Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
2046

Oklahoma legislature: Economic crisis = Gays.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

OKLAHOMA CITY -- An Oklahoma lawmaker is once again drawing criticism from gay and lesbian groups from across the nation.

State Representative Sally Kern, and a host of other lawmakers, civic and religious leaders, will gather at the State Capitol next month to sign the "Oklahoma Citizen's Proclamation for Morality."

The proclamation urges Oklahoma residents to acknowledge the need for a national awakening of righteousness, but critics say Rep. Kern is again mixing politics and religion.

In her proclamation, Kern also blames people outside of Wall Street and Washington for the national recession.

The proclamation states: "Whereas, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and Whereas, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery."

"I think we all know why the economy collapsed and it didn't have anything to do with gay pride festivals," Rev. Scott said.

Oklahoma City's gay pride festival is scheduled for this upcoming weekend.

Rep. Kern made international headlines last year when she compared homosexuality to terrorism by saying, "I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam - which I think is a big threat, okay?"

The American Civil Liberties Union will be investigating whether or not public funds will be used for next week's signing of the proclamation at the state capitol.

The ACLU released the following statement regarding Sally Kern's "Proclamation for Morality:"

"I think it's very unfortunate, frankly, I haven't seen scapegoating like this since pre-World War II Germany", said C.S. Thornton, the Deputy Director of the ACLU Chapter of Oklahoma. "She blames all these things upon a great moral crisis that has in fact caused our national economic downtown, but nowhere in this parade of horribles does mention greedy Wall Street executives or government regulators who were asleep at the switch."

Read the rest of the story here:

http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=10597685

Read the Proclamation here:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEW...roclamation.pdf

OKLAHOMA CITIZEN’S PROCLAMATION FOR MORALITY

We the People of Oklahoma, Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of Liberty; to secure just and rightful Government; to promote our mutual Welfare and Happiness, do establish this proclamation and call upon the people of the great State of Oklahoma, and our fellow Patriots in these United States of America who look to the Lord for guidance, to acknowledge the need for a national awakening of righteousness in our land.

WHEREAS, “It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon

which Freedom can securely stand” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with

human passions unbridled by Religion and Morality” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people” (John

Adams); and

WHEREAS, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the

power of government…but upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity

of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to

the Ten Commandments of God” (James Madison); and

WHEREAS, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that

belongs to us by the laws of God (Benjamin Franklin); and

WHEREAS, “God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberties of a nation be

thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the

people that these liberties are of the Gift of God” (Thomas Jefferson); and

WHEREAS, “Whether any free government can be permanent, where the public

worship of God, and the support of Religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state”

(Joseph Story); and

WHEREAS, “We hold sacred the rights of conscience, and promise to the people…the

free and undisturbed exercise of their religion” (Roger Sherman); and

WHEREAS, “This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians”

(Patrick Henry); and

WHEREAS, “When you…exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be

impressed upon your mind that God commands you to choose just men who will rule in the fear of

God” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, “The principles of genuine Liberty and of wise laws and administrations

are to be drawn from the Bible” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance upon the

Creator of the Universe; and

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national

moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion,

pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and

many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking

the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused

to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of

Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States

disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to

an immoral behavior;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials

of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to

the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma

and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the

HOLY BIBLE; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His

only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the

Lord,” and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God

and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our

Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment,

and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great

sin.

Signed on the second day of July in the year of our Lord Christ Two Thousand and Nine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Roman Catholic, stuff like this embarrasses the hell out of me. It is not her job as a representative to preach to the people she's representing. She is not a 'leader', she is a representative. Furthermore, she plays into the very worst of what people think about Christians in general.

Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! Finally, a consistent Christian! One that actually wants to re-establish a theocracy here in the U.S. just like the one God commanded built in the Old Testament.

After all, if one's a Christian, to be fully committed, you have to take ALL the commandments literally, even the ones about stoning gays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman Catholics have a lot more to be far more embarrassed about than just this. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey! Finally, a consistent Christian! One that actually wants to re-establish a theocracy here in the U.S. just like the one God commanded built in the Old Testament.

After all, if one's a Christian, to be fully committed, you have to take ALL the commandments literally, even the ones about stoning gays.

Well, actually, a Christian should follow the teachings of Christ before the Ten Commandments as handed down to Moses to give to the recently freed Hebrews. Old Testament is Jewish. New Testament is the New Covenant with Christians. Don't know of any stonings called for.

Yeah, it is a mess of a mix of religion and politics that is unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, actually, a Christian should follow the teachings of Christ before the Ten Commandments as handed down to Moses to give to the recently freed Hebrews. Old Testament is Jewish. New Testament is the New Covenant with Christians. Don't know of any stonings called for.

Yeah, it is a mess of a mix of religion and politics that is unnecessary.

And the judges say *Bang* Wrong.

Christ was a Rabbi. He was a Jewish teacher. All Christianity was in the beginning was reformed Judaism. That is all the Romans, the Jews and anyone else who had heard of it had thought of it. It wasn't until the rise of Christianity to political power that it was thought of as truly something more than Judaism through the teachings of Christ. He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Pat Robertson already try to pull this kind of stunt 8 years ago? Didn't he say that it was the fault of gays, people who have pre-marital sex, abortions, and so on, that made God kill 3000 people by smashing planes into the Twin Towers?

JJM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roman Catholics have a lot more to be far more embarrassed about than just this. :)

I think Roman Catholics have a lot to be embarassed about, but not this. Fair is fair, this person does not speak for Catholics, she speaks for herself and whoever supports her at the ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roman Catholics have a lot more to be far more embarrassed about than just this. :)

No problem here. Everyone knows we've got guilt down pat :P.

In response to The Egoist's comments though (getting that twitchy 'I'm about to derail this whole thread' feeling), the New Covenant, in the New Testament, which is what Christians believe in, supersedes the old covenant as outlined in the Old Testament. This is why Christians are no longer required to be circumcised, sacrifice animals, etc etc.

The Old Testament is the one that contains all the goofy laws like the one where the Father has the right to kill a son that's displeased him and so forth.

Faith and Forgiveness now trumps works;

Though as any Catholic will tell you, without works faith is dead (We're great at creating guilt when we feel we've fallen short, which is pretty much all the time.)

Edited by NotCrazyDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the judges say *Bang* Wrong.

Christ was a Rabbi. He was a Jewish teacher. All Christianity was in the beginning was reformed Judaism. That is all the Romans, the Jews and anyone else who had heard of it had thought of it. It wasn't until the rise of Christianity to political power that it was thought of as truly something more than Judaism through the teachings of Christ. He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.

Ok, now this is all going to be kind of like trying to prove hearsay, where did Christ fulfill the law? The Messiah was going to be a *Bang*, to use your word, in fulfilling His purpose.

No problem here. Everyone knows we've got guilt down pat :P.

Sounds like an individual problem again. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, now this is all going to be kind of like trying to prove hearsay, where did Christ fulfill the law? The Messiah was going to be a *Bang*, to use your word, in fulfilling His purpose.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5:17-19]

The Bible, you should read it. It's quite an important document, especially when you're debating what is inside of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5:17-19]

The Bible, you should read it. It's quite an important document, especially when you're debating what is inside of it.

No need to get condescending. I was referring to the book of Judges and the other laws in the Old Testament. Yes we still follow the 10 commandments. Never said we didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't Pat Robertson already try to pull this kind of stunt 8 years ago? Didn't he say that it was the fault of gays, people who have pre-marital sex, abortions, and so on, that made God kill 3000 people by smashing planes into the Twin Towers?

JJM

I think that was Jerry Falwell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here are the relevant passages in the New Testament:

Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Galatians 3:23-25 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

The 'Law' that these passages refer to is the Hebrew law in the old testament to which I've already referred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5:17-19]

The Bible, you should read it. It's quite an important document, especially when you're debating what is inside of it.

Indeed.

"But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'"

As you know, Jesus was the New Covenant. The law would have had her stoned.

"Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either."

As you know, Jesus was the New Covenant. Previously, it was an eye for an eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The principle of turning the other cheek, probably worse than an eye for an eye

Yeah, in a lot of ways. But it was counter to the Old Testament ideology. The "fulfillment" of the law by Jesus was a lot different than what many Jews thought it was gonna be. They expected the Messiah to put down an ass kickin'. Still are too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The principle of turning the other cheek, probably worse than an eye for an eye

One embraces death, the other embraces vigilantism. Yeah, between the two? I agree, the first is worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, it was Judaism through the teachings of Christ. There were many Jewish reformers before and after him. Judaism, at that time, was still an evolving religion. Christ added his caveats, but he did not denounce that it was indeed righteous to kill homosexuals, adulterers and disobedient children. All he said was that those who had not sinned could cast the first stone. So, if nothing else, he speaks to the innate evil of all men which is just as disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, it was Judaism through the teachings of Christ. There were many Jewish reformers before and after him. Judaism, at that time, was still an evolving religion. Christ added his caveats, but he did not denounce that it was indeed righteous to kill homosexuals, adulterers and disobedient children. All he said was that those who had not sinned could cast the first stone. So, if nothing else, he speaks to the innate evil of all men which is just as disgusting.

No...not exactly. He didn't say that *nobody* hadn't sinned. He left the door open for someone to claim that they'd never done anything wrong.

But people *are* fallible. I'm pretty sure at some point in our adult lives, each of us has done *something* that we ourselves consider to have been wrong.

I think it more likely that he was speaking more against "mob justice" in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Jesus didn't mean what you think he meant at all... He was being very clever.

Here is an explanation of what the "Turn the other cheek" passage means in the bible from Walter Wink's "The Powers that Be"

"You are probably imaging a blow with the right fist. But such a blow would fall of the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand. But the left hand could only be used for unclean tasks; at Qumran, a Jewish religious community of Jesus’ day, to gesture with the left hand meant exclusions from the meeting and penance for ten days. To grasp this you must physically try it: how would you hit the other’s right cheek with your right hand? If you have tried it, you will now: the only feasible blow is a backhand.

The backhand was not a blow to injure, but to insult, humiliate, degrade. It was not administered to an equal, but to an inferior. Masters backhanded slaves, husbands, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews. The whole point of the blow was to force someone who was out of line back into place.

…[Jesus] is saying to them, “Refuse to accept this kind of treatment anymore. If they backhand you, turn the other cheek.” By turning the cheek, the servant make it impossible for the master to use the backhand again: his nose is in the way. …The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists …and the last thing the master wishes to do is establish the underling’s equality. This act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in the relationship. (101-102)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Jesus didn't mean what you think he meant at all... He was being very clever.

Here is an explanation of what the "Turn the other cheek" passage means in the bible from Walter Wink's "The Powers that Be"

"You are probably imaging a blow with the right fist. But such a blow would fall of the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand. But the left hand could only be used for unclean tasks; at Qumran, a Jewish religious community of Jesus’ day, to gesture with the left hand meant exclusions from the meeting and penance for ten days. To grasp this you must physically try it: how would you hit the other’s right cheek with your right hand? If you have tried it, you will now: the only feasible blow is a backhand.

The backhand was not a blow to injure, but to insult, humiliate, degrade. It was not administered to an equal, but to an inferior. Masters backhanded slaves, husbands, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews. The whole point of the blow was to force someone who was out of line back into place.

…[Jesus] is saying to them, “Refuse to accept this kind of treatment anymore. If they backhand you, turn the other cheek.” By turning the cheek, the servant make it impossible for the master to use the backhand again: his nose is in the way. …The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists …and the last thing the master wishes to do is establish the underling’s equality. This act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in the relationship. (101-102)"

Riiiiight.

The ancient Jews walked around with one hand tied behind their back only using it to wipe their arses. Rationalization? Pure BS I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...