For the culture warrior

Here's something for your favorite Republican culture warrior -- a little gay bashing, a little Europe bashing, and some twisted bible verse to top it all off:

(Click on image to enlarge. Via Raw Story.)

•  I keep wishing...

  ...that Fred Phelps would somehow end up with a sharp spike driven through his abdomen, but that's too good for him.

  Incredible that a so-called Christian could be so immensely hateful. I don't think the Republicans even claim this fruitcake.

  by Devin on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:14:42 AM PDT

  •  NO

    he needs to be in a hell where he feels all the pain he has ever caused another human being...and if he is right about Jesus...I am sure he will.  

    by southernblues on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:25:01 AM PDT

  •  Incredible that Christians be immensely hateful?

    You've got to be kidding me (and all other Jews).

    by jqb on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 01:13:24 AM PDT

    •  Your point is well-taken...

      ...but real Christians don't go in for hate like this. I'm talking about those that actually practice the faith, instead of giving it lip service.

      by Devin on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 01:53:40 AM PDT

      •  Yeah....

        All 3 of them.

        (I know there are more of you than that, but you don't speak, so I have to listen to all that bullshit coming from the crazies whenever I decide I feel like wearing my Star of David in public.  I feel bad for you, just like I feel bad for the majority of Muslims, but you have to speak up and tell the rest of the world that the crazy ones are not the majority, and that you're just like us - you wish they'd go crawl back under a rock too.  I do it when it comes to Hasids and the ultra-orthodox, now it's your turn.)

        by sub version on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:24:52 AM PDT

        •  There are christian groups

          actively fighting people like this. It's not sexy though so the media doesnt broadcast it. Just the hatemongers.

          by cdreid on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:02:54 AM PDT

          •  Every time

            Phelps came to my campus, the people counterprotesting him were quite present, usually drowning him out.

            But none of them were Christians.

            It doesn't matter what you say if you can't make yourself heard.

            by sub version on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:52:40 AM PDT

            •  How do you know that none of them

              were Christians?  Did they have signs on them saying, "I am not a Christian?"  

              by pundette on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:39:10 AM PDT

              •  Well

                I don't know they weren't Christians.

                But judging from the sort of hateful crap they were spewing about Christians, I figured it was a safe bet.

                by sub version on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 02:52:37 PM PDT

                •  Really , did they shout, "PHOOEY ON ALL YOU

                  CHRISTIANS?  Or "YOU CHRISTIAN SCUM! YOU CAN TAKE YOUR JESUS AND STUFF HIM!"

                  Or were they shouting things like "YOU KNUCKLE DRAGGING MORONS. YOU HATE FILLED FILTH. CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST ROCK OF RAGES."  Something like that?

                  I mean, just because one is shouting well deserved insults at people who call themselves Christians doesn't mean that you are specifically insulting Christianity or all Christians.  

                  by pundette on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:21:55 PM PDT

                  •  It was pretty close to the first

                    Let me clarify - I dislike most of the beliefs of Christianity.  I dislike the beliefs of most Christians, especially the ones who interpret the Bible in anything resembling a literal fashion.

                    But that's their problem, believing something I feel is untrue.  

                    I'm not going to go call them illogical followers of a mishmash of creeds drawn from all conceivable sources who fail to realize or even acknowledge that fact, despite the fact that it is often true.  (And to Christians who actually study your faith and intellectually engage with it, ignore what I have said up to here, I have absolutely no beef with you - we may disagree on truth, but I admire you for trying.)

                    But when the word "Christian" itself becomes a pejorative term, the Phelpses and Falwells of this world have succeeded, and they did so because real, moderate, Christians failed to seperate themselves from the insane ones.  I won't use the term Christian as an insult.  And many of the Phelps counter-protesters did and do, which is a problem, even for someone as agnostic and aspiritual/amystical as I am.  

                    I don't know how far away you are from campus political life, but I lived on a fairly political campus, for 12 years growing up and then another 4 and a half while attending classes there, and have only been gone from it for about a year and a half.  Being a nationally famous university, we attract a lot of attention from a lot of completely insane people - Phelps visits regularly, the KKK used to, there are organized Maoist and Communist movements on campus (let me distinguish - Soviet-style Communism, an insane idea, as opposed to the general idea of Communism).  Whether or not you want to be involved in the political discourse, you can't avoid it - it's thrust into classes, it engages you as you walk by it occuring on campus, it is unavoidable.  And wherever I went, I encountered the problem of people using a description of belief as a term of insult - using Christian, or Jew, or Socialist, or Communist, or Capitalist, or Muslim, as terms of insult.  

                    There are two problems - that of divorcing a descriptor from the things it describes, and that of conflating different things under the same descriptor.  They are essentially two different ways of viewing the same problem.  Divorce of the descriptor from the described allows an easier conflation, in that it tends to lead people not to look at what lies behind a term.  It's a lot easier to hang a blood libel on a Jew when the term "Jew" has already become divorced from Judaism in the head of the listener.  It's a lot easier to hang an association of "terrorist" on a Muslim when the listener doesn't know anything about Islam.  The related problem, that of conflation, is another way of divorcing the descriptor from meaning, this time by expanding the range of the meaning to the point where it becomes so non-specific as to be useless.  Christian is getting to this point, considering the huge gamut of views that all associate themselves with the term - everyone from Catholics to Seventh Day Adventists to Greek Orthodox to snake-handling cults to Phelpsian crazies is a Christian, so what meaning does the term even have?  The only way to recover from massive conflation is to reduce the meaning of the term - Christian, at this point, essentially implies "I believe Christ was the messiah" and that's about it.  The best defense to prevent conflation is what I am requesting - defending the meaning of the descriptive terms before they can be corrupted.

                    A similar situation I run into all the time is with Messianic Jews who don't understand my objection to them calling themself Jewish.  As a Jew, I don't wish to be associated with people who believe Jesus was the messiah, as messianics do.  I believe that the terms need to be seperated, so that it is very clear that people realize that my brand of Judaism (the tradition of Rabbinic Judaism, not a specific branch of it) does not acknowledge a messiah, and that Messianics have no real right to a claim on that term.  It's a relatively restrained example, in that no one is likely to get into a fistfight over it, but it's the same situation.  If you don't point out the differences between you and someone who wants to call themselves by your name, you've lost any reason to believe a bystander will know those differences, or even should.

                    by sub version on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:44:43 AM PDT

            •  This attitude

              is no better than the one you criticize.  It's the same narrow, hateful viewpoint that underlies racism--and every other -ism.

              by BigOkie on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:28:56 AM PDT

              •  Which attitude?

                The one that requires that you disassociate yourself from those who would use your name, or that of your group, to malign others?

                by sub version on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 02:53:49 PM PDT

            •  For obvious reasons

              I love your sig.

              by Spider Jerusalem on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 02:05:58 PM PDT

              •  For obvious reasons

                I love your username.

                You a fan of Ellis' other work?

                by sub version on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:45:32 AM PDT

            •  I have a feeling

              you dont know many christians. I'm not really one anymore but used to be. Know a LOT of them. Whether you want to believe it or not most of them are the finest people you'll ever meet. Tell me.. would you speak this way about Muslims? About Buddhists? About Jews?????

              by cdreid on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:24:22 PM PDT

              •  Really?

                I know a lot of em too.  Spent a lot of time around black Southern Baptists while I was in school, due to an internship I had.  Spent a lot of time in Dutch Reform Bible Belt Western Michigan, the South (backwoods Florida), WASPy areas of New York, and the suburbs and neighborhoods of Detroit and Chicago.  I know quite a few Christians, of different faiths, levels of practice, and backgrounds.

                Most of them are just plain people.  A few of them are good people.  A few of them are awful.  Pretty much like anyone else.  That's not the problem.

                The problem is that the just plain people go through their day to day lives.  They act like people.  They don't do anything great, they don't do anything wonderful, but they don't do anything awful either.  And then Fred Phelps comes along, and damns the gays and the Swedes in the name of Jesus.  All that I expect is that the just plain people; hell, even the good ones, even the few good ones, stand up and say "Fred Phelps is a bigoted homophobe who should be ashamed to be alive.  I'm a Christian, and I know Christians, and he's no Christian."  That's it.  But they don't.  Or if they do, they say it so quietly that everyone can overlook them.  That's why I get pissed off.

                And yes, I would (and do) speak this way about Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews, if and when its necessary.  There are some Muslims who do speak out against the extremists who use their religion as a shield for their acts - I admire them.  There are many who don't.  They should.  There are Jews who call out the ultra-orthodox when they act in the name of Judaism and do something evil.  Presumably, there are Buddhists who do awful things in the name of Buddha, though I don't know any offhand.  If there are, shouldn't those who practice Buddhism make the distinction plain?  If a Tibetan Buddhist is killing in the name of Buddha, and the Dalai Lama wasn't pointing out "This isn't Buddhism, this is not right, he is no Buddhist", I damn well would speak that way about the Dalai Lama.

                Let me put it this way - ever had someone from overseas get pissed off at you just because you were an American?  What was the first thing you did?  You pointed out "Hey, I'm different from them.  I don't believe what they believe."

                All I'm asking is that people do that.  Publicly, vocally, visibly.

                by sub version on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 03:22:21 PM PDT

          •  give me a break

            yeah, the media gives a negative slant on christians. right.

            by heterodoxy on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:09:17 AM PDT

            •  Was that

              supposed to make sense?

              by cdreid on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:14:15 PM PDT

        •  As a Jew, I'd like to disagree...

          Unless you'd like to claim Ariel Sharon, Bibi Netanyahu, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. as true Jews.  Christianity has produced many great people and many awful people.  It is my personal belief that certain people just will end up one way or another, and since Christianity has far more people, it will end up with far more on the good and bad side of the spectrum.  Same with Islam.  When a mainstream Muslim cleric says something about how small a fraction of Islam supports bin Ladenism, I think of the fact that 1% of 1.2 billion people is 12 million people, which would be more radical Muslims than every Jew in the world.  And I'm thinking the percentage is a lot higher.  Jews don't have the same kind of result because there's just so few of us left.

          by teenagedallasdeaniac on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:19:30 AM PDT

          •  Did you even read what I posted?

            As I said - I do my part when it comes to calling out the ultra-orthodox crazies as being anything buy Jewish.  I expect the moderates of other religions to do the same.

            All I ask is that, when someone says "X religion says X awful thing", the members of the religion who are, in fact, decent people and don't support X awful thing, make damn sure that their disagreement is public and visible.

            by sub version on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 02:56:23 PM PDT

        •  That's unfair.

          You believe in democracy--and so do rethugs. You believe in the Constitution--and so do rethugs.

          So you obviously believe corporate-coddled, country-invading talibaptist rule is constitutionally supported, because that's what democracy is about, and that's what the Constitution supports.  Right?

          No?  But you support the same Constitution and form of government (democracy) don't you?

          by AuntiePeachy on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:13:02 AM PDT

          •  Hah, hah. Funny.

            I believe that most Republicans believe in democracy, the constitution, civil rights and free speech.  I also believe that they don't do anything to divorce themselves from the portion of their party that doesn't.

            I believe that most Democrats believe in tolerance for views they dislike, intelligent economic and foreign policy, and good family values.  I also believe that they don't do anything to divorce themselves from the portion of their party that doesn't.

            I believe that all politicians are liars and thieves who will, given half a chance, bend their constituents over backwards for a two penny campaign donation.  I also believe that people who use terminology like "rethuglicans" deserve it.

            Guess what?  Corporation-coddling, country-invading rule, as you put it, is constitutionally supported (talibaptist may violate the Constitution, though).  I think it's a despicable way to run the country, but there's nothing illegal about it, and democracy doesn't say I get to have it my way all the time.

            But when a Democrat says "Let's kill the brown people", I'm happy to be the first one to say "Kick the bastard out".  I simply ask that others do the same - don't expect people to be intelligent about distinguishing between the mainstream and the extreme of a group, especially one they're unfamiliar with.  Make it easy for them to draw the distinctions.

            by sub version on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 03:02:42 PM PDT

      •  weren't the inquisition priests 'real' xtians?

        I find such statements as yours absurd and self-serving.  "Practicing the faith" has historically involved great amounts of hatred and cruelty.

        by jqb on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:25:19 AM PDT

        •  Not to mention the crusaders!

          I'm really sorry about this, but it pains me that even Christians of good will don't realize how threatening and repulsive this stuff is to non-Christians, and how pervasive it's becoming, a little more "acceptable" all the time.

          The higher comfort level with the blurring of separation of church & state, and with the de facto "Christianness" of the US, is very frightening to those of us of other (or no) faiths. Already my tax dollars are being used to fund "faith-based" organizations - ALL of which just happen to be Christian. Picture yourself as a citizen of a non-Christian country where the same was being done to you.

          by sidnora on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:06:38 AM PDT

          •  Separation

            of business and Christianity.  Just in the last 5 days I have heard of 2 savings and loan businesses whose owners considered these businesses their "church."  

            One of them was destroyed by a gas leak and 3 women employees were killed.  the owner said that he prayed with all his employess all through each work day and prayed with each customer seeking a loan.  He considered it his duty as a Christian to lead all souls to [his, I assume] belief.  

            then just days later I saw a savings and loan named "Thrift Savings for Christians."  I guess he doesn't want any heathens' money.  And that is in the Midwest.

            by GrandmaJ on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:57:55 AM PDT

            •  That's fine.

              He won't be getting any of mine. Now how do I get back those Christianized taxes?

              by sidnora on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:34:26 AM PDT

        •  So

          you are saying the Jews have no blood on their hands?  None?  Always the victim, never the persecutor?

          by BigOkie on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:31:30 AM PDT

      •  Yeah right.

        real Christians don't go in for hate like this. I'm talking about those that actually practice the faith, instead of giving it lip service.

        Get your own religion straight before claiming that you're practicing the "true" version of it.

        "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." -attributed to  a supposedly existant individual supposedly named "Jesus", in Matthew 10:34

        And just open the Old Testament to a random page for several examples of your (supposed) god being hateful, spiteful, cruel, malicious, petty, and any other evil-related word that you can think of.

        by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:11:34 AM PDT

        •  Look again...

          "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

          Jesus' message was NOT that his purpose was to create war instead of peace.  It was his (correct) prediction that his teachings would divide humanity, and these divisons would lead to conflicts, whether it be Christians vs. non-Christians, Catholics vs. Orthodox vs. Protestants, Gnostics vs. Literalists, etc.  He preached love, tolerance, and fellowship, but he knew very few would truly listen.

          by TheCrimsonKid on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 02:33:51 PM PDT

    •  A hateful Christian . . .

      
        . . . is a contradiction in terms, and oxymoron.  Really.

        That's why the U.S., with a population of 280 million, counts (my guess) about 100+/- Christians in said population.

        Don't confuse the Faith, with the imbeciles who (1) don't understand the faith, (2) use the faith for their own narrow ends, or (3) don't give a damn about the faith, but go through the motions of appearing to be among the faithful because it's expected of them.

        Of course, Bush "hit the trifecta" on these three.

        BenGoshi
      ________________

      by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:22:18 AM PDT

      •  You know...

        saying a hateful Christian is a contradiction is a lot like my old college friend the marxist, who claimed that communism was the most perfect form of government.

        Point out China, Russia, or any other country that had tried communism and ended up with a brutal dictatorship in economic ruin, and he'd just say that those countries hadn't had REAL communism.

        Just so, most--perhaps all--Christian groups throughout history have violently opposed every scientific, moral and cultural advance in civilization since the Dark Ages, and have destroyed it whenever they had the power.  Yet it must be that those were not "real" Christians.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

        •  Uh, well . . .

          
           . . . my reading of the Bible (have you read The Beatitudes, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, or Matthew 25:31-46 lately?  Ever?) tells me that that faith espoused by Jesus (which is what I call Christianity) is not that which neither Europe's Crusaders, Spain's Inquisitors, nor America's Pharisees practice.

            Whether it's 1% or 99% of those who are perverting the teachings and admonishments of Jesus, that does not make Jesus' faith a bad thing.  Jesus (as virtually all great persons, prophets, theologians) taught that we should fight against our natural inclinations to hate; to be greedy; to not give a damn about those in different or "lower" classes from ourselves or our "tribe;" etc.  Hmmm, in other words, Jihad against our worst internal passions.  Very, very few who call themselves Christians actually attempt to lead such a life with any kind of regularity.  I stand behind what I wrote above.  If you choose to give that short shrift, that is, of course, your own business.

           BenGoshi
          ________________
          

          by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:19:10 AM PDT

          •  Oh sure, the Beatitudes

            Those have been reduced by the Christians to merely historical interest, and anyone who cites them proves himself thereby to be a hopeless romantic and probably an apostate.  Forgive your enemies? Yeah, right! There's no chance of a modern Christian doing THAT! If Jesus were to return today, Christians would be the first to nail Him right back on the cross.

            In the same vein, the actual works of Marx prove that communism is not only the best form of Government, but inevitable.  It's simply those mortals who have tried to apply marxism who have utterly, utterly failed.

            by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:16:32 PM PDT

            •  Well, then, I'm guilty.

              
               I'm one of those Christians who does, in fact, believe that The Beatitudes and the parable of The Good Samaritan (and Matthew Chapter 6, in passim) form the heart of Christianity, or, at the very least, how Christians should behave.  

               I simply reject that those who call themselves "Christian," but who hold The Beatitudes, etc. in disdain or consider them with contempt are   in   fact   not   Christian.  I can call myself a penguine, or a sofa, or a follower of the Great Magical Dragon Named Steve, but if I lack -- or reject -- the fundamental characteristics of said entities, then I am not that which I call myself.  If I'm a nudist who wears clothes, a fisherman who lives in the desert and never fishes or a world class sprinter but can't run the 40 in under 5.0 seconds, then what am I, other than an idiot who doesn't understand the fundamentals of that which I espouse to be?    

               BenGoshi
              ________________

               

              by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 02:45:52 PM PDT

              •  Whatever you call yourself

                You're clearly on the side of the good guys.  

                There's a nice parable in Matthew about a father who asked his two kids to do some yardwork. One kid promised to work, but didn't. The other said no, but went and did the work later anyway. And of course it was the second kid who "got saved".

                Just so, it seems to me better to call myself just me and live by the moral principles of the Gospels than to call oneself a "Christian" and live like a Republican.

                by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:34:23 PM PDT

                •  thanks.

                  
                   very well put.  agreed.

                   Happy New Year.

                   BenGoshi
                  ________________
                  

                  by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 07:31:28 AM PDT

      •  Yeah right.

        A hateful Christian is a contradiction in terms, and oxymoron.

        "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - attributed to a supposedly existant person supposedly named "Jesus", Luke 14:26

        by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:14:53 AM PDT

        •  Typical

          
           That verse is often cited, with a dark chuckle, by anti-Christians as "proof" that it's a "hateful" religion.  Of course, the words were written by Luke, anywhere from 60-75 years after the crucifixion.  And, of course, they obviously appear to contradict the overarching teachings of Jesus:  love and acceptance of others.  And, of course, that anomolous verse is trotted out without the "trotter" ever explaining how they think it might or might not square with, as I mentioned, The Beatitudes, the Good Samaritan parable or Matthew 25:31-46, for example.  And, of course, that Jesus taught over and over again that, above all else, love for God and each-other (even our enemies) should be the overriding maxim which softens our hearts and guides our actions, is of no importance to those who look hard for something to tear down the foundations of the the religion as a whole.

           That a book (the New Testament) -- which is actually a compendium of 27testimonials, letters, and all manner of 1st and 2nd Century religious teachings -- would not contain contradictions would be rather fantastic.  The Bible contains many contradictions.  I have no problem with that.  

           It is, to me, somewhat interesting -- and darkly amusing -- that the Fundagellicals and persons like yourself both seem fascinated with cherry-picking certain verses to prove the "literal" truth of the Faith, while persons like me -- equally vilified by the U.S. Pharisees and dismissed by persons like yourself -- find a sublime beauty, and extremely difficult challenge imbedded, in the broader brush-strokes of peace and love that over and over again defy such cynical games to diminish the greatest principles taught and advocated by Jesus.  Interesting.    

           BenGoshi
          _________________      

          by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:50:25 AM PDT

          •  Good for you

            You have a way to rationalize away the existance of hate in your religion.

            Your god is hateful.  Open the Old Testament to any random page for proof.

            by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:40:45 PM PDT

            •  A Great Martini

              
               Kalamata Olive Juice

               Fresh Lime

               Dry (chilled sake)

               Dry vermouth

               Citron Vodka

               Put lots of olive juice and fresh-squeezed lime in bottom of frosty martini glass -- I keep mine in the freezer.

               1 part each of sake, vermouth and vodka.  Stir.  Enjoy.

               BenGoshi
              ________________
               

              by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 01:39:17 PM PDT

              •  Ohhh

                I need to start saving these recipes.

                That one looks particularly good.

                by Plutonium Page on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 02:41:13 PM PDT

                •  And timely! n/t

                  by ksh01 on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 02:48:20 PM PDT

                •  Note:

                  
                    The vermouth should be kept in the fridge, and the vodka in the freezer.  Pour them, and the sake, directly in the chilled martini glass -- DON'T put 'em in one of those pretty shakers with ice, it'll just water down the flavor.  Enjoy!

                   BenGoshi
                  ______________

                  by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 02:54:50 PM PDT

              •  Okay

                Rate me "Super Troll".  Fine.

                Post a recipe.  Fine.

                Neither changes the fact that the Bible is chock-full of hatred.

                You rating me "Super Troll", when what I am saying is easily demonstrable fact, just shows me that you're not willing to deal with unpleasant truths.

                by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:11:46 PM PDT

                •  Just spewing hate and venom...

                   
                    . . . for the shear "wow" of it is more appropriate for the Free Republic site than here.  "Troll" and "Super Troll" ratings are not reserved for those who disagree with me (I've 4-rated comments and opinions that have been inopposite to mine), but, rather, for those comments which, in and of themselves, are mere bile-spewings and little to nothing more.

                   BenGoshi
                  _______________

                  by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 07:52:53 AM PDT

            •  Partly true

              It is hard for me to find any religion that doesn't at times degenerate into hatred. Even Buddhism has had its share of religious-inspired hatred and genocide, though they seem to do somewhat better than most. Islam and Christianity as organized religions each have jihad/crusade. Judaism has done its share of genocide. All of these have some version of thou shalt not kill/ahimsa as a doctrine, yet then they choose to define those that aren't "of  the faith" or who believe in "heresies" as not really human so they can be killed. Even Hinduism and Buddhism, in some places, have "scripture" that justifies killing of those who really aren't human because they don't believe.

              THen again, I have known many people in whom religion is part of their kindness and generosity. Religion CAN be a force of good within people, but way too often throughout history it has been yet another way (along with ethnicity and nationality) to define "us" vs. "them."

              by mole333 on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:35:27 PM PDT

              •  You pretty much nailed it.

                
                 I think over the past dozen or so (sociologists and psychologists out there correct me, please) the term of art has been "the Other," which, in cults -- like "Heaven's Gate," "The Unification Church," the GOP and the "Southern Baptists" (the latter two being, of course, the most dangerous of all) -- instill in there members the sense that they are "the chosen ones," to the exclusion of all others and that the others, who have been dehumanized, are not worthy of life (this, ironically, paradoxically, often comng from strenuously "Pro-Life" stalwarts, go figure).  But, to me, groups of this sort who hold themselves out to be "Christian" are "Christian" like Herf Applewhite (Heaven's Gate, Hale-Bopp comet, remember?) was a respected astrophysicist.

                A Buddhist Story

                 About a year ago I was having dinner with several new Japanese friends and, one of them, a guy sitting next to me, mentions that he's Buddhist.  You'd kind of have to have been there, and have interacted with lots of Japanese, but this was a little odd -- Japanese tend (this is a gross generalization, mind you) to be somewhat areligious (by Western standards) and (to their credit) simply don't wear there religion (when they have it) on their sleaves.

                 So, we start talking about Buddhism, in real general terms, and Buddhism in the Deep South, where I live.  I happen to mention the very warm receptions that have been given to delegations of Tibetan monks (envoys of the Dalai Lama) and how pleased we've been to have them (not the Big Monk himself, yet...) visit our humble city and state and...WHAM! my new friend starts going off on how the Dalai Lama is not a real Buddhist and how he's a mass murderer and on and on and on...  In about 25 years of interacting with Japanese, I've never seen such wigginess on a religious issue.  I thought this guy was going to really blow a gasket.  And this was at dinner in a nice restaurant.  I quickly changed the subject.

                 This is the only example of an real a--hole Buddhist, but I'm sure he's got many kindred spirits out there.

                 BenGoshi
                _______________  

                by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 08:14:18 AM PDT

                •  Interesting!

                  I agree with you about Japanese not wearing their religion on their sleeves and being what I would call multi-religions. There is that old saying you probably have heard that Japanese are born Shinto, marry Christian and die Buddhist. I lived a year in Kyoto and I actually spent more time going to temples and shrines than any Japanese I knew. They almost never identified themselves with a single religion unless they were Christian and even then often had no problems going to Buddhist temples or Shinto shrines when they wanted to.

                  The most interesting person I knew in Japan (he is now a professor at Rockefeller in NYC) was from a Catholic family (which is unusual in Japan). He, partly due to his scientific studies, had become atheist. And yet he knew more and was more interested in traditional Japanese Buddhism and Shinto than almost any other young Japanese person I have known. He and I (the borderline atheist Jew) spent lots of times exploring Zen temples and he and his family invited me to spend NEw Year's with them doing a nice traditional Japanese New Year (eating a special kind of noodle, ringing the temple bell at midnight and then going to a particular shrine for the first prayer of the year). I got to return the favor when he came to the states (we were both in California for a bit) and I brought him to my sister-in-la's place for Christmas. He got a traditional Mexican Christmas with midnight mass at the Santa Barbara mission.

                  I often find atheists are more curious about religion than religious people are.

                  by mole333 on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:54:09 AM PDT

                  •  Where in Kyoto? When?

                    
                     And, yes, I had heard that expression -- a great one.

                     I was at Kansai Gaidai in '84 and a year in Hyogo-ken in 90-91.  Over the passed several years have been in Kyoto frequently on business, but, of course, it's also a great pleasure.  What's your story re:  Kyoto?

                     As for your specific Kyoto story, that's great and you've had an experience so few Westerners will ever have.  Hoping you live long (mochiron) but knowing you can die happy anytime having had that experience!

                     And, you've got an interesting point about atheists being more interested in religion than religious types.  I'm the type of Christian who believes doubt is good and helpful along one's journey.  Moreover, I agree with what some Episcopalian publishing house put on a poster I saw several years ago:  "He came to take away our sins... Not our minds."

                     Akemashite Omedetoo Gozaimasu!

                     BenGoshi
                    _________________

                    P.S. -- Boku no 'Nom de Kos' ga yomemashita ka?

                       

                    by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:33:15 AM PDT

                    •  Nihon

                      I have actually been to Japan four times, but the main time was working at Kyodai as my first post-doc. First trip was to interview at a few labs--Osaka, Tokyo and Kyoto. I wasn't really expecting to take a job, just go interview and get a partly paid for trip to Japan. But then I realized I'd be stupid not to take one of the jobs. I figured that it was a perfect time and opportunity to spend a year in Japan and get paid for it and there was an excellent lab at Kyodai that was open to foreign postdocs. So I went. It was a great experience. I spent the first few months stopping in the streets at least once or twice a day and thinking, "Wow! I'm in Japan!"

                      I have been back since--once for my honeymoon and once for a conference. Spread through the various trips I have traveled a fair amount through Japan from Tokyo, Kamakura and Nikko all the way down to the southernmost island in Okinawa. Learned some of the language. Nihongo ga jozu ni narimashita ga, ato de wasurete shimaimashta. Each trip I took back I forgot more and more, particularly the kanji. I can still speak enough to please people I meet in Japan, but quickly have to switch to English.

                      I like the quote: "He came to take our sins, not our minds." One thing I have always liked about Judaism is that doubt, questioning and even arguing was encouraged. I read somewhere that Abraham rather than Noah is considered the first patriarch of Judaism even though Noah really had the first covenant from god. But Noah just did what he was told while Abraham bargained. I kind of like that.

                      by mole333 on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:28:53 PM PDT

                      •  Kyodai. Subarashii desu.

                        
                          Yeh, I've lived there twice ('84 and '90-'91) and have been back over -- on 10-day to 3-week stretches -- about 10 times over the past 4 years and I still get the "Wow.  I'm in Japan" feeling.  I can't see how I'll ever lose it.

                          When do expect to be in Kyoto next?  If anytime in the next couple of years, let me know, as I've got a few places to recommend.  If you've been there recently, please give me the "heads up" on any eaterys or bars you like to drop in to.  Oh, and I'm immune from "temple burnout."  That some (many?) tourists get "temple burnout" in ONE DAY blows my mind.  I salute them for going to Japan, but for the life of me can't understand how, with all the effort and expense to get there, would get so bored so fast being there!  Go figure.

                          Tokoro de, Nihongo ga mada joozu soo desu, yo.    

                         BenGoshi
                        _______________

                        by BenGoshi on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:40:01 AM PDT

                        •  Kyoto

                          Sadly I have no plans to return any time soon. Not enough money or time...a chronic problem. My last trip there was kind of in two parts--first the conference in Osaka where my expenses were all covered, so I had a nice hotel room, got some great meals, etc. The second part was on my own in Kyoto which was majorly budget. I stayed in what was pretty much a flophouse for about 2000 yen per night  and ate about as cheaply as I could, so not sure I can suggest anything that good. Most of the places I  liked when I lived there had died since (in the neighborhood I lived in there was a good Indian, and good African restaurant, but both are gone). My friends did take me to a good Sushi restaurant near Kyodai, but I don't remember the name. I was amazed, though, that the restaurant was MUCH better and MUCH cheaper than New York sushi places.

                          I hear tourists get a similar kind of burnout when visiting Florence, Italy. I can't imagine that either. Both Kyoto and Florence basically fascinated me. I think I would never get tired of  places like that. Ryookoo ga, totemo suki desu yo!

                          by mole333 on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 04:31:41 AM PDT

            •  4 for balance

              See, the zero ratings illustrate the difficult position you "Christians" find yourself in in US politics today.  Those critical of the unfortunately toxic tributaries to the mainstream of contemporary US "Christian" thought are immediately marginalized.  It leaves us no option but to use reductio ad absurdum to illustrate our own perspective.  The wingers are always saying you have to take a holistic approach to the bible; so the hateful bits must be acknowleged.  I resolve to fight this absurd fence protecting the rickety apparatus of religious superstition in 2005.  The very notion that Christianity is NOT TO BE CRITICIZED is ridiculous.  Our critical faculties are all we have; we can't abandon rationality; we have to live in the real world.  I find it offensive that I'm scolded to respect the things I find appalling about religionism.  I don't respect those who wield their (societally dominant) beliefs like a weapon.  Not Phelps, not Falwell, not Zarqawi or Bin Laden.  Nope.  Got any good recipes for me, BenGoshi?

              by peterborocanuck on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 08:10:39 AM PDT

              •  You conflate things.

                
                 First, a 4 for you.  You actually posted thoughts and opinions and insights.  The Super Troll "0" is for spewing venom for venom's sake, a la Freeperville.  I think you, along with your kindred spirits in this thread, are very confused, but -- in your case -- not necessarily in bad faith.

                 Second, picking up on the previous sentence, please, I beg of you, tell me where I ever wrote or espoused that "Christianity should not be criticized"?  What you write conflates my position that the American Taliban, Fundagellicals, etc. are about as "Christian" as this computer I'm typing on is a potted plant.  You will find no one more critical of the Falwells, Robertsons, Moores, Dobsons and Reeds of this country than me -- however, I do not conflate their ego- and delusion-driven power games with the words and life and teachings of Jesus, no matter how much they try to lash their hate-mongering to Jesus, and no matter how much you and your ilk happily go along with such travesties.  You all have a lot in common, actually.

                  Oh, and I invite you to read my dialogues with "mole333" and "AdmiralNaismith" above, for examples of where people who don't exactly see eye to eye with one another can actually -- if they seek to dialogue in good faith -- find common ground, to both sides' benefits.

                 BenGoshi
                _______________

                 BenGoshi
                ________________

                by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:49:56 AM PDT

                •  thanx for the 4

                  Ben, you seem as thoughtful a Christian  as one could hope for; if it appears I'm conflating dissimilar points, I've not been clear.  My comment regarding the appropriateness of criticizing Christianity is not so much directed at you as at the current zeitgeist in the US.
                     If the bible consisted entirely of the aphorisms, parables and sayings of Jesus, I would better understand  your view. However, the bible contains much much more.  
                     Even the new testament, to many progressives the "good" part of the bible, is problematic.  Saint Paul is a major contributor, and he clearly had issues. The book of revelation is a metaphorical thicket that is clearly beyond the ability of your average bible studier to contemplate, let alone understand.  Since it carries the eschatological torch for ancient judaic tradition, it too should be viewed with suspicion in the modern world.  Why are so many of our brethren so ready to abandon what is real for the thin promise of armageddon?  Is it good that it is so?
                     My criticism of what I call "religious superstition" should not be read as a criticism of faith in general.  Let me try to illustrate this.
                  I believe that it is not a good thing to step on spiders as a matter of course in my day to day life.  It is manifestly true for all sorts of reasons, from the ethical to the ecological.      It is NOT TRUE that stepping on an arachnid will cause it to rain.  That is NOT the reason one should not step on them.    
                     Similarly, I believe Jesus and take him at his word to be faithful to his teachings.  I know there are many good reasons to be kind and charitable and ethical, reasons that actually carry weight here on this planet.  I an not capable of enumerating the many justifications for this, they are too myriad for my limited brain.  It is NOT to earn myself a good eternity in heaven, however.  
                     I'm more than ready to discuss religious ethics, but I believe we have been given the gift of abstract reasoning and we dishonour ourselves by neglecting to do our own ethical heavy lifting every moment of each and every day, in favour of one size fits all off the rack received wisdom.  I believe it is wrong to neglect trying to increase the general welfare of humanity because we have our eye on a metaphysical otherworld of the eternally satisfied self.  I believe that asking people to "have faith" that what what appears wrong (like persecuting this or that group for their own good, or flying planes into buildings)is actually right in God's eyes is a political tool wielded by agenda driven and highly fallible people.  It is my opinion that rejecting the ridiculous is not offensive to God, but that propagating evil in God's name is offensive to me, at least, and should be to any God worth the title.  Sorry for the long winded rant, but believe me, I've got plenty to say around this, and it can't be said if I must at all costs avoid injuring the tender sensibilities of the willfully ignorant.  
                     

                  by peterborocanuck on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:37:43 AM PDT

                  •  I found absolutely nothing you wrote...

                    
                     ... to disagree with.  

                     In fact, this paragraph of yours:

                     Similarly, I believe Jesus and take him at his word to be faithful to his teachings.  I know there are many good reasons to be kind and charitable and ethical, reasons that actually carry weight here on this planet.  I am not capable of enumerating the many justifications for this, they are too myriad for my limited brain.  It is NOT to earn myself a good eternity in heaven, however.  
                    

                     . . . to be pure gold.

                      Were you to have heard me over the past 25 or so years talking this kind of talk with friends and relatives, you would have heard me say (as a Christian) say almost the exact, word-for-word thing that you do in your last sentence (quoted above).  

                      Jesus taught against greed.  I think it's about the ultimate demonstration of greed (or, at least, snivellingliness, if that's a word), to do something right, and good, and kind for the mere sake of getting something in return, say, a "ticket to heaven."  While Jesus certainly spoke of eternal life and used heaven and hell metaphors, I simply cannot square His admonishments to "do the right thing" with doing the right thing for mere selfish, self-centered purposes.  Thus, I reject the notion that we should "do the right thing" so we can someday "walk on streets of gold."  To me that debases and perverts what Jesus was all about.  I suppose you can see the Eastern (i.e., Taoist, Buddhist) influence in and on my faith.  

                     This confluence of ideas and faiths should, in my opinion, not be seen as strange or contradictory.  On the contrary, Jesus' and Buddha's avocating people live in harmony with one another are much more compatable than the Right Wing Nut Job notion that one should behave like an asshole, for Jesus.  Huh?

                     BenGoshi
                    _________________

                    P.S. -- See how easy common ground can be reached when people of good faith make a little effort to search for it?

                    by BenGoshi on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:23:50 AM PDT

      •  Christianity is a religion, hate is an emotion

        There is no contradiction, unless one absurdly redefines "Christian" as "a Christian who doesn't hate", reducing the count to 100+/-, and sensible communication impossible, since that simply isn't what people mean when they use the word.  But hey, religion is inherently irrational, so I suppose I should expect it.

        by jqb on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:55:08 AM PDT

        •  You know what I mean.

          
           You know (or ought to know) what I mean.

           Point 1.  

          Those who make Christianity into a hate-based religion are not behaving in even a remotely Christian way.

           Point 2.

          While your point is well taken (as in I am Christian and I'm very well capable of falling well short of how a Christian should behave), my "100+-" line was, if you didn't get it, meant as an illustrative exageration.  There are, indeed, very few Christians or Buddhists who've made it to the top of Maslow's Hierarchy in either the secular or spiritual sense.  But the main point was that the American Taliban (a.k.a. Radical Clerics, a.k.a. Phariseeic Americans) seem utterly bent on /purposefully going down the road of hate, greed or apathy to the difficulties of the oppressed or less fortuneate.  Oft times the Fundagellicals are the oppressors, or would certianly like to be.  That is simply not a Christian notion.

           BenGoshi
          ________________

          by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:04:11 PM PDT

          •  Sorry. Screwed up italics. ( n/t )

            by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:05:09 PM PDT

      •  Semantic Confusion

        BenGoshi, you're confusing the ideal of Jesus with the reality of 2000 years of his followers.  Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a philosopher/prophet/son of God, depending on your perspective.

        Christians, on the other hand, are a large collection of distinctively mortal individuals who have shown, in a long history, a startling propensity to hate, greed, hypocrisy, violency, and all manner of evil.

        Stating that "a hateful Christian" is an oxymoron is simply not consistent with being a member of the reality-based community.

        by Dallasdoc on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:13:36 PM PDT

      •  If that were true

        history would be very different.

        Christians can be just as big assholes as the rest of us. My ancestors were victims of Christian "love" and SOME advocates of genocide have been canonized.

        Not that I am saying Christians are MORE hateful than others, just that their history is certainly no LESS bloody and hateful than anyone elses.

        by mole333 on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:26:36 PM PDT

        •  True.....

          But there are also times when Christianity has brought out the best in others (i.e., when we're at our most liberal).

          Movements like the Trade Unionists, the women's sufferage movement, the civil rights movement, the Vietnam anti-war movement, and the destruction of the military industrial complex were all movements where Christians, at the very least, played a leadership role.

          Almost all major religions have the ability to bring out the best in people-and the worst.  The irony is that Christianity (and most religions) become corrupt when the leaders are given overwhelmingly political power.

          Ben will probably back me up on this, but the only way to destroy the Christian right is to expose them for their unchristian acts.  The Christian right has never openly condemned the acts of any Republican (that I know of).  They continue to allow the poor to get poorer while the rich get tax breaks.  They continue to oppress gays and will continue to do so until there is either a mass deportation of gays, or a new holocaust.  They condone the destruction of the envioronment, allowing cancerous poisons to be breathed by the world (so much for pro-life)!  There has been no condemnation of the torture of Enemy Prisoners of War or Detainees being held in different parts of the world.  These are all ideas that are hypocritical to the Christian faith.

          With the constant Christian brow-beating that seemingly only comes from the left, Christians will continue leaning to the right because the right wing is (in their eyes) the only spectrum that is accepting them.

          This needs to change.  Now.

          by djtyg on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 05:27:59 PM PDT

  •  perhaps

    it would be more interesting if Mr. Phelps were caught with another man.

    by primate on the left on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:34:41 AM PDT

    •  Terrible thought

      Phelp's church is comprised almost entirely of members of his own family.  The tight knit group has always left me with a nagging feeling that praying and protesting were not the only things they did together.

      by nephthys on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:32:22 AM PDT

      •  These people are nuts

        and I had the awful misfortune of having to walk past them on my way into Mass a few weeks ago.

        They were in my city protesting against a local high school doing a production of the Laramie Project.

        They decided also to go after Catholic churches.  I certainly didn't stop to look, but the signs I saw on my way into Mass said, to the best of my recollection -

        • the ubiquitous 'God Hates f--s'
          
        • also, 'God Hates America'
          
        • something about 'Gay Priests' (even though 99% of priests don't abuse children and pedophilia isn't about gay-or-straight)
          
        • something really vile about '.....the Catholic Church'

        They were, of course, chanting.  There were, of course, very few of these nuts out there.  And, of course, the police and the local media including TV were there.  (If a handful of nuts show up on a sidewalk, exactly how come is that newsworthy?)

        They made the mistake of dragging the American flag on the pavement or sidewalk which enraged some of the veterans in the parish.

        Mass went ahead as scheduled, although I wondered if the nuts were going to disrupt the Mass.

        Some of the parishioners were really upset and I told them, these people just want attention, they do outrageous and offensive things, and they are certainly NOT Christian.
        

        by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:14:01 AM PDT

        •  Yeah right.

          they are certainly NOT Christian.

          They certainly are Christian.  

          They're also assholes.  Extreme assholes.  But that doesn't make them non-Christian.

          by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:17:29 AM PDT

          •  Orville,

            Hate works both ways. And it's never pretty. I've listened to your rants here about religion, and in my opinion, the moment Phelps and his ignoramuses start talking about how much God hates anybody or anything, they are self-excluding from Christianity. The Christian God may hate "sin", but he loves sinners. (Jesus himself was quoted as saying very little about sexual sins- most of what we have on it is from the last Gospel of John, Paul, and the Old Testament. That last Gospel, incidentally, was also the last written, probably for Roman ears, and may in fact have no direct quotes within it.)

            Phelps' Hezbollah may call themselves Christians, but that alone doesn't make them so. I can call myself a Green Bay Packer, but unless I've gone through the colleges and training camps- unless I truly understand it- I am not one. Fred Phelps does not understand Jesus- because he has refused to live his life like him.

            I, for one, would not deny that much hate has come from Christianity. To people of other faiths, to people of no faith, even to other Christians. I'm hardly the expert on Biblical prophecy, verses, or interpretation- but at least I admit it. I see a zillion so-called "experts"- Christians and atheists alike- claim that literal interpretation of the Bible is the true way it should be followed. The truth is somewhat more complex.

            I'd like to point out that some of my friends are homosexual and Christian, and see no problem at all with it. There's more contradiction in other Christians than within them. Their minister, a very liberal person, is just appalled every time she reads about Phelps and his ilk. She once told me, "I wish they could just see the real Jesus behind the verses they quote."

            Using Bible verses literally is like using random sentences in any old history text or biography randomly to prove a point. Without understanding context ...without knowing the times in which the writers lived... the Bible is a useless book. Contradictions abound, because the Bible was written by more than one person, each with their own bias and prejudices. It was written in a series of violent times, with lots of invading and occupying powers duking it out for control of Israel/ Palestine/ Judea/ etc. Judeans of the age (a far more diverse lot than most of us give them credit for) understood the language of violence pretty well.

            Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. If the "sword verse" were the way J.C. really operated, he would have gone down fighting, instead of allowing himself to be arrested, abused, flogged and crucified. But did he "bring a sword?". Nope. So, too, his disciples, who largely died emulating their rabbi- their master and teacher. Then perhaps the sword was a lie? No, it was a symbolic one- the sword within, the spiritual one, cutting through enemy lies to the hidden truths. As he often did, Jesus was speaking in a parable, something which even crossed up his own disciples from time to time. Christians who use that quote probably are also loath to use other, less aggressive ones.
            It is as complex- and contentuous- an issue as the Jihad is to Muslims.

            But I probably am falling on deaf ears. You've probably made up your mind on Christians long ago, and found us all wanting. Our ministers are inevitably corrupt, our priests pedophiles, our followers all ignorant sheep or violent, phobic hicks. I will not deny that those people exist. Doing so would deny the truth. They are not, however, representative of the Christian religions (and yes, there's more than one) as a whole.

            But I guess you don't know how alienating bashing all of a religion, large or small, is to its adherents. I can only repeat the old saw, "You attract more bees with honey than you do with vinegar."

            by Black Brant on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 10:50:35 AM PDT

            •  Alienating, catching bees

              But I guess you don't know how alienating bashing all of a religion, large or small, is to its adherents. I can only repeat the old saw, "You attract more bees with honey than you do with vinegar."

              I'm not interested in "catching bees", and I don't care if Christians feel "alienated" when I speak the truth about their religion.

              Yes, there are lots of nice, friendly concepts in Christianity.  That doesn't mean that everything in there is nice - which is what many, many Christians like to pretend.

              Or, actually, that's giving a lot of them the benefit of the doubt.  A lot of supposed "Christians" barely know anything about their religion.

              by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:43:46 PM PDT

              •  Christianity

                is about Christ.

                Christ said, 'I give you a new commandment:  Love one another. As I have loved you, you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples [eg., followers], if you have love for one another.' [from John 13]

                That's all anyone needs to know to understand that the Phelps hatemonger crew is not Christian.

                by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 01:24:20 PM PDT

                •  Christ also said

                  That you can't be his disciple if you don't hate.  If you don't hate your mother.  If you don't hate your father.  If you don't hate your sisters, your brother, your wife, yourself.

                  You can pick and choose one particular thing that Christ (supposedly) said, ignore everything else that he (supposedly) said, and say "That's all anyone needs to know".  But that doesn't make it so.

                  by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:10:50 PM PDT

                  •  if you see the buddha on the road...

                    many zen masters teach the saying if you see the buddha on the road, kill him.  

                    this very clearly means one of two things, that if i want to be a buddhist, i must either:

                    • hate siddhartha gautama and his teachings; or
                      
                    • kill some jolly fat man in order to be initiated

                    since you're so knowledgeable about all religions, perhaps you can tell me which one it is.

                    by zeke L on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:00:12 PM PDT

                    •  Not entirely sure

                      I'm not entirely sure what gave you the impression that I'm here to rationalize away idiotic sayings of various religions for you.

                      Or how the existance of that Buddhist saying in any way invalidates the fact that Christ (supposedly) said that you have to hate your mother in order to be his disciple.

                      by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:08:20 PM PDT

                      •  idiotic sayings of various religions?

                        I'm a buddhist. The fact that you don't understand the saying does not make it "idiotic".

                        If you're interested in what it means, read the book. If not, please refrain from calling something you don't understand "idiotic".

                        by catnip on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 01:46:46 PM PDT

                •  Isn't it obvious?

                  This clearly says that Christians are to love other Christians, not that they are to love everybody.

                  by SqueakyRat on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:41:51 PM PDT

                  •  What I saw

                    I saw. Those people don't love anyone. They appear to even hate themselves. They hate America. They hate the Church. They hate everyone.

                    Their trees bear bitter fruit and I do not believe it is of God.

                    by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:26:01 PM PDT

                    •  "They appear to even hate themselves"

                      How so?

                      by Orville Redenbacher on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:08:51 PM PDT

  •  Phelps the nutjob

    Actually, Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.  He's even run in the Democratic primaries during the Kansas governer's race.  As expected, he could have doubled his vote total and still not gotten out of the single digits.

    Still, he's another example of the less than moral side of Kansas' advertised moral rectitude.

    Along with the woman from Melvern, KS, who murdered a pregnant woman in Kansas City, cut her open, and stole the baby from her womb.

    Along with the Newton, KS couple under arrest for enslaving mentally-handicapped adults and forcing them to work outside in the nude.

    Along with the BTK serial killer, who tortured and murdered entire families, and still taunts the police and public with occasional letters to the media.

    Blah, blah, blah, it just goes on and on.
    

    by KS McCann on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:18:44 AM PDT

    •  Too much caffeine in the Kansas --

      
        -- water supply?  

       BenGoshi
      _________________

      by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:25:00 AM PDT

    •  what IS the matter w/ kansas?

      by jokeysmurf on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:00:38 AM PDT

      •  More to the point

        Where is Dorothy's house when it is truly needed?

        by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:50:19 AM PDT

  •  Maybe they would or wouldn't...

    
    ...this asshole had Phelps on his show - but in his defense Phelps hung up on him within two minutes because he was using the Bible against Phelps...I still don't like him but he sure didn't embrace Phelps at all.

    by ContrarianAlexis on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:43:42 AM PDT

  •  Here's another approach

    There's a lot of noise (sorry) here about whether or not this imaginary beast called a "true" Christian could be hateful &c.  The argument could (and has) gone round and round with various anecdotes thrown out -- Francis of Assisi vs. the Spanish Inquisition, and so on, and so on.

    Why not not start with the religion?  The fact is, people like Phelps are into power and into feelings of victimhood.  The religion thing gives them a convenient angle, but Phelps is using Christianity in the same way, say, that we use language to express ourselves.  Now, I know that language doesn't have a core set of beliefs that we can be "true" to, but I'm not sure Christianity does, either, unless it's belief in the divinity of Christ.  Other than that, people seem to have been able to do a lot with the faith, so rather than inquiring into whether they're being faithful, inquire into their motives.  Inquire into their faith only as an argumentative move to fuck with them . . .

    by Karl the Idiot on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:33:01 AM PDT

•  yeah

  this "man" and his followers are so evil it defies any description.

  by southernblues on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:19:42 AM PDT

  •  Soon,

    as nature demands, he will have to die, and his followers will disperse.

    by DCDemocrat on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:07:27 AM PDT

•  Aren't We in Kansas Now, Toto?

  I noticed that this Church is located in Topeka, Kansas.

  As a title of a recent book by Thomas Frank appropriately wondered, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

  Indeed.

  by JekyllnHyde on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:20:14 AM PDT

  •  On Thomas Frank

    Frank mentions Fred Phelps briefly in his book.  Noting that not even the most loony whack-jobs in the Christianazi wing of the Republican party can stand what he's doing.

    At least Fred Phelps is good for one thing:  giving psychotic religious bigots a bad name.

    by Dallasdoc on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:26:09 AM PDT

    •  Yes - Phelps a scary but useful idiot

      His hatemongering is so extreme and so weird that it makes even the saner fundy sympathizers uncomfortable. His proposed Monument to Hate (not its exact name) helped the city council decide to put the cabosh on a Ten Commandments installation on public property in Caspar WY.

      His hatemongering has also sparked brilliant satire such as the God Hates Shrimp website. 'Cause shellfish is an "abomination" per the Bible - really. Yo fundies, let people love who they love - it's eatin' shellfish that's eeevvvillll.

      by Em on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:46:26 AM PDT

    •  The closer you get to Phelps

      the worse he looks.  Yes, Kansas is now Republican, and has more than its share of nutty right-wingers as well as more than its share of extreme sects self-described as Christian.  At the same time, I have yet to meet a person in Topeka, or anywhere else in Kansas, who does not loathe Phelps and his ilk.  

      I believe that seeing his revolting displays on a regular basis, whether outside of a church, cultural event, or store, does have the effect of making some people re-examine their own latent bigotry.  It has had that effect in some of my own family, at least, and in general my extended kin are as hard-core Republican and Christian as can be.  

      Phelps is a hideous mirror.  When he tries to buy space on a memorial bench in a local park to villify the victim of a hate crime, the city does have to publicly grapple with the question of why they turn him down even though there are plenty of homophobes in Topeka. When you have to explain to your seven-year old what "God hates f*gs" means--because he saw the sign in big letters as you were driving him to school--you may just have to confront some of your own bigotry.  Maybe not, of course, but my sense is that that does happen because his ugly display yanks the covers off of things thought perfectly acceptable if spoken in prettier words.  

      He still turns my stomach, but I will take him and his relatively few insane followers any day over a smooth-talking preacher using comforting euphemisms about not hating while spurring parishioners on to the same hatred.  At least with Phelps, people know what they're accepting; it's not hate in a pretty package.
      

      by rocketito on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:25:11 PM PDT

•  Already A diary on this

  Man, Kos, Check before you post! Theres already one on this. Gotta keep up.

  Thank God for acts of God

  by Disgusted on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:20:24 AM PDT

•  And I have no doubt....

  ...that every vicious, homophobic bigot that attends that "church" proudly voted for Bush because he's "such a Godly man".  As is often the case these days, my eyes are rolling.

  by BarbinMD on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:26:17 AM PDT

  •  Actually I doubt it...

    Phelps is more of a Constitution party freak... though many are still GOP. Lon Mabon for example left for the Constitution Party, but and most of the other freaks in the GOP are drifting towards the Constitution party, but far too many of them are still in the GOP.

    And don't forget that the GOP uses this kind of fucked up shit (in milder form) to drive dumb-fuck bigots to the polls to vote for "god" in the White House because these anti-gay, anti-Christian faux religious scum prey on the fears of the stupid (both GOP and Democrat, though mainly the former) to drum up the hysteria.

    Fags are the latest rev. "Commie" to rail against.

    And Kerry and Edwards parrot the same anti-gay framing with the "one man one woman" shit.

    Fuck, Edwards used that exact phrase in the VP debates. Thanks a lot Edwards you fucking loser. That really helped us in fighting against Measure 36 here in Oregon you fuck-wad.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:45:57 AM PDT

    •  Let's circulate a new petition

      for a ballot measure that would legally define adultery, spousal abuse and divorce astaking place only between one man and one woman.

      by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:40:03 AM PDT

  •  Bush the "fag pimp"

    Unfortunately no.  In fact, Phelps describes George W. Bush as a "fag pimp" and his cultists have even picketed Bush's ranch in Crawford.  I forget exactly why.  There is simply not a single person in politics hateful enough to satisfy Phelps.

    http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/photoarchive.html and search for "Bush" for the sign.

    Too bad, because it would really be nice for Phelps to come out loudly in support of Bush.

    by muldrake on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:31:29 AM PDT

•  Kos, I seriously have to say

  Pick your enemies!  You're losing the forest for the trees.  This kind of absurd hate literature has been around for all of our history, it's not an advent to some new movement, it's just one stupid person's alarmingly stupid opinion - granted - but airing it only lends it credence.

  by k2winters on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:27:08 AM PDT

  •  disagree

    wackos like this prove a solid basis for why the whole idea of religion in politics is NASTY NASTY NASTY

    by TheNewsAct on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:45:23 AM PDT

  •  Yeah and the Dominionists and other Theocrats

    are marginalized cranks who don't represent real "social conservatives."  Yep.  Ignore them...at your own risk.

    The activities of Phelps and other groups like Christian Indentity have ties to the various militias and Abortion Terrorists.  They represent as serious a danger as any homegrown direct action group, and their activities should be monitored closely.

    by nanorich on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:24:27 AM PDT

  •  You honestly think it's 1 person's stupid opinion?

    Hardly.  The Phelps of the world are just willing to do the dirty work.  And there are more of them than you think.

    I say air it all and link it directly with all the rethugs.  Make them defend it. Whether they believe it or not, they regularly pimp that belief for votes...which makes it even worse.

    by AuntiePeachy on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:48:26 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Phelps is out there on the cutting edge of the Theocratic Right.  He brings soldiers into their struggle, raises serious money, and has never been reputiated by the less colorful but nonetheless just as ideological driven aspect of the Dominionist Movement.  

      To suggest that his outrages should be covered up or ignored is to say that people who blow up medical facillities or kill abortion doctors should be ignored and not given publicity.

      As I have said before, Phelps labels himself a Christian...so if one is a Christian, and one rejects what he stands for, it up to Christians to deal with him in a more effective manner than blaming liberals for embarrassing them.

      by nanorich on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 10:19:20 AM PDT

  •  Yeah

    This is just a bunch of fools who aren't worth the attention.  It's kind of the equivalent of right-wing sites holding up a recent statement by a far-left group (and unless it was a parody, there was a statement that immediately blamed the US for failing to provide a warning system for these countries & thus being responsible for so many deaths!) and blaming the Democrats for it.

    by daria g on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 10:35:13 AM PDT

    •  Darla

      When one of Phelp's congregants kills a number of gay people, which is one of those certainties on which one can bet the farm, can we count on you to come here and apologize to people for discounting their concern about this man and his minions?

      Why is it you spend so much time attacking Howard Dean and his supporters....and then posture for ignoring people who clearly present a real danger to lives of people?

      Were you one of those people who suggested we should ignore the Lambs of God until they started killing real abortion doctors?

      by nanorich on Fri De