Why hate the Jews?

[jillian]

Christianity has been taken to task so many times here I can't even count em all. It just so happens that I know more about Christianity and Christians aren't lobbying for the support of another country.

Could be because Christians already have every other country besides the Islamic ones, the U.S. (assuming the secular nature of the country isn't trashed by the radicals in power now) and Israel.

And just as an observer, it seems your conclusions are predetermined. Maybe you've been reading RWA's stuff too long?

*Edit* And I don't think Christianity is taken to task, only the efforts of a limited group of Christians who want to politicize their religion and impose their tenets on the rest of us (See... RWA's rant about stem cell research).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Could be because Christians already have every other country besides the Islamic ones, the U.S. (assuming the secular nature of the country isn't trashed by the radicals in power now) and Israel.

And just as an observer, it seems your conclusions are predetermined. Maybe you've been reading RWA's stuff too long?

*Edit* And I don't think Christianity is taken to task, only the efforts of a limited group of Christians who want to politicize their religion and impose their tenets on the rest of us (See... RWA's rant about stem cell research).

I think you'll find respect for life is supposed to be part of judaism. But the torah has been perverted by the ascendancy of the "Oral Tradition" (Talmud) to prominence within judaism. And if you deny that The Talmud is historically supreme, then you can then explain what Karaites are.

And that conversation did happen with that jewish dude, he's actually a good friend of the family. but he's a big lib, of course.

 

[dilloduck]

Could be because Christians already have every other country besides the Islamic ones, the U.S. (assuming the secular nature of the country isn't trashed by the radicals in power now) and Israel.

And just as an observer, it seems your conclusions are predetermined. Maybe you've been reading RWA's stuff too long?

*Edit* And I don't think Christianity is taken to task, only the efforts of a limited group of Christians who want to politicize their religion and impose their tenets on the rest of us (See... RWA's rant about stem cell research).

Christians already have every other country besides the Islamic ones,

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Could be because Christians already have every other country besides the Islamic ones, the U.S. (assuming the secular nature of the country isn't trashed by the radicals in power now) and Israel.

And just as an observer, it seems your conclusions are predetermined. Maybe you've been reading RWA's stuff too long?

*Edit* And I don't think Christianity is taken to task, only the efforts of a limited group of Christians who want to politicize their religion and impose their tenets on the rest of us (See... RWA's rant about stem cell research).

Christians have every other country?

Politicizing their religion and imposing it on the rest of us?

pot. kettle. black.

Olam Ha Ba

 

[no1tovote4]

Could be because Christians already have every other country besides the Islamic ones, the U.S. (assuming the secular nature of the country isn't trashed by the radicals in power now) and Israel.

Really? Amazing how they suddenly got control of China and Japan, as well as India right under our noses. Or, it could be that the Christians really don't have every country other than the Muslim ones?

And just as an observer, it seems your conclusions are predetermined. Maybe you've been reading RWA's stuff too long?

*Edit* And I don't think Christianity is taken to task, only the efforts of a limited group of Christians who want to politicize their religion and impose their tenets on the rest of us (See... RWA's rant about stem cell research).

Nah, Christianity itself has been discussed on this site in a huge way, both negatively as well as positively.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've tallked to jews who told me the talmud justifies harvesting babies for stem cells, because the reserch gains benefit the majority. They compared it to letting those kidnapped by terrorists perish so kidnappings wouldn't be encouraged. Of course, this analogy fails because it ignores the element of the evil terrorist FORCING this bad decision. We are not FORCED to dissect babies to steal their parts for our own gain. Of course I don't tell them this, I just think "wow, that shit is evil." Democracy without moral boundaries.

One of these guys was a proud descendant of Baal Shem Tov, I think he said, A name I didn't recognize at the time, but have since discovered to be a prominent one.

Wow, you know a Jewish guy who justifies "harvesting" babies. Where's his plot? Kansas? In his mind's eye? Never mind. I bet there are NO NON-Jewish folk who are for stem cell research, right?

 

[ErikViking]

And that conversation did happen with that jewish dude, he's actually a good friend of the family. but he's a big lib, of course.

Out of curiosity (and out of topic), do you think certain religious beliefs has a correlating political stanpoint? Does a true christian in your eyes lean to the political right? (I call myself christian, but I am not to the political right in your eyes).

 

[dilloduck]

Out of curiosity (and out of topic), do you think certain religious beliefs has a correlating political stanpoint? Does a true christian in your eyes lean to the political right? (I call myself christian, but I am not to the political right in your eyes).

I don't think we have any clearly defined political standpoints anymore. It seems as though our country is divided more along single issue lines and politicians from both the left and the right scramble to see how they can get the most votes instead of representing the views of those who elected them in the first place.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Out of curiosity (and out of topic), do you think certain religious beliefs has a correlating political stanpoint? Does a true christian in your eyes lean to the political right? (I call myself christian, but I am not to the political right in your eyes).

How do you know where I would categorize you politically? Summarize your views for me and I'll be the judge of that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wow, you know a Jewish guy who justifies "harvesting" babies. Where's his plot? Kansas? In his mind's eye? Never mind. I bet there are NO NON-Jewish folk who are for stem cell research, right?

It's just that pro life positions are dismissed as being "religion based" and therefore not valid in the legislative process of a secular nation. What's overlooked is that the JUSTIFICATIONS FOR infanticide are ALSO religiously based.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's just that pro life positions are dismissed as being "religion based" and therefore not valid in the legislative process of a secular nation. What's overlooked is that the JUSTIFICATIONS FOR infanticide are ALSO religiously based.

Really? What infanticide? Who is committing these crimes? Have they been charged? Where are they being held?

 

[Annie]

It's just that pro life positions are dismissed as being "religion based" and therefore not valid in the legislative process of a secular nation. What's overlooked is that the JUSTIFICATIONS FOR infanticide are ALSO religiously based.

I'm looking for more on this:


I think you'll find respect for life is supposed to be part of judaism. But the torah has been perverted by the ascendancy of the "Oral Tradition" (Talmud) to prominence within judaism. And if you deny that The Talmud is historically supreme, then you can then explain what Karaites are.

And that conversation did happen with that jewish dude, he's actually a good friend of the family. but he's a big lib, of course.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm looking for more on this:


I think you'll find respect for life is supposed to be part of judaism. But the torah has been perverted by the ascendancy of the "Oral Tradition" (Talmud) to prominence within judaism. And if you deny that The Talmud is historically supreme, then you can then explain what Karaites are.

And that conversation did happen with that jewish dude, he's actually a good friend of the family. but he's a big lib, of course.

It should be easy to find.

 

[Annie]

It should be easy to find.

Ok, should be isn't. So to you, oh great one.

 

[ErikViking]

How do you know where I would categorize you politically? Summarize your views for me and I'll be the judge of that.

Sorry, I didn't mean like that. As I said it was off topic. I meant like:
Do you see a contradiction between being left/liberal and a christian?

 

[jillian]

Sorry, I didn't mean like that. As I said it was off topic. I meant like:
Do you see a contradiction between being left/liberal and a christian?

Religious Left Seeks Center of Political Debate
Conferees Call For Stronger Voice
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A02

More than 350 political liberals of many faiths gathered in Washington yesterday to begin what some pollsters say is a quixotic task: restoring the voice of the religious left in the nation's political debate.

"Progressive religious voices, which historically have fueled so much social change in this country, seem to have been washed out of the public dialogue in recent years," said John D. Podesta, a Roman Catholic who was White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. Podesta now heads the Center for American Progress, the Democratic think tank that organized the conference to highlight the "proud past" and "promising future" of the religious left.

Speakers celebrated the role of religious liberals in the civil rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, the nuclear freeze campaign and sanctions against South Africa's former apartheid system. They called for a stronger, more clearly religious voice against the Bush administration's foreign policy and for environmental stewardship, universal health insurance, and efforts to fight poverty at home and abroad.

Yet even as the conference at times took on the enthusiasm of a pep rally, there were sobering reflections on why the religious left lost its prominence after the 1970s and how hard it may be to regain it. At the core of those concerns was a simple set of statistics, reinforced by numerous polls: People who say they are frequent churchgoers vote Republican by a ratio of about 2 to 1.

"All the surveys show that if you ask about either church attendance or attitudes -- how important is religion to you in your daily life? -- you get the same thing: the more religious, the more conservative," Gallup pollster Frank Newport said in an interview. "I certainly remember the days when being religious meant fighting for civil rights and social justice, and it's not that those people aren't still out there. But religious liberals are a small minority today."

Some liberals dispute that conclusion.

"Church attendance is not the only indicator of living out your faith," said the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the Clergy Leadership Network, a group devoted to "leadership change" in Washington. "The vast majority of people of faith in this country are center to left, politically. But if you only measure religious commitment by butts in the pews, that's what you get."

Conference attendees also blamed the media, saying news reports tend to play up the simple dichotomy between the secular left and the religious right rather than citing the full range of religious views.

"It really bothers me that whenever the media and others talk about people of faith, they talk only about the religious right and don't seem to realize there are people like me, who grew up Baptist and believe in God and have strong religious values, but who want different policy outcomes," said Melody Barnes, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former chief counsel to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

But some of the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims at the conference also said they have felt excluded or even disdained by the secular left. The Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., senior minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, told the audience in his keynote address that "we have got to find a way not to be embarrassed" to speak about religion with secular progressives.

And there was no lack of hand-wringing among the conferees about what the religious left has done wrong.

"Part of it is our fault. We should take back the Bible, take back the theological principles and not just cede them to the religious right," said the Rev. Susan B. Thistlethwaite, a minister in the United Church of Christ and president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. "It's not good enough to talk in vague terms about values. We can do better than that. We can make the theological arguments."

Historian Taylor Branch said that in the 1970s, the abortion issue split the progressive religious alliance that had formed in the civil rights movement. Since then, the left has done no better than the right in "moving beyond polemics," he said.

"Not many people who call themselves pro-choice actually want to celebrate abortion, and not many of those who call themselves pro-life want to put women in jail for having abortions," he said. "It's more of a show than a debate, with polarizing options that aren't real. Both sides profess that they love children, but you don't really have the two sides doing very much to cooperate to reduce the number of neglected and abandoned and unwanted children, or to care for them."

The Rev. Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian Church (USA) minister who publishes the interfaith quarterly CrossCurrents, said that from the 1950s through the 1970s, the mainline Protestant denominations took for granted that their values would infuse television and the public schools. Evangelicals, who felt shut out of establishment institutions, created their own schools and broadcast outlets. "Then you wake up one day in 1984 and the Christian right is dominant, and you wonder why," he said.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29653-2004Jun9.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

To do this they will have to actually talk about their religious views. Doing that would go against their other tactic of stifling religious talk by calling it inappropriate and only permissible in a private setting.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29653-2004Jun9.html

Agreed--A lot of Christians are left-leaning and angry that religion has been hijacked by radical right wing Christians but I imagine thats true about a lot of religions. You have extremes in any group and belonging to a religion does not necessarily determine how you vote.

 

[ErikViking]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29653-2004Jun9.html

Thank you, that was interesting... it is actually a real question! Political standing versus religous belief! Non-existant in my country.
Edit: Last sentence was a lie, sort of. If you want religon as political power you can always vote for a religous party. But there is no debate over religion and political standings.

To do this they will have to actually talk about their religious views. Doing that would go against their other tactic of stifling religious talk by calling it inappropriate and only permissible in a private setting.

Okay, but a liberal can still be a true christian?

 

[dilloduck]

To do this they will have to actually talk about their religious views. Doing that would go against their other tactic of stifling religious talk by calling it inappropriate and only permissible in a private setting.

Agreed--airing ones religious laundry is not exactly popular.