Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
According to Campus Progress’s mole inside CPAC, Senator Bill Frist intends to bring an anti gay marriage amendment to the Senate in June:
Frist went on to flaunt and advertise the fact that he would be bringing a Marriage protection amendment to the senate on June 5th, telling conservative attendees to “mark their calendars.” Anyone who opposes such an amendment, take note: things will soon be heating up.
This is big news. I’m sure Senator Sam Brownback will be a cosponsor. For Brownback, this is yet another opportunity for him to increase his name recognition. If the republicans actually try to force the issue beyond a symbolic vote this could become quite the fight. Brownback could easily end up the de facto spokesperson for this orgy of intolerance.
On a different subject, if anyone has access to tapes or transcripts of Brownback’s remarks at CPAC I would be interested in taking a look. Let me know.
[powered by WordPress.]
Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
I am a student of political science at the University of Kansas. Contact me with any questions, comments or tips.
21 queries. 0.342 seconds
February 11th, 2006 at 5:07 am
First, Brownback is the Anti-Christ…I had to get that out. Second, right-wing fundamentalists and Republicans tend to forget that marriage is not just a Christian affair. Marriage exists in all faiths and all religeons, and last time I checked we live in a country that not only alows us to practice whatever spirituality we wish, but allows us to not be governed by anyone’s religeous beliefs. It’s people like Sen. Brownbeck (Brownback?) that scare me. Is America blind deaf and dumb to the fact that Fundamentalist, Republicans, and Religeous nuts are legislating based on Religeon, and not politics?!?! It’s a damn shame Hunter S. Thompson is dead, I’m sure he’d be on the White House lawn with a bull horn flinging dead animals until someone in Congress finally listened to what the REAL Americans had to say…I’m moving to France soon, but this is still making me sick that seperation of Church and State is being so blatently trampled on…
February 11th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I sometimes wish for Hunter S. Thompson’s clarity as well. The man had a way of saying truth to power in a way the average person could understand.
Brownback, while denying he is trying to build a theocracy, basis his political decisions off of his religion. That is exactly how the Mullahs in Iran govern.
February 11th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
If Brownback is the Anti-Christ, wouldn’t you guys love him then? As opposed as you are to Christianity, I would assume the Anti-Christ would be your exalted leader.
Again I say, REAL Americans have spoken and they are against gay marriage. The members of Congress listen as well, especially since they have been elected by REAL Americans.
If you are sickened by the trampling of the idea of separation of church and state, you should get a load of some of the other crap the Founding Fathers had to say:
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” –George Washington
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” –Thomas Jefferson
““The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.” –John Quincy Adams
“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” –Alexander Hamilton
Trampled, indeed.
February 11th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Values are an inevitable and necessary guidance in every decision made by any person. Brownback, among many, many other leaders, choose their decisions based on their Christian values. Because you are not a Christian and do not agree with his values, that does not diminish his values. Maybe you should try some of that tolerance you love to talk about.
February 11th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Jefferson also wrote:
“They (Blacks) secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour…I advance, it is therefore a suspicion only, that the blacks…are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind”
I would also point out the Bible condones slavery. Should that be used in public policy today?
Where do you get the idea I am opposed to Christianity?
Who gives you the right to judge? In Mathew 7:1-2 Jesus states: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
You have no right to question my faith. How would you know whether I worship? Do you have inside knowledge into my volunteer activities? My charitable giving? You, Joe, are a hypocrite.
February 11th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Don’t hide behind your anonymity. Please, tell me a little bit about your beliefs, volunteer activites, and charitable givings so I can know you better. Perhaps we have a lot in common. . .
I get the idea that you are opposed to Christianity by the very nature and tone of this website. No, I am not saying that simply being opposed to Brownback makes you a non-Christian, but dedicating your time, money, and efforts to “the savaging” of someone strays a bit from the teachings of Jesus. If I am wrong, please explain yourself so that everyone may draw the correct conclusions about you.
The Bible condones slavery, huh? Care to enlighten me on that a little? But Nate! The Bible is also against murder, theft, and slander. Should we use that in public policy?
February 11th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Did Jesus not savage the money changers? They were defiling the temple, corrupting the true beliefs of those who worshiped and profiting off of their faith.
As for slavery, check out Deuteronomy 15:12-15, Ephesians 6:9, and Colossians 4:1
April 20th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
With all this talk of the Bible, I thought I’d interject a few verses for you all to mull over…
Here’s an undeniable one condoning slavery:
“Slaves, male and female, you may possess, provided you buy them from among neighboring nations.”
(Leviticus 25:44)
Originally, the term “slave” applied to those captured during war-times from opposing nations. These people agreed to servitude in exchange for their lives. This verse, however, clearly indicates a slave trade, which was abolished in the U.S.A. in the 1860s for being immoral.
Killing your children:
“Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother he has forfeited his life.”
(Leviticus 20:9)
1/4 of America’s husbands are gone:
“If a man committs adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”
(Leviticus 20:10)
Don’t Catholics pray to statues of saints?
“Do not turn aside to idols, nor make molten gods for yourselves.”
(Levitcus 19:4)
Say good-bye to 99.9% of the US, from the merciful Lord:
“While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was discovered gathering wood on the sabbath day. Those who caught him at it brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly. But they kept him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him. Then the Lord said to Moses, “This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp. So the whole community led him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord had commanded Moses.”
And as far as Brownback choosing his values that he incorporates into his government position, whenever you introduce God into politics, things start to go wrong. We see it all the time in other countries - countries we’re fighting with, by the way.
April 20th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Oh, I forgot to include the citation for the Sabbath-breaker. It can be found in Numbers 15:32-36.
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:08 am
Congratulations liberal non-Christians. Failing to read the New Testament completely invalidates the previous misinterpretations.
April 22nd, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Hmm…the New Testament. If we’re on that subject, first I’ll say that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. He did, however, preach acceptance and love of all people - particularly the oppressed.
Second, S. Brownback’s current religion, Catholicism, holds the Hebrew Scriptures (”Old Testament” - a term, I’m told, the Jewish resent) as part of its Bible. An Old Testament reading is part of every Mass, too. So I don’t think your insinuation that the Old Testament “doesn’t count” really holds water.
Third, all of the various contradictions within the Old Testament, within the New Testament, and between the two should make it clear that it is impossible for anyone to declare what is “right”.
April 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Jesus never endorsed homosexuality either (or any sin, for that matter). While there are some radical Christians who preach pure hatred of homosexuals, there are many who take pity upon them–just as Jesus took pity upon the oppressed. Acceptance and love does not equal correctness. You can forgive and accept a murderer or bank robber, but that does not change what they did. Accepting and loving someone does nothing to validate their sins or lifestyle.
I never said that the Old Testament “‘doesn’t count.’” Please don’t try and directly quote me if I didn’t say what you are trying to direct quote.
“…impossible to declare what is ‘right.’” Doubtful, at best. Nihilism and skepticism are fine, but will run our nation and society straight into the ground. The Framers believed in something higher and perhaps that would serve our nation well today too.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:37 am
I’m not against Christianity, I’m against Theocracy. Just because the founding fathers were Christian doesn’t mean that our country is to be governed by Christian law. There are a slew of other religeons out there that are a whole hell of a lot more peacfull, and tolerant than Christianity. What I have a problem with is Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism has almost no roots in normal Christianity (for that matter, Christians themselves can’t even agree on one set belief structure, nor can they agree not to hate each other for worshiping the same God indifferent ways), but rather has developed from certain opinions of particular people(read: preachers, ministers, priests) over the years interjected into orthodoxy, then accepted by the people under their charge as “Bible truth” than spouted off ad nauseum and believed to be more “fundamental” tahn normal Christians.
Example: Fundamentalism teaches that the Jews need to die before Jesus can come back. Fundamentalists don’t believe in inter-racial marriage, nor do they believe in inter-faith marriage.
And lets not forget the militant belief that all other religeons are wrong except the one believed in by the person having the militant belief.
Fundamentalism exists in all faiths, and it’s almost always a series of skewed beliefs that have no bearing on the core principals of the religeon they stem from. The Koran states in the first five pages that your are to respect and not harm the Jews or Gentiles because they are also God’s children, and they believe in the same God, jsut in a different way. How does that differ from the way Muslims are being percived by the Moral Majority?
What I’m getting at is this: I have a problem with anyone who tries to legislate based on religeon. Spirituality is one thing (a set of spiritual principals that govern conduct) while Religeon is a set of RULES to govern people. THis is why the Christian church has had such a problem with Gnostic scripture, and has gone to great lengths to destroy any Gnostic scriptures involving Jesus. Because God forbid one should actually have a personal spiritual experience, rather than be told what they should believe.
The moment you start making laws based on religeon, you start making people follow your religeon whether they want to or not. You could argue that the founding fathers made laws based on their religeon, but the laws we abide by are basic human laws found in all faiths, and all societies. Now I know that it’s Christian’s duty to convert the masses, but not everybody believes what you believe. You know how strongly you believein Jesus? And how you think that you’re Religeon is the one true faith, and all other people who believe something else are jsut lost? Well, every other person following a different religeon thinks exactly the same thing about you. That you’re wrong. That you’re not following the true faith, and that you’re going to suffer for it, jsut like you believe of them. It goes both ways. If a Muslim president, or senator, tried to legislate on his beliefs, his faith…you would be screaming in the streets about how he can’t do that, and how you refuse to be governed by someone elses Religeon…
Fortunatly, we live in a country that has seperation of church and state. Because everybody in this country finally woke up and realized that a country being governed by Religeon, was what the settlers LEFT BEHIND in the old country. They didn’t want to be ruled over by a Theocratic system, that’s laws based on relgeous beliefs they didn’t share.
And because they realized this, they came to the same conclusion that every other open-minded, tolerant, American did as well: Religeon equals rules, making laws based on these rules is really just making the rules of a particular Religeon law, and THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I don’t want to follow you’re Religeon, you don’t want to follow someone elses, that’s the way the system works (or is suposed to work), and it’s all for the greater good. You want a Christian nation? Go make a new country.
The last time we DIDN’T have seperation of CHurch and State, we were burning withces at the stake in Salem….Or is that what you want?
Christianity is supposed to teach tolerance..So be tolerant of other people’s faiths, beliefs, religeons, lifestyles, and decisions…and stop trying to impose your religeous beliefs on everyone else. Keep it between you, and your God.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Congratulations on your command of common grammar and spelling. Proof of your intelligence and thoughtfulness on any subject matter, indeed.
Nevertheless, you seemed to sum up my argument perfectly with your own (and often shared by every other non-Christian liberal) contradiction:
“So be tolerant of other people’s faiths, beliefs, religeons [sic], lifestyles, and decisions…and stop trying to impose your religeous [sic] beliefs on everyone else.”
To be fully tolerant, you must tolerate all people of all faiths. Unfortunately for you, this also includes my intolerance–lest you be labeled discriminatory.