Originally posted by patrask:
Just for the record, it appears that Mr Olbermann was raised as a Unitarian, and likely shares that burden with our cherished author, Ray Bradbury.
"You know Unitarians as a whole (the modern kind, NOT the kind of our founding fathers) are religious liberals. They do not necessarily believe in anything in scripture pertaining to the Godhead, or the virgin birth, or hell, or heaven; like Bradbury, you will likely encounter forms of belief in re-incarnation, man controlling his destiny, no hell, why the Bible was written by mere men, translations broken and lost, and other non-biblical reasonings."Not a big deal, it just allows me to make a tie-in here. In researching the '60s Civil Rights Movement I became aware of a little known fact. When Martin Luther King asked for Christian ministers to come to Alabama to support his non-violent cause against segregation, one of the first to so so was a minister from Boston, a Unitarian minister, who subsequntly was beaten to death by white crackers using baseball bats. Now, that is laying it on the line for the truth!
"Talking about the mid 1960's event, two Unitarians died, not just one. The Ku Klux Klan was involved, and when the President of the Unitarian Association spoke, he talked about something on the order of - they died in order to uphold justice. It was the justice of freeing the black man from the wretched malice of society that prevented him from even eating at the front counter of a restaurant. There were seperate phones; there were seperate drinking fountains; there were seperate washrooms; there was a black army in World war II. There were seperate baseball teams, black only baseball teams. A black entertainer as late as the 1950's, for instance, had to stay in the black section of a hotel, while his white friends stayed in another hotel. There is NO sexual discrimination here. It was about human rights.
If you wish to push this thru the courts against the votes of the people, that's what a court may finally do. This does not negate the biblical view that adultery, fornication, men laying with men and women laying with women, is morally wrong."About Keith, I am just glad to see someone take a stand against what is not a moral issue, but a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, and to say so on a national stage at the risk of being hurt by the moralist Christians who would dictate their beliefs onto us all.
"Keith O. is wrong. This is what a falsehood looks like. His sense of the moral has been fully conflicted by his admirable sense of popular culture."The biggest fallout from the Bush eight years is the total failure of the Christian Right to amend the Constitution to recognize their religion as a state sponsored and sanctioned belief system, which would have been a return to the good old days of Catholic Europe and the total control of minds through threat of heresy, witch calling, the loss of valuable history to all of us who would care to learn, imposition of their will by force and an almost total disregard for the real teachings of their Savior, love thy neighbor as thy self, which is nothing more than a restatement of the Golden Rule. This is NOT a Christian country, it was founded by those who wished to ensure that freedom from religion be given as much right in the civil arena as freedom of religion. As Mr. Olbermann so eloquently put it, I just don't get it? Why must the teachings from one book over rule the kind and reciprical treatment of other humans, who do not wish to force their beliefs on others, but only to love each other? The Omar Khayyam quote reflects my own choice. I choose the Book of Love. The quote from Omar Khayyam about drinking from each other's cup is often used in the wedding ceremony, as it was in my own. What is being drunk from that cup is love. All people should have that right.
"This is 88% nonsense. Sorting out what is more right on and what is futile information would cause me a stomach ache.Ouch!"http://www.tv.com/keith-olbermann/person/163687/biography.html 
