<div>Joe et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your comment reminds me of US General William Boykin's disturbing statements regarding God:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm</a><br> </div>
<div>Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." </div>
<p>"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.
<div>On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."</div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/18/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Joe Campbell</b> <<a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">joekc@adelphia.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>There is something about the use of religion for political purpose -- in your<br>case, polluting conversations on Vision 2020 and peppering your rude,<br>
insulting remarks with the word "Christian" -- that makes me sick.<br><br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br><br>---- Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>=============<br>Joe,<br><br>My Joedus remark was made because you were supporting an argument made to denounce the existence of God. That to me is unchristian.<br><br>I think everyone deserves death Joe. As everyone is a sinner. But only through the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus do we live.<br>
<br>If that is a radical view, then Christians are radical.<br><br>Best Regards,<br><br>Donovan<br><br>Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">joekc@adelphia.net</a>> wrote:<br>I guess I don't understand why you wrote this then: "I chose Joedus because<br>
it was fitting for the role he takes on making traitorous statements and<br>misleading others about Christ while pretending to be a Christian."<br><br>I assumed that, according to you, I was not a Christian because I was pro-<br>
choice. But, according to what you say below, this could not have been what<br>you meant. Could you please explain what you meant by this offensive<br>comment? In what sense am I "pretending to be a Christian"?<br>
<br>Also, your new stance sounds very different from the initial response to this<br>set of questions, when you wrote:<br><br>"It depends on if they are speaking in religious figurative terms; For example,<br>all sinners deserve death, or if they really are advocating the murder of self<br>
professed homosexuals. Obviously, anyone that is advocating the actual<br>murder of someone is not mentally balanced. Someone that says, 'Sinners<br>deserve death' to illustrate none of us that offend God deserve life, I think is<br>
just illustrating a religious/spiritual viewpoint."<br><br>Again, this was in response to my question "Don't you think that someone<br>who believes [that gays deserve the death penalty] is a sick individual?"<br>
<br>Actually, I don't exactly know what you mean above, especially given what<br>you've said recently. It seems like you are saying that all gays are sinners<br>and deserve death because they are sinners. This seems like a very radical<br>
view. Below, though, you take a much more liberal view of those who have<br>abortions. In this case, it can't be a sin since there is no deliberate taking<br>of a life. Is this really your view?<br><br>And what do you mean by "religious figurative terms"?<br>
<br>Your view that the death penalty is wrong seems new, too. I remember<br>having a heated debate with you on this topic and you didn't mention it then.<br><br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br><br>---- Donovan Arnold wrote:<br>
<br>=============<br>Joe,<br><br>I think the Death Penalty is wrong. But I understand it is still necessary in some instances. I think as a society we should work to eliminate it from being necessary. I don't think that people that support abortion are necessarily anti-Christian or murderers. I think to be a murderer you have to deliberately take an innocent human life with a soul. Since nobody can know with evidence that a fetus has a soul, it cannot be deliberate talking of a life. But it is still wrong. And we as a society should work to eliminate it by giving women real alternatives to abortion. Society allows women to fall easily into unwanted pregnancies, they only allows them three painful alternatives of adoption, abortion or poverty.<br>
<br>I don't know what Gier is babbling about. I never do, he just jumps around from issue to issue demonstrating his lack of understanding and grip of what it is like to live in the real world outside a University. But just so your conspiracy theories don't expand any further, no, I don't support suicide either, even those of people I disagree with. :P<br>
<br>Best Regards,<br><br>Donovan<br><br><br><br>Joe Campbell wrote:<br>Dear Donovan,<br><br>At first when I read this, I thought that you still failed to answer the question.<br><br>But then I realized that you are Catholic, and here you are saying that any<br>
form of the death penalty is murder, right?<br><br>So now I ask, Why not call out those in favor of the death penalty in the same<br>way that you call out folks like me who are pro-choice (even though I am<br>both against abortion and against the death-penalty, for reasons like you,<br>
I suppose)? Why not call them murderers, and anti-Christian?<br><br>Well, I know the answer to that! Let's put it this way: I dare you to say that<br>anyone who accepts the death-penalty is anti-Christian. You won't do it!<br>
<br>There are complicated issues here and you oversimplify them to your political<br>advantage. Shame on you!<br><br>Best, Joe<br><br>PS Did you really say that I was a coward because I won't kill myself, as Nick<br>notes? If so, I missed it but, dear God, I hope you didn't say that!<br>
<br>---- Donovan Arnold wrote:<br><br>=============<br>Joe,<br><br>Ok, I will entertain your conspiracy theory.<br><br>I think anyone that attempts to kill, or tries to persuade someone to commit murder, for any reason, is mentally unstable, yes.<br>
<br>Best Regards,<br><br>Donovan<br><br>Joe Campbell wrote:<br>I know that few people care about this -- to those please delete! -- but I want<br>to come back to "Donovan's" intentional confusion here. The answer to the<br>
third question given below is not an answer to the question that I asked. It is<br>an explanation of why someone who thinks that sinners deserve death is not<br>a sick individual. But I didn't ask that. I might have but I didn't.<br>
<br>What I asked Donovan to explain is whether or not someone who thinks that<br>the specific sin of gay sex warrants the death penalty is a sick individual.<br><br>Suppose someone -- call him "Chris" -- thinks that anyone who engages in<br>
gay sex deserves to be put to death as a form of punishment. Wouldn't Chris,<br>in your opinion, Donovan, be a sick individual?<br><br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br><br>---- Donovan Arnold wrote:<br><br>=============<br>Do you think that gays deserve the death penalty?<br>
<br>Don't you think that this is a sick and crazy view?<br><br>Don't you think that someone who believes this is a sick individual?<br><br><br>Nope, not anymore than anyone else.<br><br>Nope, it isn't a crazy view, or should I say it is not a crazy view.<br>
<br>It depends on if they are speaking in religious figurative terms; For example, all sinners deserve death, or if they really are advocating the murder of self professed homosexuals. Obviously, anyone that is advocating the actual murder of someone is not mentally balanced. Someone that says, "Sinners deserve death" to illustrate none of us that offend God deserve life, I think is just illustrating a religious/spiritual viewpoint.<br>
<br>Best Regards,<br><br>Donovan<br><br>Joe Campbell wrote:<br>Do you think that gays deserve the death penalty?<br><br>Don't you think that this is a sick and crazy view?<br><br>Don't you think that someone who believes this is a sick individual?<br>
<br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br><br>---- Donovan Arnold wrote:<br><br>=============<br>Joe,<br><br>Stay away from the Kool-Aid.<br><br>Best Regards,<br><br>Donovan<br><br>Joe Campbell wrote:<br>Notice the lengthy pause after a day of rapid fire responses.<br>
<br>They're trying to figure out what to say. Will it be:<br><br>a. "Joe [the logician] is illogical."<br><br>b. "Joe's been eating backed goods."<br><br>c. "I suppose Joe wants to punch me in the nose now."<br>
<br>d. "We don't have to believe you since you, Joe, are not a Christian.<br>At least not in my [narrow] book"<br><br>Or:<br><br>e. "Look, I already told you that I sin every day!"<br><br>Please cast your votes!<br>
<br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br><br>---- Tom Hansen wrote:<br><br>=============<br>No problem, Joe. As they say in New York . . . Fuhgeddaboutit. I have. Besides, you have very nicely "outed" the Arnold-wannabe. Still the question remains: Who is playing Arnold today? Tom<br>
<br>> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:36:51 -0700> From: <a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">joekc@adelphia.net</a>> To: <a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">joekc@adelphia.net</a>> CC: <a href="mailto:idahotom@hotmail.com">idahotom@hotmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:vision2020@mail-gw.fsr.net">vision2020@mail-gw.fsr.net</a>; <a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Interfaith Panel Thurs. May 15> > I hope it is clear that I intended this as a joke! This is Aristotle's > understanding of "syllogism" but most folks (outside of logicians) in the > modern world take "syllogism" to mean "argument." Given standard > contemporary usage, Tom was correct!> > --> Joe Campbell> > ---- Joe Campbell wrote: > > =============> Sorry, Tom.> > A syllogism is a two-premise argument. The argument below has only one > premise, so it is not a syllogism.> > That concludes today's logic lesson!> > --> Joe Campbell> > ---- Tom Hansen wrote: > > =============> Exactly, Andreas.> > Analogous to Arnold's (aka Doudalchri Wilcourwit) logic is the following syllogism> > One guaranteed way to reduce the number of criminals to ABSOLUTE ZERO is to eliminate ALL laws.> ><br>
No laws. No crimes.> No crimes. No criminals.> > Result: A total crime-free society. Just don't go outside.> > Seeya round town, Moscow.> > Tom Hansen> Moscow, Idaho> > > > > Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:28:38 -0700> From: <a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>> To: <a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@mail-gw.fsr.net">vision2020@mail-gw.fsr.net</a>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Interfaith Panel Thurs. May 15> > Donovan --> > Wait. You're saying that discrimination exists because we refuse to ignore it?> > Sure. Okay.> > -- ACS> > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Donovan Arnold> wrote:> > Mo,> >> > I agree that discrimination still exists. But I think the reason why the US,> > unlike other western nations, has not moved past these hang ups is precisely> > because of the tactics used to try and end it.> >> > When we tell people they are wrong or should feel guilty because they are> > White, heterosexual, christian, non-disabled, male, etc, you quickly turn> > off the majority of people you are trying to convert.> >> > If we<br>
just hire, fire, include people based on merit, we would end> > discrimination quickly.> >> > Best Regards,> >> > Donovan> >> > Mo Hendrickson !> wrote:> >> > It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately in our society, racism, sexism,> > classism, religious choice, sexual orientation, gender preference,> > disability, on and on and on, are still factors in discrimination. We do> > not live in a color blind/gender blind etc society and until we do we need> > to make sure that people from under represented groups are at the table and> > part of the conversation, even if we may not agree with what they are> > saying. It is important that we realize the inherent worth in all people> > for what they have to contribute to the betterment of our nation and world.> >> > I believe that Sue's original point was that this is a community event and> > at her first glance she did not see a woman on the panel. An event that is> > trying to reach beyond faith lines should have a diverse panel.<br>
I am very> > glad to see that it does, and I would imagine that there is plenty of> > diversity on the panel beyond t!> he gender and race of those that are> > represented. We all should be > trying to make spaces for diversity to enter> > into the conversation so that one day we won't need to rely on those> > categories.> >> >> > -Mo> >> > </blockquote>
</div></p>