To those who argue that marriage has always been betwen a man and a woman, let me respond:
Marriage has not always been between A man and A woman...different societies have had different norms. A man and a woman, a man and multiple women, a woman and multiple men (fewer, but they have existed), a man and a woman and a 2-spirited man (who would cross dress as a woman) who would be the husband's second wife (again, few, but it has existed), and there is even historical documentation of same-gender "friends" who have had their unions blessed by the church in the middle ages. Some cultures have allowed divorce and remarriage while others have not. Some have allowed young teens to marry (not appropriate for our day and time, but in the past it happened), and so on. Marriage has meant many things over many centuries across many cultures. Now, just b/c marriage has or has not looked a certain way in times past doesn't negate the need for us to what is just and fair NOW. And while many countries do not recognize gay marriage (yet), other countries do, some first nations do, and now some US states do. The trend will continue to move toward liberty and justice for ALL.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Streep May Be Best Film Actor of Our Time!
I beseech all deities and benevolent cosmic beings to secure an Oscar for Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady. Great film. And while my politics are very different from someone I used to refer to as Reagan in drag, the film showed a very sincere and human side of Lady Thatcher and I may be forced to refer to the former PM with only respect and even a little admiration from now on (even while still disa...greeing with many of her political views). Her political philosophy might not have been my cup of tea, but her leadership skill and courage are pretty undeniable. When an actor (Streep) can make you love a character that in real life you have not cared much for (Thatcher), an Oscar is definitely in order!!!
Happy Birthday to the Last of the Red Hot Mamas
If you've known me more than 20 minutes you know that i WORSHIP Sophie Tucker (whenever you say "thank God" it is Sophie who says, "You're welcome"). NOT the Soph character that Bette Midler does (though, Bette is also divine), but THE Sophie Tucker - the Last of the Red Hot Mamas! She died 9 months before I was born (draw your own conclusions), but she was born today in 1886. Happy Birthday dear Sophie.
born Jan. 13 - 1886
died Feb. 9 - 1966
Durrell born Nov. 15, 1966 (sometimes the life wheel spins around quickly, no?)
Sophie (a stage name) was born Sonya Kalish in Imperial Russia (actually the Ukraine). When she was a baby her family moved to the US (Connecticut) and opened a restaurant. Her career began singing for tips in the family restaurant. She married when she was 17 (Louis Tuck) and they had a son. The marriage did not last long. She would go on to marry twice again.
She went on to develop an act which she did in Vaudeville and Burlesque theatres. She sang risque songs and since she was a woman of some size, she even acknowledged this while affirming herself in the process (one of her great songs was "Nobody Loves a Fat Girl but Oh How a Fat Girl Can Love!").
She also became famous for songs such as "Last of the Red Mamas" and "Some of These Days" as well as for the mournful "My Yiddishe Mama".
Sophie was sensitive to the racism of the time because in a way she was victimized by it. Theatre managers, early in her career, told her she was too fat and too unattractive for theater audiences, so they would only allow her to perform in "black-face." She was such a dynamic performer she became popular enough to be able to ditch the minstrel style black face performances, but she continued to sing songs influenced by the African American blues and ragtime traditions. For a while, she was known as the Mary Garden of Ragtime (referring to a famous opera singer) of the era.
Sophie was also a union organizer and a supporter of Israel. Additionally, she endowed a theatre arts chair at Brandeis University.
In addition to Vaudeville and Burlesque, Sophie appeared in 4 Broadway shows, made supporting and cameo appearances in numerous films, had her own radio show for a year, and made many talk/variety TV show appearances toward the end of her life.
She is credited with influencing some of the "brassy" female comics and singers that followed her, such as Mae West, Mama Cass, and Joan Rivers. And of course, she is the inspiration for Bette Midlers' famous "Soph" character.
Dear Sophie - you are still in my heart the LAST of the Red Hot Mamas!
born Jan. 13 - 1886
died Feb. 9 - 1966
Durrell born Nov. 15, 1966 (sometimes the life wheel spins around quickly, no?)
Sophie (a stage name) was born Sonya Kalish in Imperial Russia (actually the Ukraine). When she was a baby her family moved to the US (Connecticut) and opened a restaurant. Her career began singing for tips in the family restaurant. She married when she was 17 (Louis Tuck) and they had a son. The marriage did not last long. She would go on to marry twice again.
She went on to develop an act which she did in Vaudeville and Burlesque theatres. She sang risque songs and since she was a woman of some size, she even acknowledged this while affirming herself in the process (one of her great songs was "Nobody Loves a Fat Girl but Oh How a Fat Girl Can Love!").
She also became famous for songs such as "Last of the Red Mamas" and "Some of These Days" as well as for the mournful "My Yiddishe Mama".
Sophie was sensitive to the racism of the time because in a way she was victimized by it. Theatre managers, early in her career, told her she was too fat and too unattractive for theater audiences, so they would only allow her to perform in "black-face." She was such a dynamic performer she became popular enough to be able to ditch the minstrel style black face performances, but she continued to sing songs influenced by the African American blues and ragtime traditions. For a while, she was known as the Mary Garden of Ragtime (referring to a famous opera singer) of the era.
Sophie was also a union organizer and a supporter of Israel. Additionally, she endowed a theatre arts chair at Brandeis University.
In addition to Vaudeville and Burlesque, Sophie appeared in 4 Broadway shows, made supporting and cameo appearances in numerous films, had her own radio show for a year, and made many talk/variety TV show appearances toward the end of her life.
She is credited with influencing some of the "brassy" female comics and singers that followed her, such as Mae West, Mama Cass, and Joan Rivers. And of course, she is the inspiration for Bette Midlers' famous "Soph" character.
Dear Sophie - you are still in my heart the LAST of the Red Hot Mamas!
Monday, January 09, 2012
Joel Osteen and gays
Joel Osteen has unenlightened, non-progressive views about same-gender loving people. What annoys me isn't that he's homophobic, but that gay people are pretending to be surprised about it!
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
I'm Not Twisting Your Magic Book
OMG, the hate mail that we at Sunshine Cathedral get from "Christians" telling us that our message affirming the sacred value of all people and the legitimacy of mutual, shared, adult affection (regardless of the genders of the people sharing it) is somehow "twisting the word of God" to suit our own purposes is staggering.
Not only is such hate mail pretty voluminous, it is also completely ridiculous. And here's why. Whereas we will encourage people to think critically about the bible, and while we will place texts in their historical/linguistic/cultural contexts, and while we unashamedly bring all of who we are to the reading of the texts and try to be attentive to the voices that were ignored or silenced in the writing of texts, we do all of that to liberate the bible - not to justify our opinions.
Let me be brutally frank - I don't care what an anonymous ancient writer who thought the world was flat believed about women, samge-gender attraction, child-rearing, the ethics of warfare, or the possibility of certain foods being abominable (I'm mostly annoyed that mushrooms didn't make the list). Ancient writers, compilers, editors, translators, and interpreters had their own agendas, opinions, cultural biases, prejudices, blind spots, preferences, etc. Whatever their's were need not dictate what mine are. I can believe what makes sense to me without needing to find someone who died a few millennia before I was born to agree with me.
So, no writers of hate mail, I am not twisting a magic book to justify my "lifestyle"...because, for me, the book isn't magic and furthermore, I'm not looking up my experiences, opinions, values, needs, or longings in any book to justify them. I have never assumed that my views, beliefs, and opinions needed justification.
Now, I love reading. I love literature. I love history, I love mythology. I love poetry. I love drama. I love biographies. I love historical fiction. So, guess what...I LOVE the bible! But loving it, reading it, commiting large portions of it to memory, thinking about it, wrestling with it, arguing with it, sharing the parts that I find life-giving with others is not the same as "twisting" it. Now, using isolated proof-texts to justify your own hatreds and prejudices, that's pretty twisted, but let's not play biblical tit-for-tat.
I love the bible. I enjoy the bible. I even teach the bible. But I do not WORSHIP the bible. In fact, I freely and vehemently disagree with sections of it (the entire book of Philemon should line bird cages!).
Here's the thing, those who prefer to thump their bibles than to read them carefully:
I don't need the bible to justify my existence, my thoughts, my opinions, my love, my sexuality, or any part of life. And being free from biblical tyranny allows me to enjoy and love the bible all the more. I highly recommend such biblical liberation.
Not only is such hate mail pretty voluminous, it is also completely ridiculous. And here's why. Whereas we will encourage people to think critically about the bible, and while we will place texts in their historical/linguistic/cultural contexts, and while we unashamedly bring all of who we are to the reading of the texts and try to be attentive to the voices that were ignored or silenced in the writing of texts, we do all of that to liberate the bible - not to justify our opinions.
Let me be brutally frank - I don't care what an anonymous ancient writer who thought the world was flat believed about women, samge-gender attraction, child-rearing, the ethics of warfare, or the possibility of certain foods being abominable (I'm mostly annoyed that mushrooms didn't make the list). Ancient writers, compilers, editors, translators, and interpreters had their own agendas, opinions, cultural biases, prejudices, blind spots, preferences, etc. Whatever their's were need not dictate what mine are. I can believe what makes sense to me without needing to find someone who died a few millennia before I was born to agree with me.
So, no writers of hate mail, I am not twisting a magic book to justify my "lifestyle"...because, for me, the book isn't magic and furthermore, I'm not looking up my experiences, opinions, values, needs, or longings in any book to justify them. I have never assumed that my views, beliefs, and opinions needed justification.
Now, I love reading. I love literature. I love history, I love mythology. I love poetry. I love drama. I love biographies. I love historical fiction. So, guess what...I LOVE the bible! But loving it, reading it, commiting large portions of it to memory, thinking about it, wrestling with it, arguing with it, sharing the parts that I find life-giving with others is not the same as "twisting" it. Now, using isolated proof-texts to justify your own hatreds and prejudices, that's pretty twisted, but let's not play biblical tit-for-tat.
I love the bible. I enjoy the bible. I even teach the bible. But I do not WORSHIP the bible. In fact, I freely and vehemently disagree with sections of it (the entire book of Philemon should line bird cages!).
Here's the thing, those who prefer to thump their bibles than to read them carefully:
I don't need the bible to justify my existence, my thoughts, my opinions, my love, my sexuality, or any part of life. And being free from biblical tyranny allows me to enjoy and love the bible all the more. I highly recommend such biblical liberation.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Christians Are Not an Oppressed Group in this Country (and I don't care what the President's religion might be)
According to some right wing whack job extremist group called "Defend Christians", there are 10 "irrefutable proofs" that our president isn't a Christian.
Before we thumb noses at their every ridiculous claim, let me first say that President Obama's religious affiliation is completely irrelevant. He doesn't need to be Christian or even religious to lead our secular nation. Should he ever decide to pastor a Christian church, being a baptized, confirmed, and ordained Christian minister might be reasonable requirements. To be president, I couldn't care less what his religious views are. I expecet him to be ethical, reasonable, intelligent, courageous, and wise; but whether he worships Allah, Isis, Apollo, or the Tooth Fairy doesn't interest me in the least.
That having been said, the "irrefutable" truth is that he is a Protestant Christian. This doesn't impress me, but it is the truth. He isn't a fundamentalist (to my great relief), but he is at very least culturally Christian.
Finally, let me say how extremely bored I am with the claims that Christians in this country are under attack and need defense. There are places in the world where one might be savagely beaten, imprisoned, or brutally killed for embracing the Christian faith. The US is not generally such a place. In this country, Christians vote, run for public office, and have houses of worship in every town, village, city, and unincorporated rural patch of grass within our borders. In this country, Christians bash gays and claim to be victims if gays respond defensively. In this country, Christians (and anyone for that matter) can utter the prayer "god bless america" at any public event they so desire. In this country, God (presumably the Judeo-Christian god) is named in our country's pledge and on our currency. This country has a national cathedral. This country has a Senate Chaplain. This country has a chaplain corps in the brances of the military. This country has official diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and people run for office and sit on judicial benches proudly proclaiming their personal religious beliefs as being their motivation for public actions. The idea that Christians are somehow an oppressed group in THIS nation is beyond ridiculous. Now, Christians as the persectuors, that is something else, but we'll save that for future missives.
Now, for the moronic claims of "Defend Christians" that Pres. Obama isn't Christian:
1.) Economics: Obama advocates for failed Marxist/socialist economic schemes that are based on envy and class warfare that divides the country and uses the government to steal from one group to give it to another.
Response: Capitalist schemes also have a disturbing record of failure. Whether socialism or capitalism is the better economic system is a matter for debate, but has NOTHING to do with faith or devotion. Moreover, "Christian Socialism" was a very strong movement a century ago. - dw
2.) Marriage: Obama abdicated his sworn presidential duty to defend the laws of the United States by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and even actively worked to undermine the law.
Response: Hello? Really?! We make and change laws. The president defends the constitution, not the moronic notion that laws can never change. Otherwise, we would have had no emancipation proclamation, women's suffrage, or civil rights act...though I'm guessing this group doesn't find those progressive changes to be very impressive either. And in any case, even if he were to break a law (when has a president EVER done that?!), that still doesn't prove anything about his spiritual life. - dw
3.) Religious Liberty: Obama signed “Hate Crimes” legislation that can result in prosecution for speaking against homosexuality. Even pastors who preach the biblical view of sexuality could face prosecution in certain situations.
Response: The biblical view? Would that be the biblical view that rich powerful men can have multiple wives? Would that be the biblical view that only bishops are required to be monogamous? Would that be the biblical view that fathers can give their daughters away like property? Would that be the biblical view that if a widow is left childless she must marry her late husband's nearest male relative? Which biblical view of sexuality should we be preaching? And, free speach isn't a hate crime...in your church, sell all the hate people will buy, but when people listen to that hate speech and use it as an excuse to harm, threaten, or publicly slander LBGT people, yes, a crime against human dignity has been committed. Christianity isn't a pass to abuse people you don't like. It's really time to make peace with that fact. - dw
4.) Abortion: Obama’s policies have caused taxpayer funded abortions in other nations and fund of embryonic stem cell research that kills human embryos. He gave $50 million to UN population agency for promoting abortion and working with China’s murderous “one child” policy. He eliminated federal funding for abstinence-only education and overturned the ban on funding abortions within Washington, D.C. During the 2011 budget debates, Obama refused to end funding for Planned Parenthood, almost causing the government to shut down.
Response: Excuse me?!?! Abortion is legal! And earlier, disagreeing with laws amounted to, in your argument, high treason. If abortion is legal, and legal is the definition of "Christian," then suck it up cupcake. The president is just supporting the law. And still, there are pro-choice Christians. Supporting a woman's sovereignty over her own body does not disqualify one from Christianity. - dw
5.) Homosexuality: Obama signed a bill repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which opened the door to open homosexuality in the military. Now military chaplains will be pressured to perform homosexual unions. Obama had militant homosexuals as part of his inaugural events and even hosted a reception in the White House celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the homosexual rights movement.
Response: Sorry, once again, hating Queers isn't a core Christian requirement. There are Christian homophobes, but heterosexism isn't a requirement for the faith. - dw
6.) Liberal /Marxist Liberation Theology: Obama sat under a radical, Marxist minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for 20 years and has adopted all of his Marxist ideology. Obama denies Christ’s atonement and mocks the Bible and rarely attends church, yet we are supposed to believe he’s Christian. Many believe he’s really a Muslim, and for some good reasons.
Response: You don't like his Christian pastor, so that means he's not a Christian? You can name his former pastor; can you name his former Imam? No. And, again, we have freedom of religion; he gets to be Muslim if he chooses. And liberation theology is, well, you know, theology! It's a Christian framework for thinking and talking about God. And, newsflash, there are multiple views of atonement theology (including a rejection of it). Within the larger Christian tradition there is a lot of diversity of thought. - dw
7.) National Christian Heritage: In a speech given in Turkey, Obama said, “we do NOT consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Obama intentionally misquotes the Declaration of Independence omitting “our Creator” as the source of our unalienable rights.
Response: One need not be a Christian to believe in a "creator." And, we do NOT have a state religion. Christians may be the majority in our nation, but that doesn't make us a Christian nation. In this nation, we are still free to belong to any religion or no religion. If you want a Christian nation, go to Italy or England. If you want unrestricted freedom of and from religion, welcome to the US. - dw
8.) Supreme Court Appointments: Justice Elena Kagan is a hardcore liberal on abortion, gun rights and homosexual marriage and is suspected to be a lesbian. Kagan wrote a brief supporting Clinton’s veto of a ban on partial birth abortion. While a Dean at Harvard, Kagan banned military recruiters from the campus. Kagan also opposed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a liberal and activist judge who believes courts should make policy not just interpret the constitution. Sotomayor argued for unlimited abortions for any reason throughout pregnancy and for taxpayer funding of abortions.
Response: You don't like their social views, their politics, or their scholarly understanding of the law. You failed to mention what they "beleive" about metaphysics, philosophy, religion, devotion, or spirituality. Neither liberal nor intellectual means "non-Christian"...and even non-Christian doesn't mean anti-Christian. - dw
9.) Obama-care: Your tax dollars will pay for abortions and the older you get your life will be considered a liability and expendable. Some bureaucrat on a “DEATH PANEL” will ultimately decide if YOUR life is worth saving or not.
Response: Healing the sick...really, this is your evidence of non-Christian behavior? And guess what, we already have death panels, they are the insurance execs who deside what procedures they will cover and which meds they will approve. Since someone will be deciding the quality of the care I get, why not let it be someone who doesn't personally profit from declining health?! There is no Big Brother Death Panel, but as long as medical coverage is less than universal, there are many people who will die needlessly. Offering care is a matter humanitarian ethics. Offering or denying care is not the definition of Christianity. - dw
10.) Radical Czars: Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Safe School “czar,” is a militant, homosexual activist from Massachusetts. Radical pro-abortion advocate Kathleen Sebelius is Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. She took a quarter of a million dollars from George Tiller, the notorious late term abortionist. Chai Feldblum, a lesbian law professor was appointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum said in any conflict that might arise between religious liberty and homosexual “rights,” she would have a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.
Response: Religious liberty doesn't mean denying liberty to those your religion tries to dehumanize. You are free to worship the God of your understanding; you are not free to deny others their equality because you say the god of your understanding hates everyone you hate. You have shown that the President doesn't discriminate against gays and lesbians; you have not shown that he is or isn't Christian. - dw
If you like the president, support him. If you don't like him, vote for someone else next year. But the witchhunt to decide if he's Christian is irrelevant to the political process. And, frankly, if Christianity was as limited and limiting as the presentation by "Defend Christians" would suggest, then surely Christians would soon number fewer than those who believe they have abducted and anal probed by space travelers. Christians need no defense, but Chrisitanity should be protected from those who claim they do.
For the article about the "Defend" group, visit http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/
Before we thumb noses at their every ridiculous claim, let me first say that President Obama's religious affiliation is completely irrelevant. He doesn't need to be Christian or even religious to lead our secular nation. Should he ever decide to pastor a Christian church, being a baptized, confirmed, and ordained Christian minister might be reasonable requirements. To be president, I couldn't care less what his religious views are. I expecet him to be ethical, reasonable, intelligent, courageous, and wise; but whether he worships Allah, Isis, Apollo, or the Tooth Fairy doesn't interest me in the least.
That having been said, the "irrefutable" truth is that he is a Protestant Christian. This doesn't impress me, but it is the truth. He isn't a fundamentalist (to my great relief), but he is at very least culturally Christian.
Finally, let me say how extremely bored I am with the claims that Christians in this country are under attack and need defense. There are places in the world where one might be savagely beaten, imprisoned, or brutally killed for embracing the Christian faith. The US is not generally such a place. In this country, Christians vote, run for public office, and have houses of worship in every town, village, city, and unincorporated rural patch of grass within our borders. In this country, Christians bash gays and claim to be victims if gays respond defensively. In this country, Christians (and anyone for that matter) can utter the prayer "god bless america" at any public event they so desire. In this country, God (presumably the Judeo-Christian god) is named in our country's pledge and on our currency. This country has a national cathedral. This country has a Senate Chaplain. This country has a chaplain corps in the brances of the military. This country has official diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and people run for office and sit on judicial benches proudly proclaiming their personal religious beliefs as being their motivation for public actions. The idea that Christians are somehow an oppressed group in THIS nation is beyond ridiculous. Now, Christians as the persectuors, that is something else, but we'll save that for future missives.
Now, for the moronic claims of "Defend Christians" that Pres. Obama isn't Christian:
1.) Economics: Obama advocates for failed Marxist/socialist economic schemes that are based on envy and class warfare that divides the country and uses the government to steal from one group to give it to another.
Response: Capitalist schemes also have a disturbing record of failure. Whether socialism or capitalism is the better economic system is a matter for debate, but has NOTHING to do with faith or devotion. Moreover, "Christian Socialism" was a very strong movement a century ago. - dw
2.) Marriage: Obama abdicated his sworn presidential duty to defend the laws of the United States by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and even actively worked to undermine the law.
Response: Hello? Really?! We make and change laws. The president defends the constitution, not the moronic notion that laws can never change. Otherwise, we would have had no emancipation proclamation, women's suffrage, or civil rights act...though I'm guessing this group doesn't find those progressive changes to be very impressive either. And in any case, even if he were to break a law (when has a president EVER done that?!), that still doesn't prove anything about his spiritual life. - dw
3.) Religious Liberty: Obama signed “Hate Crimes” legislation that can result in prosecution for speaking against homosexuality. Even pastors who preach the biblical view of sexuality could face prosecution in certain situations.
Response: The biblical view? Would that be the biblical view that rich powerful men can have multiple wives? Would that be the biblical view that only bishops are required to be monogamous? Would that be the biblical view that fathers can give their daughters away like property? Would that be the biblical view that if a widow is left childless she must marry her late husband's nearest male relative? Which biblical view of sexuality should we be preaching? And, free speach isn't a hate crime...in your church, sell all the hate people will buy, but when people listen to that hate speech and use it as an excuse to harm, threaten, or publicly slander LBGT people, yes, a crime against human dignity has been committed. Christianity isn't a pass to abuse people you don't like. It's really time to make peace with that fact. - dw
4.) Abortion: Obama’s policies have caused taxpayer funded abortions in other nations and fund of embryonic stem cell research that kills human embryos. He gave $50 million to UN population agency for promoting abortion and working with China’s murderous “one child” policy. He eliminated federal funding for abstinence-only education and overturned the ban on funding abortions within Washington, D.C. During the 2011 budget debates, Obama refused to end funding for Planned Parenthood, almost causing the government to shut down.
Response: Excuse me?!?! Abortion is legal! And earlier, disagreeing with laws amounted to, in your argument, high treason. If abortion is legal, and legal is the definition of "Christian," then suck it up cupcake. The president is just supporting the law. And still, there are pro-choice Christians. Supporting a woman's sovereignty over her own body does not disqualify one from Christianity. - dw
5.) Homosexuality: Obama signed a bill repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which opened the door to open homosexuality in the military. Now military chaplains will be pressured to perform homosexual unions. Obama had militant homosexuals as part of his inaugural events and even hosted a reception in the White House celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the homosexual rights movement.
Response: Sorry, once again, hating Queers isn't a core Christian requirement. There are Christian homophobes, but heterosexism isn't a requirement for the faith. - dw
6.) Liberal /Marxist Liberation Theology: Obama sat under a radical, Marxist minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for 20 years and has adopted all of his Marxist ideology. Obama denies Christ’s atonement and mocks the Bible and rarely attends church, yet we are supposed to believe he’s Christian. Many believe he’s really a Muslim, and for some good reasons.
Response: You don't like his Christian pastor, so that means he's not a Christian? You can name his former pastor; can you name his former Imam? No. And, again, we have freedom of religion; he gets to be Muslim if he chooses. And liberation theology is, well, you know, theology! It's a Christian framework for thinking and talking about God. And, newsflash, there are multiple views of atonement theology (including a rejection of it). Within the larger Christian tradition there is a lot of diversity of thought. - dw
7.) National Christian Heritage: In a speech given in Turkey, Obama said, “we do NOT consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Obama intentionally misquotes the Declaration of Independence omitting “our Creator” as the source of our unalienable rights.
Response: One need not be a Christian to believe in a "creator." And, we do NOT have a state religion. Christians may be the majority in our nation, but that doesn't make us a Christian nation. In this nation, we are still free to belong to any religion or no religion. If you want a Christian nation, go to Italy or England. If you want unrestricted freedom of and from religion, welcome to the US. - dw
8.) Supreme Court Appointments: Justice Elena Kagan is a hardcore liberal on abortion, gun rights and homosexual marriage and is suspected to be a lesbian. Kagan wrote a brief supporting Clinton’s veto of a ban on partial birth abortion. While a Dean at Harvard, Kagan banned military recruiters from the campus. Kagan also opposed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a liberal and activist judge who believes courts should make policy not just interpret the constitution. Sotomayor argued for unlimited abortions for any reason throughout pregnancy and for taxpayer funding of abortions.
Response: You don't like their social views, their politics, or their scholarly understanding of the law. You failed to mention what they "beleive" about metaphysics, philosophy, religion, devotion, or spirituality. Neither liberal nor intellectual means "non-Christian"...and even non-Christian doesn't mean anti-Christian. - dw
9.) Obama-care: Your tax dollars will pay for abortions and the older you get your life will be considered a liability and expendable. Some bureaucrat on a “DEATH PANEL” will ultimately decide if YOUR life is worth saving or not.
Response: Healing the sick...really, this is your evidence of non-Christian behavior? And guess what, we already have death panels, they are the insurance execs who deside what procedures they will cover and which meds they will approve. Since someone will be deciding the quality of the care I get, why not let it be someone who doesn't personally profit from declining health?! There is no Big Brother Death Panel, but as long as medical coverage is less than universal, there are many people who will die needlessly. Offering care is a matter humanitarian ethics. Offering or denying care is not the definition of Christianity. - dw
10.) Radical Czars: Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Safe School “czar,” is a militant, homosexual activist from Massachusetts. Radical pro-abortion advocate Kathleen Sebelius is Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. She took a quarter of a million dollars from George Tiller, the notorious late term abortionist. Chai Feldblum, a lesbian law professor was appointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum said in any conflict that might arise between religious liberty and homosexual “rights,” she would have a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.
Response: Religious liberty doesn't mean denying liberty to those your religion tries to dehumanize. You are free to worship the God of your understanding; you are not free to deny others their equality because you say the god of your understanding hates everyone you hate. You have shown that the President doesn't discriminate against gays and lesbians; you have not shown that he is or isn't Christian. - dw
If you like the president, support him. If you don't like him, vote for someone else next year. But the witchhunt to decide if he's Christian is irrelevant to the political process. And, frankly, if Christianity was as limited and limiting as the presentation by "Defend Christians" would suggest, then surely Christians would soon number fewer than those who believe they have abducted and anal probed by space travelers. Christians need no defense, but Chrisitanity should be protected from those who claim they do.
For the article about the "Defend" group, visit http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/
Friday, December 09, 2011
How I Lost 22 Pounds in 4 Years! (Sigh)
OK, in spite of an injured shoulder (yes...rib, knees, shoulder...its been that kind of a year...i'm told this is called fitness!?!?!), i'm very happy with today's weigh-in and workout...Weighed in at the lowest i've been since 2005...still have another 8 pounds to go, but to be within single digits of the goal, FINALLY, feels great. Also, did 160# leg extensions and 500# leg press (5th set, all 12 reps) today, which were new records for me. In spite of the joint crakiness, I'm very pleased with the results. It's been slow, arduous, and not exactly fun, but still very rewarding. I'm glad i didn't give up too soon this time. Yes, it took me 4 years to lose 22#, & there are 8 more of the 30 still to go, but the BP, cholesterol, and lost inches make the story a bit more optimistic. Pretty great early Xmas gift i think...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
