General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2276413

    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?

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3295484

      This is great..

      by maecuff ·

      In reply to GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

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

      • #3295471

        Reply To: GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

        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…

    • #3295472


      by oz_media ·

      In reply to GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

      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.

      • #3295468

        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???

        • #3312571

          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.


        • #3312551

          Then there’s the gay churches

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to If you have true freedom of religion

          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?

        • #3312556

          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.

    • #3295469

      Of course…

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

      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.


    • #3295466

      Hate to break it to you….

      by packet spoofer ·

      In reply to GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

      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!

      • #3312360

        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.

    • #3312579

      A Christians response

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

      The book of Leviticus was written to the Jew and represents the part of the Law or Torah. In the Bible of today it represents an explanation of how we (all humanity) were held to the Legal standard prior to Christ and have since his death been freed from the constraints of the Law.
      When Jesus was asked by a Pharisee which of the Laws was greatest he said ??thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.? And the second most important commandment is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
      Now does this mean that we should discount the message in Leviticus? No. The message of this book is Holiness and the personal striving to be holy. It is an oxymoron because we understand that our holiness is as filthy rags unto the Lord but nonetheless we still must try to be like Christ.
      Christianity is not about restriction or condemnation. It is about freedom and love. God loves the sinner but hates the sin. I will never condemn anyone for their sins as it is not my place to do so. I have said before that no-ones sin is greater than mine. I will not however stand by and allow sin to be propped up as something that is normal or acceptable.

      • #3312545

        sin as defined by YOUR religion

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to A Christians response

        I think that is the key that is being overlooked here. Yes, YOUR religions states that “God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” and therefore you cannot acet what YOU religion defines as a sin as eign acceptable. I agree with you and applaud your ability to keep YOUR religion close to you as your own personal morals.

        this si NOT freedom of religion in any way though and such thought cannot be allowed to control government in a country that poses as accaptig of all religions. All religions that are EXACTLY the same as Christianity perhaps.

        What if a Jepardoh follower came to America, land of the free, liberty and justice for all! Except in Jepardohan religion, it is quite normal for a man to marry a man and a woman a woman. He is now finding that in America HIS religious beliefs are NOT acceptable at all, and even the government will restrict his entitlements compared to other married Americans?

        This isn’t religious freedom in ANY sense of the word, ules syou are Christian.

        How would YOU feel about teh Constitution specifically being changed to allow for some Muslim practices to be acepted, ie. Multiple partners, beating of wives etc.?

        I hae a feeling that people would be going ballistic, while screaming about christianity and how it is restrictive of christian morals ad faith and not alowing them to practice thier religion etc.

        “God loves the sinner but hates the sin” WHO’s god, YOUR God?

        Sure you accept religious choice, as long as it is a Christian choice.

        Anyhow, less than 1 minute to post at Dover Downs, gotta love Delaware today! :p

        • #3312261

          Reply To: GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

          by packet spoofer ·

          In reply to sin as defined by YOUR religion

          Oz it is not just a code or a religion, it is a world view,….Democracy reflects the worldview of the majority hopefully….right?….If your side does not like this view…rather than sniping about theocracies and such…how about just convincing a majority to vote based on your world view?

        • #3312254

          Oz….we do not mandate our religion

          by packet spoofer ·

          In reply to sin as defined by YOUR religion

          But there is a right and wrong, and there are moral absolutes….Someday you will find this out. I can vote for legislation that lines up with these beliefs and no one can stop me (yet)…..Secularizing everything and taking God out of everything did not help the USSR…and it won’t help us…..

        • #3312227


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz….we do not mandate our religion

          I hadn’t seen any reference to democracy, just religion, how it supports and is supported in America’s Constitution.

          Now, my personal feeling is that if you use a specific religion to define people’s rights within your country, then you cannot possibly claim to accept any religion. As for laws that are defined based on a specific religion, some think it is right and some think it is wrong, end of story. You cannot claim to accept all religions if you base law on ONE secific choice though.

          If the USA is based on Christian foundations, that is fine by me, this means that you do NOT accept all religions equally though and cannot pretend to, no matter how much wiggling and fidgeting you do.

          In contrast, Canada and Canadias have been working to remove specific religious references from everything they can in an attempt to become TRULY multi-cultural and free for all races. There’s prejudice here but not in the same racist way I see it in the USA. As for religion, you will see VERY few references to a specific religion and those are becoming fewer all the time as we move to build a more open and accepting nation.

          As for you and I, we are going to end up running in circles and getting nowhere so we should just let this one sit I think.

          I respect your comments and understand your feelings, however, I wouldn’t be able to say I supported freedom of religion if your views were MY views though, sorry.

          I don’t mean any offense I’m just speaking my opinion.

        • #3313569

          Perhaps it’s not religion

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to okay

          I think what our country is going through has more to do with mandating morality than imposing a religious standard. The issues that are confronting our nation (gay rights, abortion, etc?) have a moral resonance that transcends religious ideology. If one looks to the Torah, or the Koran, or the Bible they will all say pretty much the same thing regarding these issues. So I don?t believe that we, that is to say Americans, are out to establish a national religion; we are out to reclaim our right given by the constitution to practice our religion freely where we choose and when we choose. ?Freedom of Religion? not ?Freedom from Religion?.

        • #3312921


          by sgt1035 ·

          In reply to Perhaps it’s not religion

          …then please tell me what this president’s attachment to ‘Dominionism’ is all about? If you have never heard of it, perhaps it’s time you did. 🙂

          Just do a web search…it’s just too much to explain here…

        • #3312912

          There is none

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Hmmm…

          I understand what Dominionism is but I have not heard of any connection between GWB and this heretical movement.

    • #3312578

      A Double Standard, Revoked

      by olprof67 ·

      In reply to GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

      For roughly 50 years, it was perfectly OK for the Democrats, and others on the left side of the aisle, to recruit votes among the economically-unsophisticated by portraying all on the right as idle wealthy, living at the country club.

      So the conservatives simply borrowed from the left’s book and recruited a few simplistic “shock troops” of their own.

      The whining of the Kerry crowd notwithstanding, turn about is just fair play.

      • #3312282

        Reply To: GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

        by sgt1035 ·

        In reply to A Double Standard, Revoked

        Wow…a ‘gotcha’!
        It’s exactly this type of mentality that brought us here. Like my ‘ol grandad used to say “…fa*t for a brain”.

    • #3312249

      read Galations for your answer to this…

      by packet spoofer ·

      In reply to GWB’s moral (religious) mandate?

      God condemned everyone under these laws…in order to school them toward the Grace of God through Christ. His Death and resurrection paid the price for the sins of all mankind, and also, he fullfilled the law that was not possible for mankind to fulfill. And in its place, everyone can come to God by Grace through faith….so the answer would be no…you do not have to fulfill these stipulations….that was not their intent…

Viewing 6 reply threads