Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Thu September 21st, 2017, 19:29 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 21:54 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon July 31st, 2006, 09:13 GMT
Posts: 2066
Location: out on Decatur Hill
bottle of bread wrote:
I respectfully perceive Dylan to be a Messianic Jew.
Look up the definition/history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

One could easily see why this might be the case.


Interesting. Does anyone know Chabad's attitute towards Messianic Judaism?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 21:57 GMT 
lightning wrote:
If Bob Dylan wants to give charity, why not his own excessive millions, instead of reaching for the public's cash?

Because this will add up to more money than he could give otherwise. Every radio station that plays tracks will also be contributing. It's a very public message, one that will be repeated over and over again, not only this year but in years to come. Many who would never buy this or other CDs by Dylan are reminded that people are going hungry here and aboard. This is mega-bucks in free publicity for those organizations he's giving to.

If you don't like Dylan covers, then no one expects or even wants you to buy this CD. Choose your own charity. This isn't a tax. But you don't have to trash it. And you don't need to trash Dylan himself for doing it. Do you know how much he gives to charities? No. So why presume that he hasn't?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 22:00 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
Gypsygal wrote:
"(...) Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust":
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


from America National Anthem Lyrics United States of America, The Star Spangled Banner


And it became the national anthem in what year? 177.......................?

Wait was it 18 something................. no.

No. 1931.

And NOBODY has ever heard that verse sung at any ballgame in the history of major league baseball. :D

In fact, A law was passed by the 84th United States Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a joint resolution declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States. The same Congress had required, in the previous year, that the words appear on all currency, as a Cold War measure: "In these days when imperialistic and materialistic Communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, it is proper" to "remind all of us of this self-evident truth" that "as long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail."

The words appeared on US currency in 1957 for the first time.

The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States is an oath of loyalty to the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. Every Boy Scout knows it by heart.

But the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.

Using fear of the Soviet Union as their wedge, jag-off Christians were able to force this crapola on politicians terrified of being seen as "soft on communism."

In 1962 scientists working for Acoustic Research Center of the University of California-Santa Cruz issued a report that said that the persistent "whirring" sound people all over the US reported heard in the late 1950s was, in fact, the sound of Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 22:24 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon July 31st, 2006, 09:13 GMT
Posts: 2066
Location: out on Decatur Hill
lightning wrote:
If Bob Dylan wants to give charity, why not his own excessive millions, instead of reaching for the public's cash?


He has done so repeatedly and probably still does more often than we realize. But he does not talk about it. Stories about him donating large sums of money surface again and again but always a long time after the fact. For example he has quietly supported (and visited in person) children's hospitals, kindergardens and schools in the US, South America and Europe.

An album like CITH on the other hand RAISES AWARENESS and money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 22:34 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 24048
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
My Echo, My Shadow And Me wrote:
lightning wrote:
If Bob Dylan wants to give charity, why not his own excessive millions, instead of reaching for the public's cash?


I don't see why anyone should think someone with "excessive millions" should be obligated to give it away. That's a ridiculous statement. I'm sure alot of famous people give money away and don't sit around and talk about it.

Why shouldn't the general public help out with a cause like this anyway? "Oh, don't tap me"!!! Why, you ask? Cause we're not millionaires? Gimme a fukin' break!

I give to a charity every week via a payroll deduction. It's a good feeling to give to a worthy cause if you can. Just becasue a person isn't wealthy doesn't mean they should turn a blind eye to folks that are less fortunate. That's bullshit.

To imply that Dylan's not contributiing is hogwash.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 22:48 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri March 27th, 2009, 22:07 GMT
Posts: 2308
lightning wrote:
If Bob Dylan wants to give charity, why not his own excessive millions, instead of reaching for the public's cash?


Bob Dylan is not a charitable organization!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 22:50 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed January 28th, 2009, 09:47 GMT
Posts: 10101
Location: A high place of darkness and light
He never worked as a cook in the great north woods either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 22:53 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue February 5th, 2008, 15:43 GMT
Posts: 5423
Location: where there ain't no police; ain't no need to escape from what is, only spirits at ease
But is he tax deductible?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 22:56 GMT 
*Senior Contributor*

Joined: Sun September 25th, 2005, 23:45 GMT
Posts: 8486
Location: Asylum
BostonAreaBobFan wrote:
To imply that Dylan's not contributiing is hogwash.


Well said, Bosty... these hogwash talking twits need to keep their odious thoughts to themselves... I would urge you to ban them... that way, we don't need to read anymore hogwash... ban them, babes... ban them!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 23:04 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
thickboy wrote:
Well said, Bosty... these hogwash talking twits need to keep their odious thoughts to themselves... I would urge you to ban them... that way, we don't need to read anymore hogwash... ban them, babes... ban them!


Or, as my sainted Aunt Carlita would sometimes ask: "If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 13th, 2009, 23:21 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
If Bob Dylan never contributed anything to charity, nobody would accuse him of stiffing poor people. The minute he does, people accuse him of not giving enough!

Besides, we don't know about Dylan's personal finances. I bet he contributes to a lot of things we know nothing about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 02:28 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue February 5th, 2008, 15:43 GMT
Posts: 5423
Location: where there ain't no police; ain't no need to escape from what is, only spirits at ease
Gosh, I just felt like pulling out some Founding Father quotes for myself tonight. Pretty surprising what you can find if you read - even at a Baptist university :P Have I mentioned that I love Thomas Jefferson? Only one thing he hated more than religious dogmatism...that would be book burnings.

I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor.
Thomas Jefferson, notes for a speech, c. 1776

Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

... shake off all the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to his young nephew Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer [Jesus] of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1810 [PREACH!]

History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution [the University of Virginia].
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all this artificial scaffolding.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.
James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and Dogmatism cannot confine it.
John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816

If Christian Preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without Salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine Tests would never have existed; for I think they were invented, not so much to secure Religion itself, as the Emoluments of it. When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
Benjamin Franklin, from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most dishonorable belief against the character of the Divinity, the most destructive to morality and the peace and happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 02:43 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 19:14 GMT
Posts: 55
Location: San Diego, CA
So now this thread is moving from a discussion of Dylan's faith as it pertains to his albums to a celebration of American nationalism and the myths of our "founding fathers?"

A strange place indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 02:45 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue February 5th, 2008, 15:43 GMT
Posts: 5423
Location: where there ain't no police; ain't no need to escape from what is, only spirits at ease
Welcome to E(nuckinfutz)R!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 05:11 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun July 12th, 2009, 14:49 GMT
Posts: 2548
Location: A Fruit-Shaped Hole In Germany
Vesuvio Cat wrote:
So now this thread is moving from a discussion of Dylan's faith as it pertains to his albums to a celebration of American nationalism and the myths of our "founding fathers?"

A strange place indeed.

You know what? Bob Dylan's art, by being published, becomes part of the larger context of society as a whole. When discussing aspects of the art, it might therefore happen that certain issues of society as a whole come under discussion as well. In this specific case, the original poster expressed an uneasiness not only with Bob Dylan's Christmas album, but with the role Christmas plays in the USA. The discussion unfolded completely naturally and logically from there. It hasn't been that hard to follow, has it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 05:18 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 19:14 GMT
Posts: 55
Location: San Diego, CA
A "strange place" didn't mean the same thing as "hard to follow" the last time I checked. But then again, when was the last time I checked?

To be honest though, the whole discourse here is misguided. It started out with an irrational deconstruction of CITH as being an insult to Dylan's Jewish fans, as if he had to consider every religious minority represented in his fan base. That then developed into a discussion of secularism in American society and the need or futility of excluding religious thought from the public stage. Fair enough, but what does CITH have to do with this? A private album released by Bob to be bought or avoided by free consumers with their own money?

Even if Bob was pushing Christianity on to us - as he has done before - well so what? Just stop listening if it offends you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 09:42 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 6th, 2005, 21:47 GMT
Posts: 6607
Location: Maryland/DC
Vesuvio Cat wrote:
A "strange place" didn't mean the same thing as "hard to follow" the last time I checked. But then again, when was the last time I checked?

To be honest though, the whole discourse here is misguided. It started out with an irrational deconstruction of CITH as being an insult to Dylan's Jewish fans, as if he had to consider every religious minority represented in his fan base. That then developed into a discussion of secularism in American society and the need or futility of excluding religious thought from the public stage. Fair enough, but what does CITH have to do with this? A private album released by Bob to be bought or avoided by free consumers with their own money?

Even if Bob was pushing Christianity on to us - as he has done before - well so what? Just stop listening if it offends you.

Maybe Bob is really a UU and he just confuses most people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 11:02 GMT 

Joined: Fri February 16th, 2007, 07:31 GMT
Posts: 3396
My Echo, My Shadow And Me wrote:
bottle of bread wrote:
I respectfully perceive Dylan to be a Messianic Jew.
Look up the definition/history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

One could easily see why this might be the case.


Interesting. Does anyone know Chabad's attitute towards Messianic Judaism?


as pointed out in the wiki article, there is absolutely NO branch of Judaism that considers "Messianic Jews" to be Jewish. That would definitely include the ultra-orthodox Chabad. According to Jewish law, "Messianic Jews" are Christian.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 11:34 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue October 13th, 2009, 17:47 GMT
Posts: 836
I'll sum up Bob's religious identity with his own words,

"All across the telegraph
His name it did resound,
But no charge held against him
Could they prove.
And there was no man around
Who could track or chain him down,
He was never known
To make a foolish move."

:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 13:31 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri October 24th, 2008, 17:46 GMT
Posts: 5700
Location: On the road less traveled
DownInAlabama wrote:
Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

You do realize this statement fully supports my side of the argument that the founding fathers were Christians and established the "founding documents" (if you will) based on Christianity but left out formal allusions to Christ in an intentional effort to prevent alienation of non-Christians.

DownInAlabama wrote:
... shake off all the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to his young nephew Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Here Mr. Jefferson presents proof that he did not take Christianity at face and came to his own conclusions, further evidence that the founding fathers were not superficially Christian.

DownInAlabama wrote:
But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer [Jesus] of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1810 [PREACH!]

History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution [the University of Virginia].
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814

You'll notice all of these cynicisms related directly to man's handling of religion, not the faith itself. Jefferson is criticizing successors of the faith, priests, and theologians - not Christ. To ignore the difference is naive.

DownInAlabama wrote:
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all this artificial scaffolding.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823

On the face, this seems your most direct evidence, but look closely and you'll note that, without context, nowhere does Jefferson assert whether it is good or bad that the story of Christ will fall into fable. The "artificial scaffolding" comment would help, except it's from a different part of the letter.

DownInAlabama wrote:
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.
James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and Dogmatism cannot confine it.
John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816

Jefferson condemns those who close their mind and follow religion rotely. Again, this is not a condemnation of the faith but a condemnation of how certain followers approach the faith. It is worth repeating that this was a time in which these men had recently fought off religious oppression. In this spirit, Jefferson condemns the restrictive parts of organized religion, but again you'll note nothing putting down the faith itself. For more on this, read Nietsche and get back to me.

DownInAlabama wrote:
If Christian Preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without Salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine Tests would never have existed; for I think they were invented, not so much to secure Religion itself, as the Emoluments of it. When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
Benjamin Franklin, from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

So is Franklin asking for a profit-seeking method of preaching here? His criticism on Christ's preaching style is that he does not earn a salary - a flawed theory since Jesus was of course a carpenter. Again, Franklin here does not condemn Jesus, but the practice of preaching for free. (?)

DownInAlabama wrote:
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

I concede on this one (and all of Paine's quotations). Can't win them all.

So I present a series of America's founders specifically stating "Christ is Lord", and you respond with several citations of them condemning preachers, theologians, organized religions, and closed-mindedness. I'm pretty sure we're left with a vast majority of the founders believing in Christ but trying so desperately not to allow that to restrict their brainstorming or alienate those of other (and no) religion. However, the fact remains that they studied and preached Christianity in private.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 20:10 GMT 

Joined: Tue October 13th, 2009, 15:26 GMT
Posts: 8
Folk and Blues:

I know this is late but I can't help myself. I'm not going to respond to everything you said because I don't have time or the inclination. It strikes me as hilarious though that your posts are openly and unapologetically Anti-Christian and seemingly directed at any and all persons connected with Christianity in any sense. But when I ask you or others in the context of the discussion on our Christian founders to defend the presumably superior government in Israel, you are going to accuse me of being anti-semitic??? Let's assume your charge had some merit (it doesn't). Is it a crime to be anti-semitic but ok to be anti-christian???

I note that I had quoted an earlier poster who said he had always been uncomfortable with Dylan's born again phase and asked if it would be ok if I said, I've always been uncomfortable with Dylan's Jewishness? No takers. It seems that it is fine to be anti-christian but to imply that the Israeli government is far from perfect is now anti-semitic. Sorry, but this has become a ridiculous conversation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 20:54 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
Warren Peace wrote:
If Bob Dylan never contributed anything to charity, nobody would accuse him of stiffing poor people. The minute he does, people accuse him of not giving enough!

Besides, we don't know about Dylan's personal finances. I bet he contributes to a lot of things we know nothing about.


It is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of very wealthy people; it's a healthy orientation I think. Not to hate them for being rich per se, but to keep Balzac's quotation (that Puzo sticks at the front of The Godfather) in mind: "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime."

This kind of speculation is always informed by how much you like or dislike the rich guy in question. I like Bob Dylan so I will assume he contributes significantly to charitable causes. In general, I don't think he's like Britney Spears:

In court documents filed by Britney Spears in her custody battle with her ex-husband, her monthly spending was listed at $353,217.

Britney’s two big monthly overheads are partying, and medical bills. The former apparently costs $102,000 per month (on the 25-year-old’s expenses sheet, it is filed under “entertainment, gifts and vacations”). The latter, as represented by health insurance premiums and other medical costs, adds up to $86,397.

Unlike Sherman or the lawyer from GM however, the list represents no financial crisis as she spends only half of her monthly income of $732,868. The singer gives $500 (or 0.0682 per cent) a month to charity. The singer spends $16,000 a month on clothes. She is also thought to hold about $33 million in six high-interest accounts and owns a forest in Louisiana worth $6 million, plus investments in a number of properties. Still, Spears has hefty mortgage payments: $61,271 per month, including Los Angeles’ notoriously steep property taxes. Also included in her monthly overheads are $35,000 of payments to ex-husband Federline, $20,000 of which is “spousal support” that will reportedly end on November 15.

:shock:

Zowie.

The best way to avoid these worries of course is to hike the tax rates for the wealthy back up toward the 70-90% they were at for the better part of the 20th Century.

Oh, and it's worth noting that the best available research, not done by any organization with political ties to either party, shows that conservatives are, on the whole, significantly more charitable than liberals. The best explanation for that I think is that the majority of people who ID themselves as "religious" also ID themselves as "conservative" and religious people give more to charity than secular people do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 21:30 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun July 12th, 2009, 14:49 GMT
Posts: 2548
Location: A Fruit-Shaped Hole In Germany
motel00 wrote:
Folk and Blues:

I know this is late but I can't help myself. I'm not going to respond to everything you said because I don't have time or the inclination. It strikes me as hilarious though that your posts are openly and unapologetically Anti-Christian and seemingly directed at any and all persons connected with Christianity in any sense. But when I ask you or others in the context of the discussion on our Christian founders to defend the presumably superior government in Israel, you are going to accuse me of being anti-semitic??? Let's assume your charge had some merit (it doesn't). Is it a crime to be anti-semitic but ok to be anti-christian???

I note that I had quoted an earlier poster who said he had always been uncomfortable with Dylan's born again phase and asked if it would be ok if I said, I've always been uncomfortable with Dylan's Jewishness? No takers. It seems that it is fine to be anti-christian but to imply that the Israeli government is far from perfect is now anti-semitic. Sorry, but this has become a ridiculous conversation.

I'm anti-Christian only in the sense that I am aware of the blood on the hands of this so-called religion of love. If you look back a bit into history you'll find out that living in a Christian state wasn't such a pleasant experience regarding freedom of ideas and other things we take for granted in modern society. My point is that Christianity as the basis of political systems has so thoroughly discredited itself that the thought of a rollback of secular societies into Christian ones gives me the cold shivers.
That has nothing to do with my personal relationships with Christians. Some of my best friends are Christians :) . For some Christians the "Love Thy Neighbour" aspect of their religion is important, and they become very nice people. But it's their private business. And the ones who are my friends don't try to win me over. They understand that I am trying to love my neighbour just as much as they do, and they respect me for that.
The trouble started, historically, but also on a daily basis, when Christians began/begin to believe that they have some privileged access to the grace of God, capital G, and that for a person to be "saved", they have to join the club and subscribe to the utterly weird belief that Jesus, by dying on the cross, somehow redeemed humanity. Read a history book and weep at the suffering that the self-righteous, greedy bunch has caused under the banner of love.
So the great progress in the West was the secularization of society, achieved against the bitter resistance of the Christian churches. To their credit, some Christians also subscribed to the secularization of the state (as I said, there are lots of nice Christians). But a return to a society where Christians assert that it is THEIR society, not in their role as humans among humans, but exclusively as Christians, will only destroy hard-won rights and freedoms.

As to your comparison of your own unease with Bob's Jewishness with some Jewish posters' uneasiness with his Christian phase - you've got to be kidding! I know you aren't, because anti-semites never are, but your argument is completely ridiculous. You live in a society where Christians are in a majority, where Christianity dominates culture. You're uneasy that a singer you seem to like is a Jew? So what? You can go listen to Christian rock, you aren't missing out on anything. It's completely different from being the member of a minority religion who likes a singer of the same faith, and then having to witness how he converts to the majority religion (which, moreover, has a long and inglorious history of hating and killing members of your own religion).
What Israel could have to do with all this, I have no idea. I know some German Jews who are royally pissed off by the fact that they are always asked to say something about Israeli politics. They think those questions are anti-semitic, and they are right, because it is presumed that they aren't really Germans, but Israelis, just because they're Jews.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 21:46 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri October 24th, 2008, 17:46 GMT
Posts: 5700
Location: On the road less traveled
Folk & Blues Fan wrote:
I'm anti-Christian

You could've stopped there and spared us your hate speech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 14th, 2009, 21:55 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun July 12th, 2009, 14:49 GMT
Posts: 2548
Location: A Fruit-Shaped Hole In Germany
What makes you read my post as a "hate speech"?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: danielon, pol2jem, rheinallee, Voice With Restraint


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group