Logged into Kos today and found this gem!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/2/16223/77531

Essentially, the Democrats with Pelosi in particular, proposed a minority bill of rights in the interests of making sure all Americans saw some representation in Congress. At the time, the GOP dismissed this, with words along the lines of win some elections and... well the rest is history. The GOP did what they wanted to do, denied Democrats any real voice in anything that actually mattered and just generally ran the show.

Here is the letter they recently drafted to propose the same thing for this session!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/gop-minority/

I'm sorry, but that's freaking hilarious! Seems that elections do happen to matter, now don't they?

(cue Sam Cedar's Baby Cry effect)

So, what should the Democrats do?

After the many conversations here about getting things done, the nature of power, win at all costs, etc... I find this scenario very interesting in that my sense of justice and fairness is offset by knowledge that the GOP is just not gonna return the favor in like kind.

We've seen it in action for the last few years. Bear in mind, a proposal like this is only good for the current session. Once a new congress is sworn in, all bets are off! No matter what the Democrats do today, the GOP is under no obligation to return the favor in like kind at some point in the future when they are once again in a position to do so.

Personally, I would support the idea, but get some serious stuff passed first. Then maybe agree to this, but only on the condition that the GOP own up to a fair list of transgressions during their single party rule. Let 'em sit and stew for a while and watch the matters of the people get legislated for a time.

Discuss?

The Democrats should treat the Republicans better than the Republicans treated them. The Dems should indeed give some minority voice to the Republicans. But they shouldn't give the Republicans so much power that they can derail anything the Democrats want to pass, either.

I've heard that the Dems will keep the Republican minority in line at least for the first 100 hours so that the Dems can pass their promised bills to start the session, then let the Republicans have more of a voice.

Andrew

>>"The Dems should indeed give some minority voice to the Republicans."

Andrew, you're the voice of reason. That's not what's happening in DC. The Dems are acting like slim balls right out of the gate, not like you're hoping they'd act. The difference in us is that I knew this would happen, so I'm paying no attention to it and I'm not the least bit bothered by it. It was what I expected.

It's good that Nancy got her face lift over with so she'd not be distracted by that and could get right to the sleeze.

I'm thinking they may have stretched the skin just a bit tight above the eyes. May have to give it a little slack. What do you think?

http://www.pbase.com/deanej/image/72512930

One more face-lift and she's gonna have a goatee.

Well, Deane, I sure don't expect the Dems to bend over and be nice guys and let the Republicans in the minority roll over them and block everything. All I expect is for the Dems to treat the Republicans better than Dems were treated by the Republicans, including in the legislative process and giving them some voice and options. That's all Nancy really promised. The Republicans certainly aren't going to be equal partners in the minority. And the Dems are probably not going to compromise much on their 100-hours promises. If the Republicans were allowed to block that stuff it wouldn't get close to being voted on in 100 hours.

Andrew

>>>"That's all Nancy really promised."

You're right she did. But in practice the Republicans were not even informed as to what was going on.

This is no surprise. It was expected. Those are the kind of people we're dealing with. Promise the American people one thing, but do the opposite and hope they don't realize it. It's best to just let them be. We'll win control one day and then we'll do it back to them.

Then, they'll win and do it to us. Sort of like the never ending tit-for-tat in the Middle East. It just happens to be the Dems turn to pull the trigger.

Agreed. Get the 100 hours done first. There are some things that need to be addressed and or fixed that have gone undone for quite a while.

That's reasonable.

After that, play ball and keep it balanced.


I would make them own up to their own behavior as a condition of signing. That way it's a matter of public record and can serve as a reminder that we need balance at all times, or we run the risk of doing more harm than good.

This has happened over the last few years. It is why the elections went the way they did. Coming to some acceptance of that would do the GOP a lot of good.

Not sure I agree it will always go back and forth with each side trying to screw the other. In the past, the Congress was far more civil than it is today. It seems to go in cycles between rampant, throat-cutting partisanship and a spirit of cooporation.

Whether the spirit of the Congress is mean or cooperative seems to depend in part on the leadership of both the minority and the majority parties. The minority must not try to undermine the majority at every step - otherwise the majority is not going to be very generous. I don't know whether the new leadership in the House is going to work together or be nasty again - we'll see.

Andrew

I think a lot of the throat-cutting partisan hacking right now is because the man upstairs is so polarizing and partisan. The old saying goes "shit rolls downhill" ... it definitely applies here IMO. We've had six years of many Republicans trying to beat the company drum even though the drum major is Captain Stupid, at the expense of partisanship because, well, they just had more people than the Democrats. Now the GOP is in the minority and backpedaling a bit.

If the Democrats were smart, they would play nice and work with the GOP. It would behoove them to get some good bipartisan legislation through, because if they play "neener neener" it could backfire.

Just like it did on the GOP.

I think you are spot on. A good president would be able to help the congress to work properly.

Ideally our next president will have this quality.

Agreed on the tit for tat too. So, just do the 100 hours, then play fair ball.

(I just really want some admission --it's a pipe dream to think we will see it from this GOP crowd.)

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't think it really matters whose in charge or control.

They (both the Republicans and the Democrats) are going to do what ever they can that will put the most money in their pockets.

There should be no such thing as a career politician. Two terms, then back to public life so you will have to live under the mess you created or made better as the case may be.

The way it is now, a politician can get elected, do what ever they want (including getting someone pregnant and drowning her) and keep pulling the proverbial wool over their constituents eyes and getting re-elected over and over and over.

Marion Berry was mentioned in another thread. How stupid can the people in DC be? Get busted for drugs, go to jail, get out, and get re-elected???

I saw a bumper sticker a few years back that I thought was pretty good. It said "Never Re-elect ANYONE".

Good advice IMHO.

"How stupid can the people in DC be?"

Not that stupid. They elected someone that would vote their way on issues vital to them.

"I don't think it really matters whose in charge or control."

it does when it comes to the makeup of the supreme court. and that's a biggie. we could soon find us rowing or wading out of a placentic mess if a justice dies in the next 2 years.

"They elected someone that would vote their way on issues vital to them."

How convenient.

You forgot one thing. Marion Barry was a crook.

Don't be ham-fisted with Mr. Nixon if YOU'RE going to play footsies with convicted felons.

Herbert M.

Skeptical, I guess I shouldn't have put the space between the first part and the second part. Sorry for the confusion.

You’re correct. It does matter who is in control, what I was referring to was that no matter who is in control they are going to do whatever they can to line their own pockets with cash.

I don't remember if it was W.C Fields or someone else but whoever said "There is no such thing as an honest politician" was correct then and is still correct today.

I stick by my earlier statement; there should be no such thing as a career politician. Doesn’t matter the position, President to City Council members, 2 terms then out you go.

As far as the Supreme Court, if the Judges will do their job as it is supposed to be done, interpret the Constitution as it was written, and not legislate from the bench we'll all be better off.

Skybill, the Constitution as written is a framework, not a complete system of government. When the first Congress convened and Washington took office, they found many things unclear or ambiguous in the Constitution. They basically had to make it up as they went along, adhering to the framework of the Constitution as best they could. The Supreme Court (not mentioned in the Constitution - created by Congress) did the same thing. Eventually both set precedents for future decisions. It is these precedents (set by conservatives and liberals alike) as much as the Constitution itself that form our basis of government.

So when I hear people talk about "interpret the Constitution as it was written," I kind of roll my eyes, because from Day One of our government, all branches of government have based their operation on precedent as much as on the words in the document itself. If you don't like "legislating from the bench" then you'd be discarding pretty much the entire present Supreme Court.

Andrew

"Legislating from the bench"
and
"Judicial activism"

is what happens when a judge makes a decision you don't agree with.

Yep!

That just about nails it.

Andrew, you may be right, but it's not good for us. Shouldn't our laws be enacted by our elected representatives, not by someone sitting on a lifetime appointment to the bench.

Hey, our system isn't perfect, far from it. But basing judicial decisions on precedent provides some stability. Can you imagine the chaos if a new party took over and completely changed all the laws the other direction when they took office? That could happen if there wasn't a Supreme Court interpretting the laws.

Amus indeed nailed it: people who complain about "legislating from the bench" are merely complaining about decisions that don't go their way. The Supreme Court's 2000 decision to award the Presidential Election to George W. Bush was highly unusual and most certainly there's nothing in the Constitution giving them the power they assumed to make that one decision. (On the contrary, many would argue that the Court had no jurisdiction over a state election in Florida.) But you didn't hear a lot of Republicans complaining about "legislating from the bench," did you?

Side note: perhaps we should change the length of appointment to the Court to 20 years instead of Life. That would merely take a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, since there is very little about the judicial branch (nothing about the Supreme Court) in the Constitution.

Andrew

Actually it's more complex than that.

Where matters of fact are clear, law is easily done. Our representatives take care of this.

Where matters of fact are not clear, law may well be unjust. This is a big part of what the courts resolve for us. In this task, they apply the constitution and the body of existing case law to new decisions.

Legislators can and do make flawed laws. The people may even want them, but the laws are flawed anyway!

This is totally good for us, in that we have a high degree of assurance that our laws will reinforce our constitution without overly diminishing our personal freedom.

The only real reason for law is to address property and matters of harm. The rest of it really should not be that highly regulated. The courts act like a valve for this in that it remains difficult to carve out new areas of law without justification and they limit the body of existing laws, looking for consistancy and relevancy.

At the end of the day, we want as few laws as is possible. That is a core reality of a free society.

The balance between the two also prevent tyranny from the majority as well. A lot of people might want a law, for whatever reason. However said law might not be just, even though the majority might be happy with it.

Those kinds of laws get written by our representative system all the time. The courts toss them all the time, with the result largely being a set of solid laws that all can live with.

This really is good for us --though we don't like it, which is what Amus was getting at.

I support 20 year terms for the Supreme Court. One term only and that's it.

BTW: This is also why the majority on any issue often has a beef with the ACLU.

Missing and Andrew,

I think that a term limit on the Supreme Court could be a good thing. What the length should be, I don't know. 20 years seems awfully long. Maybe 12 or 16 years. 16 years would mean they would have at minimum 2 President's terms. Agreed, 1 term and out you go!

I also agree with your statement "At the end of the day, we want as few laws as is possible. That is a core reality of a free society."

I want the government in my life as little as possible. Their job should be to only provide essential services; the military, police and fire, provide highways and other infrastructure, etc.

Their job should not be to provide me with insurance, food stamps, subsidized mortgage interest rates and all the other socialist programs that our government provides, lest anyone think I'm picking on any particular political persuasion, I feel that both the democrats and republicans are good for hand outs.

All that being said, the reason they have to pass laws to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle, wear your seat belt when you drive a car, put your child in a car seat, etc, boils down to the fact that too many people don't have the smarts or common sense to do it on their own.

As hard as they try, they will never be able to legislate common sense!

Our country and our government have lots of problems, but it's still the BEST there is! (Please don't take that as statement that I think anyone on this board would say otherwise)

Well, Skybill, regarding your statement, "Their job should not be to provide me with insurance, food stamps, subsidized mortgage interest rates and all the other socialist programs that our government provides, lest anyone think I'm picking on any particular political persuasion, I feel that both the democrats and republicans are good for hand outs."

I'd say that America faced this choice after the onset of the Great Depression and chose to adopt some socialized programs. The majority of Americans think that poor children shouldn't go hungry just because their parents screwed up; the elderly should not suffer just because of some catastrophe or because their company went bankrupt and took its pension plan with it, etc. That's why we have programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

I recall a quote from Lincoln (wish I could find it) where he said, in effect, that the role of the government was to do what the people of the land cannot themselves do otherwise. That would mean anything from building roads and defending the nation to providing affordable (not necessarily "free") healthcare for everyone.

What I do find amazing is that more self-labeled Christians do not have feeding the poor and tending to the sick as their top priorities given that Jesus talked about these things above all others. Instead, banning gay marriage, banning abortion, and trying to get bigger and bigger tax cuts always seem to be at the top of their agenda. Wouldn't you think socialized health care would be their #1 priority, based on the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Andrew

Andrew, Yes Jesus would help the poor and sick and we should too. The difference is that it is really everybody's responsibility to care for others and not the governments.

Homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. Read Leviticus 18:22.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple whether the Bible says it is wrong or not, which it does, it's still murder. It's a baby, not and embryo, fetus, or any other name that they want to call it to draw attention from what it really is. A baby. From the first time the cells split, it's a baby. It has to be. It can't be anything else.

Sorry for the rant. Touchy subject and maybe should be put into a separate thread. I used to be pro choice. Before we had kids and I realized what an abortion really was.

IMHO, either we have some regulation on business, in the form of competition to keep necessary services affordable, or we have government provide said services.

Doing anything else keeps prices as high as people can bear.

The current climate seems to do both things wrong a lot of the time. People don't want government intervention, but they also don't allow regulation on the private providers to keep them honest and hard working...


Gonna stay off the others for now. Rough topics for a while here. Maybe some time in the future!

Rant perfectly ok!

Yeah, I think I'll head over to the humor thread for some lighter reading!

But Skybill, we ARE the government. We fund it.

Why do you think all those self-righteous fundamentalists talk so much more about abortion and banning gay marriage when Jesus talked so much about helping the sick and the poor? Does that mean that gay marriage and abortion are far more important than helping the sick and poor? How did they glean that from the Bible?

Andrew

Andrew, I think that the reason some feel that Christians and other religious groups are seen as talking so much more about abortion and gay marriage is that's what the media reports on. Feeding the poor and helping the sick doesn't get rating points. With few exceptions only things that generate ratings points make the news.

In the 10 years I have been attending the Church that I go to here in Vancouver, I can count on 1 hand the number of times those issues were even mentioned and there was never a sermon preached on either.

On the other hand, we (our Church) have missionaries in at least a dozen foreign countries, have built a school in Babati, Tanzania, and have 4 missionaries from our Church there full time. http://www.arushatimes.co.tz/2005/15/local_news_9.htm

We have a "store" that is open 2 days a week where people in need can come and get clothes and canned goods for free. We have prison outreach and do many community programs each year for kids to come to. For example we have a Harvest Party on Halloween that gives kids a safe place to come and get some candy too! Same kind of thing at Easter with the Easter egg hunt.

Aside from the occasional "feel good" story that the media reports on this kind of stuff doesn't get much air time.

Another reason the abortion issue and gay marriage issue get so much more air time is that there are liberal social engineering groups that make sure those issues stay in the forefront so they can get their funding from various groups (not from the government per se).

We could put an end to the discussion on both issues. Put it up for a vote on the next national election. I don’t think that will ever happen. I’m pretty sure I know what the outcome of that would be and the supporters of both those issues do too. There are too many people making too much money for them to ever put those issues to rest.

That’s my humble opinion. Take it for what its worth! (Remember, that I’m very cynical).

"Why do you think all those self-righteous fundamentalists talk so much more about abortion and banning gay marriage when Jesus talked so much about helping the sick and the poor?"

Jesus was all about defending the innocent. It doesn't get any more innocent than an pre-born baby.

It would be well for him if a great stone was put round his neck and he was dropped into the sea, before he made trouble for any of these little ones. Luke 17:2

Herb

So Herb, you're saying that as far as Jesus's priorities, banning gay marriage is way way higher than feeding the poor and tending to the sick? Would seem so to me given that I don't see many bumperstickers on SUVs about "End Poverty Today" or "Universal Health Care for Everyone" - instead I see all these "One Man, One Woman" and abortion stickers. That leads me to believe that feeding the poor/caring for the sick are much lower priorities than gay marriage and abortion. Again, I ask, where did you glean these priorities from the Bible?

Andrew

"...you're saying that as far as Jesus's priorities, banning gay marriage is way way higher than feeding the poor and tending to the sick?"

Don't lie about what I say.

Sin is sin, whether man likes it or not. If you want to use YOUR yardstick instead of God's, expect to be disappointed.

Herb

What are you saying Herb?

If sin is sin, then we are all sinners all the time.

And that's not gonna change, so then we are left with the impact of the sinning.

Since god takes no position, this is for us to sort out don't 'ya think? If he took a position, then sin would not be sin.

So how does that all work?

Luke 17:2 is about the persecution of God's Children not the unborn.

Herb writes:
Sin is sin, whether man likes it or not. If you want to use YOUR yardstick instead of God's, expect to be disappointed.

But that's what I'm asking: how do you know what God's "yardstick" is? How did you find the one that says banning gay marriage is soooo much more important to you than feeding the poor or caring for the sick? Is there anything in scripture that says, in effect, "Yes, feeding the poor is important, but preventing two men from laying together is really, really, really bad and must be prevented above all else!" That's what I'm trying to understand, since that's the impression I get from all the bumperstickers.

Andrew

"Luke 17:2 is about the persecution of God's Children not the unborn."

Chris, if you don't consider piercing a baby's skull with scissors to be the persecution of God's most innocent children, then that's your deal.

How Christians can turn a blind eye to abortion is breathtaking. Literally.

Herb

How some Christians can turn a blind eye to poverty and suffering after Jesus preached so much about them (and not so much about the gay marriage or abortion things) is really breathtaking. And you wonder why some people don't want to become Christians?

Andrew

It all boils down to interpretation, once again.

And that isn't God Himself, or Jesus Christ and his actions and words, speaking. That is the INTERPRETATION of God and Jesus and His words and actions speaking. It's man taking that and making it fit his PERSONAL agenda.

Look.

Jesus forgave the woman at the well, who was adulterous.

And he was very hard on the religious men of his time, the Pharisees, who helped condemn him to death.

But he also told the people to 'go and sin no more.'

To repackage sin as acceptable behaviour also goes counter to what Jesus taught.

And as for placing a higher priority on one behaviour versus another, that's your thought, not mine.

I never said one of Jesus' teachings was necessarily more crucial than another.

However, to live in this post-modern civilization and not draw a line about behaviour that is contrary to the Bible is a sin of omission.

As an example, just as people are more concerned about getting sun burned in Hawaii, those at the North Pole have less of a concern about that particular issue. What Christians focus on can indeed depend on what they witness and to whom they witness.

Similarly, alcoholism may not be as big a problem in certain areas, but adultery may be. If that's the case, one would perhaps not stress one issue as much as another.

Our culture is going the way of Rome and Greece. Hence, the decay of our society has to address homosexuality, more than in some other cultures.

Herb

Look.

You have such a distinct style. It's very complex and full of subtlties. I like it. Very strong.

I wish I knew what it all meant - but it's very colorful and wide open to some pretty interesting-to-me interpretations.

Do you play poker?

Herb writes:
Jesus forgave the woman at the well, who was adulterous.

But then forever after I presume he kept remarking about her adultery, right, the way you keep bringing up Clinton's little affair with Monica? Or perhaps, if you wished to emulate Jesus, you would forgive Clinton and move on, never bringing up this forgiven sin again?

As an example, just as people are more concerned about getting sun burned in Hawaii, those at the North Pole have less of a concern about that particular issue. What Christians focus on can indeed depend on what they witness and to whom they witness.

OK, I'm trying to follow your analogy here. The people at the North Pole not concerned about being sunburned are like the Fundamentalist Christians who think poverty, hunger, and human suffering aren't pressing issues because of the environment in which they live? But they see gay marriage as being more urgent an issue to deal with, because they see the gayness all over the place. Is that what you're saying?

What Christians focus on can indeed depend on what they witness and to whom they witness.

As a non-Christian, I hate to be naive, but for anyone who studies the Bible, wouldn't the words of Jesus himself be considered the most important priorities for what is important for a Christian's life? As I've said, Jesus didn't talk a whole lot about homosexuality but he talked lots about feeding the poor, tending to the sick, and having trouble getting into heaven if you die a wealthy person (see camel, eye of the needle). Why then do you suppose so many wealthy fundamentalists aren't giving every spare dime they have to the poor?

Chris Taylor can tell you better than I can by the way that human poverty and child hunger are catastrophic problems in the world today, with tens of thousands of children dying around the world each day due to hunger. How can good Christians shrug that off and then go protest about gay marriage? Again, I just don't get it.

Andrew

"Our culture is going the way of Rome and Greece. Hence, the decay of our society has to address homosexuality, more than in some other cultures."

This is fucked up. Sorry, but it just is.

Until we understand the matter of choice, a statement like this does more harm than good.

"Do you play poker?"

Yes, as a matter of fact. But not often.

Herb

You know what else makes us like the ancient Romans? We're the only ones to place our hand over our heart during the pledge of alliegence.

Look at what happend to them!

Everything I ever learned I learned from Eddie Izzard. Who is not gay.

I'll bet you would be a great player Herb!

Aw, shucks.

You're too kind.

Herb

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality. So we really have no true compass as far as his words are concerned on that issue.

The bible has 2000-3000 verses concerning poverty. Seems like a pretty big issue to me. Plus when the Christian church was formed in the first century one of their tenants was social justice.

Herb- I love the woman at the well story you brought up. During Jesus' day women and children had few rights and he gave both dignity and respect. Read the words of Joyce Hollyday “Throughout his life Jesus' response to women was one of compassion and inclusion, a rare posture in his day. He was not afraid to be seen in public with the most marginalized 'sinners' - prostitutes, adulteresses, and a woman who had been 'unclean' for many years with a flow of blood. He revealed himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman at the well, invited Mary of Bethany to sit with him and learn, welcomed Mary Magdalene into his circle of friends, and received an anointing of rich ointment before his death, rebuking his disciples for criticizing the woman who lavished such attention on him.”

I have said this before Herb so here it is again: If you really want things to get better in our society and throughout the world, all violence towards women and children must end. Only then will you see societies live the way they were intended.

"Jesus said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality."

Jesus never said anything about the Trinity, either.

Jesus taught from the Old Testament and that includes Leviticus.

In addition, Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, is clear about the sin of homosexuality.

One needn't give sin a pass. Endorsement is not what is needed. Speaking the truth in love is.

"...all violence towards women and children must end."

You don't read very well, for if you're including the killing of the unborn, we're on the same page.

Killing, even murder, is forgivable by God. However, it's not up to man to defend the shedding of innocent blood in ANY form.

Herb

If murder is forgivable by God, does that not open the door for a pro-choice position, particularly since the actual state of god is not a known sure thing?

Not attacking your faith here, you know my stand on that. (we are all entitled to our freedom in this) But it's a valid question.

Also the matter of choice puts homosexuality in the same catagory. We really have not reached any solid truth on the matter of choice.

This then, puts that matter as one of faith, until the facts are in. If one's faith puts the matter of choice as being the right one... Does that also make devaluing them a sin as well?

Again, I know your faith in particular does not take either of these positions.

However, until such time as you can demonstrate your faith, in particular, as being the one true one, should you not respect others as you would care to be respected in like kind? Isn't some benefit of the doubt not only justified, but warranted all things being considered?

From where I stand, I see both you and Chris having strong faith. And again, that's good. Frankly, my own beliefs are in the same class, being that none of us can claim any measure of absolute truth. It's all good, recommended and encouraged, as far as I'm concerned.

Therefore, none of us has ownership of the matter as a whole, thus placing it in a most arbitrary position. This makes me wonder just where you get your justification for taking positions where you may well be doing significant harm. (to gay people)

My personal position of tolerance defaults to not doing harm without justification. I can't find any that I consider defensible.

On the matter of abortion, I actually seriously side with you on late term ones. That's ugly, IMHO the person to be born is formed enough to be harmed. (Said harm based on awareness and the self being viable) Very early ones, and contraception however are a no brainer. There is no self yet, therefore no harm.

There exists potential for middle ground here, if both sides would relax their extreme positions...

I'm positive there is the same potential for gay issues as well.

KSKD- Well put. I had written out an entire response to Herb but I will forgo that for now because you hit it on the head for me.

I would only caution Herb when using scripture that like the pastors at my church do so well is give the historical setting of the passage, to whom the scripture is intended and a little bit about the author. It's easy to quote scripture and twist it anyway we wish, but knowing more about the words written gives the passage that much more power and substance.

Chris -- excellent point. It makes me really hot under the collar when people take God's words and make them fit their own earthly opinions. Good measured response.

Guys.

If you haven't gotten it by now, here's the deal. We're told to hate the sin and love the sinner.

Not dismiss the sin.

Not pretend that sin isn't sin.

But HATE the sin. LOVE the sinner.

That's the deal.

Herbert Milhous

We're also told to get rid of the friggin' 2-x-4 in our own eye, before we pay attention to the speck in our neighbor's eye.

It would be more effective to go to people who are sinning and say, "A sin that I was committing that was causing me pain was (fill in the blank). I was doing (x, y and z) that was messing up my life. Do you have anything like that in your life?"

Imagine how much more honest we would be if we started by hating the sin in our own lives first.

I lust after women other than my wife. I find it too easy to ignore my kid when he's a pain instead of embracing the short time he'll live in my house. Sometimes, it's just easier to pretend something is happening that's not, and I live in fantasy land, and sometimes it affects those around me. Sometimes, I get angry about situations I'm in instead of dealing with them. Hey, God, I'm trying here, but in your infinite wisdom, you gave me enough of my own wisdom to know I'm screwing up, but not enough to be perfect.

...so that means we love gay people as we would any other sinner right Herb?

If Jesus told us to love your neighbor as much and in the same way you love yourself ...

And if we're all sinners ...

Then there's no difference between gay people and straight people in God's eyes.

Feel free to substitute any other crap that humans get caught up on instead of "gay" and "straight."

IMHO, that makes for a very solid justification of both tolerance and our free society in general.

If we are missing either of these two, or if they are sharply diminished, then it becomes not possible for people to exist in a just way.

"...so that means we love gay people as we would any other sinner right Herb?"

Absolutely.

And just like not enabling other sinners, like an alcoholic, to insist that they're making a 'lifestyle choice,' you speak the truth in love. While God loves all sinners the way we are, God also loves us too much to allow us to wantonly disobey His commands.

Herb

But with free will, God does allow us to wantonly disobey His commands.

That doesn't mean he doesn't get angry, but he leaves it up to us to figure out we need to choose to come to him.

Sutton: Bingo. It gets down to choices.

Look who Jesus hung with. Not the folks from the burbs, although he loved them as much as anyone, but he hung with the unlovable, the meek, the stinky, the leaper, the prostitute (woman by the well)...which by the way she was in essence the first evangelist!!

When I try to speak the truth in love the last thing I start with is scripture.

Sutton and Chris-

Touche'.

My point was to be wary of dismissing behaviour addressed as sin in the Bible as not being a problem.

I completely and absolutely agree with your recent posts.

Herb

Cyber Hug!

"Look who Jesus hung with . . . the leaper"

As in ten lords a-leaping, or a leper?

LOL....I have been caught by the cyber police again. Well give me the ticket and I will try and do better next time....offeesir (slurred speech)

I thought it was the other way around ... that one verse of the old Christmas song went, "nine lepers lepping..."