Now if we could only download it more easily.

I had to snarf it from the Temporary Internet Files folder to save it.

But thanks.

That's exactly the problem.

If people actually believe that their rights include those in the Bill of Rights (but not strictly limited to it -- see 9th Amendment), then they couldn't claim that you have those rights "unless God says otherwise."

They want to use their god as a trump card over the Bill of Rights.

But what else is news.

Here it is:

http://www.bakersfield.com/...

"“God grants (citizens) rights, and we grant power back to the government on loan from the people,” Vegas said. “What is frightening to me is when we remove that educationally, people don’t understand that anymore. They actually start to think that the Bill of Rights is the reason they have rights.”

To interpret that from the other direction, you only have the rights that their god grants.  If their god clashes with something in the Bill of Rights, guess who loses?

Yep, you, me, and the Bill of Rights.

Damn, these people are masters at disguising things in their words.  But not clever enough to fool me, Lois, or Sage.

Downloadable:

Whatever you did with the first two Inga Barks recordings worked fine.

If I put my theologian's hat on and analyzed the second Inga Barks interview, and the five-point Calvinism that Chad espouses (google TULIP in upper case), I could come down with a whole lot of stuff that doesn't speak very highly of human rights.

http://www.biblegateway.com...;

The light at the bottom of the volcano is something called "double predestination."  Feel free to ask.

It means that every one of us has been consciously chosen by God -- from the beginning of time -- to go to heaven or hell -- and there's not a bloody thing we can do of our own volition to affect our eventual outcome.

Those of us that are "going to hell" are going there because God created us for specifically that purpose.

That's how so-called "hyper-Calvinists" interpret the Romans passage that I linked.

In fact, one of the raging debates within that theological school of thought is whether or not God intentionally destined Adam and Eve to sin.

If you believe that, you're what's known as a Supralapsarian.

Really, double predestination seems to me to flow logically from the oversold "God" product religionists have advertised.  Either God knows exactly what's going to happen and caused it, or there's some misleading information on the label.

.

Thank Zeus the can's empty.

True, Random, it's the concept of omniscience and omnipotence taken to its logical conclusion.

They succeed in taking it to its logical conclusion,and believe it nonetheless.

What is cause for concern is how these people turn up in political office wildly out of proportion to their actual numbers.

An earlier and even more radical KHSD board member, pastor David Crenshaw, was one of these as well.  Was pastor of a Presbyterian Church in America, a Presbyterian offshoot formed in 1973 that embraces "TULIP" Calvinism.

I know waaaay too much about theology to ever get a radio show.

It's full of contradictions, to be sure.  They generally pray that "God's will be done" -- as if he's actually going to do anything else...

The other thing that I meant to point out, as it pertains to the second Inga Barks interview, is the way that Chad said that he keeps his role as a pastor and his role as a trustee completely separate.  That's not nearly as harmless as it may have been meant to sound.

The "role of pastor," as it were, is to directly address people's spiritual needs and in explicit religious teaching.  Even I wouldn't expect him to do that in a trustee capacity.

But the fact that he isn't acting in a pastoral role doesn't mean that he's adopting a hands-off stance regarding religion and school policy.

He (and his allies) are still there hoping to conform the school system to the constraints of fundamentalist Christianity as they see it.  In higher political offices, they are still out there trying to unite church and state and convert the latter into the enforcement arm of the former.

They're just not pastoring, if you ask.

In church, they'll work on turning you into a good observant fundamentalist Christian.  That's their right -- nobody's saying they shouldn't do this.

But out side of church, don't let the disavowing of the "pastor role" lull you into false comfort.  They'll still do their best to use the laws of the state to require you to live as if you were an observant fundamentalist Christian.  It's just the job of the church to turn you into a real one.