Arkansas Blog

"So tell me again why a lottery for college scholarships is vital?" - Max

Two posts later, Max says that "Bloviating Baptists" believe "lotteries aren't Christian either."

Please tell me your first post was "playing devil's advocate".........or are you with the Bloviators on this one?

ARK. BLOG: I voted against the lottery, but not on account of scriptural reading.

Great article on Alternet today. It's by George Monbiot, and is entitled "The Triumph of Ignorance: How Morons Succeed in U.S. Politics" (www.alternet.org/story/105447/the_triumph_of_ignorance%3A_how_morons_succeed_in_u.s._politics).

An excerpt:

"The Southern Baptist Convention, now the biggest Protestant denomination in the United States, was to slavery and segregation what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in South Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the South stupid."

I would do the blue-click link thing, but don't know how.

The only positive I've ever discovered about organized religion, particularly the protestant christian variety, is that for at least an hour a week we know where the most fervent believers are.

It's pushing it a little to say that Obama attended a Christian church. Obama attended a very radical church that taught things like hate for whites and hate for the country. Apparently Oprah was so uncomfortable with the church that she quit attending very quickly, whereas, the chosen One attended for 18 years. Obama is a strong supporter of abortion on demand with no restrictions. In the Illinois legislator he was so concerned with protecting the right to late term abortion that he opposed providing any legal rights to a fetus in a botched abortion. Obama even said that he wanted abortion to be legal with no restrictions so that his own daughters would not have to be burdened with a baby. It's really no surprise that churches would support a candidate who has consistently supported life when the alternative sees nothing wrong with carving up millions of babies a year for birth control. Obama sees nothing wrong with 1.2 million babies being slaughtered per year.

With Obama's great resources he doesn't seem to do much to take care of his poor relatives. If you don't care for your own relatives, and you wouldn't mind the slaughter of your own grandchild you really don't have much character.

While neither candidate is ideal, John McCain has more character in his pinky than the slithering Obama has in his whole body.

I was just noticing that about McCain's pinky on TV this morning. Shame some of that hasn't spread to his brain.
He's a character, alright.

Roy, your post brings to mind one of my favorite scenes in "The Simpsons Movie". As the leagues of government helicopters lower the giant dome over Springfield, suddenly and simultaneously all the people in the church and in the bar a block away run out of their buildings screaming. All of the church patrons run into the bar, and all the bar patrons run into the church.

Severus, what you know about Rev. Wright's Church is what you've seen looped on Fox over and over. Your church would likely seem radical to some of those congregants, as their church seems radical to you.

Obama's poor relatives...really, man, change the channel sometime.

I once had a lot of respect for McCain, despite his voting record. He lost all my respect when he (1) began lying about on the campaign, just to peddle fear, and (2) when he picked Sarah Palin--clearly not-ready-for-prime-time--as his running mate.

Severus, it's pushing it a little to say your post contains facts. FactCheck.org disproves what you declare as fact.

May I say it has been a great pleasure to take part in this election -- in particular, to watch Senator Obama ignore that toxic-filled hate we can all taste, see and smell when it creeps in and tries to shout down the truth.

Roy, your post brings to mind one of my favorite scenes in "The Simpsons Movie". As the leagues of government helicopters lower the giant dome over Springfield, suddenly and simultaneously all the people in the church and in the bar a block away run out of their buildings screaming. All of the church patrons run into the bar, and all the bar patrons run into the church.

Severus, what you know about Rev. Wright's Church is what you've seen looped on Fox over and over. Your church would likely seem radical to some of those congregants, as their church seems radical to you.

Obama's poor relatives...really, man, change the channel sometime.

I once had a lot of respect for McCain, despite his voting record. He lost all my respect when he (1) began lying about on the campaign, just to peddle fear, and (2) when he picked Sarah Palin--clearly not-ready-for-prime-time--as his running mate.

...(1) began lying about *Obama* on the campaign.

Christian principles? How about sharing the wealth?

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." Luke 12:48.

Max, and anyone else who cares to read:

It surely is not news to anyone who knows anything about Baptists in general and southern Baptists (especially Southern Baptists) in particular that the "official" position is socially conservative.

Historically, this group has preached and taught against the everyday social sins: drinking, dancing, gambling, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, divorce, etc., and has been a staunch proponent of the Ten Commandments.

Granted, many of the general membership have not gone along with the "official line," but the pastors and other officials have not been criticized or censured for proclaiming the expected positions.

So it cannot possibly be news that Baptists in Arkansas would "officially" oppose a lottery. Baptists in Arkansas have never "officially" accepted, let alone approved, the race track in Hot Springs or the dog track in West Memphis.

Some people have taken cheap shots at First Baptist Church in Hot Springs for building right across the street from the race track. But most don't know, or care, that FBC HS has a ministry to the back-track people during racing season. So, while not approving of gambling or the race track operation in general, they find ways to minister to the needs of those who work there during the season. Pretty hypocritical isn't it--ministering to the needs of humans engaged in an occupation of which you don't approve in the spirit of Christian love?! Next thing you know, they'll be building churches in Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

Unfortunately, Initiated Act 1 was promulgated by a group opposed to same-gender sexual relationships and probably most Baptists will support it despite its harm to children. Most will view a vote against it simply as another vote for the "gay agenda."

And as for voting for Senator Obama, if you have any question about the predominance of the anti-abortion sentiment among Arkansas Baptists, just check the last two issues of "Arkansas Baptist News" (you may need to check back four or five issues to get to the beginning of the flap).

A large number of Baptists is more concerned with a zygote than with the billions of people already living on this planet or the millions here in the United States. Another poster on another thread has already enumerated several of the unmet needs of many of these people, so I will not repeat the enumeration but just mention that they involve food, safety, health care, education, and general welfare.

You may not agree with Baptists--and many people don't, but their "official" positions should not surprise you and they certainly aren't "news."

So, while not approving of gambling or the race track operation in general, they find ways to minister to the needs of those who work there during the season. Pretty hypocritical isn't it--ministering to the needs of humans engaged in an occupation of which you don't approve in the spirit of Christian love?!<<

Follow the money. It flows pretty freely during racing season.

.

Severus, you had me confused for a moment.

When you started talking about someone attending a very radical church that promotes hate and is only marginally Christian, I thought you were talking about Sarah Palin.

I now see it was Obama you meant.

SkyPilot, I appreciate the distinctions you're trying to make about Southern Baptists. I'm frustrated by some of the generalizations myself.

Still, here's my take as a former Southern Baptist, for what it's worth. The "official" positions didn't ever mean a lot to most of the Baptists among whom I grew up. Being told, for instance, to refrain from drinking resulted in shoulder shrugs.

At best, my parents would go to the liquor store's drive-in window wearing sunglasses (several times a week, you understand). At worst, they'd boldly walk in before God and everyone. Unlike Methodists, though, they wouldn't say hello to fellow church members in the liquor store.

Re: abortion, I never once heard a single word about that issue in all my years of growing up. To me, it seemed Southern Baptists only discovered it when they discovered they were Republicans. That is, they discovered it when the Republican party found it was a useful wedge issue to inflame frightened right-leaning white Christian men in the heartland who have sensed for some years that the world was getting out of their control, or a control they always imagined they have.

Now, you have the ludicrous spectacle of evangelicals who don't truly want to buy into the rigid sexual ethics of the Catholic church spouting rhetoric about how all human life begins at conception--as if that's some kind of revelation. And spouting that rhetoric (just like Catholics) without thinking about how saying life begins at conception is something different from saying a human person is present from the moment of conception.

The problem seems to me to be the extent to which some evangelical churches--Southern Baptists perhaps chief among them--AND the Catholic church have bought lock, stock, and barrel into the Republican party. Or vice versa: they've allowed the Republican party to buy them.

And the results aren't pretty. And they're getting less pretty every day that this election cycle goes by.

Sliverback: Your admonition to share the wealth may be aimed at the Christians of the Righteous Right who've been suckered into the Republican camp, but sharing the wealth is what the "real" Christians have been all about ever since the First Century. And it has been the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention ever since 1845.

Granted, the Southern Baptist Convention was born out of a controversy over slavery, with Southern Baptists on "the wrong side"--much to our present shame and regret. But we can't unring that bell and there's no point in banging us over the head for the sins of our grandfathers. One of my great grandfathers fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War, but that doesn't mean that I approve of slavery or racial discrimination. So let's let that lie and get back to "sharing the wealth."

Baptists preach tithing, contributing 10% of personal income--BEFORE TAXES--through the local church. A percentage is sent to assist with associational missions, and a percentage is sent to assist state missions (including education and health care, children's homes, etc.), and a percentage of that is sent on to support the entire ministry of the Southern Baptist Convention, including its educational efforts and its missions ministries both in the United States and abroad.

In addition there are three special missions offerings each year, one for state, one for North American, and one for International. All this money is "given away." And the totals are in the millions.

On top of (or maybe even underneath) that, local churches maintain food pantries and clothing closets for those in need, as well as maintaining a benevolent fund for those who need help with medicine, utility bills, and similar emergencies that come along. And individual church members volunteer thousands of hours each year in local social and humanitarian efforts--hospital volunteers, shelters for the homeless or abused women, thrift shops, etc., etc., etc.

So please don't lump ALL Christians in with the Righteous Right who get all up-tight about a fetus but don't give a !#$%^& about the baby after it is born!

And please tell me when you've seen the beer distributors and liquor stores mount a campaign to provide for the homeless or when have the gambling houses set up thrift shops for the poverty stricken? And when have Atheists United established a hospital, a children's home, a college, a pregnancy center, or a shelter for abused spouses? In fact, when have the atheists, the gamblers, and the liquor industry EVER done anything for people in need, many of whom were in greater need because of drinking and gambling? When have they done anything more than snipe and criticize and denigrate and belittle the humanitarian efforts of Christians and Jews?

Are Christians perfect? !#$%^ no! We're just sinners saved by grace.

Are Christians better than anyone else. !#$%^ no. We're just beggars telling other beggars where we found bread.

We get a bad name when we try to tell people where to get bread when those people don't want to hear where the bread is--or they're not hungry.

Don't bad-mouth someone who tries to warn you that the building is on fire and you need to run for your life. If you don't believe in fire, just stay in the building. You don't have to shoot the messenger.

So I'm here to tell you that the Christians (in general) HAVE BEEN SHARING THE WEALTH, ever since the First Century. One of the earliest manifestations of this was when the Gentile churches received a big offering and sent it by Paul up to Jerusalem to aid the believers who were starving!

But atheists put no stock in that, because they've concluded that the entire Bible is nothing but a collection of myths and lies. And if you can't trust an atheist, who can you trust?

And yes, I know the difference between "who" and "whom."

P.S.: Reference to "Arkansas Baptist News" is specifically to Letters to Editor.

Some reader (writer) has been getting his knuckles rapped pretty severely for a couple of weeks for his objection to "single-issue voting."

Elwood: "Follow the money."

Pretty cynical, even for an atheist.

Do you suppose those back-track people are rolling in wealth the way the top-echelon is?

And do you suppose that a lot of the top echelon cross Central Avenue to enrichen the coffers of FBC?

Incidentally, not much has been said about FBC's establishment of the Christian Charitable Medical Clinic in Hot Springs.

But then, I don't expect any atheist to say anything good about any Christian or any church, any more than I expect any Republican to say anything good about a Democrat.

The Nazis didn't speak very highly of the United States during World War II either.

SkyPilot- you were doing okay until you wrote: "In fact, when have the atheists ... EVER done anything for people in need". I have a number of both atheist and agnostic friends who are the most generous givers I know. They give not only their money but also their time, something far more valuable in my humble opinion. In fact I think you will find more 'bleeding-heart liberals' who fit that mold than not.

Now, those folks don't have the same resources as the churches who extract 10% in 'taxes' from the faithful that they then have to give away or spend on lavish buildings, sweet deals for preachers, etc. Gosh, if I had hundreds or thousands of folks all giving me 10% of their earnings before taxes and I then got to give all that money away, I'd look like one very generous guy, wouldn't I? But I don't, so my giving is limited to my resources and what I think I can spare and not join the homeless or folks on the food line. Do some churches truly walk the walk? Of course. Do a number of other churches stray quite a distance from WWJD? You betcha (to coin a Palinism).

I've learned that making statements of either support or criticism toward whole groups or classes of people almost always gets me in trouble. Not to say I never make that mistake, just that I pay a price in guilt or sheepishness later when I'm forced to reconsider.

I'm not trying to be too hard on your post except for your statement that atheists don't help people in need. Frankly, that statement was either made without thinking or without knowing of what you speak. And that is not consistent with your past posts which are typically thoughtful and not casting stones without first looking where they might land. 'Nuff said.

"And yes, I know the difference between "who" and "whom."--skypilot

You know...I HATE THOSE TWO WORDS. I don't care how many times I've set my mind to mastering them...it either doesn't stick or I lose brain cells every time I sleep. (Thanks for the opportunity to vent, skypilot.) I generally take the easy way out and change the sentence.

My in-laws are DEVOUT old-time Southern Baptists who are in church every time the doors are open and tithe 10 percent+ faithfully. Great Christian folk until you mention gay folk...but that's another story. They almost always vote Republican but they hate (politically) Monkeyboy; and they HATED their preacher telling them who 'Christians' should vote for. (Who or whom, skypilot???)

Sound Policy:

That's the trouble with generalities and generalizations. I get into as much trouble when I do it as others do when they do.

I was speaking of atheists "as a group" or "in the whole," and, of course, I have no statistical evidence to document my generalization.

And, obviously, the big difference is that churches are organized and atheists are not. Yes, of course. So atheists AS A GROUP are not as well prepared to do things in concert as the Christians.

And I can testify that on one specific occasion, two atheist friends treated me MUCH BETTER than some of my church "friends" did during a period of controversy. So I readily recognize that there are kind-hearted, generous, compassionate atheists. And there are some who are civic minded.

But IN GENERAL, how many atheists make it a practice to donate 10% of their income to charity, or any worthy community enterprise?

And why is it that most of the volunteers we find at hospitals, food kitchens, homeless shelters, the thrift shops operated for the benefit of shelters for abused women, etc., etc., etc. are people from the local churches?

Some people take great delight in knocking the Christians and the churches for their perceived abuses but we don't find them organizing to match the good things that the Christians and churches are doing. In other words, it's a lot easier simply to criticize than it is to make efforts to match the good things that believers are doing.

Who got the idea for Habitat for Humanity? Who gave his life's effort to getting that movement going and keeping it going? It was a Christian. And you may or may not know that most of the volunteers are recruited in churches. And that churches make designated contributions to build houses for "others."

They're spreading the wealth around. And they're doing something for someone who doesn't have as much as they do. And they're certainly not building houses for themselves. And to the best of my knowledge there is no "religious test" for recipients. Atheists are as likely to benefit as anyone else.

So, my apologies for over-generalizing, but I think you can see where I was coming from.

Zelda: "Who" "Whom."

This may not work for you every time, but it will most of the time; the other times you can simply re-word the sentence.

Example: "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

If you can easily distinguish between "he" and "him" in common usage, you can handle "who" and "whom" in most cases.

Turn the sentence around: "I shall send him." Would you say, "I shall send he"?

If you would say, "I shall send him," then you would ask, "Whom shall I send?"

And turn the other sentence around: "He will go for us." Would you say, "Him will go for us"?

If you would say, "He will go for us," then you would say, "Who will go for us?"

But how to remember? "Whom" and "him" end with an "m." So, if you would say "him," you would say "whom." If you would say "he," you would say "who."

Try it. You'll like it.

No charge for this lesson.

Sky- "They're spreading the wealth around." As defined by McCain/Palin, that would make them socialists, right? Wrong. Candidates should be required by law to at a minimum look up and read dictionary definitions of words before they can be used in campaign speeches, literature, etc.

I think your heart is in the right place based on your posts/observations, Sky. Matters not to me if you are a self-proclaimed Christian (some, of course, claim to be but are not), Muslim, Mormon or whatever. Your and other religious beliefs are your right, and unless they infringe on my right to also believe as I choose I don't have a problem. There does seem to be more intolerance, including outright hate, in the world related to religion than for any other single reason, at least that's my opinion.

I suspect some atheists are far and away better folks than some church folks.

When the Christ whose face people see is the one reflected in the religious right, maybe we have a moral obligation to reject that demonic face of God.

I agree totally with Nietzsche when he says that it might be easier to believe in salvation if more Christians looked and acted saved, and with Gandhi when he says that Christ is a lot more attractive than many of us who are Christians.

My devout Southern Baptist mother used to tell me about her years working at the county courthouse at a county in south Arkansas. This was after my father's death. When some elderly black widows in town couldn't pay their taxes, it was not uncommon at all for men in town--good white Christian men--to pay the taxes. So they could claim the property.

One of those good white Christian men was a deacon in our church.

When my mother worked at the courthouse, she learned that a Jewish lawyer in town would come in and pay the taxes, if he heard about the inability of widows to pay. So that they could retain their property. He didn't want anyone to know what he was doing.

In my Baptist mother's view, he was a far better Christian than many members of her church. And I agree.

Sound Policy: "churches who extract 10% in 'taxes' from the faithful"

Now you're the one who is generalizing--and erroneously.

Churches do not "extract" 10%. Pastors and "churches" teach tithing--and appeal to the members to tithe: 10% of income.

And the church is made up of the members. So when a "church" teaches and practices tithing, it is the people of that church who are "taxing" themselves for their charitable causes. "From the faithful" implies a condition contrary to fact. The church members are "the faithful" from who they are "extracting" offerings. They're doing it to themselves. They're not imposing anything on outsiders. They're not even "imposing" it on themselves. Those who do not tithe are not rejected from the fellowship.

Is the pastor paid? In the churches that can afford it, yes. In many Southern Baptist churches, however, the pastor is bi-vocational; that is, he holds a secular position to earn enough money to support his family. I had a bi-vocational pastor friend who made more in his secular work than he needed to live on, so when he got his check from the church, he gave ALL OF IT back to the church.

And I know another bi-vocational minister whose tithe from his secular employment was more than the church was paying for his services. So his tithe completely repaid the church what it was paying him in salary--and then some. In effect, he was serving that church free-of-charge!

But back to the church and the pastor: Are the tithes and offerings his to administer? They are not!!! In Southern Baptist churches, the budget is adopted by vote of the membership.

Does some of the money go to buildings, staff, overhead? It certainly does. Churches build buildings in which they can carry out their ministries to the congregations and to others for whom various services are provided. And they provide staffs to carry on the churches' ministries.

But the pastors of Southern Baptist churches, as a group, are not among the super wealthy. And their salaries and expense accounts are set by the churches; they do not set their own!

So when you're talking about Southern Baptists, which is where this thread started, don't lump them in with the super-pastors of the mega-churches who have grown their own congregations and largely enriched themselves by the proceeds.

Immanuel Baptist has been mentioned on occasion. It was not started by a charismatic pastor and grown into a mega-church to fulfill his ego. It was established as a community church. I attended it many years ago when I was a college student. It was prominent, but no mega-church. And it has been conventionally Southern Baptist all the way. It is not a "one man" congregation. I've known, or known of, its pastors since W.O. Vaught. And I've not known one to be an egomaniac or one who was trying to build his own kingdom.

Sound, and others:

Are there Christians who are greedy, filled with hate, and have no thought for the welfare of anyone but themselves? Yes.

And they are an abomination in the sight of God and a stench in His nostrils.

And are there some who will vote for or against a candidate purely on the issue of abortion?

There are. And are a lot of them Southern Baptists? Yes. To my embarrassment and shame I have to admit that.

Does that mean that single-issue voting is the "official" Southern Baptist line?

Aye, there's the rub. The fundamentalists who have taken over the Southern Baptist Convention have solidly joined the Righteous Right (I trust you understand I'm being sarcastic here). So those who presume to "speak for Southern Baptists" are spouting that official line.

Is that the position of the churches? It is the position of enough members of a lot of churches to cause those churches to split if the issue were ever brought up for a vote--or even a discussion--in a church business meeting.

Will most pastors who speak on the issue of abortion be opposed to it? They will.

Will most pastors who speak on same-gender sexual relationships be opposed to them? They will.

They feel they have scriptural and moral grounds for their positions.

Will most church members agree with them? Very likely.

So you can pretty well tell what the "official spokesmen" have in mind when they urge church members to cast their votes "in accordance Christian principles and our nation's Christian heritage."

That in one of those cases the vote will result in harm and heartache to/for innocent children is a travesty on Christian morality and a besmirchment (if there is such a word) to the good name of Baptists.

This is an ill-conceived effort and an ill-worded amendment foisted upon the citizens of this state by a Rabid Right organization pushing an anti-gay agenda. And they're willing to drag others into the gutter with them.

Thanks for the lesson, sky; and if I understand you correctly, my sentence would require a whom. I'll try it out for awhile and let ya know. Regardless, I appreciate the effort.

(Oh yeah...I've enjoyed the discussion.)

Sky, I REALLY appreciate your thoughtful and respectful sharing here, and have seen this sentiment expressed before here. I think the "big rub" is the sanctimony and closed-mindedness exhibited by those you have chosen to designate Righteous Right; I prefer the more direct "Religious" Wrong. My basic objection, being a "Yankee" transplant here for 20 years now, is the pervasiveness with which their beliefs have contaminated much of public policy AND discourse here - as opposed to other places I've lived - AZ, SD, MA, CA.

It necessarily involves anecdotal experience - which after all is what most of us have. The VERY FIRST "social gathering" we attended was at our local fire house, just 3 days after we'd bought our place. We were introduced to some close neighbors, the woman of which was a retired teacher. We had our 2 girls there who would start school the next month - aged 8 & 10. The male of which was the local preacher in a church just down the road. After introductions and a bit of small talk, the female looked at our daughters (KNOWING we had moved here from San Francisco) and said "Well the school used to be very good until the niggers started attending."

Later, when our oldest had joined with her 2 best buds and entered the school "talent show" with a synchronized dance - the night before the competition actually - one of the girls (different preacher's daughter) called to say the other mother had "discovered" via some church-ish newsletter that the song they were dancing to (I know not the name) had a Big Mac lyric, which was "code" for FKing!! and that the girls had to withdraw. (what they did instead was to substitute another song and work thru much of the night on their routine) AND they won!! These were 12 year-olds...

ALL of this for me comes down to: the folks we're talking about here are "small c" christians - those who are never satisfied with living their OWN lives according to their faith, but have the insatiable need to run MINE - thru social convention, local pressure and in the case of Act 1, the LAW.

These people are dangerous anti-American theocrats - and I say hate the "sinner!" - THEM, because anyone with over 2 functioning brain cells can see thru their sanctimony. "Atheists" are NOT the problem in this country - willful IGNORANCE is.
|

Muddling....if I can teach myself to do the clicky thing I'm sure you can.........

just highlight the http/ at top of page, right click and then left click on copy.....go to the

URL and right click on paste.........easy as pie.

I kept at it for months, hate to be beaten by the damn machine, one night ALiJB sent me a

helpful hint and it worked...........never too late to teach an old dog new tricks.

I was on the road today and missed all the fun - except reviewing many wonderful posts. Labels are necessary sometimes, but they are always limiting in some way. You can never define a group with them even if the group is governed by a strict hierarchy. At least one thing Southern Baptists and atheists have in common is that lack. They each share a strong independent streak that resists being told what to do and what to believe.

...AND the article referenced above by Muddling (at my Blue Name also, now) NAILS this issue succinctly. To prove a point, the Morons it refers to will never read it, as it comes from a "furriner!" The same ones who fit the "willful ignorance" mold... Just like they won't listen to the Rachel Maddow interview with O'Bama from last night - but chose instead to denigrate HER!
|

AND AND jazzy left out what trips up many who can't master the "clicky" - DO NOT click on Preview or the URL gets whacked...
}

Zelda: Post-script on the lesson.

Yes, your sentence would require "whom."

But there's more.

The language purists (and, as a former university professor, I'm an old fuddy duddy language purist) would require reconstruction of the sentence so it doesn't end with a preposition: ". . . telling them for whom Christians should vote" instead of "telling them whom Christians should vote for."

Remember that old line from a "Designing Women's" episode?

Newcomer -- from the north -- in town is greeted, "Where y'all from?"

"I'm from where we don't end our sentences with a preposition."

"Oh, 'scuse me. Where y'all from, bitch?"

Larrry: Thanks for your kind words.

I regret to have to confess that at the present time this country has more to fear from the Christian zealots--and I'm not even talking about the white-supremicists or KKK--than from atheists. Atheists, being in such a tiny minority, have never been a real problem in this country and, for the most part, have been upstanding, law-abiding citizens. Regrettably, there are a lot more Christians than atheists among serious criminals and occasional law-breakers. We don't have a stellar reputation.

Many people forget that Christians have been in the majority only relatively recently. In the First Century, the church had to exist in a very hostile pagan society. Contemporary Christians have tried harder and harder to reform their social environment through legislation than to redeem it by witness and conversion. What they haven't been able to accomplish by persuasion they've attempted to accomplish through legal compulsion. A sad commentary on the effectiveness of our witness.

Incidentally, my wife says I should use "Self-righteous Right" instead of simply "Righteous Right." That probably would make clearer what I actually mean instead of simply relying on the sarcasm, but I feel it waters down the label a bit. I like your "Righteous Wrong."

Admittedly, there is still considerable racial prejudice among Southern Baptists, but at least many of our churches are no longer "lilly white," or at least "purely white." So far as I know, no white members have left a congregation when black families joined. But I'm under no illusions that all prejudice has been supplanted by Christian attitudes.

But a lot of progress has been made since I was fired from a church-related position because I wasn't a segregationist in 1957 immediately after the Little Rock crisis. Black students have been welcomed in our Southern Baptist institutions since at least 1955 and before that there was no official policy barring them; I can only assume that they assumed they would not be considered so didn't bother to apply. I had fellow students who were black, and I had black students in almost all of my classes as a professor after that. So we have not yet reached a "color-blind" ideal by any means, but we're still moving in the right direction.

But remember that even women are not equally valued in all Southern Baptist churches--even white, straight women--so don't expect Southern Baptists to be on the cutting edge of any gay-rights movement.

And probably, in general, as many Southern Baptists will vote their prejudices as will vote their enlightened and redeemed consciences.

We're kinda like what Dagwood says about husbands: "Husbands are a sorry lot." We Christians are a very flawed lot. And the church is far from perfect.

As Augustine said (as I understand it; I haven't verified it), "The church is a whore. But she's my mother."

We're not yet what we will be, not even what we can be, but at least we're not what we used to be.

Oops: "lily," not "lilly." Still trying to learn my native language.

Perfection is a hard task-master.

Jazzy, many thanks for the instructions. I've had major computer problems today and am only now back online after over 3 hours with tech support--and the problem's about halfway fixed. That's why I'm slow in thanking you--just now saw your email. Next time I post an url, will use your guidelines! You're sweet to assist, and hope you have a happy halloween.

Larry, just now seeing your addendum to jazzy's instructions, which I appreciate very much, too. Hope you, too, are enjoying this mildish Halloween evening.

IMHO, the reason most churches help the needy is to gain converts, so gain in power and possibly get tithes from those converts if they manage to get on their feet.

It's very difficult for me to not see churches as scams.

Now, individual Christians are another story entirely. There are many sincere people there. I feel they would do far more good if they would just give to people in need rather than to the church. No midddle person that way to skim off the top.

rablib: You have a strange view of churches and the people who comprise them.

You're entitled to your opinion that the motivation of churches in helping people is to gain converts.

But as for helping people directly and cutting out the middle-man: Get real.

When is a homeless man going to come to my house and ask for a donation to buy food?

When is someone who can't pay her light bill going to call me to ask if I can help out?

And how much could I afford to give to each person in need, even if that person could find me?

We get together in churches to pool our resources. So my $10 gets put into the pot with the $10 from 100 others and now we have an amount that can meet some BIG needs. And we send part of it to places that are in the business of helping people as well as keep some of it on hand for those who come to us.

People know they can turn to churches when they're in need, because that's one of the things churches do.

In fact, some people know it so well that they run cons on churches, which is one of the reasons I work more through a church: It has ways to investigate possible cons. And if it does get hit with a con, the damage is spread among all of us so no one of us takes a big hit.

You have a very warped view of what churches are and what they're all about!

IMHO.