Tebow ad exposes the intolerance of the “tolerant” Left

posted at 11:00 am on February 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sally Jenkins, a pro-choice columnist for the Washington Post, writes a devastating essay today on the reaction from her side of the abortion issue to the Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow that celebrates choosing life.  Jenkins says she couldn’t disagree more with Tebow on the issue of abortion, but cannot believe the kind of knee-jerk overreaction coming from NOW, which Jenkins presumes refers to “National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us.”  Jenkins says the overwrought reaction exposes the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant Left and shows that so-called “pro-choice” groups are really more pro-abortion:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

As for those who say the Super Bowl is no forum for personal perspectives on life, Jenkins offers a particularly compelling counterargument:

His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Shouldn’t tolerance include hearing opposing viewpoints, or at least allowing them to be aired in public forums?  After all, tolerance means putting up with something, not agreeing with it.  If the only ideas we allowed to air publicly were those that had almost-total consensus, that’s not tolerance but political correctness — a rhetorical straitjacket that goes against the very idea of free speech.

When groups like NOW want to silence people like the Tebows, they’re doing so to protect their own turf.  The ad asks people to choose life, not to ban abortion.  If NOW really was pro-choice, they’d see nothing invalid about showing the end result of one choice and the faith that carried the Tebows from that terrifying diagnosis to the pinnacle of athletic and scholarly success.  Tebow represents hope in the midst of hopelessness.  NOW doesn’t want people to have hope; they want women to buy abortions, and this ugly response has made that crystal clear.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

Maybe that’s because I don’t make a habit of being obnoxious.

pannw on February 3, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Wrong!

Blake on February 3, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Here’s several links, Joe
OK, lesson time, folks, here is what happens when you debate an issue with a secularist who thinks he actually has a kindergarten understanding of Christian history and Christian doctrine.

1. The first two links are useless. The first is by Michael Streich, who is an American historian with a profound bias against Christianity. The second is by Ekklesia, a left-wing website of the homosexual approving Anglican church. Not exactly evangelical scholarly material, and that is what I asked for.

2. The last is an ANTI-SLAVERY treatise! His statement is an opinion, and not a document historical fact. The vast majority of nineteenth century evangelical christians were anti-slavery, now that is a fact.

Just as there are “Christian” apologists for abortion, there were a few “Christian” apologists for slavery, you prove nothing.

Abortion is just as wrong as slavery is wrong. Any so-called Christian that attempts to defend either is either biblically ignorant, or self-deluded, either way, he is biblically out of touch.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 12:12 AM

–Wrong, Joe. The second link was to a report of a statement from the House of Lords in the UK, so it really doesn’t matter what site the link came from: “The Rt Rev John Packer, Anglican Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, has made a public apology for the way in which Christians misused their scripture 200 years ago to justify, defend and perpetuate human slavery.

The comments, which also raise questions about the dogmatic use of the Bible in current arguments about issues like sexuality, came in a debate on the legacy of the slave trade in the House of Lords on Thursday 10 May 2007.

Bishop Packer has been active in his support for social justice, fair treatment for migrants and asylum seekers, and the development of a positive vision for Christian mission in a plural society.

The parliamentary session on Britain’s role and responsibility in relation to slavery was introduced by Baroness Howells. She expressed her own regret over the slavery, racism and colonial domination, together with and its “modern debris” of inequality.”

And the third link is an anti-slavery treatise that begins: “The third link is an ant-slavery book from 1845, which begins that “THE belief was long nearly universal, and is yet very general throughout the Christian world, that the Scriptures do, to some extent, justify human slavery, as practised in this country”

–That’s two data points to indicate that there was a substantial use of the Bible to justify slavery in the US.

You demanded “Name me one book, just one, from a nineteenth century evangelical mainstream theologian that justifies slavery.”

–Hell, how many books were there in 1850s and how significant were evangelicals to Christianity in the US back in the 1800s? Most of the news people received came from word of mouth or, perhaps, some newspapers. It doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen if a nineteenth century evangelical mainstream theologian didn’t approve it in writing.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Faith-healing parents guilty in teen son’s death
Oregon couple prayed over ill son instead of seeking medical help

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35207710/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

funky chicken on February 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM

I boycotted Kraft Foods, Nabisco, and Post Cereals because they were owned by a tobacco company. Is there some other reason I should have boycotted them?

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2010 at 1:35 AM

—Kraft Foods sponsored some gay event in Chicago three or four years ago. Don’t remember which one.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:15 AM

So, I take it that none of you would have a problem with CBS running an ad from Planned Parenthood.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Pro-abortion, that is the truth!

Lady Heather on February 3, 2010 at 9:25 AM

So, I take it that none of you would have a problem with CBS running an ad from Planned Parenthood.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:16 AM

I might. But I wouldn’t be rounding-up a legal team and demanding they pull the ad like some Progressive Nazi NOW B!tch.

ronnyraygun on February 3, 2010 at 9:44 AM

So, I take it that none of you would have a problem with CBS running an ad from Planned Parenthood.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:16 AM
I might. But I wouldn’t be rounding-up a legal team and demanding they pull the ad like some Progressive Nazi NOW B!tch.

ronnyraygun on February 3, 2010 at 9:44 AM

You do realize that the Right did that about 35 years ago in connection with a television show:

While Maude’s abortion was truly groundbreaking, it inadvertently galvanized the anti-choice movement. When CBS reran the episode six months later, some 40 affiliates refused to air it, and national advertisers shied away from buying ad time, establishing a pattern that remains in effect today. Even more significantly, after the episode first aired anti-abortion leaders took their case to the Federal Communications Commission, arguing that the fairness doctrine — which mandated equal time for opposing views — ought to cover not just editorials and public affairs but entertainment programming too. Because Maude had an abortion on CBS, they argued, they should have the right to reply on CBS. They lost the case, but won the attention of the networks.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Name me one book, just one, from a nineteenth century evangelical mainstream theologian that justifies slavery.

Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Oh, and while you’re at it, give me the evidence that “virtually all slave owners were God fearing Christians.”

And, no, wiki doesn’t count. I want the names of the books and the names of the authors.

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Benjamin Morgan Palmer was one of the most prominent Christian ministers in the 19th century South. Here is an excerpt from a widely published sermon, justifying war against the North.

We know better than others that every attribute of their character fits them for dependence and servitude. By nature the most affectionate and loyal of all races beneath the sun, they are also the most helpless; and no calamity can befall them greater than the loss of that protection they enjoy under this patriarchal system. Indeed, the experiment has been grandly tried of precipitating them upon freedom which they know not how to enjoy; and the dismal results are before us in statistics that astonish the world. With the fairest portions of the earth in their possession and with the advantage of a long discipline as cultivators of the soil, their constitutional indolence has converted the most beautiful islands of the sea into a howling waste. It is not too much to say that if the South should, at this moment, surrender every slave, the wisdom of the entire world, united in solemn council, could not solve the question of their disposal. Their transportation to Africa, even if it were feasible, would be but the most refined cruelty; they must perish with starvation before they could have time to relapse into their primitive barbarism. Their residence here, in the presence of the vigorous Saxon race, would be but the signal for their rapid extermination before they had time to waste away through listlessness, filth and vice. Freedom would be their doom; and equally from both they call upon us, their providential guardians, to be protected.

November 29, 1860

dedalus on February 3, 2010 at 10:12 AM

35 F’n Years ago. And like you said, “They Lost”. Affiliates not wanting to show it and advertisers shying away is a matter of “Sponsorship”. Your response doesn’t change my answer. But your use of the term “Anti-Choice” indicates where you’re coming from politically which makes your opinion on this and any other matter irrelevant to me.

ronnyraygun on February 3, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Demanding equal time wasn’t having it yanked.

There’s no conspiracy, most Americans think abortion is tragic, more than half think it’s outrageous, and we don’t like people pushing it and it sure ain’t enterainment.

Chris_Balsz on February 3, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Jimbo, when you refer to “anti choice” reference, that goes over the top. We often have to make choices in life and alot of “choices are wrong or sinful and folks would not choose to do something that is wrong. Should there be a law made to make theft, murder and other misdeeds. Making it a choice to do wrong things is not necessarily good and there are somethings that should not involve as a choice. After reviewing abortion procedures, I could not ever see how anyone would support the measure.

garydt on February 3, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Jimbo – As a Corporate Video Production and A/V 30 year professional, I can tell you that the reason those 40 affiliates cancelled those 2 episodes was so they could keep their ratings for their marketplace. The majority of those living in their service area, like those living in the rest of America, were pro-life as is the majority today.
This did lead to a trend, because whatever their political leaning, TV Station General Managers are held responsible for the revenue and viewership in their market, regardless of the ideology and programming of the Network.

kingsjester on February 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM

ronnyraygun, garydt–

I copied it from another website. I should have said that. Here’s the link (it’s in the middle of the article and corresonds to what I remember happening): http://www.alternet.org/rights/21747

And Chris, putting pressure on network affiliates not to show the show is equivalent.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM

funky chicken on February 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Go back to Little Green Turds where you march in lockstep and bash HotAir, creep.

Blake on February 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM

It’s funny how people still argue about abortion being a woman’s “right to choose” when in actuality it has nothing to do with that at all. Abortion is a progressive mechanism to control populations of the “undesireables” and unwanted.

It’s progressed to the point where fully developed babies are killed with the so-called partial birth abortion. Fully developed babies are burned, stabbed in the head or simply left to die in some corner from exposure. The next group on the progressive agenda is the elderly … it will continue until they reach their goal of eliminating anyone they deem unfit … anyone.

Progressives are as evil, and as sick as the murdering policies they support.

darwin on February 3, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Oh, and while you’re at it, give me the evidence that “virtually all slave owners were God fearing Christians.”

And, no, wiki doesn’t count. I want the names of the books and the names of the authors.

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Your kidding, right?

Count to 10 on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Jimbo – As a Corporate Video Production and A/V 30 year professional, I can tell you that the reason those 40 affiliates cancelled those 2 episodes was so they could keep their ratings for their marketplace. The majority of those living in their service area, like those living in the rest of America, were pro-life as is the majority today.
This did lead to a trend, because whatever their political leaning, TV Station General Managers are held responsible for the revenue and viewership in their market, regardless of the ideology and programming of the Network.

kingsjester on February 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM

–And King, I’d agree that the responsibility of the network is to make money for its stockholders. I’d disagree tthat a majority of the US was pro-life then or now, although I agree that this varies considerably by market and what exactly the poll question asks. Point to consider: In 1973 after the Roe v. Wade decision, Louis Harris & Associates found 52 percent favored “the US Supreme Court decision making abortion up to three months of pregnancy legal” and 41 percent opposed it.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Jimbo, all polls performed before and immediately following Roe were skewed to show public support for abortion. NARAL Founder Bernard Nathanson has openly admitted this. Same for the numbers of abortion deaths reported to the media. It was all based on lies.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Oh, and Jimbo, Roe went far beyond making abortion legal in the first 3 months of pregnancy. Under Roe, a woman can have an abortion up to her due date so long as she claims that her mental health is being adversely affected.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM

darwin on February 3, 2010 at 10:50 AM

You can make your point without jumping into unreasonable territory, you know.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM

You can make your point without jumping into unreasonable territory, you know.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Anyone who’s read the history of progressives in this country wouldn’t think what I said was unreasonable in the least.

darwin on February 3, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Oh, and Jimbo, Roe went far beyond making abortion legal in the first 3 months of pregnancy. Under Roe, a woman can have an abortion up to her due date so long as she claims that her mental health is being adversely affected.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM

–That’s actually under a companion case to Roe.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Jimbo, all polls performed before and immediately following Roe were skewed to show public support for abortion. NARAL Founder Bernard Nathanson has openly admitted this. Same for the numbers of abortion deaths reported to the media. It was all based on lies.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM

–I don’t know whether the abortion death numbers were skewed or not, but I find it impossible to believe that the abortion polls–or any other polls–conducted by various polling agencies at any point could all be skewed or manipulated. You do understand that there are a variety of polls on topics, right, and for that to have happened, basically every polling agency in the US would have had to have agreed to lie and then cover up the process and results for 30+ years? Do you understand how nuts you sound?

Do you also believe that Obama was born in Africa or that the US never walked on the Moon?

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Anyone who’s read the history of progressives in this country wouldn’t think what I said was unreasonable in the least.

darwin on February 3, 2010 at 11:04 AM

You confuse the progressives themselves with those that created their platform. The former are merely mislead, and the fact is only a part of the latter would be described by what you wrote.
Now, it may be true that the platform was created in part by Russian operatives intent on compromising the integrity of the US and the west in general, but you don’t get very far with the people who follow it if you insist that that is their motivation.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I don’t care “how crazy I sound” the truth is that the polls were completely fabricated.

Even if the poll you mention was acurate, if it came after Roe it was influenced by the lies of the false polls.

“We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false
figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to
crack the abortion law.”

Bernard Nathanson founder of NARAL.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Vera, here’s what Nathanson said. It wasn’t all polls, it was the polls that he announced and it’s not clear what those polls were. The Harris poll was a poll conducted by a third party.

Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Jimbo says “–That’s actually under a companion case to Roe.”

No, Jimbo. Casey and Doe merely clarrified Roe. Roe always allowed abortion through all 3 trimesters.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Yes, the Harris poll was done after these polls were released. This means that the self fulfilling lie had already happened and any future polls were impacted by their deception.

Once several inaccurate polls are released, people bandwagon. Pretty simple.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM

As a professional Artist for 30 years I was surrounded and grossly outnumbered not just by Left leaning Democrats, who I had no problem with, but Radical Progressive Pr!cks who, among other things, loved to label their opposition as “Anti-Choice”. Ironically my reward came later in life when the decission to terminate their employment became my choice. Needless to say, many did not survive.

ronnyraygun on February 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM

You confuse the progressives themselves with those that created their platform.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2010 at 11:15 AM

No, I’m not confused. I see progressives and their agenda very clearly. There are those who toe the progressive line without understanding the true objectives of course, and actually believe what they’re saying … and there are those who say what they do to hide their true intent.

darwin on February 3, 2010 at 11:21 AM

FYI, Vera:

The Court held [in Roe v. Wade] that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable’“. The Court defined viability as the potential “to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid,” adding that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” The Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman’s health, as defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM

And in a Quinnipac poll taken 1/5-10 those who think abortion should always and usually be legal and those who believe it should always or usually be illegal tied at 42 % with 5 % being unsure.
Polls always depend on the interviewees chosen.

kingsjester on February 3, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Yes, the Harris poll was done after these polls were released. This means that the self fulfilling lie had already happened and any future polls were impacted by their deception.

Once several inaccurate polls are released, people bandwagon. Pretty simple.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM

–So you’re saying that polls released by NARAL (and not conducted/released by third parties) in 1971-1973 continue to significantly affect public opinion now, almost 40 years later, considering that roughly half the current US population wasn’t even born (or in the country) in 1973? Hmmmm…

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM

I’m saying that they impacted public perception in the poll you posted from the early 70′s.

Of course, they continue to have an affect on the general public’s gut reaction to support “choice” but it is not as direct as it was immediately following Roe.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Kingjester, agree. It also varies depending on what questions are asked, what order they’re in and how comfortable the people are with truthfully answering the questions.

By the way, your Quinnipac poll shows 18% for Always Legal and 34% for Usually Legal (52%) vs. 42% for Always or Usually Illegal.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Last I checked 24 weeks was in the 6th month of pregnancy which is in the 2nd trimester. And 28 weeks is the beginning of the 3rd trimester.

Here is a description of a 27 week fetus, one week before the “usual cut-off for viability”.

http://http://www.baby2see.com/development/week27.html

Quite the clump of cells whose killing was legalized and you are defending.

Stout on February 3, 2010 at 11:39 AM

My error. Like I said, it depends on the interviewees…Urban, Rural, North, South, East, West, and Ethnic considerations as well.

kingsjester on February 3, 2010 at 11:39 AM

In isolation, I have no problem with the Tebow ad (well, I haven’t seen the ad, but based on descriptions it sounds fine).

However, the disturbing part is that CBS has refused political ads before. And they refused a completely harmless ad from a gay dating site this year, but they’re accepting an ad from the anti-gay Focus on the Family (though, of course, it’s an abortion-related ad, not a gay-related ad). It’s just an odd double-standard.

But my solution would be to allow the Tebow ad and also allow the gay dating site ad. There’s no reason to refuse either of them.

orange on February 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

My error. Like I said, it depends on the interviewees…Urban, Rural, North, South, East, West, and Ethnic considerations as well.

kingsjester on February 3, 2010 at 11:39 AM

–No worries. It’s not like I haven’t done the same thing.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 11:48 AM

There’s no reason to refuse either of them.

orange on February 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

But since they are a private company, they can do whatever the heck they want.
If thet think their viewers don’t want to see gay dating ads, they have every right to refuse them in favor of others.
Seriously, private companies & individuals can choose to promote whatever the heck they want.
We can boycott them & write them letters if we don’t like what they’re doing.
But no one should think about forcing them to do something.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Hell, how many books were there in 1850s and how significant were evangelicals to Christianity in the US back in the 1800s? Most of the news people received came from word of mouth or, perhaps, some newspapers. It doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen if a nineteenth century evangelical mainstream theologian didn’t approve it in writing.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Two things, Sport:

1) Nothing you presented refuted my original points. Repeating the same thing doesn’t make it more true the second time around.

2) You don’t know squat about evangelical theological writings from the nineteenth century. Does Charles Hodge, or Archibald Alexander ring any bells? Stick to what you know … nothing.

Abortion is Scripturally, morally, and philosophically wrong. Nothing you say can overturn that fundamental truth, no matter how hard you try to equivocate, obfuscate, and lie to cover it up.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Your entry into it is going to sting and hurt just a bit, it’ll be temporary, but you’re welcomed to join us here–if truth is what you seek. I challenge you to a debate on this matter, a debate which you will lose.

The kind of standard sanctimonious BS to be expected from an arrogant fundamentalist. It is virtually impossible to “debate” a fundamentalist. In your brainwashed mind you’re convinced that you’ve discovered the ultimate truth…THE TRUTH. There’s no debating the likes of you. You’ll simply spew bible verses and wail about God’s will. I’ll pass ted.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM

In my original post, I asked for one Evangelical mainstream pastor, theologican, or scholar, who advocated the slave trade, either in the U.S. or Great Britain… that’s all just one.

And what have I gotten from the Libertarians and Leftists that frequent this site?

A couple of website articles from authors, or treatises, I have never heard of (and Christian theology is my field, by the way), nor are they in any way a mainstream representative of nineteenth century Evangelical thought, which I specifically asked for.

Then here comes this nitwit dedalus with this:

Benjamin Morgan Palmer was one of the most prominent Christian ministers in the 19th century South. Here is an excerpt from a widely published sermon, justifying war against the North.
dedalus on February 3, 2010 at 10:12 AM

And who is Benjamin Morgan Palmer you ask? Well, he just happens to be a Presbyterian minister for the Confederate States of America!!

The following is from a Widipaedia entry:

Benjamin Morgan Palmer (January 25, 1818 – May 25, 1902), an orator and Presbyterian theologian, was the first moderator of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America.

I looked all over the internet for an Evangelical posting on this guy, nothing. Finally, I did a google search, and there he was. No wonder he wasn’t a recognized member of the mainstream Evangelical Christian church at the time, he was a RACIST! Yeah, that certainly fits with biblical teaching!

For those of you who actually care about this issue, remember this – No Christian, that is, no Christian who actually believes the Bible, has ever defended the type of slavery practiced by the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries. Furthermore, no Christian defends abortion. So, if you want to morally excuse the murder of millions of babies a year, that’s your choice. But, do not ever, I mean ever, accept the lie that the Christian Church has ever approved of it, or slavery. These people who are posting this garbage about the church and slavery are liars, and like most liars, they are good at it.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Yeah Ted, pass on Dakine’s too. His only point here it seems, is to slip in a condescending point of advice for us toothless, hick Christians or outright hurl an insult our way. Like I said earlier today on this thread, he can’t make it through a whole comment without voicing at least two or three things he distains about us. Lovely human being. Intolerant and hard-wired to stereotyping.

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

If your so confident Dakine, why don’t you accept the debate?

Stout on February 3, 2010 at 12:49 PM

And they refused a completely harmless ad from a gay dating site this year, but they’re accepting an ad from the anti-gay Focus on the Family (though, of course, it’s an abortion-related ad, not a gay-related ad). It’s just an odd double-standard.

orange on February 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

How do you know why they refused an ad? I would have to believe that there are more advertisers than time available. Also, there are not that many gay people and even far less that watch the superbowl. I would conclude that the gay ad is more a political statement. And since the audience is mostly straight people, I can see why they might reject it.

Blake on February 3, 2010 at 12:49 PM

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Intolerance of fundamentalists is a virtue, not a vice, so thanks for the props hawk. And I mean fundamentalists of any stripe, religious or otherwise.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

If your so confident Dakine, why don’t you accept the debate?

Stout on February 3, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Exactly!

Since Dakine doesn’t believe in absolute truth, he can’t possibly lose.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Jimbo, Roe stated that states could impose their own restrictions on abortion following viability. Doe simply clarified what these restrictions could be.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Dude, you are ate up with the hate bad. That comment puts you squarely in the troll category for me. I would never consider making such an indignant insult to an atheist just because he or she disagreed with my faith. Moreover, I respect your right to believe whatever you care to in that great nation back home. What right do you have to claim that the poor treatment you offer to your fellow human being is a virtue because the person you’re doing it to is a person of faith?

God, I really don’t know what to think about such a rabid attitude.

I remember previous discussions with you. I should have known better.

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 1:10 PM

It’s just an odd double-standard.

orange on February 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

No it’s not. It’s a choice they made. I remember some years ago when Sheryl Crow was demanding a boycott of Wal-Mart because they sold guns. Wal-Mart replied by not stocking any of her CD’s. She and the rest of the Progressive Left accused WalMart of censorship. It’s not! It’s called sponsorship, and private companies have as much right to choose what they sell or buy as you do.

ronnyraygun on February 3, 2010 at 1:13 PM

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 1:10 PM

No hate here brah. I simply will not abide fundamentalism. I think it’s dangerous and poisonous (in all its various manifestations). I have no problem with people of faith, and I’m not an atheist. My problem is with fundamentalists.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM

No Christian, that is, no Christian who actually believes the Bible, has ever defended the type of slavery practiced by the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries. Furthermore, no Christian defends abortion. So, if you want to morally excuse the murder of millions of babies a year, that’s your choice. But, do not ever, I mean ever, accept the lie that the Christian Church has ever approved of it, or slavery.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Was Presbyterian pastor Benjamin Morgan Palmer a Christian? Were Methodist churches Christian? What is the criteria?

dedalus on February 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM

The kind of standard sanctimonious BS to be expected from an arrogant fundamentalist. It is virtually impossible to “debate” a fundamentalist. In your brainwashed mind you’re convinced that you’ve discovered the ultimate truth…THE TRUTH. There’s no debating the likes of you. You’ll simply spew bible verses and wail about God’s will. I’ll pass ted.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM

You do realize that posting things such as this where one fears for the welfare of the very keyboard upon which you type this rant makes you seem like the sort of arrogant, intolerant, sanctimonious, person you project such hatred upon.

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 1:29 PM

LOL!

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 1:29 PM

LOL Lily. Your take on me is way, way wrong. No hate at all, and no pounding of the keyboard. Actually wasting time before a meeting and listening to the Jim Rome show broadcasting from Miami during SB week. Max chillin’ in other words. Like I said, no rage, no hate…I simply won’t abide fundamentalism. Dangerous and poisonous sh*t…very bad mojo.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Was Presbyterian pastor Benjamin Morgan Palmer a Christian? Were Methodist churches Christian? What is the criteria?

dedalus on February 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Excellent question!

Let’s take it this way, I think it will be a lot easier:

1) Christians can do and say some of the dumbest things, whether Mr. Palmer was a Christian or not is not for me to judge. He will stand before God, just like the rest of us, and answer one crucial question: “Did you believe in the sacrifice of My Son on the cross for your redemption and justification of your sins?” If he answered yes, regardless of some of his unorthodox writings (i.e., black people cannot live without slavery, etc.), he is my brother and I will see him in heaven.

2) The Methodist Church was started by a godly man by the name of John Wesley, it used to be a bastion of solid biblical orthodoxy, until liberalism seeps between its walls and poisoned the entire denomination. Now, it is a virtual shell of its former self.

3) The criteria is this: John 3: 16 – 18, 36; 16 “For God so loved i the world, [9] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God…36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not a see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

That is the criteria. If you believe in the Son, Jesus Christ God in the flesh, you have eternal life. It doesn’t mean you are perfectly sinless, and have all the answers about everything, but it does mean that when you stick to the Scriptures for your foundation, you can’t go wrong. Mr. Palmer obviously, at least with regard to black people, did not, and the results were tragic.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Wrong!
Blake on February 3, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Really? When have I been obnoxious, Blake? Maybe you’d like to provide the examples of all these supposed obnoxious posts I’ve made that suggest I make a habit of it. Links to the offending threads would be lovely, so that if it is the case, I can apologize to the offended parties. Of course, knowing the kinds of things I post on, and not being familiar with your personal politics/views, I have to wonder if you are simply a libertine or some atheist who finds any mention of universal truth, morality, faith, etc… obnoxious. If that is the case, you’ll get no apology.

So, I take it that none of you would have a problem with CBS running an ad from Planned Parenthood.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:16 AM

I certainly would, but if PP can come up with one that isn’t full of deceitful propaganda, then it is their right, so long as CBS wants to run the risk of airing it. I wonder what their ad could say while being completely honest. Maybe…

Are you pregnant and afraid? Did your underage girlfriend act stupidly and let you get her pregnant? Is this just an inconvenient time for you to have a baby? Well, you aren’t alone. We’re Planned Parenthood and we’re here to help. We’ll kill your baby, which we call a fetus, because it doesn’t seem as ghoulish, for you, because you shouldn’t be stuck with an unplanned fetus just because you are too selfish to control your libido. We’re happy to take care of the problem for you because we’ll make a huge profit doing it. It’s an out-patient procedure. We’ll send the client home the very day without any concern over her emotional state. We refuse to acknowledge the claims that our procedure can be very traumatic. Side effects can include infection, future sterility, depression, thoughts of suicide and even death. In the event of post-abortive hemorrhaging, see a real doctor immediately. Remember, you don’t have to be punished with a baby, because Planned Parenthood is here to kill it for you.

That sounds about right. Is that obnoxious to you, Blake? If so, too bad, because I don’t apologize for telling the truth.

Again, if PP isnt’ lying in the ad and CBS wants to do it, they are free to do so. Of course, I can exercise my right to boycott CBS and its sponsors if they aired a pro-abortion ad, which I most definitely would do. I boycotted the Super Bowl last year over NBC’s (?) refusal to air the wonderful pro-life ad by catholicvote.org. And anyone from NOW or any other anti-life viewers, such as yourself, Jimbo3, are free to do the same if the idea of choosing life is so offensive to you.

pannw on February 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM

I’m sure you won’t care, but this will probably be the last time I’ll address a comment of yours. I’m sorry to use such strong terms, but really, you’re a hypocrite of the worst order. Because what you do to espouse your very rigid beliefs, (which IMHO is near bigotry) is by it’s very nature and in itself, a fundamentalist belief system.

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. (Straight from wiki so it has to be accurate, right?)

1. Unreasonable
2. Unwavering
3. Unable to find any common ground. (How are you any different?)

I can go to Huffington Post for insults. I come to Hot Air because I want to find common Conservative ground with any person from any political party who shares an interest in turning our country back around. I try hard to not inject my faith in my political opinions but it’s nearly impossible to ignore the outright attacks on people like me here. And the truth of the matter is you probably imagine most of the things you claim to be so abhorrent with people who hold strong personal beliefs. I certainly don’t see the behavior you claim is so rampant. And you know for a fact part of the pleasure you get out of exchanges here with people like me is in trying to put us down.

I know I’m probably not any kind of Christian anyone should look to because of the kind of profession I’m in, but at least I’m tolerant. I’m not sure what faith you do follow, but I would sure be interested in what tenets you follow in respecting others beliefs.

Hawk pissed
Hawk out
(Hawk hit the rack)

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 1:55 PM

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 1:55 PM

These types of conversations are impossible to have on a blog comment section. You got me wrong, and I likely have you wrong. No worries, and I apologize if you felt insulted. Stay safe brah.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 2:15 PM

These types of conversations are impossible to have on a blog comment section. You got me wrong, and I likely have you wrong. No worries, and I apologize if you felt insulted. Stay safe brah.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 2:15 PM

you willing to make it a double?

ted c on February 3, 2010 at 2:17 PM

ted c on February 3, 2010 at 2:17 PM

hawk and I have some minor history on this site and some common points of reference relative to our backgrounds, and while I’m sure he thinks I’m a jackass at this point, I like the guy. Anyway, yeah, I apologize for the personal stuff…counterproductive and unnecessary.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Really? When have I been obnoxious, Blake?

Oh, can it! You’ve been going round telling people in what I imagine is a little girl’s voice, “I don’t like you.” One, the subject isn’t whether you like somebody or not. Two, it’s arrogant for you to think anyone cares whether you like them or not. And no, I don’t accept your apology, you pompous windbag.

Blake on February 3, 2010 at 2:36 PM

apology taken. thanks.

ted c on February 3, 2010 at 2:36 PM

I have to wonder if you are simply a libertine or some atheist who finds any mention of universal truth, morality, faith, etc… obnoxious.

pannw on February 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I have to wonder if you don’t have sex with small animals and children.

Blake on February 3, 2010 at 2:38 PM

LOL Lily. Your take on me is way, way wrong. No hate at all, and no pounding of the keyboard. Actually wasting time before a meeting and listening to the Jim Rome show broadcasting from Miami during SB week. Max chillin’ in other words. Like I said, no rage, no hate…I simply won’t abide fundamentalism. Dangerous and poisonous sh*t…very bad mojo.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM

I merely wished to point out that, while I have no idea what you are, or are not, actually thinking as you write your posts, the tone you convey by what you write lends credence to the idea that you are an intolerant hypocrite. Should you not wish to be taken as such, you may wish to modulate your tone a bit. You may then find that having these types of conversations on a blog comment section not only possible, but profitable.

I am well aware that it is likely that you do not care a whit how you come off. This is certainly a choice that many make on message boards. However, writing things in an offensive manner and then becoming outraged and feigning innocent intent when offense is taken can seem a bit disingenuous.

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Lily, I appreciate your reasoned and civil approach, and I take your points. However, I won’t back down from my takes regarding fundamentalists. Left, right, religious, secular, doesn’t matter…I’m not worried about offending fundamentalists. As previously stated, they are dangerous and poisonous.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

However, I won’t back down from my takes regarding fundamentalists. Left, right, religious, secular, doesn’t matter…I’m not worried about offending fundamentalists. As previously stated, they are dangerous and poisonous.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

That’s an assertion, not an argument. If you are going to make an assertion, at least back it up with an intelligent and thoughtful argument.

You’re like the hunter out in the bush:

“Why’d you shoot, Hank?”

“Dunno, heard a rustle in the leaves.”

“If you don’t know, you don’t shoot. Now Harry’s dead.”

If you don’t know the arguments for or against fundamentalism, as you state it, then don’t come in hear shooting from the hip and expect everyone to respect your viewpoints.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM

I have to wonder if you don’t have sex with small animals and children.

Blake on February 3, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Wow, ever looked into anger management there, Blake? Or perhaps psychotherapy, because you are a raving nutcase. I mean, really, all this because I admit I don’t like someone? Maybe you aren’t a libertine but just a full blown psycho.

And I seem to recall one of our liberals getting very upset and threats of banning recently when he/she was accused of pedophilia. I believe it might have been crr6?

And for the record, I never apologized to you, and never will. Also, you may not understand, but one comment does not a pattern make. Get help, Blake. You obviously need it.

pannw on February 3, 2010 at 3:17 PM

If you don’t know the arguments for or against fundamentalism, as you state it, then don’t come in hear shooting from the hip and expect everyone to respect your viewpoints.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Joe, you want to debate the relative merits of fundamentalism? What are the arguments for fundamentalism? Fundamentalists stubbornly and dogmatically cling to entrenched positions in the face of all rational arguments and evidence to the contrary. They have a monopoly on truth. In fact, fundamentalists claim to have discovered the ultimate, absolute truth…THE TRUTH. No uncertainty, no doubt, and they damn sure want to make sure that everybody else gets on board with THE TRUTH or else. No thanks.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM

In the end…you will get what you want, so be happy!

daesleeper on February 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Joe, you want to debate the relative merits of fundamentalism? What are the arguments for fundamentalism? Fundamentalists stubbornly and dogmatically cling to entrenched positions in the face of all rational arguments and evidence to the contrary. They have a monopoly on truth. In fact, fundamentalists claim to have discovered the ultimate, absolute truth…THE TRUTH. No uncertainty, no doubt, and they damn sure want to make sure that everybody else gets on board with THE TRUTH or else. No thanks.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Let me say this again; this is an assertion without an argument. It is a caricature from a hodgepodge of assumptions made in the heat of the moment.

There is no merit to it. You have no knowledge of what you speak, except from whatever sources you gathered that are already biased toward your viewpoint.

You have mentioned no names, no groups, no movements, no nothing from which to respond. It’s a strawman erected to marginalize a whole group of people you know nothing about, but you claim to know enough to condemn them without knowing anything about them. Amazing.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM

For those of you who actually care about this issue, remember this – No Christian, that is, no Christian who actually believes the Bible, has ever defended the type of slavery practiced by the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries. Furthermore, no Christian defends abortion. So, if you want to morally excuse the murder of millions of babies a year, that’s your choice. But, do not ever, I mean ever, accept the lie that the Christian Church has ever approved of it, or slavery. These people who are posting this garbage about the church and slavery are liars, and like most liars, they are good at it.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM

–Joe: You challenged someone last night who said that Christians used scripture to justify slavery. Then you changed your challenge to, in effect, “show me a evangelical in the US in the 20th century who said slavery was Biblical”. Then, when you got back an answer showing a Methodist preacher said the Bible supported slavery, you again changed your response to “show me a Bible-believing Christian who said slavery was Biblical” which, in effect, means only someone who you’ll accept.

Why don’t you just stop and admit the truth? You have no way to prove that Palmer didn’t believe the Bible; I’d be surprised if he didn’t, given his position. There were Christians who read and believed the Bible who justified slavery in the Bible and we’ve proven it.

You, with your slipperiness and deceit, just keeps trying to reframe the question to avoid reality. And it helps you to keep redefining this because, as far as I can tell, the evangelical movement didn’t start to become big in the US until late in the 1800s. It’s tough to find a quote on salvery from an evangelical in the US in the early to mid 1800s if there weren’t many of them.

And frankly, I’m more than a bit stunned by your elitism and bigotry. There are at least four types of Christianity: Roman Catholic, mainstream Protestanism, Fundamentalism and Evangelicals are the ones that come to mind. Don’t you think any of these others are “Christian”?

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Dakine says

“Fundamentalists stubbornly and dogmatically cling to entrenched positions in the face of all rational arguments and evidence to the contrary

There are no rational arguments for abortion. They all break down when taken to their conclusions. One need not be a fundamentalist to realize that abortion is wrong and that legalization was built on a house of cards.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Joe, FYI from Wikipedia. Baptists were clearly a part of the Evangelical movement in the 1800s in the US:

Baptists struggled to gain a foothold in the South. The next generation of Baptist preachers accommodated themselves to the society. Rather than challenging the gentry on slavery, they began to interpret the Bible as supporting its practice. In the two decades after the Revolution, preachers abandoned their pleas that slaves be manumitted. Many Baptist preachers even wanted to preserve the rights of ministers themselves to be slaveholders. The Triennial Convention and the Home Mission Society reaffirmed their neutrality concerning slavery.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM

test

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Fundamentalists stubbornly and dogmatically cling to entrenched positions in the face of all rational arguments and evidence to the contrary.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM

This sounds exactly like what you have been doing here, which makes one curious as to why you say you hate this kind of behavior so much.

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Joe, scroll down on this link about the Baptists to the “Slavery Crisis”. Southern Baptists clearly supported slavery for a while, and they were part of the 1800 Evangelical movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Hay I have an idea, how about all the NOW members perform a retroactive abortion on themselves!

Confederate on February 3, 2010 at 4:25 PM

FYI: The first link says “This instigated the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, which was founded on the premise that the Bible sanctions slavery and that it is acceptable for Christians to own slaves.”

An imbedded link to the Southern Baptist Convention says the following: “Rather than challenging the gentry on slavery, they began to interpret the Bible as supporting its practice…..Many Baptist preachers even wanted to preserve the rights of ministers themselves to be slaveholders.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Hay guys I have news for you slavery WAS sanctioned in the Bible.

Leviticus
Chapter 25

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond-maids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession. 46 And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.

Confederate on February 3, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM

WTF are you talking about? I’ve described fundamentalism (and, as I’ve stated numerous times previously, I’m not just speaking of Christian fundamentalism) in a pretty succinct way and further stated that I think fundamentalists are dangerous and poisonous. On the topic at hand, my position has been that the Christian fundamentalist approach to changing minds on the abortion issue is sure to fail. Do you see yourself in my description? What the hell is it that you want to debate.

A few groups and individuals falling within the fundamentalist definition:

Christians – James Dobson, Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, Opus Dei, Church of Scientology

Muslims – the list is endless, including the Iranian Mullahs, any AQ member, Hezbollah, Hamas, OBL, etc.

radical environmental groups – Green Peace, ELO, Earth First, etc.

radical feminists – Andrea Dworkin, Valeria Solanas

Communists – Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc., etc.

Hopefully, you get the idea.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 4:34 PM

This sounds exactly like what you have been doing here, which makes one curious as to why you say you hate this kind of behavior so much.

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM

In what way am I doing this? What entrenched and dogmatic position am I taking in the face of all evidence and logic to the contrary?

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 4:38 PM

One need not be a fundamentalist to realize that abortion is wrong and that legalization was built on a house of cards.

Vera on February 3, 2010 at 4:08 PM

In the spirit of Bill Clinton, it depends on what your definition of ‘wrong’ is.
Narcissists in particular love to rationalize horrible things.
It’s in their nature.
Which is why the ‘debate’ on whether abortion is right or wrong will always be around.
Some people think that doing evil = good.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 4:42 PM

—Kraft Foods sponsored some gay event in Chicago three or four years ago. Don’t remember which one.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Was that before or after they were sold by the tobaccoists? I can’t remember exactly when I started buying Kraft again.

Somehow, sponsoring a gay event doesn’t bother me.

I don’t agree with the lifestyle, but leave be whom will leave me and mine be, and fight like hell against those who won’t.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM

strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles

This is the most basic definition of a fundamentalist.
So I don’t think that if someone is a fundamentalist of their faith that they should be automatically labelled as irrational & unable to consider alternative viewpoints & debate.
I am not a fundamentalist of my faith, but those that are I do not consider irrational.
And faith & belief are often not supported by proveable facts.
Painting fundamentalist Christians as wackos who are not openminded or open to debate is kinda crappy.
I would wager that not even all fundamentalist Muslims are wacko.
And that takes a lot for me to admit that.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 4:47 PM


Kraft Foods sponsored some gay event in Chicago three or four years ago. Don’t remember which one.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Was that before or after they were sold by the tobaccoists? I can’t remember exactly when I started buying Kraft again.

Somehow, sponsoring a gay event doesn’t bother me.

I don’t agree with the lifestyle, but leave be whom will leave me and mine be, and fight like hell against those who won’t.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM

–I think they were only 20% owned by Tobacco at that time. They were fully spun off around 3 or 4 years ago.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM

–Joe: You challenged someone last night who said that Christians used scripture to justify slavery. Then you changed your challenge to, in effect, “show me a evangelical in the US in the 20th century who said slavery was Biblical”. Then, when you got back an answer showing a Methodist preacher said the Bible supported slavery, you again changed your response to “show me a Bible-believing Christian who said slavery was Biblical” which, in effect, means only someone who you’ll accept.

You are without a doubt, the biggest airhead I have ever come across on this site! I never changed my challenge, the challenge was give me one mainstream Evangelical theologian, or pastor, of the 19th cent. that supported slavery, and you still haven’t named one!

Here’s a clue: “The Calvinist John Newton was an opponent of the slave trade. The Calvinist Samuel Hopkins was an opponent of slavery. In 1818, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted an anti-slavery plank. Conversely, Southern Methodists were slaveholders.”

Did you get that? Southern Methodists, not all Methodists, but Southern Methodists, promoted slavery. So, the Southern Methodists were taken in by a cultural bias. So what? That proves what? Mainstream Evangelical theologians like Newton, are the ones I was referring to in my original challenge, and you failed to understand that.

Why don’t you just stop and admit the truth? You have no way to prove that Palmer didn’t believe the Bible; I’d be surprised if he didn’t, given his position. There were Christians who read and believed the Bible who justified slavery in the Bible and we’ve proven it.

Why don’t you just stop and get off your libertarian soap box, Ross Perot isn’t going to come back and save the day. You’re on your own. Christians can be wrong, but the Bible can’t! That’s why I asked for Evangelicals, they do a better job coming to the proper interpretation of Scripture, and hold to solid orthodox teaching. Those who take that view are more reliable on biblical truth than those who don’t. Doesn’t make them unsaved, just makes them wrong on certain issues, like slavery.

You, with your slipperiness and deceit, just keeps trying to reframe the question to avoid reality. And it helps you to keep redefining this because, as far as I can tell, the evangelical movement didn’t start to become big in the US until late in the 1800s. It’s tough to find a quote on salvery from an evangelical in the US in the early to mid 1800s if there weren’t many of them

Still talking about something you know nothing about, I see. Evangelicalism is the english version of the Greek “evangel”‘ or gospel. The gospel of Jesus Christ goes back to the first century, not the 19th. There were plenty of Evangelicals commenting on slavery during that period, just because you aren’t familiar with them says more about you than them.

And frankly, I’m more than a bit stunned by your elitism and bigotry. There are at least four types of Christianity: Roman Catholic, mainstream Protestanism, Fundamentalism and Evangelicals are the ones that come to mind. Don’t you think any of these others are “Christian”?

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM

I already answered one man’s question on this up thread, and I am not going to repeat it now. There is only one kind of Christian, a biblical Christian, all others are false.

You keep swinging at this and missing. Why don’t you do us all a favor and step out of the batter’s box and take a rest. Watching you flail about swinging and missing is getting tedious, and boring.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 4:53 PM

That’s why I asked for Evangelicals, they do a better job coming to the proper interpretation of Scripture, and hold to solid orthodox teaching. Those who take that view are more reliable on biblical truth than those who don’t. Doesn’t make them unsaved, just makes them wrong on certain issues, like slavery.

–So, you don’t believe Southern Baptists aren’t Bible-believing Chrisitians who are evangelicals and take biblical truth seriously. Is there any Southern Baptist reading this blog who’d like to give Joe Pyne a quick education?

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Confederate on February 3, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Not quite slavery as the South practiced it. Exodus describes how slaves (including Isrealite ones) are to be treated. Furthermore, the New Testament firmly denounces slave-taking (or “man-stealing” as it’s called in 1 Timothy). As for slaves themselves, the term was commonly used to refer to what we would now call indentured servants — people who willingly sold themselves to another for a period of time. Exodus expressly defines that period.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Hopefully, you get the idea.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Oh, I get the idea.

You’re an anti-Christian bigot (Christians, you know, the one’s who actually believe the Bible), and a vacuum head to boot.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Dakine just lumped Mao and Castro in with James Dobson, folks.

Credibility. Decimated.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 3, 2010 at 5:03 PM

–I think they were only 20% owned by Tobacco at that time. They were fully spun off around 3 or 4 years ago.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM

A pinch is fully in. I didn’t start buying again until they had severed all relationship. I really missed Chips Ahoy and Ritz crackers during that time (Nabisco). I still prefer Best Foods stuff over Kraft, because I’ve become used to it over the years.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2010 at 5:05 PM

I shall take just one small smidgen of your post upon which to comment. But I am hopeful it will make my point.

Christians – James Dobson, Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, Opus Dei, Church of Scientology

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 4:34 PM

James Dobson is an Evangelical Christian, not a fundamentalist, Phyllis Shlafly is a Roman Catholic and Opus Dei is a conservative Roman Catholic order. They all have a common ancestry but they are not fundamentalist Christians. And Scientology has no ties whatever to Christianity and doesn’t even belong in the same sentence.

When one lumps people and groups together who do not belong together and then makes a blanket statement about the group’s beliefs, one can be seen as engaging in flagrant stereotyping.

That you put all of these groups together and call them fundamentalists illustrates that you do not know this word does not mean what you think it means. Looking at the rest of your extensive list, evidently, you believe that anyone who believes anything to be true, no matter what it is, is a fundamentalist and they can all be tarred with the same brush.

That raises your argument to the level of ridiculous. Seriously, there is no difference between James Dobson and Mao?

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Dakine just lumped Mao and Castro in with James Dobson, folks.

Credibility. Decimated.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 3, 2010 at 5:03 PM

–No, she’s right. There are religious fundamentalists and non-religious fundamentalists. If you believe in rigid adherence to a small set of core beliefs, you probably are a fundamentalist even though you’re not relgious.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:08 PM

From the US military dictionary:

n. 1. a form of Protestant Christianity that upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, including its narratives, doctrines, prophecies, and moral laws.

2. strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology, notably Islam.

From Webster’s New World College Dictionary:

noun

religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals
the 20th-cent. movement among some American Protestants, based on these beliefs;

a strict adherence to or interpretation of a doctrine, set of principles, etc., as of a social, legal, political, or religious group or system.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7