Jesus Is A Liberal Blog - www.JesusIsALiberal.org

Come join me on Powerful Intentions: Law of Attraction Community...

2008-05-30T00:36:00.001-07:00

Powerful Intentions: Law of Attraction Community

61 friends

Jonathan W. Logan has invited you to join Powerful Intentions: Law of Attraction Community

Law of Attraction: Powerful Intentions is a unique Online Community based on Law of Attraction.

Hello Friends!

I want to invite you to join Powerful Intentions - the Official Law of Attraction Community for The Secret. Review the videos, postings, blogs & enjoy!

Join us!

Check out Powerful Intentions: Law of Attraction Community:

http://powerfulintent.ning.com/?xgi=cRqbhiU

Members already on Powerful Intentions: Law of Attraction Community

Arnold Strong

Shannon

Classy.Roxy

Russell DiCarlo

IAM-IAM-IAM

About Powerful Intentions: Law of Attraction Community...

Law of Attraction: Powerful Intentions is a unique Online Community based on Law of Attraction.

6047 members	10355 photos
2403 music tracks	786 videos
2659 discussions	1756 blog posts

To control which emails you receive on Powerful Intentions: Law of Attraction Community, go to: http://powerfulintent.ning.com/profiles/profile/emailSettings

Is Violence A Conservative Value?

2006-03-31T19:46:00.000-08:00

Good question: Is Violence A Conservative Value?

Curt Day asks and answers this question in a very interesting way. More interesting is that a Liberal Jesus and a LIberal or Progressive Christian infusion into conservative thinking would probably lessen global violence.....

Let us know your thoughts about this article.

Mary

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Is Violence a COnservative Value? by Curt Day

I stood flabbergasted. My conservative Christian friend had just said the unimaginable. His solution for Iran, if they do not cooperate, was to nuke them. Not only would such an attack stop Iran dead in its tracks, it could serve as an warning for the rest of the world. In another conversation, another conservative friend of mine said that Israel's use of force on the Palestinians is an efficient model for us. Israel's use of force includes killing 6 Palestinian children to every one Israeli child killed by terrorists. Another conservative friend of mine said that she didn’t mind war because good could come out of it.

Do Christian Conservatives have a monopoly on violence? Unfortunately, misery loves company. A right-wing Knesset candidate, Baruch Marzel, has called on the IDF to assassinate leftist activist Uri Avnery. Who is responsible for this call to violence? According to Marzel, it is the leftists who are bringing this on themselves.

Where have we heard this shift in responsibility before? We heard it when reading conservative accounts of the death of Rachel Corrie. Dennis Pragger's, in a March 2003 Townhall article claims that Palestinian terrorism was responsible. This explanation does not account for the Israeli bulldozer driver and spotter and that Rachel made herself visibe. Steven Plaut, writing for the IntellectualConservative website, claimed that Rachel committed suicide. Hans Zieger, writing an article for the RenewAmerica website blamed Rachel's college. To support those using violence while blaming someone else for the result is simply an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

Do we find a different result when we visit Islam? No. Violent reactions to cartoons and the desire to carry out death penalties on the converts to other religions are the rage for some. Do we need to mention the desire by some Muslims to attack Israel or behead people?

What does everyone advocating violence mentioned above have in common? The answer is that they are all conservatives. Conservatives!

Do all conservatives love violence? Certainly not! Are only conservatives violent? Certainly not! But should we ignore the possibility that more conservatives than liberals favor the use of violence? Certainly not! What is needed is to understand the dynamics that could explain why today's conservatives would be more likely to favor the use of force.

Why would conservatives resort to fighting? Having grown up in a home that was both religiously and politically conservative, I would propose the following possibilities: the conservative world view, the emphasis on authority, and thinking patterns,

Conservatives, by definition, support traditional views. Traditional religious views see the world in a battle between good and evil. Thus when there is a conflict, one is dealing with an opponent who is completely the opposite. The only way to win such a conflict is to annihilate the enemy. To survive, one must use more force first before the evil enemy inevitably does the same. There can be neither time nor room for understanding their opponents' circumstances when confronting objectionable behavior. Ironically, conservatives exercise more charity when viewing their own questionable actions. Hypocrisy is a problem here.

Because Conservatives support tradition, they find themselves relying on authority more often than not. In essence, authority is a conservative's vicar for violence. With Islam, the individual is ordered(is given permission) to use violence to defend God's honor. Meanwhile, Israeli and Christian conservatives tend to use proxies--the government. Therefore, while most conservative Christians and Israelis look down on their Muslim counterparts for committing individual acts of brutality, the same Christians and Israelis urge their government to kill and destroy.

Finally, the more conservative one is, the more likely that person engages in all or nothing thinking. The same can be said of being liberal but most liberals shun violence. This all or nothing thinking contributes to the conservative practice of looking at their enemy as just being evil. To determine whether you are good or bad, you focus solely on your good traits; this enables you to overlook your bad traits.

If violence is more of a conservative thing than not, then we might come to a new and interesting world view. We could see our current wars as intramural battles between competing conservative teams. The solution to our problems would be to introduce liberalism into each conservative sphere. We must point out how odd it is that the opposite of conservative is not their military enemy. And yet it is the enemy that conservatives fear the most.

Curt Day is a religious flaming fundamentalist and a political extreme moderate. He can be reached at cday@prodigy.net.

Pillaging the Treasury and the Constitution - Bush is NO Conservative!

2006-03-31T19:39:00.000-08:00

Reading the article below, I knew that the 60-70 active readers we get daily on our blog would want to read it in it's entirety. So, here it is - enjoy!

Full credit for this article goes to: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03282006.html

Peace Out -

Paul

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pillaging the Treasury and the Constitution

Bush is No Conservative

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

President Bush passes himself off as a conservative Republican and a born-again Christian. These are disguises behind which Bush hides. Would a Christian invade another country on false pretenses, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and show no remorse or inclination to cease the aggression?

Long-time Republican policy-wonk Bruce Bartlett recently published a book, Impostor, in which he proves that President Bush is no economic conservative, having broken all records in spending taxpayers' money and running up public debt.

Were Bush merely another big spender, his presidency wouldn't differ from other pork barrel administrations, but Bush's radicalism goes far beyond spending. Bush supports outsourcing American jobs, and he has taken an irreverent approach to the U.S. Constitution.

Bush bears no resemblance to a political conservative. A political conservative does not confuse government with country. Patriotism means loyalty to country. Bush, however, demands allegiance to his government: "You are with us or against us!" Critics of the Bush administration are branded "unpatriotic" and even "treasonous."

Loyalty to country means allegiance to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. It does not mean blind support for a president, an administration, or a political party.

The separation of powers and civil liberties that were bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers are the protectors of our liberty. Bush, who swore on the Bible that he would defend and uphold the Constitution, has made it clear that he will not let the Constitution get in the way of expanding the powers of his office.

Bush has over-ridden a number of protections in the Bill of Rights. The right to assemble and to demonstrate has been infringed. The Secret Service now routinely removes protesters from the scene of Bush political events. Many unthinking Americans go along with this authoritarianism because they don't agree with the protesters, but once the right is lost, everyone loses it.

Bush has ignored habeas corpus and claims the unconstitutional power to arrest and detain people indefinitely without a warrant and without presenting charges to a judge. This is the most dangerous abuse of all, because whoever is in office can use this power against political opponents. Many unthinking Americans are not concerned, because they think this power will be used only against terrorists. However, as the Bush administration has admitted, many of its detainees are not terrorists. Most are innocent people kidnapped by tribal leaders and sold to the U.S. for the bounties paid for "terrorists."

Bush has refused to obey statutory law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Bush claims that as commander-in-chief he has the right to ignore the law and to spy on Americans without a warrant. Many unthinking Americans are unconcerned, saying that as they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. This attitude misses the point in a large way. If a president can establish himself above one law, he can establish himself above all laws. There is no line drawn through the law that divides the laws between the ones the president must obey and the ones he need not obey.

FISA does not interfere with government spying for national security purposes. Secrecy is protected, because the court of federal judges that issues the warrants is secret. Moreover the law allows the government to spy first and then come to the court for a warrant. The purpose of the warrant is to be sure that the government is spying for legitimate purposes and not abusing the power to spy on political opponents for nefarious purposes.

When presidents sign a bill passed by Congress that they think might be interpreted in ways that could impinge on the powers of their office, they add a "signing statement" to protect traditional presidential powers. Under Bush this practice has exploded. Bush has used signing statements considerably in excess of all previous presidents combined. Moreover, Bush uses the statements not to protect president powers, but to nullify acts of Congress, such as Republican Senator John McCain's law against torture. Bush is using signing statements to turn the presidency into a dictatorship in which the executive is not accountable to laws passed by Congress. The next step is simply to announce that the executive is not accountable to elections either.

Bush's government is the first in our history in which there are no dissenting voices and no debate. Uniformity of opinion is more characteristic of a dictatorial government than a conservative one. Bush's government is all of one mind, because all important positions are held by neoconservatives.

Neoconservative is a deceptive term. It means "new conservatives," but there is nothing conservative about neocons. Neoconservatives believe in imposing their agenda on other countries--the antithesis of American conservatism.

In short, real conservatives believe in conserving the Constitution, government accountability, and civil liberties, and avoiding foreign entanglements. Judging by its behavior and its statements, the Bush administration stands completely outside the conservative tradition.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

Constitutional Law Professior Spanks Angry Republican Senator

2006-03-24T00:12:00.000-08:00

Now, here's one for the Public Record! I wish more people would stand up and fight back against the domineering Republican Christian Right - especially in public like Professor Jamie Raskin. Perhaps someone should share this information with the President.

This reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw the other day, created in response to the radical right wing religious cabal called "Focus On the Family"...the sticker said "Focus on your Own Damn Family"! I love it.

Enjoy the article.

Peace -

Paul

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

February 6th, 2006, a Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled that a Maryland state law banning same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. In response to that decision, state lawmakers opposed to same-sex marriage introduced a resolution to impeach Judge Murdock (a move which was defeated in the Judiciary Committee) and a bill calling for the amendment of Maryland's constitution to prohibit all same-sex marriages. Although the bill failed to garner sufficient support for passage, it was reintroduced in a version that would define marriage as a union between a man and a women only but would still allow for civil unions. The latter bill was being debated by a Senate committee on 1 March 2006, when, according to the Baltimore Sun, "Clergy, constitutional law experts and children of gay parents were among those who packed the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee room to speak out on the issue." Part of that debate featured some give-and-take between Nancy Jacobs, a Republican state senator, and Jamin Raskin, a professor of constitutional law from Washington's American University over the influence of the Bible on modern law. The Sun reported the following exchange taking place between the two:

"As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God — that is my belief," [Jacobs] said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals."

Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers' guiding principle.

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," he said.

Some in the room applauded, which led committee chairman Sen. Brian E. Frosh, a Democrat from Montgomery County, to call for order. "This isn't a football game," he said.

Assuming the Sun's account is accurate, we note that the version of events quoted at the head of this page has been somewhat altered and compressed to make the exchange more direct and personal (i.e., Senator Jacobs' statement about marriage and the Bible has been simplified, and she did not issue a "What do you have to say about that?" challenge; Professor Raskin's response referred to people in general, not to Senator Jacobs specifically; and although some spectators applauded, the room did not "erupt into applause"), but the setting and gist of Professor Raskin's statement are correctly reported.

We don't know if Professor Raskin should get credit for originating this quip, however, because the concept has been used before. For example, comedian Bill Maher said the following (in reference to the Terry Schiavo case) during the 1 April 2005 broadcast of his HBO television program, Real Time with Bill Maher:

The Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta scolded [Congress and the President] the other day for acting in a manner they said, "demonstrably at odds with our founding fathers' blueprint." There are laws named after one person, like the Miranda laws, but they don't just apply to Mr. Miranda. They apply to everyone. Not so with the Schiavo Law. Does George Bush remember that he put his hand on the Bible to uphold the Constitution and not the other way around?

Speed Debt Cancellation for the Poorest Countries

2006-03-23T23:00:00.000-08:00

"Forgive our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors..." (Matthew 6:12)

The following post is from an plea by Faithful America to support the forgiveness of World Bank debt to impoverished countries. We support this measure and ask that you consider how you might help. And...it is the Christian thing to do. Peace - Paul

Perhaps you have seen U2's Bono speak out calling for the World Bank to cancel the crushing debt of the world's poorest countries. Perhaps your faith community has spoken out in favor of debt cancellation. The issue is deep and complex and we hope you will follow our links to learn more. But for now, please consider that those persons living in the world's poorest nations - Haiti, Burundi, Sierra Leone, to name a few, are exisiting under conditions of misery you and I cannot even imagine.

Our friends at Jubilee USA have invited us to share an important opportunity to help bring about debt cancellation for the poorest nations on earth. TODAY you can help move that effort forward. Next week the World Bank is holding an important meeting and the issue of debt cancellation is on the agenda. In conversations with officials at the World Bank today we were told that debt cancellation is a U.S. and U.K. led issue, and one they want to see advanced. That's good news, but the current plan builds in delays for countries to become eligible for debt cancellation.

If you were sick, starving, homeless, and completely broke, would waiting two to four years of more of the same give you reason to hope? Of course not, and we as people of faith believe the World Bank can do better.

We need your help. Please send an urgent email to World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz and U.S. Executive Director to the World Bank Robert Holland and urge that these policies of delay be removed.

Finally, we urge you to learn more about this important issue and then engage those in your care to pray, study, and take action on behalf of those who rely on us for help. Visit our Briefing Room, or visit our friends at JubileeUSA.org.

With gratitude for the many ways you reach out to others, thank you for using FaithfulAmerica to put your faith into action.

Blessings to you as ever,

Vince Isner and your FaithfulAmerica.org Team

http://ga3.org/campaign/canceldebt/w3733xd4f5b63e8?

http://www.jubileeusa.org/jubilee.cgi

President's "Intelligent Design" on Evolution

2006-03-23T22:51:00.000-08:00

Once Again Proving Himself Incompetent By Openning His Mouth....the President's Support of Creationism Helps it Sneak Back Into Schools.....

Creationism sneaks back into Public Schools

Eighty years after the infamous John Scopes “monkey trial,” George Bush has decided to revisit the topic of teaching evolution, by voicing his support for so-called “intelligent design theory.”

Speaking with Texas reporters on August 1, Bush insisted that “both sides ought to be properly taught” so that “people can understand what the debate is about.” However, for the vast majority of scientists, there is no “debate” over the centrality of evolution. John Marburger, Bush’s top science advisor, told The New York Times that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.” He added that “intelligent design is not a scientific concept,” a fact echoed by the National Science Teachers Association, the National Center for Science Education, and the American Geophysical Union, among many others.

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools was an unconstitutional establishment of religion, the anti-evolution movement has countered by developing what the National Academy of Science calls “creationism in disguise.” As Chris Mooney details in The American Prospect magazine, rather than arguments grounded explicitly in religion, the anti-evolution movement has focused on “teaching the controversy” by exaggerating a supposed “debate” over what is in fact fundamental and accepted in the scientific community. But the central idea of “intelligent design theory” – that the world is so complex that there must be a “designer” – is based on faith, and is not a scientific theory.

The religious right has eagerly embraced Bush’s remarks. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission told The New York Times that “It’s what I’ve been pushing; it’s what a lot of us have been pushing.” He capitalizes on the confusion between scientific theories and other kinds of theories by continuing, “if you’re going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists.” Similarly, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, accuses those who favor science education being based in scientific knowledge of “censoring alternatives to the theory of evolution.” And Mark Hartwig of Focus on the Family follows this “teaching the controversy” line by stating that “students deserve the chance to hear both sides of the debate and then draw their own conclusions.”

It is too early to tell exactly what effect Bush’s remarks will have on public education, but some states are already moving towards teaching phony “alternatives” to scientific theory. On August 9, the Kansas Board of Education signed off on a new draft of science standards that includes language from backers of “intelligent design.” The regrowth of the anti-evolution movement may take many schools back to the Scopes era, and by joining cause with “intelligent design” advocates, the president has, in the words of American Geophysical Union’s Fred Spilhaus, “put America's schoolchildren at risk.”

President Bush should spend less time getting science advice from the religious right, and more time listening to his own science advisor.

Pat Robertson - Over the Radical Edge Again!

2006-03-23T22:35:00.000-08:00

Republican Radical Right Rampage Led by Pat "Assassinate the Liberals" Robertson Attacks University Professors. !

Pat Robertson calls liberal professors “racists, murderers, sexual deviants and supporters of Al-Qaeda”

On the 700 Club on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 former Republican Presidential candidate Rev. Pat Robertson displayed characteristic anger and frustration at what right-wingers proclaim is another manifestation of liberalism in this country while reviewing (and hawking for sale on the CBN website) the new book by extremist David Horowitz titled, “The Professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America.” Robertson waxed glowingly about the book which he says sheds light on the radical academics at American universities claiming, however, that it is just a “short list” of the “thirty to forty thousand” left wing professors who he calls “termites that have worked into the woodwork of our academic society and it’s APPALLING.”

Rev. Robertson launched an attack on “radical” liberal professors saying; “They are racists, murderers, sexual deviants and supporters of Al-Qaeda – and they could be teaching your kids!” Later in the program he told his viewers, “These guys are out and out communists, they are radicals, they are, you know, some of them killers, and they are propagandists of the first order…you don’t want your child to be brainwashed by these radicals, you just don’t want it to happen. Not only brainwashed but beat up, they beat these people up, cower them into submission. AGGGHHH!!!!’

[NOTE: The CBN website claims that “The 700 Club, has been viewed in more than 70 foreign languages, can be seen in more than 200 countries, and are accessible throughout the year by more than 1.5 billion people around the world.” The Virginian Pilot reports that “Pat Robertson’s television ministry continues to ride a wave of ever-mounting contributions, which have almost doubled in less than a decade” and that donors gave $160 million dollars to Robertson’s CBN network in 2005 - an increase of 21% over the previous year.]

It's Time the GOP Center Took On The Christian Right

2006-02-13T11:52:00.000-08:00

This is a great article we were sent last week – enjoy the excerpts.

It’s about time that traditional Republicans called the Religious Right on the carpet.

Hope you enjoy it –

Paul

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'St. Jack' and the Bullies in the Pulpit
John Danforth Says It's Time the GOP Center Took On The Christian Right

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 2, 2006; C01

ST. LOUIS

Jack Danforth wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit. Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism.

As a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. senator and diplomat, Danforth worships a humbler God and considers the right's certainty a sin. Legislating against gay marriage, for instance? "It's just cussedness." As he sees it, many Republican leaders have lost their bearings and, if they don't change, will lose their grip on power. Not to mention make the United States a meaner place.

Danforth is no squalling liberal. He is a lifelong Republican. And his own political history shows he is no milquetoast.

A man of God and the GOP, he is speaking out for moderation -- in religion, politics, science and government. The lanky figure once dubbed "St. Jack," not always warmly, for the perch he seemed to occupy on Washington's moral high ground, expects people will sour on the assertive brand of Christianity so closely branded Republican.

"I'm counting on nausea," he says.

In a political year that promises a fresh battle for the national soul, religion is emerging as a tool and a test, with Danforth's words marking a fissure within the GOP. The conservative evangelical Christian movement that helped propel President Bush and congressional Republicans into power has become a big, fat target, even as Democrats and GOP moderates agonize about how to capture more votes from the faithful.

"The Republican Party has been taken over by something that it's not," Danforth says over a suitably austere lunch of steamed vegetables in a well-appointed 40th-floor St. Louis club overlooking the Mississippi. "How do traditional Republicans put up with this? They put up with this because it's a winning combination, for now. It won't last."

Why won't it last?

"It won't stand the light of day," Danforth says in one of several conversations. "The more people think about it, the more people will resist it. People do not want a sectarian political party, including a lot of people who are traditional Republicans."

Richard Land gets a big laugh out of that.

The combative voice of the Southern Baptist Convention and confidant of White House political guru Karl Rove has little use for Danforth, however grand his religious and political pedigrees. He describes the former senator as "what was wrong with the Republican Party and why they were a minority party."

"Votes reflect moral values. The struggle for hearts and minds gets reflected in the ballot box," Land says, setting up the twist of the knife. "It just sounds to me like Danforth's sore that he lost the argument with a majority of the American people."

The Turning Point

It seems like another era when John Claggett Danforth was perceived as one of the most publicly pious players in Washington. He led weekly worship at St. Albans and served as the eulogist for former president Ronald Reagan and former Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham.

When asked in 1991 to respond to critics who used "St. Jack" as a pejorative to suggest sanctimony, he told a Post interviewer, "I think anyone who felt that he was, you know, Mr. Wonderful, with an agenda that is the God-given agenda for the country to be accomplished at all costs -- he would be both sick and ineffective."

Danforth was talking about himself. Little did he imagine that there was a battalion of evangelical Mr. Wonderfuls marching on the nation's capital, which they would soon rule. Now he wishes that part about ineffectiveness were only true.

Danforth, 69, is out of government after 18 years in the Senate, service as a peacemaker in Sudan and investigator in Waco, Tex., and a recent stint as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. An heir to the Ralston Purina fortune, who received degrees in religion from Princeton and law and divinity from Yale, he largely focuses on good works in St. Louis while delivering the occasional sermon.

One morning last spring, as he walked with his wife, Sally, in Palm Springs, Calif., where they are building a house, his dismay with the Republican Party turned to dissent.

The trigger was the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-dead Florida woman whose husband wanted to disconnect her from life support. Schiavo's parents fought to keep her alive, backed by prominent Christian conservatives, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

"If you turned on Fox News, you would hear relentless talking heads talking about, 'They're killing Terri!' and 'This is murder!' " Danforth says, recalling the campaign to remove the case from Florida courts that had ruled she should be allowed to die. "I thought, 'This is not what the Republican Party does. The only explanation for it was an effort to appease the Christian right.' "

Danforth saw the Schiavo case as meshing with the right's opposition to gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research.

"I think a marriage is between a man and a woman, but it's beyond me how the whole thing has become so politicized and people have become so energized by it. Because, what difference does it make? How does it constitute a defense of marriage to legislate in this area?"

In Missouri, where Danforth won five statewide elections, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage passed overwhelmingly last year. Yet he believes most people would say no if asked, "Do you believe we should just be nasty and humiliate people and degrade them because of sexual orientation?"

"The Ten Commandments in the courthouse?" he says of another front in the culture wars. "Talk about much ado about nothing."

Danforth is appearing in television and radio advertisements on behalf of a state constitutional amendment that would legalize a type of embryonic stem cell research known as therapeutic cloning, in which the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is replaced with an ordinary body cell. In a few days, this develops into the beginnings of a human embryo that contains stem cells able to become any type of cell in the human body.

The goal of the research is therapy for some of the world's most devastating diseases and injuries. The goal of the proposed amendment, now being contested in a Missouri court, is to avoid the annual effort by conservative Republican legislators to criminalize research into a procedure that opponents consider tantamount to killing babies.

It is an issue that affects Danforth personally. One of his brothers, Donald, died in 1998 of Lou Gehrig's disease, a focus of stem cell work.

"What is the thinking behind saying that we should criminalize research that can prevent Parkinson's or juvenile diabetes?" Danforth asks. "We should criminalize research because we want to save cells in a petri dish that will never be implanted in a uterus and never become people?"

All of this and much of the paralyzing polarization on Capitol Hill he traces to "my fellow Christians."

"With confidence that it is the mouthpiece for God, it endorses candidates, supports constitutional amendments and mobilizes campaigns to keep poor souls hooked up to feeding tubes," Danforth says. "It calls its opponents 'enemies of the people of faith.' Today that is the style and, I think, the sin of the Christian right."

Fronting the Center

Does it matter what Jack Danforth thinks? He commands no political army and rules no territory beyond his writing desk and the occasional pulpit. He is up against the most polished political operation of modern times, facing the likes of Rove and House Republican disciplinarians such as Tom DeLay.

Jim Wallis, the left-leaning author of "God's Politics," declares hopefully that "the monologue of the religious right is finally over and the new dialogue has just begun. The answer to bad religion isn't secularism, it's better religion. Moderate and centrist evangelicals and Catholics are going to shape the future."

Boston College professor Alan Wolfe thinks Danforth is a suitable messenger because "he just seems to embody an America that many Americans feel was lost and we ought to get back." Samuel T. Lloyd III, Episcopal dean of Washington National Cathedral, thinks Danforth's work "could not be more timely" for the church or the nation. Anger is running so high, he says, that even the cathedral leadership is accused of being a lackey of the Republicans or the Democrats, sometimes both in the same week.

"Through very careful calculation," Lloyd says, "people in politics have decided that tolerance doesn't mobilize a base for a campaign, and what does is making people angry. My hope and my guess is that there is a fair amount of revulsion and that the moment is right for one or more candidates who want to appeal to a more generous spirit in the American people."

That certainly dovetails with the argument of Baptist Sunday school teacher and certified Democrat Jimmy Carter, who pursues the theme in his hot-selling recent book, "Our Endangered Values," with 750,000 copies in print. He quotes Danforth and accuses the GOP of building an intolerant, uncivil agenda from "narrowly defined religious beliefs." Hardliners, he says, are deepening the social divide by "imposing their minority views on a more moderate majority."

In an interview, Carter praises Danforth as "one of my heroes" and says modern-day fundamentalism is identifiable by superiority, exclusivity and narrow-mindedness. The current alignment reminds him of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's red-baiting frenzy of 50 years ago. He says the country licked McCarthy and will beat the Christian conservatives, "once the American people realize accurately what is happening."

Yet conservative academic John J. Pitney Jr., author of a book on political warfare, simply does not buy the Danforth-Carter analysis. He also says religion has long been influential in politics and he questions whether moderates could power a movement.

"Moderation is no more an ideology than pastel is a color. It's just a muted version of something else," says Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College. "The moderates need to learn that the conservatives have the upper hand. But the conservatives need to learn that the moderates are there, too, and that the Republican majority is not so large that they can do without the moderates' support."

Thus, the future influence of religion in politics -- and which shade of religion gains the greatest political traction -- likely comes down to an old-fashioned electoral equation. Just as Richard Land says, and he is betting on the influence of voters who like their lines clearly drawn. He thinks the very certainty that Danforth disdains is what will carry the Christian right to greater heights.

"We do believe God has a side, that he's not a moderate or relativist on everything," says Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "I'm not a prophet. They may convince the American people they're right. We may continue to convince the American people we're right. I'd be happy to debate John or Jimmy anytime, anywhere."

The retired senator might prefer it otherwise, but he accepts the paradox that the hustings and the nave are where his fight must be waged if religion is to assume a less prominent place in the political arena. He is writing a book to be released during this year's political campaign, and he is counting on the anguished, the aggrieved and the annoyed to push back against the Christian right.

"What I hope is somebody runs for president on this theme," Danforth says. "I do hope it's a Republican."

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

2005-10-12T18:55:00.000-07:00

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2005/9/27/6516/56376

October 2002 Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.

The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24.

The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 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?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,

Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Humor has always had a way of pointing out that the earthly king has no clothes...and humor points out the silliness or wackiness or the extreme litterlaists.

I hope you enjoy that as much as I do!

Jonathan

Waking the Dead with a Rubber Chicken

2005-10-03T23:40:00.000-07:00

The Parable of Jesus and the Rubber Chicken
What if Christ spoke at a Republican Party fund-raiser?

Hello Fellow Travellers!

I've had arguments with Right WingNuts until I just walk away utterly stunned at the contortions of Biblical Scripture and the corruption of Jesus teachings. This amazing effort that they put into pusdo-spiritual gymnastics - just blows my mind.

To tell the truth, it would blow your mind too if I could document and then play back on this website what these radical, arch-conservative Christians go through & say to justify Biblically and in the Name of Jesus (and being a Good Christian) what they think and do. It is such shocking greed, entitled arrogance, disregard for the poor, contempt for the less fortunate and a revulsion of the truly meek (be it by age, infirmity or some other criteria).

Yup - just blow your mind. I can't even crack the facade of their beliefs - not woth Jesus own words, not with Scripture, not with appeal to moral values, not with a call to conservative compassion. Just can't do it.

Until now - this little piece below has cracked that foundationof more than three conservatives I know. How? Humor, satire and a mirror.

Check it out - I thinkyou'll like it too. Show your friends.......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Parable of Jesus and the Rubber Chicken
What if Christ spoke at a Republican Party fund-raiser?
By Tom PeyerPosted Thursday, Aug. 25, 2005, at 4:21 AM PT

TRANSCRIPT OF JESUS CHRIST'S REMARKS AT A REPUBLICAN PARTY FUND-RAISER, CRAWFORD, TEXAS, AUGUST 2005

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to have a hard time living up to an introduction like that. (LAUGHTER)

First, let Me express My gratitude for your support over the last few years. It's nice to be thought of as a winner for a change. If I had known we'd get the House, the Senate, and two consecutive terms in the White House (APPLAUSE)—if I'd known all that, I would have had an easier time that Friday on the Cross, let me tell you. (LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE)

But seriously, folks (LAUGHTER)—no, seriously, that day did pass, and then two more. Then I rose from the dead. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE) Thank you. I rose from the dead and I flew up to Heaven. But first, you'll remember, I made a little side trip to Hell (SCATTERED BOOS) just to get a look at how they do things. And I'm here to tell you, Hell is just like Heaven (AUDIBLE GASPS)—but with taxes. (LAUGHTER, CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

I'd especially like to thank President Bush, who gave me a free Pioneer membership. (AUDIBLE GASPS, MUTTERING) Was I not supposed to say that? Sorry. My point is, the president's a good man. The only real difference between Me and him is his daddy found a way to forgive Bill Clinton. (WILD APPLAUSE)

This president married well, too. He married a woman. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE) That's the right way. That's the way my Dad intended. Respect the sanctity of marriage. Now a few loud people keep saying the government should forget about sanctity, forget about religion. They want separation of church and state. See these hands? See the holes in them? That's separation of church and state. (APPLAUSE) I know George W. Bush, and I know he won't ever let that happen to me again. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

Ken Mehlman asked me to come down here today to meet with you good people and clear up a few things you've been wondering about. I told him I'd be glad to eat a little crow for a good cause. You'll forgive me if I read a brief prepared statement, but Ken and my Dad want me to get this just right. (LAUGHTER) Here goes.

"In My youth, I made certain ill-advised statements that I now regret. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I want to clarify that it is easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. (CHEERS, WILD APPLAUSE)

"I'd like to apologize specifically to the money-changers. It is My sincere hope that you will come back into the Temple free of charge as My guests." (WILD APPLAUSE, CHANT OF "U.S.A! U.S.A!")

Finally—and this is Me speaking for Myself now—I want to say to the meek: Once we finally get rid of the death tax, you're not inheriting anything. Not while you're meek, so buck up. (CHEERS) And that goes double for you peacemakers. (LAUGHTER) Good night and Dad bless America. (CHEERS, WILD APPLAUSE)

Tom Peyer is a co-editor of O Holy Cow: The Selected Verses of Phil Rizzuto. Still from The Gospel of John on the Slate home page by Toronto Film Studios/Zuma Press.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kinda stuns ya and amkes ya laugh all at the same time......

See what I mean?

Peace Out -

Paul

Creationism vs. Intelligent Design

2005-10-02T20:55:00.000-07:00

Are Creationism vs. Intelligent Design Different?
What Progressives, Liberals & Democrats Need to know!

Ok - I'll say it. As Liberal, Progressive, and/or Democratic Christians we need to know the difference between Creationism vs. Intelligent Design.

Is there a difference? The answer is YES! The Radical Right's neo-luddite response to the pain of the very words "Evolutionary Biology" is not to wrangle with the tough nuggets of paradox, but rather to attack science and fact with emotional generalities, social mythology and an almost vaudvillian atack on Evolutionary Biology. And Daniel Engber's article on Slate.com posted Tuesday, May 10, 2005, is below and should help us identify the two headed beast that with all its thorny abberation of scripture.

Daniel writes:

Critics who argue that evolution should not be taught as scientific fact presented their case to the State Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas, last week. Testimony is scheduled to resume on Thursday, and the board expects to make a decision on whether to change its science standards this summer. The public hearings have pitched proponents of evolution against those who subscribe to "Intelligent Design." Is Intelligent Design the same thing as Creationism?

No. Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone. In 1802, William Paley used the "divine watchmaker" analogy to popularize the design argument

If we assume that a watch must have been fashioned by a watchmaker, then we should assume that an ordered universe must have been fashioned by a divine Creator. Many traditional Creationists have embraced this argument over the years, and most, if not all, modern advocates for Intelligent Design are Christians who believe that God is the designer.

Creationism comes in many varieties, from the strictest biblical literalism (according to which the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and flat) to the theistic evolutionism of the Catholic Church (which accepts evidence that the Earth is millions of years old, and that evolution can explain much of its history—but not the creation of the human soul). Between those extremes, there are "Young-Earth" and "Old-Earth" creationists, who differ over the age of the planet and the details of how God created life.

The limited scope of Intelligent Design theory makes it compatible with a wide range of views. Some prominent ID theorists believe in evolution—or at least that species can change over time—and many believe that the Earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. But there are also ID theorists who believe in a literal reading of Genesis.

Young-Earth creationists have criticized the Intelligent Design movement for encouraging a loose reading of the Bible. The design theorists respond that ID represents at least the "partial truth" and that it is, at the very least, the best available tool for dislodging what they see as evolutionist dogma.

Now THAT wasn't so painful - was it? Our little human minds can handle both GOD, the beauty of the Bible and Evolutionary Biology....without the need to deamonize, distory and stamp out His evolutionary laws of Biology with our 3,500+ year old Biblical parables - yes?

After all...isn't everything His creation?

Peace -

Mary

2005-09-18T18:18:00.000-07:00

Intelligent Design & Mankind's Eco-Destruction:
Hard Questions for the "Religious Righteous"

Over and over again, the proponents of the religious creation theory called "Intelligent Design" claim that Theory of Evolution cannot explain the complexity, indeed the very mystery of the vast, diverse and glorious life created by God on this planet.

Yet at the very same time, these right wing fundamentalists are glorifying and praising the magnificence of the diversity, complexity and awesome beauty if His creations on Earth, they assail environmentalists who would seek to preserve and conserve His masterpieces as anti-American wackos, anti-Christian hereatics, and a threat to our "way of life".

Because we find this paradox stupifying, we at Jesus Is A Liberal have created a list of questions for our Rightwing Conservative Christians friends. Help us all out here - read these questions, contemplate and pray about the answers and then email us and respond here: Submit Responses. We will publish as many of the answers received as possible.

Here are the questions:

(1) Is not this Earth, this Garden planet, God’s Creation?

(2) If you believe that God created this Earth Garden, the why do you turn a blind eye to the greatest sin of all mankind – the utter destruction of His complex and irreplaceable rain forests, ecosystems, pure rivers and clear streams, wetlands?

(3) How can you ignore our making extinct the beauty and grace of God’s amazing, unique and diverse creatures – the willful destruction of all He has created in His Intelligent Design?

(4) How will God’s Intelligent Design withstand the sin of our arrogance, our destruction, our greed?

(5) Who among you will stand up and be counted as one who will dedicate their Life Purpose to preserve the ecosystems, the amazing animals & animals He has created?

We look forward to your heart felt answers.

Peace -

Paul

2005-09-18T17:21:00.000-07:00

Religious Right's Antarctic Day Dreams
“Passion of the Penguins – a Rightie's Spiritual Rorschach”

Like the spiritually needy who pay $10 at a roadside carnival for a chance to pray before some Rorschach Virgin Mary emblazoned on a burnt piece of toast, the Radical Right Conservatives are flocking to the new blockbuster conservation film “March of the Penguins.”

Hailed as a virtual “Passion of the Penguins” – in reference to Mel Gibson’s the “Passion of Christ” – Religious Righties claim that the marvelous and complex survival behaviors of the Emperor Penguins evidence both God’s plan for humanity and offer proof of Intelligent Design.

Boiled down, the claims are that (1) the Penguin’s exhibit God’s plan for human families because they exhibit anthropomorphic traits such as monogamy, sacrifice and childrearing; and (2) given the extreme conditions of the Antarctic, the survival behaviors and physiology of the Emperor Penguin are too complex to be the result of “evolution” and are thus unexplainable – ipso facto, they constitute proof of God’s Intelligent Design.

I’d love to spend some time debunking this silliness, but instead here is an excerpted article posted by David Smith in the Guardian today that reviews the topic in a very cogent and enjoyable way. Enjoy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How the penguin's life story inspired the US religious right.

Antarctic family values: Is the emperor penguin an enemy of Darwin? America's surprise film hit was meant to be a nature documentary. Now it's a pawn in the war on evolutionary theory

David Smith
Sunday September 18, 2005
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5288366-102285,00.html

It is an odyssey to rival Scott's in the Antarctic, albeit with a happier ending. Fierce snowstorms rage, icy blasts flick across the screen. March of the Penguins, an epic nature documentary with a cast of thousands, was the surprise usurper of summer blockbusters at the American box office and is tipped to be the hit family film in Britain this Christmas.

To many, it will be no more nor less than a life-affirming portrayal of Mother Nature, reminiscent of Sunday-evening television with Sir David Attenborough whispering from the undergrowth. To some, however, the mesmerising images of birds waddling, mating and nurturing their young have become cinema's most politically charged parable since Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/1.

Conservatives in America claim to have seen God in the emperor penguin. They have rejoiced in the way the film shows penguins as monogamous upholders of traditional family values. They presumably welcomed the screenwriters' decision not to pursue arguments about climate change. They have even pointed to the heroically resourceful penguins - blinded by blizzards, buffeted by gales, yet winning against the odds - as proof of 'intelligent design', the religious belief system that aims to challenge Darwin's theory of evolution.

Audiences and critics of the £4.4 million French-made film have found themselves uplifted by the sight of emperor penguins trudging 70 miles, in single file, to their breeding ground during the harsh Antarctic winter in temperatures of -40C. The creatures' comical gait and tuxedo-like plumage have amused children, while their fortitude and tenderness in raising their offspring have had parents sighing in recognition. One reviewer gushed: 'It's impossible to watch the thousands of penguins huddled together against the icy Antarctic blasts ... without feeling a tug of anthropomorphic kinship.'

Now America's religious right has weighed in. Film critic Michael Medved was quoted by the New York Times calling it 'the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child-rearing'. Speaking of audiences in America's heartland who often feel snubbed by liberal Hollywood, he added: 'This is the first movie they've enjoyed since The Passion of the Christ. This is The Passion of the Penguins.'

As happened with Mel Gibson's Christian blockbuster, churches have block-booked cinemas and organised visits for their members. The 153 House Churches Network in Sidney, Ohio, runs a March of the Penguins Leadership Workshop after screenings of the film. Its website, http://www.lionsofgod.com,/ provides a form that can be downloaded and taken to the cinema. It advises: 'Please use the notebook, flashlight and pen provided to write down what God speaks to you.'

Ben Hunt, a minister at the network, said of the penguins' struggle for survival: 'Some of the circumstances they experienced seemed to parallel those of Christians. The penguin is falling behind, like some Christians are falling behind. The path changes every year, yet they find their way, like the Holy Spirit.'

A contributor to the Christian Science Monitor wrote: 'The penguins' way of life has illustrated to me some aspects of how God is parenting us.' On WorldNetDaily.com, a conservative website, an opponent of abortion wrote that the film 'verified the beauty of life and the rightness of protecting it'. Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, told a conference of young Republicans: 'Penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. The dedication of these birds is amazing.'

The 80-minute film - which grossed £37m in the US, the second-highest total by a documentary - movingly shows female penguins laying a single egg, then trekking back to the ocean to feed, while the males keep the eggs cradled on their feet, huddling together for warmth during a two-month vigil without food. The female must return in time to feed her hatchling for it to survive, at which point it is the starving male's turn to make the 70-mile trek to the sea.

Andrew Coffin, writing in the Christian publication World Magazine, said such miracles of nature were evidence that life is too complex to have arisen through Darwinian random selection: 'That any one of these eggs survives is a remarkable feat - and, some might suppose, a strong case for intelligent design. It's sad that acknowledgment of a creator is absent in the examination of such strange and wonderful animals. But it's also a gap easily filled by family discussion after the film.'

The only contradiction of the Bible in March of the Penguins is near the beginning, when the narrator says: 'For millions of years, they have made their home on the darkest, driest, windiest and coldest continent on earth. And they've done so pretty much alone.'

But the film's makers say they are strong believers in evolution, and its American distributors, Warner Independent Pictures and National Geographic Feature Films, insist that it is simply a tale about penguins. Laura Kim, a vice-president of Warner Independent, said: 'You know what? They're just birds.'

Adam Leipzig, president of National Geographic Feature Films, said: 'These penguins are model parents. What they go through to look after their children is phenomenal, and no parent who sees it will ever complain again about the school run. There are parallels with human nature and it is moving to see.'

Leipzig pointed out that this species of penguin, the emperor, is usually monogamous for a year, but not for life: the following year, it takes a different partner. He added: 'People read it into what they want. There are universal truths about parenting and bonding with offspring, but it's not a film with a political and social agenda. When we put the English-language version together, we never once had a discussion about social, religious or cultural points of view. We wanted to get the audience involved to follow the penguins' lives.'

The film's director, Luc Jaquet, a French biologist who shot 140 hours of footage on land and 30 hours underwater, added: 'It's obvious that global warming has an impact on the reproduction of the penguins. But much of public opinion appears insensitive to the dangers of global warming. We have to find other ways to communicate to people about it.'

Scientists in Britain, where the film will premiere at next month's London Film Festival, with general release in December, dismissed the intelligent design lobby's expropriation of the film. Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London and an atheist, said: 'I find it sad that people with intrinsically foolish viewpoints don't recognise this as a naturally beautiful film, but have to attach their absurd social agendas to it.

'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation in nature that can disprove the idea. It's not part of science, which is why scientists are not interested in it. A group of penguins standing upright looks like co-operation, but in fact the ones on the outside are struggling to get in and those on the inside are trying to stand their ground: it's a classic Darwinian struggle. The idea that the life of a penguin is any more beautiful than that of a malaria virus is absurd.

'Supporters of intelligent design think that if they see something they don't understand, it must be God; they fail to recognise that they themselves are part of evolution. It appeals to ignorance, which is why there is a lot of it in American politics at the moment.'

End.

2005-09-17T15:56:00.000-07:00

Koran Verse 9-11 Hoax
How Can We Stop Spreading Hate?

There has been a "Koran 9:11" email hoax spreading across the web for the past 3 years that says - in short - that the Koran, verse 9:11 predicts that the rise of Osama Bin Laden, the attack on the USA on 9-11, and the American responses of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have received this Hoax twice in the past week - probably because of 9:11 - and I also got this hoax email last year around the date of the 9/11 anniversary. Because we have received this Koran 9:11 hoax email yet again it again, this page is being dedicated to debunking a Christian / Conservative Anti-Islamic Koran 9:11 hoax email.

According to the "Koran 9:11" email, verse 9:11 from the Koran - the Islamic Holy Book - says that a Son of Arabia will do something bad that will awaken a fearsome Eagle. And that the wrath of this Eagle will be felt throughout the lands of Allah. The connotation, of course, is that the Islamic Fundamentalist Osama Bin Laden (the Son of Arabia) has attacked America (the Eagle) and that the wrath of the Eagle will be felt in the lands of Allah; i.e. - the US will attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

The implication is that the Koran predicts not only Osama's attack, but it also predicts (and thus justifies) the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. the This email and the Koran passage quoted is big fat lie, a distortion of another people's Holy Book and a flat out Hoax.

A comparison of the Hoax Email and the true Koran passage prove this 100% a hoax.

Text of the Koran 9:11 Hoax email (in Blue):

Interesting Study, please read all the way to the end. VERY INTERESTING!

1. The garden of Eden was in Iraq.
2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!
3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.
4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq.
5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq!
6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq!
7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.
8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq.
9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.
10. Amos cried out in Iraq!
11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.
12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq!
13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the fiery furnace!)
14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the writing on the wall; in Iraq.
15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq.
16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.
17. The wise men were from Iraq.18. Peter preached in Iraq.
18. The Empire of Man described in Revelation is called Babylon, which was a city in Iraq!

And you have probably seen this one. Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is second? It is Iraq! However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible. The names used in the Bible are Babylon, Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia.

The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The name Iraq, means country with deep roots. Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible.

No other nation, except Israel, has more history and prophecy associated it than Iraq. And also... This is something to think about! Since America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages...

The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.

Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?! God Bless you all Amen !

Here are links that further debunk this email hoax:

www.snopes.com/politics/war/quran.asp
www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/koran-war.htm
www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/9.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_quran_911.htm

The Actual Text of the Koran 9:11 (in Red):

Koran (9:11) - But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

Here are links that show English translations of the Holy Koran (or Quran) that further prove the email a hoax:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392
www.al-sunnah.com/call_to_islam/quran/pickthall/surah9.html
http://isgkc.org/translat.htm
www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/quran/qsearch.pl?surah=9

Please help stop the spread of Hoaxes - especially those that foster hate, religious bigotry, racism and fear.

Peace -

Paul

2005-09-12T22:48:00.000-07:00

Hurricane Katrina and Jesus' Liberal Commandment on "The least of these"

A great majority of Americans have openned their checkbooks and homes to give aid and shelter and food and money for those who have had their lives, property, homes and loved ones utterly destroyed by hurricane Katrina.

And yet, I am overcome with shock and dismay at the voitrol, the hate mail, the right wing talk radio and the editorials I have read blaming the victims, denigrating their humanity, threatening criminal sanctions and punishment to these poor souls who have withstood the fury of a hurricane and suffered so much.

I have mulled this matter over for several days and prayed about my response. Here is my response to those who would claim to be Right Wing Evangelical Christains, yet who are attacking the victims of Katrina: I hear your anger, your resentment, your projections, and your casting of stones - let me ask you, what would Jesus do? what would Jesus say? who would Jesus care for, feed, house, clothe, love, comfort and protect? The answer is simple: "The least of these...." Yes, the least of these.

If any of you have forgotten His mandate to us all in Matthew 25:34-45:

34 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' 37 Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' 40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' 44 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' 45 He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'

Let His lesson, His sacrifice and His deeds guide you.

In contemplation and action,

Paul

. . . . . . . ps - you can make a difference today: www.REDCROSS.org

.