Letter to Dr. Laura: "Why can’t I own Canadians?"

[Rumpel]

Letter to Dr. Laura: "Why can’t I own Canadians?"

A letter sent to radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger highlights fallacies in Biblical anti-homosexuality arguments.​

• Snopes Staff
• Published 9 March 2004

And there is the letter now: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/letter-to-dr-laura/

As a counter to the “homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so” argument Dr. Laura frequently offered, Kent Ashcraft penned and sent her a letter that became an Internet-circulated piece after its author e-mailed a copy to one friend whom he thought would find it amusing. She in turn forwarded the item to several of her friends, and the letter went viral within a couple of weeks

And the name of the author is Kent Ashcraft

 

[Rumpel]

This letter has been copied again and again - moslty without the name of the real author.
Here it is again: Kent Ashcraft.

 

[Rumpel]

And:

October 2000 was not Dr. Laura’s month. A few weeks after she issued her apology, a version of the “Letter to Dr. Laura” was incorporated into the 18 October episode of the political television drama The West Wing. In “The Midterms,” President Bartlet used his own detailed knowledge of the Bible to make a Schlessinger-esque character named Jenna Jacobs look ridiculous. Kent Ashcraft, the author of the Dr. Laura letter, received a modest sum from Lorimar Productions in payment for their use of parts of his letter in that episode):

Just as the Internet piece gave the West Wing writers fodder for a memorable scene, so did the exposure on a popular television show boost the online circulation of the “Letter to Dr. Laura.” Similarly, a 2004 brouhaha over gay marriage sparked a renewal of this e-missive, causing it to once again be flung from inbox to inbox.

Letter to Dr. Laura

A letter sent to radio personality Dr. Laura highlights fallacies in Biblical anti-homosexual arguments.

www.snopes.com

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

And here I thought, when I read the headline, this was going to be another love letter to Canadians.

Some may miss what relevance the title of this thread has to with "A letter sent to radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger highlights fallacies in Biblical anti-homosexuality arguments."

But within the link:

Letter to Dr. Laura

A letter sent to radio personality Dr. Laura highlights fallacies in Biblical anti-homosexual arguments.

www.snopes.com

There is a part that reads:
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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?

Just thought I would clear this up for those who only read the headlines and don't dwell deeper into articles.

 

[Dragonfly]

Exactly how many “Christian vs Gay” threads (by the same author) do we need in the span of just a few days???

 

[tosca1]

And there is the letter now: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/letter-to-dr-laura/



And the name of the author is Kent Ashcraft

I don't know what your point is regarding this letter. It's not like as if it negates the Bible.

Also,
If you'd notice - the letter of Kent Ashcraft all quoted verses from Leviticus.
The laws of God for the Jews was quite strict because of who they were - they were God's chosen people, meant to be a nation of priests.

The Laws also reflected the cultures of the time - which is different from today (like the issue on slavery),
and we are no longer required to offer sacrifices for atonement of sins because we have all been redeemed by the ultimate sacrifice -
the Messiah.

 

[tosca1]

Exactly how many “Christian vs Gay” threads (by the same author) do we need in the span of just a few days???

AT LAST!

Something we agree on! I've just wondered about that as I wrote my response to the OP.

 

[devildavid]

I don't know what your point is regarding this letter. It's not like as if it negates the Bible.

Also,
If you'd notice - the letter of Kent Ashcraft all quoted verses from Leviticus.

The Laws also reflected the cultures of the time - which is different from today (like the issue on slavery),
and we are no longer required to offer sacrifices for atonement of sins because we have all been redeemed by the ultimate sacrifice -
the Messiah.

Nothing is needed to negate that which is not taken seriously to begin with.

All laws reflect the culture at the time because all laws are the product of human beings.

 

[tosca1]

Nothing is needed to negate that which is not taken seriously to begin with.

All laws reflect the culture at the time because all laws are the product of human beings.

Well David - why are we even discussing it (you're quite robust with it too) - if it's not taken seriously?

 

[devildavid]

Well David - why are we even discussing it (you're quite robust with it too) - if it's not taken seriously?

Because people like you insist on it. I'll dispense with discussing the bible if you will.

 

[tosca1]

Because people like you insist on it. I'll dispense with discussing the bible if you will.

So what if we insist on it? This is a forum.
I don't think a lot of posts are directed to you!
In fact - you seem to be butting in all the time.

Why does that bother you? Seriously?

 

[devildavid]

So what if we insist on it? This is a forum.
I don't think a lot of posts are directed to you!
In fact - you seem to be butting in all the time.

Why does that bother you? Seriously?

I like to debate. And this is a debate forum. I can debate any posts that make me want to debate them. You should be thanking me!

 

[tosca1]

I like to debate. And this is a debate forum. I can debate any posts that make me want to debate them. You should be thanking me!

Lol - I can understand liking to debate (I do, too) - that's why I insist!
However - it isn't debating if you're not really dealing with the arguments given.

Furthermore....you may not be taking the Bible seriously - but others do (therefore, you can't make a sweeping statement that it's not).
Rumpel obviously takes it seriously - lol, how many threads about the Bible and homosexuality had he created in two or three days?

 

[devildavid]

Lol - I can understand liking to debate (I do, too) - that's why I insist!
However - it isn't debating if you're not really dealing with the arguments given.

Furthermore....you may not be taking the Bible seriously - but others do (therefore, you can't make a sweeping statement that it's not).
Rumpel obviously takes it seriously - lol, how many threads about the Bible and homosexuality had he created in two or three days?

I can make any statements about the bible in regard to whether it should be taken seriously. I never said that no one takes it seriously. Hence, that is why I debate those who do. My views on the Bible are my own and my post did not imply that no one takes it seriously, but that it is not something to take seriously. I feel the same about all superstitions. The fact that some take such things seriously does not mean that they are something to take seriously.

 

[VanceMack]

"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."

Very common theme on his site.

 

[calamity]

I don't know what your point is regarding this letter. It's not like as if it negates the Bible.

Also,
If you'd notice - the letter of Kent Ashcraft all quoted verses from Leviticus.
The laws of God for the Jews was quite strict because of who they were - they were God's chosen people, meant to be a nation of priests.

The Laws also reflected the cultures of the time - which is different from today (like the issue on slavery),
and we are no longer required to offer sacrifices for atonement of sins because we have all been redeemed by the ultimate sacrifice -
the Messiah.

Lol...God’s Law.

I bet you don’t even see how ridiculous using that term makes the argument above sound.

 

[calamity]

"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."

Very common theme on his site.

Lol...do you envision god sitting on a throne, Vance?

 

[devildavid]

"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."

Very common theme on his site.

This has nothing to do with anything posted in this thread. Don't forget to check under your bed each morning.

 

[VanceMack]

This has nothing to do with anything posted in this thread. Don't forget to check under your bed each morning.

Oh but it does. And you know it.

 

[devildavid]

Oh but it does. And you know it.

Oh, but it doesn't, but you like to find Marxists under your bed.

 

[VanceMack]

Oh, but it doesn't, but you like to find Marxists under your bed.

I dont 'like' to find Marxists anywhere with a ****ing pulse. Doesnt mean there are a whole lot of pathetic committed shithead leftists that are either full on Marxists or too ****ing stupid to know they are promoting a Marxist agenda.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I dont 'like' to find Marxists anywhere with a ****ing pulse. Doesnt mean there are a whole lot of pathetic committed shithead leftists that are either full on Marxists or too ****ing stupid to know they are promoting a Marxist agenda.

Ah yes, here's Angry VanceMack to show us the way.

Literally the 1950's wants it "Godless Marxist Heathen" line back.

What on Earth about the current subject has anything to do with Marxism?

 

[axelthefox]

I noticed also the bible forbids tattoos Lev 19:28, cutting the hair on the sides of your head Lev 19:27,consulting a fortune teller Lev 19:31.

But none of those verses are followed at all.

 

[devildavid]

I dont 'like' to find Marxists anywhere with a ****ing pulse. Doesnt mean there are a whole lot of pathetic committed shithead leftists that are either full on Marxists or too ****ing stupid to know they are promoting a Marxist agenda.

Look! There's a Marxist!

 

[ataraxia]

Lol...do you envision god sitting on a throne, Vance?

I think the ultimate fantasy of the religious is to sit on the throne themselves, dressed up as God.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes... They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson

These religious clerics, and the politicians who use them for personal power, are the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.




The founding fathers of this country were Toto who pulled back the curtain on the little man behind the curtain and kicked him out of politics. They knew they couldn't kick the little man out altogether as too many people wanted to continue to believe in the Great and powerful Oz, and would go absolutely hysterical if the little man was kicked out entirely. So just declawing and defanging him by kicking him out of politics was the next best compromise they could come up with. But these believers really insist on closing the curtain back up and continuing to believe in the Great and Powerful Oz.