Perhaps you've caught wind of the latest brouhaha regarding the words of Pastor Ken Hutcherson.
A column in the Seattle P-I may have been first to break the story, followed by predictable outrage from Horse's Ass and the Slog.
After listening to Hutcherson talk to Goldy on Dave Ross's radio show this morning it seems clear that yes indeed, the left is utterly mystified by Hutcherson's broader context. A regular attender to his church, or many other Evangelical churches in the area, would likely grasp his point. Suffice it to say the protesters linked above aren't counted in that number.
First, a caveat: critics have been quick to focus on the "God hates..." statements employed by Hutcherson, presuming he's referring to gay men because of some of the language involved. It is fair to say that in the era of Fred Phelps and his repulsive Westboro Baptist "Church" that pastors should be cautious when employing any "God hates..." phraseology. This particularly applies to pastors of large, prominent congregations in a given community. Fairly or not, they face higher scrutiny and news about them in many cases serves as a window into the world of the faithful to those not otherwise engaged in a church. Hutcherson should be more cognizant of that modern reality.
That said, Hutcherson's broader message about the importance of strong men is being wildly misunderstood. Anthony Robinson didn't get it. Erica Barnett didn't either. And David Goldstein certainly didn't grasp it, though he admirably gave Hutcherson a serious, fair hearing on KIRO today.
The quotes that have captured attention are in the context of a message familiar in many Evangelical churches - including this author's: the importance of men living up to the purpose God has for them in life.**
Contrary to the fears of misogyny Barnett articulates, the full specter of the message here is that men shouldn't be passive. They should be proactive; as fathers, as husbands, as friends, and as employees. In a modern world where it's all too easy and comfortable not to engage, God calls men to be serious about their responsibilities in life.
That doesn't mean domineering. The theology of Hutcherson's broader point centers in many cases on the concept of "servant leadership," where while the man may be in a leadership role in a given situation, he is concurrently sacrificial - just as Christ himself was entirely sacrificial in his leadership role establishing the church.
Such teaching is utterly contrary to the fears that are invoked in the minds of Goldstein, Barnett, and other liberal critics. They fear Hutcherson's reference to "soft men" refers to those not achieving a certain macho stereotype, ranging somewhere between the beer-drinking, bigoted, redneck and a 1950's Ward Cleaver.
Example: Goldy lamented to Hutcherson today that his own personal enjoyment of musicals and his time spent as a stay-at-home dad make him the "soft man" Hutcherson was railing against. Not true - though there might be other reasons Hutcherson would label him accordingly. Personal tastes in leisure and entertainment are largely immaterial, and there are certainly instances where the stay-at-home dad can actually be an excellent example of the very "servant leadership" this teaching envisions.
It should further be stipulated that Hutcherson's style of preaching, which he himself attests is designed to have some entertainment and almost shock value (in a good way), is often not conducive to full and fair analysis based on selective quotes. Yes, some of his preaching and particularly some of his activism is controversial. But misunderstanding what a person is saying and taking words out of context is still a poor way to have a serious debate. Hutcherson's latest critics are guilty of both.
**Note: this discussion is intended in large part to be a generalization of the general Evangelical message in question, not necessarily an exact reflection of Hutcherson's teaching or his views.
UPDATE: I should also note that the context of this teaching and theology described above has been oft-butchered in the Christian world. Errant and inarticulate discussion of the leadership role of men in society has led to many an unfortunate misconception. Witness the caller to Goldy on KIRO today, who proclaimed the need for male leadership above all else and proclaimed that he couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because it wasn't "Biblical."
Not only is that simply incorrect, it is a tragic reminder that over time some of the worst representatives of Christianity have been actual Christians, showing the fallibility of their own humanity all to clearly.
Another point worth repeating, which Hutcherson himself made on the radio and for which Goldy gave him credit, is that God doesn't "hate" anybody. He "hates" all sin equally. From mass murder to petty theft. That was one component of Hutcherson's overall message that was utterly missing from the original coverage.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 26, 2008 07:18 PM | Email ThisWhat a dope.
Ken picks at the scab of the Seattle liberal "man"... they aren't.
Liberalism has capitulated to gender role reversal of aggressive feminism. They've gone from bully to bullied; leader to led.
In the microcosm that is our little family with 3 sons, I can tell you that those 3 sons want absolutely nothing to do with angry Seattle gals. One has fled to a state where women like to be women that actually enjoy men.
One Harvard professor argues that if you said Hanks, that's just because you have been brainwashed by feminism.
~~~~
Women want the "man" back in "manly," and the Seattle metrosexual faints in denial.
Women want the "man" back in "manly,"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 26, 2008 08:01 PMIf I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.
In what kind of context does that quote mean that the poor armless fellow is not "serious about [his] responsibilities in life"? I'm all ears.
Posted by: bma on February 26, 2008 08:04 PMThat being said, let me know when Goldstein reaches puberty and gets Ross' pipes (that high pitched voice is irritating)....if one we're to see their pictures side by side and have to match them up with their voices, everyone would get them wrong.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 26, 2008 08:13 PMI'd say a poorly thought out joke taken totally out of context is an exceptionally bad way to assess the validity of any theological point. Other than that you're really on to something.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 26, 2008 08:19 PMFrankly, it's all too well-known that the Left has tried to wimpify men by telling them the big lie that they're not necessary in the home; by telling them that manliness isn't desirable, but getting in touch with their "feminine" side is. So tragic.
Posted by: Michele on February 26, 2008 08:56 PMBottomline---
What do you trust more?
God's Word
or KLOWNSTEIN'S Feelings?
Unsoft Men are solid...like the tree the leaf blew off of.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 26, 2008 09:11 PMBut what's interesting is that live and in person, Goldy is pushover. He waits until he can get back to his blog and scream and rant with profanity. That's where he's the tough cyberbully.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 26, 2008 09:26 PMNot really, no.
What it sounds like are the kinds of words that have paved the way for atrocities in such places as Serbia, Kosovo and Rwanda.
Not really, no.
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 09:35 PMPerhaps that's his point... people are talking about the Rev...and about God.
Seems pretty darn smart to me.
Touchdown Rev!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 26, 2008 09:42 PMYou still using Windows XP Ragnar?
Yes, it really does sound very different. Perhaps you have not had much exposure to Hutcherson, Phelps, or both.
Let's be clear here: I think homosexuality is sinful. See my letter in The Herald last fall. But many things are sinful, including vain and idle words, which most of us -- including Hutcherson and Pope and Goldy and me (but especially Goldy) -- are guilty of.
Much ado about not much.
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 09:45 PMIf we were to suppose that God both hates homosexuality and loves homosexuals, the Christian is left with a choice. How does one show both?
If Hutcherson spent a tenth as much time saying he loves homosexuals as he does saying he hates homosexuality, we wouldn't have these arguments. But he exclusively talks about the portion of Christian doctrine that happens to align with his politics, ignoring the parts that might make him feel uncomfortable.
And this is the fundamental question facing the modern Christian church - should our message be judgment or grace? Evangelicals too often vote for judgment. I don't see how anyone can read the New Testament and come to the same conclusion.
Posted by: AD on February 26, 2008 09:50 PMYou damned betcha we use Windows XP... and we have just about 1700 share of stock... with dividends coming again in about 2 weeks Figure it out, dude. Didn't Bill Gates hang the moon?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 26, 2008 09:59 PM1. Reverend Hutcherson played football in both college and the NFL. I think some of this is based on the culture of football. I like football and would have watched the Superbowl if one of the teams I like was playing. There have been a couple of former NFL players who have "come out" recently and they told of playing "straight" for many years just to fit in with the football culture. So, I think that part of this joke comes out of this culture.
2. The real issue is those religious denominations who literally read the Scripture like Christian Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Mormans, and Orthodox Jews and those that have a more interpretive view like Anglicans, United Church of Christ, and certain Methodist and Luthern denominations. How differnt views of society are translated into the political and societal view becomes the issue. Those denominations interpreting Scripture literally will probably not be in favor of gay marriage, Anglicans probably will not have a problem.
3. Then there is how a spiritual leader addresses what they perceive are societal sins. Do they take the Old Testament approach which Reverend Hutcherson and others seem to do which is to clearly name the behavior(s) they disagree with and use fairly aggressive strategies or do they take a lower key approach. I believe that what Pope Benedict has said on many issues of theology mirrors Reverand Hutcherson and similarly so have Southern Baptist leaders, most notably Dr. Charles Stanley. The latter seem to have taken the approach of speak softly, but carry a big stick.
The battle in this society on the culture wars is really for those in the middle. There are some religious reasons for the traditional family and support of the traditional family. There are some secular reasons as well such as generally healthier children and a stronger society.
I am not a theologian, so I don't know if there is a defense to making fun of anyone because of a "characterisitic." I don't think it is correct for a spiritual leader to do this even though I listen to him when he appears on Focus on the Family programs. I think that a lot of the good Reverend Hutcherson is trying to accomplish is lost in the bruhaha that results from incidents like this. I would analyze it is as this, you can take the man out of jock culture, but you can't take the jock culture out of the man.
Posted by: WVH on February 26, 2008 10:18 PMBut that same “perfect” Bible that once helped him to grow now keeps him from growing further. It binds him to the same level of moral consciousness as our spiritual ancestors who wrote it. This includes notions that God himself sanctions tribalism, sexism, homophobia and violence in the service of all three.
Mr. Hutcherson is developmentally arrested in part because he got recruited by the kind of Christianity that is absolutely devoted to the Bible instead of being absolutely devoted to the God of Love and Truth. If you worship the Ground of Love and Truth, then you have to measure everything you say and do against a standard of love and truth. By definition this is a humbling quest.
If, on the other hand, you worship the Book, there’s a huge fudge factor. You can justify almost any residual attitude that you carried out of childhood, because at one point or another our spiritual ancestors who wrote the texts in the Bible displayed each of them.
Also, you can claim to know and speak the mind of God with certitude, just like many of those writers. Text worship creates a standing presumption that a man can speak authoritatively for God. Now add to this a congregation hungry for guidance, a flock ready to defer their own moral and spiritual instincts to those of a shepherd.
What this produces is someone who mistakes his own voice for the voice of God and ultimately comes to perceive that they are one and the same. It’s an occupational hazard . . .
You are entitled to have an non-interpretive view of the Scripture. I suppose you will accept the propostion that God will separate the wheat from the chaff? Religion in this country has always been voluntary. Do you think you might have a tad bit of the intolerance against those who read Scripture literaly that you accuse Reverend Hutcherson of? What you are going to find is that even if you don't like Reverend Hutcherson's approach, do you think the theology of Pope Benedict is different? He is scheduled to visit the White House. By your reasoning should Pope Benedict's invitation be recinded?
Posted by: WVH on February 26, 2008 10:53 PMWell who would hire the guy. A basic background check would lead to his blog, which he'd probably wear as a badge of honor up front anyway. And that's the end of that opportunity. The guy is radioactive except as some kind of progressive agitator, or as the recipient of a nepotistic position from a Progressive candidate. I think that's the reason why he's such a Darcy Burner advocate. There's a good chance he'd get a position with her if she got elected.
But somebody should break it to the guy that he's not cut out for the radio.
No one has a poorer understanding of it than Hutcherson because there's no bigger weakness a man can have than to actually be afraid of the naturally occurring phenomenon of homosexuality.
Posted by: thehim on February 26, 2008 11:40 PMThis is not true. There is nothing homophobic in the Bible at all. (You're a psychologist, and therefore should know what a phobia is.)
And "tribalism," "sexism," and "violence" as "sanctioned" in the Bible are not bad things. I am a member of many tribes. This is good. I see men and women as different, neither superior to the other. This is good. I am ready, willing, and able to use violence when necessary. This is good.
There is nothing in those notions that prevents anyone from "growing."
Mr. Hutcherson is developmentally arrested in part because he got recruited by the kind of Christianity that is absolutely devoted to the Bible instead of being absolutely devoted to the God of Love and Truth.
This is also not true. The Bible is only an object of devotion because the Bible is taken to be God's word. This is a truism in ALL kinds of what some people call "credal" Christianity. It is not worship of the Bible, it is worship of God, and the Bible is the word of God.
If, on the other hand, you worship the Book, there's a huge fudge factor. You can justify almost any residual attitude that you carried out of childhood, because at one point or another our spiritual ancestors who wrote the texts in the Bible displayed each of them.
This is also not true. The human frailties of the writers of the Bible are not viewed by Christians as acceptable just because they wrote the Bible. David's many sins, including murder and adultery, are not justified because he wrote the Psalms. Moses and Peter and Paul each had many failings. Peter -- the first Pope, an apostle of the inner circle, and author of portions of the Bible -- was bigoted against Gentiles!
Christians, including Hutcherson, do not think the way you think that they think.
Also, you can claim to know and speak the mind of God with certitude, just like many of those writers.
Only to the extent that God has revealed himself to them. There is nothing in the belief system we are discussing that would cause anyone to presuppose that God is revealing himself to us in the same way as he did to the authors of the Bible.
Text worship creates a standing presumption that a man can speak authoritatively for God.
This is also not true. God chooses to speak THROUGH man, which is necessarily authoritative, because God is the one speaking. No man is speaking authoritatively FOR God.
You should seek much more understanding and knowledge before you judge Hutcherson's beliefs, because you really don't know what you're talking about.
1. There is no serious evidence Hutcherson is afraid of homosexuality. Saying it is wrong and damaging is not the same as being afraid of it.
2. There is no serious evidence that homosexuality is "naturally occurring." People keep trying, and failing, to show it.
But that you bring this up at all is odd; whether something is "naturally occurring" is totally irrelevant to the discussion. You appear to have the odd, and obviously false, belief that if it is "naturally occurring" then it is not wrong or damaging. But all sorts of human failings are "naturally occurring," from psychopathy to ill-temperedness (an affliction many people here, and especially on Goldy's site, suffer from).
"Naturally occurring" does not imply something is good or bad, nor is it an indicator of whether fear is a reasonable response: most people would be justifiably afraid of a "naturally occurring" psychopath. So even if someday we find out that homosexuality is "naturally occurring," that will not rationally have any significant effect on our views of whether homosexual acts are morally wrong or not.
Could you please make the case that there is an absolute limit to the number of things each of us can worry about? And if so, what is that number?
Posted by: Ross MacLochness on February 27, 2008 06:25 AMSince when did it happen that because the 'majority' of people, and I'm not convinced it is the majority, beleive something, makes it right. I point you to NAZI germany.
Posted by: REBEL on February 27, 2008 08:26 AMPrejudice, intolerance, and hatred are not strong core values to this liberal. That's what Hutcherson is preaching toward gay people, most of whom -- whether you lot believe it or not -- were born that way and cannot change.
Only fools believe that God speaks through a pious, money-grubbing, self-aggrandizing hypocrite like Ken Hutcherson. He is preaching hatred and fear, while he has his hand out for your check.
It's bad religion and bad politics, and thinking people will reject both.
Posted by: ivan on February 27, 2008 09:30 AMTo say his OPINION of what is appropriate and responsible dialogue, yes, he is competent to do that. As are many of us here. If you mean to imply he has more competence than us ... nope.
I tend to side with Robinson on this issue, but his degrees and experience have nothing to do with it. My own judgment is sufficient.
ivan @ 35: WOW. You REALLY want us to believe that you do not promote prejudice, intolerance, and hatred? That's about all you demonstrate on this site: you are prejudiced and intolerant and hateful of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Try that hypocritical self-righteousness on people who don't see you post on a regular basis.
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 09:53 AMAlthough I must qualify that by saying that I don't agree that gays deserve any special treatment from government other than to simply be treated equally. I don't agree with religious gay marriage, but I do agree that there ought to be some sort of civil union that infers legal equality on gay unions and straight unions. The government should have no involvement with religion and vice versa. Gays, like all current PC victim classes, love to trump up all sorts of "discrimination" for the purposes of special privilege. But the reality is that any actual discrimination is individual and should be dealt with using existing laws and on a case by case basis. We're not going to fix racism using more racism. Gays have a few legitimate legal beefs regarding civil unions and legal rights inferred therein, and that's about it.
But another important point is that just as the right has the Ken Hutchersons who preach hatred against gays, the left has Al Gores that preach intolerance of scientists who "don't follow lockstep on climate consensus."
Both the left and right are wrong. There are a lot of hot button issues which many people allow themselves to be camped in with mutual exclusivity. Real thinking individuals disagree with both Ken Hutcherson, and Al Gore.
Then there are those who sit comfortably in an Oval Office while they deny dignity to others who sit in cells on an island a mere 200 miles off the coast of a great nation. There individuals are beaten, tortured, and denied basic civil rights at the order of the man sitting behind the desk in that Oval Office.
The man behind the desk fears no consequences of his actions, he denies accountability at every turn. This order given by this man seems to break the core values that the nation he presides over holds dear. Whether the higher power decided to hold the man in the oval office responsible for these disgraceful actions will never be known.
It is not the education, it is the interpretation of the Scripture and the theology. Now Pope Benedict who has the following education and background:
"....Benedict XVI is a well-known Roman Catholic theologian and a prolific author, a defender of traditional Catholic doctrine and values. He served as a professor at various German universities and was a theological consultant at the Second Vatican Council before becoming Archbishop of Munich and Freising and Cardinal. At the time of his election as Pope, Benedict had been Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (curial heads lose their positions upon the death of a pope[2]) and was Dean of the College of Cardinals.
During his papacy, Benedict XVI has emphasized what he sees as a need for Europe to return to fundamental Christian values in response to increasing de-Christianisation and secularisation in many developed countries. For this reason, he claims relativism's denial of objective truth--and more particularly, the denial of moral truths--as the central problem of the 21st century...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI
Dr. Charles Stanley who is President of In Touch Ministries and was twice elected head of the Southern Baptists has the following bio:
"....At the age of fourteen, Dr. Stanley received a clear call to the ministry, which later led him to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Richmond in Richmond, Virginia, and a Bachelor of Divinity degree at Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He then earned the degrees of Master of Theology and Doctor of Theology from Luther Rice Seminary in Atlanta. Always practical, Dr. Stanley often says, "I feel I cannot honestly tell you how to believe Bible truths, and put these truths to work in your life, until I have first let God work them into my own life."
http://www.intouch.org/site/c.dhKHIXPKIuE/b.2286643/k.3CCA/Dr_Charles_Stanleys_Biography.htm
I double dog dare you to call either Pope Benedict or Dr. Charles Stanley ignorant bigots. You can't. They preach the same theology as Rev Hutcherson which is a strict interpretation of Scripture. Other sects preaching a strict interpretation are listed as examples in my post above.
I am always amused when those, who in all likelihood, hate Christians and Christianity now presume to tell Christians who their leaders should be. You don't at this point go after Pope Benedict or Dr. Stanley because there are a huge number of Catholics and Southern Baptists.
The problem is that you do not like those who interpret the Bible literally, you have to argue on those terms, not using the smoke screen that you care a damn about Christianity, because you don't.
Posted by: WVH on February 27, 2008 10:17 AMWhen you say you "don't agree with religious gay marriage", do you mean that your church shouldn't not perform same sex marriages, or that no church should be allowed to perform same sex marriages?
I think each religious group should have the ability to do whatever they want in regards to their beliefs, including whether or not to marry couples of the same sex in their church. Most churches are against performing same sex marriages as part of their faith. But very few pastors and church leaders will actively preach against same gender relations, and only a small minority will do so with the hateful, violent venom of Fred Phelps and Ken Hutcherson.
Pudge @ 36
How can you possibly compare Ivan to Fred Phelps and Ken Hutcherson? I have seen Ivan disagree strongly with people he disagrees with, but nothing even remotely approaching the vehement hatred that some of your political and religious "heroes" practice.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 27, 2008 10:23 AMIf Pope Benedict and Rev. Stanley were to use the same thuggish, intimidating tactics that Hutcherson uses, with the same ratonalization, then yes, I would consider them guilty of hate speech. Have I made myself perfectly clear?
People can interpret the Bible literally if they choose to, and I defend their right to do so. But when they use those beliefs to justify the use of coercion in the political arena, and to force their beliefs into law, to apply even to other citizens who do not share those beliefs, you can expect me to stand against that every time.
Why does decrying homosexuality equal "fear"? That ourtageous comment says far more about YOU than it does anyone who believe the acts of homosexuality are destructive and immoral.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 11:34 AM
Very, very easily.
I have seen Ivan disagree strongly with people he disagrees with, but nothing even remotely approaching the vehement hatred that some of your political and religious "heroes" practice.
You are a liar, Richard. No one I would call a "hero" enagages in such things. Not that I would call anyone a hero of mine -- I am no respecter of persons, and I have no heroes -- but if I would, then it would certainly not be someone who engages in such things.
As to others who do engage in such things ... shrug. ivan constantly, consistently, has nothing but hate and vitriol on this site for people who disagree with him. ivan is FAR more hateful than Hutcherson, in my experience. Heck, I met Hutcherson once, at a luncheon, sat next to him. I told him I disagreed with some of his views. He was perfectly polite and nice to me. Unlike ivan: when I explain my views, he does nothing but viciously attack me.
ivan: People can interpret the Bible literally if they choose to, and I defend their right to do so. But when they use those beliefs to justify the use of coercion in the political arena, and to force their beliefs into law, to apply even to other citizens who do not share those beliefs, you can expect me to stand against that every time.
So you therefore oppose Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis, who are evangelical Christians and liberal Democrats who believe that the Bible calls us to use government force to provide charity to people in need.
So you therefore oppose the abolitionists of the 19th century, liberal Christians who tried to force government to abolish slavery in accordance with their religious views.
So you therefore oppose the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who believed his view of liberty from the Bible should be made the law of the land.
Oh. I see. You only "stand against it every time" when you disagree with it.
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 11:43 AMAnd Pope, I mean that marriage as I see it from a religious context, applies to men and women. And I think most churches agree. But again, that's really semantic within sects. If a new church wants to spring up, and marry homosexuals, they can do so, religion is based on faith, so really anything goes. No one can say absolutely what God does or doesn't want, that's the whole point of faith. It's not rational. But certainly, there should be no force of government, or otherwise barring churches from performing same sex marriages. Churches are private organizations. Free to do as they please. If people don't like the ideas of that church, they don't have to attend. (And before anyone mentions it, no this doesn't mean Islamic mosques have a right to incite violence. The highest law of the land is the Constitution.)
And there should be an absolute separation of church and state. I think many on the religious right are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the people may well confer some legal right to civil unions, and that any religious difficulty with that concept has no bearing on the decision. Only the Constitution can intervene.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 27, 2008 11:50 AMHutcherson is correct about the "softening" of men in general and in the Seattle area as a rule, but that has more to do with the blurring of gender roles in this Politically correct climate that exists today. This would also account for the very passive-aggressive nature of people in this part of the country. A nation of wimps is too lenient of language to describe this particular phenomenom and it's not likely to change for the better anytime soon. Within 5 years, I see a motion being passed by the Seattle City council banning the use of urinals within the city limits........laugh now, while you can.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 27, 2008 12:12 PMAs for you, Pudge, you're just an idiot. The abolitionists were fighting a political battle, not a fundamentalist religious crusade, like Hutcherson is doing. Many of them were religious, but abolition was far more than that. What are you doing, taking the part of those poor slaveholders or something?
Go back to your Perl scripts and quit embarrassing yourself. You are over your head in most discussions of politics. But at least you allow feeback in the comments section, I'll give you that.
Says the Union Goon.
Snort.
Posted by: jimg on February 27, 2008 12:29 PMI can't get over how you expect your comments about what Christians should or should take seriously are valid. Do you speak for all Christians? Are either of you Christian? I don't speak for all Black people or all Christians. Here are some cites on the Catholic Church and gay marriage:
1 - 10 of 3,030,000 for catholic bishop gay marriage (About) - 0.20 s
WEB RESULTSCatholic bishops slam gay marriage ruling -- Queer Lesbian Gay News ...
Gay.com > News > Catholic bishops slam gay marriage ruling ... Bishop Thomas Dupre, Worcester Bishop Daniel P. Reilly and Bishop George ...
www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/12/01/3 - 23k - Cached
The Catholic Church, Homosexuality and Gay Marriage
News Background: Bishops Urge Amendment to Protect Marriage. • Catholic Bishop Calls Gay Decisions in Episcopal Church a Problem ...
www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp - 30k - Cached
Catholic bishops urging vote on gay marriage - Boston.com
... put a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the 2008 ballot. ... Catholic bishops urging vote on gay marriage. October 31, 2006 ...
boston.com/news/local/.../catholic_bishops_urging_vote_on_gay_marriage - 29k
Catholic bishops OK gay "disordered" guidelines -- Queer Lesbian Gay ...
... for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) communities. ... Catholic bishops OK "disordered" policy. S.F. appeals anti-marriage ruling ...
www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/11/14/3 - 24k - Cached
Catholic bishops push for gay marriage vote - Local News Updates - The ...
The state's four Roman Catholic bishops mailed a joint statement today to each ... urging them to allow a vote on a ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage. ...
boston.com/news/globe/city_region/.../2006/12/catholic_bishop.html - 31k - Cached
The Sun Chronicle Online - Reports
... four Catholic bishops to publicly oppose same-sex marriage, and to ... of gay marriage far outnumbered the few that came in after the bishop's letter. ...
www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2003/12/01/reports/special099.txt - 53k - Cached
Catholic Bishops Endorse Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriages ...
Catholic Bishops Endorse Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriages ... the bishops stressed that their opposition to gay marriage -- including civil, ...
www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13234_1.html - 39k - Cached
I can assure you that they have the full support of the Pope.
Now this is what the Southern Baptists say:
"The 35 million Baptists form the largest division within Protestant Christianity in the United States. About 16 million are associated with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The SBC broke away from its parent organization at the time of the civil war. Schisms occurred in many national denominations over the slavery issue.
Traditionally, this denomination had varying levels of tolerance for homosexuality and had expressed concern over gay-bashing. However, with the shift of some Baptist associations towards Fundamentalism during the last 15 years, attitudes have significantly hardened into an extreme opposition to equal rights for gays, bisexuals and lesbians.
SBC Position on Sexual Orientation
The SBC's Christian Life Commission publishes a pamphlet called Critical Issues: Homosexuality. It states that:
The many Bible passages that are commonly quoted as condemning homosexuality are valid.
People can change their sexual orientation.
Homosexual orientation is not "caused" by hormonal imbalance or genetic factors, but by an unhealthy relationship with one's parents.
People cannot be pigeonholed into two classifications: homosexual or heterosexual. A continuum exists which includes various degrees of bisexuality.
Although homosexual activity is a sin, it is not the unpardonable sin, or the most terrible of sins.
Homosexuals can only lead moral lives by remaining celibate.
Discrimination against gays and lesbians is proper, in the areas of: employment.
to protect the (presumably heterosexual) "family."
to protect other social institutions."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sbc.htm
Are you going to jump all over them? I doubt it. The fact of the matter is that Rev. Hutcherson has the same views as many literal readers of the Scripture.
Ivan is an atheist. Jeff B or Richard Pope care to disclose your religion?
My theory is that all of you are clueless about the different views in Christianity and want to define the religion out of existence, but if you can't do that you are happy to water it down to secular progressive mush.
There was an interview with some really nasty mass-murderer rapist guy that I caught the other night (sorry, I don't remember who it was), and they used this same logic. He said "God hates all sin, and sins are all equally bad", at which point this total monster went on to say that what he did to an entire family "is no worse than a child stealing a cookie" in God's eye.
I'm sure he would have felt right at home with Hutch. In all my years going to school with self-proclaimed "christians", I know the Hutcherson type very well, and in my opinion they are not Christians at all. They worship the Bible, but have little to do with how Christ taught us to live and how to treat one another.
Posted by: Splinter on February 27, 2008 12:48 PMThe fact is that the abolitionist movement started out, essentially, as a "fundamentalist" religious movement (the term "fundamentalism" was not in use back then, but Finney and Beecher were clearly on the "religious right" of their time, and shared most ideology with the fundamentalists that arrived a half century later; Finney in particular was one of fundamentalism's biggest contemporary influences). Harriet Beecher Stowe, for example, wrote: "I wrote what I did ... because as a Christian I felt the dishonor to Christianity because as a lover of my country I trembled at the coming day of wrath."
Remember YOU SAID: "People can interpret the Bible literally if they choose to, and I defend their right to do so. But when they use those beliefs to justify the use of coercion in the political arena, and to force their beliefs into law, to apply even to other citizens who do not share those beliefs, you can expect me to stand against that every time."
This PERFECTLY describes Harriet Beecher Stowe.
You have two choices: stand against Harriet Beecher Stowe's attempts to abolish slavery ... or admit that you are full of crap.
What are you doing, taking the part of those poor slaveholders or something?
No, in fact, that is what YOU said YOU are doing: standing against people who try to use coercion in the political arena, and to force their beliefs into law, to apply even to "those poor slaverholders" who do not share those beliefs. You stand against that every time, remember?
You are over your head in most discussions of politics.
And yet, you are incapable of winning an argument against me ... on the merits, or otherwise.
Tell me again how the Democrats are not going to use the lists from the primary. That lie were SO CUTE!
I may be an "idiot," ivan, but I am far better at this than you are.
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 12:57 PMAnd I want to make one other clarification. It may be that a church springs up which promotes and performs same sex marriages. However, there also may still be a legal, secular definition of marriage as confined to a man and a women. The Constitution and law trump religion. Just because a church might confer a religious marriage, does not mean it will be a legally recognized one until such time as there is a law. That's the rule of law. And it's how we do business.
And I think that for the sake of all concerned, and for tradition, we ought to keep legal marriage as defined between a man and a woman, and use the term civil unions for same sex unions. This is mostly out of respect for the fact that marriage is an age old tradition, and the complexity and religious philosophical basis for the founding of the country, and times when philosophy in general was less understood, should grandfather the terminology. Religionists may seize upon this as a means to eliminating same sex unions, but it's simply a matter of definitions. And we have many such traditions and definitions for different cases. No big deal.
But rather than react to this with an even greater fervor, which then legitimizes the religionists to a degree. The homosexual community should simply understand that in this modern era where a new understanding of equality is at hand, that a legal civil union / religious marriage will carry the legal weight they desire, along with whatever religious intonation they also desire.
It simply a question of separation of church and state. There's never going to be an acceptance of homosexuality within certain faiths, and equally, civil unions (where legal) and other contracts in law, are fully legitimate matters of state, that exist within the rule of law.
And as for the law, a marriage amendment is highly unlikely. And we all should hope this should never come to pass because it's inappropriate as a violation of the concept of federalism. Legal marriage should remain a power invested in the states, because that will guarantee the maximum freedom and coexistence of constituencies that both oppose or approve of same sex marriage.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 27, 2008 12:58 PMI'm neither confused or smoking peyote (which is eaten or placed in tea).
Wouldn't it be interesting to insert the names Louis Farrakan, Jesse Jackson or Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. with the same venom that some use the names Ken Hutcherson and Pope Benedict?
I agree, but since no one is really oppressing Jewish people anymore the anti-semitic views of these supposed leaders border on irrelevant. None of the individuals you mentioned have called for beating up a Jewish person and beating them with their bloody stump like the Rev. Hutchison has for Homosexuals. Nor have these individuals you mention actively used their position to influence major corporations to bend to their twisted views like Rev. Hutchison has.
Rev. Hutchison actively calling for violence or trying to shove Christian law down upon the masses through his involvement with Microsoft seems more like the actions of some of our terrorist enemies who wish us to bend to their own interpretation of the holy scripture.
So since the manner victimology and/or the victims are not currently relevant it's no big deal, eh?
One imagines the knots that are cato via his relativism are mighty uncomfortable.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 02:43 PMI would assert that advocating violence and preaching to the masses are two different things, the victims will change depending on the orientation of the particular church.
Since the Rev. Hutchison has decided to become an of advocate violence to enforce his twisted views he elevates himself to a different level of lunacy than the names that you listed.
I suspect Ragnar you would agree with a law that protects Jewish people from having crosses burned on their lawns but would be against a law that protects Gay people from the same thing. What would you argue differentiates the two groups?
The key word there cato, in case you missed it (or, more likely, chose to ignore it) is SAME.
You might want to send a reminder to Farrakan and BAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHms minister about preaching violence and hatred.
OOPS! There's that pesky moral certaintly again.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 03:08 PMSo you're for Gay Marriage now? What made you come around?
You might want to send a reminder to Farrakan and BAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHms minister about preaching violence and hatred.
I have not seen Obama's minister advocate violence, care to show me? It seems more like Rev. Wright preaches about black people investing in the black community. How is this different from say Bill Cosby?
I said SAME... they have the very SAME right you and I have to marry... the opposite sex.
What I find absolutely delicious is the reality slap in the face that "married" homosexuals are getting when their utopia falls apart and they find the states that married them make them accountable to the DIVORCE laws of that same state... AND, my favorite so far, is the "married" couple who are trying to divorce in a state that never recognized their "marriage" to begin with.
Oh what a tangled web... all fo a few headlines.
No, that is not what he said. You appear to be under the mistaken impression that equal protection necessarily means gay people should be allowed to marry each other.
There are two arguments to be made here. The first is so obvious it hurts to have to bother saying it: gay people today have as much right as everyone else to marry. They just can't marry another gay person. I can't marry a man either. The law applies equally to us both.
However, even though this is true, some people don't think it is "fair." Fine, but that still doesn't mean equal protection forces us to have gay marriage: the problem is that marriage is, absolutely, not a right. For anyone. Government could get rid of all civil marriage tomorrow and no one's rights would be taken away. Therefore, it is necessarily true that solutions other than "gay marriage should be legally recognized" exist to solve the equal protection problem.
One solution is civil unions for gays (whining about "separate but equal" sounds nice, but the reason "separate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional is because it wasn't actually equal, but there is no reason why civil unions couldn't be equal to marriages).
Another is getting rid of all civil marriage altogether. Civil marriages for none; civil unions for all. This is the policy I advocate. I will continue to be against gay marriage; but I will also advocate getting rid of all civil marriages, and converting them to civil unions, which would be open to everyone, including friends, blood relatives, and so on. Many people -- both homosexual, and anti-homosexual -- agree with this position, because a. every union is precisely equivalent in the eyes of the law; b. government does not change the definition of marriage, c. it gets government out of something it shouldn't be in, in the first place, and so on.
I can't speak for Ragnar; I can only say that you were wrong to claim that he said he was for gay marriage, as I gave three ways to fully recognize equal protection AND still be against gay marriage.
(Ah, I see Ragnar now has posted that he follows the first argument I provided.)
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 03:28 PM
BAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHmas minister seems to be telling them the only thing that matters is "black".
Cosby advocates pride via self-reliance and accomplishment.
BAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHmas minister demands pride because of a particular color.
How obtuse must you be not see the difference; how willingly blind must you be not to see the value of one and the harm of the other? ... no need to answer, cato, you already have with every previous post.
So if they're the same whats the problem? Is one persons love for another somehow lessened by their attraction to a member of the same sex?
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, they should be equally allowed to divorce. I see no problem with the same laws being applied regardless of sexual orientation.
Now quit dodging the question Rangar, can you show me where Obama's minister is advocating violence in the same way Rev. Hutchison is?
Those who care less about God are upset when the Pastor says: "God hates............"
Can you say two faced? I knew you could.
Posted by: Sam Adams on February 27, 2008 03:30 PMNope, let em love all they want... privately and quietly, preferably.
I love my dog... and she loves me.... are you advocating I get to marry her?
I love my Mercedes... and it loves me for the the high test gasoline and fancy car wax with which I show my love.... oooohhh will you give us a B Service Package for a wedding present?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 03:35 PMBAAAAHrack oBAAAAAAHmas minister demands pride because of a particular color.
He advocates the black community coming together to do the same think Mr. Cosby is advocating. What's wrong with one person helping another of the same race get on their feet? Love they neighbor and all that good stuff.
Rev. Wright is not advocating assaulting white/jewish/catholic/homosexual/etc. people for opening the door for blacks.
Hey if you want to talk that way about your wife be my guest.
I love my Mercedes... and it loves me for the the high test gasoline and fancy car wax with which I show my love.
You're suggesting love of between you and an inanimate object is the same as one between two people? Wow, you've really gone off the deep end.
Now quit dodging the question Rangar, can you show me where Obama's minister is advocating violence in the same way Rev. Hutchison is?
I'd explain it, but I don't "do" affirmative action... and you'll learn more when take it upon yourself.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 03:55 PMNo, he's saying that black people should help each other out. Since they live in a predominantly black neighborhood he's saying they should focus on the issues that surround them and work on them TOGETHER as a community. He is not advocating a race war or undying allegiance to a race/culture/creed.
Ahh so what applies to the Rev. Hutchison does not apply to the Rev. Wright because he is a liberal?
Posted by: Cato on February 27, 2008 04:06 PMI do hate the sin.
But, I am not willing to ignore the behaviour of the sinner either.
We all have impulses and desires that may be/are considered out of the norm of "right". In my opinion, how or whether we act upon them, how or whether we let them define our lives is what matters in judging. And yes, cato, I firmly believe judging is valid and necessary.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 04:08 PMHYPERBOLE.
That's fine, but I don't consider Homosexuality a sin.
Didn't God also tell people that eating pork, shellfish, with cloven hoofs was a sin too? Cause I sure enjoy BBQ Pork I'd hate for that to be a sin.
Oh wait, he's a liberal so he must be a "racist". =P
Come back when you have a real argument Ragnar.
Straw man argument at best. I could use the same argument about religion.
"If we don't judge Christianity we'll have people going off and locking themselves into well armed compounds in Texas and claiming to be a separate nation under God."
If you take anything to extremes people are going to object.
A distinction without a difference, IMHO
Posted by: Rick D. on February 27, 2008 04:38 PMI do however consider acting upon ones homosexuality one.
I often feel murderous and vengeful. I have neighbors that I loathe... I loathe their yappy little dog, I loathe their midnight hot tub confessions, I loathe the mother-in-law wo spoils open window summers with her hyena laugh and I loathe the outhouse with which they blocked my view.
I certainly do entertain some nasty fantasies. However, as much as I loathe them, I do not act upon that loathing... and they have no clue how very much I despise them.
Many people suffer from greed.. but they are not committing robbery to satisfy it.
Many lonely people are lustful... but they aren't grabbing people for random sex.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 04:40 PM
Ummm, yeah they are and have been for thousands of years. In fact here is a reality TV show dedicated to doing it well.
"I do however consider acting upon ones homosexuality one."
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
You are entitled to that belief. Since we're now comparing dead people how do you feel about the Rev. Brigham Young? Many people including the a past Presidential Candidate and the current Senate Majority Leader would consider him a revered leader and possibly a saint.
I JUDGE murder a sin, I JUDGE abortion a sin, I JUDGE not living up to your capabilites a sin, I JUDGE theft a sin.... including theft by government fiat and theft by illegals....
and I have absolutely no fear of others judging me.
Hmmm... let's try to stick to some kind of contemporaries shall we Cato? Richard Butler died in late 2004, therefore a Jeremiah Wright Comtemporary.Brigham Young died in 1877, but nice attempt at a dodge.
The fact remains that Butler and Wright are the same entity, no matter how people choose to do the verbal semantics.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 27, 2008 06:09 PMGiven their own fear of other belief systems, liberals who call anyone who disagrees with them "phobic" is an anthropological irony.
Reading this polite, intelligent, but entertaining conversation on such a sensitive subject should make us proud to be thinking conservatives.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 27, 2008 09:23 PMSHAME!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 09:37 PMI see, so in your opinion it's perfectly OK to name major university's after historically racist figures. It's also OK to carry on his legacy of established racism until 1979 and absolve the followers of any wrong doing or inaction to adapt to modern times?
Works for me, I mean if Mitt Romney can get a pass for his beliefs I'm fine with Obama getting a pass as well.
The evidence that Rev. Wright is a racist seems pretty flimsy when compared to historical racists like Brigham Young or contemporary racists like David Duke.
Still, Rev. Hutcherson's theology is no different than that of Pope Benedict, Dr. Charles Stanley of the Southern Baptists and most Orthodox Jewish Rabbis. The issue in a political context is how to make the different strands work.
Posted by: WVH on February 27, 2008 09:41 PMI honestly just want a guy with enough guts to just hang his pride and his fear of rejection for once and pursue me!
Posted by: Cydney on February 27, 2008 10:37 PMOur eldest, a 28 yr old attorney says 'Who needs that sh*t? ... sometimes I just want to come home and BE alone and when I do they just get b*tchy... or they call constantly'
Evidently todays women prefer to harangue than be pursued.
It's been that way since girls were old enough to notice them as boys rather than pests. I remember when one was 6th grade age and girls were suddenly, constantly calling... I gave him the available options: HE could tell them he couldn't receive call from girls... or I could.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 27, 2008 11:05 PMApparently so Cato, Afterall, it's the Democrats who have coddled Klansman Robert Byrd (D) W.V. who still proudly serves on the U.S. Senate. Byrd led the filibuster in 1964 against the Civil rights act -
(Curious to hear Cato's excuse on this one)
among other ignorant and racist statements and actions too numerous to list here, but are freely available online to those willing to uncover their eyes and ears and let a little reality seep in.
His punishment by Democrats?He gets ever increasing leadership roles within the party.
-secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in 1967
- Senate Democrat Whip in 1971.
- elected Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and again in 1987-1988
- elected Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986.
- Given chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until 1994.
I'd say if the Democrats in 2008 can't clean their own house of racists and bigots, you can't really expect to draw a corellation between a 19th century Mormon leader to a 21st century Senate leader.
To do so, is laughable and disingenous, and you know it.
You are correct, but again Robert Byrd is not running for President. I could say the same for Trent Lott who held a position of Senate Majority Leader up until his "OMG, the world would be so better off had a racist like Strom Thurmond had been President" moment. The people of West Virgina must like him because the GOP has been unable (or unwilling?) to find a viable to unseat him. One could say the same about the Democrats and Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms.
I'd say if the Democrats in 2008 can't clean their own house of racists and bigots
The people of West Virginia are accountable for Sen. Byrd's re-election, not myself as I am a resident of Washington State. Again, Sen. Byrd is NOT running for President.
you can't really expect to draw a corellation between a 19th century Mormon
True, but I can draw a correlation to Presidential Candidates who (ie Mitt Romeny, whom many here favored) follow a religion who's spiritual leaders preached racism up until the late 1970's. Mitt Romney got a pass on his religion, should those same standards apply equally to candidates across the board? I think so, especially since you have no quotes proving that the Rev. Wright is a racist.
....and neither is the Political figure you brought up as a comparison, Brigham Young, who died in 1877.
"I could say the same for Trent Lott who held a position of Senate Majority Leader up until his "OMG, the world would be so better off had a racist like Strom Thurmond had been President" moment."
...now you're equating one incident of Lott's with a lifetime of Racist actions and language by Democratic Senator/Klansman Byrd? The desperation must be setting in.
"Mitt Romney got a pass on his religion, should those same standards apply equally to candidates across the board?"
...perhaps that is a question to ask of your Democratic U.S. Senate Majority leader Democrat Harry Reid (shhh..he's Mormon as well), that is, if you want to accept responsibility for the DNC party leaders.
You've proven that debating with you is akin to playing handball with the drapes.......no return. Your use of spin to further your agenda is beyond reproach though.
Cheers!
Me: True, but I can draw a correlation to Presidential Candidates
I was comparing the religious parallels between two Presidential Candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. It's fair to say Mr. Romney was let off the hook about his membership in a religion that actively excluded black people until 1979, and Sen. Obama who belongs to a church that preaches against perceived racism in the world by blaming white people for all the worlds problems.
I think it's only fair to treat the candidates religious affiliations with equal footing. If Mr. Romney gets a pass for being a member of a "racist church", then Sen. Obama should as well.
now you're equating one incident of Lott's with a lifetime of Racist actions and language by Democratic Senator/Klansman Byrd?
I also compared Sen. Byrd to Sen. Thurmond (who has the record for the longest filibuster on record against the Civil Rights bill of 1957) and Sen. Helms (who voted Nay on every piece of Civil Rights legislation). I think those would be more apt comparisons, but the GOP had a man in leadership who made a racist remark. Besides, I think you would find yourself in agreement with Sen. Bryd since he is against Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage much like yourself.
Don't pawn your racist Democrat leader on me Cato, that baggage belongs firmly on your (and the Democratic party) carousel, not mine.
As far as being anti-Affirmative action or more aptly described as "Racial Preferences", I guess you'd have to harken back to a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. in his 'I have a Dream speech' when he said "I have a dream that someday my children will not be judged by the color of their skin but, by the content of their character".
An endorsement of affirmative action, is a denial of Dr. Kings dream.On this subject, we are the Progressives, attempting to institute equal footing for all.
As for Gay Marriage, I don't spend alot of time thinking about the subject; and I'm not sure how you can come to a conclusion about my stance on it when I haven't addressed it anywhere, in any manner, on any thread.
I'm not sure how you can come to a conclusion about my stance on it when I haven't addressed it anywhere
I assumed your stance on it based on your comments at #77. It's sort of like you seeming to know which party I am affiliated with and believe that I have endorsed Affirmative Action when I have not commented on it in any manner.
You brought up Brigham Young, correct?
...as for a reply on the subject, it is about Rev. Ken Hutcherson, not presidential candidates, strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, or George Bush, or Guantanomo bay Detainees as you've brought up on this thread in numerous posts. So don't admonish me about not staying on topic sir, you've done that quite nicely yourself.
Cato @ 102- "I assumed your stance on it(gay marriage) based on your comments at #77."
...Post #77 did not mention or refer in any manner to gays. I guess your assumption skills aren't up to par.
"It's sort of like you seeming to know which party I am affiliated with"
....Since you're defending the Democratic front runner Barack Obama (D) Ill., I guess I was using an educated guess.....sounds pretty logical no?
"and believe that I have endorsed Affirmative Action when I have not commented on it in any manner."- Cato @ post 102
Cato @ 100- "I think you would find yourself in agreement with Sen. Bryd since he is against Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage much like yourself."
.......does 100 come before 102??
I think your pretzel logic is coming full circle Cato......you just contradicted yourself yet again. Just keep tying yourself up in knots, I have to admit it's entertaining. Otherwise, let's get back to the topic at hand which is Ken Hutcherson.
Yes, I did.
...as for a reply on the subject, it is about Rev. Ken Hutcherson, not presidential candidates, strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, or George Bush, or Guantanomo bay Detainees as you've brought up on this thread in numerous posts.
I followed the flow of the discussion as Ragnar changed the subject. I did not bring up Rev. Wright, Ragnar did (at 58) and thus changing the subject to racism (perceived or otherwise).
Since you're defending the Democratic front runner Barack Obama (D) Ill.
I believe that I am free to defend any candidate I want, I've defended McCain in the past. That does not make me a member of the Democratic/Republican/Communist/Birthday Party.
does 100 come before 102??
No it does not, but pointing out that Sen. Byrd disagrees with Affirmative Action does not mean that I endorse it. I made an assumption about your political beliefs in much the same way you did mine. It sounds like we are both in error about each others beliefs and party affiliations. I'm happy to leave it at that.
On this subject, we are the Progressives, attempting to institute equal footing for all.
That must be why Ron Paul (R-Tex) gets money from the known racists. It must be his progressive stance on minority issues that draws their hard-earned money to him.
That information kind of smarts when you put it context with say this:
"I'd say if the Democrats in 2008 can't clean their own house of racists and bigots, you can't really expect to draw a correlation between a 19th century Mormon leader to a 21st century Senate leader."
Since the GOP has not bothered to clean their own house I guess my point is valid after all.
...valid only with the willing suspension of disbelief.The GOP cleans it's house with even the sniff of perceived racism (Trent Lott) and the Democrat's promote their racists like Robert Byrd (D) W.V.- See Post @ 96 for examples
That being said, perhaps we should get back to the topic at hand, which is Ken Hutcherson and his comments. You have a very sly way of drifing far off course when the fact's don't support your argument. re-read your post @ 38 and tell me that wasn't a rambling, incoherent, off-topic post.
That's a complete re-write of history if I ever saw one. Lott stepped down so as not to distract from the GOP agenda.
the Democrat's promote their racists like Robert Byrd
Oh look, Trent Lott gets elected back to minority leader a mere 3 years after his racist remarks. The truth sucks doesn't it.
...and now, Back to normal Ken Hutcherson programming.
Oh I see, now that I've proven you wrong you want to change the subject to their histories?
How about we compare the two Senators voting records on Civil Rights instead. I think that would give you a much clearer picture of where each Senator stands.
@ 109 "Oh, I see, now that I've proven you wrong you want to change the subject to their histories?"
Has Sen. Byrd ever stepped down for his extensive racist remarks?? Nope. Did Lott voluntarily do so for 4 years at his perceived insensitive remarks?
Yup, he did.
How come you're afraid to compare the histories? isn't that a snapshot of the individual?...Hmmm
Why not post those atocious remarks by Lott Cato...If you're going to imply he's a racist, how about some proof? I think we can absorb the horrible language you'll be posting on SP, right? Then I can counter with some of the real blue language that Byrd has used. Up for it?
I await that extensive laundry list.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 28, 2008 03:28 PMEven you must concede to the point that 2003 is not the same as 1954. I would like you to show me the racists quotes uttered by Sen. Byrd since 1973 when Sen. Lott was first elected to office.
People change over time, didn't Mitt Romney adjust his opinions over the course of the time he ran for Governor of Massachusetts (2002) till the time he ran for President (2007)? That was a pretty significant change in opinion in the course of 5 years. What's to say the same has not happened in the course of 30+ years.
Did Lott voluntarily do so for 4 years at his perceived insensitive remarks?
Mr. Lott stepped down because he was a distraction to the party and the agenda, had no one called him on it he would have continued serving as the Majority Leader. Mr. Lott was later elected 4 years later to a leadership position. Which makes your charge "the Democrat's promote their racists like Robert Byrd" moot.
How come you're afraid to compare the histories?
You sure you want to go there, someone might find some naughty info on Sen Lott.
To quote Sen. Lott's spokesman "Those were different times in a different era".
Seems to me Rick D. is a little misinformed about the GOP and certain members of their leadership. He can only rewrite history so many times before the truth comes out.
Of course I'm wrong too but Rick D. has yet to find or post that evidence. When he does I will be happy to concede the point.
I'll continue to wait on that List of Lott's racist statements Cato...you've had over 2 hours to ponder and pontificate and research and I get nada in your two posts above. I expected more. I now understand why you're an Obama supporter.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 28, 2008 05:27 PMFollowing are some quotes from prominent Democrats largely drawn from the book, "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past."
Blacks "are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both of body and mind." --Thomas Jefferson, 1787, Co-founder of the Democratic Party (along with Andrew Jackson) President, 1801-09
"I hold that the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding states between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good--a positive good." --Sen. John C. Calhoun (D., S.C.), 1837 Vice President, 1825-32 His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
"If blacks were given the right to vote, that would "place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, hump-backed, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, woolly-headed, ebon-colored Negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man." --Rep. Andrew Johnson, (D., Tenn.), 1844 President, 1865-69
"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852
Blacks are "a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race." --Chief Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856, Appointed Attorney General by Andrew Jackson in 1831, Appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Andrew Jackson in 1833, Appointed to the Supreme Court by Andrew Jackson in 1836
"Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue--and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories; and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the 'slavery question' upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union--NON-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN STATE AND TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" (emphasis in original). --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1856
"I hold that a Negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this government was made on the white basis; made by the white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others." --Sen. Stephen A. Douglas (D., Ill.), 1858, Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1860
"Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1860
"The Almighty has fixed the distinction of the races; the Almighty has made the black man inferior, and, sir, by no legislation, by no military power, can you wipe out this distinction."--Rep. Fernando Wood (D., N.Y.), 1865, Mayor of New York City, 1855-58, 1860-62
"My fellow citizens, I have said that the contest before us was one for the restoration of our government; it is also one for the restoration of our race. It is to prevent the people of our race from being exiled from their homes--exiled from the government which they formed and created for themselves and for their children, and to prevent them from being driven out of the country or trodden under foot by an inferior and barbarous race." --Francis P. Blair Jr., accepting the Democratic nomination for Vice President, 1868, Democratic Senator from Missouri, 1869-72, His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
"Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten states, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and Negro supremacy." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1868
"While the tendency of the white race is upward, the tendency of the colored race is downward." --Sen. Thomas Hendricks (D., Ind.), 1869, Democratic nominee for Vice President, 1876, Vice President, 1885
"We, the delegates of the Democratic party of the United States . . . demand such modification of the treaty with the Chinese Empire, or such legislation within constitutional limitations, as shall prevent further importation or immigration of the Mongolian race." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1876
"No more Chinese immigration, except for travel, education, and foreign commerce, and that even carefully guarded." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1880
"American civilization demands that against the immigration or importation of Mongolians to these shores our gates be closed." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1884
"We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1900
"The repeal of the fifteenth amendment, one of the greatest blunders and therefore one of the greatest crimes in political history, is a consummation to be devoutly wished for." --Rep. John Sharpe Williams (D., Miss.), 1903, House Minority Leader, 1903-08
"Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats." --Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906, Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19
"We are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population, or whose presence among us would raise a race issue and involve us in diplomatic controversies with Oriental powers." --Platform of the Democratic Party, 1908
"I am opposed to the practice of having colored policemen in the District [of Columbia]. It is a source of danger by constantly engendering racial friction, and is offensive to thousands of Southern white people who make their homes here." --Sen. Hoke Smith (D., Ga.), 1912, Appointed Secretary of the Interior by Grover Cleveland in 1893
"The South is serious with regard to its attitude to the Negro in politics. The South understands this subject, and its policy is unalterable and uncompromising. We desire no concessions. We seek no sops. We grasp no shadows on this subject. We take no risks. We abhor a Northern policy of catering to the Negro in politics just as we abhor a Northern policy of social equality." --Josephus Daniels, editor, Raleigh News & Observer, 1912, Appointed Secretary of the Navy by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, Appointed Ambassador to Mexico by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, USS Josephus Daniels named for him by the Johnson Administration in 1965
"The Negro as a race, in all the ages of the world, has never shown sustained power of self-development. He is not endowed with the creative faculty. . . . He has never created for himself any civilization. . . . He has never had any civilization except that which has been inculcated by a superior race. And it is a lamentable fact that his civilization lasts only so long as he is in the hands of the white man who inculcates it. When left to himself he has universally gone back to the barbarism of the jungle." --Sen. James Vardaman (D., Miss.), 1914, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 1913-19
"This is a white man's country, and will always remain a white man's country. --Rep. James F. Byrnes (D., S.C.), 1919, Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941, Appointed Secretary of State by Harry S. Truman in 1945
"Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when--and only when--brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy--it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves." --William Jennings Bryan, 1923, Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908, Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason--the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there." --Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925, President, 1933-45
"This passport which you have given me is a symbol to me of the passport which you have given me before. I do not feel that it would be out of place to state to you here on this occasion that I know that without the support of the members of this organization I would not have been called, even by my enemies, the 'Junior Senator from Alabama.' " --Hugo Black, accepting a life membership in the Ku Klux Klan upon his election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Alabama, 1926, Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937
"Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation." --Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938, Spoken while engaged in a six-hour speech against the antilynching bill
"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union." --Robert C. Byrd, 1946, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present, Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-present, His portrait stands in the U.S. Capitol.
President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill." --Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948, U.S. Senator, 1949-61, Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61, President, 1963-69
"There is no warrant for the curious notion that Christianity favors the involuntary commingling of the races in social institutions. Although He knew both Jews and Samaritans and the relations existing between them, Christ did not advocate that courts or legislative bodies should compel them to mix socially against their will." --Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), 1955, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, 1971-75
"The decline and fall of the Roman empire came after years of intermarriage with other races. Spain was toppled as a world power as a result of the amalgamation of the races. . . . Certainly history shows that nations composed of a mongrel race lose their strength and become weak, lazy and indifferent." --Herman E. Talmadge, 1955, Democratic Senator from Georgia, 1957-81, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 1971-81
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
"I have never seen very many white people who felt they were being imposed upon or being subjected to any second-class citizenship if they were directed to a waiting room or to any other public facility to wait or to eat with other white people. Only the Negroes, of all the races which are in this land, publicly proclaim they are being mistreated, imposed upon, and declared second-class citizens because they must go to public facilities with members of their own race." --Sen. Richard B. Russell Jr. (D., Ga.), 1961, The Russell Senate Office Building is named for him.
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes." --Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961, Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"I'm not going to use the federal government's authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. . . . I have nothing against a community that's made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods." --Jimmy Carter, 1976, President, 1977-81, Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2002
"The Confederate Memorial has had a special place in my life for many years. . . . There were many, many times that I found myself drawn to this deeply inspiring memorial, to contemplate the sacrifices of others, several of whom were my ancestors, whose enormous suffering and collective gallantry are to this day still misunderstood by most Americans."--James Webb, 1990, Now a Democratic Senator from Virginia
"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva. --Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993, Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03, Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984
"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation." --Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008
"You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent."
"My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth lar
