Wrong. It was not Christian influence on laws. It was professed Christians writing laws that contradicted Jesus.

So it wasn’t real Christians writing the laws in the USA? The real Christians, I assume, are responsible for the laws you like.

Christ did not address homosexuality.

That matter is up for debate, even today. Regardless, far too many Christians in positions of authority use Romans to justify their dislike of homosexuals, period.

A Christian who professes both the Old and New Testament would be against homosexual marriage and all fornication outside of marriage.

As they would be if they read the New Testament alone. What part of the whole Pauline influence on early church do you not get?

America was SUPER GREAT because Christianity dominated. Suddenly, America was not Super Great because the Christian influence was on the wane. But wait, Christians justified (through the legal apparatus) segregation, prohibition, and bans on homosexuality & birth control. They didn’t do these things because some 4000 BC village invented it. They did it, this I know, for the Bible told them so.

…
Krydor on April 14, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Wrong. It was not Christian influence on laws. It was professed Christians writing laws that contradicted Jesus.

Christ drank wine, advised his disciples to drink the wine in remembrance of Him, and stated that no man prefers new wine (unfermented) to old. Christ did not require anyone to drink wine however.

Christ gave no messages of segregation. He did not address race at all and it is obvious from his words that all men must be loved as self.

Christ did not address homosexuality.

Judaism addressed homosexuality which is condemned in the Old Testament. Homosexuality was described as offensive and was dealt with under Judaic law. Christ declared that he came not to change the Law.

There were laws that applied only to Jews, laws of observance, and there were laws of community morality which would be applied to all if Judaism was the root morality of the government.

Christians who are Gentiles accept the Old Testament with the understanding that they are committed to the morality but not the Jewish observances. A Christian who professes both the Old and New Testament would be against homosexual marriage and all fornication outside of marriage.

A Christian committing an act is not necessarily acting upon the orders of Jesus. Any Christian is free to disobey Jesus and the Father

Oh well

An example: I can call George Clooney gay and he can call himself gay, but unless he’s actually gay he’s not gay.

I don’t think he really exists, he’s actually a Monty Python skit.

Those of you here who “admire” him, do not forget who you are truly “admiring”…the anti-Christ spirit.

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world”

No, no, no, no. The movements and actions described were justified using scripture. Your Christian influenced laws, as you put it, also pre-date Christianity and have been used in other countries that were not Christian. So what was your point, again?

America was SUPER GREAT because Christianity dominated. Suddenly, America was not Super Great because the Christian influence was on the wane. But wait, Christians justified (through the legal apparatus) segregation, prohibition, and bans on homosexuality & birth control. They didn’t do these things because some 4000 BC village invented it. They did it, this I know, for the Bible told them so.

I don’t care that Babylonians had slaves and so forth. The topic at hand and raised by you, last I checked, was CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE on AMERICAN LAWS. If you wish to change parameters, introduce other countries and religions in order to muddy the waters, be my guest. Be aware that I know what it is you are doing.

Social Conservatism is Fascism.
adamsmith on April 13, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Your entire post illustrates that you, and anyone who agrees with that dopey post, has no idea of the definition of fascism. I would suggest a dictionary and a credible history book.

Sullivan always says, ad nauseum:

1. I loved Margaret Thatcher.
2. I threw a champagne party when Ronald Reagan moved the Pershing missles to Europe.

On the other hand:

He was editor of The New Republic.
He wrote a book saying conservatives have lost their souls.
He changed his mind on Bush and Iraq after Bush confirmed his opposition to gay marriage.
He supports, as noted above, the most liberal senator’s election to the office of POTUS.

To have a coherent political ideology and party, some people must be excluded from the “big tent.”

Andrew Sullivan conservative? No.

Emotionally he wants to be, but practically… his boyfriend won’t let him.

Do you have any other freaking pictures of Hitch you can use instead of that god-awful cigarette shot?

“…Hitchens does. The guy may be a curmudgeonly son of a bitch, but at least he’s not a hypocrite.
logis on April 13, 2008 at 6:56 PM…”

You don’t say…?

My point was that all of the things you just described can and have occurred with or without Christianity involved.

Scripture to justify slavery? What about it? A lot of things are used to justify a lot of things. How exactly does that prove the connection between Christians and slavery?…
Grayson on April 13, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Well sure those thing all happen with or without Christianity (the vast majority of the time without.) But evil things are all MORE evil when Christians are involved.

Sure, you can point out that it’s “moronic” to claim that Christianity invented an institution that pre-dated it by ten thousand years. Or you could throw out the fact that Muslims are practicing slavery TODAY; and Atheist states make the practice universal.

But what does that any of that prove? You’re using logic against a theological argument. The claim that “Christianity is the cause of all evil in the world” is not a theorem; it’s a tenet. This is what most practitioners of the Atheist religion preach these days. The vast majority of them aren’t generally anti-religion so much as they’re specifically anti-Christ.

That’s why Hitchens is head-and-shoulders above most of the posers who pretend to be Atheists these days. He’s old school; he’s Orthodox Atheist: he hates everyone who believes everything – attacking Jerry Fallwell and Osama bin Laden with precisely equal vehemence. How many self-proclaimed “Atheists” do you see on TV with the balls to do that?

Hitchens does. The guy may be a curmudgeonly son of a bitch, but at least he’s not a hypocrite.

Hitch once again has nailed them, in the non-sapphic sense

“Hitechens is great – he’s an iconoclast.
I suspect that his most strongly held belief is in gin and tonic with a slice of lemon [squirt of lime] but that’s no matter – he will have succeeded in enraging a satisfyingly large cross-section of PC puritans.
Ares on April 13, 2008 at 6:15 AM”

“Hitch, does love his “Plymouth [Navel Strength---you can spill it on the gunpowder and it will still ignite!] Gin”, has a three pack a day habit and has a vocabulary larger than any sophomore with a major in English that I’ve known…! http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/christopher_hitchens

Krydor on April 13, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Now who’s using a strawman argument? My point was that all of the things you just described can and have occurred with or without Christianity involved.

Scripture to justify slavery? What about it? A lot of things are used to justify a lot of things. How exactly does that prove the connection between Christians and slavery? Jefferson himself was an atheist and yet he owned slaves. How exactly does that work if it was a Christian thing? As a good and virtuous atheist, shouldn’t he have been against it?

You aren’t allowed to drink to this day in many Islamic countries, is that because of Christianity too?

And you’re not seriously arguing that anti-gay movements are Christian-only? Go to Iran and tell them you’re a homosexual, I’m sure they’ll be real accepting, unlike those awful Christian-influenced countries where there are Gay pride parades.

Grayson

Except that each and every one of them most certainly was. Prohibition was a direct result of the influence of the Temperance Movement which was a Christian movement.

The illegality of contraception which led to a huge black market in condoms at the turn of the century was clearly the product of Christian meddling. Same people who screeched about the pill. Be fruitful and multiply.

The fine Christians of the South used scripture to justify slavery.

Any anti gay movement wouldn’t be an anti gay movement if Romans wasn’t included as justification to hate gays because god said so. Why can’t gays marry? Romans!

You have no idea what you are talking about. Tenuous indeed. There isn’t a historian alive who thinks Prohibition in the USA wasn’t a Christian movement. Even better, it was what we would recognize today as evangelical Christians who drove the movement.

I disagree with Sully on a huge number of points but I would say that he is a conservative at heart.

Not only did Hitchens make that remark but he was openly laughing at some of the stupid stuff sullivan was saying. I had read some of his writings but this was my first opportunity to see him on tv. They guy doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body, he is post modern/politically correct to the core. He’s about as conservative as David Brooks. Hmm, similarity there? Maybe the later stages of their affliction.

I was providing a counterpoint to the wonders of Christian influenced law by showing the negative impact of same. Nice Strawman, though.

Thought police are thought police, doesn’t matter if they choose a hammer & sickle or a cross to spread their ideology. Shiny jackboots or polyester suits: the uniform is irrelevant, the message is the same.

Krydor on April 13, 2008 at 3:11 PM

And I was taking issue with your “counterpoint.” First because it seemed to imply that there was some superior alternative, presumably non-Christian. My point was that the things you mentioned are not a product of Christian-influenced laws. All those things could and have just as easily existed in non-Christian countries. There is no “negative impact” there because the connection between them isn’t even fit to be called tenuous. Don’t accuse me of utilizing a strawman argument when yours was flawed to begin with.
Furthermore, your point about those things being ignored in our country is equally ridiculous. We are reminded daily of all that America has done wrong. Very rarely is it mentioned what America has done right.

I was providing a counterpoint to the wonders of Christian influenced law by showing the negative impact of same. Nice Strawman, though.

Thought police are thought police, doesn’t matter if they choose a hammer & sickle or a cross to spread their ideology. Shiny jackboots or polyester suits: the uniform is irrelevant, the message is the same.

Sorry to wet blanket another thread, but IF this Sullivan guy is homosexual (I assume this to be true from all I’ve read), then how exactly do the political opinions of someone who can’t figure out basic human sexual plumbing (the “in” from the “out,” as it were) carry ANY weight with anyone on this board? Is it really worth the attention? Just askin’.

There’s red meat and then there is stinky bait.

That post is definitely in the second category.

:)

Ares on April 13, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Doesn’t matter how brilliant one is in any field – if you pervert the most basic and obvious functions of the human body, doubt should rightly be cast upon anything else you have to say.

Unless, of course, you are one of the four or five people in the WHOLE WORLD who actually believed the recent “news” that a “man” is pregnant. In which case…well…

But when President Bush wouldn’t let him marry his ‘boyfriend’ he went back to his liberal, homo-activist ways. Every once in a while since then, he seems to have a spark of common sense flash through his brain, but it doesn’t last long.

He can occasionally be kind of smart, witty and incisive but he is about as but at his best he was about as conservative as Olympia Snowe, and on average he is one half step to the right of Ted Kennedy.

The boy is no conservative.