LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY theonides)

The Supreme Court may have ruled in 1983 that is was okay for Congress and state legislatures to have chaplains pray before each session in exception to the rule against allowing public religious expression at government events, but it did say that these prayers had to be non-denominational, non-sectarian, and non-proselytizing.

Would that it were so simple.

It seems have evangelicals have taken over the prayers in the Ohio State House and have been using the prayers to evangelize, invoke Jesus way too much, and have been commenting on bills to be debated on the House floor that same day.

Nothing quite like the voice of god telling you how to vote today, is there?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY brigidsblest)

In this day and age, I'm used to dominionist/fundamentalist followers spouting anti-evolution drivel; it's part of the landscape of American politico-religious debate and, inaccurate as that viewpoint may be, even fools are entitled to their opinions.

But.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (R) is currently running for President in 2008. There are a number of supporters out there quite vocally expressing support for him, and kowtowing to his opinions, one of which he voiced recently during a debate--that he does not believe it in evolution. Okay.

And then this guy kicked it up a notch, so to speak:

http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/

Look. I do not, not, understand how anyone in this day can look at the notion that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than vice versa, and claim that not only is the 'theory' an atheist notion, but wrong as well. Did I wake up this morning back in the Dark Ages? Can't be, there's this fancy thing called a 'computer' I'm typing these words on.

Here's the FAQ for this guy's blog:

http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/about/

My one stunned and numbed thought: Please, please, please let this blog be a satirical effort to get Brownback thoroughly discredited before the Republican National Convention. Please. I don't think I can deal with a world where people really believe in 11th-Century doctrines.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ns_kumiho)

As if there weren't problems enough for contemporary parents, it appears they now have to save their kids from those who would save their kids.

...

As she approached Farview Park at the end of the beautiful spring day, she noticed that several children, including her daughter, were in conversation with four adults she didn't recognize. "Three geeky white guys and a lady," Cherryhomes said. She said the conversation that ensued went something like this:

"Who are you?" she asked.

"We're from a church," one said.

"Which church?" she asked.

"Straitgate Church," one answered.

"Where's that?" she asked.

"Park and Franklin," she was told.

"That's the other side of town," Cherryhomes said.

"We do our evangelical outreach on the North Side," she was told. "We've brought a thousand souls to Jesus

...

"I think all the kids in the park had heard that from their parents," said Cherryhomes. "There was this strange dance going on. Most of the kids were trying not to be involved with these people, and they just kept pushing. They even asked one little boy for his address. That's scary."

http://www.startribune.com/465/story/1193496.html

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY cheap_laugh)

While I think this is absurd, but then a Wise man once said: He who takes the Bible literally is a fool, I can see th point.
Bible drawn into sex publication controversy

HONG KONG (Reuters) - More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as "indecent" due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon Wednesday.

The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site -- www.truthbible.net -- which said the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.

The Web site said the Bible's sexual content "far exceeds" that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University's "Student Press" magazine, which had asked readers whether they'd ever fantasized about incest or bestiality.

That column was later deemed "indecent" by the Obscene Articles Tribunal, sparking a storm of debate about social morality and freedom of speech. Student editors of the journal defended it, saying open sexual debate was a basic right.

The Protestant Minister quoted farther down in the article is correct about rape, but fails to mention that woman is required to scream and fight if assualted or like the assailant, face a harsh penalty. He also doesn't mention the use of circumcision as a weapon of war...


UPDATE: THIS STORY, IF SEARCHED FOR WILL TURN UP HEAVILY EDITED VERSIONS THAT LEAVE OUT THE COMPLAINTS ABOOUT THE UNIVERISTY'S PAPER OP-ED THAT BEGAN THIS.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nebris)

Late Night Christian Shows

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY omorka)

Hmm. I was struck by something earlier today. I had previously been thinking that the Fundamentalist Christian resistance to accepting global warming as reality was a combination of the devil's bargain they'd struck with the money/big business wing of the Republican party, and their general skepticism about science. But it occurred to me, after the post about heliocentrism, that perhaps there was something deeper here.

Genesis 9:11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.

Are the rising sea levels of an Antarctic/Greenland glacial melt sufficient to trigger a reaction based on this verse? That any global flood would be a violation of this covenant, and thus, in their universe, can't happen? Or is this too big a stretch?