The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Christians should pee into cups.

    By Oxy Mora on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 11:03am |

    Within the vast offensiveness of the Indiana, and now Arkansas, Enshrine Christians (and Bigots) legislation what is being downplayed by progenitors is the leniency shown religious folk---who wish to refuse service to certain patrons---in providing proof that their refusal of service is central to their faith.

    Folks like the Tea Party/Christians---who are the one's being pandered to with the recent odious legislation---are first in line to force welfare recipients to pee into cups or force the poor and elderly to provide voting I.D. that isn't necessary. But there is scant to no provision in these new laws requiring Christians to prove the sincerity and honesty of their own behavior.

    Apparently, the special class of Tea Party Christians, for example, have only to claim a truth without backing it up, the end result being that anyone who discriminates can claim a deeply held belief defense and therefore anyone can discriminate. In such loose guidelines redress for the victim is both difficult and expensive. The perpetrators of these offensive laws claim they didn't intend to immunize bigots and if you believe them I have a thriving five star hotel on the Red River I will sell you cheap.  

    Unfortunately there is no quick litmus test for "a deeply held belief" or a claim such as, "this belief is central to my faith" as there is for a potential recipient of government services who is required to pee into a cup. The hypocrisy of certain Christians requiring everyone else to defend their actions while exempting themselves makes me want to throw up all night long.

    The logical outcome of "anything goes" if one claims a religious exemption is the Westborough Baptist church, for example, opening a string of restaurants in Indiana and Arkansas in which the proprietors wear discrimination up front like a sweaty camo tank shirt. Most likely these entrepreneurs would be in contention as featured guests at the next Republican CPAC convention.

    I have friends who are sincere Christians and I accept their statements of faith because I know them and their practice of religion. But the problem is that within the new legislation the protestations of an outright charlatan would have the same value as those of de facto people of faith like my friends. (Granted, I would not agree with their practice of claiming religious exemptions to discriminate. But I wouldn't end the friendship because of it).

    Perhaps there are some measures short of peeing into a cup which Christians with deeply held beliefs against LGBT folks would be willing to accept in order to keep charlatans from usurping their own special privileges in a court room.

    Pastors could issue I.D cards once a year, something like a credit card---is current on payments and has been a member since January of '09. Members could post affidavits on websites showing good works which Jesus has suggested towards the poor and afflicted. People could list movies they watched which contained homosexual scenes and provide proof that they fast forwarded through those sections of the movie.

    It's unfortunate that in the pandering of legislatures to the "religious right wing" of the Republican party, such awful legislation as that of Indiana, now regurgitated by Arkansas, has been promulgated. In the end, the offensiveness of such laws reflects on all the citizens of these two states, including many people of faith who believe discrimination is wrong in every context.

     

     

     

    Comments

    Supporters of these bills argue that the intent is not to discriminate. Then they go on to tell us why certain beliefs should allow them to discriminate. The real religious problem here is that if you believe the Bible tells you to discriminate against sinners, you have to go full Leviticus and not trade with adulterers, fornicators, people who swear, etc. At the end of the day, you can't allow anyone to enter your place of business. In fact, in many cases, you can't enter your own store. 

    These bills are about hatred, not Christian love. The Bible has been used to justify state executions, slavery, homophobia and other evils. The fact is that having these Pharisees out in the daylight makes it easier to identify the bigots. While people have been making laws to prevent Sharia law, Hobby Lobby and "religious freedom" bills are ushering in a theocracy that will condemn other Christians along with the secular.

    As we speak Gov. Hutchinson of Arkansas announces that he will not sign his theocracy's bill without changes that will hopefully keep business owners from being free to discriminate. He probably got calls from Walmart.

    Edit to add: the link

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/arkansas-religious-freedom-anti-l...

    Homosexuality is listed as being as bad as adultery and having sex during a menstrual cycle. I think business are going to need questionnaires for their customers.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 12:59pm

    It's a good thing there are no examples of Jesus dining with sinners to challenge their way of thinking… 


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 12:48pm

    Oh, see... those were oldy time sinners, absolved by the sacrifice on the cross.  Any post-crucifixion sin is like piling on...


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:09pm

    That's true, very good thing. But if someone could find such an example they wouldn't know that Jesus had his legs crossed.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:11pm

    Thanks, rmrd. I love the reason that Hutchinson uses---that his very own Son signed a petition against his signature. Now there is a stand-up governor.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:07pm

    I think it was the signature of Son of Sam (Walton),


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:09pm

    I am both pleased and surprised that the backlash on the Indiana law has actually had some effect in Arkansas.

    Of course Walmart has such a stranglehold on vendors I don't think the law would have negatively affected the supplier side of their business. But oh, the cocktail circuit---what's wrong with your state?


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:22pm

    The CEO of Walmart lobbied against it.  I would have loved to been the fly on that wall. I think the International corporations are getting a little tired of the Koch Bros. Many of these companies have pulled recently out of ALEC.  


    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:33pm

    Sigh... these are the unintended Constitutional consequences.  We get freedom of religion, as part of freedom of expression and assembly but it's special, see, so those members of religion also want freedom from taxation and freedom from regulation and they get it.

    You tell an NRA member that it's ridiculous that we license drivers but not gun owners and they tell you, "the Constitution promised me a gun, it never promised a driver's license."  Well... shoot.

     


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:04pm

    The increase in intolerance, will amplify the need for protection.

    Well, shoot... or get beaten or strung up?  


    by Resistance on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:54pm

    Hopefully there will be a decrease in intolerance so that out gay people don't feel forced to join the NRA.  Things seems to be moving in the right direction, though, you're right, there are still right wing extremists out there who are a threat to some of our fellow citizens.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:06pm

    Hopefully there will be a decrease in intolerance

    I don't see it happening.

    In my lifetime I have seen things go from bad to worse.

    Environmentally and Socially, (despite the efforts of a few good folks) the wicked, the greedy and the selfish, outnumber and control the events affecting the entire planet/world.

    It is they, at the controls of a runaway passenger train, in the process of derailing.


    by Resistance on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 10:07pm

    Supporters of these bills should remember that there was a pregnant couple turned away from an inn an forced to give birth to their child in a manger. Not the image Christians should want as how we treat others.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 1:33pm

    The three Weismans will take care of them, not to worry.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:34pm

    Now that's punny funny


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 3:44pm

    All the pieces are coming together as foretold  

    This intolerance of others  leads the Beast of Revelations (The UN)  to turn against and destroy the Harlot (Religion) with the support of the people.

    Major problems occur, when God intervenes and Jesus saves. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 6:49pm

    Donno about anyone else, but I piss excellence.


    by Q (not verified) on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:13pm

    The proof part of a lot of ideas is where things get messy:

    Prove that you are a believer. Prove that Your belief is the only True one. Prove that you love me. Proof of Life concerning hostages. Proof of hostages concerning Life. I could go on.

    The one unmistakably cool thing the separation of church and state did was to prohibit that mess from consuming the entire project.


    by moat on Wed, 04/01/2015 - 8:21pm

    What is a Christian, who is a charlatan, who decides? There's really only one answer I can come up with. If a person believes that Jesus is god and uses the bible as a guide they are Christian. I'm not a Christian. I'm a liberal I guess or maybe a secular humanist and I would like to define Christianity by Matthew 25. The sheep and the goats parable. I certainly like the Christians who center their belief on that section better than those who chose Leviticus 20. One can't decide based on modern sensibilities or interpretations. By modern standards most Christians for at least the first 1,700 years were not "true" Christians. Are we really going to claim that those who want to discriminate against homosexuals are not Christian? For most of the history of Christianity most Christians thought they should be killed. Were the people of Salem Christians when they killed witches? Christians killed witches, burned them alive tied to a stake for over 17 centuries. Even if a majority of Christians today have been humanized and liberalized one can not have a definition of "true Christianity" that excludes the majority of Christians that existed for the majority of years Christianity has existed.

    I just don't see how one can have any other definition than a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is god and uses the bible as a guide.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 6:14am

    There was/is a great deal of harm done under the name of Christianity. There were slave masters and abolitionists using the Bible as a source of the moral code. If we say that some of the Founders were not Christians, but deists or secular humanists, then we have to admit that non-Christians were there along with the Christians as slave-owners. The Southern Church did provide cover for all groups when they used the Bible as a cover for slavery.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=hMtD4ZmkvbkC&pg=PT141&lpg=PT141&dq=dei...

    In more recent times we have atheists like the late Christopher Hitchens supporting GW Bush's war and Bill Mahrer presenting full-blown Islamophobia. Humans can ignore the true context of the Bible or the beauty of the context of secular humanism and scientific morality.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 8:32am

    I'm not sure what your point is. If you're saying that Christians have not cornered the market on stupidity, harming others, and out right evil I agree. There are and were stupid and evil people who were not Christians. If you're implying that a true Christians is one who interprets the bible the same way you do and those who do not are misinterpreting well I can't agree. You're generally liberal and we agree 85% of the time so I wish most Christians interpreted the bible similar to you. But that's not historically accurate and I doubt it's accurate even today. The fact is that for most of the history of Christianity you would be the lone voice crying out in the wilderness while the vast majority of Christians would say you are the one misinterpreting.

    As for Maher, I've generally followed the controversy and I haven't seen anything he's said that I consider Islamophobic. He's a comedian and his schtick is shock so I wouldn't make my points the same way but from what I've read I agree with his statements about Islam.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 6:13pm

    What i am objecting to is a tone similar to one that would be used to label all White people as a stereotype as racists for most of the history of the country up through today. If you are Ok with that characterization , then post away. My other point is that you exclude the history of the Black church from your analysis of certain events.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 10:00pm

    I have no idea what you mean by tone and characterization.  I'm simply speaking generally about the 2000 year history of Christianity. Do you think I'm historically inaccurate? It's true that as I am speaking generally I didn't specifically address the black church. But you know, I don't think the black church in say Egypt from 300 to 1300 was strikingly more enlightened or liberal than the white churches during that time period. I doubt that your modern liberal version of Christianity would have gotten a warm reception at any black church at that time. I don't think you would have been very comfortable in any black church 1000 years ago.

    Oh wait, you mean the black church in America of the last couple of hundred years don't you. Well I doubt that your views of liberal Christianity would have gotten much of a warm reception 200 years ago either given all the articles I've read about the prevalence of homophobia in black churches today. Or are you claiming that black gay men can come out of the closet and be warmly accepted and supported at the majority of black churches today? How about in 1950? 1900?


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 4:08am

    There is a strong anti-Christian position that comes across here. That's fine. Sometimes it just gets tiresome, but post away. I think that Mahrer is a raging Islamaphobe, but that's just me. At the end of the day, I think my rights/life is in as much jeopardy from some secularists as it is from Christiansts and Islamists. 

    Once you categorize Islam as the problem, it's easy to justify wiping them out. One thing Obama tries to do is separate out the Islamists from other Muslims. When Sam Harris calls Islam "The mother lode of bad ideas", it is easy to accept doing battle with them.

    Here is one view of Maher's statements about Islam.

    http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/oct/06/bill-...


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 8:03am

    I think the other thing I sense is that the mostly secular Occupy Wall Street was mostly white, not very diverse. Moral Mondays led by Rev. Barber were more diverse. Al Sharton reached out to the LGBT community and Occupy Wall Street in Stop and Frisk.You have concerns about Christians and Muslims, I have concerns about the secularists.

    Here one black atheists take on things.

    https://rhoadestoreality.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/my-black-atheist-faq/

    Here is a notation on the racial differences and goals among atheists.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/16/blacks-are-ev...


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 8:37am

    This is a blog about distinguishing "real" Christians from the charlatans, euphemistically suggesting they should pee in a cup. I posted my views based on the history of Christianity. I'm at a complete loss as to how the lack of diversity in the Occupy Wall Street movement has any relevance to that issue. You have not addressed a single point I made regarding that history. No I didn't discuss Occupy Wall Street. I didn't discuss stop and frisk. I didn't discuss Hitchens or atheism. Until you brought up Maher and Islam I didn't discuss that either. That's because this is a blog about distinguishing "real" Christians from charlatans. If you would care to explain how the lack of diversity in the Occupy Wall Street movement relates to distinguishing "real" Christians from charlatans I look forward to reading that explanation.

    Obama has the same problem with his comments about ISIS that some have in their comments about who is a real christian. There are tens of thousands of people in ISIS who believe Allah is god and Mohammed is his prophet. They use the Koran as their guide. The actions and beliefs of ISIS has a centuries long tradition in Muslim history. There are millions of people today, while not actively engaged in ISIS, who agree in whole or in a large part with the beliefs of ISIS. They all consider themselves Muslim. Yet somehow Obama and others have decided they are not real Muslims. By what standard?

    I've posted some data that you have not once shown to be inaccurate. Maher has posted some polling data that no one has claimed was inaccurate. It's just data. If you find that data Islamophobic or antichristian that is on you.  I suppose its possible that discussing that polling data might lead some idiots to justify killing all Muslims. I don't find the hypothetical reactions of a few idiots a valid reason for silence. If Wattree had a highly rated TV program I suppose its possible that some idiots might use his posts on Israel as justification for killing all Zionists. I don't see that as a valid reason for censorship.

    When Maher offers polling data as a basis for discussion imo the reaction borders on the ridiculous. The most common response is that he's painting a diverse religion with a broad brush. It's a astonishing lack of understanding of statistics. If Maher quotes a poll that majorities, sometimes as many as 70%, of Muslims think that the death penalty is justified for leaving the religion, blasphemy, adultery he is not saying all Muslims. He is quite explicitly saying that it's not all Muslims, that 30% of Muslims do not believe the death penalty is justified for those "crimes."

    If you want to discuss Occupy Wall Street or black atheists write a blog on the subject. If you want to discuss distinguishing "real" Christians from charlatans this is the place to do that. If you want to address my comments here stop pointing at Occupy Wall Street and other total irrelevancies and actually address my comments.

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 4:19pm

    I pointed out  Christians have challenged other Christians on issues like slavery, a Civil Rights, Jim Crow, and yes even homosexuality. That is part of the history as well. I do note that secular beliefs do not necessarily lead to better outcomes. I think that is a valid observation.

    BTW,the Obama approach to separating out Muslims may lead to a good outcome in Iran. I find that superior to the Mahrer approach.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 5:17pm

    Obama's approach may or may not be the wisest political choice. The subject of this blog is not What Politicians Should Say About Islam To Achieve America's Goals In The Middle East   I'm not a politician, Maher isn't a politician, you are not a politician even though you often act like someone hired to do political spin for Obama and the democratic party. I'm not constrained by politics when expressing my views. I attempt to make rational arguments to support my views. You should do the same. I haven't seen it here.

    It's true that who is a real Christian has been a subject of debate for centuries within the Christian communities. There's a pretty substantial debate in the christian community about whether Mormans are Christians. For a long time is was whether Catholics were real Christians and whether the pope was the antichrist. Before that the Catholics had a big deal council at Nicea to try to decide who was a real Christian.  Just a few years after Jesus died Paul and the apostles had an argument about whether converts had to be circumcised to be real Christians. Frankly I find most of those discussions irrational. Often the conclusion was that those with the most power were the real Christians sometimes if they had enough power they killed or terrorized those who they decided were not real Christians.

    Therefore I've come to the conclusion that the only definition of real Christians is someone who believes Jesus is god, or god's son, and uses the bible as their guide. Any other definition excludes a vast number of Christians for the majority of centuries Christianity has existed.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 6:24pm

    The reason that you consider me an Obamabot is that I often ask what options are available that differ from wat Obama is doing and I am often met with crickets, On the topic of Obamacare, for example, I did not see how single payer was going to make it through Congress. I didn't hear rational theories on how single payer was going to happen.Since you brought up Iran, what is your rational alternative to Obama's approach? He has made forts to appeal to the Iranian man/ woman on the street by acknowledging their holidays. I'm not a politician, but that move seems to be an enlightened one.

    The original topic was on present day Christians, it was you who diverted into historical aspects.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 6:45pm

    Single payer is your favorite bogeyman. You use it no matter what anyone posts about the ACA. I've suggested that an expansion of Medicare would have been better system, polling showed it had wide spread support among the populace, and therefore might also have been better politically. Your response was a non sequitur, single payer was not going to happen. An expansion of Medicare is not single payer. But this isn't the place to discuss the ACA.

    "since you brought up Iran"

    I didn't bring up Iran nor I have discussed it. You stated, "Obama tries to do is separate out the Islamists from other Muslims." Since the Islamists Obama was referring to was ISIS  I addressed it. ISIS is based in Syria and Iraq, not Iran. You responded by bringing up Iran, "the Obama approach to separating out Muslims may lead to a good outcome in Iran." But this isn't the place to discuss Iran either. Post a blog on the subject if you want to discuss it.

    I posted that choosing a definition for a real Christian today that excludes the majority of Christians for the majority of years Christianity has existed is not rational or justifiable. I don't see the history of Christianity as a diversion but as an integral part of the discussion.

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 7:48pm

    I brought up ACA as part and parcel of the flaws in some of the criticism that comes towards Obama. The critics don't have a viable alternative. I bring up ISIS because Islamists need to be separated out from Islam. Christianists should be separated out from Christians. Not everyone who claims Islam of Christianity actually follows the faith. As Christianity develops there have been separations into denominations for a variety of reasons. You seem to want to ignore separations that occurred because of a host of issues including slavery, women's suffer age, and Jim Crow. Obama's home church came under attack for preaching Black Theology. Churches who provide aid to voters are under attack by state legislators. I really don't care if you don't like my bringing up ACA or voter suppression. You point out church failures, I will point out things that the church is doing to create change. Sorry for the delay in responding to this, I took the long weekend off to spend time with family and friends over Easter.

    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 04/07/2015 - 8:02am

    a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is god and uses the bible as a guide.

    Close, but not the Truth 

    Jesus is Gods son, he is not God,

    The teaching of Jesus as God, is a teaching promoted by some teachers, with very little support from the Bible, and had these teachers used the Bible as their guide, they would have known the Truth.

     Jesus is NOT God.

    Jesus does God's will and glorifies him that sent him; by teaching his disciples to do Gods will also and thus; bringing glory and honor to his name. 


    by Resistance on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 11:10pm

    One of the more distasteful aspects of this nonsense is people like Gov.. Pence and Joe Scarborough giving a pass to discrimination but "boldly" adding that they would not Do business with such an establishment is that they think they are absolved from complicity with the discrimination. They have said that we agree with discrimination, but we do not personally discriminate. This is the same Pontius Pilate excuse used by Rand Paul on the issue of serving black customers. It is no defense of turning a blind eye to evil.

    Most GOP Presidential candidates couldn't wait to jump on the defense team for the "Religious Freedom" bill. Rand Paul says that he doesn't believe in "special" rights for Gay people. The bottom line is that the GOP is laden with elected homophobes. In 2016, the goal should be to vote as many Republicans out of office as possible. 

     


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 10:18am

    Just to lighten things up a bit. 

     

     

     


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 1:20pm

    Thanks, Momoe. But I might have to draw the line at being required to provide services to schmucks.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 2:18pm

    I don't know; the law doesn't say anything about gays or denying people service.


    by Aaron Carine on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 7:12pm

    Thanks. One way to look at the Indiana law is that the legislators assumed that in the future someone's free exercise of religion will be burdened by something. And now, not just persons and churches, but businesses (I assume incorporated or not) have the right to free exercise. Essentially it gives everyone a solid defense against discrimination suits if they check the Christian box. In a perverse way they don't seem to care about what kind of discrimination---which makes the law even more onerous.

    The post is really about my disdain for religious exemptions of all stripes---especially when as a small business owner I don't get any exemptions of any kind. I agree with the thought that if you are in a business which requires you to service people in a way that burdens your free exercise of religion, tough. Go into some other business. I don't get to tell a state regulator that an emissions limit burdens me and i'm not giving any business such a right in any context, especially not on the basis of religion.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 11:12pm

    Even Hobby Lobby was on shaky ground as far as I'm concerned. The vast majority of the merchandise they sell comes from China, a country who mandates abortion, and they have no hesitation to give them the money to perpetuate that (and earn a large portion of their income from said country,) yet it is against their religion to provide certain types of birth control which may somehow potentially cause an episode akin to abortion to occur. 

    Give me a break.


    by stillidealistic on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 9:34pm

    Thanks, Stilli. Agree with you.

     I told one on my Christian friends I was going to stand outside Hobby Lobby and pass out condoms and we had quite a dust up over it.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 04/02/2015 - 11:17pm

    I refuse to go into their store.  i took what they did as a personal insult to my gender.  


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 04/03/2015 - 7:08am

    Oxy,
    .
    The solution is simple. All a litigant against these people should have to show in court is that the defendant's actions are contrary to Christian teachings, and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," should cover most issues.   


    by Wattree on Mon, 04/06/2015 - 10:02am

    And the debate rages on.

    Georgia Teacher Tells Students Their Parents Aren’t Christians if They Voted for Obama

    The letter stated that Perry told students that President Obama is not a Christian and “any parent who supports him is not a Christian.” She also reportedly challenged her students to “prove their Christianity.”

    I'm wondering how the teacher, the students, or anyone can prove their Christianity. By what standard?


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 04/06/2015 - 2:48pm

    I think this was more outburst than debate. There is concern that her husband is a member of the school board and likely biased the decision regarding his wife's behavior. I don't see that there was a large outpouring of Christian support for her statement.

    Edit to add: people are free to have their own definitions of Christianity. The Westboro Baptist Church and the Branch Davidians consider themselves Christian. Although, I suspect, most Christians would not identify themselves as in agreement with their interpretations of the faith. Others argue that Republicans can't be Christians because of the harsh attitudes towards the poor. I think most Christians identify Christians by, "I know one when I see one."

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/06/2015 - 5:16pm