like such a good thing to say. Let a six year odl girl read about cannibalism. Or better yet, let her read silence of the lambs.

Common sense, folks.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Christianity is under a constant attack. And as can be clearly seen by the posters so far, most liberals will embrace such attacks.

I made a statement last week that progressive organizations NEVER feed the poor. Churches feed the poor, not liberals. Churches council people in trouble. When a person dies, it’s the church that will be there to offer any help to the relatives of the deceased.

Yes, it’s very hip to be down on Christianity. And many sheep will walk right off a cliff if they think it might make them the least bit different than the other sheep walking off the cliff.

I say, be different. Allow parents the freedoms to decide what their children read. It is about FREEDOM.

A lot of these same ideas were discussed many years ago and it was decided that the state should raise the children and religion should be eliminated from their lives. The government ended up using those children to defend Berlin against the attacks of the Russian and American forces.

By Monica

December 10, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Yes, parents should be warned about movies such as The Golden Compass. They should be warned about any movie. My husband and I don’t let our children watch PG movies that we haven’t seen first. I saw the previews for this movie, and I wouldn’t have let my children watch it anyway; they are too young. Mine haven’t seen “Narnia” either.

I see Shaunti’s point that the movie will promote interest in the books. I think that parents should also read the same material that their children read. If I think that the book is too “provocative,” for lack of a better word, for my children, then I won’t let them read it until they are old enough to discern fact from fiction. That’s called parenting.

I don’t necessarily need a warning to keep me from taking my kids to a movie. I do appreciate the email that I received, simply because I didn’t know about the trilogy of books.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

They expected a $40 million dollar opening weekend and it brought in $27 million. Had it not been for Christian organizations desire to know what is in movies before allowing their children to see them, it would have grossed much more.

While I agree that it is the job of PARENTS to know ahead of time the content of what they allow their children to watch, listen to, and read, it would be nice for this information to come from the producers of the movies. THAT is what rating systems are for. It’s more about the movie industry being up front and letting parents and others who are interested know. They accepted that responsibility during the Clinton years when the choice was to police themselves or have the government do it for them. They chose to do it themselves, so I think complete disclosure is best. I thought all of you lefties were PRO-INFORMATION and then let the people decide. Apparently that is true when the information favors the left, but not when it favors the right.

So let me get this straight:

You are for information like sex ed for kindergartners and things like that.

You are FOR information that PROMOTES the gay lifestyle in elementary schools.

You are AGAINST information when it means telling women the COMPLETE story about abortion.

You are AGAINST information when it comes to telling parents about anti-Christian aspects of books and movies.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

in the works of C.S. Lewis

For some reason, I don’t think you’ll find any copies of Mere Christianity lying around the Feldman household. ; > }

“Passion of the Christ”, anyone? The last Harry Potter Book has nothing on Revelation

Took the words right out of my mouth, St. Nick.

Who gets to decide?

I guess it may be a tad premature to declare religious fundamentalism dead in the Western world, but from my POV the fundies have no real power other than to squawk loudly and make fools of themselves on a regular basis. As a young man, I used to be somewhat intimidated by “confident” Christians who demanded to know if I was “saved” or not, but as I grew older I gained confidence in my own worldview and learned enough about the Bible to expose their ignorance about what the document actually says.

By Anonymous

December 10, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

TOJ’s still fighting the Red Menace, it seems.

No, a movie (or book) that questions mindless devotion to a religious hierarchy is not “anti-Christian”… that is, unless your religion is such an embarrassment, in which case the attack is richly deserved. The fact that your God resembles the lying, manipulative tyrant of Pullman’s work is hardly his fault, is it?

It’s funny to see TOJ try to draw a distinction between “churches” and “liberals” as though they’re opposites… when of course, those Christian churches that help the poor ARE doing the liberal thing, with the strong approval of all liberals both religious and secular. It’s the so-called “religious right” that’s trying to walk a tightrope of hypocrisy.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Monica

You sound like a great parent. Everyone knows everything about raising kids until they have their own.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Hey Monica…Christmas Break Countdown!!!

By Anonymous

December 10, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

So, Chuck, you’d like to see an addition to the ratings system? Perhaps a warning to parents that “Danger: This movie, while free of sex and explicit violence, does contain characters who think for themselves and question authority.”

Maybe such movies could be rated F, for Freethinking, so the fundamentalists would know to keep their kids safely tucked away from such a dangerous influence.

By Maxwell

December 10, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Children do not read the way adults read. They do not have the maturity or the education to determine what is real and what isn’t real.

They also do not have the capability to make decisions about religion until they make them the way the parents want them to make them, of course.

At least The Golden Compass is probably not like that gay S&M movie, The Passion of the Christ, required viewing in many fundy circles.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Chuck

You are asking that people look at the situation in a fair and honest way. It isn’t very “Hip” to be fair and honest.

It is hip to be anti-Christian. Unfortunately, it is also becoming very hip to be antisemitic.

Isn’t it a shame that it isn’t very hip to be fair minded.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Anonomous

You are once again speaking out of your rectum. You have no idea who “My God” is. How dare you even insinuate that you do.

All liberals are not anti-Christian. You are, as is most on here.

It isn’t your responsibility or your right to decide what other people’s children read or see.

What churches are doing is not the liberal thing. If they were doing the liberal thing, they would disband the church and give the money that is being spent on the poor to political candidates. Whine all you want, but name a single liberal or democratic organization that feed the poor.

By lovelyliz

December 10, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Don’t forget how hip it is to portray every person of Middle Eastern decent and every Muslim as a terrorist bent on the destruction of the United States.

Unless you’ve been protesting these portrayals in television and movies, why do you have to be taken seriously when protesting a film most of you haven’t even seen yet simply because it might possibly at some point call into question your beliefs?

If your children see The Golden Compass or any other film and has questions, why don’t you discuss the issues with them? Or does that make too much sense?

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Maxwell,

At least The Golden Compass is probably not like that gay S&M movie, The Passion of the Christ, required viewing in many fundy circles.

I see. So you are part of a “fundy circle”. What circle would that be?

By Monica

December 10, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

*Christian churches that help the poor ARE doing the liberal thing…

Food for thought… Christianity was around before “liberals” and “conservatives,” so does that mean that the liberals that help the poor are doing the Christian thing? :)

By chuck

December 10, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

It depends on the children lovelyliz. As for me, I’m going to choose to NOT spend my money supporting people whose values are not the same as mine. To me, it is more about the idea of lining the pockets of people who hate me and who hate my God. My children are both in their late teens. I would not have any problem with them seeing the CONTENT of the movie. They have been brought up to KNOW the TRUTH. What I would have a problem with is giving money to people who are actively working to destroy what I hold sacred.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

They should be warned about any movie

Is it my imagination, or have the standards for what passes for PG changed? I made a blunder a few years ago by inviting my friend’s then ten year old son to see “Dodgeball, An Underdog Story” with us. Truly funny movie, but the directors chose to include numerous gratuitous lesbian references and over-the-top sexual sight gags which seemed to walk the line of an R rating IMO. My friend told me that she had quite a bit of ‘splainin to do later on after that one. ; > }

Similarly, I was somewhat disappointed with the last JB movie, “Casino Royale”, which I just saw recently. My friend was particularly perturbed that the latest Bond incarnation is portrated as a remorseless adulterer. I was similarly disturbed by the director’s decision to include a lengthy torture scene, shown in graphic detail, especially considering the PG rating. All-in-all, there seemed to be a new push to portray Bond as an anti-hero, which I didn’t see as being necessary. I did appreciate the more complex relationship between Bond and the leading lady, but even then the movie took a dark direction by allowing her to drown while Bond tries frantically to rescue her.

So, though I don’t support the fundies in any quasi-censorship bids, I am also disappointed as a moviegoer that a lot of unnecessary crap is thrown into movies that call into question the moral vision being pushed.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Lovelyliz

I don’t know where you have been watching TV, but other than just a very few shows, most TV is about white people being bigoted toward Muslims.

The point about the original posts was that most parents won’t know that the movie is controversial.

It is a wonderful idea to first read and watch everything your children see. I tried when my kids were small, but there is seldom enough hours in the day.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Monica

It is a strange thing. I have been told numerous times that the racist democrats that siced dogs on Black people were actually Republicans that later defected to the Republican party.

History is never kind to democrats so the only way they can rationalize is to rewrite history where good people are always liberals and bad people are always conservatives.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

When of course those churches who help the poor ARE doing the liberal thing

Gotta throw the BS flag on you there, Anonymous. Liberals don’t own the market on compassion, nor is compassion an inherently liberal quality. In fact, IME, only the liberals can give the fundies a good run for their money in the squawking department. Every statistic I’ve ever seen regarding charitable donations puts the Libs a distant second to conservatives when it comes to actually pulling a few dollars out of your pocket.

Christmas Break Countdown

Wouldn’t that only apply to teachers who actually work while at school, chuck? ; > }

By Hosea Williams

December 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Whine all you want, but name a single liberal or democratic organization that feed the poor.

Hosea Williams Feed the Hungry 1035 Donnelly Ave SW Atlanta, GA 30310 Phone (404) 755-3353

Thanks for your generous donations and your precious time! God Bless!

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Bruno

I think the problem is with “keys”. i.e. a specific word will kick the movie into another rating. A specific sexual act might make the movie rated R but coming close to that act will not.

The studios know what these words and acts are and work their scripts around it. I am constantly seeing where a movie did a quick edit to pass a ratings standard.

I don’t know how old you are, but we had a song called Louie Louie by the Kingsmen. They guy mumbled all the way through the song, but you could barely make out words that might be of a sexual nature. Every kid I knew paid a dollar for the 45 so we could play it over and over to see if we could hear the profanity.

Studios know that adolescents will always gravitate toward the movies that push the envelope.

Dodge Ball was OK. Modern humor is a lot like what used to be called Frat-boy humor. It certainly wasn’t Mel Brooks or Monty Python. But it was funny.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Hosea—you the man! We miss you, bro. While MLK and Jesse Jackson were out there preening during the Civil Rights Movement, you were on the front line getting your a* kicked. Just wanted you to know that a few people noticed that.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

While I agree with you TOJ that the racist segregationists in the south were DEMOCRATS, I can’t agree with you that they were LIBERALS. Neither,however, were they Conservatives. To be more historically accurate, they were racists who happened to be democrats as were almost ALL politicians in the South.

After 1877, the South pretty much had a one party system until the election of 1968, when Nixon made serious inroads in Southern States. The South did NOT however, become solidly Republican until 1980 when Reagan defeated Carter.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Hosea Williams

This foundation was founded because of his church. He was a minister.

You are going to find this being the case in every instance. Even the International Group C.A.R.E was founded by several churches that combined with a government agency.

By GOB

December 10, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Quick question: Has anyone who has said they wont see the movie or let their kids read the book actually taken the time to read the books and see what they actually say?

The Golden Compass has almost no religion to it at all. The second and third books in the trilogy have more, but to say that this particular book is overly religous simply shows that you havent read it or have an even cursory understanding of it.

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those who are complaining about this movie (both on this blog and the email campaign) havent read a word of the book. If I based my ideas about what I should do with my life based on emails I got, I would do nothing but take viagra all day while playing poker online.

Think for yourselves. If we did that, we would all be better off. Personally, the His Dark Materials trilogy are probably the most well-written stories that I have read in quite a long time. They are written on a level that allows kids to simply enjoy the fantasy story, while allowing adults to see the symbolism and allegory.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

movies that push the envelope

I understand your point, TOJ, but am concerned regarding the direction the envelope is being pushed. While I agree that it shouldn’t be hard to separate fantasy from reality while reading a book or watching a movie, numerous studies have also shown a “desensitization” effect on people when they repeatedly watch violent depictions. We’re all fascinated by taboo and by breaking taboos ala C.S. Lewis, but when the bar keeps being raised, it scares me.

By GOB

December 10, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

And the next books are disturbing. We saw this trend with Harry Potter - as each book and movie got darker and darker, to the point that many parents would never have let their kids read the last book, had it come out first.

This could be one of the most ridiculous statements Shaunti has made. The first Harry Potter book was published in 1998. If a kid read the first book when they were 9, they would have been 17 or 18 when the last book was published. Is she really arguing that the last book was inappropriate for a senior in high school? That is quality logic.

I’m sad that parents even have to worry about this, especially at this time of year; that as many families celebrate the birth of Christ, a foothold is given to books that want to do anything but.

Perhaps we should ban all books and movies that don’t “celebrate the birth of Christ” from being released or published between Thanksgiving and Christmas. That seems reasonable.

By Hosea Williams

December 10, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

This foundation was founded because of his church. He was a minister. You are going to find this being the case in every instance.

Maybe you should explain that to the folks who keep harping on the silly notion that liberals are anti-Christian.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

chuck

What South are you living in? The Georgia Senate was controlled by Democrats until 1998.

Nixon didn’t carry Southern States except in 1972 when he also carried 49 out of 50 states.

In 1968, Wallace ran as an independent and captured the electoral college votes of the South. Wallace was never a Republican and had ran as a Democrat in 1964.

In 1972, the Democrats only carried one state by majority vote. Even New York State voted Republican. Nixon did carry the South in 72, but he also carried every other state in the union except one.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Bruno

That is the way that radical ideas become accepted. I too am very concerned.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

they are written on a level that allows kids to enjoy the story while allowing adults to see the symbolism and allegory

Ditto for the books by Lewis Carrol (Through The Looking Glass) and Frank Baum (Wonderful Wizard of Oz). Out of curiosity, in this “video age”, do kids actually read anymore? Though sitting and holding a book for hours isn’t good for your neck and back, I still like the idea of developing one’s imagination through reading. To me, watching a video doesn’t truly stimulate the imagination because the fim producers have already done all the “imagining” for you.

I don’t know how old you are

I smoked my first Doob in 1972 if that gives you any frame of reference. I remember what the doormouse said…….

By lovelyliz

December 10, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

If the implication is being made that Anti-Christian films, or supposedly anti-Christian films are to be avoided, why is it that movies and programming that show other beliefs in a bad light are tolerated or even supported?

You can’t have it both ways and expect your argument to be taken seriously.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Hosea Williams

Maybe you should explain that to the folks who keep harping on the silly notion that liberals are anti-Christian.

People are free to form their own opinions. They make those opinions based on what others write. People on this forum that normally take the liberal stance are usually the ones that are the quickest to take the side against Christianity.

But I find it strange that you seem to believe that Rev. Williams was a liberal. You may want to check into his stance on several “liberal” issues like abortion and gay rights.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

GOB

Perhaps we should ban all books and movies that don’t “celebrate the birth of Christ” from being released or published between Thanksgiving and Christmas. That seems reasonable.

So you are taking your football and going home? If we can’t play by one radical, non-compromising stance, you will insist that we take the other radical non-compromising stance?

No one is asking that books be banned except some very liberal book stores that refuse to sell books by conservatives.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Think for yourselves

That’s almost like a mantra with the left. They are of the opinion that if you “just think for yourself”, that you will arrive at the same conclusion that they did. Of course if you arrive at any OTHER conclusion then you have been indoctrinated or otherwise fooled into this “wrong” conclusion. I can think for myself all day long, but if I start out with faulty logic (as many children and liberals do) and then receive faulty input from movies such as this one, then what have I accomplished?

You see, I don’t go to movies to have my political, moral, and religious views challenged. I go to movies to be entertained. Half of the problem with liberals is that they think people like Barbara Streisand, and George Clooney are “BRILLIANT”, so no matter how looney their arguments or positions on the issues, you just have to agree with them. That’s not thinking for yourself. Hey as long as Angelina is adopting half of the third world children, we have to go see her movies, no matter how bad they are.

Another problem with that position is that in order to know for yourself what is in the book/movie/music before allowing your children to read/see/listen to it, is that you have to contribute to their profit to do so. It is much more economical to read reviews and articles ABOUT them that you can get for FREE as long as they are put out by people/organizations that you know and trust.

I already know if one of my brothers tells me a particular movie was “great”, that I am not going to see it, because we have VASTLY different tastes in movies. It’s a simple concept. If my other brother says that a movie is good, I’ll probably go see it. While I don’t always trust all of the reviews by various conservative groups, there were several that I consulted when my children were growing up and asked to see a particular movie that I always found to be informative and accurate. Again, a simple COMMON SENSE way of solving problems. That’s what conservatives do.

By GOB

December 10, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, in this “video age”, do kids actually read anymore?

If they find books that are interesting to them, they do. I have seen a bunch of kids carrying Harry Potter around, especially at the begining of this school year. Kids typically dont like to read the books we assign them to read, but if they find something they like, they will read it instead of playing video games.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

I too am concerned

When “mixed martial arts” fighting first burst upon the American scene, I had a curiosity about it and watched several fights. In the early days, the fights were only available on Pay-per-view or on video, so didn’t have to worry about the kids watching. I loved Tank Abbott and Hoyce Gracie. Those guys had twenty times the personality of any WWF steroid goon, and a lot more courage. Now, however, the whole thing has morphed into a bloody spectacle, shown several times per week on cable TV so that any kid can watch. I’m surprised we don’t hear more cases in the news about kids emulating the action. The only problem is that in the “real” world, you don’t have a referee like Big John McCarthy to step in when one of the guys gets in trouble. You’re more likely to get a scenario like the Jena 6—6 scumbags proving their manhood by ganging up on one guy.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Lovelyliz

why is it that movies and programming that show other beliefs in a bad light are tolerated or even supported?

I’m sure there are movies that show other religions in a bad light, but I just can’t think of any right now. You obviously have some in mind. Can you point out movies that show other religions in a bad light?

Maybe the Mel Gibson film about Christ. Can you think of any other?

By chuck

December 10, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Talking about national elections TOJ. Only said Nixon made INROADS in the South in ‘68, not that he carried it. Those inroads made it possible to carry the south in ‘72. Carter’s election in ‘76 was an abberation that occurred only because of backlash due to the pardon of Nixon by Ford.

By lovelyliz

December 10, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

By The Other Jack

I’m sure there are movies that show other religions in a bad light, but I just can’t think of any right now. You obviously have some in mind. Can you point out movies that show other religions in a bad light?

When was the last time you saw a film or television program where the character of Middle Eastern decent wasn’t a terrorist?

By chuck

December 10, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

BTW, TOJ, Nixon won NC, SC, FL, TN and VA in ‘68. Wallace got GA, AL, MS, LA and ARK.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Bruno

Always understand that we are just a few steps from a Roman Colosseum. I love football, but it is the violence of the game that brings huge cheers from the stands. The runner that is able to collide at full speed with a defender, plow the defender under and keep running is the hero.

By Echo

December 10, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Again, a simple COMMON SENSE way of solving problems. That’s what conservatives do.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

That’s almost like a mantra to the left—unless you reach a different conclusion

chuck—You’ve got my full support on this issue. I’m a conservative not because I have lived in a shell, but becasue of the opposite. I’ve tried just about every vice, some more than once. I support the conservative lifestyle because it generally produces better results, not because I fear the bogeyman. To wit “I have seen the enemy, and it is myself”. Or in the paraphrased words of the Apostle Paul “Why do I do that which I know is wrong?”

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

lovelyliz—I appreciate your point regarding the portrayal of “minorities” in film and popular culture. Though my “white eyes” sometimes have a hard time noticing the negative portrayals, when I make an effort to look for it, I can often see it. In the case of African-Americans, however, it does appear that at least the TV commercial producers are going out of their way to reverse this trend. In most commercials I see in which there is a white guy and a black guy, usually the white guy comes across as a nerdy idiot, while the black guy is the “cool” one. Have you noticed that trend?

As per the portrayal of Middle Easterners, well, if the shoe fits, they have to wear it. I think one of the biggest ways that liberals lose credibility IMO is in the reticence to criticize Muslims and Muslim leadership. Remember Salman Rushdie? They take their censorship a little more seriously over there, if you haven’t noticed.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

lovelyliz

When was the last time you saw a film or television program where the character of Middle Eastern decent wasn’t a terrorist?

Last night. It was called Crash. Sandra Bulloch plays a spoiled white woman who hates everything and every body. Her husband is a corrupt white district attorney. They are the only really evil people in the movie. The Black thugs that steal cars are made out to be caring individuals but a White cop shoots one of them because he had a St. Christopher statue in his hand. (DAMN EVIL WHITE PEOPLE!!!!)

A Middle eastern man is told by an insurance agent (can you guess which race the insurance agent belongs to?) that his insurance would not cover a recent break-in that left him and his family penniless.

Just another Hollywood blockbuster that made all the white people bad and everyone else. good. Standard fair. And of course, this film cleaned up at every film festival and Hollywood award ceremony.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

I love football, but it is the violence of the game that brings big cheers

I think the sad truth about humans is that we all have some fascination with violence—that is until it is directed at us.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Chuck

He did win the MidAtlantic states and of course Florida.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

But, as I pontificated last week, I believe that all organisms are genetically programmed to be competetive and selfish by necessity. Though the garden looks pretty from a distance, it’s all-out warfare in the trenches.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

I understand Brudog. When I was in high school I spent 2 years studying the religions of the world. I had some friends who were Jewish and I went to Temple with them several times and spent a couple of afternoons talking to their Rabbi. One of my favorite books was “The Chosen” by Chaim Potok about Hasidic Jew in New York City. I read books on Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. I didn’t go to their churches because I didn’t have any idea where to find them at the time. I even went to churches of most of the Christian denominations, from Anglican to Presbyterian to Methodist to Assembly of God and even a little wild Pentecostal Church (almost scared me to death, what with people rolling on the floor and all). To make a long story short, I made a well informed and educated decision about my FAITH and about my moral convictions. As you said, it is clear which one works best for the most people.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Bruno

I think the sad truth about humans is that we all have some fascination with violence—that is until it is directed at us.

You got that right.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

It was called Crash

TOJ—Somehow I got P-whipped into watching that piece of trash. Were you surprised that the Academy Award members fell over themselves to declare it the greatest piece of film ever? Well, I guess the greatest film next to that lying piece of crap “Fahrenheit 9/11”. If liberals ever wonder why they are scorned, they need to look no further than these two “highly acclaimed” movies.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Reality Check time TOJ.

Mid-Atlantic? Sorry that’s NY, PA, DE, NJ.

I could buy Eastern Seaboard, but that would include GA.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Lovelyliz

Pardon me. The insurance Agent may have been oriental. Sorry about that.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

chuck—I believe you when you say you checked out other religions before “settling” on Christianity. Occasionally I’m envious of folks like you who seem to have religious “certainty”. However, to echo my favorite poster, my Creator made me to not have that kind of certainty, for whatever reason. My hope is that my brain is onto something bigger than the prepackaged explanations that are available. Of course, it’s probably just ol’ Beezelbug once again. What do you think?

By f '(x)

December 10, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that parents should be warned about the philosophical content of The Golden Compass - the book, rather than the film, since the film has had what little religious content was present in the book remobed.

Who would be responsible for issuing such a warning? What other warnings should be applied to books and movies both past and future? Should we add a label to the Narnia series that indicates that it contains material that may be in opposition to the beliefs of non-Christian readers?

With whom does the reponsibility to “protect” one’s children from ideas lie? You’ll forgive me, but I was under the impression that Conservatives believed in personal responsibility. It seems to me that if you are truly concerned that your child’s faith in what you’ve taught them is so weak that reading a single novel or seeing a single movie will lead them down the garden path, then the responsibility to censor what books they read and movies they see lies with you - not the government, not the studio, not the publisher.

Isn’t that what America is about?

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Mid Atlantic is also Virginia. I was surprised that he carried Tennessee, but I stand by my contention that the South stayed primarily (pardon the pun) Democratic until well into the 90s.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Bruno

I liked the movie. It was very honest in showing the racism of EVERYONE. But the difference was that everyone was resolved, i.e. The very racist thug that claimed that committing crimes was OK as long as it was directed at White people was made out to be a emancipator of people. He literally freed slaves.

Of course the “good” white cop killed the good natured thug.

As conservatives, if we waited on fairness in TVs or Movies, we would be watching very few movies and almost no TV.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

oops, f’(x)… No one is calling for the government, writers, or studios to do their parenting for them that I can see here. At worst, Shaunti is wishing for some kind of “truth in advertising”, which I’m sure she understands is impractical.

The frustration I see isn’t that chldren are being challenged to think on their own, but that they are somehow being subconsciously indoctrinated to a specific POV—the liberal one.

By lovelyliz

December 10, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

I’ve known several Muslims and not one of them was a terrorist. Come to think of it, most of them were serving in the U.S. Military at the same time I was.

I am not implying that those responsible for terrorist activity such as the attacks on 9/11 are just poor, misguided people who just need to be understood. Bad people are bad people.

But when one group of religious folk gets upset at what they believe is a less than stellar portrayal of their kind, never mind that the same treatment has been applied to others and they’ve just let is pass, their dissent looses much of its credibility.

By JokesOn

December 10, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Jesus was a liberal;) (poke - jab)

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

with people roling on the floor and all

I’ll never forget my first visit to a full-blown Pentecostal Church. Halfway through the sermon, some woman started babbling incoherently. I was waiting for someone to render medical aid to her when all of a sudden the preacher started encouraging her to continue. After several minutes of this BS, I began to wonder if I was the only half-way sane guy in the place. Because i was there by invitation, i had to keep my mouth shut, of course.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

…truly concerned that your child’s faith in what you’ve taught them is so weak that reading a single novel or seeing a single movie will lead them down the garden path, then the responsibility to censor what books they read and movies they see lies with you

That’s a false premise and you know it. It is the cumulative affect of this anti-Christian culture that we worry about. I don’t hear any of you ridiculing hindus, muslims or buddhists for what THEY believe, but many of you have ridiculed me for what I BELIEVE and you see no problem with it. If for instance I am teaching my children the LITERAL story of Noah and godless atheistic teachers at school are telling my kids in so many words that they are idiots for believing it, I have a problem with that. Christians and white people are the only people left that you can ridicule with impunity, so don’t blame us if we are a little sensitive when something like this movie comes out.

Brudog, I just think you stopped the search too soon. The Bible says:

Philippians 2:12 (New International Version) 12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling

I think the Apostle Paul said it best when he wrote to the Church at Corinth:

1 Corinthians 2 1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Jesus spent more of his time teaching on Hell than he did on Heaven. Wouldn’t that make him a conservative in your eyes? Right Cross-Uppercut

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

I’ve known several Muslims, and none of them were terrorists

lovelyliz—I had several clients whom I was close with, and none of them were terrorists either. However, if you “follow the money trail”, you’ll find that Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. don’t lack for funding in any way, form, or fashion. My point is that while many Muslims wear a face of tolerance in public, in private they are sending their dollars to terrorist organizations.

Just where is the outcry for the women killed in Southern Iraq last week for wearing the wrong kind of clothes? For the woman who was jailed and almost caned for calling a teddy bear “Mohammed”? Deep in their heart of hearts, too many “good” Muslims are willing to tolerate this kind of BS. As such, I’m not overly dismayed when they are portrayed negatively in movies or on TV. They’ve earned that scorn by not throwing the bums out who are leading them.

By JokesOn

December 10, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Jesus spent more of his time teaching on Hell than he did on Heaven.

To use TOJs words: You are talking out of your rectum.

Jesus taught more about love and acceptance that either heaven or hell.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

chcuk—I’ll meditate some more on the fear and trembling part. Hopefully you have noticed that I acknowledge GOD, just have a very different definition of what that word means than you. BTW, are you serious about believing in a literal Noah’s Ark, or are you just baiting JokesOn in some way??? While there is historical evidence of a great flood in the Middle East (when the rising sea levels following the last great Ice Age caused the earthen barrier to the Black Sea to collapse) and there IS a boat in the mountains of Ararat, that isn’t enough evidence for me to believe that avery creature in existence could fit on any boat. Sorry.

JokesOn—Hope you drop by The 5 Spot down in L5P on December 28 for the CD release party for Stop, Drop, and Roll. Due to your lukewarm review, I have to guess that you saw them in their early days. They’ve made several personnel changes and are really good now. I’m pulling for them.

By jhpoke

December 10, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

If a person has believed something all their life and it is wrong; it will be almost impossible to change that person’s belief. There is not enough proof to ever change the mind of a (religious or political dogmatist).

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

jokesOn

Love and acceptance is a liberal concept? LOL!! Now that is rich.

By Echo

December 10, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Love and acceptance is a liberal concept? LOL!! Now that is rich. Conservatives love and accept you just the way you are. LOL!!

By Anonymous

December 10, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Chuck: “many of you have ridiculed me for what I BELIEVE and you see no problem with it.”

Your mistake is confusing that with being “anti-Christian.” We’re not; we’re just anti-fundamentalist-bigoted-raving-idiot.

The specific church you attend has nothing to do with it. Your insistence on loudly and angrily judging and condemning everybody… THAT’s what invites the attacks. If you were actually following Jesus’ example, you’d have a lot fewer problems both here and in real life.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

Though love is too big of a word to subdivide, I think most people can agree that liberals and conservatives, in their dichotomous way, represent the two “faces” of love: conditional love and unconditional love.

IMO, conservatives are more focused on conditional love, i.e. the idea that have you have to conform to a prescribed set of good behaviors to earn God’s Love. Liberals are more focused on unconditional love, i.e the idea that becasue we are all inherently weak, and perhaps evil, that God will love us no matter what. Kind of like the difference between paternal love and maternal love. Momma’s gonna love you no matter what.

By Lozen

December 10, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

Yes, yes, yes. Warn them so I will know not to miss this movie!

So many fundys these days are so into being martyrs, but I guess that’s always been part of their little fable.

Poor, poor, poor christians. So despised, so hated, so attacked all the time! I do hate to see all those churches (one on every darn corner) being destroyed! Especially since none of them are paying taxes!

I do want to point out the number of loony tv preachers I have to wade through when I’m flipping channels, how many crazed zealots approach me on the streets asking me if I’m saved and telling me Jesus is coming back. And I say “yes, I’m saved from idiots like you. You people have been saying Jesus is coming back for over 2,000 years now. Isn’t it about time to give that up?”

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

Echo

Conservatives love and accept you just the way you are. LOL!!

I don’t think anyone is crazy enough to believe that. People accept other people who are like them. That’s about it.

Unfortunately there is little love and acceptance on either side of the political aisle.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

Echo—Do you see any place at all for conditional love in this world?? For the idea that our behavior can possibly dictate whether we deserve to be loved or not??

I see a place for that kind of love along with the other kind.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

If you were actually following Jesus’s example

Hey, Anonymous, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, ok? Aren’t you being judgemental in your own (liberal) way?

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

Bruno

IMO, conservatives are more focused on conditional love, i.e. the idea that have you have to conform to a prescribed set of good behaviors to earn God’s Love. Liberals are more focused on unconditional love, i.e the idea that becasue we are all inherently weak, and perhaps evil, that God will love us no matter what. Kind of like the difference between paternal love and maternal love. Momma’s gonna love you no matter what.

Incredibly insiteful. And also non-partisan.

We all want the best for everyone. We just see effects and causes so differently.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

lozen—If anyone is brave enough (or stupid enough) to challenge me on whether I am saved or not, I have found it effective to turn the question back to them and ask (in the most pleasant Southern drawl, of course) “Just why do you ask?” That stops most of them in their tracks, because their indoctrination guides usually don’t have a ready-made answer for that one. Occasionally one will try to say, “It’s becasue I care about you and your Salvation”. About 90 seconds of staring at them with a blank look will cause the most steadfast of the “do-gooders” to see the handwriting on the wall regarding their true motivation for harrassing strangers.

By Scalia

December 10, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

Children are always being underestimated. Most of them can differentiate between what’s real and what is fantasy.

And if your beliefs and children’s beliefs are so solid, why would a movie even challenge those beliefs?

I still wake up some Sunday mornings and feel guilty for not going to church. It was how I was raised, and it isn’t going to change.

That’s like me going out and picking up a sword and killing the Crazy 88’s in a yellow track suit.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

We all want the best for everyone

TOJ—Again, the only salvation I see for this world is when only the word “we” remains, and the word “them” is no longer recognized. However, I firmly believe that our pesent genetic coding prevents this.

I don’t know how familiar you are with genome research, but there now is a recognition that genes aren’t as static as first believed. Additional proteins called “epigenomes” are responsible for activating and deactivating large groups of genes in our DNA strands. How these epigenomes make the “right” decisions is unknown, of course. Personally, I beleive that these epigenomes ultimately guide genetic “mutation”, not some random force like “background radiation” from space or some other such nonsense. In other words, evolution is intelligently guided, and not a happy accident which relies on Natural Selection to make it all work out. Like Einstein said, “God isn’t playing dice with the Universe.”

By AGFNPR

December 10, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

f’(x) - Are you (as your name suggests) trying to “differentiate” yourself from the rest of us? Or are you simply trying to type “speedy” posts? Inquiring minds want to know! LOL!

All kidding aside - I believe the movie industry is under no obligation to warn parents about the Golden Compass. It is the parents’ job to first view what their children see at a movie. It is the churches’ responsibility to warn parents of the content of this movie. One of our church members sent an email to all parents detailing the author’s views.

Prime time TV shows have an obligation to warn parents of the content of their shows - movies shouldn’t be required to do more than the current rating sytems.

JokesOn - concerning your post about the teachings of Jesus: Love - you bet! Acceptance - Jesus forgave sin, but He never accepted it, nor excused it. Jesus loved the woman caught in adultry, but after He saved her He told her to go and sin no more. If she wanted to be His disciple, her actions would have to change.

By informed reader

December 10, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

By all means keep your children from reading anything that doesn’t conform to the myths you want them to believe for as long as possible. When you are no longer censoring their exposure to the world, they will realize you’ve deceived them and they will become one of the majority that abandon the faith of their parents.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR—I tried to make a post drawing attention to the “Euler” notation for the value of the first derivative of the function named “f” at the point “x”, but it got lost in cyberspace. Though Leibniz is usually relegated to footnote status in math history, his chosen notation for the derivate, dx/dy, is still preferred over the cumbersome notation used by Newton.

BTW—Excellent undressing of the poster named Joe many months ago who thought he knew something about Physics, but didn’t know the difference between orbital velocity and angular velocity. You can’t fool me, bro.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

informed reader—Do you really think that it’s possible to completely insulate kids in today’s world?

BTW, if I were going to recommend a boring Russian novel for your “enlightenment”, I think I would have chosen “Anna Karenina” for you. Lots of adultery, romantic triangles and existential angst. Much more up your alley than The Brothers Karamazov, I think.

P.S. I may actually be a better listener than you give me credit for.

By NetBanker

December 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

I say, be different. Allow parents the freedoms to decide what their children read. It is about FREEDOM…A lot of these same ideas were discussed many years ago and it was decided that the state should raise the children and religion should be eliminated from their lives. Are not parents allowed that freedom now? Isn’t it the “christians” who have been front and center in the battle to remove books from the library thereby restricting the freedom of parents “to decide what their children read?” (Laura Mallory ring a bell?

And who exactly was it who decided that the state should raise children and religion be eliminated from their lives? Seems like a load of BS to me! Religion doesn’t belong in SCHOOL it belongs in CHURCH! One doesn’t attend religious services to learn alegra any more than one attends public schools to learn Christianity.

Hey CHUCK…come in from the outfield and let’s try a rational discussion. Sex ed for kindergarteners? PUHLEASE! And what about the rating of PG is the studio shirking responsibility? What about the personal responsibility you’re always chatting about for parents to go to the studio website to find out what the film is about?

By Monica

December 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

*You people have been saying Jesus is coming back for over 2,000 years now. Isn’t it about time to give that up?”

No, not really! He will come again one day! It might not be in our lifetimes, but He will. :)

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Jesus forgave sin, but He never accepted it

In this way, AGFNPR, I think Jesus represented a complete, non-divided individual. For us mortal humans, balancing conditional and unconditional love is more problematic. For that reason, I think that single parents have an especially hard row to hoe by trying to balance the “love hand” with the “punishment hand”. My guess is that it’s easier if Daddy plays the bad cop and Mommy plays the good cop. Let Dad take the blame.

By Monica

December 10, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

Bruno, My mother had no problem balancing the love hand and the punishment hand. My dad didn’t either, for that matter, but my mother was not afraid of dishing out the punishment. She never said, “Wait until your father gets home.”

By Anon2

December 10, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

What churches are doing is not the liberal thing. If they were doing the liberal thing, they would disband the church and give the money that is being spent on the poor to political candidates.

if they were doing the Christian thing they’d disband the church and give the money to the poor like the Bible says to do. Instead the elders live in mansions, drive around in Bentley’s, lease small airplanes, build bigger, more high-tech 10,000 seat mega churches with surround sound, HD Concert Screen monitors, and cushioned stadium seating, all complete with an on-campus Starbucks, bookstore.

And then they sit around and whine about how they’re under constant assault and completely misunderstood.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

Monica—I hope you don’t mind that I’m completely hot for you!

On a serious note, it’s too bad every child doesn’t have the opportunity to grow up with two loving parents like you did. Your sensible outlook on life is very desirable.

By lovelyliz

December 10, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

One can’t credibly condemn in others what they themselves have tolerated for years.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

I think that we all can agree on the best Presidential Debate quip so far as coming from (I believe) Huckabee. When asked “What Would Jesus Do”, Huckabee shot back “I think He would have been too smart to run for office”. Priceless!!

No offense toward Mormonism, but I just can’t get behind the idea of a Mormon Prez. Their brand of religion is most definitely patriarchical and hierarchical. They misconstrue Revelation to say that only 144,000 people will be eligible for Salvation on Judgement Day. Furthermore, they somehow think that only men can qualify for heaven, heaven representing your own personal planet with the proverial 72 virgins there to make your stay more enjoyable. Give me a break!

By Lozen

December 10, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C. S. Lewis

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Then they whine that they’re under constant assault

Well, judging by the recent rash of news stories, some of their wives are apparently under assault for real, no? Where is that blonde haired lady who used to shout “Stop the Insanity”?

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Scalia

And if your beliefs and children’s beliefs are so solid, why would a movie even challenge those beliefs?

Because their heads are full of mush. They are kids. If a pretty person tell them the world is flat, they will believe them. Do you really not understand the power of influence to a child?

It is not the duty of the TV studios to take responsibility for the idiocy that the child will be involved with. It is the responsibility of the parents.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

One can’t credibly criticize in others what they themselves have tolerated for years

Is that so? Seems like Bush is constantly being criticized for policies that originated during the Clinton years, if not sooner. Somehow the liberal press seems to have a short memory when it comes to issues like “farming out” prisoners to foreign countries so that they can be “interrogated”. Why did the outcry only begin after Bush took affice?

By chuck

December 10, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

Thanks for proving my point ANUSymous.

Jokeson, you aren’t right about that, but that wasn’t my point anyway. I didn’t add that into the comparison…just heaven and hell. But since you brought it up, Jesus wasn’t tolerant about OTHER RELIGIONS, nor is the remainder of God’s word:

Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6).

‘It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead … Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:10–12).

There was no tolerance for sin from Jesus either:

Luke 24:45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 16:7-11

Listen to this passage View commentary related to this passage

7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it the “christians” who have been front and center in the battle to remove books from the library thereby restricting the freedom of parents “to decide what their children read?”

What? They could have bought those books anywhere and also checked them out of public libraries, but personally, I think some Christians go too far. I do think more school libraries should re-think what is appropriate age for some books.

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies

lozen—Pray tell, then, why you can only find it in your heart to criticize the moral busybodies here in the USA who have no real power, but can’t seem to muster a bad word for the real despots of the world like Saddam Hussein or Ho Chi Min?

Personally, I think you have a real credibility problem due to your selfish, inconsistent views about politics. You have plenty of compassion for yourself and your “oppressed” liberal cohorts, but apparently none for other people around the world who are truly in oppressive situations, not imaginary ones.

By ma816zda

December 10, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

c135t

By chuck

December 10, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

NetB, maybe you ought to speak to Barak HUSSEIN Obama about that:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners is “the right thing to do.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

By ma816zda

December 10, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

c135t

By Scalia

December 10, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

Because their heads are full of mush. They are kids. If a pretty person tell them the world is flat, they will believe them. Do you really not understand the power of influence to a child?

I have to disagree with this. Kids are able to deduct and make decisions. I used to teach elementary school children. I became a better teacher once I realized they are capable of making their own decisions.

If that’s the case, then you would see and hear about kids being physically hurt because they tried to jump off of buildings like Spider-Man, or thinking that if they get bitten by a spider then they will get superhuman powers.

By Lily Toad

December 10, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Warned by whom, Shaunti? Yes, the ad, beside Nicole Kidman and the giant polar bear — WARNING— Lyra battles evil Magisterium, resembling the Catholic Church. Children may have nightmares about predatory priests.

By Anonymous

December 10, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Chuck, if you ever told the truth, Jesus himself would appear in a flash of light to pat you on the back.

By lovelyliz

December 10, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

chuck

You forgot to add this part:

“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is ‘age-appropriate,’ is ‘the right thing to do.’ ‘But it’s the right thing to do,’ Obama continued, ‘to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.’”

“Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child’s knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators.”

By Bruno

December 10, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Scalia—How about the large number of kids who are harmed because they believe the liberal lie that sex has no emotional/physical consequences of any real import? Mara proclaimed on the blog a few weeks ago that to her, teen sex is ok, as long as the people are “attracted” to one another. Is physical attraction alone enough of a basis for you to give permission to your teenagers to have at it?

By Anonymous

December 10, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

As long as they do it safely and sensibly, yes. Why not?

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Scalia

Yes, you are right. I raised two smart kids, but they are easily influenced. If you want to really see corporate America taking advantage of that gullibility, watch the commercials on Cartoon Network during the day.

Kids and adults can both be influenced. TV and Movies don’t influence us as much as kids because we are jaded and understand when someone has an agenda. Kids may not understand that, and simple concepts like “let’s save the world from polluters” may sound wonderful unless their parents work for the polluting company.

Issues are often presented to kids that aren’t simple issues, but are presented as such to promote an agenda.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Sorry Liz, it doesn’t matter what kind of sex ed. My point was that liberals want parents to be responsible for their kids. They don’t want anyone else to be responsible for giving out information that would allow families to have the full capabilty of keeping objectionable information away from their children BUT, they are perfectly willing for the STATE to take over that responsibility when it comes to teaching sex ed in kindergarden.

NetB responded as if liberals didn’t want sex ed in kindergarden. I was just pointing out that at least ONE liberal was in favor of it.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

BTW.

I like to buy movies, not rent them.

I bought “The Pursuit of Happiness” with Wil Smith: one of the finest movies I have ever seen. I have always been very impressed with Smith, but in this one, he really impresses. And his kid obviously had the genes.

All my friends borrow my movies and I haven’t seen this one since the day I rented and watched it. Someday I will get it back and watch it again.

By chuck

December 10, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

Hey Anusymous, if you have any teenage daughters send over to Brudog’s house. Maybe they’ll be “attracted” to each other. What an IDIOT. Now that’s a scary thought that they would never make a movie of…you having the possibility of breeding.

By My Middle Name is Hussein

December 10, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

My parents gave it to me when I was born. You are therefore justified in being a lying bigot, in the name of Jesus, Amen. By the way, I’m coming for your wife. Once she climaxes for the first time from a man with a real d—k, she will forget you ever existed. Be afraid. Tell your friends. Lying is okay. Jesus said so.

By lovelyliz

December 10, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, most pedophiles are family members and friends. I the community can come up with age appropriate ways to teach kids, even 5 year olds, what is and isn’t appropriate, I am more than willing to let them do so.

To depend on parents, who too often are the perps on this one, would be to fail our children.

By Lozen

December 10, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

You are just full of B.S. Exactly what “liberals” are telling young kids that sex has no physical/emotional consequences? Jeez. Neither my parents nor liberals had any influence on my decision to have sex when I was a teenager. It was my raging hormones and his raging hormones that influenced me to have sex! Teenagers will have at it, because they are attracted to each other and they have raging hormones! It does not matter whether parents give permission or not. And, actually, now that I think about it, there were no physical or emotional consequences of any import!

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

LovelyLiz

To depend on parents, who too often are the perps on this one, would be to fail our children.

I wish I could argue with you on that. I really do. My sister is about to retire from being a Public Health Nurse in Rural Virginia. Man, does she have some stories.

By Vernon Blank

December 10, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

The comments on here have totally surprised me in the depth and breadth of their paranoia, especially from the religious folks. “Christianity Under Attack” is such a pathetic idea that it’s laughable. Did you people get the news….over 80% of the country answers surveys as Christian. Nobody’s closing down your churches. Every politician in this country has to say “God Bless America” at the end of every speech, and better be going to some church, lest they be undesirable for the masses. Christians hold almost every position of power in almost every aspect of our nation. So drop that ridiculousness. Oh and to The Other Jack, who is convinced that nobody other than Christians feed people, what do you call the U.N.? Food Not Bombs? There are arguably more non-Christians feeding the world’s hungry than Christians. All you people are good for is building bigger facilities and parking lots for your surround-sound megachurches.

By NetBanker

December 10, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

They are written on a level that allows kids to simply enjoy the fantasy story, while allowing adults to see the symbolism and allegory. If this really is the case, as I would argue Narina was also, then is the level of concern overblown? Are the kids even going to be aware that there is an anti-God message snuck in there when they’re focused on the talking animals and the other magic?

When I read the works of C.S. Lewis as a kid I had ZERO idea that they was Christian imagery in there because it came from the Fantasy section. When I asked my mother if she knew at the time that C.S. Lewis was a christian author her response was “Not likely and it wouldn’t have made a difference anyway.” The reason it wouldn’t have made a difference is because her expectation was that I received my religious instruction primarily at church, but also at home and not from fiction books at the public library.

It is the cumulative affect of this anti-Christian culture that we worry about. Can you give some specific examples of anti-Christian culture and some specific examples of the impact that has had on christianity so I can better understand the claim?

Is our culture honestly anti-christian across the board, or is it anti-conservative christian, or is it multi-religion with other religions being given as much credence as Christianity? As an example, has anyone seen the movie Liberty Heights? It was on TV Saturday (couldn’t tell you what station and we started watching after the movie started) and it caught my attention primarily because the film is set in 1955 Baltimore. The connection to religion is that the fact that some of the main characters are Jewish was a HUGE deal to the Christians. While not the point of the film it does illuminate the almost complete dominance of christianity in religious life in this country.

Christians and white people are the only people left that you can ridicule with impunity, so don’t blame us if we are a little sensitive when something like this movie comes out. HEY! You forgot the gays!! It’s waaaay acceptable to ridicule gays and pass laws about them to restrict their lives. Of course acknowledgment that they might be ‘a little sensitive’ is usually spun into further impunity by calling them whiners.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Vernon Blank

Other Jack, who is convinced that nobody other than Christians feed people, what do you call the U.N.?

Yes. That is what it was designed for. It is an International Organization. There are many organizations that feed the poor, but the American Democratic Party sponsor none. And of course neither does the Republican Party, but as many liberals on this board constantly point out, churches are dominated by conservatives, and churches are the people in the US that feed more of the poor than anyone else.

But I never said that only conservatives feed the poor. I was responding to another poster’s continued sermon toward conservatives, telling us that we should be more concerned with feeding the poor.

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

Vernon Blank

*All you people are good for is building bigger facilities and parking lots for your surround-sound megachurches.+

Be careful with the “you people” generalizations. I only visit my mother’s church when I go home and they hardly have a surround-sound megachurch. This statement just wiped out your entire argument. If you honestly can’t see the good that churches do, then how can you see anything?

By The Other Jack

December 10, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

NetBaker

Is our culture honestly anti-christian across the board, or is it anti-conservative christian, or is it multi-religion with other religions being given as much credence as Christianity?

Probably the third which is really strange considering that 80% of the population is Christian. I guess majority rule only applies when it is more convenient.

By NetBanker

December 10, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners is “the right thing to do.” And so because one person said so that means ALL Liberals support this, right? That is your ascertion in your original post, correct? And again with the link?

By KORA-zi

December 10, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

http://index1.tilyres.com >sextonmarine [url=http://index1.tilyres.com]sextonmarine[/url]

By KORA-zi

December 10, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

http://index1.tilyres.com >sextonmarine [url=http://index1.tilyres.com]sextonmarine[/url]

By alternatives to celebrex

December 11, 2007 4:12 AM | Link to this

herbal kamagra pharmacy herbal silagra bis

By effexor generic xr

December 11, 2007 4:55 AM | Link to this

levitra free trial cheap free free herbal cheap viagra cheap viagra

By KORA-xa

December 11, 2007 7:17 AM | Link to this

http://index1.mukumyv.com >horses f*** farm girls [url=http://index1.mukumyv.com]horses f*** farm girls[/url]

By KORA-xa

December 11, 2007 7:17 AM | Link to this

http://index1.mukumyv.com >horses f*** farm girls [url=http://index1.mukumyv.com]horses f*** farm girls[/url]

By Anonymous

December 11, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

TOJ, if the concept of minorities having their rights protected really bothers you… there’s always Iran.

By chuck

December 11, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this

And if people getting ahead based on MERIT bothers you…there’s always Cuba

By Anonymous

December 11, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this

Chuck: And the relevance of your comment to the religion discussion is…?

By chuck

December 11, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

Nothing. I just like pointing out the fact that you are a socialist.

By Anonymous

December 11, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Fair enough. I enjoy pointing out the fact that you’re an idiot. Of course, most folks can spot that for themselves.

By Gandalf, the Grey

December 11, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Liberal girl, you are truly stupid! When can they get a smart liberal to help with this column? Oops! I used an Oxymoron!

By Huh

December 11, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

They misconstrue Revelation to say that only 144,000 people will be eligible for Salvation on Judgement Day.

are you sure that is Mormons? I thought that was the Jehovah Witnesses? Mormons want to grand-father in long-dead ancestors, you would think that could add up to more than 144,000 real quick.

By ACS

December 11, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Gandalf, up yours buddy!

By Monica

December 11, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Anon2,

Please don’t judge all churches and their members by the standards of the mega-churches. They are not the norm. The elders at our church have a much lower standard of living, as do most elders. The elders at our church receive no salary.

Chuck (and anyone else), what do you think about the mega-evangelists having to turn over their records to the IRS?

By NetBanker

December 11, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

I guess majority rule only applies when it is more convenient. The concept of majority rule concerns me. We are NOT a democracy, but a democratic republic. Our founding fathers were smart enough not to form the government as a true democracy because majority rules facilitates tyranny of the minority by the majority. We seem to be forgeting this design as I hear more politicians speak about ‘the will of the people.’

We have prime examples of the effects of this approach with the anti-gay marriage laws being passed. Discrimination against gays (a minority) by the majority is legal and in the case of marriage been codified into law. The expectation in the past was that our legislators and the judiciary would ‘do the right thing’ rather than just what the majority of people want, but that no longer seems to be followed as we’ve moved into the electronic age of polls and near-instant feedback. I seriously doubt that if today’s political climate (i.e. politicians seeming to think that their job is to institute the ‘will of the people’ rather than be leaders of the people) had been present in the past that women’s suffrage or the ERA or integration would have been passed as opinion polls would have reflected that the majority was opposed to each of these seminal examples of taking equality for all from concept to reality. Our elected officials are no longer leaders but have become followers of opinion polls and corporate interests.

By chuck

December 11, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Hey Monica. I think since the pastors have to file income tax returns like everybody else that they have met the standard they need to meet. If however, they are receiving perquisites as a part of their jobs that they are not claiming on their tax returns (assuming they are required to) then they should be audited like everybody else.

I think it is a shame though that a church would even think about paying a pastor that much money and support such a lavish lifestyle. I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind when He called them. My pastor has been at my church for well over 20 years and makes less than I do as a teacher. I think he should make more, based on his experience and performance, but he won’t even ask for it.

There are some mega-churches that have common sense compensation plans. I don’t think pastors should be paupers, but I also don’t think they should take millions out of the work of God to support a lifestyle that has been described in the press.

There is an exception to that in my mind though. If a pastor for instance, outside of his normal duties and time, writes a book that becomes a best seller or something along those lines, I would not have a problem with that pastor making money in that way. I still think the over the top, flashy lifestyle would turn me off to a pastor, even if they made the money outside of the church.

By GOB

December 11, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Chuck (and anyone else), what do you think about the mega-evangelists having to turn over their records to the IRS?

Why not? They have tax exempt status, and to keep it, they have to meet certain criteria set up by the IRS. My personal opinion is that they should pay taxes like everyone else, considering that all they really do is put on a show each week. It isnt much different than going to see something at the Fox, only the megachurches tend to be a little bit more extravagent in their staging and production.

By The Other Jack

December 11, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Anon2

if they were doing the Christian thing they’d disband the church and give the money to the poor like the Bible says to do. Instead the elders live in mansions, drive around in Bentley’s, lease small airplanes, build bigger, more high-tech 10,000 seat mega churches with surround sound, HD Concert Screen monitors, and cushioned stadium seating, all complete with an on-campus Starbucks, bookstore.

Where the hell are you going to church? Chances are, you are not. You are simply repeating propaganda that few people are dumb enough to even believe, little-on repeat.

By AGFNPR

December 11, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Monica,

I am not fond of most megachurches. I do not like the message that most of these guys preach. I don’t care for their lifestyle. I wouldn’t shed a tear if these churches closed their doors.

However, while I believe the Senators have every right to request these documents - Dollar, Long, and the rest of the He-Haw gang need to tell them to stick their request where the sun don’t shine. It seems as though churches are the only non-profits being subjected to this kind of scrutiny.

By The Other Jack

December 11, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Lozen

Poor, poor, poor christians. So despised, so hated, so attacked all the time! I do hate to see all those churches (one on every darn corner) being destroyed! Especially since none of them are paying taxes!

Replace the word Christian with Jew, take us back to 1938, and you could win a lot of awards in Germany. Congratulations.

By The Other Jack

December 11, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Anonomous

The specific church you attend has nothing to do with it. Your insistence on loudly and angrily judging and condemning everybody… THAT’s what invites the attacks. If you were actually following Jesus’ example, you’d have a lot fewer problems both here and in real life.

Everytime you come on here, you are wagging your finger and preaching at everybody. It happens every time and you are obviously not smart enough to even realize what you are doing. And then you have the ignorance to scold Chuck for preaching. LOL!!

By Tax the Churches!

December 11, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Churches are corporations who benefit from tax supported infrastructure and services. Their corporate profits should be taxed like every other corporation which after loopholes is still not as much as individuals. We have a national debt to pay and they are just hiding behind the label of religion while future generations are stuck paying for the excessive spending of the big huge Republican borrow and spend federal government they helped elect with their values pulpit. Tax them all!

By AGFNPR

December 11, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

GOB -

Please tell me again why churches should be taxed? If you want to make the argument that I shouldn’t get a tax break for donating to a non-profit - I would agree with you. However, I do not want the money that I GIVE to be taxed. If I am foolish enough to give my money to some worthless cause, why should the government be able to cash in on that?

I also think you can make an argument that churches could be taxed on money they make from investments, but not from donations.

Anon2 - please show me in the bible where Jesus wanted us to disband churches - since you claim that is the “Christian” thing.

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Exactly what liberals are telling young kids that sex has no emotional/physical consequences?

lozen—Communication between people consists of two components: (1) The actual verbal content (2) The unconscious emotional “message” which transmits the feelings/expectations of the speaker via the particular choice of words, tone of voice, body language, etc. Ultimately, people are persuaded not so much by the actual verbal content of any given communication, but respond more to the emotional message. In the case of sex ed, I would argue that the feelings/expectation part of the communication is probably the only thing the kids will remember years later, not the “factual” info.

In this way, it is my opinion that our state-sanctioned sex ed does in fact encourage teen sex, if only by default—i.e. by not discouraging it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe any of the textbooks tell the real truth for the young ladies: If you sleep around, you’ll develop a reputation that will likely follow you around for the rest of your life.

By FoodForThought

December 11, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Now you can hardly be God’s Chosen People if you could not play the poor victimized Jew.

You think 1000-years in Europe, all the while playing the “We’re better than you, we’re God’s Chosen People” was not a factor? For that matter, how can a culture go to Europe for 1000-years and end up so hated? Says alot about the culture, it seems.

By chuck

December 11, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

NetB, while you are correct about our form of government, I think we have gone too far when we dismiss the importance of the majority in our form of government. While we don’t want to follow the whims of the momentary majority in changing the Constitution and major laws, we SHOULD acquiesce to the majority as much as we can on matters of personal preference in the public sector. This should especially be true in matters of local interest. If the local schools want to put on a Christmas pageant complete with a nativity, they should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to do so if a majority of parents want it.

Here’s the difference. In matters of religion, speech, assembly, press, etc., we should be protecting the right TO, not the right FROM. Local governments are not CONGRESS. They cannot violate the establishment clause if you read the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that we should trample on the minority. We should not force them to attend such a pageant. We should also give them the right to put on their own pageant celebrating their own religious occasions if they so choose.

There is a caveat though. If the minority is so small AND it is so controversial (for instance, Brudogs Wiccan friends, or peyote using Indians) and shocking that the overwhelming majority (say 95% or more are opposed, then I think it is okay to deny them the use. In any event these decisions should be made locally, not by some court somewhere.

As for you other question, you accused me of being “in the outfield” by saying that liberals wanted sex education in kindergardens. I did not say ALL liberals, but you would have to agree that wanting such would definitely be a liberal position. Also, as you can see from google, this is not a topic that hasn’t been written about. Look at the number of hits I got when I did a web search:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,170,000 for kindergarten sex education.

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

If you need a specific example, lozen, I heard a news story last night about a young man who is facing legal trouble for setting up a website which had nude pictures of underage girls. Where did he get the pictures? It seems that several girls in his middle school, aged 11-14, were sending nude pictures of themselves to their “boyfriends”, who in turn forwarded them to others. The pictures were loaded onto a CD and sold at the middle school for 2 years with minimal consequences. The bruhah developed only 2 more years later when the teen who is in trouble transmitted the images to another minor.

When the police approached the parents of the girls, all but one or two of them didn’t care in the least, and refused to cooperate with the police in any way. My point is that apparently, the laissez-faire attitude of these parents sent a message to these young ladies that it’s ok to take nude pictures of yourself at age 11-14 and send them to your “boyfriends”. What say you?

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Also, lozen, I’m still waiting for you to say even one bad thing about Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Kim-Jong Il, Ho Chi Minh, or even Che Guerva. These men are responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of human beings. Yet, somehow you just can’t bring yourself to criticize a one of them while you go on your ridiculous rants about Bush and the fundamentalists.

By Mirror Mirror on the Wall

December 11, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did it

By Mirror, Mirror

December 11, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

My Middle Name Is Hussein: Save it for someone else, will ya? My wife has already had the real thing, and wouldn’t be interested in you.

BTW, How do you compare to the English profs at Auburn?

By Mirror, Mirror

December 11, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Oops, I forgot. You’re real good at dishing it out, but cry foul when someone returns fire. My bad….

By Anonymous

December 11, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Bruno: And how many of those folks are American politicians who represent America?

By Lurker

December 11, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Bruno: And how many of those folks are American politicians who represent America

Don’t confuse the poor boy with anything RELEVANT. geeez.

By NetBanker

December 11, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck (and anyone else), what do you think about the mega-evangelists having to turn over their records to the IRS? Actually, I don’t think this has happened. They were asked to turn them over to a Senate Committee who would then determine if the IRS needs to be involved. I find it interesting that one church has complied and released a statement about being open in their reporting, at least one other has agreed to provide the records shortly, and the others are protesting. I think most people tend to think like I do in that if there is nothing to hide (as Creflo Dollar says) then why not provide the records if only to be able to say ‘I told you so’?

Personally, I don’t buy into the “prosperity gospel” that some of the mega-churches preach. For me this flies in the face of Jesus’ warnings about the camel through the eye of the needle vs a rich man getting into heaven. I certainly don’t think that there is some requirement for pastors to be poor, but living in a million dollar mansion and driving a car worth more than $100K is excessive. It sends the message that both the pastor AND congregation are materialists. Is there any function a $300K Bentley provides that $50K Mercedes or $80K Jaguar can’t provide?

By JokesOn

December 11, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

JokesOn - concerning your post about the teachings of Jesus: Love - you bet! Acceptance - Jesus forgave sin, but He never accepted it, nor excused it. Jesus loved the woman caught in adultry, but after He saved her He told her to go and sin no more. If she wanted to be His disciple, her actions would have to change.

I agree, somewhat.

Are you going to say that she, or more importantly the disciples never sinned? Only jesus can say that.

What we are touching on is the grey area that NetB brought up: (paraphrased) justice is discipline tempered by love and where that truly lies no one on this board can say. What bothers most of us are those that state they do know what that point is, raising themselves to the level of godliness. The ultimate weakness of humans.

Also, lets say for the arguments sake that abortion is a sin. That sin is performed how many times in the worst scenario? Now compare that to the sins that holier-that-thow chuck presents multiple times a day on this board. All sins being equal, as god states, he is pretty far off track to say the least. Yet he wishes to judge all under his divine interpretations.

(no time to post much for a while…so see you soon)

By Monica

December 11, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

GOB,

Churches are tax-exempt, but ministers are not. They have to pay taxes like the rest of us. Churches are no different from any other non-profit corporation, and should not have to pay taxes.

I really hate that mega-churches have given Christianity a black eye. I agree with you, Chuck, about ministers having such a lavish lifestyle. Even if they don’t receive a salary from their church (Joel Osteen), they could probably find better ways to spend money than by having a private jet.

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

And how many of these folks are American politicians who represent America?

The news story didn’t identify the professions (or political affiliation) of the parents involved. There was an implication that it occurred in an affluent neighborhood, however.

Tell me, Anonymous, what is your opinion of Paris Hilton’s sex video? I heard the Kim Kardashian video is going to be re-released as well (deceased OJ lawyer Robert Kardashian’s daughter). Do you have a personal opinion as to whether this is the right message to send to young ladies or not?

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

So just where is our culture heading? Am I wrong to beleive that the desecration of our young ladies is representative of a dark, dark force? Or am I just another uptight, right-wing prude here?

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

Churches are tax-exempt, but ministers are not

Monica, all of these mega-church ministers hire crafty tax accountants who then set up multiple “paper” corporations, so that they can enjoy the helicopters and Bentleys basically tax-free.

By Monica

December 11, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

NetB, my bad! I knew that they were reporting to a Senate commmittee, not the IRS, but was in a hurry. I too, disagree with the “prosperity lite” movement. I admire pastors like Rick Warren, author of the “Purpose Driven Life” series. I don’t know where he lives or what he drives, but I do know that he has given his entire salary back to his church - all 20 years of his salary. He made enough money off of his books not to be dependent on a salary. Truett Cathy, Chick-fil-A founder, is a very generous man, and has opened many foster homes in the Southeastern US. That’s the example we should follow.

By Scalia

December 11, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

If the minority is so small AND it is so controversial

and shocking that the overwhelming majority (say 95% or more are opposed, then I think it is okay to deny them the use.

So that applies to gay marriage, too? Chuck, that sounds kinda like what Hussein was doing to the Kurds. Oh, it’s only a few of them. If the vast majority feels that it is right, then it is okay.

By NetBanker

December 11, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

As for you other question, you accused me of being “in the outfield” by saying that liberals wanted sex education in kindergardens. I did not say ALL liberals, but you would have to agree that wanting such would definitely be a liberal position. Chuck..while I agree that the idea would be A liberal position as compared to other positions on the topic it’s not THE liberal position or even a mainstream position of the Democratic party. You did not say ALL liberals however the common understanding of the plural form of a word includes the concept of ALL unless otherwise noted by a qualifier such as ‘most’ or ‘many’.

If the minority is so small AND it is so controversial (for instance, Brudogs Wiccan friends, or peyote using Indians) and shocking that the overwhelming majority (say 95% or more are opposed, then I think it is okay to deny them the use. I can’t agree with this position. If the minority group was doing something illegal (like the use of peyote) then denial of access is appropriate otherwise we’re negating the American ideal of equality. What you’re saying is akin to the ‘conditional love’ discussed yesterday.

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

NetB—It looks like the economy is still strong according to the latest third-quarter earnings reports. The unemployment rate remains low, and real wages increased as well last quarter. I’ll be happy to be wrong about my concerns about an impending recession.

What concerns me is that the Bush team is pulling out all the stops to keep the numbers looking good by manipulating the mortgage industry. You have to pay the piper at some point for all those bad loans. Not allowing the mortgage companies to raise the ARM rates per the contract they signed with the home buyers stinks, IMO. I’m guessing Bush chose a 5 year moratorium to push the recession out of the time frame of his administration. Ultimately, the 130,000 troops in Iraq will be coming home, and the million or so people who make their living supporting the military are going to have to find new jobs. This concerns me.

By RW

December 11, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

That s-l-u-t had sex with everybody then she turned me down. That makes her a b-i-t-c-h. Am I just another uptight, right-wing prude here?

By KORA-ha

December 11, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

http://index1.liguxix.com >tilden greenhouses in rockland massachusetts [url=http://index1.liguxix.com]tilden greenhouses in rockland massachusetts[/url]

By KORA-ha

December 11, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

http://index1.liguxix.com >tilden greenhouses in rockland massachusetts [url=http://index1.liguxix.com]tilden greenhouses in rockland massachusetts[/url]

By Mirror Mirror

December 11, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

then she turned me down

Yeah, and she also chose to crush whatever little bit of male pride I had in the process. Almost to the point of cruelty. Or was that the point all along?

By Mirror Mirror

December 11, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Mental note to self: Avoid angry women. They’re only going to cut your nuts off.

Second mental note to self: Yeah, but the sex is the best with an angry woman.

Third mental note to self: Just give up. It’s easier.

By AGFNPR

December 11, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

JokesOn,

No one except Jesus can claim to have lived a sinless life. It is a certainty that the woman sinned even after her meeting with Jesus. The point I am making is that sin is never excused. It is the reason Jesus went to the cross. My sin cost Him everything. Therefore I can’t go to God with the following excuses when I mess up:

Lord I’m weak, you made me this way, so it is OK for me to sin. Lord I sin less than (insert name here), so my sin is OK. Lord I am 95% obedient to your word, so my 5% sin is OK. I’ve used all of these and many more! It still doesn’t make my sin right.

And maybe I wrong, but I don’t think that Chuck, TOJ, or myself is advocating that there is a point where God’s love is overcome by His justice, because the bible teaches just the opposite. In Romans Paul says that the gift of God (Jesus’ death leading to the forgiveness of sin) is greater than the offense (our sin). But I am saying that I believe the bible teaches that forgiveness is only given to those who accept Him as Lord and Savior.

But even as a Christian that does not mean that there aren’t consequences to living in sin - no matter how much forgiveness we get.

By NetBanker

December 11, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

So just where is our culture heading? Am I wrong to beleive that the desecration of our young ladies is representative of a dark, dark force? Or am I just another uptight, right-wing prude here? Some good questions, Bruno! Did you read the opinion pieces on misogyny in the AJC lately? While I’m not a Hillary supporter I did find the piece on the verbal assualt on her character through use of pejorative sexual language quite interesting. It had never occurred to me that there is not the same plethora of terms available with which to denigrate a male.

By chuck

December 11, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

No Scalia, Sadam HUSSEIN was KILLING the kurds, not denying the use of public facilities based on community standards. No one is suggesting that gays be gassed or even ridiculed or harrassed. Marriage on the other hand is a historically and internationally recognized tradition and institution. It has at its core a specific and societally useful aim and as such should be preserved and reserved for the use for which it was intended.

I thought the position of one of the party’s 2 main presidential candidates seemed to be pretty mainstream as far as the party goes NetB. Either way, not a big enough deal to argue about.

As for the facilities use, I think what we really should be looking at are community standards. LOCAL COMMUNITIES should be making those decisions based on who is most affected by such a use. I also don’t think we should make an exception for every tom, dick, and harry religion that comes down the pike. I could go out there and establish a NEW Religion that worships mole rats. I’m sure I could get a few loonies to come to my mole rat church of eternal bliss. Should I then be able to call it a religion and ask for equal time? NO that’s ridiculous. I just think that if there is a rate of acceptance floor, like 5% or so, you can keep the lunatic fringe out.

By Mirror Mirror

December 11, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

RW—If you can give me a little break, please know that I do truly care for this woman. I admire her intelligence, creativity, and passion for what she believes in. Most importantly, I think that she has a compassionate heart, though it has been broken so many times it has developed scar tissue several inches thick all around.

In my imagination, my undying love and devotion might be the ingredient she needs to have a great life. Someone smart enough to appreciate just how smart she really is. Someone who will share the power with her, and not wish to lord over her. Are these dreams just more selfishness on my part?

By Lurker

December 11, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Also, lozen, I’m still waiting for you to say even one bad thing about Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Kim-Jong Il, Ho Chi Minh, or even Che Guerva. These men are responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of human beings. Yet, somehow you just can’t bring yourself to criticize a one of them while you go on your ridiculous rants about Bush and the fundamentalists.

Bruno: And how many of those folks are American politicians who represent America?

I said, don’t confuse him. but confused he became. geeez.

By Anon2

December 11, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

TOJ asked “Where the hell are you going to church? Chances are, you are not. You are simply repeating propaganda that few people are dumb enough to even believe, little-on repeat.”

• “It’s 7:30 a.m. on a sticky summer Sunday outside Atlanta; state troopers wade through the flock of early birds quickly filling the parking spaces at World Changers Church.

Young couples, women with babies, elderly men, singles—nearly 8,500 people from Georgia and neighboring states push into the church’s $20 million World Dome auditorium.

Inside, a six-piece band queues up and 110 gospel singers blend into one mighty voice. Four female interpretive dancers slash the air with colorful scarves. The crowd begins to stand and sway and sing out: “Glory to God in the highest place!”

Some congregants wave their palms toward the pulpit, where they know their man, Pastor Creflo A. Dollar Jr., soon will bring them God’s word.

Amid the fervor, a security squad in black suits eyes the crowd. A lot of donation money, perhaps $85,000, is about to surface. Should trouble arise, the guards are ready to coordinate their response over wireless devices on their wrists and ear lobes.

Once the congregation reaches capacity, warm-up pastor Vic Bolton (Dollar’s brother-in-law) takes the podium. He leads a brief prayer that includes support for President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, then welcomes members, guests and the 6,000 followers watching streaming video of the service live on the Web at www.worldchangers.org.

After Bolton finishes, out strides Creflo Dollar from stage left, looking crisp in a three-piece windowpane suit. A fit 43-year-old African-American with close-cropped hair and a neat mustache, Dollar’s image beams from jumbo screens flanking the stage and 14 smaller televisions mounted on pillars that bring the action to worshippers dozens of rows back.

The enthusiastic congregation opens note pads, ready to absorb Dollar’s trademark “prosperity gospel,” which urges his followers to enrich themselves spiritually, emotionally and—equally important—financially.

With this message, Dollar has built one of the biggest evangelical ministries in the United States, with 25,000 members and $80 million in revenue this year.

It’s a nonprofit organization, but World Changers Ministries, which oversees the church, works like an expanding conglomerate with Dollar as its chief executive.

(just as Jesus would have wanted it.)

AGFNPR asked “please show me in the bible where Jesus wanted us to disband churches - since you claim that is the “Christian” thing.”

I was talking about mega churches like Creflo Dollar’s. IMO “prosperity gospel” is against God’s Will

It was Jesus that chased the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip of cords saying, “Take these things away! DO NOT MAKE MY FATHER’S HOUSE A DEN OF MERCHANDISE” John 2:15-16

The Pharisees, just like those of the Faith Movement and Elijah List, were lovers of money. Jesus said, “What is highly esteemed among men is an ABOMINATION in the sight of God” Luke 16:14-15.

and -

“Men of corrupt minds and destitute of the faith, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such WITHDRAW YOURSELF” 1 TIMOTHY 6:5.

“DO NOT lay up for YOURSELVES treasures on earth, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” Matthew 6:19-21.

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and dispise the other. YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON” Matthew 6:24.

“FREELY YOU HAVE RECEIVED, FREELY GIVE” Matthew 10:8

“He who hears the word, and the cares of this world and THE DECEITFULNESS OF RICHES CHOKE THE WORD and he becomes UNFRUITFUL” Matthew 13:22.

“I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” Matthew 19:23-24.

“Who hear the word and the cares of THIS world, the DECEITFULNESS OF RICHES, and the desires for OTHER THINGS enter in and CHOKE THE WORD and it (the word of God) becomes unfruitful” Mark 4:19.

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Lord, I’m weak, you made me this way…. I sin less than ____…I’m 95% good…

C’mon, AGFNPR, you’re taking away all my best excuses!! Actually, I think I suffer from the opposite situation—the inability to forgive myself for wrongs I have done. I wish the crucifixion of Christ could take away all those sins, but I can’t ask for that. I’m unworthy.

While I’m not a Hillary supporter

NetB, like I said a long time ago, without the gay “issue”, I think you’d be a hard-core conservative. ; > }

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

lozen—Nice try. If you had never mentioned any of these other “gentlemen” on the blog, I could concede that your focus is only on American politicians. However, you have been an apologist for these thugs many times on the blog. As such, your credibility is about zero in my book.

Even in regard to American politicians, you have two different sets of standards by which you lay your judgements—one for Republicans, and a different one for Democrats. Specifically, though you have complained about “sexual harrassment” as bing a huge concern for women, you and your cheering section (i.e. NNP) just can’t bring yourselves to criticize his loutish behavior.

By chuck

December 11, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

ANON2, I can’t help but agree with most of your 2:01 post. I think it is very unseemly, whether it is creflo or anybody else to gain riches by taking GOD’S WORD out of context and using it to fleece the flock.

I can’t help but think about the rich young man who came to Christ and asked in Marck 10, “What must I do to be saved?”

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Now a lot of people think that this meant that all rich people have to do this, but that wasn’t what Jesus was getting at. The next verse said this:

22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

You see Jesus looks on the heart. He knew that the young man was not WILLING to put Jesus AHEAD of his wealth. Jesus is not going to be second place to anything or anyone in our lives. When anything becomes greater to us than Christ, then in effect we are worshipping that thing. It is IDOLATRY. I think that in some of these churches the Gospel is being perverted by Charlatans who are only interested in personal gain.

By Are You Smarter Than A Mudder

December 11, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

chuck—You’ve done a lot of jawing here on W2W about how smart you are. I’m going to give you a chance to show me just how smart you are by posing a problem to you that appeared on one of my Freshman level courses while at Harvey Mudd College:

A vessel out in space which contains 1 atmosphere of gaseous pressure is struck by a meteor which tears a whole in the vessel. Exactly how long, to the 1/1000 of a second, will it take for the gaseous pressure inside the vessel to fall to 0.9 atmospheres?

To solve this problem does require some very basic knwledge of chemistry, but not much. To make it fair for you, you are welcome to consult any chemistry book in the world you wish to before posing your solution.

If any of you GT boys like 2D or AGFNPR want to take a crack at it, I welcome you to prove that you are smarter than an HMC freshman. TOJ—Get out your chenistry books and take a crack. Cuz I can guarantee in advance that none of will even come close. To make it easier, I will drop the requirement of an exact numerical soluion and just ask you instead to simply outline the approach you would take.

By Are You Smarter Than A Mudder

December 11, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Tell you what, chuck, if you can provide a reasonable outline for solving this very simple problem, I’ll be your blog b*** from here on out.

By RW

December 11, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Personal gain is a Godly thing if your a conservative Christian. God wants us to reap all the rewards of what we earn, thats why he hates taxes. Liberals hate us because their jealous we have what they don’t.

By Are You Smarter Than A Mudder

December 11, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

by taking God’s Word out of context

I take it that your own taking of God’s Word out of context is ok then, chuck? I know you don’t do it for money, which is base, you do it for a different reason: To elevate yourself by putting others down.

By chuck

December 11, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Now on the other hand, I do know a number of very wealthy people. I honestly believe that God has blessed them with wealth for a reason and I have seen them use their wealth to do so many good things. God doesn’t give that gift to everybody…certainly not me, but I don’t begrudge them their wealth. God chose a different path for me and I am totally satisfied with that.

By Scalia

December 11, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Chuck takes the bible as a whole. He doesn’t just go scripture by scripture.

By Show Me How Smart You Are

December 11, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

Once more:

A vessel out in space which contains 1 atmosphere of gaseous pressure is struck by a meteor which tears a hole in the vessel. How long, to the 1/1000 of a second does it take for the gaseous pressure inside the vessel to fall to 0.9 atmospheres.

All you Libs are excused from trying to solve this problem. I don’t want o trouble your brains by asking you to actually think for a change. I’m betting the baknkroll that chuck’s 149 IQ will be insufficient, and that the GT boys don’t have the education to answer. Prove me wrong, guys. Take as long as you want, read any chemistry textbooks you want, they’re not going to help you. You have to think your way through this one.

P.S. All of my tests while at HMC were open book, take-home tests. Sounds pretty easy, right?

By Show Me How Smart You Are

December 11, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

I’ll give you one last hint to solve this problem: There is not enough information given to solve it via formula.

By Anon2

December 11, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

Chuck, there are thousands if not millions of desperate, needy people in America, many here in Atlanta. there are Children needing healthy meals. Old people all alone with no family sitting by windows watching the world ignore them. Criminals who repent but have nobody to show them another way.

if the Churches were doing the work of God, they would not HAVE any money for big screen televisions or multi-million dollar auditoriums. People tithe to the Church to do Gods work. Using that money for anything EXCEPT that (do we REALLY NEED instruments for the band, or fancy robes for the Choir, more than the homeless shelter needs money for electricity?) is stealing from God himself. It is not the Heart of the people that is rotten, it is the Church that tends the flock. SHAME on the Pharisees and moneychangers hiding in the Temple. Shame.

By Duh

December 11, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

it immediately has ZERO atmospheres, ain’t no atmospheres in space.

By Anonymous

December 11, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

I see we’re back to the resident insecure egomaniac “testing” everyone and hijacking the discussion. Later, folks. (No doubt he’ll announce that “See, my intelligence scares you.”)

You really need some real-world self-esteem, dude. You’re not gonna get it by bragging about yourself on a blog.

By Anonymous

December 11, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

(Or by hitting on everyone with a female screen name. Geez, that’s just pathetic!)

By Show Me

December 11, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

It immediately has ZERO atmospheres. Ain’t no atmospheres in space

Thanks for offering a thought, Duh, but you’re wrong. Any ideas about why you are wrong??

By Show Me

December 11, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

While this may appear to be a somewhat meaningless chemistry problem, each person’s attempt at solving it reveals how well they understand epistemology.

You’re first error, DUH, was in stating that for a fact, that you know that space has NO atmospheres of pressure. Is that a fact? I’ll save you some time and give you the applicable chemistry formula: PV=nRT, which is known as the Ideal Gas Law (notice the word Ideal). As for your belief that the pressure inside the vessel will dissipate instantly, you might consider by what mechanism that pressure can “change” at all. I won’t require you to find out the applicable statistical thermodynamics equations, just outline your solution.

By Show Me

December 11, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

No doubt he will announce “See my intelligence scares you”

I don’t question your intelligence, Anonymous, as much as I do your character. You come to this blog and snipe at everyone from the sidelines without ever offering any original thoughs of your own. Then, you try to accuse me of the same BS your Lib blog buddies try to hide behind: We Libs are so smart that the dumb conservatives just don’t have the ability to appreciate our high-level thoughts.

Come back another day if you would like to actually debate instead of snipe. P***.

By AGFNPR

December 11, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

Annon2 -

I didn’t read your post carefully - my apologies. We are in agreement with megachurches. I will not defend them. I myself attend a small church where the pastor drives a pickup. The church takes care of him as much as they can, but he has to have another job to make ends meet.

Dog -

I haven’t done any real engineering work in years and I ain’t gonna google.

But since you asked and didn’t require a numerical answer I must assume this is a trick question. You stated the gas is at 1 atm, but I would have to ask the question of 1 atm where? 1 atm on sea level on earth is 14.7 psi, but one atm in space is still a vacuum. Therefore the gas wouldn’t leak out of the vessel even if it had a hole ripped in it - but I assume that is the point of this exercise - a trick question.

By Show Me

December 11, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Big, big hint: If you expect to receive any credit for solving this simple problem, your answer had better contain the phrase “Let’s Assume” about ten times.

I’ll leave the epistemological ramifications of this requirement to all the Lib geniuses here like Anonymous. Sadly, I’m not expecting chuck to understand the ramifications in any way at all. I’m guessing that he’s a lost cause.

By lozen

December 11, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Well, I arrive for the day and find “Numero Uno Pendejo” having an argument with himself and pretending it’s me! I don’t know what the he— he’s talking about. But as for TOJ’s comment: Replace the word Christian with Jew, take us back to 1938, and you could win a lot of awards in Germany. Congratulations. Exactly what group was it that hated Jews so much for so long?* Same group that burned crazy people, people who practiced the old religion, old women with money, - the christians, the catholic church. Funny you would use that as an example.

By Show Me

December 11, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR—No tricks here, just a requirement to understand a few basic definitions. The problen states that there is one atmosphere of pressure inside the vessel. To solve the problem, you first have to postulate what “causes” pressure. Can “space” contain any pressure? Once the hole is created in the vessel, why do you believe that the gas can’t “leak” out?

BTW, one “atmosphere” of pressure is the same anywhere. It is a standard unit of measurement, like mass.

By Show Me

December 11, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

lozen—Bienvenidos, puta. Su mientes estan mierda. Lo entiende?

By NetBanker

December 11, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Bruno…I probably would be a conservative were it not for the gay issue and the said thing is that the Republican platform used to be for gov’t OUT of personal issues such as the gay issue, but not any more.

By lozen

December 11, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

It really is amazing what some people will do to try to convince others that they’re smart. Anonymous is so right when she/he says this guy really needs to find a way to get some real world self-esteem. They’ll also (while trying to hit on the females) talk about how they’re concerned about the reputations of teenage girls while making nasty pig comments about women’s body parts and being “P-whipped” into going to a movie! Sick, sicker, sickest…..

By Show Me

December 11, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

I’ll go ahead and give you the answer, AGFNPR. The only “trick” here is that we were required to provide an exact numerical solution, though not enough info is provided to calculate anything.

If you noticed, the size of the ship, the meteor, or hole aren’t specified. Therefore, the solution to the problem must begin “Let’s assume that the vessel is a sphere of radius 1 meter”, “Let’s assume that the size of the hole is exactly 1 centimeter square”, “Let’s assume that the unnamed gas inside the vessel behaves as an Ideal gas, such that the Ideal gas law applies”. Then, based on these assumptions, you can determine the exact number of molecules contained within the vessel at the outset of the problem. Then, by assuming that the unnamed gas behaves as an Ideal Gas, you can utilize some formulas from statistical thermodynamics to estimate the number of collisions per second that the gas molecules make with the sides of the vessel. Then, finally, by comparing the size of the hole with the total surface area contained within the vessel, you can calculate how many gas particles are escaping per second. Because the rate of escape is proportional to the pressure of gas inside, you have to use calculus to determine the amount of time required for the pressure inside the vessel to fall by 10%. Got it?

By AGFNPR

December 11, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

No tricks?

Then you need to know the temp of the gas, the temp of space, the volume of the vessel, the area of the hole, and what type of gas it is. Then you can draw in your system boundry and solve using conservation of mass and energy equations.

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

NetB—I share your analysis and concern regarding the Republican Party. One of the conservative platforms is supposed to be freedom of the individual, something lost on fundies like chuck who require at least 95% of approval by the community for any new thoughts/religious practices to be allowed.

Do you think chuck understands that Christianity began with a small group of 13 folks? By his logic, it never should have been permitted to exist by the authorities of the day, since 13 is less than the required majority.

Though I personally embrace unity, I see a place for diversity as well in this world.

By Aseme

December 11, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

tears a whole in the vessel.

but it tore the WHOLE vessel up, what’s with this 1 cm hole BS?

another A-s-s-u-m-e thing.

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

You need to know the temperature…

I think you got it, AGFNPR!!!

The grander point about epistemology is this: In Science class, students are typically given a formula like the Ideal Gas Law, and are then “tested” on their understanding of the relationship by being given 3 of the 4 variables, reducing it to a mere algebra problem. What is lost is the fact that no gas behaves as an ideal Gas in real life. It is a model by which we “understand” gaseous behavior whereby we can make accurate predictions about the future. As such, at HMC, we were always required to explicitly state the assumptions we were making in order to be able to apply the various formulae. Personally, I always thought that this was the most important part of the problem, as did my professors, though I suspect the point was lost on most of the students.

By Bruno

December 11, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

The biggest point here is that we never have enough info in life to make an exact numerical calculation via formula. As such, we have to make a lot of assumptions. In mathematical terms, these are known as “definitions” and “postulates”. We can’t escape from this situation because our methods of gathering info are limited. As such, the only thing we can do is recognize is the frailty of our decision making process. IME, very few people are self-aware enough to recognize the boatload of assumptions they are walking through life with.

By lozen

December 11, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

And then he calls me a puta - wh-re - in spanish! Of course I called him a fool, but no sexual slur in that. Any woman that would even think of having anything to do with el pendejo needs to get help.

By JokesOn

December 11, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR,

You and I are on the same page actually. The movement to be overly concerned with what everyone else is doing (sin-wise) is in itself a red flag that these people are off track.

For example, go to an AA meeting and you will find that slippery slope of love/acceptance/tolerance/honesty/justice. This kind of deep multi-faceted logic and love is not exhibited by the TOJs and chucks of the world. Yes, I do and will rail against them. Only through free will, to sin and do good, can one be “good” and at peace. If they had it their way, they would remove that free will.

The notion of removing free will flies directly in the face of gods will.

By hipnoj

December 11, 2007 8:36 PM | Link to this

http://index1.rutyqe.com >tallulah river campground

By hipnoj

December 11, 2007 8:36 PM | Link to this

http://index1.rutyqe.com >tallulah river campground

By chuck

December 12, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

Boy, I go away for one meeting and Brudog goes off his meds again. What happened boy…get hit in the head with a math book when you were a kid?

Anyway, I can’t completely agree with your post at 3:31 Anon2. While you are certainly correct that the church should be feeding the poor (which by the way, most churches are), that doesn’t mean that the faithful should be worshipping God in a shack. Look at the pattern that God gave for building the Temple in I Kings chapter 6. This wasn’t exactly an austere, bare-bones kind of building. Do I think we ought to do everything in a way that flaunts wealth? No, but anything that the church can do to draw people in and enhance the presentation of the Gospel (as long as it doesn’t violate scripture), I have no problem with.

14 So Solomon built the temple and completed it. 15 He lined its interior walls with cedar boards, paneling them from the floor of the temple to the ceiling, and covered the floor of the temple with planks of pine. 16 He partitioned off twenty cubits [i] at the rear of the temple with cedar boards from floor to ceiling to form within the temple an inner sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. 17 The main hall in front of this room was forty cubits [j] long. 18 The inside of the temple was cedar, carved with gourds and open flowers. Everything was cedar; no stone was to be seen.

19 He prepared the inner sanctuary within the temple to set the ark of the covenant of the LORD there. 20 The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty wide and twenty high. [k] He overlaid the inside with pure gold, and he also overlaid the altar of cedar. 21 Solomon covered the inside of the temple with pure gold, and he extended gold chains across the front of the inner sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold. 22 So he overlaid the whole interior with gold. He also overlaid with gold the altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary.

23 In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits [l] high. 24 One wing of the first cherub was five cubits long, and the other wing five cubits—ten cubits from wing tip to wing tip. 25 The second cherub also measured ten cubits, for the two cherubim were identical in size and shape. 26 The height of each cherub was ten cubits. 27 He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28 He overlaid the cherubim with gold.

29 On the walls all around the temple, in both the inner and outer rooms, he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. 30 He also covered the floors of both the inner and outer rooms of the temple with gold.

31 For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood with five-sided jambs. 32 And on the two olive wood doors he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid the cherubim and palm trees with beaten gold. 33 In the same way he made four-sided jambs of olive wood for the entrance to the main hall. 34 He also made two pine doors, each having two leaves that turned in sockets. 35 He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers on them and overlaid them with gold hammered evenly over the carvings.

36 And he built the inner courtyard of three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams.

37 The foundation of the temple of the LORD was laid in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv. 38 In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it.

By lovelyliz

December 12, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

We’re talking about The Golden Compass here not Deep Throat or Debbie Does Whatever!

Listen, if you don’t want your children to watch it, that’s your business, but if you are raising your kids to not think for themselves or to defend their religious beliefs by pretending that they have only been used for good, you are doing them a disservice. Your religion & your children.

By No Name Please...

December 12, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

Hey NetB!

misogyny…. While I’m not a Hillary supporter I did find the piece on the verbal assualt on her character through use of pejorative sexual language quite interesting. It had never occurred to me that there is not the same plethora of terms available with which to denigrate a male.

This is no surprise to women, as Lozen pointed out yesterday evening. Any discussion, disagreement, (or pointless pursuit) that continues for any length of time ultimately results in us being denigrated with terminology and character assault related to our gender. While I don’t ever recall the words of Jesus containing such misogynistic overtones, His “followers” are often the worst (or best, depending on your vantage point) at using a woman’s gender-related features or experiences as a stone to hurl. Don’t know why; it just is the way it is; we learn to live with it.

Honestly, I think straight men will accept gay men as friends and equals long before they ever cease firing estro-slurs in our direction, and you’ll have the right to legal marriage in this country long before they give up their crusade to control our uteri by law. There’s a little Taliban in all of them, IMO.

By Scalia

December 12, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

lovelyliz, that is what I was saying. It opens up a whole discussion of religion, and other religions in the world. It teaches the children to think for themselves, and to enhance their levels of comprehension.

I remember being told not to question God. Otherwise, bad things would happen. And if something did happen bad to me, then I would always think back to whatever it was that I was questioning God about. And how many nights did I stay up thinking that I was going to h-e-l-l for telling a lie, etc.

It took up until I was a teenager to start thinking for myself.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

If they had it their way, they would remove that free will.

There is not one thing that I have EVER said that could even remotely be taken to mean what you posted here. The whole of Salvation is that God offers His grace to ALL of us. He SAVES those who CHOOSE to accept that free gift. Certainly you can choose to reject Jesus, but that choice will take you straight to hell when you die.

The notion of removing free will flies directly in the face of gods will.

This statement is simply NOT TRUE, at least in its intent. God’s WILL is that you SUBMIT your FREE will to do GOD’S WILL.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Scalia

It took up until I was a teenager to start thinking for myself.

That’s right. You are normal. Kids do not think for themselves until puberty. Whether they are being told what to think by their parents or not is the issue. You seem to think that strangers should steer their thought processes.

So you didn’t tell lies because of the fear of God. Other than that, what could your parents have told you that would have prevented you from telling lies? Would your life been better if you had had no fear of telling lies? Would your parents life had been better if they had raised a kid that had no problem telling lies?

What was your parent’s other options? They could have told you what you and so many on here seem to advocate: There is no God and there is no consequence for your actions.

Then, I’ll bet you would have been a really great kid. LOL!

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Anon2

No none is saying that there aren’t huge churches. You wrote this:

f they were doing the Christian thing they’d disband the church and give the money to the poor like the Bible says to do. Instead the elders live in mansions, drive around in Bentley’s, lease small airplanes, build bigger, more high-tech 10,000 seat mega churches with surround sound, HD Concert Screen monitors, and cushioned stadium seating, all complete with an on-campus Starbucks, bookstore.

What about that does not say that all churches are mega-churches?

A very few large churches are corrupt, but the vast majority of huge churches do great things for their communities and great things for feeding and helping the poor.

Now I’m sure with your penchant to preach, you must belong to a liberal organization that improves their community and feeds the poor. Please tell us all what that organization is so that we can all leave our horrible churches and come over to your organization.

We will all be waiting for your answer. Please hurry and tell us all how we can live a better and more giving life as a liberal like you.

By AGFNPR

December 12, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

I want to clarify some of my statements yesterday. Despite what I said about megachurches: 1. Many of them do preach the gospel. 2. Many of them are actively involved in their communities and do have programs to help those in need.

I do want to address the issue of churches helping the poor. It is a clear teaching of Christ that we do such. However, it is not and should not be the primary focus of any church.

I am actively involved in the decision making process at our church as to how church funds are distributed to those in need. Before anyone criticizes a church for how they help others, I first suggest that you actually deal with those who say they are in need before you pass judgment on us.

In the vast majority of the cases I have dealt with when people asked our church for money, a closer examination of their situation will normally reveal the following: 1. The have multiple TV’s in the home with cable or satellite service. One home I went in had a big screen TV complete with satellite service. Apparently these are necessities. 2. Most smoke, drink, and play the lottery - spending large sums of money on vices they can’t afford instead of buying food and other essentials. 3. Most will never darken the doors of your church - not that it is a requirment, but it would be nice. 4. Most claim that they cannot find a job, yet when you ask them how the job search is coming along, they have no answer. Some will even admit that doing certain types of work is beneath them.

To summarize - most of the people that I have dealt with who claim to need help actually want the church to subsidize their “needs” while they fritter away their paychecks on “wants”.

And yes, this process has unfortunately made me somewhat jaded about helping “the poor”. Jesus has given me no commandment to help everyone enjoy HBO!

By Mirror Mirror on the Wall

December 12, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

President Bush pardons carjackers, drug dealers, a moonshiner and even an election law violator.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22214927/

But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did it

By Scalia

December 12, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

My point was: they should have been open for discussion, and told me to not just accept what people told me.

And the parents should teach their children to think for themselves.

That is also why so many people feel that religion is used to control people. That is also why you have suicide bombers killing themselves because they want to go to heaven. They start feeding you ideology as a kid, and it is hard to break it and think for yourself.

By No Name Please...

December 12, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Since I provided a list of links that were not porno- or ED- related, my previous post did not show up. Here’s a starter list without the links:

America’s Second Harvest - The nation’s largest charitable hunger-relief organization

Elisabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation - Seeks to prevent pediatric HIV infection and to eradicate pediatric AIDS through research, advocacy, and prevention and treatment programs.

Goodwill International Industries - North America’s leading nonprofit provider of education, training, and career services for people with disadvantages, such as welfare dependency, homelessness, and lack of education or work experience, as well as those with physical, mental and emotional disabilities.

Heifer International - Working with communities to end hunger and poverty and to care for the earth: to “pass on the gift.” (My fave! I “get” a goat or ox every year for Christmas!)

Doctors Without Borders

Mercy Corps - Be the change.

UNICEF Advocate for the protection of children’s rights, to help meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential.

ACCION Helping millions help themselves.

Disabled American Veterans

By wait for it

December 12, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Momentarily you will be informed why a list of non-religious charities is totally irrelevant, why all liberals are absolutely corrupt and never do anything good anywhere for anyone, and any effort to show otherwise is a lame attempt to become a poor substitute for the kind-hearted, good-intentioned churchies who do no wrong ever because they are perfect in every way unlike godless liberals who are, by definition, everything that’s wrong with the world.

You will then, of course, know all you need to know about everything, so no further discussion could possibly have any merit whatsoever.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Also ANON2, you said:

if the Churches were doing the work of God, they would not HAVE any money for big screen televisions or multi-million dollar auditoriums. People tithe to the Church to do Gods work. Using that money for anything EXCEPT that (do we REALLY NEED instruments for the band, or fancy robes for the Choir, more than the homeless shelter needs money for electricity?) is stealing from God himself.

As I said earlier, I agree that we SHOULD, as people of God, minister to the poor. That however is not the ONLY work of the church. It is also not THE PURPOSE of the church, though it is one part of one of seven scriptural purposes of the church. Jesus said it best:

6While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. 8When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9”This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

10Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

By AntiConservative

December 12, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

But all those charities are the pink-commie type.

Imagine teaching a village to own a cow to have milk. Dang commies need to BUY their milk from corporate America.

And Doctors without Borders? if that is not socialized medicine, I’m an anti-conservative.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Scalia

My point was: they should have been open for discussion, and told me to not just accept what people told me.

So you want to discuss the ideas of God and an afterlife with a four year old. Discussion means that ideas are coming from both sides. So what ideas do you think the four year old can offer as to what they think is God or the afterlife. My daughter would have probably offered that heaven was where all the puppies live.

Have you actually raised children?

By chuck

December 12, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

I suggest that you read The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren. He lists the purposes of the church based on Scripture:

worship

fellowship

discipleship

ministry

missions

One part of ministry is taking care of the poor. In some churches this is a major part of what they do in others a less major part. In any event, while churches should be doing this, there are many other things that the church should be doing as well, some of them much more important than taking care of the poor.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Also, Consider this: The Red Cross noted that 90 percent of the meals they served to victims of Hurricane Katrina were actually cooked by Southern Baptist churches. Many churches were able to jump into action faster than the government agencies or the Red Cross. Why? The Church is literally everywhere, and Christians who could provide help to the Gulf Coast communicated with Christians in need of help so relief could be sent immediately.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

No Name

America’s Second Harvest - The nation’s largest charitable hunger-relief organization

An Organization that evolved from the St. Mary’s Food bank in Phoenix. Evolved from a church.

Elisabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation - Seeks to prevent pediatric HIV infection and to eradicate pediatric AIDS through research, advocacy, and prevention and treatment programs.

A good cause, but not founded to help the poor, but to help with the effects of A.I.D.S.

Goodwill International Industries.

Founded in 1902 by the Reverend Edger J. Helms. Founded by a preacher.

Heifer International

Founded by Dan West who was serving as a Church of the Brethren Relief worker. Founded by a Missionary.

Doctors Without Borders

Certainly not a liberal organization, but good try. This one is not linked to a church.

Mercy Corps

No link to either liberal or conservative organization.

UNICEF Advocate for the protection of children’s rights

Part of the UN. Not an American institution.

ACCION

This is a bank.

Disabled American Veterans You left out the Marine Corps.

There is still no comparison to the amount of good that churches do. I hope I have at least made you realize that.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

Wait for it

I’m glad you understand your limitations. I have been here for just a few short weeks but have seen more finger wagging by liberals toward conservatives about how evil churches are and how we should all be more like them (liberals) in caring for the poor.

You listed international organizations, most of them started by a minister or a church. No one is saying that all liberals are corrupt, but any liberal that thinks that liberals are the ones that help the poor are simply ignorant of the facts.

You can sulk all you want. Liberals talk a big game but few do anything.

By Mirror Mirror

December 12, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

As lozen pointed out, any disagreement, etc. ultimately results in us being denigrated with terminology related to our gender

Nice try, MyMiddleNameIsHussein. Personally, I thought your little gem Monday evening was at least as profane than anything I’ve ever said on the blog.

By the way, I’m coming for your wife. Once she climaxes for the first time from a man with a real d—k, she will forget you ever existed.

Hopefully, you’re not like Paris Hilton, who still holds out hope for a “nice boy” to love her.

By wait no more

December 12, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

One hour and fourteen minutes. What took you so long?

OH! OH! OH! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! You’re right! Everyone else is wrong, and You’re right!

ONLY CHURCHES MATTER!

The Other Jack is RIGHT G-DD-MMIT, AND THE REST OF YOU ARE WRONG!

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

get hit in the head with a math book?

Actually, chuck, like many Americans, I share a concern that one day we won’t be able to compete in the world market due to our poor math and science programs for our students. I posed an extremely simple problem about air pressure yesterday to show that even the vaunted GT grads are pretty much lost when you don’t give them 3 out of 4 variables to “plug into” an equation.

As for my grouchiness, it’s due in part to the fact that one of my tenants just moved out on me while owing more than $3000. They trashed the place on top of it.

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

You’re right!

Oh great, here comes the irrational repetitions. Very convincing.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Wait No More

Feel better?

You don’t take being proven wrong very well, do you?

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Well NetB, my optimism about the stock market may have been premature. Apparently the investors weren’t happy with the 1/4 point rate reduction by the Feds, expecting a 1/2 point cut instead.

By Humbled and Repentant

December 12, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Ohmygod, I wanna be just like YOU, Other Jack! I see the light now! Please tell me where you worship so your fine pastor can instill this light in me as well! Address & time. I’ll be there! (Can’t turn away the repentant, you know. Jesus SAID.)

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

I may have forgotten to tell you that my client who was sent to jail for molesting his daughter was a policeman in your home town, NNP. Real fine bunch in blue y’all got out there.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Sorry to hear that Brudog. I got out of rental for that very reason. I had 3 houses at one time that I rented out and had to replace everything in them several times before I sold them. I can’t stand sorry people.

As for the gas problem, I’m not into science. I did well in it in high school, I’m just not that interested in it. I took honors biology and honors anatomy and enjoyed those okay because I had great teachers. The problem you posed had little to do with IQ. It had more to do with specific knowledge and the ABILITY to solve problems based on that knowledge. I knew enough about the science involved to know that there was not enough information there to solve it, but not much more. I did go back and take another look at Boyle’s law and refreshed my memory on some of those classes I took in HS.

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

You don’t like being proven wrong

Good point, TOJ. I’ve noticed that the Libs seem to really get up in arms when you apply the same hateful standards that they apply to Bush onto their man Clinton.

Let me save you the trouble, fake Mirror, Mirror On The Wall:

But Clinton did it! But Clinton did it! But Clinton did it!

By chuck

December 12, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

I don’t think I’d be blaming the entire PD because of one pervert. Dog.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

That’s your girl you are talking about, Brudog.

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

Well, back to politics. I’m going to have to take a good look at Huckabee before making my final decision. Along with McCain, he is the only one who is taking an unequivocal stance against using torture on our prisoners of war. Bill O’Reilly really got his tail kicked by a woman who was identified as a “Democratic strategist” on the issue. He tried every self-righteous gyration known to mankind, but her words stuck: “Bill, you can beat a child into submission, but it still doesn’t make it right”.

Though our desire as a nation to “take the high road” morally is likely a self-delusion, I want to see torture taken off the plate.

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

I knew enough about Science to know that there wasn’t enough info there to solve it

For that recognition, I will give you 1/2 credit, chuck. In order to get full credit, you have to lay out a plan in order to obtain the missing info. In the problem I posed, that is not possible, of course, since the size of the vessel, the internal temperature of the gas, etc. was not provided.

I doubt, of course, that you will see the larger analogy to “real-life” problem solving. The point I’m trying to make is that we have to solve problems and make decisions all the time with incomplete information in the real world. As such, we need to recognize that the veracity of our conclusions depends strictly on the veracity of our assumptions. When we reach faulty conclusions, we need to examine the assumptions that went into that conclusion.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Humbled and Repentant

Good for you. Who knows, maybe some day you will get through puberty and you can discuss issues like an adult.

The first step would be for you to take a name and keep it.

Until then, expect to be given all the respect you deserve.

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

That’s your girl you’re talking about

Nah. I think she spit on me one too many times.

By Bruno

December 12, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

I don’t think I would blame the entire PD because of one pervert

chuck, I’m simply applying the same brand of “inductive logic” that NNP uses when she discredits large groups of men based upon her poor experiences with one or two.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Bruno

Along with McCain, he is the only one who is taking an unequivocal stance against using torture on our prisoners of war.

I don’t think that any decision about that sort of thing should be up for public debate. We are safely setting here in “overly” warm Atlanta and people who need to face death everyday should not need to worry about what we think.

During Viet Nam, the Meli Massacre made a huge news story. My Dad, a decorated veteran of WWII (South Pacific) lost it. I have never seen him so mad. He said that when he and his buddies walked into a South Pacific village, if there was any suspicion that the village was friendly toward their enemy, they killed everyone.

This is war. Making war a nice thing will not make it any better. Also making huge generalizations about how people should be treated by our intelligence is lunacy.

If they nuke midtown, and it is discovered that the information was known by a person that never gave it up because he had no fear of torture, would you feel differently? Will it take the slaughter of hundreds of thousands before we start treating this like a war?

I say let them protect us.

By lozen

December 12, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

NoNamePlease,yes! Chuck, you have a “belief” that we must accept Jesus as our savior or we’ll go to hell. It is only a BELIEF. It’s no different than believing when one dies you should put coins in their mouths to pay the ferry driver for the trip across the river Stix. It’s a belief that, as hard as I tried in my youth, I could never accept. I grew up in the south and all I knew as a young person was fundamental southern baptist religion. It was the only choice. And I wanted to be religious. I wanted to belong. I wanted jesus to love me since noone else seemed to care about me. The problem was, it just didn’t make sense to me even when I was 14. Why would a jewish rabbi who lived 2000 years ago have anything to do with my sins? It was like a fairy tale and not even a very good one. This Jesus couldn’t even save himself, let alone anyone else. And the idea that someone had to die a horrible death to save all humanity from their sins? Please. What kind of father would do that to his child? As I got older and studied world religions and the history of Judeo/Christian religion I began to put this whole myth of christianity together. The Egyptians believed they were right. The Muslims believe they have the only TRUE religion. The catholics believe they are the only ones with the true religion. The protestants, the new kids on the block, think they’re right and the catholics are wrong. I do not believe all the myths about jesus. i don’t believe in Yahweh. I don’t know if there’s a higher consciousness or a being who created the world. I do not believe this means I will go to hell. You do. Difference of opinion; that’s all. And my parents never told me god would punish me if I lied. So I wonder, how did I know it was wrong to lie? There is no proof strong enough to make me believe in Yahweh but there are consequences for our actions. People have morals even if they don’t believe in a god or gods.

By Ding Dong

December 12, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

Is that your doorbell?

By Broken Mirror

December 12, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

If you want to know the truth, I really was heart-broken by NNP’s rejection, and haven’t gotten over it yet. Maybe it’s because I layed bare my soul to her, and she laughingly stomped all over it. I guess that’s her right. Of course, I can in no way defend my horrible response in attempting to embarass her here on the blog.

I’ll do my best to slink away for a while……I just wish she would write to me.

By Broken Mirror

December 12, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

and it was discovered that the info was known by a person

TOJ, I hear you, especially about the fact that I’m sitting in comfort typing my blogs while our men and women in the military are facing death and torture. I understand that. However, as a citizen of the US, I DO have a say about how our own military operates. And I’m voting “no” to torture.

By Broken Mirror

December 12, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

It is only a BELIEF

lozen, sweetie, thank you for a beautiful post. I take back every bad thing I said about you yesterday. Tying what you said into my point about reaching conclusions based on incomplete info, what happens to our souls after we die is not known, primarily because it is unknowable. As such, anyone who claims certainty about the issue is a liar. What say you, chuck??

BTW, both pendejo and puta can be used either as an insult. or a term of endearment, depending upon the context. I’m sure you knew I was using it in an endearing way. ; > }

By Broken Mirror

December 12, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Well, I better go. Someone is ringing my doorbell.

Love to all.

By Mirror Mirror in the Well

December 12, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

Our Brilliant Muds Scholar probably missed the point that all Presidents give questionable pardons. But then he brought up the questionable pardon issue.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

I had an uncle who was briefly a POW of the Japanes in WWII. He knew people who were tortured, though he was able to escape that himself when a group of marines came in and liberated them. I’m kind of on the fence in this one. I don’t think what they did at Abu Graib was torture. The prisoners were humiliated but not physically harmed. I have some queasiness about what they did, but I don’t think it rises to the level of criminality or torture. As for waterboarding and other forms of PHYSICAL enducements to talk, I think they can rise to the level of torture and I would be against that. I would hate to think that one of my relatives would have to go through that. I think you would too TOJ. I think we should have rules in place for the treatment of prisoners of war and all nations should abide by those.

BUT, these are not necessarily prisoners of war. They don’t represent a country that has signed on to those rules. To me that is a different case to some degree. They have OPENLY recorded themselves BEHEADING AMERICANS. I’m not sure that I have any sympathy for terrorists, torture or no torture. I think that ALL OF THESE THINGS should be kept secret until after the war and THEN sort it out. I feel uneasy about it now that I know. It wouldn’t have bothered me at all if I had never found out.

By ToughQuestion

December 12, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Which is slimier, a Brilliant Muds Scholar or Star Trek’s “Harry” Mudd?

By AnotherBad PD

December 12, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Talk about corrupt cops, only in New Jersey? where the state troopers gang-rape women?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316504,00.html

Anybody here from New Jersey?

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Broken Mirror

I respect your opinion and your opinion is definitely the more popular opinion.

I think it is the John Wayne movies. He was a soldier like a cop. He would always only shoot the other guy in self defense.

Later movies did a much better job in showing real war. Band of Brothers was very good at showing soldiers rushing into a house and doing what soldiers do: killing everything that moved. It isn’t Cops (Bad boys, Bad boys, what you gonna do), it’s war. Cops negotiate and arrest. Soldiers shoot people. And if they have done their job, the person they shoot will die a horribly violent and bloody death.

But when we catch people with information that could condemn or save sometimes thousands from such a horrible and bloody death, we want to interrogate them like they just stole clothes from TJ Max.

I don’t get it.

By lozen

December 12, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

Heartbroken over someone on a blog that you’ve never met, never seen, never spoken with? Wow.

By Broken Mirror

December 12, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

ToughQuestion: Is the satisfaction of knowing you’re “right” enough for you? You don’t have to sick the cops on me.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Let’s assume you are right Lozen and Brudog. I love the people in my church and other Christians I have met throughout my life. I love my life. I love going to church with my family. I love doing good for others and I encourage them to lead positive lives. I love the music. I love the kids. I get up every morning with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. When I die, what have I lost?

But if YOU ARE WRONG…

By Scalia

December 12, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

What?

So it is okay to tell a four year old that they will spend eternity burning in a lake a fire because they told a lie?

That all of their family will be in heaven while they are alone in h-e-l-l. Yeah, that’s kinda messed up.

By Broken Mirror

December 12, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

when we catch people with information

TOJ, I’m not good enough to call myself a Christian, but I gotta go with the Golden Rule on this one: Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. I don’t think that an “eye-for-an-eye” philosophy is the right one when considering how we treat prisoners of war, whether they are fighting under a flag or independently.

In my own life, even here on the blog, whenever I start thinking, “Well she did it to me”, I end up all alone with only Satan to defend me.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Scalia

My parents were very religious, but I feared my Dad, not God. And I feared him because of past mistakes that he was quick to correct. Your parents used God. Mine used corporal punishment when needed. There are many successful methods of keeping kids in line until they are old enough to understand the reasons.

I always love to see the young parents at the department store. Their kids are absolute terrors, making the shopping experience a complete nightmare for everyone including many strangers. How do the young parents deal with the disorderly child? They try to reason with them. They try to explain to a four year old why they should be good and not act like a wild animal.

I’m sure you have seen the same thing. Did the four year old then say: So you are saying that I should be more civilized so that I am not disturbing others, after all they have the right to shop in peace. You know when you put it that way, I certainly see your point.

I love my kids. And they were great kids, but their power of reasoning is still not at full force and they are in their early 20s and late teens.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

Scalia, I’m not sure what you are getting at with that last post. I can’t imagine telling that to a 4-year-old. BUT, if my 4-year-old told me a lie, I would light his rear end up and explain the CONCEPT of right and wrong and sin. I would help him to understand that there are consequences when we make the wrong choices. That would apply whether he’s 1 or 41.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Broken Mirror

I understand. Revenge is inexcusable, even though some of the greatest battles in history have had a battle cry of revenge: Remember Pearl Harbor, Remember the Maine, etc.

I say to put people in place that are wise enough to make the decision.

I guess my biggest problem is the fact that the world knows what our techniques are. If I just planted a big bomb in downtown Atlanta and I know that the interrogators are just going to make me believe I am drowning, I’ll hold my breath.

I want them to be afraid, very afraid.

I think Bill Clinton did it right. He just allowed other countries to handle the interrogations. Waterboard hell. They don’t want to make them think they are drowning. They will drown the first three prisoners and let the fourth one watch.

By chuck

December 12, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

except lighting up the rear end part

By Newzwyre

December 12, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

Bruno said “I’m going to have to take a good look at Huckabee before making my final decision. Along with McCain, he is the only one who is taking an unequivocal stance against using torture on our prisoners of war.” Nope…here’s another one.

Dr. Ron Paul - June 15, 2004

“A Wall Street Journal article last week detailed a Department of Defense memo that discusses the legality of interrogation and torture methods in the wake of events at Abu Gharib. The document reportedly advises that the president has authority to order almost any action, including physical or psychological torture, despite federal laws to the contrary. The Pentagon lawyers who drafted the memo were not shy about blatantly asserting that the Commander-In-Chief can break the law when necessary, as evidenced by this quote from the memo: “Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.”

The Justice department, for its part, is depressingly silent on the issue. Attorney General Ashcroft refuses to release an existing Justice department memo on the matter to Congress. Why can’t the American people, much less Congress, see how the Justice department interprets presidential powers and federal torture laws? Why the secrecy? The Justice department is charged with enforcing federal laws, not suspending them or advising federal agencies to ignore them.

Legal issues aside, the American people and government should never abide the use of torture by our military or intelligence agencies. A decent society never accepts or justifies torture. It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence.

Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe. God forbid terrorists take American soldiers or travelers hostage and torture them as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Gharib.

The greater issue presented by the Defense department memo, however, is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. Defense department lawyers essentially argue that a president’s powers as Commander-In-Chief override federal laws prohibiting torture, and the Justice department appears to agree. But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties.

War has been used by presidents to excuse the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to silence speech, to suspend habeas corpus, and even to control entire private industries. It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.

We are fighting undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an open-ended war against terrorism worldwide. If the president claims extraordinary wartime powers, and we fight undeclared wars with no beginning and no end, when if ever will those extraordinary powers lapse? Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting “We’re at war”?

Conservatives should understand that the power given the president today will pass to the president’s successors, who may be only too eager to abuse that unbridled power domestically to destroy their political enemies. Remember the anger directed at President Clinton for acting “above the law” when it came to federal perjury charges? An imperial presidency threatens all of us who oppose unlimited state power over our lives.

A strong separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional liberties. No branch of government should be able to act unilaterally, no matter how cumbersome the legislative process may be. The beauty of the Constitution is that it encourages some degree of gridlock in government, making it harder for any branch to act capriciously or secretly. When we give any president – one man – too much power, we build a foundation for future tyranny.

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Thanks for taking the time.

I am not proud of the fact that I just couldn’t be that strong.

If I am looking at some guy whom I think might know something that could save my fellow soldiers, or even better, my family, I’m going to be looking for the pliers, a glass rod, a car battery, a bucket of water and a pair of jumper cables.

My question to you is: if you were in that situation, where you were looking at an individual, that you knew was responsible for doing something that was about to kill your family, would you be so quick to site the morality of war over using techniques that could save your family?

Be honest: could you let your family die so this P.O.C. wouldn’t need to feel pain?

By korent

December 12, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

http://index1.konupo.com >incestorgy

By The Other Jack

December 12, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

korent

do you honestly think anyone here is going to follow any link that a slimeball spammer posts?

Incest Orgy? Bought time to head you and yours back up into the hills, don’t ye thank?

How stupid are you?

By JokesOn

December 12, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

One part of ministry is taking care of the poor. In some churches this is a major part of what they do in others a less major part. In any event, while churches should be doing this, there are many other things that the church should be doing as well, some of them much more important than taking care of the poor.

Rick Warren is a good guy. He and his wife advocate abstinence AND using condoms. He also saw what was missing from most american churches including his own: helping the poor directly.

By Scalia

December 13, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

There are some really sick people. How gross is an incest orgy? Eww!!!!

And why would anybody want to watch that?

By The Other Jack

December 13, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

JokesOn

He also saw what was missing from most american churches including his own: helping the poor directly.

I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t know of any church that does not have some sort of outreach program that directly helps the poor, especially this time of year.

By The Other Jack

December 13, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Scalia

I don’t get it. They tick everyone off by coming here. And then they expect us to follow a link that says incest orgy. None of us agree on everything, but I’m pretty sure there are no incest fans here. LOL.

By Newzwyre

December 13, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

TOJ - “My question to you is: if you were in that situation, where you were looking at an individual, that you knew was responsible for doing something that was about to kill your family, would you be so quick to site the morality of war over using techniques that could save your family?”

I voiced neither support nor distaste for torture. I only posted Dr. Paul’s views for Bruno to consider. But since you asked -

http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/1621/79/

“Torture? Is it okay? Even in the most extreme cases? Not in my opinion, unless the person authorizing the torture is psychic and has, you know, determined that the person being tortured is, in fact, definitely and absolutely a terrorist with information that will stop an immediate threat to life. Of course, someone of such magical abilities would be better put to use preventing terrorism in the first place instead of dealing with prisoners after the fact. Further, if torture is to be okay, we must stop pretending that we possess the moral high ground over any third world dicatator or thug. Employing their tactics wouldn’t exactly allow us that distinction anymore.”

“What happens after we’ve tortured someone who turned out to be innocent? A simple, “oops, my bad” won’t cut it. Collectivist platitudes like “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” won’t impress the wife and children of a man who’s been broken, beaten and whipped for absolutely no reason. What if it was you? If it were me, I’d be out for blood and looking to hurt someone. And that’s no exaggeration.”

“No apology or explanation could ever excuse such treatment. I don’t care what you think a person knew, if you’re wrong, you’ve abused, defiled and disgraced a person based solely on what you “thought” they knew. And there is no surefire way to guarantee you won’t be wrong. How is that suddenly okay? “Needs of the many” philosophies belong in neo-Marxia, not in societies interested in liberty.”

By Newzwyre

December 13, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

hope and despair -

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12122007/news/regionalnews/jewssubwayheroamuslim_381263.htm

December 12, 2007 –

A Brooklyn man whose “Happy Hanukkah” greeting landed him in the hospital said he was saved from a gang of Jew-bashing goons aboard a packed Q train by a total stranger - a modest Muslim from Bangladesh.

Walter Adler was touched that Hassan Askari jumped to his aid while a group of thugs allegedly pummeled and taunted him and his three friends. So Adler has invited his new friend over to celebrate the Festival of Lights.

The two new pals - Adler, 23, with a broken nose and a fat lip, and Askari, 20, with two black eyes - broke bread together and laughed off the bruises the night after the fisticuffs.

[snip]

It all began when Adler, his girlfriend, Maria Parsheva, and two other pals boarded the subway at Canal Street bound for Brooklyn and someone in another group wished them “Merry Christmas.”

Adler and his pal Angelica Krischanovich responded: “Happy Hanukkah.”

Apparently, those were fighting words.

“They just came at us so fast. The first thing that came into my mind was, ‘Yeah, this is going to be violent,’ ” said Parsheva, 20.

One of the group immediately hiked up his sleeve to reveal a tattoo of Christ.

“He said, ‘Happy Hanukkah, that’s when the Jews killed Jesus,’ ” said Adler.

The group of about 14 men and women then allegedly began taunting Adler and his pals as “dirty Jews” and “Jew b***.”

Amid a huge scrum, Askari jumped in.

“I’m bleeding all over the place, there’s lots of people, they’re fighting with Hassan still, and I’m like, why isn’t anyone else doing anything?” Adler said.

He pulled the emergency brake right before entering the DeKalb Avenue station.

Police came aboard and arrested 10 people, charging six with assault and four with unlawful assembly.

By The Other Jack

December 13, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Like I said: I’m not that strong. And no, chances are that you and I will never face that situation. But somebody will, and probably already has.

We have let politicians use war as a political hammer for too long. We can hold no secrets against our country’s enemies. They know they are not going to be tortured. If it was up to Washington, they would know our every move.

And to prove that, you have listed a speech by a politician and an anti-war activist, hardly two people I would ever trust to steer our military or our military intelligence. You would, as would most people in America.

Political speeches against war and the horrible aspects of war are not hard to write. And any politician that understands that most people do not actually consider what war actually involves will cheer along: no more killing … no more torture …

It isn’t a mater of political speeches and opinions of anti-war activist. It’s a matter of life and death and when we tie the hands of the people that are protecting us, we can only expect so much protection.

So if we get hit tomorrow, and you find out that this administration had access to the information that would have saved thousands but did not want to impose on the informant any undesirable treatment, would you support Bush’s decision?

And please don’t cut and paste another speech. I asked you if you would allow your family to die to protect the rights of a terrorist and you gave me a speech. I asked you, not an activist.

By The Other Jack

December 13, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Interesting story. There are stupid people, everywhere.

Wanna see some really stupid people? Go over to Islamaphobia on Delphi. After you have been reading about how “they don’t really hate Jews, they just don’t think they should have their own country” for a while, you might ask someone, anyone, if they are progressive or conservative.

Then find the really vile ones that think that Jews should be killed and ask them the same question. I’ll bet the answer will be the same.

By AGFNPR

December 13, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Newzwrye -

Thanks for that anti-Christian piece here at Christmas. Your liberal friends on the blog are impressed. Many are emailing this link to their friends right now.

All together now: All Christians are terrorist thugs. Continue to chant this mantra until you believe.

By The Other Jack

December 13, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

AGFNPR

I hope they are sending the link to everyone. It doesn’t work.

By Nikita

December 13, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

My questions are a bit different: why must the world make life easy for people who can’t bother to parent their own children? And why must the world conform to the expectations of a religious group to which much of the world does not belong?

I was raised by moral, but not particularly religious, people. Up to jr. high or so, I was allowed to read whatever I wanted to, but my mother went with me to the library to pick books out. And any album I bought had to spend 24 hours with my parents so they could read the lyrics or listen to it before I could do the same. And I think that’s an appropriate level of involvement and guidance. If you choose to have children, then you need to put forth the effort to parent them. These days, if anything, it is easier than it was previously due to the huge amount of information — from the Catholic League and such — on the internet.

Other random comments: Secular and progressive organizations do in fact feed the poor and undertake other initiatives to care for those in need. It should be noted, however, that many religious organizations that previously did less such work now do more of it because they are state-supported.

By Newzwyre

December 13, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

OTJ - James Landrith is an honerably discharged Marine Corp Sergeant who was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal in 1995 and Navy Achievement Medal in 1990. He is currently studying for his BA in Middle Eastern Studies at American Military University. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “anti-war”. I chose to post his words because I don’t write very well. He said it better than I could. In my words, what’s the point of protecting America if, in the process, we destroy that which sets us apart from every other country?

AGFNPR - A story about a Bangladeshi Muslim coming to the aid of an American Jew being beaten by a bunch of anti-semites is now “anti-christian”?! I fail to see this becomes an indictment of “All christians” in your mind. Unless you believe that “all christians” are Jew haters…

By AGFNPR

December 13, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre -

I am sure you posted this as a feel-good story for the Holidays. Right! Please stop insulting my intelligence and quit being dishonest. You prefaced this story with “hope and despair”. Would you mind telling us what you were referring to when you said “despair”? It couldn’t be that you were implying that Christians love to beat up on Jews now would it? Naw - liberals have too much intellectual honesty to do such a thing.

As far as the main point of the story - I would agree that it is about hope, but look at the “tidbits” of anti-Christian propaganda:

Then you say: A story about a Bangladeshi Muslim coming to the aid of an American Jew being beaten by a bunch of anti-Semites is now “anti-Christian”?!

Then please tell me why the author went into such detail describing the beliefs of the attackers? And again - why would you post this story under the title of “hope and despair” if your motives are so altruistic? Admit what you believe without hiding behind some story that I suspect has been altered (not by you but by the author) to make Christians look bad.

By AGFNPR

December 13, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

I finally found this article. The story gets even better. In the VERY LAST SENTENCE the main assailant is quoted as saying (paraphrased) “I am trying to stay out of trouble, when I get out (of jail) I want to join the military.”

Not only are the thugs Christians, but warmongers to boot! No liberal bias in this story. The author is just reporting “the facts” and as Colbert said “the truth has a liberal bias”. LOL!

By Monica

December 13, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR, out of curiosity, what scripture or passage do you refer to that the Bible forbids tatoos?

By The Other Jack

December 13, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

You didn’t need to be Shakespeare to answer my two questions, which, of course, you still haven’t. It’s easy to be righteous in a speech.

By chuck

December 13, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Nikita, I have a better question for you. As a liberal and as a Hilary supporter (in the past you have made statements on her behalf) don’t you believe in that book she wrote? Does it really NOT take a village? Thanks for refuting that for us.

So the other question is “Why SHOULDN’T they WANT TO HELP PARENTS?”

By AGFNPR

December 13, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Monica -

Leviticus 19:28: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. The NKJV translates it as “tattoo”. For legal reasons I am not going to post the NKJV translation (you’re not supposed to).

But I am not trying to pass judgment on anyone who has a tattoo, so please don’t send hate posts my way! I was simply trying to refute the assertion that these thugs were “Christian” simpy because they had a tatoo of Christ.

By Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth

December 13, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Gee, children should learn that they can make up their own minds about religion. As Richard Dawkins notes, there are properly no relgious children. What are the values of this film? That counts. Merry Mithras Celebration!

By Fact

December 13, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

That is why it was so insulting to the Jews at the concentration camps, being tattoed. It would have been like forcing them to eat pork.

By Newzwyre

December 13, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR wrote “Would you mind telling us what you were referring to when you said “despair”.

That even in America differences in religion can lead to violence. And “hope” because in America, even those whose religions often clash in other places will defend the other from injustice.

as you say, I didn’t write the story so I can’t say why certain details were included…though they seem to be factual. I did make sure it was cited on other websites, most of which either excerpted or linked to the NY Post story. The NY Post isn’t what I’d call a “liberal” newspaper nor are they unfriendly to people of the Christian faith…quite the opposite in fact. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame and is widely acknowleged to have a conservativly biased op/ed page.

I have to say, you and TOJ certainly go out of your way to look for anti-“anything remotely conservative or religious” context in every post don’t you. Even from people who haven’t given you any reason to think they’re any type of ideologue.

By chuck

December 13, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

Hey Monica…AGFNPR is referring to Leviticus 19. I hate to disagree with you AGFNPR, but that isn’t exactly what that passage means. It actually refers to a practice of the Egyptians of that time who as a rligious rite, tatooed themselves for the express purpose of appeasing the dead who had gone to the afterlife before them so that when they themselves died they would be welcomed because of the signs on their bodies.

The practice was forbidden because it was a pagan ritual that was not compatible with Jewish beliefs and was a form of Idoatry. That’s why the passage ends with the phrase I Am the Lord.

By chuck

December 13, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

oops…idoLatry

By AGFNPR

December 13, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck - that refers to the “cuttings in the flesh for the dead”. The second part of that scripture specifically refers to “printing”. Egyptian women also adorned there hands and feet with tattoes as decorations. I believe that God was specifically forbidding tatttoes as a pagan practice. But, we can agree to disagree! It isn’t that big of an issue with me.

By chuck

December 13, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Not with me either. I think tatoos are nasty, but I don’t think it’s unscriptural to wear them.

By Nikita

December 13, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

Nice link to Hillary Clinton there, chuck. But ultimately kind of a silly one.

re: it takes a village…it takes a lot of people to create an environment of mutual respect and safety. But that doesn’t mean it takes a village to parent other people’s children. Because that is the responsibility of other people.

Furthermore, what Shaunti seems to be hinting at is not an atmosphere of respect for other people’s beliefs and well-being — she wants people to be “warned” about a private venture which private citizens self-select to experience. Instead of, say, parents simply doing their research and not paying for experiences that don’t complement their beliefs.

Also, there’s an assumption in Shaunti’s side of the column that parents are all of the ilk that would be offended by the movie and the books its based on. But mine wouldn’t. They would have seen it as either a fun film with negligible utility to them or a good teaching opportunity.

By chuck

December 14, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this

That’s interesting Nikita, because that doesn’t appear to be what she said in a speech in 1996 when the book came out. Here’s an excerpt. Note the highlighted portion:

I wish - I wish we could be sitting around a kitchen table, just us, talking about our hopes and fears, about our children’s futures. For Bill and me, family has been the center of our lives. - But we also know that our family, like your family, is part of a larger community that can help or hurt our best efforts to raise our child.

Right now, in our biggest cities and our smallest towns, there are boys and girls being tucked gently into bed, and there are boys and girls who have no one to call mom or dad, and no place to call home.

Right now there are mothers and fathers just finishing a long day’s work. And there are mothers and fathers just going to work, some to their second or third jobs of the day.

Right now there are parents worrying: “What if the baby sitter is sick tomorrow?” Or: “How can we pay for college this fall?” And right now there are parents despairing about gang members and drug pushers on the corners in their neighborhoods.

Right now there are parents questioning a popular culture that glamorizes sex and violence, smoking and drinking, and teaches children that the logos on their clothes are more valued than the generosity in their hearts.

But also right now there are dedicated teachers preparing their lessons for the new school year. There are volunteers tutoring and coaching children. There are doctors and nurses caring for sick children, police officers working to help kids stay out of trouble and off drugs.

Of course, parents, first and foremost, are responsible for their children.

But we are all responsible for ensuring that children are raised in a nation that doesn’t just talk about family values, but acts in ways that values families. Just think - as Christopher Reeve so eloquently reminded us last night, we are all part of one family - the American family. And each one of us has value. Each child who comes into this world should feel special - every boy and every girl.

By chuck

December 14, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

Here’s a small start to JOKE FRIDAY!!!!!!

What would you like to hear? (This joke was originally shown on September 16th, 2007)

3 buddies die in a car crash, they go to an orientation in Heaven.

They are all asked, “When you are in your casket and friends and family are mourning upon you, what would you like to hear them say about you?”

The first guy says, “I would like to hear them say that I was a great doctor of my time, and a great family man.”

The second guy says, “I would like to hear that I was a wonderful husband and school teacher which made a huge difference in our children of tomorrow.”

The last guy replies, “I would like to hear them say, ‘LOOK! HE’S MOVING!!’”

By chuck

December 14, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

The teacher of the Earth Science class was lecturing on map reading.

He spent the class explaining about latitude, longitude, degrees, and minutes. Towards the end of class, the teacher asked his students, “Suppose I asked you to meet me for lunch at 23 degrees, 4 minutes north latitude and 45 degrees, 15 minutes east longitude…”

A student’s voice broke the confused silence, and volunteered, “I guess you’d be eating alone, sir.”

By chuck

December 14, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

One day an old lady walked into the doctor’s office and was shown into a room. When the doctor came in and asked what the problem was, she answered, “I have awful gas, but it doesn’t bother me. You see, it’s completely silent and doesn’t smell at all.”

The doctor, after examining her thoroughly, gave her some pills and told her to take one everyday and come back in a week. The lady returned, and when the doctor asked if her problem was any better she replied, “Well I don’t know what you gave me, but now my gas smells terrible!”

The doctor replied, “Well, now that we’ve got your sinuses cleared up let’s work on your hearing!”

By AGFNPR

December 14, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this

Newzwyre - I’ll take you at your word and I apologize for my accusations of dishonesty. I will admit I am overly sensitive. But you only need to look at Morgan’s post from yesterday (quoting Richard Dawkins) to see why.

By chuck

December 14, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

Okay, Back to the topic.

What would be wrong with ADDING to the rating system, some additional information. Here are some possible examples:

PG-13 ACC (Anti-Christianity Content)

R AMC (Anti-Muslim Content)

PG-13 DH (Depiction of homosexuality)

R CH (Crude Humor)

PG-13 SA (Smoking and Alcohol)

This is not a comprehensive list of course, but it would be easy to do, informative, and non-controversial.

By The Other Jack

December 14, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth

As Richard Dawkins notes, there are properly no relgious children.

Yes, and there are no babies born that speak English. What’s your point?

We learn everything we do in life. Are you actually saying that a person should guide their life, based on all their accumulated knowledge when they are four?

By SeeTheProblem

December 14, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

PG-13 ACC (Anti-Christianity Content)

Exactly what Christian Governing Body would define that?

By The Other Jack

December 14, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

chuck

You are starting to sound like Tipper Gore, at least the Tipper Gore before Bill, Hillary and Al told her to shut the hell up.

I watched a DVD of this years Earth Day concerts. Any liberal that has a problem with preaching should buy this video. During Malissa Ethridge, it was all I could do to eep from jumping up in the middle of her sermon and shouting AMEN, sister, tell it like it is!

When Reverand Gore got up, it was like Billy Graham had walked on stage at the Southern Baptist Convention.

You want to hear some finger pointing and preaching, rent the DVD.

By The Other Jack

December 14, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

chuck

You are starting to sound like Tipper Gore, at least the Tipper Gore before Bill, Hillary and Al told her to shut the hell up.

I watched a DVD of this years Earth Day concerts. Any liberal that has a problem with preaching should buy this video. During Malissa Ethridge, it was all I could do to eep from jumping up in the middle of her sermon and shouting AMEN, sister, tell it like it is!

When Reverand Gore got up, it was like Billy Graham had walked on stage at the Southern Baptist Convention.

You want to hear some finger pointing and preaching, rent the DVD.

By chuck

December 14, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

I think the movie ratings board could probably handle it, SEE. I’m not even saying it should be mandatory, but it would be helpful for parents whose children want to go the movies and adult movie-goers alike. AGAIN, isn’t the mantra of the left “INFORMATION isn’t harmful”? Be honest. Do you only believe that if it applies to evolution and sex ed?

I just don’t see how a liberal who is all for “giving children information” can be so adamantly against information being given to parents to help them make decisions about what they want and don’t want their children to see. It seems just a bit hypocritical.

By Funny

December 14, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Does TOJ mean the recent televised The Al Gore Show?

By El Ciego

December 14, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Don’t they already provide you with this information (rated PG-13 for adult content), Rated R for s-e-x-u-a-l content, violence, and nudity.

Do they want you to give the exact amount of time in the movie that they show a boob, etc. like the guy and his friends did in Knocked-Up?

By lozen

December 14, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

This is so sad and frightening.

A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07fri1.html

By GOB

December 14, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

TOJ - The Dawkins quote is talking about the ability to make logical and reasoned choices. Most children who profess to be a certain religion are often to young too actually understand what they believe. Dawkins uses the phrasing that there are not christian children, but children of christian parents (or whatever religion the parents happen to be).

By AGFNPR

December 14, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Lozen -

If you don’t want to share your personal beliefs, then don’t run for public office. I have every right as a US citizen to question what my potential leaders believe. They have every right to tell me where to stick my request. It would have been sad and frightening if Romney would have been REQUIRED BY LAW to share his beliefs. He made a choice to do it because he wants to be President.

And please tell me how this powerful minority has personally affected you by passing any legislation that has denied you certain rights. Unless I am missing something, you won’t be able to list much of anything.

All of the above boogeyman arguments against the neocons never came to fruition under the current neocon power brokers who at one time controlled the Presidecy, Congress, and Supreme Court all at the same time.

So please tell me what this powerful minority has actually been able to CHANGE. Far as I can tell - not much. You can make the argument that we have kept the status quo, but we haven’t changed any laws of consequence.

By chuck

December 14, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR, great answer to Lozen. I was sitting here about to write a very similar post, but yours made it unnecessary.

By lozen

December 14, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

I THINK YOU’RE THE FATHER OF ONE OF MY KIDS…

A guy goes to the supermarket and notices an attractive woman waving at him. She says hello. He’s rather taken aback because he can’t place where he knows her from. So he says, “Do you know me?” To which she replies, “I think you’re the father of one of my kids.”

Now his mind travels back to the only time he has ever been unfaithful to his wife and says, “My God, are you the stripper from my bachelor party that I made love to on the pool table with all my buddies watching while your partner whipped my butt with wet celery???”

She looks into his eyes and says calmly, “No, I’m your son’s teacher.”

By Jack

December 14, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Good one Lozen. :)

If Mel’s Passion of the Christ didn’t have all of the blood and guts it would not have made half the money it did. The Christians at the office say if you watch it it will make you a better Christian. That is total BS. The DaVinchi Code will not make you less of a Christian anymore than the Passion making you a believer. Parents should check the movies but they should also keep an eye on their child’s internet use. Much more harm there.

Happy Friday & Love to All

By Big D

December 14, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

ok, let me get this straight. Ms.Sarvady writes that the Catholic League is a “far right group.” Would she say that the ADL is a “far left group?” How about GLADD? Maybe for Ms. Sarvady, they are right up the middle. C’mon folks, get real! The Church, although far from being perfect is under constant attack and Pullman is not your ordinary atheist, but feels better about himself and his beliefs by wanting to destroy Christianity or as he put it, “killing God.” The Catholic League is doing what any other organization would do to protect themselves - just like the AJC.

Big D

By lozen

December 14, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jack.

AGFNPR, Because as the article says, “…democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state. No specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government… The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

By lozen

December 14, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

And:

By chuck

December 14, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

HMMMMM…Now the left is using the slippery slope argument…I see…HMMMMM.

By Jack

December 14, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Oh the slippery slope we slide on….

By Archie

December 14, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Lozen that was a good joke you posted at 12:13 pm. I don’t have much interest in the topic question.

By Archie

December 14, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Lozen that was a good joke you posted at 12:13 pm. I don’t have much interest in the topic question.

By AGFNPR

December 14, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

I didn’t ask what has been tried - I asked what has been done. The answer is - nothing. You have not lost any of your religious or moral freedoms under the “neocon regime”.

And there are always those on the far left who want to tell preachers what they can preach from the pulpit and pass FCC regulations banning certain religious programs from being aired (Canada already does this). The fairness doctrine legislation will limit religious freedom by limiting what can be aired on certain radio ministries. None of these measures have come to fruition, but the left is still “trying” to get them passed.

And you said Because as the article says, “…democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state. No specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government… The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Again, the government did not make it a REQUIREMENT that Romney make this speech. But if you want to be CIC, you had better let me know what you believe if you want my vote. I have the right to ask, but the government doesn’t. And as I stated earlier, he always has the ability to tell me to “shove my request where the sun don’t shine”.

By JokesOn

December 14, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t know of any church that does not have some sort of outreach program that directly helps the poor, especially this time of year.

What he states is that while visiting South Africa he went to a church that was made up of a single tent and had 60+ members(not well off). This single tent church housed 25 orphans (generally due to aids) and another 30 or so poverty stricken adults with aids. His mega church housed none and he was shaken by that fact. Granted, his and may churches send off money to feed the poor, but as the “teach a man to fish…” goes they do little to nothing in that manner. He also witnessed many secular tents doing the same: housing and helping the poor learn to “fish” (metaphor, since the trades change depending on culture/location/etc).

Only then did he change how his church influenced how the smaller churches under it acted. This is a rather new approach for churches and he states that it is a liberal idea (socialized help be it meds/etc) and catches a lot of flack from mainstream churches, as do many of his ideas (ex. promoting condom use). He refuses to label himself a conservative or liberal because he sees the evil that each contain and chooses to walk the middle ground, getting attack by both sides.

I admire him for understanding that the work to be done is in the grey area and not the extremes, and that will always draw fire from those opposing groups (Ex. as do I by you and lozen). There are some great liberal ideas and conservative ones, but few will synthesize the two. The ones who do either go unheard or, as stated, draw fire from both and have little support from anyone.

By Rebecca

December 14, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

I think that it’s not the weakness of Christians I think it is scaring people that they are finally speaking out on things that are not good for our children, maybe if it had been done earlier we would not be having all these debates with people who clearly will fall for anything as long as it pleases them. Then maybe more people would fear God again. Remember every knee will bow before him no matter what you think you will one day acknowlege him as Lord.