Christianity at its best?
This is an old post I had on another site, but always liked it, so thought I'd put it here.
Editor's note: Given recent history's worldwide spate of religious fervor and fanaticism, I thought this email copy I ran across would be appropriate here. Education is important, no matter how it comes, eh?
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a U.S. radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific Bible laws and how to follow them:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality? I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
BTW, I don't know where this originally came from, so if it is yours, please let me know so I can give credit where credit is due! Thanks.
We were the Good Guys.Now, we're becoming the bad guys, according to more and more of World perception.
How can this be? Once upon a time, it was US who were in the forefront demanding compliance with Human Rights conventions. It was US who treated
our enemies with fairness and compassion, regardless of how others treated theirs. It was US who set the standards for the well-being and fair play we hoped would spread worldwide. It was US who tried to lead by example!
But no more. Now we have arbitrary arrests and torture, and secret prisons, and spy on our own citizens (as well as countless innocent citizens of the World), and secretly ship prisoners to detention centers in other countries (and thereby losing them in the system and somehow "absolving" ourselves of responsibility for what happens to them) - is there more?
You bet.
And we're being called to the mat on it.
The US was on Friday roundly rebuked by a key United Nations human rights watchdog for violations of international law at home and abroad, especially in connection with its so-called “war on terror”.
The UN human rights committee called on Washington to immediately close all secret detention facilities, halt “renditions” to countries that practise torture, and give prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, access to the courts to challenge their detention and treatment.
It also criticised US asylum and immigration rules as well as aspects of its criminal justice system, including the death penalty, life imprisonment without parole for child offenders, police brutality and ill-treatment in prisons.
Our response to such charges? "Well what about
those guys!?!? They do it too!!"
US officials reacted angrily to the report, saying it dealt with issues outside its remit. In a statement, the US mission to the UN in Geneva said the committee had lost “perspective and credibility” in spending more time criticising the US than countries such as North Korea which had no civil or political rights.
But Christine Chanet, the French magistrate who chairs the committee, said it had “simply done its job according to its mandate”.
But wait, there's more!
On the domestic front, the committee expressed concern over the lack of judicial oversight of phone tapping and electronic surveillance by the security services, and the use of immigration law to detain terrorist suspects.
It also called for a moratorium on the death penalty and an end to the practice of sentencing juveniles to life in jail without parole, which affects more than 2,200 inmates who were under 18 at the time of the crime.
And, WHO in the Good Ol' USA is leading us into all these corruptions? Take a guess.
bush & co.
Impeachment and imprisonment for the lot of them is too good for them.
Minimum wage - are "they" worth it?
The recent "decision" by the repugs to not raise the minimum wage sparked me to write my senator, John Cornyn. He's a repub, too, and although I did NOT vote for him, he's the one I got stuck with.
Anyway, my question was - why not? Why can't we raise the min. wage just a little? They (the senators) raised their
own pay recently, so why not for the lesser paid ones? Are they not worth it? Do they not contribute anything worth giving them a "bump" out of poverty for?
His (my senator's) reply, in part:
As you may know, the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-188) established the current minimum wage level of $5.15 per hour. Several proposals have been introduced in the 109th Congress to further increase the minimum wage.
I understand the concerns that many Americans have about the economy and the difficulties confronting low-wage workers. While increasing the minimum wage may be well intentioned, I do not believe it would be a wise decision. Such an increase would further the financial burden on businesses and ultimately translate into higher product prices and layoffs. These consequences would disproportionately hurt low-wage workers.
So, letting "them" earn a little bit more is going to
hurt them?
Some more of his reply:
To improve the well-being of American workers, Congress must focus on rebuilding the economy, reducing the tax burden, and increasing production. A strong, thriving economy is the best situation for workers at every income level. You may be certain that I will keep your comments in mind as I work with my colleagues in the Senate to promote economic growth and secure the financial well-being of all Americans.
Well, that made it clear, didn't it? A strong, thriving economy (businesses doing well), with reduced tax burden (big guys pay less), and increasing production ("slave" labor) is what our top brass are going for. Forget the little guy - s/he doesn't really matter right now, and they're
sure things will be ok down the road.
I have another question: Why wouldn't a push to eradicate poverty be good for the economy? A desire to eradicate (or at least ease) poverty is known as Social Conscience. "Giving” to the poor (offering the bottom tiers relief, in different forms and fashions) would not necessarily "further the financial burden on businesses and ultimately translate into higher product prices and layoffs." I contend it would do just the opposite, at least in the overall effect.
“Those folks,” the lower-wage workers, are also known as “engines of economy.” Whatever they bring in this week, they spend this week. And the next, and the next. With no discretionary income, you spend everything you have.
This, in direct and immediate turn, helps the shops and stores of the depressed areas these “folks” (usually) live in. They aid the economy from the bottom up, directly, with cash in hand. This obviously flows up and out from there. What better way to help?
Unless, of course, “help” is not in your conscience. If not, then we truly do need a change of direction.
More government intrusion...
Boy, those repugs just can't get enough - now they're saving us from the evils of gambling?
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a Republican-written bill to limit Internet gambling by making it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gaming sites.
How christian-right of them.
Is it un-christian-right if they spent time figuring out how to give us equal access to
their medical coverage plan? Or do the big insurance rip-off companies veto that before it gets to the table. (Isn't
that (paying insurance companies) gambling?)
Gitmo Prisoners Finally Get Geneva Convention
Wow, I can hardly believe it. What a totally
Democratic thing to do! I bet his war-buddies are gonna short-sheet him or something for this! And
repubs are probably crying in their martinis.
But, for the crumbs of society (the rest of us, who don't follow bushlaw), things are looking up a bit. Some christian groups are crying foul, but hey, they're christians - what do you expect! These prisoners (of war?) are just heathens, so they deserve no respect from their jealous god anyhoo.
Asked about ... the basic requirements guaranteed by the Geneva Convention on rights of prisoners of war, Gonzales said the White House needed to study the issue before it responded.
I can just see him now, scratching that weasely little head of his... "I know I've heard of that convention somewhere, but thought it was too old to try to remember..."
"Treat others as you yourself would want to be treated."
"But hey," he says, "these
others are not like me myself, so I don't have to do it!! Daddyyyyy!!!!"
Geez - who elects someone like that?
Cooperation!
Everybody needs a friend sometime :)
These two live in the city of Lucknow. How appropriate!
