Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Oppressers only satsisfaction is bullying and hate. The bullied of the would fight for liberty and the demise of tyranny. The reward for the evil lacks true satisfaction. Justice will prevail in the end.
I am sure that there are a lot of people who are just happy that President Obama decided to abandon his "evolving" opinion on the issue of gay marriage. People will remember his original words and realize that this is all politics and nothing more.
The President of the United States seems to be coming out with all kinds of excitment on how he really feels about things probably knowing that it doesn't matter since the election, if not properly done, is in the bag for him.
There are many of the evidence to prove the statement and i think that this all can be overcome by the proper management and good services,
Regards,
whiplash
That's exactly why--it is rrelevant, a non-issue. Most voters are more coincerned about the economy and jobs and serious issues. The economy is warming somewhat, and in any case the repubs have no plan to right the economy except to cut taxes. They really have no plans at all. So bring out some red herrings and deflect the attention of Americans to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other social issues.
Unfortunately marriage is of the state. I think Thom has said it appears in 30,000 laws across the country.
well said...
Maybe we could easily make the right happyif we went back t o marriage as a business strategy, melding two families to strengthen them in terms of politics, money, power. Or perhaps they'd like arranged marriages. The two (presumably one male and one female) candidates are chosen by their parents for mutual benefit (although not to the couple necessarily). In biblical times there were multiple marriages which apparently were acceptable to the ruling elite--who no doubt had a few families themselves.
In the United States, black slaves were forbidden from marrying. There was a "jump the broomstick" ritual, I think, but no governmental or formal agency was involved or cared. Of course, married or not, children or not, any slaveowner could sell off his slaves, break up the families, send them to distant places and the family members would almost never be able to get together again.
Or, here, from another website, if the rightwing really wants to return to the form of biblical marriage, many changes would have to be made. (from another website on marriage in biblical times): For one thing, the status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent. The main purpose of marriage was procreation and the perpetuation of a man's name. Every healthy person was expected to marry. Single men and women were despised. A man could have several wives and concubines. (Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) Divorce was not encouraged, but permitted if a man found some "uncleanness" in his wife. In such a case, he simply wrote her a bill of divorce and sent her out of his house. However, it was virtually impossible for a wife to divorce her husband.
Eventually, divorces were increasingly frowned upon, and there was a general trend toward monogamy. Another change concerned the man's obligatory marriage to his brother's widow. This kind of marriage was at times required and at other times prohibited. So much would depend on what chapter and verse of the bible you were reading to determine family obligation.
so much for seperation of church and state, huh?
uh...hmmm...gays, lesbians? i don't get it. the country is in the middle of a depression, the banksters are still making off with loot, there are 14,000,000 people unemployed and if I know 50 income tax cheaters , then there are really more important things the rebumblicans and demoquacks should be worrying about then then twinkies. leave them alone, stay out of my bedroom and stay out of my Va jj. get back to doing the work of the people and not the work of the theologists! God is scratching his head right now....
My wife and I support the recognition of same-sex marriage. At the bare minimum, we detest the discrimination and denial of human and civil rights LGBT couples receive. The following are some observations:
Folks who oppose “marriage” by same sex couples overwhelmingly argue/justify their positions in two ways.
1) They claim an edict proclaimed in scripture. I’m not sure exactly where such an exclusionary edict resides within the Bible. For argument’s sake, let’s say there are passages that can be interpreted or spun in a way that “supports” such a stand. Now, having hypothetically conceded that point, let’s take a step further for consistency’s sake. If those folks are willing to and at peace denying human and civil rights to others based on the Bible, are they also willing to and at peace denying others human and civil rights based on the Biblical sin of adultery and fornication? I would dare say that there are few of the anti-gay contingent who have adhered strictly to the concept of intercourse solely within the confines of marriage. The hypocrisy prevalent within the intolerance is the beast in the room that ate the formerly dominant elephant in a single bite.
2) They claim that any allowance of same-sex marriage undermines and devalues the sanctity of “marriage” itself. Clearly, there are many conventional man-woman marriages that are dysfunctional and unhealthy in any number of ways. Are those anti-gay marriage folks advocating that those guilty of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse within the “sanctity” of marriage should lose human and civil rights because of the damage they do to that same “sanctity?” Regardless of the composition of the marriage partners, each marriage has to be considered on its own merits and judged accordingly. The basis for any such “judgment” resides within considerations of how members of the family are treated and encouraged to develop and grow. Such growth includes social, spiritual, moral and physical aspects and is independent of the constituency or composition of the family itself. Many single parents are capable of excellent child rearing and family development; many married man-woman couples are incapable of the same. Each and every family unit has its own unique dynamics and issues; it is how those dynamics and issues are dealt with that determine the relative “sanctity” possessed.
How can / Why are we not talking about the TPP that is happening in Dallas right now, (May 8th-18th)?
9 Countries & 600 Corp's isn't news at any given level in this Country???
How about the G8 & NATO Summits that will be in Chicago, starting on May 18th?
Again, the G8, NATO Summit, this isn't news / talk worthy?
Thanks!
broca's area is located on the inferior, posterior frontal gyrus in the left hemisphere. wernicke's area is located in the superior posterior temporal gyrus on the left hemisphere. both speech related centers are in the left hemisphere. neither are in the parietal gyrus/lobe.
I think that we will win the battle. I think same sex marriages, women priests in the Catholic Church, priest getting married, and using contraceptives will be accepted in the future and people will look back and say how stupid it was to think that these were wrong. This has already happened with some many things in the past. I think the Republics are taken us backwards!
The fundamentalist pulpits of America will be screaming over the DOMA fight. I can hear them now, "Lesbians, gays, transvestites running to America from all over the world, promoting godless lifestyles. Protect our family structure as one man one women. That will protect us and unite against these godless hoards". They (the right)have an angle to exploit on every possible issue. What a sorry state of affairs these days.
It is disengenous when conservatives claim that Health Insurance companies are prevented from competing across state lines. I surveyed the top 20 companies in America and every single one of them operated in multiple states, and the majority operate in EVERY state. What the conservatives are really saying is that they want insurers to be able to pick the state with the most lax insurance regulations and have it regulate their activities in every state.
The future for progressives doesn't look good...
The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think
By Eric Kaufmann
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/may/why-the-future-will-be-more-rel...
On another note, it's a smart move by President Obama; to rally the disinchanted progressives who often see little difference in policy between Obama & Bush. The Fundamentalist Christians and Conservatives will not vote Democratic regardless, so he need not be concerned with them.
How can it alienate Independents when nearly 60% of Independents favor marriage equality?
This isn't our war ...it's a continuation the conservatives never ending failed war on drugs they've been waging for the last 50 something years! You see, radical Evangelical extremist believe that voice in their head telling them that the whole society needs to be purified is GOD talking to them... and the only way to do that they believe is to WIPE OUT DRUGS, ,,and most of the world's poppy fields are guess where...That's right, in Afghanistan. Combine the fact THE WAR WILL NEVER BE OVER with how much money the defense industry makes off it and I guarantee you, it will never end.
Obama supports gay marriage?! So what.
I mean, really, and what is he going to do about it? Let excuses surround his failure to do anythingt?!
Not impressed. It is just a campaign marketing ploy.
the way this Obama care is set up,650-987 dumps in collusion with the health Scare shelter companies,642-832 dumps we could real cured be discriminated against, not on the fundamental.
If the pieces of red sole shoes shoes have been not sensible enough, there are timely provides and discounts extended with the internet website with regards to cheap louboutin to stimulate them in pampering on their own and empowering them to purchase a red bottom heels thing that could have otherwise been regarded as unattainable. These Christian louboutin red bottom shoes have enough traditional louboutin sale, and therefore are definitely indistinguishable using the genuine red bottom sale. This are produced with specific treatment and artistic craftsmanship. The Christian louboutin have an ultra-sexy look, and consequently are one of one of the most excellent types to place on with fancy attires at parties. These red-colored Bottom shoes purchase are in stilettos and help your legs visual appeal longer, and as this type of much more ravishing. The traditional red-colored soles include a zing of one’s vitality for the steps.http://www.cheapredsoleshoessale.com/
LET'S HELP HOMOPHOBES UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE--AND WHAT JUSTICE REQUIRES
Gays should be welcomed in church and society without prejudice.
I have information to help those with family members and friends (or, as Thom says, "a crazy brother-in-law") who believe the Bible condemns all gays.
First, I commend to everyone the following book:
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak (available online at Alibris Books; used, as low as 99 cents plus shipping).
While a summary cannot do justice to the controversial passages in scripture, here's some food for thought while you seek more in-depth information:
Taken out of context and read literally, the Bible appears to condemn gays or oppose all gay sex in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and in two other New Testament books.
The passage in Genesis 19 regarding Sodom does not refer to the relationships of gays. It refers to gang rape--which deserves condemnation whether committed by gays or straights.
Moreover, the prophet Ezekiel (16:49) declares: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." The latter is a reference to the ironclad duty of hospitality--required of every household in ancient Mesopotamia so traders and "strangers" (foreigners) could travel in safety. Jesus stated the sin of Sodom when sending out the 72 occurred "when you enter a town and are not welcomed" (inhospitality; see Luke 10:10-12). Jesus is not recorded saying anything about homosexuality.
In Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13), as discussed on today's show, "lying with a man as a woman" is called an abomination--and the latter verse condemns male gays to death (it says nothing about lesbians: so should gay males be stoned and lesbians ignored?)
These are purity laws, part of the Holiness Code, which no Christian follows today. Nor should we. Paul says we are discharged from the law (Romans 7:6; see 10:4). Jesus calls for an ethic of love: love of God and love of neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40). Jesus makes clear that everyone--even Israel's detested enemy--is a neighbor we are to love in word and deed (see "the Good Samaritan," Luke 10:25-37).
Leviticus 20 prescribes death for idolatry and various sexual offenses as well as killing a child for cursing his father or mother. Can we pick and choose which scriptures offend us? Can we ignore other verses that, if followed, would sentence perhaps a million Americans to death--including family or friends, or even us? Doesn't selectivity indicate prejudice rather than the search for Biblical truth?
(Also, these Old Testament passages are based on the ancient view that life resides in the male's seed. So "spilled seed" was considered an abomination, and a wife's adultery required stoning because she is the 'garden' owned by the husband for planting his seed. By contrast, a husband could have sex with concubines, prostitutes and other single women without violating his wife; as indicated above, however, if he has sex with the man's wife, he violates the husband.)
There is much ambiguity and uncertainty regarding Romans 1 (verses 26 and 27) which are often read as referring to all homosexual acts. What were the "shameless acts" Paul refers to? The context appears to be that heterosexuals were committing sexual acts which went against their own nature. This was true of both male and female "sacred prostitutes" who, in the ancient Greek cities in which Paul traveled, were committing idolatry in pagan temples. The context simply does not warrant condemning all gay sex acts, including those between partners in a long-term relationship.
Many scholars suggest other New Testament passages [I Corinthians (6:9); Timothy (1:10)] refer to sexual slavery, exploitative sex, adultery and/or idolatry. The Biblical terms in the original Greek contradict traditional interpretations while frequently supporting these views. For example, "arsenokoitai" (Greek transliteration) is mistranslated as "homosexual" in some versions of the Bible, but these translations are mistaken: As Boswell concludes from an extensive analysis of ancient Greek literature, arsenokoitai in this context most likely refers to male prostitutes, either homosexual or heterosexual. Likewise, malakoi, frequently refers to heterosexuals in ancient Greek literature--not exclusively to homosexuals--and is often translated "adulterers." (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, pp. 106-109).
This barely scratches the surface. To understand "what the Bible really says about homosexuality," pick up Daniel Helminiak's book with this title.
For a personal narrative, Mel White's, Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America is a classic (also currently available, used, online at Alibris for 99 cents plus shipping). The Library Journal's review states: "This is the account of a deeply religious man's coming to terms with his gayness and the impact that process had on his life. A former ghostwriter for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and other religious-right personalities, White offers a compelling story; gay readers raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment will find themselves saying, 'That happened to me.'"
My suggestion when talking with a person who staunchly believes the Bible condemns homosexuality: Your best point of agreement is that you both want to know the truth about the Bible. Focus on this as you discuss (not argue about) how each scripture is best understood. Listen as long as you speak. When the time seems right, you might share one of these books.
Blessings,
Harry
--
Reverend Harry Rix, Publisher, www.OccupyLabor.org (launched May 1) and www.OccupySpirituality.org (transferring host; online again later this week)
I don't think Obama will have a choice. The American people have spoken. I see our military returning from all over the world, swords to plowshares. The same happening in every other country in the world. I have a vision of the complete dematerialization of all weapons on Mother Earth and the beginning of 1000 years of abundance, peace, love, prosperity & joy.
Coulove
The American People never bought into the war; so it really doesn't matter what "they" think. it's not their war.
If as I always thought, it was: (1) for the Caspian Oil & Gas (pipeline) and transhipment route, and (2) a place for squandering military resources (men and materiel) -- ie war-without-end, war-profits-without-end, and (3) keeping militant Islamic freedom-fighters (and fanatics) disrupted and away from Pakistan'e nuclear materiel -- then we will leave; but we'll still be there long into the future.
The People have nothing to do with the quagmire that the Cheany-Bush gang got us into. And, President Obama has nothing to do with the reality of it either.
What infuriates me is that NOONE, has even suggested holding the previous US regime responsible for these untenable, unendable wars. And now they have a 50-50% chance of returning to power. Boggles the mind. I saw it happening; was no one else watching?
Not unlike little toddlers : I wanna go in, I wanna go in! ..... Boohoo, I wanna go out -- Boohoohoo!
Exactly the same attitude that made us loose the House in 2010. I hate that attitude. Never again invade anywhere!