k wrote:
] ] Family Values
] ]
] ]
] ] Yesterday:
] ]
] ] Bush introduced Mike and Sharla Hintz, a couple from
] ] Clive, whom he said benefited from his tax plan.
] ]
] ] Last year, because of the enhanced the child tax
] ] credit, they received an extra $1,600 in their tax
] ] refund, Bush said. With other tax cuts in the bill, they
] ] saved $2,800 on their income taxes.
] ]
] ] They used the money to buy a wood-burning stove to
] ] more efficiently heat their home, made some home
] ] improvements and went on a vacation to Minnesota, the
] ] president said.
] ]
] ] "Next year, maybe they'll want to come to Texas,"
] ] Bush quipped.
] ]
] ] Mike Hintz, a First Assembly of God youth pastor,
] ] said the tax cuts also gave him additional money to use
] ] for health care.
] ]
] ] He said he supports Bush's values.
] ]
] ] "The American people are starting to see what kind of
] ] leader President Bush is. People know where he stands,"
] ] he said.
] ]
] ] "Where we are in this world, with not just the war on
] ] terror, but with the war with our culture that's going
] ] on, I think we need a man that is going to be in the
] ] White House like President Bush, that's going to stand by
] ] what he believes.
] ]
] ]
] ] and today...
] ]
] ] A Des Moines youth pastor is charged with the sexual
] ] exploitation of a child.
] ]
] ] KCCI learned that the married father of four recently
] ] turned himself in to Johnston police.
] ]
] ] Rev. Mike Hintz was fired from the First Assembly of
] ] God Church, located at 2725 Merle Hay Road, on Oct. 30.
] ] Hintz was the youth pastor there for three years.
] ]
] ] Police said he started an affair with a 17-year-old
] ] in the church youth group this spring.
]
] [ This has nothing to do with Bush, in the sense that I'm not
] so unreasonable as to pin the Reverend's actions on anyone but
] himself. I bring it up to point out a contrast I see all too
] frequently between moralist statements, and actual behavior.
]
] On the right, "culture war" is code for "homosexual agenda",
] it's built into that frame. Something tells me the threat to
] Rev. Hintz' marriage was not homosexuality, but Adultery.
] Adultery with a youth over whom he could assert control, and
] authority.
]
] I don't think hypocracy is necessarily as horrible as many of
] my generation do, but when you get up on stage with the
] president and decry the state of our values, you better be
] pretty clean yourself. -k]

Good point. And I'm sure this will make a great attack ad in 08. But I'll drive the nail even deeper with a personal rant.

As an individual in this socie... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
] As an individual in this society, I do try my best to
] understand my common man. I may not agree with someone who
] feels abortion is evil, or that homosexuality is evil, or that
] prayer in schools should be required. But I'll die supporting
] their ability to speak about it, propose it, and even lobby
] for it. I'm willing to spend the time, energy, and attention
] to at least hear their perspective and contemplate it.
]
] What I'm offended by is that this is not reciprocated. I don't
] hear about groups aligned with these agendas willing to listen
] to alternatives, or even acknowledge their existance in most
] cases. I rarely engage with an individual who overtly sides
] with these issues and related issues who's willing to even
] listen to a rational alternative, much less engage in
] discussion. Hence, I don't ever get the feeling that there's
] mutual respect on the other side. I don't get the feeling that
] anything less than total conversion is acceptable. And that is
] extraordinarily upsetting.

[ That's because discussion and rational argument is a virtue for you, whereas moral certitude and faith are virtues for them. It is our very open-mindedness that makes us weak, at least in the framework that exists at present. We're easily painted as wishy-washy, unsure of ourselves, directionless and so on. It's because grey areas, and the very concept of being convinced by logical argument are completely foreign to the mindset of a fundamentalist.

In fact, once you start painting issues in the colors of religious doctrine, not only is dissent impossible, it's evil, by definition.

And I'm generalizing, of course... there are levels to which this mindset has been adopted, but at the core, openmindedness and fundamentalism are completely irreconcilable. They *can't* listen to your point of view, because doing so would undermine the rock of faith, on which they've based their entire lives.

] Why is it that by doing the right thing (being tolerant, even
] supportive) puts you in a position of being abused and
] vulnerable? Why can't we agree to disagree and leave it at
] that?

[ The "right thing" is a construction of your value system. Tolerance, much less support, of viewpoints which counter what they think of as the "right thing" are more than incorrect or fallacious... they're wrong... morally wrong. It's a framework we on the left have trouble with, not because we don't believe in morality or even religion, but because we don't discuss our ideological stands on the basis of morality. It's not impossible, though I don't argue that it's the best or only thing to do...

] I don't want to make the rest of the country in my own
] image. Why do they?

[ Well, in the sense that you want them to address all situations with an appeal to logic, reason, discussion, and anlysis, you do, and with the belief that doing so will yeild results similar to those you came to. The distinction being that if, through their analysis, they come to a different conclusion, one that can be articulated without vague assertions of what Jesus would do, or stubborn adherence to dogma, you'd be happy to accept that situation. -k]

k wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] As an individual in this society, I do try my best to
] ] understand my common man. I may not agree with someone who
] ] feels abortion is evil, or that homosexuality is evil, or
] that
] ] prayer in schools should be required. But I'll die
] supporting
] ] their ability to speak about it, propose it, and even lobby
] ] for it. I'm willing to spend the time, energy, and attention
]
] ] to at least hear their perspective and contemplate it.
] ]
] ] What I'm offended by is that this is not reciprocated. I
] don't
] ] hear about groups aligned with these agendas willing to
] listen
] ] to alternatives, or even acknowledge their existance in most
]
] ] cases. I rarely engage with an individual who overtly sides
] ] with these issues and related issues who's willing to even
] ] listen to a rational alternative, much less engage in
] ] discussion. Hence, I don't ever get the feeling that there's
]
] ] mutual respect on the other side. I don't get the feeling
] that
] ] anything less than total conversion is acceptable. And that
] is
] ] extraordinarily upsetting.
]
] [ That's because discussion and rational argument is a virtue
] for you, whereas moral certitude and faith are virtues for
] them. It is our very open-mindedness that makes us weak, at
] least in the framework that exists at present. We're easily
] painted as wishy-washy, unsure of ourselves, directionless and
] so on. It's because grey areas, and the very concept of being
] convinced by logical argument are completely foreign to the
] mindset of a fundamentalist.
]
] In fact, once you start painting issues in the colors of
] religious doctrine, not only is dissent impossible, it's evil,
] by definition.
]
] And I'm generalizing, of course... there are levels to which
] this mindset has been adopted, but at the core, openmindedness
] and fundamentalism are completely irreconcilable. They
] *can't* listen to your point of view, because doing so would
] undermine the rock of faith, on which they've based their
] entire lives.
]
] ] Why is it that by doing the right thing (being tolerant,
] even
] ] supportive) puts you in a position of being abused and
] ] vulnerable? Why can't we agree to disagree and leave it at
] ] that?
]
] [ The "right thing" is a construction of your value system.
] Tolerance, much less support, of viewpoints which counter what
] they think of as the "right thing" are more than incorrect or
] fallacious... they're wrong... morally wrong. It's a
] framework we on the left have trouble with, not because we
] don't believe in morality or even religion, but because we
] don't discuss our ideological stands on the bas... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
] As an individual in this society, I do try my best to
] understand my common man. I may not agree with someone who
] feels abortion is evil, or that homosexuality is evil, or that
] prayer in schools should be required. But I'll die supporting
] their ability to speak about it, propose it, and even lobby
] for it. I'm willing to spend the time, energy, and attention
] to at least hear their perspective and contemplate it.
]
] What I'm offended by is that this is not reciprocated. I don't
] hear about groups aligned with these agendas willing to listen
] to alternatives, or even acknowledge their existance in most
] cases. I rarely engage with an individual who overtly sides
] with these issues and related issues who's willing to even
] listen to a rational alternative, much less engage in
] discussion. Hence, I don't ever get the feeling that there's
] mutual respect on the other side. I don't get the feeling that
] anything less than total conversion is acceptable. And that is
] extraordinarily upsetting.

[ That's because discussion and rational argument is a virtue for you, whereas moral certitude and faith are virtues for them. It is our very open-mindedness that makes us weak, at least in the framework that exists at present. We're easily painted as wishy-washy, unsure of ourselves, directionless and so on. It's because grey areas, and the very concept of being convinced by logical argument are completely foreign to the mindset of a fundamentalist.

In fact, once you start painting issues in the colors of religious doctrine, not only is dissent impossible, it's evil, by definition.

And I'm generalizing, of course... there are levels to which this mindset has been adopted, but at the core, openmindedness and fundamentalism are completely irreconcilable. They *can't* listen to your point of view, because doing so would undermine the rock of faith, on which they've based their entire lives.

] Why is it that by doing the right thing (being tolerant, even
] supportive) puts you in a position of being abused and
] vulnerable? Why can't we agree to disagree and leave it at
] that?

[ The "right thing" is a construction of your value system. Tolerance, much less support, of viewpoints which counter what they think of as the "right thing" are more than incorrect or fallacious... they're wrong... morally wrong. It's a framework we on the left have trouble with, not because we don't believe in morality or even religion, but because we don't discuss our ideological stands on the basis of morality. It's not impossible, though I don't argue that it's the best or only thing to do...

] I don't want to make the rest of the country in my own
] image. Why do they?

[ Well, in the sense that you want them to address all situations with an appeal to logic, reason, discussion, and anlysis, you do, and with the belief that doing so will yeild results similar to those you came to. The distinction being that if, through their analysis, they come to a different conclusion, one that can be articulated without vague assertions of what Jesus would do, or stubborn adherence to dogma, you'd be happy to accept that situation. -k]

Yep, God says I'm right, so you're going to Hell. Well My book says, "God isn't an asshole. He might not be fair, but he's got better things to do than go out of his way to screw with someone."

I'll be greatly entertained when I see every single televangelist on the planet getting roasted in Hell because God decided, "Guys, you went around and made people miserable and you did it under My name? Jesus may be willing to turn the other cheek, but He's only part of Me and the other parts say you can go burn in Hell."