Deirdre H

It seems that all these right-wing anti-freedom web sites have no contact means whatever. One "News" Now, the American "Family" Association and all these "Stand for Marriage" organizations post no means of contacting them other than links to part you from your money (i.e. donations).

I'm wondering why. On the other side, we are allowed to at least communicate with such people. We can email them, whether we disagree or not. But the Right-wing side seems to have no desire to communicate with anyone except to take their money. Is this not strange?

Some months ago, Rifqa Bary was baptized (without parental consent) in a Christian church. In a Muslim family, the church managed to convince her that her parents would kill her (because, presumably, that's what Muslims do), and she ran away from Ohio to Florida.

Now a Florida judge is ready to send the minor back to her family, having found no credible evidence that this girl was in any danger, and many Christian conservatives are outraged.

At the same time, children in Africa are being accused of witchcraft (yes, it still happens) and killed by Christians. One recent case was a boy burned by acid they tried to make him drink, and who suffered for quite some time before he finally died from the injuries.

Being pagan, I know that it's wrong to try to teach a child a religion without parental consent, and would likely be sued should I try. But given that Christians have a continuing history of killing witches, would a child taught witchcraft have the same legal recourse that young Rifqa Bary has had?

Is this not a double-standard? Would not a Wiccan harboring such a child be held for kidnapping, while the Christian pastor is seen as merely a protector?

Just some thoughts ... what do you think?

You see the American "Family" Organization, and other "family" organizations all around the country ... yet these, for the most part, aren't engaged in helping families. They are almost universally simply anti-gay organizations, with their only relationship to families being a desire to prohibit gays from legally enjoying a family life. Why do they call themselves "family" organizations? Shouldn't they be called some sort of anti-gay organization if they want some semblance of honesty?

Just wondering, and looking for input as to what people think.

I'm not talking about external things, but the reasons that we view things differently?

Why do pagans believe that there should be multiple deities?

Why is the Earth important?

Why do Christians believe that they are so worthless that they have to ask for things in Jesus' name?

Why immanence vs transcendence?

What do you think?

Next month, the 12th annual homelessness marathon will air from Pass Christian, MS, and be covered by radio stations around the country.

Natural disasters can obviously displace people. But what are some of the other root causes of homelessness?

The letter.

"I’m responding to your letter to our Chairman. In 2008, the PepsiCo Foundation awarded a grant to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays to support a national program specifically designed for workplace environments.

The initiative seeks to promote further understanding and equality in the places where people spend much of their time at work.

Among the values promoted by the PepsiCo Foundation is ensuring a work environment that is respectful and where associates are valued for their contributions. I hope this helps clarify this grant by the PepsiCo Foundation."

The American Family Association has said that this is a condescending letter they received from Pepsico. I'm wondering where or how it could possibly be construed as such.

I know that many people believe in "Bible Alone" as the source of God's truth, but the Bible itself said to hold fast to the traditions given by letter or word.

And if Sola Scriptura is held to, who gets to decide which Bible? There is everything from the Jewish or Samaritan scriptures to the Ethiopian's very inclusive Bible.

If Sola Scriptura were Biblical, wouldn't there have been an unambiguous list, given by God, instead of multiple lists, with many different factions claiming that theirs, and only theirs is the appropriate canon?

then why are people in such a strange state over whether Rick Warren says "In Jesus' name" during the inaugural invocation? Where, in The Lord's Prayer are the words "In Jesus' Name"?

Now I do believe that as a Christian pastor, he should express a Christian prayer, and if his particular sect prays in Jesus' name, that he should. But the model of the Lord's prayer does not contain those words. So why then, if he says "Father in Heaven" or something similar, but does not use the word "Jesus", are so many evangelicals ready to disown him as a Christian?

Conservative used to mean just that ... conservative. Today, conservative means "radical right". There is nothing "conservative" about the speech of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh or the gaggle of other right-wing talk on the radio. How did this hatred and vitriol come to symbollize "conservatism"?

I'm wondering how YA stacks up with what happens in the real world/

I inherited an Imac G4, running osx, (I don't know which version), but don't know the password. He got it from someone else who got rid of it because they forgot the password after not having used it for some time.

Is there a way to get into the operating system without having a password, or to reset the password?

I have a copy of Ubuntu on disk, but the computer doesn't even seem to boot from the CD-rom, so I can't install that either.

Any ideas?

watching and listening to the DNC, and currently the RNC I've noticed some different elements of character. Where the Democrats would state their disagreements with the Republicans, and say perhaps "John McCain is wrong", Republicans have resorted to poking fun, name-calling and demeaning language.

What does this say about the Republicans running for office, and their chances of gaining your approval?

With Governor Palin's comments such as the idea that the difference between a mayor and a community organizer being that a mayor is accountable, thus denigrating the work of Obama, do you really think that she is demonstrating any sort of moral superiority, or is she just another republican trying to stir up hatred of Democrats?

So, listening to this preacher last night, he was commenting on the detrimental aspects of same-sex unions.

He mentioned the "social decline" of Holland since the institution of same-sex unions. He mentioned statistics about divorce and prostitution. He showed the increase since the time that they permitted same-sex unions.

What was really alarming about this talk show was that there were NO listeners who called in to call him on his crap. Everybody, it seems, took it for granted that he was telling the truth.

Obviously, divorce and prostitution have increased in Holland. Now, if the ONLY difference would have been same-sex unions, one might be justified in suspecting that there was a causal relationship. Unfortunately, the entire world has undergone dramatic change since then, and continues to do so.

Is there an 11th commandment that states "Thou shalt not think critically or question those who preach to you"?

In yet another "informative" Christian radio program, I heard another bit of "history". It seems that there has NEVER been a civilization on the planet that accepted homosexual marriage, until modern times.

Of course then we'll have to accept that the Native Americans had no civilization.

I suppose we can ignore the places where it occurred in ancient China. And then we can ignore the Theodosian code, and other records of ancient Greece and Rome.

Too, we can ignore that in Iran, homosexuals may undergo sexual reassignment surgery which is their way of dealing with it.

Yeah, if we can ignore the places where it happens, we can say it doesn't and hasn't.

So, why is it that so many of these preachers will flat out lie about the history, and then ask us to look to them for truth?

I listen to, and read a number of Christian "news" sources. I've not seen one yet that answers "Who, What, When, Where, Why and how". Mostly it's something like "Obama's wishy-washy religion", or "So and So supports Proposition 8". In almost every case, I need to go to an actual news source to discover what was really said or done.

It seems that the Christian "news" sources are all about editorial and emotionalism, and contain little in the way of "fact".

Examples might include "Family News in Focus" and "Onenewsnow.com"

I'm wondering if Christians are looking for news, or for editorials, and if they actually know the difference. I'm sure that some do, but don't you get frustrated with a paucity of facts and an overabundance of editorialization?

Is a Christian a follower of Christ?

Is a Christian a follower of the Bible?

Is a Christian a follower of Christ who only uses a particular version of the Bible?

I thought Christ said "follow me", and that those who did were Christians. However today, it seems that so many followers of Christ are accusing other followers of Christ because of differing interpretations of scripture.

If followers of Christ can't decide who's a Christian, then what, exactly does the word "Christian" mean?

Often when speaking to Christians, I'll hear that they "know" they are going to heaven, that they "know" God is real.

I'm a woman of faith, though it's different than theirs. I recognize my faith as belief, and that there is a qualitative difference between my faith, and for example, my understanding of scientific principles.

When I say I "know" something, I am speaking of something objective, something which I can show to somebody else.

It seems though, as if some Christians tend to use the word "know" rather than "believe" or "have faith" in an attempt to prop up their positions.

So my question is this: Do some people purposefully use a different definition when it comes to the word "know"? Does doing so not render faith as something less than knowledge? What's wrong with having faith that makes it seem so much better to claim that it's some objective knowledge?

I keep seeing people say "God created Science" and have a bit of trouble understanding this.

Science is man's way of understanding the universe. It is a systematic approach using specific methods to study the universe.

If we say that "God created science", does that mean that we, even with the presumed free will that we have, do nothing?

If God created science, which is a system devised by humans, then mustn't we say that god created the works of Picasso, Beethoven, Monet, Shelly, Einstein and every other person on earth who develops a system, art form or individual work of art, science, poetry or philosophy?

If god did all of this, then were is free will?

What about language? Philosophy? Pornography? Alchemy?

Where in the Bible does it say that god created science?

Should an ambassador be well-spoken?

Should an ambassador be able to represent accurately the thoughts of the leader?

Should an ambassador to a country be able to speak and write the language of the country they are assigned to?

Would you trust an ambassador to the United States from a foreign country who was not able to speak and write in English?

Should not anyone, of ANY faith, strive, when speaking to that faith, to do so with excellence?

If I'm trying to argue points of science, can anyone take me seriously if I can't spell or if I obviously don't know what I'm talking about?

Is it not a matter of respect to speak or write clearly and well?

Why do so many people fail to afford others this respect?