I guess I shouldn't be surprised, even though he is an actual Congressman...

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/12/21/a3.nat.ellis2.1221.p1.php?section=nation_world - http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/12/21/a3.nat.ellis2.1 221.p1.php?section=nation_world

Benjichang wrote:   I always thought christians were supposed to practice love and tolerance...

And fornication.  You forgot fornication.

Benjichang wrote: Gatyr wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Of course, y'all know that he is being loudly praised in hundreds/thousands of churches around the country... :\ That bothers me. Yet it's hardly surprising, given the number of crazy uber-christians we have populating the country. I bothers me too- I always thought christians were supposed to practice love and tolerance...

Well, first off, I'll just say that I agree this guy's a complete nutjob, and I have no clue how he got into office with racist BS views like this. It's people like this that create division, and in then end just by being big dumbasses (for lack of a better term) fuel the fire of the extremist Muslims that do choose to use their faith as a reason to kill.

That being said, I have to say that the assumptions some of you are making are just not true. To say that this man is in any way representing any part of Christianity is narrow-minded, just like saying Osama Bin Laden represents any part of Muslims. 

Because no matter how you label it, you've just attached a name and a face onto a religion that doesn't support it, and it's labels like this that have caused the backlash of spite towards Christianity. You have to be careful, this man is an example of very few radical right-wing people, who claim the Christian faith but don't follow it. I'm not a devout Christian, I believe in Christianity, and I'm not preaching, I'm bothered by this trend both towards Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, Muslims, what have you. It's these careless labels that are driving the hatred causing the violence we see around the glove.

The truth is that these people's issues don't deal with their religion, but deep seated racism and hatred which the use their religion to promote. Yeah, there are probably more than a few Christians that have problems with people of other faiths, especially Muslims, holding office, but that has nothing to do with their faith. There are plenty of atheists, and general nonbelievers that would just as soon see muslims wiped off the earth than to create a better understanding of their culture. So instead of assuming that Christians everywhere are throwing praise upon this mindless bigot, let's go straight to fact and say that mindless bigots everywhere support him, regardless of religion.

stratoaxe wrote: To say that this man is in any way representing any part of Christianity is narrow-minded, just like saying Osama Bin Laden represents any part of Muslims.

But bin Laden DOES represent the beliefs of many muslims - an entire terrorist organization's worth, at least.

And this nutball DOES represent the beliefs of many christians.  I personally know many folks who feel the exact same way.

Because no matter how you label it, you've just attached a name and a face onto a religion that doesn't support it

Nope.  Simply stating facts.

Clearly not all, or even most, christians feel this way, and most muslims think bin Laden is an ass.  But there are plenty who support these views as well.

...this man is an example of very few radical right-wing people, who claim the Christian faith but don't follow it.

Only true if you employ a self-serving definition of "christian".

It's these careless labels that are driving the hatred causing the violence we see around the glove.

I also oppose labeling.  But we aren't labeling.  Nobody here is saying that "all" of any group feels any particular way.  We are simply stating the fact that some/many members of a group do.

The truth is that these people's issues don't deal with their religion, but deep seated racism and hatred which the use their religion to promote. Yeah, there are probably more than a few Christians that have problems with people of other faiths, especially Muslims, holding office, but that has nothing to do with their faith.

How can you say this?  I know many who would claim the exact opposite.

There are plenty of atheists, and general nonbelievers that would just as soon see muslims wiped off the earth than to create a better understanding of their culture.

Probably true - but I challenge you to find a single atheist anywhere ever who was motivated to violence by his/her atheism.  People are motivated to violence by religion all the time.

So instead of assuming that Christians everywhere are throwing praise upon this mindless bigot

Who's assuming?  I know this for a fact.  Certainly not ALL christians, but many.  I can state that for an absolute fact, without any shadow of a doubt.

let's go straight to fact and say that mindless bigots everywhere support him, regardless of religion.

That's kind of true.  Many idiots hold similar beliefs, yes - but many will be inspired specifically by their faith to follow this particular idiot.

Clark Kent wrote: course, y'all know that he is being loudly praised in hundreds/thousands of churches around the country...

That's not a fact, that's an assumption. And in fact, I'll make a further assumption and say hundreds/ thousands of Christians really don't give a rat's ass about this idiot.

Look, I respect your opinion more than just about anyone's on this forum, I've read and agreed with countless posts you've written, this isn't a personal attack, by any stretch. Sure, it's probably true that there's a disturbing number of nutjob religious fanatics out there-but bear in mind that it's a small minority. I know alot of Christians-and I know maybe a couple of racists. Not saying there aren't more out there, but saying that they are outnumbered greatly. Anyway, I don't want to jack the thread, I'm just saying that there aren't mass legions of Christians lined up to whack some Muslims. And to give off the idea that this is large movement, so to speak, or maybe a held political bigotry, is completely 100% not true. That's all I got to say.

Clark Kent wrote: [QUOTE=stratoaxe] To say that this man is in any way representing any part of Christianity is narrow-minded, just like saying Osama Bin Laden represents any part of Muslims.

But bin Laden DOES represent the beliefs of many muslims - an entire terrorist organization's worth, at least.

And this nutball DOES represent the beliefs of many christians.  I personally know many folks who feel the exact same way.

I am amused by my little cartel, but point taken and valid.  If my sarcasm has gotten a bit thick, it is only because I am vaguely surprised at the reaction to what I thought was a rather obvious and simple point.  For that I apologize.

I will attempt to cut to the bottom line.

I think we can all agree that most christians disagree with Goode's position, and that most muslim's disagree with bin Laden's position.  I will accept that as "fact" based on all available information.

But my point, based on personal experience, is that there is a not-so-small contingent of christians who in fact hold and espouse functionally similar views.  You will note from the article that this point was actually previously raised by a talk-show host, who received many positive reactions.

I used to live further South than I do now, and attended a variety of churches quite regularly.  While this particular issue wasn't up at the time, I specifically recall lengthy sermons and discussions about what to do about the papists and how to keep them out of public office, and how they were essentially traitors (with their king in Rome), not to mention not real christians.  I heard similar intolerance directed at blacks, jews, Californians, Chinese, and countless other "out-groups".  This intolerance was preached from the pulpit and furthered in bible study, and furthered further in the coffee shop and on the work site.

And this was/is not isolated to one church, or one town.  This type of moral religious-based absolutism is found in many churches in many towns.

Have I counted "hundreds/thousands" of churches where I am confident that the congregation would agree with Goode?  No.  But I can easily count a dozen, all within a few counties in the Ozarks.  From that I will comfortably extrapolate that there are hundreds/thousands of churches that hold similar views nationwide.  This is further bolstered by my experiences of meeting people that hold these views from around the country.  Between my Ozark experience and my random samples nationwide, I feel comfortable stating as "fact" that there are many congregations that support this position.

As to bin Laden, I would think it self-evident that he is not alone.  Thousands of people have died in the last few years specifically because he is not alone in his beliefs.

There is religious extremism in this world.  Lots of it.  And, frankly, there is lots of it here in the US.  We are one of the most religious nations on the planet - it would be odd if we somehow managed that without a bunch of extremists along the way.

Yes, Goode is an extremist, and does not represent the majority christian view.  But he is not nearly as extreme or uncommon as some would have us think.

Quick note as to separation of church and state - I am obviously a serious supporter of this separation.  And I view this discussion as an important part of that.  To think that this post is somehow inconsistent with my views on separation of church and state is to misunderstand that separation.  The actual "official" swearing-in of a Congressman need not involve any book at all.  The Congressman simply swears "on" the Constitution.  Many have informal ceremonies later, with cameras and friends, where they swear on Bibles (or whatever).  That is an important part of religious freedom.  But no Bible or Koran is ever required at any point in that process.  Separation of church and state doesn't mean that religion is disallowed.  Rather the opposite.

I would like to make another point here, moving away from the religious debate, it bothers me that the mulsim community on a whole is either completely ignorant of the fact, or they're doing nothing to protest the acts of these extremist groups.

Case and point...I see large groups protest "racial profiling" of Mulsims trying to get into the United States, I've seen picketing against "racial profiling" trying to get onto airplanes, but where is the picketing against the people actually commiting the acts? Where are Muslims everywhere stepping up and saying, "You're not a part of us."

I work at a hospital where I encounter alot of Mulsim people, and in fact work with many. While the doctors I work with are great, the patients are a different story. I meet up with stiff paranoia and hostility from Muslim people...they act like I'm trying to "profile" them when I ask them neccessary questions (due to privacy laws I can't into specifics), and they're very defensive.

So to the Mulsim community as a whole, their apathy is encouraging behavior like this. In fact apathy isn't even the word-I have yet to see any protests or marches against suicide bombings, against the beliefs of extreme wings of their religion. It's frustrating to me when I try to argue against the ever growing anti-Muslim sentiments in this country, because I see very little arguing from their part.

And I realize that they are in no more of an obligation to "prove" themselves than I am my religion, but in a country where racial tension and bigotry has boiled over for years, they had better jump to their own defense before white supremist groups and bigots like this man turn into violence. We don't want to see these hot tensions go straight to violent actions like we saw against African American people in the forties and fifties...that's why I agree completely that men like this are dangerous, and should never be elected to office.

Sorry it took so long to post - I couldn't resist clicking bri's sig.

HTY - I am/was absolutely not trying to generalize racism onto all, or even most, religious folk.  What I am saying is that there is significant overlap on the Venn diagram, and that in that overlap the racism is often religiously motivated.  But this still clearly (IMO) represents a minority, just not as small a minority as we might like.

As to separation of church and state - I stated the part about swearing poorly.  Nobody is swearing "on" the constitution.  What I meant to say is that the actual/official oath has no religious reference and requires no book of any kind.  It simply states that "I solemnly swear to ..."  Many Congressmen choose to have informal/personal oaths in separate ceremonies, and these may involve Bibles, but those are not the "real" Congressional oaths.  The actual oath is free-standing, if you will.  Much like the oaths that officers, lawyers, judges, police officers, Presidents, etc. swear.

strato wrote: I see large groups protest "racial profiling" of Mulsims trying to get into the United States, I've seen picketing against "racial profiling" trying to get onto airplanes, but where is the picketing against the people actually commiting the acts? Where are Muslims everywhere stepping up and saying, "You're not a part of us."

This is a difficult issue. 

Two reasons - first, there ARE many muslim scholars and leaders that have come out strongly against Al Qaeda et al.  We just don't hear much about it, because frankly muslim scholars and leaders don't get much press.  But I hear them on the radio occasionally, decrying the evils of extremism.  As to picketing?  There I see a simple logistical issue:  who do you picket?

But also difficult because many muslim leaders, and muslims in general - in Europe/UK in particular, are specifically and pointedly NOT coming out against the "bad" muslims.  This has been causing great tension in the UK and elsewhere.  Makes for fascinating reading in the papers.  The reason, of course, is just what I have been saying - many muslims around the world DO in fact support, at least in part, what the extremists are saying.

And we can draw the same parallel to christians.  Pat Robertson comes out and says something idiotic.  Where are the protests and pickets from within the christian community?  I do hear some moderate christians on the radio, again, complaining about Robertson, but where are the legions of righteous christians picketing his church?

The only instance of an extreme christian church in this country actually getting picketed by moderate christians (as opposed to non-christians) is the WBC nuts, and the only reason people finally got around to picketing them was when they started insulting soldiers.  They had been spewing their hate and showing up at funerals for years without a peep from the mainstream christian community.

And here also part of the cause is that many moderate christians agree in part with what the extremists are saying.  Most christians may not accept WBC's exact theories, but they (as a group) generally disapprove of gays.  Pat Robertson is in no danger when he walks down the street, because by and large he has broad support around the country.

Finally, I'm back to agreeing with Clark.

You're 100% right. That brings us to the unfortunate problem of conservatives all over the country-they've been taught by right wing elitists that the "liberals" are somehow making fools of themselves by defending the mud slinging, and Republicans are too good for that. People like Shawn (sp?) Hannity teach that Christians in general will triumph in the end because they're right.

Which is why we see the blatant apathy among conservative christians. Somehow their high morals make them invincible...ironic, eh?

And, as you pointed out, the true intellects who stand up to diffend various religions, namely Muslims and Christians, get no air time, while Bin Laden and Robertson steal the show, thanks to a commercialized media programming that seeks shock and entertainment value over just giving us the frickin news.