They Can Only Be Right
Our two-year battle over the sex-ed curriculum has had a few moments where it seemed that the dialogue got a little rocky. It was almost as if some people were real sure of themselves and didn't want to listen to anybody else's point of view. I wonder how that happens?
From RightWingWatch, a little snatch of an interview with Pat Robertson:
From RightWingWatch, a little snatch of an interview with Pat Robertson:
Q: Why [do] evangelical Christians tell non-Christians that Jesus (God) is the only way to Heaven? Those who are Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, etc. already know and have a relationship with God. Why is this? It seems disrespectful.
A: No. They don’t have a relationship. There is the god of the Bible, who is Jehovah. When you see L-O-R-D in caps, that is the name. It’s not Allah, it’s not Brahma, it’s not Shiva, it’s not Vishnu, it’s not Buddha. It is Jehovah God. They don’t have a relationship with him. He is the God of all Gods. These others are mostly demonic powers. Sure they’re demons. There are many demons in the world.
posted by JimK at 8:48 PM
29 Comments:
And when they begin a conversation with one of us who disagree with their worldview, they come with the belief that they are 100% right and will not consider moving in anyway.
In fact, when I was a Pentecostal Evangelical, pastors taught me that most non-Evangelical Christians live "blinded by the god of this world" and may be spreading doctrines of demons--without even knowing it! Sorta like having a demonic virus, one that we can infect even believers.
Therefore, it is exceedingly difficult for many of these folks to engage in any sort of reasonable discussion while they are controlled by so much fear.
While Jim is correct that evangelicals believe Jesus is the only way to know God, he is incorrect in characterizing CRC as an evangelical effort. The President of CRC was a Mormon, which is not a Christian religion at all and many of its leaders are Catholics, which is Christian but certainly not evangelical. CRC was always willing to work with those committed to traditional values regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
Anon, please point out the part where Jim is "characterizing CRC as an evangelical effort."
It was the point of his post, Merle.
anonymous said he is incorrect in characterizing CRC as an evangelical effort
____
Maybe Jim was referring to PFOX and not CRC at all ...:)Besides if Jim did not post it you anon are assuming.
I wasn't saying anything about "evangelists" in particular. There is something that the ordinary person looks for in discussing a controversy, and that is reason. It means that participating parties try to rely on facts connected by logic. When one party entirely dismisses the other party's viewpoint as "demonic" or otherwise writes it off as unworthy of consideration, there is no debate and the only possible solution is for one side to win or lose.
That's the story of the MoCo sex-ed curriculum. Conservatives and liberals can discuss and negotiate, they can reason. The nuts gridlock the discussion with their inability to accept compromise or losing a vote. I have never paid particular attention to exactly what church they attend.
JimK
I think the point of this post is that some evangelical Christians, like Pat Robertson in the example given, are so certain that their way is the only way to have a relationship with God and to get into heaven that they disrepectfully refer to the gods of other religions (Allah, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, and Buddah, etc.) as demons.
In a similar manner and coming from their various religious and non-religious backgrounds, the suers are so certain that their way is the only way to a healthy happy life (regardless of what medical professionals say), that they disrespectfully refer to LGBT people as sick or as sinners who will be miserable in life and will spend eternity burning in hell unless they force themselves to live life in the closet.
The point is not that CRC is an evangelical effort. The point is that for both evangelicals and CRC types, their certainty blinds them to realities the rest of us acknowledge; namely, there is more than one way live a healthy happy life, to know God, and to enter His Kingdom.
Daisy
Daisy said, "there is more than one way live a healthy happy life, to know God, and to enter His Kingdom."
...... and even if one is gay ...
Ted
Is 'anonymous' really serious when s/he says that Mormons are not Christians. The full name of their church is the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints. If that doesn't say they are Christians, I don't know what would. And to say that many of the leaders are Catholic is just absurd. Google them and learn a few things before spouting off.
Sorry, but I have been a bit tied up of late (something about the Mrs. wanting a bathroom painted; either I do it and it looks decent or she does it and it looks slapdash)...
Anonymous writes,
Is 'anonymous' really serious when s/he says that Mormons are not Christians. The full name of their church is the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints.
Actually the title is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and yes, there is a difference (but you need to have been an insider to know the difference - and I was; a member from age eight until I left at age 40).
If that doesn't say they are Christians, I don't know what would.
Yet they reject the single doctrine that unites every flavor of Christianity together: the Holy Trinity. Now I know that evangelical christians have it out for the mormons, but Catholics don't and a few years back they looked at mormon baptisms to determine if they are valid, and determined that based upon mormon theology they are not valid.
Calling the Book of Mormon "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" (as opposed to some really clever 19th folkloric fiction) does not make the LDS Church any sort of christian religion...no matter how loud they may protest such.
And to say that many of the leaders are Catholic is just absurd. Google them and learn a few things before spouting off.
Oh, by all means do look into their peculiar teachings; a good place to start is here,
http://www.lds-mormon.com
Orin, you are hilarious - "The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints are not Christians...there's a difference between "Day" and "day"".
While you're at your hair splitting and magic definitions, how about you explain to me how, if as you said state definitions of marriage as one man/one woman are not a gay marriage ban, then same sex couples can't get married in those states?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religious organization which views itself as the restoration of the original Christian church, founded by Jesus and his Twelve Apostles.
...Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father, often referred to as Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
Chris‧tian ... [kris-chuhn]
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
Orin,
I won't engage in any debate over Mormonism -- I imagine we'll get more than our fill when Romney declares.
I do take umbrage at your put-down of your wife, though. You should be encouraging her artistic efforts, not criticizing them :-)
MY favorite part is how "L-O-R-D" is God's name. Also Jehovah? YOu would think a "renowned scholar" like Pat Robertson would know that the transliteration of some Hebrew letters is not God's name. Characterizing the names other religions use for God as being demons is pathetic-unlearned and ignorant.
Dana writes,
Orin,
I won't engage in any debate over Mormonism -- I imagine we'll get more than our fill when Romney declares.
And there is a raging debate going on in Christian Evangelical circles right now if they could accept a Mormon as the social conservative GOP candidate. I rather like Romney from what little I know at present, but my opinion seems to be quite in the minority (any surprise?).
I do take umbrage at your put-down of your wife, though. You should be encouraging her artistic efforts, not criticizing them :-)
LOL...sorry, but even she would admit that I am better at doing edge work than she. Don't worry though...she will not let me touch the checkbook, and for good reason as she is much better at keeping the bills paid than I.
So, it appears that you were defeated in the election. I am sorry to hear that, esp given that it must take alot of effort. Will you try again? Here in Colorado a self described progressive, citizen legislator ran for a 2nd time as a Democrat and won. John Kefalas was running against what was thought to be a safe Republican incumbent, and he ran a shoe-string campaign short on donations, and long on dedicated, passionate volunteers. Which goes to show that with better ideas, and a little luck, the under-dog can win.
Oh, and he represents me in our Colorado State legislature now as the House Rep.-Elect for District 52.
http://www.johnkefalas.org
November 21, 2006 5:58 PM
Anonymous writes,
Warning, facts ahead said...
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religious organization which views itself as the restoration of the original Christian church, founded by Jesus and his Twelve Apostles.
Important distinction here..."which views itself"...just a small problem: no other Christian Church considers such a claim credible. But hey, don't take my word for it...
Statements of 5 Christian Denominations on Mormonism
Lutheran Church statement,
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239
Presbyterian Church (USA) statement,
http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa/wmd/eir/mormon.htm
Roman Catholic Church statement,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html
Southern Baptist statement,
http://www.namb.net/atf/cf/%7BCDA250E8-8866-4236-9A0C-C646DE153446%7D/BB_Mormons.pdf
United Methodist Church statement,
http://www.gc2000.org/pets/cal/TEXT/c0806.asp
That is to say, Catholics consider Lutherans Christians...and Methodists consider Presbyterians as fellow Christians, but none of them consider LDS Christian according to their theology, additions to the Bible or their history...none. That is not to say that the LDS are not regarded kindly, or that they are not regarded as serious in their religious devotion, or that they are not good people that anyone would want as a neighbor. It is simply a matter of the fact that the LDS Church does NOT dictate or control the normative orthodox Christian faith...no matter what the title of their church may read.
...Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father, often referred to as Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_christians.htm
Simply read the above statements from LDS Church leaders and it will disabuse most of the validity of the LDS claim to being a (no, THE) Christian Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
Good grief...the old trope that we (LDS, that is) are Christian because it says so right in the title of our church. Sorry, but that does not cut it with most discerning people...then again, the LDS Church was once like activists now in wanting to redefine marriage to mean something it doesn't. The irony is that the LDS Church at one time did attempt to redefine what marriage means, and the US Supreme Court in 1878 told them that they could believe whatever they wanted to believe, but that the civil authorities were in charge of the practices of marriage. There are still of few of these folks (though the LDS Church says is has NOTHING to do with THESE people), but they apparently have not received that 1890 memo from God.
And yes, Jim, this is my last word on this...I don't have the time to engage in a sectarian word war and also try to put together an answer for Randi...yup, I have not forgotten about that Randi.
"It was almost as if some people were real sure of themselves and didn't want to listen to anybody else's point of view."
This describes TTF. CRC was initially opposed to any sex ed curriculum in public schools and has shown flexibility by agreeing to some curriculum as long as it didn't go beyond presenting facts.
Not only did they amend their initial view but TTF constantly attacks them for doing so, saying they don't really want a sex ed curriculum. So then, any time they consider another point of view they are attacked by TTF and if they don't they're attacked. Way to participate in civil discussion, TTF.
Meanwhile, when did TTF make any concessions or consider any other point of view? They flagrantly continued to support the old curriculum in the face of judicial determination of its unconstitutionality.
Anon, if you're a lawyer you're dissembling; otherwise you're just a fool.
Have you ever attended any of the CAC meetings? Well, I have, most of them. And for most of the time there was nothing but respectful discussion and debate. Most of it was quite boring. Everyone personally got along very well. Sprigg and Jacobs monopolized the time, and nobody got bent out of shape until they violated protocol this past week. So stop insulting the large majority on the committee.
As far as changing minds, yes, believe it or not, ttf and others actually agreed to some changes proposed by Sprigg and Jacobs. It's in the record, and Peter recorded all the events, so you can go visit him and listen to your heart's content.
As for the big ticket items, well, religious fanaticism is just plain wrong and offensive, and the vast majority of MoCo residents will not stand for it. When Ruth discussed STDs, her area of expertise, she garnered a great deal of support. When she spouted Chrisitanist positions on human sexuality, about which she knows very little, she was voted down. It's really that simple.
"I wasn't saying anything about "evangelists" in particular."
No, you were talking about evangelicals.
"There is something that the ordinary person looks for in discussing a controversy, and that is reason."
TTF has not relied on reason but has advocated unceasingly for a particular group and their outlook.
"It means that participating parties try to rely on facts connected by logic."
Unless facts and logic make engaging in a homosexual lifestyle look unwise. Then, TTF will rationalize away "facts connected by logic".
When one party entirely dismisses the other party's viewpoint as "demonic" or otherwise writes it off as unworthy of consideration,"
Like when you call everyone who disagrees with you "bigots" and "nuts"?
"there is no debate and the only possible solution is for one side to win or lose."
Those who side with truth win regardless of any governmental action.
"That's the story of the MoCo sex-ed curriculum. Conservatives and liberals can discuss and negotiate, they can reason."
Liberals, yes, but not lunatic fringe groups like TTF, et al.
"The nuts gridlock the discussion with their inability to accept compromise or losing a vote."
Easy to say when the committee has been stacked to reach a preordained position.
"I have never paid particular attention to exactly what church they attend."
You probably should if you're going to generalize about everyone's beliefs.
"So stop insulting the large majority on the committee."
Didn't say a word about it in the post you were responding to. That you think TTF and "the committee" are interchangeable is telling.
"As for the big ticket items, well, religious fanaticism is just plain wrong and offensive, and the vast majority of MoCo residents will not stand for it."
Fanaticism is in the eye of the beholder. Your materialist atheism seems pretty strident to me and I think most county residents would agree if they read some of your comments too.
"When Ruth discussed STDs, her area of expertise, she garnered a great deal of support."
What was Jim's area of expertise?
"When she spouted Chrisitanist positions on human sexuality, about which she knows very little, she was voted down. It's really that simple."
Could you give us some examples of Christianist positions?
Orin said "I don't have the time ...to put together an answer for Randi...yup, I have not forgotten about that Randi."
Yes I imagine Orin it would take you a VERY long time to "explain" why same sex couples can't get married if as you say the definition of marriage as one man/one woman is not a ban on gay marriage. I suppose that's as close as it gets to you admitting the obvious - you were wrong, the state constitutional amendments are a ban on gay marriage.
"Could you give us some examples of Christianist positions? "
Sure. Here are two.
1. Sex outside of holy matrimony is a sin.
2. Homosexuality is a sin.
ttf had one seat on the committee -- that's all. The three people in question -- Peter, Maria and Ruth -- ignored protocol and offended the remainder of the committee, which is the majority. I'm sure you can do the math as an accountant.
Jim's expertise happens to be in research science, but he has expressed that himself on many occasions. However, he wasn't appointed because of that expertise, but because he is president of ttf. Ruth wasn't chosen as the CRC rep because she's in Infectious Diseases, but because CRC couldn't find anyone else. Still, her medical expertise was welcome in her subspecialty.
""Could you give us some examples of Christianist positions? "
Sure. Here are two.
1. Sex outside of holy matrimony is a sin.
2. Homosexuality is a sin."
Did Ruth propose including this in the curriculum? I doubt it. Dr Beyer still has not identified which "Christianist" positions Ruth put up for vote.
"Jim's expertise happens to be in research science, but he has expressed that himself on many occasions. However, he wasn't appointed because of that expertise, but because he is president of ttf."
Why would TTF merit a seat? They don't represent any significant part of the community.
ttf represents far more people than CRC, PFOX and "Grandmothers in support of Ben Franklin and traditional marriage" do.
Ruth's Christianist positions? Where to begin? That homosexuality is a disease to be cured. That sex outside of marriage cannot be condoned. That teaching about sex encourages sexual activity. That being transsexual is a mental illness and can cured by reparative therapy. That condoms don't work.
Hey now, watch what you say about Ben Franklin.
JimK
Anon November 22, 2006 9:09 PM said "Why would TTF merit a seat? They don't represent any significant part of the community."
CRC must be giving thanks that their hero Don Dwyer apparently eked out a 28 vote victory in the conservative stronghold of Anne Arundel County, Maryland (http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2006/results/general/county_Anne_Arundel_County.html) because the candidates they supported here sure did lose "big time" here in Montgomery County (http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/elections/electionResults2006General/jurisdictionwidefinal-1.htm). Every CRC-supported MCPS Board of Education candidate lost. Tommy Le lost to Shirley Brandman 62% to 37%; Michael Ibanez lost to Dr. Judy Docca 69% - 29%; and Suzy Scofield (who supported the TTF position yet was supported by CRC) lost in the primary. Nancy Navarro won with 63% and Patricia O'Neill, who ran unopposed got over 99% of the vote.
Poor Anon. With no good news on the horizon for the types of candidates he supports locally, he apparently feels the need to distort reality by asserting TTF doesn't "merit" a seat on the Citizens' Advisory Committee because they don't "represent a significant part of the community." The 2006 local election results prove this assertion is false.
Between 62% and 99% of Montgomery County voters voted for Board of Education candidates who agree with the TTF view of the doctor-approved health education curriculum, demonstrating that TTF does indeed "represent a significant part of the [vibrantly diverse and progressively inclusive] community" we are proud to call home.
Thank you Mongtomery County.
Christine
Christine,
There will be a recount in the District 31 race with Dwyer and Cadden. 28 votes is all.
As is the case with all the Anon's here, sometimes having someone like Dwyer around is better than not. You really can't wish adversaries like that out of nothing. He does a great deal to support our positions on many issues, simply by being Don.
Post a Comment
<< Home