PDA

View Full Version : 40 Religious Leaders Denounce Sarah Palin and Fox’s Hate Speech



SarasotaRepub
08-14-2010, 11:08 AM
O.M.G. !!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8943119) :eek:




SunsetDreams http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/donor.gif (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-13-10 07:52 PM
Original message 40 Religious Leaders Denounce Sarah Palin and Fox’s Hate Speech




Forty different Catholic, evangelical, mainline Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders and scholars came together to release a statement condemning the hate language of Fox News, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich as it relates to the so called Ground Zero mosque, “Fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric only undermine treasured values at the heart of diverse faith traditions and our nation’s highest ideals.”

The statement released by Faith In The Public Life condemned the religious bigotry of Gingrich, Palin, and Fox News, “As Catholic, evangelical, mainline Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders and scholars committed to religious freedom and inter-religious cooperation, we are deeply troubled by the xenophobia and religious bigotry that has characterized some of the opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque near where the World Trade Center towers once stood.”

It continued, “Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, is the most recent prominent opponent to cast this debate in a way that demonizes all Muslims and exploits fear to divide Americans.”It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way,” Gingrich said in a statement. Sarah Palin called plans for the center a “provocation.” Fox News has aired a steady stream of irresponsible commentary and biased coverage that reduces what should be a civil debate into starkly combative terms.”

Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President of the National Council of Churches said, “We are deeply saddened by those who denigrate a religion which in so many ways is a religion of compassion and peace by associating all Muslims with violent extremism. That’s like equating all Christians to Timothy McVeigh’s actions. This center will reflect not only the best of Islam, but the enduring hope that Christians, Jews and Muslims can together find common ground in addressing the most urgent challenges of our time.”

Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby said, “It’s simply wrong for Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin to malign all Muslims by comparing this cultural center and mosque with a radical ideology that led to the horrific attacks of 9-11. We fail to honor those killed by terrorists when we betray the bedrock principle of religious freedom that has guided our democracy for centuries.”

The statement concluded by calling for an end to the fear mongering and hate filled rhetoric, “Mr. Gingrich, Ms. Palin and other prominent voices privileged to have the ear of the media would make a more lasting contribution to our nation if they stopped issuing inflammatory statements and instead helped inspire a civil dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims committed to a future guided by the principles of compassion, justice and peace. Fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric only undermine treasured values at the heart of diverse faith traditions and our nation’s highest ideals.”


I'm sure Fox News, Newt, and Palin are just sooooo upset about this. :rolleyes:

Apache
08-14-2010, 11:34 AM
These "leaders" are full of ---- ! I'll bet that every single one of them have radical Leftist ties.

lacarnut
08-14-2010, 11:43 AM
These "leaders" are full of ---- ! I'll bet that every single one of them have radical Leftist ties.

And probably agree with Rev. Wright statement of G. D. America.

Apache
08-14-2010, 11:50 AM
And probably agree with Rev. Wright statement of G. D. America.

With one of them being from "National Catholic Social Justice Lobby", you're most likely right.

NJCardFan
08-14-2010, 12:42 PM
Just once I would like to see an actual example of what these loons consider hate speech. I already know the answer, I just want their example. I love the fear mongering part. You mean like "elect a Republican and another black church will burn" kind of fear mongering?

FlaGator
08-14-2010, 01:35 PM
Most of these are liberals whose connection to their faith's core beliefs are tenuous at best. The Christian members tend not to believe in the resurrection of Christ or the authority of scripture.

lacarnut
08-14-2010, 03:22 PM
Most of these are liberals whose connection to their faith's core beliefs are tenuous at best. The Christian members tend not to believe in the resurrection of Christ or the authority of scripture.

If that is the case, I would call them atheists rather than Christians.

Apache
08-14-2010, 06:30 PM
If that is the case, I would call them atheists rather than Christians.

They are intentionally leading their followers away from the scriptures. The Bible says that there is a special punishment for their work...

PoliCon
08-14-2010, 08:08 PM
Rabbi Sue Levy This is a clear indication of who and what these people are. :rolleyes: a woman rabbi? That's as stupid as a woman priest. I have to break it you to guys in the anglican church - a woman cannot be a priest. She doesn't have the right plumbing. A woman would be a PRIESTESS. A woman cannot be a Rabbi - it's a masculine term. A female in Jewish ministry would properly be called a RABBINA.

Apache
08-14-2010, 08:12 PM
This is a clear indication of who and what these people are. :rolleyes: a woman rabbi? That's as stupid as a woman priest. I have to break it you to guys in the anglican church - a woman cannot be a priest. She doesn't have the right plumbing. A woman would be a PRIESTESS. A woman cannot be a Rabbi - it's a masculine term. A female in Jewish ministry would properly be called a RABBINA.

Maybe his Daddy listened to too much Johnny Cash:confused:

PoliCon
08-14-2010, 08:15 PM
Maybe his Daddy listened to too much Johnny Cash:confused:

Take a look at the list - a very large percentage of these 'leaders' - nearly half by my count - are women.

movie buff
08-14-2010, 08:42 PM
The "Christians" involved in this are most likely lukewarm at best, more about promoting "Social justice" and giving flowery words to tickle the ears of their congregations than about delivering solid, Biblical truths and encouraging real personal holiness and righteousness.

They are intentionally leading their followers away from the scriptures. The Bible says that there is a special punishment for their work...
Indeed. Just look at Mark 9:42 for a description of how Christ feels about those who are a bad influence on His children, especially "religious" leaders.

noonwitch
08-16-2010, 08:34 AM
This is a clear indication of who and what these people are. :rolleyes: a woman rabbi? That's as stupid as a woman priest. I have to break it you to guys in the anglican church - a woman cannot be a priest. She doesn't have the right plumbing. A woman would be a PRIESTESS. A woman cannot be a Rabbi - it's a masculine term. A female in Jewish ministry would properly be called a RABBINA.




As long as you are not opposed to women being equals to men in the clergy, than I have no problem with using feminine terms. The reasons christian females resist using the term "priestess" is more to do with it's use in modern pagan circles than a desire to co-opt the male term, though.

PoliCon
08-16-2010, 08:40 AM
As long as you are not opposed to women being equals to men in the clergy, than I have no problem with using feminine terms. The reasons christian females resist using the term "priestess" is more to do with it's use in modern pagan circles than a desire to co-opt the male term, though.

I have no issue with women as evangelists - or as pastors when there is not a male willing and able to take the job - but that's as far as scriptures go so that's as far as I go.

noonwitch
08-16-2010, 12:58 PM
I have no issue with women as evangelists - or as pastors when there is not a male willing and able to take the job - but that's as far as scriptures go so that's as far as I go.


I totally disagree with you, but I like you, so....


I did look at the list, and I didn't see any names of evangelicals, like the article stated. Not even the usual liberal evangelicals, like Jim Wallis or Rick Warren.

PoliCon
08-16-2010, 01:21 PM
I totally disagree with you, but I like you, so....


I did look at the list, and I didn't see any names of evangelicals, like the article stated. Not even the usual liberal evangelicals, like Jim Wallis or Rick Warren.


You're welcome to disagree - conservatives allow people do disagree. ;)

FlaGator
08-16-2010, 01:30 PM
I totally disagree with you, but I like you, so....


I did look at the list, and I didn't see any names of evangelicals, like the article stated. Not even the usual liberal evangelicals, like Jim Wallis or Rick Warren.

Biblically he is correct.

noonwitch
08-16-2010, 01:53 PM
Biblically he is correct.


I am aware of the writings of Paul, and the social system in which he lived. It's a different world, 2000 years later.

FlaGator
08-16-2010, 03:52 PM
I am aware of the writings of Paul, and the social system in which he lived. It's a different world, 2000 years later.

I'm thinking of God's words to Eve in Genesis as well as Paul's epistles.


To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
Genesis 3:16

Now that does not speak specifically to the issue of Christian teaching but it does establish a hierarchy within the Church and indicates that different roles are to be served by men and women. When you state that things are different you tell me that what you are not considering is that the Church is not subject and should not necessarily reflect the same values as society. If you read Scripture Christ and the Apostles tell us that as Christians we should not reflect changes in the world because the world does not accept Christ or the values that He teaches. What you are doing is exemplifying the error that lots of denominations are making. They ignore God's message because they feel that in some instances the world reflects better ethics than that which God gave to us. It is a way of feeling morally and culturally superior to those through whom Christ revealed His good news.

I would think that when the Holy Spirit inspired Paul in his letters that God was aware of the changes in the status of women in western culture 2000 years latter but still felt compelled to have Paul include them. God knows all things and what he knew 2000, 3000 or 6000 years ago hasn't changed with time. To say that Scripture was a reflection of things 2000 years ago but not today completely invalidates the message of God. If the truth of Scripture is not the same truth yesterday and today then how do you know what to believe tomorrow? Do you just pick and chose the passages you like and ignore the ones you don't like? Then how can you have any reliance what so ever in Scripture? You have removed all authority from it and might as well just make up the rules as you go, which is what a lot of denominations are doing.

For the record, I am all for equal rights for women in the world and in the work place. How things are handled in the Church, however, I differ on and I feel I uphold a Biblical view. As it relates to the world outside my faith I see a woman as my complete equal and in some cases my superior. Within the faith I see a woman as my equal as well, but I also see that there are different roles assigned to men and women. Because we perform different roles does not make us unequal, it just makes us different.

PoliCon
08-16-2010, 04:45 PM
I am aware of the writings of Paul, and the social system in which he lived. It's a different world, 2000 years later.

Ah - but it's not JUST Paul. And you are right - it is a different world - but that does not make God any different.

lacarnut
08-16-2010, 04:48 PM
Ah - but it's not JUST Paul. And you are right - it is a different world - BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE GOD ANY DIFFERENT.

Very well put.

noonwitch
08-17-2010, 01:35 PM
I'm thinking of God's words to Eve in Genesis as well as Paul's epistles.


Genesis 3:16

Now that does not speak specifically to the issue of Christian teaching but it does establish a hierarchy within the Church and indicates that different roles are to be served by men and women. When you state that things are different you tell me that what you are not considering is that the Church is not subject and should not necessarily reflect the same values as society. If you read Scripture Christ and the Apostles tell us that as Christians we should not reflect changes in the world because the world does not accept Christ or the values that He teaches. What you are doing is exemplifying the error that lots of denominations are making. They ignore God's message because they feel that in some instances the world reflects better ethics than that which God gave to us. It is a way of feeling morally and culturally superior to those through whom Christ revealed His good news.

I would think that when the Holy Spirit inspired Paul in his letters that God was aware of the changes in the status of women in western culture 2000 years latter but still felt compelled to have Paul include them. God knows all things and what he knew 2000, 3000 or 6000 years ago hasn't changed with time. To say that Scripture was a reflection of things 2000 years ago but not today completely invalidates the message of God. If the truth of Scripture is not the same truth yesterday and today then how do you know what to believe tomorrow? Do you just pick and chose the passages you like and ignore the ones you don't like? Then how can you have any reliance what so ever in Scripture? You have removed all authority from it and might as well just make up the rules as you go, which is what a lot of denominations are doing.

For the record, I am all for equal rights for women in the world and in the work place. How things are handled in the Church, however, I differ on and I feel I uphold a Biblical view. As it relates to the world outside my faith I see a woman as my complete equal and in some cases my superior. Within the faith I see a woman as my equal as well, but I also see that there are different roles assigned to men and women. Because we perform different roles does not make us unequal, it just makes us different.


As I've established previously, I don't believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, I believe it is inspired by God, but written down by very imperfect human beings, some of whom were not above encoding their cultural prejudices as "God's Word".

Slavery is a good issue to use as an example. The Bible justifies it, frequently in the Old Testament, and even Paul and Peter admonish christian slaves to obey their masters. Yet, in the modern world, slavery is illegal and considered morally abhorrent, and christians were a major factor in the abolition movement in this country prior to the civil war. The Law of Moses also discusses such things as dowries for one's daughter, stoning people to death for crimes such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, theft, being an urban rape victim who didn't scream, and hundreds of other rules about sex, body fluids, and diet, among other things.

I don't think God changes in thousands of years, but man's perception does. The Bible was not magically delivered from heaven, the stories and teachings were written down by humans, who lived and breathed in the times and cultures that they lived in.

Paul even contradicts himself-at one point he says women should be quiet in church, that women should not instruct men, and so on. Yet at another point he says there is no gentile and jew, no male and female in Christ.

I think Paul was right in the latter point, because it is consistent with the teachings and acts of Jesus. He defied social convention everywhere He went-allowing the bleeding woman to touch His garment and be healed, talking to a Samaritan woman as an equal, touching lepers, healing on the sabbath, allowing Mary M into His inner circle of followers, healing the daughter of a roman centurion-there are too many examples to list.

If we view the Bible as a literal instruction book, then we risk being Pharisees, who were so caught up in their issues of rule-following, social control and obedience to the occupying Romans that they forgot about the needs of the living, suffering human beings around them. God calls women and men to serve Him, and to teach others.

PoliCon
08-17-2010, 03:49 PM
As I've established previously, I don't believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, I believe it is inspired by God, but written down by very imperfect human beings, some of whom were not above encoding their cultural prejudices as "God's Word". Well if the Bible has had it's message corrupted by the inclusion of 'gender bias' how can you trust that there are not other biases or lies in it's pages?


Slavery is a good issue to use as an example. The Bible justifies it, frequently in the Old Testament, and even Paul and Peter admonish christian slaves to obey their masters. Yet, in the modern world, slavery is illegal and considered morally abhorrent, and christians were a major factor in the abolition movement in this country prior to the civil war. Justifies it? Please provide one verse where slavery is either endorsed or encouraged.


The Law of Moses also discusses such things as dowries for one's daughter, stoning people to death for crimes such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, theft, being an urban rape victim who didn't scream, and hundreds of other rules about sex, body fluids, and diet, among other things. and there is no written law against women in the priesthood or the ministry. So . . . why bring all this up? I call red herring.


I don't think God changes in thousands of years, but man's perception does. The Bible was not magically delivered from heaven, the stories and teachings were written down by humans, who lived and breathed in the times and cultures that they lived in. That they did - and not once in recorded history can you show a woman as a Levitical priest. Nor can you point to a female numbered among the apostles. Nor can you change the fact that YHWH identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - not Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel. Since you use the Protestant cannon - you don't even get to claim the example of Judith as prophetess.


Paul even contradicts himself-at one point he says women should be quiet in church, that women should not instruct men, and so on. context is important.


Yet at another point he says there is no gentile and jew, no male and female in Christ. Yes - IN CHRIST.


I think Paul was right in the latter point, because . . . . because you like it better than the previous.



it is consistent with the teachings and acts of Jesus. Oh? Name the female apostles.



He defied social convention everywhere He went-allowing the bleeding woman to touch His garment and be healed, seems to me that according to what is written - she touched his Talit all of her own accord and when she had done so - he challenged her on it.


talking to a Samaritan woman as an equal, Asking her to play the role of a servant? Is equal in your eyes?


touching lepers, healing on the sabbath, allowing Mary M into His inner circle of followers, She was allowed a great deal - but she was not counted amongst the apostles. She was not among those sent out by twos to heal and to preach the word.


healing the daughter of a roman centurion-there are too many examples to list. I think you're blending two miracles here - the healing of the daughter of Jirus an the healing of the Centurions servant.


If we view the Bible as a literal instruction book, then we risk being Pharisees, who were so caught up in their issues of rule-following, social control and obedience to the occupying Romans that they forgot about the needs of the living, suffering human beings around them. God calls women and men to serve Him, and to teach others. And he gave men and women very different callings. Which brings me back to the original point - there is no scriptural justification for women in priesthood roles or in pastoral roles except in rare circumstances where a man is unavailable to take up the task.

DU+NU_Reject
08-17-2010, 04:13 PM
With one of them being from "National Catholic Social Justice Lobby", you're most likely right.

Another words, precisely the sort of people I love to hate...

DU+NU_Reject
08-17-2010, 04:24 PM
You're welcome to disagree - conservatives allow people do disagree. ;)

Huh... this thread is now about female priesthood... I'm outta here.

noonwitch
08-17-2010, 04:44 PM
Well if the Bible has had it's message corrupted by the inclusion of 'gender bias' how can you trust that there are not other biases or lies in it's pages?
Justifies it? Please provide one verse where slavery is either endorsed or encouraged.
and there is no written law against women in the priesthood or the ministry. So . . . why bring all this up? I call red herring.
That they did - and not once in recorded history can you show a woman as a Levitical priest. Nor can you point to a female numbered among the apostles. Nor can you change the fact that YHWH identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - not Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel. Since you use the Protestant cannon - you don't even get to claim the example of Judith as prophetess.
context is important.
Yes - IN CHRIST. because you like it better than the previous.
Oh? Name the female apostles.
seems to me that according to what is written - she touched his Talit all of her own accord and when she had done so - he challenged her on it.

Asking her to play the role of a servant? Is equal in your eyes?
She was allowed a great deal - but she was not counted amongst the apostles. She was not among those sent out by twos to heal and to preach the word. I think you're blending two miracles here - the healing of the daughter of Jirus an the healing of the Centurions servant. And he gave men and women very different callings. Which brings me back to the original point - there is no scriptural justification for women in priesthood roles or in pastoral roles except in rare circumstances where a man is unavailable to take up the task.


1. The Samaritan woman at the well-asking her for a drink is asking for a common courtesy, not asking her to be a servant. He then talked to her at length the same way He talked to everyone else.

2. Considering men wrote the Bible, it doesn't surprise me that women's contributions are frequently left out.

3. I believe lots of other prejudices could have been encoded in the Bible. I don't accept that it is literally the word of God. God certainly didn't like many of Israel's neighbors, according to the OT.


Of course I can't name women who were apostles or as a Levitical priest. Considering that men with abnormal genitalia were not allowed to be Levitical priests, it kind of goes without saying that women weren't allowed.

I don't care if your church refuses to ordain women, I'm just saying that a church that chooses to do so is as equally christian as one that doesn't.

Rebel Yell
08-17-2010, 04:50 PM
I am aware of the writings of Paul, and the social system in which he lived. It's a different world, 2000 years later.

The world hasn't changed, just the people. For that matter, the word hasn't changed either.

PoliCon
08-17-2010, 05:05 PM
1. The Samaritan woman at the well-asking her for a drink is asking for a common courtesy, not asking her to be a servant. He then talked to her at length the same way He talked to everyone else. A courtesy maybe - but he was asking her to serve.


2. Considering men wrote the Bible, it doesn't surprise me that women's contributions are frequently left out. gimme a break. :rolleyes: that is the lamest argument I've heard in a while. Are you honestly arguing that God would allow His message to be corrupted??


3. I believe lots of other prejudices could have been encoded in the Bible. I don't accept that it is literally the word of God. God certainly didn't like many of Israel's neighbors, according to the OT.And if it's wrong about one thing - how can you trust it about anything?



Of course I can't name women who were apostles or as a Levitical priest. Considering that men with abnormal genitalia were not allowed to be Levitical priests, it kind of goes without saying that women weren't allowed. And there were no women numbered amongst the apostles either.


I don't care if your church refuses to ordain women, I'm just saying that a church that chooses to do so is as equally christian as one that doesn't. Oh but we do ordain women. As evangelists. As Sacristans. And we even allow women to be pastors IF and WHEN no man is willing and able to take the job. We do however follow scripture with regards to who can be in ministry.

PoliCon
08-17-2010, 05:06 PM
Huh... this thread is now about female priesthood... I'm outta here.

perhaps a thread split would be appropriate. I do not object.

FlaGator
08-17-2010, 06:19 PM
1. The Samaritan woman at the well-asking her for a drink is asking for a common courtesy, not asking her to be a servant. He then talked to her at length the same way He talked to everyone else.

2. Considering men wrote the Bible, it doesn't surprise me that women's contributions are frequently left out.

3. I believe lots of other prejudices could have been encoded in the Bible. I don't accept that it is literally the word of God. God certainly didn't like many of Israel's neighbors, according to the OT.


Of course I can't name women who were apostles or as a Levitical priest. Considering that men with abnormal genitalia were not allowed to be Levitical priests, it kind of goes without saying that women weren't allowed.

I don't care if your church refuses to ordain women, I'm just saying that a church that chooses to do so is as equally christian as one that doesn't.

In the era of Jesus, Jews didn't speak to Samaritans. They were considered dirty. Asking for a drink of water from a Samaritan would not be common courtesy for a Jew. Jesus went out of the way to speak with her and share the good news with her because the Gospel is to be shared with all. Christ used the encounter to spread the word among the Samaritans. She and some of her people did become followers of Christ. Technically she (and all of us) are slaves of Christ because he paid for our redemption with his blood.

As for your Bible comments, are you saying that God is not to be trusted to relate His will accurately to men and have these men write accurately what God wants them to write? Don't you think that God is capable of seeing to it that His word is put in print and the message accurately transmitted through the ages? If you don't think that God is capable of this why do you wish to worship Him? If the Bible is not reliable then how do you know what is written about Jesus and his message are true?

You believe in a funny God. You believe that He can create the universe but not have men (who he also created) write a book to convey his message without being significantly influenced by their patriarchal culture. You believe in the words and teaching of Jesus Christ which come form this same book that God exerted such poor control over. What you and the liberal revisionists don't seem to get is that if you throw any aspect of the truth of the Bible up for grabs then the whole thing become null and void. It becomes what the liberals are making of it. A eclectic grab bag of beliefs that people can pick and choose the things they like and discard that which the don't won't to deal with.

You accept the Jesus who said 'your sins are forgiven' and ignore the one who said 'now go and sin no more'. You like it when Jesus said to 'love your neighbor as yourself' but close your eyes to the one who said 'You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?' How do you cope with the Jesus who said 'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell'

All of these things come from the same book which you say can't be trusted because it was written by men who among other things subjugated women. Guess what. These same men who penned the Bible where sinners (just like you and I) and who sinned for their whole lives (just like you and I) yet God trusted them with his word. Can you not trust God to make sure that His message gets delivered to us from across the millenia no matter who's hands He used to convey it?

FlaGator
08-17-2010, 06:31 PM
Slavery is a good issue to use as an example. The Bible justifies it, frequently in the Old Testament, and even Paul and Peter admonish christian slaves to obey their masters. Yet, in the modern world, slavery is illegal and considered morally abhorrent, and christians were a major factor in the abolition movement in this country prior to the civil war. The Law of Moses also discusses such things as dowries for one's daughter, stoning people to death for crimes such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, theft, being an urban rape victim who didn't scream, and hundreds of other rules about sex, body fluids, and diet, among other things.

Please show me where the Bible justifies slavery? It accepts that slavery exists but it doesn't condone it. Slavery was different in the context of the Bible. For example, the Bible states that when the slave's time of freedom came, he or she could choose to remain in slavery or be release. No slave of a Jew was a slave forever unless that slave chose to be. Slaves also had rights under the Hebrew laws which governed their human treatment. In our modern view of slavery no slave was made free after a certain time in slavery and I don't think that any would have chosen to remain in slavery if given the opportunity to be free. They had not rights. Slave in the Jewish view were more like indentured servants.

That last bit you posted is impossible to address because you mix the various societal, ceremonial, dietary, cultural and moral laws. I will say this, what you leave out when you mention the punishments is that a person could not be given any sentence, death or otherwise, without a trial that followed strict rules of evidence. Also cities where set up as sanctuary cities where those accused of the most serious crimes could flee and stay in safety until a trial was held.