Michael Moore Can’t Keep His Beliefs Straight?

I saw this over at The Evangelical Outpost and just had to laugh. During the 2000 election, I campaigned for Ralph Nader. My only issue with the left at that time was its interpretation of the second amendment (regarding the right of citizens to bear arms). Michael Moore, one of the biggest names in the Nader camp at the time, stood strongly against the right to bear arms. (This was before he jumped ship and decided that the Democrats really weren’t as corporation-laden under Kerry as they were under Gore.)

His protest to regular citizens carrying arms, however, extend only as far as those guns that aren’t guarding Michael Moore.

Frankly, I’m not opposed to his beliefs, I’m opposed to his hypocrisy. I can respectfully disagree with one, I can’t respect or agree with the other. I’m not a subscriber to the philosophy that some people are more equal than others.

NOTE:The following comments come from the original posting of this on the old Gnorb.NET bBlog blog.

Nate
Michael Moore is my hero… cause he exposes Bush and all his moronic Texas hillbilly buddies for what they are. Of course he needs armed body guards because every gun-nut Bush supporter is a member of the N.R.A. and therefore is armed and crazy.

Ok, I’m a Christian but, I don’t understand how the ‘moral majority’ constantly injects it’s political agenda into one big huge diluted sermon. Here are some contradictions for ya:

1. Supporting the death penalty and being opposed to abortion?
Isn’t a life a life?

2. Supporting the N.R.A. and ‘the RIGHT to bear arms’.
Spreading the word with assault weapons – I don’t think so. Love thy neighbor not, shootith him dead. Come on, what other reason does a person have to own an assault weapon? To admire it?

3. Opposing same-sex unions.
Ok, they condemn promiscuity, yet they also condemn committed relationships? Oh yeah, that’s right I forgot basic human rights are only for those people who don’t ‘creep’ them out.

4. Supporting Bush’s Iraq Bloodbath
Thou Shalt Not Kill – hmm… It’s a freaking commandment – aren’t those like important?

As a Christian – I’m frankly humiliated by most “Christians” who seek to use religion as a political weapon.

Hey that’s just my 2 cents. I think you are wrong on this one Gnorbmeister. One outta ten ain’t bad =)

Gnorb
Hmm… let’s disect your argument and see what we come out with (sorry that there’s no text formatting, so this will seem like one big blob). — Michael Moore exposes Bush: 100% agree. Although I believe Bush is quite honest about his beliefs, I don’t believe he or his staff see the long term effect of a number of their environmental and foreign policies. — Every gun-nut Bush suppoerter is a member of the N.R.A.: That’s a falsehood and generalization. In a country where guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Should they be as easy to get as they are? Probably not, but they shouldn’t be denied, either. — Christians injecting their political agenda into one big huge diluted sermon — Actually, they do that because the Bible tells us how to run a government that’s NOT a theocracy. If you’re referrinf to the “Separation of Church and State,” remember these facts: (1) Thomas Jefferson wrote those words in the early 1800. Jefferson was also not involved in writing that segment of the Bill of Rights, Madison was. (2) The term was taken out of context in 1948 to indicate that church should not be in the government. The term “Separation of Church and State”, when Jefferson mentioned it, was in line with the founders’ ideas that there should not be a state sponsored “official” religion, like what England had. Please note that the founding fathers, especially Ol’ “secular” Ben Franklin were in favor of people worshiping as a personal matter. The European equation is God -> gives power to the State -> Gives power to the People, whereas the American equation is God -> Gives power to the People -> Give power to the State. — Supporting death penalty and not abortion: Ok, that’s not even comparable. Someone is given the Death Penatly in this country when they take the right of another to live. Abortion is the killing of an unborn life, one which is blameless and has done no wrong. The morality of the minutia could be argued for months on end, but that’s the overall picture. Both of these fall under the banner of “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” — The right to bear arms is so that the government can’t bully you around, not so that you can shoot your neighbor. The gun laws are in place. If they were properly enforced, the gun problem would be greatly diminished. — Opposing same sex unions: Leviticus 20:13 “The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.” Be thankful for the Christians. Although they oppose it, they won’t kill you for it. In fact, check this link for a full explanation as to why not. However, to support the argument check out 1 Corinthians 6:9. By the way, Marriage is not a basic human right. Sorry, but marriage IS a holy establishment, a covenant with the Almighty. Marriage has nothing to do with love, believe it or not. That’s why Hindus still practice pre-arranged marriages. It is a union set forth in order that a higher purpose, one greater than any of the individuals involved, is achieved, whether it be creating a child, or in the case of the barren, to achieve something else (perhaps adoption or some other need in which being a natural parent would be too great a burden). This misconception is why the concept of “same sex unions” came about. And why that’s being pushed. As for the act of sex (not coitus, in this case), in the commited relationship sense, take a look at the Catholic doctorine which basically says that sex is for procreation, nothing more. Don’t want kids? Don’t have sex. No birth control allowed. Protestants are a bit looser on that, which is considered to be very liberal by some Catholics. Note that under all circumstances, promiscuity, also known as fornication and/or adultery, is wrong. (Check out this link for a deeper explanation on that.— Bush’s Iraq war: Actually, I don’t support the war. The reasons for which we went in were not, in my opinion, fully justified. However we cannot just drop the ball and run now. The act has been commited, and this is something we will have to see through. I don’t like it. I have friends out there. But it’s not my place to yell at them and tell them “you’re a murderer!” when in reality they might have just saved numerous lives in and around Iraq. (Again, and exhaustive discussion on this would require another thread.) — Using religion as a political weapon: I fully agree, it shouldn’t be. But proclaiming your faith should also not be denied. Is not Bush a citizen? Does he not himself have the right to freedom of speech and expression? I’m not a Bush fan. I didn’t vote for him (or Kerry) in this past election. But he is a person with an understanding of basic human dignity, like most people. Whether his expression of it is something you agree with… well, that’s another matter, now isn’t it. — “One out of 10 ain’t bad”: Neither is a perfect record ;).

Nate
Ah yes I admit I generalized all gun-nuts as republicans
and NRA supporters. 1 Point for Norb. In a country that outlaws guns only outlaws will have guns? Sounds like NRA proproganda.

I did never state that guns should be outlawed. Although
interestingly enough all countries that have strong gun laws
like Canada have much lower crime rates. That argument has
no fact behind it. It’s simple proproganda. Funny also you
didn’t address my point about assault weapons, should we all
have the run to own weapons of mass murder? Your argument
about murders vs. innocent babies doesn’t hold weight.
You are valuing one life above another. If you believe in
Christian ™ values and the Bible, then one should be of
the opinion that it’s not up to a human as to if another
human should live or not – regardless. Likewise, how do you
know that baby who was aborted won’t be a mass murderer,
and how do you know for sure that murderer is guilty?
In re: opposing same sex unions. You made two generalizations the first being that (same sex) civil unions are the same as biblical marriage. The second being that all same-sex partners engage in homosexual sex or are in fact homosexual. State sponsored civil unions ARE a basic human right – it’s plain and simple discrimination that two people of the same sex cannot have the same rights of joint property ownership and the tax benefits accorded to married couples. I’m not here to make biblical arguments, I do however find it interested you quoted levitical law. I wonder do you cut your hair and eat pork? or do you just selectively quote and follow levitical law?

Also, I find the translation interesting. I own a few different translations, KJV, NIV, none of which even have the word homosexual anywhere. I could debate translations and throw back verses but. that’s not my style. Why? Because I am blessed with the knowledge that God created me, the way I am. There was no choice, there is no changing it. If you care to read about the Bible as I understand it check out http://www.nlcch.org. It’s the website for the spirit filled church I attended when I came out both as gay and a Christian. Pastor Randy Duncan is a biblical scholar way more qualified to debate such things than I am. Yes, I fully agree with freedom of speech. Mr. Bush, Mr. Moore, You, and Me should all be given the right to say what they wish. If fact even though, I may disagree with you on these few things, I respect you more for having the courage to stand up and represent what you believe – which is what makes Gnorb.net and Norb so cool.

Stuart
I find it interesting that Nate believes that crime has gone down, in countries like Canada, due to strict gun control laws. That simply is not so. Crimes rates, especially violent crime and crimes invloving guns, have done nothing but increase. I guess Nate does not understand that criminals to not wait any kind of waiting period at a store to by their guns; they are criminals, they buy them on the street.

On Nates view of same sex unions, I think it is ironic that at first Nate uses the term same sex unions and then switches to the term civil unions. They are not the same thing. and to prove it to you mathematically is easy. same sex union is a subset of civil unions therefore they cannot be equal, ergo no the same thing. Now I do support the idea of civil unions which incorporates everybody as with same sex unions it only includes those people who are homosexual. Sounds a little like reverse discrimination. And While I support cicil unions as they can be supported by law. The covenant of marriage under G-D is between a man and a women.

For the record in the Hebrew Bible (and you cannot argue against this, for all other Bible a derived from it) says in Leviticus 20:13 (as Gnorb used earler) “If a man lies with a male as on lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death– their bloodguilt is upon them.” Now the word homosexual may not be there, however, homosexual is defind as follows
ho�mo�sex�u�al
Pronunciation: “hO-m&-‘seksh-(&-)w&l, -‘sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one’s own sex �compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex �compare HETEROSEXUAL 1b �ho�mo�sex�u�al�ly /-E/ adverb

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, � 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Furthermore Nate, I think it hypocritical to claim to be a faithful Christian and yet try to denounce levitical law or any of G-D’s laws for that matter.

Now whether or not you choose to follow those said laws is another matter.

Please note I have nothing against you for being gay, but under the covenant of G-D you cannot be married to another man. Which is where civil union comes in to play because it is not a hetero- or homosexual thing it is a people thing.

And Please forgive me for not taking you seriously for I cannot take seriously anybody who claims Michael Moore as there hero. Afer all we are talking about a guy who sells lies and half truths for a living. And I certainly don’t take Michael Moore seriously. Just because he obese does not mean he can’t present himself as a gentleman. I mean seriously, Michael Moore looks like he hasn’t showwered in a week and like he just got off of a two week drinking binge.

Gnorb
Ok, another point by point analysis here: “All countries that have strong gun laws like Canada have much lower crime rates.” How many legally registered and acquired guns are used for crimes by their owners? In other words, when that 17 year old gang kid held up the 7-11 down the street, did he legaly get that gun? Not likely. The fact of the matter is that we have strong gun laws, and were they properly implemented, we wouldn’t be having some of these problems. In regards to assault weapons, my apologies for skipping that point. I agree with you in the assault weapon ban. Used for hunting? Fine. Used for self defense? Fine. An assault weapon fits neither of these categories and as such should not be legalized. From a collector’s point of view, I can understand the value assigned to them, however. And don’t try comparisons to other countries. Do you also realize that cities with the highest person to gun ratios have some of the lowest crime rates? Guns are neither good nor evil. The person using the gun determines how its used. In most cases, guns are used by those in economic need who feel that crime is their only way out. But that’s another argument right there. —- “Your argument about murder vs. innocent babies doesn’t hold weight. You are valuing one life above another.” It’s not a matter of valuing one life over another. It’s a matter of one is innocent, blameless in every way. The other has taken the right for someone else to live and forfeit their own life when they do so. Why should their life be allowed to live when they have unjustly taken the right of another. Mind you, I do prefer life sentences, since they give the opportunity for redemption. And if the US Gov’t wants to save money, maybe they can outsource criminals to Iranian jails, as a show of good will. (Ok, that’s a joke, but there is some truth in that.) But there are times when death is necessary. Although I wish they would be made public, instead of private, as they are now. That way, the deterrance factor would actually work. (Afterall, that IS the point of the death penalty, to deter others from commiting the same act.) Now as for the baby being aborted, how do you know that the baby wasn’t the one who would invent a cure for AIDS or Cancer? How do you know that baby would not end up bringing about world peace? To commit an evil act in the name of good doesn’t make that act any less evil. And there if no more innocent life than the life of an unborn child. As for whether or not I know that a murdered is guilty, “I would rather 10 guilty men go free than see one innocent suffer.” That should put forth my feelings with it comes to the death pennalty. —– “Same sex unions”: First off, my apologies on that one, I should have been clearer. Although I don’t condone homosexual behavior, I wasn’t put on this earth to judge. Frankly, I’m not interested in having that kind of responsibility. As far as civil unions are concerned, they should be allowed, since those are more than simple substitutes for marriages. There are more reasons than marriage to recognize a legal bond between two individuals. However, marriage is indeed a sacred affair, between a man and a woman, and should not be infringed upon by government regulations. And as for levitical law, although I don’t follow kosher, I try to keep from unclean foods. Jesus came to fulfil the law, not to destroy it. (Mt 5:17). Still, is not what comes out of the mouth more important than what comes into it? (MT 15: 17-18) As for cutting my hair, check out 1 Corinthians 11:14, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” As for homosexuality, check out 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, any version (KJV, NLT, NKJV, these are just three) The message is the same. (If you doubt, check out “Effeminate” on Dictionary.com. Again, I’m not here to judge, and I won’t presume to be all high and mighty and say “well that’s wrong and you’ll burn in HELL!!” Not my style. Again, “Gnorb” is not a synonym for “judge.” There’s only one good enough for that. WWJD? He would act in accordance to the will of the Father. And His actions speak as loudly as His words. But what I’ve posted is what the Word says. The Bible is its own best commentary, and doesn’t need help from me. (Of course, being but a sinner myself, many of my previous actions are condemned by the Book, I guarantee. It is only by repentance and God’s grace that I am kept from being eaten alive by the wages of my sin.) I, like you, will live my life according to my best understanding of what I believe to be the highest authority, whether that’s God, Gaia, the Buddha, the Universe… whatever. —- On Freedom of speech: I’ll put it this way: “I might not agree with a word you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” My honest belief? To each his own, so long as it doesn’t impede another’s freedom to the same. If God needs you to do something, and you’re willing to listen, you’ll know. Even if you aren’t, sometime’s he’ll make you listen. (I have a few scars I could show you to prove my point.) Thanks for the complement on Gnorb.NET. 😉 I hope to keep it as entertaining — and controversial — as I can.

Nate
I do admit to being a little bit controversal just for the sake of discussion – good for web hits =). I tend to play devil’s advocate a little. In that respect I wouldn’t say that Mr. Moore really isn’t my hero. He’s the left’s extreme as the right has it’s extremes (aka Rush Limbaugh). In each case it’s good to have people to stir things up a bit and that’s what makes America cool… Freedom of speech. You can make a documentary condeming the president and not get put in prison for life. On the other hand I worry about America becoming too ‘polarized’. It seems like the political middle ground is disappearing. I’m not sure of the confusion in my terms… same sex unions and civil unions are the same to me. I don’t mean to imply that one is a marriage. To tell you the truth I am fine with the term marriage as a religious institution. I am only arguing that same sex couples be given the same “civil” rights to a legal civil union. As for the term “marriage” I can tell you that I know of several churches where I could get married to another man and I certainly believe that in the eyes of God, I would be married. (incidently most gay people strongly believe there should be legal marriage – I don’t exactly agree, I would must certainly be happy with ‘civil unions’) but, I would never ‘force’ anyone to believe the same way ie. suggest that be added to any law. I avoid religious arguments because I don’t believe to forcing my beliefs and expect the same in return. However if asked I will share them. Stuart — I don’t think I am at all hypocritical for calling myself a Christian simply because I interpret the Bible differently than you. I wouldn’t make that judgement about you or anyone else. I certainly did not imply that I am faithful either. I am a sinner just like anyone else. I don’t go to church because I feel disinfranchised – and I don’t really care for the ‘all gay’ Christian churches like UFMCC because, I don’t believe in seperating myself from the Christian community in that way. As for gun control…. my biggest complaint is the N.R.A. (talking about polarization again) Seriously, like taking away assult weapons is going to mean eventually taking away all weapons? I just want the violence to end.

Share your thoughts