Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Tea Party Not Interested In Social Issues, ctd.

Jim Burroway

January 16th, 2011

Remember when the tea party tried to sucker LGBT people into their movement by reassuring them that the party was only interested in fiscal issues?

Banning same-sex marriage was the focal point of a conservative tea party rally Saturday afternoon in Council Bluffs. About 35 people gathered at the Mid-America Center to hear speeches from Rep. Kim Pearson, R-Pleasant Hill, and former Republican state representative and current Family Leader lobbyist Danny Carroll.

“I’m a Christian, social, fiscal conservative,” Pearson told the crowd to much applause. “The social and fiscal conservative values work.”

…“The definition of marriage is between one man and one woman,” she said. “God is our ultimate law giver.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

BlackDog
January 16th, 2011 | LINK

“God is our ultimate law giver.”

Well that’s great but what about those of us who don’t share that belief?

The history of Christianity alone should show that theocracy doesn’t work very well, how people can claim to be so devout and not know the history of their own faith I don’t know.

Jon Trouten
January 16th, 2011 | LINK

I liked how Representative Pearson is promoting a legislative ban on gay couples marrying, because it’s quicker than amending our state constitution to invalidate marriage equality. Iowa’s legislature tried that solution back in the 90s. It was called DOMA. Our state’s Supreme Court ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional nearly two years ago.

So why would Rep Pearson’s proposed DOMA law be constitutional now when DOMA wasn’t constitutional then?

tim
January 16th, 2011 | LINK

There is no one “tea party”. In some cases those that call themselves members focus on social issues – in other cases they don’t. This very blog has posted about NH’s focus on fiscal issues.

Really the only common theme I can find amongst the various ‘tea party’ groups is their ignorance of history and economics.

L. Junius Brutus
January 16th, 2011 | LINK

Anyone can name a rally a ‘tea party rally’. The tea party has no central organization, and I think large parts of it have little interest in social issues.

And just look at the attendence. 35 people? Very impressive.

Iamposterity
January 16th, 2011 | LINK

“Tea Party at my house! Someone bring their Bible so we can misinterpret it and force our will on others…I promise it will be fun!!!” Food will be served!

Let’s see…

My tooth fairy’s laws trump your Easter Bunny’s laws…oh wait a minute we live in the United States “Just say no to “Higher Powers” or …This is your brain……this is your brain on religion…Any Questions?

Seriously when are people going to stop believing in Fiction?

Priya Lynn
January 16th, 2011 | LINK

“Seriously when are people going to stop believing in Fiction?”.

Atheism will continue to gradually increase and in 100- 200 years there won’t be any religion to speak of.

Emily K
January 16th, 2011 | LINK

“Science Dammit…”

Erin
January 16th, 2011 | LINK

So basically the Tea Party is the Republican Party. Yep.

Donny D.
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Tim and Brutus are right, the Tea Party movement isn’t centralized. Some Tea Party groups are socially conservative, but a great many are not. Spotlighting one socially conservative Tea Party group proves nothing about the movement as a whole.

Kaleo
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

No surprises, here.

L. Junius Brutus
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Iamposterity: ““Just say no to “Higher Powers” or …This is your brain……this is your brain on religion”

It is obvioust that the woman mentioned in this article is crazy. But it would be a mistake to assume that atheists will necessarily be rational, especially since atheists often fall into the trap of nihilism. Just on another thread, one person argued that cold-blooded murder is not wrong if the “society” in which it takes place approves of it. That’s not something that a Christian would say, because Christians believe in moral absolutes. And even most atheists would dispute it.

Atheism is not the same thing as rationalism, and I support rational people, whether they be atheists, Christians, or Hindus.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Junius said “atheists often fall into the trap of nihilism.”.

That’s a myth spread by theists who wish it was true.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Junius said “Just on another thread, one person argued that cold-blooded murder is not wrong if the “society” in which it takes place approves of it. That’s not something that a Christian would say, because Christians believe in moral absolutes.”

Seeing as you believe its okay to murder people in some situations I gather you’re not a christian, or perhaps many, many christians don’t believe “thou shalt not kill” is a moral absolute – large numbers of them as well believe in murder in some situations.

luiz
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

@elaygee

That the god of the bible prohibits the things you mentioned is true. But for none of those violations is the death penalty the punishment proscribed. As for slavery, it is right that the Bible tolerated it. But that is different from saying slavery was encouraged. The Bible rules, for example, that it is sinful to denounce to a slave master the whereabouts of a runaway slave of his. It also rules that a Hebrew could not be kept enslaved for more than 7 years – in which case, however, the Bible could be denounced as racist for such commandment did not apply to slaves of different ethnic background.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Luiz said ” As for slavery, it is right that the Bible tolerated it. But that is different from saying slavery was encouraged.”.

It was encouraged:

Ephesians 6:5-9: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”

1 Timothy 6:1-3 “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;”

And there’s a lot more where that came from.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Luiz said “The Bible rules, for example, that it is sinful to denounce to a slave master the whereabouts of a runaway slave of his.”.

I haven’t seen that passage. Please provide book, chapter, and verse.

L. Junius Brutus
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Priya: “That’s a myth spread by theists who wish it was true.”

False. I wish it weren’t true. There is more than enough nihilism among atheists (like that of the expample I provided), and theists exploit that to argue against atheism per se. So if you want to take away that argument, you should vigorously argue against nihilists, as I do.

“Seeing as you believe its okay to murder people in some situations”

Really? Whom, then?

“I gather you’re not a christian, or perhaps many, many christians don’t believe “thou shalt not kill” is a moral absolute – large numbers of them as well believe in murder in some situations.”

And that’s “thou shalt not murder”.

customartist
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

I Told You So! Did I not?

On this and many other forums I said unequivocably and time after time that the Teanuts only fained tolerance, with a focus on economics, but that after they got elected that they would change their tune and vote categorically with the Religious Republicans against Gays.

This is an important lesson about the Tea Party.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Spare us the “I wish it weren’t true” line Junius – you’re not fooling anyone. You like many theists need this to justify your faith, you think that because the non-existence of your god would make you feel life lacks meaning atheists must feel the same way – that’s most certainly not the case. Of course if you have a survey which shows otherwise I would LOVE to see it, LOL.

Junius said “Really? Whom, then?”.

You’re a fanatical advocate of the death penalty for murder – you believe its okay to murder people in that situation and, although you haven’t said so, I presume you believe, as most christians do, its okay to murder in self-defense.

Junius said “And that’s “thou shalt not murder”.

No, its:

“13Thou shalt not kill.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020:1-17&version=KJV

By all means now go ahead and make your clumsy attempt to claim that when the state kills people its somehow not murder. I love the pathetic attempt to justify your contradictions with word play.

Timothy (TRiG)
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

By all means now go ahead and make your clumsy attempt to claim that when the state kills people its somehow not murder.

The word murder is a legal term, and, as such, means whatever the law defines it to mean. The death penalty is immoral and stupid, but it is not a form of murder.

TRiG.

L. Junius Brutus
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

“You’re a fanatical advocate of the death penalty for murder ”

Not just for murder. And not ‘fanatical’, but reasoned.

“although you haven’t said so, I presume you believe, as most christians do, its okay to murder in self-defense.”

Taking the liberty of reading ‘murder’ as ‘kill’, since ‘murdering’ in self-defense is an impossibility, as premeditation is impossible: My God! I do! I’m a horrible person! Next time, I’ll let people kill me without raising any protest or defense!

“No, its: “13Thou shalt not kill.” ”

Mistranslation, Biblical scholars agree that the correct translation is: “thou shalt not murder”.

“By all means now go ahead and make your clumsy attempt to claim that when the state kills people its somehow not murder.”

Lawful and rightful execution of criminals is not murder, any more than lawful and rightful imprisonment of criminals is hostage-taking. It may shock you, but the state has powers ordinary citizens don’t.

Priya: “you think that because the non-existence of your god would make you feel life lacks meaning ”

I didn’t even talk about the meaning of life. I was talking about nihilism, the idea tht nothing is right or wrong, there is no truth, etc., like the person who argued that cold-blooded murder in Pakistan is right, if the society approves. In fact, that person in self-congratulation declared that this constitutes “manners” and “tolerance”, which I apparently don’t have, because I object to cold-blooded murder. Poor, even more horrible, me.

I note that you dodge the issue of athetist nihilists. But just as there are crazy Christians (many) like this woman, there are many crazy atheists. So it’s not really justified to say that religious people in general are irrational. If anything, nihilists may be worse than the worst of the fundamentalist Christians.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Timothy said “The word murder is a legal term, and, as such, means whatever the law defines it to mean.”.

It may have a legal definition, but like many words, the legal and the common definition vary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

Under the common definition, a killing undertaken by the state is still murder. Ironically, this line of arguing by Junius puts him on the same plain as the alledged atheist he mentioned on another thread. The alleged atheist supposedly said cold-blooded murder is not wrong if the “society” in which it takes place approves of it. That is clearly the same tack that Junius is taking on this:

If a group of people get together, call themselves a government and say its alright to kill someone, then it is alright. That puts the lie to his assertion that christians believe in moral absolutes and would never say such a thing.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Junius said “Mistranslation, Biblical scholars agree that the correct translation is: “thou shalt not murder”.”.

Nonsense. Bibles throughout history have recoreded it as “Thou shalt not kill”. As we often see these days christians find the original words of the bible conflict with their politics so they re-write it to support their desires, just as they did in the not too distant past by adding the word “homosexual” to a book that never had such a term.

Junius said “Lawful and rightful execution of criminals is not murder.”.

It may be lawful to execute criminals, but its certainly not rightful. For the record would you say the execution of gays in Iran is lawful and rightful and therefore not murder?

Junius said “I didn’t even talk about the meaning of life. I was talking about nihilism, the idea tht nothing is right or wrong, there is no truth.”

Same difference. That’s just a myth meant to demean atheists and/or justify a belief in that for which there is no evidence. I’ve known many, many atheists and I’ve never heard of a single one that says there is no right and no wrong. Once again, if you have a survey that disputes this(obviously not), I’d love to see it, LOL.

Once again, if you assertion that christians believe in absolutes with regards to killing people rests on making strained distinctions between murder and killing you have a VERY weak case for their supposedly superior morality.

L. Junius Brutus
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Actually, it puts me in agreement with you: except that you regard every state execution as murder, whereas I regard the ones that are not both lawful and rightful as such. I recognized the power of a state (as opposed to private individuals) to execute criminals, as you surely recognize the power of a state to imprison criminals. That does not mean that I approve of every execution, any more than you approve of for example, jailing political opponents.

L. Junius Brutus
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Priya: “Nonsense. Bibles throughout history have recoreded it as “Thou shalt not kill”.”

Only if you imagine that the people who wrote it were not rather fond of killing, or that the same books (Exodus and Deuteronomy) do not specify what poor individuals should be killed for puny offenses.

“It may be lawful to execute criminals, but its certainly not rightful. For the record would you say the execution of gays in Iran is lawful and rightful and therefore not murder?”

It is lawful, as it’s legal under the laws of Iran, but not rightful, and therefore, it’s absolutely wrong.

“I’ve known many, many atheists and I’ve never heard of a single one that says there is no right and no wrong. ”

Consider yourself lucky.

“Once again, if you assertion that christians believe in absolutes with regards to killing people rests on making strained distinctions between murder and killing you have a VERY weak case for their supposedly superior morality.”

I did not argue for the superiority of Christians, I argued for the superiority of people who do believe in absolutes – which happens to include, but is not limited to, Christians. I didn’t bring the argument to demean anyone, rather, I suggested that you and others stop calling all religious people irrational, or assume that all atheists are rational.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Junius said “It is lawful, as it’s legal under the laws of Iran, but not rightful, and therefore, it’s absolutely wrong.”.

And the exact same argument can be made about the death penalty in the U.S. Just because the state does something doesn’t make it right or moral. Murder is still murder, whether its the state murdering gays in Iran or people convicted of murder (and sometimes innocent of murder) in the U.S.

Junius said ” I suggested that you and others stop calling all religious people irrational, or assume that all atheists are rational.”.

I never said or assumed either thing. Every person has some irrational and some rational beliefs, I would never presume to suggest that some irrational beliefs sum up a person’s character as irrational, or vice versa. The theist belief in a god is not rational, but is not to say that they are in general irrational people. The same is true for atheists. The refusal to accept a premise for which there is no evidence is rational, but does not mean any given atheist is not irrational in general.

L. Junius Brutus
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Priya: “And the exact same argument can be made about the death penalty in the U.S. Just because the state does something doesn’t make it right or moral. Murder is still murder, whether its the state murdering gays in Iran or people convicted of murder (and sometimes innocent of murder) in the U.S.”

Not really, because executing a murderer (and some other criminals) is entirely right. Since it is lawful and rightful, it is not murder, any more than lawful and rightful imprisonment of a criminal is a form of hostage-taking. Some people need to be killed, just like some people need to be locked up, it’s as simple as that.

You are saying: execution (what you call murder) is wrong if committed by a state, because murder is wrong if committed by an individual. I ask you: is imprisonment (what you may call state-sponsored hostage-taking) by the state wrong because it is wrong for an individual to take hostages? It is impossible to condemn the death penalty without also condemning jailing people, without being inconsistent.

“I never said or assumed either thing. Every person has some irrational and some rational beliefs, I would never presume to suggest that some irrational beliefs sum up a person’s character as irrational, or vice versa. The theist belief in a god is not rational, but is not to say that they are in general irrational people. The same is true for atheists.”

I would also argue that becoming an atheist might not make people more rational, and sometimes might do the opposite (like in the nihilist case I mentioned). Moreover, I would also argue that it is not unreasonable to believe in a power that set everything in the world, as opposed to assuming that everything happened by its own accord.

Anna
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

It is perfectly possible to condemn the death penalty but not jailing people and be consistent. For one thing, a person can be compensated for being wrongfully imprisoned, but cannot be compensated for being wrongfully executed. For another, an executed person cannot be reformed and made into a productive member of society.

L. Junius Brutus
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Anna: “It is perfectly possible to condemn the death penalty but not jailing people and be consistent. For one thing, a person can be compensated for being wrongfully imprisoned, but cannot be compensated for being wrongfully executed.”

That’s a legitimate objection against the death penalty. However, it has nothing to do with a so-called principled objection against the death penalty: namely, that the death penalty is wrong, because it involves killing and killing is wrong. Presumably, taking people’s liberty by imprisoning them is also wrong, and yet those same people support imprisoning people for crimes. Thus, they are inconsistent and have double standards. Either the government can’t do things that are wrong for an individual, in which case that applies both to the death penalty and to imprisonment, or it can, in which they are both in principle legitimate.

“For another, an executed person cannot be reformed and made into a productive member of society.”

What a shame, we will have to do without the wondrous contributions of all those murderers, terrorists and child torturers and molesters. It pains me. Truly a reason to oppose the death penalty.

luiz
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

@Pryia

I haven’t seen that passage. Please provide book, chapter, and verse.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

“15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.”

As for the passages that you quoted, I don’t see them as promoting slavery in any form. Rather, they seem to be exhorting slaves to harden and to become indifferent to their condition. Even so today’s Christians do not recognize this, Christianity is a religion of self-denial – specially denial of one’s bodily impulses, amongst which, the impulse to avoid pain. Christianity is very much a copy – though one polluted with Judaism – of Graeco-Roman Stoic philosophy. And Stoic philosophers – amongst which some were themselves slaves – preached indifference to whatever external condition happened to afflict them.

luiz
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

* Even though

Anna
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

L. Junius Brutus, you do not fully understand principle-based objection to the death penalty. There is more difference between the death penalty and imprisonment than the level and reversibility of harm to the punished.

Motive is another reason for establishing the rightness or wrongness of an act. Since executing someone (with all the precautions that are currently in place to avoid killing innocent people, which still aren’t enough to actually avoid killing innocent people) is more expensive than keeping someone locked up for life, and isn’t really any more successful at preventing further crimes, the only possible reason for executing people is to fulfill someone’s desire for vengeance.

The motives for executing (safety of others + revenge) people and imprisoning (safety of others + sometimes reformation) them are different enough that their morality or lack thereof are able to be judged separately on that level as well.

Jim Burroway
January 17th, 2011 | LINK

Okay, this thread is WAY off topic. I did not once mention capital punishment, atheism, or slavery or biblical exegesis. They are not even REMOTELY related to this post.

Per our comments policy, any further comments along those lines will be removed for being off topic.

Ben in Atlanta
January 18th, 2011 | LINK

“The definition of marriage is between one man and one woman,” she said. “God is our ultimate law giver.”

If something is truly a law it works exactly the same way for whoever uses it. It functions impersonally. Look at gravity and buoyancy. Or your Universal Constants. They work no better for Christians than anyone else.

Have a look at the architecture and art in our Capitol City sometime. It’s in no way limited to any one particular mythology.

If Ms. Pearson can’t see what’s right in front of her face I’ll go right ahead and call her a willfully ignorant liar.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.