General discussion


GWB's moral (religious) mandate?

By wordworker ·
Someone forwarded this to me and I thought it was pretty darn funny. Disclaimer: Might be construed as disrespectful to some people of some faiths.

** begin letter **

Dear President Bush,

Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to
share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them
that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

**insert punch lines involving OzMedia here LOL**

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a Sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

*** end of letter ***

My addition: When will the religious groups organize to pass a "no divorce" amendment?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

This is great..

by maecuff In reply to GWB's moral (religious) m ...

Of course, you are going to burn in **** now.

Collapse -

by sgt1035 In reply to This is great..

...along with the rest of us...LOL.

But, a bit more on the 'serious' side...look up 'Dominionism'. This really IS the mandate. Pretty scary...

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to GWB's moral (religious) m ...

Someone with some time on thier hands anyway!

As for the Canadian slavery issues, well I'm not Canadian and i think it was teh British who brought slavery to america as wel as they were the first to STOP slavery and push it's demise acros North America. While many Americans STILL feel they stoped slavery themselves despite Europeans who wanted it to continue.

Now I don' have ANY probloem with someone chosig a life partner, sharing thier lives together, paying taxes and helping the community, in fact I welcome it, gay or straight, either way, MY community benefits. MY friends are treated fairly and MY life isn't spent trying to teach normal, productive people that they have it all wrong because a book written in a different language s few thousand years ago says so.

It just sees a little far fetched.

Add that to Bush saying he accepts people's choices, he proudly says that America allows freedom of religion but he strongly feels that male/female marriages should be "rewarded" by the government because HIS faith says it isn't right?!

So you are free to practice your religion in a country that welcomes freedom of religion, but that government will only recognize AND reward those who follow Christian faith as defined by that government.

now when I go back and read the first line, "free to practice your religion in a country that welcomes freedom of religion", is it not complete hypocrisy?

Sure you are free to practice your religion, just don' expect it to be accepted as much as tolerated. Just like racism.

People of alternate color are not accepted, they are merely tolerated and even re-segregated by the same people who work to push freedoms on society. So much so that they are no longer recognized as Americans, but are now thoughtfully afro-americans, whether African or not.

Collapse -

Just a question

by CorTech In reply to LOl

Oz, you said...

"Add that to Bush saying he accepts people's choices, he proudly says that America allows freedom of religion but he strongly feels that male/female marriages should be "rewarded" by the government because HIS faith says it isn't right?!

So you are free to practice your religion in a country that welcomes freedom of religion, but that government will only recognize AND reward those who follow Christian faith as defined by that government."

Is there a religion that historically has accepted or professed homosexuality as a ligitimate way of life???

Collapse -

If you have true freedom of religion

by JamesRL In reply to Just a question

You also have freedom from religion.

In other words, there are lots of non-religious people(gay and straight), and those with more liberal religious beliefs who believe that homosexuality is acceptable. I've known gay clergy in various christian churches. They don't have a problem with it.


Collapse -

Then there's the gay churches

by Oz_Media In reply to If you have true freedom ...

I used to work with a guy who was a minister at a gay church, and a VERY strict Christian at that. Moreso than most practicing Christians I know.

So being a Christian and a minister of the gay church, (oh yes, and who was actually married in his church to another man)is he not actually a Christian then?

Collapse -

That's the whole problem

by Oz_Media In reply to Just a question

Christianity defines marriage and it is being adhered to.

Therefore your country is based on Christian foundations, thus NOT making it accepting of all religions.

this is WHY religion does not have a plac in government nor should it have ANY bearing on a country's constitution. If it does, you are NOT practicing freedom of religion, you are practicing freedom of Christianity and tolerace of religions other than yours.

In Canada they have slowly ben weeding specific religious references from everything and rightly so I think.

Scouting (though not a government) uses "my god" now instead of 'God' in the scout romise, thus making it completely accepting of the other cultures/religions that reside here.

Gay marriage is not broadly opposed in Canada, in fact it will be pretty soon now that it is completely accepted.

I don't kow ANYONE personally that is opposed to gay marriage, yet I can name at least ten on this site that are, all of US desent, as Christianity is engrained into your country.

this is fine and dandy, I have no problem with anyone's faith or chosen religion, you CANNOT propsose to be the all accepting and welcoming nation that you say you are though. You will TOLERATE differece of religion, but not accept it. Just the same as how people say you are multi-cultural, yet you hardly accept racial differences as much as you tolerate or allow them in your society.

Collapse -

Of course...

by JamesRL In reply to GWB's moral (religious) m ...

I am pretty sure you didn't write this.

But notice that these all seem to be Old Testament passage. In the New Testament, Jesus said that there was no unclean thing that God made(bad paraphrase from someone who hasn't attended for a while), therefore there were no dietary restrictions.

Jesus also stated the Golden Rule that supercedes all others, and that all the others should be looked at in the context of(do unto others as you would have done unto you).

Of course, you can find something similar in almost every faith. This link

shows similar statements from Budhist, Ba'hai, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and other faiths.

Despite the fact I am an Anglican, and my church is the official state church of England, I am not in favour of any linkages between church and state. It violates the golden rule in my opinion. I went to school in a pretty whitebread area of rural Canada. But we had religious(Christian) classes in public schools(protestant, as RC schools were funded separately). And we said the Lord's Prayer. You cannot tell me we did not discriminate against the lone Jewish girl in my school in those instances. She was singled out as being different, not part of the main. She sat in the hall while the religion teacher taught us about Jesus. And as part of the golden rule, I would not wanted to be singled out like that - not in a public system that all tax payers pay for.

I have no problem with people of faith running for public office - I think there are many caring people of many religions who would be good in politics. But I don't think that any one religion should dominate or overtly influence the state. That doesn't hold up the spirit of the golden rule to me. Freedom of religion is not just freedom for the dominant religion.


Collapse -

Hate to break it to you....

by Packet Spoofer In reply to GWB's moral (religious) m ...

But these scriptures are taken way out of context....i.e. Judas went out an hanged himself.......go ye therefore and do likewise....
If a religion causes a shift in the moral fabric of a society to the point where it affects peoples inner moral compass.......and their vote reflects these morals.....and their views represent a majority of citizens in the voting block......welcome to democracy....get used to it!

Collapse -

Out of context is the point

by wordworker In reply to Hate to break it to you.. ...

So....isn't relying on the scripture about marriage/man/woman taking the Word out of context, too???? I think that's the point of the humor, and the tragedy of the way the fear campaign was run. You shouldn't cherry-pick the verses you think should be enforced in society.

Related Discussions

Related Forums