Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 1333
Subject: Christian conservatives we can be proud of.

Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall - Sustainer [1629107] Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 09:45

Hundreds of Long Islanders stood outside Mepham High School yesterday to blast a handful of out-of-town picketers who said teaching tolerance of gays led to the football hazing incident that has rocked the school.
The picketers - eight family members from a church in Topeka, Kan., gathered on the sidewalk in front of the Bellmore school at 7 a.m. waving anti-gay signs, including one that read "God Hates Fags."

"When you teach children that it's okay to indulge in any kind of sex act that they like ... that it's okay to be gay, it is inevitable that they will end up being violent and doing things that they shouldn't," said Margie Phelps, who protested with a handful of relatives.

Mepham High School has been in the national spotlight since three members of its varsity football team were accused of sodomizing younger players with objects as part of a hazing ritual in August, while the team was at a preseason camp in Preston Park, Pa.

The eight protesters - four children among them - were drowned out by some 400 counterdemonstrators organized by a gay rights group and an equal number of angry local parents.

"Anyone that has a pulse in their body will realize that there is no link between sexual assault, which is about power, and somebody being gay," said David Kilmnick, executive director of Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth.

A small army of Nassau cops avoided trouble by keeping the groups apart.

At one point, a Mepham resident yelled to the Christian group, "Go back to your trailer park." Others in the Mepham group carried posters saying, "God loves everybody."

"This is just a radical group that wants to send a message of hate," said Marge Congello, whose son, an eagle scout, is a senior at Mepham. "Bellmore is good community. We are being punished by a very bad incident."

Debbie Saladino, 37, shook her head in disbelief as she surveyed the family of protesters in front of her daughter's school.

"How they can turn hazing into homosexuality is beyond me," she said. Then she spotted a sign held by one of the Phelps sisters reading, "Thank God for Sept. 11th."

"That's a travesty. They have the audacity to come to New York and insult 9/11. A lot of people lost family members," Saladino said.

Naturally, I knew better than to simply trust the liberal media on this one, so I headed straight over to WorldNetDaily for a comforting explanation for why these God fearing, respectable, Christian, Right to Life people were thanking God for September 11th.

As you can imagine, among the stories about Joseph Farrah taking a stand against Al Gore and Michael Moore playing an answering machine recording that included some talk show host's home phone number, that People Magazine fudged a cover image of Hollywood stars Courteney Cox and David Arquette and both a story and reader poll regarding a boycott of CBS' made for TV Ronald Reagan movie, there was no mention of the stand against the crimes against nature that are being condoned in Bellmore, NY.

Any conservatives out there interested in offering some insight as to why?

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 09:52

Given Baldwin's insistance that nanoseconds captured in still images are fair indicators of the ideology behind entire movements, I offer the forum the following peeks into the anti-gay agenda.

Yessir, that is a rainbow decorated American flag that wonderful woman is trampling. Conservatives everywhere are cheering.

9/11 is God's Rod.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:00

Blockquote text in the subject field from NY Daily News.

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:07

The story

How do we get "Christians" like this to shut up?

For the record though, I think the NY Daily News got the quote wrong ... the sign reads "God hates fag enablers" ... exactly who that refers to, I'm not sure.

One last comment ... these kids are being taken out of school for this. Or perhaps they are homeschooled. Yes, I support the freedom to homeschool, but this thought does make me shudder from time to time.

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:07

Sorry, I didn't see your post 2 while I was browsing and composing mine.

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:07

Oh, they be learnin', all right.

pd

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:15

For those of you not familiar with the scandal at Mepham High School in Bellmore, NY, three varsity football players were accused of sodomizing younger students with objects in hazing incidents during their summer football camp. The protestors claim that these attacks are the result of the school's gay and lesbian tolerance policy.

Some quotes from the messengers of God:
"This school has brought upon it everything that happened when parents taught that it is OK to be gay," said Becky Phelps-Davis, Phelps' daughter, who was accompanied by three siblings and four of their children.

"When you teach children that it's okay to indulge in any kind of sex act that they like ... that it's okay to be gay, it is inevitable that they will end up being violent and doing things that they shouldn't," said Margie Phelps, who protested with a handful of relatives

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:28

For 90 minutes yesterday morning they held up signs outside the school depicting stick-figure sodomites, quoted the Bible and sang revised American anthems to protest a community that they said condones homosexuality.

Dang. I wanted to see pictures of those stick-figures.

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:41

They look like regular stick figures, but they can really decorate.

pd

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:47

Let me get this straight, no one here is particularly upset with the sodomite hazing. That's tolerable I suppose while these signs are intolerable.

I don't think God was involved with 9/11.

It isn't so clear however that there is no conection between schools harping on the joys of sodomy and the sodomizing hazing.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:51

Let me get this straight, no one here is particularly upset with the sodomite hazing. That's tolerable I suppose while these signs are intolerable.

Idiot.

harping on the joys of sodomy

What do you know about Mepham HS's tolerance programs? I wonder if the NYPD's harping on the joys of sodomy was cited after the attack on Abner Louima.

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 10:57

The players sodomized those guys not because it was acceptable, but because it wasn't. It was a hazing, meant to humiliate them. If sodomy was acceptable, the football players would have done something else.

Jeez, this is actually pretty simple stuff.

pd

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 11:02

Idiot - MITH

Where's the outrage? - Dole

I wonder if the NYPD's harping on the joys of sodomy was cited after the attack on Abner Louima. - MITH

Oh there just may be some gayness in the air in NYC.

Jeez, this is actually pretty simple stuff. - PD

Yes it is. It occurred to them to do that. Where do they get these ideas?

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 11:08

The Greeks, probably.

pd

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 11:10

Baldwin, the story about the incident broke weeks ago. I grew up near Bellmore and know people who went to that school and who are directly affected by it. That I never bothered to express my outrage over it at Rotoguru is not a reason to give a pass to these hateful people who have come to NY to salt the fresh wounds of a devastated community.

But your response speaks volumes. Turn the attention from those who preach about God's hate to the lack of outcry over something that is old news. Amazing how widley you miss the point by. The incident is done with, the accused are awaiting trial and the community is left to put it back together. The school is left to try to turn out something positive to remember about this year.

Then the Topeka Phelps show up.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 11:10

LOL

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 11:15

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 11:17

I don't know about that, MITH. While some homophobes are certainly latent homosexuals themselves, I wouldn't say that "most" who exhibit homophobia are. I'm certain that a good number of the anti-gay crowd are comfortable in their own sexuality.

pd

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 11:19

Agreed, PD. 'Most' was a poor choice. Tho the statement still stands in context, as Baldwin rejects both the intended and exagerated notions.

Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 13:40

this is just another one of those threads that makes me feel more and more sorry for Baldwin and other people like him.

it's amazing to me that he would even think that anyone here would presume that the hazing incident that involved sodomy at Mepham HS - in fact, i still don't believe he thinks that.

it's another example of Baldwin's smoke-and-mirror defense incorporated throughout this message board.

Instead of simply saying "Wow, these people are simply not representative of Christianity and the 'turn the other cheek' philosophy we believe in," he says something completely off the wall like (paraphrase) "well, of course they're gonna INJURE people with violent acts because we teach them Sodomy is ok"

ya know what Baldwin, sodomy *IS* ok, when it's between consenting adults. Whether oral or anal, whether same sex or opposite sex or even group sex, if it's consenting, it's A-Ok.

meanwhile, what's not ok is adults forcing children to hold up signs like these kids are - they're children, and while i don't know if they're being physically raped, they're sure as heck being mentally raped, by their parents and the people that are supposed to look out for their best interests - kids who hate, only hate because they are told it's ok to hate.

beastiemiked
Sustainer
ID: 3531815
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 14:42

Does having 4 adults even qualify as a protest? Seems pretty pointless to even give these idiots any publicity.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 14:53

Including the police and pro gay & lesbian groups that stood with parents who derided the Phelps, there were 450 people amassed outside the school yesterday. Given what has happened to Mepham HS this year, yes, I'd say that the scene was news.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 15:06

Sorry, my mistake, the number of people there was closer to 800, not 450.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 15:34

Baldwin
Since I know you reject the concept that most homophobia stems from personal resentment of one's own latent gay inclinations, I have no idea how you of all people can associate attacks of this nature with homosexuality. - MITH

If anything is latent homosexuality it is coming up with the idea to haze people by sodomizing them with objects or the cops actions in the Louima case.

I agree their is such a thing as latent homosexuality of course. I don't agree there is such a thing as homophobia however. This term is simply the Oscar Wilde defense all dressed up for today by gay activists. Oscar Wilde's defense was basically that anyone who didn't like homosexuality were simply expressing their own self-loathing at their own hidden homosexuality.

Some day if there is any justice all of you who take this term seriously will be addressing charges of pedophobia and beastophobia and nechrophobia yourselves someday and I rather think you will.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 15:44

BTW Oscar Wild was not stupid enuff to actually believe that but when ambushed the best response is a surprise frontal assault and immediately turning it around and charging projection was enuff to silence many an unprepared critics and get in a maximum insult to boot.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 15:56

Old Baldy
It isn't so clear however that there is no conection between schools harping on the joys of sodomy and the sodomizing hazing.

If anything is latent homosexuality it is coming up with the idea to haze people by sodomizing them with objects or the cops actions in the Louima case.

Using logic commonly employed by Ann Coulter (you know, like when she tells us that opposing Bush's Iraq policy is the same thing as endorsing Saddam's regime or that calling for William Boykin's dismissal is tantamount to being a terrorist supporter), I'm led to assume by you posts here and your regular endorsements fof Ann's perspective that you support the Phelps' family protest at Mepham HS - with the exception that God caused 9/11, of course.

Perhaps the Phelps family will help supply you with fare to Bellmore and some hate signs for you to hold up. You know, there might be some Mepham families who are only partially crushed that you and the Phelpses might still be able to get to.

Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:02

I agree with tree all Baldwin has to say is "Wow, these people are simply not representative of Christianity and the 'turn the other cheek' philosophy we believe in,"

Why he decides to turn the issue around and defend people who are spewing hatred must be to get a rise out of people. How can you possibly spin this issue any other way then these protesters are just plain wrong. You can defend them and say they are using their first amendment right which they were granted and leave it at that. But I just dont get you Baldwin.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:09

Truth is I struggle to find anything I agree with in their signs.

God doesn't hate 'fags', he hates homosexuality and loves everyone, hoping they will turn around from their course.

Aids I don't believe is directly God's curse however it's not his fault if the anal lining is the ideal transfer point for the AIDS virus. Don't blame him if he didn't make the human body safe for sodomy.

The 9/11, God's rod poster presumes it seems to me that God has some special relationship with the USA and is guiding it thru discipline as he did Biblical Isreal/Judah. Nonsense, God has no special relationship with the USA. The whole world is 'lying in the power of the wicked one'.

Prepare to meet thy God...well hard to argue with that.

I preach all the time but hopefully with more discretion, accuracy and utility than the Phelps family.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:16

Tree/TtW

I guess the reason I just don't let you bash the Phelps unimpeded is that there is a nugget of truth they are working from.

God hates homosexuality.

The culture war as represented by schools advocating homosexuality has led to a moral dumbing down of America that has led to incidents which preceded their protest.

So while we can both disgree with their tactics and the accuracy of their comments, no, you cannot freely attack their fundamental point that you cannot teach ungodly conduct without it bearing ungodly fruit.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:19

The culture war as represented by schools advocating homosexuality has led to a moral dumbing down of America that has led to incidents which preceded their protest.

Baldwin would have you think that these sorts of attacks were less frequent before (or the indirect result of) the sexual revolution.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:23

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:33

Baldwin would have you think that these sorts of attacks were less frequent before (or the indirect result of) the sexual revolution.

Actually, this strikes me as quite plausible ... Broomsticks used to sodomize as part of hazing rituals in the 1950's ... I think you have just suggested something even more shocking than this story itself.

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:35

Actually, this strikes me as quite plausible ... I should clarify. I was referring to the frequency argument. Causation is a more intricate matter.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:36

Riiiiggght. There was never physical abuse in public schools before the sexual revolution. Oh the misconceptions you convince yourself of in order to justify your agenda. Tell us another one Old Baldwin.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:39

35 was in response to 31.

Broomsticks used to sodomize as part of hazing rituals in the 1950's ... I think you have just suggested something even more shocking than this story itself.

If not in the 50's, most certainly in the preceding decades.

The only thing I'd believe is more frequent today than in the past is the reporting of such incidents. It was much easier to silence people with fear in those days.

James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:44

When I saw Topeka, I perked up, expecting to see the name "Phelps" tied in here. Sure enough. The Rev. Fred Phelps is very well-known for his viciously anti-gay protests. Here's a story from earlier this month (forgot to blog it):

The Rev. Fred Phelps plans to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder in his own unique style.

The 73-year-old Topeka, Kan., pastor has designed a granite monument engraved with Shepard's face followed by these words chiseled in the stone: Matthew Shepard Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at Age 21 In Defiance of God's Warning: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22.

Shepard, a freshman at the University of Wyoming, Laramie, was tied to a fence and beaten into a coma allegedly because he was a homosexual. He died five days later. The murder shocked the nation, leading to pleas for tolerance about gay and lesbian issues. The two attackers were sentenced to life in prison.

Phelps, who screamed "God hates fags" at Shepard's funeral here, is demanding his 6-foot-high monument be placed in Casper's City Park not far from where the victim grew up. ...

Phelps, a former lawyer disbarred in 1979 on allegations that he abused witnesses, pastors the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. For the last five years he has made annual pilgrimages to Casper, Laramie and Fort Collins, Colo., to "celebrate" Matthew Shepard's "entry into hell." ...

He laughed long and hard when asked about the notion of a loving, forgiving God.

"God is not sad Matthew is in hell, God is happy!" he howled.

It is people like this who make it amazingly difficult for true Christians to convince non-Christians that they are reasonable, compassionate people.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:45

I feel sorry for the kids who were dragged into this...but they will probably survive/recover alright.

From a larger perspective, this is an extreme example of American exceptionalism, a POV that puzzles evangelicals in all the rest of the world, turned into reverse mode. In the best book ever written about (Christian) fundamentalism, called, Fundamentalism, James Barr noted thirty years ago that it is not unusual to hear evangelical preachers declaiming that America is a sinful country, a country more sinful than which can hardly be imagined...and at the same time, often in the same sermon or writing, support something called 'Americanism', or 100% Americanism, and assert that the United States is a country especially chosen or blessed by God.

It's sad to see evangelicals get caught up in stuff like this demonstration, since we know from the Scriptures that if God does hate homosexuality (which is coming down to a matter of Bible translations), he doesn't hate it any more than he does any number of sins which all people, including devout Christians, are tempted to. And while evangelicalism doesn't have the distinction between venial and mortal sins that Catholicism has, we know from St. Paul, the enforcer in these matters, that God hates most spiritual pride, and other sins that devout Christians are most prone to commit. He made the distinction between sins of the flesh and sins of the spirit.

Oh well, let us pray for those kids (and yes for the adults in the demonstration).

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:47

I lived thru the sixties. I went to school in the sixties. There is no way you are going to convince anyone who lived that period, that there has no been a coursening of the student body since then.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:50

Phelps is for all intents and purposes a tool of the left, an agent provocateur doing his own putative side maximum damage.

Can even one so dense as he not see that his action with that momument only furthers the ACLU drive to remove every last religious plaque from America?

James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 16:56

Such a very good question. But it shouldn't even be about politics; his misguidedness is even more basic. His actions drive people away from the church, when what Christians are supposed to do is bring people into relationship with God.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:01

Utility Phelps...greater utility

the way I am directing my blows is so as not to be striking the air - 1 Cor 9:26b

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:04

Toral, I think that the particular emphasis that many evangelicals place on gays comes from St. Augustine's writings. While Augustine was extremely good in a number of areas, on sexual morals the man was really, really warped.

pd

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:15

PD, I think the problem goes deeper than St. Augustine. Although he is one of the few doctors of the Church to be accepted as a great teacher be evangelicals as well, I don't think that many evangelicals have read him. (Side note: evangelicals and Catholics even pronounce his name differently.) I think the problem extends through the whole Church, and our only defence is that we're not more screwed up than The World in this matter, and enunciate some good things, if you seek them out properly.

All I really know about Augustine on this matter is his recounting of his self-questioning on sexual matters, and his prayer, "Please God, make me chaste -- but not just yet, not right now." That has the virtue of what would be called in the 70s "authenticity".

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:16

But Oh please. It does not in any way come down to a matter of translation. Take a look at a wide range of translations...

Rom 1:24

Rom 1:26

Rom 1:27

Jude 7

Lev 18:22

Your point on exceptionalism was on the other hand excellent. 8]

Tree
Donor
ID: 4932815
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:30

MITH would have you believe we went from the worst school discipline problems in the early sixties being running in halls, skipping school, talking in class, to the out of control schools of today for no apparent reason.

where did you go to school? Little House on the Prairie???

my folks went to high school in the late 50s, early 60s. they smoked tobacco in the bathroom, and sometimes even a joint. there were fist and knife fights - man, if you wanna get simplistic about it, go see Grease or West Side Story.

my Grandpa was a young man in the 30s and 40s. he talks about how the jews and italians and irish guys always fought - or in his words "kikes, wops, and micks - we were bored. we fought with knives and fists and whatever else we could get our hands on."

i've seen pics of him from those days, and it trips me out to see that he was a "tough" from brooklyn - greasy hair, rolled up khakis, wife beater t-shirt.

so, as i've said in other threads Baldwin, enjoy life with the blinders on. maybe you could even learn to play the piano - it worked for Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles.

Phelps is for all intents and purposes a tool of the left, an agent provocateur doing his own putative side maximum damage.

jesus christ, what a stupid thing to say - even more stupid to believe. by that logic, Al Sharpton is a tool of the right, and George W. Bush is a tool of the left.

Phelps makes his own decisions, and preaches hate speak. and you baldwin, have done everythere here to back up his beliefs and actions except say "i support him and will stand with him next time!"

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:38

Nothing would make the right happier than to see Al Sharpton nominated.

Republicans wouldn't even have to campaign.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:39

Tree

For the life of me I don't see how you can contend that you harbor any less hate than does Phelps.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:54

I have to agree with you on that, Baldwin. Tree seems to me a hater -- and it scares me. I guess I've expressed that opinion before -- and he has called me a hater, so we are of like mind, I guess. OTOH, I try to let this teach me about how people on the other side of the spectrum can see people like you and me as haters.

That's the great thing about a politics forum set up not among people with similar ideas -- those are useless, in my view. When I have read conservative fora, I leave rather disgusted and wanting to throw up, because it's all self-indulgent back-patting. Same with liberal fora except I hate what they're saying. Same with all religious fora I've ventured into. It's all denunciation of the enemy and mutual self-congratulations about it.

By far the best discussions -- not necessarily mellow ones, not ones you leave feeling good after -- have been in this and one or two other fora where the shared interest is in sports. You run into all kinds, which is a good experience for everyone, I think.

BTW, your citations don't necessarily condemn homosexuality, but unnatural lusts. They are different things.

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 17:58

Toral

I have no idea how someone as intelligent as youself can read those scriptures and say they do not explicitly condemn homosexuality.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 18:02

Admit it Tree, you want to kidnap Phelp's kids.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 18:05

I should have said I just looked at the ones from Romans. I haven't looked at your last two citations. The Old Testament one -- well, we know that the Old Testament set forth many rules which were superseded by the New Covenant --right?

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 18:11

Toral

Romans 1:27 is explicitly dealing with the actions, not just the lust. Short of special pleading I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 18:34

Just read the Scripture, Baldwin.

Rom 1:21 speaks of people who intentionally rejected natural law. Rom 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" God, for his own reasons, punished them by holding back his hand of restraint, and giving themfree hand to engage in unnatural lusts.

And so

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

St. Paul is really delivering a stemwinder here, but the passage says nothing about people who have been given by God a natural orientation towards people of their own sex. I am not one of those people, and I gather you don't believe that there are any, but the Romans text says nothing about people who, accepting natural law and God, have homosexual sexual inclinations.

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 18:46

Ah, so if I engaged in homosexuality he would be displeased but if Boy George did he'd be cheering? Can you hear yourself man?

You have defined away every living soul from being covered by this scripture because who would entertain such lusts but people claiming it was natural for them.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 18:53

Baldwin, I'm not sure how to say this....but you haven't read enough pornography. Not that I'm encouraging you to do so....or admitting to having done so myself. But there are people who engage in sex behaviour knowing that it is to them unnatural, and unfaithful to their partners/spouses.

I can't read Romans as condemning homosexuality as such. Sorry. It is possible the error is mine, but if so, it will be washed over 1000 times by the blood of Christ.

Toral

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 18:54

It's not a matter of "claiming" it's a matter of being. Toral is not saying it's OK if you lie.

pd

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 19:10

Toral, this is transparent. If God intended and created a third and a fourth sex he would have mentioned it and not left those without guidence were it so.

Reread Jude, all 25 verses.

Ask yourself if God separated out the 'natural' homosexuals from the 'unnatural' ones when he punished Sodom and Gomorrah.

Come back from the edge. Out of the fire. Hate the soiled garment. Rather than falling, present yourselves faultless. Let us not be presuming on God's undeserved kindness.

Special pleading

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 20:06

Jude is a great Scripture, which I haven't read in some time, and I thank you for remionding me of it.

He speaks of people who have crept into the faithful, teaching false doctrine. And then of Sodom and Gomorrah (rather like NYC?) The people in these cities, however, unlike NYC, -- already understanding the truth given them by God -- went "after strange flesh" or "engaged in unnatural lust" thereby rejecting God's grace already extended to them.

Jude warns of:

murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

He warns of "mockers...who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." I've only known few gay Christians, but they are not "mockers." Well, actually some of them were, and I speak not of them; but many weren't.

Jude 1:19 warns against "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." Those, I would think, are those professed believers who think any kind of sexual behaviuor is OK, or some early sects that taught that homosexuality was actually preferable to normality (something to do with hating procreation, I believe.).

To me, the blessed part of the Scripture is Jude's compassion for these unrighteous sorts.

"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

Jude is speaking to a divided congregation, teaching some tough love, and urging compassion. It is a great Scripture; I would urge some of our Christian brothers who denounce others as "Bible-thumpers" to read more of it. He speaks of pulling people out of the fire; that is spoken with both toughness as love -- he is speaking of going into the fire and actually pulling people out.

About homosexuality, the book teaches little (IMO) except that it is not God's preferred practice, as we already know. The preferred practice is faithful marriage and child-rearing, but there are many people who don't have that option, for whatever reason.

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 20:31

I am reminded of your interest in Leo Strauss. This is like Strauss does Bible interpretation. There was the exoteric Bible condemnation of homosexuality and then this buried permission you are constructing out of whole cloth.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 20:41

It's just close reading, Baldwin. Nothing esoteric about it, nothing sinister. Just reading it closely, trying to understand why it's in the Canon, and what God means to say through it today.

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 20:44

Toral

This way lies madness. If you are going to say the Bible condemnation of homosexuality only applies to some people and not to others that you apparently think were born gay then what?

Should those born with the genes which give them an extra kick from alcohol ignore the injunction from drunkeness? Bottoms up then?

Should men 'because their genes tell them to spread their seed as far and wide as possible' now have permission to be promiscuous while women don't?

We've gone round on this on this forumn. There is no evidence of a gay gene, no reason to think anyone is born gay, and no reason to imagine the Bible isn't saying what it clearly is when it condemns homosexuality.

Explain the judgement of Sodom and Gohmorrah again Strauss style?

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 21:00

"No evidence" is not the same as "I don't believe the evidence because it's politically inconvenient" or "It helps the case of those that are often shrill."

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 21:11

We've gone round on this on this forumn. There is no evidence of a gay gene, no reason to think anyone is born gay

Baldwin, you make me laugh -- not harshly, but with joy, laughing together with a foolish brother in Christ. You talk of going "round and round with this in this forum" but the fact is there are at least 40 if not 250, things about which you have been soundly rebutted but choose to ignore. Others find this disturbing; I find it charming.

I am not the Pope, only a rather conservative Christian.

If you are born with a same-sex sexual orientation, that is not a sin. Ideally you should be celibate. For most people, that is a burden that they cannot bear. (BTW, yes, you can pray to God to change your sexual orientation, but the evidence strongly shows that that does not work.) So, as St. Paul said, "better to marry than to burn", a gay person should find one partner to stick to for life. And recognize that because you are freed from the burden/joy of jhaving children, you will have extra money and time to be devoted to the Church and community.

If you have a drunkenness gene -- eventually you will figure that out, and either stop drinking or control it so that your drinking does not bring dishonour to God or disrupt your family, etc.

I think all straight men have a "promiscous" gene. The message is clear -- control it, and find one wife.

I'm not a student of Leo Strauss -- I have never read one of his or his followers' books, or taken a clourse taught by a Straussian. His insight that there was much to be learned from classical political theory, and that the errors of liberalism could be identified with Machiavelli and his followers, seem interesting to me.

You still haven't told us what sect you belonmg to. Beastiemike asked, you know. Surely you're not ashamed of it?

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 22:25

God expects homosexuals to change.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - 1 Cor 6:9-11

1 Cor 6:9

1 Cor 6:10

1 Cor 6:11

The one that does not cut it's conscience to suit the fashions of the times.

biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 22:25

Well said, Toral.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 22:35

I don't really want to be cat in the role of "defender of the homosexuals", since I am not one.

But your interpretation asumes that all homosexuals are "sexual perverts."

Moe to the point, by your translation, "the greedy" will not inherit the Kingdom. So all capitalists won't make it? How is your desire for a big black Cadillac different from other lusts of the heart?

I must call you on refusing to name your sect. Ashamed of it? You should be pronouncing it proudly. Bring your Gospel and your sect's doctrine before the masses.

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 22:47

Jude 7 says Sodom and Gomorrah were set before us as an example. What have you learned from the example?

The internet is not an ideal avenue for preaching and a wise man uses discretion in preaching according to Matt 7:6. I am probably stetching this rule as it is and I will only go so far.

yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 239282115
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 22:51

*laughing*

I don't think anyone will mistake you for tree, MITH, myself or any of the other liberal junta here, toral.

On a more serious note though - baldwin, why do you find it acceptable to run a one issue platform? Not that I don't admire your talent for twisting facts and spinning wildly towards the right, but I would think that when even your closest ideological supporter points out the fact that you're being trounced and clearly in the wrong, you would maybe (just maybe) take a harder look at the thinly veiled hate you're spewing. The community around Mepham needs to address their issues and begin the process towards healing/fixing what went wrong - not the verbal stylings of a hate filled "christian" minister. Do you honestly think this ("God is not sad Matthew is in hell, God is happy") is the example Jesus was trying to set?

And I'll second beastiemike and toral in asking what sect you're claiming - I find it hard to believe that you're so ashamed that you'd refuse to tell us.

yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 239282115
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 22:56

The internet is not an ideal avenue for preaching and a wise man uses discretion in preaching according to Matt 7:6.

Are we to infer from this reference that you won't share your sects name?

If that's the case will you please apply the words of Matthew 7:6 broadly and cease and desist from the rest of your preaching as well - if you're too cowardly to identify your church then save the sermons for an audience that cares.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 23:01

1) I am not runing a one issue platform. Which issue did you think I have avoided giving an opinion on?

2) No I do not think Phelps knows how to preach so as to have a positive outcome.

3) I am not ashamed in the slightest. I am also discrete and will not allow myself or my religion to become trampled in such mixed company. If you met me one on one in RL you would quickly find out how unashamed I am.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 23:39

You meant "discreet", not "discrete".

Talk about esoteric teaching! I know of no sect other than Baldwin's which is afraid to declare its name.

And I've gotta say...I'm not particularly anxious to find out what it is, because if Baldwin is one of its messengers, and I assume one of its most learned or devoted messengers, I intend to avoid it like the plague. Its teaching, if Baldwin exemplifies them, seem to put it squarely in the ranks of the false teachers who will come in the end times -- and in some ways ugly teachings too.

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 23:51

After looking at the treatment Ann Coulter has received here recently from people not worthy to shine her shoes, do you really feel everyone here falls outside of the description at Matt 7:6? I don't

Its teaching, if Baldwin exemplifies them, seem to put it squarely in the ranks of the false teachers who will come in the end times
- Toral

And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. - 2 Pet 2:2

I see someone preaching tolerance of licentiousness and others all too eager to revile the truth.

It isn't me tho.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 00:03

Ann Coulter (whom I like a lot) has received just the treatment a person speaking controversially should expect. She would want no less. (BTW, by your standards, she can't be a Christian.)

I deny preaching tolerance of licentiouness, or reviling the truth of the Gospels.

BTW, as has been asked before, what sect do you belong to, Baldwin? If we were to accept your teachings, where in our local area should we go to to receive "the truth."? Must we go to you personally? Even the Pope has represntatives spread out among many lands....

Toral

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 00:09

The angels are directing the preaching Toral. When the student is ready the teacher will appear.

Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 10:12

#73
"After looking at the treatment Ann Coulter has received here recently from people not worthy to shine her shoes.."

That spells it out in no uncertain terms, doesn't it. We are not worthy. The right is superior. Anyone who disagrees is guilty of treason. Christians are superior. Anyone who disagrees is doomed to hell for eternity.

The most glaring example of those in power who were convinced of their superiority is the Third Reich. Considering Grandpa Bush's affiliation and the soon-to-be governor of California's admiration of the Third Reich's architect, those of us inferior to the Ann Coulters of the world, those of us guilty of treason in the eyes of Ann Coulter(that's a German name,right?),those of us who don't prescribe to the superior morals outlined by Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell have a choice. Either succumb to the superiority of the ultra-conservatives(treason is punishable by death, I think) or become even more vigilant in exposing an agenda that seeks to demonize, trivialize and suffocate healthy debate on the issues that affect our country and the world.

Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 10:17

When the student is ready the teacher will appear.

Cool, Baldwin is a Zen monk, I knew it!

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 11:10

Considering Grandpa Bush's affiliation ... [with] the Third Reich's architect

When upset, invoke Hitler. I don't even want to ask what this affiliation is, or what it is relevant.

Yes, there's an air of superiority from parts of the Christian right. But there's an air of superiority from parts of the Left, as well.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 11:27

When upset, invoke Hitler. I don't even want to ask what this affiliation is, or what it is relevant.

I don't believe this affiliation is relevant (even if true on some level), either. But it strikes me that I've seen Baldwin make this charge countless times and it never elicited a response from you, Madman. I believe this is the first time I seen tree mention it. Why is his charge of a Bush family/Nazi affiliation more worthy of your dismissive criticism than Baldwin's?

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 11:42

Sorry, that's Pancho, not Tree.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 11:45

The angels are directing the preaching Toral.

I wasn't aware of the penchant for offensive satire among the servants of God. I figured that was a Kevin Smith fabrication.

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 11:47

MITH -- dunno. You'd have to point out places where Baldwin has done the Nazi comparison thing. I don't recall them off-hand, so I don't know context.

In PV 76, I really have no idea what linkage grandpapa Bush has with Nazi's ... I am ignorant of the allegation (I know about AS's father). It just struck me as an especially "out-there" allegation.

Most of the time, Hilter is invoked as "this is reminiscent of Nazi'ism" or something, which at least has a policy implication and is only misplaced to the extent that Hitler is invoked to sensationalize rather than draw a true analogy. This goes beyond that and uses guilt by assocation --- and even beyond that, with guilt by association through some mechanism that I am totally unaware of.

Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 11:56

Ann Coulter is not content to single out certain members of opposing political views. In her world, all liberals are the same, and all are guilty. It's not an inference, it's the premise and title of the book, "Treason." The first sentence:

Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.

Had she said, "Some liberal positions" or "Certain individuals on the left", and proceeded in that manner, it possibly would have had a least some credibility. But, no. Liberals. Traitors. Enemies of the state.

Everyone says liberals love America. No, they don't.

Replace liberals with Jews, and America with Germany and if you still can't see the parallel to the Third Reich, it's only because you don't want to look, or as Madman states in #74,"Ann Coulter(whom I like a lot)", you agree with her.
Why would anyone get upset with being told they're not worthy to shine her shoes? If she had an ounce of credibility with anyone except her most staunch advocates, she'd be downright scary.

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 12:05

PV -- that was Toral in 74. ;) I agree with what he said about Ann getting exactly what someone in her position should expect. In point of fact, she wants it.

Long ago, she once argued that she knew she was using illogical prepositions to form her arguments, but she said that this was also the tactic of the liberal 'talking mouths' of the time, like Carville, etc. Therefore, she was purposefully using the methods of the left against them in an attempt to infuriate. It works. She loves the controversy and the sparks, I'm betting.

I do not know if she has strayed from this lately; I suspect her methods have become and end in and of themselves.

Regarding those quotes of yours, well, I'm hungry and am going to go eat. I think those deserve more serious reflection.

(and, for the record, I am ambivalent about Ann. She served a wonderful purpose on talk shows ... balancing the inanity of the left. But I am concerned that her penchant for exaggeration has gone too far, and I wonder if she's become somewhat destabilized. She is a gifted speaker, but I don't think the rhetoric from the talk shows translates particularly well into book form. They are different arenas for debate, with different unwritten rules.)

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 12:08

That was me who said I like Ann Coulter a lot, not Madman.

No I don't see any parallels to the Third Reich.

And if you liberals want to be traitors there's no need to be so defensive about it. Stand up and wear the badge with pride!

Toral

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 12:10

Post 82

Curiously I have found the incredible claim that 70 agents in Plame's crew have been liquidated because of this leak. I am taking that claim with a giant grain of salt. I have also run into the idea that Wilson sees Karl Rove as a particular threat to America. I have run into the claim that Rove is a dual citizen German/American and grandson of a concentration camp builder. Considering I have been the one repeatedly shouting into the wind that the Bush family supported Hitler's rise to power I too find this disturbing, so who knows, maybe I'll join Joe Wilson in hoping Karl Rove is frogmarched out of the WH in handcuffs.

Post 43

I am not an uninhibited fan of George Jr. For all I know the Pope has his reasons for calling Bush 'another Hitler' beyond the fact that the Bush family actually provided financing for Hitler.

Post 30

Bush needs someone looking after him. Between the patriot act, his families' history of New World Order support [which would topple USA soveriegnty], Bush family/CIA involvement with the drug trade, membership in at least one secret occult society with aims Tree hasn't even guessed at, Bush family support for Hitler, Bush ties to the military industrial complex, etc., etc., etc., again Bush needs someone looking after him.

Post 246

Bush is operating effectively out of a long range neocon playbook and is serving the interests of Skull and Bones society. His actions are not just normal reactions to day-to-day events. He is not some klutz without a clue as you treat him.

The Bush family is vulnerable on their involvement in the CIA drug trade and the fact they supported Hitler in in his rise to power. Amazing you can get a media pass for that.

That last sentence makes me laugh as it invokes memories of Baldwin calling the media to task for printing stories about AS's father's Nazi history.
Post 2

It gets scarier for me realizing the Bush family helped finance Hitler through a Steamship company they owned. I had forgotten the part about Hitler presenting himself as a reviver of christianity when of course he was a pagan out to abolish it. That kinda takes the warm and fuzzy out of Bush's christian posturing.

Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 12:29

Madman,
Apologies for assigning Toral's quote to you.

Toral,
Being labeled a traitor by a Canadian(or an American living in Canada) makes me want to down a sixer of Labatt's, although you probably prefer Grolsch, a pure, superior German beer.

James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 12:33

I just spotted this article from last week in BBC Magazine: What does the Bible actually say about being gay?

The Bible makes very few mentions of homosexuality - lesbianism isn't mentioned at all in the Old Testament - and as the examples below show, interpretations of the verses that do exist differ hugely.

Following each of the verses below is a brief illustration of what a hardline pro- and anti-gay position might be. (Most Christians hold views somewhere in between these two stances.)

The article proceeds to look at 6 or 7 passages. It's a very straightforward piece, probably good reading to add into this thread.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 12:39

Can't say I've ever had a German beer. I suppose in the right beer hall, with the right speakers, it might be ok.

I'll settle for plain old Schlitz or Busch, which are cheaper here than the Canadian brands, because they're dumped here (i.e., sold at below-market prices.)

Toral

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 12:52

MITH 86 -- Very interesting. I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension. Although, like most people on message boards, I tend to not read all posts, and tend to concentrate on threads I like (by threads here I mean even ideas within a thread). I was rather shocked to see I posted immediately after the first post you linked to. I don't know what to say, other than I really did miss all this "excitement" up until now.

Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 13:09

I really don't mean to start trouble or put Baldwin on the spot (not that he has ever shied away from defending his statements before). I debated doing the work to put together and post 86, but I fgured that since you asked for examples and I knew I could provide them that I might as well.

Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 13:21

MITH -- no trouble from my end. I really hadn't read all that. He's been "shouting that into the wind" (or something to that effect), so apparently I haven't heard it despite those efforts. He shares the NWO perspective of Nerve, so I guess it doesn't surprise me a lot. I had never heard of this connection prior to today. Or if I had, the NWO had wiped my memory clean.

yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 269142712
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 14:19

I am not runing a one issue platform.

I am not ashamed in the slightest. I am also discrete (sic) and will not allow myself or my religion to become trampled in such mixed company. baldwin 71

Sorry, maybe "one issue platform" isn't the right phrasing - more like "superiority issues", which ironicaly enough, demonstrated itself enough in subsequent posts for others to point out. I am truly intellectually curious to find out what sect you claim as your own - it's a curious one at best - you are damn good at quoting scripture, but seem to lack any of the compassion and conversational zeal that I've witnessed from other "fundamental" christians. Speaking as one of the "mixed company" (an obvious demeaning and belittling slap at the folks who don't see eye to eye with you) I am interested to know what "christian" denomination mixes Jesus' admonition that he came "not for the saved, but the sinner" with exclucivity/secrecy to the point that one of it's adherents refuses to identify it.

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 16:27

Reread Matt 7:6. It is there very explicit that we should be discreet about opening our mouths when dealing with those eager to trample on our words with disrespect. Realize that some times call for being cautious as foxes.

I also don't know why you think I don't mirror Jesus concerns and priorities.

he came "not for the saved, but the sinner"

I am not preaching to the choir but mostly among to those eager to revile me.

I pointed out that God loves homosexuals and is interested in getting them to turn around just as Jesus took abuse from the self-righteous for preaching to prostitutes seeking to gain their repentence and conversion.

seem to lack any of the compassion and conversational zeal

I have no idea where you are coming from with this poor assessment.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 16:41

It is there very explicit that we should be discreet about opening our mouths when dealing with those eager to trample on our words with disrespect. Realize that some times call for being cautious as foxes.

A good point Baldwin. Exactly the point Strauss made about the classical writings. So why do you hate him again?

In a sense I can understand why you don't want to name your sect; you don't want it to be smeared ny non-serious enquirers after the truth. OTOH can you hide it and still preach the Gospel in all its fullness?

If you apply Matt 7:6 to members of this forum, you really shouldn't be talking about religious issues to us at all. But then in your defence you could say that you don't provoke, you only respond to clear false statements, etc.

A tough one. Going back to Matt 21, there is the parable of the talents. Maybe you shouldn't be wasting your time with us at all?

Toral

biliruben
Leader
ID: 49132614
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 17:31

If you apply Matt 7:6 to members of this forum, you really shouldn't be talking about religious issues to us at all.

Don't tease me and give me false hope, Toral. ;)

yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 149442913
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 18:41

Well my curiosity is piqued. It's intellectual in nature, but curiosity never the less. If you're at all inclined (and if you can stand to do it with one of the "mixed company"), baldy to share your denomination, off the record, away from the boards and free from ridicule you can email me.

yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 149442913
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 18:42

err... email me.

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 18:51

Don't trust him, Baldy. He's a liberal.

100

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 19:05

Discreet

Circumspect

Judicious

101

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 19:08

OK, you've identified the antonyms of your posting style. What;s the next lesson?

102

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 19:41

Anyone a Libra?

103

yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 519462918
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 19:55

I'm curious as to the cryptic post you left, baldwin. Am I "unworthy" of your gospel? Do you not believe that I can be discreet, circumspect and/or judicious? Sorry - I guess I'm still giving you too much credit, too much of the benefit of the doubt - but then to you, I'm just "mixed company" - a phrase that rather reminds me of when I lived in Utah - it was all well and good to be friends and colleagues with the natives until important LDS talk/business came up; then I was just another outsider.

So here's a definition for you.

104

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 20:54

To get away from the acrimony:

God’s Grandeur

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed.
Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–89).

105

Baldwin
ID: 6920139
Thu, Oct 30, 2003, 01:20

Look YHTR, I've given you all you need to become intertested in the Bible and look into it further. I'm not the only person who knows the truth by a long shot and I've given you enuff to recognize the truth when someone in your locale presents it to you once again. I've planted the seed. Someone else will have to water it.

I know it's hard to believe but some people on the internet are sooooo anti-God. Not you of course, well maybe not you.

106

Tree
Donor
ID: 229322919
Thu, Oct 30, 2003, 06:59

Baldwin - i take issue with your statement of people being "sooooo anti-God," only because your perception of anti-God is so warped. I believe in God, but because i'm willing to open my eyes and mind and see other interpretations of things, you've called me someone who hates God.

Unless you're gonna turn that statement on yourself, because, after all, you're not really tolerant of other folk's visions of God, then you, too, are anti-God.

perhaps not anti-your God, but anti-God nonetheless.

107

biliruben
Leader
ID: 49132614
Mon, Dec 01, 2003, 17:37

108

Baldwin
ID: 10351021
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 05:34

Bili

Of course that cartoon conveniently ignores the NT continuation of God's abhorance of perversion implying the OT is the only place you will find such a prohibition.

It also makes fun of laws that saved countless lives namely avoiding foods that spoil easily without refrigeration.

It also makes fun of laws which were meant to keep Jews separate from the nations so they did not adopt pagan influences.

Slavery was basically temporary employment in the nations of Isreal and Judah, unlike slavery as practiced in other nations and unlike how we conceive it today.

The sabbath is still in effect in principle as the old law covenant was just a shadow of things to come. Now the sabbath means resting all the time from our own sinful works and doing God's work instead. Not observing that sabbath will in fact cost you your life someday.

Pretty misleading stuff across the board, that cartoon, but you like it.

109

biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 06:57

I think that much more than making fun, it is pointing out things that may have been useful, relevant or necessary thousands of years ago but are no longer today. If simply stating these things is making fun, that says a lot right there.

110

Tree
Donor
ID: 391120119
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 07:09

h-u-m-o-r...or, if you prefer, h-u-m-o-u-r...

anyway, Slavery was basically temporary employment in the nations of Isreal and Judah, unlike slavery as practiced in other nations and unlike how we conceive it today.

yea, that why the Jews couldn't WAIT to get out of Egypt - why they didn't even stop to let the bread fully rise while fleeing in the desert..because they WANTED to be there, gainfully, albeit, temporarily, employed.

111

yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 6111128
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 09:31

*yoink*

I can't remember the thread we were involved in (somebody? anybody?) when an example like 108 came up and I offered an explanation about religious laws that was spookily like the one baldy offers above.

Except when it (the opinion that many religious beliefs are grounded in very unreligious necessities ie; don't eat the pork or shellfish) was proffered by myself (and I believe nerve and some others gave similar opinions...must find thread) baldy rejected it out of hand, because he was too wrapped up in the "liberals" assaulting his religious beliefs.

Way to play both sides for your own benefit.

112

yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 6111128
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 09:44

By the way, it was at least this thread....still looking, too.

113

James K Polk
ID: 329341615
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 12:59

bili 109 -- Believe it or not, you are thinking like many Christians do these days. In terms of separating legalism related to culture from the true call of the spirit.

114

Baldwin
ID: 10351021
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 18:33

Tree

The Egyptians didn't exactly have laws on treating slaves and manditory Jubilee year release for all slaves like Isreal did now did they? What kind of Jew are you to not know that?

115

Baldwin
ID: 10351021
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 18:35

YHTR

There is no way I ever denied there were Jewish sanitary laws that were of practical value.

116

Tree
Donor
ID: 41131219
Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 20:38

Baldwin, could you please re-type that in english?

117

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 14826271
Tue, Mar 02, 2004, 08:07

God hates shrimp

118

Baldwin
ID: 560191911
Tue, Mar 02, 2004, 08:38

Old covenant law which made perfect sense for those it was given too but does not apply to us today. Only seems clever if you don't think too deeply about it.

119

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 428299
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 16:04

Meet Indiana State Sen. Patricia Miller (R-Indianapolis)

This woman behind a proposal to outlaw "unauthorized reproduction" in Indiana.

boomantribune.com

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother throu gh assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."

==================================================

"We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better. So, we do want to have laws that protect the children," she explained.

When asked specifically if she believes marriage should be a requirement for motherhood, and if that is part of the bill's intention, Sen. Miller responded, "Yes. Yes, I do."

Fortunately, the idea didn't get very far.

Indystar.com

Regulate pregnancy? Idea shelved but not dead

Bad ideas often die very hard. But a good thing happened this week: A particularly bad idea died very quickly.

All it took was a day of outrage, a bit of publicity and a little embarrassment for our state.

The publicity, the outrage and the embarrassment stemmed from a proposal by state Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, to bar unmarried people from producing children with the assistance of medical procedures, such as in vitro fertilization and the use of donor eggs.

Could this be? Was Miller really considering regulating pregnancy?

Indeed.

==================================================

Within a few hours, Miller gave up. She withdrew her plan because "the issue has become more complex than anticipated."
So why write about it now?
Here's why. Miller has not ruled out resurrecting the idea when the General Assembly meets in January.

Chicago Sun Times/AP

State Sen. Patricia Miller (R-Indianapolis) issued a one-sentence statement Wednesday about her decision to drop the proposal.

''The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission,'' she said.

Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana.

120

sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 16:26

Too bad her parents werent denied that same permit.

121

Mark L
ID: 23914710
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 17:11

People like Sen. Miller me look wistfully at Justice Holmes's comment that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

122

beastiemiked
Sustainer
ID: 03531815
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 17:45

"We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better. So, we do want to have laws that protect the children," she explained.

Wow, pretty broad study. I love the "do better" part. My guess is children that grow up with a single parent that knew she was going to be a single parent before preganancy "do better" than most other children.

123

Khahan
ID: 456411614
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 18:10

If you ask me, that law is about nothing more than money. How much do you think those permits would cost? $50 $100 $1000?

People who want to have children would be willing to pay, single or not. That one comes down to the almighty dollar. She's just abusing the rights of the religious right to get the $$$

124

Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 18:37

Seminal thinkers at universities and think tanks are far down the road to designing a government program to require government licensing of parenting. If they don't like the way you raise your kids, they yank your license or require re-education camps before they allow you to keep your kids.

The back doors they have used to ease us into this outrageous intrusion has up to now been anonymous accusations to the DCFS. Now we see a supposedly conservative initiative that moves along the same direction.

Once again the power elite have their agenda and they really don't care what the public thinks or wants or who is in power whether putitively left or right. They just keep on relentlessly attaining their heavy-handed controls and their malthusian goals if not one way, then another.

Same as it ever was.

125

sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 18:49

no she isnt Khahan. She's trying to legislate her own personal morality and turn it into the formal law of the land. Yet another case of "I'm right, you're wrong. And I know whats best for you."

So much for conservatives endorsing smaller govt.

126

Tree
ID: 5296722
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 00:14

Seminal thinkers at universities and think tanks are far down the road to designing a government program to require government licensing of parenting.

let's not forget that you're the one that supports:

1. government control of personal life or death decisions.

2. government control of personal decisions regarding parenting.

127

Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 05:06

1) Murder prevention...yes, one legitimate function of constitutional limited government.

2) Example?

128

sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 08:32

right to choice?

129

Tree
ID: 394086
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 08:45

let's not forget that you're the one that supports:

1. government control of personal life or death decisions.

Baldwin said: Murder prevention...yes, one legitimate function of constitutional limited government.

no, not murder prevention. a person making a decision choosing not to live as a vegetable is not murder prevention. that's a personal decision.

that being said, i presume you are also of the opinion that the goverment should have, among other things: stricter gun control, stricter diet control (can't have folks obesing themselves to death, can we?), stricter seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws, and in general, taking automobiles out of the hands of potentially dangerous drivers?

2. government control of personal decisions regarding parenting.

Baldwin also came back with: 2) Example?

Right to choose, being first and foremost.

130

Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 13:32

1)a. Terry never made such a decision as evidenced by her attitude regarding the Curzan case, the fact her 'husband' many times stated [mistated he would claim] that he didn't know what she would have wanted, and that this was his wish, her own attempt to get up in protest of the judges decision and her own attempt to say she wanted to live.

b. self-defense is not murder

c. our diet is not one of the constitutionally mandated duties of the state.

d. government mandated carefullness is just plain silly and impractical let alone unconstitutional. You'll poke your eye out!

e. taking weapons out of the hands of proven menaces is perfectly consistant with the basic duty of limited constitutional government.

2) Murder isn't parenting, or if it is it's obscenely criminal all the same.

131

sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 13:37

1a) coinjecture on your part, placing absoutely no weight at all upon the testimony of the only person on the planet who was in a position to know Terri's wishes.

b) agreed. SELF defense isnt. but then, your constant ranting does not constitute SE:F defense on Terri's part.

c) neither is interferring in personal medical matters. (but wait...you wanted the courts to order the feeding (diet) of Terri Schiavo.)

d) a lot of what the current administration has done is "silly". has yet to slow down your bllind defense of the same.

e) agreed. But then a surgical scalpel in the hands of a surgeon working in a sterile OR, hardly constitutes a weapon or a menace.

2) agreed. But then, abortion by definition, is not murder.

132

Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 16:10

1)a. "placing absoutely no weight at all upon the testimony of the only person on the planet who was in a position to know Terri's wishes"

I referenced Terri's own words and Michael's own slips of the tongue.

b. Tree wasn't talking about Terri in point b.

c. no one had any reason to believe Terri's parents weren't the best representatives of Terri's interests.

d. If I'm Bush's blind defender then he doesn't need enemies.

e. that depends on whether you've learned to talk yet.

2. "But then, abortion by definition, is not murder"

Were you the guy who couldn't see the difference between murder and execution?

133

sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 16:35

nobody you mean, has reason to believe they know better than the man she lived with. Unfortunately for you, his statements run contra to your desire, thus he is in your view, a liar.

134

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 16:41

Don't even try, sarge.

Their whole argument is "He was a liar. And you can't prove he wasn't."

135

sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 17:14

thats the beauty of it PD. We dont have to prove anything. "They" are the ones making the allegation and thus the burden of proof is upon them. Since they cannot prove that in that one particular statement he was lying, "they" lose.

136

Tree
ID: 17924817
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 19:27

Their whole argument is "He was a liar. And you can't prove he wasn't."

which of course, is the direct opposite of their whole argument on Bush, which is "he wasn't a liar. and you can't prove he was."

even though we can. and have.

ah, Right wingers. America's folly.

137

sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 19:28

lol interesting observation Tree. The two diametric opposites the Right takes in order to attempt to defend its posture.

138

Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 19:41

his statements run contra to your desire"

Except that he keeps making slips of the tongue admitting she never had that wish. Those are his statements as well.

139

Stuck in the 60s
Dude
ID: 274132811
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 21:08

Conservative Christianity is a redundant concept.

Don

140

sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 22:19

proof Boldwin. (and dont even bother with links to WhatNowDude)

141

Tree
ID: 3925820
Sat, Oct 08, 2005, 22:26

we've been asking Baldwin for proof for months and months now, and they always are either smoke and mirrors, or links to The Empire Journal, which has more than happily acknowledged that its reason for being was to prove Michael Schiavo a liar, and thusly, must be disregarded as unbiased source material.

142

Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 05:25

You guys must own stock in the death culture.

143

Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 05:29

Check those guys' portfolios for stock in abortifactant manufacturers, poison gas tablets, guilotines, rope, ... anything to explain their eagerness to grease the skids to all forms of state sanctioned murder.

144

Tree
ID: 294495
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 07:49

145

sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 08:50

re 143; strawman anyone?

146

Perm Dude
ID: 5694048
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 17:29

They were going to picket the Amish funerals as well.

One of the reasons I like Ed Rendell is that, closer and closer to elections, he actually gets more plainspoken. I love his comment: "They're insane."

ROFL!

147

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 21:01

I know nothing about Ed Rendell, but based on that one statement alone...I like that man. :)

148

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 21:40

Well he may be a swell guy; too bad that didn't stop him from signing a clearly unconstutuional law.

In June, Rendell signed legislation into Pennsylvania law designed to restrict Westboro Baptist Church's picketing by making it a crime to demonstrate within 500 feet of a funeral or memorial service in Pennsylvania

149

Perm Dude
ID: 21923420
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 22:23

Without getting into the argument (again) about political demonstrations at private funerals, nobody said anything about Rendell being "swell."

But finding a more jaring clash of "Christians" than the Westboro Baptist idiots and the Pennsylvania Amish would be hard to find. Anywhere.

150

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 22:24

A similar KY law with just a 300 foot demonstration restiction aimed at Westboro was struck down last week.

link

151

Perm Dude
ID: 21923420
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 22:25

That's because you were 200 feet short.

:)

152

sarge33rd
ID: 257222410
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 11:55

I may well be way off base here, but in reading over that link MBJ, I have to scratch my head at the conclusion drawn re Madsen and the apparent decision that the order there is valid solely due to the physical health factors of the patient. What of the mental health factors? Would they not suffer potetnially as much if not more, than the physical factors from the disruptive actions beingt prevented? The court upholds Madsen for health reasons. Why not apply it to mental health, in which case the upholding of Madsen would appear to support the upholding of the KY 300' prohibition? (I think it would be terribly difficult to argue that the parents/spouse/children of a deceased military member, arent suffering severely emotional trauma and are therefore in a "weakened" mental state, whereby the protests could reasonably be foreseen to pose damaging influence.)

153

Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 13:05

sarge - I'm not going to do the research, but, basically, there's a line of SCOTUS cases involving these kind of speech restrictions. Off the top of my head, here's a few guidelines:

- People don't have a right to not hear things that upset them - no matter how awful, inflammatory or inappropriate those things are.

- If the protest were of a nature that it infringed on the abilty of the funeral to proceed, I think that the protestors could be proscribed from that conduct (a physical factor). Upsetting people by saying things they can hear (remember the Westboro group isn't "speaking" to the funeral goers specifically) is not ordinarily conduc that can outlawed.

- The 1st Amendment does allow for restrictions on "fighting words". However, "fighting words" have to be directed to an individual in a very personal, face to face manner. Thus, even though the awful things that the Westboro group says are not "fighting words" because they are not directed at any individual.

- I think there's a case where SCOTUS upheld a 200 foot demonstration restriction. That seems to be the outer boundary. Passing a law with a 500 foot or 300 foot limit is just asking for it.

154

Perm Dude
ID: 529558
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 13:13

I think, for the sake of completeness, you should also mention that there are some areas in which one is protected from hearing things, even upsetting things. For example, a protester can't enter your home to shout things at you. They can't send you certain items in the mail under some conditions. And when there is an expectation of privacy, that expectation is weighed against the not-unlimited First Amendment rights (which protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference).

155

Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 13:39

Well, yeah, tresspassing isn't protected by the 1st Amendment. Further, I think SCOTUS has allowed some limitation on the right to protest on public property (like a sidewalk or street) outside the residence of a person.

156

sarge33rd
ID: 257222410
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 13:43

Ref to that decision is made within your previous link. (For this layman, it made for a "tough" read, but was an interesting one all the same.)

157

Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 14:00

Heh. Guess I should have read my own link...

158

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Dec 07, 2006, 08:07

Guess who's coming to my town.

The local police have been drilled on "protecting everyones' rights"

159

Perm Dude
ID: 53113278
Thu, Dec 07, 2006, 09:32

From the flier:

God Himself Has Now Become America's Terrorist, Killing and Maiming American Troops in Strange Lands for Fag Sins.

160

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Dec 07, 2006, 10:08

Where's that famous "Christian compassion" I remember being taught about in Church as a youngster??????

161

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Sat, Dec 09, 2006, 21:05

Phelps chickened out - his group was a no show.

This is what would have been between him and the funeral service, had he shown up. Actual Christians. He would have been out of his element.

162

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Dec 09, 2006, 21:13

and a hardy kudos go out to those fine folks too MBJ.

163

Perm Dude
ID: 4711299
Sat, Dec 09, 2006, 21:33

They just seem like patriots to me. I don't see anything which indicates that they are Christian. But I echo sarge's point. The soldiers give the ultimate sacrifice, and that particular seemed even more Christian than most.

164

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Sat, Dec 09, 2006, 21:54

Well, uh, PD, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. I knew most of the people there.

165

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Sat, Dec 09, 2006, 22:00

Actually, I'm not sure if I knew most of them. There was a biker group from nearby Mt. Vernon and most of those were not people I knew.

The main organizer of the counter-protest ring around this Babtist Church was a member of the KoC at my church.

Anyway, unlike Phelps, the people there behaved like Christians and considered themselves to be that.

166

Perm Dude
ID: 4711299
Sat, Dec 09, 2006, 23:13

Very cool. You didn't know the bikers? C'mon!

167

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 14:18

Liberals revile the risen Christ

Liberals detest the historical fact that Jesus Christ arose from the dead.

The resurrection is a belief, not a historical fact. Regardless, rarely have I read such a hateful and distorted column from someone who professes to espouse Christian principles.
Not suprisingly, he borrows from Ann Coulter:

Liberals will attempt to dispute the premise of my claims and refer to their own personal, deep, and life long admiration of Jesus as proof. This is exactly the type of utilitarian relationship godless liberals deceive themselves with

Also not suprisingly, Coulter is a fellow columnist on TownHall.
I really fail to see how this type of vitriol is anything but a rejection of conservative political principles instead of a promotion of such.

168

Tree
ID: 29082512
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 14:33

historical fact my ass.

no one detests anything. i just don't believe he rose, and it has nothing to do with my politics.

here are some historical facts to check out:

Lost Tomb of Jesus site...

Discovery Channel Lost Tomb of Jesus site...

i'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, but there is certainly enough evidence to despute that jesus rose - and it has nothing to do with detesting anything.

f*cking hate-mongers describing themselves as Christians...

169

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:09

Give me a break. This is one article and the opinion of one man. I could show a link of people burning a flag and state this is what all Liberals are like. So Christians are for morals, big deal.

Tree, I have seen much much more hate-mongering coming from the leaders of the Left. The Right, for the last 6 years, found Liberals imbecilic and irrelevamt. Whether you agree with the Right or not, they have stayed on topic, defining policy, where as the Democrats would only spew some putrid diatribe about how bad the Republicans are.

170

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:15

So Christians are for morals, big deal.

Exactly what point do you think you are refuting?

171

Perm Dude
ID: 29358107
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:23

The Right, for the last 6 years, found Liberals imbecilic and irrelevamt. Whether you agree with the Right or not, they have stayed on topic, defining policy, where as the Democrats would only spew some putrid diatribe about how bad the Republicans are.

Another Jagism! Republicans, of course, found the "Liberals" "imbecilic and irrelevamt" but this isn't a "putrid diatribe about how bad the [Democrats] are."

172

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:31

Whether you agree with the Right or not, they have stayed on topic, defining policy

Actually, they haven't.

One of the great things about Reagan is that he did do that for the most part. He didn't give a crap about religion and so-called moral issues. He was true to his conservative principals in trying to shrink government except in areas like military expenditures, but he still didn't get us embroiled in full-blown foreign warfare. He didn't demonize his political opponents by calling them godless or questioning their morality or patriotism. He was focused on opposing socialistic tendencies promoted by liberals. That's something Bush abandoned long ago.

173

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:32

I am not a leader of the Republican party, although, I should be.

174

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:35

All the attacks you guys speak of is coming from editorists like Ann Coulter, not the politicians.

175

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:37

Editorist?

176

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:40

editorialists

177

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:41

Is that a synonym for hate spewing bitch?

178

Tree
ID: 29082512
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:42

Give me a break. This is one article and the opinion of one man.

yea, and your point? in my post, there was never any sort of "all christians" or "all liberals" type of comment. i was referring directly to the linked article and those who support it when i called hate mongers on the carpet.

I am not a leader of the Republican party, although, I should be.

oh, i don't doubt that, but only because you'd follow GW Bush off a 10,000 foot cliff if he told you it was only 3 feet, even after checking it out for yourself.

179

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 15:51

I think Bush is a screw up in many ways, just not as bad as he is made out to be by the Left.

180

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 12:04

thought this was as good a place as any other for this article:

Church cancels gay Veterans Memorial Service

ARLINGTON, Texas - A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister, Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off.

181

Mattingllyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 13:57

Objective: Ministries page for kids

The best ones are Habu's Corner and the three that follow.

182

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 14:08

oh good gawd, what utter nonsense.

183

boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 16:27

is this a serious site? i reads like the Onion or something. i really like this part:

If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood,
TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

i guess atheist = child molestor.

184

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 16:32

is this a serious site?

I wondered the same thing until looking over their main page, which seems to confirm that it is a serious Christian activist site.

185

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 16:40

Of course its a serious site. Perpetrating the same fundamentalist narrow-minded BS that drives morons like those from Kansas who protest at soldiers funerals.

and boikin...they dont say we athiests are molesters. They say we're angry and grumpy, and its all BECAUSE we're athiests. Guess they never stopped to think, maybe I'm just an a$$. :)

186

boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 16:44

you better watch out sarge parents and pastors may have to deal with you....you know for such a hard core christian site i found it funny that it was ok for children to go trick-or-treating.

187

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 16:49

parents, pastors and evangelists....oh my.

188

Perm Dude
ID: 8934317
Thu, Nov 01, 2007, 03:03

Westboro Baptist Church gets big verdict laid on them

189

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Nov 01, 2007, 10:44

One of the incredibly few times, I find myself in favor of a seemingly outlandish jury award.

190

Perm Dude
ID: 151121178
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 14:35

Holiday greetings from Westboro Baptist Church

191

sarge33rd
ID: 5711231712
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 14:53

too bad they cant be charged for the damage they are heaping upon those kids. Mental cruelty etc etc. But they get to do it, under the guise of "Freedom of Religion".

192

Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, May 05, 2009, 08:54

Christianity Today interview with Joe The Plumber

CT: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

JtP: At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary—it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing.

Shocker that Joe the Plumber would turn out to be a homophobe. And I thought the last exchange of the interview was the most bizarre:

CT: Do you have plans to run for public office?

JtP: Not right now. God hasn't said, "Joe, I want you to run." I feel more important to just encourage people to get involved, one way or another. If I can inspire some leaders, that would be great. I don't know if I want to be a leader.

Is it typical of evangelism to so equate running for public office with religious vocation?

193

biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Fri, May 08, 2009, 03:58

Obama to pray privately.

Holy smokes! Is there a way for me to mark them all as offensive?

Pretty much every one either calls him the anti-Christ or a Muslim.

Except one.

NovaTheCat nails it:

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I think he is correct in not participating in public prayer. The picture of corrupt politicians parading false piety is offensive to me. According to the New Testament, Matthew 6:5 - 6... 5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

194

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 08, 2009, 07:58

Newsmax

For the first time in nearly two decades, the White House has declined to participate in the congressionally authorized National Day of Prayer beyond issuing the standard proclamation.

I saw that lie repeated no fewer tha 5 times on FNC this week. There were several times when I came across a montage of FNC talent an dguests making that and other fraudulant claims about the national prayer day and kept meaning to put it in the FOX thread but never found the time when it was fresh in my mind.

Here's something that I doubt was ever uttered on FNC or any other place this week where ODS is prominant:

The White House notes that presidents previous to Bush, including Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, were not in the habit of holding White House events for the National Day of Prayer. National Day of Prayer Task Force Vice Chairman Brian Toon recently acknowledged that there weren't regular White House events to mark the day until the Bush years, telling the Religion News Service: "There was no East Room event until George W."

Today, however, the task force E-mailed me to say it had uncovered evidence for two White House events in pre-Bush administrations: a 1989 breakfast event in the State Dining Room hosted by George H. W. Bush and a 1982 Rose Garden event with Reagan. Not exactly evidence that annual National Day of Prayer events were a well-established tradition in the pre-Bush years, but the task force is clearly upset.

So the Christian Right (and anyone else with ODS railed against Obama this week for "dishonoring" a "tradition" which, through 20 years across the 5 presidential terms prior to GWB, occurred exactly two times. What a joke.

195

Mith
ID: 2894309
Fri, May 08, 2009, 10:11

Hilzoy:

This is an instance of something that generally bothers me about many discussions of politics: the assumption that political figures are not doing things for normal human reasons, but should instead be seen as communicating in a sort of code. Everything they do has a symbolic meaning: it's a symbol of disrespect for this, or craven obedience to that, or whatever; and if we want to understand them, we should not try to figure out why some comprehensible human being might have done what they did, but try to crack this code.

This is, in my view, silly. It's what leads to things like outrage over Obama's shaking hands with Hugo Chavez: if you view that handshake as the normal civil response to someone's extending his hand to you, it seems completely innocuous; but if you see it as a Fraught With Meaning, it looks like a sign that Obama thinks that Chavez is a wonderful guy.

I have absolutely no idea what led Barack Obama to decide not to have a public ceremony in honor of National Prayer Day. I do know that having a nice ecumenical service would have been the path of least resistance, politically, and the idea that he was "giving in to his left-wing base" is ludicrous to me. (We all know that he's religious, and most of us are fine with that.) Possibly the thought that prayer is private, and not something to be used to score political points, had nothing to do with it.

That said, though, it's an obvious possibility. And anyone who thought about why someone might not have such a ceremony, and who was thinking of that person as a human being, rather than as a Speaker in Code, should have considered it.

Moreover, finding symbols everywhere constrains people's actions in undesirable ways. On this occasion, it simply means that Obama cannot decide for himself how he wants to pray, but has to choose between holding a ceremony he might find religiously objectionable and sending the signal that he doesn't care about prayer. This is a recipe for the multiplication of ceremonies: every time you add one, you are sending a signal of respect to some constituency; every time you stop holding one, you send a signal of disrespect. Go too far down this road and you'll end up holding ceremonies non-stop. This is a bad way for Presidents to spend their time.

But it's worse in other cases. Consider the Chavez handshake again. When Chavez stuck out his hand, Obama had various choices. He could have refused to shake Chavez' hand, which is a serious insult. He could also have indicated real enthusiasm for Chavez, e.g. by throwing his arms around him and saying "Soulmate!" But he also had the option of doing something essentially meaningless: shaking Chavez' hand.

If we wish to construe anything other than clear expressions of disdain or horror as "legitimizing" Chavez, we deprive politicians of the option of being basically civil and non-committal. Is there any earthly reason to suppose that narrowing their options in this fashion would be a good thing? That it would advance America's interests, or those of anyone other than people who thrive on perpetual outrage? I can't see how.

196

Perm Dude
ID: 438132822
Thu, Oct 08, 2009, 13:40

Christian Hathos alert, as Andrew Sullivan points out:

Interactive painting--roll over the characters in the painting for commentary on each

And a very funny rebuttal.

197

sarge33rd
ID: 41112546
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 07:25

Apparently, even the Bible isn't "conservative enough" for these clowns.

Purging the Bible of liberal bias advanced by scholars

So, is the Bible a religious text, or a political "how-to" pamphlet?

198

Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:26

Instead of purging liberals from the Bible they ought to purge them from our society.

199

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:31

Like Hitler & the Jews, eh?

Ah, purging people we disagree with is so Christianist, isn't it?

200

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:39

God has his own purging plan...

For the upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it. - Prov 2:21,22.

201

Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:41

Like Hitler & the Jews, eh?

More like if the Jews had purged Hitler.

202

sarge33rd
ID: 50111656
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 07:25

from the link in 197:

This liberal slanting, Schlafly argues, ranges from changing gendered language — Jesus calling his disciples to be "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men" — to more subtle choices, like the 2001 English Standard Version of the Bible, which uses "comrade" and "laborer" more often than the conservative-friendly "volunteer."

Riiiiiight. "volunteer" huh? I'm sure the under-paid laborer of the the American Souths 19th century, would love to know that they weren't REALLY slaves,...they were "volunteers".

203

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 14:10

More like if the Jews had purged Hitler.

that would have been nice, but that's not really the example you're using. you're not suggesting to eradicate an individual, but rather a whole segment of the population.

sometimes i think you just *really* need to get laid, but your anger is at such a heightened level, i think what's wrong with you is psychological, and not physical, so instead, i'll suggest a therapist instead of a whore.

204

Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 16:41

Anybody else want to respond to the personal attacks Tree just did in 203?

Guru?

205

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 17:04

Considering it was with about 1/10th the venom of you post 1152 here, I don't think you want to play that game.

206

Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 18:09

No let's do it.

207

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 19:07

i'll address it.

tell me where it's an attack. i suggested you get a therapist. that's advice, not an attack.

also, are you four years old? because you are so much about "teacher teacher! look what he did! look! look!"

208

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 00:24

No, I'm not going to play the game. I've come to the conclusion that I don't really care what you think about anything, and I'm going to take the advice of others and just do my best to ignore it.

So, feel free to whine about how you're mistreated while you compare half of Americans to Hitler every chance you get, because nobody rational cares.

209

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 00:32

you compare half of Americans to Hitler every chance you get

don't forget where he blames the Jews for the Holocaust.

210

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 02:02

Well, you saw how they were dressed, they were practically asking for it.

211

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 10:10

funny thing is, the rape analogy is what came to mind for me too.

212

Boldwin
ID: 3011066
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 09:12

Please explain how Tree has ever deserved anything except personal attacks? He personally has degraded this board to a tenth the standards it once had and every liberal who has treated him as if he had any business posting here, shares in the blame.

213

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 10:22

Please explain how Tree has ever deserved anything except personal attacks?

please do.

every liberal who has treated him as if he had any business posting here, shares in the blame.

when i've crossed a line, i've been called out. PD, SZ, and MITH all come to mind as "liberals" who have called me out, ranging from chiding me to telling me i really should remove my post.

when your little friends here have crossed the line - from discussing a fellow posters' broken marriage to saying that Jews are the blame for their own deaths in the Holocaust (something i'm surprised you didn't shoot down, considering your own religious beliefs), at best you sit idly by, and at worst, you offer encouragement.

but this isn't about you.

it's about me, and why i deserve personal attacks.

so, please, fellow posters, please chime in and let me know.

Lurkers too, come out of the shadows and let me know why i deserve personal attacks, such as having my entire religion blamed for the deaths of 6 million of my brothers and sisters.

satisfy my curiosity.

214

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 10:58

"Please explain how Tree has ever deserved anything except personal attacks?"

He is, the last time I checked, composed of chromosomes and other things that define him as a human being?

And, also the last time I checked (and PLEASE correct me if you have information to the contrary) he has not eaten the heads off live babies while dancing nude in front of your house.

So, that's two things at least, though I grant the first one probably carries more weight.

215

Boldwin
ID: 3011066
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 10:51

If you wanted a forum all along that has descended to the point that possessing human chromosomes qualifies as the lowest common denominator to which we now aspire....gratz!

Tree and your own complicity have delivered it.

216

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 12:17

LOL. You could at least try a little to pretend not to be a ridiculous troll.

217

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 13:17

[203-204] - I would prefer that Tree (and a few others) behaved better as well. The comment at the end of his post 203 was unnecessary, inappropriate, and certainly detracted from the substance of his message.

Somehow, the caution "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" comes to mind, however....

And finally, pointing out the inappropriateness of the posts of others is not a defense for your own inappropriate posting.

218

Boldwin
ID: 61136107
Thu, Dec 10, 2009, 08:38

Give us a hug, Tree.

Now go seek your natural level...elsewhere.

219

Boldwin
ID: 61136107
Thu, Dec 10, 2009, 09:34

220

sarge33rd
ID: 51146106
Thu, Dec 10, 2009, 09:37

Did the river under your bridge flood Boldy?

221

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Tue, Jan 26, 2010, 10:57

This is just TOO good to be true! lmao Michael Moore couldnt have scripted FOR a Repubican candidate, a more self-destructive statement:

SC Rep Gov candidate (Lt Gov now) says feeding the poor is like "feeding stray animals"

OLUMBIA, S.C. - When things looked their darkest for Gov. Mark Sanford — when he was in danger of being impeached for running off to Argentina to see his mistress — his best insurance policy may well have been South Carolina's lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer.

Lawmakers knew if they removed Sanford, they would end up with Bauer, a fiercely ambitious Republican with a reputation for reckless and immature behavior.

Now Bauer has folks shaking their heads again, after he likened government assistance to the poor to feeding stray animals.

At a town hall meeting Thursday, Bauer, who is running for governor in his own right now that Sanford is term-limited, said: "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

(emphasis added)

222

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Fri, Jan 29, 2010, 13:31

lRoeder convicted

The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.

37 minutes? Guess there wasn't much debate on the "I did it to save children" defense.

223

biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Jan 29, 2010, 13:35

Who says we can't use our court system to try terrorists.

I know, I know. It's a word that is misused. But it certainly seems apt here.

224

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Jan 31, 2010, 15:06

i just discovered the guilty pleasure that is the TV show Glee.

Apparently, watching it will make me gay...

glad i never really watched Golden Girls though...otherwise, i'd be doubly gay.

225

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Mon, Feb 01, 2010, 08:37

So what happens to those of us Tree, who watched;

1) Golden Girls
2) Bosom Buddies
3) Glee

?????

226

boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Feb 01, 2010, 11:22

I actually agree with article well the part about the show being poorly written....man and i know so many people who love watching golden girls reruns and i just thought they had no taste.

227

Tree, on lunch
ID: 570552512
Mon, Feb 01, 2010, 11:36

Sarge, you're tripley gay.

boikin - how so? i think the show is wonderfully written. it's fun!

228

boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Feb 01, 2010, 15:23

Ill give you that it is fun, but i don't really care for it. Then again I am not a big fan of tv comedies unless you count CSI:Miami. Ill restate that a bit, the BBC makes some good comedy programs.

229

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Feb 02, 2010, 10:22

Evangelical & Mixed Martial Arts

Interesting article.

230

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Tue, Feb 02, 2010, 12:21

"Sarge, you're tripley gay."

That would make me a "tripley gay-athiestic-mason in denial"

As probably the ONLY such person around, perhaps I should lobby for protected class status; since I am such an obvious minority.

:)

231

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Feb 02, 2010, 14:55

That would be 33'rd degree mason in denial.

232

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Tue, Feb 02, 2010, 15:22

33rd degree?!?!?!?!? Shouldnt I get a decoder ring or something for that?

238

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 08:38

Nothing uncivil about pointing out that he had the decoder ring.

239

Mith
ID: 43914286
Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 08:38

Hmm. That's the first time one of my posts was removed since the establishment of the new civility rules. I don't believe anything I wrote was in violation, as I just explained that a potentially offensive post appeared to have a double meaning.

I understand if that post was a casualty in a decision to scrap the violation and the following posts which discussed it, especially since it was of no other value anyway.

But I don't recall exactly what I wrote and if I did break the rules I'd like to know why.

240

bibA
ID: 01116297
Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 09:43

It did seem to be slightly "argumentative" when you enlarged the "33rd" so much rather than maybe just making it bold.

241

biliruben's lawyer
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 22:56

weak

242

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 11:55

Mith - I just whacked yours because after the earlier posts were deleted, yours was no longer relevant, and only served to call attention to something that was no longer published.

243

Mith
ID: 43914286
Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 14:16

Thanks Guru.

244

astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 01:15

I thought about putting this in the Haiti thread. But it seemed more appropriate in this one: Missionaries accused of Kidnapping

245

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 01:34

I told my wife that I found it a little distasteful and a touch odd seeing all of these happy new parents showing off their Haitian orphans right after the earthquake on television. With all of the turmoil and complete collapse of the government, who was doing all the due diligence to make these adoptions legal?

So, I was not surprised when I heard of the arrests and wonder if there will be more stories to come. Imagine you think you lost your child to the earthquake when in reality they were "adopted".

246

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 07:22

the last couple lines of that story are very telling.

The Dominican consul in Haiti, Carlos Castillo, told the AP on Thursday that the day the Americans departed for the border, Silsby visited him and said she had a document from Dominican migration officials authorizing her to take the children from Haiti.

Castillo said he warned (group leader Laura) Silsby that if she lacked adoption papers signed by the appropriate Haitian officials her mission would be considered child trafficking. "We were very specific," he said.

based on these early facts, it seems that she knew just what she was doing, and was trying to "pull a fast one", based on the complete chaos in Haiti post-earthquake.

i have little doubt that at least some of the church members involved were innocently duped, and that is sad.

247

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Feb 13, 2010, 21:05

How Christian were the founders?

Using the yearly circus that is the Texas State Board of Education, Russell Shorto examines the basic underpinning of religious fundamentalism's basic thrust into politics: That the Founding Fathers were religious fundamentalists who founding this country as a "Christian Nation."

Of course, many of these people, like Don McLeroy will lie if they have to to get their bias into the curriculum. Like Christians in the Crusades, they can self-excuse virtually any non-Christian act so long as they sincerely believe they are doing it for Christian goals.

[As an aside, it struck me that beliefs and actions they take against evolution mimics to a T those same beliefs and actions with regard to global warming. Who needs science when you really, really believe you are right? Just call the other side "frauds" who are "only in it to make money" and you'll feel really good about your actions].

248

boldwin
ID: 481371112
Sun, Feb 14, 2010, 06:18

OMG what you have become, PD.

'Robertson’s protégé, Ralph Reed, once said, “I would rather have a thousand school-board members than one president and no school-board members”'

Do you imagine Bill Ayers and the hardcore organizers of the campus in the 60's were any less focussed? You have no problem with them remaking America thru every trick and strongarm tactic but you have a fit when conservatives accurately quote the FF effectively.

And your cheapshot slanders towards me overlooked the reality that I've pointed to scientists too numerous to count exposing the AGW hoax and the perpetrators have been caught red-handed lying and profiteering. Just because you either are unable to understand the scientific objections these scientists raise or are unwilling to listen to them, doesn't make my ability to understand the science and promote it, some faith based operation.

249

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Feb 14, 2010, 08:35

Indeed, dentistry is only a job for McLeroy; his real passions are his faith and the state board of education. He has been a member of the board since 1999 and served as its chairman from 2007 until he was demoted from that role by the State Senate last May because of concerns over his religious views. Until now those views have stood McLeroy in good stead with the constituents of his district, which meanders from Houston to Dallas and beyond, but he is currently in a heated re-election battle in the Republican primary, which takes place March 2.

McLeroy is a robust, cheerful and inexorable man, whose personality is perhaps typified by the framed letter T on the wall of his office, which he earned as a “yell leader” (Texas A&M nomenclature for cheerleader) in his undergraduate days in the late 1960s. “I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist,” he announced almost as soon as we sat down. He also identifies himself as a young-earth creationist who believes that the earth was created in six days, as the book of Genesis has it, less than 10,000 years ago. He went on to explain how his Christian perspective both governs his work on the state board and guides him in the current effort to adjust American-history textbooks to highlight the role of Christianity. “Textbooks are mostly the product of the liberal establishment, and they’re written with the idea that our religion and our liberty are in conflict,” he said. “But Christianity has had a deep impact on our system. The men who wrote the Constitution were Christians who knew the Bible. Our idea of individual rights comes from the Bible. The Western development of the free-market system owes a lot to biblical principles.”

How can anyone who BELIEVES that, be on a Board of Education?

Further, the free market was hardly a Christian principle/creation. Genghis Kahn practiced free trade, the Muslims, early Romans, etc etc etc.

Intertwining religious theory with historical fact; is disingenuous if not truly dangerous.

250

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Feb 14, 2010, 09:41

I've pointed to scientists too numerous to count exposing the AGW hoax and the perpetrators have been caught red-handed lying and profiteering.

one of the reasons you don't have a lot of credit with statements like this is because when someone YOU believe in is pointed out as a liar claiming something as "fact" to just make a profit, you dismiss it.

your personal belief system sets different rules for snake oil salesmen as long as they believe the same as you. you don't hold them to the same standard you hold those who believe opposite of you.

251

boldwin
ID: 481371112
Sun, Feb 14, 2010, 18:40

One of the reasons you guys are so easily misled by these hoaxsters is that you don't look at their motivation. Higher-ups in the IIPC are getting rich off side-ventures which feed off the hysteria they build.

All the while you discount 30,000 scientists who sign statements of disagreement with the AGW crowd and put their reputations on the line bucking the power elite and the funders of the world for no gain other than standing up for the truth and at considerable financial risk to themselves.

I put those two things in the balance and it is just obvious who is telling the truth.

Then add up the number of times the AGW crowd violates the usual protocols of science, by not sharing data readily and plotting against those who disagree and sabotaging careers and black balling people instead of winning the argument with proof. These people do not deserve the white coat.

252

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Feb 14, 2010, 19:18

You might not have noticed that you weren't mentioned in #247, Baldwin. I actually wasn't thinking of you when I wrote it.

Once you take away your martyrdom, I'm not at all certain what your point is in #248. "Liberals do it too!" perhaps?

253

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 00:26

That God dude's a Marxist.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

254

boldwin
ID: 481371112
Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 08:51

The liberation theology movement beat you to that sophistry by 40-50 years.

255

Perm Dude
ID: 231502023
Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 00:50

Another twist to the story linked to in #244: All the 33 children have at least one living parent

257

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 23:44

One of my favorite Christian musicians, Jennifer Knapp, disappeared from the scene for years. Now she's back-- and gay!

258

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, May 05, 2010, 15:58

This looks like as good a spot as any:

Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with "rent boy"

259

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, May 05, 2010, 23:33

Good response from the Family Research Council on Rekers. Last paragraph of their short statement:

While we are extremely disappointed when any Christian leader engages in the very activities that they "preach" against, it is not surprising. The Scriptures clearly teach the fallen nature of all people. We each have a choice to act upon that nature or accept the forgiveness offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and do our best to ensure our actions, both public and private match our professed positions.

260

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Thu, May 06, 2010, 02:01

How do you guys expect those examples to effect christians? You think it somehow makes it acceptable behavior?

Your posts are as honorable as POW camp interogators. 'Prisoner #123 caved, why don't you? It's just a matter of time before we get to you.'

261

Razor
ID: 57854118
Thu, May 06, 2010, 09:25

Sweep it under the rug, eh? See, you have more in common with the Catholic church than you thought.

262

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Thu, May 06, 2010, 16:13

No one is sweeping anything under the rug.

No one is denying that in a world 100% full of sinners Satan is going to have some temporary successes.

What is happening here is that the grateful dead around here are so proud of having lost their morals that they're now evangelical about making morality [renamed judgementalism] the only sin.

They have no problems with the moral sins they are clucking their tongues about here. The only thing they have against these sinners is that they aren't proud and loud about it.

263

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, May 06, 2010, 16:16

Having your political opponents be all moral and judgmental isn't so good, eh?

264

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Thu, May 06, 2010, 16:31

It has it's advantages. When the darnel turns black, it is easily distinguishable from the wheat and it is time to tear them away from the earth.

265

biliruben
ID: 113582522
Thu, May 06, 2010, 16:40

"Whoever he is, he sure talks gloooooomy..."

Name the show that quote came from. Bonus points for episode and character!

266

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Thu, May 06, 2010, 17:01

Not gloomy for the wheat. 8]

267

Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, May 06, 2010, 17:50

an interesting side of Fred Phelps

268

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Thu, May 06, 2010, 18:03

"Whoever he is, he sure talks gloooooomy..."

269

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Thu, May 06, 2010, 18:04

Well whatever ya think of me, at least I've got bonus points going for me.

270

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, May 06, 2010, 18:10

This t-shirt design wrong on so many levels. But it made me literally LOL:

271

biliruben
ID: 113582522
Thu, May 06, 2010, 18:35

Man! Nice find!

I miss Sulu. Part of the reason I gave
Heroes more of a chance than it deserved.

They were clearly all on X in that episode, except that it wasn't invented yet.

272

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, Jul 25, 2010, 23:03

How one Gainsville, FL church will solemnly and respectfully rember 9/11 on the 9th anniversary of the attacks.

For those who can't wait until September, the same church will be holding a warmup hate-event at Gainsville City Hall in just 8 days!

273

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Jul 26, 2010, 09:41

i've said before that this sort of hate is part of traditional Christianity.

this is not to say that all Christianity is bad - far from it. The vast majority of Christians - and by that i mean overwhemingly so - understand the whole "love your fellow man" concept.

but just as there are sects of Islam who use hate as a weapon and a tool, there are sects of Christianity that do the same.

274

Mattingly
ID: 20646238
Mon, Jul 26, 2010, 10:28

this sort of hate is part of traditional Christianity

Christianity is a very old thing which has evolved (and devolved) in many different ways and in different places over the milenia. 'Traditional' is an abstract (and in this particular use, pointlessly offensive) term that can be applied to refer to just about anything in the religion's past of which traces remain today.

No different from saying that any persecution of other faiths at the hands of Jews is an old Hebrew tradition, just because I might be able to point to historical events in which that happened.

For a guy who is so overly hypersensitive about any criticism of Israel (valid or not) without an accompanying condemnation of her adversaries, you sure are quick to run down Christianity with these ambiguous (and typically very uninformed) criticisms.

275

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Jul 26, 2010, 12:30

'Traditional' is an abstract (and in this particular use, pointlessly offensive)

perhaps "traditional" was a poor choice of words. It cannot be denied, however, that through much of the history of Christianity, there has been forced conversion, be it of muslims, jews, native americans, and many others.

i was very clear in stating that the majority of Christians don't follow this mindset. perhaps you missed that part.

For a guy who is so overly hypersensitive about any criticism of Israel (valid or not)

perhaps you've also been missing my own criticism of Israel. You can't be "overly hypersensitive" if you're willing to be critical yourself.

276

Mith
ID: 28646259
Mon, Jul 26, 2010, 13:35

Yes, traditional was a poor choice. Absolving "the majority of
Christians" from your criticism is beside the point. I didn't react
to anything you wrote about "the majority of Christians", but to
your offensive and inaccurate claims about their tradition.

You know most people who consider themselves capable
writers try to be both informed about what they write and take
time to express themselves accurately.

And an occasional criticism of Isreal doesn't counter the fact
that you are hypersensitive about the subject. A look back at
any discussion on the issue over the years shows this plainly.

277

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Jul 26, 2010, 14:28

You know most people who consider themselves capable writers try to be both informed about what they write and take time to express themselves accurately.

again, if you want to be Professor Semantic, feel free. you must know that most people with common sense are smart enough to understand intent, and not get caught up on poor choice of words.

And an occasional criticism of Isreal doesn't counter the fact that you are hypersensitive about the subject. A look back at any discussion on the issue over the years shows this plainly.

when much of the criticism choose to be ignorant of history and fact, then you'll see "hypersensitive" defenses.

278

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Jul 31, 2010, 19:44

On September 11, 2010, the extremist evangelical Dove World Church — whose pastor, Terry Jones, has written a book called “Islam Is Of The Devil” — plans to host “International Burn A Quran Day,” when it will burn Muslims’ sacred text and encourage others across the world to do so as well. Churchmember Wayne Sapp has even posted an instructional video that explains how and why to burn the Islamic text.

Jones later went on to explain, “...We have nothing against Muslims, they are welcome in our country.”

279

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 21:07

"Jesus hates Muslims," they screamed at worshippers arriving at the Masjid An-Noor mosque to prepare for the holy month of Ramadan. One protester shoved a placard at a group of young children leaving the mosque. "Murderers," he shouted.

Police arrived on the scene to separate the groups, but said no arrests were made.

Flip Benham, of Dallas, Texas, organizer of the protest, was yelling at the worshipers with a bullhorn.

"This is a war in America and we are taking it to the mosques around the country," he said.

Mustafa Salahuddin, an Ansonia police officer and parishioner at the mosque, calmly watched the protesters from the mosque's parking area.

"This is unfortunate, but it's a free country," he commented on the protest. "But I believe Jesus would have been appalled by this. We revere Jesus the same way they do."

280

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 21:47

Christian extremists showing no regard for the rights of others; are not much different from Islamic extremists showing no regard for the rights of others.

281

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 22:08

They aren't violating anyone's rights in exercizing their own rights to assemble and speak.

Not that they aren't Grade-A jackasses and terrible people, of course.

First Friday of Ramadan, too. Like waiting until the first Sunday of Lent to scream at Christians arriving for mass.

282

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 22:43

"But I believe Jesus would have been appalled by this. We revere Jesus the same way they do."

I certainly hope not. I hope they ( the Muslims) understand Jesus' message better than these nimrods.

However, this thread is pretty much the equivalent of one of those "FUBAR people of Wal'mart" web-sites. Yeah, there are freaks everywhere.

283

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 22:54

I'd offer that laughing at fat people who go out in public wearing tube tops is at least a little less worthwhile than keeping tabs on organized extremists, even law-abiding nonviolent ones.

284

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 13:48

here's a point to ponder...

i take issue with labeling these sort of Christians as extremists. As evidenced by protests of mosques nation wide, there are plenty of folks who are not extremists who seem to have a problem with Islam.

it's easy to dismiss them as extremists, but i fear they are not.

and to bring it close to home for me, it shocked and hurt me that the ADL came out against the Mosque being built on lower manhattan.

i found it absolutely appalling that an organization who's mission statement reads "The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens," and who's "About us" page contains passages such as "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry in the U.S. and abroad through information, education, legislation, and advocacy," would do such a thing, and it hurts their credibility with me tremendously.

anyway - i don't think the domain of this Muslim hate is simply that of typical extremists.

285

Boldwin
ID: 217531415
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 16:57

Christian extremists showing no regard for the rights of others; are not much different from Islamic extremists showing no regard for the rights of others. - Sarge

Yet I don't see them cutting anyone's heads off.

I can tell you that they are literally cutting the heads off my people in other lands.

286

Boldwin
ID: 217531415
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 17:00

What I find wrong about it is that it isn't designed to win anyone over. It's a self-righteous exercise that is happily driving people away from Christ.

287

Boldwin
ID: 217531415
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 17:02

On the otherhand I wouldn't see anything wrong with demonstrating near ground zero expressing the outrage about such an in your face insult and celebration of terrorism being built right there.

288

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 17:04

Yet I don't see them cutting anyone's heads off.

because you don't care to pay attention, or prefer to make up excuses or turn a blind eye.

Eric Rudolph. Scott Roeder. Army of God. Hutaree. Just to name a few of the more well known Christian terrorists or Christian terrorist groups.

they're not cutting off heads, but they're using bombs and bullets to murder, maim, and threaten.

Christian terrorism is alive and well.

289

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 17:04

There's already a plan to protest outside the Cordoba House site on September 11th.

290

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 17:06

celebration of terrorism being built right there.

by the way, that would be another lie, right there. there is no celebration of terrorism.

291

Boldwin
ID: 217531415
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 17:12

The closer it is to ground zero the harder it is to escape that conclusion.

292

tree on the evo
ID: 4251457
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 17:49

Baldwin - no comment on 288?

294

tree on the evo
ID: 4251457
Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 18:59

There was no trolling there. Just facts.
Things you continue to avoid.

295

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 14:20

Baldwin - still not responding to your comment in 285 about the lack of Christian terrorists, and the facts presented in 288 that contradict that?

296

Boldwin
ID: 577331613
Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 14:35

See post #293

297

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 15:18

The one where you called someone a troll? Happily deleted.

298

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 10:13

Is your husband gay???

I felt like I should put that in all caps, given the link. Starts out with a fake statistic, then many many words later you realized you've journeyed through the mind of a writer really in a stereotypical groove.

299

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 11:11

Is there ever really a good excuse for a husband to visit Thailand or San Francisco without his wife?

"Honey, I'm off to Thailand for a week on a business trip."

"Uh, you drive a school bus."

"Yes, there's a training course for school bus drivers found only in Thailand."

"OK, bring me and the kids back some T-shirts."

Also liked this one:

Do they exchange expensive, personal gifts like scarves or cologne?

That's very funny.

"Where did you get this mauve scarf?"

"Adam down the street gave it to me."

"Adam? The young man who works as a Chippendale's dancer? You're not secretly gay are you?"

"Me? Secretly gay? Stop!"

What kind of world does this writer live in? It's a great comedy piece, even if unintended.

300

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 22:01

Words can't explain how evil this alleged Christian is.

301

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 19:22

This time for real

302

SeattleZen in Forks
ID: 5210162914
Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 15:16

That was a great story, PV.

303

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 11:40

MN Christian minister accuses Rep Ellison of recruiting among the gay community to institute Sharia in the United States.

As noted in the comments, "It is called hitting the trifecta of bigotry."

If there is one thing Muslim sharia law is known for, it is the incredible compassion and tolerance for the members of the LGBT community...

304

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 12:07

I'm always amused when right-wing bigots like this guy are suddenly "concerned" with the plight of gays in other countries.

305

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 18:51

Not sure what to title this story.

"We need to reject Jewish conservatives and elect a Christian who will bring us all together"?

"We like our Jews in the back of the conservative bus"?

Maybe keep the same title: "I got into politics to put Christian conservatives into office." Emphasis on Christian over conservative.

306

Tree
ID: 2010312116
Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 19:25

what a scary ass idealogy. and right here in my new home state.

(never mind that Cook's last statement in the article was factually incorrect.)

307

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 14:08

308

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 14:11

Exceptional.

309

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 19:31

Jesus's solution to poverty and every other problem of humanity wasn't to make Satan's kingdom work.

It was to get people into God's kingdom which does work.

310

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 21:12

post 309, is a long winded way of claiming the bottom line of post 307

just my opinion

311

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 23:41

Ok, wiseguys who know so much more about Jesus than I do, explain this...why didn't Jesus just accept the rulerships of all the nations of the world when offered them by satan, and then a few miracles later when he had turned the poor's water into wine, raised their dead, healed their sick, fed their hungry, calmed their deadly storms, judged their enemies, prevented their calamities, blessed their every activity...

...then we would have no poor today. Why not then?

312

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 23:46

And didn't he want to do those things?

313

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 00:05

you would ask of us, to speculate as to every motivation of a mind which so greatly exceeds our capacity to comprehend, it is immeasurable? Yet YOU would claim to divine those same motivations?

Is not "pride", one of the 7 deadly sins?

314

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 01:51

How do you expect to be a christian if you believe it is impossible to follow him? He provided the pattern for our thinking. And he answered satan when satan made that offer, so it's not like we are in the dark.

315

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 05:35

why didn't Jesus just accept the rulerships of all the nations of the world when offered them by satan

Sounds like you're going with Colbert's first option.

In response to your question, I'd presume that if ruling all nations of the world was a part of the covenant you say He came to fulfill, that opportunity for rulership would have been provided to him by something other than satanic means.

According to your Gospel, while here He provided guidance in the forms of both personal example and unambiguous verbal instruction for how Christians should deal with the poor.

You choose to pretend otherwise.

316

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 09:44

Nothing of the sort.

He did in fact recommend charity, however he was under no illusion this system was redeemable. He said these administrations were doomed to frustrating failure. He said we would always have the poor with us. [in satans system]

The main commission to christians at the end of the gospels [go ahead crack a bible and read the concluding chapter of any of the four gospels] does not focus on setting up a charitable program, not because it isn't an important necessary christian trait, it is, but rather because it is not the focus of christian activity.

The explicit commission is, 'Go therefore and make disciples...teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.'

The theme of Jesus ministry was explicitly stated many times....'repent for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near'. Spreading that message is the commission.

That is the solution to poverty. Sure, be charitible, but do it effectively and prudently and especially to those in the faith, knowing that there isn't remotely enuff effort in the world to fix all the problems created by satans mal-administration. Only God's kingdom replacing satan's rule can accomplish that.

317

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 09:59

But what do we objectively see in this global failure today.

Nominal christians give more charity than others.

Nominal christian nations give more charity than others.

Nominal christian nations have fat poor people.

Nations that kill the golden goose to feed the poor are 100% poor and are abused by the state. Thanks for nothin.

God doesn't favor either half of satan's dialectic and he won't favor the communitarian synthesis coming either. They will all fail to solve our problems. Some are just more spectacular failures than others. Some are more brutal than others.

318

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 10:16

It is impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good...and satan's attempt to build a universe safe for moral anarchy cannot produce the genuine unselfish love needed to eliminate poverty and injustice.

How much further proof do you need to see?

319

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 10:18

Jesus wasn't about governments, he was about people's hearts. You keep trying to make this about whether Jesus would support a government, which really, really misses the point.

Which is Colbert's point.

320

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 11:05

He is the one [and by extention you guys who think he makes such a great point] who looks at charity on the national level...

If this is going to be a christian nation which doesn't help the poor"

Further Colbert is mistaken

"or we have to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition"

Our love and service to the poor and needy are conditioned by the knowledge that spiritual needs are more important that material needs, that eliminating poverty is impossible, that resources to fight poverty are not limitless, that gaining entrance into God's kingdom is more beneficial than being materially well off in this one.

And finally he is wrong implying this country's people are less concerned about others than in other countries that claim to be more egalitarian

"and then admit that we just don't want to"

a claim belied by that actual statistics on charity by country and the actual condition of our poor.

321

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 11:10

are conditioned by...

Biblically you are on very shaky ground here. Jesus did not condition giving. He did not separate material giving and spiritual needs. In fact, he made a condition of gaining heaven that one give away everything.

He never said "since the poor are always here, you can just talk amongst yourselves about your individual spiritual needs."

Spinning Jesus. The clear result of politics tainting religion.

322

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 11:14

Jesus wasn't about governments - PD

Jesus was all about God's government.

323

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 12:01

Jesus did not insist all christians give away everything. He told one materialistic wealthy person that he would have to if he would succeed because that materialism was holding him back spiritually.

First century christians were severely persecuted. Widows had their husbands martyred, breadwinners were thrown out of town [and their jobs], people were thrown into prison. Relief efforts between congregations and within were a constant feature for that reason. They weren't setting up a commune. I can't go to PD and demand he equalize our bank balances or he's not really a christian. [and I notice you're not volunteering]

Christians are charitable today and they will be in God's Kingdom.

Noah will fit in just fine. I am sure he was a good samaritan but I am also sure he didn't put down his hammer to pursue wealth redistribution full time.

324

Tree
ID: 2010312116
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 13:35

i really wish there was a true "Christian" nation, so the loons who worship death and the alleged salvation it brings can do so in peace.

the whole "God's kingdom" rap is a bunch of a bunk in regards to feeding and clothing the poor.

never mind most people who preach the gospel seem to be some of the least loving, most hate-filled, filled with pride and prejudice.

325

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 18:11

Had to take time off your busy schedule policing the civility around here to post that mess as usual. What a joke.

326

Tree
ID: 2010312116
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 20:32

sorry. using religion as an excuse for hatred, is lame. Jesus would be so proud.

327

Boldwin
ID: 27049317
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 20:46

Do you ever get confused which hand holds the baseless racist tarring brush and which hand holds the baseless hatred brush? So much slander, so little time, what does that do for your character? Do you go to sleep with a smile, another day defaming good people?

328

DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 21:33

He's not defaming good people. At the absolute worst, he's defaming you. Of course, once again, truth is a viable defense.

329

Tree
ID: 2010312116
Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 22:15

Do you go to sleep with a smile, another day defaming good people?

i sleep quite well. and sorry, but your statements speak volumes for how you feel for those with brown skin, for those who don't speak English, for those who follow a different god than yours.

330

Tree
ID: 60121615
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 08:29

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley told a church crowd just moments into his new administration that those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior are not his brothers and sisters, shocking some critics who questioned Tuesday whether he can be fair to non-Christians.

"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother," Bentley said Monday, his inauguration day, according to The Birmingham News.

wonderful.

331

Footwedge
ID: 417422413
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 09:22

Amazing. Some day maybe even Christians will have equal rights.

If a Muslim or Jewish offical talking to a crowd of thier peers made a similar statement it would be back page news at best.

I don't necesarily agree with his statement but would defend his right to make his religious feelings known, especially to a group of his religious peers. This is his private life not a state policy.

If he pushes legislation that blatantly favors Christians over Muslims or Jews or whomever then I have a problem.

332

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 09:28

If a Muslim or Jewish offical talking to a crowd of thier peers made a similar statement it would be back page news at best.

A governor? Are you out of your mind??

If Rep. Keith Ellison told a Mosque congregation that they are his brothers and sisters but that Christians and Jews in his district are not, the head of every FNC on-air personality would simultaneously explode.

333

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 09:38

Some day maybe even Christians will have equal rights.

They only way that'll happen is if they drop the victim complex that causes them to halucinate such absurdities as that they are denied "equal rights".

334

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 10:15

I don't really see what the issue is. He's speaking to a church crowd. He himself is a Christian. Christians, like any other religion often view the world in terms of those who share their beliefs are brothers/sister and those who don't aren't. Notice his follow up, though - "I want to be."

He's not promoting hatred. He saying he wants non-Christians to join him. So what? How many other religions do that? All of them?

Footwedge has it right. If he makes policy that discriminates, nail him. But this comment, made to a church congregation about a church matter? Just because he's governor, he's suddenly supposed to forget his own beliefs?

This is a nothing story right now.

335

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 10:29

This is his private life not a state policy.

True, which is why it was so bad to say. As the elected state executive, he is no longer in a position to make those kinds of distinctions among his constituents.

As a private citizen there is no problem at all with it. Once elected, he no longer enjoys that status, however.

336

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 11:14

He's not promoting hatred.

This is true too. But the way he goes about saying he wants non-Christians to join him is a not-so-tacit rejection of non-Christians.

People expect their elected officials to have an inclusive approach to dealing with their constituants. But it's very hard to pull off the idea that you fully tolerate other creeds and cultures when you make it your personal responsibility to remind people who are different from you that their lawful and constitutionally-protected beliefs/culture/lifestyle is inferior to yours and that they're spiritual failures unless they start thinking and acting like you.

I'll happily defend his right to express whatever he wants about his faith. And just as quickly the right of anyone else to feel offended by him to express their opinions as well.

337

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 11:29

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - Declaration of Independence

We hear a lot of talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Notice that the first sentence of the DOI doesn't say, all Christian men are created equal, or endowed by their Creator, the God of Abraham as described in the Bible.

It's no big deal to me as I don't live in Alabama, but if the current governor of Utah said non-Mormons are not his brothers and sisters, not only would it be inappropriate, it would cause a firestorm among the Baptists who count Bentley among their flock; Baptists who already claim that Mormons are blasphemers.

338

Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 11:41

I don't really see what the issue is. He's speaking to a church crowd. He himself is a Christian. Christians, like any other religion often view the world in terms of those who share their beliefs are brothers/sister and those who don't aren't. Notice his follow up, though - "I want to be."

He's not promoting hatred. He saying he wants non-Christians to join him. So what? How many other religions do that? All of them?

so he added a caveat. whoop-tee-do. in his eyes, i'm not his equal because i don't believe in
Christ.

that's a bucket of horse$hit.

339

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 12:27

in his eyes, i'm not his equal because i don't believe in
Christ.

that's a bucket of horse$hit.

Thats actually life, Tree. Lots of people from all walks of life look down on others for various reasons. Honestly, I couldn't care less what he thinks of me. I've probably done it for one reason or another and I'm willing to bet you have, too. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find anybody anywhere who hasn't passed judgement on another human being for some perceived slight or difference.

This guys prejudices are a little more blatant some others. But as long as it doesn't affect his decision making process, so what?

He's as entitled to his opinion that non-Christians are not his brothers and sisters as you are entitled to your opinions of your religion and I am entitled to my opinion as an agnostic.

A bucket of horse manure? Not at all. Human nature. He's entitled to his belief. He's entitled to vocalize his belief. He's not entitled to enforce his belief thru his position in the government and so far he hasn't, so whats the big deal?

340

Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 12:35

He's entitled to his belief. He's entitled to vocalize his belief. He's not entitled to enforce his belief thru his position in the government and so far he hasn't, so whats the big deal?

what.ever.

the point is, he is an elected official in a nation where religion should not matter.

so, if an African-American elected official said "white people are not my equal. they are below my standards," we'd be ok with that?

if a Muslim elected offical said "if you don't follow Allah, you are an infidel, and beneath me," we'd be ok with that?

if a Jewish elected official said "you're a fool for believing in Christ, and since you do, i can't take you seriously," we'd be ok with that?

what.ever.

341

Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 12:58

Khahan - this is not one of your better moments.

He's as entitled to his opinion that non-Christians are not his brothers and sisters

Of course he is entitled to his opinion, but to state it publicly was so wrong that I have doubts that he is fit for public office. The executive of a secular government cannot state or even imply that he disfavors constituents who do not share his faith. How long before this guy starts imposing his will on the state Board of Education?

342

Footwedge
ID: 417422413
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 15:05

I have a problem with the apples to oranges comparisons here. Context is important.

He said "non-Christians are not his brothers and sisters" and based on his beliefs that is true in a strictly religious focus. I am not a police officer or ex-military but I do not get offended when they refer to thier special relationship with brothers and sisters in arms. I don't think that makes me inferior by reference.

My usage of equal rights was not what I was thinking as much as the lumping of Christians into a group of mindless morons by intellectuals. Insulting yes, discriminatory no.

343

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 15:14

Here is the full text of his inaugural speech.

That was his inaugural speech.

By contrast, later that day he went to a church and spoke to a church congregation. It is there in a private setting, addressing a religious crowd that made the comments about religion. He, as a deacon of the baptist church, was discussing the holy spirit and the holy spirit living within people and within the church congregation.

A little bit of context and true information goes a long way, doesn't it? Read his inaugural speech where he is discussing his role as governor and his role in politics.

Then when you read his, 'not my brother' comments, realize he is addressing a religious community and is a community leader (he is a deacon).

Put it in its proper context.

Do I agree with his religious view? Nope. When I die, I'll be put in the ground and thats the end of me. Big bang started it all. Billions of years of evolution.

But do I think that he was making a statement about how he views his role in politics when he was addressing a church congregation as a former deacon? Not at all. Until he crosses that line in his government role, he's done nothing wrong.

Read his inauguration speech. If that is the role he truly is taking as the leader of Alabama, then he's a good guy who deserves the job.

344

bibA
ID: 48627713
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 16:17

Yeah, it looks like we may be taking a situation out of context here. We probably shouldn't complain about just one aspect of a persons feelings without examining the rest of what he says he believes in.

Big difference in what a governor says in the statehouse and his church. Especially considering the context of a situation.

345

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 16:24

later that day he went to a church and spoke to a church congregation. It is there in a private setting

The lecturn in a church is the opposite of a prvate setting.

346

Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 16:49

Wow, Khahan, you are 0-2 today, and these are free throws, not Sandy Kofax fastballs, here.

I don't care what he said in his inaugural speech if he later completely invalidates it by making a public announcement that non-Christians are not his brothers and sisters.

If you can't understand the impropriety of a governor of a secular government making such a statement, I can't help you.

347

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 17:29

he's done nothing wrong.

I tend to agree, except that when you're elected to public office, your time as a private citizen shrinks dramatically.

He's entitled to his views, divisive as they may be.

348

WiddleAvi
ID: 32559
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 17:55

I am just curious if you exchange Christian for Muslim what would happen.

349

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 18:50

You'd get Pat Robertson.

350

Mith
ID: 371138719
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 00:31

For the "why do they say these things?" file...

Rick Santorum: Obama's RvW position is especially offensive because he is "a black man".

351

Boldwin
ID: 10029209
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 10:44

"why do they say these things?"

Oh, maybe because PP started out explicitly to cull undesirables and proceded to surround the black community with death camps for the next generation.

Why should a black person be offended? Let me think on that one...there's a tuff one.

352

Boldwin
ID: 10029209
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 10:51

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." - BlackGenocide.Org

Why do they say things? - PD

Why should Obama be offended by Planned Parenthood?

This stumps PD.

353

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 11:13

We'll file this in Baldwin's "They all look alike to me!" file.

354

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 11:14

Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America.

Honesty would require those stats be extrapolated, such as what percentage of poverty-stricken unwed teenage mothers is represented by the black community?

355

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 11:17

Maybe because 42% of women getting abortions are 100% below the poverty line (or lower).

356

Boldwin
ID: 10029209
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 12:15

We'll file this in Baldwin's "They all look alike to me!" file. - PD

How does your hero, Margaret Sanger, saying "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." get filed under Baldwin's "They all look alike to me!" file.?

If you mean Baldwin is colorblind and doesn't think any portion of humanity should be genocided, I'll give you a pass.

357

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 12:42

I mean: Your #352 references me twice, in response to a post (wait for it...) made by MITH.

Simple mistakes point to much larger mistakes being covered by bluster, arrogance, and misused analytical tools provided by others.

358

Boldwin
ID: 10029209
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 12:53

It's usually you covering for Sanger, not MITH. I caught that a second or two after hitting send but it just wasn't worth editing.

359

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 13:02

Boldwin [352] - "Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project"

In 1937 Sanger became chairperson of the Birth Control Council of America and launched two publications, The Birth Control Review and The Birth Control News. From 1939 to 1942 she was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role with the Negro Project, alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble.[16][17]
link

So if "supervisory role" can be re-labeled "created", and it happened 70 years ago ... does that make it more or less scary?

360

Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 14:10

i am shocked that 100 percent of people who get abortions are women. we much stop this obvious attempt to reduce the world of women!

So if "supervisory role" can be re-labeled "created", and it happened 70 years ago

you were expecting honesty and accuracy?

361

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 19:57

Why not here?:

362

Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 00:51

Boldwin 351 & 352 - Oh, maybe because PP started out explicitly to cull undesirables and proceded to surround the black community with death camps for the next generation.

Your kneejerk response with your standardized black people-abortion connection was quite obviously issued without bothering to watch the clip and hear what Santorum actually said.

363

Boldwin
ID: 45038210
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 01:38

Tosh

After Margaret Sanger said "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." it is amazing you are looking into parsing her role in implimenting it.

My understanding, [and i don't have research time atm] is that her 'Negro Project' was a plan to enlist black preachers and leaders to provide cover for her black genocide project. Pretty scary stuff. Not enuff to get your support in cutting government financial support for her black genocide project, I'll wager.

365

Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 01:50

it is amazing you are looking into parsing her role in implimenting it.

That'll teach him to think twice about thinking for himself.

366

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 02:35

History lessons work a lot better if the facts are presented accurately. If it gets too hard to tell the difference between fact and fiction, it gets real easy to discount the entire lesson.

Let's take a look at that quote. It returns a total of 9,230 Google results. The #1 return is wikiquote, which says it's misattributed ... and links back to the very same website that you linked.

Blackgenocide.org has a brief video interview with the lady, which does not contain the quote. And after going 5 pages deep into Google, every single discussion of the quote uses blackgenocide.org as their source. Yet that website offers nothing. It's just a sentence on a page. No source material.

So now ... what is fact and what is fiction? You find me ANY actual proof that this was actually said, and I'll stop parsing what is posted.

367

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 02:49

Or maybe I should have just linked to Sanger's wikipedia edit page. One of the editors said it pretty well.

First, back up your assertions with references to reliable sources. Blackgenocide.org is an unashamedly partisan site (starting from the very domain name!) full of illiterate misspellings and punctuation problems, providing no references to primary sources, with no reputation for accuracy that I know of, signed with a @yahoo.com email address and a P.O. Box. It might be relevant to link it from an article on Clenard Childress, if he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it's not relevant to the Margaret Sanger article. It's what we call a questionable source:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.

This description fits blackgenocide.org to a T: blackgenocide.org has no reputation for checking the facts and no editorial oversight; it's a website expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist (specifically, it equates the legality of abortion to genocide, and attempts to link it to racism); and it relies heavily on personal opinions. Also, as far as I can tell, it cites no primary sources itself, even in cases where it purports to quote others, which would serve to conceal any falsehoods it may or may not be propagating in support of its extremist views.

368

Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 02:53

I started the same research but didn't bother posting on it because the PP response had nothing to do with what Santorum actually said and even if it did, I'm not the least bit interested in some Planned Parenthood founder's rumored agenda from 90 years ago. I know a thing or two about the agenda of some of Volkswagen's founders and that wouldn't prevent me from buying a Jetta in 2011.

369

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 03:25

That makes me wonder. Does Boldwin eat Ben & Jerrys ice cream?

Re: that scary 'Negro Project'. It's all about birth control. So is that a black genocide project? This is the least-biased article I can find on it. From the conclusion down at the bottom ...

The fundamental belief, underscored at every meeting, mentioned in much of the behind-the-scenes correspondence, and evident in all the printed material put out by the Division of Negro Service, was that uncontrolled fertility presented the greatest burden to the poor, and Southern blacks were among the poorest Americans. In fact, the Negro Project did not differ very much from the earlier birth control campaigns in the rural South designed to test simpler methods on poor, uneducated and mostly white agricultural communities. Following these other efforts in the South, it would have been more racist, in Sanger's mind, to ignore African-Americans in the South than to fail at trying to raise the health and economic standards of their communities.

Yup. Pretty scary stuff.

370

Tree
ID: 320371412
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 08:06

simply put, that quote was never said by the person it is attributed to, but that fact is lost on people who want to push their agenda of....well, whatever it is...

but MITH is right - that has nothing to do with Santorum said, and is simply more subterfuge from Baldwin when one of their heroes says something disgusting.

371

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 10:22

that quote was never said by the person it is attributed to

No one has proven that negative. Obviously a fact lost on you while pushing your agenda.

And what makes you think it's subterfuge? Boldwin was much more likely just too lazy to click the link and assumed Santorum was in tune with his pet race/abortion issue -- a notably less intellectually lazy reaction than post 370.

372

Tree
ID: 320371412
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 13:44

that quote was never said by the person it is attributed to

No one has proven that negative. Obviously a fact lost on you while pushing your agenda.

so now we have to prove that someone didn't say something? when did the burden of proof switch?

as for the whole pushing your own agenda thing, the fact that you called ME out on this, and not the original poster that pointed out this quote was mis-attributed, shows your own biases.

And what makes you think it's subterfuge?

it was a perception, based on his MO.

373

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 14:00

Rush Limbaugh: "Baldwin is my lap puppy."

Prove he didn't say that.

374

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 14:04

Re: #350

Santorum: No Apologies for Comments on Obama, Abortion, Race

375

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 14:40

Not a surprise there. He never apologized for not living in the state while a Senator--I don't think he has it in him to apologize for anything.

376

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 16:04

so now we have to prove that someone didn't say something?

Come on tree you just have to be smarter than this, don't you? If you call it a "fact" that someone never said a particular thing, yes, you have to know (i.e. have proof) that he/she did not in fact say that thing. In this case, we really don't know where the quote in question came from. For all we know, she did say it.

the fact that you called ME out on this, and not the original poster... shows your own biases

I retract my previous question.

377

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 17:31

I know this has been sidetracked a bit with Santorums idiocy. But I want to go back to Governor Bentley and address a few things:

1. A lecturn in a church is a private audience or maybe more appropriately I should say a non-governmental audience. No matter the label, I view it as a very different circumstance than his public inaugural speech. And I will continue to defend his right to both his religion and his right to speech to discuss his religion outside of his role as governor.

2. 348 -widdleavi. Ok, you got me with a bit of hypocrisy here. I'll admit that. The hypocrisy comes in how its perceived. I just don't feel worried/threatened about a Christian saying, "I want you to be my brother" meaning I want you to join my religion. But an irrational part of me does worry when I hear about the spread of Islam. Maybe its because of the small sub-sect of extremist Islam that seems to be targetting well, everybody.

At the same time, though I will still defend an Imams right to speak about his religion and promote his religion.

Of course, if the violence we've seen from Christians in Egypt over the past few months becomes more widespread and is associated with forced conversion, then I'd probably feel just as negative towards Gov. Bentley's comments.
But even 'feeling negative' towards his comments doesn't change the fact that I feel he has the right to speak about his religion to a congregation even if he is Governor.

378

Boldwin
ID: 45032111
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 17:59

Could you explain/expand that last paragraph, Khahan?

379

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 18:01

Why do people keep talking about "rights" in defense of him? The criticism has noting to do with his right to express himself, nor does anyone seek to take away his right to free speech in "his role as governor" whatever that means. You might as well declare that you will continue to defend his right to eat a sandwich in his role as governor. It doesn't make any sense except to disingenuously attack his critics for something they haven't done.

380

Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 18:15

Believe me, MITH, I will defend his right to eat a sandwich with.... wait, this is Alabama where vibrators are illegal. Forget him! No sandwich for YOU!

381

Khahan
ID: 13126822
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 19:04

It doesn't make any sense except to disingenuously attack his critics for something they haven't done.

So let me get this right MITH. We agree that:

1. He has the right to his religion
2. He has the right to his speech
3. He has the right to express his religion

So what is there to criticize? Oh wait, let me get some quotes from further up:

... the impropriety of a governor of a secular government making such a statement, I can't help you.

This was made in response to my post 343.

the point is, he is an elected official in a nation where religion should not matter

Sorry, but it seems to me he is being told in his private life he is no longer entitled to hold a religious view or have religious beliefs.

Do you want to tell me again that I'm unjustly attacking his critics when their own words support what you say they aren't doing. If you truly agree with points 1, 2 and 3 I listed, then I don't see how you can have a problem with him. Except that you somehow think because he is the Governor he should no longer be allowed to have a personal belief system. That I can't agree with. You can't elect an official then tell him to be somebody or something he's not.

Of course now knowing that they don't allow vibrators in Alabama, I think all other rights should be taken away until the basic right of a female (or male I guess) to pursue happiness is restored!!!!!

382

Khahan
ID: 13126822
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 19:14

Boldwin, to expand on my last paragraph in 377. I'll lead with a few references:

arrests over riots

The Jos riots (which were a back and forth of violent riots between muslims and christians).

There was another event in the past few weeks I read about but can't seem to find right now (it was in Northern Africa, not necessarily egypt) where Christian rioters killed a few hundred.

Given, many of these are in response to years of persecution. But especially the latest one struck me as wholly unnecessary and violent.

Point is, I don't really tolerate violence from anybody. If that is means they are using to promote themselves, I'll be against them.

383

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 20:03

Once elected governor of all the people, he loses the ability to speak as though he is only governor of part of the people without being criticized.

And really--this is what it is about: Pushback against the criticism of the governor for saying something he should not have said.

I'm willing to cut him a bit of slack--after all, there aren't a lot of non-Christians in his circle yet to make him realize how silly he sounded.

But this was never about his right to make himself sound silly. It was about whether he should have or not.

384

Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 22:57

Khahan

Seattle Zen can speak for himself on whether you understand him correctly but there's nothing he's written that I interpret as an opinion that Governor Bentley should be legally prevented from or legally penalized in any way for speaking his mind on spiritual matters.

Perhaps you misunderstand the word, impropriety? I understand SZ's intent to be the same as PD's last two sentences of #383. No one is going to charge Bently with any crime or remove him from office, they're just exercising their own right to express their opinion that he was wrong morally and ethically wrong to say say what he did while serving as the governor.

So unless I've grossly misunderstood Seattle Zen, yes, and again, you are unjustly attacking his critics, despite the fact that I aree with your numbered points in #381. No constitutionally protected inalienable rights to religious expression do not protect him from people criticizing his statement as unbefitting the office of the governor.

If we're going to lower the barso far as to make that a denial of a man's inalienable right to speech, then your admoinishment of that criticism as out of line (read: improper) is exactly the same kind of denial of their right to criticize him. Where do you propose the line be drawn?

386

Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 23:04

Err...

No constitutionally protected inalienable rights to religious expression ~~do not~~ protect him from people criticizing his statement as unbefitting the office of the governor.

387

Khahan
ID: 13126822
Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 08:40

is exactly the same kind of denial of their right to criticize him. Where do you propose the line be drawn

People came out and said, "he was wrong to say that because he's not representing everybody equally."

I said he wasn't wrong. He has his right to say it in that setting. Whats there to criticize.

People said he should not show his religious beliefs anymore.

I said that's bunk. You can't change who he is. As long as he doesn't let his religious belief actually guide his policy whats he doing wrong what is there to criticize?

The response is, "he can't/shouldn't have said that."

My response is, "Why not, what did he do wrong?"

"he just shouldn't say that."

388

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 08:55

Khahan

I said he wasn't wrong. He has his right to say it in that setting.

Here's the thing. When you talk about rights in the context of "right to religion" and "right to speech" you're ostensibly talking about protected inalienable rights. And there are no protected inalienable rights to not be criticized for your expressed opinions about your beliefs, even if that criticism is that what he said is not befitting the office of governor. I'm sorry, but it has nothing to do with "rights" unless you intend such a diluted pointless definition of that word that will inevitably pulll down the level of discussion here.

You disagree with his critics, so be it. Maybe you have a fair point in disagreement and maybe you don't (I believe you don't). But you make it into some dramatic portrayal of him as a free-speech martyr when you bring in this nonsense about "rights". We already have Boldwin here for that.

whats he doing wrong what is there to criticize?

The response is, "he can't/shouldn't have said that."

You obviously haven't been paying attention if that's really what you think.

389

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 09:05

I'm sure the residents of Alabama will follow the advice of a New Yorker. Especially on the topic of state government or governor conduct.

390

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 09:13

Me? What advice have I offered to Alabamans? WTF are you talking about?

391

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 09:50

You're telling them how their governor should act. You're advising their governor on how he should act.

393

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 10:07

I guess we should shut up if a theoretical governor started referring to blacks in his state as "dark 'uns" too.

After all, we know that governors always act responsibly and state voters are wise everywhere.

394

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 10:12

Well, release any doubt if that happens to be official religious vernacular, PD.

395

Tree
ID: 24115767
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 12:38

many of the people who have no problem with the governor of Alabama actually saying "Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, Im telling you, youre not my brother and youre not my sister, and I want to be your brother," are the same people who have a HUGE problem with what they falsely perceive as Barack Obama potentially pushing a Muslim agenda on us.

the irony is delicious. and as i said earlier, God forbid if a Muslim governor had said "Anybody here today who has not accepted Mohammed as their savior, Im telling you, youre not my brother and youre not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

the fit would have hit the shan.

396

Mith
ID: 28646259
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 15:07

I'd like to know why 392 was removed.

397

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 15:51

I was not the moderator who removed that post. However, I'd surmise that it was removed because in the last sentence of that post, the moderator felt that you were calling another poster stupid.

398

Mith
ID: 28646259
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 16:21

That's a shame if true, since my understanding of a personal attack is a criticism or insult of the person or character, not the idea or opinion he expresses. Thats he first post Ive seen deleted for its criticism of an opinion.

Would it have been deleted if I wrote that reading into every opinion expressed in this forum as 'advice' is ridiculous, or nonsense?

Is it too much to ask the moderator who deleted the post to explain himself? I sent an email to to the mods so he could just respond to that rather than make it public. If the standards are shifting I think it's fair for the rest of us to know.

399

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 17:54

I have asked moderators to remain anonymous, to the extent possible. If the moderator who deleted the post wishes to relay his/her rationale to me, I will pass it along.

400

Khahan
ID: 13126822
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 00:48

MITH, there is one point of mine that you are continually side-stepping and not addressing:

but it seems to me he is being told in his private life he is no longer entitled to hold a religious view or have religious beliefs

That speech was in his private life. Direct question for you and anybody else, Do you feel he is no longer entitled to hold his religious beliefs in his private/personal life?

And MITH, you asked a while why do people keep talking about his rights because people are allowed to criticize him. I'm asking, "whats the justification for the criticism. You and SZ seem to think its rather self-evident. Its not. I believe in that setting, his comments were perfectly fine. He is entitled to them (even now that he is governor) and that is an acceptable place to voice them. So what specifically are you criticizing?

401

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 01:05

That speech was in his private life.

Public speeches by a public figure are not private speech. By definition.

402

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 01:17

but it seems to me he is being told in his private life he is no longer entitled to hold a religious view or have religious beliefs

It doesn't seem that way to me, certainly not by anything said in this forum. But maybe this is a semantics problem between us. Please define "not allowed".

I'm asking, "whats the justification for the criticism

Who cares? Even if his critics are dead-wrong, what does their criticism have to do with "rights"?

From my perspective, you're the one sidestepping my question. What are these "rights"? What rights? Granted by whom?

So what specifically are you criticizing?

I don't believe I was unclear back in post 336.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm less interested in our differences regarding the impropriety of what he said than I am the idea that he is in some way being denied any "rights". The former is a matter of opinion regarding conduct befitting a governor. The latter is a more substantive issue. I have no idea what you or others are talking about when you refer to his "rights". Again, what "rights"?

403

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 11:22

Public speeches by a public figure are not private speech. By definition from PD

and

The former is a matter of opinion regarding conduct befitting a governor from MITH

I guess this just simply boils down to a matter of different perspectives.

PD, public/private or whatever label you want to put on it, I just simply disagree that a former deacon speaking to a congretation is wrong to say what Bentley said, no matter his current role.

And MITH, I did not get the impression he was discussing his role as governor or his future policy so I disagree there was any impropriety in that particular speech.

Just a difference of perception.

404

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 11:32

Was Bentley standing at a podium/pulpit?
Was there a microphone, that was being projected through speakers?
Was this an event that was open to the public?

If yes to all three ... that sounds like the definition of public speech to me.

405

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 11:49

he was discussing his role as governor or his future policy so I disagree there was any impropriety in that particular speech.

His responsibility to uphold proper public behavior is not limited to times when he is conducting official (the people's) business. A curch gathering is a public event - where regular people can freely go, not different in that regard from the town square, especially in the case of someone who assumes the pulpit. If he was picked up by police on the side of the highway drunk and screaming at cars in his boxers, that would be conduct unbefitting his role. This is not so different from that.

406

Boldwin
ID: 140582522
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 18:29

Gaia worshiping liberals we can be proud of:

The benefits of killing 40 million people. You sequester a whole lotta carbon. So I guess you could start looking at Genghis Khan like an environmentalist.

Someone quick go check the web-visits of the guys in the missile silos for Planetsave.com

...and check for a Planetsave induced climate of violence while you are down there.

407

DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 18:40

Are they Christian conservatives? If not, it doesn't belong in this thread obviously, and should be deleted (or moved, if that were possible). It's as far off topic as off topic could be. Hell, if it was posted in Climategate I'd merely laugh at the contents.

Any reason you decided that one of your fifteen other blog threads weren't good enough for this, or do you just feel entitled to crap all over your neighbor's lawn at home when you feel like it too?

408

Boldwin
ID: 140582522
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 18:41

Projection

409

Boldwin
ID: 140582522
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 18:44

If you take cheap potshots at christians based on the silliest connections you can just take some back atya.

410

DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 18:49

I take it back, this might be the right thread for it after all -- but, obviously, not for the reason you wish.

411

Tree
ID: 320371412
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 19:01

Projection

you're referring to the first line of post 406, right?

man, you provided a good laugh with that one. you attempted to link completely unrelated things. good on you for the attempt!

412

DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 19:03

Glenn Beck wannabe, IMO. Less moral integrity though.

413

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 19:28

If you take cheap potshots at christians based on the silliest connections you can just take some back atya.

So you'll respond to perceived cheap shots...with cheap shots?

414

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Feb 07, 2011, 10:36

While [Indonesia/America] has more [Muslims/Christians] than any other country, the [Southeast Asian/North American] nation of [240/308] million has long been seen as moderate and largely secular. A small but vocal—and sometimes violent—minority has at times sought to impose its will, serving as a sort of moral police for the country.

Fun with word swapping.

original article

415

Mith
ID: 1325133
Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 07:19

416

Tree
ID: 320371412
Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 07:47

that literally made me sick. not just for the hate, but for the amazing levels of ignorance.

417

Boldwin
ID: 3216412
Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 14:22

PD

Try swapping in Secular Humanist in there instead. Far more successful in imposing it's religious will on the people.

418

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 20:26

I think you forget that this was founded as a secular country, so that people can be free to practice the religion of their choice. Or no religion at all.

Holding this country to the standards the Founding Fathers actually wanted for the country, rather than trying impose contemporary stylings of the religion of many of the Founding Fathers instead, is the bait-and-switch than many Christianists practice without even thinking about it anymore.

419

Boldwin
ID: 3216412
Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 22:46

So why do secular humanists get a state monopoly to teach their religion to our kids all day long?

420

Mith
ID: 51253421
Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 22:53

No "secular state monopoly" would see increasing numbers of districts are incorporating intelligent design into science class lesson plans.

421

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Mar 05, 2011, 00:52

#419: This is just too silly to respond to with any depth, but let me just point out that parents have a wide range of schooling options in this country.

422

sarge33rd
ID: 44255518
Sat, Mar 05, 2011, 19:55

because teaching hard and fast science, isnt secular; it is educational. You want religious education by the state? OK, which religion?

423

Boldwin
ID: 48259616
Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 18:31

You want religious education by the state? - Sarge

No, I want you guys to stop teaching the religion of secular humanism in public school.

424

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 19:56

I want you guys to stop teaching the religion of secular humanism in public school.

I have two teenagers in public school. I just asked each of them their opinion of secular humanism. They had no idea what I was talking about. You have no idea what you're talking about.

425

Boldwin
ID: 48259616
Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 04:53

They've been doing it ever since John Dewey [of decimal system fame] introduced "our common faith" into the public school system.

See John Dewey, "Education as a Religion," The New Republic, August, 1922.

Can you come up with anyone who was more influential in the shape of public education?

Secular Humanism, a religion according to the Supreme Court for the purposes of tax exempt status, conscientious objection and free exercise clause purposes but curiously only excluded when they are challenged for establishment clause purposes.

Yes I do know exactly whereof I speak.

426

Tree
ID: 320371412
Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 07:08

lol. congrats on being able to define secular humanism.

as PV pointed out, you're already one step ahead of today's public school students.

427

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 08:23

Boldwin

See John Dewey, "Education as a Religion," The New Republic, August, 1922.

You haven't read that column. I'd wager that the loser stay away from this forum for a month on it.

You don't know what it says, and you have no idea whether it's suggestion of humanism as religion has ever been incorporated into the public school system in any meaningful, connectable (much less nefarious) way.

428

Mith
ID: 4010542612
Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 08:46

What a cheap game this is. Just imagine all the wacky columns conservatives have written over the years that one could falsely claim as highly influential and attribute to the ideology of the greater polical right of the day and ever since.

Off the top of my head, I recall Pat Buchanon argung that black American descendents of slaves should thank (!) colonial Americans for the slave trade that brought their ancestors here, since their 21st century lives in America are far better than they could possibly have had in Western Africa.

We know the high regard in which Buchanan is held on the right for being a traditional, even pure conservative, untainted by the modern neocon movement. By exactly the logic applied by Boldy and the rabid right to Dewey, Pivin, Ayers, Van Jones, etc., it becomes increasingly clear that conservatives (well, real ones, anyway) harbor a deep and romantic appreciation for the 15th and 16th century slave trade. Can such a broadly held appreciation not include a preference to return to the society-building apparatus of our nation's formative years?

Well obviously not!

If I were more of a jerk I could obviously take this an awful lot further with many, many, many real--life examples supporting this false paradigm in frankly far more convincing fashion than the chicken-little character-assassinating right claims all manner of ridiculous things about the American left.

429

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 09:31

Nothing in #425 supports the statement,

I want you guys to stop teaching the religion of secular humanism in public school

"You guys" meaning who? Sarge? Is he a public school teacher?

Public school curriculum is basically set by local school boards. I would venture to say that not one school system in this country has "secular humanism" as a credited subject. In my state, however, every public junior high and high school offers seminary at LDS facilities across the street as a credited subject.

This is a case of making up facts to fit an ideological fantasy. To be honest though, I would just as soon have my kids learn humanism than be taught that Joseph Smith was directed to magical golden tablets by an angel as if it were history.

430

Boldwin
ID: 48259616
Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 10:32

"You guys" meaning...voters who put legislators in place who pack the courts with judges who insist on establishing a state religion and calling it constitutional.

431

Boldwin
ID: 48259616
Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 10:33

And no, I don't want my kids being taught to respect Joseph Smith's magic salamander search either.

432

Tree
ID: 320371412
Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 13:54

and i don't want my kids being taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS about some long haired hippie who could turn water into wine or walk on water; nor do i want them to learn about some old bearded dude who climbed a mountain and was given two tablets with 10 laws on them, handed to him by some all-knowing being that no one has actually ever seen.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS in the United States are no place to be taught religion. this country was built on a freedom of all religions, and unless you're going to teach from ALL religions fairly, then you need to teach from none of them.

I went to Hebrew (read: "Religious") school three days a week to learn about Judaism. I went to churches with my Christian friends to learn about their religion, and i went to Mosques with my Muslim friends to learn about their religion. I hung out with my friend Jarom who told me all about his religion of Mormonism.

posts like 423 and 425 aren't really about what *is* being taught in school, but rather, what isn't it being taught in school, and that's Christ's word.

and thank God, Christ is not being taught in public schools anymore than it already is.

433

Tree
ID: 60121615
Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 08:27

Who's in hell? Pastor's book sparks eternal debate

(Rob) Bell, the pastor of the 10,000-member Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., lays out the premise of his book while the video cuts away to an artist's hand mixing oil paints and pastels and applying them to a blank canvas.

He describes going to a Christian art show where one of the pieces featured a quote by Mohandas Gandhi. Someone attached a note saying: "Reality check: He's in hell."

"Gandhi's in hell? He is? And someone knows this for sure?" Bell asks in the video.

In the book, Bell criticizes the belief that a select number of Christians will spend eternity in the bliss of heaven while everyone else is tormented forever in hell.

434

biliruben
ID: 34435239
Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 10:05

Huh. I didn't realize Mars Hill was national. These mega-churches are popping up all over Seattle, and the first one has a pretty controversial pastor.

Rock bands and fun sermons. Seattlites looking for god are drawn to these fun, less strident versions of a church, it seems.

My guess is they are UN/Soros funded mechanisms for perverting the true word of God.

435

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 15:39

A peek into a United States if the Christianists win: Muslims have no rights in the US, only priviledges

436

Boldwin
ID: 46243212
Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 16:23

I believe there are a few exceptions, like yelling fire in a crowded theater and plotting/calling for the overthrow of the country.

437

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 16:31

plotting/calling for the overthrow of the country.

You mean like Todd and Sarah?

438

biliruben
ID: 34435239
Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 23:58

Do these angel wings make me look fat?

439

Tree
ID: 320371412
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:47

The deadly protests in northern Afghanistan over a Quran burning spread to the country's war-torn southern region on Saturday, with provincial government officials reporting at least nine civilians dead and dozens injured.

Pastor Terry Jones sparked international controversy last year when his Gainesville, Florida, church planned "International Burn a Quran Day" on the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Jones' church did not host a Quran burning on that day, but the Dove World Outreach Center's website announced an "International Judge the Koran Day" set for last month.

Another post on the site's blog showed an image of a burning book and read, "The event is over, the Koran was found guilty and a copy was burned inside the building."

obviously, not all Christians are to blame. but this is EXACTLY the problem i have with the Christians who choose to play God themselves, and judge an entire religion. it leads to directly to death, chaos, and war.

This is why i am more worried about radical Christians than i am radical Muslims.

440

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:48

Well, they are certainly a lot closer!

441

Mith
ID: 22141616
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 01:25

...and plotting/calling for the overthrow of the country

Does the Koran call for the overthrow of the country?

442

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 08:02

How does one get rid of an old Koran?

What if you buy a new one, and want to get rid of your old one that's all beat-up.

What if you burn it and don't tell anybody.

443

Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 11:27

Does the Koran call for the overthrow of the country?

Eventually. And more importantly it calls the faithful to do so, as opposed to the Bible in which the angels clean house.

444

Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 12:22

Ok that leads to the obvious question in the context of the current discussion...

445

Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 18:13

Not all that obvious. But I'll just say, for the nominal, eventually never comes. That said, nominals spawn children who don't necessarily stay nominal nor do nominals necessarily stay nominals.

446

Mith
ID: 22141616
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 19:16

Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld.

447

Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 19:57

Sure

448

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 11:21

obviously, not all Christians are to blame. but this is EXACTLY the problem i have with the Christians who choose to play God themselves, and judge an entire religion. it leads to directly to death, chaos, and war.

Terry Jones is a moron and his act was idiotic. With that said, the only people responsible for the 'death, chaos and war' related to the riots over the burning are currently in the Middle East.

435 - Its at the very least an interesting thought exercise. When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution did they truly just mean 'Christian' when referring to religion? It was at a time when religion played a more impactful role in society and government. Its not a stretch that the founding fathers considered only Christianity as a religion.

Again, thought exercise only. Not an argument that we should do or view things differently. Our society as has evolved much since then and much of that evolution is due to people from all different religions and backgrounds.

449

Mith
ID: 22141616
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 11:43

Its not a stretch that the founding fathers considered only Christianity as a religion.

It is if you know that not all the founding fathers were Christians.

450

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 12:07

Do they know that if a Koran is burned, there are still about a billion copies left.

Do they know if a Koran is burned, that we can make another one. It's not the last copy.

451

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 12:18

Same for the Bible.

Yet watch the Christianists here in the US go nuts if someone if the Middle East burns one in a PR move.

452

Tree on the Evo
ID: 28045819
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 12:31

Heck, watch conservatives go nuts if you burn an American flag.

453

Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 14:39

How many people were killed in the christian riots over pXXX-christ?

The height of dishonesty to claim equivalent responses.

454

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 14:49

There are not 9 civilians dead and dozens injured over a bible burning.

455

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 14:50

So the fact that you want to go to war with all Muslims is not an equivalent response?

You know--you're right. They killed a few people. You'd like to kill them all.

456

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 15:24

It is if you know that not all the founding fathers were Christians.

Talk about the easy way out. The founding fathers also assured that 'all men are created equal,' yet slavery existed for another 100 years.

George Washington himself was a slave owner. No, its not a stretch at all to think that in that time and age, a predominantly Christian body felt that 'religion' referred to Christianity (or at the least Judaism as well).

457

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 15:33

Its not a stretch that the founding fathers considered only Christianity as a religion.

I have to be honest with you--I have no idea what this means.

There is plenty of written examples of the Founding Fathers interacting with other religions (Jewish and Islam, mostly) with the express understanding that they were different faith traditions.

Nevertheless, it is a huge leap to believe that the Founding Fathers meant the Constitution to apply to only Christianity (and Christians), particularly since some of them did not consider themselves to be Christian.

And surely one can see the near-irony in many on the Right taking the Constitution to be almost Biblical in textual reading, yet trying to define away rights for non-Christians.

458

Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 16:49

You'd like to kill them all. - PD

I'd like an apology on behalf of every conservative so unfairly maligned.

What was that about civil discourse you keep lecturing us about?

459

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 18:27

I wasn't directing my comment to anyone else. Nor, for that matter, to conservatives.

You've made your fear-based positions clear about Muslims. If you'd care to make a change I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, just consider my post an attack on your wacky position, no matter how personal you hold it to be.

460

Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 18:55

Hearing the usual trolls misrepresent my words that drastically is one thing. Having the forum moderator do it is a whole outrageous nuther thing.

Have you no shame? Link to the post where anything I said would lead you to feel that an accurate translation of my position.

Just because I fear we are being dragged into WWIII vs a recrudescent muslim caliphate doesn't mean I would like to see it develop that way. Far from it.

461

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 20:29

There are not 9 civilians dead and dozens injured over a bible burning.

There's not an army from a Muslim country occupying the US either.

If there were, and a Muslim cleric in Afghanistan burned a Bible, is there a possibility there could be violent reaction here?

462

Khahan
ID: 54138190
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 20:51

From your link PD:

As Joseph Story, a long-serving Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said:

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation...

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."

SCOTUS chief justice even at times viewed the founding fathers as considering only Christianity. So again, its not a stretch at all to think that the founding fathers may have considered only different factions of Christiandom when writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You can't view the argument in terms of how we view religion today. America IS the melting pot, despite what some people on these boards want to think. America IS great because of the diversity we have to offer. Again, the question is raised only an exercise in thought and discussion. Not as an argument for change.

I'm not saying thats what they believe. In fact I'd say at this stage in time its a little difficult for us to really know their perspective on this issue. Just putting it out there that this is one possible perspective.

463

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 21:37

The other perspective, as pointed out, is that since some of the Founding Fathers did not consider themselves Christians yet clearly believed the Constitution applied to them, it simply cannot be that the Founding Fathers were only interested in having the Constitution apply to Christians.

464

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 10:57

For balance, here's a quote (a prayer, really) by one of the finest 20th century christian writers, the monk Thomas Merton.

465

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 13:42

When is a dictator who kills his own citizens and loses an election but refuses to leave office preferable to the guy who one the election fairly? When the dictator is a Christian, and the election winner is a Muslim.

Yay American values! This must be the "American exceptionalism" that the Right claims Obama doesn't believe.

466

Boldwin
ID: 25341618
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 19:51

Oh goody, another muslim state. Say a prayer for the non-muslim population.

467

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 20:54

Ha! A perfect encapsulation of the Christianist Party platform for foreign policy.

468

Tree
ID: 320371412
Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 22:59

Say a prayer for the non-muslim population.

i pray every day for the non-Muslim population. i pray that those who refuse to understand tolerance and would rather foster hate, would have a change of heart and look at the monster within.

469

Boldwin
ID: 4030710
Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 11:33

The monster within are our own liberals who throw every principle they have out the door to cover for islamic crimes against women, other races, executing people including gays for the behavior heavily pushed by immoral liberal hollywood.

Muslims riot and murder people and the only wrongdoing you see is some cartoonist?

Yeah, there's something monsterous within.

498

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, May 11, 2011, 13:06

Not sure where to put this. This Thomas Merton prayer was one I prayed every day during Lent--it has a special resonance for me. Maybe because its faith comes from accepting our personal limitations (which is the opposite of the Christianists, who come to faith through fierce protectionism with a certainty of rigid "rightness" that invites confrontation to reinforce their status as martyrs in their own countries):

“My Lord God I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so.

But I believe that my desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope that I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it.

Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.”

from Thoughts in Solitude (Farrar, 1958)

499

Boldwin
ID: 27428117
Wed, May 11, 2011, 14:12

There is nothing deficient in the footstep guidance. The deficiency lies in the determination to look in the mirror and make corrections.

500

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, May 11, 2011, 14:17

Nothing wrong with that. But there are far more "Christians" who put more faith in their own forcefulness than humility in affecting change in others.

501

Boldwin
ID: 27428117
Wed, May 11, 2011, 16:32

We don't have the power to change people. Only God's word has that power. They actually have to read it.

502

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, May 11, 2011, 17:03

Actually, we not only have the power to change people, we have the obligation to do so through out loving example.

503

Boldwin
ID: 204571118
Wed, May 11, 2011, 20:22

Nope, it's not the power of our personalities or the wisdom of our words that moves them.

If personality were all it took Garrison Keillor could make atheists act like christians.

It's the operation of God's spirit working along with the God's word, [aka the 'sword of the spirit' eph6]

"The word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword." Heb 4:12

But if you belong to a religion which used to boil people in oil for daring to read the Bible for themselves or make it available to the common man, I get your reluctance to accept the importance of this.

504

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, May 11, 2011, 20:28

It isn't about "personality" (and I would never claim it to be). It is about reflecting Christ's love in how we act, and continuing to act as a servant for others.

But if you belong to a religion which used to boil people in oil for daring to read the Bible for themselves or make it available to the common man, I get your reluctance to accept the importance of this.

After such an uncalled for insult, don't ever wonder why I'm reluctant to interact with you in any way IRL.

In any case, the current fetish with power that the Christianists love to stroke to is never a reflection of Christ, or his requirement to love. I understand why you are reluctant to give it up, but that desire to dominate isn't coming from Jesus or his teachings.

505

Tree
ID: 320371412
Wed, May 11, 2011, 21:29

But if you belong to a religion which used to boil people in oil for daring to read the Bible for themselves or make it available to the common man, I get your reluctance to accept the importance of this.

and this guy gets offended when people discuss the numerous former members of his religion who claim not only that they were sexually abused as children by church elders, but that the church covered it up???

what a peach.

506

Boldwin
ID: 204571118
Wed, May 11, 2011, 21:36

PD

It amazes me that you can lump someone who refuses to vote or hold office, with people who are interested in acquiring power.

507

Boldwin
ID: 204571118
Wed, May 11, 2011, 21:41

PD

And when the convo between us involves the importance of actually reading it for yourself from the Bible...

...the institutional history of discouraging Bible readership is relevant, not uncalled for. Membership in a religion whose members often have never read a singe word in the Bible...is relevant to the discussion, not reaching.

509

Tree
ID: 41512710
Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 07:53

Pat Robertson says Alzheimer's makes divorce OK

how about that compassion.

510

sarge33rd
ID: 4843154
Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 09:15

egads

511

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 10:02

What's really amazing is that a whole generation of sheep were in awe of the Spencer Tracey and Katherine Hepburn romance, tragic-heroes carrying on their affair under the nose of his wife.

But those same people who never meant a word of 'Thru sickness and health, till death do us part' stand in judgement in this case clucking their tongues.

Let only his judge be God and those of us who actually are willing to pay the price Robertson wouldn't guilt-trip a person for shirking.

He's wrong of course but there are few people with any standing to throw the first rock.

512

Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 10:09

Let only his judge be God

"Hypocrite, party of 1, your table is ready!"

513

Tree
ID: 16329157
Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 10:10

But those same people who never meant a word of 'Thru sickness and health, till death do us part' stand in judgement in this case clucking their tongues.

including many of your heroes, from Reagan to Limbaugh.

Let only his judge be God and those of us who actually are willing to pay the price Robertson wouldn't guilt-trip a person for shirking.

He's wrong of course but there are few people with any standing to throw the first rock.

i am sure the irony of you saying that only God can judge, while you sit and judge, is lost on you.

514

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 10:14

There's the final judgement which I'll leave to God...and then there's knowing God's word/judgement on issues.

515

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 10:21

Or as Jesus put it, "I do not judge any man at all, and yet if I do judge, my judgement is truthful." - John 8:15,16

Because there's judgement, and then there's judgement.

516

sarge33rd
ID: 278472110
Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 11:48

Foo Fighters giving Westboro 'what for'

517

sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 16:20

link

A woman says she cannot attend the Pike County church she grew up in because her fiance is from Africa.

The Gulnare Freewill Baptist church members voted not to allow interracial couples to place membership or be used in worship services or church functions.

Stella Harville, known as Suzie, and her fiance do not live in Pike County but attend services at the church when she is at home.
Harville wants the church to change its stance....

518

Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 21:13

That's God's way of telling her to find some real christians.

519

sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 21:18

I doubt you'd know such a thing

521

TB
ID: 451028614
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 21:32

Wow, Sarge, you are seriously an a$$hole. I don't mind if this gets reported or even deleted. It doesn't change the fact that you are an a$$hole. All of you "I am better than you because I don't believe in religion" screw-ups that feel the need to run around and tell people how great you are because you don't believe in a God are pathetic.

I don't know if I believe in a God or not, but I know I am not pathetic enough to try and be an internet tough guy and belittle other people's beliefs.

522

Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 21:36

The son of my fishing buddy best friend when I was a teen, was a basketball playing friend of mine when he was a teen [and fantasy sports competitor now], has an inter-racial marriage, moved to Tennessee and that couple is perfectly accepted at their kingdom hall there and here at our hall.

So yeah, I would know.

523

sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 21:38

you havent been much paying attention, have you TB? I became Christian, over a year ago, after a miraculous encounter.

For B to applaud a churh that says NO mixed race couples can be members, flies in the face of Christianity. For B to say that is god saying find "real" Christians, makes my statement entirely accurate. For you to defend him, is beyond the absurd. Tell me, how would the Army fare, if they tried to say no mixed race couples?

524

Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 21:40

For B to applaud a churh that says NO mixed race couples can be members

Learn to read.

525

sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 21:43

Two ways for me to have interpreted your 518 B. One, the way I did based on my interpretation of many of your posts, was that you were saying that was God telling her to find a new FIANCE, a "real" Christian. The other, which apparently you meant, was to abandon that church as IT, is not "real" Christians.

I took the wrong of the two possible choices, proving yet again, Challengers 50-50-90 rule.

526

Tree
ID: 41512710
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 00:25

Wow, Sarge, you are seriously an a$$hole. I don't mind if this gets reported or even deleted. It doesn't change the fact that you are an a$$hole. All of you "I am better than you because I don't believe in religion" screw-ups that feel the need to run around and tell people how great you are because you don't believe in a God are pathetic.

this isn't about religion vs. non-religion. it's about "christians" claiming to be Christians when they subscribe to such things as post 517.

527

sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 00:27

well, in defense of TB...he's right, I AM an ass. lol Never in my life, have I denied it.

528

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 19:38

All about CI.

Interesting stuff. Like studying the Flat Earthers.

529

sarge33rd
ID: 32118111
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 21:37

...some of the Christian Identity movement's followers hold that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls,...

They do know right, that Christ was Middle-Eastern born and would then most likely NOT be caucasian?

530

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 21:53

Middle Easterners, including Arabs and other Semites are caucasian.

531

sarge33rd
ID: 32118111
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 22:08

Arab is caucasian? Really? I'd not have thought so (obviously), but would have thought Arab a race just as Oriental is a race and not a nationality.

532

Razor
ID: 09441723
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 22:44

Oriental? The 19th century called...

533

sarge33rd
ID: 32118111
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 22:45

you prefer Asian?

534

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 23:06

Obviously most Americans casually use the term to refer to white people of European descent.

Wiki:

The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid[1]) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia (Middle East), Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term has been used to describe the entire population of these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.

That said I have no idea how useful the traditional classifications actually are anyway.

535

Boldwin
ID: 20111211
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 23:11

I have no use for the term caucasian. I prefer the biblical divisions of mankind as Japheth, Shem and Ham.

Arabs are decidedly of Shem. Europeans are Japhetic as a rule. I believe caucasians [whatever that exactly is] are Japhetic also but Japhetic covers a much larger set spreading across the north from Spain to Japan.

536

Tree
ID: 41512710
Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:43

Video game where Jews and Atheists must be killed or converted due for Christmas

"We see it as a beacon of light that could shine in the dark world of video games," said Jerome Mikulich, "director of outreach ministries" for the company. "The most important thing is that it helps kids realize there is power in the spirit world, and that by praying they can endure and get through their real-life situations."

Praying, and putting a shotgun in the mouth of Jews. Just like all those chapters in the gospel where Jesus preaches that the way to salvation is busting a cap into the ass of those who won't convert.

537

Tree
ID: 41512710
Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:52

slight overreaction on my part. need to do more research - it's a 5 year old article.

538

DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 11:15

Doesn't stop Boldwin, I don't see why it should stop you.

539

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 15:35

A post built for this thread:

Palestinian police have to break up a fight between two rioting groups of Christian priests at the Nativity.

540

Tree
ID: 17039238
Tue, May 22, 2012, 12:19

what a lovely, lovely version of Christianity.

"Build a great big, large fence – 50 or a 100 miles long – and put all the lesbians in there,” (Pastor Charles L.) Worley went on to say in his May 13 sermon at his Maiden, North Carolina, church. “Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can't get out. Feed them. And you know in a few years, they'll die out. You know why? They can't reproduce."

i realize this is the minority, and not the majority, but now advocating killing off homosexuals? sheesh, that's beautiful.

541

sarge33rd
ID: 353491011
Tue, May 22, 2012, 12:33

saw that on the news last night. He then went on to say (not an exact quote but pretty close) "You know who I;m voting for? I'm not voting for a people killer or a gay lover..."

Question now becomes, did he cross the line and jeopardize his churches tax exempt status?

542

sarge33rd
ID: 353491011
Tue, May 22, 2012, 13:46

these morons have GOT to be stopped. As many textbooks as TX buys, what they order/require, is pretty much what the rest of us get.

creationists revising history

543

Tree
ID: 29463115
Thu, May 31, 2012, 16:10

hooray, Christians.

On Sunday, Pastor Curtis Knapp of Kansas preached that the government should kill homosexuals, in another videotaped sermon that drew lots of online attention.

"They won't, but they should," Knapp said, according to a recording of his sermon posted online.

or this gem:

...a young boy singing an anti-gay song while the congregation cheers him on in what appears to be a church in Indiana.

"I know the Bible’s right, somebody’s wrong,” the boy sings near the pulpit of a church. “Ain't no homos gonna make it to heaven."

As the boy repeats the line “Ain't no homos gonna make it to heaven," congregants from the pews rise and cheer.

it is time to remove protections from these "churches". if you are preaching hate, if you are preaching politics, if you are advocating murder, then you don't need your tax-exempt status.

this level of intolerance from these "Christians" is no different than the level of intolerance from a Muslim who kills in the name of Allah, a Jew who attacks a Muslim for their beliefs, or anyone who attacks another for believing differently.

544

Boldwin
ID: 43492714
Thu, May 31, 2012, 16:59

I wager there is no one here with a background in christendom, who has ever seen or heard that spirit expressed.

This tactic of Tree and Sarge is akin to accusing people who hate cancer, of hating cancer patients. Big difference. Huge.

Those in the example given have deliberately slipped into the second category, to their shame.

545

Tree
ID: 37226713
Thu, May 31, 2012, 17:50

There have been numerous examples in recent weeks of Christian hatred towards homosexuals. I've posted several of them here.

You can continue to turn a blind eye to it and come up with some unrelated statement, or you could smarten up and see the hatred for what it is, and combat it. Because if you're not combating it, you're condoning it, and it's pretty clear you're in the latter camp.

546

Boldwin
ID: 43492714
Thu, May 31, 2012, 17:54

If you weren't foaming with hatred so badly people could see for themselves who is wearing the attack dog of hate collar.

547

sarge33rd
ID: 353491011
Thu, May 31, 2012, 18:16

or maybe B, your claim of "hate the sin, love the sinner", is little more than a hollow phrase, behind which you conveniently hide.

548

Tree
ID: 584183117
Thu, May 31, 2012, 18:23

If you weren't foaming with hatred so badly people could see for themselves who is wearing the attack dog of hate collar.

dude.

what part of a pastor advocating the murder of homosexuals, a child singing a lyric with a slur against homosexuals, and a pastor advocating rounding up homosexuals and putting them all inside of electric fences are you not understanding as being so unbelievably wrought with hate???

i mean, is it that hard for you to see that this is, without question, preaching hatred and violence?

i don't hate people. i feel bad for people like the ones in the examples above, i feel bad for people like you. i genuinely hurt in my heart that there are still people in 2012 who want to murder and imprison homosexuals under the guise of religion, and that there are people who condone those actions and think it's proper to do so.

i don't hate you Baldwin. i pity you.

549

Boldwin
ID: 43492714
Thu, May 31, 2012, 20:44

I don't identify with that 'pastor' one iota. The fact that you act as if I do shows how badly you are itching to lie about me.

550

Tree
ID: 374233120
Thu, May 31, 2012, 21:26

I don't identify with that 'pastor' one iota. The fact that you act as if I do shows how badly you are itching to lie about me.

it's simple then. condemn his words about killing homosexuals. condemn the other pastor's words about imprisoning them inside an electrified fence.

give the chance to denounce their words the first time, you chose to attack myself and Sarge.

so, condemn the words of those two preachers. don't just say you don't identify with that 'pastor' one iota, condemn them, and condemn their words.

551

Boldwin
ID: 43492714
Thu, May 31, 2012, 21:43

They and every other minister outside my religion are wittingly or unwittingly agents of the devil. I disown them all. Especially when they conspire to impune God's character.

That goes quadruple for anyone who advocates for concentration camps and deathcamps.

I am not going to be driven like your spearpoint into every opponent of yours, but I especially disown anyone who claims God hates people instead of the evil that they do.

Jesus who prayed for the people who hung him up, telling his father that they 'knew not what they did' explained this once for all time.

Which is not to be misconstrued as 'God will forever tolerate evil' or 'we should approve of evil'. Evil has an expiration date.

552

Frick
ID: 52182321
Thu, May 31, 2012, 21:44

CINO

Christian in name only. I think we have a regular poster who easily fits into this group.

553

Boldwin
ID: 43492714
Thu, May 31, 2012, 21:48

Jesus was slandered. I am going to be slandered. Comes with the territory. If you aren't being slandered for your christian positions, you aren't doing it right.

554

Tree
ID: 414543120
Thu, May 31, 2012, 22:00

Jesus was slandered. I am going to be slandered

yes. we know it. you compare yourself to Jesus somewhat regularly.

They and every other minister outside my religion are wittingly or unwittingly agents of the devil.

this, however, is a scary statement. good to know that you believe my religion is the devil's work.

thank God I believe in my heart of hearts that your brand of Christianity is in the minority, because i would lose faith in nearly everything if people like you ruled the earth.

555

Frick
ID: 52182321
Thu, May 31, 2012, 22:29

I could be wrong, but isn't slander kind of tough on a message board?

And living by christian values should result in libel? I'm going to say no, no it won't.

556

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 00:02

I'm sure the Unibomber was slandered, too. So was Stalin.

Too bad being slandered isn't the same as denoting sainthood.

557

Boldwin
ID: 43492714
Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 01:24

How warm and cozy are things on that broad and spacious easy road to destruction, PD?

Some days I could use a vacation.

558

Tree
ID: 17039238
Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 02:41

Some days I could use a vacation.

you checked out a long time ago.

559

Frick
ID: 14082314
Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 07:33

Regardless, it isn't slander or libel if it is true.

562

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 12:41

The reality is that

agents of the devil

the devil's work

the moral standards of the God of Abraham

are concepts that have been used for centuries, and are continued to be used, as some type of justification for persecution in society.

While synonyms for good and evil have a place in the 21st century for personal well being and self gratification, history has shown that stringent insistence on the existence of concepts as actual defined entities is usually a tool that has an adverse effect on society in general.

So, when one says agents of the devil or Satan's views in the 21st century, it has to be semantically translated, since there's no Office of the Devil where agents are given their daily itinerary, and no media interview with Satan that exists mapping out his views on different subjects.

There's no God of Abraham press conference where he/she can clear up some of the questions surrounding the standards of that moral code.

A person could say that the offices of Planned Parenthood or ACORN are where you'll find agents of the devil, while another person might think you'll find agents of the devil at the offices of the NRA or the Baby Seal Clubbing Club.

Everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, but discussions of what is or isn't good and evil in society should generally exclude supernatural references that are completely open to interpretation.

563

Mith
ID: 23217270
Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 13:15

I don't know, men who lie with men will be stoned doesn't sound very open to interpretation to me.

564

sarge33rd
ID: 353491011
Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 22:48

OK Drs not treating rape victims on religious grounds???

An Oklahoma mother brought her daughter to a local hospital after she was raped only to be turned away and refused help by a doctor, purportedly because the hospital lacked the staff to properly process the victim’s claims and injuries. Welcome to the reality of processing sexual assault crimes in GOP-land.

The woman and her daughter were reportedly turned away because the hospital did not have any nurses who conduct rape exams on staff. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) are specially trained professionals who deal only with the delicate process of conducting rape exams. The SANE program is coordinated through the YWCA and is a collaboration with local law enforcement, the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office and public health officials. The collaborative effort is designed to ensure evidence is properly collected and stored without re-traumatizing the victim and ensuring the most effective prosecution of the perpetrator possible...

The young woman asked the doctor whether or not emergency contraceptives were available and whether the doctor was simply refusing to provide them. The nurse told her “I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my belief.” The doctor refused to help her, even though she had just been raped, and refused to find another doctor to help her.

Really? Not s single such nurse on staff at the hospital? REALLY?
Then, they can REFUSE to find another Dr who WOULD help?????

565

Boldwin
ID: 43492714
Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 07:23

How hard is it to find an abortion supporter in America?

566

DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 10:53

I understand. The next time someone rapes a teenager, you're hoping that not only will they be discouraged from going to the police, you're hoping to increase your flock that way.

567

Tree
ID: 17039238
Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 12:05

some religions apparently condone the rape of teenagers. at least that's what i read on the internet.

568

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 14:24

Emergency contraception isn't the same thing as finding "an abortion supporter." Some doctors do have conscious clauses for doctors to opt out of providing certain services, but the hospitals, by law, are required to find alternative services for the patient.

569

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Fri, Jun 08, 2012, 21:43

Terry Jones hangs an effigy of Barack Obama.

As Bruce Bartlett just said, "Thankfully, this country has no history of lynching blacks, so this can't possibly have racist overtones."

570

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 15:28

Whites-only Christian conference to end with a cross burning. Er, "sacred Christian cross lighting."

571

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 16:53

OTH, here is one Christian Conservative, we CAN be proud of:

Huntsman to skip GOP Convention

"I will not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican convention in the future, until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States – a future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits," Huntsman said in a statement, reported first by the Salt Lake Tribune.

GOP, you really blew it, when you basically shat on this guys run for the WH. Was probably, your best bet for a win. And may not have been a bad choice, really.

572

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 17:35

Huntsman, however, ran a bad campaign. He had chances to separate himself at times (particularly during the debates) and just didn't do so.

He was a good governor. A good Ambassador. But he was a bad Presidential candidate.

Good for Huntsman, however. I hope the same middle of that party start the hard work to bring it back into sane waters.

573

Boldwin
ID: 2664163
Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 23:57

I'm still curious who you guys think the audience is for those comments.

Anyone claiming to be republican here, find those comments remotely believable?

574

Frick
ID: 52182321
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 11:49

I don't consider myself a Republican, but I typically lean that way. That leaning has gotten less and less and the Republican party has gone further and further towards the Christian right.

575

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 12:22

Wonder why Baldwin would ask about republicans in a "christian conservatives we can be proud of" thread? No difference, in his mind?

576

biliruben
ID: 41431323
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 12:45

What comments, Baldy? Huntsman's?

577

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 14:05

574-pssst already knew you werent a republican

578

weykool
ID: 8657121
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 14:40

Frick is the rarest of political animals.
The mythical Moderate Democrat.

579

Razor
ID: 20650713
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 14:50

I think it's in poor taste to claim you know more about someone's own political leanings than they do.

580

Mith
ID: 23217270
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 15:08

I bet Weykool could design Venn diagrams for the Romney campaign.

581

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 15:13

Given how far to the right the GOP has been running, most Democrats are now moderates by definition.

582

Boldwin
ID: 2664163
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 15:20

If by moderate you mean "would stand on a flag and wishes he had done more anti-Americanism" Bill Ayers.

583

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 15:27

I mean "in the middle of the political spectrum." That's what happens when you have one side that runs to its extreme.

In the late 70s through the early 80's it was the GOP squarely in the middle. Now, the GOP has decided it doesn't like the middle anymore--it casts insults at the middle as it isolates itself more and more. The only thing keeping the GOP in power at all is gerrymandered redistricting and restricting the voting ability of its perceived would-be political enemies.

584

Boldwin
ID: 2664163
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 15:31

Already counting the other two thirds of Mexico as if those eggs had hatched, I see.

585

DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 18:36

Unless you nuke 'em first in the name of God!

586

Tree
ID: 17039238
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 22:41

Frick is the rarest of political animals.
The mythical Moderate Democrat.

i'd say a good portion of the Dems here are moderates. heck, my beliefs on Israel and gun rights already get me tossed from the liberal camp.

If by moderate you mean "would stand on a flag and wishes he had done more anti-Americanism" Bill Ayers.

statements like this only make you look more and more like a moron.

587

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 22:50

i'd say a good portion of the Dems here are moderates. heck, my beliefs on Israel and gun rights already get me tossed from the liberal camp.

I'd agree with that entire statement. Just that the GOP has gone so insanely far right, they honestly have lost sight of what a moderate is.

588

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sat, Jul 07, 2012, 22:52

They are so far to the right, they no longer know what a conservative is.

589

Frick
ID: 52182321
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 00:07

Just to see if I was completely out of it, I went to the Republican Party wikipedia page. As I read down through the issues, I align with them most of the time. Two of the exceptions are education and gay marriage.

The biggest difference is that while I have my beliefs, I don't feel it is necessary for them to be forced on others.

590

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 00:09

...while I have my beliefs, I don't feel it is necessary for them to be forced on others.

And that right there Frick, seperates you from todays GOP.

591

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 07:21

586-that post should have been put in Gaming and Entertainment, Fun Stuff-Jokes only part 2

592

weykool
ID: 8657121
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 07:27

i'd say a good portion of the Dems here are moderates.
You only feel that way because you see yourself as a moderate.
The problem is most of the Democrats here are left wing extremists so much so that the only useful term that applies is socialist/communist.
By today's standards JFK would be considered by the left to be too far right with his smaller government/lower taxes rhetoric.

593

Tree
ID: 53555306
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 09:08

left wing extremists. Lmao.

594

Tree
ID: 17039238
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 10:57

i needed to read that again just to start off my day with a chuckle. most of the Democrats here are left wing extremists is such a moronic thing to say, with absolutely no basis in fact.

if anything, the liberals here are less left-leaning than the liberals of the culture war from 40 years ago that some Conservatives are still fighting.

595

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 11:35

592, simply proves how far to the right, todays GOP has been taken by its hijackers.

596

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 12:00

595-thank you for the compliment

597

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 12:12

not a compliment NG. An outright condemnation of GOP extremism. That you would TREAT it like a compliment, is further proof of the GOPs lunacy.

598

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 12:38

definition of lunacy for me is the post that the left wing extremist spew out in this forum and defining it as moderate. you cant make this stuff up.

599

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 12:43

What kind of "extremist spew" is that, NG? What "stuff" is being presented as moderate but is actually "extremist?"

600

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 12:44

There is no leftwing poster here, who approached the extremism of B or WK, just to name 2. Simple truth NG. If you cant see a moderate FOR a moderate then welcome to your own extremist world.

601

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 13:34

Ah, right. You know that the qualifications for food stamps haven't changed, right? No?

Yeah--we want to "break down their morals"--apparently by allowing people to feed their kids.

On the other hand you would have them "keep their morals intact" I suppose, by refusing the government from feeding its citizens. Nice. The people of North Korea thank you for this, and suggest that the next time you stop by you have a big plate of morals, with seconds.

The government feeding its citizens. My responsibility is to feed my kids not the government. Those are my morals. You cant get any extreme than that having the government pay for food.

602

Tree
ID: 17039238
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 13:45

the left wing extremist spew out in this forum and defining it as moderate.

by nothing more than the nature of his service to this country in our military, Sarge would have been thrown out of the "extremist" section of the left wing.

more and more, it's hard not to draw one of four conclusions about the American Right.
1. They're all idiots.
2. They're all trolls, out there to bait those who can think for themselves.
3. They're simply radical.
4. They're all idiots.

603

Razor
ID: 20650713
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 13:47

The government providing for those who cannot take care of themselves is a moderate position. As long as the GOP continues to characterize it as an extremist position, they'll get blasted in elections. Thankfully, the mainstream GOP isn't that far gone yet.

604

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 13:53

Noone I know of, says it is the govts responsibility to feed the populace. THAT, is an erroneous 30 second soundbite, the GOP likes to hang its ht upon.

The left says, we as a society, need to ensure that our neighbor isnt starving in the streets, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN.

Our current econmic woes, are not the fault of the individual. They are the fault of Wall Street. It is now becoming apparent, that international banks were deliberately manipulating interest rates. It is now becoming apparent, that US Mortgage companies were padding the pockets of Congressman involved in overseeing that industry. Thos facts, are not the fault of the worker who lost his job in this recession.

The left would have a safety net there to feed that family, till they can get back on their feet. Their GOP, would pile the corpses high and then burn them later.

605

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 15:48

Now the Food Stamp program is extreme?

You bet that it is the government's job to feed people when they aren't able to feed themselves. You lose your income and can't feed your family, you would give thanks for a government stepping in to provide you with food.

Starving the children of this country is the extremist position. Sorry you aren't able to even see the moderate position from where you now camp.

606

Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 16:00

This country has provided food assistance to the poor for half a century. According to wiki, the first food stamp program was enacted during WW2 and ended in 1943.

In 1961, JFK, described by the wing-nuts here as a moderate in comparison to Obama, reenacted it.

Since then, it has undergone several changes but never been eliminated and was even expanded twice under Ronald Reagan (after he initially cut it back early in his first term and despite his often pointed rhetoric disparaging people who abuse the welfare system).

This is exactly what the left side of this forum is talking about. The hard right, which has hyjacked the conservative discussion, in this country doesn't understand or care about our history enough to even know the difference between hard leftist policies and those that have enjoyed decades of bipartisan support.

The healthcare mandate has been a Republican idea for two decades, thought up by the right's most prominent conservative political think tank, proposed in congress by Republicans, espoused by the GOP's favorite House Speaker of maybe the last century and even enacted in MA by the GOP's nominee for president in 2012, who even suggested at the time that the federal government should consider it.

The left through that time didn't support it because they previously preferred a single payer system. That changed under Obama, when he moved the party toward the center on the issue and went with the Republican idea instead.

And for the record, even Saint Ronald of Conservatism knew that collectively feeding our poor was the moral thing to do when he reversed his previous cuts o the program.

But since they are now policies owned by a Democratic presidential regime, they are suddenly Marxist. They are either stupid or disingenuous.

607

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 16:17

Ironic, I think, that this is all in a thread about "Christian conservatives." Arguing that children should be starved in this country is neither Christian, nor conservative.

608

weykool
ID: 8657121
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 16:43

I dont have problem with food stamps as part of the safety net that Reagan supported.
What I dont support is when the safety net becomes a safety hammock.
The left wingers on these boards define success as more people needing food stamps.
I define success as fewer people needing food stamps.
You can gloat all you want about President food stamp's economic policies but I find it to be a complete failure.

609

Razor
ID: 1651815
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 16:51

I suppose it is easier on the brain to lie about other people's positions than to challenge them directly.

610

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 17:00

weykool: The qualifications for food stamps haven't changed. The reason more people were on them is that more needed them because of the Great Recession.

This has nothing to do with Obama, who didn't change (or even propose changing) the qualifications for the program

The numbers on the program are actually going down now, as you might expect.

611

Mith
ID: 1962815
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 17:01

The left wingers on these boards define success as more people needing food stamps

You've obviously confused this place with some other forum. Everyone agrees we're all better off if fewer people need food stamps.

gloat all you want about President food stamp's economic policies

Again, who's gloating? And thank you for unwittingly further displaying my point in 606 - this president's food stamp policies are the same as the previous president's.

612

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 17:03

The left wingers on these boards define success as more people getting food stamps when they need them. Failure would be defined as withholding food stamps from those when they need them.

613

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 19:12

I see, from the Sunday political talk shows, that "dependence" is the meme of the week for the GOP so I shouldn't be surprised at the parroting above. Allen West is calling Social Security benefits a form of "slavery" in fact.

I'm sure you fellas can top him! Surely enjoying the benefits of our world-class military is a form of "slavery" as well? Or driving on our roads--certainly it fosters transportation "dependency?"

614

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 19:25

Allen West, is a shameful PoS, who should have been flushed long ago.

615

Tree
ID: 17039238
Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 19:36

The left wingers on these boards define success as more people needing food stamps.

are you taking the Baldwinian tact of lying now? or this just being confused.

there isn't one person here who believes that about food stamps, nor said it, nor even implied it.

616

chode
ID: 3610616
Mon, Jul 09, 2012, 17:27

Can we go back to the thread from a couple years ago when Josh wondered aloud as to whether the government (read: taxpayers) shouldn't be providing him with *more* financial assistance than he was already receiving? The reasons being, obviously, that he wasn't finding just the right job within his profession, New York City had a high cost of living compared to other parts of the country, and after paying his cell phone bill and insurance for a car he didn't use, that his monthly stipends weren't sufficient to sustain his then-current lifestyle.

That was rich. And, I would imagine, a perfect example of the excessive type of government assistance that fiscal conservatives oppose, but that, for the most part, members of this Board would deny was far, far too prevalent in this country and prefer to whitewash into the same category as "the government providing for those who cannot take care of themselves."

617

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Jul 09, 2012, 17:48

I dont recall the post, but one such case is hardly grounds for burning the entire process. Nor is it grounds for legitimately calling all recipients of aid, lazy good for nuthin leaches.

Perhaps if the right, took the inhuman bile out of its rhetoric, they might find an audience willing to entertain some of their thoughts.

618

Tree
ID: 21658916
Mon, Jul 09, 2012, 18:05

The reasons being, obviously, that he wasn't finding just the right job within his profession, New York City had a high cost of living compared to other parts of the country, and after paying his cell phone bill and insurance for a car he didn't use, that his monthly stipends weren't sufficient to sustain his then-current lifestyle.

there is nothing wrong with believing unemployment insurance - which is done on a state-by-state basis - should match the cost of living in the area in which it is received.

i also won't apologize for believing a telephone is a necessity for a job search, as is a mode of reliable transportation. let me know if you have luck finding a job without a telephone.

as for a nice buzz word such as "current lifestyle", indeed. that lifestyle consisted of watching TV in my basement apartment most nights. Eventually, i had to leave NYC to get a job.

of course, none of this has anything to do with food stamps or the lies being told by this people on this board, but why not try subterfuge when you've got nothing else, eh Chode?

619

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Jul 09, 2012, 18:06

Maybe, chode. I recall him getting grief from many of us about that thread. That doesn't mean we should go the other way and suddenly start changing the eligibility requirements for food stamps (for instance) just when many people are finding they need them.

That would make us insurance companies.

:)

620

Mith
ID: 40602716
Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 22:21

621

Boldwin
ID: 18643169
Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 10:18

Don't link me to that. The son of my best childhood friend didn't have any trouble entering into a mixed marriage.

622

Boldwin
ID: 18643169
Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 10:41

I'm not associated with these people but I think they're great...

1 Flesh
Do it until Until Amanda Marcotte Screams

623

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 11:41

Don't link me to that.

Nobody is, really.

624

Mith
ID: 23217270
Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 12:04

That's true, for the record.

625

Perm Dude
ID: 577543120
Fri, Sep 14, 2012, 19:17

"Conservatives" go crazy online with the idea of "evolution" in Dr. Pepper ad.

Report abuse

626

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 23:30

One gay mans battle

ONE year after Matthew Vines was forced to leave the Wichita, Kan., church he had attended since birth — not because he is gay, but because he tried to convince people there was nothing wrong with that — he was sitting facing a crowd of 235 Christians, most of them gay or lesbian, at the Marble Collegiate Church on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

...

“It is simply a fact that the Bible does not discuss or condemn loving, gay relationships,” said Mr. Vines, eating an omelet at Tom’s Restaurant in Brooklyn the day after his church appearance. “The point is that these texts have a meaning, and the traditional reading of them is wrong. It is incorrect — biblically, historically, linguistically.”

An excellent article, about an extraordinarily articulate young man.

Report abuse

627

Boldwin
ID: 408191611
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 12:27

You have to be extraordinarily articulate to make that ludicrous rationalization.

Disobedient rationalization will face an accounting.

You can buffalo people who want to be buffaloed, but you can't zoom God.

Report abuse

628

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 12:48

No B. His argument is valid. Nowhere in the Bible, does it address natural homosexual acts. For the homosexual, such acts ARE, natural.

Report abuse

629

Boldwin
ID: 408191611
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 12:58

Yeah, you are just left to wonder without guidance, what God's view on rimming is.

As if.

Report abuse

630

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 13:00

No, but one is left to wonder about your mind set, when thats where you took the topic.

Report abuse

631

Boldwin
ID: 408191611
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 13:04

You are the one normalizing unnatural acts.

Report abuse

632

Boldwin
ID: 408191611
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 13:09

And doing so on the basis that if the Bible doesn't describe 'men lying with men' in enuff detail, you can assume he's OK with it.

Report abuse

634

Tree
ID: 17039238
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 13:30

Yeah, you are just left to wonder without guidance, what God's view on rimming is.

Your god condemns heterosexual sex now too?

Report abuse

635

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 17:28

Pamela Geller's Blog Solicited Funds For anti-Muhammad Film

The world does not know Islam. What is known is a watered down and euphemized version of it that has no bases in reality. The truth is that Muhammad was a cult leader, much like Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara and Charles Manson...

The other good news is that I have been promised a substantial angel financing. I have been daydreaming about this movie for ten years. It was this promise that prompted me into action. I put everything aside for five months, read everything I could about my protagonist, selected the most salient episodes and wrote the script.

And if one were to make a movie about Christianity, and focused on the violence of the OT, I have no doubt it could easily enough be presented in an insanely unflattering light.

And contrary to the continued allegations of one local poster, this is not a condemnation of Christianity. It IS, a condemnation on the biased actions of a select few so-called Christians, of whom I expect more of a "Christ like" effort, than I do of followers of other religions.

Report abuse

636

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Sun, Sep 16, 2012, 19:33

I find myself just cringing when Jesse starts talking about FEMA camps; but on this topic, he is spot on

The Constitution should not be used to oppress people

Report abuse

638

boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Sep 17, 2012, 13:27

Not sure what your point is on 635, considering there is major motion picture being released that seems to be making a mockery of a religion. And to no surprise there seems to be no protest.

Report abuse

639

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Sep 17, 2012, 14:05

Not sure what the point is? That funding to the film which at least partially contributed to the recent protests and subsequent deaths of 4 Americans in the employ of the Foreign Service, can be traced to a known rightwing radical, and you say "whats the point?". Perhaps, that very apathy IS the point.

Report abuse

640

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 20:10

Mormon Church changes position re homosexuality

Mormon Church Calls For Compassion Toward Gays, Says Homosexuality Is Not A Choice

Report abuse

641

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 14:09

I don't know if this really fits this thread since I don't know if the man, or church, are conservative or not. But this is probably as good a place as any:

Pastor apologizes for praying with Jews & Muslims at Newtown vigil.

Is this really what some sects are about? This struck me because it is so similar to the way the GOP is acting.

Report abuse

642

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 15:26

OTOH, this is a great story:

Westboro Baptist Church member leaves her church.

Report abuse

643

Frick
ID: 2193319
Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 16:27

I'll admit that I didn't read the whole article. I'm glad that she left, and even their crazy way of letting someone "die" seems weird. But, why did it take her so freaking long to leave? I have people that I don't talk to anymore, or limit my interaction with because they share some similar views.

Report abuse

644

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 16:31

The article points to a kind of epiphanic moment for her, when she was talking with someone about sin and punishment (Westboro has a very old testament slant on the topic):

“I would ask him questions about Judaism, and he would ask me questions about church doctrine. One day, he asked a specific question about one of our signs—‘Death Penalty for Fags’—and I was arguing for the church’s position, that it was a Levitical punishment and as completely appropriate now as it was then. He said, ‘But Jesus said’—and I thought it was funny he was quoting Jesus—‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ And then he connected it to another member of the church who had done something that, according to the Old Testament, was also punishable by death. I realized that if the death penalty was instituted for any sin, you completely cut off the opportunity to repent. And that’s what Jesus was talking about.”

My bold. I think that's the key moment for her.

Report abuse

645

Tree
ID: 56147717
Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 18:47

pretty epic that it took a conversation with a Jew to open her eyes.

Report abuse

646

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Mon, Feb 11, 2013, 21:26

These kids were taight to be this intolerant, it isnt natural

Diana Medley is a special education teacher in town. She doesn't believe anyone is born gay.

"I believe that it was life circumstances and they chose to be that way; God created everyone equal," said Medley.

"Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don't agree with them, but I care about them. It's the same thing with my special needs kids, I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason," said Madley.

"'So the same goes for gays? Do you think they have a purpose in life?' No I honestly don't. Sorry, but I don't. I don't understand it.

That teacher actually said, gay kids have no purpose in life. She needs to lose her teaching certificate.

Report abuse

647

Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Mon, Feb 11, 2013, 22:21

Yeah, I read about that in The Stranger.

Sign the petition asking the school board to fire her.

Or send an e-mail to the Superintendent of her school district: bakerm@nesc.k12.in.us

I did.

Report abuse

648

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Mon, Feb 11, 2013, 22:43

TY SZ..I will do both

Report abuse

649

Frick
ID: 2193319
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 08:38

Without knowing how she acts, you want her fired for her beliefs?

Report abuse

650

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 09:31

To tell a troubled teen, as a teacher, that said teen has no purpose in living? Yes, I want her out of teaching. Her bigotted ways, have no place in the public classroom.

Report abuse

651

Frick
ID: 2193319
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 09:51

Where in the article does is say she said that to a kid? She said she believes that, but what actions has she actually taken? If it was in the video clip, I didn't watch it.

I feel bad for her students, not because of her, but because she is only part of the majority of the school. I don't know that for a fact, but I grew up near the area.

I think she is a horrible person, but until she acts in a manner that is harming a kid, her beliefs should not be enough to get her fired.

On a similar note, I received an e-mail last night from the Troop Master of my son's former Boy Scout troop. He quit the Boy Scouts last year, because he just wasn't interested. If he was still active, I'm not sure if I could have continued to take him. The below is the gist of the e-mail.

Gentlemen,
As you are probably aware, the Boy Scouts of America board of directors had a meeting last week and on the agenda was a vote to see if the board would change the policy that does not allow homosexual scout leaders. The vote was postponed. There is time for us to stand up for principal and religious freedom before the next board meeting and a possible vote.

Please scroll down to read about the issue. You will see contact names, numbers and talking points.

I made a couple calls. I called board member X. He had received enough calls that they are referring callers to an email address. How interesting that the email address is “feedback” so lets give them some. Here is an easy action item. You can cut and paste the scripted email below and send. While you are at it, let some of your friends know how they too can speak out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, my name is _________, from __________.
Thank you for your service as a board member of the Boy Scouts of America .
As you're aware, a new proposal indicates that the Boy Scouts of America may revoke their longstanding policy of safeguarding Scouts by restricting homosexuals from holding leadership positions over boys. For decades, your national organization has kept the interest of the boys it serves as the focus of all its actions. No matter what, the Boy Scouts of America could be counted upon to do the right thing and not yield to any social pressure, and has thus far stood strong.
Please do not jeopardize the safety and moral integrity of Scouting in the interest of social activism. The proposal to relegate the decision on homosexual leaders to local chartered organizations sends the wrong signal from the national body: that political correctness ultimately triumphs over character.
Please retain the current long-held and time-tested policy regarding homosexual leadership and membership. America stands with you. Lead the way. Please stand strong.
Thank you, and God bless you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need the BSA board members to be strong and they need to hear from us.

Report abuse

652

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 09:57

She stated it as her belief. Do you really think, no kids in that school read the article or know of her belief?

Do you agree, that teen suicide is a social issue we need to be cognizant of, and reach out to those who are troubled?

Do you agree, that with social pressures, gay teens are particularly at risk?

Would you agree, that letting a gay teen know, that you as a teacher, see no point in their being alive, could contribute significantly, to that teens risk factors?

Such a teacher, has no business teaching, on the public dime. Maybe she should get a job at a school called something like 'Bigots R Us".

Report abuse

653

Seattle Zen
ID: 4811181319
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 10:05

No, Frick, I want her fired because she looks funny...

Report abuse

654

Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 10:18

I'm with Frick on this one. Unless there's some kind of evidence that this teacher actually discriminates against gay/lesbian students, her personal beliefs shouldn't be a weapon for the thought police. The Do you think they have a purpose in life? No I honestly don't can be interpreted however one wants to, but she qualifies it with I don't understand it, which indicates her idea of the purpose of life is procreation, a concept that isn't all that radical.
Teachers should be judged on the effectiveness and quality of their teaching.
Society can't force people to share common beliefs, and unless she acts in a discriminatory manner, she shouldn't fear for her job for honestly expressing her thoughts on an issue that she admits, "I don't understand it."

Report abuse

655

Boldwin
ID: 49142129
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 10:47

It used to be, "We don't need no education, leave those kids alone. All in all you're just another brick in the wall".

Now days all a teacher is measured by is how perfectly she turns them into identical bricks in the wall.

Report abuse

656

Frick
ID: 2193319
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 17:08

What should get her fired? The fact that she has those views? Or the fact that she spoke them on camera?

Again, merely expressing a viewpoint, not acting on it, is enough to lose your job? Again, I said if she is acting on on it, fire away.

Do you agree, that teen suicide is a social issue we need to be cognizant of, and reach out to those who are troubled?

Do you agree, that with social pressures, gay teens are particularly at risk?

Would you agree, that letting a gay teen know, that you as a teacher, see no point in their being alive, could contribute significantly, to that teens risk factors?

Yes.

Sure.

No. Significantly? That one teacher, who they possibly have never and will never interact with is going to have a significant impact on their mental health? That is stretching it. But, since she said something non-PC, off with her head!

Report abuse

657

Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 17:22

letting a gay teen know, that you as a teacher, see no point in their being alive

That's a complete distortion of what she actually said.

Report abuse

658

Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 17:38

off with her head!

See, we agree, that's the part that looks funny.

Report abuse

659

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 20:59

small town school Frick.

Valley HS, is W Terre Haute, IN

Pop 2236

Pretty sure, everyone knows every teacher in the school.

Pretty safe bet, that teacher interacts with more than just Special Ed students.

Report abuse

660

Frick
ID: 2193319
Wed, Feb 13, 2013, 08:34

After listening to the news clip, where is Valley HS? I lived in Terre Haute for 5 years, I'm very familiar with Sullivan, about 20 miles south of Terre Haute. West Terre Haute, is a hellhole that does have a high school, West Vigo HS.

Doing a google search, doesn't return a HS named only Valley in either IN or IL.

All of that is beside the point. Are there any documented actions where she has harmed or even talked about her beliefs with a gay student? We have freedom of speech, it doesn't cover all instances (yelling fire in a theater), but you want to expand it to cover actions like this?

Or could we have a list of jobs that a person is always "on duty". She didn't make these comments while on duty as a teacher, she made them as a citizen. She is a vile hate monger, but that doesn't mean she should be fired if she doesn't act on her beliefs.

Report abuse

661

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Wed, Feb 13, 2013, 09:04

Freedom of Speech, means the govt cant legislate against your speech. Wee do NOT have blanket freedom. Witness the numerous cases of people losing their jobs across the country, for their facebook postings.

Her attitude, is not conducive to a learning environment. Her beliefs, are contrary t the student bodies well being. Her publicly stated position, puts students at risk.

She needs to be terminated...period. You want her teaching her bigotry to your kids? Hire her as a tutor.

Report abuse

662

Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Feb 13, 2013, 11:07

She is a vile hate monger

teaching her bigotry to your kids

I'm having a hard time understanding these characterizations from the few sentences originally posted in #646. It's not like she's proposing Sharia law where homosexuals are subject to execution. She says,

"I don't understand it."

Well, I don't understand it either. I've never had an inclination to have sex with another man. I don't understand killing for recreation either. I've never had an inclination to get a gun and go shoot an animal. Yet, some of my best friends are hunters. And I've had lots of gay and lesbian friends and co-workers in my life. I may not understand it, but, as the teacher said,
"I don't agree with them, but I care about them."

The unfortunate and harder to accept statement is:

" Do you think they have a purpose in life?' No I honestly don't."

Sarge inteprets this to mean,
see no point in their being alive

I don't presume to know what this teacher's concept of "purpose in life" is, but, as I mentioned above, it could easily mean that she feels the purpose of life is to procreate and replenish the Earth in line with her religious beliefs. Tolerance works both ways. Should Muslims automatically be prohibited from public teaching positions given their intolerance to homosexuality? You can bet that a lot of liberals, not to mention the ACLU, would have a field day protesting such a proposal.

You can't force people to understand homosexuality. Just because people don't understand it doesn't mean they can't be tolerant or accepting of the lifestyle, especially as they're more exposed to it and find that most homosexuals are just like everybody else except for their sexual preference. I think it's going to be harder to get there when we're calling a teacher a vile hate monger and a bigot; a teacher who states:

"Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don't agree with them, but I care about them."

Report abuse

663

Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 21:51

Ha!

Report abuse

664

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 22:09

I wonder, does she also believe the Earth is 5,000 years old? That the earth is flat, that NASA faked the moon landings and that Elvis is alive but a vegetable in some secretive mental institution?

She has no business, drawing tax dollars as a paycheck, for educating our children.

Report abuse

665

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 22:16

Putting up a series of unknown (and unknowable) red herrings isn't helping.

Report abuse

666

Tree
ID: 132529
Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 10:25

Pat Robertson Blames Ivy League Schools for Lack of Miracles in America

Oh, that Pat!

Report abuse

667

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 21:32

Teamsters to form human shield at funeral against Westboro Baptist protest.

Which one will the Right root for? My guess? Silence.

Report abuse

668

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 23:04

Don't forget the picket of the Memorial for dead fire fighters in West, Texas ... calling the firefighters " vile human creatures".

If you prefer to not give that website a click ... "GOD ALMIGHTY sent the fertilizer plant explosion that decimated the town of West, TX! Revere & honour HIM! Not those firefighters. Adore & give obeisance to God! Not those vile human creatures".

And followed by bible quotations justifying their Christian superiority.

Report abuse

669

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Apr 22, 2013, 00:08

From BoingBoing: "As an American Muslim, I'd just like you to know that most of us feel the same way about Islamist terrorists that most American Christians feel about Westboro Baptist Church."

Report abuse

670

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 19:46

Parents of toddler who died in 2009 after prayer-only medical care loses another one.

Report abuse

671

Tree
ID: 543262512
Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 15:44

You Deserve Rape

Report abuse

672

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 23:37

Glenn Beck says, The burden of proof is on the govt, to disprove his conspiracy allegations

Ok Glenn.....

Glenn Beck is a beastiality pedophile (he prefers young sheep).

The burden of proof Glenn, is on you, to disprove my allegation.

Report abuse

673

Boldwin
ID: 4243997
Thu, May 09, 2013, 14:22

Report abuse

674

Boldwin
ID: 174531013
Fri, May 10, 2013, 18:52

Report abuse

675

Perm Dude
ID: 41661813
Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 18:11

From Kurt Vonnegut:

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

"Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break!

Report abuse

676

sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 20:55

Conservative group seeks to rewrite the Bible, since the KJV is such a mirror of progressivity

Report abuse

677

sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Tue, Dec 24, 2013, 12:58

"Christian" conservatives steal from Kiosk, in name of Christianity

Report abuse

678

Mith
ID: 14102186
Sat, Feb 07, 2015, 13:37

The Atlantic: The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech

Report abuse

679

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 11:39

Yeah, right. On the otherhand telling the world "WE ARE ISIS" is 'smart diplomacy' and certain to counter ISIS' propaganda and recruitment.

Another just-in-time stroke of genius from the master. Almost as good as pulling out of the field to create a power vacuum and actively working to create and arm them.

With friends like Obama we don't need any other enemies but he'll provide them anyway.

Report abuse

680

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 11:56

Here's hoping the King of Jordan can protect us long enuff until we can get an American ally in the WH.

Report abuse

681

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 11:58

Heh. ISIS is no threat to the United States.

Report abuse

682

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 21:42

Gov. Walker proposes 40% cut to SeniorCare program

Report abuse

683

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 21:48

PD

When ISIS is ruling Teheran's nukes and ICBM's I want to hear your apology. Before they launch.

Report abuse

684

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 21:52

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Rescinds Anti-Discrimination Protections For LGBT State Workers

Having instituted virtually every conservative fiscal policy there is, KS has run its economy into the septic tank. But Gov Brownback, feels THIS is a valid use of his time vs addressing the needs of Kansans.

Report abuse

685

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 21:52

More fear from the fearmonger.

Yeah, you got it, since at least one of us has the ability to apologize when he's proven wrong.

When it never happens you'll never say a peep about your fantastical projections.

Report abuse

686

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 21:57

re 683,...we have yet to hear YOUR apology, over the absence of WMDs in Iraq, or the successes of the Obama administration, or the absence of evidence supporting your allegations re Benghazi, the IRS, etc etc etc.

Report abuse

687

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 22:29

I categorically deny every assertion you just made, Sarge. Despite what the deliberately stoneblind media choose to dismiss for partisan purposes.

Report abuse

688

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 22:56

B, see 685.

Report abuse

689

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 23:19

They had barrels of nerve gas components spread all over Iraq.

Obama was so successful, tell me again how many Dem politicians invited him to campaign with them last year.

The establishment did something very clever with Benghazi. They broke the investigation down into individual investigations that asked each sector of the players to defend their role. And predictably each claimed there was no guilt on their hands. The evidence is overwhelming against the admin's handling however. Every claim the admin made was deliberately misleading and downright false from beginning to end. From their initial explanation to their current denials of obvious scandals.

The admin is still refusing to release IRS documents, so you know they are guilty as hell right there, and you could fill a blog with that scandal quite easily.

Report abuse

690

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 00:04

B? Just where are the limits, to your hypocrisy? TWO, GOP led House conducted investigations, have cleared the Administration.

Report abuse

691

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 00:15

What they found in Iraq was old abandoned chemical weapons. Many of which were abandoned and buried at the specific request of...wait for it: The United States of America.

None of the weapons found supported the claim that Hussein was engaging in an active program of developing WMD.

The many Benghazi investigations ran in the same problem as the IRS "scandal." They were doing fine as a way to loosen money from the hands of their supporters, but started to loose steam when the facts were involved. Luckily, most supporters are more faith-based than fact-based, and so the GOP can continue to rake in the money from suckers.

Report abuse

692

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 00:21

The evidence is overwhelming against the admin's handling however.

There is NO ...SUCH...EVIDENCE.

NONE Boldwin...ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA. Rather similar, to your integrity on this whole subject. Non-existent.

Report abuse

693

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 02:52

"ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA"

Obama's positive achievements.

Report abuse

694

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 02:56

"TWO, GOP led House conducted investigations, have cleared the Administration."

Yeah, ask Darrell Issa if he was cleared.

Report abuse

695

Pancho Villa
ID: 2131916
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 10:10

When ISIS is ruling Teheran's nukes and ICBM's

By summer, ISIS won't even be ruling Mosul or Raqaa. They're getting their asses kicked.

Report abuse

696

biliruben
ID: 28420307
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 10:26

Dude. You are not helping on the fear-stoking.

Not helping one bit.

Report abuse

697

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 10:29

Issa's problem is not only that he doesn't understand tax law, it is that his committee's own report is at odds with what Boldwin says it is:

Report: No White House connection

Meanwhile, Issa is trying to make hay by pointing out, among other things, that an unnamed IRS employee called conservative PAC's "icky."

Just sad. Since no one on the Right can admit to a mistake, we're left with this.

Report abuse

698

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 17:30

See the last link in 689. By no means are the accusations and evidence boiling down to a declaration of 'Icky'. Sheesh. *roll*

Report abuse

699

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 22:22

As far as actual evidence? Yeah, icky, is what it all amounts to. Outside of that, it is innuendo and smoke and mirror accusations. Nothing, of any substance at all. BUT, it is innuendo against a black man, so its all good...right B?

Report abuse

700

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 14:57

The IRS scandal is a political meme continually in search of proof. So far, nothing of substance even with the accusers in charge of the hearings.

Report abuse

701

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 16:54

You won't mind it if Republicans hold up all liberal applications for tax exempt issue advocacy for years and years then. Good to know.

Let's play by the new rules then.

Natural born citizen?

Heck, all hail President Ted Cruz...since natural born no longer means natural born. [not sure but it may be a technical issue for him]

Let's ALL just play by Dem rules.

A room in the WH full of illegal FBI files on political enemies like Hillary had? If you are OK with it then.

Let's ALL just play by Dem rules.

Report abuse

702

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 17:48

You are describing things that didn't happen. No wonder you believe the fantastical reasons behind those things that didn't happen.

I've no idea what you mean by "natural born." As I've said elsewhere, as far as I can tell Ted Cruz fits the definition of natural born citizen, as he was a citizen from birth.

Report abuse

703

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:04

Yes, and you will deliberately stay uninformed on that issue at least until Obama can no longer be disqualified.

Report abuse

704

Bean
ID: 121011511
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:14

Hasn't the natural born definition been a point of contention forever? I think they had a deadline date in its original definiton. Get the right SCOTUS judges in place and you can make it mean whatever you want it to.

ONE OFF THE WALL EXAMPLE: Not Invitro

Report abuse

705

Mith
ID: 231150292
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:17

Hasn't the natural born definition been a point of contention forever?

No. It was settled in the Constitutional Convention, as I recall.

Report abuse

706

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:33

Actually SCOTUS hasn't settled the interpretation but by the understanding of the term when it was introduced as qualifications for presidency, Obama neither qualifies because his father was not a citizen at time of birth [nor did he ever become one] and he holds dual citizenship and thus his loyalty is not naturally assured.

Cruz' father did not become a citizen until 2005, and Cruz was not aware he was a dual citizen until recently and he has thereafter renounced the Canadian half of the 'dual'.

If our best candidate is Cruz and the law has been defacto nullified by the rampant lawlessness of the Dem party I would imagine Cruz' qualification is by now a mute point. It's either that or the Republicans are unilaterally disarmed.

[Of course Frank Marshall Davis was a citizen [[of dubious loyalty]], but you don't get credit for evidence not yet entered]

Report abuse

707

Bean
ID: 121011511
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:42

OK, here's a test of your knowledge:

Is a natural born citizen defined as one who is born of two citizens of the United States?

Can a natural born citizen be born outside the United States?

Can a natural born citizen have dual citizenship?

Is a person born in the United States to two non-citizen's a natural born citizen? Are they a citizen? Does illegal immigrant status change that definition? What if you are just visiting from Europe when the child is born?

Is a person, whose parental origin is questionable, eligible to become a natural born citizen? Is DNA evidence admissable? How does adoption by a non-citizen affect the classification?

Can US citizenship be revoked? If so, how does it affect the eligibility of offspring?

If you are confident you know all of the answers and then some, what would you change about the law and why?

Report abuse

708

Bean
ID: 121011511
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:56

Two gay women marry and one of them gets sperm from a bank that cannot reveal who the father is. The women are both orphans and nobody knows who their parents are. Before birth the co-mothers die in an accident in Mexico, but miraculously the boy child survives. He receives a Mexican birth certificate and is adopted by Chinese parents who reside in London. Later in life he joins ISIS and renounces all of his heritage but not before he fathers a son.

Is the son a natural born citizen of the United States?

Report abuse

709

Bean
ID: 121011511
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 19:01

Wait, one point of clarification, the son of the two women was born AFTER his pregnant mother was declared dead. Can we make this any more complicated?

Report abuse

710

Mith
ID: 231150292
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 19:18

I might have been mistaken about the convention.

But SCOTUS has settled it.

See 536 and 537 here.

Report abuse

711

Mith
ID: 231150292
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 19:59

Actually it does go back to the Convention. See post 718 in the same link.

Report abuse

712

Bean
ID: 121011511
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 20:13

<710> Nice cut and paste that Mith did there, seems in the early days the definiton was different depending on who you talked to and the intent was apparently to agree with the English definition as it was likely the intent. I am guessing that the real intent was to ensure that the Brits didn't prop up a candidate for their own purposes. Ironically we look to a British definiton to tell us what our laws mean.

Over time we have learned that the framers intent really doesn't matter, its what we think that matters. Thus the sytstem of SCOTUS interpretation and Constitutional Amendments has become the way of "keeping up with the times".

That we have begun to split hairs over what the definition means is really fascinating to me. I really hadn't realized that so many people aspired to become president that it really matters. It's never been an issue with me for my own sake, my family's heritage and loyalty have never been questioned except prior to the American Revolution vs Indians (I am part Indian) and during the civil war (we fought on both sides, though mostly the North).

What most should take comfort in is that our current President was not forced to prove his loyalty just because he was popular. That a Republican SCOTUS did not challenge him is enough for me. The rest is just noise.

The concern on the part of some that a foreign government could get their candidate elected and take over our government, military and natural resources is probably not realistic. Besides, why would they choose someone whose origin could be questioned, they'd much rather get some unscrupulous actor to do their dirty work for them. It's way easier.

Report abuse

713

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 20:28

SCOTUS has not directly ruled on the question. But the 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service is rather good on the question:

report (pdf)

Because it is a constitutional requirement, it is rather an important question. There is no doubt, in my mind anyway, that Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Report abuse

714

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 23:27

Because it is a constitutional requirement, it is rather an important question.

A) Every constitutional requirement Dems flout without penalty is another chink in the foundation.

It is no longer an issue if there is no penalty for flouting it. I notice Obama is still sitting president.

There is no doubt, in my mind anyway, that Cruz is a natural born citizen.

B) Not the first time you've been wrong. By definition, a man who has a parent who was not a citizen when Cruz was born, and who was born a dual citizen is not a NBC. He does not naturally come by his loyalty. He had to decide his loyalty among options natural to his circumstances.

We can trust Cruz' loyalty, but Obama [or his ghostwriter probably, Bill Ayers] gave us a biography that shows us his anti-american biases, and we have his record of Muslim Brotherhood advocacy and his early sponsorship of ISIS to confirm his anti-american bias.

We have his word that it is not a national security issue that ISIS has declared war on us, and clearly means to convert the world at the edge of the sword.

That is what we get from the political party that always blames America first and thinks the real problem with the world is us.

We get a president who sends ISIS arms in Syria, and then wastes our critical stock of cruise missiles blowing them up in Iraq.

We get a president who squanders everything American blood was shed for in freeing Iraq.

Report abuse

715

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 23:35

And next time a presidential candidate tells you he is going to abuse his enemies with IRS harrassment when he get's in office...

...believe him.

Report abuse

716

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 00:32

By definition, a man who has a parent who was not a citizen when Cruz was born, and who was born a dual citizen is not a NBC

This is just completely pulled out of your ass. By this "definition" (defined by whom, exactly?), a person born in the United States with a permanent resident parent from, say, Germany, would not therefore be natural born citizen of the United States.

This isn't even up to your usual nonsense standards.

Report abuse

717

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 10:28

714....proof that fiction still exists, though the quality of fiction writing has been in a steady decline for a few years now.

Report abuse

718

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 11:40

Yeah, what was I thinking. I man who is a dual citizen, idolizes a father trained and indoctrinated in Russia, a father who despised the Anglo-American world power, a father who was never a US citizen...

Self-evidently he'd have a natural loyalty to the USA. The FF obviously would have no problem with making children of their enemies president.

Report abuse

719

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 13:34

I've no idea what you were thinking. The question is whether the person is a natural born citizen. Cruz certainly is. As is Obama. Don't blame your lack of election success at the presidential level on some kind of Constitutional misapplication.

Report abuse

720

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 21:12

Meet Vattel:

How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”

Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3

Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

“…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4

According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” [boldface added]

In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5

Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States – not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.

Granted plenty of intelligent lawyers are unaware of Vattel's influence. They just assume the only influence was British law. They only look at a terribly incomplete and imperfect legal precendent in American courts where this stuff really hasn't been settled. They rely on the lack of FF quotes on the specific definitions in their deliberations.

This site is a great lawyer's site [where they catalog the Obama IRS scandal on a daily basis] and if he had dealt with the influence of Vattel in a convincing way I'd even give him the benefit of the doubt. He agrees with PD and yet he acts clueless on the philosophical influences acting on the FF in this area of law.

I've studied both sides of this issue in great detail.

PD has cheap ad hominem attacks with no research or thot behind it.

People can become educated or be swayed by trolling and wishful thinking. I don't care what the crowd thinks. Enjoy clowning for the group-thinkers, PD.

Report abuse

721

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 21:22

I've studied both sides of this issue in great detail

No you havent. You've scrounged about the internet at length, for every blog that supports YOUR contentions, regardless of their lack of expertise.

Report abuse

722

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 22:19

Sarge

You forget that while you were practicing your ad hominems in front of the easy liberal echo chamber crowd here, I've exhaustively covered these legal points in previous birther threads.

Report abuse

723

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 22:57

PD has cheap ad hominem attacks with no research or thot behind it.

A walking irony. Ignoring the points (and the link, in #713) isn't the same as "no research or thot."

Look, you can ignore the points being made and just own up to that (the "be a man" approach) or admit that you read it and just disagree with it. You cannot say it doesn't exist.

Report abuse

724

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 00:50

No B. You ignore, that you havent exhaustively done anything, except spew forth hot air and blatant partisan hype.

Report abuse

725

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 10:43

He's using "exhaustively" as "to the point of being tired about it."

Report abuse

726

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:22

Honestly it's a sad sad state of affairs when the public let alone board regulars can't even handle basic logic.

Candidate A writes a book idolizing a non-citizen father who hated America and everything about America...except their handouts.

What could possibly go wrong?

What's the point of having any citizenship requirements if it's not to achieve a reasonable assumption of natural loyalties to America?

Why can't we have a president whose Sec-of-State doesn't appoint as chief of staff a relative of the founder of America's worst enemy, the MB?

Because loyalty isn't a concern for liberals. More of a disqualification apparently.

Report abuse

727

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:41

You are welcome to propose a constitutional amendment change. Until then, we are bound by it.

Report abuse

728

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:42

If you believe Obama idolized his father in his book, then you are reading the wrong third-party sources.

My suggestion is, if you want to know what he said in the book, to read the actual, complete, book. Otherwise, at least admit you didn't read that which you are criticizing.

Report abuse

729

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:47

1) Get the text book the FF were using.

2) Look up the definition of Natural Born Citizen therein.

3) Get an educational system that teaches reading, history and applied logic.

Report abuse

730

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 23:37

If we did that B, you conservatives would fail and be sent back to Kindergarten, to start all over.

Report abuse

731

Mith
ID: 8018814
Thu, Feb 19, 2015, 06:46

729 - Already done. See post 710. You lost this one years ago. You lose again. Vattel didn't say what you think he said.

Report abuse

732

Boldwin
ID: 101311815
Thu, Feb 19, 2015, 14:41

Wishes aren't horses but your buddies will pretend you ride off into the sunset.

Report abuse

733

Mith
ID: 8018814
Thu, Feb 19, 2015, 23:55

Anyone who cares to read through it will see that B was thoroughly pantsed on this. Not worth rehashing.

Report abuse

734

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 23:43

Today, Christians stand at the head of this country. I pledge, that I never will tie myself to parties who seek to destroy Christianity. We want to fill our culture again, with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out, all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press. In short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Who was it delivered that speech? Ted Cruz father, or Mike Huckabee?

Report abuse

735

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 09:47

That Duck Dynasty guy?

Report abuse

736

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 10:09

Nope.My bad, I was confused. It was Adolph Hitler said that.

Report abuse

737

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 10:11

Yeah, and he meant those words just as sincerely as a freemason claiming to be christian.

Report abuse

738

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 10:30

lol when did you become a freemason?

Report abuse

739

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 16:32

I don't know what to be more offended at. You implying conservatives are nazis or that I would ever become a freemason.

Abominations both.

Report abuse

740

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 22:11

*smdh* I should have known, you wouldnt grasp the nuance.

Conservatives Boldwin, have not been correct in over 240 years. If you need to be offended, be offended at your own gullibility, for insisting on following a failed ideology.

Report abuse

741

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 22:35

Says the marxist who forgot which ideology crashed and burned everywhere it was tried in the 20th century and who now insists on trying it here.

Report abuse

742

Bean
ID: 14147911
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 23:12

Next he'll be declaring that those who advocate a salary cap for the MLB are communists too.

Report abuse

743

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 23:31

Boldwin? Progressivism, HASNT crashed and burned. Our FFs, were progressives. Lincoln, was a progressive. T Roosevelt, was a progressive. Eisenhower, was a progressive.

You, are simply wrong, and refuse to admit it.

Report abuse

744

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 10:55

Only one of those defined progress the way you do. And he's the only one I don't respect. We ALL would be miles ahead if he had never poisoned the well. Namely Roosevelt.

Report abuse

745

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 23:36

Wrong again B.

The conservatives of the 1760s and 1770s, were called TORRIES.

The conservatives of the 1860s, fought for states rights (just as you do today) and AGAINST the federal government, which Lincoln fought to preserve.

The conservatives of the late 19th century, oppsed womans suffrage.

The conservatives of the early 20th century, favored forced labor and monopolies. Both opposed, by T Roosevelt.

The conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s, opposed civil rights.

The conservatives of today, oppose marriage equality and fair labor practices.

You're ideology is, and has been wrong, for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

Report abuse

746

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Wed, Mar 04, 2015, 01:29

Well the only period there I can personally attest to was the civil rights era and I can tell you that I was pro-MLK and the Dem party was fighting him tooth and nail.

Report abuse

747

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Mar 04, 2015, 10:53

Do not conflate Conservative-Progressive, with Dem-Rep. I did not say anything at all, about parties. I refer, to ideologies. CONSERVATIVES, have been on the wrong side of history, for damn near 240 years, when it pertains to the USA. Simple truth.

Report abuse

748

Bean
ID: 14147911
Wed, Mar 04, 2015, 13:51

What does wrong side of history mean?

Report abuse

749

Mith
ID: 8018814
Wed, Mar 04, 2015, 22:01

746 is the same thing as a concession.

Boldwin knows full well the conservative political right (the conservative wings of both parties) was the ideological opponent of the civil rights movement.

Report abuse

751

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 23:20

DISCLAIMER: This link, is from a very partisan, far left-wing source. It however, references ABC News, and has the full aired video at the bottom.

ABC Nightline On Jehovah’s Witnesses: Major Child Rape Cover-Up Exposed (VIDEO)

Report abuse

752

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 23:27

Christian pastor claims.... we're gonna have to be willing to kill as well.

Report abuse

753

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 14:54

I just got retweeted by the world's greatest blogger, Instapundit!

Report abuse

Forum: polPage 1333Subject: Christian conservatives we can be proud of.

Forum: pol
Page 1333
Subject: Christian conservatives we can be proud of.