by Alan Colmes
I'm curious, would God really back out of our lives because there is a separation of church and state? If God is really all-powerful, do we have the power to expel him? I'm fairly certain that God doesn't need government to show how powerful he is.
The Bible Tells Me So
From: LandRk
Sent: Saturday, November 23,2002 8:12 PM
To: colmes
Subject: (no subject)
Colmes,
You support separation of Church & State etc.Well, fine continue on your liberal viewpoints! That just means that Christ'll be coming sooner. Refer to (Rev. 9:13-19) does that sound like what might be ready to take place in a chemical with Saddam in Iraq? So,then it will be down to the 4 Hoursemen-Plagues./And, then the Return of Christ after the 7th Trumpet!
It's an easy but intellectually dishonest game to pull a quote from the Bible and use it to justify your view on a particular topic or a particular religion. I've read both the Old and New Testaments, but I must confess that my classes did not do so in the original Aramaic. The Bible is full of inspirational readings and wonderful morality tales that can help one develop a code for living, but to try to take every word literally is a recipe for confusion. Since September 11, 2001, Islam-bashers have offered up violent passages from the Koran as if to prove that the religion it represents is itself violent. I don't recall the Islam-bashers quoting these passages from the Koran:
Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them. (4:90)
... whoever took a life, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind. (5:32)
And wouldn't it be nice to know what the Koran says about waging war on non-Muslim countries?
After the Prophet and his authorized Companion, no individual or group or state has the right to wage war against any non-Muslim country for the propagation of Islam. Now Jihad, or Qital to be more precise, can be done by an Islamic state only for purpose of ending oppression. (4:75)
Those who argue that the Koran is violent sometimes incorrectly imply that the Jewish/Christian Bible is less so. While they point out how the Koran promotes war, they omit some very unpleasant biblical passages:
... when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me. (Deut. 32:41)
And the Lord said, "Go through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have you pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women." (Ezek. 9:5)
Now I know why John Huston's 1966 movie, The Bible, wasn't a musical.
The Christian Right versus the Right Christians
We see time after time how the Bible is used to promote particular political and social agendas. The Reverend Al Sharpton crossed a picket line for the first time in his life on the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Antichoicers were protesting the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League [NARAL] dinner at the Omni Sheraton Hotel in Washington, but that wasn't going to stop Sharpton from addressing the crowd. When one young woman challenged him, as a minister, to boycott the dinner, he told her, "Young lady, it is time for the Christian right to meet the right Christians."
According to some conservatives, the Christian right is a myth created by liberals. In her book Slander, Ann Coulter considers the "Christian Right" an artificial creation of the liberal media and democratic politicians. She writes, "Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda. There is no bogeyman that strikes greater terror in the left than the apocryphal 'religious right.' The very phrase is a meaningless concept, an inverted construct of the left's own Marquis de Sade lifestyle."
Honestly, I can't imagine what the liberals' view of the religious right has to do with the Marquis de Sade, but it wasn't the media that created the religious right (although it's fashionable on the right to blame the "liberal media" for everything). Years of direct mail campaigns by and contributions to groups like the Moral Majority were not a fantasy of the left. While John E Kennedy said, "I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affairs," Ronald Reagan invited religious right groups like the Moral Majority (which some say is neither) to participate in the political process. Bush 41 declared to a conference of National Religious Broadcasters on January 27, 1992, "You cannot be America's president without a belief in God or a belief in prayer." Pandering to the religious right, Bush 43 proclaimed that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher, "because he changed my heart." Bush 43 wants to lower the wall between church and state separation with school vouchers and faith-based initiatives. It's as though Bush 43 were saying, to paraphrase Reagan's plea to Gorbachev, "Mr. Jefferson, tear down this wall!"
A Financial Times article, "Preaching to the Converted," quotes Karl Rove responding to a question about how big a role Christian communities play in politics: "Not big enough." The article points out, "Bush scooped up 82 percent of the conservative Christian vote in the 2000 elections. When Saxby Chambliss shocked the Democratic establishment in the South in November by taking the Georgia Senate seat for the Republicans, he owed a debt of thanks to charismatic Christian communities—74 percent of conservative Christians voted for the Republican candidate in Georgia." And you may not know that in the White House Office of Public Liaison there is a special assistant whose focus is Christian outreach.
Coulter declares, "Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand competitions." And she compares liberals who expose the Christian right to the agents of the Spanish Inquisition "rounding up right-wingers and putting them on trial for hate crimes."
Conservatives also like to argue that being gay is anti-Christian. They invoke their favorite biblical passages like, "Man shall not lay with his fellow man." Peter Gomes, Christian morals professor at Harvard, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times on August 17, 1992, called "Homophobic? Re-read your Bible." He points out that Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16 are part of what scholars refer to as the "holiness code" that bans homosexual acts. Gomes goes on to write, "But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field, and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery, and sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual cycle are similarly outlawed." So, let me put it to you this way: you're just as guilty of sin, whether you're engaging in gay sex, or wearing a cotton-poly blend. And while you're at it, get "My heart belongs to Cathy" off your chest.
Homosexuality doesn't come up in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Jesus wasn't that concerned about it. St. Paul's quotes in the Bible are often cited by those seeking to denounce homosexuality (Romans 1:26-2:1, I Corinthians 6:9-11, and I Timothy 1:10), but that's because, as Gomes explains, St. Paul was against all lust and sensuality, regardless of sexual orientation. Gomes adds some inspiring words that put the Bible in perspective for me and help me understand how the Good Book can be both properly used or disastrously misused:
The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960s. The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free.
And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all gays, includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion, and love—principles that invite gays to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well.
Jerry Falwell sounded the alarm as early as 1984. In a fund-raising letter he talked about "militant homosexuals pl
otting a dangerously different future for America." The solicitiation for funds went on to read, "It is clear they intend to recruit our children to their perverted life style ... and they do have their eyes on our children!" I've got really bad news for you if you're a concerned parent. Heterosexual adults also have their eyes on your children, and they're a much bigger threat, since there are so many of those heteros out there these days. In fact, heteros have their own bars, their own dating services, and are often quite open about their "relationships." Be careful.
It fascinates me when I hear that supposedly intelligent adults are worried that others in our society are going to be "recruited" or "turn gay." They must have some enticing brochures and training films. I understand that some gay groups offer free toasters or longdistance telephone service. But you have to promise to like the same sex for at least a year.
We now know a toy can be gay. Jerry Falwell expressed alarm about an allegedly gay Teletubby when he said this about Tinky Winky: "The character, whose voice is obviously that of a boy, has been found carrying a red purse in many episodes and has become a favorite character among gay groups worldwide." Falwell told Katie Couric on the Today show that his senior editor, not he, wrote that in the National Liberty Journal newspaper. But he didn't disabuse anyone of that sentiment; and the day before he was quoted by the Associated Press on the incident, saying, "As a Christian, I feel that role modeling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children." Falwell was really on a roll in early 1999. Just a month earlier, he declared that the Antichrist was a Jewish man who is currently alive. To soothe the situation, Falwell explained that the Antichrist is Jewish because Jesus was. I was a little concerned when I heard this, as I fit these qualifications; plus, like Jesus, I'm a liberal. And I did once receive a copy of this e-mail that was sent to warn Hannity about me:
From: Jasper
Sent: Thursday, October 03,2002 1:45 PM
To: Hannity
CC: Colmes
Subject: Alan
Hi Sean!
My wife and I were watching your show the other night and I was explaining to her how Napolian may have been the first antichrist. Hitler the 2nd, and Sadam or Bin Ladin is probably the third. She looked at me and said,"No, Alan is."
Jasper
Fortunately, this commotion died down, and I am now living a normal (relatively, for someone in my profession) life. I attend church regularly with my bride and, in spite of the characteristics laid out by Reverend Falwell, I have not been the victim of profiling.
In His Name
God created us in His image, not the other way around. Similarly, our forefathers had a vision for America, and rather than try to live up to that vision, conservatives often twist what they said and who they were to meet their own ideological needs, just as they've done with Jesus. The fire and brimstone tele-reverends spend more time telling us what they're against than preaching what they're for. Where is the message of tolerance and love that is truly what should be offered in God and Jesus' names?
Ray Dubuque, on his fabulous website liberalslikechrist.org, asks, "What are liberals, anyway?" Listed are a variety of historical figures, all of whom battled the conservatives of their day, from Gandhi, one of the great practitioners of forging change through nonviolence, to Abraham Lincoln (a liberal Republican), to the brave early feminist activists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who stood up at a time when women were supposed to sit in the corner and be quiet, to Jesus Himself.
Years ago there was a memorable ad campaign for Levy's Real Jewish Rye. The concept was, "You don't have to be Jewish to enjoy Levy's Real Jewish Rye," and a series of commercials created by Bill Bernbach showed a variety of ethnic groups enjoying what had previously been marketed as a New York Jewish product. Learning about the life of Jesus, it's obvious you don't have to be Christian to be Christlike. This makes a lot of sense since, after all, neither was He.
As you do unto the least of them you do unto me. (Matthew 25:45)
NINE
Conservatives Say the Darndest Things
Ever since James Watt had to resign as interior secretary in the • Reagan administration for bragging about a federal commission he appointed consisting of "a black, a woman . . . two Jews, and a cripple," the hits have just kept on coming. This was proof enough for me that conservatives say the darndest things.
Art Linkletter hit on a gold mine when he discovered that talking to children could elicit some astounding responses. The beauty of what he discovered lies in the innocence of childhood, and children's total lack of guile. I wish the same were true for adults. What we have here are statements and actions by fully grown human beings, some highly educated in both school and life. And these are Americans who have reached the highest rungs on the professional, social, and economic ladders. That is why it is actually adults who say the darndest things, especially conservative adults.
Presidents Say the Darndest Things
Time for another pop quiz:
"There ought to be limits to freedom," was a declaration of
1. Adolf Hiker
2. Benito Mussolini
3. Kris Kristofferson
4. George W. Bush
If you picked (1) or (2) you're wrong. Nice try with Kris Kristofferson, but you may be confusing, "There ought to be limits to freedom," with "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." George W. Bush was peeved that a website called gwbush.com had the nerve to appropriate his name. At a press conference in Austin on May 21, 2000, his peevishness got the best of him when he complained about this website. But free speech in America works beautifully. George W. Bush is president and gwbush.com is still in business.
All national candidates wax eloquent about how they're going to get along with the opposition party and represent all Americans. During his first trip to Washington as president-elect, Bush 43 met with the four top congressional leaders to talk about how they could work together. "I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
I know it's a joke. You know it's a joke. Not everyone who heard it thought it was a joke:
From: Laurie C
Sent: Thursday, November 29,2001 9:28 PM
To: colmes
Subject: Can't stand it. Can You????
For your information we do need a dictator to rule this country instead of that pervert we had for eight years.You just can't stand how well the President is doing can you? You know darn well that the economy was falling while Clinton was in the office. Laurie
Yes, Laurie, I remember going into the voting booth and seeing the choices as "pervert" or "dictator." Frankly, I'll take a pervert over a dictator any day. I mean, whom would you rather have rule the country, Saddam Hussein or Hugh Hefner?
Cabinet Secretaries Say the DarndestThings
Paul O'Neill was as popular as the nation's Treasury secretary as Yasser Arafat would be at a B'nai Brith meeting. Maybe it's because of some of his comments during his two-year tenure. Among the hit parade: "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear [energy] is really very good."
And if you set aside the concentration camps during World War II, Germany was really Fun City.
During a trip to Africa with the pop star Bono to underscore the plight of underdeveloped nations, then secretary O'Neill engendered some criticism for touring the globe while the economy at home wasn't doing well. His rejoinder? "If people don't like what I'm doing, I don't give a damn. I could be off sailing around on a yacht or driving around the country."
That's what I like so much about rich Republicans. They really have the common touch. During the fall of Enron, O'Neill showed equal sensitivity to those who lost their jobs, their livelihoods, and their 401k's: "Companies come and go. It's part of the genius of capitalism." That "genius" has made 401k's into 101k's.
In an inter
view with the Financial Times of London on May 22, 2001, O'Neill pined for an America devoid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: "Able-bodied adults should save enough on a regular basis so that they can provide for their own retirement and for that matter for their health and medical needs."
When asked about whether we should eliminate the corporate income tax, he replied, "Absolutely. In economic logic there is no reason to have this phony process as though somehow individual human beings didn't pay the taxes that are embedded in the prices of goods and services."
As for O'Neill, well, to quote the great John McLaughlin: "Bye-bye!"
Who says the Republicans care only about benefiting the rich?
Paul O'Neill was a Washington outsider, which is the way Bush 43 braggingly described himself during his campaign for the presidency. It was supposed to be a positive that he couldn't stand the Beltway mentality. The next thing you know, his administration is conducting secret meetings with Republican donors, lobbyists are writing legislation, and the NRA is bragging that they'll have more access to the White House than legal immigrants have to government services. Kane Robinson, first vice president of the NRA and Iowa State Republican chairman, told an NRA gathering in February 2000: "If we win we'll have a Supreme Court that will back us to the hilt. ... If we win, we'll have a president where we work out of their office—unbelievably friendly relations."
