Sunday Weekly Review: Reading Between the Lines

May 1, 2005

(broadcast stream) (.mp3 download)

Mark gives you on THE INSIDE SCOOP on all the week’s news:

– The House Republicans’ strange about-turn, agreeing, after public pressure, to accept an Ethics Committee even though it will investigate their leader Tom Delay

– The details of how the Senate Republicans’ “nuclear option” would work. Hint: it only works by throwing out ALL Congressional rules.

– and Mark questions why our troops are STILL dying because they can’t get armored vehicles?

PLUS Mark begins his analysis of what President Bush failed to say at Thursday’s press conference.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Forever Young May 25, 2005 9:12 pm

    You’re only as old or young as you feel. ;-)

  • Just too freakin' old May 25, 2005 6:10 pm

    Jeez–Nesbitts used to be orange pop

  • Just too freakin' old May 25, 2005 6:10 pm

    Jeez–Nesbitts used to be orange pop

  • Honey,Honey, Sugar,Sugar Candy Girl May 25, 2005 3:49 pm

    Are you confusing Necco Wafers and Nabisco crackers and cookies?

    Is Homer gay? (I know NOTHING of the Simpsons)

  • Candyman May 25, 2005 2:14 pm

    OK–but Nesbit is a brand of candy-wafer (As Homer Simpson would say, “Hmmmmmmmm…Nesbits)

  • Vicky May 25, 2005 11:31 am

    Monkee Man – “I’m a Believer” -

    (That was Michael Nesmith.)

  • Mark Levine May 25, 2005 11:18 am

    Oops. You’re right, Vicky! Knew I’d heard that name somewhere…Sorry I can’t be more help, egrassh.

  • Hey, hey we're the Monkees you know we're gonna fool around May 25, 2005 11:17 am

    Wasn’t he one of the Monkees?

  • Hey, hey we're the Monkees you know we're gonna fool around May 25, 2005 11:17 am

    Wasn’t he one of the Monkees?

  • Vicky May 25, 2005 11:12 am

    Isn’t Michael Nesbit a baseball player?

  • Mark Levine May 25, 2005 10:44 am

    Sorry I don’t. Try different spellings of “Nesbit”

  • egrassh May 23, 2005 11:19 pm

    Mark: Do you know the website of radio commontator Michael Nedbet? I’m not sure how to spell his last name so I can’t seem to pull it up. I googled it and used askjeeves and it still won’t come up. I know he has a website because they announce it on the show. Thanks.

  • Dr. Freud May 5, 2005 8:59 am

    Living Grace

    The active power of mercy is learned by living it,
    by having returned from detours into fear,
    having mistakes mended
    through regret over time,
    as we admit them,

    Opening our hearts to receive our cure,
    atoning as we comfort others,
    allowing ourselves to be taken
    from pain, through healing, to peace,
    in a process that enlightens our darkness,
    slowly surrendering
    to the divinity flowing through us,
    instilling silent strength.

  • Mark Levine May 4, 2005 10:02 pm


    I have never doubted at any moment that:
    – you don’t intend to offend;
    – you “intrinsically believe with deep conviction the things you have attempted to share”; and
    – you genuinely care for people

    In fact, it’s only because I have always believed you are genuine, caring, sincere, and good-hearted that I have taken the time to explain at length what I believe and, as best I can, why I believe what I believe. I have tried sincerely to answer your questions while shrugging off hatemongers like JohnnyP because I do believe your questions are in good faith, while the hatemongers are trying to insult, instead of trying to understand another person’s perspective.

    I do believe there are differences in our faiths in that I think my faith is more tolerant of your faith than yours is of mine (and I speak here not of Judaism and Christianity per se but more of our personal beliefs). But while I do find a few of the things you believe in, Vicky, to be personally shocking to me, I have never once doubted your good faith (in both senses of the word).

    I hope Vicky that I have not offended you either. While I have zero desire to change your faith, I do hope that I can crack the door open just a touch so that you can allow for the possibility that your faith may not have a full and complete lock on the truth. I fully accept that I do not know the entire truth and that I am always learning. (And I also agree that communication by blog is far less effective than phone calls or face to face.)

    And I strongly believe that people of good faith — such as you and me, Vicky — need to communicate with each other in a country all too easily split into “red” and “blue” worlds. If we can come to some agreement, terrific!, but if we can’t, we should at least strive to understand our different perspectives so that we can live as harmoniously as possible in the country we both love and call home.

  • Vicky May 4, 2005 6:22 pm

    Mark,Gordon, Jacob, Steve and Whomever Else,

    It has never been my intention to offend anyone when I share my faith. I’ve never meant to come across as arrogant or that I think I know it all. I am not an arrogant person and I realize that is difficult to show on a blog such as this; there is so much left out when we aren’t able to communicate face to face with others. I know there have been times when I’ve made my “flip” remarks and comments and those were uncalled for and I apologize.

    I tried to explain to Gordon once that my “insistence” isn’t so that Vicky can be “right” but because I intrinsically believe with deep conviction the things I have attempted to share. It’s because I genuinely care for people (of all ages) that I feel the need to keep trying to share my faith. I say with all honesty and sincerity that I have never wanted to force it upon anyone. I don’t believe my God works that way and I shouldn’t be either.

    “May the Lord bless you and keep you: The Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.” Numbers 6:24-26

  • Jacob Matthan May 4, 2005 1:24 pm

    Mark wrote: “I hope we can all agree that charity for charity’s sake is a higher form of good than charity in order to get conversions.”

    Absolutely, Mark. That is why when I donate to charity organisations now it is always to organisations which have NO religious affiliation. Howver, my wife does pay her tithes to her religious group and they certainly do a lot of charity work and it is always based on leading to conversion. However, as far as I know the people in that particular sect live their faith on their sleeve and lead by example – so I have no objection to that form of conversion.

  • Mark Levine May 4, 2005 1:08 pm


    I am sorry to hear of your experience in India and concede readily that your knowledge of the situation is greater than my own.

    I hope we can all agree that charity for charity’s sake is a higher form of good than charity in order to get conversions.

  • Jacob Matthan May 4, 2005 12:27 pm

    Mark wrote: “I would never make the absurd claim that all or even many Christian organizations were acting for ulterior motives.”

    Mark, I am a Christian and have worked with Christian aid organisations or been involved with many who were working with such organisations.

    I have seen first hand how these organisations work in India. There are very very few who work purely on the basis of charitable reasons. They are answerable to the funders of these organisations and almost all of them work on the basis of successes – converts made. If not, the funders vapourise. This may be schools in different places, hospitals or creches.

    In truth, this does not really matter if the converion has occurred because of “the example” of the people doing the charitable work. (Mother theresa would come to mind here.) But the bulk of those working live lives quite out of step with the people they are trying to convert and use means fair and foul to achieve their ends – further funding. That is why the Indian Government imposed strict rules and guidelines on the modes of operations of such organisations.

    Some may use threats of hell fire, which to an illiterate villager can be traumatic. Others may use material benefits for converts as against non-converts.

    If you think this is absurd – may I ask you to visit some of the many organisations that I have worked with during my time in India from my college days onwards.

    This is quite different from the work I did with refugees from Kosovo, Iraq, Iran, and many other countries, here in Finland where there was NO agenda except of integration. (My forte was to use sports as the tool for integration.)

  • Mark Levine May 4, 2005 11:34 am

    One of the things that most offended me about the tsunami relief was a particular Christian “relief organization” Worldhelp supported by Jerry Falwell that wanted to help Indonesian orphans but ONLY if these orphans would be removed from their homes in Aceh and placed in Christian orphanages with the expressed goal of converting them to Christianity in a land where such conversions were difficult.

    I agree there is a huge difference between charity to help people in danger and charity for ulterior motives. I would never make the absurd claim that all or even many Christian organizations were acting for ulterior motives. But I did find it troubling and offensive that the organization Falwell supported was doing exactly that.

  • Jacob Matthan May 4, 2005 11:12 am

    Vicky, you wrote:

    “The Christian faith is the one offering on the truth…”

    Why does one need faith if it is the truth?

    You need faith because you do not know whether it is the truth!!

    And please Vicky, please do not show your ignorance. Please come with me and I will show you hundreds of thousands of Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Sikh, charitable institutions all over the world. Do you know that at anytime anywhere in the world one can walk into a gurdwara and you will be given free food and shelter. Vicky, do you know what a gurdwara is?

    Ever heard of the Aga Khan and his absolutely enormous charitable organisation working in every corner of the globe?

    Not Christian, but Muslim!!

    The Indian (secular) Government had relief provided within a few hours of the tsunami even to countries other than India. Indiannaval ships were providing aid in Sri lanka even while “Christian” George Bush was talking of a few million of aid. he was shamed into increasing the amount.

    Nothing to do with Christianity.That is the human nature acting at times of calamity, rather than “Christian” Bush who looks to see what benefit he can get out of a calamity. Remember that statement which hit the headlines?.

    The Western media mainly focuses on what Christian organisations do as that is their readership!! It does not give any coverage to the aid being provided by non-Christian organisations.

    And just as the Red Cross (which is not Christian today but a very secular organisation) there is an even bigger parallel Red Crescent!! Ever heard of that Vicky.

    The majority of Christian organisations doing “charitable” work do so with an agenda to gain converts. That is the difference between Christian and non-Christian aid organisations.

    One has a very distinct agenda, the other does it selflessly.

    I leave you to guess which is which.

  • Is this confusing enough for ya? May 4, 2005 10:51 am

    Mark, I believe provable truths (history, science, math) are three dimensional truth and that there is a fourth dimensional truth that transcends and from which three dimensional truth delineates.

    Levels of truth-if you will–that are all true, intrinsically and of equal import (in all being a part of Truth)

  • Mark Levine May 4, 2005 10:12 am


    I’m afraid Randy Alcorn is wrong about history. In fact, Islam had a strong and thriving culture, with much greater science AND charity than Christianity in the Middle Ages (called Dark Ages in Europe when they really were Dark). While Christianity had the massacres of the Inquisition and the Crusades and rival Popes making plots to kill each other and masses of people living in practical slavery and illiteracy under a feudal system, Islam had high literacy and wealth and far more equality, developing Arabic numerals and realizing the earth went around the sun long before Christian scientists did.

    It wasn’t until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment — both non-Christian in origin I might add, not anti-Christian but not based on Church teachings — that Christian Europe began to surpass the Islamic world in wealth and charity.

    In the Middle Ages, Christian Europe was far more backward than the pagan Greeks and Romans who had a high degree of civilization (they even had plumbing and sewers!). (The Greeks worshipped many gods and, as it happens, taught that homosexual love was a greater love than heterosexual love because it was pure and not determined by the base desire for procreation.)

    Yes, of course, there are Muslim and Buddhist and Hindu and Athiest and Jewish hospitals and centers of relief for people around the world and there have been throughout history. I don’t know why Randy Alcorn would say that. As a matter of history, it’s simply untrue.

    And Christianity isn’t doing enough today to even save Christians who are being massacred in Darfur. (Has Pope Benedict XVI mentioned Sudan yet? I haven’t heard it.) Compare to the way Israel steps in to save Jews in trouble all over the world, as they did recently in the Soviet Union and Ethiopia. Israel is also often the first country in the world to aid non-Jews in natural disasters.

    There are good and bad Christians, good and bad Jews, good and bad Muslims, good and bad Buddhists, and good and bad athiests worldwise. It’s a simple obvious “truth,” but I think it always bears repeating.

    The point, Vicky, is there is a truth outside ourselves, a provable truth, and that’s history and science and math. All are based on “theories” supported by substantial evidence. (In other words, I DO believe the Revolutionary War happened even though there are no witnesses alive today who can describe the Battles at Lexington and Concord.)

    And then there is faith: the unprovable. It may be true. It may not be true. But there is absolutely no way you can prove Christianity is any more true than Buddhism. You have the right to your beliefs, of course. You can even insist they are “true” to you. But until you have proof, you rely on “faith.” And someone who does not have that faith will never believe your “truth”. Indeed they may have an equally strong unprovable faith in a “truth” that is antithetical to yours.

    So, in sum, there are two kinds of truth:

    Objective, provable truth: history, science, math.

    And subjective, unprovable truth: God, faith, belief.

    On the first, we can all agree worldwide and, if we disagree on a few particulars, we can put forward powerful evidence of general facts. (We may disagree on where a Revolutionary Battle occurred but we cannot dispute that the American Revolution happened. We may dispute how a particular creature evolved but we cannot dispute that evolution happened.)

    On the second “truth,” we have only faith. Powerful faiths to be sure. Faiths that cause human beings to devote their lives to a cause. Faith that causes people to even kill one another or themselves. Faiths that contradict each other. Could one particular faith be entirely “true”? To have all the facts to the exclusion of all others? It’s theoretically possible, I suppose. But since it’s unprovable, it’s not a question we can ever answer in this world.

    My particular “faith” has respect for objective truth. One of my favorite rabbis, Jochanan ben Zakkai was asked two thousand years ago: “Rabbi, if one is planting a tree and hears ‘the Messiah has come!’, what should one do?” His answer: “Finish planting the tree and then go greet the Messiah.” This has always seemed to me to be an appropriate placement of priorities. Let’s heal the world we know (the one where we can all pretty much agree on what is objective truth) and deal with the world to come (the world of faith) when and if we get there.

    Let us never confuse objective facts (history, science, math) with faith. Those are two entirely different kinds of “truth.”

  • Druid Disaster Relief Paratrooper Action Force May 4, 2005 8:40 am

    Charity is not about recognition and up-onemanship–those seeking Christ consciousness try to help as they can, either physically and/or metaphysically

    Careful Vicky–maybe your Christian beliefs are just that–and not Truth–you don’t have a monopoly on the Truth–nobody does–it is certainly something that cannot be contained, packaged, and neatly labeled (To label the truth is to lose it)

  • Vicky May 4, 2005 5:51 am

    What religions besides Christianity have established hospitals throughout the world, or networks of famine relief and development to help starving people, victims of disasters and refugees? Who has shown grace, bringing in tons of food, clothing, shelter, man-power and medical supplies after every disaster? Buddhists? Hindus? Muslims? Animists? Atheists? Agnostics?


    When Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus are suffering in far corners of the world, it’s Christians who come to help. This flies beneath the cultural radar, which reduces Christianity to crusades and persecutions. (Never mind that more Christians are persecuted than anyone else in the world, and more than any religious group in history.)

    From R.Alcorn’s book, The Grace and Truth Paradox

  • Vicky May 4, 2005 5:49 am

    Jacob, Is there no truth, then?

    I am stating and sharing my beliefs; I have the right and an obligation to do so. I am not “forcing” them on you or anyone.

    From: The Grace and Truth Paradox, by Randy Alcorn

    Today, truth is regarded as a smorgasbord, with many equally valid options. In fact, truth is what it is regardless of tastes. There is not one truth for you and one truth for me, and another for someone else.The Christian faith is the one offering on the truth smorgasbord for which there’s zero tolerance. It’s fine to say you’re searching for truth. It’s not fine to say you’ve found it. If you believe in horoscopes and reincarnation, you’re cool; if you believe the apostle Paul, you’re an idiot.

    Why is it okay to believe any silly thing we want to, but not okay to believe Scripture? Because if it’s true, we’re in real trouble. If there’s a God who created me, is my judge, says I am a sinner and makes demands on my life, I don’t want to hear it.

    That people are so quickly offended by Christian beliefs is evidence for their truth.

    God has written His truth on human hearts, in the conscience (Romans 2:15) Truth is far more than a moral guide. Jesus declared, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me” (John 14:6) He didn’t say He would show the truth or teach the truth or model the truth. He is the truth. Truth personified. He is the source of all truth, the embodiment of truth and therefore the reference point for evaluating all truth-claims.

    The phrase “I tell you the truth,” appears 79 times in Scripture, 78 times spoken by Jesus. He is the truth, and he tells the truth. We can fully trust everything he says.

    All of us have a theology. The only question is whether it’s true or false. Much teaching today is popularity-driven not truth-driven. “The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine; to suit their own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3).

  • Jacob matthan May 4, 2005 1:16 am

    Truth is relative. What is “truth” to George Bush is a “blatant lie” to the rest of the world!!

    The perspective one looks at an issue is what defines what is true to one. You called Jains as “crazies” as they have a different way to honour their God and his teachings. I queried your version of truth by reference to “Virgin birth” thought by many to be the view of some “crazies”. Which is true?

    Maybe both, maybe neither!!

    Religion is something very personal and the attempt to thrust your views on any issue on somebody else is what is causing the troubles in this world. Similar to “your” belief that abortion of a fetus is “murder” the Jains believe that your killing “germs”and “insects” is “murder”.

    You believe You were made in “God’s image”. Other’s belive “God’s image” is undecipherable to humans who have such limited knowledge of the universe and can only think as far as the limits of their knowledge, which is pathetically small!!

    What is the reason for the tghousands of idol we see around the world. It is to help those who have relatively poor vuísual conception to visualise their God. And your visual conception of God in “man’s image” is a similar level of idolisation!!

    To me, God is abstract and no form can be put on It. But that is suitable for me – and I do not and will not push it onto anyone else, unlike you.

  • Vicky May 3, 2005 8:21 pm

    Jacob – In response to your 12:21 PM post above:

    The God you refer to as the “Christian God” IS the Lord and sustainer of all life. If there are Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, etc., who have made the kind of remarkable recovery that this firefighter made, that recovery, like the firefighter’s, should be attributed to God, who is sovereign over all things regardless of what people believe about him.

    God works to suit His purposes, whether to soften the heart of Saul of Tarsus, or harden the heart of Pharoah.

    The truth of who God is doesn’t need us to believe in it or in him in order to make him truly God. I remember reading a comment by Bob Dylan some years back and that was, “The truth doesn’t need you (or me) to make it true.”

  • Allen Carstensen May 3, 2005 6:16 pm


    You said “Allen, any President that did not go to war in Afghanistan would have had an approval rating of less than 10% in America. I’m not saying that’s the reason I would go, but I firmly believe that if you do not act in self-defense when your country is attacked, you get yourself walked all over.”

    Again, nobody can “walk all over” the world’s only superpower. As the world’s only superpower, we owe it to the world, to set an example by being a fair and just society and not always fighting fire with fire. Jimmy Carter’s approval rating suffered from not taking a tough guy approach to the Iran hostage crisis, but they would have been released and he would have won a second term if Reagan hadn’t made a deal with the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the election. I’d hate to think that a politician has to be macho to win. I think the people are smarter than that.

    You said “Here’s a great example: The Tibetan Buddhists are an honorable people with a many thousand-year old rich culture. They are also pacifists. When China invaded their country, they refused to fight back out of principle. Now over the course of many decades, China continues to rape and pillage Tibet and destroy its culture. The ICC does nothing (of course), and the entire world looks the other way because, like it or not, the world respects power more than law.”

    There is a problem with your example. Tibet is not a superpower, so the analogy is not appropriate. Consider, also, what would have happened if they had fought back. They wouldn’t have a chance. Perhaps they acted wisely.

    You said “If we had a World Court and a World Government that effectively governed the world and could catch and jail bad people, I might feel differently. But we don’t. It’s the Wild West out there. And when someone shoots at you, you have to shoot back.”

    Yikes. How about if we try behaving in a civilized manner. Being that we are the most powerful nation on earth, that might be a good step towards the day when it’s not the wild west out there. We have a lot of influence in the UN. Let’s use our influence to push the UN into a position where it could act more effectively to foster peace in the world.

  • Jacob Matthan May 3, 2005 1:08 pm

    Partly right G. I. Joe – but America must have leadership that the rest of the world respects – not people like John Bolton being nominated to the UN!! Or a Mainstream Media which focuses its whole efforts on a run away bride rather than real stories about war and peace.

  • G.I. Joe May 3, 2005 12:42 pm

    Right on, Jacob–and the tumor has been running rampant in the ideology of military-industrials in the Pentagon and information sources in U.S. foreign service, during and since Vietnam (actually since Korea)

    Is the U.S. the bad guy? Well, America is part of the problem–but America is also the solution

    America still has the ability to make it better–they have the resources to do it–if they only had the conscience and the consciousness as well

  • Ooga Booga May 3, 2005 12:28 pm

    Jacob–if it happens near the equator–it is attributed to ju-ju–heavy ju-ju

  • Jacob Matthan May 3, 2005 12:26 pm

    GI- Joe.

    Absolutely right but look at the commonality and starting factor in all these cases – Taliban, Osama bin Laden and even Saddam Hussain – US support for them and attempts to destabilise the region for the benefit of the US.

    Hence the surgical method is to eliminate the US infiltration and destabilisation process.

    You are only seeing the results of this policy in these final outcomes.

  • Jacob Matthan May 3, 2005 12:21 pm

    If it happens to a Christian it will be attributed to “God”.

    If it happens to a non-Christian it is usually attributed to satanic forces.

    There is a difference between coma and brain deterioration – if you are trying to equate the case of Schiavo to this firefighter. There is no resemblance whatsoever between these two cases. the cat scans reveal the difference.

    Do you attribute this recovery to the “Christian God”.

    if so can I refer you to similar cases which have happened to Hindus and Muslims and what would be your response, please.

  • Vicky May 3, 2005 10:44 am

    Mark – Your 5/2 post at 12:38 pm – In part you wrote….

    “This is another difference between a sentient human and a fetus or brain-damaged person. (Sorry Vicky, I couldn’t resist, but that Holocaust analogy still rankles me.)”

    A news article I read this morning brought this comment of yours to mind and had to share it with you.

    Brain-damaged firefighter makes miraculous recovery ~

    It has been 10 years since a roof collapsed on 44-year-old Donald Herbert while he was fighting a fire, leaving him brain-damaged and in a nursing home. But this past weekend, he astounded doctors and his family when he asked to talk with his wife. Although Herbert has undergone therapy since the accident, video of the therapy sessions shows him with little awareness of his surroundings. Most patients recovering from brain injuries do so within two or three years, doctors say. “It’s almost unheard of after 10 years,” Dr. Rose Lynn Sherr of New York University Medical Center said, “but sometimes things do happen and people suddenly improve and we don’t understand why.”

  • G.I.Joe May 3, 2005 10:09 am

    Jacob–the U.S. way to capture Osama was certainly not the “surgical” approach–that doesn’t mean that the surgical approach–when properly instituted–doesn’t apply–the tumor still has to be removed or put in remission

    A holistic approach(prayer, forgiveness, answering grievances) is a possible response to cause remission; but inaction, yin-and-yang-wise, is asking for the disease to spread

  • Jacob Matthan May 3, 2005 12:48 am

    Vicky, the very fact that you cannot understand why the daughter was placed with the grandmother shows you cannot understand the culture of that community.

    Find out the reason and tell me why. I know why and I understand why. No one had to explain it to me.

    It is the same reason there are few Old Peoples Homes in China or India.

  • Jacob Matthan May 3, 2005 12:43 am

    Sorry that you led with your chin first :-) :

    Mark wrote “it is notoriously slow and could take 5 years to do this”

    With your American approach how long has it taken to catch Osama bin Laden; how has it curtailed the growth of the Al Qaida; how has it reduced terrorism; how has it stopped the Taliban; how has it reduced the growth of opium supply?

    Sorry Mark – look at the facts on the ground – I cannot buy your argument.

  • Jacob Matthan May 3, 2005 12:36 am

    Mark, I never thought I would ever see that you would be such an ardent supporter of Jeb Bush and his move to a fascist regime!!

  • Mark Levine May 2, 2005 11:48 pm

    Vicky, I see no contradiction between calling those who want to murder abortion doctors extremist and saying that I myself would pick up arms to stop on-going genocide. It’s simple: I don’t consider abortion murder, and I don’t consider fetuses, particularly those at the earliest stages, to be much more than potential life. But if the Nazis were going door to door killing Jews (or if the KKK was going door to door killing blacks), you can bet I’d pick up a gun and shoot the killers to protect the innocents. I’d do my best to kill (or at least put out of commission with mace or some other weapon) the killers before they could kill again.

    Wouldn’t you do the same? (Shoot the KKKer or Nazi before he could kill an innocent human being?) And I don’t think I’ll disclose my own gun ownership here on the blog.

    Allen, any President that did not go to war in Afghanistan would have had an approval rating of less than 10% in America. I’m not saying that’s the reason I would go, but I firmly believe that if you do not act in self-defense when your country is attacked, you get yourself walked all over.

    Here’s a great example: The Tibetan Buddhists are an honorable people with a many thousand-year old rich culture. They are also pacifists. When China invaded their country, they refused to fight back out of principle. Now over the course of many decades, China continues to rape and pillage Tibet and destroy its culture. The ICC does nothing (of course), and the entire world looks the other way because, like it or not, the world respects power more than law.

    If we had a World Court and a World Government that effectively governed the world and could catch and jail bad people, I might feel differently. But we don’t. It’s the Wild West out there. And when someone shoots at you, you have to shoot back.

    (Iraq didn’t “shoot at us,” but Al Quaeda (supported by the Afghani Government) did so I see a clear distinction.

  • Allen Carstensen May 2, 2005 9:45 pm

    You said “As it is, the Security Council ALREADY justified America’s actions in Afghanistan by voting that a new government should be set up following the 9/11 attacks (Resolution 1378 – Read it at ). Like it or not, our invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly justified under existing international law.”
    Went there, read that. I didn’t find anything about using force. No cluster bombs, no daisy cutters, no munitions with depleted uranium ….

  • The ghost of Viktor Frankl May 2, 2005 8:59 pm

    Allen–you understand the escalative nature of war–but sometimes, posed with a life-threatening disease (like cancer)–surgery is needed–well-targeted surgery

    Of course while dealing with cancer surgery–it is best not to attempt a hip replacement

    The dreaming you speak of–comes after surgery–in recovery when the mind thinks thoughts of healing–and spreads thoughts of healing to other minds–until the telekinetic cause of the disease is ended–and with it the disease

    Healing the Past

    God is ever-present;
    his hand on every moment,
    able to intervene,
    release us to new beginnings,
    a fresh mind seeing
    only the past’s reality of love given and received;
    everything else cast away.

    While processing trauma,
    don’t let the ego
    keep the negative alive.
    Forgive and atone to a healing heart;
    be comforted that
    then was a special time
    either caused by a chance to increase love
    or by fear that the spirit can cure.

    Settle into now,
    learning lessons with joy and wonder,
    it’s all good.

  • allen Carstensen May 2, 2005 8:00 pm

    You said (referring to the ICC) “Even if it ruled against Osama bin Laden — it is notoriously slow and could take 5 years to do this” OK, so it’s slow. So we kill thousands of innocents to speed up the process? Imagine if were still waiting, and while we were waiting, we were living up to our obligations to the UN Millennium Goals, we were giving the IAEA inspectors all the time they needed in Iraq, and we were not sacrificing thousands of our soldiers. Imagine the impact that might have on the thought processes of a potential suicide bomber. Imagine how we could have spent the 300 billion dollars.
    “Imagine all the people
    living life in peace…”
    “You may say Im a dreamer,
    but Im not the only one,
    I hope some day you’ll join us,
    And the world will live as one.”
    I know you where not in favor of the Iraq war, but I’m suggesting that Bush might not have been able to take the country to war without the first step in Afghanistan.

  • Sally the crone May 2, 2005 7:29 pm

    Vicky–your religious temperment finally aligns with proper historical placement–the 1600′s–yeah–that was a time of enlightenment wasn’t it–by the light of the burning witches

  • Vicky May 2, 2005 6:19 pm

    Mark, How can you call those “extremists” who have murdered abortion doctors, and yet state without shame, but with indignation that you would kill and support those who killed other human beings? Isn’t it a matter of your own personal convictions that you would choose to do that? Are you saying that if you were to become 100% convinced that abortion is murder, that you would be killing abortion doctors? (Do you have a legal gun?)

    Jacob, I’m not sure what your point is concerning the story about your friend who left her daughter with the grandmother to raise. Why did she do that?

  • Vicky May 2, 2005 6:07 pm

    As for “the most corrupt group of liars and killers in American political history”, that disgrace without question goes to Warren Burger, Potter Stewart, William O. Douglas, William Brennan, Jr., Lewis Powell, Jr., Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, whose decision on Roe v. Wade has resulted so far in the murder of over 40 million unborn children in the United States.

    God sees and judges the Judges who rule wrongly.

    “God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods [kings, lawmakers & judges]. How long will you judge unjustly and accept the persons of the wicked? (Ps 82:all)

    Matthew Henry, a 17th century theologian said -

    “But God charges bad magistrates, who neglect their duty and abuse their power, who forget that God stands among those who judge unjustly who do wrong. Woe unto you, O land, when your judges are such as these.

    “They have baffled their own consciences; they walk on in darkness, not knowing nor caring what they do nor where they go. These walk in darkness and are walking on into everlasting darkness.

    “What are the consequences of their sins? All the foundations of the earth (land) are out of course ‘The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved’ (Ps 75:3).”

    Since 1973 Americans have murdered 40-50 million unborn children by cruel and grisly means (sucking the blood and limbs of our victims with high powered vacuums; shredding them with custom-made knives and tearing them with huge pliers-like instruments; crushing their skulls for ease of removal; burning them alive with chemical washes until their raw, dead bodies are expelled; artificially inducing their premature birth with drugs or removing them by “hysterotomy” only to kill them by starvation or exposure; or by “partial birth abortion”). If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

    Another quote from Matthew Henry -

    “Sooner or later God will make inquisition for blood, innocent blood, and will return it on the heads of those who shed it… for they are worthy. Accessories shall be reckoned with, as well as principals… Those who countenanced [the bloodshed must fall with him who shed it, fall by him, and fall first. Those who join together to do wickedly are justly dashed in pieces one against another. Blood cannot be lasting cement to any interest…”

  • Mark Levine May 2, 2005 4:53 pm

    Allen and Jacob,

    G.I. Joe is right. The International Court is, unfortunately, controlled by the General Assembly of United Nations and is as much or more of a political body than it is a court. More importantly, it has NO enforcement mechanism. Even if it ruled against Osama bin Laden — it is notoriously slow and could take 5 years to do this — there would still have to be a Security Council resolution to go after him. (It could rule against Milosevic because Milosevic was already in custody. The same is true on the Lockerbie bombing. Libya delivered the suspects to the court.)

    As it is, the Security Council ALREADY justified America’s actions in Afghanistan by voting that a new government should be set up following the 9/11 attacks (Resolution 1378 – Read it at ). Like it or not, our invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly justified under existing international law.

  • Jacob Matthan May 2, 2005 2:42 pm

    I have been married 38 years to a white, my Findian children and grandchildren live in UK and Finland and accept the cultures of where they live. But they cannot understand the cultures of their fatherland or their motherland EVEN though all of them spent many years in my country and their mother’s country, and the same goes for me even though I have lived the last 21 years in Finland.

    I may claim to know the culture and they also may claim to know my culture BUT they do not.

    I give a simple example. We have a Chinese Indian who has a great restaurant here in our Finnish town. She has three children and recently she went to India and left her youngest daughter of just a year and a half to be brought up by her grandmother. My Finnish wife and my Findian daughter were unable to accept this action by one of their best friends. I had no problem in accepting this action.

    This is something that belongs to our cultures and highlights our cultural differences. We may claim we can understand each others cultures but we cannot, even in such a simple case.

  • Jacob Matthan May 2, 2005 2:33 pm

    The answer on International Law was answered by Allen. As regards Kosovo, I am not an expert on that and I cannot answer you on that.

    All I know is that all the Kosovo refugees I have dealt with here in my official capacity were anxious to return to Kosovo and many have. But I do not know anything about that to make a valid comment.

  • G.I. Joe May 2, 2005 2:26 pm

    Oh Allen–when you start to talk legalities in apprehending guerilla and terrorist leaders–any world court is as impotent as the Nevada Boxing Commission

    A quick, surgical, military strike against Osama was a strategy even peace-lovers advocate–realizing the tumor of hate has to be removed before holistic therapy can be started

    Of course,the big-mouth Bush posse stopped short at Tora Bora and decided on diversionist war in Iraq to partly cover up their blundering in Afghanistan

    You might be right that the neo-cons don’t want to get him, at least alive–he might be able to say more than anybody wants to hear

  • Allen Carstensen May 2, 2005 1:22 pm


    Back to the invasion of Afghanistan for a second. You asked Jacob “what was the “international law” way to bring Osama to justice?” You’re the lawyer, please tell us. What about the International Criminal Court? Couldn’t we have gotten a conviction and then gone in with a small international force under the UN flag? I can’t believe we can’t find that guy. I think the neocons don’t want to get him. He is useful to them in their efforts to keep the people scared.

  • ben May 2, 2005 12:50 pm


    I would have to say a new born is not capable of what you are speaking of. How does this differ from an unborn child? And at what point are children able to do this?

  • Mark Levine May 2, 2005 12:38 pm

    I also think it’s interesting that Jacob, Vicky, and I disagree so strongly, showing there are certainly more than “two sides” to issues. I just hope the increasing insults don’t detract from the points we all are making.

    Jacob, I do not accept that “brown people can’t understand white people” any more than I can accept that “white people can’t understand brown people.” We are all human, and with time, teaching, and open-mindedness, we can all grow a bit closer to understanding each other. We all have different experiences, but one of the powerful advantages of being human that puts us apart from the animals is we have the power to look outside ourselves and try to imagine life from another point of view. We don’t always rise to the occasion, but practically every sentient human being is capable of doing this.

    This is another difference between a sentient human and a fetus or brain-damaged person. (Sorry Vicky, I couldn’t resist, but that Holocaust analogy still rankles me.) And yes, as I believe we are obligated to capture or kill those who are in the process of perpetuating genocide (no matter what the law), if you believe abortion is genocide then how can you not support — as only a few extremists now think justified — the murder of abortion doctors? If abortion is the Holocaust, aren’t those who murder abortion doctors equivalent to the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? If not, why not?

    You can be adamantly opposed to abortion without calling it the Holocaust. I am adamantly opposed to Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, and Antonin Scalia (who I jokingly call “The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse”). But I mean it as a joke. These four men are evil, but they are not Hitler. And I don’t have to call them Hitler to recognize their evil nature.

    So, by all means, call abortion evil but please do not say it is the same as the Holocaust. Because I don’t think you truly believe they are equivalent crimes, Vicky, and to say so, just puts you on the same plane as those Leftists who call Bush Hitler. Frustration leads to extreme name-calling. But there are degrees of evil. And not all evil is Hitlerian. Very very few commit evil at that level.

  • Mark Levine May 2, 2005 12:19 pm

    Jacob, what was the “international law” way to bring Osama to justice?

    Just because the neo-cons failed miserably in Afghanistan doesn’t mean it could not have been done right. Did you approve of American intervention to stop genocide in Kosovo? I did. And Clinton executed it well. I believe the hatred of America stems far far more from our actions in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

  • Vicky May 2, 2005 12:05 pm

    Yes Jacob you are racist and you are arrogant and your racism and arrogance shows itself more and more boldly as you post your puffed-up views. You call Americans arrogant without knowing us personally, you’ve labeled Mark as arrogant and you’re calling me arrogant.

    I won’t call you “crazy” but I will tell you (again) that the Bible calls you a “fool.”

    Where is your tolerance and respect for my beliefs?

    You can call me crazy; it doesn’t offend me one bit. Yes, I believe in the Virgin birth. You don’t have to; I’d never try to force you to.

    All the same, you, along with every other man and woman dead and alive will stand before the Creator God of the Christian Bible and we will be judged, each of us giving an account to Him for ourselves.

  • jacob Matthan May 2, 2005 11:23 am

    Vicky, again you show your (wo)man made arrogance. You believe that God made man in his image because a book tells you so and you believe that!! What if I did not believe that – then according to you I am a crazy!!

    You say that Jainism is craziness – it is one of the most respected religions of the world and what you show by calling them crazy is only your craziness.

    Who should anyone believe in Virgin birth, the fundamental issue of Chrisianity – or should I call those who believe in that crazy?

    let’s not get started along that line.

    The first thing one should learn is to show respect for other people’s beliefs. Otherwise it is the arrogance you see in Delay, Frist, Bush, Robertson, Dobson, and all fundamentalists of all religions whose only agenda is POWER – and you as a simpleton are in their grasp as you cannot see beyond your nose and you do not want to.

  • Jacob Matthan May 2, 2005 11:13 am

    What I see in your views is the arrogance of Americans.

    America demands and others must comply. America acts and others must follow.

    There are hundreds of diplomatic ways to resolve a problem. If Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 then there were ways of International Law to get him and bring him to justice.

    But America does not subscribe to International law. It talks from the barrel of the gun.

    That is not diplomacy. That is Boltonism. It aggravates the problem.

    Why did the Russians leave Afghanistan? It was chaos at home which caused them to leave. No amount of American weaponry would have got rid of the Russians.

    What has America achieved in Afghanistan besides killing many thousands of innocent Afghanis.

    Has it got rid of the Taliban? No.
    Has it captured Al Qaida? No.
    Has it reduced the illegal tarfficing in opium? No
    Has it achieved rights for women? No.
    has it reduced the power of the war lords? No.
    has it reduced world terrorism? No.

    So tell me what the death and destruction has achieved in the cause for peace other than causing antagonism and hatred against Americans?

    What it has done with its barrel of the gun diplomacy has caused hate to spread to all corners of the globe against Americans.

    Mark, you and I can go on arguing on this issue till kingdsom come and we will never agree (because you cannot understand the minds of us brown people – no, I am not being racist – I am only telling you something which is similar to you telling me that I will never understand the white race – TRUE).

    But the final results are what speak louder than all the words we write.

    What HAS BEEN ACHIEVED is what the neocons wanted – their puppet in power in Afghanistan – the final objective.

    Has anything been achieved in Afghanistan for the good of the Afghani people? The simple answer is NO. Is the position any better? The simple answer is NO.

    So there should have been a better way – but arrogance and miltary might was used with tragic consequences.

  • MORE TO STUDY May 2, 2005 11:04 am

    Why Women And The Bible Don’t Mix

    After thousands of years of recorded history, we’re just now arriving at a point where women are starting to receive fair and equal treatment in many societies. It’s an irrefutable historical fact that some of the major sources of this unsolicited oppression were drawn from references of women’s treatment in the Old and New Testaments. This chapter will show that the Bible takes a clear and undeniable stance in its advocation for the unequal treatment of women. Furthermore, I will prove that the authors of the Bible intended for women to play the role of a man’s servant from birth until death. I will consistently and successfully defend this position using the words of God, allegedly speaking through Moses. Through this demonstration, I hope you will see that the incredibly dishonest teachings of Moses arose from an earthly source inferior to an omniscient deity. Subsequent works of Paul and his peers show only how gullible they were in so readily accepting the Old Testament scriptures as fact.

    After reading this chapter, I hope you will have a greater awareness of how the Bible instructs men to treat women. More importantly, I hope you will appreciate the lack of divine inspiration behind such commands encouraging this mistreatment. The only alternative is to conclude, yet again, that a deity with desires this immoral is clearly not worthy of observance.

    The Rules Of Marriage

    Let’s start our analysis at the “beginning.” Everyone has heard the story of God becoming angry with Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Although God punishes both for disobeying his directions, the author clearly places the majority of the blame on Eve for tempting her husband. God says to Eve, “thy desire is to be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). Since the other suppressing punishments on the couple, such as Eve’s childbirth pains, are still in effect, we have no justifiable reason to think that the servitude punishment applies solely to Eve and not the gender as a whole. If the Bible is the true word of God, this passage demonstrates his desire for women to live life in subservience to men. In actuality, however, someone most likely invented this portion of the patently unreliable story as a justification for the ongoing inferior treatment of women.

    Chapter 21 of Exodus provides us with some very detailed instructions from God on women and marriage. For example, in the instance that a father sells his daughter to another man who is not pleased with her, she must be redeemed. Regardless of the amount of satisfaction that the girl provides for the man, God’s rules still allow him to acquire another wife. If he so chooses, the first wife is not allowed to leave unless her master refuses her food, clothing, or other marriage duties (Exodus 21:7-11). These words would later serve as justification for men, such as King David, who had hundreds of wives and concubines. We’ve also learned in this passage that women are to be sold as slaves and treated as sex objects. If you dislike this conclusion and still believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, you must either unwillingly follow God’s derogatory and dehumanizing orders or take an opposing position against the almighty.

    The demoralizing instructions for daughter selling aren’t the only rules of marriage that God sanctions. If a man decides he no longer wants to be married to his wife, he can attempt to have her killed by claiming that she lost her virginity prior to their marriage. Following this accusation, the woman must then provide sufficient physical evidence, such as a bloodstain, to demonstrate that his accusations are fraudulent. In the event that she fails to prove her innocence of this “crime,” she is to be stoned to death because of this utmost act of disgrace. Guilty until proven innocent is the law within God’s court. Any woman who accidentally tears her hymen due to an injury or other nonsexual act is simply out of luck because she could never prove her virginity. Thus, she would be at the mercy of her husband throughout her entire life. If evidence is produced to exonerate the woman in question, the accuser is fined a couple pounds of silver and forced to stay married until death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). In this case, what does the man really have to lose?

    Some rules following the death of a man are relevant to his wife’s well-being. According to the rules of Moses, the deceased father’s inheritance goes entirely to his sons. If he has no son, it goes to the daughters. After that, the inheritance should go to the closest male relatives (Numbers 27:8-11). Not only do the boys of the household have priority over the girls, the wife is also noticeably absent from the will. Instead, God’s law forces her to marry her husband’s brother, provided she doesn’t already have a son with her former husband. However, the brother-in-law has the right to refuse the marriage; the woman does not (Deuteronomy 25:5-9).

    Menstruation is a natural occurrence in the lives of most women. However, the God of the Pentateuch despises this biologically necessary bodily process and gives instructions on how to deal with these treacherous circumstances. During menstruation, God deems the woman unclean. No one shall have any contact with her for seven days or until the bleeding stops. God deems anyone or anything she touches unclean. If she touches another person, God deems that person unclean until he bathes. In fact, the same goes for anyone who touches something that she previously touched (Leviticus 15:19-30). All this uncleanliness is resolved by needlessly killing two doves. Admittedly, there are similar laws for male ejaculation, but men can actually suppress these events to some extent.

    Childbirth is another natural event that God deems foul. If a woman gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days while she undergoes the same ritual for her menstrual period. She must then be purified for thirty-three days and barred from entering worship during this time. If she produces a girl, the sentence of solitary confinement is doubled to fourteen and sixty-six days, respectively (Leviticus 12:1-5). In addition to God unfairly designating women as filthy individuals following childbirth, this passage heavily insinuates that girls are dirtier than boys because it punishes a woman more harshly for giving birth to a female child.

    Woman’s Darkest Hour

    Rape, the paramount fear of many women, rears its ugly head in the Bible as well. Fortunately, God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under a few circumstances. Unfortunately, God permits the sexual violation of women on more than one occasion. More unfortunately, the fine for committing one of the most heinous acts known to man without God’s permission is only a pound of silver to her father and a forced marriage to the victim if she’s not already engaged or married (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Yes, God’s idea of justice for the female victim is to be horrendously punished again by forcing her to marry the man who savagely attacked her. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it’s certainly not a decision rendered by any court I’d like to be facing.

    If a man rapes an engaged virgin who doesn’t cry loud enough to draw attention, the community should consider the attack consensual if it took place within the city. Thus, the whore must be stoned to death per God’s instructions. It obviously doesn’t matter if the woman is too scared to scream because the law makes no such exception. The man will be stoned to death as well, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but only because he “violated another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since it’s all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack.

    As I previously mentioned, the Bible regrettably provides some situations in which rape is entirely permissible, even encouraged, by the Hebrew god. Recall the rule of marriage specifying how a man can force his daughter to marry and sleep with another man. This in itself is completely reprehensible and rises to the level of rape if the woman is unwilling, but the outlook for women only worsens as we continue our reading.

    In the matter of Moses’ war victory over the Midianites, God had previously commanded him to build an army and defeat the enemy. After successful completion of this task, his army takes thousands of war prisoners. Moses then orders his army to kill the remaining men, boys, and women who have already slept with a man, “but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:17-18). If taking a human war trophy based solely on the prisoner’s gender and sexual status isn’t implied permission to commit rape, I honestly don’t know what is. Even God receives thirty-two virgins as his share of the spoils, but they’re handed over to the priest for obvious reasons (Numbers 31:40-41).

    The “women children” mentioned in the passage certainly included young girls. Some female inhabitants of the city had to have been several years away from entering puberty, but don’t pretend these barbaric savages capable of killing defenseless women thought twice about waiting a few years for the girls to mature. Well, what eventually becomes of these foreign women kidnapped in battle?

    When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall by thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

    More Old Testament Atrocities

    One other mistreatment by omission should come to mind upon completion of reading the Pentateuch: the failure to mention the explicit impermissibility of sexual relations between fathers and daughters. The only such instance that comes to mind is the record of Lot’s daughters getting him drunk to become pregnant by him (Genesis 19:30-38). However, the author tells the story using disturbingly tranquil commentary. Had God considered this a reprehensible act, one would assume that it would be noted in some way for its distastefulness. In fact, Moses provides a long list of people with whom we are not to have sexual contact in Leviticus 20:10-21, but noticeably absent from this list is the debauchery of a father with his daughter. We also know from previous analyses that daughters are the sole property of their fathers. Finally, we can safely assume that these father-daughter relationships existed thousands of years ago, as they secretly do now. The omission of this regulation can only lead to the conclusion that it was permissible, or at least somewhat condonable, for a father to rape his daughters.

    The historical books, Joshua through Esther, begin the popular trend of multiple-wife lifestyles. Among those who have several wives and/or concubines are Gideon, Elkanah, David, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Solomon, who I believe is the winner with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Even so, divinely inspired biblical authors wholeheartedly claim that God looks upon these men favorably. Would we expect God to view these individuals in a positive light if this lifestyle was displeasing to the almighty?

    We find several more cruelties perpetrated against women in these historical books. Such atrocities include a woman given away as a prize (Judges 1:12-13); a woman offered as a sacrifice (Judges 11:29-39); married daughters given to other people (Judges 15:2); rape, murder, and mutilation by a mob; (Judges 19:22-30); abduction of virgins (Judges 21:7-23); purchasing of wives (Ruth 4:10 and 1 Samuel 18:25-27); and God punishing David by allowing his son to sleep with his wives and concubines, an act for which the women were later imprisoned (2 Samuel 12:11-12, 16:22, 20:3).

    If you read the book of Proverbs, you will find more sayings than I care to list that reiterate how women can be evil, strange, adulterous, foolish, contentious, etc. The book concludes with an observation on the rarity of a virtuous woman. According to the author, if you find one such woman, she’s worth far more than rubies (Proverbs 31:10). Enlightened readers, on the other hand, should quickly realize that all humans are more valuable than material possessions, regardless of their sex, color, or creed.

    The books of prophecy, Isaiah through Malachi, have the most vivid images of God tormenting women. Some examples of God’s actions not previously covered include the giving away of people’s wives (Jeremiah 8:10), justifying a woman being raped (Jeremiah 13:22), making men “become as women” (Jeremiah 50:37), denouncing menstruation (Ezekiel 18:6), telling Hosea to acquire a wife that he knew would be purchased (Hosea 3:1-2), aborting children in their mothers’ wombs (Hosea 9:11-12 and 13:16), ridiculing an army by labeling them women (Nahum 3:13), and taking part in a war concluding with women being raped (Zechariah 11:4). Again, I don’t feel there’s any reason to worry over such matters because none of this will ever happen due to direct intervention by the fictitious version of God depicted in the Old Testament.

    New Testament Atrocities

    The outlook doesn’t substantially improve for women in the New Testament either. The author of Ephesians insists that wives should submit to their husbands in everything (5:22-24). While it’s true that the author later instructs men to love their wives and treat them well, what does a devout Christian woman do when her husband decides to break the bounds of his instructions by asking her to embrace something she knows is evil? Remember, the woman has no right to divorce the man. In addition, the author fails to mention the existence of any out clause for her in such a situation. It would appear as though she has no choice but to comply with his orders if she is to obey the words in the scripture.

    The authors of Colossians, Titus, and 1 Peter all agree that women should submit to their husbands (3:18, 2:5, and 3:1, respectively). The books of Peter also forbid women to wear any type of decorative jewelry to adorn their bodies (1 Peter 3:2-6), refer to women as the weaker vessel of the couple (1 Peter 3:7), and deem Lot to be a righteous man even though he once offered his daughters as a suitable alternative for homosexual rapists surrounding his house (2 Peter 2:8 referring to Genesis 19:4-8). A man with the immoral qualities of Lot cannot be regarded as righteous unless you discount the inherent rights of all people, more specifically, the inherent rights of women.

    The author of Timothy also follows suit with his bigoted opinions of women. Like Peter, he says that females shouldn’t wear decoration or try to usurp authority over their husbands. Instead, women should remain silent and fully submissive to them. As he also declares that Adam was not the one who was deceived in the Garden of Eden, Eve is clearly the party implicated as being responsible for the downfall of man (1 Timothy 2:9-15). This author isn’t particularly kind to widows either. He says we should leave these women in need because their rewards will arrive as an answer to prayer. A widow experiencing pleasure while she’s still alive, on the other hand, is already dead in the afterlife. In the author’s eyes, the only respectable widows are at least sixty years old, have had only one husband, and have been well known for their positive accomplishments in life. In contrast, younger widows aren’t worth assisting because they eventually remarry, become idle, or venture from house to house with their gossip (1 Timothy 5:5-15).

    As we discussed near the beginning of this book, Paul is no doubt the single most important figure in getting Christianity to where it is today. Unfortunately, he is also one of the most sexist people you’ll find in the New Testament. Paul is very adamant in his belief that women aren’t useful for much more than sexually satisfying their husbands. He even remarks that it’s good for a man to refrain from touching a woman, but he realizes the need for a man to have sexual contact and permits each to have a wife (1 Corinthians 7:1-2).

    Paul also tells a story in his letter to the Romans about men “leaving the ‘natural use’ of the woman” to have sexual relations with other men (Romans 1:27). The passage is more or less saying that the natural use of a woman is to function as a derogatory sexual outlet for a man. He continues to spread his bigoted beliefs in a letter to the Corinthians by unambiguously declaring the man to be the head of the woman, similar to the way that Jesus is the authority figure for men. Paul also says women, who are the glory of men, were made for men, who are the glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:3-9). The clearly implied chain of importance goes Christ first, man second, and woman last.

    Paul also establishes a few ground rules before the men can bring their women to church. The women are to choose between concealing their heads and having their hair completely shaven. Later, Paul takes away the latter choice by declaring a shaved head to be a disgrace in need of covering (1 Corinthians 11:5-7). He also doesn’t permit women to speak in church because that also is a shame. If they have a question concerning the material, they must ask their husbands at home. Paul also reminds us once again, “they are commanded to be under obedience” according to the law (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). If you ever attend a Southern Baptist church, you will notice that its members tend to remain clung to these values in some fashion. Unfortunately, some ultra-conservative members continue to take these biblical guidelines into their homes.

    Are Women Equal To Men?

    Dozens more examples of cruelty to women exist throughout the Bible, but I feel this will be sufficient in making my case. Women had suffered terribly for thousands of years because of what men, not any god, wrote in the Bible. To some extent, women still endure coarse treatment stemming from their own religious beliefs and those observed by their husbands. I hope you realize that the authors of the Pentateuch were not divinely inspired to write declarations of women as the sole property of men. Instead, the books should once again read as though some group is depending upon the gullibility of the people to serve their own desires. In essence, the Old Testament authors misled the New Testament authors into believing that they actually recorded the “wonderful” and “loving” God’s authentic orders. Not knowing any other society than the one in which they were raised, the New Testament authors felt compelled to endorse these regulations.

    Many Christians continue to adhere to these cruel, senseless, and morally bankrupt codes, but most have illogically reasoned their way out of following God’s eternal commands. Many Christians have declared that the Old Testament regulations died when Jesus arrived, but three key verses can once again tell us that this simply isn’t a valid deduction. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:7). “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17). Furthermore, as the New Testament instructions postdate Jesus’ life, the failed suggestion doesn’t even attempt to resolve the problems created by New Testament authors. Even if we allow the repeal of these old traditions, does this act justify centuries of biblical oppression? For the reasons presented in this chapter, I urge all men to use their intrinsic common decency, not the Bible, when deciding how to treat a woman.

  • Mark Levine May 2, 2005 10:36 am

    Jacob, I agree with you that we cannot justify the invasion of Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMDs, and was no significant threat to the USA). But Afghanistan and the Taliban did have a significant role behind 9/11. And please recall the Taliban refused to handover Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, as a reputable law-abiding government would have done.

    I do not justify killing thousands of innocent Afghanis. In any war, I think, a government is obliged to do its best to protect the lives of innocents.

    Jacob, what diplomatic decision do you think would have worked with the Taliban that we did not try? (I do think a number of diplomatic decisions could have worked with Saddam Hussein and could have been tried.)

    And you know I don’t justify John Bolton’s methods or want to see him as US Ambassador. Two weeks ago, I did a show entitled “The Pathological John Bolton.” So you know my views on him.

    We agree on many things Jacob, but we disagree on others. Frankly, after 9/11, I would have preferred the President — after the Taliban refused to turn over Al Quaeda — had sought a formal declaration of war in Congress against the government of Al Quaeda, as FDR did after Pearl Harbor. That would have been the Constitutional way to do it, and I am a firm believer in following the law.

    I think US troops in Afghanistan was (and still are!) justified. Indeed, if I were President, I would withdraw from Iraq, send all those troops to Afghanistan, and get international support to extirpate the remnants of Al Quaeda and Afghanistan (and Pakistan, if necessary, with the government’s permission) once and for all.

    Al Quaeda murdered 3000 innocent civilian Americans, Jacob. If they bombed Helsinki and murdered 3000 Finns, what do you think Finland’s response should be (assuming Finland had the military might of the USA)?

  • Gordon from Bora Bora May 2, 2005 10:21 am

    Vicky–all men have faith–it’s a question of what they have faith in–the destination is more important that the path, per se

    Moment of Joy

    Rhapsody dancing from the heart
    in impulses light and free,
    a melody of high energy
    reconnecting to spirit,
    synchronizing truth with beauty,
    beckoning that it be shared with others,
    that they may harmonize with source
    and collaborate with fate
    to spread compassion
    to all creatures big and small,

    Part of the pageant
    presented within these parentheses of eternity,
    leading to the nobility
    of creation,
    mesmerizing action
    seeking love, calmness instilling
    gratitude and humility,
    expanding power
    in a song permeating,
    vibrations resonating,

    Throughout the essence of being,
    healing feeling
    to the point of seeing
    the face of God.

  • Vicky May 2, 2005 9:53 am

    The Bible calls the man who does not believe in God, a Fool. (Psalm 14:1)

    You’re right in some respects, however, Jacob in that all men do not have the faith; the Bible tells us this as well. The Bible also tells us that without faith, it is impossible to please God. We are also told that faith is a gift from God but that some, because of the “hardness of their hearts” will reject God.

    The Bible starts in the very beginning pointing people to God (Jesus) and as I’ve posted on various boards on this blog the fulfillment of the Old Testament scriptures in the New Testament are many. Jesus was there in the beginning before the “foundations of the world.”

    Re – your “Jainism” story – there have always been crazies and there always will be crazies. God didn’t create plants and animals and “germs” in His image like he has with human beings. The callous disregard that so many people show towards the unborn is incredible; their blood is on the hands of anyone who refuses to acknowledge their humanity and try to defend them from this ongoing slaughter.

    You accuse me of “not taking the time” to read Scriptures from the Hindu faith and assume to know how much I’ve “studied” or not studied and are insisting that I not take a stance on a subject until I know more about it. If you’ve read past boards, you would know that I had studied and researched various religions at one time in my life.

    Tell me Jacob, how much have you studied the Christian Bible with an open and tolerant mind? How much have you read on the issue of life concerning the unborn? Would you be interested and willing to read a book or books on the subject? Would you be willing to have me send you a book on “Why ProLife” – without any obligation?

  • Latter-day Druid May 2, 2005 8:32 am

    In regards to Jainism–I can deal with the nudity–but the mask would make me clausterphobic

  • Jacob Matthan May 2, 2005 7:38 am

    Vicky, your telling me that you do not know anything about Jainism, one of the outstanding religions in the this world which is centered around “ahimsa” or non-violence does not surprise me. Other major tenets of Jainism, founded well before Christ was on this earth, include Satya (truthfulness), Asetya (no stealing), Brahmacharya (chastity) and Aparigraha (non-possession).

    Founded by Lord Mahavir, one of the themes that Jains believe is that man was not meant to kill anything. Lord Mahavir carefully avoided harming or annoying other living beings including animals, birds and plants.

    The fundamentalists among them walked around naked, they wear a special mask to prevent inhaling and killing the millions of germs floating around inthe world – also God’s creations, and they also walk with special types of shoes which limits the contact of their feet to the ground so as to limit the number of insects they kill when they walk.

    Seem ludicrous to you. Just as your view of killing of an unborn fetus may seem ludicrous to some others.

    Before you take a stance on any subject I think you should study a bit further and then you will understand that the Christian Bible has severe limitations to the extent of its claim to be the ONLY religion!!

    I am not a Jain but I respect those who hold those views. I do know many Jains as also Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians of all shades – and I know NONE of them have absolute claim to truth.

  • Jacob matthan May 2, 2005 7:18 am

    Mark – there are no levels of justification for invasion and occupation for agendas nothing to do with 9/11.

    Americans bombarded and killed thousands innocent Afghanis. It caused a mass exodus of innocent Afhanis into Iran and Pakistan.

    That was wrong.

    The decision to attack Taliban because of 9/11 was incorrect.

    There are diplomatic ways of doing things – if not you justify John Bolton’s methods and you want to see him as the US Ambassador in the UN.

  • Jacob Matthan May 2, 2005 7:12 am

    If you have the faith to believe in God – then you believe God created nature.

    What if you do not believe in God – then who created nature?

    Also, which God – your Christian God (Jehovah, Christ), Rama, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma (the Ceator), Buddha, Allah?

    So different people in different faiths will have to have faith in their different beliefs to believe THEIR God created nature.

    It is a closed mind which stays within the confines and says nothing else is possible. Can you quote me scripture from the Vedas which proves your point that God created nature. You will not take the trouble to do that as your vision is limuted by your faith.

    Those who believe in God as the Creator are sadly blinkered. I believe in God but for another purpose which you will never understand as my God has nothing to do with faith.

  • Vicky May 1, 2005 8:08 pm

    Jacob wrote:

    “Bad example Vicky – the existence of Nature is confirmed by Nature – not God. God is confirmed by the “faith” of people in God – not by the existence of Nature!!”

    Jacob, What does this mean?

    “Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:19-20

    The 148th Psalm is a declaration of God as creator of nature and all things.

    David speaking to God in Psalm 102 – “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain…..your years will never end.”

  • Allen Carstensen May 1, 2005 5:43 pm

    Hi Mark,
    Thanks for taking my call about Isolationism. It seems to be a dirty word lately. Our country has moved too far to the right. During the 60′s and 70′s peace was more respectable, and mainstream. You objected to my George Washington quote to “avoid foreign entanglements”, because we were a young country then and didn’t need to take on the worlds problems. We are a couple hundred years older now, but we have much bigger problems, and much greater debt and his warning should be taken even more seriously now. George Washington was a general. He knew all about the horrors of war. Our current president knows all about holding hands with Saudi princes and getting in bed with multinational corporations.

    You asked “Don’t you see how terrorists can hide behind foreign governments?” This sets a bad precedent. I know you don’t want to attack every country that harbors terrorists. I’m afraid terrorism will be with us for a long time. Instead of fighting the “war on terrorism” our dollars and the lives of our young people, would be spent more effectively striving to create a fair and just society that the world will try to emulate.

    You said you don’t want the world walking all over us. We are the world’s largest superpower. That’s not going to be a problem anytime soon. We may be attacked by terrorists again, but that’s not “being walked all over”. We should pull back from our empire building, and concentrate those enormous resources within our shores, including maintaining a strong military and homeland security and intelligence agencies and honor our pledge to the United Nations Millennium Goals. This will minimize the chances of another terrorist attack. Further empire building will encourage terrorist attacks.

    You said “I often believe that diplomacy should be used and War should only be used as a last resort” We didn’t use it as a last resort. George Washington would have waited longer. Jimmy Carter would have waited longer, these presidents both had military experience and would not have allowed the world to walk all over us.

  • Mark Levine May 1, 2005 3:51 pm

    Answering Jacob’s questions

    1. 0
    2. 15 from Saudi Arabia; 4 from Egypt
    3. yes
    5. Major; yes, though we condemned that at the time they were working with the Taliban (under Clinton)
    6. They were in both countries and throughout the Arab world.
    7. Not surprised.

    But the Taliban did far more than “house” Al Quaeda. They worked hand in glove together. But unlike Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, there were (and continue to be) real substantial ties and cooperation between the Taliban and Al Quaeda.

    Not to mention the Taliban were the most vicious government to women in the world. (Now that they’re out of power, Saudi Arabia gets this dubious honor. And maybe that’s why Bush holds the Crown Prince’s hand instead.)

    And I don’t dispute the article either, Jacob. Due to the horrible leadership of our President and his yes-men on down, our troops have done some awful things following orders.

    But I trust even you would agree, Jacob, that our reactive war in Afghanistan was a heck of a lot more justified than our pre-emptive war in Iraq.

  • Vicky May 1, 2005 3:16 pm


    Never heard of the Jains. I’m not a follower of any group, but a believer in the God of the Bible(true Christianty) and His Word says that the unborn are people from the moment of conception.
    It’s not my views that abortion is the murder of the unborn, it’s what God’s word teaches us. Argue with Him, if you like.

    What “brand” or watered-down version of “christianity are you talking about? There’s many who claim to be christians, but who deceive themselves.

  • jacob matthan May 1, 2005 2:35 pm


    1. How many Afghani’s were among the hijackers?
    2. Which country did those hijackers come from?
    3. Did you know Enron was pushing for the pipeline through Afghanistan to feed their power plant outside Bombay.
    4. What is the background of Karazai?
    5. What was Pakistan’s role in building up the Taliban – and is Pakistan an US ally?
    6. The “madrasa cells” were in Pakistan not Afghanistan.
    7. Indian wanted Taliban crushed as they were suppoting the Kashmiri rebels attacking India?

    I think, Mark, in this case you too are the victim of the Mainstream American Media.

    There are hundreds of agendas but none which condemned innocent Afghanis to be bombed and killed by the US.

    US houses many terrorists – so should innocent Americans be slaughtered!!

    The last line in this is “Baranowska’s findings cry out for a war crimes investigation.” And she was not talking about the Taliban!!

  • Michelle May 1, 2005 2:05 pm

    Enjoyed you show and I hope I can catch Wed. show.
    I have been fighting Arny out here in California. Been kinda busy. What liers these Repukes are. Oops that’s not very nice is it. I don’t see all republicans that way. Just the ones that talk “Ownership Society” crap.
    That is just a big fat propaganda lie that they play on the ignorant people in the U.S.
    Have a good Sunday.

    Gal from Cal :-)

  • Jacob Matthan May 1, 2005 1:47 pm

    Absolutely not – what did the Taliban do to the US? It was Al Qaida not Taliban.

    The Taliban were co-operating with the US. Why kill thousands of innocewnt Afghanis for the work of Osama bin Laden.

    The Taliban was the creation of the US as was Osama bin Laden. the US goes around killing everything it creates!!

    It is a very significant distinction. The world support was not because of the justification of the US attack but a support against a fundamentalist regime – not an accerptance of Taliban being the cause of 9/11.

  • Jacob Matthan May 1, 2005 1:12 pm

    Vicky – have you heard of the Jains. Suggest you look up what they are and especially the more fundamentalist ones. That will probably be the faith you should follow with your views about “fetus murder” – not Christianity!

  • jacob Matthan May 1, 2005 1:01 pm

    Bad example Vicky – the existence of Nature is confirmed by Nature – not God. God is confirmed by the “faith” of people in God – not by the existence of Nature!!

  • R U on? May 1, 2005 12:10 pm

    Not streeming or answering phones

  • Citizen May 1, 2005 10:22 am

    Our country has been stolen by thugs.

  • Where have all the blogers gone May 1, 2005 1:05 am

    Wow, When they called in all the Feds who was left? Not you too, Mark, no I know not you.

  • me April 30, 2005 4:45 pm

    I abandoned cooking a few years ago.

  • impressed April 30, 2005 4:10 pm

    There is a wisdom in these prose. Do stay with it Good Karma.

  • Good Karma April 30, 2005 3:13 pm

    Instructions For Life

    Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk

    When you lose; don’t lose the lesson.

    Follow the three R’s
    • Respect for self
    • Respect for others
    • Responsibility for all your actions

    Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a great stroke of luck.

    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.

    Don’t let a little dispute injure a great relationship

    When you realize you made a mistake; take immediate steps to correct it.

    Spend some time alone every day

    Open arms to change; but don’t let go of your values

    Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer

    Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you’ll be able to enjoy it a second time

    A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life

    In disagreements with your loved ones, deal only with the current situation. Don’t bring up the past.

    Share your knowledge. It’s a way to achieve immortality.

    Be gentle with the earth

    Once a year go someplace you’ve never been before

    Remember that the best relationship is the one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other

    Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it

    Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon

  • Dave G. April 30, 2005 9:48 am

    I have no idea of how the lead paragraph ended up in above entry. It duplicates a prior post??
    It should have been the following:


    Recently we asked you to tell your Colorado State Senator how important it is for Colorado voters to have voter-verified paper ballots and improved audit requirements. Thanks to your support, S.B.198 passed in the Senate. It will be voted on in the House by the end of the week.

    S.B.198 requires a voter-verified permanent paper record of the vote that will be the official record for any audits or recounts. The bill contains other important provisions that will greatly improve the security and reliability of our elections.

    Please write TODAY — time is running out! Tell your Representative to support S.B.198.

  • Some Hope April 30, 2005 9:40 am

    It’s happening. We will be having an honest election in some state. From Verified Voting……….

    Understand what is going on in this Bush Administration. It is not their inability to count. It is a fact, all too clear to me, that what we are wittnessing is planned deception and malevolent intent. It is their adjenda to benefit themselves greatly and with no regard for all others that they will surely harm.

    George Bush is saying that he ‘wants to save Social Security’ but his plan is to wipe it out. He is attempting to appoint judges who regard Social Security as socialism.

    It should become clear to all that we are dealing with folks who would be far better suited to prisson then the White House’


    Montana’s Governor signed H.B.297 into law on April 18, 2005. The new law requires that the voting system must include paper ballots, even if here is also an electronic component. For more information, see our Montana State page at


    On April 7, 2005 Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro M. Cortes decertified the UniLect Patriot DRE voting system. The system was found to fail to sense touches on multiple occasions during testing and didn’t always register or record votes.

    “Making sure that every person’s vote is counted in every county throughout Pennsylvania is a top priority of this administration,” Cortes said. For more information, see the article at

  • Dave G. April 30, 2005 9:10 am

    Mark, A suggestion if I may. Why not invight Jim Marrs or David Griffin for Tuesday debates. It might be more of a discussion then a debate but you could pose questions and you could do so on behalf of your listners, perhaps yourself included, that do not want to believe our government capable of such a deed. It would alow a brief break from the many want-to-be Rush Limbaughs.

  • Johnny Newshound April 29, 2005 9:46 pm

    Ben–Prince Ahmed–he knew–he knew so much he had to be killed

  • ben April 29, 2005 9:17 pm


    Name one of them connected to 911…That is why i do not find it odd.

  • Dave G. April 29, 2005 7:23 pm

    Nor should they be saftely back in Saudi Arabia.

  • Dave G. April 29, 2005 5:56 pm

    All plains are grounded and during that same period some 160 Saudis, encluding the Ben Laden family are being flown about the country. Private, Commercial, Military or Goodyear blimps, you don’t have any problems with that, Ben? You recall that the hijackers, perhaps by some coincidence, were also Saudis.

    I do know it to be a real shocker when you connect the dots. Could our own government have done such a thing to us? I understand that. All who were a part of that day should be in prison and not in the White House.

  • Ben April 29, 2005 5:11 pm

    Im a bit confussed on how the issue of private planes being flown arround the country is relavent. These were not private flights, they were govt issued flights (which are not private). F18s were also flying when all other private flights were grounded.

  • If I'm the only one left April 29, 2005 4:47 pm

    It’s sure lucky that I agree with myself so much.

  • If I'm the only one left April 29, 2005 4:47 pm

    It’s sure lucky that I agree with myself so much.

  • >>> ? <<< April 29, 2005 4:45 pm

    Better take a head count. Who is still around?

  • >>> ? <<< April 29, 2005 4:45 pm

    Better take a head count. Who is still around?

  • Dave G. April 29, 2005 4:00 pm

    Bush Speak:

    Understand what is going on in this Bush Administration. It is not their inability to count. It is a fact, all too clear to me, that what we are witnessing is planned deception and malevolent intent. It is their agenda to benefit themselves greatly and with no regard for all others that they will surely harm.

    George Bush is saying that he ‘wants to save Social Security’ but his plan is to wipe it out. He is attempting to appoint judges who regard Social Security as socialism.

    It should become clear to all that we are dealing with folks who would be far better suited to prison then the White House.

  • Dave G. April 29, 2005 1:43 pm

    Meetings happening all over about 9-11. a couple here in NY. One site is: 9-11 CitizensWatch. Also- reopen911.

    SATURDAY: 9/11 — The Quest For Truth Continues
    West Park Presbyterian Church
    86th St. & Amsterdam Ave.
    Saturday April 30th
    Doors open 6:30 PM, event begins at 7 pm

    Understanding what really happened on 9/11 requires us to widen our political awareness. We must see 9/11 in a larger geo-political context to realize the broad ramifications of this event in history, how it has shaped our present as well as how it’s determining our future. Therefore, the urgency for truth only gets stronger with time since new evidence calling into question the official story and the 9/11 Report continues to surface.

    Speakers will include Phil Berg (RICO lawsuit against Bush administration), Ray McGovern (retired CIA analyst), John Buchanan (9/11 Truth Candidate), Bob McIlvaine (9/11 victim family member), Nick Levis (anthrax research,, Kyle Hence (9/11 CitizensWatch, and others. Also, we’ll view a special pre-recorded video statement from Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).

    See full details and directions for both events at

    Sponsored by NY 911 Truth

  • Dave G. April 29, 2005 12:48 pm


    Our patriot Act troopers are a dreadful breed. I do believe that most of them, under Ashcroft, were facing prison sentences for high tech crimes and were given the option of joining the FBI. they wanted folks that would have no problems committing all kinds of crimes for them. They would get assigned to those who would expose their government corruption or who would speak out against their own criminallity. I am one such person and I have been dealing with the same folks for a number of years now. To my suprise they jumped on this blog when I did. I didn’t recognize them right off. I should have because they are all right wing religious fanatics, bigots and with much hate. They had been revealing themselves to me personally on my computer for about 5 years but I did not believe they would be trusted to do their thing on a public blog such as yours but there they were. They have been giving us all a chance to observe our Patriot Act at work. I have mixed feelings if they have now been reeled in. There ongoing efforts would have proven quite an education for all who might visit this blog. That might be worth putting up with all the deception and all the hate. I’m pretty sure that at least one of them will sneke back, perhaps with a new identity.

    What I am saying may still sound a bit far out to yourself and perhaps a few others. Clearly they see their purpose as keeping secret all that our government is trying to do to us. Still I suspect there must be those who won’t want them out here on an open blog.

  • Nikolai Tesla Smith April 28, 2005 10:34 pm

    Think anti-gravity hover-craft

  • Mark Levine April 28, 2005 10:03 pm

    To be exact, the Bin Laden family, the other Saudis, and their servants flew when all other PRIVATE jets were grounded by law.

    That’s exactly correct. Isn’t it, Ben?

    I know you know this and you enjoy beating up Dave on a technicality (because commercial jets — which the Saudis did NOT fly — were flying again).

    But the point is the Saudis got special treatment, the investigations into them were cursory at best, and at least one of them we now know knew about 9/11 before it happened (Prince Ahmed).

    And all happened because Bush likes to hold hands — literally and figuratively — with the Saudi dictators (who mistreat women worse than any other world leaders).

    But look on the bright side, even as the great majority of Americans suffer from the terrible rule by our Saudi overlords and their puppet Georgie, at least oil company profits are sky high! So if you’re a CEO of a major oil company, the Bush Administration has done very well by you. If you’re not, of course, you’re screwed.

    Remember the 1970′s when Carter wanted to invest resources into alternative energy sources so we would not have to sell our soul to the Middle Eastern dictators? Good think Reagan put a stop to that! Oil company profits would have really suffered.

  • Dave G. April 28, 2005 8:10 pm

    Ben, I believe my exact statment was “flown around the country while while all others grounded”. May I refere you to page 15 – 16 of Inside Job by Jimm Marrs. “The Saudi flights which came from ten American cities, including Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Huston, ended up in Boston where two jumbo jets flew the group to Saudi Arabia in mid September 2001″. You will also find this is the Tampa Tribune and the N.Y. Times. This was also addressed in the New Pearl Harbor.

    I would refere anyone interisted in the facts of 9-11 read any of the sourses sighted. I believe I would reccomend as the easiest the inside Job by Jim Marrs. It can be accessed on the www.

    I don’t think any of us want to believe all this. It tells us that it is, indeed, the worst of criminals that have stolen our government. If it’s true we better look at it though.

  • Gordon from Bora Bora April 28, 2005 6:20 pm

    Ben, I’d love to see an independent investigation of all of Dave’s claims–especially that scenario about war games being synchronous with the hijack-attacks–that sparks my curiosity–there are parts of this debacle that aren’t answered that should be–there’s been enough blood spilled directly and indirectly from this black mark in history–that more and more people should become curious–time is no longer a big issue as well as a statute of limitations–but the truth of 9-11 should work its way to the surface–one way or the other

  • Ben April 28, 2005 4:57 pm


    PLease stop saying all flights were grounded when the 160 saudis left the country unless you can back it up. I know you can’t do this because it did not happen…but I would love to see you try. Please do not site Michael Moore as your source. In fact try to back up everything you have said here with credible evidence…you make outlandish claims and I have tried to debate you…but you ignore everything I say. Honestly I and im guessing 99% of the others on this site skip over your posts because it is the same message everytime! and YOU choose not to talk about it, all you do is make claims but never carry on a conversation.

  • David G. April 28, 2005 12:05 pm

    It probably well serve little value to analyze their motives. It does matter that they are out to do so much harm to our country. It matters that they are the wort kind of criminals, that they don’t mind destroying buildings full of people so as to have an excuse to the rob the oil of another nation. It matters that they will plot to destroy our free press and our elect ons processes.

    It matters that we have not even some remote justification for the countries that they have invaded and the many killed or injured for their profits. It does matter that the worst of people have stolen our government and are now plotting end all programs for the people on the guise that “We are out to save Social Security”.

    Yes there are those of us who care very much. What kind of a country will young people soon be living in and their children and grandchildren?

    Upon who will the many trillions of debt be dumped. What other countries are they planing to conquer. Who will care for the wounded without health care and with cuts in our V.A.?

    Ia much of the belief that if the citizens of this country have any legal recourse we better be moving on it. Mark, Do you think it possible to get an injunction against the use of corporate controled voting machines?

  • Mark Levine April 28, 2005 11:44 am

    I just wish we could address issues rather than insult each other personally. And I don’t care whether it comes from the Left or the Right.

  • Vicky April 28, 2005 11:39 am

    Thanks Mark.

    I do know who made the two posts. I called them to the attention of a computer-literate friend of mine who was able to match the IP address from those two posts to the same IP address of one of our “regulars.”

    The rat has gone into hiding for a few hours; he’s frightened by his own vitriol.

  • Mark Levine April 28, 2005 10:00 am

    I deleted the posts that called someone on this blog a “slut.” C’mon y’all. This kind of crap does no one any good. Let’s not all descend to the depths of Johnny Pee

  • Vicky April 28, 2005 9:22 am

    House Delivers Pro-life Victory, Now onto the Senate…

    Yesterday the House passed the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which will make it a federal crime for any adult to transport a girl 17 or younger across state lines for an abortion without her parent’s consent.

  • Dave G. April 28, 2005 8:58 am

    Often I have wondered if even a government as corrupt and incompetent as what we now have, would they like to have federal agents of this caliber right out front like we have been encountering here on this little blog. Would they not think that a bit too risky? This same government that is having to explain the high Christian character of Bill Frist, Tom Delay and various appointments that they are trying to make. Could they risk having some of their tech agents in the open posting statements like they have been here on an open blog, trying to make points with their very corrupt administration? I kept thinking how that is quite risky even for this Administration. I have been thinking that to be particularly true since one of us, myself, has been dealing with these same characters for several years now. No their job is to block me from e-mailing prime ministers in Belgium and Scotland and such.

    I fear that right now they are being told that they better cool their act. We are not hearing much right now from agents Johnny Pee, Vicky or any of their many persona’s. In some respects that may be a good thing but I believe it would have been better if they hung around long enough to convince all, including Mark, as to exactly who and what they were. They are what our Patriot Acts have brought us; deceitful agents intruding themselves into our thoughts, our computers our telephones, our libraries, our schools etc.

    We will probably get to see a bit more of them here at least that would be my guess. If so we can continue to observe and ask questions.

  • just checking April 27, 2005 10:16 pm

    O.K. now what

  • Unconvinced April 27, 2005 9:18 pm


    It doesn’t work as well when you try to play shrink with the topic. When you start making psychological evaluations,(“generalized anger, suppressed hostilities) it really loses something, whereas just giving the facts with some clear-cut examples of each fact would in fact be more convincing.

  • Skip April 27, 2005 7:39 pm

    I stand corrected. Drivel is a much better word (for whatever came out of Rummy boy).

  • Dave G. April 27, 2005 5:38 pm

    The Bush Administration is on track to turn America into a one party government. They want total power and total wealth for themselves. They are largely trying to bring this about through mass deception and by controlling the mechanics of the elections. It will be a Theocracy in which a very small and very wealthy few will rull over a nation of severely underprivileged. Their long expressed goal for “a new world order”. Their plan dominate the working classes and poor in great measure. I believe there is something more then just a lack of regard for the people they are harming, there is some generalized anger being directed at the people. It involves suppressed hostilities being vented. At some half conscious level there is the feeling “the people did us wrong and we are getting even”. Understanding what underlies their behaviors may be largely irrelevant. The fact that they are out to harm the people, for whatever reasons, that is relevant. Exposing the crooked voting machines in every way that we can and getting them made illegal has to be the primary goal of all thinking people that are interested in trying to save this country. That is a topic I do hope we will be able to stick with. There is so much to loose.

  • Silenced April 27, 2005 4:46 pm

    Yes, Dave, your post silenced everyone.

  • me April 27, 2005 4:44 pm

    Skip, Do you mean “dribble” or “drivel”?

  • Skip April 27, 2005 4:37 pm

    One left wing billionare vs many right wing billionares:

    George Soros


    Rockefeller Family
    Dupont Family
    Coors Family
    Scaife Family
    Walton Family
    Murdock Family

    the list goes on and on

  • Skip April 27, 2005 4:26 pm

    Don’t forget the five simultaneous war games that JUST HAPPENED to be going on during 911. WHAT A COINCIDENCE. Our bad boy bin Laden was either telepathic, or had (by definition) some very close connections with his own family who, coincidentally, have very close ties to the Bush family. The grilling of Rummy boy by Rep. Cynthia McKinney about these war game is now part of the congressional record. Rummy’s response: incoherent dribble.

  • Dave G. April 27, 2005 3:44 pm

    Did my last post silence everyone or are posts just not displaying. Probably just off studying talking points and contemplating unpleasant thoughts

  • Dave G. April 27, 2005 11:12 am

    Deceiving Lady;
    AKA: Vicky

    Who do you think arraigned to keep our Air Force and Marine Air tied up while the long planned 9-11 events were implemented. Do you think that might have been George Soros?

    Who do you think planted all the explosives in the WTB s?

    Who do you think authorized 160 Arabs to be flown all around the country while all others were grounded? Do you think that might have been George Soros?

    Do you think it was George Soros who was so much in bed with the Saudi Royals who supplied the hijackers.

    Do you think it was George Soros who authorized the shoot down of flight 97 when it was learned that the passengers had regained control of that plane?

    Was George Soros present when the PNAC anounced a dozen years ago that they would need a new Pearl Harbor type event to get the peoples support for invading Iraq? No, I don’t believe he was there.

    Would I be right in assuming that all of you hired under the Patriot Act are sociopaths and willing to sell out the citizens of this country?

    Where would an honest Agent fit in our Federal agencies today?

    You keep up your efforts to deceive all, I don’t think that everyone here yet understands what you guys are really all about. You and I will help to expose you and the very corrupt government that pays you to go on trying to deceive everyone. Just stay with your continuing efforts. Do all that you can to assure that our grandchildren live in the poverty that you are trying to bring them in return for the bucks they are paying you.

    I’m not saying that others are slow figuring you out. It’s just that we go back such a long time together.

  • Johnny Newshound April 27, 2005 10:26 am

    Vicky–let’s get the people really responsible for the 911 attack

    It’s a Republican administration (remember?)that’s subversively trying to control this out-of-control mess we call current events

  • Vicky April 27, 2005 9:58 am

    That’s my point Johnny – those are the same things I’ve been hearing and reading since I’ve been here.

    Dave, which is it? Hundreds and hundreds or 3,775 entries? I counted 666.

    Since you mentioned 9-11, I just read something this morning on that event. I keep hearing all this talk about how corrupt this government is and if what I read in the following link is true, I would have to agree with you!

    George Soros, a liberal BILLIONAIRE was given $30 million by the US government between 1998-2003.

    On the “About Us” page of its website, the Soros-controlled foundation explains that it exists “to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights and economic, legal and social reform.”

    Social reform for the Republican/Conservative parties? Try again.

    “Congress should keep in mind that this is the same organization that supports numerous hard-left radical activities in the United States and abroad,” Boehm said. “The Open Society Institute gave $20,000 to the defense fund for Lynne Stewart, (who was) accused of working with the terrorists who planned the original World Trade Center attack.”

    Boehm said the numerous left of center political activities supported by OSI include “drug legalization efforts, pro-abortion policies and numerous other controversial causes.” OSI tax records show contributions of: (see link for further info.)\SpecialReports\archive\200504\SPE20050425a.html

  • Dave G. April 27, 2005 9:43 am

    Vicky. Nice of you to explaining your entry on Booker T.. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain all, every one of your hundreds and hundreds of entries that have all been attempts to get us to discuss anything other then our corrupt government. Why do you and all of the other persona’s her with you have not expressed the slightest concernabout what is happening with our country? Why can you not say a word about our country invading countries that did nothing to provoke us.

    I say to you Vicky that you are here for a purpose. You are a part of this criminal government. You are here to misdirect us. You are very much a part of of the same criminal government that rigs elections and acts to the detriment of the peoples of the world and only to benefit a small few.

    Feel no pride in what you are a part of Vicky. Every single entry, hundreds of them, and no concern about the criminals that have stolen our government and who are attempting to steel everything that they can. You can’t voice one word about all of that. What you continue to try to do here is non stop deceit It is a disgrace. You are a disgrace, you and all of the persona’s here with you. You are only a part of an effort to keep the people misinformed while criminals destroy our country. You, Vicky, will not fool all of us. You will not be able to con me, charm me, intimidate me and your sure as hell not going to be able to suduce me.

    If the folks that you are here to represent played a very real part in bring 9-11 down upon us that doesn’t concern you. You just want to change the subject. I hope you are well paid for what you are doing because you too will not escape the repercussions of what you are defending. Your grandchildren will be living in the bananna republic that you are helping to bring them.

    Soon all will understand what you are about but until then go ahead and keep trying to change the subject again and again, but do understand that you are being paid to help destroy a great country. Feel only shame for your ongoing efforts.

  • Johnny Newshound April 27, 2005 9:35 am

    People dying in Iraq, social security being attacked, nuclear threat in the Senate, subversives being subversive, chain-smoking chimps in the pentagon lighting cigars with hundred-dollar-bills–yeah Vicky–no new news

  • Vicky April 27, 2005 8:27 am

    Sorry David – I meant to post this one with the discussion that Ben and several others were having about providing “free” college for “poor” people. It would have made more sense posted there. I couldn’t remember where that was exactly and didn’t want to search for it.

    Do you happen to have any NEW information on the “criminal goon government” or is it the same ole song and dance?

  • Guess Who April 27, 2005 7:46 am

    I have an idea. Why don’t we talk about former slaves that make it through college. If I can get people to talk about that then we won’t be talking about the criminal goon government that has some of us here. Can I suck any of you into this one.

  • Vicky April 27, 2005 5:40 am

    He Followed His Dream

    In 1872, at the age of 16, Booker T. Washington decided he wanted to go to school. For a boy, born a slave to a plantation cook in Virginia, who had no idea who his white father was, this was a huge step. He decided that he would enter the Hampton Institute in Hampton, Virginia.

    With nothing more than a small satchel of clothing, he started walking from Malden, West Virginia, 500 miles away. Eventually he made it to Richmond, about eighty miles from his destination. He worked there for a few
    days unloading pig iron off a ship, spending his nights on the ground under an elevated board sidewalk. He continued his journey and finally reached Hampton Institute. He asked the “head teacher” for admission.

    Washington later recalled, “Having been so long without proper food, a bath, and change of clothing, I did not make a very favorable impression upon her, and I could see at once that there were doubts in her mind about the
    wisdom of admitting me as a student.” The teacher delayed a decision about Booker while she admitted other students, and he waited anxiously. Finally, she said to him, “The adjoining recitation room needs sweeping. Take the broom
    and sweep it.”

    “It occurred to me at once that here was my chance,” he wrote. “Never did I receive an order with more delight. I swept the recitation room three times. Then I got a dusting cloth and I dusted it four times.” He cleaned the walls and
    closets. “I had the feeling,” he continued, “that in a large measure my future depended upon the impression I made upon the teacher in the cleaning of that room.

    When I was through, I reported to her. She was a
    ‘Yankee’ woman who knew just where to look for dirt. She went into the room and inspected the floor and closets. Then she took her handkerchief and rubbed it on the woodwork about the walls, and over the table and benches. When she was unable to find one bit of dirt on the floor, or a particle of dust on any of the furniture, she
    quietly remarked, ‘I guess you will do to enter this institution.’”

    “I was one of the happiest souls on earth. The sweeping of that room was my college examination, and never did any youth pass an examination for entrance into Harvard or Yale that gave him more genuine satisfaction. I have passed several examinations since then, but I have always
    felt that this was the best one I ever passed.”

    Booker T. Washington not only passed that examination, but he kept a job as a janitor to help pay his expenses. In June 1875, he graduated on the honor roll and as one of the commencement speakers. Booker T. Washington was a dreamer who backed up his dreams with action.

  • jeff m. April 27, 2005 2:48 am

    In addition to,and in contrast to my last post….

    I would like to commend and encourage any and all of those,who truly and passionatly speak thier point of veiw,regardless if we see eye to eye or not!

  • Skip April 27, 2005 2:40 am

    Sorry for the extensive length of this thingee. It delivers a real powerful message. I found it on a Thom Hartmann forum.


    This is from our minister in Oklahoma City (the buckle of the bible belt as the locals say) at a recent anti-war rally. Enjoy!

    As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University.

    But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor.

    Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian.

    We’ve heard a lot lately about so-called “moral values” as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I’m a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value — I mean what are we talking about?

    Because we don’t get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

    – When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God’s will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.

    – When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.

    – When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called “enemy combatants” of the rules of the Geneva convention, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists — and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn’t matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.

    – When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God’s gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.

    – When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

    – When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a “compassionate conservative,” using the word which is the essence of all religious faith-compassion, and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn’t have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.

    – When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.

    I’m tired of people thinking that because I’m a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I’m tired of people saying that I can’t support the troops but oppose the war.

    – I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong–the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power?

    This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you–young people who are just beginning to wake up to what is happening to them. It’s your country to take back. It’s your faith to take back. It’s your future to take back.

    Don’t be afraid to speak out. Don’t back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists–so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious. Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith.

    And war — war is the greatest failure of the human race — and thus the greatest failure of faith.

    There’s an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? absolutely nothing.

    And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed? How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.

  • jeff m. April 27, 2005 1:59 am

    To the dispassionate hatemongers and insulting, pointless “goons” and agents among us……..

    I would like to thank you for your insults (the juicy ones in particular),as I take them to be very flattering!
    After all, why would you bother pointlessly slinging flaming arrows in my (and others) direction,unless you were threatened by honest,open,truthful debate,which I (and others) have continued to persue?

    I encourage you to whole-heartedly attack me personally,as it only serves to strengthen my passion in that which I beleive in and defend,as well as exposing your weaknesses.

    One really has no need to be a “Psy-Op” or military genius,to understand that when the enemies position(or lack thereof) and weaknesses are exposed,thier defeat is all but imminent!

    ~Jeff M.

  • Dave G. April 26, 2005 4:26 pm

    Much is going on that escapes all coverage. I learned today that at least one county is presently being sued for using crooked voting machines. It is one of many counties where the people voted one way but the machines voted another. In each case the machines went for the GOP. It is a Republican, Tom Finny, had the program designed. It is the Republicans who required the instillation of these all over the country. It is the GOP leadership in both houses that are blocking all measures to require these machines to maintain records that can be recounted. They are still doing this and they are requiring more machines be installed on the pretext of helping the handicapped (this in the Help America To Vote Act).

    On Nov 2nd the first results to come in was the exit polls. GWB was informed that he had lost badly, that he had carried only two states. Somehow he knew better and was able to report that the exit polls meant nothing. Presently in the USA how the people vote has nothing to do with who wins elections.

    So look what we now have for a government. It is no joke. It is real. We have a president who really feels “to hell with the people, once again they didn’t vote for me”.

    I keep wondering if there should not be some avenue for legal recourse for the people who have lost their free country. Have you, Mark, thought along those lines?

    History will not look kindly upon us, any of us, for permitting this to happen.

  • Guess Who April 26, 2005 2:18 pm

    I have an Idea. Why don’t we get into another lengthly debate on the subject of abortion. We sure don’t want to talk about yet another rigged election coming at us.

  • Vicky April 26, 2005 12:55 pm

    Whoop, whoop?

    How profound! I’m seriously impressed.

    So now a fetus is talking? How can a “nothing” talk?

    I don’t think I am God – (unlike some who claim “Godhead and divinity) – I know what His Word says and the Bible does address the issue – many times and I’ve given those references – many times – I DO KNOW. I’m sorry if my knowing something for certain offends your tender sensibilities. I’m not “basking” in my own wisdom or knowledge, I’m just stating what The Word of God says – it’s your choice if you want to believe or not. Still doesn’t change a thing.

  • Transcripts "R" Us April 26, 2005 12:37 pm

    OK, OK–we gave Johnny transcripts to the show–but only after extreme duress (We are affiliated with AARP)

  • Transcripts "R" Us April 26, 2005 12:37 pm

    OK, OK–we gave Johnny transcripts to the show–but only after extreme duress (We are affiliated with AARP)

  • The fetus who became spirit-indwelt in the third tri-mester April 26, 2005 12:32 pm

    Pray for me, Vicky, I don’t believe you have a moral case for attacking abortion, absolutely.

    In this case you think you are God and know just when spirit-indwelling of the fetus occurs–I don’t think the Bible addressing this situation succinctly–and I don’t think you know

  • madfuq April 26, 2005 12:13 pm

    Vicki, whoop, whoop!

  • Dave G. April 26, 2005 11:48 am

    Clearly there are those here for very wrong reasons. Their purpose is to deceive and mislead, to demean and and disrupt. While they probably do honestly believe there shared religious fanaticism, they must understand that about all else they are lying. They want to draw us all away from the antics of their most dreadful government. Robber barons have stolen elections that they may destroy our middle classes to benefit themselves. The agents who join us here are much a part of that wrong.

    So, we continue to ask: Why are you here? Who is paying you? Who provides you with transcripts? Why are you not able to take an honest look at your government? Why are none of you able to call the radio show? Why are none of you able to answer any of these questions. What do you hope to accomplish? Are your supervisors happy with your efforts here?

    Enough time wasted on them.

    Probably the most pressing thing for us to be working on is how do we get rid of these crooked voting machines. If this country is able to survive the rigged elections that brought us what we now have, it will surly not survive another.

    Don’t let JP hook you, Mark. He’s not going to be able to convince you, me or anyone else to become a homophobic bigot and you are not going to cause him to become civalized. He succeeds, like Vicky, only in as much as they are so often able to set agendas and keep us off subject. It does appear that is what they are about.

  • Vicky April 26, 2005 11:45 am

    And Mad, sometimes when people talk “on and on” about a particular subject, sometimes it’s because it’s a burning issue with them for the simple reason that there is a right and there is a wrong to the matter.

    I’m not referring to anyone else here other than myself and the issue with abortion. If there was someone here on this blog who told me they have had an abortion, I would NOT be beating that person up or attacking them unmercifully, but I would and will continue to speak out on what I see as a blatantly moral wrong. I can’t do otherwise.

    I personally don’t believe it is right to make personal attacks.

    Jesus tells us….”…do good to them that hate you…bless them that curse you and pray for them who mistreat you….do to others as you would have them do to you…..if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? …You shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be merciful as He is merciful.”
    (Luke 6)

    He also exhorted us that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name…”

  • madfuq April 26, 2005 10:54 am

    Mark, if I were you I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for JP to come on the air and debate you, trolls have little courage when it comes right down to the wire.

    JP’s diatribe over gays puts me in mind of maybe he protests too much! ie: Arthur Finkelstein a consultant for Jesse Helms recently marrying his gay lover after years of bashing gays.

    So many times when someone talks on and on a certain subject they are either guilty of the same thing or are very unsure of their own values that they take a stance against what they fear in themselves the most.

    I think the gay, religion and judicial activists and evolution stances that have been taken by some are mere diversions from real issues that would condemn them if they are discussed. As long as real issues are ignored by the media the masses can be duped by certain segments of our political system and it is working well for them to keep a divided nation from logical common sense thinking. I am encouraged that this only works for awhile and the public wakes up and when it does then real problems, real issues will be discussed and real solutions hopefully will come out.

  • Mark Levine April 26, 2005 9:40 am

    Note what Johnny does: He can’t seem to make a single argument or make a single post without a personal attack on me and without bigotry. He really really REALLY hates gay people. (I won’t speculate here on what perversion or abuse has caused Johnny’s intense hate.)

    Now Johnny has a right to show his bigotry, but he should be able to make an argument without an ad hominem attack on me personally. He says, in effect, “all Mark’s arguments are bullshit because I think he’s gay.” But saying “I don’t have to listen to your arguments” because I think you are “X” is, of course, the last refuge of scoundrels, even when the argument is a stupid one saying that “sheep consent to garter belts.” Can Johnny even make an argument without an ad hominem attack? I don’t know. In over 100 posts, he has not made a single post of which I’m aware that does not include a personal insult.

    I could respond in the same manner: “I don’t have to listen to Johnny’s arguments because he is a bigot.” But that would be (accurate) name-calling. Instead I would like to address his arguments on air toi expose Johnny for the hatemonger he is, even though I know they are made to waste my time and to divert the discussion from the attempt to ignite religious discord in America supported by Frist (who controls the Senate), the corruption and bribery of Tom Delay (who controls the House), and the intentional lies and deception of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove (who control the President).

    Here are the real questions, Johnny. And if you answer them, I’ll answer yours:

    1) Who provides you with a transcript of the show? (Or did you lie about this?)

    2) What right-wing outfit, if any, do you work for?

    3) Why do you feel your arguments are too weak to debate me on the show?

    Johnny: here’s your chance. Say the right-wing outfit you work for and I’ll bring you on air on Debate Tuesday as a guest. Every Tuesday, as you must know, I bring a right-winger on the air to debate. You can then say your outrageous things on air to thousands of people and you’ll have the entire hour to make your points.

    The one difference between the other right-wingers and you is that the others do not have to rely on personal insults. I have had maybe 50 “debate Tuesdays” since I came on radio and some fierce debates, but not one of the guests has yet ever attacked me or my listeners personally. Still, I’ll risk it. Johnny, you can be the first right-winger ever who felt his arguments were so weak he had to rely on personal attacks instead of reason or logic.

    One thing though: if you question my private sex life, I have the right to question yours, so please make a list of all your sexual partners and the specific sexual acts you have done to them. I’m especially curious to know how many times you’ve committed sodomy. (Sodomy includes a man having oral sex with his wife and has included oral sex between married partners for hundreds of years. The 1795 Georgia statute Johnny supports requires the police to arrest a woman and a man having oral sex in their home (whether they’re married or not) for a jail term of up to 20 years.) Johnny, if he has had oral sex with his wife, supports a law imprisoning others (but not himself) for acts he committed and perhaps continues to commit.

    Johnny, if you feel that our private sex lives are actually irrelevant to the question of whether gay people should have equal rights in America, as I do, then we don’t have to bring them up. But if you do bring up private sexual issues, then your sexual history becomes as relevant as mine.

    So here’s the question to be posed for a Debate Tuesday with Johnny: I say “The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection under the law applies to ALL Americans, including gay people”. Johnny disagrees. Let’s debate.

    Debate, Johnny? If you want, you can also argue that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Muslim Americans or any other group you hate.

  • The Sheep April 26, 2005 8:56 am

    JohnnyP–the garter belt even embarrassed us

  • Vicky April 26, 2005 6:41 am

    In memory of: Rowan, who was born alive on April 2, 2005, after an attempted abortion in Orlando, Florida. Rowan died in the abortion clinic after birth.

    Orlando, FL – Angele, a single mother in her thirties with two children, thought that abortion was the answer to her circumstances. At almost 23 weeks gestation, she entered the EPOC Clinic in Orlando, Florida. Little did she realize that the next day she would give birth to a live, perfectly healthy boy whom she named Rowan. Cradling Rowan’s moving body, her screams for help were ignored by abortion clinic workers while her son took his last breath.

    Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, which represents Angele, stated: “When I visited baby Rowan at the funeral home and saw his precious little body, fully formed with blond eyelashes and growing fingernails, I wondered, ‘How can we continue to kill our children and hide behind the rubric of choice?’

  • Skip April 26, 2005 2:42 am

    The avalanche of boring incoherent dribble continues and continues and continues.

  • JohnnyP April 26, 2005 1:10 am

    “I am very intolerant of those who want to deny equal rights to people who aren’t harming anyone.”

    There is ZERO scientific evidence as to cancer and second hand smoke [and I have never smoked] yet there are laws all over against smoking. NYC has banned it virtually everywhere except your home or a private club. Rather than allowing the patrons to decide whether to give a business their money, the state has mandated it. That’s very bad law indeed.

    Somewhere in CA [I believe it to be CA and a search will likely show it] you can be fired from a Fire Department for smoking at home. Why? They say it elevates medical costs.

    Let’s take that a step further. AIDS is incredibly costly to treat. It is largely why insurance premiums have skyrocketed. But we have to treat all those in a high risk – active homosexual men – the same. So they get to pay the same premiums as everyone else. Or worse, they pay no premium and we get 20% or more tacked onto our hospital bills to pay for their treatment.

    Anal cancer is 25-38 times higher in the gay community, but we do nothing to stop that, or to at least charge them much more for insurance. No, we have to be sensitive to them because there are some – and I would include your opinions in that -who feel that charging them more makes then ‘less equal” despite the clearly higher rate of treating gay men medically.

    The smoker is to be crucified, but the gay man – and this is clearly thanks to the very radical Gay Mafia – can’t be singled out for higher premiums.

    I get the feeling you think that we should all share the burden of treating those with AIDS, a widely preventable disease, but the smoker should not be allowed to smoke as he will increase insurance costs.

    This, ladies and germs, is reality. It is a bissare reality that the government has created thanks to the ardent work of the Gay Mafia.

    JohnnyP – Dr. Laura’s partner

  • JohnnyP April 26, 2005 12:57 am

    Levine [who appears confused]:
    “I am very intolerant of those who want to deny equal rights to people who aren’t harming anyone.”

    Okay, so if a man wants to put a garter belt and stockings on a sheep [as Gene Wilder did in a Woody Allen movie] then it’s between Gene and the sheep. I’m intolerant because I oppose it and you say to leave Gene and the sheep alone.

    Or if pictures of bondage and what borders on a snuff film is demonstrated to influence some into committing crimes against minors, the viewing of such material does not harm anyone – at the moment of viewing – so it should be allowed? How about snuff film?

    “If someone is not harming someone else, I think we should (politically) leave that person alone.”

    So all laws that make an attempt to keep a society moral need to be abolished. Great legal logic there. Just wonderful. Your proclivity, I believe, is showing.

    Five wives a man has. Should he be allowed to do so? You are saying that he must as the government is persecuting a victimless crime. Tremendous!

    “We may attempt to persuade him/her that an act is not moral…”

    You just stated above that no moral yardstick can be constructed. I’m sure you don’t see that you did, but your arguments allow only for complete freedom.

    “…we should never use government to compel him/her or treat him/her as less than equal.”

    So if a person commits an act that 95% of society has deemed as immoral – and society is little more than an agreement to follow rules of the society – we should not make those who destroy the fabric of the society feel bad. More tremendous jurisprudence. Kudos.

    “My problem with Christianity is not when it is used as a shield to protect believers. In that case, it can be a beautiful thing. My is problem is when it is used as a sword to attack non-believers.”

    Where are Christians using a sword to attack non-believers? [Islam is weilding the largest one in history]I think your bigotry is showing because you don’t like what Christianity says about your conduct.

    “And when it is used as a sword in a bigoted, sexist, or homophobic fashion, I don’t hesitate to call it as I see it: bigoted, sexist, or homophobic.”

    When is it used that way? I feel you may be very confused and need help with answers from a Christian. Now, if you don’t like that it calls homosexuality a perversion, well, don’t join the club. It is nice enough to encourage people to pray for you and not burn you at the cross.

    “As for strong pro-life views, I have never considered that “fetalmania.” Truly I respect strong pro-life views, even where I disagree with them. In contrast, I do NOT respect bigotry, sexism, or homophobia one iota.”

    I do not respect those who would kill a fetus. I think that cowardly is not strong enough a word for those who would kill the unborn. But since your union, if I read everything here correctly, will never produce children, and since hopefully the laws will one day stand up to the Gay Mafia and it will consider gay adoption to be the child abuse that it is, you will never know what it means to have offspring. You will not be able to know what it is like to watch a part of you grow in another to then be able to think of the abomination called “pro-choice.”

    “If a woman believes she is less than a man, that is her right to believe that nonsense, but I have ZERO TOLERANCE for those who would teach women that they are less than men.”

    As the father of a daughter, who had a 50% scholarship through college, I agree…so STOP THE CLOCK!

    But who in America teaches women that they are less than men?

    “I also have ZERO TOLERANCE for anyone who would support government discrimination against blacks, gay people, athiests…”

    The government does a nice job of discriminating against whites. It’s why some schools, such as the coveted William and Mary, have gone to great lengths to not allow the public to see the school’s population and procedure.

    “…or people of any religious faith (unless it is one of those rare religious faiths, like a cult, that serves to harm others)”

    So if a faith is “rare” then the government can do something. Then I guess that the WACO barbeque at Rancho Apocalypse was okay?

    No, it wasn’t. And that the democrats did not call for Reno’s head shows them to be the abomination they are.

    “I don’t think it is anti-Christian to oppose those aspects of some people’s Christianity that teach intolerance to non-believers who are not harming anyone.”

    Show me where in the Christian teaching that Christians are now taught to be intolerant of an individual? It is noting but anti-Christian propaganda and ignorance that you exercise to state that.

    “I am similarly anti-Jewish to those aspects of Orthodox Judaism that I consider sexist or homophobic (and I feel the same about those aspects in fundamentalist Islam).”

    Why don’t you lay your cards out on the table. JudeoChristianity believes that for a man to lay with a man it is an abomination. You don’t like that that disgusting lifestyle is condemned by the Synagogues and Churches.

    Liberalism is a dangerous Mental Disorder

  • madfuq April 26, 2005 12:19 am

    I don’t know where you live Vicki but where I live in a small midwest town I have never seen any intolerance of Christianity, I also grew up in California in a large city and never saw any intolerance of Christianity there growing up, when I lived in Texas in a small farming community Christianity was the only religion one observed three churches in the community and all of them Christian.

    I call myself a Christian and try to live my life with Christian values by the waY I treat my fellow man, but there are many that call themselves Christian, never darken the doors of their professed faith, give nothing to the upkeep and works of their faith and then there are some that use the label Christian and know little of the Book they profess to believe in or pick and chose one or two Bible verses to get across a certain point without considering all the words of Christ and his example. This is the type I am refering to and they are a blight on the faith they use to their own ends. None of us are perfect no not one. I would never denegrate anyones belief whether I agree with them or not it is the hypocrits that pull my chain. Works won’t save us but we are known by our works.

    I don’t agree with the conservative platform from what I have read about it and what I have witnessed that is not religion to me it is a political view point. I have watched the conservatives for many years and I am not impressed with what they offer the American people and over the years they have not improved only gotten bolder in their quest for the few very wealthy to get more and more, it is apparent from a historical view that we average people do much better under the democratic party not the republicans. The pendulum swings and when things get bad enough it will swing again.

    This is all I am going to write on this subject as to write more is just foolish my point never was true religion only misused religion.

  • Mark Levine April 25, 2005 11:24 pm

    It’s true: the Weekly Review is the one place where everything is on topic.

    I tolerate all views, except intolerance. I am very intolerant of those who want to deny equal rights to people who aren’t harming anyone. If someone is not harming someone else, I think we should (politically) leave that person alone. We may attempt to persuade him/her that an act is not moral, but we should never use government to compel him/her or treat him/her as less than equal.

    My problem with Christianity is not when it is used as a shield to protect believers. In that case, it can be a beautiful thing. My is problem is when it is used as a sword to attack non-believers. And when it is used as a sword in a bigoted, sexist, or homophobic fashion, I don’t hesitate to call it as I see it: bigoted, sexist, or homophobic.

    As for strong pro-life views, I have never considered that “fetalmania.” Truly I respect strong pro-life views, even where I disagree with them. In contrast, I do NOT respect bigotry, sexism, or homophobia one iota.

    If a woman believes she is less than a man, that is her right to believe that nonsense, but I have ZERO TOLERANCE for those who would teach women that they are less than men. I also have ZERO TOLERANCE for anyone who would support government discrimination against blacks, gay people, athiests, or people of any religious faith (unless it is one of those rare religious faiths, like a cult, that serves to harm others).

    I don’t think it is anti-Christian to oppose those aspects of some people’s Christianity that teach intolerance to non-believers who are not harming anyone. I am similarly anti-Jewish to those aspects of Orthodox Judaism that I consider sexist or homophobic (and I feel the same about those aspects in fundamentalist Islam).

  • Vicky April 25, 2005 9:53 pm

    I see a bigger intolerance for Christianity than I do of any other religion or belief system. I don’t think we’re in danger of becoming a theocracy as some people claim.

    Very often religious or conservative views are scoffed at, ridiculed, or supressed outright, and anyone who disagrees is immediately labeled a bigot, sexist, homophobe or diagnosed as having a severe case of “fetalmania.” (Someone with strong pro-life views.)

  • madfuq April 25, 2005 9:27 pm

    Vicky I did not realize that Mark designated this as any topic on the Sunday blog, so excuse me and I beg your pardon.

    I am just sick of holy than thou attitudes that serve no useful purpose other than to divide not unify our nation. We are a land of many not a few and among the many are many different beliefs some of our ancestors came here for the very reason that they could not and were not allowed to worship in their home land their religion, I would hate to see us lose that right in this country and a litmus test for Christianity or any other religion should never be tolerated in the United States of America.

    The differences of each is what makes the US unique in the democratic process, that is one reason I call myself a democrat because I don’t have to walk lock step with every other democrat as we have a big tent!

  • Vicky April 25, 2005 7:40 pm


    Mark has granted his permission to use the weekly review board to bring up any topic of our choice.

    I believe that “religion” affects every area of our lives, whether we acknowledge that or not.

    To the one who posted as “Hatemongers are the enemy”, Dave G is the one who made the post which is signed by “MohamedX”.

  • madfuq April 25, 2005 7:09 pm

    Arguing religion is the norm today, everyone feels strongly about their own beliefs. The trouble is when it becomes divisive as the neo-cons have made it with their platform it serves just the opposite of religion and becomes a point of contention for people to use and when that happens it goes against the original purpose.

    I am more disappointed every day by people using their religion to try to prove a point that has no bearing on the topic that should be discussed and on this board I believe the topic is politics not religion. My religious views I will gladly give to anyone wanting an answer about what it means to me. I want the sinner to repent but using it to further a political point will not bring one sinner to salvation in fact just might do the opposite out of pride. OK maybe I will feel better or more upright but what about the man/woman that really is looking for something as personal as religion.

    What I find daunting is a political party thinking they have the corner on salvation, we democrats are just as good, just as holy and just as religious as any repub out there walking around and might even be better in some areas, such as helping the poor, needy and down and out person. I have not seen anything coming out of the current administration that even remotely talks the way Jesus talked or walks the way Jesus walks, I believe he said it would be easier for camel to get through the eye of a needle than the rich to even enter into the kingdom of God Mt 19:24 If they really believed it there would no longer be any poor, needy, hungry or people needing medical help. But wealth has been elevated by this administration and the public has been duped into believing money is good and holy, Rot! When I see the repubs walking the walk instead of just ranting the rave then I will vote for them but not until.

  • Skip April 25, 2005 6:53 pm

    Maybe JohnnyP is really Jeff Gannon, or one of his bussom buddies.

  • Dr. A Adler April 25, 2005 1:42 pm

    Above post ended up on one of the few pages that that he actually didn’t do one of his rants.

  • Dr. A. Adler April 25, 2005 1:18 pm

    Does anyone believe that JohnyP has a clue as to why he is so homophobic. Should we ask him why he so desperately needs to have everyone thinking; Wow, you are probably the straitest guy we ever met. Should we let him know that if he were comfortable with his own sexuality, he would feel no need at all to be trying to prove his straitness everyone at every point. Do you think you could help him to come to grips his fears, Dr. Freud?

    It’s no big deal, JohnyP. Try to be comfortable with feelings. When you learn to accept your own obvious confusion you will no longer need all this panic denial.

    By the way, who supplies your transcripts? Wouldn’t you be more comfortable on a blog with people who share sexual fears and shallow thought processes. It must be kind of tough for one like you to be dealing with thinking people. Who is paying you? Why are none of you permitted to talk on the radio?

  • The conversation of the blog April 25, 2005 9:05 am

    Poetic Voice

    Can you hear the Voice in the wilderness,
    a chorus of finch’s delicate chirps,
    the cry of the loon,
    blackbirds’ caws,
    mixed with the squawks of a jungle monkey,

    A plaintiff dog’s growl,
    the screech of a banshee,
    the baleful swearing of the fuck-you lizard,
    the female scream of death,

    A loud, whispered whistle
    calling all loved ones home,

    The cooing of the dove
    from ever so very close?

  • Dave G. April 24, 2005 11:50 pm

    Wow; I think you need to say more on this, Skip. You are on to something.

  • Skip April 24, 2005 6:40 pm

    All of this talk about relative and absolute truths reminds me of an article about the attacks on Einstein’s theory of Relativity during the Nazi era (a portion is given below):

    In August of that year, (Paul) Weyland organized a mass meeting against the theory of relativity in the large auditorium of the Berlin Concert Hall, the “Philharmonie”. In this meeting, that had been widely advertised in newspapers, Weyland delivered a kind of keynote address where he attacked Einstein, as a newspaper reported, “with heavy artillery”. The address consisted mainly of unsubstantial insults against “the clique of his academic supporters” and against the theory of relativity. For Weyland, this theory was nothing more than a hypnotizing of the masses (Massensuggestion), Jewish arrogance, poisoning of German thought, and so on, the product of a spiritually chaotic time that had already produced a number of other repellant ideas. His speech culminated in the statement: “Relativity theory is scientific Dadaism”.

  • pope sextus 11 April 24, 2005 6:04 pm

    Mark, If you were to say things like that I my time you would have been handed over to the exicutioners. You would have been tied to a stake and set on fire. Earth rotating around the sun. Have you not red our scriptures?

  • Mark Levine April 24, 2005 3:26 pm

    Certainly, truth is not subjective to our personal feelings nor is objective truth impossible to discern. John Bolton, for example, thought the truth was subjective, that he could make up whatever lies he wanted about WMDs, and force others to go along, but the objective truth caught up with him. There were no WMDs no matter how many times he lied and said there were.

    So, as to things on this earth, one can prove truth or falsehood. For example, it is objectively true that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is further objectively true that the Genesis story of creation is not literally true no matter how much subjectively we may wish it to be true.

    But, as to “moral absolutes,” I’m not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean unprovable ones like “God exists”? Or do you mean moral dictums like “Love your neighbor as thyself”? What is a moral absolute?

  • Dave G. April 24, 2005 2:02 pm

    Most stragne. Messages here, then they are not, then they are??

  • Gordon from Bora Bora April 24, 2005 1:30 pm

    Vicky–I believe a major misconception on your part is to assume that God is exclusionist–I believe God is Love and nothing else and unconditionally so

    Morality as a construct of the ego–is not absolute–as nothing of the ego is absolute; but truth is certainly not subject to our feelings; hopefully our feelings can grasp some semblance of the truth which is a delineation of love, which is God–does that totally confuse you?

  • Vicky April 24, 2005 12:52 pm

    So then is “truth” subjective to our own personal feelings and is it impossible to determine objectve truth?

    Are there no moral absolutes?

  • Mark Levine April 24, 2005 12:45 pm

    But Vicky, other peoples worship other gods (Gods?) that they also say are exclusionist. You are right that they can’t all be true. But I know you understand that they believe you are wrong with the same strong fervor and unquestioning faith with which you believe they are wrong.

    Personally, I don’t claim that my religion or any other gets everything right in all its details. But I do fear those people that think they know the entire truth, of whatever religion they may be.

  • Vicky April 24, 2005 12:01 pm

    I’m not the exclusionist, Talking Tree Moss aka Gordon – God is. He’s the One who says there is only one way. I didn’t make that up.

    Yes, He is all forgiving and He is a God of love but He’s also a Holy and Just God and He says we aren’t to have any other “gods.”

    We don’t get to call the shots Gordon – God does, whether we accept that and acknowledge Him or not. It doesn’t change the facts in the eternal scheme of things.

    There’s all sorts of “truths” out there in our world isn’t there? Can they all be true or if it’s TRUE TRUTH, then doesn’t that indicate that some of these other so called “truths” are lies?

  • Talking Tree Moss April 24, 2005 10:53 am

    Vicky–A God of love closes his ears to no one–he all forgiving–because he is ALL LOVE–the exclusionism is in your heart derived from an ego/mind–learn the innocence of the son of God by realizing the son of God is a thought of God and therefore a creature of Love.

    Your need to have the only answer is an aberration and is derived from feelings of doubt–denounce your ego and you will see God

    Interconnected Reality

    What is real is what you feel
    settling through your bones,
    tingling flesh,
    aching, prodding,
    evoking you to act
    boldly, tempered with humility,
    shyly, with confidence,
    breathing in the center of the universe,
    atoning with God.

    Everything you experience
    is happening inside you,
    thought in moments of manifest projection.
    You can be an out of control speck of dust
    or the temple of the limitless life force,
    spreading a golden light
    radiating upon the world.

    Do you see spiritual reality?
    You are an idea in the mind of God;
    and the world you experience
    is an idea of your mind.
    All ideas are connected to source
    as sunbeams shining from the sun.

  • Hatemongers are the enemy April 24, 2005 10:38 am

    True Islamists are peaceful inclusionists–I suggest–infidel MohamedX–you tell your message of hate to your maker–you are exactly what the world doesn’t need–more hate–you are the problem–you are a distortion–you are an enemy to Islam and all religions of the world as well as the world–change your mentality or wither and die within the constraints of your own consciousness

    Illumined World

    Feelings separate from love
    and a panic sets in
    sinking so deep
    hysteria’s scream is silent,
    but still permeating, demanding
    a release from the pain of emptiness
    by surrendering to love
    of all life.

    Reprieve is a new mind
    delivered by the Holy Spirit
    correcting the heart,
    evolving, altering, mutating, exalting,
    uplifting consciousness.

    The trumpet sounds a return of bliss
    to the centers of the universe,
    retrieved to each of us,
    and radiating out
    in an all-encompassing golden light
    cast upon the entire planet.

  • MohamedX April 24, 2005 9:16 am

    Scientists are usually very credible. They deal in facts which they test and measure. They only accept as truth that which endures all their tests. Scientist go where the evidence takes them, whether they like where it is taking them or not. Theirs is a pursuit of truth.

    When it comes to the study of evolution, however, all scientists turn into liars. They dig up bones and minerals and they try to tell us that our earth is more then fore billion years old. They try to tell us that animals have changed and evolved over millions of years. I know that they are lying about all that. I know this even though I have never studied anything on the subject, I would never do that. I know truth. I have a holy book. My book tells me all truth. Anything that doesn’t agree with my book is telling lies.

    My book is the Koran and it tells me exactly how Alla made the earth. The Sonnies don’t agree with all of my teachings. That is why they should all be killed, along with the scientists. My book needs to be taught in all the schools. We all need to know the truth. Infidels need to die. Just tell me you don’t agree. I don’t believe you want to do that.

  • Vicky April 24, 2005 9:09 am

    To “A latter-day druid” – The One True God closes his ears to the “prayers” of druids because they are children of the “god of this world.”

    If you truly want to see as Christ sees, renounce druidism. Renounce “self” and then ask Him to help you find your way to Him, who is “the way, the truth and the life.”

  • A latter-day druid April 24, 2005 9:03 am

    Letter to God and Reply

    Dear God:
    Have me be who I am supposed to be;
    make me whole and Holy,
    the way I know I can be.

    Have me see the way I know I can see,
    with Christ’s eyes.
    Remove the blinders
    that hinder my soul
    and make me weak.

    Have me realize the power I seek;
    through forgiveness help me find my way
    back to love, back to Thee.

    God to me: Keep going.

  • Vicky April 23, 2005 8:15 pm

    It is true that God speaks through nature, which proves His existense.

  • The Church of Latter-Day Druids April 23, 2005 7:47 pm

    God speaks through tree moss

  • Vicky April 23, 2005 7:01 pm


    I believe you are referring to me in the post you made on the “Passover” page but since Mark is going to delete those comments, I’m going to reply to you here. In part, you wrote…

    “Those who choose to think rationally, logically, scientifically are taught to question everything. I am just such an empiricist and we believe that we can only espouse as truth, that which stands up to our questions and tests. We can only continue to hold to our views as long as the evidence remains constant. When presented with conflicting facts, it’s back to the drawing board for us.
    On the other side there are those who are provided with printed beliefs that they are to study. They are to accept their position without question and on faith. Because there book must be accepted as truth, facts that might raise questions, all such facts must be rejected….
    We now have a bloger who is happy to report that her side has managed to get the bible accepted as a text book to be studied by children in some public schools. She is quite happy with this development. I am one who happens not to believe that the bible is inspired truth. I’m the guy that questions everything. My bloger friend doesn’t believe I have a right to my perspective. She believes that my children should be required to study and accept her book if I live in those school districts. Me along with any Hondo’s, Buddhists etc….”

    Like you I believe that we can only espouse as truth that which stands up to our questions and tests. I don’t recall saying I was “quite happy” with this development. Did I write that? (I simply posted a brief news article.) I’m kind of undecided on this actually as it would depend on the teacher in that particular classroom and how they chose to handle that and if they felt they could present it objectively or if they’d feel obligated to give their slant to it. Then you claim that I don’t believe you have a right to your perspective. Sure I do Dave. Absolutely.

    But there are things in the public schools that ARE taught as fact, when of course, they are not and the evolution theory is one of them. But, no I don’t want to get into that debate again either!

    And not only that unproven theory, but then there is the relativism that is so prevalent in the public education system – yikes! Talk about a belief system running rampant!