« Protect your healthcare insurance | Main | Heat Is Essential »

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

People in the blogoshpere: Q&A with Belinda

At Bring It On! we like to shake things up. We also believe that there are many people in the blogosphere who share our views. I had been toying with the idea of interviewing people as I love asking questions and understanding how and why people come to their ideas. Then I came across Belinda.

Some of you will think that I made Belinda up. I didn't. She commented on my blog; loved the comments and went to her blog to thank her. Then I read the sidebar. I had to interview her. Fortunately I didn't have to tie her to a stake or take her daughter or anything to get her to talk.

Belinda is a practicing Christian who lives in Arkansas.

That's all I'm qoing to say; to learn more about Belinda, the person, please read her blog. It's great.

Were you pro-Bush at the beginning of his first term? How did you get to where you are now?

Never was pro-Bush. (it's funny--part of me deep inside is crying, "How could you ever think such a thing?) Never could understand how anyone could be, given his record both in business and government.

Have you always been Christian or did you come to religion through a life experience?

By definition, one cannot "always" have been a Christian. I had a Jewish friend once say to me, "You know, I think I'm the only non-Christian in this group." Well, she was the only Jewish person in the group, and there were no Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus...but in that small group of women, probably only 30% were actually Christians. You could always have been a Gentile, but Christianity is a faith which specifically involves a conscious decision in your own heart and mind and a profession of faith...that's where you find divisions even among Christian denominations, like the Baptizing of infants and literal transubstantiation. Christianity is a faith (believing that Jesus Christ was the messiah, the son of God, your own personal savior through grace once you've accepted him as such--but please don't rely on my words for definitions of these things. Ask Billy Graham --he's non-partisan, brilliant, and in my opinion, truly ordained by God. And he has a website where you actually CAN ask questions! I have similar feelings about Rick Warren .), while "religion" has to do with denomination of choice.

Do people tell you that your religious views conflict with your political views? If so how. what do you say?

I've not had these things directed at me specifically, but have been involved in some debates on the subject. I've been screamed at because of my opposition to the war in Iraq. Before the 2004 election, I heard talk about how if Kerry were elected, it would bring on the "end times". This made me CRAZY. I think this goes along with what is behind the "Religious Right's" distrust of the U.N., etc. There is a real fear of "Zionism", Globalism, etc. because of their ties to the Biblically prophesied Apocalypse. Now--here are the two things that are STUPID about that kind of thinking. #1.) The current administration is pushing us TOWARD these prophetic events with things like globalizing control of the internet and proposing a National "I.D." system, and microchipping humans, etc. ("Mark of the Beast", anyone?). They're taking away our civil rights by the truckload, and trying their best to end diversity of every kind and homogenize all people into the same-thinking, non-trouble-making entity. #2.) I have a clue to give all the religious zealots who fear the "end-times" and think that they can prevent/delay them. In the first place, if you believe in the Biblical prophecy, and you are a true believer and have accepted Christ, you WON'T BE HERE for the apocalypse. You will have ascended already, OK? What happens after that to whoever's left ain't gonna be your problem. In the second place (again, if you are a believer--and all these people profess to be), God has already chosen the time of the Second Coming, and has said that "NO ONE shall know the day or hour." It will happen when it is (pre)ordained to happen, and you aren't going to prevent/delay the Apocalypse by voting Republican! What do you think--God will say, "You know, since the beginning of time and even before that, this has been the scheduled time for the end of the world....but gosh, Arkansas voted against gay marriage, so what the heck--I'll wait and see what happens. But so help me Me, the next time they elect a Democratic president in the U.S.A....." Please.

And please don't ask me any hard theological questions, because I don't have any but the simplest of answers. I am not a theologian, just a Christian, by choice and by faith. Because, above all, what God instilled in man was FREE WILL. The free will to decide whether or not to accept Him and in what form, or whether to reject him altogether. He could have made us all the same; He didn't. Doesn't that tell anyone anything? And our free will is what is being taken from us, little by little, day by day, by the very people who claim to be carrying out God's agenda. And for people like Pat Robertson and his ilk (ugh), a memo: Jesus' Great Commission for us went like this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Dudes, you are REPELLING people in droves. Your current administration and its cronies are causing people who might have come into the Christian fold to recoil instead, because your actions do not match your words, and often, your words themselves are repulsive!

Oh, and just a sidenote on the whole evolution vs. intelligent design bruhaha: Most Christians I know believe that there is a way, not knowable by us, that evolution and Divine creation dovetail perfectly. I don't know who these people are who flatly reject the science of evolution, but stop it, already. God gave us the gift of science, and the intelligence to use it. So just stop it. Who knows what God's concept of "time" was in the beginning of the world? That first day could have been billions of years. We just don't know. And while we're on the subject, I've had just about enough of the flying spaghetti monster, too. Just because science can be accurate, does not mean that there is no God. I feel quite the opposite. So you guys just can it, too.

How do you define "conservative?" "Liberal?" Do you think any of that matters?

I think that both terms have become icons of hatred and fear now, we are THAT divided as a country. So much for the "uniter, not a divider" promises of GWB.

Do you see a difference between a fiscal Conservative and a foreign policy one?

Probably. I do know a lot of conservatives who are conflicted about this.

I don't believe in the death penalty simply because I think even DNA can be switched, and I think a life sentence without the possiblity of parole is a much harsher sentence. What are your thoughts on this?

Absolutely, 100% against capital punishment. This comes from my faith more than politics--I just don't believe we have the right to take a life in such a deliberate fashion. On the practical side, as you indicate: if even ONE person is wrongly executed, that should serve as an unassailable argument against the death penalty. I have a really hard time understanding how the same people who are pro-death penalty are anti-abortion. It's all killing, folks. And I do personally abhor the very concept of abortion. HATE it. Wish it would just go away forever. But to make it flat-out, no-excuses illegal in all circumstances? No. This is why I would be a terrible ruler...everything would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis (ask me how much I'm opposed to mandatory sentencing and "three strikes" laws), and it would all take forever, and the anarchists would gain control while I was dithering.

One point I'd like to make about capital punishment that just sticks in my craw (yes, I'm from Arkansas, and we say lots of things like that), is the often-spouted Biblical "support" for such a thing by conservatives crying, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!" This has to be one of the MOST misrepresented Biblical references ever. Here is Matthew Chapter 5, Verses 38-42, NIV (this is Jesus talking) : 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "

Tom Delay? First sentence that comes into mind when you think about him?

Quotes like "I AM the Federal Government", and "I AM the Constitution." May he swiftly be indicted.

Bill Frist? Same thing?

May he follow quickly in the steps of Newt Gingrich and fade from public sight...while being indicted.

GW Bush?

Failure. Short-sighted. Controlled. Possibly well-meaning in the beginning, but taken over by the forces that propel and control him (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld). Probably not evil. Probable "dry drunk." Stooge.

Karl Rove?

Bats, blood, all-consuming darkness, wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments...I view the world as desired by Karl Rove as being something like that town in "Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang", where there were no children, and everyone dressed in gray and never smiled. No moral or ethical constraints to keep him from his goals. I can't imagine him stopping at ANYTHING that got in his way. Read, or see the documentary, "Bush's Brain ". If you weren't frightened before...well, you will be.

Dick Cheney?

"Arrrrggggghh!" (That's what he looks to me like he's saying in almost every picture of him.) Consumed by greed. Anyone else would have cut ties to even the appearance of impropriety with things like Halliburton , but not Dick. How do you have as many health problems as he's had, still be alive, and NOT have a deal with the devil? That was a very un-Christian thing to say, and I'm sorry. In the Rankin-Bass Christmas special, "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town", Cheney would be the Burgermeister.

How did you feel that the government handled 9/11?

By almost immediately deflecting attention elsewhere, and repeating and repeating "9/11" and "Saddam Hussein" and "Iraq" in the same context, until people believed it. Then starting an unjustified war to keep the public's collective mind OFF Osama Bin Laden.


Is there evidence that the federal government handled Katrina? I wasn't aware of that. Being an Arabian horse breeder and fancier, I do know something about Mike Brown, or good ol' "Brownie". He ran the IAHA, all right...ran it right into the ground so that it NO LONGER EXISTS. That's right, we don't have an International Arabian Horse Association any more. Thanks, Brownie--you did a heckuva job! I think that Katrina and its aftermath were just, no pun intended, a "perfect storm" of imcompetence and mistakes on so many levels, that I'm not willing to lay blame at any one set of feet.

You live in Arkansas; what did you think of the Clintons?

Uh...LOVED them. Loved Bill, loved Hillary, loved when baby Chelsea was born (and Hil finally added the "Clinton" to her name). He gave us so much. I personally had the benefit of attending the Governor's School for the Gifted and Talented, thanks to Bill. He was young, vibrant, and everything we needed. And as a president...what I wouldn't give to have him back. He gave us the huge budget surplus, W. has given us the largest deficit in history, and it's growing every day. Clinton did so much for our nation in the global community...all that hard work destroyed now. But let me tell you--I really believe that the Clinton-hating is nowhere in the world as intense as it is right here in his home state. It's bizarre. And yes, he was an idiot about sex, obviously. Every man has flaws, and his were squarely centered in his pants. But I'll take that over what we have now any day. You know, when I think of the whole attempt to impeach Clinton over ORAL SEX...I can't help think about King David. One of the Bible's biggest screwups. Sinned, and sinned, and sinned again...yet he was "God's favorite." Why? Because he truly repented, and in his heart truly desired to honor the Lord. God knew his heart, and loved him for it.


How do you spell the sound of me blowing a huge raspberry into my hand and making a huge fart noise?

The 2000 election?

*sigh* I remember disbelief, hope, more disbelief, grief, flat-out denial that this could possibly be happening...and a total outrage at the deceit that is the "electoral college", especially now that the Republicans (thanks, Tom DeLay!) have gotten the districts arranged just so. And now that the "machine" has learned how best to exploit and manipulate those districts ( i.e. getting anti-"gay marriage" initiatives on the ballot in every single swing state in 2004--thanks, Karl Rove!, "push" polling, and downright scare tactics against minority voters)...well, I'm not extremely optimistic for the future. It seems unlikely that American voters could be so stupid a third time...and yet, I thought that the second time, too.

Thanks for the chance to vent somewhere other than my own site, where I might infuriate family members! And please remember, these opinions are NO ONE's but my own, so if you disagree, that's great, but don't yell at me about it, because we're all entitled, OK? If I have a fact wrong--a FACT, not an opinion--let me know, but gently. I both cry and bruise easily. If you are an atheist or a "pastafarian" who wants to ridicule me for my faith in God, don't bother, 'K? And after all this navel-gazing, I can assure you that my own blog will be full of nothing of substance for at least a week now.

Can I be truthful? Bill Clinton is my hero. Belinda helped me understand how true Christians can repent and forgive. I thank her for that and for everything else she taught me.

Posted by Pia Savage at 12:01 AM in Current Affairs, Politics, Religion, Right Wing Nut, Weblogs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference People in the blogoshpere: Q&A with Belinda:


Nice interview. I don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God myself I gave that up when my research did not support it. I do however think it imnportant that we do not lump all Christians together and denegrate people for their beliefs. The Democrats lost a lot of people in that last election due to their arrogance in that regard.

Posted by: cooper | Oct 12, 2005 1:28:59 AM

First of all, you can't control the Internet and only Microsoft and its ilk think you can. Secondly, you don't think we can delay the end times? Then what is the point of fighting for privacy rights against what you claim Bush is doing? I can realize that you don't know any theology because most of your points illustrate this. As to creation-evolution the subject is too broad for here, but you don't know so much science and theology it seems so I will not delve into it unless you want to e-mail me. Let me see what else, DeLay's indictment will not stand up and what on earth would be the reason that the government wanted to keep the "collective mind" off bin Laden?

Oh, and also, Pat Robertson's senile remarks do not represent all the Christians that support Bush. You have committed one of the cardinal sins of illogic, the essential fallacy (the law of the undistributed middle). Just because someone supports Bush doesn't mean 1) he/she is the same as all other supporters in every regard and 2) he/she agrees with everything lock-step with the president. You can still support a political leader and disagree with him/her on other areas. Next.

Posted by: digibrill | Oct 12, 2005 2:54:13 AM

The internet issue is the one reported on in many places lately--here's a good overview:

What is the "point" of fighting? It's about highest basic quality of life for the largest number of people possible. It could come tomorrow, or in thousands of years. We just don't know. So yes, in that time, I would want to do good. That's all.

I won't respond to that next part where you simply call me ignorant and uneducated because I apparently hold a different view on a topic than you do. You have yours, I have mine, and hey, that's fine.

"What on earth would be the reason" the government would want to distract us from Bin Laden and focus on an unrelated (but attainable) target instead? Are you kidding? The answer is in the question itself.

I agree with your last paragraph, except the part where you imply that I somehow connected Pat Robertson to the Bush administration. I did not. I wish they would have more firmly decried his recent remarks in the administration, but they didn't. But I never said anything like that Pat Robertson's remarks represent Christian Bush supporters. I have family members who are Christian Bush supporters, and they are most certainly NOT Pat Robertson supporters.

And the lovely, dismissive and condescending "Next." at the end, there? Nice touch. Is that what can be expected for the rest of this discussion? If it's just going to be ad-hominem and straw man arguments, I'd rather not participate.

I've looked at your website, and we have much more in common that we do not. Right down to dealing with MI in our family. You do draw more flies with honey than with vinegar, which is the concept that seems to elude most of the "Religious Right."

Posted by: Belinda | Oct 12, 2005 3:18:22 AM

I have a friend who's just like Belinda, except he's a he. He's a Young Earth Creationist, and a Biblical Literalist, but he finds political parity with the likes of Progressive Liberals like myself on most bread 'n butter issues. We do part ways on some social issues, but there's a tepidity to his stand on those - an acknowedgement that it is for he and his fellow Christians to convert the masses through prayer and example, not Democratic Mob-Rule Fascism.

Posted by: Jersey McJones | Oct 12, 2005 8:10:14 AM

Nice. Thanks for affirming that Christian faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, and that the jackals in power (whatever they might claim) don't represent Christian values.

Posted by: Joe Snitty | Oct 12, 2005 8:22:00 AM

Ah, but Joe, think about it - which Christian values would you like to promote governmentally? If you believe, for example, that the world is going to end at any moment, how would that color your views on everything from pollution to foreign policy? If you believe that without Jesus a nation is doomed? If you believed interest on lended moneys is a sin? It goes on and on. You can be ethically right and morally right at the same time, but that's called coincidence.

Posted by: Jersey McJones | Oct 12, 2005 8:38:01 AM

Thoroughly enjoyed the interview.

Posted by: bonnie | Oct 12, 2005 12:00:13 PM

Great interview. I think it important to show all sides if the situation in order to get rid of the we against them attitude.

Came here by way of Wonderland or Not and will be marking you all on my next go round.

Posted by: jacob | Oct 12, 2005 2:04:30 PM

On the origins of humans and the physical universe: Any one ever get the sense that absolutely no one really has an actual clue, so we are left to try and figure it out.

That’s what science is about. Science generally does not get involved in proving or disproving god- why is it so hard to make this distinction? I will tell you...Once upon a time, in the middle ages the almighty church held a monopoly on scientific knowledge based on the works of the ancient Greeks specifically Aristotle and Pythagoras. The knowledge was believed generally to be in accordance with the scriptures.

Were not just talking about flat earth stuff here, we are talking about the science of astronomy as a whole, from the orbits of the planets, to the actual number of planets, to whether or not the known universe at the time is heliocentric or geocentric. Science had been left virtually unchanged for more than a thousand years. And then a string of discoveries made by a handful of men (Galileo, Copernicus, Kelpler) changed mankind’s concept of the heavens forever. Suddenly the earth was round, orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit (not a perfect circle) and out pacing Mars so that mars only appeared to travel backwards.

Absolutely none of it proved or disproved the existence of a god but by attempting to verify the scientific doctrines of the day it was discovered that the doctrines were flawed. And it follows that if the doctrines that are thought to be in accordance with the scriptures are flawed than the scriptures may be flawed. And if the scriptures are flawed not only does the church lose its divine authority but also perhaps the known concept of god is flawed and your religion falls apart. What could be any more threatening than that today but questioning the very genesis of human kind? Of course we all know what the church tried to do to quell this academic dilemma censorship, inquisition you get the drift.

Religion is like heroin for some people, they will lie, steal, cheat, even kill to get that fix or protect a stash. It is for that very reason no political parties should have religious affiliations. Every other nation before the American revolution had failed to separate its church and state and it always lead to conflict, from Catholic vs. Protestant, to Roman vs. Jew, as far back as you can go all the way down to Cane vs. Able. The founding fathers knew this and that’s why they built in the separation of church and state and that’s also why when talking heads on TV tell us that the Christian political movement is a return to traditional American values I find it laughable... it is not; it is a return to old European values in reality.

Posted by: Billion Year Old Carbon | Oct 12, 2005 2:08:34 PM

Your questions were all right. But her answers were contradictory in many respects. Her Christianity is not my business. But she played to the gallery just to impress you. Belinda is politically naive just like Cindy Sheehan.
Ignorance could be bliss. But it does more harm than good. Belinda needs some political education. Dropping jargons in references to Karl Rove and others is so childish.

The political ignorance in the blogosphere is becoming pandemic.

Posted by: Orikinla Osinachi | Oct 12, 2005 2:16:26 PM

Hey BYOC I'm not about to speak for Belinda, but I try to seperate people who have true faith as does Belinda, from people who try to impose their will on me

Faith should be private. I respect you very much. I believe that Belinda's views should be respected.

I can't imagine what it's like to be a practicing Christian in an area where most people are and to have the views that Belinda has, and I was remiss in not asking her that

Posted by: pia | Oct 12, 2005 2:23:07 PM

Well, Jersey, if I had my druthers, I'd like a government focused on tolerance, lifting up the poor and humility. That's just me, of course.

Posted by: Jet | Oct 12, 2005 2:24:52 PM

No Belinda didn't say these things to impress me. It wouldn't be in her best interests to do that.

Nobody could call her "naive" and all the best people are "contradicatory."

Posted by: pia | Oct 12, 2005 2:27:05 PM

"May he swiftly be indicted"

This one quote stuck out like a sore thumb and I REALLY think most Americans don't FULLY understand the term.

Too many these days equate the term indictment with the term conviction. Much like people thinking an impeachment means bye bye.

You can indict someone in a matter of minutes, all it means is that you have found sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial to convict them of the offense.

Indictment - n. (law) A written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury.

I think what she meant to say was "may he be swiftly convicted"

Posted by: James | Oct 12, 2005 3:09:11 PM

I can't see how a person's core religious beliefs can possibly be separated from their political position. But who cares? A belief is a belief, and as long as a political position is for the better of all as a whole, then whether it is religiously or otherwise motivated is mute.

Posted by: Vince | Oct 12, 2005 3:15:33 PM


I suppose you are right....as long as it does help the "whole" of mankind. Almost sounds humanist.

Posted by: LiberPaul | Oct 12, 2005 3:21:06 PM

Belinda souds rather foolish in her political beliefs, especially about Clinton who caused terrorism to flourish by his ignorance of it during the '90's.

However, her religious views are a bit simplistic, but she has excused herself in that while offering some good insight, but Kerry would've been absolutely terrible and would have indeed brought disaster upon us quicker just by his wimpishness. We'd all be bowing down to Allah now if he'd of won. Same thing for Al Gore in 2000, who tried to steal the election any way he could, but failed... thank God!

Posted by: OTTMANN | Oct 12, 2005 5:02:18 PM

I wasn't going to answer any more comments tonight, but Ottmann

What is it you're all telling me? Get a grip.

How can anything you say be taken seriously?

Posted by: pia | Oct 12, 2005 5:12:24 PM

We'd all be bowing down to Allah? Good Grief. This country would be far better off if Gore had won. I think that that's apparent to more people every day.

Posted by: Jet | Oct 12, 2005 5:18:15 PM

Hey Pia,
I’m not sure if I have a complete understanding of what you are stating in your previous post. I would like to clarify that my statement of historical record regarding science and the medieval church is not meant to show any level of disrespect for Belinda’s personal beliefs in any way. It is merely to show the similarities between then and now regarding cutting edge science of the day and the causality of cultural backlash from long established religious doctrinal beliefs forged by interpretation of scripture and the very reliance on scripture for faith its self.

The inspiration for putting out a synopsis of , “What happened,” came from the statement she made, “Most Christians I know believe that there is a way, not knowable by us, that evolution and Divine creation dovetail perfectly, I don't know who these people are who flatly reject the science of evolution”

I would like to point out that that this, “dove tailing in a way we do not yet understand,” Is in fact what intelligent design is all about but that we will not find any solution to that question by obscuring the science of biology in our class rooms by insisting that planets revolve on crystal spheres. It was done once before with the science of astronomy, and its happening again with biology for many of the same reasons.

Which brings me back to my first point, “Science generally does not get involved in proving or disproving god- why is it so hard to make this distinction?” And I have told you why I believe it is; because people put too much emphasis on what men have written about god over what can be observed in the physical word that it supposedly created. This, “Spaghetti monster theory,” intrigues me I have never heard of it before. But I must ask; If god can divinely inspire men to write scripture then why is it so hard to believe god could have inspired other men to try and figure out how all of this was made?

If god knows everything for all time why put the apple of knowledge in the garden from the beginning if you don’t want man to eat it? Since you already know he will since you know everything? And of course then there is punishment, its religious fatalism, and funnier than, Voltaire ever imagined. For man to truly have freewill, and at what points in time? Of course if science has its way and all of this springs from a singularity at the beginning of the universe and proceeds according to physical laws of behavior for every particle, then all of this is mathematical inevitability and now you have scientific fatalism. Go figure…

What I do know is that if Kelpler, Copernicus, and Galileo (All Christians) decided to listen when others told them to can it; we would have been left only with science according to Aristotle. If they had failed to ask the truly difficult theological questions of the day in defiance of the church non of this would be possible we would not have developed the mathematics or a reason to get to F=MA (Newton) let alone E=MC2 (Einstein) In fact the whole enlightenment would not have happened after the renaissance. And with out enlightenment there would not have been an American revolution; hence none of us would even be debating any of this.

So while I respect Belinda’s views and yours, and the entitlement of every individual too theirs, And I understand what is very special about Belinda’s apparent dichotomy of religious and political views. I must also point out that people only think this is unusual because the notion of what is faith, and who are the faithful based on ones political beliefs. She is not conforming. Faith in politics, it is a concept that has been jammed down our throats by a relatively small number of vocal people. That’s right human beings, claiming to speak for god. When really they are only interested in attaining power. Who decides who has a monopoly on what is acceptable faith and what is not. Why are her views more or less Christian than another’s? Its all open to interpretation, if you begin to include it in your politics you are automatically passing judgment on any one who will not vote in kind with you. That is not democracy.

And now I will give out the apple. Why is the Christian religious right so concerned with evolution since it has no effect on the potency of the new covenant?

Posted by: Billion year Old Carbon | Oct 12, 2005 6:05:40 PM

That was amazing! Great interview Pia and Belinda. Maybe the best political article I've read this year. Maybe better than that.

In 2000, I was a big McCain supporter and I remember driving from Canton, GA to Waleska, GA where I lived and hearing an interview with some political strategist, Karl something. Anyway, he was connected to the Bush campaign and Cooper's dad. He was quoted as saying the great political schism of the 21st century would be between people of faith and secular humanists. It was the start of my anger against the Bushies for confusing faith and theocracy. To expand on Belinda and Digibrill (without the patronizing tone of the latter) I have belonged to several denominations and been a curchmember in the Midwest, South and California. I have never been in a Church in which there was a political consensus. You're lucky to find a pew. There will never be a political party to represent the faithful against the secular. People of faith will always be on every side.

Oh, one more thing since it goes about a yard up my craw, too. THE SECOND COMING IS A GOOD THING!!!!!

Posted by: doug | Oct 12, 2005 6:23:59 PM

Doug, thank you--Doug had been trying without success to put that comment in for awhile. He will be Friday's guest author. Not on religion at all

BYOC, I think that Belinda represents the silent majority, to take an old saying, and spin it on its wheels.

I agree with you about much that you have to say.
But I can't answer your questions without writing a treatise.

To oversimplify--religion should be a very private matter but as Doug points out it's not

Posted by: pia | Oct 12, 2005 6:31:31 PM

Pia, Thanks for the great interview. It is nice to know that the Christians are not a monolith. But, it would be nice if a few of them stood up to the leaders and taught them tolerance and love.

BYOC, Thanks for making all the obvious evolution points that are written over and over again. At the end you ask, "Why is the Christian religious right so concerned with evolution since it has no effect on the potency of the new covenant?"

There are many reasons. Fear is foremost. The religious who believe that having doubt means losing faith fear that if they are exposed to doubt they will lose their faith. So, as you pointed out in your example, the Church feared that knowledge of a heliocentric earth proved that scripture was flawed. Any flaw in scripture creates doubt and hence doubt increases the fear of losing ones faith.

Other fears are that if God did not make man in his image, then what gives man authority over the animals? What justifies man's rape of the earth?

In the Scopes trial William Jennings Bryant said that if children thought that they descended from apes that children would behave like apes. Moral authority was believed to come from God. If doubt were raised about the creation of man, humanity would lose its moral authority.

Belinda, thanks for sharing your views!

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Oct 12, 2005 7:16:14 PM

BYOC--that last question of yours? Beats the heck outta me. Maybe some fundamentalists think that the science of evolution directly contradicts and threatens what they're teaching their children about the Creation (like maybe they really believe the world is only a few thousand years old)? I don't know. Most of my family are devout Christians--my father was Chairman of the Deacons in my church, and he was a biology teacher, who *certainly* taught about evolution, and was the finest example of Christianity you'd ever want to meet. And he was highly involved later in life in the National Federation of Independent Business, so did vote Republican.

I *have* to believe that the I.D. people who are really in denial of the science of evolution are in the minority, even among the "Religious Right". Do you feel differently? What I'm saying is, it's never been a demographic that bothered me much...frankly, I've never met one of them, and I'm certainly (it would seem) in the right place to have done so.

To inject a little humor, how about my favorite exchange from "My Name Is Earl" last week?
"How was school?"
"Good. I like Biology class. Did you know that people used to be monkeys?
"Really? What were we before we were monkeys?"
"Beats me. I don't even remember being a monkey."

I laughed myself sick.

Doug--my husband and I both would likely have supported McCain, and we were desperately hoping for a run from Gen. Wesley Clark in the last election. I would soooo much rather have backed him than Kerry. *sigh*

I find I may be, unlike Pia, too thin-skinned for this sort of thing! I appreciate most of the people who, even though they have opposing viewpoints, have remained civil. It's not only just "nicer" (Yes, I'm big on "nice"...Southern gals have pounded into them from day One), but it makes for a much more sound and reasoned debate if you can keep emotion, ad hominems, etc., out of it. And it's nice if you can resist the temptation to believe that those who have differing opinions/beliefs just aren't as smart, educated, or enlightened as you. Pia just asked me some questions, and I answered them as honestly as I knew how. I wasn't taking a position on a stump for anyone/anything...they were just my very own thoughts. On this topic, it's especially difficult, because I'm sure we're ALL going to turn out to have been wrong in some way or another, if not altogether.

I'm skulking back off to my own blog now to post something earth-shattering, like the most recent ridiculous statements from my husband. :-)

Posted by: Belinda | Oct 12, 2005 7:36:34 PM

I would like to just comment on one thing. The Bin Laden statement and follow up statements.Do your homework people Bin Laden is a patsy if there was ever one. Word in the educated circles is he could'nt walk 8 duck across the street by himself. A third time bad election choices ,well most of America is still stuck in the belief that 19 students were instructed by a Islamic Brain-iack about there mission from a cave becasuse the FBI and the media said so..Wake up read and be informed.

Posted by: Shadow | Oct 12, 2005 9:17:05 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.