Gingrich Calls Out Media's Liberal Bias on Gay Rights
During Saturday's GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire hosted by ABC, after two of the moderators - World News anchor Diane Sawyer and local ABC affiliate anchor Josh McElveen - had devoted six minutes to a discussion of what the candidates would say to a gay couple "sitting in your living rooms" about same-sex marriage and adoption, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich highlighted the double standard in the media's left-leaning sympathy toward gay rights issues but lack of concern about anti-Christian "bigotry" from the left. Gingrich complained: (Video below)
I just want to raise, since we just spent this much time on these issues, I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don't hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples? Which is exactly what the state has done.
Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won't give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration in a key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways, and there's a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side, and none of it gets covered by the liberal media.
Below are video of Gingrich's criticism of the media, along with a transcript of the moderator questions on the subject of gay rights, from the Saturday, January 7, presidential debate on ABC:
DIANE SAWYER: I want to turn now, if I can, from the constitutional (INAUDIBLE) here to something closer to home and to maybe families sitting in their living rooms across this country. Yahoo sends us questions, as you know. We have them from real viewers. And I'd like to post one because it is about gay marriage. But, at the level, I would really love to be able to ask you what you would say personally sitting in your living rooms to the people who ask questions like this. This is from Phil in Virginia:
Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?
And, Speaker Gingrich? [NEWT GINGRICH]
SAWYER: Governor Huntsman, you've talked about civil unions. How do you disagree with the others on this stage?
[JON HUNTSMAN]
JOSH McELVEEN, WMUR-TV ABC 9: I'd like to go to Senator Santorum with a similar topic. We're in a state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry - 1,800, in fact, couples have married since it became law here in New Hampshire. The legislature passed it a couple of years ago. And they're trying to start families, some of them. Your position on same-sex adoption, obviously, you are in favor of traditional families. But are you going to tell someone they belong as a ward of the state or in foster care, rather than have two parents who want them? [RICK SANTORUM]
McELVEEN: Well, what would be - I just need to follow up on that, if you don't mind, Senator. With those 1,800, if you've got a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, what happens to the 1,800 families who have marriage here? Are their marriages basically illegitimate, at this point?
[SANTORUM]
SAWYER: If I could come back to the living room question, again, Governor Romney, would you weigh in on the Yahoo question about what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say, "We simply want to have the right to," as the person who wrote the email said, we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships. In human terms, what would you say to them? [MITT ROMNEY]
SAWYER: Speaker Gingrich-
GINGRICH: I just want to raise, since we just spent this much time on these issues, I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don't hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples? Which is exactly what the state has done.
Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won't give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration in a key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways, and there's a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side, and none of it gets covered by the liberal media. [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE]
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Well, John McElveen, you answered the question
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 12:29am.
you posed. If gay marriage is against the law, it's against the law. Whether NH, or NY or another state passes a state law, as long as DOMA is in place, it matters not. Why not question Obama on why he isn't defending laws that he's duty bound to defend. Or, is the Imperial Presidency immune to questions?
Pretty disgraceful segment there
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 12:42am.
I couldn't believe ABC and GS in particular were so worried about the non-issue of state's rights and contraception. I guess it was Georgie's way of trying to paint Santorum as a wacko, but he made himself look the complete idiot instead. They gay rights thing fell flat as well. Sadly, NO ONE with a microphone noted that the candidates all share the same view on gay marriage as Obama.
I missed the first half hour or so; did ABC pose any other Yahoo blog questions, or was the only thing that interested them gay marriage?
It was an awful answer for
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:29am.
It was an awful answer for Romney, any way, because it left doubts on whether he understands Constitutional law. He didn't seem to understand what was established in Griswold and Roe.
Missing Newt's Point
Submitted by Bill W. on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 12:53am.
Newt didn't address gay marriage. He pointed out bias in the media. Mitt wanted to talk about gay marriage. Hey Mitt! Take the gloves off about the media like Newt and you might just pick up a few points.
The country is on the highway
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:06am.
The country is on the highway to hell and they don't ask questions about, the economy, Iran, Obama's end runs around the Constitution. If I was the canidates I'd stop going to debate put on my libs. They know they are not going to get any questions where they can get down on Obama.
Three debates were enough
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 2:39pm.
These were never debates. If they were true debates, they wouldn't have more than one moderator posing the questions, and every candidate would get to address every question and the responses of their opponents.
These events are actually free-for-all political interviews by several MSMers on 6-8 candidates. Gingrich comes off the best because he is appears more self-confident in such an environment, and intelligent enough to outmanuever the moderators.
But it would be wrong to assume that the GOP is getting ambushed here. If the Republicans didn't want it this way, they'd have changed it by now.
Keep throwing......
Submitted by helomech on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 12:56am.
....their double-standards back at 'em Newt!
Tired of this topic
Submitted by smitty195 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 12:57am.
I'm so tired of the gay marriage topic. I forget who said what during tonight's debate, but one of them said that we need to maintain marriage as it has (almost) always been for the last 3,000 years, which is one man and one woman.
Now here is the shocking part: I am gay. And yes, I live a very lonely existence because I am a conservative who does not believe in gay marriage. I get so angry when other gay people yell at me and say, "You just don't want me to be happy!!!!". I tell them that this has absolutely nothing to do with their happiness, and besides, why in the hell do you want to be like straight couples?? Why is that piece of paper so important to you? You should hear the responses I get back. Because I don't follow along with the crap that they are taught and what they believe, I take so much heat---and because of this, I live a lonely life. I can't buy into all of the garbage that I see in the gay community. It is very upsetting to me.
I see no reason why gay couples, who claim that they want "equality", can't simply have some type of legal union or legal partnership. The piece of paper does not change your feelings towards each other! Gay couples should be able to share bank accounts if they wish, they should be able to visit the other in the emergency room if one gets hurt or sick, they should have the option of being on the other's health care plan, etc, etc, etc...But WHY do they want to be "married"? Why do they want to change the definition of a word? Every time this topic comes up, it's like beating my head against the wall. I get yelled at from gays, and I get yelled at from conservatives just because I'm gay (I still don't understand that aspect of things).
We--those of us on the right---better get our act together and QUICKLY, because Barack Obama and the left have serious plans for this country. And guess what? It ain't for more freedom, and it ain't for more economic prosperity and independence--I can guarantee you that.
Good points, Smitty.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:06am.
Except for one thing, "they should have the option of being on the other's health care plan". Back in the day, when I worked, if I was single, my girl friend wouldn't be covered on my health care plan. if we were living together. The argument was, you aren't married, we ain't paying for her.
I appreciate what you're saying, you get the worst of both worlds.
My feelings, simply and crudely put, if the plumbing don't fit, it ain't a union. Plumbers can appreciate that, I'm sure.
Re: UpNorth
Submitted by smitty195 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:55am.
UpNorth: Yes, you are right. I should have made my comment a bit more clear. I didn't mean to imply that any gay person should get the legal benefits of marriage just because they're dating Person A this month and Person B next month. There needs to be some sort of legal formality that I'll call a "civil union" (for lack of a better term). Sorry, I should have been more clear about that.
And I do understand your plumbing analogy--I honestly do. And I also know that I won't change your mind on anything, and that's okay. But I just wanted to say a bit more with the hope that maybe someday, at some point, a light bulb will go on and you will understand things a bit better. I'm not asking for acceptance--you don't have to accept it. I'm just asking to understand it. But I have tried being "straight" for MANY years (almost 30 years). No matter what I do, it just doesn't work. I never sat down and had a conversation with myself and said, "Smitty, you should be gay---give it a try". Quite the opposite--I knew from an extremely young age that I was attracted to the same sex. It has always been that way, and there is nothing I can do to change it. It's sort of like this---if you have a certain food that you hate, let's say it's liver and onions.....so if you hate liver and onions, I can't force you to suddenly like liver and onions. Why? I don't know--I can't answer that question. All I know is what is, and in my case, at my age, nothing is going to change. I did not ask for this, I did not bring it upon myself, I was not coaxed into it, I did not grow up around gay people (I grew up in a Catholic, conservative environment). One thing that might shock you is that there are people who you know---right now---who are gay, but they are scared to death to admit it. They could very easily be married. I could tell you stories for hours about all of the dirty little secrets that go on behind closed doors. And what happens if someday you have a kid who tells you, "Dad, I'm gay"? I would hope that you would give the kid a big hug, and tell him/her that you love them and you support them. If not, suicide is a popular option for those who get rejected by their families. I've been through it all---trust me. There are people reading this who know exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for listening...
Smitty, do what you want with whoever you want
Submitted by Two Strings Left on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:24pm.
I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself, but as a conservative my position is that your relationships with other people are your business, not mine. And you should have the legal right to designate whoever you choose as insurance beneficiary, hospital bedside visitor, person who can pick up your child from school, etc, etc. Might not have the same thoughts around adoption, although I am not unmoved by the various anecdotes of children raised in same-sex environments. Not sure the state should endorse that by legislation. Perhaps I could be convinced otherwise, but for the moment I am not.
But I am pretty sure that if we let "the state" re-write the dictionary to change the historic and traditional meaning of marriage, we have walked well over the line into the Orwell world of "1984".
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Anyone who endorses those last three statements can go ahead and vote for Obama again.
For smitty
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:25am.
Here's the thing: I think some of my friends here on NB might sharply disagree with me, but to me, it boils down to this: no one chooses to be gay. (Well, I suspect some personalities or famous people might say they are just because it's cool to do so in their minds, but for those on the street no one has heard of, it's a for-real thing.) For me, I think that if civil unions were offered by the states for gays, not a wink of sleep would be lost, by me or other people. When people insist that we must have "gay marriage" at any and all costs, I think their motivations are about anything but caring about gays.
Some of life's solutions are really very simple, such as following The Golden Rule.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sometimes the Issues are Deep
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 9:01am.
The fact that this hit you in childhood suggests a few things to me, but it is proof positive that the psychological disturbances that lead to homosexuality can sometimes be very deeply-rooted. I totally believe you when you say that you've tried everything, although I would like to suggest that you may not have actually tried every single thing. What you are missing is the identification of yourself as a man (I suspect), and given what our culture lays out as the standard of masculinity, I can relate. One homosexual wrote something like this -- I don't remember the quote verbatim -- "Yeah, I'd like a guy like John Wayne, even though I know that he'd be totally repulsed by the idea." So there's still a desire for masculinity except it has been rerouted into obtaining it sexually instead of taking on the characteristics of it personally.
Visions and Principles blog
seems to be a purposeful drive to make people angry
Submitted by dmacleo on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:49am.
here in Maine few years ago this all came up. so of course I got a ton of phone calls. on one I asked if the state were to create civil unions and pay to make all laws reflect that I would not openly oppose it (not oppose is not the same as supporting) and I asked if that would work.
the person on the other end said no, we want to use the word marriage.
I asked what was more important, the word or the rights?
person said we want to use the word married to force churches to deal with us.
I said you just turned a person who would not openly oppose civil unions into someone who will actively fight to make sure you have neither marriage nor civil unions.
of course then I was called bigot, homophobe, etc.
I said maybe so, but at least I was married :)
Bravo, Smitty!
Submitted by Fenwick on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 9:27am.
I, too, am gay and also weary of the "Gay Marraige" issue. First and foremost I believe in individualism and the rule of law; those two things are supremely more important to me than some phantom "rights" that a state or federal government deems to "give" to me in exchange for my vote. It's all a smokescreen!!!
When property rights, individual rights and the rule of law are being diminished all around us, we are being dragged away from our protection under the Constitution into a situation where our protection is dependent upon the favor and benevolence of those in power... and THAT should frighten everyone!
Furthermore, I do not strive to be "tolerated." I believe I still have the right to live my life as I please as long as I live within the law. If others choose to dislike me because of my lifestyle or my beliefs, then that is their prerogative. (As it is, I find gay people the most intolerant of others - especially gay people - whose world view is not the same as theirs!) All I can do is work to build the content of my character and simply judge others by theirs.
Thank you!
Submitted by smitty195 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:58am.
Fenwick: Thank you so much for your comments. It's nice to know that I'm not as alone out here as I sometimes think I am. It's difficult enough being gay, but it's even harder being a gay conservative. I am shunned by so many people that it's not even funny any more. Thanks again.
How sad for you...
Submitted by David in Houston on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:54am.
If you really are gay, I feel sorry for you. The fact that you think straight people are superior to you, simply because they're straight is very sad.
"Why do they want to change the definition of a word?"
Definitions change. Traditions change with a more enlightened society. 50 years ago the definition of marriage was "One man and one woman of the SAME RACE." Interracial marriage didn't exist before that. Do you get that? Polygamy was a-okay in the Bible. But our society doesn't permit that anymore. Traditions change. By the way, people DON'T OWN WORDS. Christian people do not own the word "marriage". Non-religious straight couples (and those of different religions) are legally permitted to marry in our country. So if they can marry, what is your rationale for denying gay Americans the same right?
I do agree on one thing. Dealing with self-loathing gay people that don't believe they are worthy of the same civil rights that straight people have is "like beating my head against a wall".
Prime example
Submitted by smitty195 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 11:06am.
David in Houston: Your remarks are exactly what I'm talking about. And where did your first comment come from? You think that I feel straight people are superior to gay people? That came out of left field.
Changing the definition of what society accepts marriage to be (one man/one woman) has consequences. Why can you not understand this? And by the way, gay people CAN get married any time they'd like to---just find a person of the opposite sex and you're good to go. Nobody will stop you.
When you change the definition of marriage, it's not all hunky-dory like you assume it to be. There are consequences to this. There are educational consequences, religious consequences, societal consequences, legal consequences. It's not the simple, straightforward "I just want to be happy" panacea that people like you make it out to be.
However, yes, I am pounding my head against the wall because I already KNOW that you will not see anything that I just wrote. All you will see is, "He hates gay marriage and doesn't want me to be happy!", which of course is complete BS---and here's the dirty little secret--you know it's BS, but you don't like someone letting the cat out of the bag!
Bravo, Smitty
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:25pm.
You've said it all very well. I suspect you believe what most of us do, that the in-your-face GLBT agenda creates an ugly backlash.
I am against gay marriage as well. But I do believe we ought to have statute(s) which recognize the legal rights of gay partners who decide it's time to enter into such a formal arrangement. Civil union or whatever else we deem to call it, which would confer spousal rights (inheritance, medical decisions, etc.) and which would require a formalized process to dissolve (as in divorce).
Hang in there, you have more friends here than detractors, I'm sure.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Tarring everyone with the same brush
Submitted by falcon on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 11:48am.
It may be that some gays think they're "inferior" to non-gays, but you can't tar them all with the same brush. I don't feel sorry for gays, but I do feel angry at the ones who try and force their world-view on me and expect me to accept it as gospel.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
People don't own words? Really?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:06pm.
Then give us back 'gay.'
And rainbows.
Submitted by mang on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 4:36pm.
And rainbows.
And Rainbow Warriors.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 5:37pm.
It was this...
Ahh the good ol days( not the stewpid helmet)...
Yoshida's comments that the Athletic Department was changing the 77-year-old Rainbow logo because of market confusion with the Gay Pride Rainbow flag touched off a storm of protest, much of which was taken up on the national and international sports pages.
This was brought to Hawaii by some think tank in Massachusetts, for a few hundred grand.
You Didn't Build That.
@smitty195
Submitted by IRQ Conflict on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:45am.
"But WHY do they want to be "married"?"
It's not that they wish to be "married". It is the very institution they wish to destroy. Making a mockery of said institution, watering it down and eventually, like life, water it down to the point of meaninglessness.
Not that the secular world thinks the institution of marriage (by God) is anything to revere.
Do what thou wilt. /Satan
Maybe they know that 'gay
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 2:58am.
Maybe they know that 'gay marriage' will further erode the tradition that they want to destroy, so it's not so much they believe they should be married, but it will help put a nail in the coffin, like 'gay' Dan Savage wrote, 'infidelity is good for marriage'. The left always use numerous avenues to attack, marriage is just one of the values getting a gang-beating in he name of 'progress'.
This was a good answer from Newt. The question left out a more important aspect...is the gay couple employed or un-employed, was their house fore-closed on? Is that why they're in Newt's living room?
Really?
Submitted by David in Houston on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:44am.
Watering it down? Like straight people do, when they get married over and over and over again? But enough about Newt, and his three marriages and two adulterous affairs. I do think it's funny that you don't consider Newt's history "making a mockery of said institution", but gay people are (even though you have no proof that they do). I'm also curious how maybe 5% of the population is able to water down marriage so much, that straight people won't know what marriage is anymore. I didn't realize gays had SO much power to destroy an entire institution like that. Very impressive!
By the way, when were you planning on banning non-religious straight people from getting married? Yeah, that's what I thought. And if you want to stop marriages from being destroyed... ban divorce. It destroys more marriages that gay people could in a thousand years. But no one is going to ban divorce, because that would actually impact straight people's lives, and we can't have that can we?
Divorce was another
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:14pm.
Divorce was another phenomenon trumpeted by the left beginning decades ago. Anything destructive that passes through the social prism, no matter how small, will have the left breaking out the pom-poms. That's why there are so many contradictions in libtard land.."Marriage sucks, it's slavery..cheating is grand..divorce is freedom..but..marriage is great and awesome and you should marry whoever or whatever you want..". And, oh yeah, you better agree or you're a hater or a _________-a-phobe, knuckledragger.
Silly, silly, silly
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:46am.
Personally I have no problem with making marriage much, much harder to enter into.
How did humanity survive 6000 or so years of civilization without gay marriage?
It would be such a SILLY idea if it had no potential to adversely effect children or society.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Good job Newt! Dead on
Submitted by okie-pastor on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 2:14am.
Good job Newt!
Dead on accurate! I cheered when he said this!
Did the media report on the fact that six Christians were killed in a church in Africa just this past Thursday, by a radical Islamic group "Boko Haram" which means "western education is sacrilege"
Do you think they would have if they were all gay?
Exactly! Good job Newt! And people wonder why we conservatives are hesitant with Romney.
So did I!
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:16am.
It's about time the media was called out for their vapid stupidity.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
On
Submitted by grammajane on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 2:50am.
another web-site it mentioned Georgie asked Mitt if birth-control should be abandoned through out the country. With that question, all the candidates should have walked and left those looser jerks sitting, by themselves as the audience was clapping and booing. Why would any decent person allow such a hateful and stupid question be brought up at a presidentcial debate when the economy is awful, un-employment is at an all time high and the sitting "pres" is destroying the security of America. If these candidates don't start confronting the media, we will loose.
Though I have gay couples in my life...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 3:11am.
that I consider family and important to me...
I am against gay marriage... for one thing, I think it will drastically increase gay divorce.
Judge a religion by its holy books
Submitted by mflo999 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 5:05am.
Christians say their Bible is their authority for condemning gays. Let's read it:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
So the Bible actually says in plain reading that gays must be executed. Christians can't pick and chose which words of the Bible they want the rest of us to live by. Either that passage is all true -- or it is all false.
By Newt's logic it would be bias to prevent a church that believed in human sacrifice from handling adoptions.
Let's face it: the Catholic Church is simply wrong about gays. Just because they say they really, really believe homosexuality is wrong -- except conveniently that part about putting gays to death -- doesn't make them right, doesn't make them special and doesn't make them above the law of our land.
Written by a homosexual atheist?
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 6:32am.
This must have been written by a homosexual atheist who thinks the Catholic church stands alone on this issue. Don't pick on the Catholic Church; that part of the Bible is used in Judaism, in virtually all Protestant churches, and Mormons as well. It is really hilarious to me that you want to make this a moral issue with one Christian church, when it is even in the Koran. You think that Sharia law will not treat homosexuality the same as proscribed in Leviticus? What do you think happens in Communist countries? The tolerance of a few countries does not make a world-wide acceptance, and Christians are not the only group that believe that homosexuality is a sin.
In fact, the Christians are far more tolerant than you think. In Acts 15, Paul put aside virtually the whole Old Testament law with the direction that "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood". This puts it on homosexuals and adulterers to not do this themselves, but does not proscribe that we should be out killing all adulterers and homosexuals. Christians believe that we are all sinners, but because we reach out through the prison ministry to murderers does not mean that we condone murder.
If this is not the word of God, then what is the word of God on the subject? Or do you believe Leviticus 15 is only a prohibition on the followers of Morloch, in which paragraph it is contained in Leviticus? Actually, Christians try to treat sinners better than Islam.
But homosexuality is a societal problem. As a society, our job is to raise straight people to keep the society going and build a healthier, self-sustaining society. Having kids raised as homosexuals is not to the benefit of society, which is about continuing our human capital, having progeny, etc. For this reason I believe that our society should also reject overt homosexuality. It is a lifestyle which is not a contributor to the continuation of society and the species. There are cost reasons as well, but let's not go there now.
Dennis Prager
I am indeed an atheist but dissapointingly hetereosexual
Submitted by mflo999 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:27am.
So I condemn all religions equally. But I condemn Newt because he is not a Muslim or a communist -- he is a Christian.
If the Bible says TWO contradictory things about homosexuality, why should I accept one and not the other?
And without your scripture as your authority, just because you say homosexuality is a societal problem and not really a religious one, why on earth should I accept that, just because you say so?
If that's all you've got, just don't practice homosexuality yourself and you'll be fine. Well, not as long as you claim that releasing children from orphanages into loving homes is a PROBLEM. That's twisted!
Let's see now...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:33am.
Increased risk of STD, including HIV and AIDS.
Shorter life expectancy;
More health issues overall...
Just a superficial look at the potential risks of living a homosexual lifestyle.
Could be the scriptures were right all along... and the book was written 2000 years ago. What could they possibly have known that we're apperently only finding out now?
Maybe we should be paying MORE attention to the good book instead of outrightly dismissing it as some kind of fairy tale.
Oh, btw... Could it be possible that Leviticus was referring to the "death of the spirit" and not an actual execution? Just askin'.
Oh, and double btw... You're condemning Gingrich because he's a Christian? Sounds an awful lot like bigotry to me. You just demonstrated Newt's point. Nicely done!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
So my Canadian friend
Submitted by mflo999 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:37am.
Your Bible can mean anything you want it to mean? "They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." according to you means their SPIRIT will die? Read the words. I condemn Newt and Santorum and all of their ilk not just because they are Christians -- but because they believe nonsense like this, and worse -- they want me to believe it too.
You can interpret the bible any way you want.
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 8:28am.
... I'm simply pointing out that the scripture does not necessarily mean what you think it might. Perhaps another perspective is that maybe gays ARE being put to death, but not by man, but by the occurance of AIDS and/or HIV. Again, just different perspectives. There's no way to know which interpretation would be correct. That's the mystery of faith. All we know is that the homosexual lifestyle is not the preferred choice (yes, I said CHOICE) both corporially, and spiritually.
If you really believe that "they want [you] to believe it too", then a refresher in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in order.
True, Christians want to spread the word of God, but ultimately, it is up to the individual to accept or reject the word. That is called "free will". It's what we were endowed with by our creator. It's what set's us apart from the animals. It's why I believe that you are simply wrong when you say that Newt and the others are forcing their beliefs onto you.
Now you are saying "I condemn Newt and Santorum and all of their ilk not just because they are Christians -- but because they believe nonsense like this"
You are emphasizing a losing argument. What you seem to be forgetting is that they believe in "nonsense like this" BECAUSE they are Christian! It's a faith thing, you see. These things go hand in hand, so in effect, you ARE STILL condemning Newt because he's a Christian. That's bigotry, my friend, and it's EXACTLY what Newt was talking about in the debate. And unlike Leviticus, there's no other way you can interpret that.
and oh, triple btw... I watched the debate, and no one was expressing opposition to gays adopting. What they were saying (at least that's what I heard) was that preference should go to hetero couples, as it should be, because demonstrably, the child benefits most with a male and female complementary role models in a loving home.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
What's Worse Than Newt or Santorum is an Ignorant Atheist
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 8:53am.
Seriously, mflo999. You claim that Newt and Santorum 'believe' the Bible, but what does that mean? You act as though they are Hebrews wandering through the desert, and not Christians. Do you even know how to read the Bible? I'll bet that you don't, so keep reading.
The passages you are referring to are in Leviticus. Leviticus was the ceremonial and legal law given to set apart the Israelites living in a pagan land (Canaan). It may not be obvious that Christ fulfilled the requirements of that law, fulfilling/completing it and thus doing away with it. That is why Christians have never practiced the dietary restrictions of the OT, or the cleanliness restrictions, and so on. Those things are no longer binding. Yet the principles of the law endure -- each person punished for his own transgression, treat your neighbor as yourself, and so on.
If you want to understand the Bible, mflo999, you need to learn how to read it -- and by read it, I mean understand to whom it was written, why, the culture of the people to whom it was written, and so forth. That will help you grasp what is being said without the blinders of your culture. This is something that everyone who wants to read and understand literature written in a different era has to deal with, and you're no different.
Edit: a bit of clarification.
Visions and Principles blog
No...
Submitted by David in Houston on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:32am.
"Increased risk of STD, including HIV and AIDS.
Shorter life expectancy;
More health issues overall...
Just a superficial look at the potential risks of living a homosexual lifestyle."
You are confusing sexual orientation with behavior. They are not the same thing.
If an opposite-sex couple has sex without using protection, they also run the risk of getting STDs, including HIV and AIDS. They also have the very real possibility of having an unwanted pregnancy... and since conservatives don't believe in abortion, this couple will be forced to have a child they didn't want, and will have to take care of it for the next 18 years. Regardless of the fact that the couple might be too young to be parents, or if they can even afford to raise a child, or if they are even married. -- Just a superficial look a the potential risks of living a straight lifestyle.
If same-sex couples are monogamous (just like their straight counterparts), there is ZERO risk of STDs, including HIV and AIDS. So therefore there is NO shorter life expectancy, or other health issues. Like I said, sexual orientation and behavior are not the same thing.
There's this new thing out recently called adoption
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:08pm.
"They also have the very real possibility of having an unwanted pregnancy... and since conservatives don't believe in abortion, this couple will be forced to have a child they didn't want, and will have to take care of it for the next 18 years. Regardless of the fact that the couple might be too young to be parents, or if they can even afford to raise a child, or if they are even married."
There's this new thing out recently called adoption, which means no one has to raise any child they don't want. You might want to read up on it, lol.
You're right, of course.
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:34am.
Obviously. But keep in context that my response was directed to mflo999, who was trying to assert that homosexuality is wrong simply because another poster says it is. It's not only morally wrong to believe homosexuality is 'normal' but believing the contrary view can be hazardous to one's health if they actually practice what they preach.
Note in my response that I was referring to the lifestyle, not the inclination. I don't think I'm confusing anything.
On other point. You are correct in stating that promiscuous heterosexuals also run the risk of contracting STD's, however I've come across reports that conclude that the rate of STD's occurring in the homosexual population are much higher than in the general (or straight) population.
"If same-sex couples are monogamous (just like their straight counterparts), there is ZERO risk of STDs, including HIV and AIDS. So therefore there is NO shorter life expectancy, or other health issues." Are you sure about that? Are you sure there is no health risk associated with sodomy, for example -- even among healthy homosexuals? Better double-check that.
As far as monogamy is concerned. I'm sorry, but at the risk of painting with a broad brush, the very essence of the homosexual lifestyle is anything but monogamous. There may be a few truly monogamous gay couples, but that is certainly not the norm within the gay pop.
And finally, as I said many times before, regarding promiscuous hetero sex, don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time. Libs are so rah-rah regarding rights, and choice, they forget about personal accountability. The couple responsible for creating life must be accountable to safeguarding that life. They can raise the child, or give it up for adoption. To use abortion as a form of birth control is highly immoral, repugnant, and yes, evil.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Responsibility
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:29am.
If you don't want to have a child, and you are an unmarried couple, well, the solutions are indeed very simple.
I wish I could say it was a problem of the Left, but unfortunately, I can't. It's a problem period. Too many people in this world want to be absolved of personal responsibility.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The Bible is the most cherry-picked document in existence
Submitted by falcon on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 11:51am.
Everyone can find something that agrees with their beliefs in the Bible. But remember, Jesus said even Satan can quote scripture to his own purposes.
So you're an atheist. Okay, fine. But isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to use the Bible to prove one of your points?
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Did i miss something?
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:08pm.
mflo... the point of the New Testament and the sacrifice of Christ was to make the point that all people are sinners, and that Christ took the punishment for those sins. So, the Old Testament, is about learning the rules, the New Testament is about being human, and being forgiven. Christ, as in "Christian," did not advocate, nor condone, executing sinners. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
This is what irks me about atheists trying to tell Christians that our beliefs are as violent and evil as those of some other religions. You simply don't understand anything about Christianity.
That said, i differ from a lot of conservatives, here's the facts, m'am.
If you believe this:
BoR: Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Then you have to believe this: you have a right to be gay if you so desire.
If you believe this:
BoR: Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Then you have to believe this: the states have the power to determine what they consider to be a legal union.
Like a drivers license, states can have different requirements for legal unions, but can still respect the licenses issued elsewhere.
As far as "Marriage" goes, that is traditionally a religious bonding, and should be left to the churches. The "Marriage License" is just a way for the state to officially recognize and document the union for legal and contract reasons. Take "Marriage" out of the state language, leave that to the churches. Create "unions" for legal contracts. And in both cases, leave it up the states, the feds have no place to play here, unless someone gets an Amendment to the Constitution going.
This is not rocket science, and shouldn't even be a debate in this time when the Obamaton is destroying the fabric of the very Constitution i quote above.
No...
Submitted by David in Houston on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:15am.
You can't "raise kids as homosexuals". Do you really think you can force a straight child to become gay? Are you able to change your sexual orientation? Yeah, didn't think so. This nonsense that people can choose their sexual orientation, really needs to stop. The only ones that keep saying this are straight, and couldn't choose to be gay even if someone had a gun pointed to their head. So if they can't make that choice, why would they assume that other people can? You really need to ask yourself, why would a straight person intentionally choose to be demonized by society, and lose most of their civil rights?
Don't bother bringing up the whole "ex-gay" thing. It doesn't exist, and it's been exposed numerous times as a lie. Pretending to be straight (getting married, and even having children) doesn't change your sexual orientation. It just makes you a very good actor. Did you ever notice that the ONLY people that claim that they've changed their sexual orientation are devoutly religious people that think that homosexuality is wrong. All these people have done is chosen to not act out on their innate sexuality. They haven't changed anything. It's called living a lie.
Meanwhile, back in the real world
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:14pm.
"Do you really think you can force a straight child to become gay? Are you able to change your sexual orientation? Yeah, didn't think so. This nonsense that people can choose their sexual orientation, really needs to stop."
The daughter of one of my friend's has recently decided she's gay. Said she's tired of guys being jerks, so she's going to be gay and only like women now, lol.
You need to stop asserting opinion as fact.
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 3:13am.
The fact is this is an ongoing debate. There's plenty of anacdotal evidence to suggest, at least for some, that orientation may indeed be a choice, or have you never heard of "bi-sexuals".
Ok... so some would contend that being 'bi' is not really being gay, but the gays would have you believe that their numbers are really into the 15% to 20% of the general population *because* of those who are actually 'bi'. Sorry, folks, but you can't have it both ways. (ooops... unintentional double-entendre. Sorry)
And what about the lesbian couple marching down the street in a gay pride parade carrying a sign that says, and I quote... "Two wives, 6 children, equals one happy family".
So where did the kids come from? Don't answer that. Rhetorical question.
Hey... there's plenty more where that came from, and I know that you guys don't like NARTH, because they happen to be telling the truth about homosexuality, but they have been able to demonstrate that there is hope for people who are experiencing unwanted SS attraction. There have been many ex-gays living happy lives as heteros. I can give you one example of a pro-life singer. His name is David MacDonald. Very interesting testimonial. You should look it up.
Maybe you can't choose your inclination. I can't tell if that's true, having never experienced the feeling, but what I can say quite emphatically is that you can and do have control over what you can do about it. If someone experiences UNWANTED same-sex attraction, the solution is not necessarily to convince that person that he/she is gay.
You DON'T HAVE to be gay IF YOU DON'T WANT TO is all I am saying. You don't have to be a captive slave to your inclinations. This is what Christ teaches us.
If somebody is comfortable with their inclination, and it floats their boat, then fine. I have no qualms with that individual. But on the other hand, I don't want to see ex-gays being ostricized by the gay population simply because they found the help they needed, and was able to expose the weakness of the pro-gay argument at the same time.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Here We Go Again...
Submitted by Tenebrous on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:08am.
Yes, you can "raise children as homosexuals". It's pretty easy. You model that behavior as normal and the child comes to accept that as normal, and that serves as his or her baseline. The marriage is what allows sons and daughters to learn how to deal with members of the opposite sex, in non-romantic and romantic ways.
You don't understand the psychology of homosexual men well, do you? Many of them come from single mother homes, or homes in which there was no way to earn dad's love. They didn't identify themselves as boys, but still craved that love and attention, and thus began to model themselves after things that did get attention: women.
You think society demonizes homosexuals? Not if TV is any guide. Not if the media is any guide. Not if the laws are any guide. Not if the condemnation of anything opposing homosexuality is any guide.
Yes, the ex-gay thing does exist. You may want to talk to Michelle Bachmann's husband about it, and Cy Simon. How do you know that they are pretending to be straight? You don't. You've assumed that people can't change, so you're a prisoner of your own assumptions. And you call 'very religious' people, then, liars. Well, something doesn't fit there. Whomever they believe in would certainly punish lying. And because homosexuality is largely a psychological disorder (go see the history of the APA), it makes sense that they could change.
You are using circular logic and prove only what you've already assumed. Try again?
Visions and Principles blog
Care to point out what they "lost"?
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 1:31am.
When you say, "why would a straight person intentionally choose to be demonized by society, and lose most of their civil rights"? Which "civil rights" are you referring to?
As for "whole "ex-gay" thing. It doesn't exist, and it's been exposed numerous times as a lie". Much like losing most of their civil rights? Otherwise, link to a neutral source that agrees with your hypothesis.
The Bible also uses the word
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:39pm.
The Bible also uses the word 'death' many times to signify a spiritual death, a separation from God. It says to choose life, it says that the ways of sin, the ways that seem right to a man lead to death. That passage doesn't explicitly say to execute the man by your hands, 'they must be put to death' could just as easily be interpreted as God's judgement.
There is also the matter of noone really knows what it was like to actually live in those days, how lawless and barbaric things might actually have been, we could not imagine. If you desired to lead what was, basically, motivating a herd of cats into some semblance of a civilized society, you might want to cover every contigency. If these laws were not written as the laws of God, what would inhibit a group of roving sodomites to declare a 'right' to your body? Congress?
Since Leftist Media Hacks...
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:36am.
Since Leftist media Hacks have proven themselves to be biased and unfair, can someone PLEASE explain WHY they are allowed to moderate these debates? These are MEDIA HACKS, for goodness sakes...not Mensa candidates. Everyone KNOWS you get a job in 'media' when you've proven yourself to be utterly inept at everything else.
I agree
Submitted by ohio granny on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 8:47am.
Who schedules these debates with these so-called journalists? Why do the republicans repeatedly do things like this when they have to know how biased it will be? I say we (republicans) should boycott all the so-called MSM. I never watch these things anyway. I can read all I need to know, like on News Busters and other blogs.
Can someone explain to me...
Submitted by loxmyth on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 9:18am.
Why is there a problem with gays getting married? Why do they think they need some special laws? The truth is, gays have exactly the same rights as any other citizen in all 50 (or is it Obama's 60...do the math on what he said, was 60, not 57.) Gays can legally get married in any state they wish to. If it is a gay man, all he has to do if find a woman who will agree to marry him ... same as I, a heterosexual man, had to do, by the way ... and he can get married. See, same rights that non-gays have. No state, or religion for that matter, stops anyone, gay or not, from getting married...as long as there is one of each gender involved. Sure, a gay man may not be able to legally marry another man, but then, a heterosexual man cannot legally marry another man either. So, what the problem here?
Seriously?
Submitted by David in Houston on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 9:55am.
Yeah, just like it wasn't discriminatory when 30 states passed bans on interracial marriage less than a century ago. Since EVERYONE wasn't allowed to marry someone of a different race, no one was being discriminated against, right? This is the same warped logic that you're using to disenfranchise gay Americans.
Do people actually have to explain to you that gay men are not sexually or romantically interested in women? So why would a gay man even consider marrying a woman? What would be the point? Would you marry some random person on the street, just so you could say you were married? Better yet, why would you want a straight woman to marry a gay man? Don't you think she deserves to marry someone that finds her sexually attractive, and is actually in love with her? Isn't love and attraction a big part of why straight couples marry each other?
"Why do they think they need some special laws?" --- You mean the special laws that only apply to straight citizens in this country? Those special laws? So if you let gay Americans have the same civil rights as straight Americans, that's a special law? Is that how that works? If blacks can drink from the same drinking fountain, that's a special law. If women get the right to vote, that's a special law too.
Just how stupid can a person
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:58am.
Just how stupid can a person be? Marriage is between one (1) man and one (1) woman. Only. Period.
You don't have our permission to change that definition. So stop pretending you do.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Seriously?
Submitted by loxmyth on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 12:53pm.
It takes a special law to allow blacks to drink from the same drinking fountain as whites? But why? If a laws says a citizen is allowed to drink from a drinking fountain, why in the world does it take a special law to allow blacks that same right? Aren't they just s much a citizen as a white? Do you not understand the point? When a law is defined to apply to citizens, it doesn't need to specify that it ALSO applies to a sub group of citizens. By singling out a sub group such as blacks, or gays, or women, or red haired or what ever, you are, in effect, saying they are not really a member of the larger group that the law applied to. And i really would like to see a law that specifically does apply to only straight citizens.
"Do people actually have to explain to you that gay men are not sexually or romantically interested in women?" And just where was anything mentioned about sex or romance? We were talking marrage. I'm pretty sure there are no laws anywhere (at least not in the United States) that require sex and or romance, or even love to be married. Should one love the person they marry? Should sex and romance be involved in the marrage? Sure, but i'm just talking LAW. The point i make is that gays are NOT being singled out when the LAW says one man/one woman. As a straight man, i am not allowed to marry another man, any more than a gay man is. And any gay man is allowed to marry a woman, just as any straight man is. Again, I'm talking the law, not that i think anyone should get married just to say they are married.
Oh my goodness
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 5:40pm.
I hope you thank fate or God or whatever you believe in EVERY DAY that you were lucky enough to be born into a relatively enlightened modern age when you can so casually dismiss hundreds of years of civil rights struggle as though they never existed!
Do you really need someone to explain to you why sometimes we need laws, or say, constitutional amendments, to make clear that protections and rights should apply equally to everyone?
So when do the amendments for
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 8:18pm.
So when do the amendments for the rights of Christians get voted on?
You got the first one!
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:33pm.
We'll consider giving you another amendment to protect your rights as soon as you can demonstrate that those rights are in any danger. Exactly what is it that you can't do or have because you are Christian that the rest of us can?
1) Any candidate from the
Submitted by ant on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:42am.
1) Any candidate from the right running for office has his faith exposed and piled on as a liability.
2) A leftist organization has met with 30,000 school children in the song-writing project that gave us the ridiculous '99%ers song' but no Christmas songs allowed.
3) Bibles are not allowed to be distributed among troops overseas.
4) The left and Obamacare are forcing practitioners of the Christian faith to participate or perform abortion or various birth-control practices.
5) The left and Obamacare want to force the taxpayer regardless of faith to finance abortion.
6) According to the left, Christians have no right to public displays of their faith on certain Holidays.
7) The left does not believe an organization has a right to pull advertising from a show about a religion that murders and preaches hate on Christians.
8) The left does not believe Christian organizations are as eligible as others to use public funds for charity work.
9) Christians have no right, to the left, to protest those things they find offensive, like vulgar displays of art depicting their saviour.
10) Homosexuality can be taught in public school but intelligent design is forbidden.
That's just a few off the top of my little pea-brain. BTW, amendments aren't technically 'given', they mostly remind our public servants of those inherent, natural rights that shall not be prohibited, abridged, or denied. That was before we allowed the Feds to start abridging, and ruling as tyrants, such as the regs affecting the right to bear arms and alchohol prohibition.
The left forgets, it's 'freedom of religion' not 'freedom from religion'.
You have got to be kidding me!
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:19pm.
1) Name me one serious candidate for president who has not been Christian. The only religious belief that really bars you from national office? Admitting you're an atheist. Trying to claim that Christians are discriminated against in politics is beyond ridiculous.
2) No one bans kids from singing Christmas songs, just in school where children of other religions might feel left out.
3) Distributing bibles to troops overseas would be proseletizing to non-Christian soldiers. Presumably, the Christian ones have their own bibles. Are they free to bring them? Unless they are banned from bringing person religious memorabilia, the only right being impinged here is the right to try and convince others to be Christian. That's not the same as preventing you from being Christian.
4) How are they forcing people to perform abortions?
5) The healthcare bill included language to specifically prevent federal funds from being used to support abortion. If everyone considered their rights impinged anytime someone else WANTED to restrict them, we'd all be victims of terrible mistreatment! Get over yourself.
I could keep going, but this is ridiculous. Apparently, other people disiring something different from you, even if you are in no way prevented from exercising your right to free worship, is some terrible injustice done to you. You victimhood is entirely imaginary.
Your excuses are entirely
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 12:32am.
Your excuses are entirely imaginary, and apparently you are pretty ignorant to some of these points, like for example, troops are being forbidden from acquiring or possessing Bibles because it may offend someone from the 'religion of perpetual outrage'. I could go on, but I'm tired and ,frankly, I've had my fill of arguing with lying libtards for now, there've been a few I've been talking to lately that are outright 100% liars and they know it (I'm not saying you are) so maybe, I'll be back tomorrow. But ask yourself, why is Planned Parenthood receiving millions of taxpayer dollars? Seems to me that equates to everyone of the Christian faith that pays taxes is indirectly funding abortion..or are you going to try the lame lefty excuse that the Christians tax money is somehow being identified as such and set aside for strictly mammograms?..hmmph.
Unless I misunderstand
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 1:02am.
yes, abortion services are supposed to be kept separate from other reproductive health services. They same way that the federal government often funds the humanitarian activities of religious organizations, but doesn't consider that support of a religion. Is it indirect support? Yes, of course. But both religious humanitarian services and women's reproductive health services are important. I think humanitarian work is enough to justify my government giving money to a religion I don't believe in. You obviously don't think that Planned Parenthood's other activities are worth indirectly supporting abortion. That's fine, but you can hardly claim that Christianity is treated worse by the federal government than any other religious belief! I still don't see how anyone is persecuting you.
You mean like the
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 12:42pm.
You mean like the organization of US Bishops that rescue under-age girls being trafficked as sex-slaves? The organization that the messiah de-funded? You mean like that? PP needs 18 million a year to hand out condoms, huh? That's a hell of a gig. If abortion is such a small perccentage of the over-all work that they do (propaganda, BTW, you've heard of it?) maybe they should just abandon the procedure altogether, I mean... what business would keep up a costly procedure that was too smalll as to be profitable..except that maybe because something like over 85% of all women that walk through the doors of PP end up aborting their child? Obvious BS.
BTW, apples and oranges, to say you shouldn't fund something like disaster relief or disease prevention because it's being done by a Christian group is just a tad different than those that don't want to finance the killing of human fetuses. You see the difference? One's saving lives, the other is exterminating it? Is that too hard for liberal moral relativism to see through?
"You obviously don't think that PP's other activities are worth indirectly funding abortion." Are you serious? You have to understand the Christian faith,, which you obviously don't.. They try to follow the Lord's teaching..They expect to come face to face with the Lord. They know they cannot say, "Well, yes Lord, I funded the killing of human life and looked the other way, but they WERE handing out condoms and lubricant...so can I get a break?"
Your first phrase in and of itself is typical of the maddening logic of the average libtard. There always seems to be some moral struggle within you if the taxpayer funds some relief effort sponsored by a religious organization, but only if it's Christian in nature. Our government sends hundreds of millions to Islamic organizations, knowing damn well the money is being used for nefarious purposes and not a peep of protest from the left.
Wow
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:18pm.
Even quoting me, you manage to respond as though I had said the exact opposite thing!
I didn't suggest that we should not fund relief agencies that are also religious, I just pointed out that we do. Perhaps not the specific organization you mentioned, but there are plenty of worthy secular charities that also don't receive government funding-- that's not an example of secular rights being denied. I actually do think the government should fund organizations that do important humanitarian work even if the4y are religious. I have no internal struggle over it. The fact that you assume I do when I've said no such thing strongly indicates that you arent actually comprehending anything I say.
Then you quote me stating that you don't think it is worth funding a group that also performs abortions for other services, and proceed to rant about why you don't think it is worth funding a group that also performs abortions for other services. I know. You just quoted the sentence where I said that you don't want to do that, so why are you telling me you don't want to do that? Unlike you, I do listen to what other people say, and I do attempt to understand them. I've clearly done a much better job understanding you, than you have me.
I would love to know what nefarious Islamic organizations our government funds, and also what that has to do with your rights being denied.
How about Hamas, Hezbollah,
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:32pm.
How about Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and the Palestinian Authority. Obama has also sent our money to Egypt and Libya. You've heard of 'no taxation without representation'? Did anybody ask the American people how they felt about having their income spent on fighting against our troops and our interests, about killing civilians, Christians and Jews? You remember the 'right to a redress of grievances'? Based on recent outcomes and vitriol aimed our way by the establishment, we don't have that right.
What?!
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:46pm.
So now your elected representatives carrying out their duties without-- what, a direct vote by the people on each foreign policy decision?-- is taxation without representation. Go ahead and try to design a pure, non-representative, non-republican democracy of 300 million people that functions. I'd love to see it. Until then, vote out the people who do things you don't like, and vote in people who you think will do things you do like. When you lose, suck it up and try harder the next time around. If you feel deceived by a representative, by all means, shout it to the rooftops. But whining about not being represented when we all know it isn't true just makes you sound like a weasel.
So aiding and abetting
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 12:01am.
So aiding and abetting enemies of The United States is now a Representative's duty? Noone asked for a democratic voting system on every issue for the entire populace...but do you think Washington really has no choice but to operate in the dark. Did they not see the Tea Party?....Oh, that's right, those Nazis had no right to protest..buncha haters they were! Do you think as the rest of the Country is in on the National conversation over spending and debt, our people in Washington are just ignoring us because they're the only ones that haven't heard yet? You'd make a good member of the press, making excuses for tyranny and reckless spending. Yay Obama!
Actually voting would work wonders for getting a government of the people and for the people, but half the electorate is as stupid and ignorant as you...so therein lies our problem.
There you go again
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 10:56pm.
Who exactly took away the Tea Party's right to protest? Who arrested them all and locked them in their houses until the election was over? People not liking you does NOT take away your rights.
I disagree with foreign policy decisions all the time. I have an outlet for doing something about that. Is our system flawed? Yes, it is. But it isn't flawed because Christian rights are being denied!
You do understand that a
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 12:16am.
You do understand that a 'redress of grievances' is not the same as voting? Why is it that we have a government more than willing to address the grievances of an illegal population of foreign invaders that are (allegedly) not allowed to vote and not afforded Constitutional rights, and yet they get an audience with our government, with the NLRB, and all their demands and wants are addressed. But some how nobody in government knows that most of the American people want spending reigned in, are against foreign aid to our enemies, are against tax-payer financed abortion. THAT they can't hear, and if they do it's dismissed as obstructionist, hateful extremism. Don't give me that 'duh...vote' bullshit when Mexican Nationals every whim is being catered to based on 'grievances' alone. Your excuse-making is pathetic.
One word... hyphenated
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:03pm.
Super-PAC. Are you really going to tell me that you think Christians don't have influence and lobbying power in the federal government?
Evidence to the contrary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/religious-advocacy-grows-on-capitol-...
Hey, you guys even have an American Christian Lobbyists Association! Look them up, maybe you can give them some money if you still feel like your rights are being denied.
I don't think I would have
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:07am.
I don't think I would have used that article. Did you read it or just go by the headline? "Corporate interests..", " muslim and Jewish groups make up the largest chunk of lobbying groups..". The article also points out that most of these church-related groups are lobbying for charity and foreign-aid related issues, I don't think that's comparable to say,.. trying to shut people up or fight opposition, redefine institutions, or create laws. Maybe if a study can be done that shows gay marriage will treat poor children with cleft palates, or stop sex trafficking, I'll be a little more sympathetic.
Deflection
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:21pm.
What they are lobbying for is not the issue. You suggested that Christians do not get heard in government, while illegal aliens do. There is ample evidence to the contrary. That was a recent article that I found, and while it is true that Christians do not spend the MOST money in lobbying, it is also clear that they lobby just like everyone else.
Are you going to try and argue now that it doesn't work? That everyone except Christians gets their money's worth? That is a deeply paranoid lens you are looking through!
Question for mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 12:42am.
If 70% of Americans identify as Christians, why is the media spending so much time bashing that group? If gays are 3% of the population, why do they get so much support from the media? It just seems odd and hypocritical to me. There are varying degrees of Christian adherence to Christian tenets. That means that not all Christians are far right evangelical types. Same as any group. But why is the majority of media so negative toward all Christians? The beliefs that Christians hold true are morals, values, charity, respect for life. How are those bad things and so deserving of ridicule?
One would think, even without the One True God thing, that believing in a moral and family oriented society would bring order and compassion to that society. So how is that a bad thing?
Perversion like pedophilia is being spewed as "normal". Profanity and pornography, promiscuity is being pushed as "normal". Abortion pushed as "womens rights".. I find this kind of thinking very distorted and puzzling. From my point of view, all of these "small" incremental steps, those "thousand cuts" are more destructive to an orderly society than anything a bunch of Christians could put together.
Goes with the territory
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:01am.
I don't really know what you consider "bashing." There are lots of upsides to being the dominant cultural paradigm. Generally, you get to do the stuff you want to do! You can feel secure knowing that you are one of the group, that most of the people around you understand your struggles and support your beliefs. However, one of the downsides is that you are a target for criticism by those who are unhappy with society. You will be made fun of, because that's what satire is. You don't satirize a minority-- it is a method of challenging the establishment. Christianity is the establishment.
Frankly, I think if you looked at it honestly instead of feeling sorry for yourselves, you'd admit that it's better to be in the majority, even if it means you have to put up with people coming after you when they are dissatisfied. After all, the alternative is to be an outsider and have insecure members of the majority come after you as a representation of their fear of the unknown. Then you have to deal with being demonized as the "other" WITHOUT all of the security that comes from being surrounded by friendly faces.
Sadly, we appear not to have an option you can choose where everyone is just nice to each other all the time! Maybe we'll get there someday.
Yes. Sadly we do not have the option.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:09am.
Sadly, we appear not to have an option to ignore an old blog we commented on MONTHS ago, in our tracking page. Instead we have to click on it and immediately close it as mouthybear won't shut the hell up.
Are you like this in meatspace too? Do people just get up and walk out on you mid-sentence when you won't drop it and shut the hell up? Don't answer, I won't read it. I will just click and close just to get my tracking page to show normal results.
Huh?
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:10pm.
How is it you don't think you have the option of ignoring me? How am I making you click on anything?!
Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:21pm.
Problems with English? Must not teach it. Huh? Huh? Huh?
The Vet: ...we appear not to have an option to ignore an old blog....
old blog. old BLOG. BLOG. BLOG. BLOG. BLOG. Four letters. B. L. O. G.
Stupidbear: ...you don't think you have the option of ignoring me...
Looks like Stupidbear confuses the word ME with BLOG. Yes troll, It is so hard working with the monkeyman letters and words. It is so much better in trollietown where they only have 5 letters and 27 words. Maybe you should stay there if monkeyworld has such dire effects on you.
Avoiding again mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:20am.
You did no answer my question. Even if you are not a practicing Christian, what Christian values are BAD for society? Morals, values, compassion, respect for life, brotherhood, charity? Which ones are BAD for our society?
Christians do not whine. Note, we are protective but another of those evil Christian beliefs is "turn the other cheek". We will survive this turn to hedonism much as Christians have done the past 2000 years. But tell me, WHAT CHRISTIAN VALUES OR BELIEFS ARE HARMFUL TO AN ORDERLY SOCIETY?
grislybear is mistaking conservatives ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:42am.
or Christians who stand up for themselves, for people who are feeling sorry for themselves.
MD
I always loved that
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 2:24am.
I always loved that 'Christians are the establishment, they suffer the backlash of an unhappy society that rebels against their puritanical, stifling soft-tyranny' meme. Problem with that idea is...abortion=legal,homosexuality=legal, pornography=permissible, prostitution=somewhat legal, portrayals of violence and sex, profanity, and offensive and mocking depictions of Christianity in multi-media settings= legal and permissible, freedom to express and practice all other religious faiths= permitted (and under an oppresive Christian establishment of all places, strange.). Freedom to choose and the freedom for pursuit of happiness? All celebrated under this, the most oppressive, mono-theistic, Christian majority nation ever established. How horrible for the poor libs. Who's feeling sorry for themselves?
Very few
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:29pm.
I don't think most Christian values and beliefs are harmful to society! The point I was trying to make is that attacks come with the territory whether you preach good values or not. I don't think Christianity is a form of soft tyranny. And, just to clarify, I don't think standing up for what you believe in is whining. I think complaining that Christians have it worse than everyone else in this country is whining!
That said, here are the few beliefs that I think are harmful:
1) The 100% assurance that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That is a problem with any religion, to my mind, because it polarizes people and begs conflict where there could otherwise be cooperation. And before someone says it-- as an atheist I don't have 100% assurance that I am right. I just, so far, have no reason to think I'm wrong. I am open to the possibility that life will one day prove me wrong. That does not seem to be a feature of religious belief.
2) I think that exclusion is harmful to society, and religions all have someone they exclude from the fold. I think that societies are stronger when they embrace all the strengths their people have to offer. Shutting people out makes society weaker, not better. And yes, I'm talking about homosexuality, among other things
3) But the most harmful aspect of the current iteration of Christianity is its hostility towards science. I honestly think that distrust and downright obstruction of science is going to destroy the US if we don't reverse it. Without innovation, the US is just a big pot of dwindling natural resources and people who work harder every year than they worked the year before. Our success has come because of strong science and technology, and if you keep telling your kids that scientists are an evil cult of money-grubbing idiots we're going to lose those advantages.
Pray. Pray hard troll. Pray to the trollie gods.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:36pm.
7. Keep posting non-stop. Flood the group with your idiocy and nonsense.
Some readers may equate your volume with proof of quality. You will tie the newsgroup regulars in knots trying to refute you and they won't have time for posting on-topic.
31. Never let your opponents have the last word.
Always get the last word, even if your last "word" is merely a "The sound of a weasel sneezing!" or a disturbing picture, which has the added bonus of inflaming the regulars of a non-binaries group. With this goal in mind keep posting replies to the thread until you have clearly been ignored; keep checking occasionally just to be sure. Sometimes it helps to post your reply as a new thread.
...keep posting replies to the thread until you have clearly been ignored;
...UNTIL YOU HAVE CLEARLY BEEN IGNORED.
When did I say persecute, I
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 12:55pm.
When did I say persecute, I said denying rights. Obama in his kingly wisdom has decided to overturn DOMA all by his own authority. If the gay activists have a right to fight for re-defining marriage, why don't others have the right to defend their traditions and institutions? You are dreadfully naive if you think the marriage of same-sexes will stop at City Hall, they've already announced their intentions on the Church. Does the church not have a right to defend their beliefs?, in liberal land ...No. Look for example, at Santa Monica...how much hate must one have inside themselve to actually motivate to seize every parcel of land traditionally set aside for Christmas displays just to leave it empty and deny Christians and others that want to celebrate? WE have a Wisconsin atheist group that believe it has the authority to deny people in Texas a Nativity scene...think of the hatred that entails..toi go to such lengths. And, amusingly, while being interviewed, the head of that group let slip that they should be allowed to put up an "anti-Christian" display. You see that? Not an expression of their 'beliefs' or some symbol of 'diversity', 'secularism'..blah..blah. But an "anti-Christian" display..it's all about hate..nothing more. The motivation is basically evil..why do you think the big Pro-abortion, feminist website is called 'Jezebel'?...look up 'spirit of Jezebel..they wear their vileness like a badge of honor.
Edited to reduce snark
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:27pm.
Obama hasn't overturned DOMA.
Also, 5 posts down from this, I very clearly state that I think the SC decision protecting a church's right to enforce their beliefs within their organization is the right thing to do. That clearly hasn't penetrated the thick fog of hatred for liberals that you live in.
I don't hate Christians. Most atheists don't hate Christians. Are there some that do? Yes. Show me any decently-sized group, and I'll find someone to hate every other kind of person there is in this world. There are Christians who hate atheists, too.
Once again, I feel the need to point out that someone disliking you is not denying your rights. No one can stop you from putting a nativity scene on YOUR land, unless you belong to one of those creepy homeowner associations in a fancy-pants gated community somewhere. No one prevents you from leaving that fancy-pants gated community and moving to somewhere where you can put a nativity scene in your yard. I drive past religious imagery everywhere during Christmas. It doesn't bother me, people can do what they want. But I'd rather my government didn't pick one of the several holidays celebrated around this time of year to endorse while ignoring the rest. That doesn't hurt you, it just doesn't treat you better than anyone else. You'll live.
I'll live...so will the gays.
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 12:32am.
I'll live...so will the gays. And if the church doesn't like them, it doesn't mean they're being denied their rights or being persecuted. If they don't like the fact that they can't get married in their little gated community or church they can go somewhere else where they can. I don't hate gays, neither do most conservatives or Christians.
Government doesn't actually endorse Christmas, but deny it as you might the majority of Americans do celebrate Christmas...it's a 'tough shit' type of situation..people don't have to join in or even like it..but most will and do. And yet, a group from all the way in Wisconsin feels so much hatred that it intereferes with the celebrations in Texas. There are States now permitting civil unions for gays and no other States or entities, to my knowledge, are actively trying to destroy them..so why do gays feel so persecuted. What rights are they being denied? none.
There's no 'right' to be married. I'm not married, is that supposed to be unfair to me? Gays aren't being denied rights, they're just not being treated better than anyone else. I knew you'd come around. mamabear.
Disingenuous
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:14pm.
No one is asking your church to marry gay people. There are both federal and state protections for married people that are denied to gay couples. That is someone's rights being denied, not people disliking you or calling you names or not treating your holidays with special recognition that others don't get.
So a private group in Wisconsin that wants to disrupt Christmas celebrations is evidence that Christians have it hard in this country, but a handful of states allowing gay couples some form of recognition means that all gay people, including those who don't live in those states, should shut up and stop whining? Talk about a double standard!
"right...to free expression
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:44pm.
"right...to free expression of religion..". I cannot find the part mentioning, "freedom of same sexes to marry and enjoy special privileges such as tax-breaks, etc. from Federal, state, and local codes..".
Don't think the establishment was just fine and dandy with the TeaParty and they would have gladly stopped them if they thought they could get away with it. They even went so far as to consider defining protest signs as 'potential weapons' under the law.
There is no double standard..besides the fact that I didn't say Christians had it hard...there is a right to free expression of religion..there is no right to force sexual proclivity as an issue on others or government. How you view them as analogous is beyond me. In fact, those marital and legal laws around the rite of marriage that you speak of are a matter of legislation and code, not rights. Convoluted much?
You never stop!
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 10:46pm.
So now the right to free expression of religion means free expression with no one saying anything mean? No one stops Tebow from taking a knee on that field. People may snicker, but his freedom of expression ISN'T being denied.
And you think your rights are being denied because the establishment would like to stop the Tea Party but can't? THat's the very DEFINITION of your rights being PROTECTED, not denied! If no one wanted to stop you you wouldn't NEED the protection you have, but their wanting is not the same as doing.
You are delusionally self-pitying.
If wanting is not the same as
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 12:34am.
If wanting is not the same as doing. Then the gay community has nothing to bitch about..there are no specific rights that they are being denied..there just isn't. You said yourself they WANT the specific legal marital benefits and protections that couples have...so single people are then having their 'rights' denied..so maybe they should form a whining coalition like some in the gay community.
If wanting is not the same as doing...then I guess there is nothing to worry about. So what if some Congressman desires to set up laws to prevent 'public protest'...he only wants it, he hasn't done it yet. No harm, no foul right? So what if the governnment wants to regulate what and how much you eat..it's only incremental steps...I'm sure we can trust them. After all, income tax was only going to be for the rich, noone else, and government never broke that promis...oops, nevermind. Why do we bother taking death threats seriously? If some person or organization threatens to blow up a building, certainly we can dismiss that because they just WANT to, we'll wait till they do it. Ridiculous.
ant---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 12:55am.
grislybear posts - 'You never stop".
That, after leading into a post with, (You are) "Disingenuous".
This from a GLBT plank owner in supporting the movement; a vehement abortion supporter; and one who out liberals most liberals in pointing out to conservatives, on a conservative blog, the errors in their thought processes.
Too funny.
MD
I didn't say that
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:47pm.
I didn't say don't worry about it and guard against it. I said your rights to free expression of religion are not being denied. Everyone should guard against government or other citizens encroaching on freedoms they find important. But you didn't say "I'm afraid my rights are going to be denied." You said (paraphrasing, obviously), "The rights of Christians are being denied."
Those are two different things. Every time you've tried to give an example of the latter, it has turned out to be the former. Would you like to amend your claim that Christian rights are being denied everywhere you turn in this terrible, repressive country?
Maybe I would if I had ever
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:13am.
Maybe I would if I had ever made that claim to begin with but , in fact, it was you who made that claim. If doctors and researchers cannot make the blind see, why would you think I could?
Just scroll up
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 9:32pm.
I asked you which rights of Christians were being denied. You answered with a ten point numbered list. If you didn't intend those to be an answer to my question, then you probably should have said that somewhere! If someone answers me directly, I assume they are answering the question I asked. If those 10 things were not Christian rights that you think are being denied, why did you list them when I asked which rights were being denied?
Mamabear, Before the end of
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 2:13am.
Mamabear,
Before the end of this year ALL employers must provide FREE contraceptive coverage to ALL employees.
Religious based employers, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, etc., etc. have ONE year, until 2013 to do the same. No matter the teaching of the Catholic Church against Contraceptives, if the Church builds a hospital and it employs individuals, it must provide health insurance coverage which also provides contraceptives or else. No matter if providing contraceptives goes against ALL Catholic teachings.
Yes, Christians ARE being denied Rights and you are a blind fool if you do not see it. They are being denied Freedom of Religion, in the case above, Catholics are being denied their Right to practice the part of their religion which specifically says that the distribution of contraceptives to anyone is wrong, a sin. The government is pitting a religion against government. Good one. Of course, YOU and your Liberal friends either applaud attacks, like this one, against the Rights of Christians or simply turn a blind eye and tell yourself that it si not happening.
In the public school I had my son in, Christians were denied their Freedom of Speech during the Holiday Concert (Christmas Concert), no religious based song was allowed in a public arena (public school!!). This, of course, is not merely isolated to where my son was going to the public school.
I can go on and on proving to you how Christians ARE being denied Rights in the USA merely because they are Christians.
Keep on lying to yourself and telling yourself how great Liberals are and how you tools do not deny the Rights of everyone.
Next you'll repeat like a parrot the LIE that most wars, deaths in the world throughout history are the fault of religions. Ignoring the FACT that Atheist, Atheist governments have caused and mass murdered many more 100s of millions than all religions combined!
Churches are exempt
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:30pm.
If you run a business that isn't a church but is affiliated with one, not all of your employees are going to share your religion, right? So refusing to provide contraception would be YOU imposing your religion on THEM, not the other way around.
No one is forcing Catholics to use contraception, they are just being forced not to deny other people the right to make that choice for themselves. But actual churches are NOT required to provide contraception to anyone.
It's a compromise. It probably isn't a perfect one, but either direction you go in someone is going to feel like their beliefs are being stepped on.
Didn't I already point out
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 12:04am.
Didn't I already point out the "funding" of practices that the faith finds goes against their beliefs? I'm sorry, you're just to much of an ignorant ass to continue wasting time with you. Even your above new post on your objections to religion are written from a completely un-thinking, ME-centered kind of mental masturbation...you make no effort to ever really understand anyone do you?...just repeat the liberal talking points and you have satisfied yourself that you are clever and a skilled debater.
Here's a clue..since you are unable to comprehend ANY principles besides you're own, the genius Obama has, regarding this authoritarian mandate, most likely just destroyed more jobs.
Did it ever occur to you, genius, that a non-Christian working for a Christian organization, without Obama and Fed interference, could purchase their own insurance? Think of what a plan they could have if the worker wasn't forced through taxation to pay for everyone else's complete coverage and those of our Mexican 'visitors'. Or the employee could use the insurance provided by their Christian employers (sans 'contraception') and just get their contraception on their own dime. Noone is preventing them from doing so...except for...wait-a-minute..Obama. Yes, it's Obama forcing mandates here. It's also Obama that will cause the loss of jobs here...yet again. Grow a brain. You call yourself atheist...but you do have a religion..and your God which shall not be mocked or ever questioned is the State.
I know it goes against their
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 10:58pm.
I know it goes against their beliefs. I think I said it was an imperfect compromise-- any choice you make violates someone's rights.
By the way, have you ever been on an individual insurance policy? They're a huge scam. They charge more and make you jump through every hoop that they can throw at you to avoid paying for anything. Employers offer better health care because they have more buying power. Not everyone can afford to skip that benefit and take the crappier option.
I think it is bizarre that our health care is tied to employment at all. Why should employers be responsible for the health care of their employees? Why should it be easier for people who are working to get health care than people who aren't? Single payer would solve your ethical dilemma about birth control-- no churches forced to pay for other people's choices.
You don't NEED a health
Submitted by ant on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:09am.
You don't NEED a health insurance plan for contraception; (1) buy condoms or sponges out of your own paycheck, (2) go to Planned Parenthood (or some other clinic) and apply for those services you trumpeted earlier, such as birth-control pills...these can be obtained for free.. the State would rather pay for your pills than your pregnancy or (3) leave your job at the Catholic institution..no one is forcing them to work there...Obama has created SOOO many jobs, I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding another.
Mamabear, "...any choice you
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:54pm.
Mamabear,
"...any choice you make violates someone's rights." REALLY?!!! are you serious?
Care to point out where in the Constitution we have the Right to have free contraceptives?!!! WOW!!!! Just WOW!!!!
but in case you do not know, in the Bill of Rights, under the First Amendment you can find Freedom of Religion!!!
And no, single payer would NOT solve the ethical dilemma because then my taxes that help pay for the single payer would go for abortions, contraceptives.
You are such a simplistic individual who is unwilling to admit when she is wrong, when her ideology is wrong and is stepping on the Rights of others and making up Rights that were never intended and do not exist!!
you do not have the Right to contraceptives. If you want contraceptives, YOU PAY FOR THEM!!!!!! Why do you want to force others to pay for your contraceptives? Where in the Constitution can we find the Right to have free contraceptives?!
what a bunch of b.s. saying, "...any choice you make someone's rights is violated."
And an imperfect compromise? When did the Roman Catholic Church compromised? When did Obama call the RCC and gave Her a choice? the Mormon Church, the Protestant churches that also say contraceptives are wrong? COMPROMISE?!!!!
this has been shoved, by your god, Obama, down the throats of religions!!!!
but you do not care. you are comfortable with Obama shoving down his beliefs, your beliefs down the throats of those who vehmently disagree with you. But how you cry, whine, scream and kick when you feel that religions, mainly Christianity since i have never seen you post anything against Islam, are shoving something down your throat.
Typical atheist, typical Liberal, do as she says, not as she does.
Yaknow what sucks about being
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 12:17am.
Yaknow what sucks about being you? The predictability..I knew when actually confronted with any evidence of the religious freedoms of Christians being trampled on you would come up with some lame spin...and not only that..you actually attempted to use the evidence as an example of Christians (the very groups whose rights are being dismissed) being the authoritarians in the scenario. You are priceless. You should work for NBC..really...do your neck muscles atrophy with so little weight to support?
In this case, "someone is going to feel like their beliefs are being trampled"-mamabear. So now contraception coverage in a health insurance plan provide by your employer is a 'right' too? Is there anything that isn't a right? I mean, besides Christians defending their faith.
I said beliefs
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:01pm.
not rights. That's your game, not mine.
Mamabear, LIAR!!!! to quote
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:58pm.
Mamabear,
LIAR!!!!
to quote you, EXACTLY, you said, "...any choice you make violates someone's rights."!!!!!!!
why do you feel the need to lie?
You are making up a Right, the "Right" to have free contraceptives!
You did not say beliefs.
Why do you Liberals feel the need ot lie so much? And if you are going to lie, at least have the decency to attempt to changer your words when anyone and everyone can read you original statement!!!!
You said, "...rights." NOT "...beliefs..."
Is this what you teach in your biology class, professor, "Students, please lie, if you do not lie, your work will never be believed. We must all lie." WOW!!!
I did say beliefs in the post he was responding to
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 10:35pm.
I said rights later in a post to you, talking about the right to expression of religion. In the post ant was responding to, I said beliefs. Because I don't think people have a right to contraception. I do think they have a right to their religious beliefs, and that those beliefs shouldn't be trampled. I just don't think that letting other people use contraception violates your right to think it is bad. And if an employer hires people who want to use contraception, they should not impose their religious beliefs on that person's health choices.
Condoms may be cheap, but birth control is not. You are right that people can find help at Planned Parenthood, but it surprises me greatly to hear you cite them as a solution to this problem. Don't you think that the reproductive health services they offer are just a scam? Aren't you doing everything you can to get rid of them? What is you solution in a world without Planned Parenthood?
Mamabear, SO WHAT BIRTH
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 5:49pm.
Mamabear,
SO WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS EXPENSIVE??!!! so freaking WHAT?!!!!!
It is on YOU, not your employer, not anyone else to pay for your contraceptives!!!!
No employer, private, public or religious based should be forced to pay for contraceptives, no different than an employer is not forced to pay for your tanning salon, your plastic surgery, etc.!
If you can't afford contraceptives, guess what Liberal who can't control herself and assumes all human beings are animals who can't control their passions....DON'T HAVE SEX!!!! ahhh..what a simple solution to teach our children and adults. Ooh, but teach self-control? how dare we?! better let human beings act like animals than teach self-control
And why is it so difficult for you to get that the government is forcing religions to go against their dogmas and teachings, why is it so hard for you to understand this.
A Catholic school, for example IS a religious institution run by the Roman Catholic Church bound to all teachings, dogmas and tenants of the Roman Catholic Church, so is a Catholic hospital. Now both of these, along with non-Catholic, but Christian institutions such as Mormon schools are being forced to 100% pay for something that goes completely against the tenants and teachings of those institutions.
I just read an article yesterday from very far to the Left "Catholic" group which I have always disagreed with. Even they see the danger, the radicalism in what Obama has done and they have promised to do everything to have their supporters not vote for Obama.
Guess what the RCC in the USA is saying they are going to do, DROP health insurance plans!!!! T
How dare fools like you, tools like you, poorly informed individuals like you, non-believers like you demand that religions pay for the lack of control of an individual? how dare you demand that a religion go against its tenants, dogmas, teachings?
You claim that you respect Freedom of Religion, yet you support Obama destroying the Freedom of Religion of Catholics, Mormons and any other religion which knows that contraceptives are bad.
If you want contraceptives, you pay for them. If you can't afford them, control yourself.
It's easy to say "control yourself"
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 10:07pm.
but you must know that pretending that human nature is anything other than what it is leads to disaster. While it is irresponsible for people to fail to control themselves and have children they don't want, it is also irresponsible to base policies on the fantasy that no one will do exactly that.
mamabear
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 10:57pm.
It is also irresponsible and just plain wrong to base policies on the fantasy that government and the taxpayers are here to fix other's mistakes in life. Our government was not established to be charity and personal safety net.
Mamabear, Yeap, you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 4:03pm.
Mamabear,
Yeap, you are right, no one is forcing Catholics to use contraceptives. The government is "only" forcing Catholics, Mormons, etc. to pay for someone elses contraceptives!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!
You are truly one crazy nut! I am sorry Mamabear, wow! What twisted "logic" you have.
Hey, so, hmmmm....so, the State, the government is an employer. So, you are said above that an employer has no right to impose on anyone the employer's beliefs, in this case, States'/government's beliefs? correct? Using your logic, this is what you are saying, correct?
So, how do you, in your twisted logic, marry together your explanation above, and your belief that the government, who employs a Christian who does not believe in gay marriage, has the right to impose on this employee the belief that homosexual marriages are good and that he/she must give out marriage licenses to gays? You just said above that an employer has not right to impose their beliefs on individuals who do not agree with their beliefs.
Mamabear, you are proving that you will say whatever you must say, even contradict yourself and go against your own logic, in order to worship at the feet of Obama and anything that will discriminate against Christians.
Thanks for proving our point for us, you bigot. :-)
The government is going against the Freedom of Religion of religious institutions and the best you can come up with is contradict your own logic. paaaaaaatttttttthhhhheeettttiiiicccc.
What an odd analogy
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:08pm.
"Thanks for proving our point for us, you bigot"
So do I now get to call you all the nasty things you called me when I used that word?
There's a fine line to walk. Taking a job that you know is going to involve violating your beliefs does not obligate your employer to keep you on even though you are failing to do the job. The phrase is "reasonable accommodation." If someone has a religious belief that interferes with their job but doesn't prevent them from doing it, their needs should be accommodated. But if, for instance, someone is hired to work the Sunday shift and their religion dictates that they are not allowed to do anything on Sunday, do you really think that their employer, whether it is a private company or the government, should be forced to keep them on the payroll and pay them for doing nothing?
If you hire someone to hand out marriage certificates, I think they have to be willing to do that job. If they can't or won't, they should be transferred to a different job. That way, the government performs its function, and the person does not have to do something they find ethically repugnant.
You assumed that I would say that a government employee has to do what the government says. That's not what I think. Another example of you assuming you know me better than I know myself. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Mamabear, Hmmmm...you
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 1:27pm.
Mamabear,
Hmmmm...you ignoramus!!!! complete ignoramus!!!
yes, if I am hired and the job requires me to work on Sundays besides other days of the week, but I cannot work on Sundays because my religion forbids it, guess what?!! The job can't fire me!!! I have been in that position and the job did try to fire me, all I did is get a lawyer to make ONE phone call to HR and the job backed off completely. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, no problem. But Holy Days and Sunday, I do not work. It is my Freedom of Religion. Oh my goodness....do shut-up already with your ignorance, honestly.
now, your hypothetical is stupid because 99.9% of the people would not apply for a job if it require them to work on just one day, specially a day that their religion told them they shouldn't. Additionally, when you go for the job interview, a responsible and worthy potential employer would be upfront and honest of their need for you to only work one day a week.
But your stupid hypothetical doesn't pass the "reasonable person" test. No judge would believe that a reasonable person would take the type of job you describe.
But don't worry, you are only acting like a ridiculous Liberal who love to bring hypothetical that will never happen. Buffoon, I am talking about real life, not your pretend world. Not your hypothetical scenerio
No, yesterday you didn't say that a government employee has to do as the government says. However, you have said it in the past. Furthermore, above you DID say that employers created by religions MUST do as the government says when it comes to this made up right that you adore of free contraceptives. DUH!
You also DID say that it is the religious hospitals, religious schools the ones imposing their beliefs on indivudals who are not part of the religion that runs the place of work. did you not? It NEVER crossed your mind to think that it is GOVERNMENT forcing religions to do as the GOVERNMENT says. You never stopped to think that government is forcing religions to go against their religious beliefs!
So, Mamabear's logic is, a government employer does not have to do as the government says, but a NON-government created, non- government sponsored religion MUST do as the government says and go against its tenants, beliefs, dogma, teachings because the government demands it.
Go study some Constitutional law, PROFESSOR!!! and stop spewing stupid Liberal idology which is based on nothing more than fantasyland.
I hope, I honestly hope that the Mormon Church, that the Catholic Church, and all religions which are still against contraceptives stand up to this pathetic admininstration. They don't comply with the stupid free contraceptive crap and dare the government to close hospitals, schools. And if the government sends their goons to close them, fine them, etc. that everything is recorded and put up on television.
You support an authoritarian Presidency. You support an anti-Freedom of Religion President. You support a radical, wacked out, Left wing goon who I hope and pray will be fired on Nov. 2012 and this debate will be moot.
oh, and the bigot was because you have ZERO problem calling ant, calling Conservatives who do not align with your homosexual beliefs, bigots. But look at you cry when your insult is thrown at you.
I deal with professors like you all day long. They have zero problem insulting everyone and anyone aroudn them who disagrees with their fantasyland Liberalism, but they have a sh...t fit when their insults are thrown back at them.
And do yourself a favor, stop claiming you do not attack Christian. You do. You know it, I know it, everyone on NB knows it. Thanks.
You really need to stop lying about me
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 10:43pm.
I'm going to need you to prove two things
1) That I have said elsewhere that government employees have to violate their religious beliefs if the government tells them to
2) That I have claimed that religions are responsible for most of the wars and death in the world
You should be able to do this very easily. Newsbusters can track posts, and you can search for keywords to help you find it.If that doesn't work, there are a variety of internet sites that cache old pages.
Your other option, if you can't prove that I said those things, is to stop claiming I did. I don't mind you throwing my words back at me, but only if they are actually my words. I'll defend the beliefs I actually have against any insult or argument or nastiness you want to throw at them. I will accept the consequences for anything that I've actually said, but I will not keep wasting my time defending opinions I don't actually hold.
Does that sound like something you can do?
⇒ Still at it liberallies?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:07pm.
And here I thought you could control your namecalling.
The Babying Agency
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:13pm.
The fact you think government should be involved in ANY way in ANY of my medical decisions says it all about you.
P.S. Since you and your fellow Leftists LOVE Planned Parenthood SO MUCH, donate money to them via charity. They shouldn't be getting ANY taxpayer money whatsoever for any reason.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Regarding requiring people to perform abortions
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:18pm.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-27/politics/conscience.rollback_1_health...
You wouldn't think so. Only, I am increasingly convinced that it could. If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/xxfactor_xxtra/2008/11/loselose_o...
Only you could complain about Bibles being offered to combat troops.
My point
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 12:57am.
is simply that something that could happen is not currently impinging on your rights. It is true, someone could try to force you to act against your religious conscience. That's WHY we have the first amendment and the separation of church and state.
We don't separate them to protect people like me. The worst thing that happens to me if someone tries to make me behave in a way that goes against my religious beliefs is I waste my time and feel upset. You guys are the ones who think your immortal souls can be imperiled by these things. If you are worried about what the government will make you do, then you should be making darn sure that your local city hall isn't going to determine what public religious observances will happen, the federal government doesn't pick one religious text to send to the troops instead of any other, and the state educational system doesn't pick which kind of prayers are allowed in school.
Because you never know, one day this country might consist of a majority of liberal atheists, and you would all have to deal with solstice celebrations and read passages from the Origin of the Species at pep rallies!
You can't be this naive and
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 1:19pm.
You can't be this naive and pig-headed? Just on a few points, Yes, many do believe that allowing for abortion and funding it through their tax dollars is akin to participation and will, indeed, imperil their souls. Your last paragraph? Let me know when the Christian community has forced secularists to recite from the Bible as part of Christmas. It's a fact, deary, that reps from CAIR have been speaking and lecturing high schoolers, it's a fact that the leftist. secular, ridiculous 99%ers song-writing troupe has been meeting with public school children, it's a fact that some schools have taken their charges to mosques. But let a kid read his Bible at lunch-break and all hell breaks loose. Let a quarterback bow on one knee and just observe the natioanl media scorn.
So many things you are just not getting...it's not a case of troops being forced to take the Bible.. it's those who want one or already have one being denied or having it confiscated. I'm wasting my time, I know...I always do talking to liberals.
I'm not even going to bother with the 'separation of church and state' thing again...that's as old as the 'slaves are 3/5 of a person' and 'George Washington only got elected because he looked good on a white horse' (yes, I've heard that from liberals, as if CNN was up and running). Just put your hands over your ears and repeat the same falsehoods over and over again.
Careful
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:33pm.
You are dangerously close to saying that people having negative opinions about you impinges on your rights. People around here, I'm sure, will be quick to jump on you for using the same sort of logic that they believe gay people are trying to use to force tolerance. National media scorn for Tebow impinges on your rights? Next you'll say that me sitting here at my computer thinking you are a jack@$$ impinges on your rights. It doesn't.
Christians have tried to get prayer back in the schools. Right now I DON'T think my rights are being impinged because that's not allowed. I don't care if a school takes children to a church or a masque to teach them ABOUT religion, but I don't want kids to be expected to participate. Right now they aren't, so I'm happy. And you should be happy, too. Because your kids aren't forced to recite from the Koran, or recite Wiccan blessings, so your rights are also not being denied.
You keep acting as though my point is that I'm worse off than you or that I am complaining that MY rights are being denied. I'm not. That's all you. You can't defend your position by pretending I'm saying something different than I am.
I mean, you can... because my opinions don't affect your RIGHTS to say whatever you want. I'm just pointing out that it isn't going to work. Have at it, though, I wouldn't want to victimize you.
Wrong on all counts. The
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 12:47am.
Wrong on all counts. The Tebow deal must be looked at in the big picture, you missed my point, it's the relative outrage. Look at the left...build a victory mosque at ground zero?..sure, no problem..football player public about his Christian faith?..hatred all around. Oh, BTW, when a public school class goes to a mosque and the females are asked to stay in the back while the rites of prayer are taught to the boys...guess what? They've just become participants. Not the only case of actually learning the prayers and rituals of islam in public schools either. But like I said, you're obviously pretty ignorant to a lot of news stories. Maybe spend a little less time ingesting hate at Daily Kos and just check out some straight news stories sometimes. Ignorance is bliss...no wonder you're happy.
Still not getting there, are you?
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:17pm.
Outrage does not deny your rights, whether it is relative or absolute.
You haven't, by the by, actually linked to any news stories. Go ahead, I'll read them.
Exactly, outrage and
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 12:03am.
Exactly, outrage and disapproval does not equal a denial of rights..now you're getting it. Adoption of children is not an unalienable right or the tradition of marriage...we could say marriage, specifically, can count as pursuit of happiness..but does that make it a right? I could call my pursuit of happiness stealing money from others, but it's not my right. And neither is enumerated as those things which government shall not interfere with.Besides the fact that noone is denying gays the right to marry or adopt, at least on a case by case, State by State basis..and though you are a 'let the Feds run everything" type..it's probably not a bad way to go about. But there is certainly no doubt that forcing a religious organization to make adoption decisions that go against their policy and their conscience is a crime. Glad you finally came around.
I don't normally say this...
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 10:55pm.
but you are a moron.
You can't have it both ways-- either outrage and disapproval is a denial of rights or it isn't. It can't be a denial of rights for Christians, a claim you have not yet backed away from despite every attempt to defend it being shot down, and not for gays.
You have a right to disapprove of gay people, and anyone has a right to disapprove of Tebow making religion a part of his game. I don't give two shakes what you think about gay people-- bigotry is your loss, not theirs. What I care about is that they are allowed to pursue happiness the way everyone else is-- by gaining some important protections for the relationship with their life-partner.
People are denying gay people the right to get married-- to people they want to marry. No one is forcing religious adoption agencies to go against their policies. THey just have to choose between those policies and government funding. Stay private, and you can do whatever you want. As someone who seems to think the government should stay OUT of everything, I find it odd that you consider the removal of government funding to be akin to "running them out of town" or "forcing" them to change their policies. I thought that the conservative ideal was that rich people just donate enough money to keep charitable activities going, and the government stops taxing everyone to support them! So if you don't like the fact that Catholic Charities can't function without governement funding, give them a boatload of money.
Obamacare is an all or
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 11:27pm.
Obamacare is an all or nothing government mandate. Where else in the future do you think health-care related funding is going to come from? Some corner office health-provider is gonna survive nanny government and provide financing to Catholic adoption agencies? It was about a mandate to adopt out to gay couples, that agency still exists, it moved operations. If it was about federal funding it would be gone. But again, it's okay to deny funding to a religious adoption agency that doesn't comply with leftist dogma, but not to de-fund abortion practices. Your talking out both sides of your mouth, and convenient of you to avoid the denying soldiers Bibles issue.
Massachussetts recognizes gay marriage
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 8:16pm.
I thought charities in the conservative system would rely on private donations, not government funding. I mean, aren't social services a waste of your money? You seem to be saying that if the government does it through a non-religious organization it is an example of nanny-state mandates, if they do it through a catholic charity it's all good! That is an odd position to try and hold. Doesn't the cognitive dissonance give you headaches?
Ignoring what I actually say
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 8:35pm.
Ignoring what I actually say to make some point you yourself made, your earlier example that was an example of cognitive dissonance. Typical liberal ploy.
My point wasn't that Catholic charities should get public funding. It was the one-way street you exemplify and Gingrich was pointing out. In your view and you have stated as much above. There is no problem for tax-payers funding PP. If Catholic Charities is denied funding for not complying with political correct dogma, that's fine, or as you revealed in an earlier statement that it's no big deal as far as your concerned. So, with everything being fair, it should be no problem for Planned Parenthood to support itself. Try not to twist this post into a pretzel like you have the others.
Ouch
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:50pm.
"Ignoring what I actually say to make some point you yourself made, your earlier example that was an example of cognitive dissonance."
This sentence makes no sense at all. I am not ignoring it because I am trying a ploy, I am ignoring it because it doesn't appear to be English.
Once again, I am not saying it is not a big deal to defund Catholic Charities. I was simply pointing out that they weren't closed by the government. This is the third time I have clarified that statement. Do you need me to try and make it simpler?
I didn't realize 'closed by
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:27am.
I didn't realize 'closed by the government' was the point. OK, so the voters of California overwhelmingly reject a gay marriage referendum and the will of the People in that case are overturned by a judge, therefore it was the People that attempted to 'close' the gay initiative but the government, in the role of judiciary supported it,..so why are gays whining that their rights are being denied..apparently they have government support over the People. In the case of gay adoption, as just one example, a minority of people filed suit and claimed discrimination, the government agreed with this small minority of people, without even the benefit of a ballot initiative, and forced the adoption providers to comply (and go against their religious beliefs) or do without funding, so in effect, yes, 'closed by the government' (kind of strange too, considering part of the left's pro-abortion argument is that noone will want these children and not enough will be adopted and what does the left do? Do everything they can to make that true.). So in this case the government once again sided with a minority and supported the gay agenda. And yet they keep crying 'oppression'. See my point? Probably not.
Is there some other way I can say this?
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 9:37pm.
"forced the adoption providers to comply (and go against their religious beliefs) or do without funding, so in effect, yes, 'closed by the government'"
Not funding is not the same as closing down. Why not just fund the charities with private dollars and screw the government? That's how conservatives keep saying social services should be delivered anyway, so put your money where your mouth is. If enough people agree with you, the charity should be just fine.
The government happened to side with the gay agenda in the course of enforcing its laws. Gay marriage is legal in MA. This means that a charity discriminating against a gay couple is, legally, the same as a charity discriminating against interracial couples, or Jewish couples, or any other kind of bigotry that you don't find socially acceptable.
Perhaps if citizens didn't
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 2:22am.
Perhaps if citizens didn't have their earnings stolen to fund the things they don't agree with or find deplorable, they would have the money to fund charities. Pretty disingeniuous to imply people should just donate money they don't have because charity is now enforced by government thuggery thanks to the beliefs of libtarded individuals like yourself.
⇒ Ant
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 2:32am.
Mamabear's agenda is compulsory involvement of every American in the celebration of her sacrament to Molech.
Evidently, she was really moved by the movie "Saw" in which people were forced to commit unspeakable atrocities in order to save themselves.
Cool Arrow
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:33am.
I find her abundance of faith in government disturbing. To pretend that even an organization, like an adoption agency, wholly self-sufficent (religious or not) and independently financed would not somehow find itself having to meet government regulations, etc, or be immune to 'discrimination' lawsuits and the like is very naive. We live in a world now where even a law firm that defends a Christian group client must suffer the slings and arrows of the left and accusations of 'hatred and bigotry'. Now, the gay activists have determined that certain people have no right to representation in court...another news item that mamabear must have missed.
The supreme court
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:04pm.
just decided that religious groups have the right to discriminate. As for "Gay activists determine certain people have no right to representation in court," I haven't read any headlines like that. Maybe you could make it more recognizable by using slightly less one-sided language. Or you could link to something.
Oh,woe is me. Where is the
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 11:44am.
Oh,woe is me. Where is the justice? A law firm that has defended gay clients in the past has now on two occasions represented others deemed 'hostile' to the gay agenda. That cannot be, liberals live in such an imaginary world that they can't even conceive of the fact that lawyers will work on behalf of their clients, without discrimination.
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6167
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/top-gay-activist-group-takes-credit-...
Wow
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 12:48am.
So that was a case where the law firm tried to bind their employees freedom of speech about a political issue in order to appease a client. And you think that was a good idea? How would you feel if a law firm representing a gay rights groups told its Christian employees that they weren't allowed to express anything that might be construed as intolerance for homosexuality, whether or not they were actually working on the case? A-okay too?
Also, when conservatives boycott liberal groups that I agree with, are they denying my rights? Because if they are, I should have been doing a lot more whining than I have been. I just thought that was how our society worked-- that people could express their opinions through the economic power they wield as consumers and clients.
Are you daft? This law firm
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:21am.
Are you daft? This law firm has represented both sides of the issue, when they were hired to defend DOMA, pressure was put on them by LGBT groups to selectively discriminate which clients they chose to defend. The gay rights whiners were effectively trying to intimidate and halt free-speech. Who are they to say who and what a law office can work with? They were denying someone representation. The fact that the firm suggested it would be wise not to involve themselves in political activism is actually an aside, and not even the point. That's not much different from NPR firing a so-called journalist for her involvement in OWS.
You may think it's an aside
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:34pm.
but it is the reason the gay rights groups cite for their outrage. So it obviously isn't unimportant to them.
So then you don't believe in boycotts at all? Good to know.
sorry mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 11:51pm.
All of the above in your post can be accepted as your opinion. However, there are a couple of points I wish to discuss. First, the government can force Catholic Charities to give up ALL adoptions if they choose to claim discrimination, then that Catholic Charity will lose its license. If they are unlicensed, they are not allowed to participate in private adoptions in that state. Since each state is different, that would be lawsuits in every state. The Catholic Church has decided NOT to file lawsuits and just close those facilities.
Same thing with medical facilities run by Catholic Charities. If found by the feds to be discriminatory, they could lose their license. It isn't just about money from the feds. Its about the power of the feds to control and set practices that go against that religion. It has already been decided by the Vatican, if forced to perform abortions, the Church will not counter sue but simply close all those medical facilities. NOT sell the property, just let it sit at the cost of billions to the Church.
An example is Sharia Law. If a Muslim family arranges a marriage for a 12 year old, it is against the law in this country. That is establishing rules that go against a religions beliefs and practices. Whether you like those religious practices or not. The government has that power to regulate those practices. It's a very large door you may be opening.
The Catholic Church and other religions operate over 600 hospitals in this country. Even the Huffington Post says that they are some of the best facilities in the country because of care based on Christian beliefs rather than profits. Rehab facilities, long term care, and shelters for the homeless are numerous throughout the world and operate mostly on donations from the Churches.
Also, if you look at this article, you can see that is an issue of more than just money involved.
And that door could possibly
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 11:54pm.
And that door could possibly include specific beliefs, what defines a religion anyway? Couldn't any money assigned toward Global Warming causes be revoked? Seems like an awful lot of 'faith' going on in that area. It is a very complicated subject..the Constitution states the 'free exercise of' and prohibits laws pro or con 'respecting an establishment of religion'. That causes a problem concerning all these days, but especially islam, which is not only wholly incompatable with our own Constitution and laws, such as treatment of women and sex with minors, but it is also a political system of governance in and of itself...'Sorry, but we've already got one'. Not telling you anything new. But I guess as long as leftists don't feel their right to buy a box of condoms will be taken away by the bogeyman and we stop lynching those little groups of gays that 'desperately need' to get married...we'll be alright. My issue is that, despite mamabears insistence to the contrary, there exists discrimination when it comes to Christians, especially in abortion practices getting the big Fed 'thumbs up'. So if Christian adoption agencies can be denied, how is the 'pro-choice' faction exempted..they certainly have a religious fervor to their beliefs.
agree ant*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 12:04am.
My point is that this issue is indeed complex and is not just about religious discrimination. It is about the government controlling what we think, how we behave, what we believe. For instance, suppose the government decides that to be "fair and balanced", every PP clinic must have a counselor to provide pro-life alternative options to the patient prior to the abortion. PP does not even want sonograms let alone counselors involved. Is this requiring too much from a facility with a specific function? Is this forcing them to carry out actions they are totally against?
It is not my concern that the Catholic Church or Christians being discriminated against because of a small selected group in our culture. It is about the ever growing power by the government over the people. They cannot destroy Christians but, like the Middle East, they sure can make our lives miserable.
Thanks cajun
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 12:26am.
I was afraid I wasn't being clear on this thread and I probably was going in circles a bit..conversing with liberals can get one turned around if not careful. I must say it gets wearying at times..but..if nothing we can say we certainly live in interesting times. I've said it before, it's like Death by a Thousand Cuts.. our society and culture is being pummeled by so many issues, so many contrivances, deceits, special interests, contradictions, and all the new issues our Country faces..like mass immigration of an incompatible islamic population and others who wish not only to not adapt but to conquer (with assistance from our own people), the issue of abortion, merely 40 years old, what gays want..what this or that group wants...upfront corruption of public officials seemingly answerable to nobody, a derelict press, and others. It's ridiculous We have a lot to deal with, having Obama for a President doesn't help...AT ALL... and here I get myself stuck in a back-and-forth with a liberal poster I know from experience to be unreasonable. I must be crazy.
ant and cajun think alike*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 2:10am.
See, there are some, not just liberals, who can look at a forest, so focused on their favorite trees. They can tell you exactly how many trees, how old they are, their names, and all about the balanced ecology. Then there are those who look at a forest and see the big picture. How the forest fits with the rest of the ecology..
When you look at the incremental steps, those thousand cuts, think forward, some can see how these things affect the forest, not just the individual trees. Both types of perspectives are essential to get the complete picture but that does not mean one is more relevant or worthy than the other. That difference in how people view the world is what sometimes interferes with debates on NB even amongst long time members. It leads to misunderstandings and sometimes insults because one or both posters are unable to understand an entirely different perspective or view of the world and events.
We are slowly losing individual liberties because of those thousand cuts. When it is about groups, and not individuals, we run a serious risk. It is then no longer about individual rights, but it is also about the lack of individual responsibility for ones actions. Blame it on the group and individuals believe there is no consequences. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Not just in physical terms but in social as well.
People argue about the rights of a group, complain about discrimination to that group while discriminating against the opposition. The hypocrisy is lost to many who focus on that one group, one religion or one tenent of a particular religion. A microscopic or linear view of an issue or event leads to difficulty trying to determine the overall affects of those issues and events. This is why socialism or communism is brought to a society in incremental steps. Some are aware of the dangers, some or so focused on the need for minor and specific changes, they are unable to see immediate affects to our society and its meanings or consequences over the long term.
Just my thoughts late on a Saturday night....;-)
Can't concentrate
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 8:22pm.
Sorry, I would love to respond to this thoughtful post, but I think Ant just claimed that the US has been invaded by a large population of muslim conquerors.
I'm finding our impending enslavement very distracting to rational debate.
Actually I'm talking about
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 8:43pm.
Actually I'm talking about illegal aliens and more specifically the Hispanic KKK known as La Raza, a favorite of the Obama regime. But, you can go back to worring about the right of a tiny minority that identifies itself by it's sexual habits to so desperately pursue the very tradition of marriage that their side has slighted as slavery,passe, and bourgeois these past years
BTW, how much of a response
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 12:52am.
BTW, how much of a response do you need to compose for cajun's well-thought out and intelligent post? Sometimes a simple compliment, thank you, or a thumbs up will do just fine. Maybe if the hair on your back wasn't standing up like a threatened animal, you could say a kind word, I'm sure that chip won't fall off your shoulder as a result.
ant, liberals don't have chips ON ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 1:05am.
their shoulders; they are implanted.
I believe ObamaCare will cover the surgical procedure in the future.
Also to be covered by ObamaCare will be the installation of a plexiglas navel so that a lib may see where he is going when his head is up his butt.
MD
LOL
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 1:22am.
Wouldn't lib surgeries make every doctor a proctologist? Check your pm's, md.
ant and MD*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 2:55am.
*snicker*
Hmm
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:52pm.
"BTW, how much of a response do you need to compose for cajun's well-thought out and intelligent post? Sometimes a simple compliment, thank you, or a thumbs up will do just fine. Maybe if the hair on your back wasn't standing up like a threatened animal, you could say a kind word, I'm sure that chip won't fall off your shoulder as a result."
Maybe, if you weren't slow, you would have noticed that I did compliment her.
Mamabear, You say, "...I
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 2:28am.
Mamabear,
You say, "...I don't give two shakes what you think about gay people..." and then you add, "...bigotry is your loss, not theirs..." BWAHAHAHA!!
You claim not to care what someone thinks and says about gays, but you make sure to insult them by calling them a bigot because they do not align with your ridiculous Liberal "logic".
Obviously, you DO care enough to use what in the Liberal mind is one of the worst insults an individuals can use against someone, "bigots"
So, we are bigots because we don't think like you, believe like you when it comes to gays?
Mamabear, Mamabear....c'mon now.
And ant makes an excellent point. Liberals use insults, publicly shame people into silence.
Example: Rush Limbaugh speaking the truth about McNabb and the Liberal sports media who was falling all over themselves to worship a mediocre quarterback back because he is black.
Liberlas went crazy, they went nuts, insulted Limbaugh, ESPN, the program ESPN put Limbaugh on and what happened? Limbaugh was fired by ESPN because he dared to speak the truth.
Another example?
I don't remember the football players name. But last year an NFL player during the off season spoke loud and clear that he is against homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. What did the Left and Liberal media do? Insult him, attack him, demand the NFL kicking him out of the NFL, he was publicly mocked, etc.
Publicly shaming people into silence IS denying you the Right of Freedom of Speech. This is something that Liberal "logic", like the one you spew all over NB, chooses not to understand.
It is the same thing that Atheist, Liberals, the media have tried to do against Tebow. Making him come across as an idiot, as false piety, as a faker, as a buffoon. Publicly Shame him for publicly displaying his love for Jesus.
Of course, a Liberal like you would say, but it is Freedom of speech to ridicule others and their beliefs. The problem with Liberlas like you is that they do not understand is that with every single Freedom we have, an equal and heavy responsability is attached to it.
You might want to open a history book or two, not written by a flaming Liberal, and see how all mass murderers led by Atheist started by merely mocking the religious practices of others. Spanish Civil War, Cristero War, French Revolution, Communist Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany, etc. All of these started by the mere mocking, making fun of, shaming religious people into silence. And where did the Atheist always end up doing? Mass murdering 100s of thousands, 100s of millions of religious people.
You are either ignorant of history or a blalant liar. Just like most Atheist.
Good points, Liberallies.
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 3:00am.
co-ordinated bullying and trying to intimade somebody to shut-up, marginalize them, is indeed an effort to deny the freedom of speech of the particular target. I wouldn't expect a response from mamabear tonight, she's probably nursing her black-eye.
Sorry, but you are making the same mistake
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:43pm.
The freedom of speech does not guarantee you speech without consequences, without reactions. Limbaugh has a radio show, and lots of people listen to him. He can say those things all day long, and I'll bet he doesn't give two shakes what anyone else thinks about it!
By your definition, every time the Vet comes on here and calls me names he's impinging on my right to free speech. Right? Because he's trying to shame me publicly in this nice little online community.
On a different note, you have some serious issues with atheism! I have never leveled any accusations against any religion like the ones you are always trying to lay at the feet of atheism. So, are you denying my freedoms now? By trying to make me feel bad about being an atheist? Boo hoo! Someone get me a lawyer!
Give me a break.
...until you have clearly been ignored.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:46pm.
31. Never let your opponents have the last word.
Always get the last word, even if your last "word" is merely a "The sound of a weasel sneezing!" or a disturbing picture, which has the added bonus of inflaming the regulars of a non-binaries group. With this goal in mind keep posting replies to the thread until you have clearly been ignored; keep checking occasionally just to be sure. Sometimes it helps to post your reply as a new thread.
...keep posting replies to the thread until you have clearly been ignored;
...UNTIL YOU HAVE CLEARLY BEEN IGNORED.
CLEARLY
BEEN
IGNORED.
"I have never leveled any
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 12:28am.
"I have never leveled any accusations against any religion..blah,blah.." Yeah , except for the ones in the posts above.Ha! What a joke.
I was asked what I think is harmful about religion
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 10:47pm.
My list is pretty small. If I didn't have some problems with religion, I would be probably be religious. Those hardly qualify as vicious attacks, or hatred of religion or religious people, or any of the other things Liberallies has accused me of. I accepted Cajun's assertion that most Christian values are good for society. Are you really so threatened by an opinion that religion is not a perfect, flawless institution?
Mamabear, Wow...you must
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 8:43pm.
Mamabear,
Wow...you must have forgotten the Atheist vs. Christian debates that you and I have gotten into.
You telling me on more than one occassion, like most very ignorant Atheist, that religions are the cause of most wars and largest amount of deaths in human history.
I am not leveling any attacks on Atheist, I am stating facts, historical facts. You belong to a group of individuals who have mass murdered 100s of millions of human beings, 100s of millions more than all religions combined. You belong to a group of individuals who have mass murdered countless upon countless upon countless of human beings because they were Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc. I hope you feel proud to belong to such an "elite" group of mass murderers.
You have zero problem using your twisted logic to claim in an above post that it is Christians the ones who are imposing their beliefs on non-Christians who decided to work in a Christian institution. Seriously mamabear, SERIOUSLY?!!! And now you are crying about me supposedly having issues with atheist?
So, hmmmm....I know people who have done this. A Muslim decides to work in the rectory of a Catholic parish and the parish gives him/her the job, should the Catholic parish bow down to the tenants of the Islamic faith for this employee?
By your logic, then, the states who have passed as law civil unions for gays are imposing on the beliefs of Christians who do not believe in homosexual marriage and work giving out marriage licenses to the public, right? Using your logic above, these Christians have all the RIGHT in the world to deny marriage license to homosexuals since the government is imposing on them the State's beliefs. An according to you an employer does not have the Right to impose its beliefs on an employee. Or is this only the case when it is a religious based employer?
But I know your logic since we have debated this before. You would say, no, the State employee needs to conform to the new law, they most abide by the new law or suffer teh consequences.
So, the State has the Right to impose its beliefs on its employees, but a religious institution doesn't. Oh you poor, poor, very poor blind, mislead, will do anything to justify your "logic" atheist woman.
Mamabear, you honestly teach college age kids? You are a college professor? WOW!! I have always told you, it is terrifying that you are allowed to teach college age kids! Sorry if you feel attacked, but as I have always said, today's college professors know zero logic, and know next to nothing compared to 8th graders of 50 years ago!!
That's hilarious
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:12pm.
You do realize that you've accused me of saying the "religions cause wars and death line" multiple times. I've never said that. I've challenged you before to prove I've said it, and you can't.
Want to try again?
I believe the only opinion that I've offered on the matter is that the death count for atheism is inflated by its modernity. There are more people in the world now than there were when religion was the main bad guy. I have never, however, said that religion causes more death than blah blah blah. I know I haven't said it, because I don't know if it is true. I try pretty hard not to say things I don't think I can back up.
It's a policy you should try on for a little while.
Mamabear, Nah, no, you never
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:25am.
Mamabear,
Nah, no, you never have attacked religion, you have only said things like, "...when religion was the main bad guy...." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! nah, but you never attack religion with lies and half-truths. We just "misread" poor victim Mamabear.
Please "educate" us all as to when, dates, times, years, religion was the "main" bad guy, "professor" who "never" attacks religions.
Oh man, wow!!!!!!
Modernity? was the French Revolution modernity? was it? LOL
Really?
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 10:50pm.
You tell me that atheism is the worst evil ever invented by the human mind, and I in jest use the phrase "bad guy" and THAT'S your proof that I attack religion? What a joke!
Mamabear, You are beyond
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 4:12pm.
Mamabear,
You are beyond help and you are CLUELESS about how the Founding Fathers intended the Freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution were to work!
Yes, you moron, Freedom of Speech means that I can say what I wish WITHOUT ANY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!
Where did you go to school? WOW, just WOW!
Freedom of Religion means that I can practice my religion without any negative consequences from anyone! the government, employers, other fellow Americans, etc, etc!
Freedom of the Press means the same thing, etc, etc, etc, etc!
Of course shaming people into silence with coordinated attacks by radical Left wing groups which you worship goes against Freedom of Speech. What use is Freedom of Speech if people will be silenced with false accusations, insults, attacks on their fmaily, if they lose their jobs for freely speakign their minds. This is what you call Freedom of Speech? How would YOU feel if you lost your precious college professor job for the things you say in support of homosexuality? eh? No doubt you would either get a lawyer and fight. Claiming wrongful termination and a violation of your freedom of speech. or if you don't want to hire a lawyer, you would close your mouth next time so no one would find out your beliefs on homosexuality so you don't loose your job. Again, is this what you call Freedom of Speech?
Freedom of Speech does not mean that there are no consequences to your speech?! are you freaking and honestly serious?!! Who taught you American history, political science Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Mao Tsung?!!! Do you not realize how Orwellian your statement is? Well, of course not, you wouldn't have made it, I hope.
Excellent points all, LL
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 7:04pm.
I am reminded of a teacher in New Jersey who lost her job for posting on her PRIVATE (as in separate from school) Facebook page that she disagreed with the schools 'art' display celebrating the gay and lesbian lifestyle. I'm gonna bet mama agress with this obvious infringement of free speech because of the 'protected class' involved. On the other hand, if someone had found a Christmas 'art' display disagreeable, it would have been those who created the display that found themselves on defensive...again...a move mama would have agreed with. The double standard is glaring.
Is she really a college prof? I did not know that..oh.man...no wonder the kids are so ignorant to the principles of America, freedom, and common sense. That's pathetic.
Don't quit your day job
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:19pm.
Because you're a crap gambler.
I don't think teachers should lose their jobs over political beliefs. I think that's wrong. I believe in something called academic freedom, and every college I've worked at has had a policy of academic freedom. When universities fire controversial professors, they are violating their policy of academic freedom.
Unlike Christians, who don't care about protecting the freedom of other belief systems because they are the majority, I don't assume that academia will always be a place that is friendly to liberals. So when I see conservatives fired, I recognize that one day that could be me. It's wrong, and it is bad for the students, for the institution, and for other faculty. When we only associate with people who agree with us, we get weak and sloppy in our thinking. It's lazy, to only debate with people who think the same way you do, and to not let yourself be challenged by differing opinion.
If that teacher's beliefs negatively impacted the experience of her students, interfered with their learning or made them feel like school was a hostile environment, then they have grounds for dismissal. Until that point, her beliefs were her own business and no concern of her employer's.
You sure you want to say this?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:57pm.
Unlike Christians, who don't care about protecting the freedom of other belief systems because they are the majority,
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/52826/1629571#ixzz1kLQkej7V
My daughter is at a Catholic university and I can guarantee you this isn't true. I can link to events and things on campus, but I'm to tired at the moment. Please just tell me you wrote this in an off moment so I don't have to.
That is based entirely on what I have heard right here at NB
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 11:00pm.
I cannot count how many times people have informed me that because this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, by Christians, that Christian beliefs should be raised above others in the public square. That the separation of church and state is a lie that isn't in the Constitution and that was made up by liberals to try and hurt Christians.
Restrictions on government sanction of religion, and the separation of church and state, are there to protect minority religious beliefs. I have heard no conservative express any support for any of those ideas on NB. My impression is that you don't support them because they are currently restricting you and protecting others.
I did not, however, mean for that statement to be applied more widely. I know that Christians and members of other religions work on human rights issues all over the world, and I respect that work. But I see a real disconnect between the changes you want to make at home and the way you talk about religious rights. If I've misunderstood your position-- not your rhetoric, but your positions on school prayer and commandments on courthouses and nativity scenes in town halls and laws about abortion-- if I have not correctly understood your position on those issues, I will be happy to be corrected.
Separation of Church and State
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 10:09pm.
Please let me know where this is found in the Constitution. Specifically, because I cannot find it.
From my readings in documents written by the founders, the idea was to keep government out of religion, not vice versa. The founders didn't want the government dictating what people should believe. As primarily British citizens dealing with the mess Henry VIII started by separating from the Roman Catholic church and declaring himself the head of The Church of England as well as the government, the founders were surely hoping to avoid such future entanglements. But I digress with information you already know.
I believe the sanction is not to protect minority religions, but ALL religions. This is where you and I differ on all issues. I believe you worry so about the rights of the minority that you raise them above all others, which is equally as dangerous to a free society.
I don't know of any Christians who object to the expression of other religions. When my children were young we decorated a bulletin board. In December we decorated using the theme of various religious holidays being celebrated in December. The problem was when none of those were allowed to be shown. Culturally, they are part of our society and should not be hidden. The fact is that we were founded on Judeo Christian principles. Many of us believe those principles are superior to those of the muslim religion, which, in practice in muslim nations, kills homosexuals, gives women no rights, and practices human rights abuses. Yes, this is something many of us will continue to fight against. I'm surprised you don't.
I am pro life because I believe in human rights. Who gives a mother the right to kill an unborn child?
You can't have one without the other
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 10:23pm.
If religion is in government, then government is also in religion. The reason I think the founding fathers intended to protect minority religious beliefs is because that is the logical effect of what they did.
Imagine there was no prohibition that government establish religion. What would happen? A majority of Christians in this country would mean that a Christian government was established-- the majority wouldn't need to be protected-- as Liberallies loves to point out, most of our government is determined by the majority. THe government-established religion would reflect whatever majority existed at the time. What the founding fathers realized is that without protections for beliefs that aren't in the majority, any religion, including Christianity, could be discriminated against. So the first amendment is a protection of any belief, including no belief, by prohibiting the government from participating in religion.
I think the establishment clause is the separation of church and state-- I've never really heard a full explanation of wny religious conservatives don't think they are the same thing. And if I had to choose between Christianity or Islam as a religion to live under, I'd choose Christianity in a heartbeat! The great thing about this country, though, is that I don't have to.
Mamabear, there you go, not
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:33am.
Mamabear,
there you go, not attacking religion by saying, "Unlike Christians, who don't care about protecting the freedom of other belief systems because they are the majority..." Nah mamabear, but you have never attacked religions and religious people. We just "misread" poor victim Mamabear. LOL you are beyond help. Seriously.
"If a teacher's beliefs negatively impacted the experience of her students...made them feel like kschool was a hostile environment" ? what does this mean? Do you mean it like a professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who was fired because a homosexual in his class about religions felt the professor had a negative impact on her experience in the class and felt it ws a hostile environment because teh professor taught what the roman Catholic church teaches, that homosexuality is a sin in the RCC? he didn't endorse it, he didn't push it, he merely explained what the RCC stance is on h omosexuality. is this what you mean by that? WOW...you are such a Liberal you don't even see how you use Liberal speak all over the place.
Explain what the heck "...negatively impacted the experience of her students...." etc. means!!
It's true, I will admit
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 11:07pm.
You are the one person I have ever encountered in my life who makes me want to attack religion! Sorry for slipping there. I think I am pretty calm in the face of being told that my spiritual beliefs are evil incarnate, but I am not immune to finding your continuous insults taxing.
No, telling someone about a belief should not count as creating a hostile environment. Once again, you WOW!!! and gush about how stupid I am for thinking that-- I don't think that. Clearly you aren't going to get tired of assuming you know how I will respond and being wrong! If that professor told the stude nt that his sexuality was wrong and sinful and made that student feel like the classroom was hostile, that is negatively affecting the student's experience. THere is no reason for teachers to express personal beliefs that might hurt people in the classroom.
Mamabear, Academic freedom?
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:39am.
Mamabear,
Academic freedom? hahaha...what a joke. I work for a university too and I know all about the almighty academic "freedom" crap in colleges. It is all about, you either side with the administration, the deans, etc. in charge or else.
And I wasn't talking about academic freedom. I was talking about your ridiculous and stupid claim that Freedom of Speech does not mean that there aren't negative consequences because you spoke your mind!
Freedom of Speech does mean that you can speak your mind witout out any negative consequences! The supreme court has decided that there are some limitations to speech, slander, calling out fire, and another few limitations on speech. But under freedom of speech it is expected that there will be zero negative consequences by the government, by the employer, by fellow Americans for speaking your mind.
If there are negative consequences to your speech, Mamabear, there isn't Freedom of Speech, but leave it to a radical Liberal professor to claim otherwise.
Wrong
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 11:19pm.
What you are demanding is that no one speaks back! Tebow can't be fired for his beliefs, but he can be mocked. Is it fair? No. But that's the other side of freedom of speech-- you can't insist that he is allowed to do whatever he wants without anyone saying anything mean about it.
If what he wanted to do was blow a kiss to his boyfriend on the field every time he scored a touchdown, I bet you'd have something to say about that. I'm guessing that many conservatives would find that an inappropriate display of sexuality that should be kept off the field and out of their football experience, because they find it offensive. And that opinion would be your right, and expressing it would be your right. Similarly, it is my right to express a belief (if I had one, which I don't) that Tim Tebow is a doofus. My expression of thatopinion does not impinge on his right to free expresion of religion, because it isn't stopping him from continuing to express it. He cannot be fired for that belief, because that is protected. He cannot be kicked out of his house, or assaulted, or refused service at a restaurant. But he can be talked at. People are free to decide not to watch his football games, because the free market is also not fair. It is deliberately not fair, and conservatives are usually the ones complaining when people want to restrict market forces to make it more fair in some way.
"Conservatives are usually
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 9:48pm.
"Conservatives are usually the ones complaining when people want to restrict market forces to make it more fair in some way." That doesn't even make sense...Are you saying the fairness doctrine is a good idea..that successful radio stations that carry conservatives programs should adopt the failed ideology that brought down Air America...out of 'fairness'. Do you think Pepsi should include 2 cans of Coke in their six-packs?
Or do you mean 'fair market' reaction like the Dixie Chicks situation?...sure was a lot of sniveling about that. Grown adults state their opinions...a majority of their fans reject them and boycott their products...grown adults whine like babies over it. How's this?..in contrast...Bruins hockey goalie, as an adult, decides to reject an invitation to the White House...leftist journalists (allegedly adults) attack the goalie's children in articles...you mean like that fair? You 'progressives' disgust me. and our country would be much better off without the left's particular brand of mental illness.
So you DO want to restrict the free market?
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 10:26pm.
Man, you think boycotts are unconstitutional and you want people to restrict the free market based on ethical and political considerations... you are one strange conservative!
Where the hell are you
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:10pm.
Where the hell are you getting that? When did I say I was against boycotts? A boycott doesn't restrict the free market..legislation like Obamacare does though..a fashion maven suggesting her 'friends' in the White House can help her engage in price fixing does.. citizens choosing not to buy a product does not. Reading comprehension. Try it.
I'm not getting the conection between
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 12:55am.
The government requiring medical personel to violate their religious beliefs and local governments allowing for Christmas displays.
As far as distributing Bibles, I'm quite certain that the Koran is also being distributed, there are simply less muslms than Christians serving our country. You would deny Bibles to those who look death in the eye every day?
I worry about things that could be done because of the atrocious things our government is or has the power to do now. Things like detaining US citizens indefinately, or spying on journalists who have no terrorist connections.
We can't wait for things to happen, then it's to late.
I have no problem
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 11:00pm.
with every single soldier being given spiritual comfort in the manner he or she prefers. That is fine by me. I don't object to chaplains, Christian or otherwise. I would object to every soldier just being given a Bible on the assumption that it would be helpful for them!
And yes, we should guard against freedoms being taken away. Both Bush and Obama have made serious power grabs for the executive that I find very disquieting. I am giving Ant a hard time not because he is urging us to guard against abuse of power, but because he is taking a conversation about gay Americans and how they are treated and trying to claim that what REALLY sucks is trying to be Christian in this country. That's a joke, and we all know it.
I never said it sucks to be
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 11:34pm.
I never said it sucks to be Christian in this Country...I think it sucks to have to tolerate the idiot left in this Country. As you just said, you defend Planned Parenthood using tax dolllars for a practice many Americans find abhorent but then say 'Hey, those adoption agencies just had funding pulled..no big deal". Yeah , I guess they should have complied because a small minority of our huge 3% gay population found the practice offensive. My, how very one-way of you. And that's what Gingrich was talking about.
Don't lie
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 8:27pm.
I mean, I guess you have nowhere else to go but to lie, at this point, but it really doesn't help you. What I said was that it is okay for the government to fund both religious groups that do things I don't like, and planned parenthood which does things you don't like. I also said that removing government funding from one of those religious charities is not the same thing as shutting them down or running them out of town. I'm not saying that's no big deal, I am correcting your mischaracterization of what happened.
What you said was that the rights of Christians are being denied. I have repeatedly demonstrated that that is only true if you make up stupid rights that involve no one thinking or saying anything bad about you! You still haven't backed off from that statement, despite having no legs left to stand on.
So maybe you should go ahead and lie about what I've been saying, because I honestly can't think of any thing else you can do at this point!
You could go back to your
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 8:51pm.
You could go back to your original respnse to my list and delete the lies and deflection that you printed there...that's a start. I mean those medical institutions and individuals that have been asked and/or strongarmed into complying with leftist religious dogma such as abortion and gay adoption, true story...no matter how hard you try not to believe it. Those Bibles not allowed on military installations...true story...but you go ahead and keep calling me a liar..and I'll now continue to think you're as factually challenged as an Ed Schultz. You may want to also think about how exactly gays 'rights' are being denied and whether, truly, we should give a shit about a percentage of 3 % of the population. Liberals are so fond of wrongly defining us as 'democracy'..so that being a liberal belief..the gay 3% lose...too bad. The wolves have spoken.
If you think I'm lying
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:56pm.
Link something. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
So you don't think we should care about a group that comprises 3% (and that's not an accurate figure) of the population. What's your cut-off, exactly, for caring? 10%? 20%
Seriously, you wonder why liberals think all conservatives are homophobic? It's because when push comes to shove, you make statements like that.
LIAR is a label for trolls*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:01am.
You and ant should not be calling each other liars. I saw no lies from either of you. However, maybe you and ant should take a look at your tagline.
Face it mamabear
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:09am.
Homosexuals have all the same rights as normal people. You are trying to get special treatment for homos based on their choice to live a perverted lifestyle.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Explain to me how being
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:55am.
Explain to me how being offended that some tiny percentage of activists should direct a National conversation and have the media and politicians spotlight their particular grievance, in spite of all the very serious problems we have going on right now (a lot of which is ignored or lied about) is defined as homophobic. And I guarantee you how ever large the gay community may be, they don't all care about marriage certificates. So give it a rest. Christians are a MUCH larger percentage of the population and their concerns are mocked or dismissed while miserable libtards like yourself gnash your teeth that you can't affect an institution for the sake of the physical gratifications of a tiny minority.
Like you said, if this tiny minority is unhappy, put away the lobbying efforts, put away the media activism and vote. If you don't have enough votes to change your situation, as you said, oh well, I guess you didn't have enough popular support as you thought.That's a Republic, that was my last point. I should have expected you to miss my point, as usual, it is the ignorance of libtards that constantly call, "This is how democracy works!"...so that being the case..the gay agenda loses, not enough numbers to get their agenda through, out-voted, a minority, whatever you want to call it. In a democracy, we don't even have this discussion..they lose..end of story. You dopes don't even realize if we truly were a democracy, you'd all be celebrating Christmas. Hahahaha!
Homophobic? Don't make me laugh. Pointless distractionphobic..maybe. Couldn't-care-less-what-you-do-in-your-bedroomphobic. Definitely.
Oh my god
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 9:27pm.
Are you really so ignorant about how our system of government is designed to work? Or do you just think the founding fathers did a crappy job? Because we have a system that is designed to prevent the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority, and that didn't happen by accident. It was, in fact, the specific genius that has made this system so robust and successful.
You only dislike it now because you are in the majority. It won't necessarily always be that way, and only the shortsighted and stupid want to remove protections for minorities simply because they don't currently happen to be one.
Your concerns about Christians in this country are laughable. They involve people saying mean things to you and wanting, but not actually doing, things to change your behavior. Your right to express your religion is safe, and it will be forever if you don't muck around with the protections that ensure that if the majority decide to do something unjust, that violates the rights of the minority, our government steps in to stop it.
This is a matter of principle-- it doesn't matter if it is one gay person who wants to get married. If that is a right, and it is being thwarted, then we should not let that injustice stand. We obviously disagree on whether it is a right, but I didn't realize until now that that's not all we disagree on here. You actually disagree with the very structure and philosophy of the Constitution of the United States!
Try reading my post again,
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 2:40am.
Try reading my post again, you're not really very bright are you? Well, you're a liberal so I guess I answered my own question. Go back to hibernating mama, you obviously are still groggy, sweetie. Anyone who supports Obama has no standing on claiming the high road in understanding of a republican form of government. But since you're so smart, maybe you should e-mail The Won because he obviously doesn't understand the law and Constitution. Are you ever going to actually respond to any of these points or just evade them constantly while hi-jacking this thread night after night?
As to your newer post above on my ten points, interesting that you've only addressed...maybe three? Even in your original response you have no counterpoint...you are a big waste of time, but I already knew that because I've seen many of your posts in the past. Take, for example, your insinuation that I think Anerica is 'terrible'..I never said that...liberals are terrible..not America. And, in fact, it is liberals that think America is so terrible that it must be 'transformed' in their image...and every one else can just shut up and go along with it...'rights' be damned..unless you are part of the chosen 'victim' class. You claim I'm complaining on behalf of Christianity..but I know who the real whiners are, I hear them everyday, and those whose life revolves around their pitiful existence of defining themselves by their genitals and where they put those genitals are at the top of the list. Like it or not...still waiting for you to define what rights they are being denied..aside from some assumed right to flaunt their genitalia fixation on everyone else. When you decide to actually want to address why a soldier can't have a Bible in his/her locker but a church is homophobic for not marrying sodomites...maybe I'll continue.
Complete cop out
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:12pm.
If there's something I haven't addressed, please point it out to me. You are obviously trying to escape at this point, and I'm happy to let you go if you can't take the conversation any more.
I don't know much about the Bible issue, but if that's something you think I've ignored, let's deal with it. As I understood, it was an issue of safety. Christians are being attacked and killed because of their religion on a regular basis in Afghanistan these days, right? I thought the Bible issue was about not being a target. Feel free to fill me in on other reasons that the military has given for the policy.
But we could also turn this around and use it as a demonstration for why the argument that gays have the same right to marry as anyone else is flawed. Suppose I suggested that Christians were not being discriminated against in that policy because it isn't just Christians who can't have Bibles. NO ONE can have Bibles, right? So Christians are being treated just the same as everyone else. Muslims can't have Bibles, atheists can't have Bibles, Buddhists can't have Bibles. No discrimination there.
How would you counter that argument?
I notice that "cop out", as an ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:19pm.
accusative phrase, is cropping up in your posts, grislybear.
That is merely a way of saying either the answers you receive are not satisfactory because they are not in line with what you want to hear; or, oddly, that no answer is somehow a tacit affirmation of your opinion.
While I read your posts, I do so not only because they are here; but also as a way of reassuring myself that liberals are still making no sense. I certainly don't expect to obtain moral, spiritual, or intellectual enlightenment from them.
A good thing, that, as your posts are indicative of nothing more than your liberal take on how things should be rather than how life truly is.
What I do get from them is a sense of why most conservatives who enter into dialog with you eventually tire of your liberal pap and opt to disengage; you are reminiscent of a mosquito - doing nothing positive except being positively annoying.
At least you are a success in that regard. :o)
MD
Got it
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 12:58am.
You don't like me. Thanks for the input.
Don't take it personally, grislybear, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:26am.
as I just happen to dislike liberals as a group; for who they think they are, what they think, how they think, and why they even bother to think, as it appears to be pretty much a waste of time on their part.
To be honest, for me it pretty much starts and ends with the liberal outlook on abortion; as I believe anyone who would sanction the killing of a fetus is a sick piece of shit.
I think, too, that you are all a bunch of weirdos with your pandering to the homosexual community's militancy; but that is just my opinion, and is important only to me. So long as GLBT & Q stay out of my face, I have no issues with what they do behind closed doors.
So carry on, as well, with your support, care, and concern for illegal aliens who break our laws, by telling me I am in the wrong because I disagree with your silly take on that particular matter.
MD
No escaping
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 6:33pm.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/obama-forces-religious-instituti...
The Bible ban is to prevent our troops from becoming targets? Seriously? That's some heavy spin. The ban is not to insult or outrage those sensitive "religion of perpetual outrage" adherents. Don't wanna be offending those that want our heads on a stick.
You're last paragraph is ridiculous. Muslims can't have Bibles? Besides the fact that this is a ridiculous, implausible (for many reasons) fantasy scenario. I would guarantee while there is mostly silence on the issue of denying Bibles to our troops that want one, a Muslim denied a Koran (whether a soldier or a prisoner) would be consider by you and the rest of the left as an unacceptable outrage. I repeat you can't seriously consider that last paragraph a viable argument.
But let's look at that ridiculous argument for the moment. OK, the rule was written about Bibles...so noone gets one..so for you..no discrimination there. That means a rule is written defining marriage as between one man and one woman. So gays and lesbians can't have one, neither can zoophiliacs, pedophiles, bigamists, and so on..therefore, no discrimination. Thanks for proving my point over and over again. With opponents like you, who needs supporters?
Okay, you aren't getting it
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 12:58am.
I'm sorry, I keep expecting you to follow me when I try rhetorical devices, and you obviously aren't up to it. I don't think that denying bibles to everyone is not discriminating against Christians. I asked if you would accept that argument, because that is the argument that is used to claim that our current marriage laws treat everyone equally.
Obviously a ban on bibles is discriminatory towards Christians. It is not the same to deny me a bible as it is to deny you a bible, right? I don't want one, so I don't care if I can have one. You do want one, so you do care. On the face of it, a ban on bibles treats us both the same-- we both can't have one. But when you consider what really matters, it does not treat us both the same. You are denied an important part of your faith, and I am not.
That is the point I was trying to make about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. On the face of it, it treats everyone the same. But what matters here, like faith in the analogy, is who you WANT to marry. Straight people can conceivably find someone they would want to marry. Gay people are put in a situation where they cannot ever marry someone who they would actually want to marry. When you consider what really matters in marriage, the law does discriminate against gay people.
Does that make the point clearer?
So, grislybear, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:33am.
all the Gay weddings I have seen noted by the media, actually did not take place, eh?
"Gay people are put in a situation where they cannot ever marry someone who they would actually want to marry."
Izzat so?
MD
Disbelieving their own eyes
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 2:00am.
And believing their own lies. Funny thing, that, isn't it? I think it's because what they really mean is they want the Churches to comply. Mamabear should just admit that, just like she should acknowledge the article I linked on Obama and the HHS forcing Christians to provide contraception, etc. to their employees against their beliefs.
Don't go down that road
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:48pm.
It signals defeat. If you have to try and pretend that my stance is more simplistic than it is, you make it clear you can't take the real debate. I don't think churches should marry anyone they don't want to.
Once again, I assume too much
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:47pm.
I thought it was obvious that I was talking about situations in which gay marriage is not legal. Which is most places. That kind of nit picking disqualifies you from complaining about the length of my posts! It's tiresome to have to spell everything out to avoid people who just want to jump in and play gotcha.
Queer is not a religion. For
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:48am.
Queer is not a religion. For the sake of argument, fine, let's say gays have a 'right' to marriage, why? Because they desire to be together ? They already are together in a relationship. Because they want a piece of paper to frame or put in an album? Because they want the potential for the inevitable divorce that will result from the proven promiscuity of gay males in particular? Or will we just re-define marriage again to include infidelity? Maybe, it's what you alluded to earlier..tax breaks and the like...in which case, single, white males are the most dicriminated against of all when it comes to financial burdens..so shouldn't I be demanding to get married? I have to pay more because I haven't taken vows? Shall I cry out the liberal call, "It's not FAIR!".
If gays have a 'right' to marriage..if they are truly being denied what, according to you, all the rest of us have,,then so do polygamists, everybody, people who want to marry their dog or horse, a child..not that big a stretch. Just 're-define' it, boom..done. These things (like pedophilia) are already targeted to be removed from the lists of mental, behavioral, and criminal diseases. So, I'm guessing, given just our countries past, and despite liberal denials, the 'slippery slope' exists as a potential for everything.
Care to address the article on Obama's forced rulings on Christian institutions and the regime's re-defining of 'religion'? Or is that just more 'much ado about nothing'? Unlike sexual attraction for a member of the same-sex, 'freedom of religion' is actually mentioned in the Constitution.
Nice to see you dip your toes in the deep end
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:53pm.
There are real benefits to marriage. While not everyone gets married, some people have the potential and some don't. That's what's unfair. Things like pedophilia and bestiality are easy to separate from homosexuality because they involve consent and harm to others.
How would you feel about everyone, gay and straight, getting a civil union from the state, and then being "married" or not by a religious, spiritual, or community organization of their choice? That's my ideal solution, but it would require straight people to give up calling the state-sanctioned part of their relationship a "marriage." Would that be acceptable to you?
Mamabear, Are you serious?
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:57am.
Mamabear,
Are you serious? Calling ant ignorant of how our government works? All you are doing is spewing Liberal propaganda!!!
Please point out EXACTLY where it says that our government is suppose to work in a manner where the rights of the minority are not to be trampled by the majority. This is such a stupid Liberal meme.
If this were the case, why is it that the individual who gets the least amount of electoral votes is not the one who is elected?
This is a nation where MAJORITY does rule! When a majority of people believe something and it is passed through the legislator, signed into law by our President and if challanged, it withstands challange in the Supreme Court, the rule of the majority rules! and the minority looks on and shut-ups, if they don't like it, they work at making their views the majority, and get this majority to push their elected officials to make their views, beliefs legal.
Please don't call others ignorant about the United States government when you clearly know next to nothing about it and are claiming that Liberal memes, Liberal stupidity which was taught to you ni 8th grade and throughout high school by ridiculous Liberal teachers is actually how the Founding Fathers intended our nation to work!
Majority rules in the USA and this is what our Founding Fathers intended. The majority chooses our legislators at all levels, our executives at all levels and in turn, these individuals represent the views of the majority, NOT the minority.
WOW!!!
Talk about attempting to pass Liberal stupidity as fact.
Um, the part with the supreme court
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:55pm.
It's one of three parts! Surely you didn't forget about it. What exactly do you think the supreme court is supposed to do, if not protect rights and check the power of the other two elected branches?
Mamabear, and you continue
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:43pm.
Mamabear,
and you continue with your Liberal ignorance, so typical imbeded in Liberal professors, of how our government works!!!
yes, the Supreme Court can decide as it wishes and guess what....the are means in our govenrment for our legislator to put the Supreme Court in check. That these have not been used in our time is something else, but they exist.
Don't be so dumb, and stop spewing Liberlal propaganda and lies.
the United States of America is run by the majority not the minority.
The Constitution was NOT created to protect the beliefs of the minority. It was created to protect what the majority voted for!!
You swim in so much Liberal infestation that you can't help yourself, but spew stupid Liberal lies.
Nice deflection
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 11:22pm.
Do you want to try answering the question? Let's ignore what you seem to think are current abuses of the Supreme Court-- what do you think the founding fathers intended the function of the Supreme Court to be when they created it?
Mamabear, You said a lot of
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 5:27pm.
Mamabear,
You said a lot of b.s. all over this forum. hahaha!!!
Let me do what you can't do and once again answer your question.
The Supreme Court is suppose to do what Article III of the United States Constitution says it suppose to do. It is not what I think or you think, professor, it is what it is! Article III of the Constitution spells it out, the job of the Supreme Court. The intent of the Founding Fathers' in plain English for even "sophisticated" Liberal professors such as yourself to understand.
Now, professor, can you please point out for me where in the Constitution I can find the words, "...The Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch job is to protect the minorities in the USA..."
I love it, I love how you swim in so much Liberalism in your daily life that no matter how much hand holding it is done for you, you still spew LIberal rhetortic and propaganda as fact.
Read the Constituiton of the United States of America, then cut and paste the part that proves you right. Show us all, poor Conservatives, us the poor bigots as you like to call us, where in the Constitution we can find the article, sentence, words that say that the Constitution is all about protecting the minority beliefs.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Let me do a bit of homework for you, the typical lazy Liberal that can't bother to do her own research. I have linked the USA's Constitution. Please cut and paste where I can find the word minority, start there. Article III of our Constitution, professor, is where you can find everything about the Judicial branch of the USA. I have done 3/4 of your homework for you, now please complete the last 1/4.
Don't worry Mamabear, I won't hold my breath or wait for an apology from you for lying to all of us about what the Constitution is suppose to do.
It's inherent in the structure
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 10:39pm.
The supreme court is not elected and does not turn over through regular elections, right? So we have two branches of government that are elected regularly either directly or indirectly by the people-- membership of the judicial and executive branch are controlled by the majority. But, the third brnach works differently. Do you really think that was just random? They threw that in there so the government wouldn't be boring? I suspect it was deliberate.
Without the supreme court, a majority in this country could enact laws that trample the rights of the minority-- you could, for instance, get the 90% of religious Americans to vote for representatives who would enact a law throwing atheists in jail. Rgiht? Nothing stopping you, we're only 10ish% of the population. What would stop you from doing that (aside, I hope from your conscience)? THe Supreme Court. The supreme court is designed so that it DOES NOT MATTER how big your majority is. Every single person in this country could gang up on one unfortunate person, and the supreme court would give that person's pleas for their rights their full attention. THe supreme court examines the actions of the two majority-controlled branches for their constitutionality, and you cannot get around the constitution by explaining how many people agree with you.
That is protection, important protection, for people who do not control the judicial and executive branches, and do not have representatives passing laws that are favorable to them.
You leave out one very
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:28pm.
You leave out one very important aspect of this. Christians by virtue of their belief and the words of Jesus would not throw people in jail/punish them for their beliefs or we already technically could have..since we are..as you have pointed out..the majority. That is a fantasy of the left. Bullying others to think as 'we' or do what 'we' say is a tactic of the left. Think about it.. the very system we have that was established to limit the capacity for tyranny and to guarantee the rights of everyone was established by God-fearing men...not atheists, not Marxists..it was people with Biblical views that established this Nation..no other could. It is your very people (the left) that attempt to dismantle this system of government. The Democrats as they exist presently would and could have never established a government as free as the one our Founding Fathers envisioned. They, by their very behavior and policies, are proof of that, and yet still you follow them. You praise the virtues of the American system and yet you vote for the enemies of it.
I give you another exhibit of the liberal agenda bullying others. Read it, it is exactly what I was talking about. The gay agenda has trumped the student's right to his opinion, even after he was asked to write his opinion. The 'establishment' found it unsatisfactorily 'out-of-line' with what he's 'supposed' to think.,..removed his article and punbished him.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=7330
PS
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:51pm.
You seem to have an irrational fear of some imagined 'tyranny of a Christian majority' despite it not having happened in the over 200 years of our existence. Just remember, a tyranny of the minority is no more acceptable than one of 'mob rule'. And we have experience already of Marxist tyranny well within that 200 year scope.
I don't
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 11:55pm.
We don't create protections and systems of government based only on what is likely to happen. We base them on what could happen. I don't fear Christians. I know and like many of them. THey aren't out to get anyone. But 100 years from now I have no idea what any group will be like, and neither did the founding fathers. Assuming you know what is going to happen in the future is a good way to get a nasty surprise.
Mamabear, Hmmm...you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 2:23pm.
Mamabear,
Hmmm...you are clueless, CLUELESS about the Constitution, the intent of the Founding Father's, the Supreme Court, Article III, etc. WOW!!!
1) Do you know what case set the presedent that the Supreme Court has the power to delcare laws unconstitutional? It was pretty heated, it was unheard of until this case. Do you know which one? here I will do your homework for you, Marbury v. Madison. Just like today, many disagreed with the broad power that the Supreme Court had just given itself. Read a book or two about the history of the Supreme Court before you claim anything was inherit in the Supreme Court.
2) Nice of you to avoid answering my questions. I dare you to address the question and find in Article III of the United States Constitution, the words minority. C'mon, professor, why avoid answering this question? Uncomfortable with the answer? instead you went on a rant based on Liberal radicalism.
3) if what you are saying is true, why is it that the Congress has the power to impeach judges? Justices aren't nicely protected as you claim. As I told you, professor, this has not been done in our time, but Justice can be impeached and "fired" by the Congress.
4) As we know it today, Judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and at other Federal levels are extremely political. Far from being protected from the whims of the majority as you claim. You are typing complete nonsense! The majority, as we have seen in Supreme Court appointments of Justices IS based on the majority who chose the President of the United States of America!!!!! WOW...what world do you live in? Was Justice Kagan chosen by a minority? Was Justice Roberts. No, Justice Sotomayor was chosen by McCain, oh oops my bad. I forgot Mamabear, the individual who did not win the Presidential election, the individual who received a minority of the votes is the person who appoints Justices to the Supreme Court. My bad, the President, who received the MAJORITY vote, stands on the sideline and has no say in it. Oh gosh, I must have missed all this during my political science major days. LOL Please tell us all, mamabear, which Justice in American history has been chosen by the individual who received the minority of votes during the Presidential election? I may have missed something.
The majority votes an individual into the Presidency and in turn, the President appoints a Justice who will reflect what he beliefs to be the beliefs of the majority who voted him into the Presidency.
5) There IS such a thing as the tyranny by the minority. I would urge you, professor, to read up on modern South African history to get aquainted with it. I would urge you to see how in the USA a minority, homosexuals, have powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda through the Democratic party and SHOVING it down the throat of the majority.
6) I could go on and on destroying your imaginary belief that the Supreme Court is suppose to protect the beliefs of the minority. This, as you are unwilling to admit, is merely a Liberals wet dream which was NEVER the intention of the Founding Fathers! If it were, they would have CLEARLY spelled it out in the United States Constituiton. Or do you think that the Founding Fathers were so dumb that they gave the Supreme Court a specific power which they, oops, forgot to spell out in the Constitution?
But most importantly, it speaks volumes that you can't answer my question. Where in the Constitution can I find the words, minority?
I answered your question
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 11:55pm.
As to how the SC protects the rights of the minority despite that specific word not appearing in the Constitution. You just don't want to deal with my argument.
Mamabear, LOL, I am the one
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 3:16pm.
Mamabear,
LOL, I am the one who does not want to deal with your argument? I presented evidence as to why you argument is pure Liberal fantasy and you refuse to address it.
Here, professor, let me simplify it for you.
President of the USA voted into office by Electoral College put into place by the MAJORITY of American voters through their vote.
New President of the USA, voted into office by the MAJORITY, appoints individual to Supreme Court whom he believes best represents the values of the majority which voted him into office.
Supreme Court Justices, 9 times out of 10, decide on cases based on the type of President who appointed him/her into office.
Liberal President, voted into office by the MAJORITY, appoints Liberal Justice who will decide cases based on Liberal ideology.
Conservative President, voted into office by the MAJORITY, appoints Conservative Justice who will decide cases based on Conservative idelogy.
Unlike your make belief world, Supreme Court Justices are MORE than involved in the political game of Washington D.C.
Please let me know if I need to further simplify it for you, professor.
You are the one who can't deal with reality and prefers to live in the pretend world of Liberalism.
The Supreme Court of the Untied States of America does nothing of what you claim it does.
Please deal with the argument and stop accusing me of doing what you are doing. Thanks.
I know how it works
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 8:34am.
But at any given time, we never have a SC that fully reflects the majority opinion, because they serve for life.
Apologies for abandoning this thread. I'm sure no one will mind, but this semester is craziness, so I'm unlikely to be back here until summer!
I sincerly doubt that anyone is being forced to take a Bible
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 10:15pm.
against their will. Not sure how being offered one is offensive.
In other news
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 1:21am.
The SC decides that churches have the right to discriminate against anyone they want to. Can we now stop pretending that legalizing gay marriage will lead to churches being forced to marry gay people? Easy defense against a lawsuit: "Our priests refuse to provide services for gay couples, and we refuse to fire or discipline them, as is our right upheld by the Supreme Court."
I think it is the right decision. No one should tell a church who they have to allow in as a priest, what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable behavior for a clergyman, etc. I don't understand the desire some people have to try and legislate religious acceptance, and I'm glad that the SC is putting the kibosh on that route of attack. All it does is make people defensive and unreasonable about things like civil unions.
Someone call the police.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 1:48am.
Hostagebear has kidnapped yet another thread and won't let it go.
Weak
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 12:59pm.
The SC decides that churches have the right to discriminate against anyone they want to. This is a shock to you, hippiebear? Churches should damn well discriminate against me, for I don't follow that one little central tenet of theirs. Can we now stop pretending that legalizing gay marriage will lead to churches being forced to marry gay people? No. You deeply hate religion, that much is obvious, but please note what is happening in MA: a Catholic adoption agency has been run out of the state because they refuse to place children with gay couples. This has been noted in different places by different NB posters. But then, you need to stop pretending yourself:
1) hippiebear, you hate America. To you, this is the sickest, most evil nation ever: far more evil that the USSR or the Third Reich. Why? Primarily because we don't grant special rights and privileges to gays because they are gay. Their group rights are the most important concern to you and trump those stupid individual liberties you sneer at.
2) You likewise have an intense hatred of religion. You can't (yet) use the cops to harass and intimidate people for going to church. You can't (yet) use the power of the state to attack and ostracize clergy. So you are gunning for the next best thing: constant poking of religion in the eye with things like what you propose.
3) Finally, in the end you and nothing but a self-centered, spoiled brat who wants policy of al sorts to be based on one thing: whatever makes hippiebear FEEL OH SO GOOD about herself. SCREW EVERYONE ELSE.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hah!
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:49pm.
Edit: Okay, I'm tired, and I'm being mean. I am not the person you are arguing against. You've created an entirely different mamabear, who I disagree with on many things, that you can argue against instead of me because it's easier. That's your right, and all that, but it's a clear cop out. You are deliberately leaving me no way to respond so you won't actually have to deal with any of my points. Bravo, I guess.
whinybear
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:04pm.
It's much easier to pout and whine than to deal with my points, I suppose.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm sorry
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:17pm.
But telling me what I think instead of responding to what I actually said is not a "point" that I can respond to. Here's my respnose:
That's not what I think asbout the US or religion.
Mamabear, Oh poor you.
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 4:26pm.
Mamabear,
Oh poor you. Bothered because someone else is telling her what she thinks.
Hmmm...but shoot, you can do it to others, right? Claiming that others hate Obama merely because you say they do.
typical, everyday, run of the mill Liberal, do as they say, not as they do.
Um, once again
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:29pm.
I'd like you to show me where I insisted that someone really hates Obama when they are claiming they don't. That's a complete waste of time. One you and Unsane are fond of, but it's not my cup of tea.
And, the pitch is right down the middle.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 1:40am.
swung on, it's hit deep, deep to left field, it's OUTA HERE. A home run.
"Name me one serious candidate for president who has not been Christian". Barack Hussein Obama.
One candidate, scarybear?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 3:15am.
Barack Hussein Obama.
He who mentioned "his Muslim faith".
Who are you going to believe, his own words, or the media lies, eh Bear?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Or your lyin'
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 3:20am.
Or your lyin' ears............cause I heard him say it. Of course, he was quickly 'corrected' by the interviewer - who was it, anyway?? Baboonface???
I think it might have been
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:46am.
I think it might have been George Stephienopolis. He that is so concerned about the issue of condoms...of course, if my former-boss was Bill Clinton, I'd be worried about STD's too.
Wow
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:13pm.
Do people really, honestly believe that Obama is a muslim?
Who would believe that?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:28pm.
If Obama says "I testify that there is no god except Allah'' why should we believe him on that one either?
It's not as though he brought suspicion on himself, is it?
Or are you saying that was a stupid prayer he recited? Hmmmm?
Mamabear, Why don't you ask
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:49am.
Mamabear,
Why don't you ask Obama. He did say, "...my Muslim Faith..."
Georgy boy corrected him and didn't follow up on that slip up. So, you tell us. Was President Obama lying?
How does your brain deal with the cognitive dissonance
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:58pm.
of hating Obama both for believing in the wrong Christian reverend and for being a Muslim?
Mamabear, So, I guess you
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:54pm.
Mamabear,
So, I guess you have no answer as to why your beloved god said, "...my muslim faith...?
Just a question based on your twisted logic and assumptions. LOL
Answer the question which you find so incredibly uncomfortable, why did Obama say, "...my muslim faith..."? If you are right, it isn't that hard to answer, correct?
c'mon, I dare you to start acting on NB like the professor you claim to be and use logic, facts, reasoning, etc.
LL, I believe the real fact of the matter
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 4:11pm.
Is that Obama was raised as a muslim, from early childhood.
After going back to Hawaii, to be further raised by his grandparents (who were commies, no doubt Godless commies), he became an atheist.
Then, upon arrival in Chicago, where he was contemplating and setting up his future political career, he joined the Black Liberation Theology deal. And has since used his membership in a so-called Christian Church, to claim that he is a Christian. It's merely a political pose.
I truly believe he's an atheist, who believes in only himself. His little slip-up with Steffi over his "muslim" faith was just that. He recited whatever it was from his Muslim faith and teachings as a child, just as almost all Americans (whether practicing or not) can recite the Lord's Prayer.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, Oh, I whole heartly
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 4:22pm.
Blonde,
Oh, I whole heartly agree with you. Obama beliefs in nothing, but himself. I too believe he is an atheist.
I just find it amusing that mamabear is going around attacking Conservatives because we are using Obama's words against him. The poor "professor" doesn't even have the decency to address the question which was asked without insults.
The question was more to point out Mamabear's stupidity than to claim Obama is a Muslim.
AND while there are quite a few Conservatives on NB who have clearly and plainly said they hate Obama, I am not one of them. Funny, how ridiculous people like Mamabear are. Just last night I was talking to my children how even though I despise every single one of Obama's policies, laws, etc, etc, we must always say a prayer for him. We must always ask God to protect Obama and his family. We must wish good things on our President. Sad that Atheist believe that all of us are like they are, full of hate for anyone and anything that disagrees with their beliefs.
Mamabear, as you can see above, will say whatever she needs to say, contradict earlier statements of her, contradict her own logic, etc. in order to excuse her beliefs. Kind of pathetic.
at the end, Obama belongs to one religion, Obamaism. This is the reason why the Left and the media give him a pass when he invokes God in his speeches, in his writings, etc. They know that he is lying, that he does not believe it. Individuals like Mamabear do not mind a liar when these lies push her personal held beliefs.
All you have to say is "I don't hate Obama"
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:25pm.
and I will believe you. I'll never accuse you of hating him again. I think it was a fair assumption to make, given the rhetoric you use, but if it was wrong, it was wrong. Unlike many here, I consider it a waste of my time to try and convince you that I know better what you think than you do! I leave that to conservatives, since it seems like a favorite pass time of yours.
Name a few redeeming features
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:58pm.
About Obama?
Mamabear, Yes, don't cry
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:56am.
Mamabear,
And....again, no answer to my question. LOL Why did Obama say, "...my Muslim faith..." why is this so hard to answer for you? Blonde answered and I agree with her, but can you blame anyone for believing the President over you, Georgy, etc? will you answer my question
Yes, don't cry when you claim that others are putting words into your mouth and telling you how you think when you have ZERO problem doing it to others. You are the typical Liberal, do as you say, not as you do.
Second of all, nah, you don't waste your time attempting to convince us how wrong we are. nah, you don't do this (sarcams off)
You just post and post and post and post telling us how wrong we are and calling us bigots because we do not agree with your Liberal ideology. But you don't waste your time telling us how wrong we are and attempting to convince us with insults. ****I can only shake my head**** I pity your students. May they be guarded from your Liberal ideology and hypocrisy.
Honestly, do you believe the silliness you type on NB? you don't spend time attempting to convince us that you know better? really Mamabear, REALLY?! hahaha!!!
manabear, Faith in a thread that lives on.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 1:35am.
I was raised a Unitarian, saw real black N white holocaust murder footage in Sunday school class when I was 3 or 4. Some of the very first film I've ever seen.
Poor looking Jewish liberals stripped of their wealth looking like hippies digging their own graves... They did what they were told and were rewarded with a shot in the head.
Why for me, Whatever for you.
I was wondering if you ever started or finished WHAT’S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY by Dinesh D'Souza You said sumthum like you would would try, too.
Maybe no need.... I'm thinking your Bible is the Guinness book of world records.
It's all about man, 100% man...
man this, man that, man jumped over the yo-yo tree.
No ghost in the machine.
When one dies,your warehouse of memories it's just random electron dust, poof ..is that an accurate read on one's life living here on Brutal No Mercy Earth according to manabear?
Once again, must chap your hind side there....man ain't a player in the god realm: The latest data suggests that mankind has zero effect on the warmth of this planet.
You Didn't Build That.
It's no use
Submitted by vaboxrboy on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:12pm.
David, I just married my partner on the 23rd of December at the monument dedicated to the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Ironic since they believed in freedom for all men, yet many want to deny our pursuit of happiness. If anyone can tell us how our civil act of commitment effects any aspect of their life I'd be happy to hear it. We will continue to pay our taxes and be good neighbors and mind our own business just as everyone else does.
Oh look. Vaporboy is back.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:46pm.
Vaporboy: David, I just married my pet hamster on the 23rd of December at the monument dedicated to the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Ironic since they believed in freedom for all men, yet many want to deny our pursuit of happiness. If anyone can tell us how our civil act of commitment effects any aspect of their life I'd be happy to hear it. We will continue to pay our taxes and be good neighbors and mind our own business just as everyone else does.
Hamsters don't pay taxes, vaporboy.
Marriage by law and tradition is between a man and a woman. You want a civil union that enjoys the same legal rights as that enjoyed by marriage, have at it. But don't call it marriage, the name is already taken.
Coward
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:32am.
Yet another drive-by post without substance from an intellectually bankrupt Leftist.
Cheers, coward.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Congrats!
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 3:59am.
On your civil union. I wish you, and your partner, all happiness, and the best that life has to offer.
May you both pursue, and achieve, happiness. As do we, the heteros of this world, who engage in "marriage".
I am truly happy for you.
Your "civil act of commitment" IS, and SHOULD be, EQUAL to "marriage". BUT IT IS NOT "MARRIAGE".
"Marriage" is the legal and moral commitment between one man, and one woman.
Your "civil act of commitment" is a wonderful thing. I, for one, am THRILLED that it confers upon both of you the legal and moral requirements/effects of a binding relationship.
Again, congrats! And best wishes. Wishing you both every happiness.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yawn
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:24pm.
"Yeah, just like it wasn't discriminatory when 30 states passed bans on interracial marriage less than a century ago. Since EVERYONE wasn't allowed to marry someone of a different race, no one was being discriminated against, right? This is the same warped logic that you're using to disenfranchise gay Americans."
Are polygamists being discriminated against? Is a gay guy who wants to marry two guys being doubly discriminated against?
Take heart, David. When the
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 1:30pm.
Take heart, David. When the left achieve their Utopia, you may be in poverty, under-employed or unemployed, the Fed may run roughshod over you in every aspect of life, you will be as indebted as a slave, the Bill of Rights..hmmph.. an antiquated idea whose novelty has worn off. If we're lucky, war, crime and violence will be avoided in this new Utopia of American decline, but at least a gay couple will have a marriage license they can share in their cusped hands as they wait in the bread line for the government's largesse. And that is the point, while America, with a credit downgrade for the first time in history, travels the road to tyranny and slavery, we have a media dangling the 'shiny distraction' of gay issues before us. It would be funny if it weren't so despicable.
I like Houston. Quit embarrassing the city.
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:03pm.
Who said anything about taking away the voting rights of gays, David?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Let's sum it up.......
Submitted by Herbster on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 12:41pm.
Last night's "Debate." Winner: Romney. Loser, (Again) ABC.
Until ABC gets rid of the unctious harridan and the the democratic butt-boy, they will continue to provide farce during this election year.
I find it interesting that the state run media no longer discusses the "Arab spring."
Suggested reading: Red Army, by Aaron Klein.
Have a wonderful week.
Newts Point
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:34am.
I think all of the above commentary on religion and homosexuality is really quite interesting (Yawn) but I think Newt's real point was the double standard and outright bias of the so called Main Stream Media. How some democratic shill like Stephanopoulos and a lame brain like Sawyer qualify to question Republican presidential candidates baffles me. If this is the best ABC can do? They are as pathetic as MSNBC.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
To the Point
Submitted by rusino on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:19pm.
Red:
You got down to the 'Real Nitty Gritty'!
Gingrigh absolutely nailed
Submitted by brerol on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 11:09pm.
Gingrigh absolutely nailed it. The questions posed by the media to conservatives are quite often ones the media would never ask of liberals. And this is classic liberal bias. It cannot be defined any other way.
Misunderstandings all around ...
Submitted by Expert Expat on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:29am.
First, to Newt's condemnation of biased media - I totally agree. Their emphasis is on topics geared to distract from the most urgent national issues and which will make the candidates all look biased. Poop on the whole barnyard of the ignorant journalists. Let a true mediator mediate these debates: a "mediator" by definition must be someone who is non-biased and supportive of neither side. I don't know, maybe a foreigner who knows nothing at all about either side should ask general questions - each question to be answered by every candidate - about how they would handle the major issues of the day.
Second, gay rights: homosexuals have rights to do pretty much anything they wish to do. Civil unions provide legal standing; and everybody is free to drink at any fountain they wish. (I do note, though, that a business owner should be able to "refuse business to anyone they don't wish to serve" in their own business.)
Third, Christianity - been a Christian for 47 years and a Southern Baptist most of those years. I've read the Bible through several times and studied various parts repeatedly many, many times. You non-Christians need to sit down with a knowledgeable Christian sometime and open a discussion about what "we" actually believe, based on what is actually taught in our Bible.
A) there are two distinct parts: Old Testament, "OT" and New Testament, "NT" which are related, but not necessarily mutually inclusive. The OT is the history of God choosing one clan of people, the Hebrews, and teaching them how to survive in a hostile world. The NT is a separate book altogether (although the subject was predicted, or "foretold", throughout the OT.
B) The NT is the story of God's development of the rest of the story ... His direct intervention with all of mankind and His plan to forgive everyone who accepted His free gift of forgiveness. Jesus' teachings form the foundation of the NT (read the first four "books" or chapters of the NT to get four perspectives on Jesus' life and teachings. These four Gospels are named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after the writers who knew Jesus on a first person basis and recorded their witness of His life and teachings.).
C) Jesus taught love for others, forgiveness of sins, tolerance, and mutual respect. Period. The ONLY people he regularly was in opposition to were religious bigots and haters. Period.
He didn't condemn homosexuals. Ever. He did, however, instruct his followers to love and respect everyone in His name.
Get the facts. Read the New Testament Gospels. Ignore opinions that are different from Jesus' own stated words.