NationStates Jolt Archive

After looking over the candidates, it is my opinion that Senator Sam Brownback is the best choice for President. Not only is he not ashamed of his beliefs, he is willing to stand up for them publically. He stands up for human life, and is not afraid to show his faith.
Comments?

He looks a bit of a nutter to me.

No clue.. I'm not calling it 18 months out. The field will change, and the candidates will be tested. Then we'll see.

American politics confuses me.

no thank you

my man is the most qualified candidate running

bill richardson governor of new mexico.

He wants to ammend the constitution to ban gay marriages. That's just stupid. Why go out of your way to spite the gays?

He's against a woman's right to choose. Until he goes through a pregnancy and squeezes out a kid I don't think he should involve himself in that issue.

He wants to "protect faith in the public square". Why should my tax dollars go toward advertising for Jesus?

He wants to "promote decency in the public airwaves". So he's going to decide what information I can get? Fuck this unamerican scumbag.

He's going to combat pornography. Why waste government money on that? Porn isn't a problem.

He's against videogame violence. That won't go over well on NS.

So basically this unelectable, unamerican scumbag claims he'll shrink the government but make sure it's still involved in regulating every aspect of our lives. Fuck him.

After looking over the candidates, it is my opinion that Senator Sam Brownback is the best choice for President. Not only is he not ashamed of his beliefs, he is willing to stand up for them publically. He stands up for human life, and is not afraid to show his faith.
Comments?

There's no virtue in not being ashamed of being a creationist. It's like not being ashamed of believing in Santa Claus--when you're a grown man and a Senator.

no thank you

my man is the most qualified candidate running

bill richardson governor of new mexico.

Most qualified, but least electable of the Dems. Nice VP to have on a ticket, tho, and may get his "shot", depending on the Secret Service's ability to protect Hilary/Obama . . .

Most qualified, but least electable of the Dems. Nice VP to have on a ticket, tho, and may get his "shot", depending on the Secret Service's ability to protect Hilary/Obama . . .

now come on, that gravel guy is less electable than richardson.

he would be a good balance to any of the front runners since they are east of the mississippi people. he would make a great VP working as an ambassador at large working to repair our reputation in the world.

He's the freaking obligatory "Christian-Right" hack candidate. The only good he could possibly do is to soak of the Jesus freak's votes so they don't end up counting for shit... THAT is an admirable position to hold in American politics and I respect him for it. Everything else? Fuck no.

Can we please have a candidate who isn't a pro-censorship moralistic dick sucker?

He's a Republican, end of story, no vote.

Brownback is one of the big 3 pro-censorship candidates. It's Brownback, McCain, and Hillary together in that troika.

As Rush Limbaugh so cleverly explained, it's not logically possible to oppose video game violence while at the same time opposing gun control, but all three of these candidates do, so they're clearly either mad or idiots.

Brownback, therefore, is one of the worst possible choices for president.

He's a Republican, end of story, no vote.

I don't mind that he's a Republican. I rather like Arlen Specter, to be honest (And USED to like McCain...). My problem with him is that he's a fucking moron.

He's the freaking obligatory "Christian-Right" hack candidate. The only good he could possibly do is to soak of the Jesus freak's votes so they don't end up counting for shit... THAT is an admirable position to hold in American politics and I respect him for it. Everything else? Fuck no.

Can we please have a candidate who isn't a pro-censorship moralistic dick sucker?

I support pro-censorship moralistic dick sucking only if it's for the purpose of procreation.

He wants to ammend the constitution to ban gay marriages. That's just stupid. Why go out of your way to spite the gays?

He's against a woman's right to choose. Until he goes through a pregnancy and squeezes out a kid I don't think he should involve himself in that issue.

He wants to "protect faith in the public square". Why should my tax dollars go toward advertising for Jesus?

He wants to "promote decency in the public airwaves". So he's going to decide what information I can get? Fuck this unamerican scumbag.

He's going to combat pornography. Why waste government money on that? Porn isn't a problem.

He's against videogame violence. That won't go over well on NS.

So basically this unelectable, unamerican scumbag claims he'll shrink the government but make sure it's still involved in regulating every aspect of our lives. Fuck him.

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.

2: I do not know if you have, but have you ever gone through pregnancy? if not, why do you comment on it? Also, I know many women who have gone through pregnancy who are pro life. If a politician is running, why should he not represent their viewpoint? Unless you want to censor opposing viewpoints...

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed.

5: Print pornography should not be sold where a small child can take it off of the shelves. Online, this would be too hard to enforce, yes.

6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down.

7: Is using crude language a very good way to convey an intelligent point?

As Rush Limbaugh so cleverly explained

qwa??

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that. So post-menopausal women and sterile people shouldn't be allowed to get married either? Get back to me on that one.

7: Is using crude language a very good way to convey an intelligent point?
At this level of dumbfuckery, you bet your ass it's a good wat to convey an intelligent point.

American politics confuses me.

well it goes like this:
on the one side you have the not very good party. and on the other you have the nutjobs.

American politics confuses me.

Stick your hand in a blender and press "liquefy." Thats how it seems to me, at least.

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.
What does marriage have to do with babies? If an infertile man or woman marry, doesn't that count?

2: I do not know if you have, but have you ever gone through pregnancy? if not, why do you comment on it?
He didn't. He only commented on that guy commenting on it.

Also, I know many women who have gone through pregnancy who are pro life. If a politician is running, why should he not represent their viewpoint? Unless you want to censor opposing viewpoints...
The thing is: no one in the US is forced to have an abortion. If people are "pro life", they are more than welcome to not have an abortion.

So no one is forcing anything on pro life people. Unfortunately pro life people want to force something on everyone else.

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?
First of all, I'm not an expert on the ACLU. The only thing I know is that what the religious right says about it usually is a gross misrepresentation.

Secondly, Jesus said himself that you are to keep your faith to yourself. If you walk around showing everyone you're Christian, then the faith loses its meaning and becomes an exercise in show-off social begging for attention.

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed.
How about you don't listen to it? Or watch it? Surely your appliances have an "off" button.

Learn how to use it.

5: Print pornography should not be sold where a small child can take it off of the shelves. Online, this would be too hard to enforce, yes.
A small child won't even understand what pornography is. All they see is pictures of something that might as well be modern art - it has no meaning to them. You're interpreting too much into this...did you know that a youth magazine in Germany has a section where the kids send in nude pictures of themselves? It's had that for decades, and so far the world hasn't ended.

In short: sexuality or nudity are not evil. There is no point in isolating kids from it, rather should it be the focus of parents to given them the knowledge as early as possible.

6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down.
Again, you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. I actually agree that it's the parents' job to raise their kids, and they'll have to make their own decisions.

It's irresponsible for parents to be so lazy that they want the state to raise their kids for them.

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.

The day this argument holds weight is the day that someone sterile is not allowed to get married. Until then, shove it.

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?

Do me a favor, find me a time when the ACLU has attempted to prevent all religious expression in public.

Just one time please.

I'll wait here.

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed.

Says you. Who the fuck are you to tell me what "goes to far". Don't like it don't watch it.

5: Print pornography should not be sold where a small child can take it off of the shelves.

Great, cool. I agree with this. Where the fuck have you been where pornography is accessablet o small children? In EVERY place I've seen where pornography is sold it is kept behind the counter.

6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down.

Says you. Who the fuck are you to tell me what "goes to far". Don't like it don't watch it.

7: Is using crude language a very good way to convey an intelligent point?

Damn fucking straight.

Hmm... no. I'd rather get my nuts bashed with a rubber mallet than vote for him. He opposes everything I uphold; namely the Constitution.

He wants a Big Brother state where the government decides what you can and cant watch, what you can and can't do with your own bodies, who you can and can't marry and what you can and can't worship. No thank you. I thought we blew that shit off the map back in 1945. :p

Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?

the aclu does not do so. in fact, they are the ones there to defend religious people from various republican attacks on religious expression.

So post-menopausal women and sterile people shouldn't be allowed to get married either? Get back to me on that one.


That is the exception, not the norm. NO man and man can have a child, wheras post menopausal women and sterile people are still open to having children and do not black this using either artificial methods, or engaging in sexual acts with a member of the same sex

He didn't. He only commented on that guy commenting on it.


The thing is: no one in the US is forced to have an abortion. If people are "pro life", they are more than welcome to not have an abortion.

So no one is forcing anything on pro life people. Unfortunately pro life people want to force something on everyone else.


First of all, I'm not an expert on the ACLU. The only thing I know is that what the religious right says about it usually is a gross misrepresentation.

Secondly, Jesus said himself that you are to keep your faith to yourself. If you walk around showing everyone you're Christian, then the faith loses its meaning and becomes an exercise in show-off social begging for attention.


How about you don't listen to it? Or watch it? Surely your appliances have an "off" button.

Learn how to use it.


A small child won't even understand what pornography is. All they see is pictures of something that might as well be modern art - it has no meaning to them. You're interpreting too much into this...did you know that a youth magazine in Germany has a section where the kids send in nude pictures of themselves? It's had that for decades, and so far the world hasn't ended.

In short: sexuality or nudity are not evil. There is no point in isolating kids from it, rather should it be the focus of parents to given them the knowledge as early as possible.


Again, you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. I actually agree that it's the parents' job to raise their kids, and they'll have to make their own decisions.

It's irresponsible for parents to be so lazy that they want the state to raise their kids for them.

1: But who is he to censor Senator Brownback's viewpoint?

2: We in the pro life movement think tha all life is equal- which is why we try to ban abortion. We are also against murdering a 22 year old man. Even if you support murder, that does not make it right. If you can see that we respect all life as equal, try to see our position for a moment, then our view on this makes sense.

3: What Jesus meant by this was empty public faith. People would, and still do, stand there going "Praise the Lord!" without meaning it. This passage therefore must be interpereted in the lgiht of church tradition.

4: Why should I have to come across it in the first place?

5: Nudity is not evil, no, BUT when used to incite carnal pleasure outside of marital relations, it is evil. It is the intent that matters.

Do me a favor, find me a time when the ACLU has attempted to prevent all religious expression in public.

Just one time please.

I'll wait here.



Says you. Who the fuck are you to tell me what "goes to far". Don't like it don't watch it.



Great, cool. I agree with this. Where the fuck have you been where pornography is accessablet o small children? In EVERY place I've seen where pornography is sold it is kept behind the counter.



Says you. Who the fuck are you to tell me what "goes to far". Don't like it don't watch it.



Damn fucking straight.

I have responded to most of this in my previous post. If I have not, I kindly request that you please alert me to it. Thank you.

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/cthulhu-2006.gif
I plan on breaking this out in every single presidential debate I see from this point on.

Oh, and also, Brownback would blow as president. I've said it once, and I'll say it again.

Censorship is the first step on the relitively short path to authoritarian dystopia.

That is the exception, not the norm. NO man and man can have a child, wheras post menopausal women and sterile people are still open to having children and do not black this using either artificial methods, or engaging in sexual acts with a member of the same sex

So in other words, because gay men live a life you don't like, you get to treat them like second class citizens. Got it. That's one reason I wouldn't piss down Brownback's throat if his heart were on fire.

So in other words, because gay men live a life you don't like, you get to treat them like second class citizens. Got it. That's one reason I wouldn't piss down Brownback's throat if his heart were on fire.

Second class citizens? No... There is a difference between the homosexual orientation and the active homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual orientation in itself is not wrong, however, acting out on these urges is wrong. Why? Because natural law dictates that sexual relations may only occur between one man and one woman, and moral law dictates that this must be within the matrimonial bond. It is a cross to bear.

Second class citizens? No... There is a difference between the homosexual orientation and the active homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual orientation in itself is not wrong, however, acting out on these urges is wrong. Why? Because natural law dictates that sexual relations may only occur between one man and one woman, and moral law dictates that this must be within the matrimonial bond. It is a cross to bear.

No, Christian morality states that it is wrong. What if the homosexual in question isn't Christian. Should he/she still abide by Christian morality, even though he/she isn't?

If so, congrats, you've just combined church and state.

Second class citizens? No... There is a difference between the homosexual orientation and the active homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual orientation in itself is not wrong, however, acting out on these urges is wrong. Why? Because natural law dictates that sexual relations may only occur between one man and one woman, and moral law dictates that this must be within the matrimonial bond. It is a cross to bear.

In your world perhaps. In my world, as long as the people consent, the people can fuck whomever they want, whenever they want, as often as they want, in whichever holes they want. Your law is unnatural because it dictates unnatural conduct, and your moral law is based on nothing more than moldy old texts written by men thousands of years ago who were desperately trying to make sense of a universe they didn't understand. And know this--attempting to force your morals on me will result in resistance, and it's liable to get ugly.

[QUOTE=Cherry Ridge;12610607]1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.

Is that why infertile couples and old couples are banned from getting married? Sorry, that is a really stupid point you've made. Marriage is about love! I know of a couple married for years (20+) and they don't have children! Should they be broken up because they haven't produced children? P.S. they are really conservative.

Yes, Christian morality should have a role in government, as Christianity built up modern western civilization.

Karn: I addressed that earlier.

I would never vote for Brownback, and probably never for a Republican. But, even though his beliefs are radically different from my own, I like him more than the other Republicans. I honestly believe he is a good Christian, who has some...radical beliefs. The other Republicans just seem to use the title of Christian to get votes; this guy actually believes what he says and seems to practice what he preaches.

Is that why infertile couples and old couples are banned from getting married? Sorry, that is a really stupid point you've made. Marriage is about love! I know of a couple married for years (20+) and they don't have children! Should they be broken up because they haven't produced children? P.S. they are really conservative.

Clarification: Marriage is about love and commitment. People tend to forget about that second part.

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/cthulhu-2006.gif
I plan on breaking this out in every single presidential debate I see from this point on.

I'd vote for him.

Yes, Christian morality should have a role in government, as Christianity built up modern western civilization.

Karn: I addressed that earlier.

No, it shouldn't. Let us discuss.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
But what does this mean?

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.
Oh, that's right.

Look kids, we don't have to repeal the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment, all we have to do is vote Brownback!

Look kids, we don't have to repeal the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment, all we have to do is vote Brownback!

Possible Campaign Mottoes:

"And you though Andrew Johnson was stubborn!"
"Better then Warren J. Harding, for sure."
"Fuck the gays...NO! NO! NO! THAT DIDN'T COME OUT RIGHT!"
"NO! I AM NOT A HOMOSEXUAL!"
"WELL, IT'S EASY TO FORGE PICTURES!"
"You have a recording?"
"Well, those are fairly easy to fake too."
"Oh, WOW! Do I really sou-Do they really sound like that?"

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.

You've already had to back away from this argument into a bunch of gibberish about "natural law."

People once thought the same way about interracial marriage. They were wrong. You are wrong now.

2: I do not know if you have, but have you ever gone through pregnancy? if not, why do you comment on it? Also, I know many women who have gone through pregnancy who are pro life. If a politician is running, why should he not represent their viewpoint? Unless you want to censor opposing viewpoints...

I'm sorry, but since when is opposing a viewpoint censoring it?

The man not only opposes a woman's fundamental right to control her own body, he also opposes the basic right to privacy. He's a complete asshat.

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?

Complete fiction. As the Supreme Court has explained, you can't use government to support religion or discriminate among religions -- that is what the ACLU fights.

The ACLU routinely defends Christians and right-wingers in freedom of expression cases.

Senator Brownback, on the other hand, supports legislation that would undermine the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed.

5: Print pornography should not be sold where a small child can take it off of the shelves. Online, this would be too hard to enforce, yes.

6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down.

7: Is using crude language a very good way to convey an intelligent point?

Given your disdain for the religion clauses of the First Amendment, it isn't surprising that you don't believe in the free speech clause.

You've already had to back away from this argument into a bunch of gibberish about "natural law."

People once thought the same way about interracial marriage. They were wrong. You are wrong now.



I'm sorry, but since when is opposing a viewpoint censoring it?

The man not only opposes a woman's fundamental right to control her own body, he also opposes the basic right to privacy. He's a complete asshat.



Complete fiction. As the Supreme Court has explained, you can't use government to support religion or discriminate among religions -- that is what the ACLU fights.

The ACLU routinely defends Christians and right-wingers in freedom of expression cases.

Senator Brownback, on the other hand, supports legislation that would undermine the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.



Given your disdain for the religion clauses of the First Amendment, it isn't surprising that you don't believe in the free speech clause.

1: Different issue completely. Interracial marriage has one man and one woman. Natural law is not gibberish, but the whole logic behind the argument. This may be shocking, but you have to have a MOMMY and a DADDY to make a baby.

2: The child is not her's to kill. yes, it is her baby, but it is God's baby first.

3: The Establishment clause is not absolute. You can not make human sacrifices to false gods, for example.

Look kids, we don't have to repeal the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment, all we have to do is vote Brownback!

It's not like it is a universal absolute you know. And yes, if enough people vote that way, that's all it will take.

3: The Establishment clause is not absolute. You can not make human sacrifices to false gods, for example.
Of course not, that would be murder. Murder is one of those things society can't condone to exist in a civilized manner.

He's against videogame violence. That won't go over well on NS.


WHAT? THAT BASTARD, I'LL KILL HIM!.....

Oh, and the other things are important too, I guess.

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.

2: I do not know if you have, but have you ever gone through pregnancy? if not, why do you comment on it? Also, I know many women who have gone through pregnancy who are pro life. If a politician is running, why should he not represent their viewpoint? Unless you want to censor opposing viewpoints...

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed.

5: Print pornography should not be sold where a small child can take it off of the shelves. Online, this would be too hard to enforce, yes.

6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down.

7: Is using crude language a very good way to convey an intelligent point?

QFT. If he wasn't such a supporter of continuing the Iraq war and a few other things, I would consider voting for him.

His super commitment to his faith is the reason why I'm not voting for him, that and his stance on social issues is out of wack.

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that. So sterile people cannot marry? Or post-menopausal women? My aunt is infertile. Does that make her marriage to my uncle void?

Oh, and BTW, you fail at upholding the "natural laws" that you mentioned. Homosexuality is NOT limited to humans, and there is in facta gene that shows up before birth.

2: I do not know if you have, but have you ever gone through pregnancy? if not, why do you comment on it? Also, I know many women who have gone through pregnancy who are pro life. If a politician is running, why should he not represent their viewpoint? Unless you want to censor opposing viewpoints... I myself am 15, and hven't been pregnant. However if by some freak chance I did get pregnant while a virgin I'd have an abortion. Should a teenager have a baby before she is ready? Should an economically disadvantaged woman have a baby? Should a rape victim have her rapist's baby?

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye? I'm all for freedom of religion, unless you're trying to force it on people. Hence, I'm not protesting Nativity scenes, but if somebody harasses me because of my religious beliefs, I will be offended. People are going to believe in things I don't believe in, and they are perfectly entitled to believe in them.

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed. Try turning off the television. It helps. I haven't watched TV in over a week, :)

5: Print pornography should not be sold where a small child can take it off of the shelves. Online, this would be too hard to enforce, yes.
Where do yo live, that porn is accessible to such young children? And internet censorship is impossible. Just ask China.
6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down. Don't buy the video games, and the makers will tone it down.

7: Is using crude language a very good way to convey an intelligent point? Dude, this is NSG. Oh course it is ;) though I don't do it myself.

Honestly, how old are you? Are you 13, 14? Because most of the people who say all those things tend to be stuck in middle school, or are religious nuts.

Honestly, how old are you? Are you 13, 14? Because most of the people who say all those things tend to be stuck in middle school, or are religious nuts.

That's not very nice to middle schoolers, comparing them to religious nuts.

snip
I myself am 15,
snip
Honestly, how old are you? Are you 13, 14?
snip

Weren't you 14 like, last year? :D

That's not very nice to middle schoolers, comparing them to religious nuts.

It's very insulting to the average middle schooler's ability to reason. :p

It's very insulting to the average middle schooler's ability to reason. :p

Indeed.

Weren't you 14 like, last year? :D

OH BITTER FOLLY OF YOUTH!

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

:p

Don't buy the video games, and the makers will tone it down.

Well, they won't, but that's only because other people want it because they know that pixels and bytes a human do not make.

Weren't you 14 like, last year? :D

You know very well that I was more liberal than most other 14 year olds.

Now I'm more liberal than most other 15 year olds.

Anyway, go to any American middle school, you'll hear this same crap.

I hate middle schoolers anyway. They're evil little arrogant neocon brats... most of them, anyway. I was when I was 12.

Well, they won't, but that's only because other people want it because they know that pixels and bytes a human do not make.

Precisely.

I don't have any violent video games though-- I actually don't play video games that often. But Jesus, since when were pixels human? :confused:

It's very insulting to the average middle schooler's ability to reason. :p

Well neither can really reason anyway...

And I love insulting middle schoolers, though middle school was hell for me, which is probably why I enjoy it so much...

Well neither can really reason anyway...

And I love insulting middle schoolers, though middle school was hell for me, which is probably why I enjoy it so much...

Middle schoolers can occasionally be fun to be around, religious zealots are either buzz killers or nutcases.

Well neither can really reason anyway...

And I love insulting middle schoolers, though middle school was hell for me, which is probably why I enjoy it so much...

One inevitably enjoys mocking those who occupy ones prior, lower status.

You are quite happily mocked and insulted by college students, who themselves are made fun of by graduate students.

Personally I'm up to the grad student mocking.

One inevitably enjoys mocking those who occupy ones prior, lower status.

You are quite happily mocked and insulted by college students, who themselves are made fun of by graduate students.

Personally I'm up to the grad student mocking.

I feel totally comfortable mocking those of higher station of myself. After all, it is those who are most likely in positions of power.

I feel totally comfortable mocking those of higher station of myself. After all, it is those who are most likely in positions of power.

Yes, but it depends on whether you do it in public or in private. Mocking those below you can be done out loud, with impunity.

Middle schoolers can occasionally be fun to be around, religious zealots are either buzz killers or nutcases.

I do have a few middle-school friends, and they're nothing like the rest of the 99% of middle schoolers.

You're right about the zealots though.

One inevitably enjoys mocking those who occupy ones prior, lower status.

You are quite happily mocked and insulted by college students, who themselves are made fun of by graduate students.

Personally I'm up to the grad student mocking.

I was bullied in middle school though, I know I shouldn't mock them, but I do mock them in private because I'd probably be in a heap of trouble if I mocked them publicly.

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.

The fact that marriage has nothing to do with children has already been brought up, but I'll mention it again because your answer was utterly silly. If two 90-year-olds get married, are they "open to the possibility of having children"? If someone whose ovaries have been surgically removed gets married, is she "open to the possibility of having children"?

Besides that, of course, two men may not be able to "make a baby," but they can certainly raise one, which seems like a far more important measure of parental prowess to me.

2: I do not know if you have, but have you ever gone through pregnancy? if not, why do you comment on it? Also, I know many women who have gone through pregnancy who are pro life. If a politician is running, why should he not represent their viewpoint? Unless you want to censor opposing viewpoints...

Anyone can comment on abortion rights all day long for all I care. They simply can't try to take them away from me. There's a heckuva lot of difference between "I, personally, think abortions are wrong" and "I will prevent you from getting an abortion, rather you like it or not."

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?

Please cite a specific example of the ACLU "attempting to toss out all religious expression in public." Surely, if this is a real goal of the ACLU, citing such an example should be easy.

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed.

Why?

6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down.

Why?

7: Is using crude language a very good way to convey an intelligent point?

Sometimes, yes. It depends what one's point is, doesn't it?

Sure, someone else has certainly responded, but heh . . .
1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.
Since when is marriage only for procreation? It is often economic. Marriage is a contract, and should not be subject to extraneous restriction.

2: I do not know if you have, but have you ever gone through pregnancy? if not, why do you comment on it? Also, I know many women who have gone through pregnancy who are pro life. If a politician is running, why should he not represent their viewpoint? Unless you want to censor opposing viewpoints...
Barbara Bush, former 1st Lady and mother of our current President, feels that abortion is a medical procedure. As such, it is a topic between a woman and her doctor. It has no place in a political platform. I agree with her.

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?
This is arguable, but here's a point: doesn't freedom of religion imply freedom from religion? You can believe anything you want. I just ask that you keep it in your pants.

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed.
If you don't want to watch/listen/play something, you don't have to. Don't force your opinion of "toned down" on the rest of us.

5: Print pornography should not be sold where a small child can take it off of the shelves. Online, this would be too hard to enforce, yes.
Do you include "Cosmopolitan"? This is largely a spurious argument, as there are few, if any occurances, and other than "men's" magazines, goes unenforced.

6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down.
See #4

7: Is using crude language a very good way to convey an intelligent point?
Fuck yes, it is!

:fluffle:

Yes, but it depends on whether you do it in public or in private. Mocking those below you can be done out loud, with impunity.

I think plenty of people wouldn't mind calling someone an idiot to their face, even if the accuser is a high school dropout and the so-called idiot has a graduate degree. Education after all is no guarantee of any kind of wisdom. Plenty of fools out there with a degree to somehow legitimize their foolishness.

When I was a middle schooler I was a little neocon punk. Odd the way things turn out, isn't it?

When I was a middle schooler I was a little neocon punk. Odd the way things turn out, isn't it?

I was one when I was 12.

Thank God I'm now an atheist. :p

After looking over the candidates, it is my opinion that Senator Sam Brownback is the best choice for President. Not only is he not ashamed of his beliefs, he is willing to stand up for them publically. He stands up for human life, and is not afraid to show his faith.
Comments?

Senator Brownback supports teaching Young World Creationism in schools. That's a big fat "STOP! NO WAY! ABONDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER!" sign.

bill richardson governor of new mexico.

I have family who worked in the University of NM system, and can personally attest to Richardson's racist pro-Hispanic/anti-Anglo agenda, so he's a no-go as well.

5: Nudity is not evil, no, BUT when used to incite carnal pleasure outside of marital relations, it is evil. It is the intent that matters.

LOL

Yes, Christian morality should have a role in government, as Christianity built up modern western civilization.

That's interesting. I didn't know that the ancient Greeks and pre-Christian Romans were Christian. (Maybe you've been taking history lessons from one of Sen. Brownback's schools?)

LOL. You must a troll. I have trouble believing someone would actually mean these things.

1: Different issue completely. Interracial marriage has one man and one woman. Natural law is not gibberish, but the whole logic behind the argument. This may be shocking, but you have to have a MOMMY and a DADDY to make a baby.

1. You've already admitted that childless couples can have marriages. You also have to concede that same-sex marriages can raise children. Your marriage requires procreation argument falls on its face.

2. Those that opposed interracial marriage claimed that it violated natural law. They had as much or more proof than you do.

2: The child is not her's to kill. yes, it is her baby, but it is God's baby first.

1. Then God can take care of it for nine months and the woman can have her body back.

2. So far, gays are second-class citizens, women are second-class citizens. When are you just declaring the Fourth Reich?

3. As I noted Brownback is more than just pro-life, he is anti-privacy. He would erase a whole slew of human rights just to get at Roe v. Wade. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

3: The Establishment clause is not absolute. You can not make human sacrifices to false gods, for example.

1. So it's okay to make human sacrifices to real gods?

2. You have the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause mixed up. Way to show you know what you are talking about.

3. Several people including myself have challenged you to back up what you've alleged about the ACLU. You are conspicuously quiet on this point.

Clarification: Marriage is about love and commitment. People tend to forget about that second part.
Marriage is traditionally about property, especially the transfer of property down through the generations. Love in marriage is a modern concept.

I would never support a Brownback presidency. He's a backwards biggot, a fundamentalist whacko, and a pseudo-Nazi who is about as opposed to the American Dream as I can imagine someone being. He is not good enough to be President of Iran (where he would fit in perfectly), let alone President of the United States.

I do not know why you lot waste time trying to argue with strawpeople. The far right has no interest in fact. They exist outside the zone of sanity. Ignore them and, hopefully, they'll realize their own moral flaws and hypocrisy. Otherwise, at least you won't be legitamizing them.

Back to my first objection to the man--shouldn't the fact that he doesn't believe in, much less understand evolution be a disqualifier right off the bat? He doesn't believe in science, for fuck's sake, and people want to put him in charge of the country.

It's like not being ashamed of believing in Santa Claus--when you're a grown man and a Senator.

HO HO HO!!! :D

Senator Brownback supports teaching Young World Creationism in schools. That's a big fat "STOP! NO WAY! ABONDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER!" sign.

Indeed. Wow.

Now for the frightening part: The People of Kansas elected him as their Senator. :(

I like Brownback. Here's my reasons.

1. He's Catholic. I am also Catholic, and don't mind living in places, raising a family (or whatever) in places, that are particularly friendly to Catholics. I'm sure Brownback has this idea in mind as well. It makes for better kids; it advances the social reign of Christ the King; it prevents discrimination against religious expression (yes, I believe the only way you can protect religious expression is by, surprise surprise, having RELIGIOUS people demonstrating their faith by their political decisions).

2. He is pro-life. I also am pro-life. There are a lot of reasons for this, most of which you probably won't buy. Know this, that it is because he is Catholic that he has this morality, and partly, I myself, but this is because Catholicism is a SCHOOL in which one learns natural morality better, not because the morality is itself particularly religious in nature (or confessional, to be more specific). Probably some other schools of thinking, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. are able to convey this same set of moral principles as well.
If you, because you have had a bad moral formation, are unable to discern what is right and what is wrong, why should we follow your lead as "the blind leading the blind?" Why should we not trust the sight which has been given to us?

3. He is against gun control. I don't care about gun control, personally. However, the Constitution seems to have some issues with the total disarmament of the people, as it is contrary to the "preservation of a free state." I don't know about this, but that's what it says. I also happen to own a few guns, and I don't think my owning them has ever killed anyone. Ergo, let's crack down on crime and learn how best to prevent it, before we start gathering up firearms. Perhaps a zoned approach would even be best, allowing 0 firearms inside urban areas, etc.

4. As for gay marriage, since when is marriage a right? It has never been asserted by the people in the past, which would be required for the Constitutional "reserved rights" protection. Moreover, common law has always forbidden marriages to certain people. It affects all people equally and is completely optional, so there is no issue of "equal protection under the law" business, because the government is not regulating an individual, but a particular ceremony and contract, the solemnization of marriage. There is even significant legislative precedent for forbidding particular sexual acts, surely this is not worse than that! Moreover, I actually AM of the opinion that if a marriage cannot be consumated, it should not be considered a legal marriage. Hence, many childless couples perhaps could not be married.
The civil aspect of marriage is not a right, nor a privilege. It is a social contract between two people for the procreation and education of children, mutual consent of sexuality, and shared possessions.

No. No way. No way in Ry'leh. Not in my America. I've gotten really tired of seeing Dominionists, theocons, and religious zealots run my country for the last six years. There's no way in Ry'leh I'm just going to stand aside and watch another Bush in the White House. Enough creationism in schools, enough refusing to allow people the right to marry based only on their choice of partner(s), enough trying to deny women the right to control her own body, enough attempting to break down the wall of separation between church and state, enough trying to change history to make it seem that the Founders held theocon views, enough telling me what to do and what to think by telling me "this big man in the sky wrote what we have to do in a 2000-year-old book and he'll punish you if you don't blindly obey him". Just... NO.

Damn, did that feel good.

The sad thing is, I know better than to dismiss Brownback's candidacy out of hand. I've heard vague rumblings for a while that a select group of Dominionists was looking at him as their candidate in 2008... and the last time they chose a candidate for the Presidency, we got a Shrub in the White House. :(

So, after reading about this guy and seeing his supporters posts...

If he EVER gets even CLOSE to election (and if he even runs), I'm moving to the Moon.

Please, kiddies, at least state the nation you are talking about.

Please, kiddies, at least state the nation you are talking about.

Would I get my Kiddie Meal with toy if I do?

Would I get my Kiddie Meal with toy if I do?
I realized too late that "Kinners" can not be translated as "kiddies", sorry.

I realized too late that "Kinners" can not be translated as "kiddies", sorry.

s'all good ;) What are "Kinners" anyway?

It's slang german for children also used for a group people.

Ooooh. :) I'm learning something new everyday!

1: But who is he to censor Senator Brownback's viewpoint?
I don't think anyone actually advocated censoring his viewpoint. The only problem is that the honourable senator plans to put his views into legal practice, at which point his opinion is no longer a private matter as such.

2: We in the pro life movement think tha all life is equal- which is why we try to ban abortion.
Well, obviously not. Only human life, because I'd bet you that you killed a fly at some point in your life.

Of course, I've never actually seen a good argument for when a cell becomes a life, where the difference is between a smart ape and a young child and so on and so forth.

The only real answer that comes from the religious pro life camp is that god said so. Which unfortunately isn't going to convince me or anyone else who thinks that most things that are being said about god are grossly exaggerated.

Even if you support murder, that does not make it right.
Because you're actually hurting someone else. But what exactly makes something a "someone"?

That's a tricky question, and not one that can be answered just like this.

3: What Jesus meant by this was empty public faith.
So how do we propose we make sure that all public faith is full, rather than empty?

4: Why should I have to come across it in the first place?
Alas, human society is full of stuff I don't enjoy. Like old people driving at 10km/h below the speed limit.

As much as I would want to ban old people from driving, I sorta recognise that it ain't gonna happen, not least because I basically have no argument other than my personal dislike.

5: Nudity is not evil, no, BUT when used to incite carnal pleasure outside of marital relations, it is evil. It is the intent that matters.
So little 5-year old Bobby is going to be incited into extramarital carnal pleasure?

So little 5-year old Bobby is going to be incited into extramarital carnal pleasure?

This reminds me of something:

lil Rejis: Ma, I found a men's magazine under dad's half of the bed!
Mother: What? When have you found it?
lil Rejis: like... one year ago.
Mother: and you are telling me now?
lil Rejis: before I had no idea what that was.

So sterile people cannot marry? Or post-menopausal women? My aunt is infertile. Does that make her marriage to my uncle void?

Oh, and BTW, you fail at upholding the "natural laws" that you mentioned. Homosexuality is NOT limited to humans, and there is in facta gene that shows up before birth.

I myself am 15, and hven't been pregnant. However if by some freak chance I did get pregnant while a virgin I'd have an abortion. Should a teenager have a baby before she is ready? Should an economically disadvantaged woman have a baby? Should a rape victim have her rapist's baby?

I'm all for freedom of religion, unless you're trying to force it on people. Hence, I'm not protesting Nativity scenes, but if somebody harasses me because of my religious beliefs, I will be offended. People are going to believe in things I don't believe in, and they are perfectly entitled to believe in them.

Try turning off the television. It helps. I haven't watched TV in over a week, :)


Where do yo live, that porn is accessible to such young children? And internet censorship is impossible. Just ask China.
Don't buy the video games, and the makers will tone it down.

Dude, this is NSG. Oh course it is ;) though I don't do it myself.

Honestly, how old are you? Are you 13, 14? Because most of the people who say all those things tend to be stuck in middle school, or are religious nuts.

1: I addressed the infertile argument earlier.

2: Just because something is genetic, does not mean that it should be acted out on. Some people say that pedophiles have a genetic problem. Does that mean they should molest children? Also, it was my understanding that the question of whether homosexuality is genetic is still up in the air. COrrect me if I am wrong, please. I personally do not think one just chooses homosexuality, but different factors influence it. However, even if it is genetic, that does not mean that one should act out on it.

3: If the teenager engaged in sexual intercourse, then yes, she should have the baby. Yes, the economically unadvantaged woman should have the baby. They can put this baby up for adoption if they can not raise the child, and sometimes even get all medical expenses paid for. There are alternatives to abortion. In the case of rape, we should not punish a child for the father's sins. What other crime do you kill the child for the Father's sins? Again, you may put that child up for adoption.

4: I believe in freedom of religion (though not absolute). The SCLU does protest nativity scenes, and I think that is what Senator Brownback means in protecting faith- stopping them from doing that. He also wants to bar them from collecting attorney's fees.

5: But if I do turn it on, why should I have to see that? Don't I have a right to watch TV without looking at that smut?

I'm at the end of my freshman year in high school. I don't consider myself a religious nut, as I myself get a bit angry when I get preached at. I am Catholic, and the Pentacostal Church here has a large presence, especially in the schools. I think they actively teach their teens to evangelize us, but I am not sure. Yes, I am Christian (Catholic), but not a fundamentalist. If you asked them, they'd probaby say I'm NOT a Christian.

Senator Brownback supports teaching Young World Creationism in schools. That's a big fat "STOP! NO WAY! ABONDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER!" sign.




That's interesting. I didn't know that the ancient Greeks and pre-Christian Romans were Christian. (Maybe you've been taking history lessons from one of Sen. Brownback's schools?)


1: I can not agree with everything a politician says.

2: Without the Catholic Church, these treasures of the ancient world would have been lost. Catholicism is what ensured the survival of western civilization.

5: But if I do turn it on, why should I have to see that? Don't I have a right to watch TV without looking at that smut?


There is no right to be unoffended, sorry. But since the US is a capitalistic nation, you might be alble to get a private company censoring TV for you. I am thinking of a device which is plugged between your TV and your antenna and has internet access and removes stations if a central authority finds insulting content. It does not exist yet? You just found a business opportunity!

Wouldn't know, since I ain't American, but isn't the word on the street that we want Brownback to run so that whoever the Democrat is will win? ;)

2: Without the Catholic Church, these treasures of the ancient world would have been lost. Catholicism is what ensured the survival of western civilization.
Not really.

Most of the philosophical works were saved by the Muslims in Alexandria while the Dark Ages (incidentally featuring a whole bunch of evangelising Catholics) consumed the vast majority of Roman and Greek science in Western Europe.

The great achievements of the Renaissance were to a large part due to the Crusades ending and better relations with the Muslim world, which in part led to things like original Aristotle texts becoming available in the trading cities of northern Italy.

Say what you will, but in my opinion Catholic zealots have been the enemy of what I consider "Western" civilisation for a millennium.

LOL. You must a troll. I have trouble believing someone would actually mean these things.

1. You've already admitted that childless couples can have marriages. You also have to concede that same-sex marriages can raise children. Your marriage requires procreation argument falls on its face.

2. Those that opposed interracial marriage claimed that it violated natural law. They had as much or more proof than you do.

1. Then God can take care of it for nine months and the woman can have her body back.

2. So far, gays are second-class citizens, women are second-class citizens. When are you just declaring the Fourth Reich?

3. As I noted Brownback is more than just pro-life, he is anti-privacy. He would erase a whole slew of human rights just to get at Roe v. Wade. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

1. So it's okay to make human sacrifices to real gods?

2. You have the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause mixed up. Way to show you know what you are talking about.

3. Several people including myself have challenged you to back up what you've alleged about the ACLU. You are conspicuously quiet on this point.

1: I am a troll because I disagree with you?

2: Same sex couples can not correctly raise a child. They will be raised with a warped conscience, thinking that homosexual sex is natural. Yes, there are single parents, but that is a different situation.

3: They were wrong. A black man and a white woman can form a child.
---

1: God does take of the baby, through the woman.

2: No, gays are not second class citizens. Neither are woman. Many women are pro life, and I doubt they would consdier themselves second class citizens.


1: Of course it is not OK to make a human sacrifice to the true God.

2: Yes, I admit that I typed the wrong thing. That was a typing error. Thank you for pointing it out.

3: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11539188/
Wanting to remove cross from public land. This would block the expression of a symbol of the fortitude of the American people, and the symbol of the majority religion of this nation.

3: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11539188/
Wanting to remove cross from public land. This would block the expression of a symbol of the fortitude of the American people, and the symbol of the majority religion of this nation.

Exactly, it is PUBLIC land and the state should not force a religion on us. You do not believe it? Just imagine the USA becoming like Saudi Arabia. Or maybe worse for you and hillarious for others: imagine a nation run by Unitarian Christians.

2: Without the Catholic Church, these treasures of the ancient world would have been lost. Catholicism is what ensured the survival of western civilization.

Not true. (And this is coming from a Catholic.) Over-generalizing your statement made it false. Personally, I think that the Church had made remarkable contributions, but neither it in itself ensured the survival of Western Civilization. Face it, it had made much impact, both positive and negative, on the development of "western" civilization.

I don't think anyone actually advocated censoring his viewpoint. The only problem is that the honourable senator plans to put his views into legal practice, at which point his opinion is no longer a private matter as such.


Well, obviously not. Only human life, because I'd bet you that you killed a fly at some point in your life.

Of course, I've never actually seen a good argument for when a cell becomes a life, where the difference is between a smart ape and a young child and so on and so forth.

The only real answer that comes from the religious pro life camp is that god said so. Which unfortunately isn't going to convince me or anyone else who thinks that most things that are being said about god are grossly exaggerated.


Because you're actually hurting someone else. But what exactly makes something a "someone"?

That's a tricky question, and not one that can be answered just like this.


So how do we propose we make sure that all public faith is full, rather than empty?


Alas, human society is full of stuff I don't enjoy. Like old people driving at 10km/h below the speed limit.

As much as I would want to ban old people from driving, I sorta recognise that it ain't gonna happen, not least because I basically have no argument other than my personal dislike.


So little 5-year old Bobby is going to be incited into extramarital carnal pleasure?

Animal life is worth less than human life, correct. They do not have a soul, and do not have the ability to think on the same level as humans.

Not really.

Most of the philosophical works were saved by the Muslims in Alexandria while the Dark Ages (incidentally featuring a whole bunch of evangelising Catholics) consumed the vast majority of Roman and Greek science in Western Europe.

The great achievements of the Renaissance were to a large part due to the Crusades ending and better relations with the Muslim world, which in part led to things like original Aristotle texts becoming available in the trading cities of northern Italy.

Say what you will, but in my opinion Catholic zealots have been the enemy of what I consider "Western" civilisation for a millennium.

Yes, muslims did preserve some works too. However, Catholics preserved European civilization. The achievements of the Renaissance would not be possible without the Church.

Exactly, it is PUBLIC land and the state should not force a religion on us. You do not believe it? Just imagine the USA becoming like Saudi Arabia. Or maybe worse for you and hillarious for others: imagine a nation run by Unitarian Christians.

A cross on public land does not not allow others to practice their faith, whereas in Saudi Arabia, Christianity and other religions are banned.

A cross on public land does not not allow others to practice their faith, whereas in Saudi Arabia, Christianity and other religions are banned.
You make it hard not to use a strawman argument here...

I can argue that the line between advertising onje religion and forcing it on people is a thin one which can easily be crossed and so I want the state to keep away from it as far as possible.

BTW: the traditional religion of America is the Indian faith, not Christianity :p

Yes, muslims did preserve some works too. However, Catholics preserved European civilization. The achievements of the Renaissance would not be possible without the Church.

Closing down Plato's academy? Burning books which contained 'pagan knowledge'? Hell, it was recently discovered that Aristotle came close to inventing calculus, but the manuscript he used was scraped clean by a monk and used to make a prayer book. I'm not even going to start on Galileo...

Closing down Plato's academy? Burning books which contained 'pagan knowledge'? Hell, it was recently discovered that Aristotle came close to inventing calculus, but the manuscript he used was scraped clean by a monk and used to make a prayer book. I'm not even going to start on Galileo...

Much of Catholic theology was influenced by the Greeks. The marriage theology, for example, states that sex within marriage reflects divine love. That comes straight from Greek philosophy.

Does one monk make up the whole church?

You point to Galileo, I point to Copernicus, who was a Catholic Priest. The Church raised no charges against him. I also point to the modern day when the Vatican owns the worlds largest observatory. Also, Galileo was "imprisoned" in a palace.

You make it hard not to use a strawman argument here...

I can argue that the line between advertising onje religion and forcing it on people is a thin one which can easily be crossed and so I want the state to keep away from it as far as possible.

BTW: the traditional religion of America is the Indian faith, not Christianity :p

It is not quite so thin. I can argue that putting up a cross and killing people for their faith is a large distance to be crossed.

On the second point, you got me there. :P

Animal life is worth less than human life, correct. They do not have a soul, and do not have the ability to think on the same level as humans.
What is the soul, and what is this level of thought that you're talking about? Animals can indeed reason, remember, communicate and be social, as tests have shown. If this is not sufficient definition for consciousness then I highly doubt that I posess this thing called "soul" either.

It is not quite so thin. I can argue that putting up a cross and killing people for their faith is a large distance to be crossed.
But the scale in which the limitation of civil rights is measured is logarithmical. you make bigger steps the further you get.
On the second point, you got me there. :P

So? How would you feel if a monument for an indian faith was erected in a public place? :p

What is the soul, and what is this level of thought that you're talking about? Animals can indeed reason, remember, communicate and be social, as tests have shown. If this is not sufficient definition for consciousness then I highly doubt that I posess this thing called "soul" either.

A human sould is different from an animal or plant soul. Humans were given dominion over animals by God, which is why it is moral to kill a fly, but not moral to kill a human. These animals have not built a civilization on par with humans. yes, they do create "communities", but they simply can not stack up to that of man.

But the scale in which the limitation of civil rights is measured is logarithmical. you make bigger steps the further you get.


So? How would you feel if a monument for an indian faith was erected in a public place? :p

It would depend where it was. For example, I do not think it would be ok to put a large cross in the middle of a major Jewish community, for example. In the same way, I do not think an Indian symbol should be erected across from, say, a Catholic cathedral. However, if an Indian symbol was put up in a general area, I would not really object to it. I would object if it was put up, when a cross was taken down however.

In my old town, for example, they put up a Christmas tree and nativity scene, but also had a large menorah on public land. I do not see a problem with that.

Yes, Christian morality should have a role in government, as Christianity built up modern western civilization.

Karn: I addressed that earlier.

BULLSHIT!!!!!

Western civilization as we know it today evolved in spite of the Christian church and it's tendency to exert control over economics, speech and other aspects of society. Modern western civilization started with the age of reason when people began to question religion and the old social order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

-snip-

Calm down. Chill. :)

Western civilization as we know it today evolved in spite of the Christian church and it's tendency to exert control over economics, speech and other aspects of society. Modern western civilization started with the age of reason when people began to question religion and the old social order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

The Catholic Church is what built the modern university system. Monastaries were THE centers of education in Medieval Europe. Followers of the Enlightenent killed Christian priests. Is this ok?

He wants to ammend the constitution to ban gay marriages. That's just stupid. Why go out of your way to spite the gays?

He's against a woman's right to choose. Until he goes through a pregnancy and squeezes out a kid I don't think he should involve himself in that issue.

He wants to "protect faith in the public square". Why should my tax dollars go toward advertising for Jesus?

He wants to "promote decency in the public airwaves". So he's going to decide what information I can get? Fuck this unamerican scumbag.

He's going to combat pornography. Why waste government money on that? Porn isn't a problem.

He's against videogame violence. That won't go over well on NS.

So basically this unelectable, unamerican scumbag claims he'll shrink the government but make sure it's still involved in regulating every aspect of our lives. Fuck him.

I agree with you.

The Catholic Church is what built the modern university system. Monastaries were THE centers of education in Medieval Europe. Followers of the Enlightenent killed Christian priests. Is this ok?

And the Catholic Church killed all who opposed it. Is that ok?

And the Catholic Church killed all who opposed it. Is that ok?

Of course. They were heretics, just like the gays are now.

And the Catholic Church killed all who opposed it. Is that ok?

Wrong. There were sons of the church that lost their way. And the deaths are stretched beyond belief.
The Crusades were defensive against pilgrims. The Inquisition was the most fair court of its day, compared to civil courts. We have the advantage of time, to look back, which the Inquisitors did not have. Mostly. the punishments were the same that one would get in confession.

I am feeling that there is a coming storm ahead...

I like Brownback. Here's my reasons.

1. He's Catholic. I am also Catholic, and don't mind living in places, raising a family (or whatever) in places, that are particularly friendly to Catholics. I'm sure Brownback has this idea in mind as well. It makes for better kids; it advances the social reign of Christ the King; it prevents discrimination against religious expression (yes, I believe the only way you can protect religious expression is by, surprise surprise, having RELIGIOUS people demonstrating their faith by their political decisions).

2. He is pro-life. I also am pro-life. There are a lot of reasons for this, most of which you probably won't buy. Know this, that it is because he is Catholic that he has this morality, and partly, I myself, but this is because Catholicism is a SCHOOL in which one learns natural morality better, not because the morality is itself particularly religious in nature (or confessional, to be more specific). Probably some other schools of thinking, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. are able to convey this same set of moral principles as well.
If you, because you have had a bad moral formation, are unable to discern what is right and what is wrong, why should we follow your lead as "the blind leading the blind?" Why should we not trust the sight which has been given to us?

3. He is against gun control. I don't care about gun control, personally. However, the Constitution seems to have some issues with the total disarmament of the people, as it is contrary to the "preservation of a free state." I don't know about this, but that's what it says. I also happen to own a few guns, and I don't think my owning them has ever killed anyone. Ergo, let's crack down on crime and learn how best to prevent it, before we start gathering up firearms. Perhaps a zoned approach would even be best, allowing 0 firearms inside urban areas, etc.

4. As for gay marriage, since when is marriage a right? It has never been asserted by the people in the past, which would be required for the Constitutional "reserved rights" protection. Moreover, common law has always forbidden marriages to certain people. It affects all people equally and is completely optional, so there is no issue of "equal protection under the law" business, because the government is not regulating an individual, but a particular ceremony and contract, the solemnization of marriage. There is even significant legislative precedent for forbidding particular sexual acts, surely this is not worse than that! Moreover, I actually AM of the opinion that if a marriage cannot be consumated, it should not be considered a legal marriage. Hence, many childless couples perhaps could not be married.
The civil aspect of marriage is not a right, nor a privilege. It is a social contract between two people for the procreation and education of children, mutual consent of sexuality, and shared possessions.

So you support the second amendment but not the first? You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to follow. It's the supreme law of the land. If you're against the constitution you're against everything this nation stands for.

Animal life is worth less than human life, correct. They do not have a soul, and do not have the ability to think on the same level as humans.

When you can prove the existence of a soul I'll agree that it should be taken into account in making laws. Until then basing laws on the existence of a soul is like basing laws on the existence of vampires or unicorns.

When you can prove the existence of a soul I'll agree that it should be taken into account in making laws. Until then basing laws on the existence of a soul is like basing laws on the existence of vampires or unicorns.

So do you think that swatting a fly should have the punishment has murdering a human?

A cross on public land does not not allow others to practice their faith, whereas in Saudi Arabia, Christianity and other religions are banned.

It's an illegal endorsement of a particular faith. What would happen if someday we had a Muslim majority and they decided to build mosques on public grounds everywhere? How would you feel when your kids decided that Islam is the true religion because the government funds it and promotes it?

It's an illegal endorsement of a particular faith. What would happen if someday we had a Muslim majority and they decided to build mosques on public grounds everywhere? How would you feel when your kids decided that Islam is the true religion because the government funds it and promotes it?

Can you point to an example in America, in the modern day, of a child converting to Christianity because of seeing a cross on public land? Also, why is it that was once considered ok constitutionally now considered unconstitutional? Does this mean that the constitution can have different interpretations? Why is it then that your interperetation is right, and mine wrong?

The Catholic Church is what built the modern university system. Monastaries were THE centers of education in Medieval Europe. Followers of the Enlightenent killed Christian priests. Is this ok?

The Catholic Church censored facts like the fact that the earth travelled around the sun. They threatened to kill him for it. They killed numerous people who disagreed with their religious beliefs, often by torture. That was church policy. Very different from the values that America was founded on.

Now you show me where the leading minds in the Enlightenment promoted the murder of clergy.

So do you think that swatting a fly should have the punishment has murdering a human?

No, and I don't base it on an imaginary soul. I base my moral judgement on the level of intellect and emotion that a being has. Flies are more or less just biological robots programmed to eat and breed. They haven't got language, the ability to imagine, make plans and strategies, create art or technology. Humas have these abilities, which makes us more valuable.

The Catholic Church censored facts like the fact that the earth travelled around the sun. They threatened to kill him for it. They killed numerous people who disagreed with their religious beliefs, often by torture. That was church policy. Very different from the values that America was founded on.

Now you show me where the leading minds in the Enlightenment promoted the murder of clergy.

1: Copernicus was a Catholic priest, and never really bothered by the church.

2: Followers of the Enlightenment did. Just look at the French revolution.

No, and I don't base it on an imaginary soul. I base my moral judgement on the level of intellect and emotion that a being has. Flies are more or less just biological robots programmed to eat and breed. They haven't got language, the ability to imagine, make plans and strategies, create art or technology. Humas have these abilities, which makes us more valuable.

Yes, this is proof that we think on a higher level. Therefore, our lives are worth more. This ability was given to us by God. If it was random, then why was only one species given this ability?

1: Copernicus was a Catholic priest, and never really bothered by the church.

2: Followers of the Enlightenment did. Just look at the French revolution.

Aye. And why did they target the priests? Because they were corrupt, and the French Church itself was corrupt, gorging itself on the riches of the poor.

Aye. And why did they target the priests? Because they were corrupt, and the French Church itself was corrupt, gorging itself on the riches of the poor.

There were some corrupt sons of the church, yes. However, why did they target the low ranking, hard working, parish priests? Why did they execute nuns? If we go by this logic, then it is ok for me to kill anyone who I think oppresses anyone else.

Yes, this is proof that we think on a higher level. Therefore, our lives are worth more. This ability was given to us by God. If it was random, then why was only one species given this ability?

...

They weren't? Evolution, the other Homo species (Sub-species?) that we out-fought/inter-married? Evolution of the fittest, and that's us.

...

They weren't? Evolution, the other Homo species (Sub-species?) that we out-fought/inter-married? Evolution of the fittest, and that's us.

They did not survive, therefore, also were below homosapiens. God used evolution to craft modern man.

There were some corrupt sons of the church, yes. However, why did they target the low ranking, hard working, parish priests? Why did they execute nuns? If we go by this logic, then it is ok for me to kill anyone who I think oppresses anyone else.

And it follows that you would kill yourself for oppressing gays.

And it follows that you would kill yourself for oppressing gays.

I do not oppress gays. I went over this before. There is a different between the orientation and the active homosexual lifestyle. Read earlier for my explaination.

They did not survive, therefore, also were below homosapiens. God used evolution to craft modern man.

And the evidence that this 'God' used evolution is where, exactly?

I do not oppress gays. I went over this before. There is a different between the orientation and the active homosexual lifestyle. Read earlier for my explaination.

Ah. The basic Catholic "just don't act on it" explanation. I know it, I've heard it multiple times.

That doesn't make you right to think they don't make good parents or to think they violate natural law.

Yes, this is proof that we think on a higher level. Therefore, our lives are worth more. This ability was given to us by God. If it was random, then why was only one species given this ability?

You can't demonstrate that it was given to us by god. All the evidence points to us having evolved intelligence. Our closest relatives, the great apes, have language, use tools, and have a sort of social order. We are not unique in those regards. We simply have those skills to a greater degree. If god exists, and if he created every form of life, why would he create animals which understand family bonds, friendship, language, and share so many similarities to us and in the bible give us dominion over them. Basically setting us loose to kill them and experiment on them? That would make god kind of evil.

And the evidence that this 'God' used evolution is where, exactly?

I will let Saint Thomas Aquinas answer this.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

1. He's Catholic. I am also Catholic,

Horrible, horrible, horrible reason for liking a politician


and don't mind living in places, raising a family (or whatever) in places, that are particularly friendly to Catholics. I'm sure Brownback has this idea in mind as well. It makes for better kids;

If by "better" you mean "even more brainwashed", it's true.


it advances the social reign of Christ the King;

This quote is disturbing on so many levels.


it prevents discrimination against religious expression (yes, I believe the only way you can protect religious expression is by, surprise surprise, having RELIGIOUS people demonstr

No, that's the best way to be sure that other religions will be quashed like little bugs underneath a fridge dropped from 32,000 feet.

I'm out, but I gotta say this: stop before you worsen the already shitty image of our Catholic church.

Ah. The basic Catholic "just don't act on it" explanation. I know it, I've heard it multiple times.

That doesn't make you right to think they don't make good parents or to think they violate natural law.

Can a man and a man or a woman and a woman naturally make a child?

You can't demonstrate that it was given to us by god. All the evidence points to us having evolved intelligence. Our closest relatives, the great apes, have language, use tools, and have a sort of social order. We are not unique in those regards. We simply have those skills to a greater degree. If god exists, and if he created every form of life, why would he create animals which understand family bonds, friendship, language, and share so many similarities to us and in the bible give us dominion over them. Basically setting us loose to kill them and experiment on them? That would make god kind of evil.

I posted a link to Thomas Aquinas.

I'm out, but I gotta say this: stop before you worsen the already shitty image of our Catholic church.

No, I will not back down from Catholic doctrine. As a Catholic, I am bound to hold to this doctrine, under pain of punishment. Jesus said that our Church would be spit on, and this forum is proof of just that.

1: Copernicus was a Catholic priest, and never really bothered by the church.

2: Followers of the Enlightenment did. Just look at the French revolution.

1) Yet when Gallileo showed that the earth moves they made him recant under threat of death.

2) The church's own policy during the inquisition was to round up, torture and kill non-believers. The leaders of the enlightenment never advocated rounding up and killing clergy. Some French peasants filled with anger over the way the aristocracy and the church oppressed them killed some clergy. The two are hardly comparable.

There were some corrupt sons of the church, yes. However, why did they target the low ranking, hard working, parish priests? Why did they execute nuns? If we go by this logic, then it is ok for me to kill anyone who I think oppresses anyone else.

Wasn't that one of the justifications for the Iraq war?

1) Yet when Gallileo showed that the earth moves they made him recant under threat of death.

2) The church's own policy during the inquisition was to round up, torture and kill non-believers. The leaders of the enlightenment never advocated rounding up and killing clergy. Some French peasants filled with anger over the way the aristocracy and the church oppressed them killed some clergy. The two are hardly comparable.

1: Galileo was imprisoned for teaching theological truth, not scientific truth.

2: The Church's own policy was to save souls. The deaths, for example, were state policy. The church did not inflict these punishments, only some sons of the church.

Wasn't that one of the justifications for the Iraq war?

The Iraq War was not a just war. We should never have invaded in the first place, according to Catholic theology.

Wrong. There were sons of the church that lost their way. And the deaths are stretched beyond belief.

Do you have historical sources to back up your claim?

The Crusades were defensive against pilgrims.

And after they took Jerusalem from the Muslims, why did they continue to launch Crusades?

The Inquisition was the most fair court of its day, compared to civil courts.

Proof of that please? ANd I want historical documents to back up the assertions.

We have the advantage of time, to look back, which the Inquisitors did not have. Mostly. the punishments were the same that one would get in confession.

Death is what people got in confession? Historical evidence to back this up please/

No, I will not back down from Catholic doctrine. As a Catholic, I am bound to hold to this doctrine, under pain of punishment. Jesus said that our Church would be spit on, and this forum is proof of just that.

Oh yes. Poor Catholic Church. So oppressed. The violin's are playing already...

Can a man and a man or a woman and a woman naturally make a child?

Why should that matter? The issue isn't that we desperately need more children to be born, the issue is that our nation is based on valuing liberty and equality. Giving gays equal treatment by recognizing their commitment and extending the same rights to them as we do to other couples promotes liberty and equality. Denying them the right to form a union of two committed partners is discrimination and pointless oppression.

The Iraq War was not a just war. We should never have invaded in the first place, according to Catholic theology.

Yet you'll support Brownback who wants to make sure we remain in Iraq continuing the pointless killing. How very pro life of you.

1: Copernicus was a Catholic priest, and never really bothered by the church.

Then why was his work rediculed by the Church?

2: Followers of the Enlightenment did. Just look at the French revolution.

Historical evidence that the Enlightenment advocated the killing of Clergy?

Do you have historical sources to back up your claim?



And after they took Jerusalem from the Muslims, why did they continue to launch Crusades?



Proof of that please? ANd I want historical documents to back up the assertions.



Death is what people got in confession? Historical evidence to back this up please/

1: Well it depends on who is doing the claiming. How many people do you claim died because of the Inquisition? Per year?

2: There was some fault on both sides of the conflicts.

3: The most common penalties were pilgrimages or such. I have an article on the Inquisition here:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm

I also urge you to read Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic hcurch by H.W. Crocker. He has a load of citations in the back for his claims.

he looks pretty badass

I'm loving his stance on domsetic issues and he has a determination when it comes to dealing with the outside world I don't hear out of a lot of people. I heard him speak in DC and just said "look, no matter what it is going to take we have an obligation to help the people in darfur"

I'm a registered republican, I'm thinking about voting for him in the primary but I'm worried he won't be able to win over enough people. his unashmed Catholicism scares some people

I think he'd make a great vice president

I'm out, but I gotta say this: stop before you worsen the already shitty image of our Catholic church.

I second.

Can a man and a man or a woman and a woman naturally make a child?
So, you support sterile people being banned from marrying?

Then why was his work rediculed by the Church?

define rediculed

Yet you'll support Brownback who wants to make sure we remain in Iraq continuing the pointless killing. How very pro life of you.

I think pulling out right away would create more anarchy. I agree more with his domestic issues.

No, I will not back down from Catholic doctrine. As a Catholic, I am bound to hold to this doctrine, under pain of punishment. Jesus said that our Church would be spit on, and this forum is proof of just that.

Did Jesus mean the Catholic Church when he said that or does that include the Church of Christ (which is Christianity as a whole)?

Yet you'll support Brownback who wants to make sure we remain in Iraq continuing the pointless killing. How very pro life of you.

we shouldn't have gone there

how does that translate to leaving now? leaving now would cause more death

unless you've got a time machine the only just move is to stay

Then why was his work rediculed by the Church?



Historical evidence that the Enlightenment advocated the killing of Clergy?

Some members of the church disagreed. You are forgetting that he was an ordained minister of the church.

I said that followers of the Enlightment killed clergy. Look at the French revolution.

Did Jesus mean the Catholic Church when he said that or does that include the Church of Christ (which is Christianity as a whole)?

The Catholic Church is the one true church. Other churches have element of truth, but not full truth. Look around. True Christians everywhere are spit on, especially on these forums. The other Christian churches broke away, but that does not mean that they are worthless.

No, I will not back down from Catholic doctrine. As a Catholic, I am bound to hold to this doctrine, under pain of punishment. Jesus said that our Church would be spit on, and this forum is proof of just that.

I think this is the begining of a beautiful friendship...

1: Well it depends on who is doing the claiming. How many people do you claim died because of the Inquisition? Per year?

Nice dodge of the question. I will ask it again: Do you have historical sources to back up your claim?

2: There was some fault on both sides of the conflicts.

Now there I will agree with you.

3: The most common penalties were pilgrimages or such. I have an article on the Inquisition here:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm

I believe I said "historical documents". Do you know what a historical document is?

I also urge you to read Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic hcurch by H.W. Crocker. He has a load of citations in the back for his claims.

I want HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS, not a book list.

So this "good Catholic" and pro life senator voted to go to war with Iraq. Cherry Ridge stated that the war didn't meet Catholic "just war" criteria. So how do you reconcile being a good catholic and voting for an unjust war? How do you justify being pro life and voting to start an unnecessary war?

A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Brownback (R-KS), Yea
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I believe I said "historical documents". Do you know what a historical document is?

the inquisition was a poor idea that spiraled out of control

but what does that mean for today? does it make the Church any less right?

So this "good Catholic" and pro life senator voted to go to war with Iraq. Cherry Ridge stated that the war didn't meet Catholic "just war" criteria. So how do you reconcile being a good catholic and voting for an unjust war? How do you justify being pro life and voting to start an unnecessary war?

we all make mistakes, now look to the future

if I vote for brownback I won't be voting for what he did but what he is going to do

I'm just glad that Brownback is so extreme he will never be elected president, and that maybe he will siphon off the Christian conservative vote in the primaries and help the mainstream Republicans to elect a moderate.

Some members of the church disagreed. You are forgetting that he was an ordained minister of the church.

And that means what? Nothing.

I said that followers of the Enlightment killed clergy. Look at the French revolution.

No you stated that they advocated the killing of the clergy.

The Catholic Church is the one true church.

Prove that it is the one true church.

Other churches have element of truth, but not full truth. Look around. True Christians everywhere are spit on, especially on these forums.

Define a true christian.

The other Christian churches broke away, but that does not mean that they are worthless.

That does not fly with what you are claiming.

I'm just glad that Brownback is so extreme he will never be elected president, and that maybe he will siphon off the Christian conservative vote in the primaries and help the mainstream Republicans to elect a moderate.
Aren't almost all the moderate Republican candidates pro-war? I think only Ron Paul is anti-war.

Nice dodge of the question. I will ask it again: Do you have historical sources to back up your claim?



Now there I will agree with you.



I believe I said "historical documents". Do you know what a historical document is?



I want HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS, not a book list.

1: I do not know what claim you want me to back up. Some people say that the inquisition killed 75 thousand people a year. This is what i was referring to.

The fact that the Church did nto execute anybody is cited from an essay from Ambrose Bierce: The Shadow on the Dial and other Essays. I will get back to you on primary sources, and I apologise for not having them on hand.

Schrandtopia;12612970']we all make mistakes, now look to the future

if I vote for brownback I won't be voting for what he did but what he is going to do

What a person did in the past is often a good indicator of what they're going to do in the future. Also what he's stated he's going to do is pretty much eliminate the first amendment of the US constitution. I'm looking to the future, and if Brownback, by some tragedy or through massive electoral fraud ends up being elected I see the end of the USA as we know it and as the founding fathers intended it.

Schrandtopia;12612968']the inquisition was a poor idea that spiraled out of control

but what does that mean for today? does it make the Church any less right?

What does it mean for today? Nothing! Does it make the Church less right? That is debatable.

I'm just glad that Brownback is so extreme he will never be elected president, and that maybe he will siphon off the Christian conservative vote in the primaries and help the mainstream Republicans to elect a moderate.


we're capable of thinking tactically, I'm reluctant to vote for Brownback cause I don't think America is ready for him

the majority of Americans are sympathetic to his viewpoint but he would have a hard time explaining it to them

Aren't almost all the moderate Republican candidates pro-war? I think only Ron Paul is anti-war.

They're not as likely to trample our constitutional rights.

1: Different issue completely. Interracial marriage has one man and one woman. Natural law is not gibberish, but the whole logic behind the argument. This may be shocking, but you have to have a MOMMY and a DADDY to make a baby.

2: The child is not her's to kill. yes, it is her baby, but it is God's baby first.

3: The Establishment clause is not absolute. You can not make human sacrifices to false gods, for example.

If your arguements include God, 'natural law', the Bible, etc., just stop trying to make a point! This is not a theocracy! They do not have meaning in American Law!

They're not as likely to trample our constitutional rights.
Even those of a more authoritarian flavour, such as Guliani?

Also what he's stated he's going to do is pretty much eliminate the first amendment of the US constitution.

sorry, beyond the big issues I don't really know much about his platform, what is he planning to do?

I'm looking to the future, and if Brownback, by some tragedy or through massive electoral fraud ends up being elected I see the end of the USA as we know it and as the founding fathers intended it.

bbbooooooooooooooo

no it wouldn't - worst case scenareo is that he is a goophy guy and leaves after 4 years

I really don't like some of the canidates but I'm not going to restort to the "end of America" claim

1: I do not know what claim you want me to back up. Some people say that the inquisition killed 75 thousand people a year. This is what i was referring to.

The fact that the Church did nto execute anybody is cited from an essay from Ambrose Bierce: The Shadow on the Dial and other Essays. I will get back to you on primary sources, and I apologise for not having them on hand.

Thank you. I will deal with Primary sources only.

And that means what? Nothing.



No you stated that they advocated the killing of the clergy.

It means that the Church as a whole did not condemn him, and he was not condemned by the Church, only by elements within the church.

The Catholic Church is what built the modern university system. Monastaries were THE centers of education in Medieval Europe. Followers of the Enlightenent killed Christian priests. Is this ok?
Please check your facts before quoting what I "said."

If your arguements include God, 'natural law', the Bible, etc., just stop trying to make a point! This is not a theocracy! They do not have meaning in American Law!

there are plenty of secular arguments against abortion and Americans seem to be like them

we just outlawed partial birth abortion and I'm damn glad we did it

Even those of a more authoritarian flavour, such as Guliani?


the man would do a great job running the country, but he would take my guns and possibly other rights.....don't think I can vote for him

Schrandtopia;12612989']sorry, beyond the big issues I don't really know much about his platform, what is he planning to do?



bbbooooooooooooooo

no it wouldn't - worst case scenareo is that he is a goophy guy and leaves after 4 years

I really don't like some of the canidates but I'm not going to restort to the "end of America" claim

See my post on the first page of this thread. I looked at his campaign platform and found a lot that seemed to threaten free speech and the establishment clause

If he gets to do the things he wants to do we lose the first amendment. That's a pretty important part of the constitution and one of the main values our nation was founded on.

Schrandtopia;12612998']the man would do a great job running the country, but he would take my guns and possibly other rights.....don't think I can vote for him
Then shouldn't Ron Paul be the clear option for you? No, he has no desire of imposing a theocracy on the rest of the nation, but he won't be interfering with how you practice your faith or depriving you of any actual rights you may possess.

See my post on the first page of this thread. I looked at his campaign platform and found a lot that seemed to threaten free speech and the establishment clause

fighting pornography and putting a rating system on video games doesn't trample on the Constitution

Marriage is traditionally about property, especially the transfer of property down through the generations. Love in marriage is a modern concept.

True, very true. It's an interesting addition, though. "Hmm, maybe I should try actually liking the person I live with for the rest of my life."

Really, it's win-win. Huge tracks of land and a loving partner to make your dinner and clean your house as you have your slaves work the land while you host lavish parties for the local nobility in your ballroon.

I like it. XD

Then shouldn't Ron Paul be the clear option for you? No, he has no desire of imposing a theocracy on the rest of the nation, but he won't be interfering with how you practice your faith or depriving you of any actual rights you may possess.

1 - a theocracy isn't ever going to happen. ever. don't throw words like that around, it lessens the quality of debate

2 - unfortuantly (and I really do mean that) we are the world's only super-power and have an obligation to help other countries. Ron Paul will bring us back to isolationism. I heard him speak in DC and he promissed the crowd to pull us out to the UN and then kick them out of manhattan


if we were another country I might give ron paul some thought, but the rest of the world just can't afford him

Schrandtopia;12613010']
2 - unfortuantly (and I really do mean that) we are the world's only super-power and have an obligation to help other countries. Ron Paul will bring us back to isolationism. I heard him speak in DC and he promissed the crowd to pull us out to the UN and then kick them out of manhattan
Not interfering with other countries' business is not isolationism. It is avoiding wasting taxpayer money on idiotic crusades around the world.

Schrandtopia;12612998']the man would do a great job running the country, but he would take my guns and possibly other rights.....don't think I can vote for him


This statement combined with religious zeal is what gives me shivers about the US. And in so far as i can see, the states could do with a little 'isolationism' in that whenever they dip their hand in somewhere it seems to come out bloodied without any positive out come.

I'm a conservative and I cannot agree with his policies. I am confused that years ago, the definitions of republican and democrat switched. It is obvious and easier for our foreign friends to understand the American political scene as a confused one.

The Republican and Democratic parties have no agendas, they are not 'issue' parties, they have no stances. They are a loose collection of people with roughly similar ideas and they occasionally agree. They are a 'election' based party, whose only goal is to get each other elected.

My understanding of conservative, means that we are fine the way we are, and we should conserve our government. That means, amending the Constitution is about as liberal as you can get. Changing that very document? I see no reason to have it be changed. Congress has no control over marriage, or civil unions, therefore, the federal government should butt the hell out of my business. If I want to love a woman and get a piece of paper saying we will pay taxes as one unit, that is my state's choosing.

Hell, I even oppose the idea of calling it marriage and having any sort of entity regulating it.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

America has reached the point where proud Christians (hypocrites who praise themselves in direct violation of Jesus's own words, not the words of Paul or interpretation), demand that marriage is between a man and woman and is a sacred religious ceremony. They have made that word a religious word, therefore, marriage cannot be respected by the United States Congress.

It is time it is called a civil union, and for each state to decide what the means. You want to be 'married' call up a preacher to do it, you want a legal contract? Go down to City Hall to have it filled out.

1: It is not about spiting gays. It is about marriage being between one man and one woman. When a man and a man can make a baby together, then get back to me on that.

Marriage is a public declaration of love, and a legal and social contract to file as a single unit for tax reasons. Children are irrelevant, they can adopt for all I care, when people love each other, they deserve legal recognition of their love, by filing taxes together.

2: I do not know if you have, but have you ever gone through pregnancy? if not, why do you comment on it? Also, I know many women who have gone through pregnancy who are pro life. If a politician is running, why should he not represent their viewpoint? Unless you want to censor opposing viewpoints...

The Constitution has given no right to regulate abortion like this, therefore, this is up to the states to decide. A candidate running under this position for federal office is unAmerican in the greatest.

3: If you go to his website, he is opposing the ACLU's attempts to toss out all religious expression in public. Why should some people's religious expression have to be forced out of the public eye?

The ACLU is the greatest collection of lawyers to ever defend the Constitution. Religious expression in public that you refer to, straddles the line between Congress respecting an establishment of religion. If the Ten Commandments are out there, so should all of Leviticus, Deutronomy and Numbers to respect the Jews, and the new law introduced in the Qu'ran, Buddhism's rules, and every other religions rules. This is to prevent the appearence of a government to appear to sanction only one religion and ignore the rest.

What confuses me the most is that you people attack the ACLU. They literally defend your right to say what you do, to march on town squares, and to slander them.

4: Some of the stuff on the airwaves can go a little bit too far. However, depending on how far the censorship goes, I am not sure if I would support it. However, some of the stuff definitely needs to be toned downed.

Under the 1st amendement, Congress has no right to regulate that. I don't care what you say. Hey guys ever heard of this? Turn the other way. If you want to regulate ethics or 'protect the children' DO IT YOURSELF. My parents told me not to watch violent movies, they didn't rent any, they didn't take me to any. And they sure as hell prevented me from listening to Stern by changing the radio station. Parenting is done by parents, not by the government.

I don't care if you are offended, unless there is no way you can avoid it, it isn't a violation of your rights to have this on the air.

5: Print pornography should not be sold where a small child can take it off of the shelves. Online, this would be too hard to enforce, yes.

PARENTING IS DONE BY PARENTS. How are children allowed to pick this up? Why are they alone? If you don't agree with such a store, don't take your kids.

6: Too much violence is bad, I agree with him on that. I also agree that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor. However, like the airwaves, it needs to be toned down.

No it doesn't. It doesn't hurt anyone if you change the channel and listen to the Rev. Moneygrabber tell you to cram into your $40,000 SUV to drive past homeless shelters, poor on the street, and hospitals to go to a temple that cost millions to tell you to be more like Jesus.

I always get to these threads late, don't I?

fighting pornography and putting a rating system on video games doesn't trample on the Constitution

Congress has not been given the right to trample on the 1st Amendment. The industry has shown itself perfectly capable of dealing with rating systems. The occasional slip ups are to be expected. Why do you hold industry to a higher standard than the government?

Besides, maybe if you taught your children about sex, or the fact that *gasp*, they have genitals, this would be a non-issue. Parent your children.

Schrandtopia;12612995']we just outlawed partial birth abortion and I'm damn glad we did it

Yeah, because now when a woman needs a late-term abortion for medical reasons the procedure will involve cutting the foetus up inside the womb and extracting it piece by piece; resulting in a greater risk of infection and a more traumatic experience for the mother. This is clearly far more civilised! Halleluja! :rolleyes:

That is the exception, not the norm. NO man and man can have a child, wheras post menopausal women and sterile people are still open to having children and do not black this using either artificial methods, or engaging in sexual acts with a member of the same sex

NO post menopausal woman or sterile person can have a child.

-Snip-

I would say you're more a libertarian. As everyone else has pointed out: Thank god this guy has no chance in hell of being prez. Yeah the Catholic Church is a great moral compass [coughs] Child Molestation by priests.

Last thing we need in this nation is to be runned by zealots who wanna turn America into a Christian Iran. I mean have you read the shit they want it's scary!


Also:
http://ploum.frimouvy.org/images/DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

Second class citizens? No... There is a difference between the homosexual orientation and the active homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual orientation in itself is not wrong, however, acting out on these urges is wrong. Why? Because natural law dictates that sexual relations may only occur between one man and one woman, and moral law dictates that this must be within the matrimonial bond. It is a cross to bear.

Last I checked, homosexual animals do exist, even in places untouched by man.

Their purpose? To help bring up the young 'uns!

Yes, Christian morality should have a role in government, as Christianity built up modern western civilization.

No, not it shouldn't. Christianity didn't build up modern western civilization - A move away from christianity did.

-snip-

Now this is the kind of Conservatism I can respect, even if I don't agree with it. :)

I would say you're more a libertarian. As everyone else has pointed out: Thank god this guy has no chance in hell of being prez. Yeah the Catholic Church is a great moral compass [coughs] Child Molestation by priests.

Last thing we need in this nation is to be runned by zealots who wanna turn America into a Christian Iran. I mean have you read the shit they want it's scary!


Also:
http://ploum.frimouvy.org/images/DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

Statistically, a teacher or parent is more likely to molest a child than a priest.

Also:
Of course I am a troll. I don't agree with what you are saying, therefore I am a troll. So much for freedom of speech.

2: Same sex couples can not correctly raise a child. They will be raised with a warped conscience, thinking that homosexual sex is natural. Yes, there are single parents, but that is a different situation.

Homosexual sex is natural. I was not raised by homosexuals. Also, look out in NATURE the definition of NATURAL. What's that? Ahh yes... there is such a thing as homosexual animals.


3: They were wrong. A black man and a white woman can form a child.

Stop using this baseless argument. It's already been shot down.

1: God does take of the baby, through the woman.

Well, then we can take it too, just a bit earlier.

It's not our fault that God didn't save the baby when we took it out, after all.

2: No, gays are not second class citizens. Neither are woman. Many women are pro life, and I doubt they would consdier themselves second class citizens.

They are, when you don't give them the same rights and call them unnatural.

NO post menopausal woman or sterile person can have a child.

I addressed this earlier.

Yes, muslims did preserve some works too. However, Catholics preserved European civilization. The achievements of the Renaissance would not be possible without the Church.

Not really.

All our knowledge of mathematics and most science came from the middle east, that hadn't been swallowed up by the Dark Ages or viking raids.

rarely does one encounter someone who willingly comes back to be punched in the face....

Statistically, a teacher or parent is more likely to molest a child than a priest.

Who is more likely to cover it up?

Also:
Of course I am a troll. I don't agree with what you are saying, therefore I am a troll. So much for freedom of speech.

Do you even know what freedom of speech means?

Because I don't think you do.

Statistically, a teacher or parent is more likely to molest a child than a priest.

Also:
Of course I am a troll. I don't agree with what you are saying, therefore I am a troll. So much for freedom of speech.

Religion of any sort has no place in our government! To the shores of Tripoli!

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Ratified unanimously by Congress, one of the few unanimous decisions. In 1796, so there goes any Christian Nation by our founding father's theory.

Our founding fathers believed in whatever, but they knew, a theocracy was doomed to failure.

The Crusades were defensive against pilgrims.

I suppose that's why they massacred countless of already christian civilians.

Homosexual sex is natural. I was not raised by homosexuals. Also, look out in NATURE the definition of NATURAL. What's that? Ahh yes... there is such a thing as homosexual animals.



Stop using this baseless argument. It's already been shot down.



Well, then we can take it too, just a bit earlier.

It's not our fault that God didn't save the baby when we took it out, after all.



They are, when you don't give them the same rights and call them unnatural.

When a male dog humps another male, it is a show of dominance, not sex.

It is not baseless, because the fact is that two members of a different race, if man and woman, can create a baby. A man and a man can not.

God gave us free will. Some babies have survived, abortion. However, God gave us free will, and he will not interfere with our decisions. They will face consequences though, when the time comes.

Marriage is a man and a woman. Again, there is a difference between the orientation and acting out on it. I have said this many times. There is no right for a man and man to get married because NO man and man can have a child.

Marriage is a man and a woman. Again, there is a difference between the orientation and acting out on it. I have said this many times. There is no right for a man and man to get married because NO man and man can have a child.
A woman and a woman can have children. Is that okay?

That is the exception, not the norm. NO man and man can have a child, wheras post menopausal women and sterile people are still open to having children and do not black this using either artificial methods, or engaging in sexual acts with a member of the same sex
Yeah, it's not like gay people can't have children with artificial methods. No sir, not at all.

rarely does one encounter someone who willingly comes back to be punched in the face....
Who is more likely to cover it up?


I do not know any parent who runs around saying "I molested my child!" Also, the Church is dealing with this issue. It is ignorant to say otherwise.

Can a man and a man or a woman and a woman naturally make a child?

Why yes, yes they can.

See, both women can have children, using the semen from the two men. The two homosexual couples can then raise these children together.

I suppose that's why they massacred countless of already christian civilians.

Those that attacked Constantinople, for example, were excommunicated. I said earlier, there were wrongs on both sides of the conflict.

When a male dog humps another male, it is a show of dominance, not sex.

So you're a theologian, a lawyer, and a zoologist? I bow to your impressive credentials.

It is not baseless, because the fact is that two members of a different race, if man and woman, can create a baby. A man and a man can not.

And again, so the fuck what? you have yet to provide an adequate explanation why sterile individuals are allowed to marry.

God gave us free will. Some babies have survived, abortion. However, God gave us free will, and he will not interfere with our decisions. They will face consequences though, when the time comes.

Ah yes, the inevitable cruch of the weak minded. Totally unable to back up your position with rationality, so you result in "do it or burn in hell!"

Marriage is a man and a woman.

No, it is not.

Again, there is a difference between the orientation and acting out on it. I have said this many times. There is no right for a man and man to get married because NO man and man can have a child.

There is no right for a post menopausal woman to get married because NO post menopausal woman can have a child.

No, I will not back down from Catholic doctrine. As a Catholic, I am bound to hold to this doctrine, under pain of punishment. Jesus said that our Church would be spit on, and this forum is proof of just that.

Well, to be honest, I am more spitting at you, because it's so easy and fun. I ain't even close to spitting on the church yet.

Why yes, yes they can.

See, both women can have children, using the semen from the two men. The two homosexual couples can then raise these children together.

Can two women make a child together?

I do not know any parent who runs around saying "I molested my child!" Also, the Church is dealing with this issue. It is ignorant to say otherwise.

ah so those documents that showed up demonstrating how catholic church shuttled child molster priests around FOR YEARS knowing full well about it was "dealing with it?"

The only reason the catholic church started to do ANYTHING is because they got caught, literally and figuratively, with their pants down.

Can two women make a child together?

can a man and a post menopausal woman?

1: I addressed the infertile argument earlier.

...absurdly. Care to answer my earlier post on the subject?

2: Just because something is genetic, does not mean that it should be acted out on. Some people say that pedophiles have a genetic problem. Does that mean they should molest children? Also, it was my understanding that the question of whether homosexuality is genetic is still up in the air. COrrect me if I am wrong, please. I personally do not think one just chooses homosexuality, but different factors influence it. However, even if it is genetic, that does not mean that one should act out on it.

True, the fact that homosexuality is natural and inborn, rather than a choice, has very little to do with whether one should have sex with a member of one's own gender. It is, however, a pretty good answer to your assertions that homosexuality is "unnatural." You will, therefore, have to think up a better reason for disallowing homosexual marriage, seeing as that one is untrue.

3: If the teenager engaged in sexual intercourse, then yes, she should have the baby. Yes, the economically unadvantaged woman should have the baby. They can put this baby up for adoption if they can not raise the child, and sometimes even get all medical expenses paid for. There are alternatives to abortion. In the case of rape, we should not punish a child for the father's sins. What other crime do you kill the child for the Father's sins? Again, you may put that child up for adoption.

Personally, I think in the case of rape, we should not punish a victim for her attacker's sins. In what other crime do you put someone through months of severe physical and emotional trauma for her attacker's sins?

For that matter, I'd consider a childhood spent in the foster system as a pretty freaking large punishment in its own right - but hey, we don't need to care about the kids after they're born, right?

4: I believe in freedom of religion (though not absolute). The SCLU does protest nativity scenes, and I think that is what Senator Brownback means in protecting faith- stopping them from doing that. He also wants to bar them from collecting attorney's fees.

I'm still waiting on your example of one case where the ACLU has attempted to ban all public expression of religion. (Incidentally, though you don't seem to grasp it, there's a world of difference between a private person or organization putting a big honking nativity scene in their yard where everyone can see it, and a government agency putting a big honking nativity scene on public land using my tax dollars. The ACLU absolutely defends the former's right to do so, but has no tolerance for the latter, nor should they. Would you really like it if your local courthouse decided to put a big freaking monument to Satanism in the front of the building, paid for with your taxes? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say you probably wouldn't...)

5: But if I do turn it on, why should I have to see that? Don't I have a right to watch TV without looking at that smut?

No.

This has been another edition of Short Answers to Silly Questions.

(Seriously, if you don't like what's on TV, change the channel or turn it off. It's amazing how anyone can doubt rights like privacy and bodily integrity, and then maintain a "right" never to see anything on TV one doesn't like.)

ah so those documents that showed up demonstrating how catholic church shuttled child molster priests around FOR YEARS knowing full well about it was "dealing with it?"

The only reason the catholic church started to do ANYTHING is because they got caught, literally and figuratively, with their pants down.

Some men's sins are not the whole church.

How is it relevant whether the two parties being married can have children, anyway? You may as well say that all people should be forced to have them. There is no definition of marriage that states 'marriage is between two people that can reproduce', apart from your own definition you made up on the spot to exclude homosexuals.

I do not know any parent who runs around saying "I molested my child!" Also, the Church is dealing with this issue. It is ignorant to say otherwise.

I guess covering it all up and trying to shield the paedophiles from justice is one way of dealing with the issue.

Some men's sins are not the whole church.

no they're not. But when the administration of the church decides to cover up those sins, they become so.

I guess you never heard of respondeat superior.

Odd, I thought you catholics had such a hardon for latin.

Can two women make a child together?

Probably in the near future... (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2444462.ece)

I addressed this earlier.

No, you didn't, this is how you addressed it:

That is the exception, not the norm. NO man and man can have a child, wheras post menopausal women and sterile people are still open to having children and do not black this using either artificial methods, or engaging in sexual acts with a member of the same sex

But no menopausal woman or sterile person can have children.

they are NOT still open to having children

Can two women make a child together?
Yep. It is already within our capability to synthesise sperm cells from bone marrow, even for women. It hasn't actually been tried and tested on humans yet, but we've done it with mice, and it's only a matter of time.

Cherry Ridge--you still haven't answered one significant objection to Brownback's candidacy, which is that he's a freaking Creationist. Anyone who has that tenuous a grasp on the scientific realities of the universe should not be placed in control of nuclear weapons.

Nor have you explained how his anti-gay stances don't violate the First Amendment separation of church and state.

The Catholic perspective is not the only perspective, there is every single other denomination of Christianity, and all other religions.

Some allow certain things, and some don't, who is to say who is right.

Marriage is about love, or at least that is what I believe. You care for someone, not to get children. I don't need a certificate to tell me to have children. Children are a biological process, a parasite until they leave the womb, not some holy object.

At least the state should view them as such. A completely secular perspective.

When a male dog humps another male, it is a show of dominance, not sex.

It is not baseless, because the fact is that two members of a different race, if man and woman, can create a baby. A man and a man can not.

God gave us free will. Some babies have survived, abortion. However, God gave us free will, and he will not interfere with our decisions. They will face consequences though, when the time comes.

Marriage is a man and a woman. Again, there is a difference between the orientation and acting out on it. I have said this many times. There is no right for a man and man to get married because NO man and man can have a child.

You don't know about monkeys, penguins, etc...?

NO sterile person and someone else can have a child

Those that attacked Constantinople, for example, were excommunicated. I said earlier, there were wrongs on both sides of the conflict.

I'm not even talking about the middle-east when referring to massacring fellow christians.

Cherry Ridge--you still haven't answered one significant objection to Brownback's candidacy, which is that he's a freaking Creationist. Anyone who has that tenuous a grasp on the scientific realities of the universe should not be placed in control of nuclear weapons.

Neither should they be coordinating the fight against global warming.

Can two women make a child together?

Can a menopausal and sterile person make a child together?

No?

Well okay then, no marriage for them then.

I'm not even talking about the middle-east when referring to massacring fellow christians.

Who here remembers the Fourth Crusade? The Pope forgot to pay the Venetians ahead of time, so the Venetians let them pass only if they slaughtered the city of Zara for refusing Venetian hegenomy.

They got excommunicated and caused one of the schisms that helped form the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Whatever it is. The Crusades were in the past, a decision from war mongering Popes whose only purpose was to make themselves and the church more glorious by carrying our poorly executed war plans.

Back to the point, why does marriage have to produce children?

Who here remembers the Fourth Crusade? The Pope forgot to pay the Venetians ahead of time, so the Venetians let them pass only if they slaughtered the city of Zara for refusing Venetian hegenomy.

Whatever it is. The Crusades were in the past, a decision from war mongering Popes whose only purpose was to make themselves and the church more glorious by carrying our poorly executed war plans.

Back to the point, why does marriage have to produce children?

I'm not even talking about any crusades that occurred south of Germany.

I'm not even talking about any crusades that occurred south of Germany.

The Northern Crusades are an example of why a Theocracy couldn't work. The Catholic kings believed that the pagans in the North needed to be converted by force. If we openly elect people who use religion as their guiding policy, instead of the laws of these United States and democracy, we'll be on a slippery slope to Catholic Concentration Camps and Buddhist Firing Squads as one may hyperbole.

The Northern Crusades are an example of why a Theocracy couldn't work. The Catholic kings believed that the pagans in the North needed to be converted by force. If we openly elect people who use religion as their guiding policy, instead of the laws of these United States and democracy, we'll be on a slippery slope to Catholic Concentration Camps and Buddhist Firing Squads as one may hyperbole.
Ironically, isn't Catholicism one of the more fringe Christian denominations in the US, at least relative to Protestantism?

Ironically, isn't Catholicism one of the more fringe Christian denominations in the US, at least relative to Protestantism?

No. They are 4 times larger than the next biggest denominations. 26% of the US is Catholic.

No. They are 4 times larger than the next biggest denominations. 26% of the US is Catholic.
Which is the leading one then? I always thought that there was a great deal of hostility towards Catholics in the USA.

Which is the leading one then? I always thought that there was a great deal of hostility towards Catholics in the USA.

That's only because, as Cherry Ridge and Sam Brownback have shown, a Catholic's loyalty is to the pope of Rome and not to the USA.

The Northern Crusades are an example of why a Theocracy couldn't work. The Catholic kings believed that the pagans in the North needed to be converted by force. If we openly elect people who use religion as their guiding policy, instead of the laws of these United States and democracy, we'll be on a slippery slope to Catholic Concentration Camps and Buddhist Firing Squads as one may hyperbole.

What's worse, the pagans of the north we're already christians by that time :p A vast majority of them anyway.

The deaths coming from telling people "get baptised now or die!" and people promptly saying "no!" because they had already been baptised.

Which is the leading one then? I always thought that there was a great deal of hostility towards Catholics in the USA.

That's because the rest of the USA is Protestant, or another religion, or have no religion at all.

And much of the USA is Baptist, so of course there's a lot of hostility towards... *whisper* those people...

Which is the leading one then? I always thought that there was a great deal of hostility towards Catholics in the USA.

Well, it's the largest single christian denomination, but the majority of Americans are some form of Protestant offshoot. It's just that there's no single Protestant church that's as large as the Catholics.

Electing Brownback would be the biggest step backwards this country will have ever taken.

Well, it's the largest single christian denomination, but the majority of Americans are some form of Protestant offshoot. It's just that there's no single Protestant church that's as large as the Catholics.

And thankfully there are no Baptist churches as large as the Catholic church.
Baptists tend to be backward and hypocritical, and tend to blame pop culture when their kids dress like whores and when people aren't Baptists like them. Apparently Baptism is the only "correct" sect of Christianity, and even Catholicism- the oldest branch of Christianity- is wrong.

I'm not saying this is all Baptists, just the vast majority.

And thankfully there are no Baptist churches as large as the Catholic church.
Baptists tend to be backward and hypocritical, and tend to blame pop culture when their kids dress like whores and when people aren't Baptists like them. Apparently Baptism is the only "correct" sect of Christianity, and even Catholicism- the oldest branch of Christianity- is wrong.

I'm not saying this is all Baptists, just the vast majority.

The Eastern Orthodox church is just as old. Also there were gnostic sects of Christianity that were wiped out by the Catholics who, if I'm not mistaken, were older.

The Eastern Orthodox church is just as old and I think the Coptics are even older. Also there were gnostic sects of Christianity that were wiped out by the Catholics who, if I'm not mistaken, were older.

Eastern Orthodox Church is younger than Catholicism-- it broke from the Catholic Church, in the Dark Ages.

And I didn't remember the gnostics... :headbang:

But the Coptics? Never heard of them...

Eastern Orthodox Church is younger than Catholicism-- it broke from the Catholic Church, in the Dark Ages.

And I didn't remember the gnostics... :headbang:

But the Coptics? Never heard of them...

Yeah, it broke off from the Catholic church. It's history includes a period of time when it was one with what we now call the Catholic church. That's why I said just as old. I messed up with the Coptics. They're part of the Oriental Orthodox family of churches that sprang from the early church. Sorry bout that.

And thankfully there are no Baptist churches as large as the Catholic church.
Baptists tend to be backward and hypocritical, and tend to blame pop culture when their kids dress like whores and when people aren't Baptists like them. Apparently Baptism is the only "correct" sect of Christianity, and even Catholicism- the oldest branch of Christianity- is wrong.

I'm not saying this is all Baptists, just the vast majority.

Of course. Though I think this is true for many religious zealots, no matter what the religion. They blame the world for when something goes wrong, if their kid gets knocked up, drinks, smokes, talks back to parents, it was Hollywood that did it! No personal responsibility whatsoever. After all, their little baby wouldn't turn away from Christ unless some evil influence (anything contradicting their narrow dogma) is what did it! Pretty insulting really, apparently they think their kids have no brains at all.

Of course. Though I think this is true for many religious zealots, no matter what the religion. They blame the world for when something goes wrong, if their kid gets knocked up, drinks, smokes, talks back to parents, it was Hollywood that did it! No personal responsibility whatsoever. After all, their little baby wouldn't turn away from Christ unless some evil influence (anything contradicting their narrow dogma) is what did it! Pretty insulting really, apparently they think their kids have no brains at all.

No personal responsibility for themselves, but necessary for everyone else. You'd think they'd never understood what Jesus was talking about with the whole parable of the straw in your neighbor's eye while you have the roofbeam in your own or something.

No personal responsibility for themselves, but necessary for everyone else. You'd think they'd never understood what Jesus was talking about with the whole parable of the straw in your neighbor's eye while you have the roofbeam in your own or something.

They should at least keep in mind the teaching of casting the first stone. Too difficult for many of them though, preaching the damnation of the sinners puts asses in the pews after all. But make excuses when it is your own kid. Double standards and hypocrisy have never been much of a problem for religious organizations though so this is no shocking revelation.

They should at least keep in mind the teaching of casting the first stone. Too difficult for many of them though, preaching the damnation of the sinners puts asses in the pews after all. But make excuses when it is your own kid. Double standards and hypocrisy have never been much of a problem for religious organizations though so this is no shocking revelation.

The psychology behind most religions is to practice othering--we are part of a group blessed by god and everyone else is not and so they are cursed. The better ones look for ways to peacefully expand their group to include more blessed people, and the worse ones seek to widen the divide, often with violent acts. But inherent in that belief system is that you are superior to the other, and therefore any bad act you do can be explained away as sin or even as a necessary evil to promote the good of your god.

The psychology behind most religions is to practice othering--we are part of a group blessed by god and everyone else is not and so they are cursed. The better ones look for ways to peacefully expand their group to include more blessed people, and the worse ones seek to widen the divide, often with violent acts. But inherent in that belief system is that you are superior to the other, and therefore any bad act you do can be explained away as sin or even as a necessary evil to promote the good of your god.

Too true. Which is why I firmly believe we would all be better off if we worked to get rid of religion. Such backward thinking is hardly helpful to bringing humanity together.

Of course this is only one reason why I would never vote for Brownback. Luckily this guy seems to have zero chance of getting into office.

Of course. Though I think this is true for many religious zealots, no matter what the religion. They blame the world for when something goes wrong, if their kid gets knocked up, drinks, smokes, talks back to parents, it was Hollywood that did it! No personal responsibility whatsoever. After all, their little baby wouldn't turn away from Christ unless some evil influence (anything contradicting their narrow dogma) is what did it! Pretty insulting really, apparently they think their kids have no brains at all.

Two friends of mine have parents liek that (they're sisters). They're not allowed to do much. it's surprising that their parents let them have boyfriends.

I brought up the Baptists however, because my friends' parents are Baptists along with at least 60% of the Southern USA. And we all know how great the South is...

Too true. Which is why I firmly believe we would all be better off if we worked to get rid of religion. Such backward thinking is hardly helpful to bringing humanity together.
We humans needs a way to understand complexity and this is by building models. Religions offer models and other views of the world do to, however you can not get rid of these tendencies as you wish to, because we are (Vetalia would add a 'still' here, others an 'only') humans.

Of course this is only one reason why I would never vote for Brownback. Luckily this guy seems to have zero chance of getting into office.
I agree, but I would defend his right to utter his opinion.

We humans needs a way to understand complexity and this is by building models. Religions offer models and other views of the world do to, however you can not get rid of these tendencies as you wish to, because we are (Vetalia would add a 'still' here, others an 'only') humans.

We are certainly complex creatures but allowing ourselves to have divisions among ourselves that leads to conflict is something we must work against. Believing in an imaginary being is hardly rational to begin with but allowing it to lead to friction between us is really sad. Ridding ourselves of these models as you call them is a must as they are certainly poor ones to begin with. If we ever wish to unite as one people, dealing with religions is a must.

I agree, but I would defend his right to utter his opinion.

He of course is free to say whatever he wishes and in this case we should most definately pay attention so we know that we must stay away from him and not allow him to attain leadership of this country.

4. As for gay marriage, since when is marriage a right? It has never been asserted by the people in the past, which would be required for the Constitutional "reserved rights" protection. Moreover, common law has always forbidden marriages to certain people. It affects all people equally and is completely optional, so there is no issue of "equal protection under the law" business, because the government is not regulating an individual, but a particular ceremony and contract, the solemnization of marriage. There is even significant legislative precedent for forbidding particular sexual acts, surely this is not worse than that! Moreover, I actually AM of the opinion that if a marriage cannot be consumated, it should not be considered a legal marriage. Hence, many childless couples perhaps could not be married.
The civil aspect of marriage is not a right, nor a privilege. It is a social contract between two people for the procreation and education of children, mutual consent of sexuality, and shared possessions.

Sorry, sonny, but your whole premise is wrong.

Marriage has long been considered a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1, 10 (1967) ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"); see also Skinner v. Oklahoma (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541), 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), Maynard v. Hill (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invol=190), 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Just as Loving explained that you cannot deny the right to marry on the grounds of race, you cannot deny the right to marry on the grounds of gender.

No, no, no, no, and fuck no!

I'd sooner have the President of Iran in charge, allah knows he's far more moderate than Brownback.

No, no, no, no, and fuck no!

I'd sooner have the President of Iran in charge, allah knows he's far more moderate than Brownback.

Well he did want to let women watch football games.

Unfortunately for him, his superiors weren't much for it :p

I have three names for u Cherry: Ted Haggard, Jeff Gannon, & Mark Foley!