Traditional America

[cariad]

Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:

"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."

So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.

cheers,
skg

I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.

I don't see how anyone could fail to see that Snopes is doing what journalists are supposed to do: reporting without an agenda, giving information, quoting people and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. So few sites do this, but you are right, skg, Snopes is excellent at it and that site no more referred to anyone as a "fundamentalist Christian monster" than Fox News did in using the exact same quote in their piece.

Wow, you give a source that calls me a "fundamentalist Christian monster" and you call that a good source??? LOL.

Snopes did no such thing, Peter. It is clear as day that the source that skg called excellent was Snopes. Quoting does not equal agreeing with nor condoning. Snopes is indeed a great source.

It's really sad, the way people try to find persecution, victimhood and offense in absolutely everything. It ruins these discussions.

Dear Cariad,

I already answered skg and Bill on this issue. Please read above.

Dear Hemodoc,

I read your response. It made no sense. Snopes is an excellent site and is widely respected. Quoting in no way requires agreement. Both Bill and skg are correct.

Whether you responded or not is irrelevant to whether or not I am free to respond if I feel like giving my take on it. Your response displayed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and I think skg nailed it with his theory that there are one of two explanations for that.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

Dear Hemodoc,

I read your response. It made no sense. Snopes is an excellent site and is widely respected. Quoting in no way requires agreement. Both Bill and skg are correct.

Whether you responded or not is irrelevant to whether or not I am free to respond if I feel like giving my take on it. Your response displayed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and I think skg nailed it with his theory that there are one of two explanations for that.

Dear Cariad,

Here is my second comment which refers to ANOTHER quote form the same article that I was referring to in my first comment. Sorry, that I did not make that intuitively clear in the first comment that you take such umbrage. In any case, yes, I am quite stupid at times. Just ask my wife. What is your point?

There is a third alternative, I simply left my statement unintentionally ambiguous as to WHICH source I was referring. My second comment explains which source I was referring in my first comment. Do you wish to belabor this trivial issue further??? If you simply wish to trade ad hominems, sorry, not interested.

Have a great day.

[Hemodoc]

I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.

No actually, the Snopes article quoted the opinion piece published in Huffington Post written by Weinstein.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

i failed to place the link in my second comment that I had planned to giving the source of the quotes from Weinstein.

In any case, including this man in a discussion involving religious liberty is seriously inflammatory. If I was still in the Army, I would be quite upset by that inclusion.

FYI Cariad, it appears you missed this.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:

"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."

So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.

cheers,
skg

Dear skg,

Nope, not disingenuous. I do make a lot of mistakes in my life, but I understood correctly the quote from Weinstein and I included a direct quote from that "opinion" piece in my second comment. Disingenuous??? No.

Dear Cariad, as I stated, I already answered skg and Bill.

Have a great day.

[MooseMom]

Dear Moosemom, the topic of discussion is traditional America. I gave a documented and ongoing issue in the military today that is in direct opposition to traditional America and you call me paranoid essentially. Good grief, look back at how many times you challenge my motivations instead of simply discussing an active, ongoing and controversial subject. Lets stick to the facts and keep your ad hominems whether intended or accidental out of the discussion.

For your info, I am quite happy living in Idaho where people still understand the concept of true freedom. We are about to enter escrow on a great deal for our house with 4 competing offers in the first three days with a couple quite a bit above our asking price. Yes, my wife and I are quite pleased thank you, how about you???

Yeah, but I get distracted.     "Ad hominem" implies "attack", and I am neither challenging nor attacking you.  This may surprise you, but I sometimes feel genuine concern.  Like everyone else who posts on IHD, you have substantial challenges that most other people do not experience. I guess I should not let my personal feelings and concern for my fellow IHDers color my posts.  However, I am really glad to hear that you are happy in Idaho, a place where you feel happy amongst your fellow Idahoians (is that a word?).  And good luck to you and your wife on your house deal!  That's great!

I guess we are all influenced by how and where we live.  I am living in a small city where there is a church on just about every corner.  The faith community in our town is thriving.  This was named as the best place for raising a family in 2011 by some magazine (can't remember which one, but it's a publication that's familiar to most people).  Decorations for Christmas go up the day after Thanksgiving.  Ellen Degeneres shot a piece here a couple of years ago around Christmas to illustrate a "traditional Christmas".  So it is hard for me, personally, to find evidence of the loss of traditional America.  I am not aware of any freedoms that my parents have that I do not now have myself.  Can you be a bit more specific about which freedoms your grandchildren will not have that you have now?

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom, the topic of discussion is traditional America. I gave a documented and ongoing issue in the military today that is in direct opposition to traditional America and you call me paranoid essentially. Good grief, look back at how many times you challenge my motivations instead of simply discussing an active, ongoing and controversial subject. Lets stick to the facts and keep your ad hominems whether intended or accidental out of the discussion.

For your info, I am quite happy living in Idaho where people still understand the concept of true freedom. We are about to enter escrow on a great deal for our house with 4 competing offers in the first three days with a couple quite a bit above our asking price. Yes, my wife and I are quite pleased thank you, how about you???

Yeah, but I get distracted.     "Ad hominem" implies "attack", and I am neither challenging nor attacking you.  This may surprise you, but I sometimes feel genuine concern.  Like everyone else who posts on IHD, you have substantial challenges that most other people do not experience. I guess I should not let my personal feelings and concern for my fellow IHDers color my posts.  However, I am really glad to hear that you are happy in Idaho, a place where you feel happy amongst your fellow Idahoians (is that a word?).  And good luck to you and your wife on your house deal!  That's great!

I guess we are all influenced by how and where we live.  I am living in a small city where there is a church on just about every corner.  The faith community in our town is thriving.  This was named as the best place for raising a family in 2011 by some magazine (can't remember which one, but it's a publication that's familiar to most people).  Decorations for Christmas go up the day after Thanksgiving.  Ellen Degeneres shot a piece here a couple of years ago around Christmas to illustrate a "traditional Christmas".  So it is hard for me, personally, to find evidence of the loss of traditional America.  I am not aware of any freedoms that my parents have that I do not now have myself.  Can you be a bit more specific about which freedoms your grandchildren will not have that you have now?

No problem Moosemom, I always enjoy talking with you.

Freedoms, well for instance, I will NEVER let my little granddaughter just walk off to school as we did when I was young. One of the worst murder/kidnapping cases in the last decade occurred 10 miles from my home in Idaho and the man was captured 1 mile from my house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III

My father enjoyed running around everywhere he wished, that is no longer true for my grandkids. That is a significant loss of freedom. I also grew up in Alaska and when I was 8 went down to the store and bought ammunition for our guns with no parental oversight. Not something I would do with my own kids, but shucks, things were different in traditional America and kids acted with more responsibility in many cases at much earlier ages.

I could go on with a long list, but I think you get my point.

P.S. we are going to the realtor to sign the documents in a couple of hours. Now the work of cleaning out the house!! In any case, Idaho is a place my wife and I both love and enjoy especially with the grandkids. There is a reason I don't write that much on my blog anymore, it is called grandkids. I am too busy learning the "Wheels on the Bus" "Itsy Bitsy Spider" "5 Little Monkeys" etc. Lots of fun and entertainment for sure. Poor little thing misses us greatly and it will be fun to get back out and show her her animals, the sheep, the horse, the deer, the geese, the eagles, etc that she loves to see and learn about. Really quite something watching a child grow in wisdom and knowledge at such a young age.

One of my goals is to give her a sense of traditional America which is still possible up in Idaho. This thread is not just an existential commentary, it is quite vividly real to me. Traditional America and the actions of men such as MacArthur will soon truly be a thing of the past. That is not to America's credit.

[MooseMom]

I understand your concerns, Hemodoc.  I think it is human nature to want to pass down your way of life and your culture to your kids and your grandkids.

I do envy you.  It is my fondest wish and dream to have a grandchild, maybe a granddaughter with whom I can have a teddy bear picnic.  But I do not think that I will ever be so blessed.  God truly has favoured you and blessed you.  I am so very happy for you!  Enjoy!

[Hemodoc]

I understand your concerns, Hemodoc.  I think it is human nature to want to pass down your way of life and your culture to your kids and your grandkids.

I do envy you.  It is my fondest wish and dream to have a grandchild, maybe a granddaughter with whom I can have a teddy bear picnic.  But I do not think that I will ever be so blessed.  God truly has favoured you and blessed you.  I am so very happy for you!  Enjoy!

We all have our crosses to bear Moosemom. Many things I have wondered why they are, but in some instances, it is not for us to know the why.

I am blessed knowing you. My granddaughter that is the love of my life is from my step daughter, there are more ways to skin a cat so to say. The child doesn't have to be "yours" to be yours if you know what I mean. But yes, grandkids are a lot more fun than kids even when we have her nearly 1/2 the time in her good days and her bad days.

I am not looking forward to moving from Kaiser, they have taken great care of me. Now I will have Medicare primary and Group Health secondary??? A little trepidation how the transition will be, but so be it, that is the way this life is, filled with unknowns and at times, unknowables.

[Hemodoc]

Ahhhh, got it on all of the accusations of crying wolf about Christian persecution. I don't spend a lot of time reading left leaning blogs or news sources, so here is a blog talking about us allegedly crying wolf about allegedly non-existent persecution.

Steve Doocy Validates Hate Group's Bogus War On Christian Soldiers Claim

In the bizarro world of the Christian right, Christianity is under siege everywhere, including the military. The reality is that those in the military, who feel that they are under siege from proselytizing evangelical Christians, are pushing back which, of course, generates that sense of victimization in which right wing Christians revel. As Fox News specializes in persecuted Christians, as does Fox's Todd Starnes, it wasn't surprising to see Fox & Friends pick up on his recent report that the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation told Pentagon officials that troops who proselytize should be punished, a comment that provoked immediate outrage from Tony Perkins, head of the "hate group" Family Research Council.

http://www.newshounds.us/20130502_steve_doocy_validates_hate_group_s_bogus_war_on_christian_soldiers_claim

Here is another similar type article:

The "War on Christianity"

And sometimes, especially during the last couple of years, the “war on Christians” involves the complex idea whereby the “Christian” foundations of the nation are being denied by secularists, in turn denying Christians—or more specifically, a particular brand of Christians—their natural dominion over public policy. This is a particular rich vein of delusion in the Christian Right wing of the Tea Party movement, which often argues that the Declaration of Independence—frequently conflated with the Constitution—enthrones not only Christianity but such “divine” and “natural” laws as the Right to Life for the Unborn, the Right to Discriminate Against the Ungodly, or even the Right to Enjoy Private Property Without Taxation or Regulation. These, it is asserted, are all part of the Founders’ design which cannot be abrogated by Congress or courts or any popular majority. You will note that in answering the debate question, both Romney and Santorum made elaborate references to the Declaration, which has become a major dog-whistle to the Christian Right for Republican politicians.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_01/the_war_on_christianity035049.php

Once again, these two commentators miss the point on what we in the Christian "right" are espousing. First, who says we wish to discriminate against the "ungodly." I assume that is a veiled reference to opposition of same sex marriage. What the real issue here is not whether folks wish to have same sex marriage, but whether as a civil right, American churches will be forced against their beliefs to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. America is not an island unto itself. Europe and Canada have laws on their books that have placed Christians in jail for exercising their faith against some of these new laws. For example:

In 1999, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Christian printer Scott
Brockie $5,000 for refusing work from the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.
By 2004, after appeals, his legal fees had grown to $40,000.
 
In 2001, the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission forced the
Christian couple Dagmar and Arnost Cepica to close their bed-and-breakfast and
pay $1,000 in damages for refusing to allow practicing homosexuals to take
rooms in their home. To stay open, they would have had to submit to a pro-
homosexuality seminar by the Human Rights Commission.
 
In 2002, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal awarded a transsexual
woman (previously a man) $7,500 for injury to her dignity and ordered a
Vancouver rape crisis centre to allow transsexual females to counsel women who
are victims of rape.


http://www.mncc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Archbishop-Prendergast-Consequences-of-SSM-from-Canadian-Perspective.pdf

A pastor in Sweden was jailed simply for preaching from the Bible against homosexuality.

http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/

Attempts at implementing similar laws in the US have met severe political opposition from the "Christian right."

Examples:

1) ENDA introduced in congress every year since 1994. (Championed again and again by Ted Kennedy)

Why churches opposed ENDA:

This bill is currently pending before Congress and could have a detrimental effect on the ability of churches to only hire individuals  that agree with their religious beliefs and live their lives accordingly.  If passed, ENDA would add “sexual orientation” to the list of characteristics upon which an employer cannot discriminate.  This is unlikely to have much direct effect on churches because Title VII allows religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion.

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/church-governance/top-legal-issues-that-concern-churches-–-issue-5-employment-nondiscrimination-act-“enda”/

California enacted SB1234 hate crime legislation that would have placed similar provisions of laws seen in Canada and Europe, but it was later overturned in court because it criminalized speech alone as is already the law in Canada for instance. This would have placed parts of the Bible as hate speech just as in Canada.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/09/23/16962231.php

However, Canada recently narrowed the scope of the law in a ruling that went against a man for handing out anti-gay literature, but the Canadian Supreme Court removed aspects of the law that criminalized the Bible as hate speech.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/02/major-hate-speech-ruling-in-canada-affirms-biblical-principle.html

These are all real examples that have already been promoted in the US and other nations. Not crying wolf, simply concerned about where some folks want to go with restrictions against our 1st amendment freedoms of religion.

[MooseMom]

Once again, these two commentators miss the point on what we in the Christian "right" are espousing. First, who says we wish to discriminate against the "ungodly." I assume that is a veiled reference to opposition of same sex marriage. What the real issue here is not whether folks wish to have same sex marriage, but whether as a civil right, American churches will be forced against their beliefs to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

I heard a clergyman say on the radio not too long ago something that I had not really thought about.  He said that churches perform weddings, not marriages.  It is the State that recognizes marriages.  You can be wed IN a church, but not BY the church.  You can only be MARRIED by the State.  That Marriage Certificate you get after the WEDDING ceremony is issued by the State.  So Hemodoc, I don't think you have to worry about American churches being forced to do something they don't want to do.  My feeling is that if you want to be wed in the eyes of God, well, in that case, it probably follows that you believe God created this beautiful earth.  You can be standing on a beach or in a meadow and be in the view of God.

I can't speak to what is going on in Europe or Canada.  While I viscerally don't like the idea of discrimination, I do believe that if you are running a private business like a bed and breakfast, and your personal faith precludes you from accomodating a gay couple, then that is your right as protected by the First Amendment, but be prepared to have otherwise potential guests purposely avoid your business for the same reason.

I'm not sure it is helpful to compare the US with Canada, Europe or Sweden.  I know a lot of people in the UK and in Scandinavia, and they all express constant surprise that America is "so religious".  Those are very different societies, and comparisons can lead to wonky conclusions.  To them, it seems so odd that our politicians speak so much, so publicly, about their personal faith, whereas here, some Christians feel they are persecuted.  How does one square those two views?

As for the military, I have come to hope that open prayer groups will be encouraged rather than stifled.  The US military has a lot of social problems and appears to be quite dysfunctional.  Rape of female military personnel is all too commonplace.  I find this to be particularly horrifying because we civilians go all out in glorifying every soldier we meet.  There is never any major sporting event held in this country without trotting out a token military platoon, and we have been silently taught to respect the omnipresent "brave men and women in uniform."  But if a male soldier rapes or abuses ANY other soldier in ANY way...if one military man shows the ultimate disrespect to another member of the military who is there to serve his/her country, then why should the rest of us view these people with any regard at all?  If one soldier has so little respect for a fellow soldier, then he needs help from somewhere.  Maybe God can help!  So yes, if more prayer groups and more Bibles and more chaplains can minister to these predators in the military who sully the very name of the United States Armed Forces, then by all means, go for it!  And we all know how our soldiers are suffering emotionally and psychologically.

I read the article re Doocy.  Whenever I follow a link, I tend to read the comments that follow.  It's a bad habit, I know, because so many of those comments are crazy, hyperbolic and just downright abusive.  But there was one comment from a woman named Lisa Schauland-Fleming that might make you feel a bit better.

On a lighter note, are you selling your place in CA and moving permanently to Idaho?  Or am I making an incorrect assumption?  And thanks for the soothing words.  Much appreciated.

[Hemodoc]

Once again, these two commentators miss the point on what we in the Christian "right" are espousing. First, who says we wish to discriminate against the "ungodly." I assume that is a veiled reference to opposition of same sex marriage. What the real issue here is not whether folks wish to have same sex marriage, but whether as a civil right, American churches will be forced against their beliefs to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

I heard a clergyman say on the radio not too long ago something that I had not really thought about.  He said that churches perform weddings, not marriages.  It is the State that recognizes marriages.  You can be wed IN a church, but not BY the church.  You can only be MARRIED by the State.  That Marriage Certificate you get after the WEDDING ceremony is issued by the State.  So Hemodoc, I don't think you have to worry about American churches being forced to do something they don't want to do.  My feeling is that if you want to be wed in the eyes of God, well, in that case, it probably follows that you believe God created this beautiful earth.  You can be standing on a beach or in a meadow and be in the view of God.

I can't speak to what is going on in Europe or Canada.  While I viscerally don't like the idea of discrimination, I do believe that if you are running a private business like a bed and breakfast, and your personal faith precludes you from accomodating a gay couple, then that is your right as protected by the First Amendment, but be prepared to have otherwise potential guests purposely avoid your business for the same reason.

I'm not sure it is helpful to compare the US with Canada, Europe or Sweden.  I know a lot of people in the UK and in Scandinavia, and they all express constant surprise that America is "so religious".  Those are very different societies, and comparisons can lead to wonky conclusions.  To them, it seems so odd that our politicians speak so much, so publicly, about their personal faith, whereas here, some Christians feel they are persecuted.  How does one square those two views?

As for the military, I have come to hope that open prayer groups will be encouraged rather than stifled.  The US military has a lot of social problems and appears to be quite dysfunctional.  Rape of female military personnel is all too commonplace.  I find this to be particularly horrifying because we civilians go all out in glorifying every soldier we meet.  There is never any major sporting event held in this country without trotting out a token military platoon, and we have been silently taught to respect the omnipresent "brave men and women in uniform."  But if a male soldier rapes or abuses ANY other soldier in ANY way...if one military man shows the ultimate disrespect to another member of the military who is there to serve his/her country, then why should the rest of us view these people with any regard at all?  If one soldier has so little respect for a fellow soldier, then he needs help from somewhere.  Maybe God can help!  So yes, if more prayer groups and more Bibles and more chaplains can minister to these predators in the military who sully the very name of the United States Armed Forces, then by all means, go for it!  And we all know how our soldiers are suffering emotionally and psychologically.

I read the article re Doocy.  Whenever I follow a link, I tend to read the comments that follow.  It's a bad habit, I know, because so many of those comments are crazy, hyperbolic and just downright abusive.  But there was one comment from a woman named Lisa Schauland-Fleming that might make you feel a bit better.

On a lighter note, are you selling your place in CA and moving permanently to Idaho?  Or am I making an incorrect assumption?  And thanks for the soothing words.  Much appreciated.

Dear Moosemom,

The issue is a bit more complicated. Most of the US churches have bought into the idea of becoming corporations and 501C3 tax exempt organizations even though churches don't even need to apply to be tax exempt, they already are. However, following this thought, a corporation is a creation of the state which is already a conflict as the Church of God. A famous case from a couple decades back took place in Texas where Lester Roloff, a well known Baptist preacher opened homes for teens with problems. In 1973, he refused to obtain the required state license making claim that as a church, the state could not regulate his homes.

However, Roloff made a critical error, he put them in the name of his church, but his church was a state created corporation. In becoming a state corporation, he had to adhere to the laws of Texas for corporations essentially losing the constitutional protections his church should have enjoyed. He ended up in jail twice after Texas passed further laws requiring licenses for these types of homes even though he won his appeal to the state Supreme court in 1974. The reasoning, his church was a corporation subject to all the laws of the state thus abrogating his argument for religious freedoms.

So, if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passes, almost all of the US churches would have to comply with hiring practices where gay rights are considered a civil right. In such a situation, yes, a church could be sued for not hiring someone who is gay. That is the main reason for the opposition to this bill that has been put forth in congress for decades.

Secondly, America is becoming more and more European as far as political ideology. The fact that we have already had laws promulgated that would have given America similar outcomes as Europe is also quite real and well documented.

Lastly, yes, we SOLD the house in CA today and enter escrow on Monday. But the grandkids in Idaho miss us already as do we them, so that is the sweet part of this bittersweet episode in our lives. It is always a major event to sell a home where we spent 15 years. That is the longest I have lived in any home in my entire life. But, I have never liked the CA desert so going to Idaho with trees and grass and mountains and streams and lakes and fish and bear and moose and deer and elk is a welcome change and throw in a bit of snow as well. Nice place and hopefully no one else finds it!!

[MooseMom]

That's VERY interesting, Hemodoc!  I can now see the conundrum and more clearly understand your concerns.  This may be vastly understating things and be revealing my general ignorance in this area, but when I see these enormous "megachurches", I can't help but notice that they look more like corporate headquarters!  The churches in our little historic city are beautiful and intimate, but in the vast areas out of town, the big churches try to be everything to everyone, containing gyms and pools and enormous recreation areas, and all very well appointed.

Home is where the heart is, and if your heart is with your grandkids and they are in Idaho, then that will be your home.  It sounds wonderful, and I have no doubt you and your wife will be very happy there!  Congratulations!

[Hemodoc]

That's VERY interesting, Hemodoc!  I can now see the conundrum and more clearly understand your concerns.  This may be vastly understating things and be revealing my general ignorance in this area, but when I see these enormous "megachurches", I can't help but notice that they look more like corporate headquarters!  The churches in our little historic city are beautiful and intimate, but in the vast areas out of town, the big churches try to be everything to everyone, containing gyms and pools and enormous recreation areas, and all very well appointed.

Home is where the heart is, and if your heart is with your grandkids and they are in Idaho, then that will be your home.  It sounds wonderful, and I have no doubt you and your wife will be very happy there!  Congratulations!

The mega-church movement is not part of traditional America where churches were made up of folks in the local community who lived and worked and played together already. Certainly, the grand lifestyles some of the pastors are living ain't part of the Bible either.

[MooseMom]

I grew up in Houston and still follow the sports teams there.  The Rockets (basketball) played in a facility that is now Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church.  It's really big.

[Hemodoc]

I grew up in Houston and still follow the sports teams there.  The Rockets (basketball) played in a facility that is now Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church.  It's really big.

I have actually listened to him a couple of times. His messages are not really gospel preaching, more of feel good self help sort of stuff. In fact, his messages differ greatly from his fathers messages who was also a well known evangelist and preacher in his own day. Here is something I just found going over their different styles of preaching. The writer essential calls Joel a motivational speaker but calls his father a preacher of righteousness. I agree with that assessment from a Christian perspective.

http://www.atoast2wealth.com/2011/09/21/pastor-john-osteen-preached-righteousness-but-son-joel-osteen-preaches-fluff/

Actually, Moosemom, the differences between this father and the son is one more example of the change in traditional America and it's churches.

[MooseMom]

I was able to see the video of John Osteen, but the vid of Joel Osteen had been removed because the YouTube account associated with it had been terminated.  But I've seen enough of Joel Osteen to get your point.  I can see why some would call him a motivational speaker as opposed to being called a pastor.

[cariad]

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:

"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."

So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.

cheers,
skg

Dear skg,

Nope, not disingenuous. I do make a lot of mistakes in my life, but I understood correctly the quote from Weinstein and I included a direct quote from that "opinion" piece in my second comment. Disingenuous??? No.

Dear Cariad, as I stated, I already answered skg and Bill.

Have a great day.

I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.

No actually, the Snopes article quoted the opinion piece published in Huffington Post written by Weinstein.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

i failed to place the link in my second comment that I had planned to giving the source of the quotes from Weinstein.

In any case, including this man in a discussion involving religious liberty is seriously inflammatory. If I was still in the Army, I would be quite upset by that inclusion.

FYI Cariad, it appears you missed this.

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

Dear Hemodoc,

I read your response. It made no sense. Snopes is an excellent site and is widely respected. Quoting in no way requires agreement. Both Bill and skg are correct.

Whether you responded or not is irrelevant to whether or not I am free to respond if I feel like giving my take on it. Your response displayed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and I think skg nailed it with his theory that there are one of two explanations for that.

Dear Cariad,

Here is my second comment which refers to ANOTHER quote form the same article that I was referring to in my first comment. Sorry, that I did not make that intuitively clear in the first comment that you take such umbrage. In any case, yes, I am quite stupid at times. Just ask my wife. What is your point?

There is a third alternative, I simply left my statement unintentionally ambiguous as to WHICH source I was referring. My second comment explains which source I was referring in my first comment. Do you wish to belabor this trivial issue further??? If you simply wish to trade ad hominems, sorry, not interested.

Have a great day.

Three responses to my last brief comment on what you consider a "trivial" issue and I'm belabouring the point?!

I found your reply to skg quite rude, laughing at his description of Snopes as an excellent source, and you never acknowledged that it was a snide remark based on less-than-careful reading, or writing, as the case may be. If you are trying to admit that you made a mistake in saying Snopes was not a good source, that is not at all clear from what you wrote. If you find it so trivial, that's up to you, I don't. Whether a source is trustworthy or not is always germane to political discussions. You seem to think that once you reply, everyone else should just drop the subject. I notice you never drop it. Far from it.

I have had a fantastic 3 days, actually. One for each of your replies to me! I'll probably post more about the fun we've been up to round here, but not in this thread.

Enjoy composing your lengthy reply to me! 

[Hemodoc]

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:

"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."

So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.

cheers,
skg

Dear skg,

Nope, not disingenuous. I do make a lot of mistakes in my life, but I understood correctly the quote from Weinstein and I included a direct quote from that "opinion" piece in my second comment. Disingenuous??? No.

Dear Cariad, as I stated, I already answered skg and Bill.

Have a great day.

I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.

No actually, the Snopes article quoted the opinion piece published in Huffington Post written by Weinstein.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

i failed to place the link in my second comment that I had planned to giving the source of the quotes from Weinstein.

In any case, including this man in a discussion involving religious liberty is seriously inflammatory. If I was still in the Army, I would be quite upset by that inclusion.

FYI Cariad, it appears you missed this.

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

Dear Hemodoc,

I read your response. It made no sense. Snopes is an excellent site and is widely respected. Quoting in no way requires agreement. Both Bill and skg are correct.

Whether you responded or not is irrelevant to whether or not I am free to respond if I feel like giving my take on it. Your response displayed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and I think skg nailed it with his theory that there are one of two explanations for that.

Dear Cariad,

Here is my second comment which refers to ANOTHER quote form the same article that I was referring to in my first comment. Sorry, that I did not make that intuitively clear in the first comment that you take such umbrage. In any case, yes, I am quite stupid at times. Just ask my wife. What is your point?

There is a third alternative, I simply left my statement unintentionally ambiguous as to WHICH source I was referring. My second comment explains which source I was referring in my first comment. Do you wish to belabor this trivial issue further??? If you simply wish to trade ad hominems, sorry, not interested.

Have a great day.

Three responses to my last brief comment on what you consider a "trivial" issue and I'm belabouring the point?!

I found your reply to skg quite rude, laughing at his description of Snopes as an excellent source, and you never acknowledged that it was a snide remark based on less-than-careful reading, or writing, as the case may be. If you are trying to admit that you made a mistake in saying Snopes was not a good source, that is not at all clear from what you wrote. If you find it so trivial, that's up to you, I don't. Whether a source is trustworthy or not is always germane to political discussions. You seem to think that once you reply, everyone else should just drop the subject. I notice you never drop it. Far from it.

I have had a fantastic 3 days, actually. One for each of your replies to me! I'll probably post more about the fun we've been up to round here, but not in this thread.

Enjoy composing your lengthy reply to me! 

No thanks Cariad, I will simply speak to those that actually want to discuss something. Have a great day.

[cariad]

No thanks Cariad, I will simply speak to those that actually want to discuss something.

Uh, I think this qualifies as speaking to me. I love discussing all manner of things with people who seek an honest exchange of ideas.

Have a great day.

In the exact same spirit in which this was offered to me, I say the same back to you.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another example of what has been happening to the military folks 1st amendment rights from Walter Reed banning Bibles to the VA denying God or Jesus spoken in veterans funerals.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/banning-bibles-out-of-line-congress-told/

Once again, the latest assault on traditional American values by the military is just the latest in a long list of events.

[cariad]

Here is a link to an old but quite amusing article about Bill O'Reilly, (the original topic of this discussion being his pearl clutching about the loss of so-called traditional America).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html

This is an especially relevant quote, and writing from 2006 it makes the author look positively psychic. Here Kinsley discusses why O'Reilly would pretend to come out of a hard scrabble childhood when in fact he was decidedly middle class:
"Why fake a humble background? Partly for business reasons: Joe Sixpack versus the elitists is a good posture for any talk show host, especially one on Fox. Partly out of vanity: It makes the climb to your current perch more impressive. Partly for political reasons: Under our system, even conservatives need some plausible theory to qualify for victim status, from which all blessings flow."

Now in the America that I grew up in, yes, the real America, as real as any other's, it was considered shameful to look for ways to claim victim status and moan about how disadvantaged you were. And I note that the likes of O'Reilly are still happy to scold others who might reference their own oppression, but he feels perfectly justified to mine his own background for any hint that he may have had to struggle to make his way in the world. It's a bit nauseating, actually.

[Hemodoc]

Here is a link to an old but quite amusing article about Bill O'Reilly, (the original topic of this discussion being his pearl clutching about the loss of so-called traditional America).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html

This is an especially relevant quote, and writing from 2006 it makes the author look positively psychic. Here Kinsley discusses why O'Reilly would pretend to come out of a hard scrabble childhood when in fact he was decidedly middle class:
"Why fake a humble background? Partly for business reasons: Joe Sixpack versus the elitists is a good posture for any talk show host, especially one on Fox. Partly out of vanity: It makes the climb to your current perch more impressive. Partly for political reasons: Under our system, even conservatives need some plausible theory to qualify for victim status, from which all blessings flow."

Now in the America that I grew up in, yes, the real America, as real as any other's, it was considered shameful to look for ways to claim victim status and moan about how disadvantaged you were. And I note that the likes of O'Reilly are still happy to scold others who might reference their own oppression, but he feels perfectly justified to mine his own background for any hint that he may have had to struggle to make his way in the world. It's a bit nauseating, actually.

Not sure if you are referring to me in some manner about an alleged "victim status." Sorry, not at all. It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way. I am not a victim and I don't know any of my like minded friends who make such a claim.

As I pointed out a few posts back, it appears this a favorite allegation of several left leaning bloggers that I had not read previously. If you believe our message is one of victimhood, you have not understood what we are stating.  In addition, you don't understand our Saviour who states:

John 16:33     These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

The only thing we claim is sadness that people are moving further away from the Lord spiritually since I have no doubt that all things that are good come from above.

James 1:17     Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

So victims, no not at all in any manner since we have already inherited God's kingdom. But God has indeed given us the right to speak up about those things that are wrong and to defend that which is right. So, it is not the status of a victim that gives us all blessings, sorry, all blessings flow from God alone and none other.

[MooseMom]

If all good things come from God, then from where do the bad things come?  I suspect that you will answer "from Man" or something along those lines, so then the question becomes "How can we solve our social problems through the Word of God?"

How will being a Christian address how to find our way back to being "traditionally American"?  How will being a Christian restore the freedoms you feel are being lost?  If more Americans became "Christian", how would that enable us to, say, break the partisan gridlock in Congress so that we could recover funding for programs like Meals on Wheels, which is surely a program that is Christian in its ethos?  How would/should "being Christian" affect immigration policy?  Or health care policy?  Or economic policy?

Is there Scripture that leads you to such answers?  Does the Bible hint at what should be done in Syria?

[Hemodoc]

If all good things come from God, then from where do the bad things come?  I suspect that you will answer "from Man" or something along those lines, so then the question becomes "How can we solve our social problems through the Word of God?"

How will being a Christian address how to find our way back to being "traditionally American"?  How will being a Christian restore the freedoms you feel are being lost?  If more Americans became "Christian", how would that enable us to, say, break the partisan gridlock in Congress so that we could recover funding for programs like Meals on Wheels, which is surely a program that is Christian in its ethos?  How would/should "being Christian" affect immigration policy?  Or health care policy?  Or economic policy?

Is there Scripture that leads you to such answers?  Does the Bible hint at what should be done in Syria?

Dear Moosemom, you have asked much in a short question.

How will we solve our social problems through the Word of God? Well, what does the Bible state is the cause of our problems? The answer from the Bible is our sinful nature.  Since it is clear that not all folks will become born again Christians, we shall always have dissension and disobedience to God's Holy Word. In fact, if 100% of Americans became born again Christians over night, we would still have disobedience and dissension since after all, Christians are sinners saved by grace. At this point, we still have our sin nature. So, curing all of our social ills, no that won't happen no matter how many folks became Christians. However, it sure would be a good place to start.

Will we find our way back to traditional America? No I doubt it.

The problem with our politics is indeed that they are partisan. That was not how the founders intended. They set up a system where people were elected to represent the interests of those in their jurisdiction.  It has been quite some time since men of good conscience voted for that which is right and not by what is politically motivated.

Economic policy. In short, much of our problems of economics stems from our deficit spending. Here is what the Bible states about that issue to Israel about 3500 years ago:

Deuteronomy 15:6     For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.

I think that states the situation quite clearly. It has been a LONG time since America had biblical economic policies.

The poor, the Bible is filled with admonitions to help the poor. The next verse from above is just one of hundreds if not thousands of verses.

Deuteronomy 15:7     ¶ If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
8     But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.

This is an individual responsibility. It is all too easy to shrug our shoulders and give it to the government to help the poor, but God calls all of us as individuals to give to charity. By the way, have you seen the difference in charitable giving between Obama, Biden and Romney??

Healthcare, I would refer you to the history of healthcare in this nation. Before Johnson and his great society usurped power and control over healthcare, it was charitable hospitals that provided the majority of care to Americans. In fact, you can call that one more aspect of traditional America that is likely lost forever. However, we still have examples of charitable hospitals such as St. Jude and others doing a great work.

Immigration policy, the Bible calls us to obey all laws and regulations. I guess enough said about that.

Now, my wife has at least a dozen members of her family in the Philippines who wish that they could come to America but are not even allowed to petition since they don't own any property in the Philippines, they don't have a mother or father here that is a US citizen, or they have already married and have children. If you are going to talk about what to do with the Mexican issue south of our border, don't get my wife started on how unfair immigration policy is that favors this one nation and ignores the plight of her nation. In fact, we just got back from the Philippine consulate in LA where my mother in law got her dual citizenship with the Philippines restored after becoming a U.S. citizen in 2008. Yes, let's make our immigration policy fair to all peoples, not just those south of our border.

What to do with Syria?? Well, that one is a bit more involved, but God did set the borders and God does make provision to defend that which He has given. Now, going into an in depth answer to the question of Syria is beyond the scope of IHD. I will state that I believe America will be involved greatly in Syria as a result of my understanding of Bible prophecy and these events are not surprising. Glad to go into detail on that in a pm if you wish, but I believe we will be involved in Syria and it looks like the events may unfold soon but other than understanding the major players of endtimes events, the Bible does not specify specifically what we will see in the next week, month or year in Syria, but it would not surprise me at all to see a large US presence in Syria in the near future as well as Iran.

[MooseMom]

I know I have a bad habit of asking a lot in a short space.  Thanks very much for your reply; there is a lot there, and I want to reread it all several times before responding.

Do you think that a more "traditional America" would have gotten involved in Syria?  I am not sure why there are those in Congress who seem so adamant about getting involved.  I'm not sure that God drew the borders for that particular state.  It might have been the Brits.  Why do you think that we'll have a substantial presence in Syria?  Is it because that would be in some way against the Bible's teachings?  Or the opposite?  Sure, PM me with more answers if you'd like.  Or maybe we should start another thread.  I suspect that Syria is going to become a big problem because I'm not sure anyone knows who the enemy really is or might become.

Do you think that charitable hospitals could provide healthcare now to the majority of Americans?  Was it the government that usurped power over healthcare, or was it the Profit Motive and the Corporatization of America?  Or are they all one and the same?  LOL!

In theory, I agree with you about the unfairness of current immigration policy, but I suppose if there were 12million undocumented Phillipinos in the US, things would be different.  Still, I feel for your wife and her family and can understand their distress.