Go Bob! I meet Bob years ago. He is a great guy.
By Bob Ream, 521 Clarke St. - 08/28/08
In response to: Your Turn 8/22/08 by B.G. Stumberg:The earliest white settlers came to America to escape religious persecution. This great nation of ours was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Pastor Stumberg is purposely trying to confuse the issues of religious freedom and pulpit politicking. He cloaks the political advocacy that he spouts in his church under the guise of free speech. Of course he has a right to free speech, but when he engages in political advocacy, he and his church should be treated like any political action committee. But more importantly, he has crossed the line separating church and state.His claim of being pro-marriage is simply hiding behind another cloak, the cloak of hatred that consumes so much time and energy in the political arena today, time and energy that would be better spent addressing the real issues of poverty, hunger, education, crime, jobs and the economy. Hatred is an insidious force hidden behind a veil of righteousness.
al wrote on Aug 28, 2008 3:42 PM:
" If Jesus and his apostles moved in next door to some these so-called Christians, they'd start wailing that the neighborhood was going Gay. "
John Adams wrote on Aug 28, 2008 1:37 PM:
" Mr. Ream is unfair in his response to Pastor Stumbergs article in the IR. Mr. Ream says His claim of being pro-marriage is simply hiding behind another cloak, the cloak of hatred that consumes so much time and energy in the political arena today, time and energy that would be better spent addressing the real issues of poverty, hunger, education, crime, jobs and the economy. Hatred is an insidious force hidden behind a veil of righteousness. There wasnt an ounce of hatred in Pastor Stumbergs article. I would bet Pastor Stumberg does more for poverty, hunger, education, crime, jobs and the economy than Mr. Ream could ever do. Children raised in two parent families, with a father and a mother, have a much greater chance of avoiding poverty, hunger, crime and have paying jobs than children raised in one-parent families or same sex parent families. Its obvious Mr. Ream is the one who suffers from hatred of religion. The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. How can it be free if youre hauled into court for talking about your beliefs in church? "
whocares wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:03 AM:
" Nicemamma2 Youre quoting the old testemate. I guess you don't eat anything with coved hooves, or sleep in the same room as a woman thats on her period. Did you religious people forget about the rest of the Bible? When God said every sin is a slap in his face. The murderer is just as bad as the thief. The part where God sent his savior to take away every ones sins blah blah blah. So what if a man wants to be with a man or a chick with a chick. The church doesnt own marriage. If two gay people want to marry more power to them. Slap a name on it and call it a new religion. "
mama2 wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:39 AM:
" Just because you think immorality is ok, doesn't mean God does. This pastor did not cross any line, if anything the government has crossed a line."If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13). "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24). "
Adam Laceky wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:16 AM:
" More to the point, the Independent Record is not tax-exempt, as the Canyon Ferry Baptist Church is. Churches are exempt specifically because they agree to respect the wall of separation between church and state. Some churches want it both ways, it seems: to be tax-exempt under the separation clause of the 1st Amendment, but also be political forces under the free speech clause.They're always free to say whatever they want. But when they tear down the wall of separation, they effectively renounce their ecclesiastical status, and any claim to tax exemption.What other organizations get a break like that? "
Aug 28, 2008
Aug 27, 2008
Banning Books
If its ok to ban books then
I suggest banning the popluar book written by Rick Warren, "The Purpose Driven Life" I read somewhere on the internet he is not a true Christian but a fraud. :0
And from the very same web site, it suggests it's ok to 'throw out or burn all your books and read only the scriptures'..... But, if you haven't recieved the holy spirit/ghost then all your efforts will be in vain. Only a special one or two MEN really truely understand what is written in the bible. Duh?!
So, since very few of us (no women allowed) can really understand scripture, I suggest we ban the bible. Too many people think they get it, when they don't. Therefore to prevent any further confusion and misunderstandings, we should leave it to only those who 'get it'.
Is that not what the Catholic Church says? Only ordained priests have the abilty to teach the flock the word of God the proper way. That is why, if you ask a Catholic if they read the bible, they usually give you a look of disbelief and stare at you like your insane. Read the bible? why? I go to mass every Sunday I don't need to.
Then you have those individuals/protestants who read the bible every day and go through it with a fine tooth comb looking for tidbits to justify thier biases and beliefs.
What is one to think?
I suggest banning the popluar book written by Rick Warren, "The Purpose Driven Life" I read somewhere on the internet he is not a true Christian but a fraud. :0
And from the very same web site, it suggests it's ok to 'throw out or burn all your books and read only the scriptures'..... But, if you haven't recieved the holy spirit/ghost then all your efforts will be in vain. Only a special one or two MEN really truely understand what is written in the bible. Duh?!
So, since very few of us (no women allowed) can really understand scripture, I suggest we ban the bible. Too many people think they get it, when they don't. Therefore to prevent any further confusion and misunderstandings, we should leave it to only those who 'get it'.
Is that not what the Catholic Church says? Only ordained priests have the abilty to teach the flock the word of God the proper way. That is why, if you ask a Catholic if they read the bible, they usually give you a look of disbelief and stare at you like your insane. Read the bible? why? I go to mass every Sunday I don't need to.
Then you have those individuals/protestants who read the bible every day and go through it with a fine tooth comb looking for tidbits to justify thier biases and beliefs.
What is one to think?
Aug 25, 2008
What is a cult/sect?
some definitions
-Cult" typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream.
-a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony(organic farm), with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views
-Cults are new groups with a novel theology, while sects are attempts to return mainstream religions to what the group views as their original purity.
-Sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation and their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'"
-Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader;
-The normal revelations model – the cult is formed when the founder chooses to interpret ordinary natural phenomena as supernatural, such as by ascribing his or her own creativity in inventing the cult to that of the deity.
-Cult" typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream.
-a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony(organic farm), with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views
-Cults are new groups with a novel theology, while sects are attempts to return mainstream religions to what the group views as their original purity.
-Sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation and their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'"
-Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader;
-The normal revelations model – the cult is formed when the founder chooses to interpret ordinary natural phenomena as supernatural, such as by ascribing his or her own creativity in inventing the cult to that of the deity.
Comment from Sara, Paul's Cohort
Sara,
I think you commented on the wrong person's blog. I am not Clearwater. But anyway, Stalking? that's a bit over board. If someone comes out in public and stands on a soap box, then people have the right to look them up and see what that persons all about. Then people are justified in posting thier findings. That is not stalking.
Threatened Clearwater?, 'does your employer approve...'. thats crazy, in America, your boss has no business checking out thier employees blogs.! Its mind boggling the behavior I am seeing coming from people in our community. It's almost scary, will I be next on the list? That would be flattering actually.
Sorry Sara, my boss and co-workers already know about my blog and cheer me on.
I'm weirded out by these people
Paul Cohen wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:10 PM:" "Doesn't explain"? First, I was not called on to explain, and second, Clearwater's description of what I have been doing is grossly and maliciously misleading.I first saw the book over six months ago on the "New" bookshelf and did not check its status until the library notified me of its upcoming board meeting about a month ago. Since then, I have checked the status of the book three times, thinking of possibly having it available at the board meeting if there are those who think I exaggerate its pornographic content.My questions for Clearwater: What is your explanation for stalking my activities? Are you a library employee? If so, does your employer approve your reporting to the public what library clients are doing? How about identifying yourself, Gross Exaggerator, Anonymous Accuser, and Rumormonger?It is good for everyone to be aware of the tactics of those who try to avoid the issue at hand by drawing attention to where there is no issue.Come to the meeting on August 25th where you can hear the rest of my explanations. "clearwaterMT wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:20 AM:"What Mr. Cohen doesn't explain is how he's had to go back, day after day, to check on the status of the book. Something about it that he just can't seem to shake. "
6:56 PM
I think you commented on the wrong person's blog. I am not Clearwater. But anyway, Stalking? that's a bit over board. If someone comes out in public and stands on a soap box, then people have the right to look them up and see what that persons all about. Then people are justified in posting thier findings. That is not stalking.
Threatened Clearwater?, 'does your employer approve...'. thats crazy, in America, your boss has no business checking out thier employees blogs.! Its mind boggling the behavior I am seeing coming from people in our community. It's almost scary, will I be next on the list? That would be flattering actually.
Sorry Sara, my boss and co-workers already know about my blog and cheer me on.
I'm weirded out by these people
Paul Cohen wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:10 PM:" "Doesn't explain"? First, I was not called on to explain, and second, Clearwater's description of what I have been doing is grossly and maliciously misleading.I first saw the book over six months ago on the "New" bookshelf and did not check its status until the library notified me of its upcoming board meeting about a month ago. Since then, I have checked the status of the book three times, thinking of possibly having it available at the board meeting if there are those who think I exaggerate its pornographic content.My questions for Clearwater: What is your explanation for stalking my activities? Are you a library employee? If so, does your employer approve your reporting to the public what library clients are doing? How about identifying yourself, Gross Exaggerator, Anonymous Accuser, and Rumormonger?It is good for everyone to be aware of the tactics of those who try to avoid the issue at hand by drawing attention to where there is no issue.Come to the meeting on August 25th where you can hear the rest of my explanations. "clearwaterMT wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:20 AM:"What Mr. Cohen doesn't explain is how he's had to go back, day after day, to check on the status of the book. Something about it that he just can't seem to shake. "
6:56 PM
Aug 22, 2008
Founding Fathers' dirty campaignStory
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ran negative presidential campaigns
Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant,
Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward
Many historians say John Quincy Adams/Andrew Jackson contest the nastiest
By Kerwin Swint
Negative campaigning in America was sired by two lifelong friends, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his vice president.
Despite their bruising campaign, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams became friends again.
Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. See 8 great campaign slogans »
Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind." Mental Floss: Jefferson: The sensitive writer type
Jefferson hires a hatchet man
Back then, presidential candidates didn't actively campaign. In fact, Adams and Jefferson spent much of the election season at their respective homes in Massachusetts and Virginia.
But the key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics. To Jefferson's credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election.
Jefferson paid a price for his dirty campaign tactics, though. Callendar served jail time for the slander he wrote about Adams, and when he emerged from prison in 1801, he felt Jefferson still owed him.
After Jefferson did little to appease him, Callendar broke a story in 1802 that had only been a rumor until then -- that the President was having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. In a series of articles, Callendar claimed that Jefferson had lived with Hemings in France and that she had given birth to five of his children.
The story plagued Jefferson for the rest of his career. And although generations of historians shrugged off the story as part of Callendar's propaganda, DNA testing in 1998 showed a link between Hemings' descendents and the Jefferson family.
Just as truth persists, however, so does friendship. Twelve years after the vicious election of 1800, Adams and Jefferson began writing letters to each other and became friends again. They remained pen pals for the rest of their lives and passed away on the same day, July 4, 1826. It was the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Mental Floss: The post-White House lives of presidents
John Quincy Adams gets slapped with elitism
John Adams lived long enough to see his son become president in 1825, but he died before John Quincy Adams lost the presidency to Andrew Jackson in 1828. Fortunately, that meant he didn't have to witness what many historians consider the nastiest contest in American history.
The slurs flew back and forth, with John Quincy Adams being labeled a pimp, and Andrew Jackson's wife getting called a slut.
As the election progressed, editorials in the American newspapers read more like bathroom graffiti than political commentary. One paper reported that "General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"
What got Americans so fired up? For one thing, many voters felt John Quincy Adams should never have been president in the first place. During the election of 1824, Jackson had won the popular vote but not the electoral vote, so the election was decided by the House of Representatives. Henry Clay, one of the other candidates running for president, threw his support behind Adams. To return the favor, Adams promptly made him secretary of state. Jackson's supporters labeled it "The Corrupt Bargain" and spent the next four years calling Adams a usurper. Mental Floss: 5 secrets left off the White House tour
Beyond getting the short end of the electoral stick, Andrew Jackson managed to connect with voters via his background -- which couldn't have been more different than Adams'.
By the time John Quincy was 15, he'd traveled extensively in Europe, mastered several languages, and worked as a translator in the court of Catherine the Great.
Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson had none of those privileges. By 15, he'd been kidnapped and beaten by British soldiers, orphaned, and left to fend for himself on the streets of South Carolina.
Adams was a Harvard-educated diplomat from a prominent New England family. Jackson was a humble war hero from the rural South who'd never learned to spell. He was the first presidential candidate in American history to really sell himself as a man of the people, and the people loved him for it.
Having been denied their candidate in 1824, the masses were up in arms for Jackson four years later. And though his lack of education and political experience terrified many Adams supporters, that argument didn't hold water for the throngs who lined up to cast their votes for "Old Hickory." Ever since Jackson's decisive victory, no presidential candidate has dared take a step toward the White House without first holding hands with the common man.
But losing the 1828 election may have been the best thing to happen to John Quincy Adams. After sulking home to Massachusetts, Adams pulled himself together and ran for Congress, launching an epic phase of his career.
During his 17 years in the House of Representatives, Adams became an abolitionist hero, championing legislation to open the debate on slavery. And in 1841, he famously put his money where his mouth was, when he defended the 39 African captives aboard the slave ship Amistad before the U.S. Supreme Court. At a time when all but two of the justices were pro-slavery, Adams won his human rights plea.
Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant,
Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward
Many historians say John Quincy Adams/Andrew Jackson contest the nastiest
By Kerwin Swint
Negative campaigning in America was sired by two lifelong friends, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his vice president.
Despite their bruising campaign, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams became friends again.
Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. See 8 great campaign slogans »
Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind." Mental Floss: Jefferson: The sensitive writer type
Jefferson hires a hatchet man
Back then, presidential candidates didn't actively campaign. In fact, Adams and Jefferson spent much of the election season at their respective homes in Massachusetts and Virginia.
But the key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics. To Jefferson's credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election.
Jefferson paid a price for his dirty campaign tactics, though. Callendar served jail time for the slander he wrote about Adams, and when he emerged from prison in 1801, he felt Jefferson still owed him.
After Jefferson did little to appease him, Callendar broke a story in 1802 that had only been a rumor until then -- that the President was having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. In a series of articles, Callendar claimed that Jefferson had lived with Hemings in France and that she had given birth to five of his children.
The story plagued Jefferson for the rest of his career. And although generations of historians shrugged off the story as part of Callendar's propaganda, DNA testing in 1998 showed a link between Hemings' descendents and the Jefferson family.
Just as truth persists, however, so does friendship. Twelve years after the vicious election of 1800, Adams and Jefferson began writing letters to each other and became friends again. They remained pen pals for the rest of their lives and passed away on the same day, July 4, 1826. It was the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Mental Floss: The post-White House lives of presidents
John Quincy Adams gets slapped with elitism
John Adams lived long enough to see his son become president in 1825, but he died before John Quincy Adams lost the presidency to Andrew Jackson in 1828. Fortunately, that meant he didn't have to witness what many historians consider the nastiest contest in American history.
The slurs flew back and forth, with John Quincy Adams being labeled a pimp, and Andrew Jackson's wife getting called a slut.
As the election progressed, editorials in the American newspapers read more like bathroom graffiti than political commentary. One paper reported that "General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"
What got Americans so fired up? For one thing, many voters felt John Quincy Adams should never have been president in the first place. During the election of 1824, Jackson had won the popular vote but not the electoral vote, so the election was decided by the House of Representatives. Henry Clay, one of the other candidates running for president, threw his support behind Adams. To return the favor, Adams promptly made him secretary of state. Jackson's supporters labeled it "The Corrupt Bargain" and spent the next four years calling Adams a usurper. Mental Floss: 5 secrets left off the White House tour
Beyond getting the short end of the electoral stick, Andrew Jackson managed to connect with voters via his background -- which couldn't have been more different than Adams'.
By the time John Quincy was 15, he'd traveled extensively in Europe, mastered several languages, and worked as a translator in the court of Catherine the Great.
Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson had none of those privileges. By 15, he'd been kidnapped and beaten by British soldiers, orphaned, and left to fend for himself on the streets of South Carolina.
Adams was a Harvard-educated diplomat from a prominent New England family. Jackson was a humble war hero from the rural South who'd never learned to spell. He was the first presidential candidate in American history to really sell himself as a man of the people, and the people loved him for it.
Having been denied their candidate in 1824, the masses were up in arms for Jackson four years later. And though his lack of education and political experience terrified many Adams supporters, that argument didn't hold water for the throngs who lined up to cast their votes for "Old Hickory." Ever since Jackson's decisive victory, no presidential candidate has dared take a step toward the White House without first holding hands with the common man.
But losing the 1828 election may have been the best thing to happen to John Quincy Adams. After sulking home to Massachusetts, Adams pulled himself together and ran for Congress, launching an epic phase of his career.
During his 17 years in the House of Representatives, Adams became an abolitionist hero, championing legislation to open the debate on slavery. And in 1841, he famously put his money where his mouth was, when he defended the 39 African captives aboard the slave ship Amistad before the U.S. Supreme Court. At a time when all but two of the justices were pro-slavery, Adams won his human rights plea.
Churches have right of free speech
By Pastor B.G. Stumberg - Your turn - 08/22/08
I was disappointed by your question of the week both because of its bias and because of its failure to capture the real issue at stake in Montana by the state’s “incidental political committee” laws.Churches and community groups should not be made political committees simply for speaking on an issue that is fundamental to the group’s faith and/or convictions. I speak regularly from the pulpit on the importance of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and encouraged my congregation to support our state’s marriage amendment in 2004 — the same amendment that has now been passed overwhelmingly in 27 states, “blue” and “red” alike and was passed here by a landslide. My church is not “anti-gay”— it’s pro-marriage as it has been defined from the beginning of time across every culture and religion. My church is anti-sin, whether that sin is homosexual or heterosexual. We’re against adultery just as we stand against homosexual acts.But the complaint that was filed against my church by an out-of-state professional political organizer was not about same-sex “marriage.” It is about an effort by special interest groups to squelch the free speech of community groups and churches in Montana. In the example of my church, it was aimed at squelching the free speech of conservative churches that spoke in favor of the marriage amendment. The same out-of-state professional political organizer that filed the complaint also organized the mass distribution of letters to hundreds of churches across the state threatening that if they supported the amendment, they’d have to become political committees and would put their tax exempt status at risk. The letters had their intended effect and many groups simply chose not to discuss the issue. That’s because the laws’ burdens are difficult for small churches like mine — especially considering that any failure to follow them to the T can result in a civil and criminal prosecution.Last time around the intimidation effort was against conservative community members like my church. Next time it might be against liberal community members. My opposition to these laws is the same in both instances. When important issues come up for a vote in Montana, they deserve robust discussion from diverse viewpoints. Requiring community groups to become political committees because they speak on a important social issues inhibits free speech, hurts democratic government, and violates the First Amendment.Ironically, the law exempts newspapers from any obligations to become a political committee for supporting a ballot issue. So when the IR writes editorials against the marriage amendment or any other ballot issue, it does not have to become a political committee or make any other report to the state. But if any other group or church did the same thing, it would have to register as a political committee. That fact has been lost in IR’s coverage of this case. So perhaps next week’s question of the week can be this: “Should newspapers like the IR be forced to become a political committee for running an editorial advocating defeat of a pro-marriage ballot issue, just like other community groups are required to?”My vote is that neither the IR nor any other community group should be penalized or subject to rigorous state burdens simply for voicing opinion on an important issue under debate in our state. Indeed, it’s what the First Amendment encourages and protects, regardless of whether the speech is considered liberal, conservative, “anti-gay” or “anti-marriage.” It’s disappointing that the IR would hide behind its own special exemption under the law, but fail to defend the exercise of the same constitutional rights by community groups like my church.
B.G. Stumberg is pastor at the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church in East Helena.
I was disappointed by your question of the week both because of its bias and because of its failure to capture the real issue at stake in Montana by the state’s “incidental political committee” laws.Churches and community groups should not be made political committees simply for speaking on an issue that is fundamental to the group’s faith and/or convictions. I speak regularly from the pulpit on the importance of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and encouraged my congregation to support our state’s marriage amendment in 2004 — the same amendment that has now been passed overwhelmingly in 27 states, “blue” and “red” alike and was passed here by a landslide. My church is not “anti-gay”— it’s pro-marriage as it has been defined from the beginning of time across every culture and religion. My church is anti-sin, whether that sin is homosexual or heterosexual. We’re against adultery just as we stand against homosexual acts.But the complaint that was filed against my church by an out-of-state professional political organizer was not about same-sex “marriage.” It is about an effort by special interest groups to squelch the free speech of community groups and churches in Montana. In the example of my church, it was aimed at squelching the free speech of conservative churches that spoke in favor of the marriage amendment. The same out-of-state professional political organizer that filed the complaint also organized the mass distribution of letters to hundreds of churches across the state threatening that if they supported the amendment, they’d have to become political committees and would put their tax exempt status at risk. The letters had their intended effect and many groups simply chose not to discuss the issue. That’s because the laws’ burdens are difficult for small churches like mine — especially considering that any failure to follow them to the T can result in a civil and criminal prosecution.Last time around the intimidation effort was against conservative community members like my church. Next time it might be against liberal community members. My opposition to these laws is the same in both instances. When important issues come up for a vote in Montana, they deserve robust discussion from diverse viewpoints. Requiring community groups to become political committees because they speak on a important social issues inhibits free speech, hurts democratic government, and violates the First Amendment.Ironically, the law exempts newspapers from any obligations to become a political committee for supporting a ballot issue. So when the IR writes editorials against the marriage amendment or any other ballot issue, it does not have to become a political committee or make any other report to the state. But if any other group or church did the same thing, it would have to register as a political committee. That fact has been lost in IR’s coverage of this case. So perhaps next week’s question of the week can be this: “Should newspapers like the IR be forced to become a political committee for running an editorial advocating defeat of a pro-marriage ballot issue, just like other community groups are required to?”My vote is that neither the IR nor any other community group should be penalized or subject to rigorous state burdens simply for voicing opinion on an important issue under debate in our state. Indeed, it’s what the First Amendment encourages and protects, regardless of whether the speech is considered liberal, conservative, “anti-gay” or “anti-marriage.” It’s disappointing that the IR would hide behind its own special exemption under the law, but fail to defend the exercise of the same constitutional rights by community groups like my church.
B.G. Stumberg is pastor at the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church in East Helena.
Aug 17, 2008
Paul threatens Robert
Robert,
Whether you score a 6 or a 60, without justification you have played the part of an antagonistic, caustic adversary. In other words, in the vernacular of our day, you are acting like an xxhole. We don’t need a test to prove that. The evidence is right here in our correspondence.
Yes, I did prophesy that God would require respect and humility from you. That is not an evil thing or remotely resembling a curse. On the contrary, it is a very good thing. You are the one who made it a “curse” about your tongue. What you are telling us is that you would rather lose your tongue than use it for wholesome purposes; you would have God remove it first. We say, “So be it.”
I did say, “Mark your calendar.” All that meant was to note the time when you determinedly set your face towards destruction. And, no, I did not expect you to do this, or to understand. I also prophesied that when all is said and done, which will not take long, you will know that you have been dealing with the Real Thing; God is with us.
I said it will not go well for you. It can’t, not with the way you conduct yourself. The law of reaping and sowing has not been repealed. That is the truth, which does not require a prophet to pronounce.
Furthermore, even before you spoke up about your challenge of a week to fulfill the curse you determined on yourself, I prayed to God that He would give you to ask of Him what you should have for a judgment. I had no way of knowing you would actually do such a thing. But there you were, the very next day, asking that God would silence your tongue, and giving Him a week deadline to do so.
He has not. So what are you to make of this? Obviously to you it is reason to celebrate and ridicule us all the more. No doubt you will do the same with this letter. But we ask you to publish it. We certainly will. We have nothing to hide or fear.
Here is what I see: God is longsuffering, which fools mistake for non-existence.
We will now see what He does, and, as I said before, it won’t be long. It will also be on record, whether at your site or ours or both, for all to see and to fear.
Paul
Whether you score a 6 or a 60, without justification you have played the part of an antagonistic, caustic adversary. In other words, in the vernacular of our day, you are acting like an xxhole. We don’t need a test to prove that. The evidence is right here in our correspondence.
Yes, I did prophesy that God would require respect and humility from you. That is not an evil thing or remotely resembling a curse. On the contrary, it is a very good thing. You are the one who made it a “curse” about your tongue. What you are telling us is that you would rather lose your tongue than use it for wholesome purposes; you would have God remove it first. We say, “So be it.”
I did say, “Mark your calendar.” All that meant was to note the time when you determinedly set your face towards destruction. And, no, I did not expect you to do this, or to understand. I also prophesied that when all is said and done, which will not take long, you will know that you have been dealing with the Real Thing; God is with us.
I said it will not go well for you. It can’t, not with the way you conduct yourself. The law of reaping and sowing has not been repealed. That is the truth, which does not require a prophet to pronounce.
Furthermore, even before you spoke up about your challenge of a week to fulfill the curse you determined on yourself, I prayed to God that He would give you to ask of Him what you should have for a judgment. I had no way of knowing you would actually do such a thing. But there you were, the very next day, asking that God would silence your tongue, and giving Him a week deadline to do so.
He has not. So what are you to make of this? Obviously to you it is reason to celebrate and ridicule us all the more. No doubt you will do the same with this letter. But we ask you to publish it. We certainly will. We have nothing to hide or fear.
Here is what I see: God is longsuffering, which fools mistake for non-existence.
We will now see what He does, and, as I said before, it won’t be long. It will also be on record, whether at your site or ours or both, for all to see and to fear.
Paul
More about Paul Cohen
I googled Paul, and boy, ......I don't know where to begin. He is not your regular fundy type. He is even more so. I found his or more like his cult's web site.
http://www.thepathoftruth.com/issuesoflife/index.htm
It seems another fellow named Victor and Paul spend all of their time slamming everyone and every other religion known to man. They go after the same people I dislike, go Paul!? ;}
A short list
Cameron, Kirk
Comfort, Ray
Fish, Darwin (I have one on my car)
Graham, Billy
Hinn, Benny
Lindsey, Hal
Uda, Joan (Our very own)
Warren, Rick
I agree with them except
They forgot 2 more false teachers, THEMSELVES!
I searched the site and could not make heads or tails of what the hell they mean and what they are.
S0, I found another site about them (critical) and the theory is, that they, Victor and Paul are so called present-day/latter day, self proclaimed, "apostles". Go figure
How nice
Oh, and by t he way they also want to sell you a Chi Machine. No Way? God and A Chi Machine! It's Heaven on Earth.
I can't go on, my ribs hurt from laughing so hard.
http://www.thepathoftruth.com/issuesoflife/index.htm
It seems another fellow named Victor and Paul spend all of their time slamming everyone and every other religion known to man. They go after the same people I dislike, go Paul!? ;}
A short list
Cameron, Kirk
Comfort, Ray
Fish, Darwin (I have one on my car)
Graham, Billy
Hinn, Benny
Lindsey, Hal
Uda, Joan (Our very own)
Warren, Rick
I agree with them except
They forgot 2 more false teachers, THEMSELVES!
I searched the site and could not make heads or tails of what the hell they mean and what they are.
S0, I found another site about them (critical) and the theory is, that they, Victor and Paul are so called present-day/latter day, self proclaimed, "apostles". Go figure
How nice
Oh, and by t he way they also want to sell you a Chi Machine. No Way? God and A Chi Machine! It's Heaven on Earth.
I can't go on, my ribs hurt from laughing so hard.
Objects to ‘Joy of Gay Sex’
I am tempted to go see who this Paul is Monday night. Years ago, he had called my house and left me a message on my answering machine. He called in response to my letter to the editor about Hell. I could tell he did not agree with it. I did call back, got his answering machine and did not leave a message. He did not get back to me.
He is obviously one of those relgious folk who intends on saving us from ourselves.
By Paul Cohen, 413 1/2 N. Beattie St. - 08/17/08
When I saw “The Joy of Gay Sex” on the Helena Public Library’s “New” bookshelf, I wondered, “What are they presenting to the children of our community?” It was worse than I expected. This book is full of explicit drawings of male homosexual acts of every kind imaginable.I submitted paperwork for removal. After review, four library professionals decided to keep this pornography on the shelves, approved by the library director. If I were to hand this same book to your child on the sidewalk outside the library, I would be arrested (as well I should be). These professionals, however, say: “It is our obligation to provide information to all segments of society. The library does not act in loco parentis and does not discriminate on the basis of age or sex.”That makes it our responsibility to present sane reasoning for the removal of this book (or any other like it) on behalf of those unwilling or unable. With the library absconding, the public must play the part of discriminatory, responsible parents. I will present on this matter at the public board meeting Monday, Aug. 25, at 5 p.m. at the Small Meeting Room at the library.
He is obviously one of those relgious folk who intends on saving us from ourselves.
By Paul Cohen, 413 1/2 N. Beattie St. - 08/17/08
When I saw “The Joy of Gay Sex” on the Helena Public Library’s “New” bookshelf, I wondered, “What are they presenting to the children of our community?” It was worse than I expected. This book is full of explicit drawings of male homosexual acts of every kind imaginable.I submitted paperwork for removal. After review, four library professionals decided to keep this pornography on the shelves, approved by the library director. If I were to hand this same book to your child on the sidewalk outside the library, I would be arrested (as well I should be). These professionals, however, say: “It is our obligation to provide information to all segments of society. The library does not act in loco parentis and does not discriminate on the basis of age or sex.”That makes it our responsibility to present sane reasoning for the removal of this book (or any other like it) on behalf of those unwilling or unable. With the library absconding, the public must play the part of discriminatory, responsible parents. I will present on this matter at the public board meeting Monday, Aug. 25, at 5 p.m. at the Small Meeting Room at the library.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
