There are 'way too many Paulists around and not enough Christians.  Much of the negative stuff in Christianity comes from Paul, a noted misogynist, and not from Christ himself.  (And who the heck appointed "St. John the Divine" to write Middle Eastern foreign policy?)

.

Of course women can do the job as well if not better than male pastors.  And I know some women who can outlift me, besides.

Thank you, Steve - and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

One of my favorite episodes from the sitcom, "Designing Women" had two of the women discussing whether women could be pastors - and one of them opting out of her choice because they didn't allow this for women. The show included Dixie Carter singing "How Great Thou Art" - loved it then and love recollecting it.

When I was a 23 year old living in Phoenix, Arizona (more than 20 years ago) one of my closest friends was the 68 year old associate pastor of my church, First Presbyterian of Phoenix. She was (and still is!) an incredible woman of God. While she was much more conservative than I, we spent lots of time together and it made my room mates giggle when she called and we would get together. I wish more churches had women in such prominent leadership positions.

And one of my man friends says I am "freakishly strong" and he is right. There are some men I probably could outlift, but not many.

I don't see why a Woman can't preach the Gospel. I don't believe that My God destinguishes between sexes, when it comes to spirituality. The God that I believe in and follow looks at Heart and Soul, not sex. I'm Christian and have a strong PERSONAL faith, but based on what I've learned in life, gender is disconnected from everything else. Maybe I'm a freak, but to me, Men and Women are equal-equal.

I realize that people are like Snowflakes, we're all different. Sex isn't the differentiating factor though. I've known too many people and seen too many things to ever believe that. I've got a zillion experiences and stories. Nobody will ever convince me that gender has anything to do with anything other than sex.

You'll never hear me judge different religions either. During my "Doubting Times", I read extensively about different religions. Many of them have common threads and make perfect sence to me. I have a deep respect for devout (non-violent) believers of almost all religions. It seems to me that EVERY religion has a violent fringe, that believe everything MUST be black or white. What I've noticed is that the non-violent religious people whom I've met are always willing to accept that I respect their beliefs, but have different beliefs of my own. It's almost as though we take comfort in the fact that we each believe in A RELIGION. It doesn't matter if they're the same, or not. In most religions, the teachings of how to live life are much the same.

RF,

Why would you even chime in on this one? In the past, you've stated that you're a non-believer? That's your choice and it's OK with me, but I just wonder why you'd even be interested in joining in on this one? I'm not trying to "Run you Off". I'd never do that. I'm only curious, that's all. Please don't take offense at my question.

A lot of us believe Paul had some real issues with women.  :-)

Having said that, I honestly prefer men to women when it comes to preaching.  I don't know why...it has nothing to do with beliefs..just me.  As a rule, I prefer men singers too although there are women singers who I have tremendous respect for.    (for whom ...if it makes the purists happy..just sounds pretentious to me.)

A church I used to go to had a man and wife as co pastors.  When he was there I enjoyed the sermons for the most part but didn't like it when she preached.  I dunno..maybe it was the makeup, the jewelry, and the hip clothes that turned me away.

NancyII,

I still don't believe that it was because she was a woman. I believe that it was more to do with her personality and demeanor.

Tony..could be.  Although I've never cared much for them on TV either.  Come to think of it, I don't care much for most preachers on TV. 

Now..we settled that so tell me why I generally prefer male singers.

I don't know Nancy,

Maybe it's just your personal preference. : )

Whooooooo Erik...now that was uggggly !!!!   For shame, for shame !!!!!   

Women of the world..unite !!!!    :-)

Hey Goat,

I almost blew a mouthfull of tea out my nose while reading your post.

Thanks...

If you're going to mock somebody, why not mock someone like Hillary?  Jacquie Sullivan is rather harmless in comparison.  Think about how much damage Hillary could do if she took control in '08?  Let's see if I can find a tune in my collection that I could dedicate to Jacquie to try and buffer these mean-spirited blows.  Oh, here's one I wrote up in Sacramento when I was taking on Michael Newdow.  This is for you Jacquie!  You rock!

One Nation Under God

Dr. BLT: duet with Jennifer Mancouso

words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2002, 2006

http://www.drblt.net/music/...

You're right blognroll, by herself she is a harmless, misguided troll.  But that's just it, she's not by herself.  She has the money and influence of a very wealthy minority that works very hard to use their religion as a means to control the rest of us.

.

Instead of practicing their religion among theirselves and not bothering anyone else, these people are trying to get who they can to convert (increasing their power), and trying to get those of us they can't convert to be subject to their religious laws by integrating their religion with the state.  It's happening at all levels of government, but we have the most influence over our local government.  If we can't defeat them in Bakersfield, there's no way we can defeat them in DC.

.

Our civil liberties are at stake here.  We must organize and cooperate with each other (regardless of our differences) in order to resist this attack on our freedom.

I'm not Goat, but Jacquie Sullivan represents an indirect threat to the ways of life as lived by people who don't adhere to her religion.  Let me 'splain.

What Sullivan is doing is working to openly connect government with an implied religious view.  While "In God We Trust" is pretty generic (and is far from the top of my list of priorities), come on, most everyone knows that it's not just a generic God, but a specific God, a Christian God... and not just a Christian God, but a conservative Protestant God.

In the long haul, this habituates people into thinking there is a special relationship, a preferred, favorable status, accorded to one particular religion by the government in question.

This is the root cause of many of the intractable problems in the Middle East.  It doesn't take a doctorate in history to see that these kind of relationships bode poorly for the ways of life practiced by people outside the "favored" religion.  Even President Bush seems to feel that the answer for peace in Iraq is a secular government.

Heaven forbid that someone like Goat or myself recommend the same for the United States.

You're wrong.  There aren't any secular humanists trying to force anything down our throats.  If there were a movement afoot to change the City motto to "There ain't no God," then I'd be alongside her fighting it as strongly as she.  But that's happening nowhere.    Michael Newdow (may God bless him) isn't asking that the Pledge include the words "one nation, on our own because there is no God."  Agnostics aren't petititioning to have the Ten Questions posted on courthouse walls.  Atheists aren't trying to deny Christians the right to believe whatever silly things they want to believe in church.

.

I assume you're talking about scientific opposition to the teaching of Genesis in the classroom, wrapped up in its shiny ID Creationism wrapper.  They miss you back  at Sadlyno, by the way:  http://www.sadlyno.com/arch...

.

PS--I don't like Hillary much either, she's much too conservative for my tastes.  Thank goodness (and Goddess) she won't be the '08 nominee.  But just think of all the tasty things should could do with the toys George Bush will leave behind:  signing statements, gulags, etc.

>>>I guess you don't realize that Hillary is actually pretty conservative and she's pretty religious too.

.

--->I guess that depends on how you define conservative vs liberal.  If your idea of conservative is supporting the war in Iraq and being religious, then I can see why you think she's conservative.  I don't necessarily define it that way.  If you're idea of liberal is the "it takes a village" mentality of big government and lots of expensive social programs, and an open borders agenda, then hell yeah she's as liberal as they come.  But by that definition so is our warmonger in chief.

>>>blognroll:  I find that secular humanism is a philosophy that has much in common with religion. 

.

---->It appears to me (being a religious humanist) that you don't know much about humanism that the RRR (radical religious right) hasn't told you.

.

>>>If we regard conservatives as a threat, then folks who zealously try to force a secular humanism down our throats by limiting religious expression must also be considered a threat. 

.

--->Please name me one person (widely known on a regional or national level) who believes religious speach (outside of government) should be restricted.  I bet you cannot name even one.

.

>>> Rather than forcing something down our throats is it possible that Ms. Sullivan is trying to protect us from having secular humanism shoved down our throats.  I could be wrong. 

.

--->Could you please describe for us how secular humanism is shoved down your throat?  Do you have secular humanists showing up at your door trying to convert you to their religion and trying to get you to attend secular humanist events?  Do you have to flip through several channels on your TV to find a channel that does not have a secular humanist preaching at you?  Do you go to the bathroom at work and find tracts left on the sink by secular humanists trying to convert you to their religion?  Do you find instances where secular humanists are lobbying for legislation that would restrict your ability to make lifestyle/moral/sexual choices for yourself based on their morality?  I'm really very interested in hearing how secular humanism is forced on you and how Jackie Sullivan is going to protect you from it.

Blognroll, I do hope you return, because I am genuinely interested in one example of secular humanism being shoved down our throats.

Actually, secular humanism as a philosophy is about as different from religion as is possible.  It is the only philosophy that asserts that, to the extent that our destiny is changeable, it is up to humans and humans alone to affect our destiny.  It is the one philosophy that denies the existence of any means of truth-finding other than our own minds and senses.

The first assertion, affecting our own destiny, is a matter of lack of faith.

The second assertion, when you think about it, is irrefutably true.  Your mind, and your mind alone, decides where truth is found and where truth is not found.  In the case of Christians, their minds decided that truth is found in the Bible.

But, nonetheless, they made that decision based on information supplied by their senses alone, and processed by their minds alone.

They are ultimately the only truth-finding tools we have.

Hardliner, I'd say they made that decision *DESPITE* information supplied by their senses and processed by their minds.

.

Tony, sorry, just now noticed your question directed at me.  I chime in because I'm interested in the question.  There's a brand-new website devoted to "the worlds' greatest resource" http://www.care.org/feature...

.

That I don't participate in religious worship doesn't mean I don't want to influence those who do.  I wouldn't think of performing that influence by passing a law that says the Catholics have to allow women to be priests, but I think they'd be a tremendous humanizing influence on a large organization which has completely lost its way.

.

I see the initial report that was cited as a tremendous encouragement, especially if the Roman Catholic Church summarily rejects it.  My view is that within a decade or so we'll see the formation of a North American Catholic Church, breaking away from the Roman influence, to allow womens' ordination, birth control and a greater tolerance for gays.  That kind of evolution is to everyone's benefit.

These blogs have made me change an opinion or two.

In the past, I looked somewhat favorably on the Catholic Church, and didn't care much for evangelical Protestantism -- one of the latter whom I used to be.

Along comes Pax, though, and he has succeeded in defecting me to the evangelicals' side in the event of battling theocracies.

At least evangelicals try to make a good faith effort to derive their opinions from the Bible.  The Bible isn't as bad as most believers make it out to be -- and at least with evangelicals, you can reason from an agreed-upon source of authority.

Sure beats the heck out of Pax's willy-nilly, subjective, human decrees of the Vatican.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that any ideology can be oppressive and threatening to our individual and collective freedoms when a person or group holding to that ideology become(s) overly zealous and overly aggressive in manipulating the language in our laws, in our textbooks etc., to reflect that specific ideology.  Once again, it is extremism, on both sides of the political spectrum, that represents the greatest threat, not conservative or liberal ideology per se.  What we need to do is to find a way to be constructive even in the midst of vast differences in our points of view.  I'd encourage leaders on both the right and the left to find some common ground, even if that common ground is so small that you miss it if you blink your eyes.  We don't need anymore walls between conservatives and liberals.  It's time to break those walls down, and reach out to one another.   

Goat, my good friend (if I may call you that), I suspect you are referring to extremists on the right, and extremists, whether on the left or right, are not open to finding middle ground.  Some would rather use their middle finger.  But not every evangelical Christian is a fundamentalist, or an extremist.  It is all to easy in trying to formulate an argument, for some on the left to demonize everyone who adheres to traditional Judeo-Christian values.   When some evangelicals sing the song that asserts, "They will know we are Christians by our love..." they mean it very literally.  Extreme right-wingers, or fundamentalists, also tend to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.  When we react, instead of act, and when we resort to vicious vitriol and ad hominem attacks instead of intelligent, thoughtful, respectful discourse, we further divide a community, and ultimately a nation.  Instead, we need to dig out those old Beatles records (or the newly remastered CDs) and begin applying the Beatles lyrics such as "...all you need is love...," and "...come together, right now, over me..."  Such songs are the songs of freedom and unity.  The Bakersfield artist, Alyssa Kaess helped me pay tribute to such Beatles songs of freedom and love here:

When I Heard You Sing

Alyssa Kaess: words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006

http//www.drblt.net/music/yousing.mp3 

I really haven't heard anyone on the Left demonize everyone who holds Judeo-Christian values.  (Well, maybe if you read blogs for a pastime, you will run across a few rabid sorts who berate all religious traditionalists.  But the scope I have in mind is people of some political influence.  I know of no politically influential people on the Left who demonize all religious traditionalists.)

And though that was addressed to Goat, I'm well aware that not all evangelical Christians are extremists.  I became a civil liberties activist when I still was an evangelical Christian.

I don't know if you're using the term "Left" to refer to people who believe in separating church and state.  If so, you shouldn't.  Upholding the Constitutional values that have kept our diverse nation a peaceful nation should not be considered a left vs. right issue.  Left and Right used to be differentiated by the exent to which you believe government should involve itself in economic regulation and social benefit programs.  It wasn't a religio-political distinction until fifteen or so years ago.

It is my own opinion that people like Michael Newdow go too far -- even if in raw legal technicality, they are on solid ground.

If I were to draft a peace treaty between the "two sides," I would offer something like this:  "You can keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, you can erect crosses and Nativity scenes on the courthouse lawn, and we'll change 'Spring Break' back to 'Easter Vacation' and 'Holiday Season' back to 'Christmas Season' if you agree not to attempt any laws aimed at conforming my personal choices and decisions to your religious beliefs."

>>>blognroll:  Obviously, a Beatles song would not be the weapon of choice in defending oneself against a criminal with a knife. 
.
--->And it would be no more effective in defending your civil liberties from religious zealots who don't really care about your choice of music.
.
>>>As for my definition of evangelical Christians, I don't have a precise one to offer at this time.
.
--->Well then please allow me to do the honors.  An evangelical christian is one who believes it is their mission, given to them by god in Mark 16:15 to to convert everyone who is not already a "born again" christian.  They believe this is their gods will because none of the other religions are legitimate,and no other lifestyle choices/moral codes are valid or acceptable.  You are either a christian (according to their definition of christian) or you are wrong.
.
>>>I could offer a dictionary definition, but there are so many variegated views among them that applying such a definition would be a dubious effort at best.
.
--->No, that's not true.  We're not talking about all christians here.  To be a christian you just have to believe in christ, right?  We're talking about evangelical christians here, and while there are many different subgroups within the main group of "evangelical christians," there is one thing they all have in common.  There interpretation of Mark 16:15.
.
>>>I would sugget talking to a few of them, and approaching a few of them with an open mind.
.
--->I don't need to talk to one, I used to be one!
.
>>>  You may begin to feel the need to break down a few of those walls.
.
--->You're not listening to what I'm saying and I'm growing tired of laboring the point.  I'm not the one here trying to control/limit their freedom.  You're barking up the wrong tree man!
.
>>>but if you do, you are robbing yourself of truth and depriving yourself of an opportunity for personal growth.
.
--->Robbing myself of your truth?  So are you saying your truth is more legitmate than my truth?  Are you one of them?  Is that why you can't understand what I am telling you?
.
>>>hardliner:  I'm well aware that not all evangelical Christians are extremists. 
.
--->They're not?  How do you define evangelical and how do you define extremist?
.
>>>I became a civil liberties activist when I still was an evangelical Christian.
.
--->Really?  So you're saying when you were an evangelical christian, you weren't trying to convert others?  What's evangelical about that?
.
>>>I don't know if you're using the term "Left" to refer to people who believe in separating church and state.  If so, you shouldn't.  Upholding the Constitutional values that have kept our diverse nation a peaceful nation should not be considered a left vs. right issue.  Left and Right used to be differentiated by the exent to which you believe government should involve itself in economic regulation and social benefit programs.  It wasn't a religio-political distinction until fifteen or so years ago.
.
--->You're right about that, but the right has left their platform of limited government and has begun pandering to an extremely religious base, and they have started to look exactly like democrats.  They're so similar now, I have started calling them all republicrats.  They only argue over turf now.  Who gets to spend our money and how do they get to spend it.  That's the only thing they differ on now.
.
>>>If I were to draft a peace treaty between the "two sides," I would offer something like this:  "You can keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, you can erect crosses and Nativity scenes on the courthouse lawn, and we'll change 'Spring Break' back to 'Easter Vacation' and 'Holiday Season' back to 'Christmas Season' if you agree not to attempt any laws aimed at conforming my personal choices and decisions to your religious beliefs."
.
---->You know that would never happen.

Goat, I think you are using the word "evangelical" to mean "aggressively proselytizing."

"Evangelical" is also used to describe a class of Christian theology, and that is the sense in which I meant it.  Evangelicals put a great emphasis on the Bible, and take it as mostly literally true.  (In my case, I was never a literal Genesis creationist -- I read it allegorically -- but in every other way, I was a theologically conservative Christian.)

Most evangelicals aren't itching for the chance to hand you a tract.  They usually wait until the conversation wanders in the right direction, or wait for some fitting opportunity to invite you to church.  And even then, they're careful to make sure you really are a non-believer rather than assume that you are one.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a better example of "evangelical" meaning aggressively proselytizing.

But even given that, I think you'll like Jehovah's Witnesses a lot better when I tell you that they believe it is wrong to force their beliefs on you using the government.  JWs are firm believers in separation of church and state -- because 1) they are pacifists, and 2) they believe in the complete separation of the spiritual world and the carnal world.

Goat,

They already have............................................. ................ If you lived somewhere else more tolerant, would you spend as much of your time and thought process being mad about it and thinking up ways of fighting them off?

Every day that you spend in, what might be considered to you, a hostile environment, is another day you've lost. If you live somewhere that you don't like, you're losing the fight.

That's not true at all Tony...  I really like Kern County, I just hate the intolerant jerks that live here.  There are lots of beautiful poeple here as well.  As well as lots of beautiful country to hike and hunt. 

.

Using your logic, if the commies were rushing over the border and attacking us, and I took up my rifle to defend my home and my family, I would have already lost.  The way I look at it, I have already won.  While my side may not ultimately prevail, and I may end up sacraficing all for my cause, I lived free.  I lived a life of my choosing, not someone elses.

.

I don't see how that's any different than what I'm doing now.  Our way of life is under attack, and I have taken up my pen to defend my home and my family.  I have already won!

Now, Goat, it's simply not true that all evangelicals think you should be forced to live they way they want.

The problem is the ones that do are the only ones you hear in the media.  Christian radio absolutely will not allow a voice that believes in freedom.  But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I can put forth quite a bulletproof Biblical argument that we should live and let live.  While it's true that converting people is known as the Great Commission, there are also enough passages that say "shake the dust from your feet" when someone clearly considers your message unwelcome.

I think you know that we're firmly on the same side when it comes to protecting our freedoms from religious coercion.  However, I think it's a mistake to assume, indeed, insist, that all evangelicals want to force your beliefs on you, when it just isn't true.

A much better strategy, in my opinion, is to isolate the Religious Right from their own fellow Christians.  This is very doable.  If you don't want people to act as your enemies, it's best to approach them as friends.  Convince them that the Religious Right's agenda is the unchristian thing to do.

It sounds like you are trying to tell me there are evangelial christians that are against laws prohibiting sodomy and gay marriage?  They are against laws prohibting victimless crimes like marijuana use and prosittution?  You're saying they don't believe it's right to restrict marriage to one man and one woman? 

.

I'm sorry to say this, but even with as much credibility you have with, I have a hard time believing that.  While there is no way I have met every single evangelical, I certainly know enough to accurately stereotype the group.

.

>>>  If you don't want people to act as your enemies, it's best to approach them as friends. 

.

--->I try to first approach everyone as a potential friend, until they show theirself to be my enemy.

No Goat,

According to my logic, if you moved to a Communist Country and didn't like it, you'd be losing every day that you lived there. I know I'd be completely misurable. KC didn't get this way just since you've lived here. It's been like this longer than i've been alive. I was born and raised here. It is what it is.

Moving to Kern and complaining about the intolerant SOBs is like moving to Africa and complaining about the Black People. In both cases, they're indiginous to the area.

There are other places that I've lived that are even MORE intolerant of others differences. Virginia, Georgia, The Carolinas, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas. In these places, the Athiesm "Thing" is all it would take to make you a public target. Those people would go out of their way to make you misurable and local law enforcement would sit and watch. At least in KC, people aren't allowed to go to those types of extremes. Sure, they'll tell you about it. They'll gripe at you and about you for awhile, but eventually stop. The West Coast still has the "You Do your Thing, I'll Do Mine" attitude that the rest of the Nation can't understand. KC doesn't have it quite as bad as the rest of California, but it's a lot better than other places. Besides that, it's got nice, low humidity and fewer BUGS too. : )