« Previous | Main | Next »

May 24, 2004


Do they grow a different kind of tobacco there?

(Thanks to Ted Sbardella)


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Personally, I'd vote for Texas to secede, because it would make their tourism slogan (It's like a whole other country) accurate.

New Mexico could probably secede without attracting much attention, since 93% of Americans are unaware that we have a NEW Mexico.

A "new" mexico???

What happened to the old one?

And Mel Gibson has volunteered to personally support South Carolina's economy after they secede and become their own country by building and selling life sized mangers that he will whittle out of wax.

Again?! What is it with the South...? I thought IT (checking shorts!) did the "dirty" thoughts, but it appears to be trying to come clean for a third sun in the sunset?

Even str8-forward ME has trouble understanding all the unnecessary nooky-killer assholery! ;-)

Ya know, if&when comes a maybe Judgement Day, I'm just gonna stand aside and forefront, flamethrower in one hand and firehose in the other. Who in the He(l)l decides amongst us what some God / Supreme Being thinks and can SHOW ME THE BANK!!!!

Sorry judi and all, but my Mother and her Also Devout friends already consigned me to hell a long time ago.

F*ck all that I gotta get on with these! :-)

Miklos said it best, back in the post about the church group flaying the Easter Bunny:

"God, protect me from your followers."

LTTG and my apologies, Ladies and Gents, just get tired of the whole excessive religious thing.

I better go find my dinner and a movie....

this thread could get ugly ...

*puts on Tyvek suit*

I've been condemned as well, eadn. As for the article, just don't get me started.

I'm Catholic (technically), and therefore a "Christian" and these people seriously make me want to be an atheist or anything but Christian. Good job, you're alienating potential followers! Shouldn't that be a hint??


Way to work obscure Pink Floyd references into a conversation! I admire that in a person.

Oh, and I, too, am going to hell. See you there! I'll be the one who packed a suitcase full of marshmallows and (free second packs of) weenies!

Ok, started to go on a vent....I'll stop...

I whole-heartedly agree, eadn. I believe in Jesus and all that, but I don't even call myself a Christian anymore, precisely because of nuts like these. An interesting tidbit: the Sunday school and youth group my parents made me attend contained a far crueler and more exclusive clique than any I encountered in middle school

Tell them that a South Carolinian, while wholeheartedly in support of secession, wants no carpetbaggers, be they Christian or Muslim, taking control of our beautiful and soverign state.

OhMy, evil lil' pixie, I was afraid I'd over-done flirting with you awhile back being LTTG as opposed to your horror novel!

You are a Sexy Thang most pixilating ;-)

I'm LTTG for my own "winding down" right now, but Dear Lass, please consider my mutual Bloglit respect even though your post in the MOAT did cause me to expose my navel fetish~ :-)

That's all, I'm done, even if something wicked this way comes...

Goodnight ALL!

Don't worry eadn! I'm sorry I didn't stay around that night. The reason I wasn't here this weekend was an out-of-town guest, so I didn't have any time for the blog. I have a lot of catching up to do!

Tim, you're right. Technically a Christian life (according to the 12 years of formal Christian education I've had) is supposed to be one of spreading the "Good News" and enduring the hardships, suffering, and persecution that can come with it. I'm paraphrasing my religion textbooks here. It is ironic. One could argue that they are rejecting their duty.

They can go, but they have to take the crapweasels with them.

Let me know when the thread turns ugly, I wrote a pretty good anti-Catholic screed awhile ago, and it'd probably be seen by more people if I posted it here than at any website that'd be willing to take it.

Actually, from my experience, most of this stuff comes from Protestants, not Catholics. All the nuns I know are pretty liberal and advocate same-sex marriage.

Thanks evil lil' pixie :-)

Punky, just stand behind me. I don't need Kevlar for this, but I respect your worries.

For all the commenters here, I do respect your opinions and would like to do them full (and sober ;-) justice. That does NOT mean I'm backing down from my own stated opinion...just that I'll admit to a rather woozy worrying of mis-understanding.

For Judgement: In the realms of "God" I do speak with the intention of Truth...my butt in the wringer, not yours...So Help Me God!

('Spose that oughta break Knight-Ridder in two?! ;-)

When did the US become a "Christian Republic" as the article states? I would rather live in a Pagan Democracy" anytime. eadn, save me a seat in that handbasket, se ya'll in hell!

Former Southern Baptist

Natalie: Are all states where the laws reflect the religious beliefs of a Christian majority population "rejecting their duty"?

When did the US become a "Christian Republic" as the article states? I would rather live in a Pagan Democracy" anytime. eadn, save me a seat in that handbasket, se ya'll in hell!

Former Southern Baptist

This settles it. Next time I drive from Atlanta to Virginia, I'm detouring through Idaho.

Well, the republic was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, so no doubt this is where they get the "Christian Republic" from.

And they do have some valid points about the general decline of morals and values in this country, and the way political correctness and the bowing to vocal activist groups have contributed to that decline. I do think the pendulum needs to swing back the other way a bit in that respect. But I agree with Tim Macalpine here...these folks are kind of missing one of the points of their own faith.

"I aint fer it, I'm agin it!" Grampa Simpson (?)

I think this might be where it gets ugly: Nuns are all commies. Thus sayeth the Munger. When they're not aversively conditioning kids to never touch a Bible for the rest of their lives, they're pouring blood on our beautiful missle silos.

To clarify, I am an aggressively Protestant Copperhead.

No Dave, actually I didn't say that at all. I was saying that when a Christian population decides to up and leave to make things easier, it can be construed that way as it is often taught that is a Christian's "duty" to spread their beliefs. In states "where the laws reflect the religious beliefs of a Christian majority population" that would be the complete opposite situation. If you, or anyone else, found it offensive, I'm sorry. I took no offense to your eagerness to post your anti-Catholic article.

Also, I was saying "one could argue." Personally, I don't really think or judge that way. Believe what you want to believe as long as it works for you.

Funny how you guys will restrain yourselves on political discussions in order to play nice, but religion's fair game? Where'd the fun blog run by a comic writer go?

bh, actually we don't play nice in political discussions. Just less US room to play even though it was finished respectably by all involved.

You obviously don't read nor recognize even the lately historical comments on The Blog.

Go lurk again, about a week maybe two back, then bring your version of religion to the table.

Careful, make sure you're clean behind your ears before you start something someone else may finish....

*looks under desk*

It's hiding under here, bh ... help me pull it out, would ya?

Come on, little blog, we won't hurt ya ... we promise to play nice again. Come on out ...we have candy!


Punky, ya got more class, style, and ABSOLUTELY Beauty, than this old male-kitty ever will! :-)

Isn't this the third time S. Carolina's tried to seceede? Didn't they learn anything the last two times around? The executive branch doesn't take kindly to states up and leaving.

Also, it was my understanding that the First Amendment effectively makes this nation's government Agnositic. But that's just me.

I would like to say most people from Tyler, TX are generally..very weird. That's why I don't venture that way too often.

Oh and TX's slogan "It's like a whole other country" all the cowboys riding on the range and shit..that's all in West Texas. It really annoys me.

I don't think they would be leaving in order to cop out. I think they feel like the government under which they live is corrupt and they want a place where they feel they can practice their religion without conflicting with the laws of the land which are more lax. Sounds kind of like the pilgrims to me.

On the other hand, "Independence first, details later?" Independence for some is independence for all...if you want the freedom to reject gay marriage, you have to allow others the freedom to accept it.

Christianity and independence are pretty much mutally exclusive. And I mean that in a good way...our faith is all about relying on God and loving each other...hardly an independent situation.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Key words being "Congress shall make no law...".

I don't believe there's a Law that requires students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (the Under God part)or to display Christmas decortations on public land. These are traditions, no less than Thanksgiving.

The limitations invoked are based on "interpertations" of what the authors meant, not what they said.

Even using the cross as a tomb stone in our National Military cemetaries could be considered pro-Christian. Should others find that offensive and demand their removal?

And the Soviets were Atheist.

... around the dinner table one should not discuss politics and religion ....

Eadn, I think the reason you were so upset with bh is that he (or she) was right.

Look. I am a Christian, and I disagree with the concept of homosexual marriage in the strongest sense.

But this is a misguided idea. Yes it would be nice to escape activist judges and pandering politicians, but dropping out of the nation just isn't an option. The efforts spent trying to make escapist fantasies come to pass would be better spent trying to improve the communities in which we live!

It would indeed be nice to live in a country where participants in a high school graduation ceremony are not threatened with arrest by federal marshalls for uttering the name of Jesus Christ. I agree. Our country, however, can be returned to a state of sanity if we spend our efforts where we live instead of trying to find the back door.

America is a good nation, as good as any nation can be, and despite her problems I still love her. Too many people have paid too high a price in blood to birth and protect her for us to just quit.

There have been political discussions here. Yes, a slight amount of restraint has been shown. Not much, but where has restraint been loosed in this comment section?

I just have to say, there is a difference between living as a "good" Christian, and living smug moral superiority.

Founding Fathers
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not by religions, but by the gospel of Jesus Christ." -- Patrick Henry
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and . . . from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come." -- Samuel Adams (July 2, 1776)
"The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty. . ." -- Benjamin Rush (colonial physician and college professor, signer the Declaration of Independence).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. " -- President George Washington (Farewell Address)
"He who shall introduce into public affairs principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." -- Benjamin Franklin
". . . it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand . . ." -- President John Adams
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- President John Adams
"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" -- John Adams
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God?" -- President Thomas Jefferson
"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other." -- James Wilson (signer of the Constitution)
"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, men are certain to shed their responsibilities for licentiousness and this great experiment will then surely be doomed." -- John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

Tim Chandler--a classy and well-put insight!

I think the problem with the whole reaction to gay marriage is the attitude that it's being "forced" on people...like suddenly they're going to be mandated to find someone of the same gender and run off to get hitched! This is a lifting of a restriction, not a imposition of one. And considering the state of heterosexual marriage today, I think that we should at least applaud the idea that these are people who want to legalize their commitment to one another rather than "live together in sin," to borrow a Christian term.

Just my 2c.

there are wackos and funny things to say about the ends of every spectrum. smart robbers don't get upset when there's a news article about stupid robbers, do they?

They might, Judi ... if they could read.

But anyway, I thought the serious posts on this thread were well thought out and well written.

I enjoyed reading all of them ...

"And considering the state of heterosexual marriage today, I think that we should at least applaud the idea that these are people who want to legalize their commitment to one another rather than "live together in sin," to borrow a Christian term.
Gotta love the "state of heterosexual marriage" argument for gay marriage. Akin to saying, "we have a bad marijuana abuse problem in this country, so let's solve the problem by legalizing crack." Legalizing gay marriage will have no bearing on whether or not these people are "living in sin".

I'll agree with the comments above, many Christians *have* abandoned their responsibility to share Jesus with those who need him. As a result, many people see the disconnect between what Christians say and what Christians do. This makes it even more difficult to share Jesus with a cynical world. It would help us all to remember that it's easy to say you're a Christian; it's a lot harder to be one.

As a Christian, I'll make a deal with the world. You won't define me by Christian Exodus or Fred Phelps, and I won't define the world by Marilyn Manson or the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

I know some people in my church I'd probably call hypocrites. I also know many, many others who truly live their lives as much as they can like Jesus from day to day. They serve as an inspiration for me. They don't write newspaper articles about these folks, but they're out there in large numbers, quietly doing what's right and putting the needs of others above their own.

Now, honesty time. Many people use a few examples of human hypocrisy as an excuse for them not to seriously examine what they believe. Don't let the failings of others keep you from this.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled blogging.

"All these atrocities continue in spite of the fact that we now have the 'right' people in places of power. Indeed, the occupant of the White House is a professing Christian. The U.S. attorney general is believed to be a devout Christian. 'Conservatives' control both Houses of Congress, and Republican presidents appointed seven of the nine Supreme Court justices."

Shouldn't that tell Corky, a cell phone dealer by the way, that HE'S the one out of step here? Just asking.

As for having the 'right' people in charge, well he's entitled to his opinion, but as far as I'm concerned there is nothing RIGHT about them. The reason politics and religion in this country are both in such rotten shape is that so many of the so-called leaders of both are just hypocrites.

jcb is right, and I'm not judging the average Christian by the actions of Jerry Falwell or the rest, but I am so sick and tired of "do what I say, not what I do" in both. Isn't not bearing false witness one of the 10 Commandments they are so upset about? Then how come Falwell was hawking tapes on television "proving" that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered?

I won't bother with chapter & verse of political hypocrisy (too easy) but I have to mention the bishop who is going to vigorously prevent Catholics who are pro choice from taking communion because that, as well as gay marriage and several other things he doesn't like, is evil. Not one word, however, about priests fucking little boys. Organzied religion too often is just a sham used to get money and power. There is nothing worse than a religious hypocrite in my opinion. I've mentioned here previously my sleazy uncle the disbarred lawyer. After he was disbarred he suddenly (as so many do) "got religion" which would be fine if he lived it and tried to atone for the evil of his ways. Instead, he's spent the rest of his life (it seems) telling the rest of us how WE should live. I hate that. I don't tell anyone how to live or what to think, believe or worship and all I ask is that you (John Ashcroft, Antonin Scalia, Jerry Falwell and the rest) give me the same courtesy.

You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, don't get one. It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans believe the the best government is the least government, until it comes to something they're against, and then they want the federal government to step in and ban it.

End of rant. Sorry about that.

Ivor --

One of my big beefs is that homosexual marriage IS being forced on people. The places that this stuff is happening have not passed laws or ordinances saying that it is Ok by the normal legislative process or referrendum. They have been set up by a bunch of robed clowns with no regard for the will of the people in this issue. It should at least be something the people's voice is heard on, and the concept of full faith and credit should not be stretched to irrational extremes to force other states to accept the "marriages".

I agree with JCB on the "state of heterosexual marriage" arguement. Just because people have become to selfish and casual about marriage doesn't mean we abandon any and all standards. Dumbing down the standards does not solve any problems.

Dealing with this specific group of people, it is key to remember that anyone can CLAIM to be a disciple of Christ. Only the truly faithful actually LIVE the Word of God. (Being a Christian is not just intellectual acknowledgement of Christ, but complete obedience to His Word and to His example...)

Jesus said that "...by their fruit ye shall know them." Matt 7:20. If people would get into the Bible and read it for themselves, they might find it much easier to spot the difference between an imposter and a true disciple of Christ.

Excellent post JCB.

Often individuals with good motives seek bad solutions. Retreating into a state and trying to leave the Union strikes me as a defeated attitude.

How about we just give 'em Mississippi and fence it off? Anyone who wants to immigrate in has to swap fair value plus 20% to a current resident of assets held outside of Mississippi. I'd love to see the social experiment, and would predict chaos when the same old social "problems" continue in their own little eden...

PS Elle demonstrates my idea of what a Christian attitude ought to be, and I'd happily share the other 49 states with her and other tolerant people...

Jeff says:
I don't tell anyone how to live or what to think, believe or worship and all I ask is that you (John Ashcroft, Antonin Scalia, Jerry Falwell and the rest) give me the same courtesy.

There's the conundrum, Jeff. If one truly is a Christian, one has a duty to evangelize. To some, that's interpreted as "telling others what to think". And here I'm referring to one-on-one conversations here, not Falwell, Robertson and their ilk. I don't like their brand of evangelization any more than you do.

You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, don't get one.

I believe it to be morally wrong. I don't believe in incest, either--des that mean it should be legal? Like it or not, our laws reflect our morals. Christians have an equal right to have a say in what those morals are, despite the fact that the words "hate" and "homophobia" are launched out there like hand grenades the minute the discussion starts.

It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans believe the the best government is the least government, until it comes to something they're against, and then they want the federal government to step in and ban it.

It has been many years since limited government has been a bedrock Republican principle. The natural consequence of weak-willed politicians pandering to a what's-in-it-for-me electorate.

End of rant. Sorry about that.

No need to apologize. If you can't rant about theology and politics on a humor columnist's blog, where can you? :-)

and Elle says:
Jesus had some great ideas, namely:
1) Loving your neighbor
2) Not being judgemental.

Elle, #2 is one of the most commonly misinterpreted passages in the Bible. Jesus told us to be extremely judgmental. Jesus didn't tell us not to judge others, he told us not to judge others by a standard we weren't willing to hold to ourselves. This passage has been twisted by our "I'm OK, You're OK" society.

Yes, Jesus was and is love, and we all can get along fine with that. We often conveniently forget, though, the other side of Jesus. He is also righteous--meaning He hates sin--and sovereign--meaning He makes the rules, not us.

Okay, this is getting pretty deep for a web site devoted to boogers. :-)

JCB - you make some good points and I don't have any quibble with Christians getting an EQUAL say with their numbers. I do find equating homosexual marriage with incest an extremely inappropriate piece of sophistry, though.

Also, doesn't Elle have an equal right to interprete the bible (which version?) as you do?

Booger, Booger, booger, booGer...

Peace, Brother.

"She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
John 8:11

When Jesus forgave sin he didn't say "Now go out and sin all you want", he said "SIN NO MORE".

When he went into the temple and kicked butt to rid it of scumbags was he being "tolerant"?

Jesus didn't come to tolerate sin, he came to guide us away from it, and to pay the price for our attraction to it.

It's ironic that the people who want everyone to 'stay out of their bedrooms' are the ones foisting their bedroom behavior on the rest of us.

Also, gay marriage opens a Pandora's box of deviant behaviors to be legalized. Next, marriages to near relatives will be fine, then group marriages, then underage marriages....where does it end?

The only people really drooling over gay marriage (other than homosexuals) are divorce lawyers. If lawyers are for it.....I'm usually not.

Well said, Pandora.

Hmmmmm...South Carolina seceding...didn't they try this already?

If they want to found a new country, they should find some island. I'm sure they could find an island.

djtonyb says:
Incest is illegal. Bestiality is illegal. Sex with minors is illegal. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is nobody's business.
Tony, there are so many strawman arguments in your post I don't know where to start, but here goes.

It's not about what goes on in your bedroom. It's about what our government sanctions, and what our tax dollars pay for.

You missed entirely, or ignored, my point. I said that our laws reflect our morals. Incest, to me, is morally wrong, as is homosexuality. I don't equate the two, btw, as one involves a minor.

I have a right to express that view. Allow me that--think of it as your contribution to "tolerance". Or are we today tolerant of everything except a dissenting view?

Just because your religious beliefs cause you to find it repugnant is no argument for political discrimination.

There is no discrimination in refusing to radically redefine marriage.

If two people have decided to share their lives together and want to take the steps to assure that they have the same legal protection as any other committed couple, it is not for religion to rear it's head and legislate against it.
Okay, Tony, I'll take your side for the sake of argument. I think anyone who wants to share their lives together should be provided the full legal benefits of marriage. I'll keep it heterosexual, but I've decided I want five wives instead of just one.

Should I have the right to do that? If not, why not? What would be the rationale for allowing gay marriage, but prohibiting polygamy? At what point does a moral or societal speed brake kick in? For if all we measure is "commitment", then what does number matter?

As an aside, am I now going to have to go to my political bulletin boards to get my humor? :o

JCB - as far as I am concerned personally, if you want to have 5 wives, and can afford them without welfare, go for it. (Booger).

There IS discrimination in "refusing to 'radically redine' marriage", just as there was discrimination in refusing to radically redefine who was a citizen (men only), who was a person (oops, white men only), who could drink out of the public water fountains, sit anywhere they wanted on the bus, be an atheist, or a communist, etc. Booger, booger. I don't want my tax dollars to discriminate against gays, is all.

My complaint is not you expressing your viewpoint, (booger) I'm enjoying the exchange and hoping you are too, but in people like Ashcroft trying to legislate it. The Pilgrims were FLEEING the imposition of others' religious beliefs, after all.

There is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree. Boogers for all, I say!

(DJT - I'm sure I could find you plenty of dates out here in California, depending upon the number of appendages you possess!)

Blogchik has many things to say about this subject, but is not eager to get flamed.

The one thing she will say is this:

I have often found that people foaming at the mouth about the intolerance of others are pretty intolerant themselves.

Case in point: this lady at Colonial House. Signed up for this thing where they're supposed to pretend to be colonials, right? Where they HAD to go to church or face harsh penalties? So once she gets there, she won't go, no way, no how, because it's against her principles and she's getting oppressed.

What I saw of their 'church' it seemed to be 'let's talk about our lives social club.' Kind of 'church lite.' But she was too rabidly against the very idea of going to find that out.

In other words, what I'm saying is: pot, meet kettle.

I do not have the right to judge anyone. That's for God to do. It's not for me to say who's going to heaven or hell. One day I'll stand before the dread judgement seat of Christ, and on that day I want to be able to give a good account for myself.

Re: the law. As a Christian, I do not believe that two homosexuals can be married. That's not what marriage is. I don't care if you get a piece of paper from the government saying that's what you are, as far as I'm concerned its a legal fiction.

You can do whatever you want among consensual adults in the privacy of your own home. Just don't ask me to pat you on the head and say "way to go!"

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Thus ends "Blogchik's Solemn Thoughts of the Day." Can we get back to boogers now? Please?

Blogchik, having reread her post, is thinking "way to not express yourself."

I hope somebody got the idea of what I was trying to say and that I won't get too badly flamed.


DJTony, didn't the Supreme Court's decision last year make all those sodomy laws go bye-bye?

That's how I read it.

Blogchik - I hope we all realize that blogging is a forum that, whilst fast, is imperfect at times in conveying our tone. I, for one, hope I can manage to disagree at times without ever flaming any one of my esteemed fellow Barry-ites.

Trolls excluded, your milage may vary.

DJ - your ominous silence on the matter can only lead a reasonable person to assume you DO have the extra appendage or two...

.....not that there's anything wrong with it!

BUT it is being foisted! *I* personally do not CARE what you do in private if it is with another adult. If I don't know, I don't care.

The foisting comes when *I* must hear ad nauseum about it. The foisting comes when *I* have to pay taxes for it. The foisting comes when there is failure to realize that just because it is something you choose to do, does NOT mean the government should sanction it.

I will not win you to my side and I'm not trying. As will you never win me to your side. I'm just tired of hearing about it. Period.

As for legal protection, what exactly do you want protection for/ from? If it's survivorship, try a will.

Marriage is not an automatic legal right. There are a lot of people we do not allow to marry. In fact, if anything, we should tighten the restrictions on marriage.

Sadly, despite the smokescreen, the object of it all is not to obtain rights, but to confuse the very concepts of right and wrong in the mind of man. They would even have you believe the laughable notion that the framers of our constitution wanted to legally protect bonesmuggling and donut bumping. Feel sorry for them, look at what's in store for them:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isa 5:20

We had this kind of debate at our church recently (somewhat fewer "booger, boogers"). Should we bless gay unions? Is homosexuality a sin? The discussion was getting a bit hot when one elderly, extremely conservative lady spoke up and said, somewhat surprisingly, "But if they come to our church, and they're a part of our church family, we're supposed to love them! Isn't that what Jesus said?" Cooled down the debate considerably.

Yes kj, and to really love them is to help them to leave a sinful lifestyle, not praise them for living it.

Love the sinner but hate the sin. The Bible does not teach acceptance of sin, be it homosexuality, lying, slander, rebellion, whatever. Anyone who is a sinner can come to the altar to find mercy, but if they persist in such open sin then as it says in 1st Corinthians Chapter 5:

"9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person.
12For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."

May God strike me dead if I'm holier than thou to anyone.

*looks at sky nervously*

I wondered how long it would be before someone tried to mention the child molestation thing. I sincerely doubt that the people in the Catholic Church who were against homosexual marriage were the ones molesting children.

But since when do facts and reason enter into an arguement like this?

It is much easier to simply paint anyone who disagrees with you or holds any faith as a narrow minded biggot who wants to return us to the stone age. No thought required...

Quick question:

If the US government were to suddenly hold a nation-wide referendum on the issue of same-sex marriage, and the Christians LOST (ie: majority in favour of gay marriage), would they accept the decision or would the debate continue?

Sorry Waldorf, we answer to a higher authority. That's why we're so dangerous to governments.

Hello again, Everyone!

Graz, Thanks for your comment post link! That was the one I was thinking of.

Alas, I am going to toss in Einstein's Theory of Relativity in the sense that we all interpret our lives, law, religion, whatever from our own perspectives. Suffice to say, given my own interpretations and beliefs in God, I will follow through on my own recognizance and should there come a Judgement Day, then I will hear what He has to say....

Summary of entire thread:

Person A: My God can beat up your God!

Person B: Nuh-uh! My beliefs are more rightious than yours!

Person C: Boogers.

Summary of entire thread:

Person A: There is a God, and he loves us and knows what's best for us!

Person B: Nuh-uh! I'm God and I'll do whatever I please.

Person C: Boogers.

Boogers. The bond that unites us.

And yes, Booger Bonds wbagnfarb.

Last word!

We'll see about that!

And I can't believe you bogarted my joke... I have nothing left to believe in!


"I wondered how long it would be before someone tried to mention the child molestation thing. I sincerely doubt that the people in the Catholic Church who were against homosexual marriage were the ones molesting children."

Tim, I think you're wrong. There's a lot of hypocrisy, denial and self justification going on out there. Not that most Catholics (or priests) are molesting children, but I'd guess the "anti-gay marriage" thing would probably have the same support across the board among priests, even if they didn't practice what they preached.

I've always been a believer in civil unions rather than gay marriage, not that I ever took a heavy stand against it. The one thing, believe it or not, that made me re-examine my position and push me the other way was Britney's marriage! Whoever said we should tighten up the marriage laws hit it on the head. People like Brintey and her ilk (and how often do we get to use the word "ilk'?; not often enough) should not be allowed to marry, let alone breed. But as that isn't something we can control there's not much point ranting about that.

I know a number of gay people (some in my family) and from what I've observed most of the negative attention -- even discrimination and recrimination -- they've faced comes from the self righteous hypocrites out there, like my aforementioned uncle, who took it on himself to attack my cousin's girlfriend at a wedding and berate them as being "sick." This is a man who, before he "found religion" and decided it was his job in life to tell others how to live, broke most laws of God & man other than Thou Shalt Not Kill. Now, am I supposed to think, well he's just proselytizing like he's supposed to, or damn him for the hypocrite he is? In actuality, I just turn the other cheek and realize one way or the other he'll have to answer for his own behavior, whether to a higher power or otherwise.

> > Subject: Psalm 20 1/2
> >
> >
> > Psalm 2004
> > Bush is my shepherd, I shall be in want.
> > He leadeth me beside the still factories,
> > He maketh me to lie down on park benches,
> > He restoreth my doubts about the Republican party.
> > He guideth me onto the paths of unemployment for the
> > party's sake.
> > I do fear the evildoers, for thou talkest about them
> > constantly.
> > Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy deficit spending,
> > they do discomfort me.
> > Thou anointeth me with never-ending debt,
> > And my savings and assets shall soon be spent.
> > Surely poverty and hard living shall follow me,
> > And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement
> > forever.
> >

Sorry Tetsu, go ahead. Well that was a fun debate. Let's all go out for a cold one to celebrate. I'm buying. You too, djtonyb. We'll turn a barstool upside down for you.

See, all of you who were worried, we all found our sense of humor again. Harmony is restored to the universe.

Sorry Punky, but I'm a sinner too. I meant it in fun and I think djtony took it that way. If not, sorry to all.

Well, I didn't get flamed, but I did get a little singed from the bombs thrown back and forth.

*rubs ash off shirt*


I'd like to compliment everyone--well, almost everyone--for the tone of their posts on this very polarizing topic.


jcb, you forgot to say our Word of Unity:


To tune of "Batman" (the '60s show):

Booger Booger Booger Booger
Booger Booger Booger Booger

Pssst. Bible quoters. Something to think about. There are many books that have been added and/or removed from the bible. Check the difference between the King James Version, and the Catholic Church version.

Men have already determined which "version" of God you get. Is your version right, and the other wrong?

*finishes putting on Nomex suit, and gets a cold beer close at hand*

Graz, that's a whole nother can of worms you've opened.... Can I use it to fish?

Oh, and..........BOOGER

Graz, which one are you currently reading?

Hey Steve?

When some people refer to "holier-than-thou", this is what they are talking about.



I have read both completely having been raised Catholic, and having been heavily involved in a non-denominational church as an adult.

And , I have also read a large part of the book of Mormon.

They're all supposed to be the Gods teachings.

Which one is truly it?

There are no significant differences between the KJV and the Bible Catholics use, other than the Catholics include some books Protestants call the Apocrypha, which means "hidden".

Most of the stuff in the Apocrypha is of minimal theological value, with the exception of some passages Catholics use to justify some of their doctrine.

But the big stuff remains all pretty much intact, no matter what Bible version you use.

DJT - attempted joke cross-referencing the "Two Heads better than one" post - I've been blogging here for a bit now, so Ive got some sense of who you are - we go to the same parties on the MOAT.

PS to djtonyb - sincerely hope I didn't offend you, absolutely not my intent. I'm on your side in this debate, although not on the same team.

Who knew a late-night dorm debate was going to break out? That was kinda fun, as opposed to last week's debate about absentee ballot snafus...

Now I gotta get back to work for awhile.

Originally, the Church used the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, traditionally attributed to 70 translators, hence the name) as the text for its scriptures. The Orthodox Church still uses this today. (It includes a few books that the Catholic Bible leaves out.) St. Jerome translated the Septuagint into Latin in the 400s, I believe...this became the Latin Vulgate, the basis for all subsequent Catholic translations.

Martin Luther decided to dump the Apocrypha, also known as Deuterocanonicals, because they contain support for the idea of praying for the dead, among other things. He almost dumped the book of James in the New Testament too.

I know this because I was raised Protestant, almost became Catholic, and converted to Orthodoxy.

Can we get back to boogers now?

Me too! And I'll toss in a Booger as well!

Not to mention there are more things in Heaven and Earth (He(l)l too probably ;-) than are dreamt of in our philosophies....

You tell 'em, Polonius, I mean eadn.

graz, honey, how's your ... you know... PROBLEM? :)

I should have said HAMLET there, not Polonius. Duh! I know Shakespeare better than that.

*hangs head in shame*

1 2 3 »

The comments to this entry are closed.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright | About The Miami Herald | Advertise