DIviders, not Uniters
Friday, June 24th, 2005 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyYou all may recall last year about this time, I was gearing up for the 2004 election. I signed up on the John Kerry website and worked really hard to promote the man that I felt was best suited for the job. I have since changed my mind and gone from a staunch Democrat to not being one. It was brought to my attention that I wasn't voting with my morals and ethics. And when I looked at my reasons for wanting to be a Democrat, it wasn't because I felt that side was right. It was because I didn't like what the other side was doing. I had taken a "them vs us" attitude and was determined to bring about some change. So I re-evaluated what was important to me. When I did that, I realized that I sided with the President. I didn't think he was a saint, but I felt he was closer to what I believed than John Kerry. At the very least, he did what he said. I could count on him to say something and do it.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 08:42 pm (UTC)So why can't those two people be of the same sex? Because it is morally wrong to be gay?
A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 11:22 am (UTC)If my sister were gay, and she never acted on her feelings and led a celebate life. She would have passed a test by God and not commited a sin. It is the actions that are sinful. We are all here on the world for a reason and have many tests to overcome, or choices as it were.
Example upcoming.
EVERYONE here has thought of killing someone at somepoint in time however deep or close or not is irrelevant. What I am trying to show is that the action of murder is the sin, you choose not to act, then you never commit the crime or the sin.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 04:27 pm (UTC)I know a lot of people that disagree with this line of thinking and one of them is a priest. I was having a discussion with my mom about this - the priest - and we were actually discussing adultry but I think the same thing applys - if you think about it then it is as good as doing it. (These are not my views, these are hers) In some respects I can see that.
HOWEVER, what you are saying is that someone who is a homosexual is not allowed to have an intimate relationship with someone that they love and care for out of fear of some god banishing them to hell? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. The god I believe in loves me for who I am and as long as I am living as best as I can and living a good life then nothing else matters.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 06:32 pm (UTC)However, you believe in god and I believe in God so it does seem to be a moot point.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 10:19 pm (UTC)How is this not a judgement?
And yes I do believe in god but I don't honestly believe that my god has the expectations that yours does. The god I believe in wants people to live good lives and be happy and free to be who they are. The god I believe in does not care if you are gay, straight, bi, whatever - none of these things are considered sins because if god made us then we are the way he made us.
My thoughts on the bible and using the bible to back up arguments on why being gay is wrong and sinful, you probably don't want to hear. But I will say this, I do not think the bible is something that you need to follow to the letter. It is a book of stories and is a wonderful guide to live your life. It is not possible for it to be any more than that simply because of the number of people who have had a hand in writing it, translating it and making it last as long as it has.
I am not saying that the things that are described in the bible as events did not happen - no one here can say that they did or didn't - I'm saying that it is a book with good advice and some good ideas how to live your life.
Out of curiousity, have you seen the movie Dogma? There are a couple of salient points to that movie that I think should be brought up again.
1) It doesn't matter what you have faith in, it's that you have faith
2) It is better to have an idea than a belief - you can change an idea but it's a lot harder to change a belief
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 11:25 pm (UTC)And he doesn't want to judge anyone and send them away. He wants them to be with him. So He sent His son to cleanse the world of sin. He doesn't force His will on people. We still have the choice.
Yeah, I believed that the bible was just a history book with good stories too. Then I realized that since there is creation, there is a creator. And who do I believe the creator to be? I believed the Creator to be God. So if God could create everything, then God has no trouble whatsoever making sure that His written word is accurate. Not only could he inspire men, but he could simply perform miracles and wonders to correct things that were incorrect. The Bible itself is a wonder and a miracle and is 100% true. But it must be read in order to understand it and follow it to the letter. Some things are outdated and Jesus tells us as much.
I own the movie Dogma.
1) It doesn't matter what you have faith in, it's that you have faith
2) It is better to have an idea than a belief - you can change an idea but it's a lot harder to change a belief
1) I can believe with all my heart that I can fly, I'll still make a nice puddle on the ground.
2) That actually makes no sense to me. I mean it's true, but does that mean that we shouldn't bother to believe in anything because it's too hard to change? How would we have faith as in #1?
I don't believe these because they simply aren't Biblical. You base your belief system on what? Mine is based on the Bible. It offends you and there's nothing I can do about it. I follow God's word.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 11:36 pm (UTC)And by saying "You banish yourself by rejecting Him and His Son." that is you judging me.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 12:15 am (UTC)I didn't mean you specifically. I meant people in general. If you want me to judge you, just believe that I judged you. I will say that I don't judge you and love you just the same, but if my word doesn't convince you then you can believe whatever you like.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 12:17 am (UTC)And even if you did mean people in general, it is still a judgement that you, by your own admission, are not one to make.
But I am tiring of this. I do not have the patience nor the desire to continue this debate as it will continue in circles as I mentioned in one of my previous comments.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 12:32 am (UTC)Look, I'm not judging anyone. I have said it many times that I'm not. It was a general, hypothetical statement that if people in general do that, then that's what happens. So I left off the "if," I'm sorry. This is all arguing semantics and it seems to me that we're only doing this because you want me to agree with you and I'm not going to agree with you for the plethera of reasons that I've already given.
I grow weary of telling you that I don't hate you. That I don't judge you. (Yes! There may be times where you actually catch me being judgemental, but it's not my intent and I will apologize when it happens. I'm only human.) That God loves everyone, but God doesn't love sin. I have my own sins. Should I reveal them to everyone? Where to even begin? But that wouldn't solve anything.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 12:36 am (UTC)I do not think you hate me. I never said I thought you hated me so I don't know where you are getting that idea.
And if you are finding it difficult to communicate clearly while at work it may be a better idea to wait until you are not at work to respond.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 12:43 am (UTC)Ok, fine. I am judging people. I am judging and determing a person to be bisexual based on their comments to me. I am judging a person to be an abortionist because they abort babies. I am then determining that sin is wrong but everyone deserves to be loved.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 12:50 am (UTC)Yes you are determining that sin is wrong but you are also saying that it is a sin to be gay and to be in a gay relationship. That is your belief but it is not mine, as I surely have made this clear, however you continue to make glib comments that, to you, are likely just off the cuff remarks but to someone else are quite offensive.
I made it perfectly clear to you that the issues surrounding us remaining friends were mostly mine and that it was something that I am working on to better myself. However I have no interest in making the effort for someone who refuses to listen to what I am saying and keeping an open mind.
I wish you luck and happiness and that you have a long and happy marriage as I have no ill will toward you but I am afraid I will be defriending you. I wish you all the luck and happiness that you deserve.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 03:03 am (UTC)I really don't understand why people say I am not open-minded! I can only imagine it is because I will stubborn continue to say that I believe in the word of the God and that it is 100% true. That is an ultimate truth that is not up for debate with me. Just as your belief that as long as you try hard enough it is ok. I'm not saying that everyone should believe what I believe. You can believe whatever you want, Lyn. That's fine with me. I really thought this entire discussion was based on what I believed. I don't mind if you believe that. Please do. It just seems to me that lately, and it's not just you but nearly everyone who responded to this journal, feels that I must agree with their beliefs in order to be open minded. I will listen with an open mind to anything people have to say. I don't even throw around that it is a sin to people with whom I converse on a daily basis and I know gay people. It's just when people ask me what I believe that I feel I should respond truthfully. That's all! Maybe that's why when you read what I say, it sounds like I'm doing whatever it is. I honestly don't know. I've had the most difficult time communicating with friends who were once close since I've said that I'm a Christian. It is my opinion that some of my friends who thought they were tolerant aren't as tolerant as they thought. And honestly that hurts my feelings that when I state a belief it is taken the wrong way. I don't want to convert anyone. I don't get any door prize for converting people. I just want to spread love. No one comes to God because they think his laws about clean and unclean things are awesome. I know this.
If you still feel I'm just intolerant and not listening to you, please unfriend me. It just seemed like there was something I was missing and it just occurred to me that maybe that was the issue. Since I really have nothing at all against you. Nothing! It doesn't matter to me if you are bisexual or not. I think you're a great person.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 03:12 am (UTC)I have defriended you at this point because I have to deal with my own issues surrounding this kind of thing. However, if you are still interested in reading my journal I will refriend you but I can't promise I will read your journal right now as I just want to sort through my own feelings about this situation and how to deal with it as undoubtedly I will encounter it again. In some respects I have grown up spoiled - I didn't have siblings nor was I close with any of my extended family so I have a hard time dealing with "real life" situations a lot of the time. Like I said before, I wish you no ill will and I think you are a very cool person. I just need to sort out my own issues.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 03:20 am (UTC)I am sorry that things came across as know it all. I was actually researching the questions because I don't know everything. I thought people were interested! Not trying to disprove me. I'm sorry I didn't understand that, but written communication is just that way. And there aren't any smilies in here that wouldn't just be insincere looking.
I can appreciate not having dealt with a lot of people and just wanting things your way. That's fine! It's your journal! I'd love to continue reading your journal if you want to create a filter to exclude me. I've taken steps to avoid things like this in the future. Earlier this week, I made a new filter for people who could understand what I meant without the confusion. Nothing against you at all! After all, it's LJ and it's supposed to be fun! So I understand wanting to avoid confrontation or even seeming confrontation when reading it. I think things may be ok. I think things which could be taken as me doling out know it all truths have been filtered away. They aren't what people need to see because they will be taken the wrong way even if it is my journal.
I'd hate to lose you as a friend, but I understand your reasons.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 03:33 am (UTC)It hurts my feelings that she can't always just be honest and say what she says.
The thing is, at least for me, is there has just been this really radical change in the posts on your journal and that's a main reason why I didn't want to say anything before when I first read this entry. And I know a lot of people that have similar beliefs that you do and have had very bad experiences with them with regards to this same exact subject. So in the past I have just written people off if they were anti-gay in anyway. (I didn't mean that to rhyme, really) I've taken a look at myself and wondered what it is I may be missing by doing this. I have asked myself a lot of questions because honestly, being bi and supporting GLBT is a HUGE part of my life. I am not as active in it as I would like to be but it is still HUGE to me and so it is very very hard for me to be friends with someone (even if they are good people) if they have any anti-gay sentiments. But like I said, maybe I'm missing out on something so it's really something I have to work on myself.
I can't obviously speak for your best friend but I would hazard a guess that she doesn't want to hurt you, which is why she is working it out for herself. :\
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 04:27 am (UTC)I can definitely understand that there are a lot of people who say one thing and do another. Who claim to be Christians and then they are out there hurting people. I can definitely understand that.
And obviously I don't want you to have to create a filter, but I was just offering suggestions. That one is pretty silly, but I couldn't think of anything at the time. I do have filters on my journal now so that people won't feel so intimidated by my beliefs. I wanted to share them, but I think I need to establish a base for who the new person I am is and what to expect before I start saying what I believe. And I'm sorry about that. My fiance and I communicate through the journals so I wasn't thinking and just had the stuff as public or friends only instead of private for the two of us or what have you. Hope you aren't too upset because I had never meant to stress you out.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 11:40 pm (UTC)Also, the 10 commandments, which are generally considered the rules to live by, do not make mention of sexuality.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-04 12:28 pm (UTC)If you think it is ridiculous that god will banish someone who acts on their carnal desires then you need to look at yourself and ask if you are truely a christian. It is clearly stated in the old testament that he will.
If you wish to pass off the notion by merely playing caddy or self sanctimonious then more power to you, it doesn't change the what was written.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-04 04:09 pm (UTC)This conversation was between myself and