Dark Christianity
dark_christian
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back June 8th, 2007 Forward
dogemperor [userpic]
Time for me to start brushing up on ways to become Canadian

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]galeharold)

I wanted to revist something on the site of the
Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the TEN COMMANDMENTS (previously referenced by [info]mysticknyght)

It's hard to really sift through the sea of scary and stupid. But this bit here made me do a doubletake...


Lamentably, this is where the founding fathers of America failed. After the patriots of the American colonies declared independence from Britain and won the Revolutionary War, it seems they had a golden opportunity to establish America upon principles that would genuinely make it a great and wonderful nation.

But they could not do so. All evidence point to the fact that the founding fathers were graceless men who were true haters of God. In fact, history states that Thomas Jefferson and his friend James Madison were secularists and didn't "…follow the beliefs of any of the established churches of their time." Because they were graceless men, they didn't possess the moral and spiritual power to properly establish this nation upon divine principles. Nevertheless, many people insist on foolishly believing that America was established upon what they call "Judaeo-Christian principles" - a belief which is far from the truth.


So, this particular group of Dominionists accepts that this country was not founded as a Christian nation and some of the founding fathers were, in fact, secularists.

What they are then proposing, these loony zealots, seems to me a religious coup - a far more bold and overt attack on our nation than the subversive works of groups like Dobson's.

This scares the crap out of me.

dogemperor [userpic]
Mitt Romney, father of gay marriage?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]nebris)

From Salon/Broadsheet
By Carol Lloyd

Jun. 08, 2007 | Did you hear the latest? Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has donned a T-shirt depicting two women making out, mailed a big donation to the Human Rights Campaign and shlepped back to Massachusetts to proclaim his support for all those gay folks who want to sanctify their love with a government seal.

Well, OK, he didn't actually do all that. Actually, all he said was that he's "fine" with gay parenting. Or, wait -- that's a bit of stretch, too. As Salon's War Room noted Wednesday, Romney said "fine" at a campaign stop, in response to a lesbian mother of two who suggested that Romney's traditional marriage spiel invalidated her family. Here's the oh-so-tolerant context in which he said it: "Wonderful, I'm delighted that you have a family and you're happy with your family. That's the American way ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that. There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That's the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice."

Romney then reiterated his wish to "bring women and men together," and said that "the ideal setting for society at large is when there is a male and female associated with the development and nurturing of a child." But for some listeners, the damage was done -- putting the word "fine" within a 10-foot rhetorical pole of "gay couples raising kids" had already raised Christian ire. "Should Gay Couples Raise Children? Mitt Romney Says 'That's Fine,'" taunted Christian Broadcasting Network. And though CBN failed to accuse Romney of conceiving Massachusetts' same-sex marriage legislation, MassResistance did just that. "Romney is the founding father of homosexual 'marriage,'" declares the group's Web site. Say what?

Should we take this to mean Romney is a closet liberal? Hardly. But it does seem to indicate that the Christian right has become so sanctimonious as to tear apart even the most right-wing Republican candidates. To which I say, let the feeding frenzy begin.

Current Mood: amused
dogemperor [userpic]
The American Life League finally tells the truth

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]nebris)

From Salon/Broadsheet
By Lynn Harris

Oh yes, they did. The American Life League (ALL) -- in a press release, not muttered comments hastily "clarified" by a scrambling spokesperson -- stated the following: "It is shameful that Christians would rally around the physical needs of the poor and ignore the deaths of untold millions of babies."

The statement is a criticism by Erik Whittington, the group's youth outreach director, of Pentecost 2007: Taking Vision to the Streets, a conference (running through today) whose goal is to place "poverty at the top of our nation's agenda." The conference speakers include "liberal evangelist" Rev. Jim Wallis, and it is sponsored by groups that support cuckoo liberal causes like fighting malaria.

Whittington announced that the League's youth arm would be protesting the conference in order to demonstrate the importance of "putting abortion, not poverty, at the top of the list of social concerns." Now we have it in writing: On the ALL's list, "cart" is officially above "horse."

For more humdingers of the week, see Feministe.

Current Mood: bitchy
dogemperor [userpic]
Assemblies sponsor civil war themed prom, complete with "black" slaves.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]gothic_oreo)

With pictures even

dogemperor [userpic]
Beyond Shame: Democrats Sell Out Youth

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]sydneycat)

James Wagoner, Advocates for Youth on June 7, 2007 - 9:00am

Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America's youth.

The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—they'll give them a $27 million increase—the first in three years!

Shame on Congressman David Obey for brokering this "deal;" shame on Congresswoman Nita Lowey for agreeing to it; and shame on those other Democrats on the Appropriations Committee who have already promised not to offer any amendment that would cut funding for abstinence-only programs and thus "upset" the deal.

Article Continues

Current Mood: infuriated
dogemperor [userpic]

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]hausfrauatu)

Wow. Finally a place to read Christian stuff posted by cool people who think! I just knew I wasn't alone!

Denominationally, I am an ELCA Lutheran. My mother was a classic Boomer seeker. I have been Welcomed into the Self Realization Fellowship, Baptized Catholic, Lutheran Sunday School, Baptized Mormon, Confirmed Lutheran, Pagan for 15 years, UU for 2 years and then Back to Lutheran. My kids were baptized by a Unity minister who is a good friend(Granny insisted!).  My kids are being raised in the ELCA.

I usually describe myself as a "Sermon on the Mount Christian, not an Old Testament Christian." I truly believe in the concept that the coming of Christ made Levitcal Law unnecessary. I feel that the Dominionists are using the Bible to justify their own narrow mindedness and hunger for worldly power.

WWJD? Not what these um...people... are doing. I'm sort of sick of explaining that not all Christians are intolerant robot jackasses.

Tags:
Current Mood: grateful
dogemperor [userpic]
Pics and a review of KY's creation museum

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]exotic_princess)

My husband sent me these links. A journalist/blogger takes one for the team and takes a tour of the creation museum, and posts pics of the displays. Crazy shit, yo.

Article here

Meanwhile, the founder of the museum, Australian Ken Ham, is being investigated by a former Chief Magistrate in his home country for deceptive conduct and other wrongdoings in relation to the Australian church organization he was once affiliated with. This is hot on the heels of the incarceration of that other leading light of the creationist movement, Kent Hovind, who was recently sentenced to a decade in prison for tax evasion.


Flickr link with pics here

dogemperor [userpic]
News flash: Americans support pregnancy prevention

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]nebris)

But conservatives are still fighting comprehensive sex ed, family planning and access to contraceptives.

From Salon/Broadsheet
By Tracy Clark-Flory

Jun. 08, 2007 | Today, the Associated Press ran with a story headlined "Rift Grows Over Unintended Pregnancies." Meanwhile, via Feminist Weekly News comes this encouraging bulletin: An overwhelming percentage of Americans believe "that birth control should be available without discrimination and that schools should provide comprehensive sex education." Well, hmm. It seems the real "rift" is between lawmakers -- those who are listening to the general public's beliefs about pregnancy prevention and those who aren't.

The root of this political rift is the Prevention First initiative, which would create better access to and information about contraceptives, boost family planning and comprehensive sex education funds, and make emergency contraception available to rape victims at all hospitals. Conservatives are fighting the initiative because it would, uh, allow women more reproductive control: "There's a utopian view that women ought to be able to have sex any time they want to without consequences -- that's the bottom line of all these bills," Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America told the AP.

But most Americans actually share this "utopian" view. Feminist Weekly News summarizes the results of a recent survey of Americans' views on pregnancy prevention thus: Eighty-six "percent of Americans believe that safe birth control, including emergency contraception, should be available to couples. Comprehensive sex education in schools receives the support of 88 percent of Americans. Eighty-one percent of Americans say that women must have access to family planning services in order to achieve equality."

Conservatives hope that the president will veto the initiative if it actually makes it to his desk. But, if he does, as Rep. Louise Slaughter says, he "will show himself to be extremely outside the mainstream."

Current Mood: oh, please...
Back June 8th, 2007 Forward