“It’s Getting HOT”

At 02:49 PM 10/19/2005, XXXXXXXXX@aol.com wrote:

Be careful what you wish for! The point is that by supporting someone because he is some kind of Christian and ignore his (or her) qualifications, you don’t know what you may get. Many Catholics and other Christians take

Certainly evaluating someone as fit for office/position/promotion strictly on their publicly espousing or public demonstrations of supposed adherence to a religious/moral code is stupid.  Just as stupid as prohibiting the office/position/promotion for the same grounds.  That particular “qualification” should be just one facet in evaluating fitness for office.  Too many of those on the “right” overlook other failings because someone is supposedly “religious” just as there are people on the “left” that want to rule someone out of consideration because they teach a Sunday School class.  Both of those points of view are absurd when taken to the extreme.

 “Thou Shalt not Kill” quite literally. It is not up to us mortals to kill a person. When a killer dies of natural causes, God is certainly capable of punishing him, or don’t you believe that?

Of course I believe that God will render his judgement on what you do or don’t do in your life.  However, your argument shows your (and those that you describe) complete misreading of scripture.   To follow the non-logic of your argument would be to say that anarchy should reign because who are we to judge and punish the shop lifter/red light runner/bank robber because in the end God will be the one to judge.

See how your argument lacks any pretense at logic.  The Ten Commandments in addition to saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” also says “Thou Shalt not Steal” etc…  So the same logical argument MUST apply.

To follow your logic would mean that if my Son got in trouble at School either the school should punish him or I should but not both.  Sorry, it don’t work that way.  If he is talking in class the teacher may give him detention.  I am still free to punish him too.  Be it via grounding, forfeiture of allowance, or whatever punishment I deem appropriate as I too am “certainly capable of punishing him”.  He broke two different sets of rules with two different sets of consequences.  The Schools and mine.  For example his school does not want him to walk on the grass and if he does there is a punishment.  Fine.  I don’t care if he walks or runs on the grass as a specific transgression, however, I do have a rule that he must obey the schools rules.  He breaks those he has broken mine.  Different rules, different jurisdictions, different adjudications and different punishments.

Would God be prevented from punishing him since he was already tried, convicted and executed in his name? (John K, how would that go over in the REAL Supreme Court?) I thing God’s lawyers would argue that only He can punish one who breaks His law. Come to think of it, I am not sure there would be any lawyers in heaven?

Huh!  Since when has a US Court tried, convicted and executed anyone in the name of God?  The basis for our laws may have derived from a Judeo-Christian tradition but they are strictly Secular in their enforcement.  We as a society have determined acceptable forms of behavior and if you violate those secular laws the secular society punishes you in the name of society – not in the name of God.

Of course only God can punish those that break his laws, but society can also punish those that break the law of society.  Again: Different rules, different jurisdictions, different adjudications and different punishments.

Anyway, nut cases like Dobson have been around for a long time fighting things they don’t understand. In the fifties they argued against interracial marriage. They just dusted off the same lame arguments and are now using them to persecute another segment of society they don’t understand. I heard that thought! You thought: “Yes, and they were right then too!”

Of course nut cases have been around forever.  And both sides of almost all arguments have their fair share of nuts.  To take your argument the same “side” that made the argument in favor of Interracial Marriage discounted allowing Gay Marriage just like those in favor of Gay Marriage discounted unions like Polygamy just a few years ago but today we can now begin to see those same people trying to make the argument for Polygamy and using the “same lame arguments”, etc…  The problem with the logic of their position however is where does Society draw a line with what is deemed acceptable?  Or should that side just acknowledge that Society should not have any lines and that anarchy is essentially their preferred state?  See?  That side dusts off the “same lame arguments” to try and advance their causes too.

And don’t let me get started on a discussion or “Rational Thought” when it comes to issues of personal faith?

Discussion of “Rational Thought” and a discussion of “Faith” would of course not be compatible.  If they were compatible the Practice of Religious Faith would now be a “Sure Knowledge” capable of scientific and empirical explanation.  It is not.  That why it is called faith.

Or are you meaning by your statement that someone that has a personal religious faith is incapable of rational thought on things secular?  Surely you are not being intolerant towards those that have a different philosophy than yourself as so many people that preach the need for tolerance actually demonstrate their complete lack of tolerance just from a different perspective.

Besides which I think I have clearly shown that your jumping from point to point with no reflection on the opposite point of view as well as setting up straw men to try and advance your argument shows a clear lack of rational and logical thought.