DescentBB

Posted: **Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:31 pm**

Obama just picked Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Inauguration. Talk about kicking your base in the nutsack while they're down! The LGBT Community gave 70% their vote to Obama and they got dissed for their efforts!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16693.html

Obama's making the same mistake that Bill Clinton made in trying to triangulate his positions to appease as many people on both sides of the aisle as he can. Unfortunately, picking Rick Warren was not one of them. There must be a better choice than this guy, a certified wacko in my opinion.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick ... ating.html

Posted: **Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:47 pm**

Well...you voted for him...

Posted: **Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:58 pm**

Wow. 70% of 2% == 1.4% of the votes, assuming homosexuals actually voted in proportion to their percentage of the population.

I think number-wise, Obama'd be politically better off not pandering to that crowd, and apparently, Obama's reached that conclusion as well.

Posted: **Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:23 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:Obama just picked Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Inauguration. Talk about kicking your base in the nutsack while they're down!....

OK, but lets be fair, they are a very small percentage of voters and since half of that small minority have to strap on their "nutsack"...did he really hurt that many people?

Posted: **Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:23 pm**

Undoubtedly the first of many massive disappointments Obama is going to deliver to the people who put him in office. I find Rick Warren annoying, but mainly because he panders pop-theology with little substance. He's certainly not homophobic, but there is a massive difference between opposing homosexual behavior on moral/religious grounds and someone like Fred Phelps who hates homosexuals and truly is deserving of the title of homophobe. Some people can't tell the difference between these two things. These people are idiots.

Posted: **Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:29 pm**

Well you don't want to let people down. That's not good.

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:00 am**

Well you're always going to piss someone off.

Will Robinson wrote:OK, but lets be fair, they are a very small percentage of voters and since half of that small minority have to strap on their "nutsack"

Which half?

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 am**

Spidey wrote:Well...you voted for him...

Yea, I voted for him, but ONLY because he was the lesser of 2 evils. I most certainly didn't want Palin around. McCain would have been far worse in his treatment of the gay community, so I'm sure that they feel betrayed by Obama's actions. It's a shame that Obama had to throw under the bus the small part of his supportive base just to cater to the wacko pop Megachurch Evangelicals.

Warren IS homophobic. Anytime someone takes away another person's basic civil rights (supporting Prop eight) and refuses inclusion in his group, church in this instance (gays can't join his congregation unless they renounce their 'gayness' and go through his 'pray away the gay' inhumane brainwashing sessions), fits the definition. He's just more subtle about his fear, couching it sugar-coated BS like "We gave them water and donuts" outside the church and "If they just control their impulses" and the lulu of them all, comparing gays to pedophiles, incestuous behaviors and zoophilia.

But besides all that, Warren doesn't represent mainstream Christianity. He and his church exist to proselytize his message to as many people as possible and gain power. His AIDS philanthropy in Africa is not about the homosexual type 1 AIDS in the U.S., but the heterosexual type 2 AIDS predominate over there. He's over there just to convert as many people as possible any from Islam to his form of 'religion', to hell with all those other more prevalent diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis as long as he gets the converts.

This guy is malevolence in disguise. He's just taken over from Haggard, Dobson and Robertson, other wackos that have fallen from popularity. Even if you excluded the gay issue, I still don't think he's a good representative to be at Obama's Invocation. A really stupid and callus choice, even to Jews and Catholics.

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:31 pm**

TC is apparently armed with the mythical mind-reading device \"progressives\" seem to have exclusive use of.

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:52 pm**

Please…you act like he is giving this guy a cabinet position or something. Obama did say he wanted to reach out to “everyone” in this country, I guess for you that doesn’t include people with different views.

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:29 pm**

Yep, progressives only care about \"diversity\" that doesn't matter, and cannot stand the only diversity which does: diversity of opinion and thought.

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:26 pm**

Diversity's one thing, so are opinions, everybody should be represented. It wouldn't be a problem if Warren and his church kept their noses out of politics and other's affairs, but they are active in politics and use that power to deliberately and negatively target one group of our society. That's just calculated, mean spirited and vindictive.

But pushing aside some of your supporters for someone else is a whole different matter. That's what Obama did, he took the bone he originally gave to the LGBT base for their tiny little vote, hit them in the face with it and gave it to the Evangelicals so he could be reelected in 2012. It's all in the symbolism. That's my hairsplit with Obama's decision.

I don't even support the stances and ideals Warren has for heterosexuals or other Christians. He can have his opinions and ideals, teach them in his megapalace to his followers, even shove them where the sun doesn't shine for all I care, but he needs to keep out of policy making that can effect the rest of us in this country. Frankly, he's a dangerous crackpot with too many connections in high places and I'm not talking about God.

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:03 pm**

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:41 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:Diversity's one thing, so are opinions, everybody should be represented.

Immediately followed by this:

It wouldn't be a problem if Warren and his church kept their noses out of politics and other's affairs, but they are active in politics and use that power to deliberately and negatively target one group of our society.

Opinions are great so long 1. they agree with TC, or 2. they are never acted upon.

That's just calculated, mean spirited and vindictive.

I'd have to agree.

But pushing aside some of your supporters for someone else is a whole different matter.

Because, of course, Warren and all of his followers did not support Obama and Obama doesn't want to court his support, which is why, of course, Obama is inviting Warren, instead of someone who is pleasing to a maximum(!) of %1.4 of the voting population.

That's what Obama did, he took the bone he originally gave to the LGBT base for their tiny little vote, hit them in the face with it and gave it to the Evangelicals so he could be reelected in 2012.

Politicians do things to court the masses??!?!!ONE!? Say it ain't so!

It's all in the symbolism. That's my hairsplit with Obama's decision.

It sucks when other's opinions and values don't match your own, doesn't it?

I don't even support the stances and ideals Warren has for heterosexuals or other Christians.

Great!

He can have his opinions and ideals, teach them in his megapalace to his followers, even shove them where the sun doesn't shine for all I care, but he needs to keep out of policy making that can effect the rest of us in this country.

Yeah! Let's get some Final Solution rhetoric going! Tolerance, be damned!

Frankly, he's a dangerous crackpot with too many connections in high places and I'm not talking about God.

"People who disagree with me should have NO power!"

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:58 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:I don't even support the stances and ideals Warren has for heterosexuals or other Christians. He can have his opinions and ideals, teach them in his megapalace to his followers, even shove them where the sun doesn't shine for all I care, but he needs to keep out of policy making that can effect the rest of us in this country. Frankly, he's a dangerous crackpot with too many connections in high places and I'm not talking about God.

WOW I didn't realize that giving the invocation at the inauguration was making policy. who-da thunk it

EDIT: TC you really should go back and re-read your posts, your spewing as much if not more, hate and intolerance than you accuse Warren of doing.

shaktazuki is right

progressives only care about "diversity" that doesn't matter, and cannot stand the only diversity which does: diversity of opinion and thought.

the SP's only care about Diversity when its advantageous to them and when its not then Hell have no fury like an SP scorned,

you claim tolerance but you show none.
you claim acceptance but you show none.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:31 am**

tunnelcat wrote: I don't even support the stances and ideals Warren has for heterosexuals or other Christians. He can have his opinions and ideals, teach them in his megapalace to his followers, even shove them where the sun doesn't shine for all I care, but he needs to keep out of policy making that can effect the rest of us in this country. Frankly, he's a dangerous crackpot with too many connections in high places and I'm not talking about God.

Maybe Obama should of had his spiritual mentor, Rev. "God Damne America" Wright, do the invocation? You know, the same Rev. Wright who said Dec.7th was the date we bombed Hiroshima. Truly a day that will live in Infamy.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:37 pm**

Well, you guys noted one thing, Obama can't pick a Pastor worth his salt!

You're all twisting my points. Sure, I don't like Warren or his preachings, but I certainly don't advocate shutting down his church or even putting a gag on his free speech. I'm tolerant in that respect, give me some slack, please. The people of this country are free to say what they want and even hold court to speak it to others. That's his right, I'm not trying to squelch it, but it's my right to be able disagree with it publicly.

However, when you take that speech and use it to rally the masses in order to repress another segment of our society, no matter how much people dislike that segment, by advocating government laws or worse, Constitutional Amendments, THAT is where the line is crossed between free speech and controlling speech or repression, even for religion. That's a very fine line and few people seem to realize how often it gets blurred, or crossed. There's always some rationalization for it.

Do you realize that Warren's next little pet project may be to ban divorce? He stated that fact with conviction on Dateline the other night. How would you feel if he managed to get that one passed in some state or federal mandate or, GASP!, a Federal Constitutional Amendment? It would certainly affect a LOT more people, wouldn't it? He's getting more powerful in politics and a lot more followers, he may succeed, so don't count him out. That was the big fear when Kennedy was elected. People were afraid that he would exert his Catholic ideals on the American public. Not everyone wanted to follow Catholic law.

Here's a close parallel to the gay marriage debate, although some of you will still disagree. As of the early 1990's, a slim majority of people still disapproved of interracial marriage in the U.S., enough that it could have been voted into law again if it weren't for the Supreme Court. The 1990's for crying out loud, AFTER the Civil Rights Movement!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-A ... iages.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Miscegenation Laws were approved by a 'majority of the people', but did that make it right to repress a minority population of our country because of held religious beliefs? Interracial marriage was vehemently preached against from church pulpits all over the U.S. and the Bible was always used as proof of God's will against this blasphemy, as they called it!

Back to Obama and his Pastor pick. For example, put yourself in the shoes of an African American who supported and voted for the winning President. Say this President elect picked a religious leader for his Invocation that just happened to advocate bringing back miscegenation laws or perhaps 'separate but equal' laws to the U.S. because we are a Christian Nation and we should be following God's law? Don't you think that the Blacks in this country would take that as a slap in the face and find exception with it? Try and think about it from someone else's perspective is all I'm trying to say.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:46 pm**

We got it, But what we think that you are missing is, this guy is not being given a position to determine squat about policy, he is going to say a prayer, that's it.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:20 pm**

Spidey wrote: this guy is not being given a position to determine squat about policy, he is going to say a prayer, that's it.

True, BUT, when Obama picks someone to say a prayer, it is perceived as an endorsement of that person an their views. That is what the far left is objecting to. Obama endorsing the views of Rick Warren.

tunnelcat wrote:Do you realize that Warren's next little pet project may be to ban divorce?

I think this is unlikely, but it IS a very good point. It's why I'm very nervous about legislating such things as the definition of marriage.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:28 pm**

Kilarin wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Do you realize that Warren's next little pet project may be to ban divorce?
I think this is unlikely, but it IS a very good point. It's why I'm very nervous about legislating such things as the definition of marriage.

It is beyond unlikely. The state (in essence, my next-door-neighbor pointing a gun at me and commanding me to do what I don't wish to, or to refrain from what I will to do, according to his whims) should not have a role in marriages, marriage being in its genesis an establishment of religion, but since my violent, morally defective, and armed neighbor has arrogated to himself such a role, it is necessary, unfortunately, to try to assure that the guns will be pointed away from me and mine. That's why I have no qualms about legislating the definition of marriage: it changes where the guns are pointing.

Imagine what would happen if some intellectual, as opposed to moral, cripple got some judges to redefine PI to be exactly three, finding in the Constitution of his respective state the "right" to not be made to feel like an idiot in his compulsory mathematics education, relying upon some misplaced notion that nature is cruel in its discrimination between the smart and the dumb.

Reality is what it is; when the laws don't reflect reality, blood and treasure are swiftly wasted.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:40 pm**

Kilarin wrote:
Spidey wrote: this guy is not being given a position to determine squat about policy, he is going to say a prayer, that's it.
True, BUT, when Obama picks someone to say a prayer, it is perceived as an endorsement of that person an their views. That is what the far left is objecting to. Obama endorsing the views of Rick Warren.

Well, all I can say about that is…this guy is screwed.

Obama has also picked a Republican (or 2?) to be on his cabinet, so he must endorse his/their views as well.

This guy is in for a rough ride, and the irony will be: for doing what he was elected for.

Let the fun begin…

Posted: **Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:59 pm**

The constitution has a clear seperation of religion and govt. As such it would be very hard to make laws to ban divorces or approve gay marrage, at least at a federal level. It would be state laws one would have to be worryied about

Posted: **Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:49 pm**

woodchip wrote:The constitution has a clear seperation of religion and govt.

Actually, it does not.

US Constitution, Amendment 1, in the relevant text, reads thusly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

All this means, in its historical context, is that US gov't shall not impose a national church upon its people, as England did with the Anglican Church, nor penalize people for acting according to their chosen religion. The US does, or has done, both of these forbidden things.

Not that it matters; since the 1860s, the Constitution has been a dead letter from a dead agrarian generation which is entirely irrelevant to our modern, high-tech, terrorist-inflicted society.

All law is the imposition of morality by death or the threat thereof; the only issue is whose morality shall be imposed.

Posted: **Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:53 pm**

Thanks for your inputs people.

Don't underestimate Warren, he CAN make public policy, not by enacting any policies himself or through officials (I hope not), but by the most insidious way possible, the vote of the public. The public can be manipulated and swayed by someone who is charismatic and popular, but he doesn't represent the best interests of EVERYBODY in the U.S.

By the way, Warren sounded VERY serious about the divorce problem. We'll see.....

Anybody have a better suggestion of a religious leader choice for giving the Invocation at Obama's Inauguration than Warren?

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:53 am**

tunnelcat wrote:The public can be manipulated and swayed by someone who is charismatic and popular, but he doesn't represent the best interests of EVERYBODY in the U.S.

are you talking about Rick Warren here or Barack Obama

tunnelcat wrote:By the way, Warren sounded VERY serious about the divorce problem. We'll see.....

and as a Pastor he should THAT'S HIS JOB

tunnelcat wrote:Anybody have a better suggestion of a religious leader choice for giving the Invocation at Obama's Inauguration than Warren?

sure lets dump Warren and bring in Jeremiah Wright. I'm sure he couldn't possible piss off as many people as Warren has. get a grip TC your Phobias are getting out of hand

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:33 am**

I would say that Rick Warren fits perfectly. I'm sure that at some point he must have said that the church \"is no longer what it could be--what it once was.\" I know a little bit about him, and I have no use for him as a \"Christian\".

I think you will find that there is a movement well under way to make conflicting beliefs minor details--a false \"unity.\" The only ones that are unacceptable are people who demand that the details do matter.

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:41 am**

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:The public can be manipulated and swayed by someone who is charismatic and popular, but he doesn't represent the best interests of EVERYBODY in the U.S.
are you talking about Rick Warren here or Barack Obama

You're right, Obama falls into the same category and he's trying his best to triangulate his positions. I just happen to dislike Warren as a religious leader choice.

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:By the way, Warren sounded VERY serious about the divorce problem. We'll see.....
and as a Pastor he should THAT'S HIS JOB

Well, worry about it if you're a woman that marries a 'beater' and can't get a divorce because Warren got it outlawed somehow. Just a hypothesis and maybe a little phobic since the daughter of my sister just got separated from her husband of 2 years because he started to hit her, AFTER marriage.

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Anybody have a better suggestion of a religious leader choice for giving the Invocation at Obama's Inauguration than Warren?
sure lets dump Warren and bring in Jeremiah Wright. I'm sure he couldn't possible piss off as many people as Warren has. get a grip TC your Phobias are getting out of hand

No, I'm not advocating dumping Warren. That would just piss off a whole new set of people. I was only interested in opinions from many of the religious people on this board if they had a better suggestion for a more 'Christian' representative.

Thorne, I hope for the sake of this country that people will DEMAND to see the 'details' in the future, but most people seem too 'laissez faire' when they vote for anything. Sometimes the 'details' are deliberately hidden by those with agendas, what then?

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:45 am**

tunnelcat wrote: No, I'm not advocating dumping Warren. That would just piss off a whole new set of people. I was only interested in opinions from many of the religious people on this board if they had a better suggestion for a more 'Christian' representative.
then?

How about the Pope?

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:18 pm**

I would have said 'yes' to Pope John Paul II without question, but I'm not so enthusiastic about Pope Benedict I'm afraid. There's this little not-so-sure about his short stint Hitler Youth Movement membership in the past that will always be a little question mark. I know it was compulsory at the time in Germany so I will cut him a little slack for that one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 382076.ece

As for his anti-homosexuality stance, that's his right, belief and opinion and can freely preach that to his faithful all he wants. But if he tries to get legislation passed or uses Warren's tactic of preaching to a large enough group to vote against the rights of others that DON'T support his views, that's where I draw the line. He has the right to represent Catholic Christians all he wants in a pluralistic society. Since he doesn't seem to be overtly influential in U.S. politics, he probably would not get quite as negative of a reaction from gays as Warren got. I'll have to ask my friend about that one.

Funny thing. Warren removed from his website the section that stated gays could not join his church unless they converted to straight. I wonder why if he's not ashamed of his beliefs and practices.

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:28 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:f he tries to get legislation passed or uses Warren's tactic of preaching to a large enough group to vote against the rights of others that DON'T support his views, that's where I draw the line.

Gee, are you saying you would take away his rights to participate in government? How does that make you different from what you rail against?

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:32 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:No, I'm not advocating dumping Warren. That would just piss off a whole new set of people. I was only interested in opinions from many of the religious people on this board if they had a better suggestion for a more 'Christian' representative.

Warren would not have been my first choice. I probably would have chosen Franklin Graham myself. he is Much like his Father

Posted: **Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:13 pm**

shaktazuki wrote:Gee, are you saying you would take away his rights to participate in government? How does that make you different from what you rail against?

Look guys, the only thing I 'rail against' is the acceptance of bigotry, justified with religious beliefs, towards a small minority group and using government to sanction it and enforce it. That's all, it, zippo. You can have your religious beliefs, even preach them to others of your own free will, but they shouldn't be used to make laws that govern a PLURALISTIC democratic society. Sure, there are laws in this country that have a religious base, but they are a benefit to the stability of society as a whole, laws against murder, stealing, etc. I just don't see how marginalizing the LGBT members of our society is beneficial. It's hurtful.

Last I heard, we are not a theocracy. If I wanted that, I'd move to Saudi Arabia or even Vatican City, if I wanted to live under a repressive, controlling government. Being female, that's what it would be like for me in those places. No thanks. I like my freedoms here (that we had to fight for in the 1960's) very much.

Edit: Just this morning, my husband turned on the TV and while channel surfing, ran into an old episode of 'Leave it to Beaver'. The father had just got home from work and was waxing on about how the husband should have a meal ready for him everyday by his diligent wife when he gets home and be allowed to relax after a hard day at work before having to deal with problems at home. That brought back memories when I was a little girl. For some reason, the prospect of growing up and having to become a housewife slave, absolutely mortified me. In the 1950's, that's what was expected of women, no careers, no nothing outside of the home. This attitude towards women was definitely religious-based. All I can say for women is thank God for the 1960's!

Posted: **Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:47 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:
shaktazuki wrote:Gee, are you saying you would take away his rights to participate in government? How does that make you different from what you rail against?
Look guys, the only thing I 'rail against' is the acceptance of bigotry, justified with religious beliefs, towards a small minority group and using government to sanction it and enforce it. That's all, it, zippo. You can have your religious beliefs, even preach them to others of your own free will, but they shouldn't be used to make laws that govern a PLURALISTIC democratic society. Sure, there are laws in this country that have a religious base, but they are a benefit to the stability of society as a whole, laws against murder, stealing, etc.

That's just the point. Us religious fools (or bigots, if you prefer) feel, or even know, that the laws we propose benefit the stability of society as a whole, such as laws against divorce, adultery, incest, and so forth.

I just don't see how marginalizing the LGBT members of our society is beneficial. It's hurtful.

NAMBLA feels the same way. Do you know, they even have studies showing that sometimes, adult/kid relationships are beneficial to the kids?

But to the point: I suggest two books for a general case of regulating sexual behavior.

Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior.

And, with specificity, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. Full text available there.

I don't have the time nor inclination to summarize these books.

In any event, there exists a chain of laws which ultimately can be used to criminalize religion given the legality of homosexual "marriage." That alone is sufficient reason for any friend of liberty to "marginalize" homosexual relationships in the form of denying them the legal label of "marriage."

I put "marriage" in scare quotes for two reasons: 1, marriage is NOT a legal institution, but a religious one - the state has set up a parallel social institution called "marriage," and it is this similarity between the words used to describe both marriage and "marriage" which is the root of all this trouble; and 2, you can call a tail a leg, yet a dog still has four legs; calling a tail a leg does not make it so.

Last I heard, we are not a theocracy. If I wanted that, I'd move to Saudi Arabia or even Vatican City, if I wanted to live under a repressive, controlling government.

Neither of them are a theocracy, though both would no doubt claim to be. God leads neither.

Being female, that's what it would be like for me in those places. No thanks. I like my freedoms here (that we had to fight for in the 1960's) very much.

They had sufferage in Utah, without any fight, prior to their joining the Union in the 1800s; Federal law removed that right. But Utah was supposed to be the American theocracy, wasn't it? Maybe your perspective on religion is what is skewed.

Edit: Just this morning, my husband turned on the TV and while channel surfing, ran into an old episode of 'Leave it to Beaver'. The father had just got home from work and was waxing on about how the husband should have a meal ready for him everyday by his diligent wife when he gets home and be allowed to relax after a hard day at work before having to deal with problems at home. That brought back memories when I was a little girl. For some reason, the prospect of growing up and having to become a housewife slave, absolutely mortified me. In the 1950's, that's what was expected of women, no careers, no nothing outside of the home. This attitude towards women was definitely religious-based. All I can say for women is thank God for the 1960's!

[sarcasm]Divorce rates, teen pregancy, rampant sexualization of children, pervasive sexual immorality, drug use and its attendant problems such as murder, theft, sexual abuse of both adults and children, broken homes, and so forth, would no doubt be cause for generations yet untold to sing Hallelujahs to the 60s as well. Yes, I must admit, it is a great thing that you are not expected to serve your husband, as he is expected to serve you.[/sarcasm]

Your perspective does not seem to be focused on the benefit of society, in which one subsumes one's desires for the good of the whole, but rather your own personal benefit, power, and advancement. It is not the case that maximalized individual license is compatible with maximalized social stability and benefit. The 60s was indeed the "me" revolution, and, sad to say, that is the generation which rules this country; the children who learned from that bad example will rule next, and blood will be spilled globally because of it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:06 pm**

Foil wrote:Your argument is apparently that "government should not force my child to take CPR". So, I'm curious to see if you apply that same logic to other subjects mandated by government boards of education. Do you have the same objection to students being forced to take courses in English? Or science?

{Shaktuzuki} Yes.

Foil wrote: Tell me, does that same logic apply to compelling your child to learn math? Or history?

[Shaktuzuki] Yes.

Shaktuzuki wrote: The 60s was indeed the "me" revolution, and, sad to say, that is the generation which rules this country; the children who learned from that bad example will rule next, and blood will be spilled globally because of it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:02 pm**

If you have a point to make, it would probably be better made explicitly. As it stands, it is unclear what you are trying to accuse me of - although it is clear you are trying to accuse me of something.

I don't see a contradiction in holding firm to the rule \"Thou shalt not initiate the use of force against non-agressors\" with anything I have written.

Remember, that's the root of my \"disgusting morality.\"

Posted: **Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:36 am**

shaktazuki, were you actually alive during the 1950's? Do you remember all the little warts that people seem to forget like the Cold War, duck and cover, atomic bomb testing, McCarthyism, the attempted bans on Rock and Roll music, racism and sexism? Elvis was considered a sexual deviant for his hip gyrations!

http://www.retro-housewife.com/life-in-the-1950s.html

Believe me, the 1960's brought us a new load of social baggage, but I'm sure that women who can now work in almost any occupation they want and African Americans who got rid of 'most' of the 'separate but equal' bigotry in this country, are very happy that this decade occurred. I also like the music that has allowed to prosper since then. Do you want to ban all music produced since the 1950's. You probably don't remember the 'rock and roll has to go' kick that adults were on back then.

Drug use and sex panic have always been issues in all of human history. The 1960's were no different. It seems that white males in the U.S. are now having a selective memory about the 1950's and the 'Leave it to Beaver' style of family life on TV. Well, it's a myth, no families I knew were ever like a TV fantasy family. It's no reason to start a 'Culture War' over a fantasy life and bring us back to the past that was never very good in the first place.

Bringing up 'NAMBLA' is just plain stupid. This group shouldn't even be taken seriously. They'll never get anywhere. No child has informed consent in our society and thusly cannot consent to sex with an adult, period. Equating gay relationships with two consenting adults who want to live as a couple is not a comparison.

So you want to regulate sexual morality? You want the government regulating what we do in the privacy of the bedroom, even between 2 consenting adults? Just how are you going to accomplish that? Bedroom police? Nice thought. The author you named, E. Michael Jones, is one of those 'Culture Warriors', like Bill O'Reilley. But he's got a checkered history as well.

http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/ ... -jews.html

I've got news for you, marriage is NOW a legal institution as well as a religious one with all it's intendant rights. So now under YOUR definition, only religious affiliated people can get married? I guess that would nullify my marriage since my husband and I are Agnostic and don't believe in any mainstream religion.

You're right that Saudi Arabia and Vatican City are not 'technically' theocracies, but they sure follow most of their religious laws to the letter. Close enough for me and repressive to non-conformists to the hilt. They can have it.

As for your sarcasm comments, I've been happily married for over 30 years to a spouse that believes in sharing the duties of the household, no matter what they are. I can fix the cars and do house repairs while he knows how to cook and clean. We've both worked outside the home in careers we enjoyed, something I wouldn't have been able to do in the 50's. How is that a 'me' attitude. We've both served the community well and never even gotten a traffic ticket. I see more opportunities for people now than in the socially stagnant and repressive 1950's. I'll even take today's problems over what life was like back then. It was worth the battle. So you can take the 1950's and shove them in a dark place forever! Dead and gone!

Back to the thread. Here's a comparison. Say McCain had won the Presidency. What if he had chosen Rev. Wright for his Invocation? Not likely I know, but just for example here if he wanted to reach out to black people. What would all the McCain supporters think about his choice? Would they feel betrayed? Reverend Wright is the equivalent of Rick Warren. Both are polarizing figures to one group or another and yet liked by their respective supporters.

Posted: **Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:51 am**

Edit to above post. I meant to say in my one paragraph that \"Equating gay relationships between two consenting adults who want to live as a couple and NAMBLA is not a comparison at all.\"

Posted: **Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:05 pm**

TC, if my point wasn't sufficiently clear by now, it never shall be.

Having laws governing sexual morality is not about enforcement - there is no point to invading the bedroom - but about suppressing its public display and hence limiting its transmission to others. Extramarital sexual conduct, whether consensual or not, renders individuals unfit for responsible participation in a peaceful, civil society, per se. They think and feel differently about their interpersonal relationships and interactions. Think on how much conflict and death, emotional and physical, follows from people engaging in such activities - including the victimization of children. Since societies invariably consist of individuals, a collection of hardened, self-centered, pleasure-seeking, irresponsible, rebellious individuals does not a recipe for harmonious peace make.

About NAMBLA - if you could be bothered to read the books, or do some reasearch on your own about it, you might not be so dismissive. As it is, since your response is a simple dismissal, and it is obvious the books won't be read, I won't pursue it further.

And, you have attempted to bypass addressing the truth of a work by smearing the author. This is unworthy of your integrity.

And yes, only religiously affiliated persons can get married. Everyone else can get \"married.\" So what?

We feel differently about things. I think, of course, if you had a more comprehensive view of the conseqences of the 60s upon many, if not most, of the individuals who have lived and sometimes died since then, and their human relationships, you would be heartsick if your main concern was the happiness of your fellow man. You think, of course, if I had a more comprehensive view of your personal ambitions and needs, I would no doubt with you sing the praises of the 60s.

I think, back to the main thread topic, that not even God himself would be an acceptable choice to crown Obama, since God is not the infinitely inclusive, non-judgemental being some people wish he was; therefore, some group would be offended at Him.

Posted: **Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:36 pm**

shaktazuki wrote:Having laws governing sexual morality is not about enforcement - there is no point to invading the bedroom - but about suppressing its public display and hence limiting its transmission to others. Extramarital sexual conduct, whether consensual or not, renders individuals unfit for responsible participation in a peaceful, civil society, per se. They think and feel differently about their interpersonal relationships and interactions. Think on how much conflict and death, emotional and physical, follows from people engaging in such activities - including the victimization of children. Since societies invariably consist of individuals, a collection of hardened, self-centered, pleasure-seeking, irresponsible, rebellious individuals does not a recipe for harmonious peace make.

What constitutes public sexual display or indecency to you? Do 2 males or females walking along holding hands fall in that category? What else?

shaktazuki wrote:About NAMBLA - if you could be bothered to read the books, or do some reasearch on your own about it, you might not be so dismissive. As it is, since your response is a simple dismissal, and it is obvious the books won't be read, I won't pursue it further.

I know what NAMBLA is about. They are trying to get the age of consent for minor male children lowered so that adult males can legally have sexual relations with them. I find that appalling, as do most Americans and mainstream gay people. I don't see it happening. The same goes for females in my book also. Can you say Warren Jeffs and his little group? Children under 18 are too young for informed consent, that includes sex and marriage.

shaktazuki wrote:And, you have attempted to bypass addressing the truth of a work by smearing the author. This is unworthy of your integrity.

Maybe, but he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. He advocates morality but may harbor anti-Semitic beliefs and is subtle about it. What he may hide may be more telling about his personality and judgment. Mel Gibson has the same mark on him, whether he denies it or not. I will keep this little black detail in mind concerning Gibson or Michael when their public voices are directed at society. However, I will try to look for Michael's book and read what he says before I pass judgment on his version of public morality.

shaktazuki wrote:And yes, only religiously affiliated persons can get married. Everyone else can get "married." So what?

Well, what's the definition of 'married'? Do I have a civil marriage or a religious one? I wasn't married by a priest. If there is civil marriage, why can't gay couples have it also without the worry of tainting religious marriage?

shaktazuki wrote:We feel differently about things. I think, of course, if you had a more comprehensive view of the conseqences of the 60s upon many, if not most, of the individuals who have lived and sometimes died since then, and their human relationships, you would be heartsick if your main concern was the happiness of your fellow man. You think, of course, if I had a more comprehensive view of your personal ambitions and needs, I would no doubt with you sing the praises of the 60s.

How so are the consequences of the 60's any different from any other decade. The Roaring Twenties brought us sexual promiscuity and organized crime, which resulted in censorship and prohibition in the next decade. How about the mid-1800's and the mass death of the Civil War? Everything cycles around, there is no stability, only change. That's human nature. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you'll see a different history. All decades past have warts, especially the 60's. We like to forget the bad and remember the good as time passes. Change is inevitable, good or bad and we should learn from our mistakes (although not always

). We shouldn't retrograde into the past that we've already lived and don't need to repeat.

shaktazuki wrote:I think, back to the main thread topic, that not even God himself would be an acceptable choice to crown Obama, since God is not the infinitely inclusive, non-judgemental being some people wish he was; therefore, some group would be offended at Him.

If there is a God, He would always be acceptable. He could then tell us in good authority what he thought was good and evil, not secondhand through the lens of a book translated by superstitious humans through history. It's the human versions of things I have trouble with. How do you know God is not non-judgmental? Jesus was supposedly non-judgmental.

You didn't answer the question about McCain if he picked the Rev. Wright for his Invocation?

Posted: **Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:55 pm**

tunnelcat wrote: What constitutes public sexual display or indecency to you? Do 2 males or females walking along holding hands fall in that category? What else?

Since I nowhere reference public sexual display or indecency, I have no interest in pursuing that topic. What I have said, and the ambiguity is no doubt my own fault, is that extramarital sexual conduct should be criminalized so as to suppress its public display.

shaktazuki wrote:About NAMBLA - if you could be bothered to read the books, or do some reasearch on your own about it, you might not be so dismissive. As it is, since your response is a simple dismissal, and it is obvious the books won't be read, I won't pursue it further.
I know what NAMBLA is about. They are trying to get the age of consent for minor male children lowered so that adult males can legally have sexual relations with them. I find that appalling, as do most Americans and mainstream gay people.

If you perform some rudimentary research, you'll find "mainstream gay people"'s aversion to NAMBLA is political, not moral, in nature.

shaktazuki wrote:And yes, only religiously affiliated persons can get married. Everyone else can get "married." So what?
Well, what's the definition of 'married'? Do I have a civil marriage or a religious one? I wasn't married by a priest. If there is civil marriage, why can't gay couples have it also without the worry of tainting religious marriage?

You are "married." As I have voluminously addressed the exact problem with gay "marriage," both in this thread and in others, you'll forgive me for not reiterating my case.

shaktazuki wrote:We feel differently about things. I think, of course, if you had a more comprehensive view of the conseqences of the 60s upon many, if not most, of the individuals who have lived and sometimes died since then, and their human relationships, you would be heartsick if your main concern was the happiness of your fellow man. You think, of course, if I had a more comprehensive view of your personal ambitions and needs, I would no doubt with you sing the praises of the 60s.
How so are the consequences of the 60's any different from any other decade. The Roaring Twenties brought us sexual promiscuity and organized crime, which resulted in censorship and prohibition in the next decade. How about the mid-1800's and the mass death of the Civil War? Everything cycles around, there is no stability, only change. That's human nature. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you'll see a different history. All decades past have warts, especially the 60's. We like to forget the bad and remember the good as time passes. Change is inevitable, good or bad and we should learn from our mistakes (although not always ). We shouldn't retrograde into the past that we've already lived and don't need to repeat.

The 60s would indeed have happened in the 30s but for the Great Depression, which had the effect of correcting our societal excesses.

shaktazuki wrote:I think, back to the main thread topic, that not even God himself would be an acceptable choice to crown Obama, since God is not the infinitely inclusive, non-judgemental being some people wish he was; therefore, some group would be offended at Him.
If there is a God, He would always be acceptable. He could then tell us in good authority what he thought was good and evil, not secondhand through the lens of a book translated by superstitious humans through history. It's the human versions of things I have trouble with. How do you know God is not non-judgmental? Jesus was supposedly non-judgmental.

There is a God, and he does so tell us in good authority what is good, and what is evil, and because people receive not his servants therefore they receive not Him to learn from Him directly. The whole point of prophets is to show humans the way to get into direct contact with God, which the people have always rejected en masse, from the days of old to today, because people reflexively reject the notion that any one person actually does know better than some other person. "Who do you think you are? Oh yeah? Sez who?"

In what follows, I am using the word "non-judgemental" to indicate a state wherein one does not distinguish one action from another in terms of moral quality, and neither does one discriminate in one's treatment between people based upon those moral qualities of their actions.

How I know God is not non-judgemental - being very literal with that word - is a subject I don't care to explore on this board. The notion that Jesus was non-judgemental is a politically convenient straw-man arising from not having actually read the New Testament, or, in having read it, not understanding it. Let this, from what is perhaps the most well-known of his teachings, suffice to show Christ wasn't preaching an all-inclusive, non-judgemental social gospel: "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.... Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a ccorrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

You didn't answer the question about McCain if he picked the Rev. Wright for his Invocation?

I'm fine with whomever they wish to pick. I can't see a reason to care, as I am reasonably sure the invocation will be honored by God with exactly the same sincerity the invocation is offered to God. It's all about power.

DescentBB

Obama's Slapdown

Obama's Slapdown

Re: Obama's Slapdown

Re: Obama's Slapdown

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: