Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I was born and raised near Palmer (in the beautiful Matanuska Valley!), where my father was the principal of a local elementary school and my mother was a missionary on staff of the Lazy Mountain Children's Home. To use a Biblical phrase, I was raised "in the bosom" of fundamentalist Christianity. Those were pre-Falwell days, though, and the Christians I knew weren't particularly entangled in right-wing politics. I'm sad to hear how things have changed in the Valley, but I'm glad to know there are people like Howard Bess who are willing to speak out. It looks like it'll be a long time, though, before this Lesbian atheist will truly be able to go home again.
... it doesn't appear you understand traditional/orthodox/mere Christianity (the type CS Lewis wrote about and is accepted as the "core" or "great hall" of Christianity) because heralding Bess's statement ...
'In his book, Bess suggests that gays have a divine mission. "Look back at the life of our Lord Jesus. He was misunderstood, deserted, unjustly accused, and cruelly killed. Yet we all confess that it was the will of God, for by his wounds we are healed ... Could it be that the homosexual, obedient to the will of God, might be the church's modern day healer-messiah?"'
... show's profound ignorance. According to the Christianity that's been taught for 2000 years, there is one Savior, Jesus Christ. Suggesting that anyone, particularly those who practice traditionally identified sexual immorality (Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them) are modern day healer-messiahs is not Christianity but the sign of some "new" religion (and I'll not talk here about which religion is more truthful; the point is that this new religion is NOT Christianity).
The ignorance on this point stems, I believe, from a flattering misinterpretation of Matthew 18:12 "What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them strays, he leaves the ninety-nine in the hills and goes to look for the one that has strayed, doesn't he?" Advocates of the new religion believe this means that Jesus values the downtrodden, poor, persecuted more than others (the rich in particular). The transgender priest at my Episcopal Church said so a couple of months ago in her sermon (and yes, I'm looking at other churches; t'was a new religion believer til I actually read the whole Bible). But this is a gross misinterpretation. Jesus doesn't value the poor/etc. more than others (He loves all the same), he just recognizes that it is easier for these folks, being in positions that so obviously point out their deficiencies/lack of success, are more likely to listen to his message than those who are "successful," i.e., "rich" in whatever form because such richness can diminish one's recognition of one's foundational dependence upon God.
Anyway, I write this with good wishes for you because I can see how passionate many are for this new version of Christianity (or new religion I would argue). But you are shooting yourself in the foot that's in your mouths if your trying to argue that traditional Christianity shouldn't have a problem with the idea of homosexuals as healer-messiahs. Traditional Christianity is absolutely opposed to such an idea. If you want to argue for a "New" Christianity, go ahead and argue for it, but don't castigate those who are trying to be good traditional Christians by upholding long held doctrine and understanding.
Fare Thee Well
I am not the one on the Bess tangent, you are. I have repeatedly said (look at all of my posts to this article) that the real story is Palin inquiring about banning books, then firing the librarian that refused. I could give a good god damn whether books were eventually banned or not--the intentions are clear.
You're the one jumping up and down making Bess the issue, not me. Yes, according to this article, Bess asserts that Palin targeted his book. As I have stated over and over, that is not the real issue.
She did absolutely, positively ask about banning books. It is irrelevant whether books were eventually banned. It doesn't change the fact, in the least that Palin asked on at least three occasions whether books could be banned. What's worse, is she fired the local librarian that refused to ban any books based on her notion of "loyalty."
I do not know how many times I have to ask this: how exactly is a librarian loyal to the Mayor?
In the end, you still fail to address the issue at hand. You shrug off the attempt to ban books as something communities do, while avoiding the real issue: Palin FIRED the librarian that on at least three occasions stated in no uncertain terms she would not ban books.
Xanthro-While I don't like it, it is also not terrifying. Local communities always have issues with what the libraries stock, that is because the local government usually pays for it. Sometimes people don't like paying for what they don't like.
Agreed, it's not necessarily terrifying on a local level (unless you happen to be a local). And not necessarily liking what you're paying for is part of the price of our way of life.
However, having somebody with a woefully uneducated, fundamentalist book-burning mindset with an elevated potential of becoming an appointed president of the united states...
THAT is terrifying
-- RenMan53
So, we move from a rather common occurrence, dispute over what books a public library will carry, and that gets transformed into "woefully uneducated fundamentalist book-burning mindset"
Quite the long travel there. Exactly how many books did Palin have banned? That's right, ZERO.
She inquired, she was turned down. Even if you buy the argument that the librarian was fired for this, Palin backed down over town outrage.
Last I looked, the President or Vice President has exactly ZERO powers to regulate what books are in local libraries, or what books you have access to.
The point is Palin tried to ban books. This is not only unconstitutional it is UN American. If McCain/Palin won and she became president, Plain would attempt turn this country into a religious dictatorship. Palin has all the characteristics of the "nasty" antis people who protested outside clinics in the 90s.
-- bernbart
I must have missed the press release where Palin advocates turning the US into a religious dictatorship.
How exactly would she go about this? Send the Army in? Claim that it was God's plan and everyone bow down to her holiness?
Really, even if she actually wanted to be an American Pope of some sort, it's not like it's an even remotely possible outcome.
When you make such plainly silly arguments, it only hurts more legitimate ones.
Part of the difficulty now in attacking Palin is that the first attacks were so beyond the pale, that most attacks now lack credibility. When people advance theories such as yours, it just make legitimate points less likely be be believed.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
