Christian Church Wins Election*

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“Flipper”][quote=“Flicka”][quote=“ac_dropout”]

It’s like USA society is going backwards on certain issues.[/quote]

Going backwards? I think it is more like the Dark Ages.[/quote][/quote]

in every single city and town in the us, homosexuality is more accepted than at any time in us history. [quote]

True, but acceptance is not the same as equality. If you think this is an irrelevant distinction ask yourself if you would rather live under under the rule of law or a liberal minded despot? Until homosexual love is equal before the law homosexuals must rely on the goodness and decency of their neighbors to see that their rights are not infringed upon. Would you want to live with your rights so precariously protected?

Some of the rights I am talking about include being able to pass on property after death, visitation rights at a hospital, the right to be notified in case of death, and so on. As things stand now these rights can be conditionally guaranteed through civil contracts, but in the case of wills, judges have not always sided with the homosexual partners when family members contest. Homosexual partners have lost out on inheritances in ways a straight partner or spouse would not. This is not just.

As for the marriage issue, the status quo seems to allow for the possibility of gay marriage or civil unions. Therefore any steps to categorically ban gay marriage or civil unions is a step backwards since progress is no longer a possibility.

Whether Bush and co will in fact try to force a FMA is another issue. If they do however there is no doubt that this is a step backwards for your society.

22

nowhere have i argued that continuing intolerance towards homosexuals is in any way a good thing.

i am simply pointing out that all the liberals rants about a regression of gay or abortion rights is completely untrue. the key word in both of the posts i quoted was “backwards”.

if you think america is less tolerant than it used to be, you are indeed living in a liberal bubble.

23

Guess you don’t know much about Catholics, then. The no-divorce stance of the Catholic Church means that annulments (even years later, even with children, etc.) are necessary for those who want to stay in good graces with the Church or get married within the Church later on. In this case, you have Kerry trying to follow a stupid procedureal step out of respect for his religion. Annulment requires the acquiescence of the other spouse, which means you’re also on the hook with the person with whom you’ve split up.

Lots of things about Catholicism don’t make sense, and I’m Catholic. No birth control allowed, but no abortion either. Apparently homosexuality and child abuse is frowned upon unless you’re a Catholic priest – in which case the Church will go through hell and high water to ensure hush money is paid and that you’ll get reassigned to work with more little kids. If you’re a Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, you get to mouth off about excommunication of presidential candidates while presiding over what can only be described as a Christian NAMBLA festival. Talk about disrespecting institutions… :unamused:

24

[quote=“Flipper”]nowhere have i argued that continuing intolerance towards homosexuals is in any way a good thing.

I am simply pointing out that all the liberals rants about a regression of gay or abortion rights is completely untrue. the key word in both of the posts i quoted was “backwards”.

if you think America is less tolerant than it used to be, you are indeed living in a liberal bubble.[/quote]

If you are at all concerned with intolerance towards gays then you would not use this thread as a mouthpiece for anti-liberal slurs. If you are at all concerned with intolerance toward gays then you have more in common with the above posters than disagreements (at least with respect to the issue at hand). Why then do you insist on pinning simplistic and divisive labels on people who actually want the same thing you do: greater tolerance for gays? Why use the phrase “liberal rant” to describe written concern for the loss of rights and tolerance in your society?

Do you actually want to make your country a better place or are you more concerned with scoring points? If you want the former then try to meet others half way. Frankly I find it difficult to believe you genuinely care about intolerance toward gays when you are so willing to alienate allies.

25

With a heavy heart, I concur.

I must have listened to John Lennon’s “Imagine” a few too many times. :wink:

26

[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”][quote=“Flipper”]nowhere have i argued that continuing intolerance towards homosexuals is in any way a good thing.

I am simply pointing out that all the liberals rants about a regression of gay or abortion rights is completely untrue. the key word in both of the posts i quoted was “backwards”.

if you think America is less tolerant than it used to be, you are indeed living in a liberal bubble.[/quote]

If you are at all concerned with intolerance towards gays then you would not use this thread as a mouthpiece for anti-liberal slurs. If you are at all concerned with intolerance toward gays then you have more in common with the above posters than disagreements (at least with respect to the issue at hand). Why then do you insist on pinning simplistic and divisive labels on people who actually want the same thing you do: greater tolerance for gays? Why use the phrase “liberal rant” to describe written concern for the loss of rights and tolerance in your society?
[/quote]

i am not trying to prove how much concern i have about gay marriage or abortion rights. i am trying to show that liberals who think opposition to gay marriage is somehow a new development are deluded. the country is not becoming more conservative. it has always been conservative. but liberals living in their comfy cocoons just never realized it.

i’m sorry. i guess i should not take offense when liberals make up LIES as long as it serves the greater cause, right?

[quote]
Do you actually want to make your country a better place or are you more concerned with scoring points? If you want the former then try to meet others half way. Frankly I find it difficult to believe you genuinely care about intolerance toward gays when you are so willing to alienate allies.[/quote]

allies? who made any of you my allies? when did i ever state that i cared about what you thought of any of my views? in this thread you’ve just come off as a ranting holier than thou liberal who’s condemning me for not being sufficiently pro-gay-rights. bravo.

27

Now now Flipper, all liberals know and understand that we are are equally holy. It’s just a question of which one’s you should keep shut. :slight_smile:

28

IQ and Politics

chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

State  	Avg. IQ  	2004

1 Connecticut 113 Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry
4 New York 109 Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry
7 Maryland 105 Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry
9 Illinois 104 Kerry
10 Delaware 103 Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry
12 Vermont 102 Kerry
13 Washington 102 Kerry
14 California 101 Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
16 Maine 100 Kerry
17 Virginia 100 Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry
19 Colorado 99 Bush
20 Iowa 99 Bush
21 Michigan 99 Kerry
22 Nevada 99 Bush
23 Ohio 99 Bush
24 Oregon 99 Kerry

The DUMB STATES:
25 Alaska 98 Bush
26 Florida 98 Bush
27 Missouri 98 Bush
28 Kansas 96 Bush
29 Nebraska 95 Bush
30 Arizona 94 Bush
31 Indiana 94 Bush
32 Tennessee 94 Bush
33 North Carolina 93 Bush
34 West Virginia 93 Bush
35 Arkansas 92 Bush
36 Georgia 92 Bush
37 Kentucky 92 Bush
38 New Mexico 92 Bush
39 North Dakota 92 Bush
40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming 89 Bush
48 Idaho 87 Bush
49 Utah 87 Bush
50 Mississippi 85 Bush

“How lucky for those in power that people don’t think.”
– Adolf Hitler

29

Flipper,

How is it untrue?

The President himself stated that he was interested in a Constitutional Amendment that would define marriage in such a way that gay unions are excluded from the definition.

The President has also stated many times that he wishes to appoint supreme court justices that are strict Constitutional interpreters and not judicial activist. In other words, he wish to appoint people that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

So when do you declare society has gone backwards, when hundreds of people are detained without due process in legal limbo on an island in the Caribbeans? Or when states have the right to not teach evolution theory in public schools?

Liberal cocoons? I think the word is urbanite, well educated, cultured, and tolerant. It’s those rural and suburban individuals that live in their culturally intolerant cocoons of white picket fences.

30

You just proved my point. You don’t care about the issues you just want to score points.

Condemning you? You claimed that you did not want to see homosexuals get worse treatment in our society. I merely held you to your word and said that if this is what you wish then on a threadlike this, where you agree with the liberal posters that tolerance for gays is good thing, you should not be so divisive. I took you at your word that you are sufficiently pro gay so your point above is nonsense. I am not criticizign you for being anti-gay but for being putting partisan solidarity above your own convictions.

And since you began by slurring the original posters as out of touch liberals don’t now try to act offended at my questioning of your convictions.

This point has been answered already. The Republican drive to ammend the constitution is a new development and breaks with 30 years of progress, or the hope of progress for gay rights. Since some states (and several foreign countries) now permit gay marriage a federal ban would be a step back.

As for what attitudes were two hundred years ago, this is irrelevant. Exclusive long term homosexual partnering is a modern phenomena. As is the fight for protection for homosexuals and their wish to enjoy the legal benefits (all 1014 of them) of heterosexual mariage.

As for acceptance, look at how foreigner are treated in taiwan. Acceptance has never been higher but do we have more legal rights as a result? No. We are still second class citizens. As Comrade Stalin said, Palestinians enjoy more rights under Israeli law than we foreigners do in Taiwan.

Liberal rant. Liberal bubble. Holier than thou. Blah fucking blah. All you have are cliches and insults.
[/code]

31

ok mucha man, you’re more pro-gay rights than i am. yay! point for you!

anyway, back to the topic at hand. america has always been conservative and there has always been opposition to gay marriage. even in liberal california, voters passed proposition 22 in 2000. proposition 22 states that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid and recognized in california. it passed 61.4% to 38.6%. this is california we’re talking about here!

so all the whining “we’re going back to the dark ages!” liberals just have no idea what most of this country has always been like. to say that these conservative attitudes are a new phenomenon is to display incredible cluelessness about what the rest of the country thinks outside of your liberal bubble in new york or san francisco.

32

[quote=“Alien”]IQ and Politics

[color=red]… a bunch of elitist bullshit … [/color]
[/quote]
Already been debunked as another bunch of made-up crap by the leftist elitists who “think” that they can fool all of the people all of the time. Go check Snopes. Or was this merely another misguided attempt at comedy?

Fixed it for ya. Enjoy your coming two decades in the political wilderness. :raspberry:

33

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Flipper,

How is it untrue?

The President himself stated that he was interested in a Constitutional Amendment that would define marriage in such a way that gay unions are excluded from the definition.
[/quote]

americans are pretty evenly split on a federal constitutional amendment. a push to get the issue back before congress will almost definitely fail.

on the other hand, 60% of americans support either civil unions or marriage for homosexuals. bush is viewed as one of the most conservative presidents on social issues in modern memory and he came out in favor of civil unions. is this a sign we’re moving backwards?

more americans support abortion rights today than at any other point in us history. in fact, there is much more support for abortion rights today across the country than when roe v. wade was decided. astoundingly, only 16% of people today believe abortion should always be illegal! please explain how we’re moving backwards.

um, compared to some us actions in the 70’s and 80’s(which america’s critics love to bring up in this forum), detention of foreign nationals is hardly a regression.

fewer states, schools, teachers, and parents are teaching creationism in the us than at any other time in us history. regression?

well, i guess education can’t account for stupidity. :bravo:

34

I’ve come to the conclusion that, for most with “strong” religious values or faith, it is all about sex. Abortion, birth control, gay marriage - common theme is sex. These religious conservatives are so focused on trying to tell Americans what’s right or wrong in sexual relationships, that it’s no wonder the economy, terrorism, and the Iraq war aren’t of major concern to them. They just don’t have enough time left over to learn and formulate an opinion on these issues after all their preaching is done.

And I’m not conjecturing from thin air here. I’ve heard from friends who’ve attended church that, sometimes, all a priest talks about are the sins of the flesh, and how one must resist or face hell in the afterlife. In high school, the classmates that got pregnant or engaged in unholy sexual activity were always the Mormons or Catholics - no joke! I’ve become to believe that the straight-jacket values preached by conservatives and fundamentalists is what leads to these people becoming so obssessed by sex; oftentimes this curiosity of the prohibited is manifested in a breaking of one’s own religious rules.

I wonder if all that red blood ever leaves their genitals.

Now back to the original query…
I also am flabbergasted by what “moral values” is supposed to mean.
Is it moral to force a poor single woman to have a baby when she’s not ready, with the likely result that the child will end up uneducated, at best, or involved in street gangs to survive, at worst? In the same vein, is it moral to fallaciously warn a woman considering abortion that she’ll be introducing herself to the risk of breast cancer, but not warn her that going through with the pregnancy might spell the end of her life?
Is it moral to deny a person his/her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just because you don’t agree with his/her sexuality?
Is it moral to turn your back on international efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, so as not to sacrifice even one American job, when air and water pollutants will cause the person whose “life began at conception” to die prematurely?
Is it moral to prohibit the unwealthy from seeking the lowest price for drugs when the alternative is pain and/or death?

As for comparison to zealots of other religions I offer this by Garry Wills:
Where else but in the U.S. do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or German or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in al-Qaida, in Saddam Hussein

35

~Ahem~ Not all people with “strong” religious values or faith are conservatives and having a weak faith does not make you liberal. I am a Christian, full of imperfections and moral failings to be sure, but still, there it is. I am emphatically NOT a religious conservative. Jerry Falwell would blanch if there were more like me in his pews.

George Bush Sr is also no religious conservative. It’s Jr that joined the evangelical stream…

36

For a while I’ve been trying to find some stats on what Americans spend by State on Adult Entertainment but so far I have come up short.

I think though there may be some illuminating and embarrassing figures lurking out there, Aprimo, that just may favor your argument.

BTW, there is an interesting documentary available online at PBS on America’s porn industry.

Here: pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … porn/view/

37

Flipper,

[quote]on the other hand, 60% of Americans support either civil unions or marriage for homosexuals.

more Americans support abortion rights today than at any other point in us history[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what the common folks believe if the elites in power, i.e. the President, sets the legal precedent to restrict their liberties and rights. So the American people can believe whatever they want from narrow casting media political advertising.

But when there is a new Amendment restricting marriage and a when Roe v. Wade is overturned. Some poor middle American smoe is going to have a difficult time in the USA if they discover they are homosexual or need an abortion.

Unless you believe that no one in middle America could ever be homosexual or ever need an abortion?

Even if they are not foreign nationals but Americans of Middle East descent.

The mere fact that there is still political base for creationism is an illustration of the lack of proper education in middle America. It is an illustration of how defunct the USA political and education system is.

[quote]ac_dropout wrote:
Hobart,

If USA disengaged from China economically. USA would be 4 independent nations by the time you came back. US of KKK, US of Black Islam, US of Asian California, and Mexico.

well, I guess education can’t account for stupidity. [/quote]

Do you disagree that there are separatist racial forces within the USA which the federal government of the USA suppresses and controls to maintain the union in the USA?

Just because you are ignorant of various issues in the USA or abroad doesn’t mean everyone needs to share your contempt for academic excellence and keeping up with current events.

38

reality check, dropout. gay marriage has NEVER been recognized in the history of the us. gay marriage is more acceptable now and gay civil unions have MUCH more protection than at any time in us history.

the majority of americans support abortion rights and there is LESS likelyhood of roe v. wade being overturned or abortion being made illegal than at any time in us history.

so, once again, you are completely wrong that we’re going “backwards”.

as for your theory about the lack of cheap chinese imports causing black muslims(what about black non-muslims?) and hispanics to create their own segregated states, well that speaks for itself. :slight_smile:

i guess that’s what you new yorkers call academic excellence? :bravo:

39

[quote=“Alleycat”]For a while I’ve been trying to find some stats on what Americans spend by State on Adult Entertainment but so far I have come up short.

I think though there may be some illuminating and embarrassing figures lurking out there, Aprimo, that just may favor your argument…[/quote]

Well, just to flesh this out a bit-- hahahaha, get it? in the immortal words of u know who (who, to be fair, would have to be very funny indeed to be even half as funny as his online persona often is, often enough anyway).

–maybe there exists some calculus of feeling for humans, one that goes something like this. Every normal, healthy human is infused with certain endogenous chemicals the power of which demand from the human host some form of expression of a sexual nature. IOW, thanks to our biology we are all horny. It’s all controlled by involuntary physiological processes which, for men, peak early in life and then coast down. Women probably peak nearer the end of their reproductive life cycle. Point being, we can’t help it, we’re all driven to sexual behavior of varying kinds.

So, humanity is given a certain strong - and involuntary - biological urge.

In many parts of the world, including the US, these feelings are subject to some constraint. Here in the US, the least-constraining limit is the law. Some sexual behaviors are illegal, obviously. Some constraint yielding less feasible space is formed by social norms that generally act to keep everybody legal. And religion constrains sexual behavior most of all.

I think a general level of awareness of them exists worldwide, too. So, enough said.

Aprimo’s theory may be that when this fixed human biology is subject to this last constraint, then it somehow - by some calculus which is presently unknown - undergoes a transformation. In this case, goes Aprimo’s theory (ok, let’s drop that: this is obviously my theory now - sorry Ap!) when human sexual expression is subject to too much constraint, then like coal subject to too much direct pressure, it turns into a kind of hate - much as coal will turn to cold, hard diamond. Hate’s first cousin is authoritarianism, no? This is interesting to me, but of course it may not be at all what Aprimo had in mind.

Your metric, Allen, ‘per capita spending on porn, by state’, may be a good marker of a similar manifestation. IOW, to perhaps unfortunately piggyback on your theory, then if red-state porn spending is significantly higher than blue-state porn, it provides evidence of Aprimo’s hypothesized link between sexual expression and religious expression. If you can’t express it openly, you’re driven to find gratification in some lesser way.

Fundamentalist christians have used their faith to set too confining the limits of human sexual expression. Of course, this applies like doubly-plus to the Muslims, I think - and not at all to Buddhists.

And it shows we red-staters hate more! That’s it, hahaha, yeah that’s the ticket no wait it doesn’t work that way does it? (answer: no, it does not)

Anyway, Aprimo’s theory is interesting, seems to me. Of course, your mileage may vary.

:beatnik:

40

But how acceptable will it be when the President of the USA tries to force an Amendment banning gay marriage. He has been narrow casting the message that gays are not full citizens of the USA and should not be afforded equal protection under the Constitution.

What does popular sentiment have to do with Supreme Court Justices and Roe v. Wade. We live in a republic in the USA, not a democracy. Must less a referendum style democracy on key court rulings.

Supreme Court Justices hold a position which doesn’t need to sway to public opinion. If Bush is able to appoint the 3 Justices with conservatives that wish to overturn Roe v Wade, it will be overturned, regardless of the public sentiment on the subject.

This will cause each state to regulate the medical procedure. Which might send some us into the age of coat hanger abortion by Bruno in certain states.

Actually I find your implied racism to be somewhat repulsive. I am referring to the PRC being fundamental to USA economic well being at this time. PRC is also the 2nd largest USA bond purchaser besides being one of USA largest trading partner.

Read CNN report “Weak dollar 101” for an overview.
money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/ec … tm?cnn=yes

Coupled with the theory of Black and White supremacy that wish for a racial pure nation within the boarders of USA.

nationmaster.com/encyclopedi … -supremacy
nationmaster.com/encyclopedi … -supremacy

These are not my desire nor my theories. But just a simple logical conclusion that with a weakening of the federal government, any seperatist movement in the USA will gain relative strength and may actually become a reality.

Just like a weaken federal government of the USA allowed for the Confederate States to form over various social and economic issues.

Given the victimization psychology of Whites in the USA due to the perceived infringement of democratic liberals demanding equal rights and privileges at their expense, I believe they will be the first group to try to form a racially pure nation state in the USA if the federal government is weakened.