Conservative Christians Criticize Republicans - New York Times

That is exactly what James Dobson is saying. Bear in mind that this is the same man that in his book on child care said that to discipline a child you must strike them until they shed real tears - or else they won't learn their lesson.

I originally heard about it on The Colbert Report (The Word: Jesi), then checked the book out from the library and confirmed it - unfortunately I'm at work and the book is at home. I'll do some more research and try to find it.

Here's another interesting Dobson reference.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0807079537&id=u_y82Jh9VBAC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=james+dobson+discipline+tears&sig=TZEpvdTHHMg3wPzYRP4e-8_03iE

I don't think they fit the definition of "fascist" at all. They're not calling for a dictatorship. Oppressive != dictatorship. I dislike their ideas, but calling them fascist is far more ridiculous than calling them conservative.

But Sam has a point that much of political Christianity deviates from traditional conservatism, with its ideals of small government. I find the traditional liberal versus conservative debates a lot easier to negotiate than debates that involve religion.

Are you a believer in the Gnostic Gospels? Jesus himself was a Jew- he wouldn't throw away his Father's tradition. Also, Jesus' condemnation of homosexuality lies nowhere in the gospel. It's in 1st Corinth. 6:9- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

That's from an epistle- not the literal words of Jesus. Here's the closest Jesus ever comes to the subject: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." Nowhere does it use the phrase "sodomy," which is typically taken to mean homosexuality.

yar: That is a matter of interpretation. Many Christians do apply parts of the Old Testament as it suits them, and many Christians (most, really) do not apply parts of the New Testament. Do the women in your church cover their heads?

yar,

Written by Paul. Paul received all his doctrine from Jesus directly. Mathew was with Jesus on earth. Paul received revelation directly from Jesus after he had returned to heaven

Interesting, though not consistent with what some historical scholars believe. It appears that Paul was always acutely aware that he never knew Jesus in real life and this lead to some insecurity in his writings. His work is sometimes inconsistent and even changes, especially in response to criticism at the time. He had difficulty adapting "the Law" (given to the Jews) to his concept of a christian religion and views Jesus as subject to god rather than part of god. To me, none of this sounds like the writings of a man who had a hotline to Jesus, but I really don't expect this to change your mind.

Again, an interpretation. This leads to the all-important question: Why are some Christians trying to legislate their interpretation of the Bible? Would they be happy if the majority of Christians thought that we should make a law requiring women to wear head coverings, or making long hair illegal for men? I'm sure that would bother them. Yet they have no problem making laws based on their interpretations. That's the hypocrisy.

There's a difference between allowing a group to do something that everyone else can do, and banning them from doing so. Forcing women to have their heads covered is wrong because men don't have to cover their heads. Banning men from having long hair is wrong because women can have long hair. Banning homosexuals from marrying the ones they love is wrong because heterosexuals have that right. In none of those examples is the majority group hurt by allowing the minority group to have the same rights.

If you apply the same reasoning used to justify a ban on gay marriage to interracial marriage, then you'll see the problem. The same arguments were used to support a ban on interracial marriage (which actually was illegal in many places). Was it right for people to do that? After all, you say they have a right to pass whatever law they want, right? The constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee the right to marry someone of a different race either, but few people today doubt that such a law is wrong. Why make the exception?

And my formatting is gone again. Argh.

Well, yeah, they can be legally pushed. I'm not arguing that it's illegal. I'm saying it's hypocrisy because they would throw a fit if someone tried to do something like ban marriage between Christians. Such a law may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

peopel constantly crying liberal media i mean who could ever believe the NYT would even talk to a conservative... HMMM who did libby leak the key judements of the NIE? HMM juddy miller of the NYT?
WHo leaked valerie plames name on behalf of this administration?? NYT
Doesnt seem like such a liberal conspiracy anymore huh?

Do you think this particular article is inaccurate, or are you just attacking the NYT because you have nothing else to attack?