Okay, so he went for the Christian Coalition Vote. That get’s him 5% of the Total needed to win, so carry the 1, divided by 3….IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID!
Nothing “happened to him.” He is a bigot…. always has been. And he sees his one remaining chance for nomination to be an appeal to like-minded bigots.
“Kids can’t pray in school” is a lie. Any child can pray. What you can’t do is force the non-Christians to pray your Christian prayers. I suppose he thinks that is bad. He thought it was better in America when Religious Freedom applied only to him. (Even Jews were on the losing end of that one… and they always claim to respect some common tradition.)
I won’t say he is representative of the entire Republican Party, but he is comfortable with a big swath of them. And the reverse.
And if this appeal did work, and he got the nomination, it would just ensure another 4-years of Obama, because most of the country thought don’t ask, don’t tell was insane. (Gays could serve, and did, just not “openly.” Where is the sense in that? It placates the bigots)
And the War on Christmas™ is old news. Christmas is on Dec 25th because that used to be the Solstice (before the Catholics re-engineered the calendar in the 1400s) And it was – still is – the date of Mithras. The Christians have been working for 2000 years to stamp out all other Solstice celebrations. And Bill O’Reilly is upset about a War on Christmas?
I was in a big-box home-improvement store, and the woman processing my return asked me if I had my Christmas tree up yet. When I pointed out that not everyone celebrates your holiday, she seemed quite put out. I guess I understand why Jews in the 50s had “Hanukkah bushes” – so that they would blend in and their homes wouldn’t be firebombed.
No, no, It’s the Constitution stupid!! If our elected officials read and only acted according to their “delegated powers”, and didn’t do what they weren’t delegated to do, then the economy would be far better; not burdened by massive debt and a fiat currency. Furthermore, we wouldn’t have the continued encroachment of the Clinton-Bush-Obama police-state apparatus.
“You know there is something wrong in this country when THESE are the presidential candidates.”
Well, since we’ve turned the electoral process into a sickening mashup of American Idol, TMZ, and 1984 it’s not surprising that most (all?) of the candidates have serious psychological issues. Who else would voluntarily get involves in such a horror show?
Say what you want about my governor, I like his well-used Carhartt jacket. Looks like a Men’s Sandstone Ridge Coat/Sherpa-Lined, camel colored.
Why don’t you run a clip of him lambasting Obama, which he has done a pretty good job doing?
Personally, I think Perry as VP might be interesting, if only for the Perry-Biden debate. Because Biden makes Perry look like an intellectual heavyweight.
“Say what you want about my governor, I like his well-used Carhartt jacket. Looks like a Men’s Sandstone Ridge Coat/Sherpa-Lined, camel colored.”
Would that be clothing of mixed fibers? If so he is in violation of Leviticus 19:19.
We don’t know if this was filmed on the Sabbath, or if the catering company provided shell fish, but those would also be violations of the laws outlined in Leviticus.
Now I know that Leviticus is the Old Testament, and that most modern Christians conciser that portion of God omniscient wisdom outdated and no longer applicable, but wait…
It’s Leviticus 18:22 which condemns homosexuality as an abomination.
So anyone who uses the Bible to justify their anti-gay sentiments is compelled to follow all of the laws in Leviticus in their personal life.
Otherwise they’re hypocritical bigots using ancient superstitions to justify their irrational hatred of people they have never met.
I’m proud to belong to a nation where anti-religious bigotry and pro-religious bigotry can co-exsist and duke it out! He never had a chance, did he?
The Religious Right and the Religious Left still have a few cards to play.
@Chris
I love how people like to try and play gotcha games with a thousand years of theological thought, like they found the one logical flaw that nobody noticed. Leviticus 18:22 isn’t the sole basis for the Christian prohibition on homosexuality.
St Paul reaffirmed the prohibition on homosexuality in his 1st letter to the Romans:
“In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
And the Corinthians:
“…Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Both quotes from the New International Version
So there’s no dichotomy between believing that a)the death of Jesus ended the the terms of the original laws found in the Pentateuch and that Christian are not bound by the entirety of those laws, and yet b) some of those rules were retained in the new ruleset given to Christ’s followers.
If you’re going to lecture Christians on Christianity via a rules based hypocrisy argument you might want to actually know what you’re talking about. Whether it’s a reasonable belief in general is different argument, and one you didn’t make.
@Junyo That’s an excellent, if not snarky, refutation of my post.
But I don’t care about what some dead guy named Paul said. Old dead guys can be wrong.
I don’t accept arguments from authority, nor arguments from tradition, nor arguments from magical books.
I also don’t care what people think about gays.
I do care about people who use their religious faith as a club to attack others.
I don’t care what creed you choose to live by but when you start attacking other people who disagree with your creed, or because your creed considers them unworthy, then I have a problem.
When a person running for President demonstrates contempt for a segment of the population based on his person religious feelings, I have a real problem with that and so should everyone else. That sort of thing never ends well.
Also I don’t actually know what a Christian is. It’s a relativity new term introduced into our lexicon by politicians in order to create the illusion of a large tent with which to relate to constituents. Before the term became common, they identified themselves Protestants, or Lutherans, or whatever sect they were most convinced by.
A term that applies as equally to Mormons as Catholics is effectively useless at communicating beliefs.
I can never figure out if Universalism and Unitarianism can be considered Christian. In the 1800s, it was all the rage for immigrants to become Unitarians. But that faded, and they merged with the Universalists.
But don’t insult peoples’ magic books. They will firebomb your house or blow themselves up and you too for casting aspersions.
When you consider that most of the white-supremacists as well as people like Jeremiah Wright both consider themselves Christian it is hard to know what it delineates.
Won’t debate your religion with you, you obviously know more about it. But appeals to Leviticus are not unheard of by the Religious Right. (Think about Phred Phelps for example. You know, “GOD HATES FAGS” Phelps. He LOVES Leviticus. Or parts of it, anyway.) So some Christians – see Chris’s remarks on WTF does that mean anyway – do exactly what Chris described.
And the early “letters” of Christianity appear to sanction slavery, the oppression of women, and perhaps other things as well. But then dogma has always been used to justify the status quo, or serve as a call to reinstate the status quo ante.
As I said to Chris, the Klan wrapped themselves in the bible while they were busy lynching (thou shalt not kill) burning black churches, shooting up black neighborhoods, etc. Oh, and visiting slightly less mayhem on the Jews and Catholics. (They were all white protestants.) They all claimed to be Christian.
And it was the good Christian men of California who instituted a policy of genocide against native Americans – they were in the way of all that gold discovered in 1849. (which is why the native American population in Cali decreased 90% if 50 years or so.) Or forcibly converted native American children in their “schools” through at least the 30s. They were given Christian names, forced to learn Christian teachings, forbidden from practicing their own religion. Oh, and forcibly removed from their families because a Christian-upbringing was better for them. You knew that was true because the government said-so. (Freedom of Religion? That was never supposed to apply to “those people.”)
There is a whole laundry list of ethnic-cleansings of Indians (from the South East – “the 5 civilized tribes”), Jews from big parts of the South during the Civil War (US Grant’s General Order 11 – short lived, but nasty) and others in this country. That doesn’t even cover things like the expulsion of Jews from England, or the Plantation of Northern Ireland, Or the Pogroms, right down to the Serbian extermination of Muslims in Eastern Europe in the 1990s – hard to believe that Srebrenica was 16 years ago.
So use whatever pieces of your book to justify whatever you want. You won’t be alone in using it to justify something. But excuse the rest of us if we don’t follow along just because it is written down. (What religions ARE NOT written down today? Should I believe all of them?)
I think the whole “what I do with my ___/___” argument is moot. I don’t care what you do with it. It, belongs to you. You were born with it, it is your responsibility. When you use said body part to influence my opinion, the game changes. You had better hope, that I want, my opinion, to change. I have two(that I know of) children, and I love them both. They will always be MY children, despite their age. They will make mistakes as they grow, but they are still MY kids. If you are the cause of that mistake, a pox on you. Sex, has no place, in politics. Ben Franklin is still a better man than,… okay, bad choice.
Sorry for the rant Unc,
Spellcheck bedamned,
Jerry
December 9th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Okay, so he went for the Christian Coalition Vote. That get’s him 5% of the Total needed to win, so carry the 1, divided by 3….IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID!
Republitards and their Circular Firing Squads….
December 9th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Nothing “happened to him.” He is a bigot…. always has been. And he sees his one remaining chance for nomination to be an appeal to like-minded bigots.
“Kids can’t pray in school” is a lie. Any child can pray. What you can’t do is force the non-Christians to pray your Christian prayers. I suppose he thinks that is bad. He thought it was better in America when Religious Freedom applied only to him. (Even Jews were on the losing end of that one… and they always claim to respect some common tradition.)
I won’t say he is representative of the entire Republican Party, but he is comfortable with a big swath of them. And the reverse.
And if this appeal did work, and he got the nomination, it would just ensure another 4-years of Obama, because most of the country thought don’t ask, don’t tell was insane. (Gays could serve, and did, just not “openly.” Where is the sense in that? It placates the bigots)
And the War on Christmas™ is old news. Christmas is on Dec 25th because that used to be the Solstice (before the Catholics re-engineered the calendar in the 1400s) And it was – still is – the date of Mithras. The Christians have been working for 2000 years to stamp out all other Solstice celebrations. And Bill O’Reilly is upset about a War on Christmas?
I was in a big-box home-improvement store, and the woman processing my return asked me if I had my Christmas tree up yet. When I pointed out that not everyone celebrates your holiday, she seemed quite put out. I guess I understand why Jews in the 50s had “Hanukkah bushes” – so that they would blend in and their homes wouldn’t be firebombed.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:05 am
He tried to solve a drought by praying for rain and got fires instead.
When he couldn’t balance the State budget, he held a prayer rally asking God to help get the state out of debt.
This guy is nut and has never tried to hide it. He needs to be kept far away form political office.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:06 am
I’ve never seen such a huge ratio of “dislikes” to “likes” on YouTube.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:47 am
“It’s the economy stupid?”
No, no, It’s the Constitution stupid!! If our elected officials read and only acted according to their “delegated powers”, and didn’t do what they weren’t delegated to do, then the economy would be far better; not burdened by massive debt and a fiat currency. Furthermore, we wouldn’t have the continued encroachment of the Clinton-Bush-Obama police-state apparatus.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:59 am
SNL got it right in one of their debate pieces where teh character playing Perry said “you haven’t yet seen the worst of Rick Perry.”
December 9th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
You know there is something wrong in this country when THESE are the presidential candidates.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
“You know there is something wrong in this country when THESE are the presidential candidates.”
Well, since we’ve turned the electoral process into a sickening mashup of American Idol, TMZ, and 1984 it’s not surprising that most (all?) of the candidates have serious psychological issues. Who else would voluntarily get involves in such a horror show?
December 9th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
You forgot about being rich enough to be able to even enter into the freak show….
December 9th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Say what you want about my governor, I like his well-used Carhartt jacket. Looks like a Men’s Sandstone Ridge Coat/Sherpa-Lined, camel colored.
Why don’t you run a clip of him lambasting Obama, which he has done a pretty good job doing?
Personally, I think Perry as VP might be interesting, if only for the Perry-Biden debate. Because Biden makes Perry look like an intellectual heavyweight.
December 9th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
This may be a “Hail Mary”.
Except he isn’t Catholic…
December 9th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
“Say what you want about my governor, I like his well-used Carhartt jacket. Looks like a Men’s Sandstone Ridge Coat/Sherpa-Lined, camel colored.”
Would that be clothing of mixed fibers? If so he is in violation of Leviticus 19:19.
We don’t know if this was filmed on the Sabbath, or if the catering company provided shell fish, but those would also be violations of the laws outlined in Leviticus.
Now I know that Leviticus is the Old Testament, and that most modern Christians conciser that portion of God omniscient wisdom outdated and no longer applicable, but wait…
It’s Leviticus 18:22 which condemns homosexuality as an abomination.
So anyone who uses the Bible to justify their anti-gay sentiments is compelled to follow all of the laws in Leviticus in their personal life.
Otherwise they’re hypocritical bigots using ancient superstitions to justify their irrational hatred of people they have never met.
December 9th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I’m proud to belong to a nation where anti-religious bigotry and pro-religious bigotry can co-exsist and duke it out! He never had a chance, did he?
The Religious Right and the Religious Left still have a few cards to play.
December 9th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
@Chris
I love how people like to try and play gotcha games with a thousand years of theological thought, like they found the one logical flaw that nobody noticed. Leviticus 18:22 isn’t the sole basis for the Christian prohibition on homosexuality.
St Paul reaffirmed the prohibition on homosexuality in his 1st letter to the Romans:
“In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
And the Corinthians:
“…Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Both quotes from the New International Version
So there’s no dichotomy between believing that a)the death of Jesus ended the the terms of the original laws found in the Pentateuch and that Christian are not bound by the entirety of those laws, and yet b) some of those rules were retained in the new ruleset given to Christ’s followers.
If you’re going to lecture Christians on Christianity via a rules based hypocrisy argument you might want to actually know what you’re talking about. Whether it’s a reasonable belief in general is different argument, and one you didn’t make.
December 9th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Personally, you could not offer me enough to run for President. Most thankless job offered in the government.
On the other hand, there is not about government that does interest me.
December 9th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
@Junyo That’s an excellent, if not snarky, refutation of my post.
But I don’t care about what some dead guy named Paul said. Old dead guys can be wrong.
I don’t accept arguments from authority, nor arguments from tradition, nor arguments from magical books.
I also don’t care what people think about gays.
I do care about people who use their religious faith as a club to attack others.
I don’t care what creed you choose to live by but when you start attacking other people who disagree with your creed, or because your creed considers them unworthy, then I have a problem.
When a person running for President demonstrates contempt for a segment of the population based on his person religious feelings, I have a real problem with that and so should everyone else. That sort of thing never ends well.
Also I don’t actually know what a Christian is. It’s a relativity new term introduced into our lexicon by politicians in order to create the illusion of a large tent with which to relate to constituents. Before the term became common, they identified themselves Protestants, or Lutherans, or whatever sect they were most convinced by.
A term that applies as equally to Mormons as Catholics is effectively useless at communicating beliefs.
December 9th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Chris,
I can never figure out if Universalism and Unitarianism can be considered Christian. In the 1800s, it was all the rage for immigrants to become Unitarians. But that faded, and they merged with the Universalists.
But don’t insult peoples’ magic books. They will firebomb your house or blow themselves up and you too for casting aspersions.
When you consider that most of the white-supremacists as well as people like Jeremiah Wright both consider themselves Christian it is hard to know what it delineates.
December 9th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Junyo,
Won’t debate your religion with you, you obviously know more about it. But appeals to Leviticus are not unheard of by the Religious Right. (Think about Phred Phelps for example. You know, “GOD HATES FAGS” Phelps. He LOVES Leviticus. Or parts of it, anyway.) So some Christians – see Chris’s remarks on WTF does that mean anyway – do exactly what Chris described.
And the early “letters” of Christianity appear to sanction slavery, the oppression of women, and perhaps other things as well. But then dogma has always been used to justify the status quo, or serve as a call to reinstate the status quo ante.
As I said to Chris, the Klan wrapped themselves in the bible while they were busy lynching (thou shalt not kill) burning black churches, shooting up black neighborhoods, etc. Oh, and visiting slightly less mayhem on the Jews and Catholics. (They were all white protestants.) They all claimed to be Christian.
And it was the good Christian men of California who instituted a policy of genocide against native Americans – they were in the way of all that gold discovered in 1849. (which is why the native American population in Cali decreased 90% if 50 years or so.) Or forcibly converted native American children in their “schools” through at least the 30s. They were given Christian names, forced to learn Christian teachings, forbidden from practicing their own religion. Oh, and forcibly removed from their families because a Christian-upbringing was better for them. You knew that was true because the government said-so. (Freedom of Religion? That was never supposed to apply to “those people.”)
There is a whole laundry list of ethnic-cleansings of Indians (from the South East – “the 5 civilized tribes”), Jews from big parts of the South during the Civil War (US Grant’s General Order 11 – short lived, but nasty) and others in this country. That doesn’t even cover things like the expulsion of Jews from England, or the Plantation of Northern Ireland, Or the Pogroms, right down to the Serbian extermination of Muslims in Eastern Europe in the 1990s – hard to believe that Srebrenica was 16 years ago.
So use whatever pieces of your book to justify whatever you want. You won’t be alone in using it to justify something. But excuse the rest of us if we don’t follow along just because it is written down. (What religions ARE NOT written down today? Should I believe all of them?)
December 10th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
wow.
December 10th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Fred Phelps is a lefty, just to let you know. That whole family/denomination are registered D.
December 10th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
I think the whole “what I do with my ___/___” argument is moot. I don’t care what you do with it. It, belongs to you. You were born with it, it is your responsibility. When you use said body part to influence my opinion, the game changes. You had better hope, that I want, my opinion, to change. I have two(that I know of) children, and I love them both. They will always be MY children, despite their age. They will make mistakes as they grow, but they are still MY kids. If you are the cause of that mistake, a pox on you. Sex, has no place, in politics. Ben Franklin is still a better man than,… okay, bad choice.
Sorry for the rant Unc,
Spellcheck bedamned,
Jerry
December 12th, 2011 at 12:40 am
Of course, if all those “Christians” don’t wise up and rejoin the Holy Mother Church……well….it won’t matter if they’re gay or not……
Bwahahahahahahaha! Heretics all!