Probably my favorite letter of all-time. A real classic.

Great letter, you should have asked about what the bible says about masterbation, cause it looks like "Dr." Laura might be touching herself in that picture.

And about coveting thy neighbour's wife (or in her case, husband).

If God had wanted us to run around with our boobies and hoohoos exposed like that, we would have been born without clothes.

You did mention Laura losing interest in Orthodox Judaism but not why. Her stated reason is that it didn't satisfy her, and that her Christian friends seemed to get more spiritiual sustenance than she did from her adopted religion. She also said many Jews were not supportive enough compared to her Christian friends (who, of course, wanted to convert her).

But the unstated reason was that Laura had taken up sailboat racing, which has most of the races on Saturday. As early as March 2003, Laura's name started showing up at the Santa Barbara Yacht Club race results for Saturday events.

This was observed by some observant readers of the alt.radio.talk.dr-laura newsgroup, and then several other readers began emailing Orthodox rabbis to ask their opinion of these goings-on. Each and every one of them stated there was no permissable reason to enter a sailboat race on the Sabbath.

Not long after a reader posted comments from both Schlessinger's personal rabbi in California and the rabbi who oversaw her conversion in Canada, Laura read her announcement. She must have some staff who follow the group.

While the Letter to Laura is fun, it's far more interesting to follow what she says versus what she does. Her latest news is that her wonderful son, the one who couldn't cut it at Hillsdale College, has enrolled in the Armed Forces. Laura is under the impression he's qualified for Special Forces. She's going to be mighty disappointed when she finds that only 1 in 4 finish that program and the rest have to find alternative careers... in the Armed Forces.

What? There's more to the story than Dr. Laura let on about renouncing the religion that she adopted before previously announcing the one she then returned to?! I'm shocked! SHOCKED!

Thanks for th background, JG! And folks, do yourself a favor and click on his name above to check out the General's great website!

Soeaking of Dr, Laura's "hoohoo" (never thought anything like that wouylkd ever be typed), these pictures make me wonder if all that name calling on her show wasn't just some sadistic version of aural sex. Quite disturbing.

Nevertheless, a great scene on West Wing took place when the Pres actually confronts a Lauraesque character with the contents of the letter. i emailed the audio clip to a couple of hosts at wls who hated, and followed, Laura and they played it several times. it was beautiful. got to talk for half an hour about her disgusting approach to theology by using it to tear people down rather than build people up.

here is my response to each question:

A) Try a little BBQ sauce
B) Since she is a girl the market value will be less. Maybe 60 cents on the dollar. Start high like you are selling a car.
C) If you have to ask they won't tell you. Hannibal Lecter could tell from 500 feet.
D) If you want to own Canadians buy a hockey team.
E) No. Your friend will get whats coming to him. If you notice the life expectancy of NFL players is considerably less than the rest of us.
F) Whoever wrote this was allergic to shellfish. Crunch all you want. He'll make more.
G) If the Bible does't say 20/20 than you have wiggle room.
H) I think this means you can't get a haircut at the Temple. Supercuts is ok though.
I) Only on the Sabbath.
J) You would be suprised how much fun bringing the whole community together would be. You could even have a chili cookoff after the stoning. Maybe a live band or two. Maybe a parade??

Very funny Ed!

I do not know why Brad is making such a big deal about Swaggert's comments. He does not speak for the right or the Republican Party.

As far as what the Old Testament says, Jesus came to fulfill the law not change it. However, many of the old laws are no longer valid. For instance, no longer necessary to sacrifice an unblemished lamb because Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, who was sacrificed for our sins, once and for all.

You have to understand here that people are not perfect. The messenger can be a sinner but his message about sin does not change.

No one is killing anyone for adultery or homosexuality.

However, some day we all will meet God for judgment. Some will have eternal life while others will be given the death that is described in Leviticus.

Romans Chapter 1 is also a very good chapter on how God gave homosexuals minds over to depravity. I do not expect a non-believer to grasp Biblical Truths.

The way for a person to become a Christian is by reading and hearing of the Word. I would suggest that you start with the book of John.

Paul,

"No one is killing anyone for adultery or homosexuality."

This is not accurate at all. Let me ask you if you've ever heard of a case out west? A homosexual murdered and basically crucified on a fence post BECAUSE HE WA GAY?

We did hear about that and it was tragic. However unless I am wrong the responsible parties are in prison. There are no Churches advocating the murder of Gays. Or even abortion Doctors.

I hope Laura put some off on those Mosquito bites.

Thanks Ed for your reply about "no church." Like I said, I do not expect these guys to understand.

There is also the belief that the Old Testament law was separated into three parts - Cultural, Civil, and Moral. Some of the cultural and civil laws no longer apply of course. The moral laws are still applicable.

ed paul,

when Paul said no one he did not say no church. Its easy to suugest that no church has a policy of whatever, but when a church preaches hate and distortion of God's Word it is responsible. Cardinal O'Connor a man i knew from my days as a student activist in New York, was much reviled by the gay activist community. The feeling was mutual. he came to an understanding, albeit late in life, that the presentation of teaching is as important as the teaching itself. Thus, while he considered homosexual acts as sinful, he also visited hospices and actively cared for those aflicted with AIDS. Immoral presentation leads to disasters such as the murder of homosexuals and abortion doctors. The church, as the great Reformed theologian Karl Barth said, bears a direct responsibility for its talk about God DIRECTLY in the everyday life of believers. Barth, Bonhoeffer, Neimöller, and Edith Stein all bear this out in their reactions to the complicity of the church with the Nazis. Barth authored, and bonhoeffer and Neimöller were leading participants in the Synod leading to the the barmen declaration condemning the church's collusion with the Nazis. Bonhoeffer was, of course, martyred at the end of the war. Neimöller said, and i think this is possibly one of the more interesting statements made by a pastor in the 20th century, that he would rather burn the church to the ground than preach the Nazified theo-ideology of the German church. i feel the same way when i hear much of the conservative preaching in this country. he narrowly escaped martyrdom at the end of the war after being held at Sachsenhausen and Dachau. Edith Stein, a convert and Carmelite, was also martyred by the Nazi regime. She began her life as a student of the phenomenologist Edmund Husserl (i don't hold her phenomenology against her) and was led to Catholicism by a friend who was killed on the front lines in the First World War. She was an outspoken Catholic and activist during Hitler's rise to power and turned down an appointment to an office in South America to remain in Germany and struggle against the Nazis. She knew well her life was in danger. In 1938 she and her sister were sent to echt in the netherlands because the situation was worsening. At this time she had joined the Carmelites and could not refuse the order to move. After the invasion of Holland the Carmelites planned to move the sisters to Switzerland but the Dutch Bishops, more brave than their Germen brethren more brave than Rome, published an encyclical condemning the Nazis anti-semitism. In retaliation the Gestapo began arresting and deporting all Jewish converts to Catholicism. The Stein sisters were sent to Auschwitz and died a week later. The church is known in the life of its people and these people were examplary. On the other hand, the church is also known in the life of those who are less than examplary. Those who preach the bile of hatred and bigotry and those who give them a pass by saying that the hatred and bigotry are the teachings of the church but people shouldnt act on them.

> but when a church preaches hate and distortion of God's Word it is responsible.

My church does not preach hate and murder towards homosexuals but we are also not going to water down the truth of God's Word. God calls homosexuality an abomination and I am not going to argue with Him. However, through Jesus Christ, many homosexuals are being saved and saved out of that sinful lifestyle.

Individuals hate and murder. Some preachers and pastors and priests may teach or preach a false Christianity and they do influence others to hate and murder. I do not like the signs that read “God hates fags.” God loves homosexuals but he does not condone their behavior. These kinds of folks will be held accountable someday. You and I will be held accountable.

The Catholic Church via some church leaders did coddle the Nazi's. My church (not Catholic), fundamentalist churches (“fundamentals of the faith” is all that means), and evangelical churches do not teach or preach hate and murder.

Johnhp, you seem to have some issues with the Catholic Church and you may be holding that against other Christians. I have met many disillusioned Catholics, especially with the priests and young boys scandals. Hey, we are to worship God, not man!

I have my issues with TV evangelists like Swaggert and mainly with Pentecostal TV evangelists. I also have issues with “end times” evangelists. However, even though you and I may do this but do not mean to, we cannot stereotype. We cannot put all Christians, Jews, African-Americans, Republicans, and Democrats in the same box.

Paul twice said something along the lines of : " You and I will be held accountable."

If this is true, what's sad to me Paul, is that you will have a lot of explaining to do when it's your turn.

Paul said:
"God calls homosexuality an abomination and I am not going to argue with Him."

Then why do you argue with Him when he says in Romans (a chapter you apparently like) that "who commit such things are worthy of death"?

You pick and choose what you like, and throw away what you don't under some flip-flop like "only some ideas apply" and others don't because they were cultural or because "Jesus took care of that one" (so only Jews still need to kill homosexuals? Or, more accurately to your thinking, are they practicing a religion that is also now invalid?)

If the word of God is the word of God, then stick to it, and don't make excuses for the words you don't wish to stick to. Otherwise, recognize the failability and errors in the bible that --- like so much else --- do not apply to us today, and admit that you only pick and choose the items you care to follow, while many folks --- like you --- may not care to follow all of those words either.

Hey Brad!

Theo-Con ringing in here against killing homsexuals! HOWEVER in the interest of clarity (and for some good ole fashioned Bible Thumping) some apologetics for the Romans 1:32 verse. Romans is a book written by Paul about 58 AD to the Christians in Rome who were not behavng as suited followers of "The Way", as it was referred to by some contemporaneous extra-biblical historians (viz, Josephus, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus). It pretty much sums up the "christian paradigm" so to speak. In the first 6 chapters it describes man's seperation from God through his sinful nature, this is touched on with some specificity in the second half of Chapter 1 where there is a series or list of sins: idolotry, lying, stealing, bragging, fighting, gossip, hate, greed as well as sexual sins.

Variations of this list can be found in a letter from Paul to the Corinthians and Peter's letters. There are other references to Christian and non-Christian living elsewhere but these "sin lists" are much contended and often times misquoted or poorly used and abused out of context by BOTH Christians and Non-Christians for purposes of accomplishing personal agendas: Any tack like that is probably unwise and in many cases (on both sides) reprehensible.

The verse in question, while referencing this list, reads in it's context this way

NEW INTERNATIONAL REVISED VERSION:
They know that God's commands are right. They know that those who do evil things should die. But they continue to do those very things. They also approve of others who do them.

or

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION:
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

or
NEW KING JAMES 2ND VERSION:
And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.

or
AMPLIFIED BIBLE:
Though they are fully aware of God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them.

Or
KING JAMES VERSION:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The verse, as you can see through these various translations reads as an observation by Paul: While the recipients of this letter know what the penalty is, they continue to sin. NOT a command: Sinners, and specifically homsexuals, are to be killed. The problem with taking this or anything else out of context, as you have smartly pointed out on your website, is that it doesn't accurately portray the picture; which, for our purposes here, is more fully painted by reading the rest of Romans, wherein is contained God's solution to His problem: We sin. The penalty for sin is death. God has a law He must keep. However He doesn't want us to die. So on passover two thousand years He laid the perfect lamb, His own son, on the alter at Passover, so that death would do just that, summing up and keeping all His own laws as laid out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy so that we could live, making that night different from ALL the others.

The Romans verse is not a call to kill unless one takes it OUT of context. One could say that the United States Constitutaion says "Congress shall make no law". This would be "accurate" but unfair to the listener; after all the Constitution does say such a thing...at the beginning of the first amendment.

Excellent job on the site!

Peace to you,

Rob

Paul,

i think when you use words like "abomination" you are feeding into the ideo-theology that justifies murder. There are no ifs ands or buts. This, in fact, makes my point; i.e., that the Church as a whole (all flavors as i made clear not just Catholicism or Protestant) is responsible for its language as it is lived by those who believe. No one is asking that you or your church water down the Word of God. What i would suggest is that fundamentalism, as it is expressed through a conservative theology, is a a fundamental misunderstanding of God's Word. For instance the previous post by Theo-con Rob obviously does not understand that the notion of death in Paul is "spitiual death"; that is, sin consigns a person to life outside the power of the Spirit, outside the ekklesia. It also makes the mistake of not really understanding the demographic issues of the Roman church. For instance a sizable portion of that church was relatively wealthy and many of the issues Paul mentioned are issues of class. Homosexuality, for instance, was largely, though by no means exclusively, an issue of class. Paul, it is quite clear, believes that heterosexuality is "natural" and therefore moral, hence the reference to Creation, but at the same time he believes that the sharing of wealth (and i suggest you look up share's etymology to fully understand what i mean here) and a sort of peaceful life together are natural as well. What Paul includes in his list are those things that he considers detrimental to natural law. Unfortunately, for Paul, sexuality is not a "natural" category in the manner in which he considered it. "Lust" no more counter relations of nature than my desire to fly will allow me to simply take to the skies in violation of gravity. "Lust" however will allow me to violate social conventions which may or may not be valid. For instance lust has caused many a person to violate their marriage oaths.

"The Catholic Church via some church leaders did coddle the Nazi's."

They certainly did, as my post demonstrates. My post also demonstrates, and perhaps you are unaware of this, that many of the Deutsche Evangelische were also coddling the Nazis. This is why i referenced Bonhoeffer, Neimöller and Barth (all under the aspect of Evangelische, not Catholicism). they did early on what the Bishops of Holland did later when resisting the Nazis. Like the Bishops of Holland they were in the minority of Evangelishe Christians. In the same way the manner in which many fundamentalist and evangelical christians do not stand up to the policies of the corporate structure of our political and economic institutions is a betrayal of the Gospel. The way for instance the right wing took over the Southern Baptist convention and all but eviscerated anything that resembled the Gospel as lived by Jesus and favored instead social prejudices is quite disturbing.

i am not sure where you think i have a problem with the Catholic church. i am home with the church and am quite comfortable with it. This does not mean that i cannot be critical. Perhaps you dont believe that it is possible to be critical of an institution to which you belong and still hold that institution dear. i critique ALL flavors of Christians based on what they actually say not on my relationship with the Catholic church. i find it amusing that someone who so easily stereotypes suggests that pewople should not stereotype (which, btw, i have not).

We are here to worship God? Is that the case? And how are we to do this?

Simple pure answer: Matthew 25.31-46. There is nothing about worship in the traditional religious sense there, nothing even about an overt knowledge of God.