Letters to the Editor

True religion?

June 1, 2012


To the editor:

Being a martyr, I look forward to the regular whippings from the triumvirate of Thomas/Krauthammer/Will. As a bonus, the Journal-World also provides us with that fine voice from neighboring Baldwin City, just in case any “Lawrencians” should start to feel good about themselves! It’s rewarding to be reminded by the likes of Cal Thomas that as a Democrat, my agenda is not only liberal, it is secular. I gather that it’s not possible to be “religious” (read: Christian) and Democrat at the same time, for such lofty status is evidently reserved for conservative Republicans — or so it seems. The evil “media” (of which the above-named persons are thus NOT a part) misses the point on “religion,” and Mr. Thomas (Journal-World, May 25) suggests that all its members should be required to take “advanced religion courses” (read: advanced Christianity courses).

It’s comforting indeed to be whipped and scolded and lambasted several times each week, especially when these punishments include lessons in true religion. I, for one, am delighted with the positive, insightful, open-minded columns offered by these folks. They are far better, after all, than the uncompromising politicians about whom they frequently write. Perhaps, after I complete that advanced course in religion, I can become as good and worthy as Cal/Charles/George. Perhaps.


Benjamin Roberts 5 years, 11 months ago

Definition of MARTYR

1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion 2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle 3: victim; especially : a great or constant sufferer

  1. You are apparently still alive since you wrote a LTE;so definition 1 does not apply.
  2. You make no mention of any great sacrifice, and we already concluded that you are still alive; so definition 2 does not apply.
  3. That leaves the 3rd definition. Great, just what the country needed ... another victim class.

gudpoynt 5 years, 11 months ago

METAPHOR, noun -- a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance.

LITERALISM, noun -- the disposition to take words and statements in their literal sense.

FUSSBUDGET, noun -- a fussy or needlessly fault-finding person.

BigAl 5 years, 11 months ago

Mr. Knetsch is right on the money. Great letter.

Alyosha 5 years, 11 months ago

This comment is without serious merit in that it makes zero objective sense. Try harder to put yourself in a general reader's shoes and evaluate, before posting, whether a reader who does not share your fantasies and imaginings will be able to get anything close to meaning out of it.

This comment certainly fails on that level.

Also, the comment evidences a lack of historical understanding of the motivations for the separation of Church and State given Europe's history with state-sponsored religious wars and persecution, which was very much on the Founders' minds when drafting the Constitution.

If you can't add anything of value to the conversation why do you bother, False?

tomatogrower 5 years, 11 months ago

Great letter. I'm tired of being told I'm not Christian enough, especially from people who quote constantly form the Old Testament, and ignore what Jesus taught. And from those who rewrote the Bible. What arrogance. Christianity came out of the Middle East, which has had a culture, not based in religion, of treating women like slaves. Jesus and Western culture changed that, but these so called fundamentalist would take us back to the days of old, just like the Islamic radicals would. No thanks. That was a cultural norm, not a Biblical law. Pay attention to what God and Jesus stated, not what is a description of the culture that existed at the time. There are huge differences.

Paul R Getto 5 years, 11 months ago

+1 I think the shortest verse in the New Testament is "Jesus wept." Surely he would again if he could see what was being done in his name.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

Who is telling you you aren't christian enough? I've never been told that.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Those who conflate religious/Christian with conservative often speak of the secular atheist liberals.

And, tend to judge people according to whether or not they agree with conservative interpretations of scripture, so that even if one is religious, it's not quite enough for them if there's a disagreement about that.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

I don't hide that I'm an atheist, from anyone, ever, and have yet to be suffer any ill treatment from folks that believe in god. That's probably because I respect their freedom of religion and will defend it even though I don't subscribe to the premise or most of the moral codes (I don't kill or steal, but I don't need a god to tell those are wrong).

I think the conservatives just don't like liberals, god-fearing or not. I don't blame them for that. Liberals are hypocrites.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Some liberals are hypocrites, and some conservatives are as well.

On the other hand, some aren't.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

See rtwngr's post below for an example.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

He's right, except for the last line and the moral high ground stuff. You can't be a christian if you support breaking the fundamental codes in the bible. Luckily, they can't force me to be a christian. :-)

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Well, who can and can't be a Christian isn't up to him, or you, or me, or anybody else, for that matter.

Christians seem to forget (conveniently) that the NT, and more particularly, the Gospels, are about the teachings of Christ, while the OT is about many other things.

There are many examples of Christ offering a new, and different way of looking at things from the OT.

So, it's certainly possible to be a Christian without following all of the OT "laws".

In fact, I'd say it makes more sense in the majority of cases.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

"So, it's certainly possible to be a Christian without following all of the OT "laws".'

You could also play chess by using checkers rules. I imagine the chess club would kick you out though.

"Well, who can and can't be a Christian isn't up to him"

It's up to whether you follow the bible. If you don't want to follow the rules laid out in the bible, don't be a christian. That's simple enough.

I'd prefer buddhism if I believed any of the silly hocus pocus.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Bad analogy, since as I mentioned, the OT is essentially the Jewish holy book.

Christians should be much more interested in the NT, as far as I can tell, and particularly the Gospels, since they provide the closest approach to Jesus and his teachings.

Are you suggesting that Christians should follow all of the dietary laws in Leviticus (just one example)?

But, as I've said, nobody gets to tell anybody else whether they can/can't be a Christian, or Hindu, Buddhist, etc. or what qualifies as such, which is a good thing, in my view. You appear to be in sympathy with those on the right who would set themselves up as the arbiter of those things, which is a bit surprising, given your general emphasis on freedom.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

In my very young years, since my family was too poor to keep me, I spent some years in a Baptist-sponsored home for children. We did church 3 times a week (4 with Sunday school). I remember that they believed and taught both old and new testament. Those were the rules.

I wouldn't presume to tell people what to eat, but I will always think that if you want to be a Christian, you need to follow and support the words in the book. OTOH, I don't care who is a christian so it's a non-issue.

Why would you want to be part of a cult and not follow the rules? For the girls or what? I spent a few years going to an Episcopal church because my girlfriend wouldn't put out unless I did, so I can't fault you if that's your reason.

In the end, don't worry about what other people say. If you think you are a christian, that's all that matters. Whether another person thinks you are is irrelevant.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

So, "real" Christians should follow the dietary laws in Leviticus, then?

Of course, they don't.

Orthodox Jews do - that's one way in which the OT is more the Jewish book than the Christian one.

Christians don't "follow and support" all of the words, by any means - they pick and choose rather obviously.

I don't care what other people think about my religious beliefs - my comments are about yours that nobody's telling anybody they're not "Christian enough" - many Christians do just that, and apparently you like to do it as well, with your criteria.

If I were engaged in that sort of thing, I'd use the Gospels as the guide, not the OT, since that's the closest we can get to Jesus' actual teachings, and often conflicts with OT teachings in a variety of ways.

Just makes more sense to me.

Does that mean that I can now say that those who include the OT aren't "real Christians" or aren't "Christian enough"?

I think the meaning of a "Christian" would be found in one's following of Christ's teachings, not OT "rules".

Kirk Larson 5 years, 11 months ago

True religion is an oxymoron. Cal Thomas is an oxey moron.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 11 months ago

Just out of curiosity, what is so wrong with being liberal? It was liberals that gave people the forty hour work week, outlawed putting six year olds to work and mandated minimum quality standards for food, drugs and air. Oh and got rid of that pesky thing called "slavery". So tell me, what's wrong with being a "liberal" and why is it used as dirty word among some sets of people? Why is it wrong to care about your fellow human beings and why is it wrong to want to check rampant greed that would sell human lives for money (in more ways than one)? Back in the day I was called a "bleeding heart" liberal. What's so wrong with that?

DeckDoctors 5 years, 11 months ago

Cait rewriting history much? Liberals had nothing to do with liberating slaves. You think Abe Lincoln to be a liberal? wow, it was the liberal democrat southerner who owned slaves and fought to keep them. Out of the democrat party came the Ku Klux Klan and one of your great liberal senators Byrd from West Virginia was a Grand Wizard. SO, you can lay claim to a few paltry good deeds, but not even close on the slavery hero.

Paul Decelles 5 years, 11 months ago

Of course you are making a logical error here and confusing party labels with people. Bigots are bigots regardless of party labels. Perhaps you have forgotten that there is (or was)a fine tradition of liberal Republicans in New England until the Nixonian Southern Strategy (embrace the bigotss) began to take hold. Byrd was hardly a liberal senator.

Alyosha 5 years, 11 months ago

Another post without any objective meaning or sense. The monkeys are apparently lose on someone's keyboard again.

You can do better, False. Your partisanship is blinding you, and keeping you from being able to think. Thus, your comments fall back on senselessness.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 11 months ago

If you think the Republican Party of Lincoln and the Republican Party of today are even within ninety degrees of being the same thing, you are severely deluded and need to study just a smidge of history. If nothing else, the history is in the name, "Republican". They believed in a strong central government (i.e. a republic) and in limiting states rights. They actually fought a war over that, you know. Catch a Republican saying the same thing today. Ain't happenin'.

tomatogrower 5 years, 11 months ago

DeckDoctors, you don't know your history very well. The change in character within the Republican and Democrat parties has been quite great. Try looking up the definition of liberal and conservative. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were not conservative, but they were Republicans. Try getting past the party names and look at how each party changed one the years.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 11 months ago

No, the republicans want most of us to be wage slaves.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

Looked at the profile briefly because the rhetoric sounds rather familiar, and found this gem:

"since the Republicans are not as interested in being 'politically correct' as the Dems, they are not going to parade unpopular Governors from small populated states who happen to be female on stage so they can appear PC. We may hear from men of significant positions, real experience and with character, such as Senators Dole, Roberts or Brownback."

Date, August 26th, 2008.

Or, three days before McCain tapped Sarah Palin. Granted she wasn't unpopular at the time.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

"Just out of curiosity, what is so wrong with being liberal?"

Do you think two men should be allowed to marry? Three men? Two brothers? A man and his son? Equality is equality, not just equality for the stuff you like.

Find your line of hypocrisy and you'll know what is so wrong about liberals. You might answer that the right is as guilty because they draw the line at man/woman, but they aren't the ones constantly bellowing for equality.

Actually, libertarians are more hypocritical then the right regarding marriage because we do scream "equality", but we draw our line of hypocrisy at people not old enough to enter the legal contract of marriage. That still puts us miles ahead of liberals that in general won't accept polygamy or incestuous marriage as unions that should be constitutionally protected.

That and liberals tend to shove their noses into people's lives too often (big gulps being an example) and like to take money from people that have earned it to give to other people that haven't.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

Alternatively, it could just be that your definition of hypocrisy is so vague and all encompassing to be just meaningless, and kind of stupid.

Anyway, it's all just about power, and the expression of force. Just like everything else.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

"so vague and all encompassing to be just meaningless, and kind of stupid."

Much like the terms "liberal" and "conservative", by the way.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

I suppose denying hypocrisy is as good a defense of bigotry as any. I can't imagine any good defense, but you feel free to choose the one you like best.

I do agree reality is all about power and force. It doesn't matter if homosexuals want to marry if bigots have the political power to stop them. I'm involved in no such power play so all I can do is strive to have a personal philosophy as fair and equal as possible. It's vague to you, and probably stupid, but it's all mine.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

Perfectly reasonable, but can't any adult with some access to the child groom them in a similar fashion? How much "grooming" would it take to negate free will?

Interestingly enough, a situation recently occurred that is similar. A family I know has two daughters, one in her late twenties, another just 18. A fellow lived with the older girl for two years, but when the younger girl turned 18 to the day, the man (of approximately 30) abruptly left the older sister and he and the younger sister ran off in the night and married.

Sure, he's a sleazeball, but is what he did in those two years while the younger girl was a minor illegal as long as he didn't become intimate with her? She was "groomed" just as if a parent might have done it.

You are right in that the parent's have much more opportunity than anyone else but I think your are depriving the parent an opportunity you are allowing others. Is that fair?

I appreciate that your argument is based on the human nature to manipulate the younger, and not on personal taste.

John Kyle 5 years, 11 months ago

what do mean 'if'. The only way to reach Her is through cannabis.

somedude20 5 years, 11 months ago

If she looks like Alanis Morissette, I shall do more than just reach

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

A her-god is as silly as a him-god.

And if you are reaching god through drug use, then good for you. That's pretty cool. Carry on.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

Maybe the dude is only 1/32 martyr.....

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 11 months ago

Great letter and funny too.

Reading the oftentimes arrogant columns from these conservative writers sometimes makes me feel like I am living in the Middle Ages at a time when Kings had "Divine" authority over their subjects and religion was a convenient tool to maintain the political system that coddled a wealthy and privileged elite.

How we made it this far and actually created a country like this one is truly amazing. The fact that we are in danger of losing what we have to a new wealthy and powerful elite is just history repeating itself.

One issue that disturbs me is Romney's plan to eliminate the inheritance tax. These kind of changes will inevitably lead to a the establishment of a ruling class of wealthy and powerful families and a different kind of America.

Religious leaders should avoid becoming a tool of politicians and especially they should avoid becoming corrupted by wealth and power.

Writers like Cal and Krauthammer sometimes seem to believe that their affiliation with a right wing political movement gives them the "Divine" authority to explain God's Will to the rest of us. Interesting that it means rich people will no longer pay taxes nor be responsible for the welfare of their fellow citizens.

It appears to me to be history repeating itself.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

"One issue that disturbs me is Romney's plan to eliminate the inheritance tax. These kind of changes will inevitably lead to a the establishment of a ruling class of wealthy and powerful families and a different kind of America."

That's a perfect example of what is wrong with liberalism. Just because a man dies, you seem to think his property should be given in part to the state for redistribution. If the person has no will, then OK, take it. But if a father wills what he has worked for all his life to his son, the state should have no right to any of it. It's a tax on dying or a tax on having your father die, both of which are vile.

Ragingbear 5 years, 11 months ago

That's me in the corner. That's me in the spot light, Losing my religion.

Oh no, I've said too much.

purplesage 5 years, 11 months ago

Republican does not equal Christian. Democrat does not equal unbeliever.

Being a Christian is, according to Jesus, knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom the true God has sent. (John 17:3) The implications of knowing God shape a worldview. It involves the proclamation of the Gospel. The Gospel is a message of God's love for sinners and His offer of forgiveness and reconciliation. It involves compassion for the underprivileged and the disenfrnachised. It may involve extending food, shelter, and medical care to the ones who are without.

It also involves respect for life as a sacred creation of the one true God. It involves morality in all realms of life. That means that sexual connections outside of marriage (defined as the one true God defined it in creation, i.e. a man and a woman) are subject to God's standard. Both hetero and hom sexual sin is listed as wrong. The Bible makes no provision for homosexuality, though. Things like "good measure, pressed down, shaken together" representing an honest and ethical conduct of business are involved. Treating others as we would be treated is a lofty directive from Jesus.

It seems like what the martyr does not like is a biblical worldview, or at least certain parts of it. Judge your party by the word of God, not of men.

bad_dog 5 years, 11 months ago

But only if the decaf's "free", right? Free from the letter "l ' that is

Ragingbear 5 years, 11 months ago

Decalf: Now with half the baby cow of other Decalfs.

Tony Kisner 5 years, 11 months ago

I have some True Religion jeans. They are fantastic!

rtwngr 5 years, 11 months ago

It isn't that you're not Christian enough because, truthfully, who is? Being Christian is always a work in progress. After all church is a hospital for sinners and not a country club for saints. What a lot of us can't understand is the positions that people, that call themselves Christians, take. For example, abortion. You can argue until you are blue in the face and you will never be able to convince me, that a child in the womb, with a heartbeat, brain activity, mobility, sensory perception, and a host of other things that define us as humans, is less than human because it has not gasped it first breath of air with its lungs. So our society says, "Sure, you can kill it." Well, that's not Christian to me. Others have different opinions but for me that is a non-qualifier. You may label me a bigot. You may tell me that I have no business telling a woman what to do with her body. Fine. I will still not accept you as being Christian if you accept this as being alright. Any party that stands in the public square and lectures me about civil rights and then denies that right, regardless of the circumstances, to our most helpless children might as well shut up and go home. They have no moral high ground from which to preach.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 11 months ago

It sounds like you are saying that you would rather trust a wealthy and powerful corporate takeover of the united states of America than allow women the right to govern their own bodies because you simply do not trust them.

It sounds like you are a man.

By what authority do you have that right?

In this next election, we will decide whether average Americans have the right to govern themselves or whether that privilege is reserved for a wealthy elite who believe that with enough money, they can buy any election and any politician.

The question for you is this; "How naïveté can you get?"

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

I wish we had some good old timey snake-handling tent revivals around here. I'd go to watch.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 11 months ago

The verses concerning venomous serpents are a forgery that occurred in the Middle Ages. They do not appear at all in any manuscript prior to the Middle Ages.

Clipped from: http://www.answering-christianity.com/mark16.htm

"These bizarre practices are all based on proven forgery:

The oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark, the Sinaitic and Vatican, end at Mark 16:8. A note in the New International Version of the Bible states: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." Verses 9 to 20 appear to have been added later by an unknown Christian forger. The addition was quoted in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century."

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Leviticus also says it is an abomination to eat shellfish. That is the word of God, not of men. Bubba-Gump Shrimp is the work of the Devil! God hates shrimp!

Either all of it is true, or none of it is. So either eating at Red Lobster is an abomination that will send you to Hell for ever and ever and ever just as homosexuality is an abomination, or really the Old Testament is just a bunch of Middle Eastern superstitions that are more than two thousand years old, which should have no bearing on our life today.

I've seen people who eat at Red Lobster. Somehow, I don't think they are going to Hell for doing so. Maybe the Christians on here feel differently.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 11 months ago

Well, a sheeple will come along shortly to tell you that Leviticus is in the old testament and christians don't follow the old testament...jews do. And my natural response to that comment is: don't jews and christians worship the same god?

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 11 months ago

Wrong answer. The god of the old testament is the same as the god of the new. Jews worship the same god, but are expected to do so in a completely different manner as christians. So, how do you rectify the contradiction in your mind? Ignore it? Do you know the story of Joseph (old testament)? It is interesting to compare the stories of Joseph and Jesus:

Gen 37 v 2 Joseph brought back a bad report about his brothers to his father. His brothers hated him. John 15 v 18 Jesus testified to his father about the sins of his brothers & they hated him.

Gen 37 v 23 They stripped Joseph of his coat Matt 27 v 28 they stripped Jesus of his cloak

Gen 37 v 26 – 28 Judah sold Joseph for 20 pieces of silver. Matt 26 v 15 Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

Gen 39 Joseph tempted to the utmost and endured. Matt 4 v 11 Jesus tempted to the utmost and endured.

Gen 39 v 20 Joseph sentenced and condemned along with two criminals. Mark 15 v 27-28 Jesus condemned along with two criminals.

Gen 40 v 13 Joseph promised deliverance to a condemned man. Joseph foretold the future accurately Luke 23 v 43 Jesus promised deliverance to a condemned man, as he does to those who repent. Jesus foretold the future accurately.

Gen 40 v 20 – 22 One criminal lived, one criminal died. Luke 23 v 39-43 One criminal ‘lived’ (in paradise), one criminal died.

Gen 40 v 23 Joseph is forgotten by those he helped. Luke 17 v 17-18 Jesus forgotten by those he helped

Gen 41 v 14 Joseph taken from the dungeon, a place of death and raised by the King to a place of glory, in one day; in one instance. Eph 1 v 19-20 Jesus raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of the God in heavenly places.

Gen 41 v 39 Joseph is regarded a great counselor. Isa 9 v 6 Jesus shall be called a wonderful counselor.

Gen 41 v 46 Joseph is 30 years old when he began his work Luke 3 v 23 Jesus us 30 years old when he began his work

Gen 41 v 55 It is told of Joseph “Do whatever he tells you” John 2 v 5 It is told of Jesus “Do whatever he tells you”

Gen 41 v 55-57 The whole world had to get their bread from Joseph. There is no other way for people to be saved. John 6 v 35 Jesus says he is the bread of life. Acts 4 v 12 There is no other name except Jesus for people to be saved.

Gen 47 v 24-25 Joseph gave all honor to Pharaoh and all rule of the land and people and gives him all power, rule and authority. 1 Co 15 v 24 Jesus delivers the Kingdom to God the Father and gives him all power, rule and authority.

Gen 47 v 25 Joseph saved lives. He was acknowledged as savior and ruler. Philippians 2 v 10-11 Jesus acknowledged to be savior and ruler.

The story of Joseph was a prototype for the story of Jesus. Have a nice day.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 11 months ago

You forgot about consuming mixed meat and dairy products. That means no cheeseburgers.

In order to remain kashrut, that is, to eat kosher, you cannot have meat and milk products at the same meal. The Torah is very clear about that.

But most Reform Jews consider that mitzvah to not be binding today. Some, but not all, movements in Judaism believe that most of the 613 mitzvot in the Torah are no longer binding, because the Temple is no longer standing.

You have to read a whole lot of labels to remain kashrut. But I do it, and sometimes I'm quite surprised at what all is in the food that many people eat every day.

In my opinion, eating kosher is no different than a Roman Catholic crossing himself or a Protestant saying a short prayer before every meal. It's a constant reminder of your place in the universe in your daily life.

asixbury 5 years, 11 months ago

Haha! Love the reference; one of my favorites of Adam Sandler.

Mike Ford 5 years, 11 months ago

deckdoctors......when President Truman integrated the US Military in 1948, thus began the Dixiecrats. Eventually Dixiecrats tried to filibuster civil rights legislation and pushed state'e rights and did everything possible to buck federal intervention in the south to end segregation in public places and allow voting for minorities. Little Rock, Ole Miss, Alabama. George Wallace blocked that door with the segregation now and forever speech. Mr. Wallace ran a third party campaign going after angry white males even in the northern US. An assasination attempt left Governor Wallace injured and yet Richard Nixon saw the southern strategy started by Wallace and began recruiting the archie bunkers to the GOP and cleansing the racist language and sympathy for the klan hiding behind the big government nonsense the gop still uses because they were mad at the federal government for pushing integration on them. One brings in the Anita Bryant anti gay crowd and the Grahams and Swaggarts and Falwells and Robertsons with the Archie Bunkers and voila...tea partiers now. We Democrats kicked these racists out 50 years ago and now they're splitting the GOP for political purity. How fitting....

Pastor_Bedtime 5 years, 11 months ago

So you've never told me I'm not Christian enough for your party... and never implied that Republicans must act as a Christan monolith or they're from the Party of Athiests. "I have never initiated a thread about Christians or Christianity and I have never engaged another poster on matters of religion. I prefer to keep my spirtual bliefs up close and personal." Good one, BAA. You're just another misundersood Christian.

Pastor_Bedtime 5 years, 11 months ago

Show me once where I've claimed to be a "conservative." Just once. Can't do it?

Pastor_Bedtime 5 years, 11 months ago

Very probably. As a Mormon, Romney is an outsider far removed from the traditional Christian Right, and I believe that his mere presence rankles many a bible-thumper. On the state level, though, I tend to vote for the least obnoxious and self-righteous candidate, and lately, that's not a Republican. And I suspect many fellow Republicans will do the same. You have the hardest time seeing that the world isn't all black and white. Our Republican party has no monopoly on what's right for the nation, and Christians have no monopoly on common sense. Just look to Seneca, Kansas. Bet that guy isn't a Democrat! And every time you use the phrase "Party of Athiests" or RINO you confirm the viewpoint of this LTE. If I'm a "Republican in Name Only" would that make you a "Christian in Name Only" or maybe "Christian First, American Second" is more accurate?

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

"This usually happens with no apparent provocation from any of the believers who appear to be a minority on this web site."


Katara 5 years, 11 months ago

Seconded on the Lol.

In fact, let's make it an ROTFLMAO.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 11 months ago

Now you're blind? You can't see the comment in quotes? That was one helluva funny you made. Bible, real facts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwQyEL9lzSw&feature=related

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Religious believers often judge and condemn others, and have done so on these comments numerous times.

In addition, many would like to impose their values in and through government and legislation.

Can you really not see how this is experienced as an attack by others?

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

"Religious believers often judge and condemn others, and have done so on these comments numerous times."

Religious condemnation in a forum? Oh the huge manatee!

Maybe it is true that the god-believers are telling me I'm not christian enough but I'm not hearing them because I'm laughing too hard at their funny superstitions.

Either way, it's a non-issue until it gets into government and legislation. The courts can take care of that. The constitution trumps god's laws in all cases.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

My post was a response to BAA's assertion that it's the secular left that attacks, not the religious right.

verity 5 years, 11 months ago

I don't support extremism of any kind---at least not the kind that does violence to other people or to the universe in general.

I don't believe I have ever attacked Christians in general on these boards, in fact I have defended religionists and their rights, the same as I would for any person.

The reason I have attacked Christian extremism (and certainly not all Christian fundamentalists are extremists) is Christian extremism is attacking me and my civil/human rights. I have every cause to fear Christian extremism much more than I do any other religion's extremism because they are the ones, who at this point in time in the United States, are trying to give their religious views the force of law.

At much as I don't care for Mitt Romney or agree with his political views, at least he hasn't indicated that he will try to give his religious views the force of law.

I am a proud secular progressive and I will not be intimidated.

verity 5 years, 11 months ago

I'm a lot of things, but pigeon isn't one of them.

I have to go track down Alice now---she's playing, but I can't find tickets.

verity 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes, tange, the not-so-deft change of subject is both transparent and apparent.

By the way, Alice was really quite wonderful. Who knew Alice could do ballet/cabaret/dueling banjos and river dance and all inside of two hours? The arts are not dead in Kansas. I did mistake White Rabbit for a bumble bee until I checked the program, but she was still exquisite. I've always been a sucker for Mad Hatter. Her designs for the Queen's (of England, of course) hats are to die for, but who would have foreseen a top hat fascinator? Charming.

Far better than any professionals I have ever seen and much more fun.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 11 months ago

I think he will need to consult his accountant in order to answer your question.

blindrabbit 5 years, 11 months ago

Deckdoctor: You should know better, sitting out the on your deck on a bright sunny day has affected your understanding of the histories of the two political parties. In a sense, the parties switched years ago when the Republicans embraced the old Southern line of thought and the Democrats abandoned the South. Remember it is not only skin cancer that can be irradiated by the sun, but it is those neurons and brain synapses as well. A real deckdoctor should know better!

Mike Ford 5 years, 11 months ago

I'm a grown preacher's kid and son of a college educated theologean going to a Bonhoeffer Conference in Stockholm in three weeks. I bash the fire and brimestone old testament rightwing superstition that the gop and tea partiers mine for a dummy electorate especially in Kansas. Thinking religion and gop religion are two different animals. The first one thinks about religion and politics separately while the second one clings like a paranoid delusionist to superstition.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

True religion?

by Hot Tuna

Momma take the pillow from under my head, hallelujah ...

Commenting has been disabled for this item.