Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on February 27, 2014, 06:57:54 AM
-
Once upon a time, the right thought it could push its agenda behind claim of religious freedom. Those days are over
BRIAN BEUTLER
Back in 2012, a full two years before conservatives insisted that religious freedom entailed the right to discriminate against gay people or gay spouses in both private and public workplaces, Republicans in Washington trotted out the same religious liberty line for the arguably narrower purpose of defending religious employers who wanted to be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
That effort ultimately ran aground, both because the issue became the domain of the courts, but also because it ended up inviting a bunch of retrograde public pronouncements from conservatives about birth control and reproductive rights that ultimately dwarfed whatever political advantage Republicans hoped to gain by positioning themselves as tribunes for the religiously devout.
But for that ancillary damage, conservatives of all stripes really did seem to think that they’d gotten the framing right, and could apply it generously to future culture war battles.
The events of the past week have been especially fascinating in light of that history. The effort to apply the same religious freedom argument to anti-gay measures in states across the country has encountered tremendous resistance, not just from liberals but from business leaders, state-wide Republican elected officials, and GOP celebrities who, for different reasons, seem to get that stomping away from a growing majority of the population with a middle finger hoisted overhead isn’t a smart thing to do.
more
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/gops_religious_liberty_scam_just_died_why_brewers_veto_is_so_momentous/
-
Because the law on the books was already better then this law.....momentous.... ::)
-
Because the law on the books was already better then this law.....momentous.... ::)
people saw it for what it was,outside pressure was tooo great.the people are not going to buy the religious reason no more 8)
-
(http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/LoweC/2014/LoweC20140227_low.jpg)
-
(http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/17/28706_thumb.jpg)
-
(http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SmithM/2014/SmithM20140227_low.jpg)
-
I don't know who "people" are. The law was poorly written and actually narrowed what was already on the books in AZ. The hysteria by gays made this worse then it was. The Constitution is very clear on both equal protection and religious freedom. This isn't about religious beliefs its about getting sued because of those beliefs. This went beyond selling somebody something like a pack of gum. The cake was a symbol of deeply held religious ceremony to these people. They choose to put their religious beliefs over economic concerns. That should have been the end of it. The government should not be involved in this. If this was a muslim bakery refusing to sell to either gays or Christians...not a peep would be heard.
-
You leftists must not do much, collect anything, travel anywhere, have hobbies...because u all love having uncle sugar restrict everything in your lives. Obama does whatever the fuck he wants, refuses to enforce laws...and its all ok with you.
-
I don't know who "people" are. The law was poorly written and actually narrowed what was already on the books in AZ. The hysteria by gays made this worse then it was. The Constitution is very clear on both equal protection and religious freedom. This isn't about religious beliefs its about getting sued because of those beliefs. This went beyond selling somebody something like a pack of gum. The cake was a symbol of deeply held religious ceremony to these people. They choose to put their religious beliefs over economic concerns. That should have been the end of it. The government should not be involved in this. If this was a muslim bakery refusing to sell to either gays or Christians...not a peep would be heard.
well of coarse it was poorly written,it was a law for bigoted views hidden behind religion
-
I'll make sure you have a spot on the caretaker staff when I'm given control of the camps. ;D
-
I'll make sure you have a spot on the caretaker staff when I'm given control of the camps. ;D
thank you :)
-
Interesting discussion between CNN's Chris Cuomo and Catholic League President Bill Donohue about religious vs gay rights.
Not sure how Donohue got forced into the positon of having to take the position that marriage isn't about love.
-
I don't know who "people" are. The law was poorly written and actually narrowed what was already on the books in AZ. The hysteria by gays made this worse then it was. The Constitution is very clear on both equal protection and religious freedom. This isn't about religious beliefs its about getting sued because of those beliefs. This went beyond selling somebody something like a pack of gum. The cake was a symbol of deeply held religious ceremony to these people. They choose to put their religious beliefs over economic concerns. That should have been the end of it. The government should not be involved in this. If this was a muslim bakery refusing to sell to either gays or Christians...not a peep would be heard.
You're very right in this statement.
-
Obama does whatever the fuck he wants, refuses to enforce laws...and its all ok with you.
yup. that's why we voted for him. and Prez Bill and Hillary will be wonderful at it, too.
-
yup. that's why we voted for him. and Prez Bill and Hillary will be wonderful at it, too.
Funny - when W even acted remotely like that the liberal commies freaked out
-
Funny - when W even acted remotely like that the liberal commies freaked out
"Remotely"? Your understanding of "remotely" rivals your understanding of "typical" apparently.
Obama, like Bush before him, seems to be pushing the limits of executive branch powers, sure.
I don't think anyone in Obama's administration, however, is saying shit like "We are creating our own reality".
-
LOL
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/acd2c0c082170131017c005056a9545d.jpg)
-
i haven't watched the news in a month. what happened? repub governor vetoed a bill that the elected representatives of the state wanted? she caved to liberal pressure?
-
i haven't watched the news in a month. what happened? repub governor vetoed a bill that the elected representatives of the state wanted? she caved to liberal pressure?
She vetoed it because business didn't want it
-
She vetoed it because business didn't want it
So she allows "big business" to override the wishes of the people?
I mean, the people of AZ elected repubs to office and repubs to be governor. They enact a conservative piece of legislation, for their conservative constituency...
And the repub governor is intimidated by libs in "business" into bending over for them?
Sheesh... Whether or not I agree with the bill is irrelevant... what I see here is a Repub Gov being slave to big business, and not to the wishes of the people of her state. Right?
-
So she allows "big business" to override the wishes of the people?
I mean, the people of AZ elected repubs to office and repubs to be governor. They enact a conservative piece of legislation, for their conservative constituency...
And the repub governor is intimidated by libs in "business" into bending over for them?
Sheesh... Whether or not I agree with the bill is irrelevant... what I see here is a Repub Gov being slave to big business, and not to the wishes of the people of her state. Right?
Don't forget that the "wishes of the people" thing only goes so far without a constitutional amendment. If it didn't, you'd likely still have slavery in places like South Carolina...
-
Don't forget that the "wishes of the people" thing only goes so far without a constitutional amendment. If it didn't, you'd likely still have slavery in places like South Carolina...
hmm, good point there.
Tough situation here. Gov Brewer had to compromise and cede to the wishes of the libs, She did.
-
hmm, good point there.
Tough situation here. Gov Brewer had to compromise and cede to the wishes of the libs, She did.
she supports big biddness. pure capitalism at work! ;D
-
A simple solution is define the difference between providing a service to individuals and doing something that is against your values. For example, if a gay couple comes into your store to buy a birthday cake the purchase of the cake isn't in conflict with ones values. However if they want to hire you to provide a cake for a gay wedding it would be indirect conflict with ones values.
-
A simple solution is define the difference between providing a service to individuals and doing something that is against your values. For example, if a gay couple comes into your store to buy a birthday cake the purchase of the cake isn't in conflict with ones values. However if they want to hire you to provide a cake for a gay wedding it would be indirect conflict with ones values.
I see your point. But, what happened to having the right to refuse service to anyone you want? If you don't like it, boycott. Simple as that, if you want to show your displeasure with a business, then take it somewhere else. People are fucking babies. I deny business/quoting all the time, but if I decided to do it for some other reason than money, I'm wrong?
-
SOURCE: NY Post
http://nypost.com/2014/02/28/the-truth-about-arizonas-proposed-anti-gay-law/ (http://nypost.com/2014/02/28/the-truth-about-arizonas-proposed-anti-gay-law/)
By Rich Lowry
It was jarring to read the coverage of the new “anti-gay bill” passed by the Arizona Legislature and then look up the text of the notorious SB 1062.
The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington. Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.
They weren’t there. A headline from The Week declared, “There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” It’d be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.
The legislation consisted of minor clarifications of the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been on the books for 15 years and is modeled on the federal act that passed with big bipartisan majorities in the 1990s and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Arizona was going to lose the Super Bowl over this? Maybe so. Gov. Jan Brewer took no chances and vetoed it. The bill was the subject of a truly awe-inspiring tsunami of poorly informed indignation.
For The New York Times editorial board, the bill was “A License to Discriminate.” It constituted “the legalizing of anti-gay prejudice,” according to a piece in US News & World Report. It was, Salon scoffed, “cartoonishly bigoted.” A reference to Jim Crow was obligatory in any discussion of the bill on cable TV.
If you’ll excuse a brief break from the hysteria to dwell on the text of the doomed bill, it stipulated that the word “person” in the law applies to businesses and that the protections of the law apply whether or not the government is directly a party to a proceeding (e.g., a lawsuit brought on anti-discrimination grounds).
Eleven legal experts on religious-freedom statutes — who represent a variety of views on gay marriage — wrote a letter to Gov. Brewer prior to her veto explaining how, in addition to the federal government, 18 states have such statutes.
The letter argues that, properly interpreted, the federal law that inspired the Arizona statute covers cases that don’t directly involve the government and covers businesses. So Arizona’s changes were in keeping with a law once championed by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy.
A religious-freedom statute doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the name of religion. It simply allows him to make his case in court that a law or a lawsuit substantially burdens his religion and that there is no compelling governmental interest to justify the burden.
For critics of the Arizona bill, the substance was almost an afterthought. They recoiled at the very idea that someone might have moral objections to homosexuality or gay marriage.
The cases that have come up relevant to the Arizona debate involve small-business people declining to provide their services to gay couples at their marriage ceremonies. A New Mexico photographer won’t take pictures. A Washington state florist won’t arrange flowers. An Oregon bakery won’t bake a wedding cake.
It’s easy to see how offensive these decisions were to the gay couples involved. But the market has a ready solution: There are other bakers, photographers and florists. The wedding business is not exactly bristling with hostility to gay people. If one baker won’t make a cake for gay weddings, the baker across town can hang a shingle welcoming all couples for all types of weddings.
This is how a pluralistic society would handle such disputes. Instead, in the cases mentioned above, the gay couples reported the businesses to the authorities for punishment. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view on the issue — their own.
For them, someone else’s conscience is only a speed bump on the road to progress.
-
SOURCE: NY Post
http://nypost.com/2014/02/28/the-truth-about-arizonas-proposed-anti-gay-law/ (http://nypost.com/2014/02/28/the-truth-about-arizonas-proposed-anti-gay-law/)
By Rich Lowry
It was jarring to read the coverage of the new “anti-gay bill” passed by the Arizona Legislature and then look up the text of the notorious SB 1062.
The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington. Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.
They weren’t there. A headline from The Week declared, “There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” It’d be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.
The legislation consisted of minor clarifications of the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been on the books for 15 years and is modeled on the federal act that passed with big bipartisan majorities in the 1990s and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Arizona was going to lose the Super Bowl over this? Maybe so. Gov. Jan Brewer took no chances and vetoed it. The bill was the subject of a truly awe-inspiring tsunami of poorly informed indignation.
For The New York Times editorial board, the bill was “A License to Discriminate.” It constituted “the legalizing of anti-gay prejudice,” according to a piece in US News & World Report. It was, Salon scoffed, “cartoonishly bigoted.” A reference to Jim Crow was obligatory in any discussion of the bill on cable TV.
If you’ll excuse a brief break from the hysteria to dwell on the text of the doomed bill, it stipulated that the word “person” in the law applies to businesses and that the protections of the law apply whether or not the government is directly a party to a proceeding (e.g., a lawsuit brought on anti-discrimination grounds).
Eleven legal experts on religious-freedom statutes — who represent a variety of views on gay marriage — wrote a letter to Gov. Brewer prior to her veto explaining how, in addition to the federal government, 18 states have such statutes.
The letter argues that, properly interpreted, the federal law that inspired the Arizona statute covers cases that don’t directly involve the government and covers businesses. So Arizona’s changes were in keeping with a law once championed by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy.
A religious-freedom statute doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the name of religion. It simply allows him to make his case in court that a law or a lawsuit substantially burdens his religion and that there is no compelling governmental interest to justify the burden.
For critics of the Arizona bill, the substance was almost an afterthought. They recoiled at the very idea that someone might have moral objections to homosexuality or gay marriage.
The cases that have come up relevant to the Arizona debate involve small-business people declining to provide their services to gay couples at their marriage ceremonies. A New Mexico photographer won’t take pictures. A Washington state florist won’t arrange flowers. An Oregon bakery won’t bake a wedding cake.
It’s easy to see how offensive these decisions were to the gay couples involved. But the market has a ready solution: There are other bakers, photographers and florists. The wedding business is not exactly bristling with hostility to gay people. If one baker won’t make a cake for gay weddings, the baker across town can hang a shingle welcoming all couples for all types of weddings.
This is how a pluralistic society would handle such disputes. Instead, in the cases mentioned above, the gay couples reported the businesses to the authorities for punishment. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view on the issue — their own.
For them, someone else’s conscience is only a speed bump on the road to progress.
bingo!
and if it were a black str8 couple the baker could deny them, too. the bible and deeply religious beliefs have had blacks be less worthy than whitey. same goes for the muslims and mexkins.
-
bingo!
and if it were a black str8 couple the baker could deny them, too. the bible and deeply religious beliefs have had blacks be less worthy than whitey. same goes for the muslims and mexkins.
Being black in and of itself is not condemned by biblical scripture while homosexuality is or at least the vast majority of Christians believe it is. As I said before, denying to bake a birthday cake for a gay couple wouldn't be scripturally defensible because there is a nominal association between a birthday cake and homosexuality. On the other hand baking a cake specifically for a gay wedding would be against scripture because the baked cake itself would be directly associated with the promotion of a lifestyle that was against the bakers religion.
-
bingo!
and if it were a black str8 couple the baker could deny them, too. the bible and deeply religious beliefs have had blacks be less worthy than whitey. same goes for the muslims and mexkins.
Really? Can you cite any specific examples? Or was the above quotation concocted out of thin air to rationalize your feigned outrage over what is a non discriminatory law?
-
Lol people leting a comic book run their lives
-
If you're looking for a counterpoint to the Rich Lowry (editor of conservative mag The National Review) article that appeared in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper The New York Post that defended proposed Arizona law SB 1062, ya might want to read this (please note that I took the liberty to bold sections that directly relate to Lowry's article):
Arizona's anti-gay bill shows why conservatives struggle to win over minorities
Jan Brewer's veto of an anti-gay bill was a good start. But it's not enough.
It's a sweet coincidence that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed her state's bill protecting Jim Crow-style discrimination against LGBT Americans at the end of Black History Month. The legislators who pushed the bill are in many ways segregation's modern heirs, and their defeat was richly deserved.
But even the well-meaning conservatives who supported the bill out of a sincere concern for religious liberty should take notice of the timing. The defenses of S.B. 1062 revealed a profound conservative blindspot about power and identity in American life, one animated by their fantasy of a race-blind and sexual orientation-less world. Unless these conservatives learn from Brewer's veto, and start building a worldview that acknowledges people's real identities, conservatism will remain utterly unappealing to the vast majority of racial and sexual minorities.
The Arizona bill would have amended the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law designed to protect the freedom of churches and explicitly religious institutions. The new RFRA would have allowed all individuals and businesses (not just religious ones) to run their organization in accordance with any "practice and observance" of their faith unless the government can show a "compelling government interest" in shutting them down.
That sounds innocuous enough until you remember that there's no state or federal law defining the protection of equal rights for LGBT Americans as a compelling interest. So long as anti-gay store owners cite religious reasons for kicking gay clients out of their stores, they'd have had a powerful legal tool for defending their actions. And the discriminated-against clients wouldn't have a great legal counterweight.
"There is absolutely nothing in the act that would preclude a bed store from arguing that selling beds to same-sex couples violates its religious beliefs because it facilitates sinful conduct," Carolina Mala Corbin, a University of Miami law professor, told MSNBC's Adam Serwer. You can see why that might trouble LGBT people who live in states where large numbers of people — many of whom surely operate businesses — believe them to be hell-bound sinners.
That's something of a moot point in Arizona now. But there's an interesting tic in the conservative defenses of the law, something that tells us a lot about the future of this debate. Many of them mention, as if it was some kind of trump card, the idea that the bills don't explicitly mention sexual orientation.
"There's no mention of sexual orientation (or any other class or category)," the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro writes. "The proposed legislation never even mentions same-sex couples," pleads the Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson. National Review's editor, Rich Lowry, took it the furthest:
Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all. They weren't there…there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.
The point is wholly absurd. The problem with these laws isn't that they explicitly condemn LGBT Americans; it's that they permit bigots to act out their bigotry with the force of the state at their back. Poll taxes and literacy tests didn't need to mention black people in the text of the bill to have the desired effects either.
In a world where a full third of Americans think "society should not accept homosexuality" — a figure that's likely higher in Arizona and other states where these bills could plausibly pass — permission for businesses to discriminate could make life miserable for gay folks.
This ignorant objection from the bill's defenders neatly encapsulates everything that's wrong with the conservative-libertarian approach to the Arizona bill. When you live in a society marked by deeply rooted discrimination, a facially neutral government is taking the bigots' side.
There's an enormous gulf in social power in this country. Conservative Christians are a much larger group, and wield far more social and financial capital than gays do. LGBT folks, by contrast, have a long history of being brutalized by overt discrimination — and the scars to prove it.
Let me put it another way. After the passage of the federal Civil Rights Act, you didn't see hordes of vindictive black folks forcing white-hooded caterers to work their weddings and baptisms. Rather, the law gave blacks a way to dismantle Jim Crow, both in its legal and private sector incarnations. Protecting the power of businesses to discriminate doesn't protect an individual right to conscience. It protects the right to enact that conscience on members of a socially marginalized group.
Not every defender of the Arizona bill is blind to this point. In a Bloggingheads segment I encourage you all to watch, Cato's Jason Kuznicki argues that there's an important asymmetry between racial discrimination in 1964 and anti-gay discrimination today: The gays are winning. While Jim Crow racism wasn't going anywhere on its own in 1964, the broad trend toward acceptance of equal LGBT rights is at this point irreversible. There's no need to infringe on religious liberty to protect rights that will shortly be self-enforcing.
Kuznicki is right to celebrate America (and the world's) extraordinary progress on sexual and gender tolerance. But it's a bit strange to say that today's gays should suffer through discrimination now because tomorrow's will have to deal with less of it.
Perhaps more fundamentally, I'm less sanguine than Kuznicki that anti-gay discrimination will disappear anymore than racism has. Subtle anti-black prejudices today permeate housing, employment, and other critical sectors. This is the legacy of deeply ingrained anti-black beliefs. There's good social scientific evidence that LGBT anti-discrimination protections are needed to counteract the same thing.
And while race has certainly been far more central to American politics and social life than sexual orientation, anti-LGBT discrimination has been a hallmark of Western societies for over a millennia. "The most fundamental" problem with studying gay life, writes eminent Yale historian John Boswell, "is the fact that the longevity of prejudice against gay people and their sexuality has resulted in the deliberate falsification of historical records concerning them." His book starts around the time that Christianity took over the Roman Empire.
So when Shapiro writes that the core of the issue is that "private individuals should be able to make their own decisions on whom to do business with and how — on religious or any other grounds," he couldn't be more wrong. Anti-gay prejudice permeates the private sphere, and constitutes historically deep and systematic discrimination of the sort not easily dispelled absent rigorous government oversight.
But to really integrate that insight into conservative and libertarian thought would be to admit that blackness and gayness are fundamental identities that people have, shaped both by historical discrimination and proud self-labeling. Conservatives would rather pretend that these categories are withering away rather than here to stay.
Don't take my word for it. Here's conservative Kevin Williamson, witness for the prosecution:
We are closing in on the end of Black History Month, and National Review has not exactly been inundated by copy relating to the occasion.
Conservatives are not big on viewing human beings as racial aggregates. We are capitalists who see people as buyers and sellers, investors and entrepreneurs in a marketplace that cares more about returns than race; we are constitutionalists who believe that we are equal individuals under the law; we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. [National Review]
The idea that making people "equal individuals under law" may require accepting the legitimacy of black and LGBT identity escapes Williamson (unsurprisingly) and, really, most of the conservative movement. It's like the Stephen Colbert joke about how he "doesn't see color," only for real.
It's not just historical oppression that should make us take minority identity seriously. It's that black and LGBT individuals take pride in their identity, seeing their group membership as a source of valuable tradition and support. Ignoring identity in law, or worse, stripping it away, isn't empowering. It's oppressive and atomizing.
Until conservatives understand that point, they'll have trouble developing a policy message that's capable of even remotely appealing to members of these groups. The process starts by seeing Jan Brewer's veto not as a defeat for human freedom, but as step toward its triumph.
http://theweek.com/article/index/257057/arizonas-anti-gay-bill-shows-why-conservatives-struggle-to-win-over-minorities (http://theweek.com/article/index/257057/arizonas-anti-gay-bill-shows-why-conservatives-struggle-to-win-over-minorities)
-
bingo!
and if it were a black str8 couple the baker could deny them, too. the bible and deeply religious beliefs have had blacks be less worthy than whitey. same goes for the muslims and mexkins.
Which part?
-
Which part?
This ought to be good.
I want to see what verse, USED OUT OF CONTEXT, will people who never read the bible and hate Christianity point to this time.
-
(http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy224/adam_in_gp/9_funny_jesus_thumbs_up.jpg)
-
This ought to be good.
I want to see what verse, USED OUT OF CONTEXT, will people who never read the bible and hate Christianity point to this time.
Still waiting for the verse.
Book, chapter, verse and context. That is all it takes.
-
Still waiting for the verse.
Book, chapter, verse and context. That is all it takes.
Interesting bible discussion you and BB would like to have, lol.
Tell me, does the bible condemn slavery?
Truth is, the bible is so full of jumbled shit it can be used to justify almost any point of view.
Fer fuck's sake, I'm skeptical about using any sort of instructions about anything that's more than a few years old and yet you simple-minded myth-believers are gonna use some text that's thousands of years old that's been thrown together from quite few different sources (many of which are anonymous) as your be-all end-all explanation for being and the primary source of your morality? Wake up, idiots!
-
Interesting bible discussion you and BB would like to have, lol.
Tell me, does the bible condemn slavery?
Truth is, the bible is so full of jumbled shit it can be used to justify almost any point of view.
Fer fuck's sake, I'm skeptical about using any sort of instructions about anything that's more than a few years old and yet you simple-minded myth-believers are gonna use some text that's thousands of years old that's been thrown together from quite few different sources (many of which are anonymous) as your be-all end-all explanation for being and the primary source of your morality? Wake up, idiots!
What chadstallion said was the Bible "had blacks be less worthy than whitey. same goes for the muslims and mexkins."
Do you agree? If so, which part of the Bible is he (or are you) talking about?
-
(http://preview.images.memegenerator.net/Instance/Preview?imageID=2398442&generatorTypeID=&panels=&text0=hey beach bum ,jesus says&text1=don't care for the blacks&text2=&text3=)
-
Yup...I hate black, latinos the gays and especially them JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Merica love it or leave it.
-
What chadstallion said was the Bible "had blacks be less worthy than whitey. same goes for the muslims and mexkins."
Do you agree? If so, which part of the Bible is he (or are you) talking about?
First off, since I'm not a dishonorable turd (lol), I'll try to answer even though I admit don't know much about the bible.
First, though, let's define terms: What is your interpretation of what Chad meant by "whitey"? Cuz I'm pretty sure that the term "whitey" was not included in the bible.
Which could open up a can of worms (that I'll ignore for this argument's sake) in that none of the bible was originally written in English, was it?
-
First off, since I'm not a dishonorable turd (lol), I'll try to answer even though I admit don't know much about the bible.
First, though, let's define terms: What is your interpretation of what Chad meant by "whitey"? Cuz I'm pretty sure that the term "whitey" was not included in the bible.
Which could open up a can of worms (that I'll ignore for this argument's sake) in that none of the bible was originally written in English, was it?
I assume "whitey" means white people.
-
Yup...I hate black, latinos the gays and especially them JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Merica love it or leave it.
Hells yeah!
Your post could use the song and video below, though:
-
I assume "whitey" means white people.
That would be the only legitimate answer.
-
I assume "whitey" means white people.
Well, that's the end of that discussion, then.
I don't think the Bible clearly defines "race" (defined as having a certain set of physical characteristics) like we do.
So, Chad would seem to be technically wrong.
-
oh for heaven's sake.
go to google screen.
cut and paste this:
preachers who support slavery in the bible
then pick and choose which post you find interesting.
-
oh for heaven's sake.
go to google screen.
cut and paste this:
preachers who support slavery in the bible
then pick and choose which post you find interesting.
Ok. I did. Looked at two articles (USA Today and CNN). Still doesn't answer the question. You said this: "the bible and deeply religious beliefs have had blacks be less worthy than whitey. same goes for the muslims and mexkins."
Which part of the Bible says "blacks be less worth than whitey," and "muslims and mexkins"?
-
Ok. I did. Looked at two articles (USA Today and CNN). Still doesn't answer the question. You said this: "the bible and deeply religious beliefs have had blacks be less worthy than whitey. same goes for the muslims and mexkins."
Which part of the Bible says "blacks be less worth than whitey," and "muslims and mexkins"?
He's making a tenuous association between believing in the bible and racial prejudice as if one equals the other. A person who claims to be Christian can be a bigot but that doesn't mean he is a bigot because of his religion.
As an aside, they recently publicly hung several homosexual men in Iran. I think this puts things in perspective a bit.
-
He's making a tenuous association between believing in the bible and racial prejudice as if one equals the other. A person who claims to be Christian can be a bigot but that doesn't mean he is a bigot because of his religion.
As an aside, they recently publicly hung several homosexual men in Iran. I think this puts things in perspective a bit.
Agree. Good point.
Agree about Iran too. Reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
-
Agree. Good point.
Agree about Iran too. Reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
Yet you will rarely see a liberal criticize Islamic culture. There is a huge gap between refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding and hanging gays from tall buildings. You can always choose another baker.
-
Being black in and of itself is not condemned by biblical scripture while homosexuality is or at least the vast majority of Christians believe it is. As I said before, denying to bake a birthday cake for a gay couple wouldn't be scripturally defensible because there is a nominal association between a birthday cake and homosexuality. On the other hand baking a cake specifically for a gay wedding would be against scripture because the baked cake itself would be directly associated with the promotion of a lifestyle that was against the bakers religion.
I'm going to bump this post because I believe it's a reasonable compromise
-
Yet you will rarely see a liberal criticize Islamic culture. There is a huge gap between refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding and hanging gays from tall buildings. You can always choose another baker.
True. I was talking to a group of liberals once who were very critical of the Family Research Council, calling it a "virulently anti-gay" organization. In the next breath, they were defending Islam. Not very logical.
-
True. I was talking to a group of liberals once who were very critical of the Family Research Council, calling it a "virulently anti-gay" organization. In the next breath, they were defending Islam. Not very logical.
It's not only illogical but morally inconsistent.
-
True. I was talking to a group of liberals once who were very critical of the Family Research Council, calling it a "virulently anti-gay" organization. In the next breath, they were defending Islam. Not very logical.
You know, after a little thought, I only buy the argument that these liberals were being illogical if these people were defending Islam's anti-gay actions/policies.
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you recall what they were defending Islam against?
-
You know, after a little thought, I only buy the argument that these liberals were being illogical if these people were defending Islam's anti-gay actions/policies.
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you recall what they were defending Islam against?
They were expressing support for Muslims in general. This same group has often defended Muslims, while being quick to criticize Christian groups, especially groups who support traditional marriage. I actually pointed out to them exactly what StreetSoldier said about Muslims killing homosexuals. Cannot get more anti-gay than that.
-
You know, after a little thought, I only buy the argument that these liberals were being illogical if these people were defending Islam's anti-gay actions/policies.
It doesn't matter.
Since Islam, like Christianity, views homosexuality as a sin. That is a fundamental belief/doctrine in both religions.
The idea that someone can be a muslim or christian and still support the gay lifestyle or accept gay "marriage" or "unions" is only normal within the political arena. For example, Piglosi claims she is catholic, yet supports abortions. The crapinthewhitehouse claims he is a Christian, yet approves and supports every lifestyle and various sins rejected by his professed religion.
If a person is against Christianity, it makes no sense whatsoever for that person to then turn around and support Islam.
-
It doesn't matter.
If a person is against Christianity, it makes no sense whatsoever for that person to then turn around and support Islam.
Sure it matters, D73.
Look, I'm "against" most of your opinions but I'd also defend your right to say whatever you want. Frankly, I'd defend you if someone was kicking your ass in the street, too.
I don't see the contradiction here.
-
Sure it matters, D73.
Look, I'm "against" most of your opinions but I'd also defend your right to say whatever you want. Frankly, I'd defend you if someone was kicking your ass in the street, too.
I don't see the contradiction here.
A person who is offended by what Christianity teaches should automatically be offended by Islam if they want to be morally consistent. The repugnant portion of Christianity are also present in Islam. It's possible to enjoy the company of a person who happens to be Muslim, or Christianity for that matter, and find their religion completely barbaric.
-
A person who is offended by what Christianity teaches should automatically be offended by Islam if they want to be morally consistent. The repugnant portion of Christianity are also present in Islam. It's possible to enjoy the company of a person who happens to be Muslim, or Christianity for that matter, and find their religion completely barbaric.
Exactly.
-
A person who is offended by what Christianity teaches should automatically be offended by Islam if they want to be morally consistent. The repugnant portion of Christianity are also present in Islam. It's possible to enjoy the company of a person who happens to be Muslim, or Christianity for that matter, and find their religion completely barbaric.
Totally agree. But to be offended by some of the beliefs of some group does not mean you can't righteously defend that group about an unrelated subject or belief.
Actually, even if it's the same belief, I'm not sure how morally inconsistent it would be: For instance, is it wrong to not have a problem with the neighbor's kid for being gay but to not want your own son to be gay?
I'm not so sure that the only valid way to think is to have the same expectations/standards for all people. Some folks honestly just don't know any better. It's worth thinking about, I think.
BTW, SS4U, can you send me that link about Muslims taxing (or killing or converting) non-Muslims again? I finally have time to read about it but can't remember which thread it was in. Thanks.