From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:32:26 EST
I must have written with less clarity than usual (not unheard of) as Rich
replied (in part):
"It is interesting to see a Christian who denies the mechanics of the
real world."
Hmm. I was posing a question, that's all.
" How can you can question the morality of a Christian who puts his money
where his heart is?"
Well, I guess that questioning that morality is within the bounds of
civil discussion. As I said, I have not taken a position on it, one way
or the other.
" And to juxtapose a gay bishop with the capital punishment of gays is
tantamount to saying George Bush drags black people behind pickup trucks,
an analogy drawn by the NAACP. Both are sensationalist analogies,
hopelessly overdrawn to make the intended effect."
I seem to have drawn blood here -- I did not mean to do so. Admanson's
views are certainly part of the public record and discussion. The fact
that I choose Bishop Robinson's case to illustrate the question and
Admanson's horrific views are accidentally linked. Perhaps I could make
the case better by referring to Adolph Coors, head of the Coors Brewing
company, who spends his wealth on other issues dear to the fundamentalist
mind. Or perhaps someone else would be a better example.
I am still struggling with the format of the proper question here. And
Admanson may well not be the type of example I should use. Or Coors
either, for that reason.
Bill Gates and Ted Turner have given vast sums to promote causes they
deeply believe in. AFAIK, such funding has been for direct benefits to
worthy people and not for lobbying, or for the creation of yet another
organization such as "Citizens for the support of (cause)" which is
designed to look as if it is driven by many people rather than one
person. I guess that is the morality I am questioning.
"Abraham Foxman calls what you are doing "blaming the victim." And here
below is one of the most powerful people in the world apologizing for
doing what you say this Ahmanson does that is immoral. Interesting that
very few of his co-religioists agree with him and notice he's apologizing
for what he's actually done, not for what he says should not be done:"
I really don't follow your train of thought here. The info on George
Soros was interesting; I did not know of him.
"Is that the solution you suggest? That Ahmanson give up his money,
close his mouth?"
I did not suggest any "solution," but only posed a question (apparently
with not perfect clarity).
"The Noahide Laws were passed into law in the US in 1991. You must be
absolutely horrified!"
Sorry. I don't understand what you mean.
"A religious bloc vote by a religious community propelled Hilary
Clinton to the Senate when New Square NY voted 1400 to 12 after Hilary's
visit to the rabbi. "
And your point is? That 1388 votes were enough to gain her victory?
"The word is theocracy."
That's not the word I was seeking, although it does fit. A guy by the
name of Rushdoony (sp?) coined it about 20 years ago.
"To suggest that Christians not use wealth to protect their "altars" is
naive.""
I did not suggest this. I did suggest that there were both moral and
immoral ways to use one's wealth.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:34:31 EST