![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by Declan on May 17, 2006, at 18:57:03
In reply to WWJVF?, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 15:47:55
Too right. It's been a mystery to me how the right snaffled Jesus. Was it because the left wasn't interested? And yet Christianity wasn't always the preserve of the right. What's the name of that bloke? Was he President? Anyway he was a Democrat candidate...Waylong Jennings Bryan?????? That can't be quite right. There's that influential study group thingo (please excuse) on Capitol Hill that says that Jesus would have believed in the free market. I shouldn't let that bother me, of course.
Posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:43:43
In reply to WWJVF?, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 15:47:55
>... In the past, I was as guilty as any other Democrat in being hesitant to speak of political issues in moral and religious terms. But I have come to realize that there are some policy areas in which I can best articulate my political beliefs by also articulating the Christian values in which these beliefs are rooted.
:-O
christian values?
how about muslim values
or hindu values
or athiest values
or buddist values?
why does he have to drag christianity into it?
can't you just talk about your human values without invoking religion?
can't you just talk about your human values and morality without invoking religion?
i don't understand...
:-(
er...
so the death penalty is popular in texas (in the sense that most people in texas think it should be retained)?
er...
i still don't understand why someone would want to change his name to that...
and i still don't understand how someone who changed his name to that could be taken terribly seriously...
and how someone might get voted in for a dawg orphanage (how about a people orphanage)
?but then i don't understand the world one hell of a lot...
Posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:44:24
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » zazenduck, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:43:43
er...
dare i ask what people think jesus would say about the death penalty?
where did the christian values go?
Posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:03:10
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » zazenduck, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:43:43
> >... In the past, I was as guilty as any other Democrat in being hesitant to speak of political issues in moral and religious terms. But I have come to realize that there are some policy areas in which I can best articulate my political beliefs by also articulating the Christian values in which these beliefs are rooted.
>
> :-O
>
> christian values?
>
> how about muslim values
> or hindu values
> or athiest values
> or buddist values
>
> ?How about them?
>
> why does he have to drag christianity into it?Why not?
>
> can't you just talk about your human values without invoking religion?Can you? Should you? Should you ask others to do the same?
>
> can't you just talk about your human values and morality without invoking religion?Well some folk claim humanism is a religion. Of course the Kinkster is on record supporting non denominational prayer in the school even if the kids want to pray to a rock or a tree. So I suppose if you wanted to pray to the Psyche or human wisdom or your uncle Bob that would be okay by him too.
But like ole Bob Zimmerman said before he renamed himself after a Welsh poet....You gotta serve somebody ....So I want to know who the guy I'm voting for is serving. Yes I want to know what he believes but I want to know why and what his guiding principals are.I want him to be forthright and stand up for what he believes. Kinky is calling for dewuss*fication (an end to political correctness) and by Georgina I'm for that too. That's a long way from wanting him to establish a religion for me. And it's a long way from saying I wouldn't vote for someone with different beliefs.
>
> i don't understand...
>
> :-(
>
> er...
>
> so the death penalty is popular in texas (in the sense that most people in texas think it should be retained)?I don't know. It is legal.
>
> er...
>
> i still don't understand why someone would want to change his name to that...Why not? Why would you not want to change your name to that? Does it matter that he did?
> and i still don't understand how someone who changed his name to that could be taken terribly seriously...
If he had been born with that name would you be able to take him seriously? What about his decision to change his name makes it hard for you ?
> and how someone might get voted in for a dawg orphanage (how about a people orphanage)
> ?Do you believe he might be voted in for a dawg orphanage? It isn't part of his official platform. I included it in the spirit of positive posting. And I personally think you can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats a stray dawg. Chris bell feeds the homeless once a week. Do you think he will be voted in because of that? I would never look a gift sandwich in the mouth but that seems like pretty short rations for sustaining life. And them dawgs have a home for life. And it gives Kinky an opportunity to make powerful political friends. Miss Laura the first lady of our nation has donated a pen to Kinky's dawg home. I personally believe this enhances his political resume which also includes a failed attempt to run for city council of Kerrville.
Do you think running a dawg orphanage somehow indicates a lack of support for human orphanages? (Many of them are run either by the state or by religous organizations.)
>
> but then i don't understand the world one hell of a lot...Same here :)
Posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:10:18
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:44:24
> er...
>
> dare i ask what people think jesus would say about the death penalty?What do you think he would say?
>
> where did the christian values go?Er, I believe Chris Bell said he had them?
Posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:26:12
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Declan on May 17, 2006, at 18:57:03
> Too right. It's been a mystery to me how the right snaffled Jesus. Was it because the left wasn't interested? And yet Christianity wasn't always the preserve of the right.
The civil rights movement sprang out of the African American churches in the south and the Democratic party.
>What's the name of that bloke? Was he President? Anyway he was a Democrat candidate...Waylong Jennings Bryan?????? That can't be quite right.William Jennings Bryan..that old populist. There was a time when people thought they could rise up and control their own destinies with political action. sigh... course he didn't win
>There's that influential study group thingo (please excuse) on Capitol Hill that says that Jesus would have believed in the free market. I shouldn't let that bother me, of course.
It would be interesting to find out who funded that! Of course people can just slap the christian brand on anything but I think that should be questioned and people should feel free to argue their own interpretations of Christian action not just cede the faith to a particular polital group.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 12:59:19
In reply to Re: The death penalty, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 12:50:43
You are right - he can do one 30 day stay without permission.
It still isn't much. We Texans do like to keep our politicians out of trouble, don't we?
I don't understand why he doesn't post it, either.
Myself? I *might* not mind the execution of someone if I were convinced he was past redemption - and truly guilty - and the crime was really, really bad and coldhearted.
But I don't think anyone can ever assure me all those things would be true.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 13:09:07
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » zazenduck, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:43:43
"i still don't understand why someone would want to change his name to that..."
It's a nickname, like Bubba. Or Dubya. Lots of us Texans have nicknames.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 13:15:50
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Declan, posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:26:12
I read an editorial about the Republican party and the religeous right. The guy was of the opinion that the religeous right has become the tail wagging the dog.
The really funny thing was that the guy writing the editorial was one of the group who first formed the strategy of getting them into the party in the first place.
Irony. I love it.
Posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 21:56:53
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:03:10
> > christian values?
> > how about muslim values
> > or hindu values
> > or athiest values
> > or buddist values
> > ?
> How about them?he seems to think his values are specifically christian. i guess i was wondering whether his values might well be consistent with any other religious belief and hence why does he bother dragging one particular religion into it?
i guess i would have thought that one would be better off articulating ones values in a way that other people can assess them without buying into his variety of religion. i mean... surely not everybody in texas is christian? but maybe professing christianity is a vote winner? i'm fairly surprised at that is all. i would have thought specific policies would be more of a vote winner. and i would have thought it is possible to talk about values without mentioning a religion. i mean there is probably more variability in values from people within a religion than from people between religions. and people who profess certain values... have a way of casting specific acts in line with them even when the majority would disagree...
> > why does he have to drag christianity into it?
> Why not?
i thought politics and religion were supposed to be kept seperate.
i thought that was a western value.
seems i was wrong...
or... maybe it is more in line with England than the US.
because of seperating parliament from the kings rule (where the king was supposed to be divinely appointed by god and parliament was meant to be democratically elected)
i think maybe the idea of seperating church and actual (as opposed to figure head) governance came from there...but could be wrong about all that...
> Well some folk claim humanism is a religion.if you define religion verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry loosely...
> Of course the Kinkster is on record supporting non denominational prayer in the school
er...
what if you don't want to pray at all?i'm used to...
public schools don't have religious rites / rituals.
no prayer.
there may be religious education. parents need to sign a consent form for that. most kids get exemptions.
you might learn about 'what people of different religions believe'. but you learn about it as study of society rather than 'this is the truth'.private schools...
can have a religious element (because people volountarily send their kids to the school)
hence private catholic, anglican, methodist etc schools.
but not public schooling.seperation of church and state...
> You gotta serve somebody ....
do you?
can't you live your life just trying to be a good person?
where there are certain things that 'being a good person' means to you such as:
x
x
xI would have thought there would be more consensus on that than there would be in dragging one particular religon into it.
> Kinky is calling for dewuss*fication (an end to political correctness)
what does he mean by 'political correctness'?
e.g. it is politically incorrect to go around calling out to people of african american descent 'yo n*gger'
it is politically incorrect to make jokes about people with physical disability
it is politically incorrect to grab the *ss of a woman (or man for that matter) in the work place.what does he mean by putting an end to 'political correctness'?
why do people think that is a good thing?
> > and i still don't understand how someone who changed his name to that could be taken terribly seriously...
> If he had been born with that name would you be able to take him seriously? What about his decision to change his name makes it hard for you ?i just wondered if he was a joke candidate.
like the mcgillicudy serious party in nz. (not sure how you spell that). they wanted to outlaw motor vechicles and bring back the horse and cart. stuff like that. they satirised the process basically. i wondered if that was what he was trying to do...
Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 3:05:21
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 21:56:53
i guess i have a personal bias (just like everyone else)
but my bias is that i'm an athiest.
though if pushed...
i'll fall back on agnosticism as the most rational position...
but if by 'god' you mean an agent that is beyond the natural laws yet can affect changes (directly) to what lies within the natural world...
an agent that is all loving (benevolent)
all powerful
then i think that notion is incoherant(a contradiction cannot be the case)
so i guess that makes me an athiest
(if you define god as consciousness then i believe in consciousness so i guess that means i believe in god, if you define god as life then i believe in life so i guess that means i believe in god but you have radically changed the meaning of 'god' in defining him as being numerically identical with those things)
when i see the wars that result from religion...
the hostility...
the fighting (both verbal and physical)
for what?
a notion that is deeply incoherant?sigh.
i have no trouble with learning about what people believe
i have no trouble with learning about what different religions saybut to hear it as truth
to be required to pray...requiring people to pray...
imo it is a personal choice that should be confined to the personal realm. do it at home. do it in churches.
but teaching it as truth?
as facts?i have trouble with taht...
Posted by Declan on May 19, 2006, at 3:28:56
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 3:05:21
People have, I guess, all sorts of ideas about God. Here in new age territory people use the word to mean the unconditioned, taking the idea from the esoteric tradition and Buddhism. I think religions should be benign, inneffective and beleved in (is this a utilitarian argument? I dunno if I like them); in this I am using Burke's idea that in the absence of religion something (worse) will take its place.
Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by Declan on May 19, 2006, at 3:28:56
er... like science ;-)
i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
spirituality... sure...
but religion...
ugh.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 7:09:17
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
> er... like science ;-)
>
> i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
>.Please be civil. Please do not post anything which might make someone else feel put down. This does not mean I don't like you or that I do not think you are a good person. :)
> spirituality... sure...
>
> but religion...
>
> ugh.see above
For the record I personally am not offended. I think political correctness is something like not ever saying anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere.
Kinky's proposal was for voluntary prayer.
Kinky was defeated for Justice of the Peace of Kerrville. I was mistaken above.
I would not want my children to read some of Kinky's lyrics. I would not want my governor to use that kind of language. I don't think that's political correctness. I think it's common decency. I don't know exactly what the difference is.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 7:22:08
In reply to Re: My bad » zazenduck, posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 12:59:19
>
> I don't understand why he doesn't post it, either.
>
> Myself? I *might* not mind the execution of someone if I were convinced he was past redemption - and truly guilty - and the crime was really, really bad and coldhearted.
>
> But I don't think anyone can ever assure me all those things would be true.Yes that's what I thought Kinky was trying to say by saying he was in favor of it if he was sure the guy was guilty etc. It just sounded like such a political answer.. that he was playing the game..but that's what people have to do if they want to win I know.
I wouldn't be able to give someone the death penalty either I don't think. I wouldn't serve on a death penalty jury. And to me that just seems like there is no way for a man to get a jury of his peers when so many refuse to be on death penalty juries.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 8:56:46
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
sorry I asked you to be civil
that may have felt uncivil to you and that was not my intent.
Posted by Declan on May 19, 2006, at 17:55:19
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
Science? Maybe. Like getting in space and stuff? Clearly not making any good psych drugs. OK, OK, what is it that science has done that's so cool? Got rid of leprosy? Not cancer, but what? Can't think (too unhappy) Truly, I prefer the Mass. Gave me lots more comfort. Those quantum mechanics guys are allright, I guess, and maybe the internet.
Here's my kind of church service, from Patrick Leigh Fermor's "Beyond the Wind and the Water". Church in Hungary, Midnight Mass,Easter Sunday, 1932, I think.
"Light filled the great building, new constellations of wicks floated in all the chapels, the Paschal Candle was alight in the choir and unwinking stars tipped the candles that stood as lances along the high alter. Except for the red front pews, the Cathedral, the clergy, the celebrating priesrt and deacons and all their myrmidons were in white. The Archbishop, white and gold now and utterly transformed from his scarlet manifestation as a Cardinal, was enthroned under a blazing canopy and the members of his little court were perched in tiers up the steps. ..........In the front of the aisle, meanwhile, the quasi-martial bravery of the serried magnates--the coloured doublets of silk and brocade and fur, the gold and silver chains, the Hessian boots of blue and crimson and turquoise, the gilt spurs, the kalpaks of bearskin with their diamond clasps, and the high plumes of egrets' and eagles' and cranes' feathers--accorded with the ecclesiastical splendour as aptly as the accoutrements in the Burial of Count Orgaz: and it was the black attire that was most impressive. Those scimitars leaning in the pews, with their gilt and ivory cross hilts and stagily gemmed scabbards--surely they were heirlooms from the Turkish wars? When their owners rose jingling for the Creed, one of the swords fell on the marble with a clatter.
Soon, after an interval of silence, sheaves of organ pipes were thundering and fluting their message of risen Divinity. Scores of voices soared from the choir, Alleluiahs on the wing, the cumulous of incense billowing round the curved acanthus leaves was winding aloft and losing itself in the shadows of the dome.....urged on by a friendly prod, I joined the slow slipstream and soon, as though smoke and sound had wafted us through the doors, we were all outside.
As the enormous moon was only one night after the full, it was almost as bright as day.....Wheels creaked overhead, timbers groaned and a many-tongued and nearly delirious clangour of bells came tumbling into the night; and then, between those bronze impacts, another sound, like insistant clapping, made us all look up. An hour or so before, two storks, tired of their journey from Africa, had alighted on a dishevelled nest under one of the belfries and everyone had watched them settle in..........Woken by the bells and the music, the storks in the town were floating and crossing overhead and looking down on our little string of lights as it turned uphill to the basilica again. The intensity of the moment, the singing and candle flames and incense, the feeling of spring, the circling birds, the smell of fields, thin shadows and the unreality of the moon over the woods and the silver flood--all these things hallowed the night with a spell of great benificence and power."
Anyway the wars, and politics cleared out that reactionary rabble (as they were called). When I was growing up the grief for the loss of that world was implicit, along with gratitude that we did not have to endure all that.
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2006, at 9:42:23
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
> i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
Keeping in mind that the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, could you please rephrase that?
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2006, at 10:31:29
In reply to Please be Estella » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 8:56:46
I don't think that warrants an apology.
I don't think you asked Estella to be civil in a way that would be uncivil here. Although, perhaps because of the smiley, I thought you were probably joking and/or being a bit sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek...something...I don't know...I just couldn't tell. Limitations of the medium...
But anyway....thanks, even if you did say 'sorry' for posting that, 'cause I felt put down by the post. I want Estella to be Estella, too, but ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
Well, at least now I know my beliefs may be seen as incoherant by others. Guess that'll have to be okay. I can live with that.
Posted by zazenduck on May 20, 2006, at 19:09:28
In reply to Re: Please be Estella » zazenduck, posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2006, at 10:31:29
> I don't think that warrants an apology.
>
> I don't think you asked Estella to be civil in a way that would be uncivil here. Although, perhaps because of the smiley, I thought you were probably joking and/or being a bit sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek...something...I don't know...I just couldn't tell. Limitations of the medium...
>The smiley was a no hard feelings kind of smiley:)
I just would have rephrased myself and said I think this violates the civility rules rather than saying please be civil. I've just always thought the Please be civil seemed like a judgement on the poster rather than the post. And I didn't want Estella to be blocked again. So I guess it was sympathy too. Sometimes if someone else says something before Bob arrives he lets it go it seems like. Or the person says sorry and rephrases and it's resolved.
> But anyway....thanks, even if you did say 'sorry' for posting that, 'cause I felt put down by the post. I want Estella to be Estella, too, but ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
>
Well I obviously don't agree with her and I'm sorry you felt bad when you read it. Thanks for saying thanks :)
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:09:58
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Estella, posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2006, at 9:42:23
> > i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
>
> Keeping in mind that the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, could you please rephrase that?
Keeping in mind that estelle too has the right to a view which others should respect.Not withstanding the above, her point could be very solidly argued from a purely factual and logical standpoint.
TJ
Posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 21:43:50
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:09:58
I happen not to agree with Estella's point of view, but it beats me how anyone could find it hurtful. I don't agree with it because I think we are dangerous primates who need religion to keep us in line. We can't expect too much of ourselves and religion is quite good enough.
UNLESS, we are really talking about national differences here and by religion is understood fundamentalist religion, naturally including US fundamentalist religion. I've no idea why people feel put down and would be the worst person to ask since I've never got on with them. But if it is important for people to be liked and they feel they aren't, this might be a point of sensitivity. For the record I have no religious opinions worth mentioning.....mine are purely aesthetic.
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:54:27
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » teejay, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 21:43:50
> I don't agree with it because I think we are dangerous primates who need religion to keep us in line.
I think you are confusing two issues here. Almost all religions broadly contain the same moral guidlines and those I'm fully in favour of; its the God issues and the way this 'supreme being' supposedly should be worshiped which creates much of the angst around the world.
My personal opinion is that often religion is merely an excuse to hide behind and the real reason wars are fought is to do with power, money or land.
TJ (who was brought up VERY religious but is now an atheist)
Posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 22:29:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Declan, posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:54:27
TJ, you are staying up very late again. Humans? What can you do with them? I *suppose* I'm an atheist. But like that curved universe thing?.......I always want to ask what is beyond the wall. If the universe doesn't just go on forever it must have a boundary, right? I'm so confused, and my knowledge of quantum mechaics comes from talking to my 18yo son, but it seems to me that science and religion are not that much different, especially with church services the way they are these days.
Declan
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 23:36:28
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » teejay, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 22:29:34
Hiya Declan.....
yeah i'm pretty much always up late, I'm not good at mornings but good at late nights.
I see where you are coming from regarding the curved universe, but the human mind cannot grasp infinity. Time will go on long after you and I are 'worm food' but the concept that the world was here millions of years before you and I were born or will be here millions of years after we are dead is hard to grasp, but its a fact all the same.
Not quite sure how the concept of time tallies with how we actually got here though.
Do you know what convinced me that God didnt exist? Well if God made the heavens, the earth and us, then how come the earth would arguably be better off without us if we were his last (and hence finest) creation? Doesnt make sense does it?
nite declan
TJ
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.