 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Our Attorney General
|
|
|
Subject: Our Attorney General From: GUEST,Libral Date: 05 Feb 01 - 05:04 PM Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you so much for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
B) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
C) I know I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period
D) Leviticus 25: 44 states that I may own slaves, both male & female,
E) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35: 2
F) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
G) Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
H) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
I) I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
J) My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two crops |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Helen Date: 05 Feb 01 - 05:17 PM LOL. My sentiments exactly - not the killing bits, but the mindless reliance on "what is written" against all current common sense and humanity. Especially the fact that a lot of people who quote the Bible to justify their beliefs and actions will often only quote one sentence out of context. Helen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: GUEST, Shania ("that don't impress me much") Twane Date: 05 Feb 01 - 05:22 PM This sort of "Dr. Laura" thing has already made the round in e-mails and is quite offensive to people who find some good in the Bible, be they Jews or Christians, liberal or conservative by whatever litmus test one deigns to apply. And titling a thread "Our Attorney General" is extraordinarly presumptuous of people's interest in US politics in an international community. Also plese lern to spel libral keerectally.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: GUEST Date: 05 Feb 01 - 05:45 PM Whal, yew kno whut? Ashcroft if ofensiv tew a much larjer numbr of peepul sew git ower hit. Haws thet fer spellin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Sorcha Date: 05 Feb 01 - 05:48 PM Shania I agree with a few of your comments, such as "our".....he certainly is not the AG of the UK, Oz, of lots of other Mudcat places. Neither is he the AG of a lot the American people, but the problem is:
The extreme right winger, political and religious both, has always relied on the Exact Written Word.....the problem lies in the interpretation of that Word.....an intelligent person can prove ANYthing with statistics, and a religious Christian or Jewish person can prove ANYthing with the Bible......but there is always another quote which nullifies the first quote.........
I think the thing is spot on. Unfortunately, it is not too funny because it is too true, and too scary. PS--witch werds did u thinc wear speled rong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:02 PM Well, I have a lot of respect for those who choose to follow ALL the laws specified in Leviticus, although that's not something I'd choose to do. I think the first message does a clever job of pointing out the fallacy of using Leviticus as proof only for your favorite abominations, while ignoring the rest. Whether Ashcroft will do that or not, is another question. For a good number of us, whether we like it or not, Ashcroft is "our" Attorney General. If you are not of the American persuasion, you can be like Helen from Australia and laugh and be glad you don't have Jack A. as your attorney general. Ooops! Did I just call our Attorney General "Jack A."? Well, I'm willing to give him a chance to prove himself. Maybe he won't be as bad as some people expect him to be. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:03 PM Libral, you can spell your name however you like, that was a hilarious post. I know Sorcha's right, but I just couldn't stop LOL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Sorcha Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:09 PM Joe, I don't think anyone could follow ALL the laws in Leviticus in today's world, and the Mea Shearim does try, in spite of the Israeli government. Those laws were written for a different time and place, and there is no way to "update" them for a modern world. Nor would most of us want to. It is a funny message, I just can't help but wonder how true it will turn out to be, and what is in store for the US in the future..........should we all lay in a goodly supply of stakes for burning? or begin embroidering scarlet letter "A's"?.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:14 PM Apologies to all for all the reasons and all that, but this one has missed my e-mail and like Fionn, I'm still busting a gut! And Joe, I love you bro, but why would you have a lot of respect for anyone who can follow a load of pretty senseless and out of date rules purely because they exist? I'm not demeaning anyone's religion or faith and I truly mean no ill here, but..........ain't that just kinda' dumb? AND NOW LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WILL GOUGE MY ASS WITH AN ICEPICK 27 TIMES. Reminds me of Gordon Liddy demonstrating macho. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: GUEST, Proselytizing Bitch, AKA Praise Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:19 PM It's been a special treat to be accused of being a sanctimonious, self-righteous, proselytizing bitch around here, while having anti-Christian statements lauded as high good humor on a regular basis by people who don't know what they are talking about. I find the process of de-vangelization nearly as interesting as evangelization. I would have to admit, on a good day, that this has been in general a strengthening process for me, when all is said and DONE. Too bad those of you who delight so much in bashing things don't do it at Beliefnet, where there are whole boards dedicated to vigorous criticism and challenge of people's various beliefs. You can rag on anything there, with plenty of company to egg you on. But then that would mean playing with people who have been practicing dealing with the absence of logic this kind of bashing is founded upon. Me, I am not so good at that. I still have the ridiculous hope that people will actually think, make sense, listen, and come to some kind of resolution in an effort to grow as human beings. I forget, see, that this just isn't the agenda involved in playing Basherama. But I am working on it. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: GUEST, ~S~ Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:21 PM May Spaw be kidnapped by friendly Chasidic Jews and may they both learn much, one from another. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:26 PM How odd that people outside a particular community should tell the people inside that community how to define that community's beliefs, how to read that community's sacred or defining texts, etc. What gall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:26 PM Well, Spaw, let me word that another way:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Feb 01 - 06:42 PM And on that JoeBro, I can agree. Thanks. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Greg F. Date: 05 Feb 01 - 07:05 PM Hate to disagree with a self-proclaimed Sanctimonius Proselytising Bitch, but it strikes me more as an anti-absurdity piece, not an anti-Christian one. Am I permitted a general observation?: less sanctimony might engender less bashing. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Sorcha Date: 05 Feb 01 - 07:09 PM Me two, spaw. As my Jewish friends say, "There is no Reason, it is because God SAYS!!" and alex mousethief, if my post came off sounding like that, I apologize. That is not what I meant. I am just real sick and tired of other people using their rules to define my life.......and it is going to get worse in the US now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Burke Date: 05 Feb 01 - 08:27 PM There are lots of easy targets in Leviticus. There are some other commands that make sense. When I look at the context of Lev. 18:22, I know very few who have a problem with either 18:21 or 18:23. http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Leviticus+18 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: GUEST Date: 05 Feb 01 - 09:40 PM Greg F, as long as others try to define what I experience, see, feel, say, and mean, I will decline advice based on that skewed view. In general I do what I expect others to do-- stick to my own best sense of what's what, make as much sense as I can every day, and expect others to do the same. I have heard this particular piece of humor beofre, this Dr. Laura thing, and have had quite a bit of time to think about it. If you want to define a strong opinion as sanctimony, because it happens to be about a religion matter, that's up to you. But it does not further real communication that you do. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: LR Mole Date: 06 Feb 01 - 10:05 AM Hm...well, I know of no more thoughtful, gentle,sensible community than the 'cat.And since you've never tried to trade god for money or power, but only as a key to understanding, I'm just glad to be about when this sort of thought goes on here.Still, there are some very silly people out there in the world, and even a bit of malice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Jim the Bart Date: 06 Feb 01 - 11:08 AM Thanks for the laugh. As one who finds some wisdom and comfort in the Bible (as in the Koran, the I-Ching, the musings of Lao-Tse, etc.) but who would prefer public policy based on reason rather than faith, I did not find it to be offensive at all. Sorry that some people see it as an attack on them, rather than a defense of others, but that can't be helped. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Feb 01 - 11:23 AM Bart, I'm just suggesting we consider thinking awarely about these things. There are a lot of groups who have historically been targeted by jokes mocking or attempting to portray their culture from outside of it. These cheap laughs help keep a lot of wrongs firmly fixed in place. There are higher levels of humor that lift people above that rigidity of thinking. I try to head in that direction when I am passing on what I think is funny. I don't forward, for example, male-bashing jokes I get in my e-mail. I'm as hungry for a good laugh as anyone, but I try to be responsible about what I release into the world, especially if it has my name on it. (I fail, often, but I keep trying.) I don't see this sort of thread as an attack on "me," but as an attack on entire groups of people veiled as humor. I object to this not primarily because this hurts the members of the groups mocked, but because saying nothing is to fail to try to reach people who I would hope would like to have a greater effectiveness and tolerance as they deal with their world. ~Curmudgeon in Training
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 06 Feb 01 - 01:44 PM To Susan: I and my atheist friends don't find any need to go to over to Beliefnet and "converse". Some Christian fundies remove all incentive and save us the bother by coming over to "alt.atheism" on a regular basis to try and correct us in the error of our ways. You see, they are convinced that if they just "explain" things right, we will indeed see our mistakes and obviously come to know Jesus as our saviour and find eternal salvation. Well intentioned, I know, but nonetheless annoying (althouigh the more earnest and less lucid may make for good sport for a while). How Christian of them. I say that sincerely; one of the hallmarks of evangelical Christianity (and more or less of some other religions) is an imperative to "bring the Good Word" to everyone. As one rather cynical wag put it: "Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor." -- "The Devil's Dictionary", Ambrose Bierce But this goes straight (so to speak) to the problem of Ashcroft and similar type souls: They have an unnatural urge to impose their beliefs on others, many times through dint of law. Not only that, but they are sincerely convinced that this is the "right" thing to do, and this makes them even more zealous. To lampoon them for their desire to impose their own selective vision of reality and morality on the country is, in my mind, in the _best_ tradition of our pluralistic, secular Unites States. I think you'd have to admit that no one has asked for Ashcroft to have his citizenship _denied_ to him, as Dubya's father at one time had suggested appropriate for atheists. BTW, I actually happen to enjoy gospel music; I find the music -- and harmonies particularly -- manytimes awesome, and the sentiments upliftting (even if not my particular kettle of tea). I actually find that some of my Jewish friends take more exception to gospel music; it seems that their beliefs are more challenged or impugned by the messages behind the gospel songs. FWIW, my favourite of all gospel tunes is "The Man In The Middle", by Tom "Harley" Campbell (although a number of others are right up there). Check it out. Cheers, -- Arne Langsetmo
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Feb 01 - 01:55 PM Arne, your post is a delight. Many of your points, BTW, are echoed at Beliefnet in the Proselytizing board. In that board, people tend to eschew Basherama as a sport and focus on exchanging actual thought. My post above was not directed at people willing to converse with mutually open minds. The open mind seems to be a rare thing these days, from any viewpoint. But mine is open to learning from others similarly equipped. I just don't put much stock in what comes out of the apparently closed ones... it tends to leak out from the nether regions! So I would hope you can see that I was not assuming a "need" on your part to hie yourself hence to Beliefnet, and in fact I am not "targeting" atheists at all-- I was addressing people of any variety of rigidity who defend mockery by calling it humor. But Beleiefnet is a great, diverse, hopping site, and it's set up to handle a lot of things that don't go too well here at the Mudcat. Hope to hear from you again. It would be interesting. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Irish sergeant Date: 06 Feb 01 - 03:37 PM Hi Susan and all: No bashing intended but John Ashcroft scares the daylights out of me and to a lesser extend so does our new president's administration. They (The administration) are attempting an end run around the constitution with their policy of using tax payer dollars to fund church groups under the guise that they are better able to help people than the government agencies in place. Maybe they are, how ever, will these funds go equally to all religious agencies or will only the WASP agencies get the gravy? We are a diverse culture and we are made up of many different religions. And as pointed out, people who choose not to practice religion. I respect the conviction that Mr. Ashcroft has in his beliefs but he strikes me as being too far to the religious right to be unbiased in his application of the law and I suspect he will actively campaign to overthrow Rowe V. Wade. I am no fan of abortion but I pray he abides by the constitution. I am not certain he can, and I pray to God that I'm wrong. If I'm not we in the United States could be in for a theocratic dictatorship. While i found parts of the thread amusing, it also brings foreboding. Kindest reguards, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Feb 01 - 03:54 PM Oh gee! You don't think I SUPPORT Ashcroft, surely!! Anyone assuming that would be seeing me as RR! Ah ain't!! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: InOBU Date: 06 Feb 01 - 04:48 PM Hi Guys... Dont forget Numbers, I believe 6 or so through 11. If you suspect your wife of being unfaithful, you take her to a priest who administers the bitter water, and if she was, the baby will wither in her womb! Sounds like the fundamentalists should be pro - cooersive abortion! Well, as being pro choice I would be against cooersive anything, so I would still be on the other side of the fence, however, seems to me, the allies of Ashcroft are quick to interprit, when it comes to ambiguos statements such as choose life, but not when the message is a clear statement, on slvery or abortion, this is why I am much more of a Pharacy then a Saducy (I know I cant spell... stone me...) as like Hillel I chose to see torah in the message do unto others nothing that is abhorant to one's self and the rest of the torah is comentary. Hillel as in the pharasian tradition believed that text should be interpreted, where as the Saducian tradition was fundamentalist. Christ was a rabbi in the Pharasian tradition (if one ignores the editing by Paul and look at his actual teaching) in fact in the Hillelian tradition. This is why I find it amazing that there are Christian fundamentalists. Well, the more time goes on, the more we argue the same stuff, eh? No offence to my fundamentalist brothers and sisters, we all wander through this world seeking by our own light. Pax Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 06 Feb 01 - 04:54 PM "Jehovah! Jehovah!" "You're only making it worse on yourself!" "How can it be worse?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Jim the Bart Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:08 PM Susan - I didn't mean to offend and I'm glad that you took my last post in the spirit in which it was intended - to continue the dialogue. One thing that bothers me a bit is the idea that by illustrating how foolish the selective use of the Bible to support one's POV can be, we are attacking believers by "portray(ing) their culture from outside it". I'd like to suggest that The Bible is too important a touchstone in Western culture for it's interpretation to be left entirely to those who believe it to be inspired writing. This doesn't mean that anything positive is accomplished by trying to prove the Bible "wrong" as an attack on another's faith. As I have said before, I would never try to destroy another's faith in God. This may be a thin line of differentiation, but I think it is an important one: what you believe spiritually and what you try to enforce secularly, i.e., in the realm of public policy, cannot and should not be one and the same. To me, deciding how your government should perform solely based on your reading of the Bible is not only bad public policy, it is an extremely dangerous misuse of the Bible. I think it's what our founders were concerned about when it came to establishing this country's relationship between Church and State. I think the original post was trying to expose what many of us fear about this new administration. Mr. Bush, with his references to Jesus as his political role-model, is either guilty of fatuous jingoism, extreme simple-mindedness or dangerous demagoguery. His appointment of Ashcroft and pledge to provide monetary support for faith-based social agencies, though predictable, is not encouraging. Americans are raised to believe that EVERY religious viewpoint (even the one that says there is no god) must be considered equally - and treated equally - by our governing officials. I suppose we shouldn't pre-suppose that fairmindedness can't co-exist with advocacy in this administration. Perhaps this is just a replay of the furor that arose when a Catholic was elected in 1960. Oh well. Praise et al, have a wonderful evening. Maybe I'll relax a bit when spring comes. As it will. Eventually. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: annamill Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:14 PM I THINK I'M VERY AFRAID!!! WYSIWYG, (Susan), I know this is thread creep, but I didn't want to start a whole thread for this, but on the otherhand, I wanted to share these thoughts with Mudcat. Why are you calling yourself WYSIWYG?? If you pronounce the name it sound like something from Dickens. Whsiwyg, why are you putting more coal on that fire?? I liked the name Praise. I am not a flamer and my question is sincere and not with malice of any kind. I mean, what will I call you when I meet you. We Mudcatters tend to call each other by our Mudcat names. Some people still call me annap. I guess wysiwyg is pretty good. Hey, wysiwyg! Let's talk about something else. We'll think about Jack A. tomorrow...;-) Love, annamill (pronounced "animal")
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:18 PM I suppose when you meet her, you should call her Susan. Alex (pronounced MAUS-theef) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: annamill Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:24 PM Oh MAUS, of course I could call her Susan and people could call me Anna. What fun is that? Actually, the more I say it the more I like it. I love Dickens, when I can get though the books (takes a while) and "wysiwyg" is cute. Now I cannot wait to meet her/you Susan..er..Wysiwyg. Love, Anna (see how boring that is) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: poor lonesome boy Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:39 PM All this talk of anti-Christian... didn't Christ rewrite a lot of these Old Testament rules? Isn't that a lot of the point of Christianity vs. Judaism? (Why I got myself involved in this I can't even start to understand) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 06 Feb 01 - 05:42 PM That's sort of the point of the original thread, Big Joe. The idea goes like this: Christians don't hold to all these other Old Testament rules; why do they hold to the homosexuality ones? (The answer is that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament also, so even if you drop all the OT rules, if the NT rules apply, you still get the same answer.) Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: sophocleese Date: 06 Feb 01 - 06:23 PM Umm.. all the agonizing about posting this particular letter to Dr. Laura aside it has actually appeared on the Mudcat before, I just can't find the relevant thread. I remember finding it very funny then and I still do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Feb 01 - 06:40 PM Oh crap, now I don't have time to respond to all these interesting posts! It's not time so much as energy-- crap. Health stuff. Damn. Send me an e-mail if you want to go on, OK, so I don't lose the chance to keep thinking with any of you who were at pains to communicate so excellently? Damn. How come, often, whenever I say what I really think, and pretty clearly, most of the respondents in the thread then focus on what I said instead of others' points? Anna, I love your name, Anna... it sings like a banner waving in a fine breeze, colors bright. I changed my name because Praise got too thoroughly defined by people looking at me cross-eyed, and I wasn't willing to work uphill about it. My cookie was corrupt so I could not sign fully out and ne a guest, which was my true desire. Now I have two memberships AND can go braless, I mean cookieless, and I am still exploring how to get along in this crazy place AND be myself. See the current UK sessions thread for more on this topic, on the weight of a cookie. See the Mudcat Name Change thread of a few weeks back on the name change. You can call me Susan, or Sugar Dog, or Praise if you must, but once we meet it won't matter. It'll just be you being you and me being me, and names don't really matter then. (pronounced Human)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 06 Feb 01 - 07:36 PM Susan: Thank you for your thoughts as well. I would echo Barts thoughts: The original post was a bit of a commentary on Levitican law -- not necessarily on the other parts of the Bible, some of which I can concur with wholle-heartedly -- which is one of the parts of the Bible most akin to secular laws WRT the specificity and the temporal punishments prescribed. It is the part that is most prone to use (or is it abuse?) by those that would seek the name and authority of someone whom they are manifestly not, in making rules and passing laws that _others_ should abide by. There are even those (the Christian Reconstructinists) that would argue for the wholesale incorporation of Levitican law (and the rest of Biblical "jurispridence") into contemporary secular law, and it turns out that Ashcroft is not wholly unknown to this bunch (although I make no claim that he actually is an adherent of this). However, I suspect he has some sympathy for some of their aims (or he's using such a rationale to support other more covert motives). To make fun of, or even attack, the relevance of this Levitican law in today's society is not -- in my mind -- an attack on religion. It's an attack on the application of a somewhat detached satellite of religious beliefs to not only the adherents, but also to our secular world. Enough said by me on that subject; if you want more, there are perhaps more appropriate fora than here for that. My e-mail, should anyone feel compelled to comment or wish to discuss further, is "zuch@ix.netcom.com" (as a Deja search would readily tell you as well). BTW, WYSIWYG might be an appropriate appellation for Susan. It's an acronym for "What You See Is What You Get". ANd she does seem pretty straight-forward. Cheers, -- Arne Langsetmo P.S. Do I need a MudCat nick to be proper? Perhaps "The insufferable pedant". . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: MMario Date: 06 Feb 01 - 07:45 PM Arne - a nickname or not is your decision - some use them, others do not. Even a lot of us who USE nicknames make no real effort to hide our real names. (A forum search will reveal several threads on the topic)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Feb 01 - 04:22 AM The first thread in which this bit was posted is Jesus loves me but he can't stand you Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Kim C Date: 07 Feb 01 - 04:15 PM Funny, I don't remember anyone being afraid of Joe Lieberman, even though he made it clear he was a religious man... why do we always want to assume that a religious high-ranking public official is going to use their position to shove their beliefs down other people's throats? That's not quite fair. Me, I'm keeping an open mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Irish sergeant Date: 07 Feb 01 - 08:22 PM Kim; I suppose i'm afraid of the Bush Administrations intent because he is his father's son. Goerge the elder once advocated denying athiests the rights of citizenship and Gorge the lesser's friend indeed, Katheryn Harris advocated sending all democrats to jail. I detect a whiff that bears a stench that should have been irradicated 55 years ago. Kindest reguards. Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Gorgeous Gary Date: 10 Feb 01 - 04:14 PM Kim - Judaism holds as part of it's beliefs that there is a place in the "world to come" (that's how we refer to Heaven) for the good of **all** religions. That philosphy was best codified by Moses Maimonides, I forget in which writing. So, only Jews are held to observing all the laws and commandments set down in the Torah. Non-Jews get held to a much easier standard, the seven Noahide laws...I forget exactly what they are. So, when Lieberman speaks freely about religion, he's not being threatening, because to us, "salvation" hasn't been made dependant on accepting our religion. Mind you, that didn't stop some Jewish organizations from complaining, figuring if they were going to condemn Bush for religious language, they had to hit their own too. As for Ashcroft, one of my biggest fears is that he and Bush may threaten free speech on the Internet again, under the guise of striking at porn. The government has already tried twice, first with the Communications Decency Act, then with itss successor, and got rightly slapped down twice by the courts. Because, they made their definition of "indecent" so wide that someone could have sued Mudcat for hosting the DT, which has a few bawdy songs. Now, the CDA was created by Sen. Exon and signed into law by Clinton...two Democrats! So, given some of the rhetoric I've heard, I'm even more fearful of what two Republicans might do! . As for the post that started the thread, I did find it funny when it originally showed up in my e-mail. And even funnier when "The West Wing" adopted it! -- Gary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Parson Date: 11 Feb 01 - 12:37 AM I would like to address two intertwining strands of thought that I have encountered on this tread and on Mudcat in general. I usually avoid discussions of politics and/or religion on the internet, because these topics are so controversial, but I'll break my own rule as to that point, just this once. First there is the whole issue of the Old Testament Law. From the Christian perspective, the Old Testament Law was given to Mankind to prove to us the utter worthlessness of any attempt on our part to forge out a relationship with God on the basis of our own ability to obey that Law. When the Law was found to be utterly useless, God provided us with a "better way." That better way is the way of grace. Grace simply means "God's unmerited favor." God loves us and desires a relationship with us, despite our own faults and failures, and so the Old Testament Law was superceded by the New Testament Law. The New Testament Law simply says, "If you want to have a relationship with God, then #1 Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and #2 Love your neighbor as you love yourself." The bottom line is that those who desire a relationship with God can have one. The above is presented simply as an explanation (very basic) of the Christian belief. I share it for that purpose and certainly not as criticism of anyone else's belief system. I just want Mudcat readers to understand where Christians are coming from. The second reason for responding to the thread is that I see a very serious danger arising out of all this sly humor against Christians. It was sly humor against the Jews in Europe in the 1930's that set the stage for Germany to turn a blind eye to Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jews. It was the sly humor that I heard directed against African-Americans as I was growing up in the Southern United States that allowed for "Whites Only" drinking fountains, restrooms, lunch counters, etc. And in the past couple of years we have seen a proliferation of Church burnings, and even one incident that comes to mind when gunmen killed several Christian teen-agers in a Baptist Church here in the South. I am not suggesting that those who enjoy the humor would do such things or condone such things. I am only saying that this kind of humor breeds contempt which results, when it is full-grown, in unspeakable acts against humanity. Having grown up in the South, I realize that I have had prejudice instilled in me, by my culture, from the very beginning & I have learned that I have to fight that prejudice every waking minute. I fight it, not only because I have learned that it is contrary to the will of the God whom I serve, but I fight it because I have seen it for what it is & for the dangers inherent in it. When will we ever learn that prejudice is not just an attitude that Southern Whites have about African-Americans, but that prejudice is an attitude anyone may have against anyone or any group that we don't understand or that we fear? What we say about others may say volumes about ourselves. Parson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: sophocleese Date: 11 Feb 01 - 08:46 PM Parson, an interesting and thought provoking post. However since what is being addressed in the original letter is an attitude less of sharing religious perspective than of forcing it on others I think a humourous response is called for and is timely. Humour can many times ease the stresses which might otherwise lead to acts of violence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Rick Fielding Date: 11 Feb 01 - 09:21 PM Has anyone here actually LISTENED to dr. Laura on any kind of regular basis? I suppose because of my warped curiosity, I did...for about two months straight actually...every morning while eating breakfast and reading the paper. What a frightening creature! Perhaps the most intolerant dogmatic views I've ever heard on radio. She makes Rush Limbaugh seem.....well...at least...articulate. Were I a Jew or even a Fundamentalist Christian, I think I'd see this woman as no more than hugely ambitious and completely without concience. About the sad creatures who phone a radio station when in personal crisis....well, it's beyond comprehension to me. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: GUEST,Lyle Date: 11 Feb 01 - 10:37 PM Susan (AKA Praise) SHE say: "I still have the ridiculous hope that people will actually think, make sense, listen, and come to some kind of resolution in an effort to grow as human beings." And couldn't doing just that lead to the resolution that religion is the bane of humankind???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Troll Date: 11 Feb 01 - 10:39 PM I find it difficult to appreciate as comical anything that uses the religious beliefs of someone else as a vehicle for humor. I don't care WHAT political persuasion they are. It isn't right and it isn't funny.If someone wants to poke fun at John Ashcroft or George Bush or Ted Kennedy, let them hit the way they dress, the way they talk, or the way they part their hair. But leave their religious beliefs alone.To mock the religion of another is low-class. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: DougR Date: 11 Feb 01 - 11:59 PM Wow, Rick! Something we truly agree on! I cannot imagine folks taking Dr. Laura seriously, but I guess they do. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:42 AM Lyle, I dunno, but I am not planning to make up my mind before taking the journey to the answer and seeing for myself what I think. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: LR Mole Date: 12 Feb 01 - 09:05 AM Problematic stuff. As E.B. White observed, it's possible to analyze a joke. It's like dissecting a frog, though: the subject dies. Humor can be thoughtful, or angry, or ( as any schoolyard child can tell you),terribly wounding.It all depends on intention and trust.Since my friend is not trying to hurt me by telling this joke, she or he must be expressing some sort of trust or understanding. Can bad jokes encourage bigotry? They can if a bigot needs encouragement. On th other hand, the question,why would this person assume I would find this funny? can be an interesting lesson all by itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: sophocleese Date: 12 Feb 01 - 09:32 AM When religion is used as a bludgeon it opens itself up to ridicule. This letter was directed specifically to one person's use of religion and her particular tone. It is not an attack on Christianity as a whole. Those who use religion as a vehicle for wisdom are not harmed by it but those who use it as a weapon are diminished a little and made less threatening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Kim C Date: 12 Feb 01 - 10:15 AM Dr. Laura is Jewish... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: LR Mole Date: 12 Feb 01 - 10:28 AM Interesting. So's Jesus. (Mole, sandbagging) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:05 AM SOAPBOX Real change requires far more than being able to push buttons. And it requires a different response than simply letting our own buttons be pushed. The original was a slam at Dr. Laura through the easy shot of mocking literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and thus a slam also at Judaism. The rerun of it with Ashcroft is a slam at Ashcroft through people's willingness to find Dr. Laura worthy of mockery, as well as a slam against fundamantalist Christianity with which he is identified. These slams are marketed as humor because many are only too willing to take one or more stereotypes as a basis for a laugh. We need to laugh, so badly, that we go along with these. I need to laugh today too. Shall I get at the laugh I need with a joke about blacks? Or blondes? Or men? Or Martha Stewart? Sure, some days I do. But on my better days I am sorry I have. I have a "great" Jewish joke that was told to me years and years ago, that the person telling told me without asking first if I appreciated such things. It's a short, punchy, well-written item. The punch line comes before you even realize what you're hearing. There was a moment of shocked laughter when I heard it that felt really funny for about a nanosecond before the horror behind it kicked in along with my horror for having heard it at all, much less laughed. In fact my encounter with that one joke has reminded me time after time, year after year, that if I have not spoken clearly enough about what I value, before anyone even considers telling me a joke like that, people are going to think it is OK with me to tell this kind of joke. Because they have no way of knowing what I stand for, and in our society the assumption has become that this kind of humor is acceptable. But it's not OK with me, and it's also not OK with a lot of people who don't have the courage to say so unless someone does take a stand. It's not OK with me when people who have acted like friends that believe in the highest ideals send me e-mail jokes that mock the target group of their choice. I might not like the actions or members of that group myself. I may engage in dedicateed action against them. But I don't find mockery to be an effective tool for positive change. Ever. Even when it makes me laugh... it diminishes me far more than it diminishes the target, and it diminishes even more my respect for the one telling the joke. It does not make my action against that group's wrongs any more creative, flexible, or effective. It does not enliven my friendship with the person telling the joke. It diminishes the effectivess we can have working together to address the wrong things. These things... they reduce us to acting like button-pushers. ~Susan
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Jim the Bart Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:43 AM People mock things that they consider dangerous in the hope that what is expressed in jest can help disarm the object of the joke. The joke stated here, in my opinion, is not aimed at Christianity. It is not aimed at all fundamentalists, although it might be easy to interpret it that way. It is, again in my opinion, aimed at fundametalist thinkers who wish to use their fundamentalism as a guide to public policy. Don't be offended by the joke unless you align yourself with the thought. It would be the same as me taking offense when the Klan is called racist; because they claim to be patriotic Americans and I claim to be a patriotic American doesn't mean we are the same. Let's keep some perspective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:48 AM Okay, now that we have all preached our sermons from our high horses, whether for or against this joke, let's agree to disagree and talk about something else, shall we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Jim the Bart Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:53 AM Oh yes, I almost forgot. Do I consider Christianity dangerous? Not on its face. Do I consider Fundamentalism dangerous? It can be. Do I consider those who try to impose fundamentalist religious dogma into public policy dangerous? You bet your sweet *ss I do. And I do not care whether it's fundamental Christianity, or the Taliban, or whatever. I will not question your belief system as long as you do not try to impose your dogma on my life. That shows disrespect for my belief system. Do I make jokes about people and their foibles? Yes, I do. I will joke about the goofy things we all do, but not the way that we are created or the things that we believe. Unless those beliefs lead us to act the fool. Then all guarantees are void. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:58 AM Okay, NOW can we talk about something different? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: LR Mole Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:07 PM I use chicken with rice soup in my meatloaf.On the other hand, the worst meatloaf I ever had, had mooshed-up rice cakes in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Rick Fielding Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:14 PM Some good points made by all (well, most) but isn't it fairly safe to say that we as humans are fairly inconsistant in how we deal with humour? Moods change, political situations change, WE change. Surely there are jokes we'd find funny one day, and depending on our state of mind, dismiss it the next. Hi Doug. Hope all is well. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:23 PM Alex, I'd like to suggest a slight movement to get a fresh view of what you're seeing here. See, one viewpoint is that people are not just ranting and running and doing harm. From where I am viewing it, I see that some of us are not yet done listening to one another. Can you not see that people have been hearing and responding to one another? Would you not wish for this to continue as long as necessary? (It won't, not that long.... but wouldn't it be great if it did?) Take me and Arne for instance. God, I want to know what he thinks, now, about all KINDS of stuff! I would never get his view from people who agree with me about Jesus! My view grows when I must enlarge it to see what Arne sees. I suspect is is the same for him. Now I'm dying to know what Bart thinks about what I actually just wrote (not about being personally offended at all, as his post addressed). I dunno if he'd seen my post, or was addressing it at all. But I can't wait to see what he says! I see threads like this as a circle, and people sitting in it taking turns, and the turns going around more than once. I don't assume any one person's one single turn is going to exhaust my knowledge or anyone else's, or anyone's ability to hear others. How do others see this discussion? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:25 PM It looks like this to me: A: This is offensive. B: Lighten up. A: This is offensive because of blah blah blah. B: This is not offensive because of yada-yada-yada. Lighten up. A: This is offensive, can't you see? Yip yip yip. B: This is not offensive, what's wrong with you? Lighten up. and so forth. I don't really see any communication taking place. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:27 PM Alex, Thanks. I'm glad I asked-- from that view, it does look awful. But look in my heart. It just heard YOU. Do you allow for that? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: RichM Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:29 PM Dear John:
A) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1: 9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
No, don't smite them! It's not considered polite to smite neighbors. Simply ask them if adding a pinch of rosemary or perhaps your favorite bbq sauce would sufficiently mask the odor?
B) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day & age, what would be a fair market price for her? Unfortunately, market prices for your daughters is hard to set. You should direct your marketing efforts more specifically, based on her talents. Can she arrange flowers? A dinner for 32 people? Can she repot a withered Xmas poinsettia to re-bloom successfully for Easter?
You may also want to consider licensing, or leasing her talents rather than simply selling her.
C) I know I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
This is difficult. It's not polite to simply ask. Perhaps a discreet sign in your living room and office would suffice.
D) Leviticus 25: 44 states that I may own slaves, both male & female,provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Why not, indeed? Canadians are generally well trained in most modern tasks, and are housebroken to boot. Very easy to integrate into your household routines.
E) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35: 2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
No, you can hire someone to do it. Martha can recommend someone, if you like. God understands the concept of agents. He did send the angel to Mary, rather than appearing Him(Her)Self.
F) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree, can you settle this?
Martha prefers to eat shellfish herself, rather than homosexuals. But your preference may differ. Cuisine is definitely more eclectic these days. G) Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20 20 or is there some wiggle room here?
Have you investigated Laser eye surgery?
H) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
By innuendo and gossip at your favorite hairdresser's... Make the appointment now.
I) I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
J) My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton & polyester blend). He tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24: 10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20: 14)?
Yes, a private family affair is preferable in this case. Catered of course, and you should have a suitable party theme, with appropriate hats and table decorations. You may want to invite neighbors and relatives that annoy you. It may give them a subtle hint to behave. Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: RichM Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:39 PM Sorry, I should have included the statement: How would Martha Stewart respond to these questions? Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:41 PM Oh Rich. Surely Martha Stewart would have given a RECIPE for the bbq sauce? Susan, I can't see your heart. Perhaps if you opened your blouse? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:51 PM Alex, my blouse is your blouse. We opened them long ago but we seldom stop to look. I miss your e-mails. I know "argue threads" feel bad to you. I still don't understand why, though, and I bet if we go after it here we'll be sorry. I thought Rich's was funny. The interaction bewteen the two viewpoints made it funny. Just the IDEA of them interacting made it funny. (The persistence of humans in communication is one of my favorite themes, whether it's humor or a movie like "Children of a Lesser God.") I didn't even need to know it involved Martha. It put my brain in the Tween Zone, where all thought is free and light and silly till I choose to come back to earth. I just loved the juxtaposition of now-values and then-values. In fact in seminary it would be an exposition in Moral and Ethical Theology, where the struggle is to take old statements and apply them today as best we can. And I needed this as an example for a new friend who asked me about just that! So thanks, Rich, whatever your motives were! And thanks, Alex, for sticking with the discussion, easy or not. You go on an' hoe my blouse down any time, you old big bad woof. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: RichM Date: 12 Feb 01 - 01:09 PM My motives were simple: I was in "trickster" mode....:)) Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 01:19 PM Um, I was going along with Rich, but saying that Martha would have not just SUGGESTED bbq sauce, she would have given you a RECIPE. I was making fun of Martha Stewart. Get it? Get it? Never mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Jim the Bart Date: 13 Feb 01 - 10:16 AM Susan - I did read your post, but my response was directed more toward Troll's than yours. My point was that in my opinion the original joke is political satire, not religious humor. I base this on the analysis (mine, of course) that it is not lampooning Ashcroft for reading or believing the Bible as much as it is pointing out what happens when literal interpretation of sacred text is applied to public policy. I know, Alex, that we have gone over this ground before. But bear with me, because I think there are some important distinctions that need to be made. And since the one real advantage that the human mind has over computers is the ability to make the subtlest of distinctions, I think we should exercise that ability from time to time Racist jokes are never acceptable and they're never funny; they are mean spirited. Maybe that's some kind of criteria to use in judging these things: is the intent of the "humor" mean spirited? I have laughed at a lot of macabre, dark jokes - Princess Diana jokes, Martha Stewart jokes, airplane crash jokes; jokes that I would not have found funny if I knew the people involved. Later, when thinking about "the joke" and realizing that it was mean spirited, I resolved not to repeat it or pass it along. As I said before, humor is an attempt to disarm something that we consider dangerous or hurtful; when you can laugh at something it loses some of its power over you. Maybe it would be better to start a thread by simply saying that application of scripture to public policy leads to certain untenable positions. But that wouldn't be anywhere near as clever or interesting to the reader. Or funny. But of course, that's just my opinion. By the way: Mr. McCarthy - excellent. Now, as Alex has suggested, I'm off this subject. But there will be others, I'm sure. Have a great day, all. Bart |