NationStates Jolt Archive

James Dobson, a leader of the religious right wing, has finally retired from Focus On The Family. In his farewell speech he had some interesting things to say:

-"We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles."

-"The world has turned colder for the family in recent years and there is such hostility to anyone who holds to a faith and we're going to take the heat. But I have been assured by the board and by many of you that we're not going to cow, we're not going to be discouraged. We're going to continue to express the love for the Scripture and the principles that we find there and if we are made fools for Christ, that's okay too because our purpose is to serve him and that he be pleased."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/has-dobson-thrown-towel-not-quite

This comes on the heels of several major victories for gay rights, women's rights, and reproductive rights, as well as several prominent discussions about whether or not the religious right is finished as a political movement. (Example: Kathleen Parker had a column on the subject recently.)


What say you, NSG? Are the culture wars finally coming to an end? Is there a clear victor?

I've never even heard of these culture wars, so I can't comment.

I am voting for Satan, since he is running on the civil rights platform.

And no, the end of the war is not in sight.

I am voting for Satan, since he is running on the civil rights platform.
In the culture wars, I think the smart money is on Thor.

After all, the God of the right wing is a dude who got nailed to a cross. Thor is a god who carries a giant hammer.

In order for the "culture war" to have ended, it would have had to have started. There never really was a "culture war", just a bunch of reactionary religious conservatives whining that they cant oppress gheyz, wimminz, and non-Christians anymore.

I think that conservative republican attitudes have been portrayed or are viewed as very unfashionable to/by teenagers, and the teenagers are the future so I think we can extrapolate that by the time they have grown up, the far right conservatives will be a minority.

This is the guy who called Spongebob Squarepants an agent of the Gay Agenda. Is he really going to be missed?

By the way, in before our resident LOTR Scholar eulogizes his retirement and goes on a related rant.

In the culture wars, I think the smart money is on Thor.

After all, the God of the right wing is a dude who got nailed to a cross. Thor is a god who carries a giant hammer.

Thor is a dolt that even his father makes fun of, much in the style of Heraclitus. Jesus, on the other hand, can come back to life, in the proud tradition of Captain Jack Sparrow.

Come to think of it, Johnny Depp could probably play Jesus pretty well.

The cultures wars are not going to be over -- inasmuch as they ever existed -- just because Dobson got all emo and ran home and won't play with the big non-gay-hating meanies anymore.

What an ass. I have to admit I lol'd reading the quotes from his farewell address. :D So long, loser. *waves*

Thor is a dolt that even his father makes fun of, much in the style of Heraclitus. Jesus, on the other hand, can come back to life, in the proud tradition of Captain Jack Sparrow.

Come to think of it, Johnny Depp could probably play Jesus pretty well.

Are you being serious? Johnny Depp could not possibly be the son of Morgan Freeman! That is insanity!

It is pretty clear that if abortion may be referred to as reproductive rights then hate speech towards gays may be equally called freedom of speech.

It is pretty clear that if abortion may be referred to as reproductive rights then hate speech towards gays may be equally called freedom of speech.

Is this comment supposed to be hilariously uninformed, or is it purely unintended comedy?

I support gay rights. Morever, if you support murder, then you should support it both ways. Equal rights under the law, including fetuses.

I support gay rights. Morever, if you support murder, then you should support it both ways. Equal rights under the law, including fetuses.

Ah, so it was purely unintended comedy.

I'm glad that 40,000,000 dead babies makes for unintended comedy. :D

I'm glad that 40,000,000 dead babies makes for unintended comedy. :D

Fetus is not a baby.


That you keep insisting they are the same is what is funny.

Where are all the n00bs coming from?

I'm glad that 40,000,000 dead babies makes for unintended comedy. :D

http://churchcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/facepalm_picard.jpg

You know, if I were stupid, I could argue that homosexuals aren't human beings either, but I'm not. Therefore I must conclude that just because they are different than us doesn't mean that they are non-persons.

You know, if I were stupid, I could argue that homosexuals aren't human beings either, but I'm not. Therefore I must conclude that just because they are different than us doesn't mean that they are non-persons.

A homosexual is a self aware fully developed human being that can survive without being attatched to a host.

A fetus isnt.

Your comments are becoming less funny and more annoying as you continue to demonstrate how uninformed you are. Please go back to making me laugh.

You know, if I were stupid, I could argue that homosexuals aren't human beings either, but I'm not. Therefore I must conclude that just because they are different than us doesn't mean that they are non-persons.

If you wish to class any fertilized human egg as a person then you'll need to adjust that 40,000,000 number up quite a bit.

Women have unintentionally expelled from their bodies far more "people" than that over the years.

To my knowledge, fetuses become adults. Fetus is latin for "small child"
.

Anyway, Rhada's momentarially amusing threadjack aside, I suggest he stops pursuing this point, or I may go to the mods over thread jacking.

If you want to talk abortion, make a thread.

Are you being serious? Johnny Depp could not possibly be the son of Morgan Freeman! That is insanity!

/Win.

:D

http://www.submiturpics.com/images/oy51de6uj7jv7n839o7v.jpg

If you want to talk abortion, make a thread.

Shut up, please.

I a newbie, so I'll just stop talking in this thread.

To my knowledge, fetuses become adults. Fetus is latin for "small child"
.

And Cameleopardus is Latin for Camel-leopard. However giraffes aren't either. Try again.

You know, if I were stupid, I could argue that homosexuals aren't human beings either, but I'm not. Therefore I must conclude that just because they are different than us doesn't mean that they are non-persons.
Sigh. Here we go again.

The overwhelming majority of all abortions are performed in the early stages of the first trimester (the small number of late term abortions all being medically necessary). At that early stage, we are talking more embryo than even fetus. At that stage there is not a developed brain, nor enough of other major organs to sustain life independent of the woman's body.

Guess how that makes them different from gay people.

Guess also why it means that, under the law, they are not persons and don't have the legal rights of persons.

Guess how that also makes them different from gay people.

To get back on topic, the above are the things that made James Dobson cry and quit and cry some more.

If you want to talk abortion, make a thread.

What have you done?

Where are all the n00bs coming from?
I suspect it's not unconnected with the recent award voting 'fraud'.

What have you done?

Created a monster.:D

It is pretty clear that if abortion may be referred to as reproductive rights then hate speech towards gays may be equally called freedom of speech.
1) Your logic is insane and happenstance, like that of a troll.
2) You'd better show me how my topic had anything whatsoever to do with claiming that hating fags isn't "freedom of speech," or else you owe me an apology for your rude attempt at hijack.
3) Unless your trolling is a clever way of making the point that the "culture wars" will endure for as long as there are people stupid/ignorant/hateful enough to believe the things you're parroting. In which case your trolling is unoriginal and stupid, but not actually a hijack.

James Dobson, a leader of the religious right wing, has finally retired from Focus On The Family. In his farewell speech he had some interesting things to say:

-"We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles."

-"The world has turned colder for the family in recent years and there is such hostility to anyone who holds to a faith and we're going to take the heat. But I have been assured by the board and by many of you that we're not going to cow, we're not going to be discouraged. We're going to continue to express the love for the Scripture and the principles that we find there and if we are made fools for Christ, that's okay too because our purpose is to serve him and that he be pleased."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/has-dobson-thrown-towel-not-quite

This comes on the heels of several major victories for gay rights, women's rights, and reproductive rights, as well as several prominent discussions about whether or not the religious right is finished as a political movement. (Example: Kathleen Parker had a column on the subject recently.)


What say you, NSG? Are the culture wars finally coming to an end? Is there a clear victor?
they'll have to reload it. few younger conservative christians are interested in anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-other-religions politics. the rest of us are heartily sick of it.

but they can find some other wedge issue to interest us in, maybe.

they'll have to reload it. few younger conservative christians are interested in anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-other-religions politics. the rest of us are heartily sick of it.

but they can find some other wedge issue to interest us in, maybe.
Such as...?

I'm honestly curious, it's kinda fun to play Guess Which Issue Will Piss Off Evangelicals Next.

Such as...?

I'm honestly curious, it's kinda fun to play Guess Which Issue Will Piss Off Evangelicals Next.
im sure ive read of some recently but they arent coming to me.

but younger christians are drifting toward social justice and stewardship of the earth issues instead of hate issues.

....

maybe they ARE doomed.

I support gay rights. Morever, if you support murder, then you should support it both ways. Equal rights under the law, including fetuses.

This nonsensical argument has already been adequately trashed: see here (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)

im sure ive read of some recently but they arent coming to me.

but younger christians are drifting toward social justice and stewardship of the earth issues instead of hate issues.

....

maybe they ARE doomed.

Bigots are always doomed. They organize, they rally, they pressure, they oppress whoever their target is, they hold onto their power for as long as they possibly can -- sometimes generations -- but they break in the end. The oppressed party get their rights. The nation moves on and forgets all about the bigots except to shake their heads in disbelief when talking about the benighted past. Then a new generation of bigots comes along and targets a new group, and we go round again.

Such as...?

I'm honestly curious, it's kinda fun to play Guess Which Issue Will Piss Off Evangelicals Next.
The issues haven't changed. The size of the groups haven't even changed that much, although there is growing support for liberal social views. What has changed, I think, is evangelicals as an unified voting bloc. They either no longer consider topics surrounding the "culture wars" to be the most important, or they may have grown dissatisfied with the failure of their politicians to curb the growth of legal gay marriage, outlaw abortion, etc.

Bigots are always doomed. They organize, they rally, they pressure, they oppress whoever their target is, they hold onto their power for as long as they possibly can -- sometimes generations -- but they break in the end. The oppressed party get their rights. The nation moves on and forgets all about the bigots except to shake their heads in disbelief when talking about the benighted past. Then a new generation of bigots comes along and targets a new group, and we go round again.

:confused: That makes it sound like bigots aren't doomed, if there's always a fresh crop.

And Cameleardus is Latin for Camel-leopard. However giraffes aren't either. Try again.

I LOL'd. Back to Dobson, though, he'll be missed. Who else is going to tell us that we're "awash in evil"?

:confused: That makes it sound like bigots aren't doomed, if there's always a fresh crop.

The causes that bigots pursue are doomed; bigotry however is a proud and eternal tradition. :rolleyes:

I'm glad that 40,000,000 dead babies makes for unintended comedy. :D

You've obviously never played dodgeball the Right Way(tm).

The causes that bigots pursue are doomed; bigotry however is a proud and eternal tradition. :rolleyes:

Gotcha. Actually, if bigotry is always with us, that means the one minority group we'll always have are...bigots. What does this mean for the prospects of bigot bigots? Are they also doomed? Food for thought, to be sure. :)

I LOL'd. Back to Dobson, though, he'll be missed. Who else is going to tell us that we're "awash in evil"?

But slow marinading in evil makes your flesh tender and succulent, and the knife goes in as smoothly as if it were butter!

The "culture wars" exist only in the minds of people who see America as a binary divide between red states and blue states (and I still find it amusing that America has mixed up the colours on those). In reality it's a whole lot more purple all over. As evidenced by the fact that the margin of victory in American elections is so damned narrow. Anyone who separated Jesusland from the rest of the US and built a great big border wall would find that their politics were still a shade of purple.

Neither has really won in the immediate sense--rather a more "conservative progressive" cultural attitude has, as usual, won out. The regressive goals of the FOF types have largely been rejected on the long term, while progressive goals have not been unquestionably and rapidly embraced. Cultural evolution has continued onwards, as always.

I suspect that barring extreme external occurrences, that the progressive viewpoint will "win", but full victory for modern progressive views is still a ways off.

:confused: That makes it sound like bigots aren't doomed, if there's always a fresh crop.

Sounds about right.

James Dobson, a leader of the religious right wing, has finally retired from Focus On The Family. In his farewell speech he had some interesting things to say:

-"We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles."

-"The world has turned colder for the family in recent years and there is such hostility to anyone who holds to a faith and we're going to take the heat. But I have been assured by the board and by many of you that we're not going to cow, we're not going to be discouraged. We're going to continue to express the love for the Scripture and the principles that we find there and if we are made fools for Christ, that's okay too because our purpose is to serve him and that he be pleased."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/has-dobson-thrown-towel-not-quite

This comes on the heels of several major victories for gay rights, women's rights, and reproductive rights, as well as several prominent discussions about whether or not the religious right is finished as a political movement. (Example: Kathleen Parker had a column on the subject recently.)


What say you, NSG? Are the culture wars finally coming to an end? Is there a clear victor?

Someone on another forum characterized the current state of the Christian Right as being the Axis forces after the defeat of their armies, continuing with the war until their forced surrender:

To paraphrase, the culture war isn't over, but we've already won.

No, they are never over because there will always be those who want to force change and those who want to resist it.

This is the guy who called Spongebob Squarepants an agent of the Gay Agenda. Is he really going to be missed?


Shows you his gaydar isn't working. Anybody can see Squidward is gay....

James Dobson, a leader of the religious right wing, has finally retired from Focus On The Family. In his farewell speech he had some interesting things to say:

-"We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles."

No, Dobson. You have not yet BEGUN to suffer!!!

:confused: That makes it sound like bigots aren't doomed, if there's always a fresh crop.
Well, any given issue-focused bigotry is doomed to ultimate failure, but yes, they do keep making new ones. So while we can be sure we will eventually defeat the bigots we fight, we will never defeat bigotry as a social problem.

Someone on another forum characterized the current state of the Christian Right as being the Axis forces after the defeat of their armies, continuing with the war until their forced surrender:

To paraphrase, the culture war isn't over, but we've already won.

The phrase "culture war" implies there was something unique about the collective debates over social policies over the past thirty years, and that there was a fixed beginning and there will be a fixed end. That's not really how it works, though. There have been many victories for conservatives, and there have been many victories for liberals. If past history is an indicator, the future will be more liberal than now. But debates won't stop.

Fetus is not a baby.


That you keep insisting they are the same is what is funny.

Where are all the n00bs coming from?

I could say I'm pro-life, but I'll stop and think.

Anyway, back on topic, what Ashmoria and NERVUN said.

I'm glad that 40,000,000 dead babies makes for unintended comedy. :D

they don't. 40,000,000 dead babies makes for a fantastic spread on toast, however.

they don't. 40,000,000 dead babies makes for a fantastic spread on toast, however.

No, no, no, you're supposed to use them for matzo, not toast. Silly Jew, ur doin it rong!

they don't. 40,000,000 dead babies makes for a fantastic spread on toast, however.

Are we talking wheat or white?

they don't. 40,000,000 dead babies makes for a fantastic spread on toast, however.
That's a bit strong, don't you think? I prefer to cut the dead baby spread with a little butter to lighten it up.

That's a bit strong, don't you think? I prefer to cut the dead baby spread with a little butter to lighten it up.

But dead baby spread doesnt go straight to your thighs like butter does.

Are we talking wheat or white?

Rye.

This is the guy who called Spongebob Squarepants an agent of the Gay Agenda. Is he really going to be missed?

Absolutely. These guys are pure comedic gold. :D

Shows you his gaydar isn't working. Anybody can see Squidward is gay....

True, it doesn't help that Squidward doesn't have any love interest. At least Spongebob has that squirrel.

im sure ive read of some recently but they arent coming to me.

but younger christians are drifting toward social justice and stewardship of the earth issues instead of hate issues.

....

maybe they ARE doomed.
My best guess would be atheism. Not that they don't already hate the godless, I just think the only real next option for them is to actively campaign against atheists having rights.

My best guess would be atheism. Not that they don't already hate the godless, I just think the only real next option for them is to actively campaign against atheists having rights.

Do you REALLY think that? o_O

Do you REALLY think that? o_O
I just don't know who the fuck else they can go after.

They already hate brown people, women, and gays. They aren't allowed to (openly) hate Jews any more, and they've done the anti-Muslim thing for years already.

So what demographic is left that they can publicly hate on without the entire mainstream of the country telling them to fuck off?

So what demographic is left that they can publicly hate on without the entire mainstream of the country telling them to fuck off?

Themselves? :D

So what demographic is left that they can publicly hate on without the entire mainstream of the country telling them to fuck off?

If they tried to take away atheists' rights, I'm pretty sure the backlash would be on THEM. o_O

If they tried to take away atheists' rights, I'm pretty sure the backlash would be on THEM. o_O

Oh, I dunno, there's a pretty big anti-atheist sentiment in America.

I just don't know who the fuck else they can go after.

Men with big moustaches?

I knew there was a reason Fleetwood Mac's "Go Your Own Way" playing in my car was symbolic.

Goodbye Dobson. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.

Oh, I dunno, there's a pretty big anti-atheist sentiment in America.

I know, but even then. To try and TAKE AWAY rights based on religion?

If they tried to take away atheists' rights, I'm pretty sure the backlash would be on THEM. o_O

No, there wouldnt.

If George Bush 41 can say "Athiests arent American citizens" during an election, and win....

Oh, I dunno, there's a pretty big anti-atheist sentiment in America.

Not where I live. Most people I know don't care what religion (or lack thereof) you follow; as long as you respect them, they respect you.

No, there wouldnt.

If George Bush 41 can say "Athiests arent American citizens" during an election, and win....

And looking at how much racist and women's rights Reagan won by (and is still relatively loved), I would say it is perfectly possible.

Not where I live. Most people I know don't care what religion (or lack thereof) you follow; as long as you respect them, they respect you.

Where you are is drastically different from where I am, and most of America. Our metropolitan areas tend to be fairly tolerant, but everywhere else is bad as Hell.

Where you are is drastically different from where I am, and most of America. Our metropolitan areas tend to be fairly tolerant, but everywhere else is bad as Hell.

Which state are you in? I'm in Minnesota.

Which state are you in? I'm in Minnesota.

California.

I know, but even then. To try and TAKE AWAY rights based on religion?

They could certainly try, it may even work.

No, there wouldnt.

If George Bush 41 can say "Athiests arent American citizens" during an election, and win....

That's plain horrible. :(

No, there wouldnt.

If George Bush 41 can say "Athiests arent American citizens" during an election, and win....

Fun fact: George H.W. Bush was also a personal friend of Mobutu Sese Seko.

California.

Great state. San Francisco is simply amazing.

That's plain horrible. :(

Horrible, of course. Surprising? Not so much.

Great state. San Francisco is simply amazing.

The rest of the state, not so much.

:confused: That makes it sound like bigots aren't doomed, if there's always a fresh crop.

I don't know that it's really a "fresh crop" as it were. It's just that society progresses onwards and there are always people holding onto the past or status quo. Some of the same people who were adamant about the civil rights movement of the 60's will now argue against extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Those people weren't the bigots in the former movement, but now are in the latter.

We keep recognizing that certain groups have been marginalized and trying to move away from that, but there are always people who haven't, and often will not, questioned those social conventions.

In other words, I don't think it's that bigots keep coming up with new groups to oppress. It's more that society keeps finding out that it has been oppressing certain groups and trying to move beyond that, but there are always those who adamantly disagree with that forward movement.

I know, but even then. To try and TAKE AWAY rights based on religion?

There are already civil rights issues with atheists. For instance, in some states, they are barred from running for public office.

For instance, in some states, they are barred from running for public office.

:eek2:

There are already civil rights issues with atheists. For instance, in some states, they are barred from running for public office.

Whoa. Which states? And why hasn't it been struck down as unconstitutional?

I just don't know who the fuck else they can go after.

They already hate brown people, women, and gays. They aren't allowed to (openly) hate Jews any more, and they've done the anti-Muslim thing for years already.

So what demographic is left that they can publicly hate on without the entire mainstream of the country telling them to fuck off?

The only thing they haven't hated on are old rich white straight Christian men*. They could try that.


*Well, officially. They're pretty self-loathing.

Whoa. Which states? And why hasn't it been struck down as unconstitutional?

It would make little difference, as an atheist could not win many offices in this country, anyway.

Whoa. Which states? And why hasn't it been struck down as unconstitutional?

IIRC, there are something like 7 states that have constitutional provisions requiring religious belief for public office, but I don't remember which ones.

And these haven't been struck down as unconstitutional largely because they haven't been challenged. But the current supreme court might actually find some way to rule that they were ok since they don't require a particular religion. I'm not sure which way Kennedy would go on that question.

Edit: http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

It would make little difference, as an atheist could not win many offices in this country, anyway.

"Could not win" I'll accept. But it's a completely different beast from "Cannot run". It's abhorrent.

This (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas1.htm) says that those clauses have been null and invalid since 1961. They're still on the books because they require a constitutional amendment to remove them, but they can't be enforced. But still, they're big fat glaring eyes of intolerance staring at us all.

"Could not win" I'll accept. But it's a completely different beast from "Cannot run". It's abhorrent.

Sure it is.

This (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas1.htm) says that those clauses have been null and invalid since 1961. They're still on the books because they require a constitutional amendment to remove them, but they can't be enforced. But still, they're big fat glaring eyes of intolerance staring at us all.

I still think anyone running for office who openly admits to atheism is a moron. Remember what ol' Machiavelli said: It is not necessary to be religious to run things, but it is extremely advisable to appear so.

It's abhorrent.

Agreed.

Remember what ol' Machiavelli said: It is not necessary to be religious to run things, but it is extremely advisable to appear so.

The man was way ahead of his time. :tongue:

I still think anyone running for office who openly admits to atheism is a moron. Remember what ol' Machiavelli said: It is not necessary to be religious to run things, but it is extremely advisable to appear so.

But any atheist running for office who conceals his disbelief is a liar! And we have enough of those in politics already. The quota is full there.

But any atheist running for office who conceals his disbelief is a liar! And we have enough of those in politics already. The quota is full there.

He has to lie to win, just like Obama had to claim he is against same-sex marriage.

Politics and lies go hand-in-hand. Besides, the unintelligent require the leader to show faith; if the leader is openly atheist, then the ones who are not prosperous become skeptical and pessimistic.

Having honest leaders does not improve the nation. After Nixon resigned, the people decided this was solution, and they chose Carter in the next election. Most were severely disappointed.

"Could not win" I'll accept. But it's a completely different beast from "Cannot run". It's abhorrent.

This (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas1.htm) says that those clauses have been null and invalid since 1961. They're still on the books because they require a constitutional amendment to remove them, but they can't be enforced. But still, they're big fat glaring eyes of intolerance staring at us all.
I suspect any attempt to remove them would allow politicians to be attacked as in favor of atheists becoming governors, which sounds worse than simply not being against barring them. Of course, if I had to choose between legislatures removing nominal discrimination and spending time fighting the real thing, I would of course prefer the latter.

EDIT: Another funny "that's still on the books?" tradition I just remembered is Maryland's state song. The song's writer was...not a fan of the Union, to say the least, as witnessed by the song's last stanza:

hear the distant thunder-hum,
Maryland!
The Old Line's bugle, fife, and drum,
Maryland!
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! she burns! she'll come! she'll come!
Maryland! My Maryland!

This makes the use of the word "darkies" in Virginia's state song look kind of tame.

-"The world has turned colder for the family in recent years and there is such hostility to anyone who holds to a faith and we're going to take the heat. But I have been assured by the board and by many of you that we're not going to cow, we're not going to be discouraged. We're going to continue to express the love for the Scripture and the principles that we find there and if we are made fools for Christ, that's okay too because our purpose is to serve him and that he be pleased."

Dobson is infact full of shit, just like North Korea.

I have been told that you held a meeting today and resolved to serve the leader faithfully to the end. This is most commendable. You must accept the instructions the leader gave yesterday to the teaching staff, students and graduates of the school as your own convictions, and perform your work better from this day onwards, so as to bring him greater pleasure and satisfaction.
hxxp://www.korea-dpr.com/lib/Kim%20Jong%20Il%20-%201/

-"We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles."His faith screams volumes, even to aneurysm levels.



http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/has-dobson-thrown-towel-not-quite

whether or not the religious right is finished as a political movement. (Example: Kathleen Parker had a column on the subject recently.)Oh, i so fucking hope so. Let the meek really inherit the earth, as convoluted as that idea is this far along.


What say you, NSG? Are the culture wars finally coming to an end? Is there a clear victor?I say, verily, yay!-men.
To SpongeBob and Squidward go the spoils.
http://www.cuddlecards.com/ccpics/bear_applause_cuddlecards.gif

If they tried to take away atheists' rights, I'm pretty sure the backlash would be on THEM. o_O
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx

Americans as a whole are more willing to elect a homosexual to the presidency than an atheist.

Granted, that's not precisely the same thing as asking about what rights people should have, but I'd say it's a reflection of how willing people are to accept atheists.

And looking at how much racist and women's rights Reagan won by (and is still relatively loved), I would say it is perfectly possible.
Given how much overt racism and sexism was in the most recent political election, I would have trouble being shocked by any level of bigotry these days.

In the culture wars, I think the smart money is on Thor.

After all, the God of the right wing is a dude who got nailed to a cross. Thor is a god who carries a giant hammer.

Annnnd has been known to dress in womens clothing!

Victory is ours!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx

Americans as a whole are more willing to elect a homosexual to the presidency than an atheist.

Granted, that's not precisely the same thing as asking about what rights people should have, but I'd say it's a reflection of how willing people are to accept atheists.


Given how much overt racism and sexism was in the most recent political election, I would have trouble being shocked by any level of bigotry these days.

Atheists will probably be the next set of acceptable targets in this country.

Atheists will probably be the next set of acceptable targets in this country.

I hope not.

Victory is ours!Good nation name. I'd almost swap you for beer, if i drank beer.

Given how much overt racism and sexism was in the most recent political election, I would have trouble being shocked by any level of bigotry these days.

This is why we do not live in a complete democracy, nor should we. Imagine how screwed-up things would be if the masses had no checks on their power.

How many dudes do you think this Dobson guy had sex with over the years? I'm guessing at least three. :tongue:

How many dudes do you think this Dobson guy had sex with over the years? I'm guessing at least three. :tongue:

My guess is 5. Of the 5, 3 were under 18.

How many dudes do you think this Dobson guy had sex with over the years? I'm guessing at least three. :tongue:

17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Bachus#Controversies).

He has to lie to win, just like Obama had to claim he is against same-sex marriage.

Politics and lies go hand-in-hand. Besides, the unintelligent require the leader to show faith; if the leader is openly atheist, then the ones who are not prosperous become skeptical and pessimistic.

Having honest leaders does not improve the nation. After Nixon resigned, the people decided this was solution, and they chose Carter in the next election. Most were severely disappointed.

What do you mean "Obama had to claim he is against same-sex marriage"? He is against same-sex marriage. He was when he was a State Senator, he was when he was a Federal Senator, and he is as the President. He has never, to my knowledge, claimed otherwise.

Further, take a look at who he toured with in the Southern states. Donnie McClurkin, Mary Mary and Hezekiah Walker - the only thing those four people have in common is that they hate teh ebil gheys!

Even if, at some level, Obama is actually supportive of the LGBT community, he's so used to prostituting his views out that it makes no difference. As far as he's concerned, the LGBT vote is safe, so he can demonise us all he wants to convince Middle America that he's a "centrist" rather than a "liberal". It's not as if we can vote Republican to punish him, after all, is it?

What do you mean "Obama had to claim he is against same-sex marriage"? He is against same-sex marriage. He was when he was a State Senator, he was when he was a Federal Senator, and he is as the President. He has never, to my knowledge, claimed otherwise.

Further, take a look at who he toured with in the Southern states. Donnie McClurkin, Mary Mary and Hezekiah Walker - the only thing those four people have in common is that they hate teh ebil gheys!

Even if, at some level, Obama is actually supportive of the LGBT community, he's so used to prostituting his views out that it makes no difference. As far as he's concerned, the LGBT vote is safe, so he can demonise us all he wants to convince Middle America that he's a "centrist" rather than a "liberal". It's not as if we can vote Republican to punish him, after all, is it?

I read in The Economist that Obama has actually told a gay newspaper some years back that he supports same-sex marriage.

Yes, claiming to be against same-sex marriage grabs more religious centrists who might otherwise vote Republican.

As far as he's concerned, the LGBT vote is safe, so he can demonise us all he wants to convince Middle America that he's a "centrist" rather than a "liberal". It's not as if we can vote Republican to punish him, after all, is it?
I don't feel that Obama has "demonized" us. He has stated his belief that we should be entitled to equal legal benefits. Though he has not taken the last step in declaring his support for our relationships to be legally recognized as "marriages," the fact that he supports us having equal legal rights is enough for me. The compromise he made in not endorsing the use of the word "marriage" is a slight one to make on the ladder to political success, and not one that truly hampers our progress. A US president endorsing us having equal legal benefits is truly a milestone in American history.

I wouldn't quite break out the champagne yet.


http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/04/dobson-media-mistaken-on-the-white-flag/

He is retiring to make way for the younger generation.

“This is a discouraging time but in tough times good people hang in there and wait for things to change and we pray a lot.”

Dobson, who founded Focus on the Family, resigned as chairman in February as he continued relinquishing leadership roles. He stepped down as president and CEO in 2003.

He made clear on Tuesday that he did not retire or leave the family ministry but said “it was time to pass [the leadership] along and let a younger generation take over.”

Currently, he continues to host the Focus on the Family radio broadcast which is heard on 1,500 radio stations and has 220 million listeners in 150 countries.

“I’m working as hard as I ever have and that has not changed,” he said.


I would say it a ploy myself.


Here come the new bosses.

http://www.christianpost.com/Ministries/Figures/2009/02/dobson-resigns-as-chairman-of-focus-on-the-family-27/index.html

"In the short term, in the near term, Dr. Dobson will stay committed to the issues close to his heart," Daly said in an interview. "He'll continue to speak out on those topics."

Daly said there is no timetable for Dobson to leave the radio program, and the group will "look for the next voice for the next generation" while Dobson remains on the air.

That will likely mean not one person behind the microphone but several speaking on their respective areas of expertise, Daly said. The organization, anticipating a post-Dobson era, for several years has tried out different voices on the broadcast and in giving media interviews on hot-button social issues.

An end to the Moron Majority? Wohoo!

That's what happens when you are unable to ingrain your future with bigotry and hatred.

I just don't know who the fuck else they can go after.

They already hate brown people, women, and gays. They aren't allowed to (openly) hate Jews any more, and they've done the anti-Muslim thing for years already.

So what demographic is left that they can publicly hate on without the entire mainstream of the country telling them to fuck off?

I would say Pagans, but I think everyone just ignores us.

How many dudes do you think this Dobson guy had sex with over the years? I'm guessing at least three. :tongue:

I'm guessing 3 adult males, and about 5 underage boys. Hey, they're the one teaching the little boys to kneel in front of a Jewish man so that he may come into them! We all know what happens at those Bible camps!

The compromise he made in not endorsing the use of the word "marriage" is a slight one to make on the ladder to political success, and not one that truly hampers our progress.
Forgive me, but when a black man literally advocates that a minority group be given "separate but equal" rights, I don't see that as progress.

I wouldn't quite break out the champagne yet.


http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/04/dobson-media-mistaken-on-the-white-flag/

He is retiring to make way for the younger generation.

If that's true, then I would break out even MORE champagne, because the younger generation doesn't agree with any of the pet causes that Dobson championed. If he's admitting that it's time for him to step back and let the next generation lead, then that's pretty much the same as admitting that his brand of "family values" is dead.

:) Yay!

I don't feel that Obama has "demonized" us. He has stated his belief that we should be entitled to equal legal benefits. Though he has not taken the last step in declaring his support for our relationships to be legally recognized as "marriages," the fact that he supports us having equal legal rights is enough for me. The compromise he made in not endorsing the use of the word "marriage" is a slight one to make on the ladder to political success, and not one that truly hampers our progress. A US president endorsing us having equal legal benefits is truly a milestone in American history.

I find it hard to agree with your point of view. To my mind, it's simple: The man has no compassion whatsoever for us. He uses us and abuses us. And when it's convenient for him to do so, he forgets about us.

As the saying goes "You judge a man by the company he keeps."

Who did he invite to speak at his inauguration? None other than the notorious homophobe, Rick Warren. The same man who publicly, to cheers from his congregation compared homosexuality to paedophilia and incest. The man who vocally and prominently supported Prop.8 in California. And, knowing this, Obama chose to invite him to peach at his inauguration. What a way to reward us. What a way to reward us. I'd almost (not quite, but getting there) prefer the Republicans - at least they've got the honesty to 'fess up to their bigotry in public. Unlike Obama, who hates whenever it's convenient and puts on a nice smile.

Gay marriage is a state issue. Why are you bringing Obama into it?

Gay marriage is a state issue. Why are you bringing Obama into it?

States should not be allowed to denied anyone what should be basic rights.

Gay marriage is a state issue. Why are you bringing Obama into it?

And a few years earlier...

Civil rights are a state issue. Why are you bringing Johnson into it?

And so it goes.

In the culture wars, I think the smart money is on Thor.

After all, the God of the right wing is a dude who got nailed to a cross. Thor is a god who carries a giant hammer.

I have it on good authority that He's not a right-wing God.

im sure ive read of some recently but they arent coming to me.

but younger christians are drifting toward social justice and stewardship of the earth issues instead of hate issues.

....

maybe they ARE doomed.

Yeah, I've been surprised actually. A lot of the people I've gone to private school with, who were uber-conservative in their youth, are really opening up to those issues and are just loosening up in general.

My guess is 5. Of the 5, 3 were under 18.

Now now. There's no reason to be thinking he's anything but the standard "accidentally" murdered a hooker fare.

Forgive me, but when a black man literally advocates that a minority group be given "separate but equal" rights, I don't see that as progress.

As much as I hate to speculate that this may be the case, I can't help but wonder if "separate but equal" is a necessary evil in the march for civil rights. I mean, I'd love to say that making the jump to pure equality could be done in one stroke, but my inner cynic doesn't have that much faith in people.

Ugh... that felt like vomit on it's way up.

Who did he invite to speak at his inauguration? None other than the notorious homophobe, Rick Warren. The same man who publicly, to cheers from his congregation compared homosexuality to paedophilia and incest. The man who vocally and prominently supported Prop.8 in California. And, knowing this, Obama chose to invite him to peach at his inauguration. What a way to reward us. What a way to reward us. I'd almost (not quite, but getting there) prefer the Republicans - at least they've got the honesty to 'fess up to their bigotry in public. Unlike Obama, who hates whenever it's convenient and puts on a nice smile.

Obama didn't invite Warren to speak. Warren was chosen to speak back in the summer of 2008.

Obama didn't invite Warren to speak. Warren was chosen to speak back in the summer of 2008.

Sorry, you're wrong. Link here (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/12/obama_taps_evan.html) to an article published by the Boston Globe published December 17, 2008 which announced the choice by Obama.

You know, after Prop.8, which Warren championed, passed.

Gay marriage is a state issue. Why are you bringing Obama into it?

What Wilgrove said, VC. It's a basic right. You know, the whole "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" part of the Constitution's preamble? And the larger issue is Obama's cowardly treatment of the LGBT issues generally. He's the sort who likes to hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes at the same time. And when that impacts on *my* right to be happy, I take offence.