Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNew York, NY – When Ricky Martin took the stage at the Clinton Global Initiative on Thursday, he did not sing, or dance, or even flash his trademark grin. Following the same stage directions as dozens of other celebrities who dropped by Clinton's 5th annual global summit, from Brad Pitt to Bono to Jessica Alba, Martin struck a somber note while discussing the fight against human trafficking.
"I feel that my heart is going to come out of my mouth," he said, recounting his sadness for the "millions of children that didn't make it." Martin was followed by testimony from a woman who, along with her two children, was kidnapped and held for four years of forced labor. Then Luis CdeBaca, a former counsel to Rep. John Conyers who now serves as President Obama's chief diplomat for combating human trafficking, explained that between 12 and 27 million people are enslaved around the world today. In its official materials, The Clinton Global Initiative notes that the higher estimates mean there are more people enslaved "than at any other time in human history," though that's the kind of factoid that says more about population growth than the scope of the problem. But the numbers are daunting by any measure. And the policy experts who huddled on Thursday stressed that many obvious measures to combat trafficking are simply not being applied.
About 90 percent of countries do not have dedicated police units for investigating trafficking, according to Clinton's organization, and many governments simply look the other way. Only one out of three governments around the world provide basics like emergency phone lines for children and families who do not know where to turn when faced with a kidnapping.
While just about everyone is against slavery, on Thursday several panelists advocated a "different kind of capitalism" to punish companies that support forced labor at any point in their supply chain. Some American companies have agreed to boycott suppliers that use forced labor, as the International Labor Rights Forum's Tim Newman has documented, but not all. (He credits Wal-Mart, Target, Levi's, Gap, and H&M for boycotting Uzbek cotton produced through forced labor, for example, while Fruit of the Loom did not.)
President Clinton personally highlighted the fight against human trafficking by giving a "2009 Global Citizen Award" to Ruchira Gupta, who made the Emmy-award winning 1997 documentary Selling of Innocents. She went on to create an organization that combats sex trafficking with education and preventive programs in India.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Before any new con repub, later on in the thread starts injecting how labor unions or more stringently enforcing corporate fed regulations somehow are responsible for this sick practice of human exploitation...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2009 @ 5:18pm
Or call it: "A free market success," DeLay calls Saipan's indentured worker system. If the Republicans take a drubbing at the polls in 2000, however, DeLay shouldn't be surprised if vengeance is in the air, even from his fellow Texas fat cats. Scores of textile plants in cities like El Paso and Dallas have had to shutter their doors in the face of cutthroat competition from companies like those in Saipan.
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/04news.html
Lets see the other new con repubs dance as fast as he can.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2009 @ 5:34pm
this is important stuff. No wonder the thread is filling up fast (LOL). the views of celebrities are so vital to solving issues (not).
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 7:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 7:24pm
And yet I read that Tom DeLay is on Dancing With The Staarrrs.
How sweet.
(gag)
Posted by Benchrest at 09/24/2009 @ 8:33pm
The Nation - Blogs - Altercation: Is this the right Room for an Argument?
As it is the only one without a comments section, it would seem not.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/24/2009 @ 8:53pm
".....the views of celebrities are so vital to solving issues (not)."
Posted by antisocialist
Well anti, that may be true, in general, but Mr. Martin has shown himself to be a very talented and intelligent individual who has actually DONE SOMETHING with his life. Maybe his opinion IS more important than that of people who seem to have nothing better to do than be "anti" everyone who is more talented, intelligent and therefore threatening, than they are.
Posted by DejaVu at 09/24/2009 @ 9:47pm
Labor unions and overt, stringent enforcment of corporate fed regulations are CLEARLY responsible for this sick practice of human exploitation...
heehee, just kidding, with a respectful tip of the cap to hsuBfools ;-)
----------------------
Of course, maybe Ricky Martin should talk to ACORN about its practices. As we've all witnessed, ACORN is apparently fine with the idea of human sex trafficking.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/24/2009 @ 10:33pm
Many years ago, while making a sales call ( a brief educative foray) in a gallery style retail building, I encountered an oriental gentleman with a pronounced accent. The sign over his door read, "Hong Kong Tailor."
After listening to my pitch in a rather distracted & inattentive way, he said, "I would like you to work with me. If you took samples of my work around to the dept. stores, I think we could do quite well."
"Look in here please." He opened a rear door. A dozen women crowded into a small room were seated at sewing machines. We stood there for a minute or so. Not one woman looked up from her work.
He promised that with his counterpart in the Far East exporting, we could supply any number of suits & jackets to local stores. I told him I would think about his offer.
This was, I believe, a genuine offer of partnership. He had never seen or met me before. I had only been in his presence for a very short while. The offer was made on the basis of face value. He trusted me.
The only fly in the ointment were those women in his room & perhaps men & women in other rooms across the Pacific. They were presented to me as a tool for our mutual profit. No need for introductions.
How many hours did they work? And for how much? How had they arrived at his shop? Perhaps their fortunes would ascend along with ours if good fortune awaited. Maybe they were expecting something more from life. I never found out. I never called back.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/24/2009 @ 10:50pm
good work, ricky martin. good work!
Posted by dexter666 at 09/24/2009 @ 10:58pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 7:24pm
Nice side step, says DeLay...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2009 @ 11:06pm
Per new con repub: Free Market = Slavery
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2009 @ 11:09pm
Frieihiet1; Say, you know the silence from the nation on ACORN is deafning! Where is all the promoting and advocating they have done with ACORN in the past, why aren't they rushing to their defense with all the Demoncrats that built and funded them?
Funny thing is all the banks recieving TARP funding from Obamanation as his "favored bankers" are ACORNs favorites also!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 01:01am
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is "thumbing his nose" at the American people by refusing to push for stern action against scandal-plagued ACORN.
The embattled community activist group ACORN appears to be collecting charitable contributions through affiliate organizations that it then uses for impermissible lobbying and political activity.
The assessment, in a memo to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, further fuels the controversy surrounding ACORN, formally known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
The GOP staff memo says ACORN-affiliated charities are being used to raise money which is then funneled to other charities or other organizations for purposes other than what a donor may have intended.
ACORN, the parent entity, is not tax-exempt, but dozens of ACORN affiliates around the country are tax-exempt.
On Thursday, Grassley asked Internal Revenue Service commissioner Douglas Shulman to explain how the agency audits organizations like ACORN "where the movement of money appears to be a shell game."
"Do IRS audit procedures require auditors to follow the money trail to or from a charitable organization to determine whether that money is being used for impermissible activities, including electioneering and promoting illegal acts?" asked Grassley.
The Republican staff said 42 tax-exempt organizations have some affiliation with ACORN and that 52 other affiliated entities are taxable.
"You cannot move money from a charity and to another entity for a purpose that the charity could not do," Dean Zerbe, a former counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, said in an interview. Zerbe is now national managing director of Alliantgroup LP, a provider of specialized tax services for businesses.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 01:02am
I guess like the Obamanation, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank and other Demoncrats there are so many things more important than protecting the largess of American taxpayer money being funneled off by this anti-American degenerate Demoncrat built political machine!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 01:05am
".....the views of celebrities are so vital to solving issues (not)."
Posted by antisocialist
No wonder (Reagan apologist) McCain mocked Obama's celebrity... "A new McCain campaign ad puts Barack Obama in the company of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton"
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 03:48am
9 billion disappeared in Iraq and not a peep from the new con repubs. ACORN pushes for minimum wage increase and it's 40 year war!
We know, we know, a few rotten apples mean the whole barrel gone too, like the hsuB/cHeney admin..., like the entire GOP!
We also know that to the new con repub GOP: "A free market success," is an equivalent to slavery.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2009 @ 06:44am
WHY WE ELECTED CHENEY-BUSH AND NEARLY ELECTED PALIN-MCCAIN
I think the larger point this brings up is that the mainstream--not just media, but culture--doesn‘t sufficiently take stock of the fact that within our culture, we have a subculture which is literally a fifth column of insanity, that is bred from birth through home school, Christian school, evangelical college, whatever, to reject facts as a matter of faith. And so, this substitute for authentic historic Christianity, and I may add as a little caveat here, I‘m a church-going Christian, really brings up the question: Can Christianity be rescued from Christians? And that‘s an open question.
And when you see a bunch of people going around thinking that our president is the anti-Christ, you have to draw one of two conclusions. Either these are racists looking for any excuse to level the next accusation or they‘re beyond crazy? And I think beyond crazy is a better explanation.
And that evangelical subculture has rotted the brain of the United States of America and we have a big slice of our population waiting for Jesus to come back. They look forward to Armageddon. Good news is bad news to them.
When we talk about the "Left Behind" series of books that I talk about in my book "Crazy for God." what we‘re talking about is a group of people that are resentful because they‘ve been left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature. The rest of us are getting on with our lives. These people are standing on the hilltop waiting for the end.
(Maddow: Schaffer interview, Why Do 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives Think Obama Might Be the Anti-Christ?)
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 07:28am
cont.
And this is a dangerous group of people to have as neighbors, and they‘re our national neighbors. And this is the source of all of these insanities that we see leveled at the president. One way or another they go back to this little evangelical subculture. It‘s a disaster.
(Move specific to Rev Bradgelina Happy Pasture bloggers)
You don‘t work to move them off this position. You move past them. Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. It‘s as simple as that. And we have to understand, we have a village idiot in this country, it‘s called "Fundamentalist Christianity."
And until we move past these people--and let me add as a former lifelong Republican--until the Republican leadership has the guts to stand up and say it would better--it would be better not to have a Republican Party than have a party that caters to the village idiot, there‘s going to be no end in sight. The next thing they‘ll do is accuse Obama of being the anti-Christ and then who knows what comes next on and on it goes.
There is no end to this stuff. Why? Because this subculture has as its fundamentalist faith that they distrust facts per se. They believe in a younger of 6,000 years old with dinosaurs cavorting with human beings. They think that whether it‘s economic news or news from the Middle East, it all has to do with the end of time and Christ returns. This is la-la land.
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 07:31am
EVER NOTICE HOW NEOCONS DON'T EVOLVE, DON'T "BELIEVE" WHAT THEY ACTUALLY CAN'T GRASP
(cont) And the Republican Party is totally enthralled to this subculture to the extent that there is no Republican Party. There is a fundamentalist subculture which has become a cult. It‘s fed red meat by the pawns like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other people who are just not terribly bright themselves and they are talking to even stupider people. That‘s where we‘re at. That‘s where all of this is coming from.
And it‘s becoming circular. It‘s becoming a JOKE. Unfortunately, a dangerous joke because once in a while, one of these "looney tunes," as we see, brings guns to public meetings. Who knows what they do next. It‘s a serious thing we all have to face, but the Democrats and sane Americans just have to move past these people, say, "Wait on the hilltop until the end, the rest of us are going to get on with rebuilding our country."
Look, in the year 2000 I worked for John McCain, to try to get him elected in the primaries instead of George Bush. But John McCain sold out by nominating Sarah Palin who comes directly from the heart of this movement and carries with her all that baggage. So, he sold out. I don‘t see anybody on the Republican side of things these days who has the moral standing to provide real leadership, or who will risk their position to do so.
From: Why Do 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives Think Obama Might Be the Anti-Christ
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 07:38am
Our right-wing friends quite blatent attempts to NOT discuss this are understandable....
obviously can't defend slavery, but also as obviously can't say anything that might seem supportive of something the BILL CLINTON is supporting!
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 07:48am
Posted by Malcontent at 09/24/2009 @ 8:53pm
"The Nation - Blogs - Altercation: Is this the right Room for an Argument?"
Alterman has turned his blog into "Music and Book Reviews for Old Dudes". As for not having a comment section, I can understand - after spending hours putting together a piece - not wanting some jackass making some remark like antisocialist does at the top of this one.
While understandable, Alterman needs to join us here in the 21st Century and realize that the value of the piece is how it drives conversation - and not necessarily the piece itself. But, he doesn't write that way.
Look at his most recent piece, "The House That Irving Built." Do you really want to comment on that? It doesn't lend itself to blog like discussion, so it is just as well it doesn't have comments.
But he could write some quick, 1-2 paragraph quips that would work perfectly in a blog format - but instead he chooses to do music reviews. Hey, here's a clue. No one comes to The Nation to read music reviews.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 08:06am
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 07:38am
As much as I agree with the thrust of this comment, Glenn Beck is not catering to the religious right in this country. For one, he's a Mormon. Two, he appeals to the Old Right remnants of the Republican Party.
The Religious Right pretends that they care about personal freedom, limited government and so forth - so he interests them in so far as they believe they stand for these things. But, there is always this weird contradiction of wanting to "defend" the world and wanting small government, and when push comes to shove, the religious right would rather "defend" the world.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 08:20am
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 07:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
good words. i'm just glad that most christians resemble you more than the marching morons of the right wing.
jesus was a rebel...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/25/2009 @ 09:09am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 08:20am
Good try.
Although they each go about a bit differently, O'Reilly, Beck, Palm, Boortz, Limbaugh, Rep. Wilson, you, Anti, Happy, all exploit the village idiot Schaffer IDs in that passage.
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 09:14am
Posted by dexter666 at 09/25/2009 @ 09:09am
You make a good point. America will eventually be less "crazy for God" as Schaffer calls it - more like Canada and Europe.
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 09:21am
You know, there's a very positive incremental change - with more open discussion, disgust, laughter at the village idiot.
And now your moment of Zen- Barbara Bush during a visit to the Hurricane Katrina refugee shelter in the Houston Astrodome:
What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 09:26am
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 09:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
i view the rightwing luddite version of christianity with the same disgust is country mistakes for conservatism.
hilarious how some of these medievalist fanatics ally with those who follow the (evil) satanic philosophy of ayn rand...strange bedfellow! when did that succubus/incubus fly in the window and impregnate the church???
i've always preferred the old testament version of satan, myself - not the boogeyman one blames for all personal moral shortcomings ("thuh devil made me do it!!! back satan!!!), but god's scary left hand man, the tester, heaven's prosecutor and the he who seperates wheat from chaff...
i think the evil satan is nothing more than that which lurks inside us all. externalize all one wants, the devil lives inside, not outside...
but i'm much more a buddhist. i have a hard time with personalized concepts of the divine, but know how to speak the language of personalized conepts, which the west seems to need, and which indeed sometimes bring difficult to grasp concepts down to earth.
unfortunately idiots have a hard time getting beyond the literalist idiot level of the faith and that's just amazing!!!
how can an adult, raised in a world in which science has been around for quite some time, cling so to such childish notions???
if the last credited prophet (guru) of a faith died long ago, and his word is the ultimate...that religion is a dead religion followed by philosophical zombies ever hungering to consume other's brains to make them as vacuous and ignorantly, cowardly, stupid as they!!!
but such is NOT christianity for the silent majority of american christians. for you guys your religion is a living thing. jesus was rebel, not an oppressor.
Posted by dexter666 at 09/25/2009 @ 09:45am
huh? correction...
i view the rightwing luddite version of christianity with the same disgust AS WHAT the country mistakes for conservatism.
Posted by dexter666 at 09/25/2009 @ 09:47am
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 09:14am
Please explain how I "exploit the village idiot Schaffer IDs in that passage". Rather interesting company you put me in, how did you come to the conclusion that anti, Happy and I have this in common?
Also, "the village idiot" identified in that piece is the religious right. Please feel free to talk about how Glenn Beck appeals to the religious right. Since I have never watched his show or listened to his radio program, I only know his positions from secondary sources. But, nothing I've seen has an explicitly religious right component to it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 10:04am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 08:20am
Beck will be interesting to see in a year or less.
Right NOW, he's pulling his "BOTH Parties are the problem" routine, to appeal to the LaRouchers or Ron Paulines or whatever.
But once the GOP Congressional Primaries are over, I expect him to drop it, and sound pretty much like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. and only go after Democrats, praise Republican candidates (carefully avoiding mentioning their party affiliation).
He's an opportunist...and it's too great a risk for him to be seen still attacking the GOP and they don't do that well....or be seen as "not celebrating" when they pick up some seats in 2010, by a crowd that is right-wing.
Speaking of hypocrisies...been waiting on fervant ANTI-Mormon Larry/antisoc to make some comment in support of Beck. Bet it will happen.
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 10:07am
this is important stuff. No wonder the thread is filling up fast (LOL). the views of celebrities are so vital to solving issues (not).
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 7:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I believe you really are a despicable lowlife anti. It's not just your politics, there's something wrong with your brain chemistry. It is obvious to anyone that celebrities who speak out for those with no voice are doing so in the realization that they are the messengers. Regardless of the resource, if one possesses it, they should be lauded for using it to serve good. To everyone else except anti, I never liked Ricky Martin's music, but the man is standing on the correct side of a bright line and using his fame to help people who are being victimized in the most depraved forms of exploitation. God bless him, and others, for remembering them and doing something about it.
Posted by Milhaus at 09/25/2009 @ 10:10am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 10:04am
woops-- maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. I hereby withdraw the word "you" from above comment.
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 10:35am
Jenkins: "how Glenn Beck appeals to the religious right?" Gee, two words - end times. Or let's try one word: Apocalypse (Google: glenn beck apocalypse -- about 197,000 hits)
You can't prove squat to an idiot, not saying you are just that's the point Schaeffer makes very clearly. Sounds like you're not convinced. Limbaugh also is no Pat Robertson. There are differences in how the red meat tossers toss the meat. Just like there are differences between Palin and Cheney and O'Reilly.
BECK (voice-over): Is the apocalypse almost upon us?
BECK: Are the cataclysmic events of 9/11, Katrina, tsunami, famine and the threat of global pandemic signs we`re living in the end times?
One world government, one world economy, one world vision. Are we creeping even closer to the Book of Revelations` countdown to doomsday? And does an age-old prophecy foretell a Russian-Iranian alliance against Israel as well as a nuclear showdown? Apocalypse now?
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 10:48am
Endless --- Today on his new Fox News show, Glenn Beck panicked about the re-do oath of office President Obama took last night, because Obama did not place his hand on a Bible. "I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible," he intoned dramatically.
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 10:55am
When we talk about the "Left Behind" series of books that I talk about in my book "Crazy for God." what we‘re talking about is a group of people that are resentful because they‘ve been left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature. The rest of us are getting on with our lives. These people are standing on the hilltop waiting for the end.
(Maddow: Schaffer interview, Why Do 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives Think Obama Might Be the Anti-Christ?)
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 07:28am
Francis Schaeffer (G-d rest his soul) would be horrified to see how his son has left all the values that were instilled into his life. Every time I watch him on shows like Maddow, I pray that a spirit of conviction overcomes his heart and he returns to Christianity.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:02am
Here's what Os Guiness, lifelong friend of Frank Schaeffer and even best man at Schaeffer's wedding has to say about Frank Schaeffer.
<Guinness says Frank Schaeffer's "broad dismissals of faith different from his own are often absurd, and his portrayal of recent Christian history is woefully ignorant."
"On the one hand, he routinely conflates evangelicalism with fundamentalism, or disdainfully dismisses evangelicalism as 'fundamentalism-lite,' the child of an older fundamentalism," he writes. "The reverse, of course, is true. Fundamentalism is the recent movement, and evangelicalism pre-dates it by centuries. On the other hand, he inflates his own role in founding the Religious Right, even if out of self-flagellating disgust."
Guinness says the "real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of 'fundamentalist missionaries.'"
"Having been born well after his sisters, and having survived polio as a child, he was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied," he writes. "As a result, he grew up a 'little Napoleon,' as some of the L'Abri students called him. He would boast that he could twist his parents around his little finger, and time and again he proved it."
Guinness says Frank Schaeffer's idea that such a man as his father was "'crazy for God,' let alone a two-faced con man, is and will always be utterly anathema to me. I was there. I saw otherwise, and I and many of my friends have been marked for life."
Guinness says that with Frank Schaeffer's "prodigious but wayward talents, my old friend still has the air of the restless prodigal.">
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:04am
I believe you really are a despicable lowlife anti. It's not just your politics, there's something wrong with your brain chemistry. It is obvious to anyone that celebrities who speak out for those with no voice are doing so in the realization that they are the messengers. Regardless of the resource, if one possesses it, they should be lauded for using it to serve good. To everyone else except anti, I never liked Ricky Martin's music, but the man is standing on the correct side of a bright line and using his fame to help people who are being victimized in the most depraved forms of exploitation. God bless him, and others, for remembering them and doing something about it.
Posted by Milhaus at 09/25/2009 @ 10:10am
I think you completely misunderstood my point. I'm happy that mr martin is making a contribution. I think it is a good thing.
My point was setting up a blog article on a celebrity as being more important than a discussion of things like Qaddafi's wacko performance at the UN; or why Obama's UN nuke resolution is actually meaningless because it carries no weight of enforcement; or debating how to really implement new technologies to lessen our dependence on oil, to improve crop production, to encourage parental responsibility that reverses the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country; how to incorporate family gardens or even just produce pots in households that will improve family lives; how to get kids off of video games and television and back into reading and physical activity; and more
That's my point. There are so many more important things to discusss than how nice it is for a celebrity who's wealth gives them the ability to engage in these activities.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:12am
Posted by dexter666 at 09/25/2009 @ 09:45am
A lot of people might take that post for hate speech. Not the anti-christians that blog here, but the average american probably would.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:17am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:02am
If there's anything they can't stand more than a "non-believer" or a "heathen"....it's an "apostate".
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 11:18am
If there's anything they can't stand more than a "non-believer" or a "heathen"....it's an "apostate".
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 11:18am
I think that anyone who denigrates their own parents is not worthy of respect.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:20am
so to give everyone here (meaning: we lefties) an idea of what a complete jerk antisocialist is, here is his series of comments on ricky martin:
1. "this is important stuff. No wonder the thread is filling up fast (LOL). the views of celebrities are so vital to solving issues (not)"
and when called upon this utterly uncompassionate, and un-christian stance, he replies:
2. "I think you completely misunderstood my point. I'm happy that mr martin is making a contribution. I think it is a good thing"
uh-huh. whatever. just admit you responded like the complete asshole that you are, rather than found some shred of compassion for one of the millions of people who have been forced into SLAVERY.
and what is with this bigpasture? eric cantor, one of the republican "leaders," just said yesterday that instead of focussing on healthcare reform, the democrats should be focussing on more important, nay more pressing, issues.
right. like ACORN, huh eric?
Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 11:24am
in fact, since this post is soooooo irrelevant to antisocialist, then why does it keep coming back and posting EVEN MORE?
Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 11:24am
Just more evidence Darla that you don't have a clue.
As usual you leave out the CENTRAL point I was making.
<My point was setting up a blog article on a celebrity as being more important than a discussion of things like Qaddafi's wacko performance at the UN; or why Obama's UN nuke resolution is actually meaningless because it carries no weight of enforcement; or debating how to really implement new technologies to lessen our dependence on oil, to improve crop production, to encourage parental responsibility that reverses the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country; how to incorporate family gardens or even just produce pots in households that will improve family lives; how to get kids off of video games and television and back into reading and physical activity; and more
That's my point. There are so many more important things to discusss than how nice it is for a celebrity who's wealth gives them the ability to engage in these activities.>
Try to come on here and post when you aren't in a drugged out stupor.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 10:07am
Yes, that's my feel too. I can't say I know much about him, but he seems to be playing the standard maverick card. On the other hand, he could just be another incarnation of Howard Beale. It's so hard to choose these days.
Posted by Milhaus at 09/25/2009 @ 10:10am
Also interesting to note that he doesn't level the same criticism at his Christian celebrities.
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 10:35a
Probably sjchermak. You are right. He is an idiot.
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 10:48am
If he is talking Apocalypse, then that's definitely right wing Christian nut talk.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:17am
Does your comments about Muslim imams constitute hate speech? If not, why doesn't the same cricitisms of imams apply to the portions of the Christian right that Dexter666 doesn't like?
In other words, how are you and Dexter different?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 11:55am
" "this is important stuff. No wonder the thread is filling up fast (LOL). the views of celebrities are so vital to solving issues (not)"
here's what the article actually says:
"between 12 and 27 million people are enslaved around the world today. In its official materials, The Clinton Global Initiative notes that the higher estimates mean there are more people enslaved "than at any other time in human history," though that's the kind of factoid that says more about population growth than the scope of the problem. But the numbers are daunting by any measure. And the policy experts who huddled on Thursday stressed that many obvious measures to combat trafficking are simply not being applied. About 90 percent of countries do not have dedicated police units for investigating trafficking, according to Clinton's organization, and many governments simply look the other way. Only one out of three governments around the world provide basics like emergency phone lines for children and families who do not know where to turn when faced with a kidnapping"
can someone explain how this is *less important* than qadaffi's "wacko" speech?
"drugged out stupour" = horsetail tea w/ honey, and wild oats, soy milk + honey. yeah, serious drugs going on here.
Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 11:56am
Does your comments about Muslim imams constitute hate speech? If not, why doesn't the same cricitisms of imams apply to the portions of the Christian right that Dexter666 doesn't like?
In other words, how are you and Dexter different?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 11:55am
It wasn't my hate speech, it was theirs. I merely posted their quotes.
So, I'd love to hear your rationale that their words are my hate speech?
If I post the racist words of a KKK member and condemn them as racist; does that also make me guilty of hate speech. That seems the logical conclusion to what you stated.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:15pm
That's my point. There are so many more important things to discusss than how nice it is for a celebrity who's wealth gives them the ability to engage in these activities.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:12am
Maybe you missed the point of the post. I think it was less about Ricky Martin and more about talking about the act of human trafficking. Which I believe is just as important to get rid of as childhood obesity in America.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 12:21pm
can someone explain how this is *less important* than qadaffi's "wacko" speech?
"drugged out stupour" = horsetail tea w/ honey, and wild oats, soy milk + honey. yeah, serious drugs going on here.
Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 11:56am
You're at least getting closer Darla.
Of course the issue is important.
IT'S THE CELEBRITY WORSHIP ON A NATION BLOG that is my issue. Why couldn't Ari have simply titled his thread "Clinton Global Initiative Tackles Human Trafficking" and focussed on the subject instead of leading with Ricky Martin and telling us about the other celebrities like Brad Pitt. Are the celebrities the important thing or is the issue?
Can you get my drift now? I hope so.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:24pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 12:21pm
See my 9/25/2009 12:24pm post.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:32pm
"I think that anyone who denigrates their own parents is not worthy of respect."
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:20am
What if my parents were sexist, racist, anti-semetic white trash? Pretend reality is defferent than it is?
Not being a 'man of faith' (i.e. gullible, will buy anything, if it sounds better than reality), I am not adept at revisionism or ignoring reality. You can diefy your parents, if you wish, but I'll pass.
Having (unprotected) sex is not a high hurdle to clear.
(now, all I have to do is wait for Darin to pop in and tell me how unselfish they were for breeding.)
Posted by Malcontent at 09/25/2009 @ 12:34pm
"I think that anyone who denigrates their own parents is not worthy of respect."----Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:20am
Handy, Larry...for the next discussion of
David Horowitz....or lots of other examples.
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 12:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:15pm
I'm not talking about you quoting imams. I'm talking about your commentary on the Islamic religion as hate speech. Dexter666's view of "the rightwing luddite version of christianity" is not that different from your view of fundamentalist Islam.
Yet, you can call out fundamentalist Islam, no problem. But if Dexter calls out fundamentalist Christianity, it's hate speech. My point, since you are apparently are too obtuse to grasp it, is that Dexter666 is hate speech only if yours is as well.
The rationale clear enough for you now, reverend?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 12:47pm
"IT'S THE CELEBRITY WORSHIP ON A NATION BLOG "
i guess "celebrity worship" = mentioning the fact that a a celebrity (who is also a human being, btw, with thoughts, opinions, feelings, etc) gave a speech about human traffiking.
that constitutes "worship"?
uh-huh.
Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 12:55pm
"I think that anyone who denigrates their own parents is not worthy of respect."
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:20am
What if my parents were sexist, racist, anti-semetic white trash? Pretend reality is defferent than it is?
Not being a 'man of faith' (i.e. gullible, will buy anything, if it sounds better than reality), I am not adept at revisionism or ignoring reality. You can diefy your parents, if you wish, but I'll pass.
Having (unprotected) sex is not a high hurdle to clear.
(now, all I have to do is wait for Darin to pop in and tell me how unselfish they were for breeding.)
Posted by Malcontent at 09/25/2009 @ 12:34pm
Christians are called to honor their parents and since Mr Schaeffer claims to still be a Christian, he should be well aware of this. It is not the role of the children to determine whether their parents deserve to be honored. That accountability is between them and G-d. But the lack of honoring brings the breakdown of society, as is indicative of the times we live in.
Ephesians 6:2-4
<"Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with promise: "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth." And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.>
My father was an alcoholic for over 20 years. In my teen years, I never saw him sober. But I never denigrated him, not then, not later.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:00pm
I'm not talking about you quoting imams. I'm talking about your commentary on the Islamic religion as hate speech. Dexter666's view of "the rightwing luddite version of christianity" is not that different from your view of fundamentalist Islam.
Yet, you can call out fundamentalist Islam, no problem. But if Dexter calls out fundamentalist Christianity, it's hate speech. My point, since you are apparently are too obtuse to grasp it, is that Dexter666 is hate speech only if yours is as well.
The rationale clear enough for you now, reverend?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 12:47pm
Your rationale is clear, it's just not valid.
Again, posting what the Quran teaches becomes "my hate speech"? SRJ, your willing blindness to the history of Islam, your very selective choice of the few verses of peace (in contradiction to the overwhelming body of the Quran) simply show that this is more about your own bigotry towards Christianity than it is about your complete lack of objectivity towards Islam.
And I repeat, what makes this amusing is that your views on religion would make you likely for death in most Islamic countries. Yet you want to label them a religion of peace.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:00pm
So if Eva and Adolph had had a kid, who survived Berlin 1945....
he shouldn't "denigrate Poppa" else be "wrong with God"????
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 1:33pm
See my 9/25/2009 12:24pm post.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:32pm
Whether he leads with the celebrities or not it doesn't make a difference. The spark that this thread is supposed to ignite is about the discussion of human trafficking. How the author gets there is besides the point. Granted he doesn't need to talk about the celebrities but he did. The point that this thread isn't important because it mentions celebrities is a moot one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 1:36pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:10pm
The amusing part is that you accuse Dexter666 of hate speech, when he targets a few small minded right wing Christians who are as bad as an imam advocating for the bombing of other countries or the assassination of their leaders. Then, you turn around and do the same thing to Islamic imams - and you see no contradiction.
And you go further, you just don't limit yourself to the nutjob set that seems to be part of every religious denomination, you go on to make these comments about the religion as a whole. Then, you have the audacity to talk about hate speech - even after acknowledging that the majority of the Islamic population don't pose any threat?
I think you need to engage in a little self-reflection, Reverend.
Oh, and by the way, I've been to the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain and other countries with large populations of Muslims -- and I've never had a problem. I've gone to mosques - and the worst thing that has ever happened to me is that my sandals got stolen. And in the main, I've found Muslims to be very friendly -- and more open to my Christianity than you are of Islam.
The only people I've seen that have anywhere near your level of prejudice against Muslims are Hindus whose families were involved in the partition of Bengal in 1947. They had relatives killed by Muslims. What's your excuse?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 1:37pm
Try to come on here and post when you aren't in a drugged out stupor.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:37am
Now, really, is this something that a Pastor should be saying? Kinda mean hearted doncha think?
Posted by BlackFrancis at 09/25/2009 @ 1:45pm
"Now, really, is this something that a Pastor should be saying? "
no, it's not. no pastor would ever say such things.
but, antisocialist is not a pastor, as i've been saying over and over again.
he's a fraud (which is not uncommon on blogs).
Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 1:52pm
I agree.
Posted by BlackFrancis at 09/25/2009 @ 1:57pm
Try to come on here and post when you aren't in a drugged out stupor.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:37am
Now, really, is this something that a Pastor should be saying? Kinda mean hearted doncha think?
Posted by BlackFrancis at 09/25/2009 @ 1:45pm
No, it's tough love. I'd love to see her get her mind clear and come on here and make intelligent posts. Darla is intelligent. She just needs to have a drug free mind.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 2:05pm
What's your excuse?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 1:37pm
I take Islam and the Quran at their word. You take nobody at their word. Evidently, nobody means what they say, except those you want to disagree with. For everyone else, and especially Christians and Jews, you do not offer the same acceptance.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 2:05pm
Like a LOT of things...
It's "okay"...if Larry does it.
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 2:35pm
My father was an alcoholic for over 20 years. In my teen years, I never saw him sober. But I never denigrated him, not then, not later. Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:00pm
I'll assume then that he beat you repeatedly, raped you a few times a day, sold you out for favors to friends and to make money, made sure you understood full well that you were a worthless piece of crap.
No! Then why are you so proud of your lack of denigration towards your father. Seems like a rather empty gesture with little to rise above.
And why no condemnation of: "A free market success," DeLay calls Saipan's indentured worker system.
Oh yeah, 'human slavery' must be another rendition of your christian "tough love" free market charity?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 2:29pm
While there are many differences between you and I, the two major difference worth identifying here is that:
1. I assume I could be wrong. I certainly don't apply the sayings of fundamentalist preachers to an entire religious tradition - whether Christian, Judaic, Islamic or other. And if I find passages of another scripture problematic, I remember that the Christian tradition has similar problems - and try to view it in that light.
2. If I employ a double standard, I apply the tougher standard to myself or to those things to which I have an affinity - such as the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 2:35pm
That's it, in a nutshell.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 2:05pm
Next time you are changing your name on The Nation, I'd like to suggest "toughlove" as the handle. Toughlove of Muslims. Toughlove of liberals. Toughlove on Darla.
Must say, I'd like there to be more focus on love than tough.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 2:57pm
While there are many differences between you and I, the two major difference worth identifying here is that:
1. I assume I could be wrong. I certainly don't apply the sayings of fundamentalist preachers to an entire religious tradition - whether Christian, Judaic, Islamic or other. And if I find passages of another scripture problematic, I remember that the Christian tradition has similar problems - and try to view it in that light.
2. If I employ a double standard, I apply the tougher standard to myself or to those things to which I have an affinity - such as the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 2:35pm
That's it, in a nutshell.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 2:54pm
No it's not. there is no validity to the argument.
The Quran is replete with commands to execute violence and enslavement of nonbelievers.
The muslim clerics are merely restating what the Quran states.
But as I've said before, nowhere in the NT is there any call to Christians to take up violence against others for their non belief in Christianity
The fact that not all Muslims follow these commands does negate that they are there.
Similarly, the fact that some who call themselves Christians have taken up violence despite no scriptural justification does not mean that Christianity calls for violence against nonbelievers.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 3:30pm
My father was an alcoholic for over 20 years. In my teen years, I never saw him sober. But I never denigrated him, not then, not later. Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--being an alcoholic does not equate to being a bad person. there are plenty of alcoholics who are perfectly nice people.
--and respect has to be earned. parents who show love and respect to their children definitely deserve it back; and the vast majority of the time will get that love and respect returned to them.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 3:32pm
also, I have to say Larry, I don't get why you deride Darla for being a pothead every chance you get when your dad was an alcoholic for 20 years....
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 3:34pm
"But as I've said before, nowhere in the NT is there any call to Christians to take up violence against others for their non belief in Christianity "
You are very specific about the NT but you seem to ignore the OT all together. As far as I know the Christians follow the Bible OT and NT is that correct?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 3:44pm
also, Larry: it's good for you that you believe in a supreme being, and that there's an established religion that you believe gives you an insight into what that supreme being wants you to believe and how that supreme being wants you to act...
but please, remember, these are BELIEFS. you have no more grasp on the mysteries of the universe, the unknown, that any one else (who believes in a different religious faith or doesn't follow any religious faith).
The fact that you speak to others as if what you BELIEVE in is equivalent to scientific fact is arrogant, and what alienates you from other people. And just because other people don't see the world the way you do doesn't mean they are closed minded. Indeed, some would say agnostic people are the most open-minded, in that they admit they don't know who/what created the world, or what happens to humans, if anything (i.e., a soul living into an afterlife) after we die. Are some atheists/agnostics mean spirited, essentially calling any religious faith a fairy tale? Yes. However, many religious types come off as just as mean spirited, if not more so, when they try to scare people who don't share their faith with hell or eternal damnation, etc.
You have a FAITH. It's not necessarily the truth. Indeed, the universe is full of INFINITE possibilities, so it's fair to say that your FAITH is not necessarily the TRUTH. Could it be? Yes.
But no living person knows for sure....
The ONLY way you will contradict my last paragraph, to say that there are indeed living people who know the mysteries of the universe, is to quote the Bible. People who believe in other religions do the same...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 3:49pm
antisocialist: "But as I've said before, nowhere in the NT is there any call to Christians to take up violence against others for their non belief in Christianity."
Cccomfo1: "You are very specific about the NT but you seem to ignore the OT all together. As far as I know the Christians follow the Bible OT and NT is that correct?"
--Larry will say he doesn't follow the Old Testament, that the New Testament is the ONLY path to salvation, any other religious beliefs are WRONG. This is why he disses Muslims, etc.
However, somewhat strangely, he never disses the Jewish faith; which, of course, uses the Old Testament as it's source of religious truth (which, according to Larry, since Jews don't believe in Jesus as the savior, they are doomed to hell like everyone else).
It seems plain that Larry should see little-to-no difference between Judaism or Islam, in that, most importantly, both deny that Jesus is the son of God.
also, Larry insists on not typing the word God (he'll type it "G-d" as a 'sign of respect' to people who are Jewish, since they apparently cannot utter the name "God", and typing it would be uttering it, I suppose--but he doesn't seem to have that type of respect for Islam).
Larry--I have a question for you: are Jewish people doomed to hell because they don't believe Jesus is the son of God and humanity's savior from hell?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 3:56pm
also, I have to say Larry, I don't get why you deride Darla for being a pothead every chance you get when your dad was an alcoholic for 20 years....
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 3:34pm
I'm not my father for one thing. I only deride her when her posts get really screwy. I've also applauded her herb and vegetable gardens and overall natural lifestyle.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 3:56pm
You are very specific about the NT but you seem to ignore the OT all together. As far as I know the Christians follow the Bible OT and NT is that correct?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 3:44pm
I have addressed this probably over a 100 times here.
Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it."
the OT has the Law which was the standard for acceptance before G-d prior to Christ
The OT has the writings which include the history of the Jews. While there are certainly principles on both right and wrong behavior contained in them, there is no biblical command specific to Christians today.
The OT Prophets spoke both to Israel and to future events yet unfilled. Christians along with the Jews look to those prophecies for their eventual fulfillment.
The Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon contain eternal truths about mankinds relationship with G-d along with songs of Jewish history, and encouragement in times of challenge and testing.
But Christianity is called a New Covenant with G-d for a reason. Our purpose differs from that given to the Jews and Israel. We are called to proclaim Christ and the kingdom of G-d to all mankind and to demonstrate the reality of His kingdom in word and deed.
We are not called to establish nations, we are not even called to the same blessings as Israel (contrary to some preaching). And Christians are also called to suffer for Christ and to join in His sufferings (another unpopular topic for most pastors/evangelists and Christians in general).
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 4:10pm
also, I have to say Larry, I don't get why you deride Darla for being a pothead every chance you get when your dad was an alcoholic for 20 years.... Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 3:34pm I'm not my father for one thing. I only deride her when her posts get really screwy. I've also applauded her herb and vegetable gardens and overall natural lifestyle. Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--right, but you said you never "denigrated" your father, which I take it means you never criticized him or tried to make him feel bad that he was an alcoholic...yet you're perfectly content doing that to Darla...A LOT! The fact that you speak nicely of her in other ways doesn't negate that fact that you put her down for being a pot head...A LOT!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:21pm
Larry--I have a question for you: are Jewish people doomed to hell because they don't believe Jesus is the son of God and humanity's savior from hell?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 3:56pm
On Jewish salvation
Romans 10 and 11 is the most thorough address of this issue.
<1 Dear brothers and sisters, the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is for the people of Israel to be saved. 2 I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal. 3 For they don't understand God's way of making people right with himself. Refusing to accept God's way, they cling to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. 4 For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God.>
Romans 11:7&25
<So this is the situation: Most of the people of Israel have not found the favor of God they are looking for so earnestly. A few have--the ones God has chosen--but the hearts of the rest were hardened.
I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters, so that you will not feel proud about yourselves. Some of the people of Israel have hard hearts, but this will last only until the full number of Gentiles comes to Christ.
Then the world is restored to the final fulfillment of all that is promised to Israel and the Jewish people.>
I need to go out but I will be happy to address this further.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 4:21pm
when you get back can you put it in your own words...'cause I don't get it...are you saying that, according to your religious beliefs, there are people who DON'T believe Jesus is the savior but actually are going to AVOID hell when they die?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:23pm
We are not called to establish nations, we are not even called to the same blessings as Israel (contrary to some preaching). And Christians are also called to suffer for Christ and to join in His sufferings (another unpopular topic for most pastors/evangelists and Christians in general).
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 4:10pm
So anytime you quote the Old Testament and Rabinnical law against say Gay's I can point out that the Old Testament doesn't count?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 4:47pm
So anytime you quote the Old Testament and Rabinnical law against say Gay's I can point out that the Old Testament doesn't count? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--it's a complex web one weaves, it seems to me, to balance quoting a book that apparently is irrelevant to evangelicals, but is relevant to jewish people....larry wants to say only the NT matters, yet he's unwilling to say Jewish people are doomed to hell like all other non-believers in Christ as savior.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:55pm
New con repubs have to believe people with hard hearts will get into heaven because.... tough love and "successful free trade" slavery gives them DeLay dancing Boehner tans...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2009 @ 5:20pm
LEFT BEHIND RIGHT BEHIND REALITY
At the start of Book 1 (the "Left Behind" series), on a 747 bound for Heathrow from Chicago, the flight attendants suddenly find about half the seats empty, except for the clothes and wedding rings and dental fillings of the believers who have suddenly been swept up to heaven. Down on the ground, cars are crashing, husbands are waking up to find only a nightgown in bed next to them, and all children under 12 have disappeared as well. The next nine books chronicle the tribulations suffered by those left behind and their struggle to be saved.
SCHAEFFER: When we talk about the "Left Behind" series of books *The series has sold some 32 million copies--50 million if you count the graphic novels and children's versions--and sales jumped 60% after Sept. 11.* that I talk about in my book "Crazy for God." What we‘re talking about is a group of people that are resentful because they‘ve been left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature. The rest of us are getting on with our lives. These people are standing on the hilltop waiting for the end.
(Maddow: Schaffer interview, Why Do 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives Think Obama Might Be the Anti-Christ?)
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 5:31pm
BIRTH OF A BIRTHER, TELEOLOGY OF A TEABAGGER, EVOLUTION OF AN END-TIMER...
Deborah Vargas, 46, of San Francisco bought her first Left Behind book in January at a Target, looking for a good read. She got much more than she had bargained for, especially after Sept. 11. "It was almost a message right out of the Bible," she says. "Something within me started to change, and I started to question myself. What was I waiting for? A sign?" Since then, she says, her life has been transformed, and she is now a regular in the Left Behind chat rooms. "I want to talk about it all the time."
Talk to the people who were already inclined to read omens in the headlines, and you hear their excitement, even eagerness to see what happens next. "We sense we are very close to something apocalyptic, but that something positive will come out of it," says Doron Schneider, an Evangelical based in Jerusalem. "It's like a woman having labor pains. A woman can feel this pain reaching its height when the child is born--and then doesn't feel the pain anymore, only the joy of the happy event." Even
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 5:34pm
--it's a complex web one weaves, it seems to me, to balance quoting a book that apparently is irrelevant to evangelicals, but is relevant to jewish people....larry wants to say only the NT matters, yet he's unwilling to say Jewish people are doomed to hell like all other non-believers in Christ as savior.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:55pm
Well it also puts a big dent in a lot of the arguments he uses against things like anti-war people who and gays.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 5:38pm
ccc--I'm not sure I've ever read Larry quoting the sermon on the mount...guess it's too soft on crime...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 5:59pm
I'm not sure I've ever read Larry quoting the sermon on the mount...guess it's too soft on crime...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 5:59pm
Moses was a mealy mouthed liberal!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 6:05pm
I need to go out but I will be happy to address this further.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 4:21pm |
Not necessary. There's plenty of data on "you people!"
For ex., 16 percent of born-again Christians believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------
BTW Frosty, Levity 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 6:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 4:10pm
So anytime you quote the Old Testament and Rabinnical law against say Gay's I can point out that the Old Testament doesn't count?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 4:47pm
I answered this lie before also. I have never quoted Leviticus against homosexuals in the debates here at the Nation. I have quoted Jesus and I have quoted Paul.
Secondly, I never said that the OT doesn't count for anyone. It doesn't have application for the standards of salvation for Christian. The blessings promised to the Jews are also not for Christians in most cases. But Jews and others will be judged by 2 criteria. did you repent and accept Christ or did you follow the law of Moses without exception.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 7:52pm
I answered this lie before also. I have never quoted Leviticus against homosexuals in the debates here at the Nation. I have quoted Jesus and I have quoted Paul.
Secondly, I never said that the OT doesn't count for anyone. It doesn't have application for the standards of salvation for Christian. The blessings promised to the Jews are also not for Christians in most cases. But Jews and others will be judged by 2 criteria. did you repent and accept Christ or did you follow the law of Moses without exception.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 7:52pm
Wait what did you quote from Paul?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 8:35pm
Moses was a mealy mouthed liberal! Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 6:05pm
Plus he freed Jews from "A free market success"!
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2009 @ 9:09pm
ccc--I'm not sure I've ever read Larry quoting the sermon on the mount...guess it's too soft on crime...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 5:59pm |
Au contraire. I have quoted from it many times. However, most nonbelievers only know about 4-10 verses from the SOM, which they believe are ammo against Christians. Yet it contains over 100. Most of the usage by nonbelievers of those few verses are used completely out of context, not understanding their real meaning and intent.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 08:03am
Wait what did you quote from Paul?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 8:35pm
Romans 1:25-27
<They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.>
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
<Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people--none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.>
Galatians 5:16-19
<I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,>
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 08:12am
So the new con repub GOP solution to human trafficking/slavery is to-- get religion; pray! Not more police investigation, intel funding, international cooperation,...
Don't they really care enough to want to fix this? No outrage!?!?!
Maybe not, because after all, human trafficking/slavery is "A free market success"!
I guess new con repubs aren't quite ready to initiate that marketing strategy. Well not publicly anyway.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 10:00am
"1 Corinthians 6:9-11
<Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people--none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.> "
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 08:12am
Hmm... not what it says in my mothers old bible:
"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."
That damn infalible word of god, again.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/26/2009 @ 9:07pm
Here ya go LL.
From "religeoustolorance.org";
"American Standard Version: unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with men, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers or extortioners.
Amplified Bible: unrighteous and wrongdoers; impure and immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuality, cheats (swindlers and thieves), greedy graspers, drunkards, revilers and slanderers, extortioners and robbers
The Answer: people who do wrong; sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, male prostitutes, men who have sexual relations with other men, steal, greedy, get drunk, lie about others, rob
The Authentic New Testament: evil-doers; immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, userers, drunkards, foul-mouthed, extortioners
Christian Standard Bible: sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers"
etc. etc. there are more versions at that site.
Maybe god is schizophrenic?
Or perhaps, oft misquoted.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/26/2009 @ 9:14pm
Maybe god is schizophrenic?
Or perhaps, oft misquoted.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/26/2009 @ 9:14pm
Having different translations has nothing to do with G-d's character. Are there different languages in the world? Are their different dialects within language.
Nonsense post on your part.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/27/2009 @ 10:25am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/27/2009 @ 10:25am
I'll take that as often misquoted.
My point was the silliness of people carefully parsing "gods word" for meaning, when they are all, at best, reading bad translations, with the cultural and personal biases of their translators.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/27/2009 @ 12:41pm
I'll take that as often misquoted.
My point was the silliness of people carefully parsing "gods word" for meaning, when they are all, at best, reading bad translations, with the cultural and personal biases of their translators.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/27/2009 @ 12:41pm
Which is why I also go to the Greek and Hebrew texts, to word studies in both languages, to the writings of the Anti-Nicene Fathers, and the Apostolic Fathers.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/27/2009 @ 1:22pm