low_delta | bullshit religious fanatic opinion

Here's an e-mail forward that pissed me off.

In light of the many perversions and jokes we send to one
another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended
to be a joke, it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school ... the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued (there's a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating, smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc.). And we said OK.

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said OK.

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said OK.

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good.

Then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body. And we said OK.

And then someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then further again by making them available on the Internet. And we said OK, they're entitled to free speech.

Then the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes.

And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God ! and then wonder why the world's going to Hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

You ever notice how those wacky Christian conservatives complain about all those lawsuits, claiming that it's typical liberal lack of personal responsibility for their own actions? You know, how it a typical tactic to blame others for their own accidents? Now we've got these same people complaining that their kids are not learning proper moral behavior in school, and from television. Now whose fault is it? We didn't feel it was right to let children who don't believe in Jesus to be persecuted for it, and therefore cause the nation's children to be lacking in Christian moral values, taught people that murdering is okay? These people couldn't come up with a better way to teach their children they had done wrong, than a belt across the back, and it's our fault? We didn't trust that someone with a teaching certificate in mathematics could properly beat our children, and we caused our chilren to grow up with no concept of right and wrong? We didn't feel that "a burned hand teaches best" is the best way to teach our teenagers that having babies is a bad thing, and we're the only ones who realize they're not listening to their parents, but we're the ones "promoting" teenages sex. We didn't feel it was our duty to punish the president for adultery, by firing him, so we're responsible for the moral downfall of our nation?

But all that is not all that pissed me off. This woman says that God has turned his back on us because we've turned our backs on him. If there is a god that is anything like the one the Bible says there is, he doesn't take an active part in what goes on in the world. And even if he did, 3000 people is not a huge amount. Besides, who was praying, that morning, that they'd go home after work? Or, if everyone here wa pious, they'd say that it was part of God's plan. Or that the bad guys attacked us because we believe in God. Anyway you look at it, it's bullshit. (Oops. which commandment says that profanity is wrong?)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Never happened.

Show transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/earlyshow/healthwatch/healthnews/20010913terror_spiritual.shtml

But, even if it had -- it is very hard to teach your children a lesson at home when the state is teaching them a contrary one from 7:30 to 3:30 Monday through Friday. Moral lessons are not something you sit down and discuss and that's the end of it -- they are reinforced, or not, in every nuance of every action of the day.

If a parent wants their child to believe that the act of abortion is wrong, and somehow the state goes past teaching that it is available to teaching that it is acceptable, this is a mixed message that the parent is going to have to fight with, every day, until the child has a strength and resolve about that issue on their own. Which is about the age of 25 or so, in my experience.

So we have fundamental Christian schools springing up for parents to isolate their children from the evil dangers of society, making it even harder for them to function when they finally graduate into the real world.... it's all a mess, isn't it....

I don't think that the state teaches anything at all about abortion. Or the ten commandments. Or how we should NOT salute the flag, or how killing/stealing/adultery is good.

In short, I think your argument here is a straw man.

Hm....I have a daughter in middle school in a government school.

I review her curriculum each year.

The state covers some parts of the abortion debate in the sexual development curriculum, specifically indicating that it is a method for terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Which, it technically is.

What is interesting is the language used to make that statement. I am sure the author agonized over the words to do everything possible to avoid perjorative terms, because the state wants to avoid the appearance of being on the wrong side of the rights debate, but in so doing the act of abortion has been rendered as clinical as getting your teeth checked.

And, if a child brings up any portion of the negative debate, they are censured quickly (this occurs every year in our county because of active parental involvement and conservative tradition).

Depending on the structure of the class, high school classes will discuss the ten commandments at the same time as the Code of Hammurabi and other rules of law for peoples of that area.

I'll give you the flag and crime one, though.

My position is not a straw-man, much as you tried to make it one, though. It is that morality is a context-based lesson as much or more than a specific instance lesson. And, since it is my profession to teach morality from time to time, I've run into that issue a lot. When you teach that stealing is wrong in a single lesson, that's a good thing, but you have to show over and over that it continues to be wrong, by not taking pens from the office, or eating grapes from the bunch before you buy them by weight. Remember, actions speak louder than words, and the actions hidden inside words are almost as strong as actions you see directly.

For the fundamentalist christian movement, who teach creation science (scare quotes may be sprinkled about as desired), they are dealing with direct opposition in coursework. Selections of literature with themes that promote a lifestyle view that is in contradiction with the fundamentalist view also present a problem. For that movement, it is easy to point to the government school as a big nasty evil, and it as the outgrowth of the government itself turning away from a theocracy to the rather sane one we elected to design.

(for what it is worth -- I'm more on your side than you realize. I'm arguing the position to show how that side thinks, since I live among them.)

Hm....I have a daughter in middle school in a government school.

I personally went through every single grade in public school till college. I am currently in a public law school. My brother is in public high school.

The state covers some parts of the abortion debate in the sexual development curriculum, specifically indicating that it is a method for terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Which, it technically is.

They didn't mention abortion at all in my school. But even if they do mention it in your daughter's school, are you really trying to say that a brief paragraph-- at most a day of explanation about what abortion is-- is going to overthrow years of indoctrination into certain beliefs?

If one teaches one's children that abortion is wrong, I seriously doubt that this paragraph of nonideological description in school is going to be much of a bother. A much greater challenge to these beliefs will come when the kids actually get pregnant. Which they often will.

Depending on the structure of the class, high school classes will discuss the ten commandments at the same time as the Code of Hammurabi and other rules of law for peoples of that area.

I never had anything like that in my classes. I suppose it's possible that some classes discuss religious beliefs as a study. I think that's much different from endorsing such beliefs.

For the fundamentalist christian movement, who teach creation science, they are dealing with direct opposition in coursework.

That's because they're dealing with direct opposition in reality. Should we not teach children that the earth is round because that's against the Church? I don't advocate lying to children or withholding information from them because it might go against religious beliefs.

If the parents want to believe that green people will fall on your head if you use a pencil, I still don't think that it's irreligious to use pencils in public school.

It is that morality is a context-based lesson as much or more than a specific instance lesson.

Unfortunately, everyone's desired "context" is different. Public school is there to teach students facts, because everyone agrees that 2+2=4 and it's important that kids learn that. Not everyone agrees on abortion rights, but everyone agrees that abortion exists. The school therefore teaches that abortion exists without expressing an opinion on the subject.

What religious fanatics really WANT is for the school to teach THEIR MORALITY. They don't want an impartial school, they want a partial one. That's unconstitutional, happily for those of us in minority religions.

Well, if one believes in the God of the Bible, that God does not turn his back. Ever.

And I agree with you that the same people who don't want certain things taught in school, like sex education for example, are the very same ones who teach their children nothing at home - even though they say that's part of why they don't want it taught in school. Hypocrisy is rampant.

That's an odd statement...

The Bible is full of references of the fear that God would turn away ("Hide not thy face from me"). The whole point of redemption is that God can be disuaded from his wrath to forgiveness ("the wrath of the Lord turned from him"), which indicates that the Lord is not fixed in his position.

God will, indeed, stand out of our lives if we ask for that. More importantly, God is ALWAYS out of our lives UNTIL we ask otherwise. This is how it works, and as a result many people don't feel the presence of God around them because they forget to ask him in for Dinner....

There is a certain validity in the study of language to the lack of action when there is no word to describe the action. If you never discuss or know of the thing, you pretty much don't do it. This is the tactic being attempted with sexual development education by the fundamental right, and they'd be okay except for one minor thing....

....organisms WANT to reproduce, so there are strong biological factors in play that the mind isn't going to ignore that easily. Ah, well....

The fear that God would turn away, not that he actually does so. He apparently is always around, one just has to listen, or, as you say, invite him in for dinner. I got the impression this woman was insinuating that God had abandoned people - which is neither the act of a gentleman nor an act of God. Her opinion, then, would be contradictory, and her use of language improper. Abandonment does not equal not being around, or not intruding.

....organisms WANT to reproduce, so there are strong biological factors in play that the mind isn't going to ignore that easily.

Ah, but some would have you believe that only "animals" give in to urges, give in to the unsanctioned desire to reproduce, and man is better than the animals. So we are taught to ignore, not to understand or deal with, our urges; the very basic and natural functions of life. How narrow in scope is that?

Soddom and Gomorrah were wiped off the earth because God turned away from them.....

He didn't give them a chance to turn around, like he gave Ninevah. He just eliminated them. Fire. Destruction. Pillars of salt, even.

Her opinion, which is just the section in quotes at the VERY top, is that when a people abandons God, God is under no obligation to offer help. That's not unreasonable.

As to the animal thing -- yeah, gotta blame Augustine for that one. Stupid man....

G-d didn't "turn away." G-d actually, physically, directly destroyed the cities.

And that's a very different thing. One which I don't see G-d doing all that much anymore.

Trying to pretend that G-d is still acting in a Biblical manner is ostrichesque.

Which brings us back to the point, then, does it not? In that case, God turned his ear away from the people of his creation, but took an active interest in destroying them....

If we don't see that kind of intervention, has he not turned his active direction away from us? And, if so, why?

If we don't see that kind of intervention, has he not turned his active direction away from us? And, if so, why?

Personally, I think it's because at some point every good parent sees that if a child is forced to obey the rules they're not doing it because they are good people. They're doing it because of the big stick.

G-d could wander around making us be nice to each other. But the niceness wouldn't be very heartfelt. And I think it's incredibly important that it be heartfelt. In fact, I think it's the whole point.

This is how it works,

Correction: that is YOUR BELIEF about how it works.

I personally believe that G-d is always there for us.

Odd, that. The Torah studies I have enjoyed taught me most strongly the opposite lesson -- that for some, HaShem will not answer. He has selected his Chosen for a reason, known to him alone. This is why the pathway to Judaism for the first-believer is so difficult, because they must assure themselves, and those that help and hinder, that they are indeed right to consider themselves one of the Chosen.

For those that believe, though -- you are right. The issue is not that HaShem is not there, but that He stands back when we ask Him to stand back, and that he won't intervene in our lives unbidden. For the Chosen, this is much a given, for such a position is necessarily one of connection and joy in the love of the Maker, but for other traditions there is the option to believe, but exist in a quasi-independence.

Ick.... too many semesters of religious studies are crashing back into my brain....

For those that believe, though -- you are right.

Or am I? Who knows. Because it's all just belief.

The Torah studies I have enjoyed taught me most strongly the opposite lesson -- that for some, HaShem will not answer.

Kabbalah says that the spirit of G-d is within all of us (and everything else, in fact). If that is so, then it's not a question of G-d, as someone totally seperate from ourselves, "answering." It's a question of finding that part of G-d within yourself and listening to it.

This is, anyway, what I believe. I also don't think that G-d uses one person to wreck vengeance on another. IMO, G-d is not there to stop our bad actions; it is we who are responsible for those actions.

Simply put, it is the fault of the people who crashed the planes into the WTC that planes were crashed into the WTC. It is not G-d's fault for not stopping them. It is not my fault for not wishing my children to be taught Christianity in public schools. It is not the fault of people who failed to beat their children.

It's the fault of the people who did it. We need to stop blaming G-d. G-d is not there to save our asses. G-d hasn't been saving our asses since Biblical times, when it became clear that having our asses saved was not teaching us anything.

That's not to say that we aren't responsible, in my belief, for tikkun olam. But I suspect that my idea of tikkun olam is much different from Graham's. And yours probably is too.

Kabbalah says

I surrender. I never got that far -- had to move on to Hindi studies. Have always wanted to come back because it looked so interesting, but I'm out of my element there....

You shouldn't surrender. What I know about Kabbalah would fit in a thimble. :)

What I know about Kabblah would fit inbetween the letters of the word itself....

But, it is an interesting study. I picked up a couple of books this week, and depending on how long it takes to work through all my LJ replies, we'll see how much I can read this weekend.

"thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" isn't the same thing as what most consider profanity... Just that one...Not bullshit anyway. *grin*

Ah, but if you take out the traditional uses of the Lord's Name, you'll remove much of the profane from your vocabulary.

And, you'll sound like a gimp for awhile. :)

It pisses me off too...The hypocrisy and witch-burning mentality disguised as "the American Way" especially.
If they had their way we'd be shoved right back into the Dark Ages, with no bones about it.

*angry grumble*

Oh, do shut up and put on your burkha.....

*grumble*

*dons burkha*

Mmflllmff mfff!

Don't you say things like that about my mother....

Mmmflffwff!
*sticks out tongue under the burkha, which nobody can see*
*tongue gets full of lint*

Oh, great....now nobody will know if you were cursing like a sailor, or licking your bellybutton.....

I'll never tell...
*ptui*ptui*

This burkha clashes with my shoes...I don't think this is a good look for me.

*Of course all this is still muffled in the tent-like burkha, resulting in inaudible mumbles and spitting noises...which is I suppose the real point.*

Oh yes, it surely is.

Lots of silence in football season....oh, wait. I think having a TV is improper, too. Oh, this is going to suck big time....

Radio too...And no alcohol, which means no Maus-organized Tiki parties. I wonder if the little paper umbrellas are immoral as well?

*Hides flask and umbrellas in Burkha*
So THAT's what it's for!! Hootch-smuggling!

You know, it took me two reads to see Hootch with an H, and not a C.....

Er.......

But, I suppose, it smuggles *THAT*, too....

Little Paper Umbrellas (LPUs) are immoral because they are emasculating. And, they get stuck in Mohammed's (may he be ever enjoying pina coladas) nose.

Oh. My.

Hands where I can see them, mister! Or the Hootchie Cootchie Cops will land on you like a ton of bricks...
*struggles with burkha, gives up, and tosses it over her head*

They have to come and get me anyway now, since I'm sure a Bauhaus work-shirt must be illegal somewhere.

God pisses ME off. He/she/it's not doing very well on this planet, for being an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient being....

What I like is that suddenly the plane didn't fly into a building because some people (with, BTW, the bible and religion very much in their lives) flew it into the building.

Suddenly it's because our children aren't forced to say Christian prayers in school.

Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Not the Bible. The Qu'ran. They are quick to distinquish themselves from the People Of The Book and The People Of The Prophet Jesus.

But, good point. Somehow a lack of our own prayers suddenly locked a flight beacon into the heart of WTC-2, and all we needed to do to avoid this whole thing was pray harder.

Seems that becoming a bunch of fundamentalist nations is what destroyed the greatness of the Arabian empire. Why would we want to do likewise to ourselves?

True, the Qu'ran, but they accept the Bible as sacred, right?

Because it does not contain any of the traditional names of the Divine Entity, it is an inspired book worthy of interest. It is filled with too many contradictions to rise to the level of the noble Qu'ran, in the mind of a Muslim.

"Billy Graham's daughter"??.........hmmmmmm, i do remember a little incident where her daddy (and brother, i think) was (were) caught blatantly breaking some Alaskan hunting laws.......perhaps he had his "Jesus shoes" on at the time......LOL

Well if the laws of Alaska hadmatched the laws of God, there wouldn't have been an issue!

billy had wants beyond what the law would allow...and he thought he'd just run roughshod across the hick alaskans.......personally, i believe that he thinks he's just too important in the world....

Thanks for sharing this post, it was thought provoking.
Obviously, Ms. Graham forgot about these two verses when she made her statements.

". . .for he hath said, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

". . . and, lo, I am with you ALWAY, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:20

Attacking Benjamin Spock was a low blow, but I am willing to bet she was regretful she said those things sooner than she had imagined.

The Hebrews reference is a connection to Joshua 1:5, the commission of Joshua by God. He is telling a specific person that he will be with them. The writer to the Hebrews is taking this verse and applying it to all the faithful, which may or may not be valid.

The epigraph in Matthew has long been contested by Biblical scholars as something added after the fact, as it also includes a trinity reference that would have short-circuited the entire Nicean controversy had it been more commonly known.

Now, having shot at those ever so helpfully ...

GOOD WORK! I love seeing things like that brought up... it shows how the movement from the Hebraic Covenant of Abraham had finally started transitioning to the Catholic (universal) Covenant of The Christ, in the Christian faith. We go from seeing a God that is much more likely to smite and cause destruction to one that stands beside his faithful, forgiving them through the beneficiary act of Jesus, and thus doens't need to rain down fire from the heavens.

Oh, and Ms. Graham said nothing about Benjamin Spock -- note that the quotations close long before the diatribe from some unreferenced author begins....

I think I've been sent that e-mail a couple of times. I sigh and hit delete after scanning just a few sentences.

What interested me was the whole Urban Legends part of this. Inaccuracies passed on as if absolute truth. I wanted to know if Madeline Murray O'Hare really did commit suicide (as the quoted part said). This "fact" was passed around and around but it seemed to originate on a site for Technical Remote Viewing Lessons. I put O'Hare's name+death in Google and the site came up. No real evidence.

If you sign up for their lessons this site will teach you how to focus your mind and use your powers to "find" any object or piece of knowledge that you want. They claim it was first used by Military Intelligence. Well! THAT explains a lot. :^)