President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 16, 2007 03:17 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 149 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face!

–Dead Kennedys, California Uber Alles

Tweet
Share

Comments

149 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

      1.   In his defense, I’d note that he’s downplaying some of his more vocal support for the GLBT community, but he has yet to completely repudiate everything he has said during the last 20 years on the subject…..unlike one of his spineless opponents for the GOP presidential candidate who shall remain nameless. 
          Warts and all, Giuliani remains the best of a crappy bunch of Republican candidates.  I’m still planning to vote for him in the caucuses, then for H.R.C. in the general. 

  4. Yeah, back to that.  Here is what happens when there is no tenure because it’s a private right wing college:

    http://www.rockymoun…

    To say nothing of this absurd conflation of the bible and economic theology, I’ll call it:

    “Armstrong won’t discuss Paquin’s case specifically, but he says free enterprise is fundamental to the school’s philosophy.

    “I don’t think there is another system that is more consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ,” Armstrong said.”

    Amazing.  Bill Armstrong, theoloically illerate ass.

    1. I have to pass an economics test to get into heaven?

      This is getting more and more complicated…

      Strangely, I don’t remember the Good Samaritan seeking pay from the stranger in exchange for his help–on the contrary, he provided first aid and then took him to an inn to recover and then paid the bill himself.  Apparently this would have gotten him fired from Colorado Christian University as a not sufficiently capitalistic response.

          1. I couldn’t agree with you more!!!!

            Christian conservatives hate it when Democrats use the Bible against them. 

            They start to complain that you have to use the Bible in “context”  and that you can’t use pull out one verse to use for an arguement.  I have even heard them say that you have to understand the “historical background” of biblical times. 

              1. That is my point.

                Conservatives want the bible used in context, meaning they don’t want the words twisted to mean something they really don’t.  How dare they!

                They say that you can’t pull one verse out and use it, you have to understand the entire book (because the bible was not originally broken up into chapters and verses).  How dare they!

                And they demand that you understand the historical framework in which the bible was written in. 

                Where do these conservatives get this stuff???

                1. Ever hear of dispensationalism?

                  You know the rapture.  Never even mentioned in the Bible. Rapture theology is a creation of a 19th century preacher named Darby.  He combined disparete passages from the messianic passages in the later old testemant books with bits of revelations to create a “new” theology.  This conglomeration of passages, all taken out of context, has become the theological basis of most conservative protestant churches in America.

                  Read in context the New testemant theological message is three fold 1. addherence to the law (religious law) is good if done to glorify G-d, but not good if done to glorify not yourself 2. but because no one can perfectly follow the law we must rely on G-d’s foregiveness 3. we best reflect our obedience to G-d not by ritual, but by treating our fellow man as G-d would treat them with compassion and love.

                  It always cracks me up when people preach the gospel of prosperity, when the one time Jesus really got upset is with the money lenders and peddlers that had turned religion into a business.

                  1. I have heard of Dispensationalism.  In fact, to better understand the subject I read Understanding Dispensationalists, by Vern Poythress.  It is a great book and you should read it when you get a chance. 

                    I think you will understand the flaws of Dispensationalism better after reading it.  That way you and I can stick it to the Christians better.

                    As for “the one time Jesus really got upset is with the money lenders and peddlers that had turned religion into a business.”  The conservaties may say that Jesus was not upset that they were doing business, but with the fact that they were cheating people.  We can counter that people in business always cheat!!

                    1. I see nothing about cheating, or that they all did.  That’s yet another clever distortion of the obvious.  They blasphemed “my father’s house” by selling offerings which probably expanded to “money changing.”  Probably skimming a percentage, just like all currency tranasctors.  Remember, only temple coinage was accepted in the temple. 

                    2. that you dismiss their argument about cheating being a distortion.  The verse says: “12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER’; but you are making it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”

                      I think that means that they were robbing people.  The translation I have says cheating, but I have a more liberal version. 

                    3. The word is “translation.”

                      Look, even pieces written in contemporary English, American idiom, can be held to several meanings.

                      Now, you take two foreign languages, Greek and Hebrew, and mix in a bit of Time, and what do you get?  Lots of errors.

                      Oddly, even though the KJV was written four hundred years closer to the time of Jesus, we have found many sources that are more original that what those men had to deal with. 

                      Then there are words and phrases that have no direct meaning, or alternative meanings in translated modern English.  The Hebrew words for spirit and breath are the same, I think it’s something like “roo-ach” as I recall.  Then we have Greek pneuma to put another layer on the cake.

                      It’s my opinion that when we scrutinize for detail in ancient and/or theological writings, the probability of getting it right diminishes by the degree of that effort.

                      There’s an old legend that a potential student came to, hmmmm, Hillel? and said, “I’ll become a student if you can tell me what the Torah is all about while I’m standing on one leg.”  Hillel (or ??) said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.  All the rest is commentary.”

                      Step back and get the meta-message. 

                    4. That the translation of the bible is getting better rwith each passing year as scholars and there is less room for error. 

                    5. …that is true.  It is the MOST conservative Christians that believe only the KJV is true and accurate.  The reality is exactly the opposite.

                      I think those folks get some kind of spiritual woodie hearing that old English, as if God used “thee” and “thou” and “goest”, etc.

                      I have a book packed away for the move that came out a couple of years ago.  It’s about the making of the KJV, the politics of it, the scholarship, etc.  Very interesting to a weird guy like me. 

                    6. What study do you have to back up your assertion that most conservative Christians that believe only the KJV is true and accurate?

                      Those devil loving Christian Republicans don’t know that you don’t need a study and can just make up facts to prove your point!

                    7. ….been observing matters like this most of my life, and especially the last 11 years.

                      Most evangelical Christians and “community” churches prefer the NIV. Personally, I think it’s a damned fine translation.  Most of the people who don’t like it do so because they don’t like evangelicals.  I can separate the two.

                      It’s the extremely consrvative “Bible” labeled, and sometimes Baptist, churches that will hew only to the KJV.  There used to be, maybe still is, a church listed in the Denver Yellow Pages that said right below their church name, “KJV Only.” 

                    8. Instead of studies and hard data, us liberals can just start saying “Don’t need a survey…been observing matters like this most of my life, and especially the last 11 years.”

                      Good call.  Less studies and more “been observing matters like this most of my life”…

                    9. …that generally mature women have breasts and mature men don’t. (Excepting the obese and their boy boobies.)

                      Do you disagree with my observations?

                      What do you think?

                      Where does your church and you fit in on these matters?

                      I know it’s real hard to address the issues – that you brought up – instead of attacking the messenger.

                    10. I am a died-in-the-wool liberal and so I dont go to any church.

                      Sure the Republicans can point to socialist liberals like Bert Lance (misuse of funds), Richard T. Hanna (koreagate), Ted Kennedy (dead girl), the DSCC (stealing credit info), Sandy “that’s not a pickle in my pocket” Berger and  Sowande Omokunde ( slashes tires so rpublicans can’t vote)

                      But if the do mention these dishonest Democrats we can call them radical R’s who like to break windshields. 

                      Well spoken word from the person with a Theology Degree!!

                    12. Please explain the differences, because it looks like the communism and socialism are very similiar to American liberalism.

                      Thanks for not answering, comrade – we don’t want the Republicans to know how similar liberalism is to communism and socialism.

                    14. I don’t disagree with you at all.  I hate reading studies and you are the perfect solution.  Instead of the studies and facts those dastardly Republicans use, we can use observations to win our arguments. 

                      Now Repugs might argue that there is scientific proof to back up your observation. 

                      My church says that God made them male and female, so He knows all about breasts. 

                      If you feel attacked I apologize, lets hug it out… 

            2. Like someone asking, “who is my neighbor” after Jesus had commanded to love your neighbor as yourself, and Jesus using the Parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate who was the neighbor to the Jew who was attacked on the road; a priest, a Levite or a Samaritan (who were enemies of the Jews).

              Nah.  I wouldn’t understand that—I’m a liberal Democrat.  I would see this lesson as not one of capitalism, but one of compassion and loving your enemies. 

              I could further speculate that had Jesus been teaching from a modern-day Republican perspective, he likely would have had the hero of the story give the assault victim a lecture on safety, explaining that he had brought it on himself (he really should have known better than to be there in the first place) and asked him why he wasn’t packing some heat to defend himself.

              2. I would say, where has it been mentioned today that Conservative Christians see this story as one of capitalism? 

                What I love about my fellow libs is the fact that they can speculate about what Jesus would have done in the modern day as a Republican.  But watch out because I know some conservatives who would say the Democrats perspective would be:

                he likely would have had the hero of the story go to the closest government, demand a tax be raised to help the needy victim, create an office to oversee the distribution of the money, tell the victim that nothing that he has ever done is his fault, and to insure that this type of thing never happens again propose a highly subsidized mass transit system to help the victim get around in the future. 

              3. so I’ll weigh in.  If registered at all, he’d be Unaffiliated.  He’d hang out with prostitutes and IRS agents and could be spotted at a number of gay pride parades.  As he gained a large following by preaching “judge not”, “love your neighbor” and other tolerant type stuff, he’d be labeled a false prophet by the Right and the Left would deny him for fear of looking “wacky”.  Eventually he’d be arrested and brought up on Federal charges of Conspiracy to Incite Civil Unrest (they couldn’t make actual “Incite” charges stick) and he’d get the chair because, well, it’s just so UNAmerican. Much later his words and teachings would be used by political and religious organizations to defend all manner of beliefs and actions. In the still of the night if you quiet your mind and listen with your heart, you can hear the voice of Jesus:

                “ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG”!!!!!!!!!!!

                1. Hmmmmm…..Jesus spoke Yiddish?  🙂

                  But in response, so you are pissed when people have wasted their time trying to point something out to you, and your’re pissed when they don’t want to waste their time on something like that web page.  Fifteen seconds scanning and I saw a number of fallacies.  Why bother?

                  1. “seconds scanning and I saw a number of fallacies.  Why bother?”

                    May understanding of this comment is that you think that there are fallacies.  If you think that there are fallicies then prove it.  You cannot just say that there are fallacies and not defend your point of view. 

                    If you think there are problems with Piper’s arguement then I would like to know what they are. 

                    1. ….I have better things to do, even if it is pointing out biblical inaccuracies, slanted exegesis, and logical fallacies. 

                      Since I chose to not get sucked into a dialogue, go ahead and gloat on winning over me. 

          3. homosexuals have it pretty rough. 
            People who go through tribulations and trials are more likely to see their own dependence and helplessness and are thus more disposed to being open to the Grace of God.

            The sanctimonious, self-sufficient don’t need any help, thank you very much.
            They don’t need community support. They sure don’t need God to save them.  They can take care of themselves. 

            As a “social conservative,” I am not supportive of Gay Marriage.  But I can see that Jesus loves homosexuals as much as He loves me.  And, with some regret, I recognize that they are often more receptive to blessings and inspiration from the spiritual realm than my hetero brothers. 

            The way I remember the Gospel stories, Jesus would hang out with all types, but it was the dispossessed who followed him around.  The poor, the rejected, the outcasts were soaking up all the blessings of being in His presence, while the rich and powerful denied that they might need any graces. 

            My church teaches that homosexual activity is a sin, and I follow that teaching.  But it also teaches that we are all sinners. 
            Maybe for those who are able to easily conceal their own sins, it makes them tend to forget their basic sinful human nature and dependence on God. 
            Maybe not being able to conceal one’s core nature as a sinner can be a blessing, if it helps us daily remember our total dependence on our Creator. 

            1. I’m a bit more ambiguous on the “sin” of homosexuality; after all, I eat pork and cheeseburgers, and those fall into the same category of Jewish law as homosexuality.

              But if you’re going to be a conservative Christian, the least you should be able to do is recognize that Jesus accepted the sinner and loved them despite their sins.

              1. in John 8:10-11, whe talking to the woman caught in adultry:

                “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
                “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

                He clearly told her to leave her life of sin, which is something we should all strive to do.

      2. out something. 

        Apparently I missed it in my catholic/christian education. Where in the new testament is “free market” a value taught by Christ?

        Wasn’t the loaves and fishes thing about SHARING…or was there a part in there about the original possessor of the food getting good money?  Since he was the only one with food, seems to me the free market says he could have charged a lot for what he had and then given Jesus a cut for “multiplying” them.  Isn’t that what the free market dictates?

        And when Jesus says, “Whatever you do to the least of me, you do to me…”  So when the free market locks poor people out of goods/housing, isn’t that the same as locking Jesus out?

        I would sure love to know how these wingers got from the New Testament to the free market!

        1. Fortunately you can find in First Hezekiah where Jesus reads the Communist Manifesto and thereby anoints socialism as the government of choice for the United States and the rest of the world.

          Now those conservatives bastards may try and say that passing laws to confiscate people’s wealth and giving their money to others is not “sharing” but redistribution of wealth by social engineering.

          They may also say that in your first example, it was not the Roman government who gave out the food (heck if that was the case some of them would still be waiting in line) but it was neighbor helping neighbor. 

          Finally, they might argue that your second example that where in the bible does Jesus preach that government is the answer to anything?  Including housing or food? 

                1. you have to watch though, those Repugs could come back and say that us libs have not been very tolerant and they could use your comment as proof. 

      1. Bill is an ass. While he evanglizes the word of God (in some Reaganonmics voodoo way), he makes money by exploiting the land with oil & gas development, instead of being the “steward of the earth” that Christ preached. He reminds of Jim Bakker

        1. You can easily see in the bible where Jesus would be a pro-abortion, pro-government (because the church won’t do it), pro-gay agenda, pro-class warfare, pro-socialist/communist, tree hugging kind of guy. 

          If Conservatives don’t see it then they are blind!

          1. I was egging you on Foggy. But I do believe Jesus preached to protect the envirnoment, feed and cloth the poor, help your neighbor when sick, and to not caste judgement so swiftly. His teachings of eqaulity, tolerance, forgiveness, peace and love, is what separates his word from the likes of most self-described “compassionate conservatives” who are quick to be judge and jury, go to war, create second class citizens out of hate and shun all who disagree with them

            If Conservatives don’t see it then they are blind!

            1. Unfortunately, those Christian conservatives think that local churches and individuals should be conservationists (not environmentalists), help the poor, help your neighbor and so on. 

              How dare they think that the government should not do this!  How dare they think that we should just trust them to help others!  How dare they think that it is not the government’s job to confiscate people’s money and redistribute it in exchange for citizen’s votes!  Oops. 

              The truth is that only Democrats are compassionate and Republicans, especially Christian conservative Republicans want to teach intolerance, kill everyone who does not agree with them (except fetuses) and want to hurt every black, gay and liberal they see. 

              You and I both know that Democrats have never been intolerant, are the first to forgive, and always seek equality, peace and love.

          2. Since you are the biblical scholar, why don’t you enlighten us with what Jesus said (actually Jesus and not some old testament passage or words from an apostle) said on abortion, gays, classism and tree hugging.

                1. I mean, Jesus did give them the power and authority to speak on His behalf.  It was their whole point of existence after all.  You can’t demand “quotes from Jesus” and then disregard his messengers…

                  1. But understood in context with the teachings of Jesus and in context with their own histories, yes.  That’s heresy to a Bible literalist, I know.  The Apostles IMHO were given a charge by Jesus, not an authority or the power to speak with his wisdom.  Paul had a few known biases and habits that color his writing, and in scholarly pursuit of the message of Jesus, I think you need to account for the fact that Man wrote the Bible, not God.  The literalists disagree; it’s a fundamental schism that goes to the core of Dominionist belief, and one that I don’t think either side is prepared to negotiate.

                    2. negates their teachings?  So style trumps the substance?  The apostles were called to represent the teachings and the spirit of Christ.  Yes, they weren’t Christ himself, but so what?  Can you really expect someone else to be just like Christ?  But if they received revelation from Christ as to what to teach, then for all intents and purposes they can from Christ himself

                    3. If I learn from a noted economics scholar, and at the end of my teaching he says “go out and teach other people as I have taught you,” do you expect me to say exactly what he said without injecting my own experiences into my teaching?

                      No man is devoid of their prejudices and upbringings; the Apostles were not, even in Biblical accounts, empty vessels open to the full teachings of the Christ.  Even the Gospels are subject to analysis, since they were codified long after Jesus’s death.

                      Nothing “negates” what’s written in the Bible, but unless you believe in the divine literal truth of the Bible, you have to look at it as you would any other historical writing.

                      Answer your question?

                  2. If you consider “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” the voice of Jesus not the voice of G-d (trinic theology is complicated).

                    I have always had trouble with Paul and I wonder what would have happened if the Jewish christians hadn’t been destroyed in the sack of jeruselam.  I think Paul’s position as an apostle is suspect, but I know that is very heretical.

                    I used to have a very low opinion of Paul, but I have warmed to him.  Afterall what if someone judged me by creatng a theology of my blog posts after all thats what his collection of letters amount to.  Not pretty.

                    I still think John of Patmos isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.

                    1. If someone has the title of “apostle”, sorry, they can speak for Jesus-that’s their calling.  That’s the whole point of revelation!  You can’t pick and chose what doctrine to agree with because the doctrine came from an apostle, and not Christ Himself.  So either an apostle’s teachings count, or it’s pointless to have this discussion.

                    2. There was no central authority, particularily after the destruction of jerusalem until constinatine and the council of nicea.  I think the constant reference to paul as an apostle is an attempt to elevate him to peter and james who had much clearer connections to jesus.  Someone can call themselves anything they like.  If people believe it fine. 

                      I have already said that I understand my view of Paul is heretical, but show me where in the bible Paul says his views are revealed divinely.  From my reading the only place he cites divine communication is on the road to damascas, everywhere else it is divine inspiration, which is fundamentaly not the same as revelation.

                      I didn’t argue that apostles don’t count, I argue that paul is not an apostle.

                    3. Now, Jesus says “go home and consider the error of your conservative ways!”  (I’ll do penance for this comment in private later today…)

                      Anointing the Apostles as the divine source of God’s truth because they’re called Apostles – especially considering that you’re reading them via third-hand transcription – is a bit much for my belief system.  Give each source the respect it is due, weigh it against those teachings most commonly ascribed to Jesus, and then run it past the Spirit that dwells within each of us -the heart of faith can be found there.

                    4. All I’m saying is that saying “prove your point with what Jesus said” isn’t comprehensive enough because you have to include the teachings of the apostles.  By your logic, we wouldn’t even be able to take what Jesus said at face value because nothing in the Bible was written by Jesus himself.  It strikes me as odd because under that logic, we shouldn’t be having this discussion at all (which wouldn’t bother me anyway…if Jesus were here and governing, I doubt that he would neatly fit into either ideology.  There are conservative points to his teachings and there are liberal points to his teaching.  To subscribe a God to a man made label seems pretty stupid to me…)

          4. says he is anti-goverment, anti-tax, and anti-poor?

            Show me where Jesus says in order to be a good follower of his, one must make sure everyone KNOWS you are a Christain and listens to you pray.  Show me where Jesus says to make zillions off the backs of poor people, employ slave labor, and then build huge building with giant pictures of the minsters inside.

            Jesus was a humble, loving man who despised his own church leaders discrimination against women, cripples and the poor who were not allowed to enter the temple.

            Over 500 hundred times Jesus mentions the poor and our obligation to them.

            Abortion is mentioned, maybe one.
            Homosexuality is mentioned in the old testament, along with the sins of eating pork, stoning others for adultery….and various other sins of the culture.

            Do the people on the right even read the new testament?
            I seriously doubt as so many are awaiting the “rapture”, a fairy tale made up by some 19th century cultist.

            How people treat the “least of us” in our culture speaks volumes.  And the people are represented by government and the treatment of the poor, the indigent, the sick, the elderly and the young under this administration is the shame of our times.

            1. Jesus specifically states that He is pro-government.  In fact he liked the Roman government so much He let them crucify Him.  (probably Republicans did it because they knew he was a weed smoking hippy liberal and they didn’t want it to get out.)

              “Over 500 hundred times Jesus mentions the poor and our obligation to them.”  Those crazy conservatives may point out that Jesus mentions exactly zero times that it was the government duty to take care of the poor. 

              I think that that Conservative Christians really don’t know about the New Testament.  They are so filled with hatred that they didn’t know that Jesus is a registered Democrat. 

              “…the sick, the elderly and the young under this administration is the shame of our times.”  You are so right, especially the fetuses that are aborted… oh, never mind. 

              Those heartless Republican bastards. 

              1. taking your approach to this then, why is it that conservative Christians are so quick to declare that it is the government’s responsibility to eliminate abortion?  Would this not be a more appropriate role of the church?  Since it is your apparent assertion that Jesus is anti-government (as has been noted, your sarcasm makes it rather difficult to discern your true positions, so I apologize if I am incorrect in my assumption), it would be folly for government to attempt to regulate abortion or anything else for that matter…

                1. think that those nasty Christians would say that abortion does not deal with one person, but with two completely different people and both deserve to be protected under the law.  What impudence!

                  As for Jesus being anti-government I am sure that they would say that He is neither pro-government or anti-government. 

                  After that they would likely go back to biting the heads off of puppies, or whatever it is that Republicans do when there aren’t any Blacks around to lynch or poor people to screw over.

                  1. 17Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
                      And they were amazed at him.

                    Sounds to me like Jesus is at least, fairly pro-government.  Further sounds to me like he is recommending that government and religion should not mix….

                    1. The Republicans would then say that this can be construed as an endorsement of the death penalty. 

                      In an effort to kill innocents like Leonard Peltier and  Mumia Abu-Jamal they could point to this verse and say: “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”  And if the government demands your life, then you have to give it to them.

                      Those Repugs are sneaky. 

              2. Sounds pretty pro government to me.

                You are correct that he never cites that the government is not responsible to its citizens, but that because he was under foriegn occupation. His view may have been different if their was legitimate leadership (think samuel to david and saul).

                In our society government is the people and it is tortured logic to say that we are privately generous, but publicly cruel.  In a democracy, if you advocate government neglect, how is that not neglecting the least amongst us.

                1. Those evil conservatives might suggest that Jesus, the Son of God; Jesus, part of the Trinity, could never be under foreign occupation.  They would further say that there is not authority except by God, meaning that every government is ordained by God.  You may even get some of those snarky Chrisitans to admit that even Bill Clinton’s presidency was ordained by God. 

                  Those Christians, who likey went to private school, might also let you know that the United States is a repbulic, not a democracy. 

                  1. is ordained by God?

                    Really?  Then why did we replace the devinely ordained Saddam Hussein?  The devinely ordained Adolph Hitler?  etc. etc….

                    (Why am I asking you….you are merely attempting to speak on behalf of “those evil conservatives”.)

                    1. They would say, look at the Old Testament.  God gave Pharaoh power and then allowed him to be destroyed by Moses…
                      They would say, look at the Old Testament.  God gave Pharaoh power and then allowed him to be destroyed by Moses…

                      They might also say, do you think that any government could gain power and rule if God didn’t allow it?

                      They might also point to Romans 13:1-7″

                      “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

                      But those conservatives are evil and speak with forked tongues, so you can never believe what they say. 

                    3. would just say that you lost your argument because you started attacking your opponent instead of the opposing point of view. 

                      they are mean I tell you. 

                    4. apparently cutting and pasting your arguments, I would retort that I am attacking a cutter and paster and not the person with whom I am having an argument, since I don’t know who that is………

                    5. “conservatives are evil and speak with forked tongues, so you can never believe what they say.”

                      Intentionally or otherwise.

                    8. every last word that come out of their evil mouths.  Unless they are busy eating animals that are on the endangered species list. 

              3. at sarcasm fails. 

                “Render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceaser’s and to God the things that are God’s.”  I think Jesus got…separation of church and state and the common good.

                And, while the government of Rome did crucify Jesus, for political reasons, it was with the full support of Jesus’ religious community.  Back then, like now, the zealots of Jesus’ religion were afraid of someone who thought differently.  How dare someone go against the authoritarian, paternalistic, church leaders who were in control, and wanted to keep control of what people said and did.  Jesus made people think; Jesus encouraged people to challenge the status quo.

                Really not much different now.  The people with all the power in the current government want to keep that power;  and like the Romans, they have gotten the religious leaders to go along with them.  So the current republican party condemns anyone who challenges the government, or who challenges the authoritarian positions of the Church leaders.

                Same scenario.  What’s even scarier how the right uses and distorts the words of a leader who believed that the people should have the right to decide what to believe, who can worship where….to keep their distortions in power.

                Use your weak sarcasm all you want.  Because you certainly cannot uses the words of Jesus to make the case for the authoritarian/corporate fascism of your party.  And, worse, so called Christians are buying it as if somehow thinking is evil. If Dobson,Falwell or Haggard or some other man spins it, then it must be so.  If Bush believes God is telling him to kill people then it must be so.

                Sad, really sad for all of us.

      2. Dems aren’t the party claiming to posess such superior Christian moral values.  That’s the R’s mantra – do in private what you condemn in public – some get caught though.

        1. Those Republicans and conservatives claim all the moral superiority.  The Democrats have never and would never claim moral superiority on anything.  Well, except when it comes to anything concerning government, but other than that, never.

      3. As Saul/ Paul traveled around Antioch and Thebes, founding churches, he preached community sharing, from each according to his abilities, etc.

        Christianity would have died but for Paul’s evangelization.
        .

    4. Love it.

      Great conversation, although with Foghorn’s propensity for continuous sarcasm it’s hard to follow his thoughts.

      My aforementioned son-in-law as I said, is a grad of CCU.  As you might imagine, pretty, no, VERY conservative in both faith and politics. (Although he is otherwise a great human being and man.) I asked him once, “What would Jesus tell us to do if he appeared today.”  With a straight face and True Belief he responded, “Create opportunity.”

      I’ve spent a lot of time in the Bible and other holy books, primary and secondary.  I have a Masters of Theological Studies, so such content is no stranger to me.  And for the life of me, I see nothing in the entire Bible concerning democracy or economic systems.  We have kings, we have a fashion of self-goverment in the post-exile period (but they wanted a king, OK), we have occupation by Rome and Babylon, but no mention of the vote.  Nor how we are to conduct commerce. 

      Jesus’ obtuse comments that we might winnow through for hints sound pretty damned socialistic.  In fact, the early Christians were communistic.

      It astounds me how the average conservative conflates religion, economic system, and political system into one totally unbiblical philosophy.

      If you want a hoot, check out http://godtube.com .

      1. way to stick it to those conservative Christian whacko’s!

        I would take your word over the thousands of conservative theologians who disagree with you any day.

  5. Among the school’s “strategic objectives,” adopted last year, is to “impact our culture in support of traditional family values, sanctity of life, compassion for the poor, biblical view of human nature, limited government, personal freedom, free markets, natural law, original intent of the Constitution and Western civilization.”

      — Wow, I have no problem with a Christian school, espousing its beliefs as a private school, but this mixing of religion and politics is ridiculous.  Save the political teaching for the poli sci majors.

      1. We get it.  Dems are just a bunch of commie, anti-religious, anti-family, anti- apple pie and Mom hypocrites and  the struggling but spunky, brave, put-upon right is under relentlessly unfair attack.  That about sum up your world view?

      2. Why don’t you conservatives just stay in your multi-million dollar mansions paid for with oil & gas development money, and away from indoctrinating colorado children with conflicting ideas of “Christian Values” and Voodoo Reaganomics; to say fend for yourself in this wicked world because all are evil, except for the exploitation of your fellow man through slave labor, outsourcing, and pillaging the land for profit.

    2. Such as math?  You know why these schools keep popping up?  It’s because of the perception that liberals indoctrinate everybody else in every avenue they can.  If reports weren’t coming up of teachers calling Bush Hitler and crap like that, Republicans wouldn’t feel that their only alternative is to go on the offense.  Why is it that these calls for seperation of things come up only when Republicans try to do them, but liberals are showered with praises?

        1. And can’t think of a specific instance.  But why is it that culturally liberal schools such as Evergreen state college are praised for being progressive, and these people are being hammered for being religous?

          1. “can’t think of a specific instance.”

            well then in that case can we please move along and discuss things that have, you know, actually happened in the real world and not just in David Horowitz’s wet dreams? Thanks

            1. So I can only discuss my views, you know, if you like them?  Because so of here are for, you know, open exchanges of ideas and thought, not shutting the other side up.

              But, you know, whatever gets you off.

              1. You were asked to cite specifics and couldn’t do it. All I asked was that if you are going to rant about something and you have no actual evidence that said something has occured or is occuring that we move onto an accusation you can actually prove. No strawmen allowed, sorry.

                The irony is of course then your response constructs an entire straw family and accuses me of only wanting you to discuss views I like and trying to shut you up.

                It’s really not asking too much that if someone wants to make an accusation or voice an opinion that they be able to substantiate the accusation or opinion.

                2. “well then in that case can we please move along and discuss things that have, you know, actually happened in the real world and not just in David Horowitz’s wet dreams? Thanks”

                  Mind telling me how that’s NOT telling me to not talk about that subject anymore? 

                  Also, how much of my original statement did you really read?  Didn’t I say that such schools are a reaction to conservatives perceptions of the way things are?  How the hell am I supposed to site a perception?  Was I making a SPECIFIC accusation?  No.  I brought up something, you didn’t like it, and seems to me like you’re trying to use a strawman to get me off the subject.

                  Odd that the person who asked me if I had a source left it at that when I said no.  But you decided to make a snarky deal out of it…

                  1. Yes, I read everything you said.

                    I don’t care if Aristotle responded or not. You have no idea if he didn’t respond because he agreed with you or because he agreed with me or because he’s away from his computer. So let’s not pretend like that is dispositive of anything.

                    If you want to debate we should debate but it’s not asking too much to ask everyone in a debate to come to the table with more than baseless accusations and strawmen arguments. If that’s all you’ve got then yes, I would prefer it if you moved on to something substantive.

            1. Either that or I’m not grasping what you’re saying (could very well be the case)  🙂

              I think they’re trying to justify their political beliefs through their religous beliefs.  But again, I don’t think I understand what you mean by your comment…

              1. One’s faith should inform one’s actions and decisions in the inescapble Real World of work and money.  No problem.

                However, when I see such a lack of biblical instruction in these matters beyong the Golden Rule and variants, I don’t understand how conservatives can read “free markets”, capitalism, or democracy into the good book.  The flow of information and instruction is going the wrong way, and then we are told that those matters are addressed in the Bible!  Wow.

                Came across a great quote today, which I will reformat because I can’t remember it verbatim.  It has a lot to do with discussions we’ve had here about authoritarianism.

                “Do you find truth from authority, or authority from truth?”

                1. Is that you can read into it and apply its teachings to every part of your life. 

                  Unfortunately, the worst thing about the Bible is that it can be used to say anything.

                  And if I were on my mission, that’s when I would jump over into a discussion about the Book of Mormon  🙂

                  But seriously, there is all sorts of things you can get from the Bible that apply to more in life than just the golden rule.

                  1. Absolutely…..it is the theological equivalent of constitutional law.  And everyone claims to know the original intent of the authors….

        1. How about more taxes and regulation equaling a thriving economy?

          But then again, “liberal” math is the best math, because no one will ever tell you when you’re wrong (don’t make someone feel bad!), and we’d all get the same grade!

          🙂

              1. from policies set up by Reagan and Bush, and then went on to raise taxes from those whom were not hurt.  The increased revenue allowed pay downs of federal debt.  With the fed out of the way competing for the same money as business and consumers, the cost of money declined a lot. When that happened, full employment came.

                That’s what Clinton did to facilitate growth.  Oh yea, and under Gore’s eye, reduced the size of the federal payroll by substantial margins.  Unlike Reagan or Bush 2.

  6. It’s called… Hands Across El Rio… and it begins next Saturday the 25th.

    Spanning 16 days, 1,250 miles, it’s a protest that involves Americans and Mexicans forming human chains across the international bridges, daily binational press conferences and the launch of a flotilla of kayaks, canoes and inner tubes that will paddle down the Rio Grande to each international bridge to join the protests in progress.

    Longtime border residents don’t want a fence built to keep out illegal immigrants…apparently they don’t feel threatened..and are saying they’ve never seen anything like this before in their lives….. and the consensus, from both sides of the border, is that this is a historic event. Mexicans and Americans are coming together to stop the fence from being built.

    The planning for said fence, btw, in the original plans, had the fence cutting right through the University of Texas at Brownsville campus, and gave Mexico a prized U.S. historic landmark.

    Heck of a job…..

  7. Where is drdobie when we need him?  Has anyone else noticed that drdobie disappeared from this blog when churchill was fired?  The hand of god?  the hand of hank brown?

      1. ….their styles are very different.  DD wrote lengthy items with common themes of boosterism. I don’t much recall him parroting the likes of Rush and Hannity. FH prefers snippets that frequently make no sense at all, and is a dictionary example of dittohead.

      2. coincides with the cancellation of The Half Hour Newshour, which was Fox’s dismal attempt to come up with a right wing answer to The Daily Show. Foghorn’s attempts at humor are every bit as sad as that defunct program was so my guess is that he’s one of the out-of-work writers.

        1. I always wanted to see that show, but never knew when it was on. I always thought Red eye was supposed to be the comedy show, but I never found it even marginally funny. Guess that explains why.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

59 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!