The indignant Sally Kern, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma, is no stranger to Queerty readers. She was 2008’s runner-up to our Homophobe Of The Year award, thanks to her noted bigotry, out of touch logic, anti-gay obsession, and her public shunning of her own gay son Jesse. So why mention her name again? Because she just opened a one-woman show called “I’m Batshit Crazytown!”
Actually, we mistook her comments at a press conference hosted by Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (yes, that’s the org’s real name) to be an off-Broadway comedy. It was not.
Kern regularly calls gays a blight on American society, insists they have no place among morally just heterosexuals, and often invokes God when opining on how this country should be run. Throw in some Barack Obama and you’re gonna want to buy tickets to see the show.
The homosexual agenda is only one symptom of the real problem in America. The problem is that we have forsaken the Judeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded. Noah Webster declared: “The principles of genuine liberty and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible.”
There are two conflicting worldviews vying for power. The secular humanist worldview versus the Judeo-Christian or Biblical worldview. Humanism sees the world as impersonal matter shaped by chance with man just another animal. There is no basis for values or laws. The Biblical worldview recognizes a Creator who established moral laws and absolute truth as revealed in the Bible. Man, made in God’s image, is priceless.
Our founding fathers established this nation upon the Biblical worldview as evidenced by John Adam’s statement, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” Or James Madison’s statement: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government … but upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the 10 Commandments of God.”
For the first time in America’s history, we have a president who has no understanding of the Biblical worldview and who has even less understanding of the truths of the Bible. This is evident when he says that support for homosexual “marriage” [unions] can be found in the Sermon on the Mount or that certain passages in Romans are just obscure passages. Whereas George Washington expelled from his military those who practiced sodomy, President Obama honors sodomites by proclaiming an entire month as Gay Pride Month, but he won’t acknowledge one day for our National Day of Prayer.
We have a president who doesn’t know the difference between God-given rights and sinful, perverted behavior. The Biblical worldview teaches that all are created equal and worthy of respect but it also teaches that some behaviors, such as homosexuality, are wrong because they violate God’s moral law.
Today many in our churches and even many ministers have forsaken belief in absolute truth and are instead reinterpreting the Bible to justify their behavior. This leads to acceptance of anything and everything.
While conservatives attack the symptoms, like homosexuality or abortion, and these behaviors should be exposed and attacked; however, we should love the people involved in these behaviors and tell them God has a better way.
While conservatives attack the symptoms, those who don’t believe in or appreciate the uniqueness of America, our president included, are attacking the foundation of absolute truth, seeking to destroy it through teaching evolution and tolerance for deviant behaviors.
Our founding fathers understood that if a nation is to provide safety and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens, the Judeo-Christian worldview must be maintained. George Washington said, “Of all the habits and dispositions that lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
galefan2004
You couldn’t pay me to read that. I stopped with the “we have but fucked religious values that this nation (in my complete and utter rewrite of fucking history) was ‘founded’ on.” I’m just glad I don’t live in Oklahetra, and I don’t think I’ll be moving there anytime soon. When someone in my district starts espousing how we need to get back to religious values I don’t give a damn what their voting record is, I’m going to the other side of the fence and putting that person into office. To bad we can’t follow Canada’s example of true church and state separation and start impeaching people for espousing religious doctrine. When this bitch took office she obviously put her hand on the constitution and swore to uphold the bible.
JoeB
while it’s one of many lies in here, “President Obama honors sodomites by proclaiming an entire month as Gay Pride Month, but he won’t acknowledge one day for our National Day of Prayer.” is one that the bible-thumpers love to use, and it’s completely untrue. Obama did acknowledge the day of prayer with a paper proclamation, the same way he acknowledged gay pride month. Their problem is that he didn’t celebrate it with an official service at the White House the way GWB did.
Here’s an pretty fair article referencing this, from Fox no less. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/obamas-decision-observe-prayer-day-privately-draws-public-criticism/
Chris
She almost makes me wish there WAS actually a Heaven and Hell.
Because I know, beyond any shadow of doubt, which one SHE would end up in.
Sally Kern, you make me SO VERY HAPPY to be GAY.
sweetdog
@Chris:
I am am Episcopalean. You may know how the Anglicans feel about gays (Bishop Gene Robinson for example). They are practically riding in the same boat as Sally Kern is, but thankfully they haven’t enough energy to paddle to shore they are spending so much time on how to excommunicate gays from the Episcopal Church. I have a t-shirt that I wore to church for Gay Pride Month which has a little Episcopal crest in front of the rainbow stripes and in large letters says: ‘I AM PROUD THAT MY MANNER OF LIFE IS A CHALLENGE TO THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION.’ If Sally Kern wasn’t Southern Baptist – I’m SURE she is – then there’s probably an opening for her in the Anglican Communion. Put her on the next freighter leaving for England and with any luck she’ll be hijacked by Somaleans and thrown overboard.
galefan2004
@sweetdog: Its nice that you espouse your beliefs. It kind of sucks though that in my community, your church is among the christian groups not living up to their national tolerance. My mom was Episcopalian, and I was even christened as such when I was an infant (talk about ingraining religion into children).
queerunity
Silly Sally, with her butch haircut.
http://queersunited.blogspot.com
galefan2004
Could QT please take this bitches picture down. Its very disheartening to have to actually see her hateful face.
marius
I don’t remember being mentioned in the 10 commandments.
Anyway, there may still be hope for her, she just hasn’t met the right woman yet. Maybe her name might really be Hope.
Duane
As to the headline … because it’s a democracy and people voted for her. Sing it with me now … “You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life!”
Jaroslaw
Good point #6 – I know the Bible says a woman’s hair is her crowning glory – so Sally should have LONG hair.
schlukitz
Lies. Lies. And more lies!
Once more, Sordid Sally is blowing shit out of her paper asshole by quoting our forefathers.
Like everyone of her lying ilk, she tried to make Madison look like a man of god. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a link to his “Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments”
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
Then she went on to Quote George Washington.
“Of all the habits and dispositions that lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
I did a Google search on that purported quote and came up with only two sites that made any reference to it. One was Americans For Truth.com, an organization of her own making on which she posts that quote, so we can dispense with it as “proof” of her mouthings and that of old, “I cannot tell a lie”, George.
The other is C-Sspan.org quoting text from the Congressional Record about Dan Burton [R-Ind} attempting to integrate yet more religion into our supposedly secular government and schools. It’s quite possible that he was simply parroting Sordid Sally.
In any event, while Googling George Washington, I came across this link that refutes any notion that George was a “God-fearing man”, much less an advocate for religion.
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html
Why is it, that no one ever refutes these liars when they make egregious statements and assertions without any empirical evidence or proof to back them up? If the media were truly doing it’s job, they would be in the vanguard of promoting truth and pointing out these glaring inaccuracies by such disingenuous liars.
edgyguy1426
It’s so hilarious to see these fundamentalist types trying to be so politically correct and say ‘Judeo-Christian’ when you damn well know if given the option, they’d come after the jews next if they could.
james ii
you will notice, however, that the press release about the press confo came from LaBarbera’s group. I can only surmise (with some professional knowledge) that this was because no legitimate news orgs covered it.
They held their big press conf in a law office in downtown chicago – not a hotel ballroom or politician’s office or somewhere public, but a small office in a non-descript law office. And no paper or TV station, even though they sent out repeated press releases, covered it. Good news? Makes me kinda sorta happy to be from chicago.
tavdy79
I’m a Quaker. As a group, we draw our key principles and guidance from the Bible, as in Kern’s Webster quote. The foundational principles of Quaker belief (peace, equality, integrity, simplicity) probably had greater influence on the founding principles of the United States, as found in the US constitution (especially the First Amendment) than those of any other faith. This is perhaps a very fortunate thing – can you imagine the state the US would be in if the Constitution was based entirely on the most obvious ideals of Kernesque Puritanism – pride and avarice?
Andrew
“For the first time in America’s history, we have a president who has no understanding of the Biblical worldview and who has even less understanding of the truths of the Bible.” — Wow, I suppose we can quote her support of Bill Clinton as a President who understood the Biblical worldview. Cool!
jarvisbearcub
I’m just wondering which part of the Bible actually endorses personal liberty and self-governance.
There are so many things wrong with this speech…..
schlukitz
@Andrew:
One could easily read that statement to be a thinly-veiled racist statement that in essence, condemns Obama and the black race for not accepting the biblical condoning of slavery.
Of course, if she really believed in the bible, that would mean she would have to step down from her office, give up woman’s suffrage and content herself with being under the thumb of her husband who rules the household.
But, as is most often demonstrated by hypocrites like this, she imperiously condemns others while excluding herself from the mix.
Stuart
she should change her name to delores umbridge
InExile
Sally sure does have a sick and twisted world view! She is just another right wing talking head who thinks if she repeats the same talking points often enough, people will believe it.
Why can’t they all just go away?
REBELComx
I would remind Ms. Kern that the ONLY reason General Washington and his troops made it through the Revolutionary War and secured our nation’s sovereignty is due to the efforts of one such Sodomizer. From that time, up until WWI, our entire military was based on the principles and procedures formulated and established by a big old Prussian queer.
I’d also remind her that our forefathers were mostly Deists, not Christians. They WERE Secular Humanists, who rose to prominence in the Age of Enlightenment, when we relied less on archaic and outdated religious superstition and more on logic, science, and knowledge. And that all of our most influential and prominent founding fathers were against the notion of this being a “Christian Nation.” In fact, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams and UNANIMOUSLY voted for by the Congress states: the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion…” Jefferson wrote his own version of the New Testament removing all references to Christ’s divinity or miracles, because he valued the ETHICS that JESUS taught and saw the Golden Rule as universal. Jesus, of course, says nothing about teh gays. And the only thing he says about marriage is that divorce is wrong, but encouraged his followers to forsake their wives and children and travel with him in order to gain eternal life.
Oh yeah, and that this country was colonized and established with a basis of freedom of religion, which means EVERY religion.
But it doesn’t matter at this point. Sally Kern and her ilk are unreachable. It is no longer possible, at their age, having been raised and having had this psychology burned into their brains, to convince them otherwise or even open their minds one iota.
“Incurably religious – that is the best way to describe the mental condition of so many people.” Thomas Edison
petted
Someone’s not getting invited to any White House social functions anytime soon
Namaste85
every once in a while someone provides you with the opportunity to proclaim, the world will be a better place when theyre dead. So let me be one the make the proclamation. The world will be a better place when when Sally Kern no longer breathes. We love you Sally Kern and we appreciate your out and open ignorance and bigotry.
Dennis
Arrogance + stoopidity + Jeebus worship + hatchet face/bad hair = Sally Kern
AlwaysGay
A very ugly person. Stop the bigotry.
Jerry Priori
Is there really anything to say to Sally beyond C U Next Tuesday?
galefan2004
Ben Franklin was not only anti-religious but he was also vehemently opposed to religion being intertwined with government. The truth is, we would still be under the control of England if it wasn’t for Franklin being able to schmooze with the French, so he should know a little something about what makes a country successful.
TANK
This a theist talking about deists. THe difference is that the god of sally kern is vengeful and filled with hate,and intercedes to compound human suffering whenever its decrees aren’t met with obeisance. Now, the deist’s god is perhaps worse…it has no concern at all for the plight of its creation. Both are logically impossible, but the theist’s god is much more primitive and childlike in its inability to control itself.
TANK
Franklin attended every service in philly, just about it. From catholic services to jewish. I think it can be argued persuasively that he was an atheist.
galefan2004
All I can say is thank god for Firefox + add block, because now I don’t need to see that bitches face on this site again.
Mike
@edgyguy1426:
I totally I agree. I always envision them having to really psyche themselves out of the nausea of having to say the “Judeo” part.
Audrina
well i hate to say it but she also hates obama just as much as our cummunity-lgbt’s. true.
Shae
Ive only heard of her twice and i live in Oklahoma but what i have heard, she is fucking bitch.
GAYGRAMPS
@schlukitz:
Like schlukitz sez…She is a liar. Fallwell used to pass out this crap and that is all it is. Jefferson warned against idiots like Sally. Remember? The American forefather that re-wrote the bible to match his beliefs?
She is a liar needs to be called on it!
geoff
Folks, please ignore poster No.32. She would’nt know God or Jesus if they sat on her face.
TANK
That’s just it, though. People say sally kern doesn’t have the true christian faith when all they’ve got to support that statement is their own faith–no facts. There is no “True faith”. It makes about as much sense as a christian arguing with a muslim about the “True” faith. Sally Kern is in possession of the true faith and authentic christianity–and knows jesus and god… just as much as Gene Robinson. And given that there is absolutely no authority other than their “personal faith” and understanding the bible going for them, then there’s no possibility for resolution.
TANK
I know everyone is sick of my dumb comments but I simply need the attention.
strumpetwindsock
@galefan2004:
Not true, actually. Like most of the founding fathers he was in favour of the separation of church and state, and for churches not having state support, but he was very much in favour of churches in the community, and most of them took him as one of their own.
And yeah, he went to every church in town, so obviously he was an atheist.
Actually Franklin wrote late in his life that he was unsure about the divinity of Jesus, but he also said that it did not matter because he would find out soon enough. He wrote on numerous occasions though, that he believed in a god who created the world.
One of the thirteen virtues he mentioned in his autobiography was humility – “imitate Jesus and Socrates”.
TANK
But that doesn’t speak at all to the truth of that belief. Newton was a hardcore alchemist; and kepler believed fervently in astrology. Neither alchemy nor astrology are true (some people need reminding). I don’t think he can be called a christian, though–perhaps spiritual.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
No I don’t think he was a christian (he said quite clearly that he was unsure about the divinity of Christ).
And the fact that he believed in God is less significant to me than the fact that he thought churches of all denominations were good for the community.
He was not a dull man, and was certainly aware of the violence and oppression wrought by empire-churches throughout history, so I am sure he saw a distinction between positive and destructive religious groups.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Well, then you’re not at all concerned with the truth of religious claims…indefensible religious claims. He was also a product of his time. I don’t see any argument that churches espousing typical or atypical christian values (or islamic values) are good for the community, or that toxic religion is good for the community.
I never said he was dull; but just because he was intelligent doesn’t mean he knew what he was talking about with regard to whehter or not churches were good for the community.
TANK
I just don’t see any justification for religious belief based upon it being good for the community to have religion where something better and secular–without religion’s pitfalls or requiring people to be irrational– couldn’t be better.
TANK
In fact, a little known truth about ben franklin is that he thought the united states should be led by a monarch (For life), and not an elected president.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
I’m not concerned at all about the truth of religious claims, because I have no idea whether there is a god or not.
But I do support religious freedom and I think religious faith and even some organized religions can be very good for some people, even if I do not follow any organized religion myself.
I know you and I disagree on much of that.
But I think it is significant that Franklin felt the presence of churches, irrespective of their dogma, was a positive influence on the community – especially since he must have been aware that religion could also be a great destructive force.
TANK
I’m not concerned at all about the truth of religious claims, because I have no idea whether there is a god or not.
The two AREN’T related, so I don’t see how you’re using ‘because’ in any meaningful way. That is, people can not know and still be concerned about it…some of them don’t know and believe that god exists. Many people are aware of whether or not spaghetti monster exists, or omnipotent orbiting teapot, or zeus or poseidon or the abrahamic god.
Are you also unsure of whether or not zeus exists or unicorns or gremlins and goblins?
But I do support religious freedom and I think religious faith and even some organized religions can be very good for some people, even if I do not follow any organized religion myself.
Oh, well I support religious freedom. IT’s just that not too many religious people support religious freedom because religion is not really about freedom of thought or expression. History of religion throughout the world shows that when you have two competing views about “creation” and “god” and whatnot, freedom is the last thing that results from that clash. In my country, many religious leaders are not champions of religious freedom…or the freedoms of the nonreligious…or the freedoms of gays. I don’t think we need to tolerate intolerance (like sally kern’s) as you seem to. I think that’s a recipe for the elimination of tolerance like religious freedom. I guarantee you that if sally kern had it her way, religious freedom and freedom in general would be the last thing citizens would be enjoying.
As to organized religion being very good for some people, I don’t know what you mean. I don’t think it’s necessary to being a good person, or for a high functioning society. I see it as encouraging superstition and dogma by supressing critical thinking; and if just one person or a group of people is baselessly demonized and harmed due to empty superstition, it is not justified…period. No harm real harm is worth false belief.
For example, norway is perhaps the most secular country in the world with, DEPENDING on the definition of atheism–26-71% of the country atheists. And…Norway has the second highest GDP per capita in the world, an unemployment rate below 2 percent, and average hourly wages among the world’s highest. It doesn’t seem like there’s anything necessarily good about religion, or that we need it.
TANK
And I don’t know if franklin was aware of the destructiveness of religion…or put much stock in it…lots of smart people aren’t.
TANK
@TANK:
He certainly didn’t put much stock in the destructiveness of absolute monarchy, proposing that the united states be led by a monarch…go figure.
TANK
History of religion throughout the world shows that when you have two competing views about “creation” and “god” and whatnot, freedom is the last thing that results from that clash.
“Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it has been at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in recent decades.”
Yup
“Our founding fathers established this nation upon the Biblical worldview as evidenced by John Adam’s statement, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”
Its funny she cites John Adams in her little diatribe. I actually attend the church in DC that John Adams and his family founded. The All Souls, Unitarian church…and, surprise, its humanist.
rick
I THOUGHT GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A SODOMITE.
hyhybt
@DuttyBarb: I’ll pray for you.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Oh I’m sure Mr. Jefferson would have let him in on his views about organized religion.
As well, all British subjects would have learned of the evils of Catholicism, and anyone raised a puritan (as Franklin was) would have been aware of authoritarianism in the Church of England.
And even in the late 1700s religion was still enough of a hot issue (the la Barre trial was a famous example), that any free thinking British (and later American) subject could not have been unaware of the evils of religion.
As well, I am sure Franklin’s monarchist model was the British one, and they did away with the idea of absolutism (which was virtually synonymous with catholicism) in 1688.
After all, the monarchy was not initially the problem… representation was.
@TANK: And I meant it as I said it. The “truth” I was refering to was the existence of god. I think whether the Bible or any other scripture is a historical record (obviously they cannot all be) is irrelevant.
What is important is that for some people religion WORKS.
I know you agree with that, because you feel it works in a destructive way. I agree with you, but I think that religions (even ones like Catholicism) work in a positive way on some people.
I know we disagree; you don’t need to tell me how you think I am wrong. I am just saying that the existence of God and the truth of scripture is actually irrelevant to how faith works on people, positively or negatively.
TANK
Once again, they may have disagreed. I don’t think franklin necessarily gave the destructive tendency of religion much weight.
As well, all British subjects would have learned of the evils of Catholicism, and anyone raised a puritan (as Franklin was) would have been aware of authoritarianism in the Church of England.
Well, that’s the church of england. He certainly didn’t give the absolute monarchy responsible for the suffering of americans in the revolution much “consideration”…
And even in the late 1700s religion was still enough of a hot issue (the la Barre trial was a famous example), that any free thinking British (and later American) subject could not have been unaware of the evils of religion.
Once again, I think it’s pretty evident that this is a wide open question whether or not franklin gave the “evils of religion” much thought or was concerned about it.
As well, I am sure Franklin’s monarchist model was the British one, and they did away with the idea of absolutism (which was virtually synonymous with catholicism) in 1688.
I think it’s silly to argue that though the monarchy wasn’t absolute, it was just about absolute. You’re arguing over grains of sand in a pile again.
After all, the monarchy was not initially the problem… representation was.
No, it was always considered monarchical supression responsible for a lack of representation. I don’t think you have a leg to stand on here…it sounds absurd. You have absolutely no reason to suspect that franklin was aware or cared about the destructiveness of religion. None.
And I meant it as I said it. The “truth” I was refering to was the existence of god. I think whether the Bible or any other scripture is a historical record (obviously they cannot all be) is irrelevant.
I don’t know what you mean here. I reiterate that you don’t lack concern about religion because you don’t know whether or not god exists, as they have nothing to do with each other. It’s a complete nonsequitur. Take it up with logic and the meaning of the words.
What is important is that for some people religion WORKS.
I know you agree with that, because you feel it works in a destructive way. I agree with you, but I think that religions (even ones like Catholicism) work in a positive way on some people.
I just don’t know what you mean here by working in a positive way. As I said, and I’ll just repeat myself as you seem to be doing that…. religion isn’t necessary for being a good person or leading a happy life, or having a productive society. This isn’t an opinion; it’s a fact. And absolutely no warm feelings that a false belief causes are at all justified by the suffering of others. IF just one person is caused to suffer because of superstition and false beliefs, it is not justified.
I know we disagree; you don’t need to tell me how you think I am wrong.
No, I do. I don’t think you’re just wrong, I think you’re deliberately trying to manipulate the conversation in a very underhanded way to support an incoherent view.
I am just saying that the existence of God and the truth of scripture is actually irrelevant to how faith works on people, positively or negatively.
Well, no, it’s not. Most people do care very much about whether or not god exists and the truth of the bible, and believe it. It weighs heavily in their faith, and they use that belief in the truth of the bible and existence of god to justify a lot of their bigotry and values….once again, I think you’re either very obtuse…or are lying outright about these things.
TANK
As well, I am sure Franklin’s monarchist model was the British one, and they did away with the idea of absolutism (which was virtually synonymous with catholicism) in 1688.
Yes, the same model responsible for the brutal suppression of american colonists that led to the revolutionary war…the same one that most colonists and founding fathers blamed for their plight… So he didn’t put much stock in the destructiveness of the british monarchy…I think it’s more than arguable that he wouldn’t put much stock in the destructiveness of religion.
You can argue about how many grains of sand constitute a pile all you wish, though.
TANK
I am just saying that the existence of God and the truth of scripture is actually irrelevant to how faith works on people, positively or negatively.
I don’t think you have any idea how faith works, tbh. Or even what faith is…belief in the absence of evidence…like just about everything sally kern believes…Moreso, I think this is a harmful ignorance of yours that perpetuates violence.
“Why is religion such a potent source of violence? There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully articulate their differences from one another, or cast these differences in terms of everlasting rewards and punishments. Religion is the one endeavor in which us–them thinking achieves a transcendent significance. If you really believe that calling God by the right name can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and unbelievers rather badly. The stakes of our religious differences are immeasurably higher than those born of mere tribalism, racism, or politics.”
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Read your history. No British monarch tried to claim absolute power after 1688 (and really it came close to being finished off in 1650).
At the time of the American Revolution the British Parliament held all the power – not George III. He may have been seen in the colonies as a tyrant, but the fact is he did not have that legal power. It was the elected British government that made the decisions which drove your revolution.
And on the issue of religion, I agree with you that it is not necessary for a person to follow a religion to be good or happy. I consider myself a good and happy person and I do not follow a religion.
But it is a fact that many people feel drawn to belief systems (even some oppressive religions) which have a positive effect on their lives.
Clearly none of it has any resonance for you, but surely you must see that it has value for some people, even if you think they are fools.
The question of whether religious world-views are historically accurate or reflect reality is irrelevant (to me anyway, and I expect to many religious people who do not think the world was created 6000 years ago).
What is important is the ethics, symbols and rituals within those belief systems and how they resonate with people.
For example – the story of Abraham and Isaac means a little bit more than God telling some guy to kill his son, and the story of Job was not just a gambling game.
If you can’t see the ethical truths in these allegories (and that is how I see them) there’s not much I can do about it.
TANK
Read your history. No British monarch tried to claim absolute power after 1688 (and really it came close to being finished off in 1650).
You’re arguing over grains of sand. King George had just about absolute authority, and was held accountable by discontented american colonists for denying them representation and taxing them. Contrary to this falsity, he had considerable legal power–moreso than any monarch that exists in britain today.
I’ll repeat myself, as you have:
the same model responsible for the brutal suppression of american colonists that led to the revolutionary war…the same one that most colonists and founding fathers blamed for their plight… So he didn’t put much stock in the destructiveness of the british monarchy…I think it’s more than arguable that he wouldn’t put much stock in the destructiveness of religion.
But it is a fact that many people feel drawn to belief systems (even some oppressive religions) which have a positive effect on their lives.
Clearly none of it has any resonance for you, but surely you must see that it has value for some people, even if you think they are fools.
Distorting the point to miss it, once again. This is bad habit. I’m not denying that religion may have had a positive influence on their lives–but they don’t require religion to be good or lead a fulfilling life. It is not NECESSARY to being good or having a fulfilling life. You seem to have great trouble comprehending this truth…in spite of admitting that religion is not necessary to either of those things.
Further, religion is not justified because it has a positive effect on people’s lives if it caueses just one person to suffer unnecessarily due to false beliefs and superstition. That’s like saying that the entertainment that reading harry potter novels brings people is more important than the lives and well being of others. It’s absurd and sociopathic. Religion causes millions of deaths around the world to this day, and thus not justified.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
“There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully articulate their differences from one another”
I disagree. I think race, culture, and tribal fealty are all more basic ways through which we hate each other.
Religion is a big one, but is sure isn’t the only vehicle for our xenophobia. You could pick almost anything really – nations, sports teams, boroughs, gangs.
I don’t think homophobia comes from religion at all. I think it is much more ingrained. It is very hard to understand anothers’ sexual attraction if you don’t share it and it must certainly appear odd, disgusting and fearful.
TANK
The question of whether religious world-views are historically accurate or reflect reality is irrelevant (to me anyway, and I expect to many religious people who do not think the world was created 6000 years ago).
What is important is the ethics, symbols and rituals within those belief systems and how they resonate with people.
For example – the story of Abraham and Isaac means a little bit more than God telling some guy to kill his son, and the story of Job was not just a gambling game.
If you can’t see the ethical truths in these allegories (and that is how I see them) there’s not much I can do about it.
Most if not all religious people do care very much about whether or not god exists and the truth of the bible, and believe it. It weighs heavily in their faith, and they use that belief in the truth of the bible and existence of god to justify a lot of their bigotry and values…. Are you saying that sally kern doesn’t care about the existence of god or that a suicide bomber doesn’t really believe that 72 virgins will be awaiting him in paradise? If so, you’re as unreasonable as they are.
I don’t think you have any idea how faith works, tbh. Or even what faith is…belief in the absence of evidence…like just about everything sally kern believes…Moreso, I think this is a harmful ignorance of yours that perpetuates violence.
“Why is religion such a potent source of violence? There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully articulate their differences from one another, or cast these differences in terms of everlasting rewards and punishments. Religion is the one endeavor in which us–them thinking achieves a transcendent significance. If you really believe that calling God by the right name can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and unbelievers rather badly. The stakes of our religious differences are immeasurably higher than those born of mere tribalism, racism, or politics.”
DuttyBarb
hyhybt
Please do not bother if you are gay. That is just hypocrisy. Pray for your own soul.
God knows you need it
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Wow. We’ve managed to get through a decent discussion without too much in the way of insult, though I’m not surprised the logjam has not moved one bit.
Anyway, I am going to pack it in while things are still relatively civil.
TANK
I disagree. I think race, culture, and tribal fealty are all more basic ways through which we hate each other.
I just don’t see how you’re disagreeing. I can disagree with any true proposition, too…even mathematical truths. Just for the sake of disagreeing with them, as you are. But you have no argument and no reasoning behind just as I would have no argument (or at least no sound or even valid argument) for disagreeing with a law of physics. Now you’re more than entitled to believe in things like a flat earth and that evolution is false, but there’s absolutely no good reason for you to do so.
Religion is a big one, but is sure isn’t the only vehicle for our xenophobia. You could pick almost anything really – nations, sports teams, boroughs, gangs.
“Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it has been at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in recent decades.”
Shannon
@DuttyBarb:
Yes, you are an ignorant hick and a bigot as well as being too stupid to spell a simple two syllable word like “because”. Whut skul did yu goe tu, ideeut? But hey, who needs an education when you can base your entire world view on a compilation of bronze age fables that advocate mass murder, pedophilia, incest, rape, and infanticide.
petted
I’m not certain but last time I saw a post by Duttybarb it was on a article concerning Sally Kern post which raises some interesting possibilities… ok not that interesting as regardless of what Duttybarb’s last name is – a bigot is a bigot and vile regardless.
Jaroslaw
I’m not going to wade into the religion argument, but I thought I saw a “Gay supportive” post by Duttybarb on another thread. Are two (or more) people using the same name or is she schizophrenic?
And I said this on another post. We should be at least a little bit thankful there are people like Sally Kern. She is so over the top and crazy, she makes the case for our side better than logic and moderate points ever could.
schlukitz
@Jaroslaw:
LOL Excellent point, Jaroslaw.
jamesnimmo
http://tinyurl.com/kjdfob
What if that target to be “exposed and attacked” turns out to be a birth certificate with her name as the mother of the child?
ThatRocks
@Duane: Thank you! I mean, go ahead and disagree with her all you want, but a properly elected legislator does have the right to take part in the legislative process no matter what her idealogical positions. To suggest otherwise may be just as intolerant as she seems to be.
Joanaroo
But not when she was elected to serve constituents and paid by taxpayer money, yet willingly spouts diatribes full of hate back at those same people paying her salary. Why doesn’t she get her church to pay her salary? After all they are tax-exempt, yet religion is intertwined with politics in this case and bedfellows with the national GOP.
WTF?
A little inside information on Oklahoma to help explain how such a wart infested cunt could be elected: Oklahoma has tremendous voter apathy. In most recent elections, only about 1/3 of those able to vote did so. With rampant fundamentalist (and I might add ignorant) ideals based upon bible-thumping rhetoric, the very type of person that 1/3 would vote for are people like this woman. In a place filled with such xenophobia and hatred (Google Tulsa Race Riot or Oklahoma Sundown Towns), it’s no surprise that these bigots would vote for this type of person. It, however, is a surprise that they voted for a woman. It’s usually the “Good Ol’ Boys” (Picture Boss Hog) that do the thinking for a state full of ignorant rednecks who don’t want to have to make informed decisions for themselves (it’s too taxing). If the Bible say it so, that’s good enough for them. Anything else would showcase how poor the education system is. Frequently the state ranks #35 or higher in educational scoring and money spent on education. So, there’s little hope for an informed populace before baby-kissing, all hail Jebus! politicians when they come sweeping through town, selling the “Think Method”.
Okie
Awww, Poor fudge packing faggots…
schlukitz
@Okie:
Awww, still stuck down on the ole homestead where all the organically enriched top-soil blew away in the last depression, are ya?
I guess it’s pretty hard to be producin any brain cells when you ain’t a gitting your vit-ah-mins from the scraggly veggies yer a’growin’ in the patch out back.
jamesnimmo
Here is a portion of Oklahoma Bigot Sally Kern’s press conference in regard to her Morality Proclamation
As many of you know GOPer Rep. Sally Kern has issued a “Morality Proclamation” that blames America’s economic recession and social problems on “sexual debauchery” including gay/lesbian citizenship.
Funny how she spouts off figures from polls indicating 80-90% belief in the christian god, yet she claims there’s still not enough religion in America. Kern and her fundie Krew want the whole American pie, crust and crumbs included.
You can get up to speed on Kern’s activities here http://tinyurl. com/ltttyy and here http://tinyurl. com/yr63qo
This recording was made in the hallway of the Capitol by an Oklahoma City resident. The press room was too small to hold all those media wanting access and this YouTube posting is just a portion of Kern’s ignorant, hateful remarks and does not represent the rally held earlier.
Does anyone know the identity of the man with facial hair in the red shirt with white stripes standing behind Kern during the recording?
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=Psaah-s2fqQ&eurl=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww% 2Eyoutube% 2Ecom%2Fmy% 5Fvideos% 5Fedit&feature=player_ embedded
or http://tinyurl. com/mf5pl6
More about Sally Kern is available here: http://okstonewall. org/forums/ index.php? board=56. 0