News-Record.com

1) "It's appalling that you actually pay Cal Thomas for his "thoughts."

2)"I wonder if he's a member of the church whose members demonstrate at funerals of brave young Americans killed in Iraq because that church believes our government isn't tough enough on homosexual folks?"

3)"Is Thomas one of the biblical illiterates..."

4)"Please discontinue his ignorant, ranting columns"

FOLLOWED BY:

5)"Who does he think he is to judge?

One of the most hypocritical LTEs I've seen in awhile. Full of judgements by the writer, who then asks who Thomas is to judge. Then a call to ban Thomas from the op-ed section. Pot meet kettle.

Mr. Prevatt, Thomas is published in the op-ed section. In case you didn't know, "op" is short for OPINION!!! Just because you don't agree with Thomas opinions you want him banned. I'm glad you aren't running things at the N&R.

Enjoy your INDEPENDENCE DAY Mr. Prevatt, and thank God and Jesus you live in a country where your hypocritical opinions can be heard like anyone else.

Wish I had read the article. Anyone have a link? I agree that it is good to publish differing views. I learn from reading all kinds of opinions. When all we can read is one view, we are no longer a free press.

"Please discontinue his ignorant, ranting columns."

And replace it someone who holds a more 'centrist' view... like Molly Ivins?

good observations dan !

So, are we to assume that Mr. Prevatt is not opening his heart to Mr. Thomas, but rather, unlike Jesus, would ban Mr. Thomas from the table? I didn't see any love in Mr. Prevatt's letter. And, speaking of rants, Mr. Prevatt seems to have mastered the art.

Dan and Oak,
Great points! Nice to see them.

I hope they always keep "Cal" and his picture in our paper. That dyed moustache and hair, complete with the "Extreme Combover" makes for not only good copy but great visual hilarity. While I do not agree with Cal, I always want to see opposing opinions in our paper--that's why we celebrate July 4th so heartily! Cal's opinion on things is of great use to many, and for that, he should never be censored. Just as many may not like Maureen Dowd, she serves the same purpose for another segment of society. Freedom to disagree is wonderful and we all celebrate it here on these threads!
God Bless America!

Wow, DD and I agree on something. What a gift for Independence Day and before I leave overseas.

I do agree DD, the op-ed section is just that, opinions. I wouldn't want only conservative writings in the op-ed section.

I read Dowd, Pitts (when it isn't about racism)and even read dear 'ol Molly from time to time. Whatever happened to her?

What, for the life of me, I cannot understand is how this LTTE is ripped apart for writting an opposing POV letter in contrast to that of Cal Thomas. Yet, Cal Thomas' is OP ED piece is left alone. What is the deal with that? Is the silence in regards to Cal Thomas meant to be agreement?

It seems that to verbally trash this LTTE author for his differing POV to Cal Thomas and to let Thomas' view go unchecked are unethical.

Just my perspective.

Shalom

Darryl, simple answer: do you think the LTE writers quotes about Thomas that I put in my first post are Christlike? Especially #2.

Can you not see the hypocrisy in this letter in how this guy judges Thomas, someone he doesn't even know, followed by the question "Who does he think he (Thomas) is to judge?

Do you think that the N&R needs to cancel Thomas, as Mr. Prevatt calls for, because Mr. Prevatt does not agree with Thomas' viewpoints?

BTW, we don't know Thomas' views, they are not mentioned, rather just a rant of insults. He would have done better to challenge the viewpoints directly instead of trashing Thomas with a bunch of non-factual assumptions.

Got it?

Unless Thomas had some ephiphany, I am sure his column was full of hellfire and brimstone. He's no threat to me, as his opinion is good entertainment. I'm sure that if we had a link to the column, it would prove worthy of the criticism leveled at it, but it is only in the opinion of one over another. The LTE seems to discard the standard to which he holds Thomas to. Had he done so to point out Thomas's myopia, then the LTE would have been better.
(bottom line, who cares?)

" you'd think he'd be familiar with Jesus' parable (Luke 14:16-24) which makes it clear that Jesus was not into excluding people from his Table. ".......

for sake of argument let's take a closer look at who was initially invited to this table.......scripture says " A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:".......and these "many" made every excuse imaginable why they could not make the supper. when this man received word that these "many" refused to come,he was angry
(wow, that is a strong emotion) he gave orders to go get a bunch of other people to take their places. so is it safe to say that in the initial group that this man bade to come to his supper where to the exclusion of the other group which was later invited? would it be correct to say that there was exclusion in the first invitation ? it certainly appears that way. i just thought this pov might be worth entertaining ?!

DD,
i believe the 4th of july spirit has moved you. your "tone" has changed (imo for the better) and i personally believe the dialogue with other bloggers will be enhanced. i've usually thought you had good talking points but many times were overshadowed by comments which often taken as offensive. seeing your change, challenges me to reevaluate my manner of blogging as well, thanks DD.(i hope you take that as a compliment).......... happy 4th to all !

Hey Buz, one thing, maybe it's just me, maybe anal, I'm not sure, but I prefer Happy Independence Day!! I agree with you, DD has been enjoyable to converse with lately. Thanks DD!!

Tomorrow will be my last day chatting with you guys. I may try to find a computer in Russia and/or the other countries I'm going to just to say hello, but my wife may frown upon me if I spend time blogging instead of visting the Hermitage!!

Happy Independence Day to all of you. I hope everyone had a chance to watch the shuttle launch, nice firework display there!!

Dan, Buz et al,
I love the 4th of July! It is a holiday where I rejoice that opinions can be expressed freely. Thanks for the comments, and yes Buz, I will take them as compliments! There is only one blogger I will not have any comment for or to, and his nom de plume begins with an "N" and ends with an "N". This person is not worth wasting breath on. I have disagreed with some, but have never come across one devoid of intellectual curiosity---except n____n. I should have listened to JDR when he warned me about said person, but I tried to extend the olive branch. I'm a day older and wiser now.

Wish all of you a "HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY"---"Happy Independence Day"! God Bless America!----all of it, not just some of it!

LOL LOL LOL This reminds me of my kids when they were 4 and 6 yrs. old and quarreling.

Come to think of it, I won't dis my kids like that. They were much more well mannered and mature than the world traveler.

Dan, I am still not grasping the concept of "it is OK" to rip this LTTE author and yet Cal Thomas' comments go unchallenged.

OK, the LTTE author may do exactly what Thomas is accused of doing, yet, I have seen NONE of those ripping apart the LTTE author doing the same to Thomas. Anyone of those "NONE" want to start in on Thomas? Why or why not? What is the difference in going against the one and not the other?

Remember, Thomas was apparently upset that the Episcopalians did not go after their openly gay Bishop. Rather, they chose an apparently very qualified female to lead their denomination for the next year or so.

It seems apparent to me that Thomas only wanted the one issue, homosexuality, addressed. That was not on the priority list per se for the Episcopalians. They addressed that issue as they saw fit. And again, if Cal Thomas does not have "a dog in that fight," maybe he needs to temper his words regarding same.

Does any of that make any common sense to anyone?

Shalom

dan,
did you read the article in question about cal thomas and the episcopalians ?

ok it took so digging around but here is a link to the article cal thomas wrote concerning episcopalians.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/church_lite.html

I suppose the great lesson in this is, that Cal doesn't HAVE to belong to the Episcopal Church. It is a free country, the last time I checked.

Personally, I think it's funny that Cal condemns and ridicules the Episcopal Church, yet turns a deaf ear to his own Baptist heritage and the circus they put on each year. It takes all kinds.

Happy 4th of July!

Buz,

Thanks for digging! I didn't comment on this lte because I hadn't read the article Cal Thomas wrote and now I have.

I disagree with the LTE. I think the article is brilliant and a direct challenge for Episcopaleans to explain their theology. He questions what is a sin and what is not? If you say homosexuality is not a sin, does that mean fornication is not? Where do you decide when the Bible is correct and incorrect?

The article also exposes an unsettled matter on ordaining homosexual bishops. From one day to the next, they go from expressing regret for ordaining a gay bishop to voting in favor of ordaining gay bishops to voting to NOT ordain any future gay bishops.

Thomas pretty much sticks to the facts in this article. What he doesn't do is accuse the Episcopleans of things they haven't done. He just addresses things they have done.

The only reason I can see that Darryl would be upset about this article is because he doesn't agree with the views about homosexuality. As far as someone from the outside speaking about a church, nobody seems to have a problem tearing apart the 'church' that goes around with horrible signs or the folks who attended the Baptist convention.

Since this is an opinion piece, you can choose to agree or disagree. I tend to agree with Thomas. That's why I'm not an episcopalean or a Prebsyterian, I guess.

Oh,

I will agree that Thomas used some pretty strong language in making his opinion. I don't have a problem with that although I can see why it might make some angry. I don't even have a problem with the strong language in the lte. I do think it is demonizing to bring up the funeral demonstrators and I disagree with the last sentence that says to discontinue his ignorant ranting columns. Both writers ranted a little, got no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is that anytime someone says something another disagrees with, the PC police jump in and suggest they need "sensitivity" training.

YD,

I could not disagree with you more. Like you, I had not made a comment until Buz posted the link. (Thanks Buz.) Apparently you and I gleaned something different from the opinion expressed.

While I agree any American has the right and privilege to express one's opinion, I think Thomas stated opinion as fact. He also, like so many who post in this forum and use the Bible to justify their prejudice, tries to differentiate sin. Even if one thinks homosexuality is a sin, how is it different than a zillion other sins? We are all guilty of sin so what is the purpose of Thomas attacking the Episcopalian's stance on homosexuality?

It just made him seem petty, judgemental and hypocritical, imho.

yvonne,
(you're welcome). you state that many here use the bible to justify their prejudices. i can't speak for anyone else here but if you knew me personally you would know that i am about the most unrejudiced persons around. you sound as though you judge me to be prejudice b/c i choose to believe what scripture says concerning homosexuality. many people have said Christians hide behind this statement " i can hate the sin but love the sinner" and use it as a convenient way to mask hostilities and prejudices. i believe that Jesus lived this precept and we are to emulate ( as best as possible ) his actions. while it may be difficult for some to believe that i can hate the sin ( any sin ) in anothers life but at the same time continue to love and minister to that person.
" what is the purpose of Thomas attacking the Episcopalian's stance on homosexuality?"......
if i'm not mistaken the angilican church chose to publicize the fact that they ordained a gay as head of the church instead of simply stating that this particular individaul is now heading their church. if that is true then it seems that they put the "gay" agenda out their(in the publics eye) , which (imo) makes it fair game for comment, opinion and or critcism.
and for the record i believe sin is sin and the scripture points to one sin which is worse than the others (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

Buz,
It is historical fact that many have used the bible to buttress their own fears and prejudices. Heck, slavery was justified using the bible too, but certainly you don't believe that the "inerrant" bible would do that do you?

My point. I believe that the stand taken by many against homosexuals, will one day be looked at just like we do slavery today. You will be saying, "How could we refuse to let a group of people come to Christ's table?"

(My opinion)

dd,
"You will be saying, "How could we refuse to let a group of people come to Christ's table?"......

i don't believe you will find a post where i said i believed gays aren't welcome at Christ's table. homosexuality just as ANY other sin separates us from our fellowship with the Father. if we willingly sin and determine to be UNrepentant concerncing our sin, then i believe we place ourselves in a precarious position before God. so many are so vocal on the gay issue b/c they (gays)continue to flaunt it in our faces and expect us to accept/condone their sexual orientation. i don't dislike gays anymore than i dislike the new people across the street that verbally abuse their beautiful little children....sin is sin ...and each person will be held accountable for their choices.
hope you had a good independence day !

I think you have to judge them by their works. How many episcopal missionaries do you know? How about episcopals working in the inner city? They nebulously work for greater harmony and understanding in our world. That's fine, but what do they DO to bring Christ to people? Anybody?

phillpa,
good point. i believe the anglican church
(i.e.episcopalians) are a spin off of the catholic church and they believe that works is a part of salvation, along with going to a catholic church regularly,doing communion, being baptised and doing confessions. evangelism is not something they participate in. all my wifes family are catholic and the ones i've spoken with ( as well as other catholics ) believe if you are born into a catholic family you automatically have a pass into heaven, provided you do those things mentioned above on a regular basis. prior to vatican II the catholic church taught only those within the catholic faith could go to heaven, however after vatican II they have rethought that and softened their view somewhat and in essence have given other churches permission for some of their people to also go to heaven.
so i believe the episcopalins might say that spreading the word of God is not what they do. my wifes family says their catholic religion is personal between them and God and they feel no need to share it with others (i.e evangelize). so maybe the episcopalians also don't feel the need to evangelize.
just for the record i don't adhere to the philosophy that belonging to a particular church, doing works, rituals and birthright are the requisites for gaining entrance into heaven. maranatha !

For the record, I was baptized and grew up Episcopal. I believe that the only way I'm saved is because of the saving grace of Christ. However, I also believe that Christ calls us to serve our brothers and sisters as well as to preach the gospel. I don't see any kind of service or effective preaching coming from the episcopal church. I think they're more of a social club than anything else. Their non-apology apology in the form of the resolution that they've offered on gay bishops is weak as water and just shows them up for the wishy-washy group that they are. It's a shame, because I'm sure that there are many episcopalians who truly love Christ and want to serve him.

About the ltte, I hope they don't stop carrying Cal Thomas. Everytime I look at his picture, I have to laugh. What an outrageous comb-over!

Phillipa, that Extreme Combover just makes me howl. Would love to see Cal exiting a swimming pool! Bet he has a strand of hair 12 feet long!

Buz,
What about those who buttress their opinions using the bible---slavery etc? Are you saying that is good?

Glad someone brought up missionaries. I wonder how the folks in this country would react to Muslim Missionaries sent into our country? How would they feel if Muslim Missionaries went into the inner cities, set up soup kitchens, while coverting the "lost souls" to Islam? All of a sudden, a large group of inner city youth convert to Islam---how would the "Christians" react to that? We really need to clean up our own backyard before taking our arrogance elsewhere.
As to the Episcopalians, there is much good being done in this area every day. Ever been to 10,000 Villages Store? Ever heard of the Servant Leadership School? Their committment to the Urban Ministry is strong too.

Okay DD,

Until every Christian in every church is perfect and in harmony with God's plan, we will pull all missionaries from all parts of the world. No more feeding the hungry, building orphanages, clothing the poor. Once we get our house clean and in order, we can go back to doing those things.

:)

DD, there isn't any chance of "Muslim soup kitchens." The Muslims don't want to try to persuade us to believe like they do. To them, we're infidels. We are incapable of achieving Valhalla, or whatever their heavan is called. How's that for arrogance?

As for the episcopals, running a shop or teaching "leadership" doesn't bring many people to Christ. Christianity is about sacrificing the flesh in order to grow closer to Christ and serve his children. That means doing stuff that isn't all that enjoyable or stuff that is downright unpleasant like giving up your golf game to fix a widow's porch or volunteering at the soup kitchen or a crisis maternity home. I'm not going to be looking for the episcopal church to do stuff like that. They're a social club with a tax-exempt status, a church in name only.

Thought on homeless shelters...why are volunteers needed to prepare the food, serve it, and clean up afterwards. Looks like the homeless could help with the work.

I see both sides of the missionary issue. I know much good work is done, but agree that if some country sent missionaries of another faith here, many would be offended and up in arms.

I think one of the biggest problems our country has today is total arrogance. You can call it patriotism or pride, but much is just plain arrogance, IMO. Mama always said that pride goeth before the fall.

Phillipa,

Evangelizing is a total turn-off to many on the receiving end. My own personal opinion is more souls are won for Christ from Christians living what they believe rather than stating what they believe. And I do not necessarily mean material show. One can state they are Christian, work in a homeless shelter and give generously to charity. But if they sit in judgement of their fellowman, gossip and shun those they deem unworthy, all their talk and show are for naught.

I see the light of God in my pastor's face, hear God in her messages, feel His presense in her heart and actions. She lives her belief as does my sister. They really do "Do unto others...". This is more powerful, imho, than anything anyone can say.

Buz,

I believe you are a sincere child of God who strives to be a good Christian. There is no doubt in my mind that you love God with all your being. I also think your beliefs are very concrete/ absolute, with little room for opposing pov's. I do not judge you for this as many folks think their interpretation of the Bible is the only right one. Otherwise there would not be so many different religions.

However, since one's relationship with God is a very private matter (imo), I think it is wrong to say the way you believe is right and another's belief is wrong. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are God's chosen people and will be the 144,000 sitting at the right hand of God one day. They prove their position with Biblical scriptures also. Does this mean they are right and you, me or anyone not of that faith are doomed to reside in hell. I believe not.

I respect your sincerity and admire your devotion to God. I just think there is room on this earth for more than one person's perspective regarding interpretation of the scriptures. And I accept we all have religious freedom in America, meaning one religion or belief should not dominate another.

Carol & Yvonne,
I definitely identify with your posts. Phillipa's condemnation of the Episcopal Church is uncalled for, as my faith is not a social club with tax exempt status.

yvonne,
you are correct on several of your points. i really do strive to honor God (but believe me i sure can mess it up at times). and yes you are correct again that my understanding of scripture is fairly concrete, for i truly believe the Holy Spirit has taught me much and if i don't believe what He speaks to me, then i am only left with my opinion. i always try to listen with an open heart when someone speaks of their beliefs, but if those beliefs contradict what scripture teaches, then i feel obligated to ask that person to substaniate their position using the scriptures that lead them to their belief. some will recite scriptures to bolster their pov but when confronted with scripture that support my beliefs , they cite that the scriptures are only an instrument written by mankind. i think if you don't believe the scripture is the WORD OF GOD, then you simply can't use it to benefit your view of who God is and what He expects. the scripture is either inspired of God or written by a bunch of guys ....if it is written by those guys then it really is no more than there opinions and thoughts and who in their right mind would hinge there believe in God and their salvation on what a bunch of guys say ? thanks for this discourse, i'm enjoying it.

dd,
phillipa (imo) is qualified to speak to the heart of the episcopalian church as she states she was baptised and raised in that church. she has seen it morph into something different than it once was and she seems to be only identifying those changes.
should i remind you that you have posted some rather strong opinions concerning other denominaations in the past as well (if memory serves me). so we need to take it all with a grain of salt i suppose.

Unlike the SBC, the Episcopalians are not trying to force THEIR beliefs on others. When was the last time you saw Episcopalians handing out political literature or blocking clinic entrances? Snake handlers don't go around trying to make everyone else handle snakes! Other than giving the Jehovah's witnesses and the Mormans a cold beverage when they ring my bell, I do not want to be "preached" to about my beliefs--Phillipa needs to clean up her own backyard before belittling others beliefs.

DD, what was the consecration of Gene Robinson if it was not an attempt to force their beliefs on others? They confirmed him as bishop while many of their congregants were hollering at them not to do it, then they came out with a resolution saying "gee, we're sorry you guys got mad when we did this." Not we're sorry we did it, but we're sorry you got upset. Sheesh! I'd expect that kind of apology from a 5 yo! "I'm sorry you got mad because I spray painted my name on the side of the garage, mom."

Again, I was baptized, confirmed and married in the Episcopal church, I'm not some outsider who's just pointing at their flaws.