Loved by Lawyers and DHS Agents alike!
I still think this is a real - after all I got burned by the Landover site thinking it was real, but something keeps telling me it's a goof.
I was talking with a friend of mine at work about the Landover Baptist link (the Jar Jar post - if you haven't seen it - it's a gag site that looks pretty serious - it took me a while to figure out it was a goof since I'm not a Baptist I was a little slow on the humor/satire). I agree with you about his comment "I believe that it is a statement supporting the word of God and that it (the Bible) is above all and that any other religious book that does not teach Christ as savior and lord as the 66 books of the Bible teaches it, is wrong". I believe a lot of stuff is wrong but I don't put signs up about it b/c legally speaking, many things I consider 'wrong' are totally legal and they have just as much right to do their thing as I do mine. Here's my real gripe with people like that. We know that the media leans ever so slightly in the anti-religion direction. Hmmm, wanna get Christianity on Drudge or National Headlines ($10.00 says this is on most talk radio today or tomorrow) - go donate a vital organ, give away a bunch of that Church money to by someone a transplant organ - do something GOOD for goodness sake. Don't pull crap like this that will definitely fill one's attention whoring desires but make all religous folks look like nuts in the process. If I publicly but $10.00 for each person that dude converts to Christianity w/ that Sign, I won't be a penny poorer. If I had to pay a dollar for each person he turns off to it, I'd be broke.
Bill, can you fix the linefeeds on my previous comment? Thanks. I used RSS Bandit to post the reply.
While I agree with what the pastor of the Danieltown Baptist Church says, "I believe that it is a statement supporting the word of God and that it (the Bible) is above all and that any other religious book that does not teach Christ as savior and lord as the 66 books of the Bible teaches it, is wrong", I feel the message on the sign is un-Christian. Is it any wonder way Christiians are viewed as angry bigots. The meaning of the messenger is correct, the delivery of the message was not. This brings up another pet peeve I have with the current post-modern culture we live in -- revisionist language. Christians are often said to be intolerant. Am I intolerant? That depends on which definition of tolerance is used.Tolerance: 1828 Webster: The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring. current Merriam-Webster online: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.Back in 1828, to tolerate something was to put up with it. "As long as it stays over there I can tolerate it." Today's meaning of tolerate means I have to accept (indulge) something I do not agree with. "I have to tolerate the teaching of homosexuality to my kids in public school."I guess I am a 1828-type guy! Why was the definition changed?We live in a post-modern world where there are no absolutes. It frees us to be able to change things to our own suiting. We see this today with all these Federal judges reinterpretating US law. And lets not forgot how President Clinton changed the definition of the word 'sexual': "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her."
I guess what gets me is if the sign said the Bible needs to be flushed then everyone would say that it's their right to say it and have that opinon, which is correct, but no one would care since it offends Christians. For some reason this is an "..un-American example of intolerance, of aggressive disrespect for other citizens". Darren hit the nail on the head, for me to be tolerant I will put up with things because I'm an American who believes in our country and the rights of our citizens but I do not and will not accept things that I do not believe in.
Erik - "I guess what gets me is if the sign said the Bible needs to be flushed then everyone would say that it's their right to say it and have that opinon, which is correct, but no one would care since it offends Christians. For some reason this is an "..un-American example of intolerance, of aggressive disrespect for other citizens". " I don't agree with this at all - there would be people upset. I think most of the problem is the media...it blows almost everything out of proportion and it tries to cause controversy because lets face it, nothing sells magazines/papers/etc. like controversy...especially controversy over religion. Darrin - "Today's meaning of tolerate means I have to accept (indulge) something I do not agree with. "I have to tolerate the teaching of homosexuality to my kids in public school.” I guess I am a 1828-type guy!" If you replaced the word "homosexuality" with "the rights of blacks" back in 1828 the majority of people would've agreed with you too, yet now it's accepted - is this a bad thing that we as a society changed our views? "We live in a post-modern world where there are no absolutes." I think that this is a good thing because not everything is black and white - we live in a world full of grey's (and I'm not talking about aliens :P)
The pastor who put the sign up apologizes: http://www.thecarolinachannel.com/news/4540150/detail.html?rss=gs&psp=news skicow: That is a VERY scary comment. Unless we have absolutes to hang onto our society is doomed. Speaking from a Christian-worldview I am talking about Bibical absolutes. In the Old Testament God declares homosexuality as an abomination. The rights of blacks is not mentioned. That is because the black rights issue is primarily an American creation. It is not really an issue anywhere else in the world. While British and early American slavers exported black slavery from the African continent to the New World, slavery (black, Jewish, etc.) has been in existence for a long time. The Bible does not teach against slavery, only that slave masters are to treat their slaves with respect and treat them well. In return the believing slave is to server their master well. Of course, slavery was a common thing even in the days of the NT. But I wandered off topic a bit. Absolutes are necessary otherwise the laws and rules of a society will fall. Without absolutes, when is murder murder, what acts are considered lewd. High schoolers, with help from President Clinton, do not consider oral sex as having sex! According to the Bible, intimate contact is to only occur between a husband and a wife. All else is considered sexually immoral. This is the type of absolutes I am talking about.
Darren, where exactly in the Old Testament did God allegedly condemn homosexuality? I have seen no evidence that any of the original writings, PRE-translation, were meant to indicate homosexuality. That is merely an interpretation of what was written. High schoolers absolutely do not believe oral sex is not sex. That is a ludicrous statement. If anything, they merely place less importance on oral sex as they would/do intercourse. Aside from any possible long-term moral ramifications of that interpretation, (Remember that word from above?) it is the parents, and SOLELY the parents, responsibility to instill the correct values in their children. You may tell your children that oral sex, in whatever circumstance, is wrong. But don't you dare try to get the school to tell all the children; that's not the schools' place, and it's not your right to force that values system on all the children at that school. There are no more absolutes holding up the laws as there are absolutes holding up the economy. When is theft, theft? Was Enron thievery? Was it illegal? The asme argument you made could easily be applied to that scenario; had the absolutes of socialism, or capitalism as defined in 1920, been maintained, Enron would not have taken place. "We live in a post-modern world where there are no absolutes. It frees us to be able to change things to our own suiting." Like declaring pornography a sin? Seems like that's exactly what has happened; many sol-called Christians declaring pornography a sin. That was not written in the Old OR New Testament... So, where's you absolute? This whole idea that the basis for laws is the Bible, and therefore is both absolute and infallible is insane. The Bible is a tool for many Christians. They no more care what it says as a whole than they care about the Koran. Many Christians work the Bible for specific verses they believe help support their case, plain and simple. Besides, as you say, slavery was allowed; does that mean you are prepared to defend your right to own a slave? Are you willing to be persecuted by those who believe slavery to be an abomination? Would you hold your Bible high and declare you Christian right to be a slave-owner? As for the Bible and blacks; So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. (II Chronicles 14:12) This has many times been used by KKK members and various other racist groups to support the violence visited upon blacks. This verse would seem to indicate that the Lord God slaughtered over a million blacks. I assume you wear only pure cotton clothing: Lev 19:19 I assume that if your daughter were to have sex prior to marriage you would stoner her to death: Duet. 22:20 I assume you have bodily removed handicapped people from your church: Lev 27:18-23 I assume you will be tolerant, even accepting, of your daughter having a lesbian partner, since that is not actually condemned in the Bible. (Man will not lie with man is what the fanaticals always tout... LEVITICUS 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.") Says nothing whatsoever about lying with womankind as with mankind. By your definition of what is right and wrong, it MUST be acceptable for women to be lesbians. Or, something a little more simple and straighforward; do you eat pork? Did you have pre-marital sex? Do you drink alcohol? How about this little morsel; "The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked." (Psalms 58:10) Should we keep that "absolute"?
I guess it's seriousooeess