Dear President Bush:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them...
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
A Concerned Christian American
Check out the link below - this has been posted on TER before.
Also, this stuff was actually part of a Westwing TV episode.
I'm WAS too lazy to figure that link and whether it came before
or after the letter.
Bu now I looked it up and some FAQ says that the Sorkin (the
writer of the Westwing) actually took those lines from the
letter.
fr
-- Modified on 4/30/2004 8:22:15 PM
-- Modified on 4/30/2004 8:25:56 PM
Frankie,
you really should remove the stick from your ass and read that post as humor the way it was meant. And citing an origin for a joke is not neccesary in my opinion.
I'm sorry I didn't put the little smiley for those that can't take a joke.
I hope those make up for forgetting them in the last post.
The last I heard the left was still arguing over what the meaning of the word is is 
With Jesus came the new covenant. The old rules of the bible are no longer applicable because of the sacrifices of Christ. That is why it is called the OLD TESTAMENT.
I use to think the Bible was a very complex document, until I started seeing Clinton's respones under oath (yes, the ones he was disbarred for).
Now perhaps you can answer my question. What the meaning of the word is is
I cannot answer your question because I do not know what the meaning is. Do you?
Here is what Dictionary dot com has to say about is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=is&db=*
So in your above post, if I read it correctly. You are saying that a New, New Testament should be written because William Jefferson Clinton tried to keep his personal life private (although he should not have been indiscreet in the White House) by saying something ANY man (even Newt Gingrich, BTW, the dems did not go on a witch hunt because of his lies) would have said to try and save himself & family from embarassment & humiliation?
Lawyers are a breed unto themselves. Most, if not all can twist words around to serve their own purpose and the better one is able to manipulate language, the better he/she is as an Attorney.
Once again, a good response...
I agree with any man trying to keep his private life private (including Newt). I doubt any of us really talk about our memberships on The Erotic Review at the office
However, once you sit in a deposition and swear under oath, all bets are off. After that I know it sucked for Bill, but he had to make a choice at that point of keeping his private life private or upholding his Oath's both as a lawyer and as President. We know which choice he made.
Frankly, when the process is abused in such a manner, Lying under oath becomes, IMHO, a valid way to properly undermine the misused process. Fortunately, the majority of the Congress who voted on this agreed, and did NOT consider lying under oath about consensual blowjobs to be at all impeachible behavior. This was a proper response to a political hijacking of the Impeachment process.
Actually, Bill was impeached. He is the second President in American history to be impeached. The Sente tried him and found the charges insufficient to warrant removal from office. A lot of people get this mixed up, but don't be mistaken he was impeached...
I do remember at the time the talking heads making the points that the resone they think the Senate passed on removal from office was 1)removing a sitting President is a drastic thing 2)the country was burned out on the whole thing, and both parties had been so badly damaged that everybody wanted this to go away 3)the Republicans felt that it would be better to face VP Al Gore in 2000 than sitting President Al Gore in 2000, and Bill had less that 2 years left in office.
They are known as the two houses of Congress. I never said Clinton was NOT impeached. I said that the Impeachment process was misused to force Clinton into either lying or admitting a pecadillo, and his lying was fully justified in the face of a process that had been abused. And that, fortunately, the vote was that the charges (which were that he lied under oath) were deemed insufficient for removal.
And, BTW, Clinton was the 3rd President to be impeached (i.e. have articles of impeachment brought by the House): Andrew Johnson, who was acquitted, Nixon, who resigned prior to the Senate impeachment proceedings, after his Republican allies signalled that they would not vote to acquit based on the evidence, and Clinton.
Since we are getting technical...
The House goes through 4 steps to reach impeachment
1)Prosecutor recommends charges
2)Full house votes on an inquiry to pursue charges
3)Judiciary Committeee votes on impeachment
4)Full House votes on impeachment
The last step is for the Senate
5) Senate tries the case against the President
First of all, I said that Clinton was the 2nd President impeached. Having articles brought is not the same as being impeached. Nixon resigend when it became apparent he would be impeached in step IV. Would he have been impeached? You bet!!
The very reason he resigned is so he would not be the 2nd President in US history to be impeached.
As for your post about the vote count, you said:
"Fortunately, the majority of the Congress who voted on this agreed, and did NOT consider lying under oath about consensual blowjobs to be at all impeachible behavior."
You should recheck your math. If you want to count the entire Congress as you defined it, the final count on the two charges were:
Perjury: 283 For 251 Against
Obstruction: 271 For 262 Against
Therefore, the MAJORITY did in fact believe lying under oath was a serious enough charge. Remember, it takes only a majority to impeach in the house but a 2/3 vote is required in the Senate for step V.
Or, in other words, Lying about a Blow Job under oath was not a removeable offense, to the necessary 2/3 majority.
Such as Henry Hyde, who were disgraced by their own hypocrisy during the hearings
When laws are unjust, or are abused in order to opress, it is noble and worthy to disobey them. I would also add a big hero of yours, Jesus Christ, to the list. He disobeyed the Romans, did he not? He claimed to be answering to a higher authority than the Roman civil authorities, I seem to recall.
Lying to the Right Wing Impeachment Lynch mob concerning Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky was an equally worthy cause, IMHO.
Trying to compare B.J. Bill with these two great men is the most ridiculous thing I've read on this board yet...
Remember, Ghandi and MLK did what they did to benefit others, Bill did what he did in his own self-interest...
For truly, i say to you , till heaven an earth pass away not an iota or dot will pass the law .
Matthew 5: 18
all of the O.T. laws will be binding forever
Luke 16: 17
Your bible as stated by others is a book of fiction and contradictions
I would not be so pretentious as to claim to speak for Jesus. You can keep grabbing quotes all day, but these do not make your point as you would like...
If it is just a work of fiction, why do you quote it as authority; and the left does it as much as the right!!!
BTW, not sure where you got your quotes, the first one was close, I have my doubts about the 2nd.
One other point to think about, I believe in the Bible and its authenticity based on Faith (belief without proof). If your argument is that it is just a work of fiction, prove it!!
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
I actually have no desire to. I actually believe the religious right hurts the Republican party and am more of a Libertarian.
(I vote Republican because the Libertarians keep nominating kooks).
Yes, the beliefs I posted are mine, but faith forced upon someone is not faith at all. Faith can only come through willingly subjecting oneself, not being forced by others. Do I think the government should ban abortion, no, but do I think federal funds should pay for it, Hell NO!!
My deal with the left is this, I'll stay out of your bedroom if you'll stay out of my wallet!!
I could not agree more. You've summed up my position quite well.
RLTW
The only difference is, he'd rather tax your children for the next couple of decades with immense deficit spending than be honest and take the money from you at the same time he spends it.
I cannot fathom how anyone believes that Bush is an Economic Conservative. He spends like the worst Liberal on a drunken binge. Of course, he spending it on Iraq, rather than here at home, so we get the double whammy of immense spending without getting to reap any benefits from it. When you cut taxes and increase spending, you FORCE upon us a huge tax increase in the future. It will either happen directly AS taxes, or indirectly by de-valuing all of your savings. There is no free lunch.
I call them like I see them, and I do agree that Bush needs to control spending. I could accept the arugument that we are in a war and becuse of the down economy the government needs to spend more money to stimulate the economy. The problem is that Bush's future budgets are still spending too much. His discretionary spending is way out of line...
HOWEVER, don't even tell me Kerry or the Democrats would balance the budget either. This is why I keep wishing the Libertarins could get their act togeter. Let's face it, we didn't control spending in the Clinton administration, we just happened to enjoy the big .COM bubble.
In the meantime though, the #1 issue we need to deal with now is the war on terror, and although many of you may disagree, I believe Bush is the better man for this. Kerry keeps saying that he would get all the other nations to join us in a united front.
Give me a break, GWB went the UN route and because they were all getting rich on oil contratcs they opposed it. The only difference I believe is that Kerry would have said, "Oh Well, the UN says no so we can't do anything", whereas Bush says, well we tried, but we have to do what is in the best interest of the United States, not the United Nations.
And show me a single scintilla of evidence that Bush is more qualified to deal with the war on Terror than Kerry. Bush has pissed off all of our allies around the world except the soon to be out of office Tony Blair government
And I agree, that the French's motivations via Schlumberger were IDENTICAL to Bush/Cheney's motivations via Halliburton. Unfortunately 750+ brave Americans have gotten dead over the switch from Schlumberger to Halliburton in controlling the oil fields of Iraq.
And, it IS true that we need to do what is in the best interests of the U.S. Which is why this Iraq war has been so completely catastrophic. There is NO WAY that WE are better off now than we were 15 months ago, with Saddam in power, 750+ more living American Soldiers, 2000 fewer maimed American Soldiers, and over 100 Billion MORE dollars in the U.S. Treasury, and the same amount of WMDs in Iraq that could threaten the U.S. as there are today (the number is ZERO, BTW and had been established to be the case by U.N weapons inspections). Not to mention that Al Qaida was in desperate straits looking for a few safe caves to hide in on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, and the U.S. held in high international prestige because of the successful use of coalition forces in Afghanistan.
That's where we were 15 months ago. There is NO WAY that what has happened since in Iraq has been in the best interests of the U.S.
There were 49 countries that agreed to throw their hat in the ring on the war...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED KINGDOM, Afghanistan, Albania,
Angola, AUSTRALIA, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary,
Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, POLAND, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
So what were you saying about pissing off ALL of the allies???
I base Bush's ability to execute on the fact that he has the guts to make a call without having to get buy in from everybody and willing to take an action even if it means we take some hits. We've already had one President who wouldn't do that, and his name was Jimmy Carter.
As far as the Iraq war, remember, this is a war on terror, not just Al Queda. Saddam was paying 10K to the families of suicide bombers. In my book, that's reason enough to take him out...
Only a couple of words in all caps - would be even better if there were none.
You got to the point in a short post.
You didn't try to insult anyone.
You keep putting up posts like this, you'll kick your opponents' asses, while they flail away calling you names. Don't take their bait, and you win.
BTW, I often agree with your political views.