Asturian-American Migration Forum

Eli
I do enjoy your post, I could give you a quote from the Harry Truman days, but I won't. You will never convince a Bush supporter that he has broken the law. I, too, am amazed at that fact , If Bill Clinton had done this, you would never hear the last of it, I guess they have forgotten the Nixon years, and why you need a court order for phone tap. They say "if you are not hiding anything let them listen." That is not the point. By law you need a court order. We are a country of laws: laws for you, me, and those in power. They are not above the law. Democrat or Republican, that is not what it's about, its about the laws of our country.

It never ceases to amaze me that Bush supporters can turn a blind eye to his shortcomings no matter how obvious the failure (the botched attempt to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora AFTER the 9/11 attacks), how blatant the lie (WMDs), how heinous and reprehensible the action (incarcerating children at Guantánamo, torturing prisoners all over the world), or how incompetent the leadership (My Pet Goat, the descent into chaos in Iraq). Their only defense always seems to boil down to "yeah, but Clinton got a BJ."


--------------
trans. Art

Nunca deja de asombrarme que los partidarios de Bush pueden hacer la vista gorda a sus defectos, no importa si es obvio el fracaso (la tentativa chapuceada de capturar a Bin Laden en la Tora Bora DESPUÉS de los ataques de 9/11), si mienten con un descaro (WMDs), si es atroz y reprensible la acción (encarcelando a niños en Guantánamo, torturando a prisioneros en todo el mundo), o si es incompetente el mando (mi "cabra" [ejemplo] favorita, el descenso al caos en Irak). Su única defensa siempre parece reducirse a "sí, pero [Monica] se le mamó a Clinton."

Oh, I get it. It's jealousy! Thanks, Xose, for helping me understand this finally.

------------

Ah, ya lo entiendo. ¡Esto es todo por causa de la celosía! Gracias, Xose, por ayudarme en entenderlo al fin.

As I see it, a fundamental problem with the Religious Right is that the Christian aspect of their concerns are amazingly narrow.

So what is the Religious Right's platform? To what degree is it obviously based on the Christian faith?

I'm going to accept Barbara's challenge and dig a little deeper to see what the Religious Right wants politically.

A representative sample is the Christian Coalition's "Our Legislative Agenda", a list that the Christian Coalition calls "America's Agenda for the 109th Congress, Second Session (2006)". You can read the original text here: http://www.cc.org/issues.cfm

I've added an explanation of most of the items, mostly in their words, and critiqued their platform by suggesting possibly relevant words spoken by Jesus. I've never been one to quote scripture to proof-text things. I do it here because I find the contrast between their words and Jesus' so bizarre. It's sad.


1. Protect Religious Television Programming
(This would require cable networks to carry religious programming.)

I wonder if Jesus would repeat this command? "Do not cast pearls before swine." -- Matthew 7:6

2. Support Legislation Stopping Religious Discrimination Against Evangelical Christians in the Military
(This would ensure that prayer is allowed in any military activity.)

Jesus said "And when you pray, you mus not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is ihn secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." -- Matthew 6:5–8

"And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret, and your Father who ses in secret will reward you." -- Matthew 6:16–18

3. Making Permanent the 2001-2003 Federal Tax Cuts

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your hear be also." -- Matt 6:19–21

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and depise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." -- Matthew 6:24)

4. Passing the 'Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act'
(This bill would require abortion providers to notify women who want an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they have the option to obtain anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate pain.)

What Jesus would have said about abortion? Well, here's what Exodus 21:22-23 says in a related situation: "When men strive [fight] together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm [to the woman] follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows [to the woman], then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Causing death of an unborn child only merits a fine. As I understand it, abortion is not an issue in Jewish law. Jesus was a Jew, so we can conclude that he didn't mention abortion because it wasn't a big issue for him.

5. Passing in U.S. Senate of Broadcasting Decency Enforcement Act
(This increase fines for indecency from $32,500 to $500,000 per incidence and could eventually lead to revocation of broadcast licenses.)

I don't know of any words of Jesus that address this issue. Although there is a clear sense in his words that he would call for respect for others and for ourselves.

6. Getting votes to Confirm President Bush’s Judicial Nominations
(They support President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Samuel A. Alito, other future Supreme Court nominees, and nominees to the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.)

Jesus might wonder why his name is being invoked in the political process: "My kingdom [kingship] is not of this world." -- John 18:36
Of course, this could be seen as a subtle attempt to outlaw abortion, so #4 applies, too.

7. Passing the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act in the House and Senate
(If passed, it would violate federal law to transport a minor girl across state lines for the purpose of procuring an abortion, if this is done to evade a parental notification or parental consent law that is in effect in the girl's home state.)

See #4.

8. Passing Congressman Walter Jones’ 'Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act,' H.R. 235
(This bill would free houses of worship from fear, anxiety, and uncertainty created by the threat that the IRS will impose financial penalties or revoke tax-exempt status altogether according to its sponsor.)

This would mean that you could make a political contribution--to your church--and get a tax deduction for it!

See #6.

9. Passing in the U.S. Senate Congressman Hostettler’s Legislation Protecting 10 Commandments
(This bill would prohibit use of funds to enforce judgement of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana's ruling that prohibited display of the 10 Commandments on the lawn of the Gibson County Courthouse.)

See #2.

10. Passing Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s 'Holly’s Law'
(This bill would take the abortion pill, RU 486, off the market until there is an investigation over the four deaths caused by the pill.)

This is simply another attempt to control abortion; otherwise, there would be other bills to protect us from drugs that kill patients. See #4.

11. Passing Senator Sam Brownback’s anti-cloning bill in the U.S. Senate
(This is the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005".)

Any statement on Jesus' beliefs about cloning is necessarily an interpretation by us.

12. Passing Congressman Ernest Istook’s Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Protecting Religious Freedom
(This is a proposed constitutional amendment to protect religious freedom. It would secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: the people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools; and the United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity.)

See #2.

13. Passing Congressman Todd Akin’s and Senator Jon Kyl’s 'Pledge Protection Act of 2005'
(This bill would not allow the federal courts to rule that school children could no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "Under God.")

See #2.

14. Passing Congressman Henry Hyde’s 'U.N. Reform Act of 2005' in the U.S. Senate
(This bill would cut up to 50% of United States contributions to the U.N. if the U.N. does not carry out required reforms.)

Sure, the UN probably needs reform, but I'd bet that the real intent here is to hobble the UN. Isn't the UN about making peace, feeding the hungry, and healing the sick? That sounds like the Christian mandate, to me.

"For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. ... The King will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." -- Matthew 24:35-40

15. Passing Congressman Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act (FARA), H.R. 689
(This bill would repeal a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill which bans non-PAC-funded issue advocacy and other such references to federal candidates in broadcast ads during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.)

See #6.


Okay, let's count the issues. Out of 15 items, they fall into these categories:

Abortion = 3 . . . (#4, 7, 10)
Cloning = 1 . . . (#11)
Public religious acts (such as prayer) = 6 . . . (#1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13)
Reducing taxes and humanitarian assistance = 2 . . . (#3, 14)
Public decency = 1 . . . (#5)
Increase political leverage = 2 . . . (#6, 15)

So much for feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, etc.


And just what would Jesus say about the Christian Coalition's director, Ralph Reed, and his intimate dealings with lobbyist Jack Abramoff? Maybe something like this: "Beware of false prophets who are wolves in sheep's clothing, by their fruits (actions) will you know them, the good tree does not produce bad fruit and the bad tree cannot produce good fruit." -- Matt 7:15–20

-----------------------

A mi modo de ver, un problema fundamental con la Derecha Religiosa es que la orientación cristiana de sus preocupaciones es increíblemente estrecha.

¿Pues, cuál es la plataforma de la Derecha Religiosa? ¿A cual grado está obviamente basado en la fe cristiana?

Voy a aceptar el desafío de Barbara y cavar un poco más profundo para ver que la Derecha Religiosa quiere políticamente.

Una muestra representativa es "Nuestro orden del día legislativo", una lista que el Coalición Cristiana llama "el Orden del día de América para el 109 Congreso, la segunda sesión (2006)". Puedes leer el texto original aquí: http://www.cc.org/issues.cfm

He añadido una explicación de la mayor parte de los artículos, en su mayor parte en sus palabras, y critiqué su plataforma por sugiriendo palabras habladas por Jesús que son posiblemente relevantes. Nunca he sido uno quien cita la escritura como una prueba de mis ideas. Lo hago aquí porque encuentro el contraste entre sus palabras y los de Jesús tan extraño. Está triste.


1. Proteger la programación religiosa de televisión
(Esto requeriría que redes de cable llevaran los programas religiosos.)

¿Me pregunto si Jesús repitiera este mando? "Y no echen sus perlas los puercos, no sean que las pisoteen." - San Mateo 7:6

2. Apoyo legislación para poner fin a la discriminación religiosa contra evangélicos cristianos en el ejército
(Esto aseguraría que permiten al rezo en cualquier actividad militar.)

Jesús dijo "Y cuando ustedes oren, ne sean como los hipócritas, que les gusta orar de pie en las sinagogas y en las esquinas de las calles, para que la gente los vea. En verdad les digo, que con eso ya tienen su premio. Pero cuando tú ores, entra en tu cuarto, cierra la puerta y ora a tu Padre que está allí a solas contigo. Entonces tu Padre, que ve lo que haces en secreto, te dará tu premio.

Al hacer oración, no repitas palabras inútiles, como hacen los que no conocen a Dios y que se imaginan que Dios les va a oír porque hablan mucho. No sean, pues, como ellos; porque el Padre ya sabe lo que ustedes necesitan, antes que se lo pidan." - San Mateo 6:5-8

"Cuando ustedes ayunen, no pongan cara triste como hacen los hipócritas; pues ellos lo hacen para que la gente vea que están ayunando. En verdad les digo, que con eso ya tienen su premio. Pero tú, cuando ayunes, lávate la cara y péinate bien, para que la gente no se dé cuenta de que estás ayunando. Solamente to Padre, que está allí a solas contigo, se dará cuenta; y él dará tu premio." - Mateo 6:16-18

3. Hacer permanente los recortes de los impuestos federales de 2001-2003

"No amontonen riquezas aquí en la tierra, donde la pollila destruye y las cosas se echan a perder, y donde los ladrones entran a robar. Más bien amontonen riquezas en el cielo, donde la polilla no destruye ni las cosas se echan a perder, ni los ladrones entran a robar. Pues donde ustedes tengan sus riquezas, allí también estará su corazón. Adquiera tesoros en el cielo, no sobre la tierra." - San Mateo 6:19-21

"Nadie puede servir a dos amos, porque odiará a uno y amará al otro, o será fiel a uno y despreciará al otro. No se puede servir a Dios y al dinero." - San Mateo 6:24

4. Aprobar del 'Acto de la conciencia de dolor por niños nonatos'
(Esta proyecto de la ley requeriría que proveedores de aborto notificaran a las mujeres que quieren un aborto 20 semanas después de la fertilización que pruebas sugieren que los niños nonatos sienten dolor y que ellas tienen la opción obtener la anestesia para su niño nonato para reducir o eliminar el dolor.)

¿Qué habría dicho Jesús sobre el aborto? Bien, aquí está lo que el Éxodo 21:22-23 dice en una situación relacionada: "Si dos hombres se pelean y llegan a lastimar a una mujer embarazada, haciéndola abortar, pero sin poner en peligro su vida, el culpable deberá pagar de multa lo que el marido de la mujer exija, según la decisión de los jueces. Pero si la vida de la mujer es puesta en peligro, se exigirá vida por vida, ojo por ojo, diente por diente, mano por mano, pie por pie, quemadura por quemadura, herida por herida, golpe por golpe."

Causar la muerte de un niño nonato sólo merece una multa. Como entiendo esto, el aborto no es una preocupación en la ley judía. Jesús era un judío, entonces podemos concluir que no mencionó el aborto porque no se lo preocupó mucho.

5. Aprobar en el Senado estadounidense del Acto de la ejecución de decencia en la difusión de radio y televisión.
(Aumentaría las multas para la indecencia de 32,500 dólares hasta 500,000 dólares por incidencia y tarde o temprano podrían conducir a la revocación de licencias de difusión.)

No sé de ninguna palabra de Jesús que trata sobre esta cuestión. Aunque hay un sentido claro en sus palabras que pediría el respeto a otros y a nosotros mismos.

6. Adquisición de votas para confirmar a los nombramientos judiciales de Presidente Bush
(Apoyan al candidato de Presidente Bush al Tribunal Supremo, Juez Samuel A. Alito, a otros candidatos futuros de Tribunal Supremos, y a los candidatos al Tribunal circuito de peticiones estadounidense.)

Jesús podría preguntarse porque su nombre está siendo invocado en el proceso político: "Mi reino no es de este mundo." - San Juan 18:36
Desde luego, esto podría ser visto como una tentativa sutil de proscribir el aborto, entonces el #4 se aplica, también.

7. Aprobar del Acto interestatal de notificación de aborto infantil en la Cámara de representantes y el Senado
(De ser pasado, violaría la ley federal transportar a una muchacha menor a través de líneas estatales para el objetivo de procurar un aborto, si lo hacen para evadir una notificación paternal o la ley de consentimiento paternal que es en efecto en el estado de casa de la muchacha.)

Mirar el #4.

8. Aprobar el proyecto de ley por miembro del Congreso Walter Jones 'Acto de restauración de discurso libre en las "casas" [iglesias] de adoración', H.R. 235
(Este proyecto de ley liberaría las casas de adoración del miedo, la ansiedad, y la incertidumbre creada por la amenaza que el Internal Revenue Service impondrá penas financieras o revocará el estado exento de impuestos totalmente según su patrocinador.)

¡Esto significaría que se podría hacer una contribución política - a su iglesia - y conseguir una deducción fiscal para ello!

Mirar el #6.

9. Aprobar el proyecto de ley por miembro del Senado Hostettler "Legislación que Protege los Diez Mandamientos
(Este proyecto de ley prohibiría el empleo de fondos para hacer cumplir el juicio del Tribunal de distrito estadounidense para el Distrito del Sur de Indiana que prohibió la exposición de los Diez Mandamientos sobre el césped del Palacio de justicia del condado de Gibson.)

Mirar el #2.

10. Aprobar el proyecto de ley por miembro del Congreso Roscoe Bartlett 'Ley) de "Holly [nombre de una niña]'
(Este proyecto de ley sacaría la píldora de aborto, RU 486, del mercado hasta que hay una investigación sobre las cuatro muertes causadas por la píldora.)

Es simplemente otra tentativa de controlar el aborto; si no, habría otras proyectos de ley para protegernos de medicinas que matan a muchos más pacientes.

Mirar #4.

11. Aprobar el proyecto de ley contra el clon por miembro del Senado Sam Brownback
(Esto es "el Acto de prohibición del clon humano de 2005 ".)

Cualquier opinión sobre las creencia de Jesús sobre el clon es necesariamente una interpretación por nosotros.

12. Aprobar el proyecto de ley por miembro del Congreso Ernest Istook, 'Enmienda a la Constitución estadounidense que protege libertad religiosa'
(Es una enmienda constitucional propuesta para proteger la libertad religiosa. Aseguraría el derecho de la gente de reconocer a Dios según los dictados de conciencia: la gente conserva el derecho de rezar y reconocer sus creencia religiosas, la herencia, y tradiciones en los bienes [literalmente propiedades] públicos, incluyendo las escuelas; y los Estados Unidos y los estados no establecerán ninguna religión oficial, ni requerirán que cualquier persona participe en el rezo o la actividad religiosa.)

Mirar el #2.

13. Aprobar el proyecto de ley por miembros del Senado Todd Akin y Jon Kyl, 'Acto de protección de la jura de la bandera de 2005'
(Este proyecto de ley no permitiría a los tribunales federales resolver que los alumnos no podían recitar más la jura de la bandera debido a las palabras "Bajo Dios.")

Mirar el #2.

14. Aprobar el proyecto de ley por miembro del Senado Henry Hyde, 'Acto de Reforma de las Naciones Unidas de 2005'
(Este proyecto de ley cortaría al 50% de contribuciones de los Estados Unidos a las Naciones Unidas si las Naciones Unidas no realizan reformas requeridas.)

Seguramente las Naciones Unidas probablemente necesita la reforma, pero apostaría que la verdadera intención aquí sea limitar las Naciones Unidas. ¿No es el papel de las Naciones Unidas crear la paz, alimentar a los que tienen hambre, y curar a los enfermos? Esto también me suena al mandato cristiano.

"Pues tuve hambre, y ustedes me dieron de comer; tuve sed, y me dieron de beber; anduve como forastero, y me dieron alojamiento. Me faltó ropa, y ustedes me la dieron; esturve enfermo, y me visitaron; estuve en la cárcel, y vinieron a verme." Entonces los que resultaron justos dirán: "Señor, ¿cuándo te vimos con hambre, y te dimos de comer? ¿O cuándo te vimos con sed, y te dimos de beber? ¿O cuándo vimos como forastero, y te dimos alojamiento, o falto de ropa, y te la dimos? ¿O cuándo te vimos enfermo, o en la cárcel, y fuimos a verte?" Y el Rey les contestará: ën verdad les digo, que todo lo qaue hicieron por uno de estos mis hermanos, por humildes que sean, por mi mismo lo hicieron." - San Mateo 24:35-40

15. Aprobar el proyecto de ley por miembro del Congreso Bartlett, 'Acto de la restauración de la enmienda primero (FARA), H.R. 689
(Este proyecto de ley revocaría una provisión en el proyecto de ley de reforma de finanzas de campaña de McCain-Feingold que prohíbe la propugnación que no sea financiado por PACs [PAC: comité de actuación política] y otras tales referencias a candidatos federales en anuncios de difusión durante los 30 y 60 días antes de las elecciones primarias y generales.)

Mirar el #6.


¿Bueno, pues, contemos las preocupaciones. De los 15 artículos, se caen en estas categorías:

Aborto = 3 . . . (#4, 7, 10)
Reproducción = 1 . . . (#11)
Actos públicos religiosos (como rezo) = 6 . . . (#1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13)
Reducir las impuestos y la ayuda humanitaria = 2 . . . (#3, 14)
Decencia pública = 1 . . . (#5)
Aumente su apalancamiento político = 2 . . . (#6, 15)

Pues, si eso es alimentar a los que tienen hambre, vestir a los desnudos, curar a los enfermos, etc.


¿Y qué diría Jesús sobre el director de la Coalición Cristiana, Ralph Reed, y sus transacciones íntimas con el cabildero Jack Abramoff? Tal vez algo así: "Cuídense de los mentirosos que dicen que hablan de parte de Dios. Estos vienen a ustedes disfrazados de ovejas, pero por dentro son lobos feroces. Ustedes los pueden reconocer por lo que hacen; pues no se cosechan uvas de los espinos, ni higos de los cardos. Así pues, todo árbol bueno da fruto bueno, y e árbol malo da fruto malo. El árbol bueno no puede dar fruto malo, ni tampoco puede el árbol malo dar fruto bueno. Todo árbol que no da buen fruto se corta y se quema en el fuego. De modo que ustedes los reconocerán por lo que ellos hacen." - San Mateo 7:15-20

--------------------------

Art, fantastic post.

What would Jesus say about the indiscriminate cluster bombing of Iraqi civilians? Would he support that?

What would Jesus do if he were attacked on 9/11, for that matter? Actually according to the Bible, he'd turn the other cheek. Personally, I'm not for turning the other cheek to al Queda, but that's what Jesus said to do.

Didn't Jesus say to go pray in a closet? So why do we need to do it in school?
That's a DIRECT contridiction to his EXPRESS orders.

Didn't Jesus say that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? So how do you think he'd feel about tax cuts for the richest 1% of us?

Actually, if you're gonna follow Jesus' rules, he said to hate your parents, which seems a little harsh, but that's what he said. ("If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother...he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)) Ouch.

Maybe Bush is right and we shouldn't follow Jesus' teachings after all.

Hola a todos.

Antes que nada, decir que he "editado" mi primer mensaje quitando las dos palabras que podían, y de hecho lo hicieron, herir la sensibilidad de alguna persona.

Me deja asombrado que ofenda tanto el uso de ciertos calificativos a ciertas personas y no los actos de dichas personas... en fin... supongo que será que existe un abismo cultural entre ambos lados del Atlántico...

En el tema de Bush, creo que es una marioneta en manos de personas que sí son inteligentes y defienden sus intereses. Intereses probablemente inmorales que hacen que se tenga que vender una guerra con mentiras varias cuando cuyo objetivo era geo-estratégico y de control sobre grandes reservas de hidrocarburos en previsión de la fuerte competencia que se avecina con China y India. Además de intereses empresariales de los que controlan los hilos de la marioneta. Por otra parte, también creo que esa falta de inteligencia del presidente, sumando el fanatismo de converso de un ex-alcohólico, el oír voces como Juana de Arco, hace que sea más emocional que reflexivo, trayendo como consecuencias que solo le digan lo que quiere escuchar. De ahí que de los numerosos informes de la C.I.A. solo llegaran hasta él los que corroboraban sus ideas sobre Iraq, y sobre el mundo en general.

Entiendo que quien tuvo confianza en el presidente actual le cueste reconocer que fue engañado. Pero ser de un determinado partido no tiene porque ser sinónimo de comulgar con las ruedas de molino del líder. Digo yo. En EEUU precisamente los congresistas tienen libertad de voto, no como aquí, y los republicanos votan en contra de Bush cuando este se "pasa".

Un saludo.

-------------------
trans. Art with Leto's help [ayuda]

Hello to everyone,

First of all, I want to say that I have "edited" my first message, removing both words that could, and of fact did, bother the sensibilities of some people.

It amazes me that the use of certain epithets about certain persons is so offensive -- but not the actions of those persons. In the end, I suppose that it indicates that there is a cultural abyss between both sides of the Atlantic Ocean....

On the topic of Bush, I believe that he is a marionette in the hands of people who are indeed intelligent and who are defending their interests. Those are probably immoral interests that make it so they have to sell a war with different lies when their [actual] goal was geostrategic and about control of huge reserves of hydrocarbons [oil] in anticipation of the strong competition that looms with China and India. That's in addition to the business interests of those who control the marionette strings. On the other hand, also I believe that this lack of intelligence of the president, in addition to the fanaticism of a converted ex-alcoholic and his hearing voices like Joan of Arc did, makes it so it is more emotional than reflective, led to the consequence that they only tell him what he wants to hear. From there[, it follows,] that of the many CIA reports the only ones that reached his desk were those which corroborated his ideas on Iraq, and on the world in general.

I understand that for those who had confidence in the current president, it would be difficult for them to admit that they were cheated [tricked]. But being a member of a particular political party does not mean that you have to swallow anything its leader says/does. That's how I see it. In the USA the members of Congress have the "free vote" [Art/Leto: meaning that they can vote contrary to their party], unlike here [in Spain they have to vote with their party], and the republicans can vote in opposition to Bush when he goes too far.

Best wishes.

[Art: Thanks to Leto for helping me understand this.]

Hi Ron,

Exactly! Couldn’t possibly agree more with you.
The only part that I say would/could be a gray area is if they were/are doing their wiretapping on the net on such forms of communication as Vonage, that allows people to talk over the phone via packets of information transmitted over the net. Since there is no law prohibiting the interception of information via the net and a court order is required to tap into a phone conversation this would no doubt be a ‘gray’ area that would have to be addressed by laws or the courts. Other than that any consistent random wiretapping without a court order is illegal and unconstitutional. If they in fact are doing it only on suspected terrorists.... why aren’t these people in prison?



Hi Art,

I saw your post a couple of days ago, since I didn’t have a preconceived idea on this regard thought I let it sit for a while, at least until I’ve decided what to think about it.

Don’t think I would address the issue quite in that manner. It appears to me that the way in which you present it is what is presented to you by the religious organizations, a sort of what we do with child psychology; “do you want to go to bed with the teddy bear or the Xman?”, in the end regardless of what he chooses the child goes to bed, which was our intent. When debating religious infringements in politics in my view it should not be a matter of whether the views/goals of the religious organizations are in accordance with those that the religion claims to profess, rather, whether politics is a place for a religious organization of any denomination to be. In my opinion, if a religious organization is involved in politics it ceases to be a religious organization and it becomes a political organization. That being the case their ‘religious organization’ status should be revoked and with that all the benefits afforded to such institutions, and at the same time they should now conform to their new status of ‘political organizations’ and be bound by the laws that regulate them, i/e contributions in the form of donations, taxable status and all others.

Any and all denominations that claim an association with this organization (Christian Coalition) should be forced to change their legal status to political parties, or at least that of political lobbyist organizations.


Hi Xose,

Just a note on “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? ” I believe it was not ‘a rich man’ but rather ‘an avaricious man’ or maybe ‘a greedy man’, depending on who’s translation we use. I don’t think Jesus had a problem with wealth, although I could be wrong I believe he had a problem with people’s general attitude towards material wealth and the desire for an easy life, as supposed to ‘spiritual enlightening’ that the poor could achieve. In his time wealth for most was clearly out of the picture, but anybody could believe in anything for free.

I had Religion in school until I was 14, at which time the German school systems allowed us to choose whether to continue or not. Most everybody chose not to continue. At that age, however, all catholic and protestant children had had their confirmation. In other words, we had been properly taught, not indoctrinated.

I believe it is absolutely necessary that Religion be taught in school as if it were a normal subject like history or biology, that is the only way to keep fanaticism under control. The moment you leave religious education to self-proclaimed preachers, mullahs, rabbis or what have you, you're heading straight for fundamentalism, division, hatred and ultimately war.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yo tuve clase de religión hasta los 14, que era la edad en la que el sistema educativo alemán te permitía elegir si querías seguir con estas clases o no. La mayoría optó por dejarlo. No obstante, a esa edad tanto los católicos como los protestantes ya habíamos sido confirmados. Quiero decir que se nos había instruído, pero no adoctrinado.

Creo que es absolutamente necesario que se imparta religión en las escuelas como una asignatura más, como historia o biología, porque es la única manera de controlar el fanatismo. En el momento en que se deje en manos de predicadores, mulás o rabinos autoproclamados, nos dirigiremos directamente al fundamentalismo, a la división, el odio y finalmente la guerra.

Pero a ver, si eres asturiana que estuviste estudiando en alemania? pero cuantos idiomas hablas dios mio!!!!

oye, que he pensao que si hablas alemán me podías ayudar con el espikin para mandarle un mensajito a uno de los wapiiiiiiisimos de il divo.

In fairness, I should point out that opposition to illegal domestic spying has come not only from Democrats, but from some Republicans as well.

Likewise, banning torture has proven not to be an entirely partisan issue in our national government. See the record of Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, for example. He is himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, and was subjected to torture.

In my view, one of the most unfortunate aspects of recent American politics is the extreme polarization that has occurred. We shouldn't mistake the views of the executive branch for the views of everyone of the same party who serves in Congress. I hope that more people on both sides of the aisle speak out against illegal and immoral practices.

Hey Terechu,

“I had Religion in school until I was 14...” yeah.... about that...

I don’t think it is prudent to teach ‘religion’ per se, because it predisposes the child to believe in fantastic supernatural creatures, since there is no proof of their existence, it in and of itself should not be taught. However, I believe the basics of religion should be taught in school, but it should be as what it is, mythology. We should teach both ancient and current mythology. They should be taught much in the same way that today we teach ancient Roman and Egyptian mythology. The Christian, Muslim and other two major religious beliefs of the world today should be taught as mythology. Once that solid base of what it is and on what it is based has been taught in the schools as part of the everyday reality they will someday face, then they will be educated enough to decide on their own if they want to turn any of those mythological beliefs into a faith based religion for them.

I agree with the second part of your post that the lack of education in this regard is probably worse than giving them a religion, however bad it might be to give them a religion to begin with.

Just so that my words are understood as they are meant; mythology is used to describe a set of beliefs that attempt to explain what we don’t know by creating supernatural creatures and assigning them the power to create our origin, control our lives and ultimately decide on the destination of an also created soul that will live eternally. Religion is the acceptance of those sets of beliefs as real, a person needing no more proof than faith to accept them.

Bob said “In fairness, I should point out that....”

Well said!

Eli wrote:
Just a note on “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? ” I believe it was not ‘a rich man’ but rather ‘an avaricious man’ or maybe ‘a greedy man’, depending on who’s translation we use. I don’t think Jesus had a problem with wealth, although I could be wrong I believe he had a problem with people’s general attitude towards material wealth and the desire for an easy life, as supposed to ‘spiritual enlightening’ that the poor could achieve. In his time wealth for most was clearly out of the picture, but anybody could believe in anything for free.

Actually, every time Jesus talked about material possessions of any kind in the Bible it was in reference to them being bad. Take for example, that he told all the disciples that they had to give up everything to follow him. Another example was the turning over of the change tables in the Temple. There are more, but I don't have time to look them all up! :0)

Xose

My first inclination was to agree with Xose on wealth and possessions, but as I looked at the relevant verses more carefully, I've had to change my view toward seeing the teachings as much more nuanced, more in line with what Elí has said.

First, it's worth looking at how the early church interpreted Jesus' teachings.

Acts 2: 43-47 wrote:And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

It's often been noted that the early Christians expected Jesus to return soon and then take believers with him. So by selling their possessions and living in communal manner they were preparing for Jesus' return. To what degree was their "communism" as a celebration of what they expected, and to what degree was it a mandate for behavior?

Acts 4:32-37 wrote:And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.

And Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

And then it gets much more intense.

Acts 5:1-11 wrote:But a certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land? “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came upon all who heard of it. And the young men arose and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well. And she fell immediately at his feet, and breathed her last; and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

Peter accuses the couple of lying. Peter makes it clear that the land and the money from its sale was totally theirs to do with as they pleased. So it doesn't seem that having the money or land was the problem.

There were still rich people in the church, so I'm not sure that wealth itself was an issue, although the wealth disparity certainly caused problems in the early church.

The expectation of a quick return became a problem eventually and the church had to adapt the the emerging reality.

Of course, we don't see much communalism in the church today. Eventually the idealistic communal culture seems to have broken down. Perhaps the march of time and the increasing numbers of believers inevitably led to the decline. For example, the "love feasts", meals associated with the eucharist, became a problem. You can read below about Paul trying to stiffle the early church's communal ways.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 wrote:But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.

By the way, on another moral issue, I've occasionally heard people suggest that the love feast, a meal associated with the eucharist, was actually a sexual orgy. (It always seemed as though they were making this claim to justify their desires.) I haven't found anything to back up that claim, but I'd be interested in hearing if you've found something. Detractors in the Roman era made that same orgy charge, and it may have been as inaccurate as similar charges that the eucharist was cannibalistic.

Of coure, being a human institution, the early church had to deal with sexual immorality. Here's just one example.

1 Corinthians 5:1 wrote:It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife.

But that's not an orgy.

By mentioning these verses, am I suggesting that they speak of a standard we should live by today? I'm a "cultural Methodist", much in the way that a Jew might say they are a "cultural Jew". To a large degree these values are part of my life. And though it may sound odd to say so, studying these verses holds meaning for me.

For what it's worth, I believe that huge disparities in income create corrosive divisions and that lusting for wealth (whether you have it or not) kills something vital in us. But I also think that poverty can kill something important in us. I no longer put the poor up on a pedestal like I once did. And I think that some anti-poverty social programs may have caused more problems than they solved. None of this is as simple as I once believed.

----------------

No planeo traducir este mensaje. Si te gustaría leerlo en castellano, dime y lo haré.