Religious right leaders say it is anti-Christian to oppose hate

http://www.examiner.com/x-2071-DC-Special-Interests-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Religious-right-leaders-say-it-is-antiChristian-to-oppose-hate?cid=examiner-email

June 17, 4:07 PM

In the war of ideas those who believe only they have Truth on their side often find they provide the best ammunition for their opponents. This is certainly true in the hysterical reaction on the extreme religious right’s opposition to hate crime legislation. They worry that prohibiting the encouragement of violence against certain groups will have a "chilling effect" on religious free speech.
Majority Leader Harry Reid has reaffirmed his plans to have the Senate take up a so-called hate-crimes bill before Congress' August recess.

In a Monday news conference, Reid, D-Nev., called hate crimes "a unique brand of evil."

"A violent act may physically hurt just a single victim and cause grief for loved ones," he said. "But hate crimes do more. They distress entire communities."

Christan as in Christ, Jesus Christ, the pacifist compassionate one?


What the religious right is worried about is their homophobic and the right to birth groups being targeted by the laws. Such laws would prohibit the preachers and religious groups from propagating hate of at least those two groups.

get the ratings or fill the church collection plates as much as the hateful one of fear, exclusion and divisiveness, does he?

I challenge you to point out exactly where he tells people to go around killing other people in his name.

Although being that he is supposedly a human version of God, and God called for the mass murder of many peoples, Jesus is kind of responsible for that.

But Actually, in Matthew 15 21-28, Jesus refused to help a Cannaanite woman with an exorcism because she was a non-Jew. After getting bitched at by his disciples for a good amount of time, he finally changed his mind and graced the woman with a "miracle".

How nice of him to change his mind.

the way you do.

For on the disciples want Jesus to send her away. In their minds she was a dog. Jesus and the woman enter into a dialog that ends with a lesson for the disciples and the woman's daughter healed. Jesus always reached out to those on the fringes of society such as women and non-Jews and this was consistent with the OT commands to care for the widows, orphans and aliens - something that the powers that be ignored.

So Jesus let the disciples voice their prejudice, then he used that thinking to argue with the woman allowing her to make a winning response to which she was rewarded with the cure of her daughter.

Like I said, kind of a pretentious douche.

I mis-remembered what the disciples did. It was actually her begging for "scraps" from the motherfucking son of God that convinced Jesus to change his mind.

That doesn't sound ridiculously pathetic at all? How nice of Jesus to reduce a woman to begging for scraps of Gods miracles. Only when she is submissive and self-degrading to the all powerful Jesus Christ will she be granted healing.

Just like email-it is hard to get any sense of what is really going on from just the written word. Suppose, just suppose, that Jesus and the woman were actually enjoying the discourse- that it was playful. This would never come across in writing. It is from scenes such as these that the Jewish sect of Christianity was able to move to the greater Gentile world. Jesus' teachings are consistent in that they challenge and oppose the current thinking of the day- including this day. He confounded not only the Jewish leaders but also his own disciples pushing them to grow in their thinking, to include everyone.

what is playful about that?

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

This is a statement that is in reality a question answering his disciples who think that He has been sent to only serve Jews. This is a lesson for his disciples and he will by healing the woman's child there by demonstrating that he has come to administer to all people.

25 But the woman came and did him homage, saying, "Lord, help me."

26 He said in reply, "It is not right to take the food of the children 11 and throw it to the dogs."

This is an allusion to the old Testament of throwing pearls before swine. The Jews held that they were the chosen people of God and they alone were worthy of God's promise. Jesus totally destroys this myth. This is what sets Jesus apart from his contemporaries. They believe that the promised Messiah will establish Israel as the super nation. Jesus actually fortells the destruction of the temple and the annihilation of Israel.

27 She said, "Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters."

This is only an affirmation of how Jews viewed gentiles. A concept that Jesus rejects by his ministry to all people and most especially women. In his day such a woman would be regarded as being brazen to even approach a man and dare to discuss issues with him.

28 Then Jesus said to her in reply, "O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was cured in that hour.

He demonstrates that not only Jews can have faith and the sole chosen people and that his ministry is to all mankind and not restricted to Jews as his disciples have incorrectly assumed.

I don't intent to be argumentative but this is the interpretation of those who have studied the Testaments in depth. You have to realize he is making reference to Old Testament writings in order to make his intentions clear. By the way I regard myself to be an agnostic, however, I do appreciate Jesus' teachings.

since your interpretation is much the same as mind.

Thanks

What I've noticed is that each person seems to be able to interpret the Christian scriptures in a way that confirms the beliefs he/she already holds. People go to holy books seeking to confirm their attitudes rather than challenge them.

said "I am come not to bring peace, but the sword." There are many people -- chiefly those
who love to take things literally because they are too lazy to consider things more deeply,
and are already prone to violence to begin with - who try to justify it with this quote.

I believe and know from experience that it's rough to change some of our own negatives.
The struggle within is the "sword" that Jesus was referring to. It's not easy to do away
with these traits, when we become aware of their true nature. And we don't always succeed.
It's a long, long struggle -- especially when we are dealing with deeply entrenched
life-long negative habits. Do you have the same experience?

and classes of people, and I am certain the vote in Congress on this bill will split mainly along party lines. The GOP doesn't want to lose their main weapon.

mark

I can call it an expression of religious free speech? That changes everything! :evilgrin:

under hate crime laws that already protect them.

That hate is a necessary element of their religio-political corporations.

They chatter in fear.

I miss the other extinct species, though.

These are not the Christians I grew up with. Where is treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated, or love thy enemy. The Christian religion has been hijacked for monetary and political gain, that is all.

People haven't turned away from Christ. People have turned away from those who purport to represent Christ and a worldview that isn't congruent with the Christianity many of us grew up with.

Religion is all about who god likes best and about hating the other guy.

Life would be so much better. The Inquisition would have wiped out the Jews and no one would have had to keep trying again and again. Women would be pregnant and in the kitchen where they belong, obeying their husbands' incontestable pronouncements and life would be sweet. Wars would all be holy and righteous, homos would all be gone, accusations of witchcraft and paganism would be legit, pedophilia would be not only legal, but encouraged, Theocracy would be the law of the land, death would be the punishment for simple sins like breaking any of the 10 Commandments, including the one about coveting your neighbors barefoot and pregnant wife (because once women are married that would be their lot in life). Ungodly women would be stoned for breaking any of the Church rules, including speaking out of turn or brazenly looking any man in the eye, lest they should be doing the Devil's work of seduction, crucifixion would be the preferred punishment at all times, especially for heresy and, of course for breaking any of the 10 Commandments which would be required icon in every home, place of business and, of course, the church itself. The National Seal would simply say "In God We Trust" with the picture of Moses' tablets.

(Please stop using biblical passages to argue against biblical people. The bible has (or should have!) nothing to do with U.S. law-making. You merely fall into their trap by lending credibility to these fantastic notions.)