November 15, 2004

• Still reviving old topics that got buried while I was watching the elections.
  

  ---

  Christianity
  Society/National Politics
  I wouldn’t mind living in Jesusland if it lived up to the name. I’d violently oppose living in the Land Of Leviticus. (I’d have to, because I wouldn’t survive long in an Old Testament theocracy)

  When I see Christian Americans, I see two broad types. I see those who believe that Christianity is about the the teachings of Christ, and I see those who pay far more attention to the old testament than what Jesus taught. Thankfully, the vast majority of them are the former.

  When I speak of “fundamentalist Christians” or “old testament Christians”, I am referring to the latter. I used to use the phrase “right wing Christian” until I considered two things : It falsely gropus in followers of Christ with right wing political leanings, and it doesn’t include the Democrat Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps who is one of the most hateful and vitrolic Old Testament types out there. His web site literally calls for all nations to immediately pass and enforce laws that make sodomy a capital crime.

  I have recently read various opinions that the term “fundamentalist Christians” is bigoted. For those who feel that way, what would be a better way to refer to those who preach the most hateful parts of the old testament while pretty much ignoring new testament?

  I think we, as a society, have generally decided that the rules of the old testament are not right for us (thank God!).

  For example, consider Congressman McDermott’s remarks as they appear in the Congressional Record for 2-25-2004 regarding Bush’s attempts to define marriage.
  

  CODIFYING “BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES” OF MARRIAGE -
  (House of Representatives – February 25, 2004)
  [Page: H596]
  [file from frwebgate.access.gpo.gov]

  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

  MR. McDERMOTT:

  “Mr. Speaker, the President’s presidential prayer team is urging us to ‘pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.’

  With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical principles they are talking about.

  Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28.

  Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. That is II Samuel 5:13 and II Chronicles 11:21.

  A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy 22:13.

  Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. That is Genesis 24:3.

  Finally, it says that since there is no law that can change things, divorce is not possible, and finally, if a married man dies, his brother has to marry his sister-in-law. Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 2:55-10″

  It is hard to imagine all those rules codified into law. Granted, the multiple wives thing sounded kinda cool until I considered how hard it is to make a simple two person relationship work well… (badaboom)

  Don’t get me wrong – Much of the Old Testament was a true step forward during the time it was the most up to date aspect of “the book”. For example “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” sounds pretty brutal until one considers that it was tempering the previous behavior of “You take my eye, and I’ll kill you and all your male relatives and rape your daughters and wives”. An eye for an eye was damn progressive.

  Of course, later on, Jesus came along and said “OK, maybe we’re ready to take another step and learn to turn the other cheek”. We’re still working on that one. Actually, it often seems like we’re still working on “an eye for an eye”…

  But, anyway, the Old Testament is interesting as a foundation and a record, but it seems like anything preached by Jesus should supercede it – at least for those who following that particular prophet.

  Is this an unreasonable thought?

  So, anyway, if I shouldn’t call these people fundamentalists, how should I refer to them to distinguish them from any other Christians?
  

  ---

  Baghdad Year Zero
  International Politics

  Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neo-con utopia: This is an obviously biased article that analyzes what has gone wrong in Iraq. The basic premise is that the problem was not that we didn’t have a plan for reconstruction. The problem is that we did have a plan, and that plan failed miserably.

  It is a long read, but necessary for those who believe that the Project For the New American Century and the Neoconservatives had anything to do with the war in Iraq and wish to understand the dynamics. It is also a necessary read for those who would seek to persuade people that the Neocons and PNAC mostly exist in the fevered imagination of lefty wingnuts like me.
  

  ---

  A Quick Question
  personal

  Is it better to lump all my posts into one like this or do a seperate post for each topic?

  • 11:28 am
  • 5 Comments