News to piss you off. :-D
Dec. 11th, 2004 01:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emmagrant01• School drops slavery booklet: "Southern Slavery, As It Was" is a 43-page booklet published in 1996 that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery. It asserts that slaves weren't treated as badly as people believe. This is exactly why I don't accept Biblical claims against homosexuality. People have historically used the Bible to justify slavery, racial segregation, and treating women as second class citizens. I don't really give a shit if the Bible says that you should treat certain people as less than fully equal; I don't think it's right. I thought Jesus had a slightly different message anyway.
• Feds Use 'Secret Laws' to Justify Harassment of Americans. Don't get me started! :-P
• U.S. Admits Torture Used to Obtain Evidence Against Terrorists. Geneva Conevention? What Geneva Convention?
• Less than seven months after same-sex couples began tying the knot in Massachusetts, the state is seeing its first gay divorces. A quote: Opponents of gay marriage said the divorces, occurring so soon after the weddings, confirm that gay couples are not equipped for marriage. "We're not surprised," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "Particularly among male homosexuals, the promiscuity is just phenomenal." *rolls eyes and gives Ms. Mineau a one-finger salute*
• Jesus is on our side here, and secular liberals should not be afraid to invoke him. Policies of pre-emptive war and the upward redistribution of wealth are inversions of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is for the most part silent, or mysteriously cryptic, on gays and abortion. Okay, so that one wasn't intended to piss you off! ;-)
• Feds Use 'Secret Laws' to Justify Harassment of Americans. Don't get me started! :-P
• U.S. Admits Torture Used to Obtain Evidence Against Terrorists. Geneva Conevention? What Geneva Convention?
• Less than seven months after same-sex couples began tying the knot in Massachusetts, the state is seeing its first gay divorces. A quote: Opponents of gay marriage said the divorces, occurring so soon after the weddings, confirm that gay couples are not equipped for marriage. "We're not surprised," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "Particularly among male homosexuals, the promiscuity is just phenomenal." *rolls eyes and gives Ms. Mineau a one-finger salute*
• Jesus is on our side here, and secular liberals should not be afraid to invoke him. Policies of pre-emptive war and the upward redistribution of wealth are inversions of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is for the most part silent, or mysteriously cryptic, on gays and abortion. Okay, so that one wasn't intended to piss you off! ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 12:22 pm (UTC)And Britney Spears's marriage lasted how many hours? Way to cite selective examples, folks.
I love reading your links, btw, because I never seem to find the interesting articles by myslef. I came for "Left My Heart," and stayed for the political commentary!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 12:30 pm (UTC)pffftttt...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 12:35 pm (UTC)Jesus was Jewish, but shh. We don't talk about that.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 01:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 02:04 pm (UTC)PS. My uberhot icons have just gotten back from their honeymoon and asked me to tell that bitch in MA to get her hear out of her arse. They think that if she stuck something else up there she might not be so uptight about what other people choose to do with their own arse in the privacy of their own homes.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 07:41 pm (UTC)Apparently the bible doesn't allow for eating shellfish. To butcher a quote from QaF, if we can eat shrimp, they can eat cock.
hallo...
Date: 2004-12-11 08:03 pm (UTC)In the original Hebrew, in the Bible, the word "slave" could actually be translated to mean something much more along the lines of "indentured servant." Historians generally agree (I think) that the only people who had true slaves in the Bible were the Egyptians. The Hebrews had indentured servants, and treated them extremely well, from what I understand.
So I guess that your link is more a case of people mis-interpreting the Bible than anything.
As far as homosexuality? Check this out. (http://vitaminq.blogspot.com/2002_09_01_vitaminq_archive.html#81374700) The book of Leviticus is one often quoted by the homophobes - "SEE! The Bible says you're sinning!!" Well...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 08:07 pm (UTC)Technically Terrorists don't fall under the Geneva Convention. That treaty is for government sanctioned soldiers. And while I don't think torture should be used I think the media's definition of the act is skewed. Torture is and I quote from Webster's "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." I do not think stripping someone nude and embarrassing the hell out of them counts as torture. Nor sleep deprivation nor any other non invasive techniques used by the US Military as they were used to GET INTELLIGENCE DESPERATELY NEEDED TO SAVE LIVES.
Remember these ANIMALS, these BUTCHERS, these MURDERERS, these terrorists are the ones that chopped off peoples heads, strap explosives to their own children, and kidnap civilians to use as shields. These are the people that think NOTHING of using REAL torture (whips, burning, beating, breaking bones, rape, starvation, dehydration, cutting, chopping off of body parts, etc etc.) on anyone in their power, and have done so. Any of these people (and I use the term people lightly) would be more than happy to put a bullet between the eyes of anyone here (if they didn't do something more painful but just as deadly.) AND THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE! Where is the outrage at what these "poor tortured prisoners" have done or we know would do if given an iota of a chance?
I personally utterly fail to see why any of the public is upset over the US treatment of prisoners.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 11:07 pm (UTC)To tell the truth, not that I'm on their(MFI) side, I'm not surprised either. You know at least one couple in every, or every other, county got married as a spur of the moment thing. Then the novelty wore off. Marriage, no matter what gender coupled, is something that you really need to -mean- or else it's just a waste of time. People that are doing it just to do it give the others a bad name..
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 11:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 01:14 am (UTC)This historical contradiction reminds me that it is unlikely that the Bible itself is at fault. Rather, the social influence that the Bible has wielded is likely what makes so many people (coming from some very scary extremes) manipulate its text in an attempt to justify their behaviors. Whenever something or someone has a good deal of social influence, people are going to appeal to the item or person in an attempt to shore up their own belief systems... similar to celebrity spokespeople, appeals to patriotism, the church, the moral high ground... whatever.
Okay, I'm not sure I'm being clear, so I'll try to sum this up. I don't think video games caused Columbine and I don't think the Bible is responsible for the bigotry of some of those who surround it. I think that it is likely that you, as a typically open-minded individual, understand these sorts of distinctions, and are not meaning to come across as degenerating all who hold the Bible sacred in some way, just those particular few who appeal to its authority to support their bigotry. Even though I believe this about you, I just want to let you know that those opening statements (which were probably written in haste and some well-deserved anger) can be (mis?)interpreted to seem a bit condemnatory of all who respect the Bible, not just those who abuse it.
I hope this has been clear and you know that I am not disagreeing with your rant against those who support slavery and such. Pax.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 07:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 07:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 07:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:05 am (UTC)Re: hallo...
Date: 2004-12-12 08:08 am (UTC)Thanks for the link!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:23 am (UTC)Maybe because we live in a country where we believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty? Because even the sickest, most horrible child-raping serial murderer is guaranteed a fair trial and legal representation, no matter that he may not deserve it? Because in a truly free society, people need to be protected from "mob justice"? Because we don't want to give other countries license or an excuse to treat our prisoners the same? (We can hardly claim the high moral ground anymore, not after Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghraib (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) and who knows what else that we haven't heard about yet.) Because the message we want to spread around the world is more of freedom and democracy, and if WE don't take the high road and show how it's supposed to be done, how can we ever expect anyone else to want to do it too?
I firmly believe that our treatment of prisoners in Cuba will eventually become a matter of national shame, not unlike the incarceration of Japanese Americans during WWII. We'll look back and wonder why so many Americans were so blindly following along with something that more people should have spoken up about.
I'm not claiming that the people being held by our government are innocent victims (though a small percentage probably are, and they have no chance of being released). My point is that it is un-American to treat people the way those prisoners are being treated: with no access to legal representation, with food used as a ploy to get them to behave in certain ways, with torture used to extract information (and there is a TON of research that says information obtained in that way is highly unreliable -- people will say what they think their torturer wants to hear to make the torture stop), with no access to the rights afforded them by the Geneva Convention, and on and on.
Bottom line: our country asserts that every human being has basic rights, and our country should be the first in line to make sure they aren't denied them. We aren't doing that, and I don't know how Bush expects to win the hearts and minds of people in Iraq and elsewhere if we aren't doing that.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:33 am (UTC)This historical contradiction reminds me that it is unlikely that the Bible itself is at fault.
I agree with this completely. It's the small-minded bigots who wave the Bible and claim that it backs up their hateful perspectives that I have a problem with.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 08:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 09:25 am (UTC)It has long been a part of Jewish tradition to not actually write down the name of God, based on the idea that God was so sacred that it shouldn't be written or said. So they wrote down the title, YWH, from which we later got the term "Yehovah," a title for God that is popular in Christianity, as well.
I read your LJ, at least in part, because it educates me politically, but I doubt I am your typical reader, because I am far from a declared liberal. Rather, I am slowly self-educating independent who was raised in a very traditional and conservative home. So I when I find myself agreeing entirely with one of your opinions, I often forward them on to several who remain much more traditional than I.
And I am aware that, at least in this case, people were a bit bothered, and I thought I'd pass that on to you. After reading your reponse to me, I called said audiences, and the consensus on their parts was while was you said was not in and of itself incorrect, it intruded on the space that they give around things that are sacred.
I absolutely understand that this is your LJ, to vent and to rant and use how you see fit,but I thought you might want to know that you are reaching people, and sometimes changing opinions or touching lives. I respect what you said, and your right to say it any way you want to, but I've often thought that some of the reasons things like election '04 happen is because the left doesn't understand the (religious) middle, and loses them to bigots on the far right. I'm just trying to do my part to play go between, because I think everyone would benefit.
This is totally an opinion, and not meant to be intrusive or condemnatory, and I'm incredibly sorry if I offended you.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 11:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 12:13 pm (UTC)That's interesting to know. On LJ, most people are reluctant to post comments disagreeing with the view of the poster, I think because it's the poster's "turf". If you disagree, the poster's friends might all gang up on you; after all, people who disagree with the post usually don't bother to comment and you're likely to be a lone voice of dissent. People do occasionally post a dissenting comment here, and I admire their courage in doing so.
I also recognize that people are going to disagree with me on many issues. Hell, I'd bet the vast majority of Americans disagrees with me on most issues. I'm about as liberal as a person can get, and in this forum, I feel like I can express my views.
As far as "sacred things" go, I was raised by conservative Southern Baptists. My personal experiences with religion are overwhelmingly negative, as I detailed in an earlier post. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/emmagrant01/93757.html) My comments about religion are always criticisms of those folks who are evangelical fundamentalist Christians, the sort who point tp the Bible when explaining why it's "right" to discriminate against entire groups of people.
I don't actively mock religion or religious people as a whole (though I could point you to some communities where Christianity (for example) is routinely skewered). I have friends who are religious, and it's part of who they are - I truly respoect that. I also respect the fact that people view certain texts, places, and people as sacred, but I am entitled to my own opinion that those things are not sacred to me. If people are offended by that, they and I will have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid.
Thanks for responding, by the way.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 02:34 pm (UTC)And Bush has the hearts and minds of most of the people in Iraq. He did it by freeing them from mass graves, weapons of mass destruction used against them by their own government, and the chance to form a democracy.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 05:12 pm (UTC)Actually, no, they're not. If the were, the US government would be required to follow the terms of the Geneva Convention. And that's precisely why they invented a new term just for this case: "illegal combatant", which essentially allows them to do whatever they want to these people without fear of legal repercussions.
And Bush has the hearts and minds of most of the people in Iraq. He did it by freeing them from mass graves, weapons of mass destruction used against them by their own government, and the chance to form a democracy.
I find myself wondering if you watch the news at all, or read independent news organizations' reports of what's happening in Iraq. Or have you talked to a soldier who's been there, who's actually fought in the war and interacted with the local people? All of the ones I've talked to have said the situation is horrible, the US military is woefully unprepared and disorganized, and thath the Iraqis don't ant us there.
But apparently you've bought the party line, despite the utter lack of evidence for it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree -- as usual.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 12:13 am (UTC)