World Net Daily Publisher Calls for Theocracy

Weird • Views: 3,519

The publisher of World Net Daily, Joseph Farah, is openly calling for theocratic totalitarianism in the United States, in an almost unbelievable article that says the US government should enforce Biblical law or God will destroy us — and once again, it all boils down to a reeking puddle of homophobic bigotry: Why sin cannot be condoned by state.

America is being judged by God.

The biblical proof text is Romans 1.

I am not stating the obvious here – that individuals will be judged for their behavior in the afterlife. What I am saying is we are already being judged in the here and now for rejecting God and one of those judgments is the explosion of homosexuality in our culture and the absolute explosion in the number of people accepting it, condoning it and even rejoicing in it.

Whether you are a believer or not, this affects you. It shapes the world in which you and your children live. If you think your society is depraved now, you have seen nothing yet.

There’s plenty of empirical evidence to prove it even to the most skeptical observer.

When societies accept, condone and embrace sin, they are judged.

And Farah’s bad craziness is endorsed and supported by top GOP politicians. The Republican National Committee even advertises at Farah’s insane website.

Jump to bottom

320 comments
1 Cato the Elder  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:48:47pm

Apocolyptogasmic!

2 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:48:52pm
If you think your society is depraved now, you have seen nothing yet.

Because theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't depraved places at all!

3 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:49:12pm

Oohhh, creepy mustache!

4 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:49:19pm

From where do our laws now originate?

5 Bob Dillon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:50:42pm

The real nutty inmates are taking over the asylum - problem is - that's where we all live.

6 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:50:43pm

At this rate, I expect to see Farah take on Fred Phelps as a commentator, because that's the way he's going.

/I wish I was kidding

7 citybilly  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:51:04pm
There’s plenty of empirical evidence to prove it even to the most skeptical observer.


i must be a UBER skeptical observer because i don't get it.

8 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:51:09pm

re: #4 MurphyB

From where do our laws now originate?

Many came from English common law.

9 Charles Johnson  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:51:11pm

re: #4 MurphyB

From where do our laws now originate?

From the principles of the Enlightenment, and from our founding fathers who were wise enough to make the separation of church and state one of the core principles of the United States.

10 brucee  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:52:16pm
There’s plenty of empirical evidence to prove it even to the most skeptical observer.

Such as?!

11 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:52:27pm

re: #5 Bobibutu

The real nutty inmates are taking over the asylum - problem is - that's where we all live.

It's a wonderful time to be an atheist.

12 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:52:34pm
For instance, if you dare to oppose homosexual marriage, even though the vast majority of Americans do and have demonstrated in referendum after referendum, those in the public eye run the risk of vilification and ostracism for articulating such positions.

I'll bet if you favored homosexual marriage while hanging out with him and his buddies, you would be vilified and ostracized.

13 citybilly  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:52:41pm

re: #4 MurphyB
i think right after the part about
"we hold these truths to be self evident. "

14 Egregious Philbin  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:52:51pm

Its the end times I tell ya!

All them homersexuals and atheists, they is killing our children!

We need to make sure they aren't slow dancing either!


Joseph Farah is a psychopath.

15 BryanS  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:53:16pm

re: #4 MurphyB

From where do our laws now originate?

NOT GOD.

16 WindHorse  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:53:21pm

not relevant to anything exactly...

[Link: zapatopi.net...]

17 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:53:37pm

yes, and lets go back to stoning women as well while we're at it

18 Stanghazi  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:54:10pm

So none of these folks will be able to say (anymore) "well, some of my friends are gay"

19 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:56:32pm

re: #17 SpaceJesus

yes, and lets go back to stoning women as well while we're at it

A theocracy like SA and Iran where gays are executed in public, and then our society will be less depraved, don'tcha know?

20 Racer X  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:56:58pm
21 BryanS  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:57:04pm

re: #18 Stanley Sea

So none of these folks will be able to say (anymore) "well, some of my friends are gay"

Unless your friend is a closeted priest, then all bets are off. /

22 citybilly  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:58:21pm

re: #17 SpaceJesus

there is a pregnant women in Somalia right now in jail. who was found guilty by a Islamic court for adultery. who is to be buried to her waist then stoned to death. after she gives birth. thats Theocracy.

23 citybilly  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:58:57pm

re: #20 Racer X

awesome tune!

24 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:59:07pm

I like the 'whether you're a believer or not' bit. It doesn't matter whether you accept my religious beliefs, they are valid! I have evidence!

25 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 9:59:12pm

re: #17 SpaceJesus

yes, and lets go back to stoning women as well while we're at it

I just read through the entire article and saw nothing advocating violence towards anybody. So how is the now-kneejerk comparison between Christians and Muslims pertinent?

26 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:00:00pm

re: #4 MurphyB

From where do our laws now originate?

I don't think they originate, exactly, do they? We just kind of find them. Like mushrooms.

/

27 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:00:01pm

re: #22 citybilly

there is a pregnant women in Somalia right now in jail. who was found guilty by a Islamic court for adultery. who is to be buried to her waist then stoned to death. after she gives birth. thats Theocracy.

Yep, and Farah would like to import that to our shores. Nice guy, isn't he?

///

28 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:00:27pm

re: #5 Bobibutu

The real nutty inmates are taking over the asylum - problem is - that's where we all live.

Except for Wonko the Sane. He lives Outside the Asylum.

29 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:00:32pm

re: #22 citybilly

there is a pregnant women in Somalia right now in jail. who was found guilty by a Islamic court for adultery. who is to be buried to her waist then stoned to death. after she gives birth. thats Theocracy.

so is any system of government which is run by the clergy of any religion

30 Racer X  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:00:40pm

re: #23 citybilly

awesome tune!

Just a little fast in that version.

31 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:01:21pm

Never a dull moment with these guys. It's like the Stupid Generator™ is always running.

32 Charles Johnson  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:01:34pm

re: #25 cliffster

I just read through the entire article and saw nothing advocating violence towards anybody. So how is the now-kneejerk comparison between Christians and Muslims pertinent?

How exactly do you think it would be possible to enforce Biblical laws against homosexuality without violence?

33 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:01:52pm

re: #11 Walter L. Newton

It's a wonderful time to be an atheist.

I'll take your word for it. I would think it would be annoying as hell, but as long as you're happy, I'm happy for you.

34 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:02:08pm

re: #12 cliffster

I'll bet if you favored homosexual marriage while hanging out with him and his buddies, you would be vilified and ostracized.

But that's different!

/

35 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:02:09pm

re: #25 cliffster

I just read through the entire article and saw nothing advocating violence towards anybody. So how is the now-kneejerk comparison between Christians and Muslims pertinent?

If you are advocating that an activity be criminalized, you are advocating the use of coercive Government power to stop it from happening. That automatically contemplates the use of force.

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:02:31pm

re: #15 BryanS

NOT GOD.

It is not in heaven.

37 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:03:13pm

I see that WND is also ranting about Adam Lambert.

38 Cato the Elder  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:03:48pm

re: #9 Charles

From the principles of the Enlightenment, and from our founding fathers who were wise enough to make the separation of church and state one of the core principles of the United States.

Which is why churches flourish here in America and go begging in Europe.

39 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:04:12pm

re: #18 Stanley Sea

So none of these folks will be able to say (anymore) "well, some of my friends are gay"

You know, I see where these guys are coming from. After all, Jesus clearly worried a lot about gay folks taking over society with their depravity. He preached so frequently against teh ghey.

//Eh? Never mentioned them? I'm sure he would have, if he'd gotten around to it.

40 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:04:38pm

re: #25 cliffster

I just read through the entire article and saw nothing advocating violence towards anybody. So how is the now-kneejerk comparison between Christians and Muslims pertinent?


what are you even talking about

41 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:05:40pm

re: #25 cliffster

I just read through the entire article and saw nothing advocating violence towards anybody. So how is the now-kneejerk comparison between Christians and Muslims pertinent?

Comparison? I assumed it was a Biblical reference--SJ's point being that his earthly predecessor suggested NOT stoning women taken in adultery. He had some catchy little phrase about it...

42 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:05:53pm

OK, I'll answer my own question. Our laws come from a bunch of guys who made all this stuff up. Oh wait, that's Marxism. Umm...
Was it was from the Judeo-Christian tradition? Yea that's it.

Don't most cultures, societies, etc have members that go overboard especially where free speech is protected. Yea...good point.

Is projecting the fanatics as some how the rule rather than the exception somewhat misleading? Yes, the publisher of WND is one guy in a nation of +300 million people 85% of whom believe in the God of Abraham. When I wake up in the morning, the 1st amendment will still be with us. And with all your help, the morning I don't wake up you will all continue to preserve that freedom.

43 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:05:56pm
The founders of this once-great country understood that "rights" came not from government, but from God. They are unalienable. They cannot be granted or taken away by man.

First of all- this isn't a "once-great" country, we still are. What an asshole.

Second, while the sentiment is nice that our rights are God given, man certainly has and will take or keep these rights away from others. And it is Man that sheds his blood to achieve these rights and/or keep them. While we may use religion to justify our rights, it is Man that has power to grant or take them in reality.

44 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:06:10pm

re: #32 Charles

re: #35 Dark_Falcon

I got from the article that the people of our civilization should not "condone" the behavior, which is different from "criminalizing" the behavior. Which is very different from stoning women to death.

I don't agree with what he's saying, but I think it's stupid to compare it to stoning women to death.

45 Bob Dillon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:06:14pm

re: #18 Stanley Sea

So none of these folks will be able to say (anymore) "well, some of my friends are gay"

Ya know, some of my friends are (X - fill it in), some believe (X), some do or say weird things sometimes - but they are human beings and my friends. When we say some of my friends are (X) we are like roosters on the dung pile in the corral crowing for some attention from others about how (X) we are.

Your point is well taken.

46 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:06:48pm

re: #37 Thanos

I see that WND is also ranting about Adam Lambert.

That should take them a while. When they're done with him, they can fret about Miley Cyrus or something.

47 BryanS  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:06:51pm

re: #25 cliffster

I just read through the entire article and saw nothing advocating violence towards anybody. So how is the now-kneejerk comparison between Christians and Muslims pertinent?

When some used religion to claim it was a sin for mixed race marriages, how was that enforced? This guy argues for something even more extreme than simply not letting gay people marry, he argues for the state forbidding homosexuality.

But at least he has some cogent arguments to bolster his case:

That's the forceful case that thoughtful Christians need to make in our world. Why? Because it's truth. Why? Because it's self-evident. Why? Because it leads people to God. Why? Because we can all live a happier and more fulfilled life on this planet if we listen to our Creator and obey his rules.

What a deluded moron.

48 Cato the Elder  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:07:12pm

Depravity, depravity,
You flout the law of gravity.
With you gone, all would soon be well.
Damn, where'd I get this cavity?

Copyright 2009 Cato the Elder

49 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:07:49pm

re: #42 MurphyB

Is projecting the fanatics as some how the rule rather than the exception somewhat misleading?

Where was that done?

50 Bob Dillon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:07:58pm

re: #28 SanFranciscoZionist

Except for Wonko the Sane. He lives Outside the Asylum.

I had to Google that to kick start my memory - RIGHT!

51 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:09:17pm

The obsession with sexual purity by certain self proclaimed "evangelicals" is paralleled by that in Islamic countries.

IMO it is an unhealthy expression of human sexuality.

52 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:09:49pm

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

That should take them a while. When they're done with him, they can fret about Miley Cyrus or something.

Some people need to just turn off their teevees!

53 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:10:25pm

re: #40 SpaceJesus

what are you even talking about

re: #42 MurphyB

Where do the words Democracy and Republic originate? Hint: it wasn't Judeo-Christian, the words pre-dated Christianity.

54 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:10:42pm

re: #48 Cato the Elder

I bet somebody here, could show you how to make that nice copyright sign. I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

55 Bagua  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:11:13pm

re: #17 SpaceJesus

yes, and lets go back to stoning women as well while we're at it

No way!

I'm not sharing my stash with the women unless you legalise, it or sumpin, that'd be double.

56 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:11:32pm

re: #52 Floral Giraffe

Some people need to just turn off their teevees!

You'd think they'd be happy. If my newspaper account this morning was accurate, he kissed a girl.

57 Charles Johnson  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:11:44pm

re: #44 cliffster

re: #35 Dark_Falcon

I got from the article that the people of our civilization should not "condone" the behavior, which is different from "criminalizing" the behavior. Which is very different from stoning women to death.

I don't agree with what he's saying, but I think it's stupid to compare it to stoning women to death.

Absolutely wrong. The title of the article is "Why sin cannot be condoned by state." In other words, he's calling for an outright ban on homosexuality, to be enforced by the state.

58 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:12:04pm

re: #54 Floral Giraffe

I bet somebody here, could show you how to make that nice copyright sign. I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

Like this: ©

I always read though that the world "copyright" is better.

59 Bob Dillon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:12:15pm

re: #54 Floral Giraffe

I bet somebody here, could show you how to make that nice copyright sign. I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

Seek ye to the bottom How to enter special characters.

60 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:12:25pm

re: #51 freetoken

The obsession with sexual purity by certain self proclaimed "evangelicals" is paralleled by that in Islamic countries.

IMO it is an unhealthy expression of human sexuality.

The obsession apparently is not working since the bible belt has a higher divorce rate and higher teenage out of wedlock pregnancy rate than those "secular" states do.

61 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:12:55pm

re: #51 freetoken

The obsession with sexual purity by certain self proclaimed "evangelicals" is paralleled by that in Islamic countries.

IMO it is an unhealthy expression of human sexuality.

I'm reminded of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's The Caged Virgin.

62 Racer X  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:13:00pm
63 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:14:07pm

Wow. I never elicited so much response before.

The founders believed our rights were endowed by God and that no man could take them away. Even slaves who had their rights trampled by man still retained the rights and dignity that were God-given. Man can refuse to honor those rights but they can never be taken by politician, racist, bigot, fanatic or atheist.

64 Bagua  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:14:09pm

re: #54 Floral Giraffe

I bet somebody here, could show you how to make that nice copyright sign. I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

add: &-copy; to the word but remove the dash.

Looks like this&-copy; without the dash it becomes this©

65 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:14:17pm
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. . . .

But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia - 1787

66 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:14:24pm

re: #60 Thanos

The obsession apparently is not working since the bible belt has a higher divorce rate and higher teenage out of wedlock pregnancy rate than those "secular" states do.

As I mentioned, it is an unhealthy expression of human sexuality.

These are people who are likely struggling with personal relationships and believe that they need some outside enforced structure to prevent them from doing something wrong. However, that only feeds the beast.

67 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:14:51pm

re: #58 freetoken

Excellent!

68 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:14:58pm

re: #63 MurphyB

What rights am I taking away from you since I'm an atheist?

69 Bagua  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:15:12pm

re: #58 freetoken

Like this: ©

I always read though that the world "copyright" is better.

Wordist!

/symbol liberation army

70 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:15:40pm

re: #59 Bobibutu

Seek ye to the bottom How to enter special characters.

Well, at least you didn't tell me to "google it"!
LOL!

71 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:15:41pm

re: #60 Thanos

The obsession apparently is not working since the bible belt has a higher divorce rate and higher teenage out of wedlock pregnancy rate than those "secular" states do.

I am assured by certain pundits, however, that mistaking these things as signs of moral behavior in the deep blue states would be a mistake. We just aren't as religiously aware as the Bible Belt, no matter what we DO.

/Seriously. Had this explained several times during the late, great Palin run for VP.

72 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:15:46pm

re: #67 Floral Giraffe

re: #69 Bagua

I do Christmas music too...

73 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:15:52pm

re: #63 MurphyB

Do Hindus have rights under your god? What about atheists? What about homosexuals?

74 emcesq  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:16:09pm

Yet another example how religion (fanatical blind faith without substantial dose of skepticism) is dangerous. As long as hev is just spewing, I would just as soon ignore this nut and his ilk.

75 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:16:10pm

re: #63 MurphyB

Wow. I never elicited so much response before.

The founders believed our rights were endowed by God and that no man could take them away. Even slaves who had their rights trampled by man still retained the rights and dignity that were God-given. Man can refuse to honor those rights but they can never be taken by politician, racist, bigot, fanatic or atheist.

let me know when you find anything in the constitution that says our rights flow from some divine entity.

76 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:16:40pm

re: #68 Thanos

Would you object to a religious display at the park?

77 Charles Johnson  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:16:57pm

re: #63 MurphyB

Wow. I never elicited so much response before.

The founders believed our rights were endowed by God and that no man could take them away. Even slaves who had their rights trampled by man still retained the rights and dignity that were God-given. Man can refuse to honor those rights but they can never be taken by politician, racist, bigot, fanatic or atheist.

Where does the US Constitution mention God?

78 Cato the Elder  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:17:03pm

re: #54 Floral Giraffe

I bet somebody here, could show you how to make that nice copyright sign. I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

I used to know all that stuff by muscle memory, when I was still a PC. Now that I'm a Mac, I'm constantly compromising.

But the benefits outweigh the downsides. If I ever have to do a hard reboot of my Mac (happens, rarely - happened every third day on the PC) I don't get a snotty message from MS Windoze telling me "you shut down wrong, dude. What do you want to do about it, putz?"

Instead, the Mac just restarts itself and doesn't chastise me for its own faults.

Someday I'll rescale the heights of keyboard shorcutage that were mine in the PleistonCene Era, but for now I'm happy to be roundabout and content.

79 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:17:10pm

Atheist divorce rates are lower than those of Christians, a fact.

80 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:17:28pm

re: #76 Rightwingconspirator

Nope.

81 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:17:43pm

re: #63 MurphyB

Even slaves who had their rights trampled by man still retained the rights and dignity that were God-given. Man can refuse to honor those rights but they can never be taken by politician, racist, bigot, fanatic or atheist.

What's the difference between not honoring a right and taking it away to the slave or the woman?

82 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:17:50pm

re: #72 freetoken

re: #69 Bagua

I do Christmas music too...

Nooo!
I know you do Christmas.
Please wait, at least until December 1st?

83 Bob Dillon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:17:59pm

re: #57 Charles

Absolutely wrong. The title of the article is "Why sin cannot be condoned by state." In other words, he's calling for an outright ban on homosexuality, to be enforced by the state.

Which is ludicrous - homosexuality has been with us forever and ain't going away probably ever. So what? What we decide to do with our bodies is our choice. Good grief.

84 zephirus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:18:26pm

Why are there are homosexual penguins? Either Farah or God has some serious 'splainin' to do.

85 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:18:57pm

re: #78 Cato the Elder

I used to know all that stuff by muscle memory, when I was still a PC. Now that I'm a Mac, I'm constantly compromising.

Under the "Edit" menu, the last item is "special characters".

86 citybilly  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:19:04pm

re: #79 Thanos

i would vote for this if i could...

87 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:19:15pm

re: #57 Charles

Absolutely wrong. The title of the article is "Why sin cannot be condoned by state." In other words, he's calling for an outright ban on homosexuality, to be enforced by the state.

I'm certainly not trying to argue that there's anything sensible about what this guy is saying. What I was saying, though, is I think the parallels to practices like "stoning women" are out of line.

88 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:19:23pm

re: #84 zephirus

Why are there are homosexual penguins? Either Farah or God has some serious 'splainin' to do.

But Tango's dads broke up. I was sad.

89 borgcube  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:19:29pm

re: #4 MurphyB

From where do our laws now originate?

Man.

Next question.

90 Bob Dillon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:20:23pm

re: #79 Thanos

Atheist divorce rates are lower than those of Christians, a fact.

Hell yes - less to argue about! ;-)

91 BryanS  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:20:29pm

re: #57 Charles

Absolutely wrong. The title of the article is "Why sin cannot be condoned by state." In other words, he's calling for an outright ban on homosexuality, to be enforced by the state.

And from the WND nutjob, extremist, crazy, hate-filled ass-clown:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

That sure sounds like violence to me as well.

92 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:21:13pm

re: #87 cliffster

What I was saying, though, is I think the parallels to practices like "stoning women" are out of line.

Why? What makes you think they will stop executing the "sexually deviant" with homosexuals? Dominionists would execute adulterers.

93 Charles Johnson  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:21:31pm

re: #91 BryanS

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

That's right. He's actually edging up to calling for the death penalty for homosexuals.

94 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:21:35pm

re: #90 Bobibutu

Hell yes - less to argue about! ;-)

I'm a vaguely religious Jew married to an apathetic agnostic of Protestant forebears. We have NOTHING to argue about religiously. We don't even have a common language to argue in.

95 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:21:57pm

re: #92 Sharmuta

Why? What makes you think they will stop executing the "sexually deviant" with homosexuals? Dominionists would execute adulterers.

And children who are disobedient to parents.

96 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:22:12pm

re: #80 Thanos

Cool. Maybe you are with me in that we fairly allow differing religious displays at the park rather than banning them? Whoa its late gotta go soon.

97 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:22:37pm

re: #87 cliffster

I'm certainly not trying to argue that there's anything sensible about what this guy is saying. What I was saying, though, is I think the parallels to practices like "stoning women" are out of line.


how so?

this guy is advocating using the old testament of the bible as the law of the united states of america. he says if we don't follow the old testament, we are doomed. are you aware that the old testament also condones stoning women to death? should we follow that as well?

98 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:23:12pm

re: #96 Rightwingconspirator

Cool. Maybe you are with me in that we fairly allow differing religious displays at the park rather than banning them? Whoa its late gotta go soon.

100 pct. for, I don't even care that "In God We Trust" is on our money, there are bigger priorities.

99 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:23:41pm

re: #97 SpaceJesus

how so?

this guy is advocating using the old testament of the bible as the law of the united states of america. he says if we don't follow the old testament, we are doomed. are you aware that the old testament also condones stoning women to death? should we follow that as well?

Men can also be stoned. Just mentioning. Not that I feel at all threatened by this discussion.

//You all know the joke about Jesus and the crowd that wants to stone the adulteress?

100 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:24:51pm

Perfect, Call this toxic person out, I truly hope this gets good MSM exposure. This is the real American Taliban.

101 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:24:56pm

re: #99 SanFranciscoZionist

Men can also be stoned. Just mentioning. Not that I feel at all threatened by this discussion.

//You all know the joke about Jesus and the crowd that wants to stone the adulteress?

yes, the man can be stoned too for rape. but only if he rapes a woman who belongs to another man. if he rapes a woman who isn't yet married, he just has to pay a fine and marry her.

102 Cato the Elder  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:25:16pm

re: #85 freetoken

Under the "Edit" menu, the last item is "special characters".

Thank you.

103 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:25:25pm

re: #77 Charles

We all know God is not mentioned by name in the Constitution. What part of the Constitution is in conflict with the Judeo-Christian tradition?

104 zephirus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:25:35pm

re: #88 SanFranciscoZionist

They adopted? I thought all they had in the nest was a rock pretending to be a baby.

105 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:25:42pm

re: #99 SanFranciscoZionist

Men can also be stoned. Just mentioning. Not that I feel at all threatened by this discussion.

//You all know the joke about Jesus and the crowd that wants to stone the adulteress?

Mary herself should have been executed, and yet the mercy shown to Her has zero impact on these people. They really seem to have missed out on the larger message of the New Testament.

106 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:26:03pm

re: #103 MurphyB

According to this guy Amendment #1

107 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:26:04pm

re: #89 borgcube

Man.

Next question.

For the sake of argument, let us assume the correct answer is "God". To be more specific, the "God of Abraham."

How would that change anything?

Specifically, how would Farah et. al. be able to answer the following questions:

Why should we believe that a specific set of instructions given explicitly to a small group of middle-east tribes apply to anyone else outside that tribe?

Why would only one or two of the specific instructions be enforced today, and not all of them?

These are the two classic questions regarding the application of the Mosaic law. There have never been completely satisfactory answers, to the best of my knowledge, or otherwise theologians wouldn't still be groping for the answers.

108 Racer X  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:26:19pm

Oh man, i wish I hadn't watched this version:

Lady Gaga: Bad Romance parody (feat. Lord Gaga) #6

Because I was starting to really like the original.

Lady Gaga - Bad Romance

109 Bagua  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:27:08pm

re: #105 Sharmuta

Mary herself should have been executed,[...]

You missed the bit about her having an excuse.

110 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:27:14pm

re: #102 Cato the Elder

When the panel of characters comes up, you double click the one you want, and wherever the insertion bar is located in a text document that is where the character will appear.

111 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:27:16pm

Off to bed.

112 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:27:51pm

re: #103 MurphyB

We all know God is not mentioned by name in the Constitution. What part of the Constitution is in conflict with the Judeo-Christian tradition?

gee, i dunno, maybe the part that protects us from cruel and unusual punishment? the bible has lots of cruel punishments in store for those who defy god. what about freedom of speech? the bible doesn't allow for freedom of speech at all. what about freedom of religion? the bible says you can only worship one god, and that is god.

i can go on and on if you want

113 zephirus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:28:10pm

re: #99 SanFranciscoZionist

Will there have to special days off work for menstruating women? Will they be allowed to drive?

114 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:28:24pm

re: #109 Bagua

I didn't miss the part about the Angel telling Joseph to take Mary for a wife anyways.

115 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:29:21pm

re: #112 SpaceJesus

Damnit!
I had to upding you, again!
Gonna have to watch out, your Karma might go positive, yet!

116 borgcube  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:29:22pm

The homos! The homos! Run for the hills!

OK, I saw the Adam Lambert video from the American Music Awards, but the pop trash canned synthesized crap spewing out passing as art in today's music scene was a lot scarier to me than his idiotic sexual "choreography" to say the least.

Lightening bolts are a comin' from the heavens! But they ain't being thrown by some dude on a throne sitting on a cloud, they're coming courtesy of Philip Rivers!

117 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:29:25pm

re: #104 zephirus

They adopted? I thought all they had in the nest was a rock pretending to be a baby.

The pair I'm thinking of hatched out a chick from an abandoned egg, and raised it together. There is a children's book about them: "And Tango Makes Three". You can guess how popular this book is in certain circles.

IIRC, this breed of penguin has non-gendered parenting roles, both parents take turns sitting on the eggs and staying with the chicks. The zoo people realized the egg had a better chance of hatching out with real parental penguin butts keeping it warm, so they decided to see if the male-male pair would take it. Apparently, once it was in the nest, the old penguin instinct just kicked in.

118 BryanS  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:30:06pm

re: #103 MurphyB

We all know God is not mentioned by name in the Constitution. What part of the Constitution is in conflict with the Judeo-Christian tradition?

What part of the constitution is in conflict with Zoroastrianism? Your point?

119 Bob Dillon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:30:40pm

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm a vaguely religious Jew married to an apathetic agnostic of Protestant forebears. We have NOTHING to argue about religiously. We don't even have a common language to argue in.

When we carve out religious beliefs from the fray things seem to settle down to important things like do we get the tuna with or without olive oil or Brussels sprouts or broccoli tonight, which TP is better for you? And then just love each other. Mmmm

120 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:30:45pm

re: #112 SpaceJesus

gee, i dunno, maybe the part that protects us from cruel and unusual punishment? the bible has lots of cruel punishments in store for those who defy god. what about freedom of speech? the bible doesn't allow for freedom of speech at all. what about freedom of religion? the bible says you can only worship one god, and that is god.

i can go on and on if you want

And in an odd way it was in agreement (Old Testament) regarding slavery prior to the 13th Amendment.

121 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:31:48pm

re: #106 Rightwingconspirator

According to this guy Amendment #1

Indeed. You can argue that the Constitution has some of its roots in Judeo-Christian principles, but you cannot argue its "God's document". It was made and amended to provide for a government that gives Christianity its due space but does not enshrine to with state powers. Farah would do just that.

122 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:32:01pm

Good grief.

This guy is a jackass. I don't feel like that statement needs justification.

Saying that Christians in America are a heartbeat away from stoning women is ridiculous. I don't feel like this statement needs justification.

123 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:32:19pm

re: #109 Bagua

You missed the bit about her having an excuse.

And a husband who was willing to put love and faith ahead of his pride. Joseph is a model for family men for a reason. His actions are the very inverse of the honor killer--rather than focus on his rights and his hurt ego, he accepted that his fiancee had a destiny and responsibility of her own that he was called to help her with.

124 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:33:41pm

re: #116 borgcube

The homos! The homos! Run for the hills!

OK, I saw the Adam Lambert video from the American Music Awards, but the pop trash canned synthesized crap spewing out passing as art in today's music scene was a lot scarier to me than his idiotic sexual "choreography" to say the least.

Lightening bolts are a comin' from the heavens! But they ain't being thrown by some dude on a throne sitting on a cloud, they're coming courtesy of Philip Rivers!

Adam Lambert? Oh come on. Now what normal heterosexual male hasn't simulated gay sex at a bachelor party or two or twelve?

//Maybe he's the gay Elvis. Considering the ruckus he caused when he hit the scene. He kind of looks like Elvis.

125 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:34:05pm

re: #121 Dark_Falcon

Indeed. You can argue that the Constitution has some of its roots in Judeo-Christian principles, but you cannot argue its "God's document". It was made and amended to provide for a government that gives Christianity its due space but does not enshrine to with state powers. Farah would do just that.

The Constitution has its roots in the spirited debate of philosophically-minded people who had more wisdom at the age of 14 than most of us have when we're 70.

126 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:34:12pm

re: #113 zephirus

Will there have to special days off work for menstruating women? Will they be allowed to drive?

It says absolutely nothing in Torah about women driving or not driving.

//I'm told that in Saudi, Bedouin women drive, because the police can't keep track of them anyway, and the men think of Jeeps as pack animals--beneath their dignity.

127 Cato the Elder  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:35:03pm

Theocracy, theocracy,
You make me think of toxic bree.
The first bite sets my mouth afire.
The second finishes my spree.

Copyright © 2009 Cato the Elder

128 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:35:17pm

re: #122 cliffster

Good grief.

This guy is a jackass. I don't feel like that statement needs justification.

Saying that Christians in America are a heartbeat away from stoning women is ridiculous. I don't feel like this statement needs justification.

i like how you think i was referring to all christians when i said "this guy", as in farah.

129 rikzilla  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:35:44pm

Of course he's calling for the death penalty. If you're going to advocating Biblical law then you'd be guilty of sin yourself if you don't also advocate Biblical punishments! If people like Farah end up in power then "The Land of the Free" is finished. Stonings will not be out of the question...they and burnings will become ever more common. Remember, if the theocrats succeed they'll be needing to do some very quick housecleaning. Homosexuals and atheists will only be leading the parade...

But it's a fundie wet dream. They may try to take the reins of power but there are an awful lot of people in this country that will never sit still for it.

130 Racer X  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:37:16pm
131 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:37:29pm

re: #128 SpaceJesus

i like how you think i was referring to all christians when i said "this guy", as in farah.

I was, from the beginning, referring to the "now-kneejerk comparison between Christians and Muslims". If that's not the comparison you were making upthread, apologies. But, nonetheless, I get tired of hearing that.

132 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:38:06pm

re: #124 Gus 802

Adam Lambert? Oh come on. Now what normal heterosexual male hasn't simulated gay sex at a bachelor party or two or twelve?

//Maybe he's the gay Elvis. Considering the ruckus he caused when he hit the scene. He kind of looks like Elvis.

Elvis, Elvis, let me be, keep that pelvis far from me...

133 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:39:21pm

re: #81 Sharmuta

"What's the difference between not honoring a right and taking it away to the slave or the woman?"

It means that you can mistreat me, abuse me, do all sorts of horrible things to me but you cannot remove my rights from me. They were placed in me by God. You can dishonor my rights you cannot take them. I can justly fight back and defeat you if I possessed the power and strength.

In the time of Kings, they were seen to have divine rights and their subject were possessions or chattel with no rights. The founders changed all that.

134 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:39:34pm

re: #132 SanFranciscoZionist

Elvis, Elvis, let me be, keep that pelvis far from me...

Elvis the pelvis!

Arrest him for he has sinned!

/

135 BryanS  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:40:08pm

re: #132 SanFranciscoZionist

Elvis, Elvis, let me be, keep that pelvis far from me...

You should have copyrighted that. I hear there's money to be made for such talents.

//

136 erraticsphinx  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:40:23pm

I'm sensing a "no true scotsman".

137 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:41:12pm

With all that is going on lately, I decided to repost an Amazon link to "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free".

I think we must never stop with the effort to fight those who want to push their ignorance as the path down which to go.

138 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:41:33pm

re: #135 BryanS

You should have copyrighted that. I hear there's money to be made for such talents.

//

I'm afraid it's already copyrighted--and sung with great verve by Stockard Channing.

139 Racer X  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:42:00pm

Listen to the mad man!

140 BryanS  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:42:04pm

re: #133 MurphyB

"What's the difference between not honoring a right and taking it away to the slave or the woman?"

It means that you can mistreat me, abuse me, do all sorts of horrible things to me but you cannot remove my rights from me. They were placed in me by God. You can dishonor my rights you cannot take them. I can justly fight back and defeat you if I possessed the power and strength.

In the time of Kings, they were seen to have divine rights and their subject were possessions or chattel with no rights. The founders changed all that.

Boy am I glad that's not in our constitution. Sounds like a good idea that our founders left that part out, huh?

141 Charles Johnson  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:42:15pm

re: #133 MurphyB

"What's the difference between not honoring a right and taking it away to the slave or the woman?"

It means that you can mistreat me, abuse me, do all sorts of horrible things to me but you cannot remove my rights from me. They were placed in me by God. You can dishonor my rights you cannot take them. I can justly fight back and defeat you if I possessed the power and strength.

I'm sure that was a great comfort to the many thousands of slaves who were beaten or tortured to death and buried in unmarked graves, by people who called themselves pious Christians.

142 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:42:46pm

re: #124 Gus 802

Adam Lambert? Oh come on. Now what normal heterosexual male hasn't simulated gay sex at a bachelor party or two or twelve?

//Maybe he's the gay Elvis. Considering the ruckus he caused when he hit the scene. He kind of looks like Elvis.

i would still argue that Lambert's performance was over the line. Does it merit criminal charges? Absolutely not. Should he be roundly criticized and suffer greatly reduced album sales? Absolutely yes. The actions taken should be lawful private pressure.

143 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:43:26pm

WAIT A GODDAMN MINUTE... I THOUGHT GOD WAS GOING TO DESTROY ALL OF US ANYWAY? If it wanted to really fuck with us, it would just create things like American Idol, Glenn Beck, Nancy Palosi, and the Jonas Brothers.

oh, wait. durr.

144 rikzilla  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:43:35pm

re: #131 cliffster

Christians and Muslims are both Abrahamic religions. They are both offshoots of Judaism. They are both of them religions of conquest. The only real difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has not yet been the subject of a Reformation. This indeed makes Islam less capable of peaceful coexistence, but if you look at historical Christianity it is just as intolerant...and just as bloody minded.

145 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:43:53pm

re: #137 freetoken

With all that is going on lately, I decided to repost an Amazon link to "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free".

I think we must never stop with the effort to fight those who want to push their ignorance as the path down which to go.

Um, you forgot the link?

146 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:44:17pm

re: #133 MurphyB

In the time of Kings, they were seen to have divine rights and their subject were possessions or chattel with no rights. The founders changed all that.

The Divine Right of Kings was a political and religious doctrine- exactly what a theocracy would be. That's why the Founders established a separation of Church and State, and these kooks want to change it back.

147 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:44:21pm

re: #112 SpaceJesus

Render unto Caesar...

The Bible does not take political stands. Jesus was crucified by politicians for his religious views at the behest of the reining theocracy. Read the New Testament it's not long.

148 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:44:24pm

re: #133 MurphyB


In the time of Kings, they were seen to have divine rights and their subject were possessions or chattel with no rights. The founders changed all that.

uh, not really. ever hear of the english bill of rights? magna carta? habeas corpus act etc etc?

149 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:45:02pm

re: #144 rikzilla

Christians and Muslims are both Abrahamic religions. They are both offshoots of Judaism. They are both of them religions of conquest. The only real difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has not yet been the subject of a Reformation. This indeed makes Islam less capable of peaceful coexistence, but if you look at historical Christianity it is just as intolerant...and just as bloody minded.

Enlightenment, Enlightenment, rah rah rah!!

150 BryanS  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:45:06pm

re: #138 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm afraid it's already copyrighted--and sung with great verve by Stockard Channing.

Heh...guess I didn't watch enough Grease :)

151 erraticsphinx  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:45:27pm

re: #146 Sharmuta

Very, very good point.

152 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:45:51pm

re: #147 MurphyB

Render unto Caesar...

The Bible does not take political stands. Jesus was crucified by politicians for his religious views at the behest of the reining theocracy. Read the New Testament it's not long.

i'm not talking politics, im talking law.

what brand of crazy are you exactly?

153 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:46:04pm

re: #146 Sharmuta

The Divine Right of Kings was a political and religious doctrine- exactly what a theocracy would be. That's why the Founders established a separation of Church and State, and these kooks want to change it back.

Divine Right is also, in the sense we use it when talking about early modern European monarchs, a relatively late concept.

154 rikzilla  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:46:22pm

re: #141 Charles

I bet it wasn't much of a comfort to Japanese Americans either. If your rights can be taken from you at the whim of government...then they don't really exist do they? And if rights are bestowed upon you by an invisible entity that you can't even prove the existence of...then how does that help??? ...you know...in the REAL world???

155 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:47:11pm

re: #147 MurphyB

Render unto Caesar...

The Bible does not take political stands. Jesus was crucified by politicians for his religious views at the behest of the reining theocracy. Read the New Testament it's not long.

It is long. It's just not as long.

156 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:47:46pm

re: #146 Sharmuta

I got that. I read the article. We were talking about the orgin of our rights. Kooks have been at that as long as society has existed. May point has been chill out. Be vigilant.

157 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:47:46pm

re: #152 SpaceJesus

My Opinion of Law: A Will is a program you can only test by dying.

It's a declarative language that is inefficient, buggy, and error prone with no good concept of arrays or subroutines.

158 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:47:56pm

re: #145 Floral Giraffe

It's in the "links". Nevertheless, here it is inline:

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

159 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:48:06pm

re: #133 MurphyB

"What's the difference between not honoring a right and taking it away to the slave or the woman?"

It means that you can mistreat me, abuse me, do all sorts of horrible things to me but you cannot remove my rights from me. They were placed in me by God. You can dishonor my rights you cannot take them. I can justly fight back and defeat you if I possessed the power and strength.

In the time of Kings, they were seen to have divine rights and their subject were possessions or chattel with no rights. The founders changed all that.

I've got news for you. Many Americans did not see slaves as possessing inalienable rights. Indeed, many saw slavery as a positive good for an inferior race that could justly be deprived of any rights. That attitude was not placed on the path to extinction until the Union enacted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after crushing the armies that attempted to defend slavery during the Civil War.

160 Racer X  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:48:17pm
161 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:49:07pm

re: #148 SpaceJesus

There were serfs after magn carta, no?

162 sagehen  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:49:32pm

re: #117 SanFranciscoZionist

The pair I'm thinking of hatched out a chick from an abandoned egg, and raised it together. There is a children's book about them: "And Tango Makes Three". You can guess how popular this book is in certain circles.

Until Scrappy (the homewrecker! the brazen hussy!) came between them. I felt so bad for poor Roy... and then she dumped Silo within two years anyway. They're the Ellen DeGeneres/Anne Heche of penguindom.

And now it turns out Tango is also gay, she and her girlfriend Tanuzi seem very happy together. As best we can tell.

(I don't keep up with them much anymore, ever since the Central Park Zoo got their snow leopards I can't seem to find time to get to the penguin enclosure).

163 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:50:01pm

re: #157 saik0max0r

My Opinion of Law: A Will is a program you can only test by dying.

It's a declarative language that is inefficient, buggy, and error prone with no good concept of arrays or subroutines.

and it gets even more hilarious when you have an existing "system" of law, and then some group of people decide that an archaic barbaric system should now replace or overlap the existing system.

164 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:50:13pm

re: #159 Dark_Falcon

Indeed, based on OT law there is no reason why one would not look upon a separate ethnic group as being fundamentally different before the law. According to the OT, if the non-Israelites in the surrounding areas wanted to become part of Israel then they had to undergo the process... otherwise they were just outsiders.

165 Cato the Elder  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:50:28pm

There's this little "thankfulness" virus going around on Facebook. For two weeks prior to Thanksgiving, you're supposed to share with your FB friends something each day that makes you thankful.

It has been a goldmine of hilarity for me, as parents with average children tell me how thankful they are that their four-year-old brat can emulate them in their food preferences.

Finally, tonight, I succumbed, and wrote an "I'm thankful" triteness of my own.

Cato is thankful that the overpaid, underendowed fools, tools and moules soon to foregather at København will now not even try to impose their ecocentric laws on a world that would only scoff at them anyway. Whenever someone tells you "we must do this nownownow or else our children will curse us", be sure he only wants to pick your pocket.

If I don't get at least one defriending for that, I never spoke Latin.

Good night.

166 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:51:01pm

re: #161 MurphyB

There were serfs after magn carta, no?

Yes, but it provided the ideological framework for their emancipation after the Black Plague reduced the power of the nobility to control them.

167 rikzilla  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:51:10pm

re: #159 Dark_Falcon

Slavery...condoned by the Bible. Maybe a future theocracy can turn the clock back on that too?

Here's a tip...don't take that Sunday overtime!

168 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:51:25pm

re: #153 SanFranciscoZionist

Divine Right is also, in the sense we use it when talking about early modern European monarchs, a relatively late concept.

Yes however the concept and the assumption of many rulers of divine grant of rule dates back to pre Alexandrian times. The doctrine of Divine Right does stem from the Age of Absolutism, but let's face it: elective monarchies have been pretty rare in history.

169 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:51:54pm

re: #156 MurphyB

The origin of our rights is Man. It took Man to step up and say they belonged to us, regardless of the justification. They are self-evident, and need no further justification, in my opinion.

170 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:52:20pm

re: #163 SpaceJesus

So... It's like replacing Unix with Windows?

171 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:52:25pm

re: #162 sagehen

Until Scrappy (the homewrecker! the brazen hussy!) came between them. I felt so bad for poor Roy... and then she dumped Silo within two years anyway. They're the Ellen DeGeneres/Anne Heche of penguindom.

And now it turns out Tango is also gay, she and her girlfriend Tanuzi seem very happy together. As best we can tell.

(I don't keep up with them much anymore, ever since the Central Park Zoo got their snow leopards I can't seem to find time to get to the penguin enclosure).

LOL! More information than I'd managed to pick up!

Roy and Silo did feature in Farley, the comic strip, when he was covering the brief same-sex marriage extravaganza in 2004. They hailed a cab in Central Park and headed for San Francisco to get married. "Why not fly?" asks the cabbie.

"We're flightless," one of them responds.

172 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:53:29pm

re: #164 freetoken

Indeed, based on OT law there is no reason why one would not look upon a separate ethnic group as being fundamentally different before the law. According to the OT, if the non-Israelites in the surrounding areas wanted to become part of Israel then they had to undergo the process... otherwise they were just outsiders.

But the outsider is protected under the law, so says the Law.

173 Randall Gross  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:55:00pm

ugh, it's late, time for me to get some sleeps, family coming in tomorrow.

174 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:55:15pm

re: #168 Thanos

Yes however the concept and the assumption of many rulers of divine grant of rule dates back to pre Alexandrian times. The doctrine of Divine Right does stem from the Age of Absolutism, but let's face it: elective monarchies have been pretty rare in history.

True, but Northern Europe, England very much included, has always had its quirks. My favorite bit of trivia on the history of democracy is that one European nation held a vote on going Christian, in the year 1000.

175 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:55:20pm

re: #159 Dark_Falcon

Agghhh. Can you not tell the subjective from the objective? I understand other people think differently and want to enlslave others. The point is people who enslave others are not justified. The slave, the subject, the serf is justified in throwing off the bonds of slavery with force, with prejudice, etc.

I've read a bit of history...

176 Cato the Elder  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:55:20pm

re: #173 Thanos

ugh, it's late, time for me to get some sleeps, family coming in tomorrow.

My sympathies.

177 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:55:48pm

re: #161 MurphyB

There were serfs after magn carta, no?

yes, which applied to free subjects of the king. then there was the english bill of rights, which predates the US which applied to all englishmen.

saying "in the time of kings prior to the founding of the US, people were chattel with no rights" is blatantly false.

178 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:56:30pm

re: #173 Thanos

ugh, it's late, time for me to get some sleeps, family coming in tomorrow.

Remember to bring out the Family Paper™ in case things get rough. It's sort of like fly paper only bigger.

//

179 Stanghazi  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:56:38pm

Here are some of the signors (the politically active ones) to the Manhattan Declaration:

Chuck Colson Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview

Jim Daly President and CEO, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Marjorie Dannenfelser President, Susan B. Anthony List (Arlington, VA)

Dr. James Dobson Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Dr. William Donohue President, Catholic League (New York, NY)

Dinesh D’Souza Writer & Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe, CA)

Rev. Jonathan Falwell Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church (Lynchburg, VA)

Maggie Gallagher President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a co-author of The Case for Marriage (Manassas, VA)

Dr. Robert P. George McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University (Princeton, NJ)

Rev. Ken Hutcherson Pastor, Antioch Bible Church (Kirkland, WA)

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church (Beltsville, MD)

Dr. Richard Land President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, DC)

Rev. Herb Lusk Pastor, Greater Exodus Baptist Church (Philadelphia, PA)

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Tony Perkins President, Family Research Council (Washington, D.C.)

Alan Sears President, CEO, & General Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund (Scottsdale, AZ)

Mark Tooley President, Institute for Religion and Democracy (Washington, D.C.)

180 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:57:06pm

re: #156 MurphyB

I got that. I read the article. We were talking about the orgin of our rights. Kooks have been at that as long as society has existed. May point has been chill out. Be vigilant.

That's not a point.

And you're wrong about the origin of our rights.

181 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:57:36pm

re: #179 Stanley Sea

Wow, look at all of the Italians and Spaniards on that list.

/

182 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:57:47pm

re: #175 MurphyB

Agghhh. Can you not tell the subjective from the objective? I understand other people think differently and want to enlslave others. The point is people who enslave others are not justified. The slave, the subject, the serf is justified in throwing off the bonds of slavery with force, with prejudice, etc.

I've read a bit of history...

Religion is also used to keep people in slavery, so which religious justification is it?

183 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:58:02pm

re: #174 SanFranciscoZionist


Scandinavian societies have always been fairly egalitarian and democractic. Vikings are case in point. Also explains how they can run a socialized healthcare system without sucking at it.

184 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:59:01pm

re: #175 MurphyB

I've read a bit of history...


did you forget most of it?

185 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:59:29pm

re: #183 saik0max0r

Scandinavian societies have always been fairly egalitarian and democractic. Vikings are case in point. Also explains how they can run a socialized healthcare system without sucking at it.

Denmark is my favorite country that I actually have ancestors from. Wonderful people.

186 hickph  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:59:45pm

Palin/Farah 2012 - "Because an invisible man in the sky told us it is our destiny."

And when they lose, there will be hell (oh, the horror!) to pay. She may even have to concoct a sequel: "Going Rogue 2: Going Rogue-ier."

187 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 10:59:48pm

re: #183 saik0max0r

Scandinavian societies have always been fairly egalitarian and democractic. Vikings are case in point. Also explains how they can run a socialized healthcare system without sucking at it.

universal viking health care sounds kind of metal

188 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:00:35pm

If you are lucky enough to live in a society that collectively agrees that they should stand up against your rights being trampled, you should consider yourself very fortunate.

189 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:00:55pm

re: #169 Sharmuta

"The origin of our rights is Man. It took Man to step up and say they belonged to us, regardless of the justification. They are self-evident, and need no further justification, in my opinion."

Then another man can step up and change what is presently "self-evident". Like Hitler, Pol-Pot, Mao, Stalin, Kim Il (what's his name), etc.

190 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:01:01pm

re: #182 Sharmuta

Both. At the same time. Depending on whether it makes you feel better or not.


Frankly, I'm of the mind to say that we simultaneously under estimate what religion provides while at the same time over estimating the intelligence of it's lay followers.

Most of the "Declaration" is well thought out, but it's conclusions are definitely in the failburger category of polemics. Fire n' Brimstone is like the action movies of the religious circuit.

191 erraticsphinx  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:02:02pm

re: #175 MurphyB

Slavery is justified in the Bible (the OT) in certain situations, is it not? How is that squaring with your "God-given" rights?

Throughout history is has been men who have given us rights, and men who have taken them away, not God. Sorry.

192 Lidane  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:02:38pm

re: #108 Racer X
Lady Gaga - Bad Romance

I'm not ashamed to admit that I love her music. That new song is awesome.

193 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:02:43pm

re: #189 MurphyB

"The origin of our rights is Man. It took Man to step up and say they belonged to us, regardless of the justification. They are self-evident, and need no further justification, in my opinion."

Then another man can step up and change what is presently "self-evident". Like Hitler, Pol-Pot, Mao, Stalin, Kim Il (what's his name), etc.

Uh, that's from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Or should we strike that from the record?

194 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:02:48pm

re: #185 Obdicut

Copenhagen is fucking awesome and Denmark rawks!

195 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:02:58pm

re: #189 MurphyB

Then another man can step up and change what is presently "self-evident". Like Hitler, Pol-Pot, Mao, Stalin, Kim Il (what's his name), etc.

Uh, yeah- which was my point. Man does indeed take away the self-evident rights of others, and it takes other men to get them back. I thought you'd read a bit of history.

196 rikzilla  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:03:03pm

The main point of the Magna Carta was that it was the first time limits were imposed upon a reigning King. It came at a time when the Barons and princes of Wales were strong and the King had to accede to many demands else possibly lose his crown. It also laid the groundwork for Simon de Montfort to set up the first meaningful Parliament.

197 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:03:06pm

re: #189 MurphyB

I read about this girl that was kidnapped by a truck driver and kept in an abandoned house's basement for two years. I would say that that truck driver stepped in and took away her rights, God-given or Man-given.

198 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:03:40pm

re: #184 SpaceJesus

did you forget most of it?

SJ, I think you should get the Flounceapult ready, is case our friend gets out of hand.

199 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:04:00pm

re: #187 SpaceJesus

We desperately need moar metal.

The Good Kind, Not this Emo Poseur stuff.

200 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:04:40pm

Must go to sleep.

201 Stanghazi  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:06:01pm

Me too - nite all!

202 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:08:41pm

re: #196 rikzilla

Unfortunately it was imposed by a bunch of wannabe kings against a weaker king. It wasn't altruistic is the slightest.

While I understand that it was a key doctrinal underpinning of our existing common law legal structure, it's not these onesy-twosy slightly-modified-set-of-rules that are the true enabler of human rights.

It's access to literacy via (cheap) technology that was and is the true game changer, and this will always be the case.

The next step is for someone to invent the printing press of energy production.

203 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:09:15pm

Why is Jon and Kate Plus 8 playing on my TV? It's been on in the background, and I've only just noticed it. I feel like I am giving a tacit thumbs-up to this voyeurism by leaving it on all this time.

204 freetoken  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:09:33pm

re: #172 SanFranciscoZionist

But the outsider is protected under the law, so says the Law.

Except for those who were directly ordered to be destroyed!

205 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:10:23pm

re: #203 cliffster

Why is Jon and Kate Plus 8 playing on my TV? It's been on in the background, and I've only just noticed it. I feel like I am giving a tacit thumbs-up to this voyeurism by leaving it on all this time.

I hate both of them.

206 Bagua  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:10:38pm

This is shocking... an email exchange between Mann and Jones has surfaced about the use of energy saving light bulbs. I'm pretty sure it's real.

---
To: Phil@cru.co.uk
Subject: Annoying idiot wants scientific openness

Howdy amigo!

I got this outrageous E-mail by some idiot that wants to check our light-bulb figures. If I see him I promise you I'll beat the crap out of him. Suggest that you immediately delete everything. Chris will do the same. We can't have others coming and checking our light bulbs. Scientific scrutiny and freedom of information in my ass! I propose that we gang up and oust this annoying man from everything. BTW, I attached the latest version of our program code, which should fix the travesty about the increase that simply hasn't happened.
--Mike

Ps. Send the money in chunks below 10 000 dollars, so authorities won't find them, though I know that's a heck of a job for the 100 billion of tax-payer's money we have gotten so far.

207 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:10:41pm

re: #177 SpaceJesus

Fine. In the back and forth I committed an unforced error. But what of all those pesky "subjects" in the colonies? You know, those persons not "Englishmen". Taxation without representation, trial by jury of peers, freedom of speech, free press? King George wasn't too keen on all that. The idea that English law did not extend to the colonies puts the lie to their thinking.

208 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:11:47pm

Speaking of religion and politics

Northern Ireland: 2 charged with attack on police

Two suspected Irish Republican Army dissidents have been charged with attempting to kill an off-duty police officer near the province's border with the Republic of Ireland last week, police said Tuesday.

The pair, 26 and 32, were among three suspects arrested after gunmen tried to ambush the officer in Garrison, a lakeside border village in the westernmost corner of Northern Ireland on Saturday.

The botched attack came the same day Irish Republican Army dissidents left a 400-pound (180-kilogram) car bomb outside police headquarters in Belfast. That homemade device caught on fire but didn't explode.

The spike in dissident activity aims to undermine Northern Ireland's power-sharing government of British Protestants and Irish Catholics.

209 borgcube  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:12:35pm

re: #144 rikzilla

Agreed. But that "only real difference" cannot be just stated and dismissed. There is a reason why a Reformation happened with one and not the other, and why one still continues to subject its adherents to primitiveness and poverty almost everywhere it's practiced. OK, I'll say it here and now: Christianity is by far a superior faith compared to Islam. It's not even close.

And that's coming from an atheist.

210 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:13:04pm

re: #207 MurphyB

Fine. In the back and forth I committed an unforced error. But what of all those pesky "subjects" in the colonies? You know, those persons not "Englishmen". Taxation without representation, trial by jury of peers, freedom of speech, free press? King George wasn't too keen on all that. The idea that English law did not extend to the colonies puts the lie to their thinking.

people of that century did not have all the rights we have today, that is true. but saying they didn't have rights at all is still false.

211 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:17:05pm

re: #196 rikzilla

The main point of the Magna Carta was that it was the first time limits were imposed upon a reigning King. It came at a time when the Barons and princes of Wales were strong and the King had to accede to many demands else possibly lose his crown. It also laid the groundwork for Simon de Montfort to set up the first meaningful Parliament.

An experiment that sadly came to ruin when Prince Edward (later King Edward I) escaped Simon custody and Northern March Lords revolted. Simon tried to quell the revolt with two armies, one led by him and the other by his son Simon the Younger. However, Edward kept them both divided until he was able to bring de Montfort to battle at Evesham. Simon was killed and hacked to pieces in the ensuing battle (Edward has dispatched a 'headhunter' team of knights specifically to ensure his death) and the Welsh infantry Simon commanded were slaughter almost to the man by the English knights. The carnage prompted a monk who observed the battle to write "such was the Massacre of Evesham, for battle there was none".

212 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:19:46pm

re: #182 Sharmuta

Religion is also used to keep people in slavery, so which religious justification is it?

Great question!!!

Religion is an institution of man and similarly flawed.

Science is being used to enslave (I exaggerate) people with predictions of climate disasters from self-proclaimed, self-evident...evidence. Shall we treat all Science with disdain because some zealots at CRU are out of control?

213 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:20:47pm

re: #212 MurphyB

Your analogy is false as well as laughable.

214 Bagua  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:22:11pm

re: #213 Sharmuta

Falaughable?

215 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:22:15pm

re: #206 Bagua

Looks fake. Did a search in my data base using some of the words and found nothing. Plus the "send money in chunks" sounds over the top. It's some joke list some guys is circulating around the internet.

216 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:22:20pm

re: #208 Sharmuta

Speaking of religion and politics

Northern Ireland: 2 charged with attack on police

I hope Bono is right and "We're not going back there!"

217 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:23:15pm

re: #212 MurphyB

Great question!!!

Religion is an institution of man and similarly flawed.

Science is being used to enslave (I exaggerate) people with predictions of climate disasters from self-proclaimed, self-evident...evidence. Shall we treat all Science with disdain because some zealots at CRU are out of control?

Got proof? Put up some evidence, or stop flinging allegations.

218 Bagua  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:23:45pm

re: #215 Gus 802

Looks fake. Did a search in my data base using some of the words and found nothing. Plus the "send money in chunks" sounds over the top. It's some joke list some guys is circulating around the internet.


Err... it was a parody. The "I'm pretty sure it's real" was the initial clue.

219 Gus  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:26:50pm

re: #218 Bagua

Err... it was a parody. The "I'm pretty sure it's real" was the initial clue.

Ah, hard to tell sometimes.

220 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:26:52pm

re: #217 Dark_Falcon


The Short List:

A) Al Gore's Books

B)Every Disaster Movie since The Day After Tomorrow.

C) Green Peace Hippies

D) Phil Jone's Diary of Seekrits

E) Almost every morality tale since Noah's great flood.

F) Nicholas Cage's hair

G) Sarah Palin

221 borgcube  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:27:51pm

re: #217 Dark_Falcon

I don't think science is doing any of that, but government is doing its best in that regard using science as its catalyst.

222 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:28:44pm

re: #195 Sharmuta

Uh, yeah- which was my point. Man does indeed take away the self-evident rights of others, and it takes other men to get them back. I thought you'd read a bit of history.

Sharmuta,

If you call a brick of gold, lead, does it turn the gold to lead. If you beat the gold does it turn it into lead? If you melt the gold, does it turn to lead? If you yell at the gold, "turn to lead", does the gold turn to lead? If you put he gold in jail, does it tune the gold to lead?

The same is true with my rights endowed by God. You can do all those things to me, but my rights remain my rights.

223 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:29:33pm

Hay guys, I was just rejoicing in homosexuality by drinking expensive spirits and listening to Queen. YEAH!

224 saik0max0r  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:30:26pm

re: #223 WindUpBird

WTF? and you didn't invite us?

225 Lidane  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:31:37pm

re: #31 Gus 802

Never a dull moment with these guys. It's like the Stupid Generator™ is always running.

And they said that perpetual motion was impossible. Heh.

226 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:32:29pm

re: #220 saik0max0r

GAZE

227 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:33:02pm

Also, looks like the Cliffster's in denial. "Hey, I'm not gay! No skin off my back!"

228 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:33:32pm

re: #224 saik0max0r

WTF? and you didn't invite us?

But then I'd have to share my Makers Mark! ;_;

229 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:34:15pm

re: #227 WindUpBird

Also, looks like the Cliffster's in denial. "Hey, I'm not gay! No skin off my back!"

Why would you say that about me?

230 nomra  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:34:38pm
On Friday, more than 150 Christian leaders, most of them conservative evangelicals and traditionalist Roman Catholics, issued a joint declaration reaffirming their opposition to homosexual marriage on the basis of protecting religious freedom.


Bullshit. Unless the government starts forcing unwilling churches to marry gays and lesbians it's not a religious freedom issue, in fact, banning it impedes the religious freedom of those churches which want to perform gay marriages.
I'm not American so I don't know how much influence this idiot actually has. Hopefully not much.

231 borgcube  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:35:23pm

re: #222 MurphyB

MurphyB,

I don't think anyone is arguing that your rights are anything but your rights. The origin is the only question here. For me, I believe they are derived from mankind ourselves with no divine hand. For you, otherwise. OK. Instead of arguing about it, can't we agree that however they came to be, that we should enjoy them and make the most of them, especially since it boils down to a matter of faith in the first place as to origin? There's no winning argument here to be made really by either side.

232 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:35:52pm

re: #222 MurphyB

And if there is no God, where then do your rights derive?

233 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:37:06pm

re: #229 cliffster

Why would you say that about me?

Um, read what Charles has been saying to you about this. Cuz' I agree 100% with it. When psychos start waving the Good Book, spouting mumbo jumbo apocalypse rants and pointing at us queers as the source of their problems, and start running their mouths off about judgment...our ears perk up! "First they came for the... etc etc."

234 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:38:25pm

re: #197 cliffster

I read about this girl that was kidnapped by a truck driver and kept in an abandoned house's basement for two years. I would say that that truck driver stepped in and took away her rights, God-given or Man-given.

No, he denied her rights by overpowering her. Had she obtained a firearm and place a bullet between his eyes at anytime during her imprisonment she would of been justified.

Using your logic, the firearm restored her rights. No she, in this example, had her rights the entire time and killed her oppressor justifiably to restore her freedom.

235 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:39:34pm

re: #231 borgcube

For me, I believe they are derived from mankind ourselves with no divine hand.

That's a point I'd like to raise, actually. Many of the prominent Founders were Deists. They didn't believe in a personal God, but rather one who was more removed. So while they may have used God as their justification, they were well aware they would have to establish the rights they claimed as self-evident.

236 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:40:13pm

re: #170 saik0max0r

So... It's like replacing Unix with Windows?

I think it's more like running Wine? :D

237 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:40:15pm

re: #233 WindUpBird

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. And, I certainly think it's inappropriate that with you suggest that I callously ignore mis justice against gays because, "hey, I'm not gay". That's insulting on a personal level.

238 Lidane  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:40:52pm

re: #234 MurphyB

Had she obtained a firearm and place a bullet between his eyes at anytime during her imprisonment she would of been justified.

Because people who are kidnapped and held prisoner in an abandoned house's basement for two years are going to have access to firearms. Really.

239 borgcube  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:43:14pm

re: #235 Sharmuta

And I thank them almost every day for that. Brilliant guys weren't they, even as deists? :)

240 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:45:12pm

re: #231 borgcube

I had a great time tonight, thanks eveyone for the spirited polite debate.

Yes, freedom is good!

241 Bagua  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:45:36pm

re: #222 MurphyB

[...]

You can do all those things to me, but my rights remain my rights.

All your Rights Are Belong To Us!

242 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:45:47pm

re: #240 MurphyB

I had a great time tonight, thanks eveyone for the spirited polite debate.

Yes, freedom is good!

Good night, sleep well.

243 borgcube  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:46:38pm

re: #240 MurphyB

Same here MurphyB. Goodnight as well. See ya tomorrow lizards.

244 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:47:54pm

re: #237 cliffster

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. And, I certainly think it's inappropriate that with you suggest that I callously ignore mis justice against gays because, "hey, I'm not gay". That's insulting on a personal level.

Oh, I don't think you totally ignore it, I think you might... diminish its potency, shall we say. I have seen blogs light up like the fourth of July when anyone so much as sneezes something that sounds like their 2nd amendment rights are being leaned on. So we got this apocalyptic snake-handler type full on advocating criminializing my entire existence, it's probably going to concern me more that it concerns you. World Net Daily ain't the WSJ, but people read it, and they are often stupid and believe what they read there. There are states in the union I would be scared to death of admitting my relationship with my partner in. There's a reason I parked my butt here in Portland Oregon, and plan to stay here for the rest of my life.

Thankfully, I think this is a sign of the religious right eating themselves, and not a sign of their rise. Doesn't mean it doesn't worry me. I don't think you're callously etc etc and it was less insult and more snark on my part. We are worried, and we are often shat on, and we are allowed some snark. ;-)

245 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:47:58pm

re: #241 Bagua

All your base!!!

246 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:51:02pm

re: #238 Lidane

In was a mental exercise. The poor girl was held captive. Her rights were denied not removed - there is a difference.

247 MurphyB  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:53:53pm

re: #232 Sharmuta

Last comment...

Good question, that won't be resolved tonight.

248 Sharmuta  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:53:58pm

re: #244 WindUpBird

What about apologizing for insulting him?

249 cliffster  Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:55:24pm

re: #244 WindUpBird

Nothing I said had anything to do with homosexuals, except my #12, which I hardly would think you would consider me shatting on you. If I disagree with an interpretation of somebody's words, or disagree with a generalization about Christianity, that doesn't suggest that I am oblivious to the problems faced by homosexuals - in fact they are unrelated. I'm happy you've found a place where you are comfortable, I'm very sorry you cannot feel that way everywhere.

250 nomra  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:04:12am

re: #189 MurphyB

"The origin of our rights is Man. It took Man to step up and say they belonged to us, regardless of the justification. They are self-evident, and need no further justification, in my opinion."

Then another man can step up and change what is presently "self-evident". Like Hitler, Pol-Pot, Mao, Stalin, Kim Il (what's his name), etc.

Not being a believer, I don't agree, but I see your point. By locating our human rights outside of human reach, "in gods hands", they therefore become inalienable.
Sadly, I think history shows that to be false, but that's certainly what was meant by the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
251 nomra  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:05:15am

re: #193 Gus 802

Or should we strike that from the record?

Uh Gus, that proves his point not yours.

252 Gus  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:06:21am

re: #251 nomra

Uh Gus, that proves his point not yours.

Whatever. Not interested in your opinion.

253 nomra  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:10:11am

re: #252 Gus 802

Don't pout Gus. Better luck next time!

254 nomra  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:17:46am

re: #235 Sharmuta

That's a point I'd like to raise, actually. Many of the prominent Founders were Deists. They didn't believe in a personal God, but rather one who was more removed. So while they may have used God as their justification, they were well aware they would have to establish the rights they claimed as self-evident.

Or maybe they did actually think rights emanated from god, but that they would still have to establish those rights themselves.
Same difference you might say, but it boils down to whether you think their Deism was sincere of not ;)

255 rikzilla  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:37:34am

re: #211 Dark_Falcon

All that is very true...(BTW; nice to meet a fellow English history buff) but The Earl of Leicester's ideas and cause did not die with him. He was recognized as the father of the Parliament. I remember hearing that he's depicted on some artwork in the SCOTUS building although I can't seem to verify it...

It was pretty horrible how he died...

256 SixDegrees  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:44:07am

re: #57 Charles

Absolutely wrong. The title of the article is "Why sin cannot be condoned by state." In other words, he's calling for an outright ban on homosexuality, to be enforced by the state.

Similar to a law now being debated in Uganda, which criminalizes homosexuality and makes multiple "offenses" punishable by the death penalty.

Theocracy == Bad. At all times.

In this particular case, Theocracy == Evil.

257 SixDegrees  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:48:23am

re: #103 MurphyB

We all know God is not mentioned by name in the Constitution. What part of the Constitution is in conflict with the Judeo-Christian tradition?

You began by saying that the country was founded on Christian principles. Now...how hard is it, exactly, to steer while pedaling backwards?

Theocracy sucks. For a taste, visit Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, the two leading examples of theocratic states.

258 rikzilla  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:50:08am

re: #222 MurphyB

Your rights and $5 will get you a foot long sub @ Subway...

Calling them "God-given" does not make them real. When some entity with the power to rescind your rights does so, appealing to your invisible friend isn't going to help much.

Your rights and mine are protected by our respect for the rule of law in this country. In 1942 if you were a Japanese American your rights as a citizen in this country were no longer respected...look what that led to.

259 Oh no...Sand People!  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 1:28:55am

Let's just pretend that the government was founded on 'Judeo-Christian' principles...that little phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." kind a...sort a... destroys that foundation retroactively and leaves it open for ANY ONE to BELIEVE anything!

Please...get out of my bedroom.

260 Gollygoshkins  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 3:16:12am

Schmucks to the left of me, despots to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you...

261 JEA62  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:05:38am

If you want to know what a theocratic government would be like, all you have to do is read some history.

Basically the result is always war, persecution, and torture.

In the end, an extremist is an extremist, whether Muslim or Christian. And if you think a ‘Christian’ state would be *any* different than an Islamic state, you're drinking some heavy Kool-Aid.

262 Solomon2  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:23:51am

I think you're freaking out a bit, Charles. The column calls for our Congressmen to recall religious values. That's a very far cry from theocracy.

The Founding Fathers were God-fearing people - almost all of them were deists. The Enlightenment liberated governments from domination by the Catholic Church and any other organized creeds. The Founders wanted to make sure it stayed that way, not that religious values be rejected.

263 Yashmak  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:51:50am
the explosion of homosexuality in our culture . . .

Ironically, he cites this as a problem, when I suspect he'd be only too happy to see homosexuals explode.

264 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:54:15am

re: #262 Solomon2

what is congress if not ful of congressmen?

if every congressmen is individualy governmening via the Bible/Torah/Quran - you will have a religious legislature passing fear based socially backwards hogwash of the highest order... not that that doesnt/hasn't happened already though.

265 spoosmith  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 6:09:00am

There are several countries who have full acceptance of gay marriage and they seem to be doing OK. Most of them even have longer lifespans and lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. Hmmm. I guess Farah and the fundies don't consider these other countries smite-worthy. For some reason.

As for MurphyB:
re: #222 MurphyB

Sharmuta,

If you call a brick of gold, lead, does it turn the gold to lead. If you beat the gold does it turn it into lead? If you melt the gold, does it turn to lead? If you yell at the gold, "turn to lead", does the gold turn to lead? If you put he gold in jail, does it tune the gold to lead?

The same is true with my rights endowed by God. You can do all those things to me, but my rights remain my rights.

I have read through this entire thread and can't make sense of what you're saying. I'm going to assume that you are heavily medicated.

266 andres  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 6:32:35am

re: #25 cliffster

There's a nice little book called the Bible. Read the few first books. You'll see lot of "crimes" that are punished by stoning. Theocracies take what's written on their Holy books quite literally.

re: #39 SanFranciscoZionist

Jesus never mentioned gays, but it's mention in the second book of the Bible (Exodus, if I'm not mistaken), near the chapter that says men can't shave their beards and women can't sleep with their husbands when they are in their period (sic ?), or they'll all be punished by stoning.

re: #42 MurphyB

Take a good look on the 10 Commandments. 8 out of 10 are just common sense if you want a thriving society. These rules have been established even in non-Judeo-Christian societies.

re: #77 Charles

We could argue it's in the pledge of allegiance, where it was added some 50+ years ago (or almost 200 years after the USA was founded) due to Red Paranoia. xP

re: #103 MurphyB

Separation of State and Church? Slavery abolishment?

re: #156 MurphyB

Read some of Volaire's books (especially those from his latter years) and read his biography. You'd be shocked.

re: #230 nomra

Indeed. Quite similarly to what happened to interracial marriages, where some churches didn't officially accept them until late 1990s.

267 Hawkins  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 6:37:28am

re: #95 Thanos

And children who are disobedient to parents.

And debaters. Don't forget about those squirrelly debaters.

268 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 6:39:49am

re: #267 Hawkins

what about those engaged in mass debates?

269 Hawkins  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 6:49:13am

re: #268 wozzablog

That would probably be preferable, to Mr. Farah, than mass backbiting (which he also seems to want to outlaw).

270 Lidane  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 7:03:06am

re: #262 Solomon2

The Founding Fathers were God-fearing people - almost all of them were deists.

There's no such thing as a God-fearing deist.

A deist believes that a supreme being that created the universe, but that they are remote from and are not involved with the affairs of their creation at all. There are no revelations, no miracles, no prophecy, no divine intervention, Jesus was not divine, the Bible isn't inerrant, etc. As a result, a deist would have no reason to fear a God at all. They simply acknowledge that there *is* a God and that there's a plan in motion.

271 Achilles Tang  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 7:17:25am

re: #4 MurphyB

From where do our laws now originate?

Same place all other human's laws originate. The experiences of living with each other.

Morning all.

272 webevintage  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 7:47:46am

Oh Goody, a Theocracy...the wet dream of every Rushdoony dominionist out there.

This is the dream of Coe and The Family and I guess a number of members of Congress.

273 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:26:13am

re: #261 JEA62

If you want to know what a theocratic government would be like, all you have to do is read some history.

Basically the result is always war, persecution, and torture.

In the end, an extremist is an extremist, whether Muslim or Christian. And if you think a ‘Christian’ state would be *any* different than an Islamic state, you're drinking some heavy Kool-Aid.

It would be DIFFERENT. I'm just not sure it would be any BETTER. John Knox anyone?

274 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:30:03am

re: #262 Solomon2

I think you're freaking out a bit, Charles. The column calls for our Congressmen to recall religious values. That's a very far cry from theocracy.

The Founding Fathers were God-fearing people - almost all of them were deists. The Enlightenment liberated governments from domination by the Catholic Church and any other organized creeds. The Founders wanted to make sure it stayed that way, not that religious values be rejected.

1. I'm not sure a deist can be defined as 'God-fearing'. It's really more of a 'God-acknowledging-and-approving-of' kind of creed.

2. The Enlightenment did not 'liberate' governments from the Catholic church (Enlightenment does not equal Reformation).

275 dugmartsch  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:43:51am

re: #42 MurphyB

OK, I'll answer my own question. Our laws come from a bunch of guys who made all this stuff up. Oh wait, that's Marxism. Umm...
Was it was from the Judeo-Christian tradition? Yea that's it.

Don't most cultures, societies, etc have members that go overboard especially where free speech is protected. Yea...good point.

Is projecting the fanatics as some how the rule rather than the exception somewhat misleading? Yes, the publisher of WND is one guy in a nation of +300 million people 85% of whom believe in the God of Abraham. When I wake up in the morning, the 1st amendment will still be with us. And with all your help, the morning I don't wake up you will all continue to preserve that freedom.

If the laws come from your madeupicus construction judeo-christian value set, how come only three of the ten commandments have any pertinance in a court of law?

276 idioma  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:45:00am
'America is being judged by God.

The biblical proof text is Romans 1.

Biblical proof text? When has the bible been an accurate account regarding the forces that govern nature? His entire argument really is "It's in The Bible, and fuck you!"

Which is not good enough for me.

Here's a link to wikipedia on state religion, there are dozens of countries with Christianity as the official state religion. If Joseph Farah really has so much of a hard on for baby Jesus, he should move to one of those, and leave the rest of us alone.

277 Achilles Tang  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:46:33am

re: #262 Solomon2

I think you're freaking out a bit, Charles. The column calls for our Congressmen to recall religious values.

This kind of posturing would be funny if it weren't sad. Are we to believe that the past, say 2000 years, of religious values represent the good old days that they want to go to?

The way to achieve what they want is to practice what they preach, and lead by example instead of by legislating.

278 idioma  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:48:10am
279 dugmartsch  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:49:25am

And while I'm riled up about the subject:

Don't you think if God we're using a gay plague as judgment against gay sin (how fucking weird is that?!) he'd have put something about gay sex in one of those commandments?

Thanks for the heads up, God. Guess we're on an irrevocable course towards gay wife swap on NBC, knowing all the while that we have only ourselves to blame.

280 Ojoe  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 9:16:47am

Down with theocracy.

Up with compassion and love between human beings.

281 JEA62  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 9:49:27am

this is the type of society these people want. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

“[Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute] told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years.”

“According to a 1997 book by former [Focus on the Family] staffer Gil Alexander-Moegerle, [founder James] Dobson once said, "Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyle, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?"

“"[Homosexuals] want our preschool children. ... They want our kindergarten children. ... They want our middle school and high school children," – from Traditional Values Coalition fundraising pamphlet

“In 1992, [Traditional Values Coalition founder Lou] Sheldon reportedly told columnist Jimmy Breslin, "Homosexuals are dangerous. They proselytize. They come to the door, and if your son answers and nobody is there to stop it, they grab the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn him into a homosexual."”

“In its 1994 booklet Homosexuality in America, the American Family Association claims "[p]rominent homosexual leaders and publications have voiced support for pedophilia, incest, sadomasochism, and even bestiality."

“While [American Vision founder Gary] DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."”

“Rousas John Rushdoony...established the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965. Rushdoony's message, articulated in his massive 1973 opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law, is similar: fundamentalist Christians must take control of governments and impose strict biblical law on America and the world. That would mean the death penalty for "practicing homosexuals," among many other "abominators."”

“The Bible, Rushdoony wrote, "recognizes that some people are by nature slaves." In fact, American slavery was "generally benevolent" despite misguided attempts to make whites feel guilty about it.”

So it's pretty clear these people would like - correct that, love - to kill homosexuals. And that would just be the beginning...they'd start with those and quickly graduate to the Jews, Muslims, women, and anybody they felt was too 'liberal.'

282 Solomon2  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 10:02:57am

#270, #274: Thanks for the correction on the meaning of deism.

283 Yashmak  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 10:28:35am

“In 1992, Traditional Values Coalition founder Lou Sheldon reportedly told columnist Jimmy Breslin, "Homosexuals are dangerous. They proselytize. They come to the door, and if your son answers and nobody is there to stop it, they grab the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn him into a homosexual."”

That's hysterical JEA62. What does he suppose they use as their 'hook'?

Homosexual 'evangelist' - "Good morning. I was wondering if you'd like to talk a moment to talk about the joys of homosexuality! All you need to do is accept homosexuality into your life, and you too can enjoy a life of resentment from the religious right, possibly being disowning by your parents, being denied the ability to marry your partner, and being shunned by a portion of your friends! Or, you can not accept homosexuality into your life, and I'll just steal you from your parents and . . uh. . .turn you homosexual. . .somehow."

284 JEA62  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 10:44:43am

It would be hystericla - if they weren't serious.

285 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 11:11:04am

re: #281 JEA62

this is the type of society these people want. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

“[Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute] told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years.”

“According to a 1997 book by former [Focus on the Family] staffer Gil Alexander-Moegerle, [founder James] Dobson once said, "Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyle, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?"

“"[Homosexuals] want our preschool children. ... They want our kindergarten children. ... They want our middle school and high school children," – from Traditional Values Coalition fundraising pamphlet

“In 1992, [Traditional Values Coalition founder Lou] Sheldon reportedly told columnist Jimmy Breslin, "Homosexuals are dangerous. They proselytize. They come to the door, and if your son answers and nobody is there to stop it, they grab the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn him into a homosexual."”

“In its 1994 booklet Homosexuality in America, the American Family Association claims "[p]rominent homosexual leaders and publications have voiced support for pedophilia, incest, sadomasochism, and even bestiality."

“While [American Vision founder Gary] DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."”

“Rousas John Rushdoony...established the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965. Rushdoony's message, articulated in his massive 1973 opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law, is similar: fundamentalist Christians must take control of governments and impose strict biblical law on America and the world. That would mean the death penalty for "practicing homosexuals," among many other "abominators."”

“The Bible, Rushdoony wrote, "recognizes that some people are by nature slaves." In fact, American slavery was "generally benevolent" despite misguided attempts to make whites feel guilty about it.”

So it's pretty clear these people would like - correct that, love - to kill homosexuals. And that would just be the beginning...they'd start with those and quickly graduate to the Jews, Muslims, women, and anybody they felt was too 'liberal.'

I try not to speculate too much about other people's mental states, but I'm fairly sure that Lou Sheldon is so deeply closeted that he can see Narnia from where he is. One of his regular arguments again societal acceptance of homosexuality in the past has been that if we just let people pick their own sexualities, no one will be straight, and the family will be destroyed.

286 shmuli  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 11:39:01am

Wow, an evangelist, bible thumping Christian extremist calls for Biblical values to be followed in America (as they mostly were, or given wide acceptance by, the population for some three hundred years after the continent was settled), and we are supposed to be offended or surprised?

Is it exceptional that some right-wing politicians court votes from the kinds of evangelical Christians who sprout this stuff (think their gerrymandered districts might have many such voters? Naw.) appear with or endorse Farrah?

All you "big tent" guys on this site, ain't there room in the GOP for the religious right? Christian social conservatives work hard for the party and vote. S'amatter, you just don't want to have anything to do with a party which includes the likes of THEM (apologies to Groucho Marx), or you think the GOP needs tolerant and accepting people in the party with which YOU approve? Impressive.

Such a surprise that the GOP even advertises on such sites. Perhaps the party wants the votes of social conservatives? Ya think? The way Democrats want leftists' votes? Must be a novel concept that there are extremists in BOTH parties, huh?

You think everyone who visits Farrah's site agrees with all his positions? Hell, I visit a lot of sites for information and am often appalled by extreme positions, some of which even occur at LGF (shock).

Much ado about nothing. You would think that intelligent people (that includes religious people) cannot find areas of common agreement, despite their religious and social positions, to work together for a common cause. Hey, doesn't that sound suspiciously like the definition of POLITICS?

There is plenty of intolerance to go around, and there is plenty of hate on Gay, Lesbian and anti-religious/secular humanist sites. Don't pretend that only your position defines tolerance.

287 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 11:49:15am

re: #286 shmuli

Nice and vague.

The point, obviously, is that the social conservatives are showing they don't want others in the party, unless they're willing to support social conservatism.

288 Yashmak  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 12:28:59pm

re: #286 shmuli


All you "big tent" guys on this site, ain't there room in the GOP for the religious right? Christian social conservatives work hard for the party and vote. S'amatter, you just don't want to have anything to do with a party which includes the likes of THEM (apologies to Groucho Marx), or you think the GOP needs tolerant and accepting people in the party with which YOU approve? Impressive.

I just want the party to stop with the whole 'needing to approve' of large blocks of voters ideology. Remember, this is the party which is actually considering a 'Purity Test'. A test which, for the record, contains as a point the dismissal of the idea of gay marriage. I have no problem with folks who have social conservative ideas, but I do have a problem with them trying to get those ideas jammed down EVERYONE'S throats via legislation. I know there are many staunch conservatives here that agree.

Much ado about nothing.

Strange then, that you would feel the need to post a lengthy comment on the topic.

Don't pretend that only your position defines tolerance.

I don't think that very many people here do. Nor do I think that tolerance is correct answer in all situations. But I also know that pointing out blatant ignorance and bigotry when I see it, is not the same as "pretending that only my position defines tolerance".

289 Achilles Tang  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 1:30:53pm

re: #286 shmuli

You are a shmuk, shmuli.

I'm not a homosexual, I'm worse, an atheist. I have tolerated your kind all my life, but never tried to convert anyone from their beliefs.

You or those you defend, on the other hand, vilify people like me every day and pretend your failures are due to me.

The only reason your attitude is criticized is because you want to force others, directly or indirectly, to comply with your fantasies.

You just don't get it do you?

290 shmuli  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 1:36:58pm

# 287 Obdicut

Yesh, I like to beat around the bush.

Social conservatives are pushing others out of the party? Don't see it. They have been an important part of the party since the '70's. Seems to me its the secular conservatives foaming at the mouth. We can disagree, but I've been voting since 60's and am not an incapable observer.

So exactly WHAT are those social conservative positions with which you and many here seem to be so annoyed? Abortion? Marriage? Education?

Even liberals are aghast at late 3rd trimester "surgery" (infanticide), so this is not a deal-breaker and may even be a winning issue. Opposition to GAY marriage? Sorry, but the majority of the country always votes against Gay marriage, so this is a winning issue, like or not. Education? Perhaps, as Charles goes nutsy when religious people insist upon their children being taught in accordance with their religious principles. Freedom from religion seems to be the motto of many who post on this site. However, as this is a local or state-by-state issue, it hardly effects or controls national races.

My son just said: "my sandwich is better then your sandwich". He is right, but so what? I do not want his sandwich and he can have it. We both agree that bread is good for sandwiches, that some condiments are preferred and that we both enjoy sandwiches. Picking a fight with others who prefer pastrami or mustard is pretty irrelevant, because that is their sandwich, not mine, just as Congressional Representatives and Senators are their choices, not mine. My gerrymandered district is different from theirs.

The Dems ran social conservative candidates 2006. They preferred Democrats in the House to Republicans in the House, even though they supported candidates whose positions were not ENTIRELY identical to theirs. You mean Republicans should not run bible thumping conservatives where they would win? That is a losing strategy, just as not supporting such candidates, or such positions, where they can win, is also a losing strategy. The GOP has as much right to run extremists as the Dems.

291 Kruk  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 1:53:26pm

re: #43 Sharmuta

First of all- this isn't a "once-great" country, we still are. What an asshole.

I have a sneaking suspicion that anyone who thinks in terms of a "once-great country" is looking longingly back at a time when the "right" people had unquestioned and unearned privilege, and everyone else knew their place as dictated by their "betters". As soon as the "wrong" people start thinking they can hold their heads up without fear, participate in our society, and be just as good as everyone else, the nation begins to slide downwards.

Second, while the sentiment is nice that our rights are God given, man certainly has and will take or keep these rights away from others. And it is Man that sheds his blood to achieve these rights and/or keep them. While we may use religion to justify our rights, it is Man that has power to grant or take them in reality.

Well said. We have rights because brave men and women fought to gain them from those who would deny them, and we keep them because we understand we along are responsible for maintaining them.

292 Charles Johnson  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 1:57:23pm

re: #290 shmuli

Education? Perhaps, as Charles goes nutsy when religious people insist upon their children being taught in accordance with their religious principles.

Absolute, unvarnished bullshit.

I'm opposed to having creationism taught in science classes, and forced down the throats of everyone's children -- and that's what the people who are pushing this stuff want. They don't simply want THEIR children indoctrinated with anti-science nonsense. They want EVERYONE'S children to be ignorant.

293 shmuli  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 2:07:15pm

#289 Naso Tang
Your post supports my arguments.

#288 Yashmak
Thanks for your reply. But I do not think there was any purity test. A couple reps got together and circulated an item. They are from districts where this kind of stuff plays. This is under the title of "All politics are local". My dismissal of NY Times or CBS as useful or authoritative sources of information on developments and trends among Republicans is hardly a unique position among "staunch conservatives". As I have already posted, the majority of voters continue to dismiss Gay marriage, so this is a "mainstream" position in the U.S., and hardly extremist.

"Much ado about nothing" defined my perspective on Charles' post. I wanted to state my position, which was that making a big deal about Farrah, as if this is some kind of common or mainstream issue in the GOP was "Much ado about nothing". So I had some time today and wanted to post.

On tolerance, I disagree. The intolerance at this site for those who disagree (as I once had the temerity to do so on AGW), or actually have socially conservative positions on any issue, seems starkly obvious to me (see post #289). Many "staunch conservatives" here seem to be terribly intolerant of social conservatives and religious perspectives. That is my opinion, of course.

294 Yashmak  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 2:10:43pm

re: #290 shmuli

#
Seems to me its the secular conservatives foaming at the mouth.

Seems to me that perhaps you ARE an incapable observer. Did you not read about the Purity Test the GOP is considering for candidates? Read about it, and tell me again who is trying to muscle who out.


Opposition to GAY marriage? Sorry, but the majority of the country always votes against Gay marriage, so this is a winning issue, like or not.

Strange position to take for a party that is in the minority, to push issues that alienate voters, even if only relatively small blocks of them. What foolishness. I don't believe it's a winning issue at all, as I strongly suspect that it does not draw additional voters to Republican candidates, and alienates some independents who might otherwise vote for the conservative candidate.

Education? Perhaps, as Charles goes nutsy when religious people insist upon their children being taught in accordance with their religious principles.

Nonsense. Charles goes nutsy when religious zealots insist on entire districts of children being taught religious dogma disguised as science. Period.

295 Achilles Tang  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 2:11:50pm

re: #293 shmuli

#289 Naso Tang
Your post supports my arguments.

I expect no less from a master of cognitive dissonance.

296 Yashmak  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 2:12:40pm

re: #293 shmuli

I note that you did respond to my note about the Purity Test, but even if it WAS just a couple reps who got together and circulated it, if you don't find that exceedingly worrisome, you must be out of your mind.

297 idioma  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 3:09:04pm

re: #63 MurphyB

Wow. I never elicited so much response before.

The founders believed our rights were endowed by God and that no man could take them away.

Citation needed.

I find it funny that "The word of God" always comes from the mouths of men. Funny coincidence.

298 idioma  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 3:15:37pm

re: #97 SpaceJesus

how so?

this guy is advocating using the old testament of the bible as the law of the united states of america. he says if we don't follow the old testament, we are doomed. are you aware that the old testament also condones stoning women to death? should we follow that as well?

I want to sacrifice a goat!

299 shmuli  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 4:34:14pm

#292 Charles
Whenever you post items on these educational subjects, it seems to me that you just want to interfere in local and state issues. Unlike you, I think that people have a right to their own education, not to be dictated to from someone who neither votes or pays taxes in their district. You seem to think that just because I believe in local controls that I agree with their position, which is not the case. It just does not bother me that religious zealots want to raise their children the same. I call it freedom and tolerance. We can disagree.

#294 Yashmak
What would you expect from Christian or social conservatives? Geez, the Defense of Marriage Act passed and all states are defeating the Gay marriage bills. Is it divisive, of course. Is it a losing proposition in some blue states and counties, yes. Does it win in other locations, Yes.

You seem to think that the position of Republican Social Conservatives defines the position of Republican candidates. This is not the case, any more than the position of Leftist Dems defines the opinions of their candidates in red states. Politics is still local, and only the national "plank" of the party can be said to speak for the party as a whole.

#295 Naso Tang
You seem to have made a number of assumptions of my positions on various issues without any cause or information with which to justify your anger and hate. Perhaps you have no interest in conversation.

#296 Yashmak
As a matter of fact, if you check the districts from which these Reps come, it would not be surprising. Poorly written as it was, at least 8 of their items were fairly innocuous and the ones objected to, on this site, were primarily social conservative issues. Again, their gerrymandered districts are not my gerrymandered district and they are not stupid politicians. They do what helps them attract $ and get elected. So no, it does not bother me in the least. If it was adopted by the Republican Congressional Caucus, then I would agree.

300 Achilles Tang  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:14:54pm

re: #299 shmuli


#295 Naso Tang
You seem to have made a number of assumptions of my positions on various issues without any cause or information with which to justify your anger and hate. Perhaps you have no interest in conversation.

Listen to yourself. I stated why I hold your opinion in disdain. You respond by whining.

301 Charles Johnson  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:28:36pm

re: #299 shmuli

#292 Charles
Whenever you post items on these educational subjects, it seems to me that you just want to interfere in local and state issues. Unlike you, I think that people have a right to their own education, not to be dictated to from someone who neither votes or pays taxes in their district. You seem to think that just because I believe in local controls that I agree with their position, which is not the case.

There is no "right" to force religion into science classes where it does not belong, and in fact the US Constitution specifically prohibits it -- on the local or the federal level. There are decades of Supreme Court decisions behind this, and your argument that it's just a local matter is completely wrong.

302 shmuli  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:43:12pm

Charles --

Upon closer reading, I have to say that your accusation that Farrah is advocating a theocracy is entirely without merit. He makes no such call, nor does he advocate the rule of Biblical Law. You have read something which he did not say.

Perhaps this is just an area in which Lizards are not very conversant. The lack of religious background or belief systems pretty much leaves one at a loss for understanding the religious mind, and most of these posts are seriously at a loss for perceiving Farrah's rather pedestrian argument.

Farrah is only making the standard religious argument that G-D is in charge and that HE has, in times past (according to Scripture and religious interpretation of history) punished entire societies for their inappropriate behavior and that HE is quite capable of doing it again. Farrah's focus is on the issue of Homosexuality. I do not think Farrah is in any position to judge when a society has crossed the "line" with G-D, but he draws his line where he wants, based on his own understandings, readings and bias.

You can go through the Hebrew scriptures and find: Destruction of the world in Noah's time for sexual immorality, the punishment of MAN for challenging G-D in the tower of Babel story, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for (whatever you want to say), in Christian liturgy, sexual immorality and on through the prophets up to Jonah and Nineveh.

The idea that G-D judges, and is capable of meeting out punishment to societies for their transgressions is such a basic religious concept that I have to seriously worry about the religious exposure of those who frequent this web site. Years ago, a smart man said America was good because its people were good.

How do you teach goodness without a religious tradition, even though you dislike that tradition, is a very important question for secular people to answer.

303 Charles Johnson  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:49:23pm

re: #302 shmuli

Why am I not surprised that you're trying to make excuses for this appalling article?

304 Lidane  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 6:13:26pm

re: #302 shmuli

How do you teach goodness without a religious tradition, even though you dislike that tradition, is a very important question for secular people to answer.

Goodness and morality are not the sole province of religion. It is, in fact, entirely possible to teach concepts of good and bad and right and wrong without teaching a specific religious worldview. It's called Ethics:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Ever take an Ethics class? I have. In fact, my university, which is Catholic, BTW, required more classes for me in ethical theory and critical thinking than it ever did in religion. My final thesis in order to graduate was even an ethics paper examining a controversial social issue from all sides before making a moral rule and final judgment on it, then justifying your position. That kind of exercise is instructive and really makes you think about what you believe in beyond or even in spite of any religious viewpoint, since it wasn't enough to just point at God or some holy scripture as the reason why you believed in anything or why your opinion was whatever it was.

I can guarantee that if we taught ethics and critical thinking classes in school rather than trying to bring religion into the classroom, we'd be far better off as a country. Make people look past what they're told and teach them how to really examine an issue and things might just improve. Just telling them that God said this or that and that we have to follow certain rules in order to be considered good isn't enough.

305 idioma  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 6:22:48pm

re: #286 shmuli

As an atheist, I find religion to be silly. Imaginary friends ought to be reserved for children. But I'm not going out of my way to "tear it down", I'm not fighting religion. I've never demanded that we ban Christian churches - or any other houses of worship for that matter.

Now I stop regarding religion as silly, and begin to assess the threat it posses the moment that religious leaders espouse strong anti-government stances. It's transparent, very transparent. The only reason religious extremists are such strongly standing voices against government is simple: THEY WANT THE POWER.

In the absence of government, houses of worship become courts of law.
In the absence of taxes, houses of worship stop asking for donations, they'll demand them.

What vacuum a disolved government leaves behind will be filled with priests and clerics.

This has never been to the benefit of the people, I'll eat my hat if you can show me a historical contradiction.

Be honest, if this was a Christian nation as you claim, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because I wouldn't be allowed to say that the bible is filled with nonsense penned by primitive goat herding nomads from Iron-Age Palestine. Superstition and ghost stories are reserved for a lesser mind.

Grow up.

306 Achilles Tang  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 6:41:08pm

re: #302 shmuli


How do you teach goodness without a religious tradition, even though you dislike that tradition, is a very important question for secular people to answer.

It is hard to find substance in your ramblings, but this is in fact a valid summation of you that one can find cause to dissect.

For one you are bigoted in your assumption that any critic dislikes religious tradition simply because it is not shared.

More importantly, you appear to be one of those who have trouble distinguishing between right and wrong, or goodness and badness as you would say, without being ordered how to do so.

Why you are not capable of reasoning, even using your emotions, to make such judgments is a very important question for you to answer; and I do say You, since most religious people are able to make such judgments themselves.

307 MurphyB  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 7:58:20pm

re: #265 spoosmith

As for MurphyB:

I have read through this entire thread and can't make sense of what you're saying. I'm going to assume that you are heavily medicated.

I don't spend much time commenting on this blog and I found other's ability to reason, in word, low. You, like others, appear to have a block regarding the difference between two situations: (1) possessing inalienable rights and (2) living in a state where those rights are denied. Confusing the denial of rights by a state with a removal of inaleianable rights (that's what "inalienable" means).

When Americans lived under King George, their rights were not taken, their rights were denied. That was the entire point of the Declaration of Independence. Man's rights existed, they were not taken and housed elsewhere. American's always possessed their rights, but in 1776 the fight was on to secure those rights.

Several insults like yours were thrown at me last night. It doesn't change the fact that after 300 some posts, no one could process the paragraph above. It's kinda scary that the collective here is so hobbled.

308 Charles Johnson  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:02:17pm

re: #307 MurphyB

I feel for you. It must be horribly painful to throw your pearls of wisdom in front of such swine.

309 Achilles Tang  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 8:17:08pm

re: #307 MurphyB


Several insults like yours were thrown at me last night. It doesn't change the fact that after 300 some posts, no one could process the paragraph above. It's kinda scary that the collective here is so hobbled.

Trust me, there are 10s of thousands of posts here that would have trouble processing your posts, but don't confuse that with processing you.

310 shmuli  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 9:13:48pm

# 303 Charles
It is not, to me, appalling at all. It is a standard Judeo-Christian ethical perspective that G-D punishes those who do wrong, both individuals and societies. This is such an elementary perspective that I am surprised you are not familiar with these ideas. Perhaps what really bothers you is that he calls homosexuality wrong. Fine, you have a right to be upset when someone disagrees with you, but he hardly calls for a theocracy.

#304 Lidane
Good answer. Ethics is a useful study. In a secular society it might actually teach people right from wrong and could be the answer to teaching goodness without religion. My concern over this approach is that the study of ethics may simply become an academic exercise in learning, without instilling the proper effect upon an individual of DOING the right thing. I personally think that the question of proper BEHAVIOR is the product of consistent training, not a learning experience.

#305 Idioma
Seems to me that competition for POWER between various groups is how freedom is secured. Don't we want government, religious and business interests to be in opposition? Aren't we freer when no single group has too much power? Your last question, to me, seems backward. I would argue that it is precisely BECAUSE this is a Christian nation (built upon concepts of Roman Law and Greek philosophy and Jewish ethical perspectives) that you and I are able to have this discussion. Were this NOT a nation with the background I have noted, I would argue that dissent, irreligion and other religions would NOT be tolerated. My experience is that educated religious peoples tolerate dissent and opposition better than secular (religious) extremists. Again, we can disagree on that one.

#306 Naso Tang
Well, thanks for a reply. I make no such assumption that seculars dislike religious tradition. The sentence was meant to specify "EVEN" those [seculars] who dislike religious tradition, as I was not addressing you or any other person, but making a general statement to INCLUDE others who might object to such traditions. Sorry if this was not clear. And no, I work hard to try to keep my emotions from interfering with my reason. I want to think, not feel.


Thank you all for your perspectives and replies. I learned something today. Good night.

311 Charles Johnson  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 9:15:34pm

Pathetic.

312 Quiddity  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 9:38:37pm

What I don't understand is, why does anybody care what St. Paul wrote? Those items Farah lists are merely the opinion of one guy, Paul, who never had his status "validated" by the God of the Bible.

313 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 10:27:58pm

re: #2 Sharmuta

Because theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't depraved places at all!

...but they've rejected Jesus.

///

314 Eclectic Infidel  Wed, Nov 25, 2009 10:36:41pm

re: #33 SanFranciscoZionist

I'll take your word for it. I would think it would be annoying as hell, but as long as you're happy, I'm happy for you.

Annoying in what way? :)

Personally, I think being a nihilist would be exhausting, emotionally and intellectually.

315 Lidane  Thu, Nov 26, 2009 12:05:22am

re: #310 shmuli

#304 Lidane
Good answer. Ethics is a useful study. In a secular society it might actually teach people right from wrong and could be the answer to teaching goodness without religion.

Well, considering we live in a largely secular society, we're agreed. Teach ethics and critical thinking skills from a young age. It would have far more value, IMO, than just teaching a specific religious world view and pretending that it's the only way that a person can be good.

My concern over this approach is that the study of ethics may simply become an academic exercise in learning, without instilling the proper effect upon an individual of DOING the right thing. I personally think that the question of proper BEHAVIOR is the product of consistent training, not a learning experience.

Nonsense. The effects of doing the right thing are obvious and don't need a supernatural reward attached to them in order to instill the proper effect. If I treat someone with dignity and respect, I get it back in return. If I do something nice for them, or give of my time or money to a charitable cause, I get the satisfaction of helping others in need. That's enough, at least for me.

In fact, I'd argue that attaching a divine reward to behavior or to doing the right thing is what turns the entire affair into an academic exercise. You end up with people simply going through the motions and following the edicts of a religion in order to win some sort of prize after they die and not because doing the right thing for its own sake is its own reward. That's far more academic, IMO, than anything else.

316 rikzilla  Thu, Nov 26, 2009 2:32:47am

re: #302 shmuli

How do you teach goodness without a religious tradition, even though you dislike that tradition, is a very important question for secular people to answer.

No one objects to the morality of Christianity. The industrious people of the world - those who have anything - are as a rule opposed to larceny; every large majority of people object to being murdered; and so we have laws agains larceny and murder. A large majority of people believe in what they call, or understand, to be justice. There is no very great difference of opinion among civilized people as to what is or is not moral. It cannot truthfully be said that the man who attacks Islam attacks all morality. He does not attack goodness, justice, mercy, or anything that tends, in his judgment, to the welfare of mankind; but he does attack Islam. So one attacking what is called Christianity does not attack kindness, charity, or any virtue. He attacks something that has been added to the virtues. All that Christianity has added to morality has been useless and worthless. Not only so, it has been hurtful. Take Christianity from morality and the useful is left, take morality from Christianity and the useless remains.

-Robert G. Ingersoll
"Col. Ingersoll's reply to his critics in the New York Evening Telegram"
(page4 and 5)

[Link: www.archive.org...]

317 idioma  Thu, Nov 26, 2009 9:12:12am

re: #302 shmuli

How do you teach goodness without a religious tradition, even though you dislike that tradition, is a very important question for secular people to answer.

You don't need to believe in supernatural forces to behave morally. Morality is a built-in condition of humanity; the moral tendency exists in just about everyone, barring utter psychopaths.

The Chinese had civilisation and laws thousands of years before christianity and islam reared their ugly heads on this unfortunate planet. A passing glance at the bible it's self shows us that morality can not be based in religious scripture, Unless you think selling your daughter into slavery is ok and owning slaves is ok. Two things which are the opposite of moral.

Morality is just another way of describing behaviour that is conducive with a productive and cohesive society. Humans are social animals and we have been for some time. And like other social animals it is seen as unproductive to cause unnecessary unrest.

Just like honey bees can congregate in a hive numbering into the millions. So why don't they kill each other? because then there would be no honey. And if the honey bee had the neuron capacity to philosophise or ponder they would no doubt question why they have this need, This hardwired behavioral trait, That makes them unlikely to kill randomly for no reason.

On the other hand, religion (although not exclusively) has been the root cause of many acts of violence against fellow human beings. "God is great!" cried the 9/11 hijackers before their planes struck. Have you ever see this headline: "Atheist Bombs Abortion Clinic"?

How many religious leaders have been caught in scandal for raping young children? Where was their morality derived from? If someone says that all that is preventing them from stealing, lying, raping, and killing to reach whatever ends they want is the dictates of God (or their fear of Hell), can that person really be trusted?

Altruism often helps society run better, allowing the weak and sick, who might never get to contribute to a less social society, to help improve the lot of society at large. Many religions and nationalisms work against this, dividing society into in-groups and out-groups, and frowning on helping those who are not part of the group.

So what good is religion? Well, when I need to manipulate a large group of people to persecute a smaller group, nothing beats religion!

318 pyrodoctor  Thu, Nov 26, 2009 9:22:14am

Having grown up as a non-Mormon in Utah which is the closest thing we have to a theocracy, I saw how twisted and horrible the best intentioned people can make things. Our founding fathers made this a secular government for a reason.

319 idioma  Thu, Nov 26, 2009 9:27:13am

re: #310 shmuli

#305 Idioma
... Your last question, to me, seems backward. I would argue that it is precisely BECAUSE this is a Christian nation (built upon concepts of Roman Law and Greek philosophy and Jewish ethical perspectives) that you and I are able to have this discussion. My experience is that educated religious peoples tolerate dissent and opposition better than secular (religious) extremists. Again, we can disagree on that one.

Uh no, you danced around my question and then brought up the imaginary "secular extremists" boogeyman. Blasphemy is not a concept of the enlightenment, you're being dishonest when you give so much credit to Christianity. I'll say this one more time, so please pay attention:

The United States of America IS NOT a Christian Nation.

Even if 100% of the population in the US were Christian, we still wouldn't be a Christian Nation. Our founders didn't beat around the bush on this one. The First Amendment made sure we didn't have an official state religion. They didn't write it in at the bottom somewhere, they made it rule #1. This was a pretty big deal.

There is no mention of God in our Constitution, so how can you claim that our society is founded on that belief?

Your inability to reason, and lack of understanding is utterly breathtaking and I am embarrassed for you.

320 Little ol Me  Sun, Nov 29, 2009 10:16:51am

And man has done such a fantastic job of governing hasn't he? Just look around you.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 150 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1