The Republican party, GOP, tea baggers, or whatever brand-name they want to be called, are dangerous to the very core of American values. That much has been figured out by pretty much anybody who isn't affiliated with them, which is an increasing number, by the way. The latest evidence of the collective far right's attack on the entire country comes straight from the mouth of David Barton.
The separation of church and state is an extremely important element of American life that assures every single person in this country has a secular government. A secular government isn't a biased government. It cannot treat you according to Biblical scripture, and it can't govern based on the Quran. Regardless of what religion is "the majority" in this nation, the government is to have absolutely no affiliation on a level that affects the lives of its people.
It seems that republican talking heads and puppet masters have forgotten that important part of the fundamentals of the United States while completely spitting in the faces of the founding fathers. David Barton revealed that the Christian-right essentially want to throw away the United States Constitution.
The video at the bottom of this post shows Barton explaining that Biblical law overrides the law of man and the law of the United States. He declares that the United States Supreme Court should essentially cower to the rules of the Bible.
This Texas bigot is essentially thumping on his Bible like a gorilla pounds on its chest, rabidly arguing against equality for homosexual Americans. As a new era of civil rights is upon the citizens of this country, people like David Barton call out for anger and hatred against a large amount of people who share the same rights to be here as they. Homosexual Americans pay taxes; they go to war and die in battle. They do everything heterosexual people do, and sometimes more, with a strong face-on because it is tough living in a country, fighting for a country and caring about a country that is full of knuckle-draggers that don't respect them like the human beings they are.
David Barton is in cahoots with a lot of big powers in the GOP, and that is what makes his behavior all the more threatening. He is reaching out to those politicians like Rick Santorum, Christine O'Donnell, and those who do not want a better America, but an America reminiscent of the 1950s and prior, and anyone who has read a history book knows what it was like for anyone who wasn't a white Christian male in those days.
Crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on The Huffington Post, Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case and many other outlets. Follow @TheRealChelseaH on Twitter or click here to contact Chelsea directly.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 158
This brings up an interesting idea. If the majority of Christians were to convert to Islam, would the remaining Christians who are zealots be ok with Islamic prayer in schools and monuments to Mohammed in the park?
All you have written in your article is unfortunately true, accurate and on point. I say unfortunate, because it is the religious of country who are seeking to circumvent the articles of the Constitution for the church's benefit, which is a most non Christian agenda.
However, there is a point on the subject of Christianity in America which has not been, in my opinion, properly described and/or closely examined for it's recent claims and demands on both state and federal government.
That being the fact that the new wave within Christian religion is of a branch of the faith which was born by the emgergence of religious type programs becoming commonplace on television. Before that emergence, people who claimed the title of Christian, belonged to established and specific religious faiths such as, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Unitarian, Luthuran, etc.
The new Christians are members of the televangelical faith and/or mega church religion. Religions which are non denominational, but more so, expressed in the term of Evangelical Christians. They originally were a small segment of religious people who in the 30's 40's 50's referred to themselves only as true believers of the written scripture. A religious sect better known today as " Born Again Christians". An ever growing religious group which piously teach and believe that our country was founded on their brand of Christian faith and was meant to be the adopted religion of our country. The members devoutly believe all other religions are false prophecy and their memberships are to be ostracized from heaven and thereby, sentenced to eternal hell and damnation.
In my opinion, these Evangelical Christians pose a real threat to the American way of life. I say this, because they refuse to recognize the existance of the Constitution's address on the subject of the separation of church and state or the fact that our government is and must remain secular. This new Christian movement has become boisterously vocal in pushing their religion's agenda of dominance in government and being the only recoginzed religion for our country. In doing so, they believe that their quest is righteous in the eyes of their God and as such, they are carryingout his will. Which is another reason I believe that they are becoming a threat which must be addressed and curtailed.
If we exclude all the established aforementioned Christian religions adhered to in our country, there is but some 35% of the Christian faith which are of the Evangelical belief. Yet, their present abstinent demanding agenda is fast becoming a problem for us all. Having elected officials and government politicians vocally stating church doctrine when referring to the Constitution should be warning enough that the problem has become widespread and demands the immediate attention of the sane and nonaligned people of our country.
Please excuse the simi biased and long winded comment.
Sorry but just as any citizen or group of citizens have the right to petition their representatives so do we Christians.
And since Our freedom of religion is guaranteed by the first amendment you will have to find a way to live with your fear.
You are welcome to your "Freedom of Religion", just keep it in your church, your home and your heart where it rightfully belongs and out of politics and government where the same Constitution which guarantees your freedom, also guarantees "Separation of Church and State".
Affraid, No. However, I freely admit that when anyone and/or group of people attempts to change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution to suit the teachings of their religious faith, and/or attempts to claim the right to have a voice on or a seat at government decisions of legislation, I get downright mad as hell.
We are and always have been a nation free of religion in government and that's the way it was meant to be, regardless of how much religious zealots would like to have it otherwise.
You are free to have your religion, but not our government, that is an entity which rightfully belongs to all Americans, not just those of religious faith.
Actually it means something quite different. It means that everyone should be free to hold and practice any religious beliefs they choose to hold, without infringing on the rights of others, or to hold none at all.
A group has changed the meaning of the Constitution, secularists, progressives have gotten the courts to declare that the first amendment means a freedom from religion in opposition to what the founders intended, a freedom of religion...says so right in the Constitution...go read it for yourself.
You progressives, secularists and atheists want to drive religion to behind the temple doors so you won't have to see it or be offended by it.
Just like the fascists of the world.
See Scott, the founders inter mixed region and government all the time, they prayed heartily to GOD asking him for guidance in their governing.
They used the halls of congress to hold church services nearly every Sunday from the terms of Jefferson until the civil war.
See you all are NOT asking for the enforcement of a right you seeking to strip a right away from a particular group of people.
I appreciate the jester on your part, however, I really don't need a history lesson nor a Constitutional interpretation from a biased religious zealot.
Nor, do I intend to argue the meaning of the Constitution on the subject of religion in government any further with you. Inasmuch, as neither you nor I are competent Constitutional Lawyers nor certified legislative historians, the arguement would serve no point. More-so, it would be a debate between two far less than qualified opponents. Two men, both with a set idea as to who was right on the issue without any equivocation whatsoever. One being a religious zealot who has an agenda to spread his brand of chosen faith into the daily lives of all Americans and the other, a man who believes in both the ability of the U.S. Congress and the USSCJ's to properly interpret and thereby legislate the meaning of the Constitution without the assistance of either of the two debating fools having any impute.
No, Dan, you are a man seeking a podium from wence to scream the virtues of your religion and I am a man who does not intend to provide you with even a stool to sit on.
Sound advise, leave governing to our elected legislators.
Oh no dear Scott, As a citizen of this country and a "oath taker"
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I understand that you can not argue the meaning of the Constitution.
They are and they have;
"Pennsylvania judge rules in favor of Sharia law"
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/320365#ixzz1w9x4BHyS
He didn't rule from Sharia law. He DID explain that if the idiot complainant had been in a Sharia Law country, things could have gone a lot further south for said Doofus. Good job Judge.
The man had a "RIGHT" to wear that costume and his rights were violate both by the Mulism and the judge.
Chuckles you have oh so many times shown yourself to be inept in so many areas!
R.F., do you have a working link to the actual opinion which shows his legal opinion is separate from his personal one? I've tried to find one but have only found various copies of his rant.
God's laws & man's laws never seem to meet see eye to eye. If the Bible is the standard of 'good' & 'evil' than take it as a guideline into making man made laws. To pick & choose which is which is where all the confusion occurs. Evil loves confusion & darkness, thus it can keep perpetrating its ownership.
How about this one?
"But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut. 22:13-21).
The passage you quote, is but one of dozens of the same hate and violence type messages which can be found within the biblical text. Both the New and Old Testaments as well as within the text of the Jewish Torah. All three text are filled with stories of bigotry, slavery and even the act of murder being condoned and commited by biblical era Christians against their fellow man. The confusing part is, that all such mayhem commited by a human against another human is considered to be mortal sins according to the same revered text. Yet, there is no record of any retribution associated with such crimes commited against a fellow man as long as the act was done in the name of God.
It would seem, that on one hand both the Christian and Jewish Bibles teaches certain acts as being holy and righteous, then in the same text supports the opposit of it's own recorded doctrine on the subject as being evil and sinful. As such, depending upon how one interprets the substance of the text it's self, would determine whether or not, the act(s) is/are a sin.
Christians, especially those of the Evangelical and Foundamentalist religious faiths, collectively choose to overlook the inconsistencies in their Holy Book as events and/or scripture that should not be questioned by mortal man. Biblical stories, events and teachings, which must be accepted as being apart of the faithful's religion without explination nor scrutiny.
I'm no Taliban or even a Muslim. But I am a Baha'i, which for some of these rightwingnuts will be close enough.
I had a very close friend who taught about baha'i to new converts ,etc etc etc.
I had "the most holy book" for a while, but lost it
But how I treat the members of religions depends entirely on how said members behave ;) (what a concept, huh?)
Laws based on one faith, on one set of beliefs, are by definition exclusive. They have as their rationale the beliefs of one group of people and, through the force of the rule of law, impose those beliefs on everyone else. It is not just a matter of whether the Bible or the Koran is your basis, it is also a matter of whose interpretation of those scriptures and which parts are chosen to be made into law.
Best to make laws that are secular, based on shared values irrespective of which faith you follow.
man made religion.
man made law.
how is this a difficult concept?
"man made law."
That is a very good point Chelsea.
Which is exactly why laws can't be neutral even when the goverenment is considered "secular".
Laws are a reflection of the religion of those who make the law.
Laws are a reflection of the religion of those who make the law
I disagree;
It is my belief, that laws are predicated and written on a moral and ethical foundation of learned values and societal needs. Some may assume the opposit and argue that moral and ethical standards are the basis of religious teachings and faith. Unfortunately, the tossed coin in question has a head on both sides and no tails to define a winner.
However, what is an absolute known fact, is, that in America, laws are a man made set of rules, regulations and statutes under/by which we as citizens live and in no way has any religious organization ever had any part in making those laws, whether directly or indirectly, regardless of how one tries to apply moral values and ethical standards, it is still man and man alone who make such laws.
Our country was initially formed upon the writing of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and our first laws were established with the writing of the U.S. Constitution of 1779. At neither time was a religious organization present nor was there a religious spokesperson present nor was any church delegation present.
The Constitutional laws were written and agreed upon by both men of faith as well as men of no faith. Neither faith nor non belief having any superior presence over the other, but all working in unison and without the mention of religion as having any apart of the legislative process.
The founding fathers were under the influence of their religious beliefs when they wrote these documents. Just as our legistators today are influenced by their religious beliefs.
To have a moral and ethical foundation or lack there of is to be "religious". Our beliefs about ourselves, others, and the existence or non-existence of God or gods forms our world view. The view we have of the world around us influences our view on law.
Many want to label views they oppose as being "religious" thereby somehow disqualifying that view from public policy. Yet each of us has our own "religious" world view whether it is labeled as "religious" or not.
I ask both Scott and Chelsea: Do you belief God exists and that He will hold us accountable how we will live our lives?
Laws are written to reflect the way people want their society to function, and that means the majority rules. The best way for society to be decided. If that means with or without "religious views", let the chips fall where they may. Yes, we have the Constitution to protect us from overbearing religious demands on individuals. That does not deny us from morals and society's right to demand that others live by them, and free from assault by those who do NOT want to be a useful member of society.
The Court ruled that laws prohibiting sexual acts performed in privacy between consenting adults served no legitimate state interest, and were thus unconstitutional under the "due process" clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. This applied not only to sexual acts between same sex partners, but to sexual acts between opposite sex couples.
In effect, the Supreme Court ruled that the government, and David Barton, had to keep out of people's bedrooms.
1 Timothy 2:12
2:12 I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.
and his best buddy is the nuttiest of the birther freaks....so....
Who is his best buddy?
Mitt Romney's running for president...and in cahoots with donald trump
a mormon born on a polygamist compound and the nation's nuttiest birther since orly taitz.....
All that being said, Mitt is running against Obama. Should we compare their fathers and vote for the guy with the more decent respectable father? We can go there if you want.
.....yet the guy running against him....his father born in Mex. on a poly compound...
even by that logic we don't even have to create our own birther conspiracy out of mitt's existence, because he's not a "naturalized us citizen" according to the birthers....
I never heard of anybody claiming that having a foreign parent excludes you from the presidency. I don't know what is worse though... being paranoid of Obama or being paranoid of those paranoid of Obama.
0_o it was a joke.
I never heard of anybody claiming that having a foreign parent excludes you from the presidency.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Only the looniest of the birthers still believe he was born in Kenya (that would be people like Donald Trump and the KBO poster here on Gather.)
The nutty, but not AS nutty, birthers now believe that he was born in Hawaii, but because his FATHER was not a U.S. citizen, then he therefore is not a "natural u.s. citizen" and therefore ineligible for presidency.
http://birthers.org/USC/14.html
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
But you should be careful what you latch on too.
Accusing Romney of using a dog carriage that you deem inhumane when the president boosts of actually eating butchered dog in an audio book isn't going to work.
Pointing out Romney's ancestors when Obama's ancestors are worse isn't going to work.
Claiming that republicans have a war on women after what you guys did to Palin and how Obama stepped over a more accomplished, experienced and intellectually sound female is laughable.
The list goes on and on...
Also, when you open theses doors you lose your race card lifeline because it became your issue. A comparable response to an accusation can't be only because the president is black. Obviously you don't realize how easy you are making this for republicans.
That is quite different from two adults stuffing a dog in a crate on top of a car, driving twelve hours, but stopping halfway in between and hosing the dog down because it was so terrified that it shit itself while sitting atop a car flying at high speeds.
Big diff actually....
"what you guys did to palin" -- talking about about palin isn't a war on women. Attacking the bodily and medical rights of every single woman in the country IS.
you seem to have a really imbalanced point of view. You seem to think that simply bad-mouthing a woman is a "war on women" but forcing millions of women in America into strange healthcare practices isn't. You think it's okay to put a dog on the top of a car in a barred dog crate (not intended for outdoor use) and scare it to the point of it shitting itself -- but yet you seem to blame the president for being fed dog by a supervising adult while living in a 3rd world hell when he was a young child.
do you blame children who are molested and women who are raped as well?
If you think these guys have any relevance you are paranoid. For every right wing kook you can find I could find three left wing kooks. It's ridiculous
So then explain why the current GOP presidential nominee is in bed with the "weeds of kookdom" :)
It's only paranoia when there isn't any substance to back up the idea.
Actually that rule only applies to conservatives. That was my point. We need more liberals to spout that it is petty to accuse those who question an African or a woman simply because of their race or gender as being an "ist". Thank you.
You can articulate the differences between Romney and Obama and you can make really good arguments. My point is that you are rehashing things that everybody spewed in 2007 & 2008 and that the mainstream media has covered enthusiastically. Google it and you will find many ABC CBS & NBC stories about Romney and his dog carriage. How many of them talked about Obama's eating of butchered dog and how he joked about it's taste and texture in an audio book? Issues like that used to be considered racist. Just like questions about Obama's dad.
You are putting the knowns about Romney against the unknowns about Obama front and center.
As far as dogs, I had a dog that refused to ride in my truck. He simply had to be in the back and I went from Wisconsin to Florida and back with him in the back. He loved me for it. Your horror doesn't resonate with people who have real dogs and not the lap dogs that liberals prefer. In the end, Obama ate dog and joked about it. Thank you.
Obama was six years old.
Keep yapping.
0_o
There is a difference between transporting a dog in the back of a truck (which is shielded at all sides from the slipstream force of the wind that whooshes when a vehicle travels at speeds higher than 35 mph. And strapping a kennel on the top of a car to drive for 12 hours, only stopping to hose off a terrified animal that has shit himself. <--- if that is how your type sees "real dogs" then you should be legally disallowed from being near them as well as children or anything/one else that is vulnerable because that is just flatout abuse and mental torture on another living thing.. JMHO. It's not about being liberal. It's common sense: There's no reason to mistreat an animal. None at all. It served no purpose other than not carrying the dog in the vehicle with them for whatever selfish reasons they had.
It wasn't as though the Romneys were living in a 3rd world country where harming a dog meant they got to eat because they needed the protein. It wasn't as if the dog they were abusing provided them with any food or fur or anything. No, it was a "beloved family pet" that they felt was suitable to terrify and traumatize until it lost control of its bowels. Good job. What excellent upstanding people to terrorize an animal without even having a constructive reason to do so. Do you know who else harms and terrorizes animals for no reason? Children/teens/young adults who grow up to become serial killers. IMHO what the Romney's did to that poor dog was no better than the creepy kid nabbed in texas for beheading all of his neighbors' cats.
Where is your logic, Jeff? Would you like to be put in an aerated box (aerated as in that air just wooshes through), strapped to the top of a station wagon for a 12 hour ride up north? Or would you rather sit your ass in a kennel in the bed of a pickup truck or SUV? Think about it. Use your brain. Try to show at least a smear of common sense.
And again -- you're completely dancing around the fact that for each thing that is disproven about Obama (i.e. he being born in Kenya, etc) the birther's come up with another reason why he isn't American. I don't care who you are, but that reeks of racism -- especially when you have individuals who are KNOWN KKK affiliates mixing in with these individuals. Go figure.
I guess the KKK aren't racist...they're just misunderstood by the damn liberals. You know, because racism doesn't exist. It's just a thing invented by liberals. blah blah blah.
Sarah Palin wasn't targeted for being a woman. She was targeted for being an idiot and a whackjob. If she were a man, she'd still be targeted for being an idiot and a whackjob -- one who couldn't finish a whole term as governor of Alaska, which, let's face it, isn't the busiest state in the country. It isn't like she was governor of MI or gov of TX or gov of CA.. real states.. she was a failed governor of a state that has more trees and rocks than people.
that has nothing to do with her being female. If anything, it just makes it worse on the rest of the voting females in this country. She's a disgrace.
The fact that you're refusing to acknowledge the blatant racism expressed from the far right in Obama's direction shows that you know I'm right. You're just good at arrogantly arguing against it without even saying anything to strengthen your points.
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/100-of-hardcore-us-racists-vote-republican/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html
Unlike you. I cite sources to back up what I say and how I form my opinions. If the outright hatred of Obama is absolutely NOT racist, then why are so many conservatives racist?
heh?
You have a lack of grasp on the logic of proportioned logistics of comparison. It shows. Please try to work on that, if it's possible (I'm not sure if it is).
Actually aside from murder, your type has already dismissed more than one rape accusation against a known womanizer in the white house. My type would never let that type near the oval office.
""Obama was six years old.""
How old was Mitt Romney when his dad was born in Mexico?
All your other racist, womanizing hater accusations were filed as such.
Obama was fed dog meat when he was six years old. Not his fault he ate dog. It was fed to him by an adult, just like a kid that doesn't want to eat liver and his parents feed it to him. Same concept, only a diff culture and a diff country.
Romney's father was born in Mexico, by the birther standards making Romney ineligible for presidency as he is not a "natural born citizen" as his father wasn't born on U.S. soil.
The above two topics aren't mutually exclusive. They aren't related. You have a habit of trying to connect tomato to orange. You count from eight to potato when you try to discuss these things.
Pay attention or stop trying, because you're really not doing a good job of keeping up or comprehending.
That isn't a birther standard and it isn't even a constitutional standard. Even though "natural born" isn't completely defined in the constitutional scholars have a consensus agreement that it means born in USA. I personally disagree with that because I wasn't born in the U.S. and I believe I am eligible as is Obama if he was born in Kenya.
Me and Romney think Obama was born in Hawaii so your pounding of that point is useless. You are the one with a comprehension problem.
I don't fault Obama for eating dog like you fault Mitt Romney for where his dad was born. My point was that you are bringing up an old story, that has morphed into a sinister act by the left since Romney won the nomination, and I was making the point that despite the fact that it wasn't Obama's fault that he ate dog, his voice is on tape joking about in his audio book.
Your perception of me comparing tomatoes to oranges is perceived by me as my effectiveness at pointing out your hypocrisy. I am only responding to your accusations, not changing the subject.
I'm going to gracefully step down from this conversation as you are proving to be too thick to converse with on this topic.
0_o
Good call.
Well actually Chelsea, That is a term foisted upon the, Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party By you progressives, not asked for!
And Chelsea,
"priests diddle little BOYS"
Is also a sin.
and ordinary christian pastors do it too... it's terrible.
And those who perform such terrible acts are sinners and are not followers of the teachings of Jesus.
The Pedophilic Verses against 3-year old girls:
The pedophilic Biblical verses are Numbers 31:17-18 and Numbers 31:35-40. Below, you will see DETAILED HISTORY on these SPECIFIC verses from the Jewish Talmud explaining the pedophilia that took place against the 3-year old slave girls under the direct command of Moses.
While Christians are not obligated to follow the laws of the Talmud in their social lives, but the historical FACTS that exist in the Talmud about the Biblical verses Numbers 31:17-18 and Numbers 31:35-40 below, and how the "BIBLE FOLLOWERS" during those days were mostly pedophiles who literally forced sex on 3-year old girls after Moses' supposed 'Divine' order is clear indication that the Bible condones pedophilia.
Christians are not the only "Bible Followers". Jews are too!
You also need to keep in mind that Christians are not the only "Bible followers". Jews are too, and what ever they did counts for and against the Bible.
So while the pedophilic mentioned verses don't exactly specify the 3 years old minimum age limit, but they most certainly don't condemn it, and according to the Talmud's detailed elaborations on the verses, as shown below, and what actually took place during their events, the verses actually allowed it, AS MOSES HIMSELF ALLOWED IT!
Moses' Commands for pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls do count against the Bible!
As shown in the quotes below:
"....The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of MOSES to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children...."
"....According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, MOSES therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138]...."
"Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse....."
"A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."....."
The detailed quotes, elaborations and bibliography are in the next section below.
2- Girls at the age of 3 were forced into sex in both the Talmud and the Bible:
The Quotes and Proofs for Pedophilia Please pay attention to the bolded and underlined parts below:
The following was taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html regarding Numbers 31:17-18 in the Bible:
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Children
Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the "sages of blessed memory... whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism" [131]:
Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]
R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]."
For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."'
[37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]."
Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety."
That is self-evident!
Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133]
The basis for these rulings is the following Mishnaic passage of Tractate Niddah (filth):
A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."
And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. If she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. If one of those who are unfit for marriage has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her did so, they are put to death on her account. But she is free of responsibility.
If she is younger than that age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.
(Mishnah Niddah 5:4) [134]
Thus, one "of the many important issues worked out in the Mishnah concerns proper conduct with women," [135] and the "entire society of Judaism – that is, the community formed by the Torah – found in the Talmud those modes of thought and inquiry, those media of order and value, that guided the formation of public affairs and private life as well." [136]
While it is reassuring to see there was at least some limit as to what the sages would declare holy and moral, this ruling had severe implications on the interpretation of other topics as well. The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of Moses to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children:
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).
[This] refers to her who has slept with a man as well as her who is suitable for intercourse, even when she has not slept with a man...
But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. From here R. Shimon b. Yohai used to say: a Proselyte girl who became a proselyte in the age of less than three years and one day, is rendered fit to marry into the priesthood." [137]
According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, Moses therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography:
[131] Ibid., vol.XXI.A-D, Tractate Bava Mesia, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1990, p.ix-x.
[132] Ibid., vol.XXIII.B, Tractate Sanhedrin 1984, 150. See also vol.XIX.A, Tractate Qiddushin 10a-b, 1992, 33. "Menstruating" here of course refers to the ritual "flux uncleanness" described in Lev.15.
[133] Ibid., vol.XXV.A, Tractate Abodah Zarah, 1991, 168. Emphasis original.
[134] J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. A complete outline, Part IV. The Division of Holy Things. B. Number 37. 1995, 704.
[135] Neusner 1993, 41.
[136] Neusner 1995, 7.
[137] Kuhn 1959, §157, 652f. My translation. In general, proselytes are not allowed to marry into the priesthood.
[138] Ibid., §157, footnote 86, 653.
All of that stuff is tragic. Jesus changed things.
0_o
Might want to look at the stats on that one....
I've already debunked one of Chelsea's attempts to show that things didn't change with Jesus, But I would suggest that these two sets of scripture suggests the redirection that Jesus brought.;
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12)
The Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22: 34 - 40)
Americans are taxed less than almost every other industrialized nation, your infrastructure is falling apart and you can't afford to pay your bills. By what standard does this equal being "taxed enough"?
The truth is what it is and you claiming that I am lying doesn't change the truth.
But you are more than welcome to help Chelsea dig up scripture that shows that things didn't change with Jesus.
The truth is what it is and you claiming that I am lying doesn't change the truth.
Say it one or a thousand times it still won't change a thing.
"You point to a bunch of words in a dusty, oft-rewritten volume as a vague answer to your claim that "Jesus changed things"."
Those are the teachings of Jesus that I referenced,
Jesus stood before the towns people as they were about to follow their tradition, the old law, they were going to stone the harlot (to death) and said "he who is without sin cast the first stone" effectively ending the practice of killing as a penalty for sin.
I'm sorry that you refuse to understand...that is on you!
You remind me of the wiccan and voodists who believe that words have power, that because you speak them it makes it true.
Well for a start a completely new religion with millions of followers, that's still running today 2,000 years later. Before Jesus came along all people worshiped in the holy land was Jehovah, the clue is in the word Christianity. Now I would say that's a rather big change.
Jes cause you say it don't make it so!
Graham's point was a given, so obvious I though that even you would have been aware of it.
"WRONG"
Nope its totally correct Cookie, that is what Jesus taught, go read it it's right there in scripture, by that one simple verse Jesus said don't kill people because they are sinners.
2. I'm judging your religion by its book of doctrine; the bible. It's the very basis of the christian religion.
with that said:
3. Why do you purposely subscribe a religion with core teachings that not only condone but encourage the unspeakably horrible acts mentioned above, which are in the bible?
I understand your religion --- what I do not understand is why people who claim to be "good" insist on following it ;)
It's your RELIGION I am referring to. I.e. Christianity. Which is based upon some pretty horrendous stuff.
I will not waste my time arguing with you, but you are not qualified to judge what exists within my heart, as it applies to my personal faith, nor do I understand your motivation.
Then don't invite yourself into a debate about it with me. You said I was judging your religion on an individual and you were wrong. I was judging it by your book of dogma, the bible.
What is your motivation for commenting on an article written by an atheist who has studied the bible? To ask what my motivation is? You invited yourself to a debate then you say I judge your religion by "partial knowledge" ??
It's called "reading the bible"
I suggest you try it sometime, and if you already have, why not answer my question on why people insist on following a religion that teaches that it's okay to abuse children (among other atrocities) ??
I don't care about your faith. You are the one talking about your faith.
I am talking about the christian religion. If your faith is the christian religion, then it is based upon the bible. If you have read the bible, then you know that I am speaking about what is printed expressly within its pages -- which would be the opposite of "misrepresenting."
One needs to come to an understanding, and one with such a bias as yours, I doubt that is possible.
Heck Most "christians" (notice the little "c") don't understand the teachings of Jesus....I wouldn't expect a secularist/Atheist to even begin to be able to understand.
secondly, I've read the bible.
thirdly, I doubt the words holographic-ally change depending on who is reading it. If that is happening to you, I would seek medical or psychological-medical attention.
Did you read that correctly? Or did it change to some strange mystical message? Repeat what I typed so we know this isn't a "thing" I'm missing out on. ;)
And it certainly wouldn't be the silliest thing you've believed, so by all means have at it ;)
Now have a good morning. I have an exam to take. I'll let you know if I connect spiritually to my microeconomics book in a way that can only be experienced by someone with a "relationship" to the math god that doesn't exist, blah blah blah..
I took no part in it, and now you're stamping like a toddler who didn't get his way. You tried to go up against someone who knows more than you, comprehends more than you, and you failed. Sorry. Now you're crying foul and flinging insults, simply because I spoke bluntly, honestly and to the point about christianity, while refusing to play your games of pretending the words change when you have magic jesus eyes. Which is nonsense and we all know it ;)
So yes, make sure it doesn't happen again. Because it bores me.
now have a good morning, off to do my thing
Show us the "hate" of Jesus.
Show us the "hate" of Jesus.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. — Luke 19:27
Maybe you should back up a few scripture and read;
Luke 19:11,
11 While they were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.
Anything else?
Sorry Chuckles
But it's fun to watch them try! LOL!
Something tells me that outside of their websites that compile information to trash religion none of them are going to read scripture.
But that aside, if this person were in congress this would be a possible violation in the true sense of Jefferson's words about the separation of Church and State.
Irony is a dish best served accidentally.
Doesn't mean he/she should be respected for his/her views.
If Barton wishes to make a fool of himself by trying to upstage the Constitution, simply because a specific lifestyle violates his religious morality, then let him rail on.
With a bit of luck, he'll either be recalled, impeached, or summarily thrown out of office by his constituents.
And if his consitituents don't do that, then they deserve what they get:
Bigotry, ignorance, and a basic cowardice, among men.
That being said, God's law will always trump man's law. People just won't realize it until it's too late.
"Fact?" Not so much.
"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall STONE HER TO DEATH because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut. 22:13-21).
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Bubba.
Alan... you're not playing fair. They're talking about personal relationships with a mythological super-magician... you're talking about laws people who claimed that same relationship adopted as the orders from that mythological character.
Biblical Law--certainly with regard to Gay Rights--is no where evident, or apparent, in the Constitution, is THE point.
If Barton would like to try and insinuate Biblical Law into the Constitution, then let him initiate a bill before Congress, to that effect--and we'll see how far he'd get.