Slashdot Mirror

Dang, I wish I had mod points.

Interestingly, the Christian Missionary Churches in India are by far the most casteist, with upper caste priests dominating the churches and segregating the lower caste Christians. Which is why just last month some 5000 Christians reconverted back to Indian religions.

http://in.christiantoday.com/articles/1,000-dalit-christians-reconvert-to-hinduism-in-tn/2653.htm
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12011&size=A
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58117

Which exactly proves my point. You are basing your decision on a person's religious views, not on what they have actually done. What if that Satanist ran a food bank, gave money to homeless institutions and rescued lost kittens but now wants to run for mayor or governor? Would you still not vote for that person specifically because of their religious views or would you base your decision on what they do?

without someone telling us what we can and cannot consider when deciding how to vote.

Yet, that is exactly what the christian right wants to have happen. Read on for the full spin-job. They want people of the cloth to be able to tell their people who to vote for based on the candidates supposed religious leanings.

There is a very logical reason not to have folks of the cloth getting involved in politics and it harkens back to the head of the British Empire also being head of the Church of England. In fact, we already have cases where catholic priests are withholding communion from people because of their political leanings or where they stand on certain issues. Article 1, article 2, and article 3 with the third one being an interesting take of a person beholden to a foreign government (i.e. The Vatican) telling American citizens that unless they follow the teachings of the foreign government, the citizen will be denied an act of their chosen faith.

Cases like this are precisely why there is a separation of Church and State in this country.

You very well could be right, although I certainly hope that you're not.

The Church has a long history of policing itself, and it doesn't like secular authorities butting in. Don't forget that even today China is trying to control the Church in China http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53 081. While I agree that the Church as screwed up on hiding the pedophiles instead not pro-actively doing something, I am not convinced that the reaction indicates further corruption. Of course this could be simple wishful thinking on my part.

Huh?

While the Catholic Church has never been literal about following the Bible, it has always been the primary input into any choice. This is especially true of the Old Testament as it was pretty much stablished by the time the Church was founded. Since the Church predates the Council of Nicea by about three centuries, things aren't as black-and-white with the New Testament.

But tithing is Old Testament, and Jesus said "Give unto Ceaser...", so I don't see much wiggle room here. It is very Biblical, in addition to being part of culture and tradition of the Roman Church. Theoretically both are supposed to reflect the Will of God, which is the ultimate goal. How you get there is a detail.

As for your quit about the early Church being "truly catholic" implying that the modern Church isn't: Are you restricting your view to the Roman Church? The Catholic Church is an umbrella group, not the monolithic organization most people imagine. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53 183 has an article about growth in a non-Latin tradition Church. Just FYI.

personal comment
While the Popes have been involved in all sorts of social issues since the early days of the Church, I'm not sure that I see tax evasion as being important enough to get this much attention: Encyclicals are big deals. But maybe the Pope has a streak of anti-corporatism in him which should sit will with many /.ers. In addition to being an old man who has lived a fairly cloistered life, he still has his pet issues too.

Would make it a bit more difficult to own some facet of of everyday web life as a "technology" or "business process,"

Why worry about web life. They are owning YOUR life.

Thank God that we have terrorists to alert us to these things.

The circumstances are different, but the issue is the same.
no.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39 526

Well anyone critical of stem cell research should be refused any treatment that exists as a result of research.

Agreed. If I detest the use of aborted infant tissue in the vaccines shoved into my arm, then I should have the right to refuse them, for myself or my child (if I had children)

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=38 609

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=38 498

Well anyone critical of stem cell research should be refused any treatment that exists as a result of research.

Agreed. If I detest the use of aborted infant tissue in the vaccines shoved into my arm, then I should have the right to refuse them, for myself or my child (if I had children)

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=38 609

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=38 498

So, if this thing is a huge success and still in print two years from now, the Vatican will ask us to stop reading it, right?

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001