Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[The Rabbi]

Actually every poster on this thread is a better one than you, dunce-o. And no, the Lass has not had her ass smashed. That woul dbe you.
Are you denying that the op ed doesnt suggest churches be coerced in their teachings?

The op claims a first amendment conflict, which means government would be involved.

The op-ed does not call for government intervention. The op then is at best misleading.

That is too kind- the op-ed is a lie.

Not only that, I'm reminded of the conservative Op-ed columnist from the conservative National Review who thought Chelsea Clinton and her whole family should be be assassinated in 2001.

Like an Op-Edder is the be-all and end-all.

Link?

The National Review, after keeping it online for years and years, finally deleted it. It was pretty disgusting.

Here is Sullivan quoting a piece of it:

DERBYSHIRE AWARD WINNER 2001: "Chelsea is a Clinton.

She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past � I�m not arguing for despotism s a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble � recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin�s penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an �enemy of the people. The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, �clan liability�. In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished �to the ninth degree�; that is, everyone in the offender�s own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations down, to the great-great-grandparents, would also be killed.

� � John Derbyshire, in National Review Online."

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

Do your own research from here, rabbitboy. No surprise you never heard of it.

I dont see any call for killing Chelsea Clinton. Looks like you overplayed your hand and proved you are stooopid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Feel free to prove me wrong.

As has been pointed out- Jefferson Davis invoked God when seceding from the Union. Southern ministers regularly preached that slavery was god's will. The KKK claimed that they were Christians and started off each meeting with a Christian prayer.

This is not an indictment of Christianity- the majority of soldiers and politicians and citizens in the North and South were regular Christian church goers- but it is an indictment of those who want to claim that Christians led the fight against racism without acknowledging that other Christians led the fight for racism.

Don't believe me? Maybe you would believe the Southern Baptists Convention?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – The Southern Baptist Convention is taking its biggest step to date to confront the legacy of support for slavery and segregation that still looms over the denomination.


The two-day “Gospel and Racial Reconciliation” summit in Nashville wasn’t a how-to seminar on making churches more diverse; it wasn’t long on solutions. It was more of a call to arms, with speaker after speaker proclaiming the evil of racial divisions.


Southern Baptists discuss race slavery and segregation New Pittsburgh Courier

Everyone in the nation was "christian" at the time. Slavery had nothing to do with it. The Roman empire was the most prolific perpetrator of chattel slavery in history,. followed closely by the Mongols. Neither were Christian.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[Yup.

The Southern Baptists Convention -- the largest Protestant denomination in the US - the world's largest Baptist denomination -- split back then because of what?

Slavery. Which they were fer.

They owe their roots to the ground-shattering schism over slavery.

And only a few years ago, apologized for their stance on slavery and segregation.

Sigh,

The entire nation split because of slavery.

The bullshit you democrats try to peddle.

 

[paperview]

The op claims a first amendment conflict, which means government would be involved.

The op-ed does not call for government intervention. The op then is at best misleading.

That is too kind- the op-ed is a lie.

Not only that, I'm reminded of the conservative Op-ed columnist from the conservative National Review who thought Chelsea Clinton and her whole family should be be assassinated in 2001.

Like an Op-Edder is the be-all and end-all.

Link?

The National Review, after keeping it online for years and years, finally deleted it. It was pretty disgusting.

Here is Sullivan quoting a piece of it:

DERBYSHIRE AWARD WINNER 2001: "Chelsea is a Clinton.

She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past � I�m not arguing for despotism s a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble � recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin�s penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an �enemy of the people. The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, �clan liability�. In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished �to the ninth degree�; that is, everyone in the offender�s own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations down, to the great-great-grandparents, would also be killed.

� � John Derbyshire, in National Review Online."

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

Do your own research from here, rabbitboy. No surprise you never heard of it.

I dont see any call for killing Chelsea Clinton. Looks like you overplayed your hand and proved you are stooopid.

Of course you don't. It was all a *joke* about killing the first family.

 

[paperview]

[Yup.

The Southern Baptists Convention -- the largest Protestant denomination in the US - the world's largest Baptist denomination -- split back then because of what?

Slavery. Which they were fer.

They owe their roots to the ground-shattering schism over slavery.

And only a few years ago, apologized for their stance on slavery and segregation.

Sigh,

The entire nation split because of slavery.

The bullshit you democrats try to peddle.

And what side did the Southern Baptists fall on?

Slavery: Yea.

Next question: why did it take them some 145 years to apologize for backing human bondage and segregation?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You either cannot or will not grasp the basic facts, which is again why i said there is no discussion to be had. You are unable or unwilling to deal in reality

The basic fact is a we have differing standards under the law.

The Constitution has been discarded in favor of counter culture goals.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And what side did the Southern Baptists fall on?

The Southern side.

That would seem obvious.

Slavery: Yea.

Next question: why did it take them some 145 years to apologize for backing human bondage and segregation?

Why has the democratic party STILL not apologized?

 

[paperview]

And what side did the Southern Baptists fall on?

The Southern side.

That would seem obvious.

Slavery: Yea.

Next question: why did it take them some 145 years to apologize for backing human bondage and segregation?

Why has the democratic party STILL not apologized?

They have. Maybe you missed it.


They also elect blacks to positions of power by nearly 100 to 6 in the last 100 years - compared to pubs.


Oh well. Maybe your party can get the minority votes.

One of these days.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They have. Maybe you missed it.


They also elect blacks to positions of power by nearly 100 to 6 in the last 100 years - compared to pubs.


Oh well. Maybe your party can get the minority votes.

One of these days.

Your party has NEVER offered an apology for slavery or for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

 

[paperview]

They have. Maybe you missed it.


They also elect blacks to positions of power by nearly 100 to 6 in the last 100 years - compared to pubs.


Oh well. Maybe your party can get the minority votes.

One of these days.

Your party has NEVER offered an apology for slavery or for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

<cough>

1. Congress Apologizes for Slavery, Jim Crow : NPR
   NPR National Public Radio News Analysis World US Music Arts NPR › News › US › Law
2. NPR
   Jul 30, 2008 - The U.S. House of Representatives issued an unprecedented apology to black Americans on Tuesday for the institution of slavery and ...
3. Text of H.Res. 194 (110th): Apologizing for the enslavement ...
   GovTrack.us Tracking the U.S. Congresscongress/bills/110/hres194/text
4. GovTrack
   194 (110 Congress, 2007–2009) ... Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured ...
5. Congress' apology for slavery just proves it's hard to say sorry
   www.mcclatchydc.com/.../congress-apolo...
   McClatchy Washington Bureau
   Jul 2, 2009 - Two weeks ago, the Senate passed a resolution calling on the U.S. to apologize for more than three centuries of enslavement and segregation.

 

[ogibillm]

You either cannot or will not grasp the basic facts, which is again why i said there is no discussion to be had. You are unable or unwilling to deal in reality

The basic fact is a we have differing standards under the law.

The Constitution has been discarded in favor of counter culture goals.

Still in fantasy land.

You realize you're arguing that requiring blacks to sit in the back of busses was not discrimination.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is too kind- the op-ed is a lie.

Not only that, I'm reminded of the conservative Op-ed columnist from the conservative National Review who thought Chelsea Clinton and her whole family should be be assassinated in 2001.

Like an Op-Edder is the be-all and end-all.

Link?

The National Review, after keeping it online for years and years, finally deleted it. It was pretty disgusting.

Here is Sullivan quoting a piece of it:

DERBYSHIRE AWARD WINNER 2001: "Chelsea is a Clinton.

She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past � I�m not arguing for despotism s a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble � recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin�s penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an �enemy of the people. The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, �clan liability�. In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished �to the ninth degree�; that is, everyone in the offender�s own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations down, to the great-great-grandparents, would also be killed.

� � John Derbyshire, in National Review Online."

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

Do your own research from here, rabbitboy. No surprise you never heard of it.

I dont see any call for killing Chelsea Clinton. Looks like you overplayed your hand and proved you are stooopid.

Of course you don't. It was all a *joke* about killing the first family.

There was not even a joke about killing the first family. There was some historical information. Period.
Looks like another fail from you. You're just racking them up this week, arentcha?

 

[Slyhunter]

Liberals want the government to have veto power over religious doctrine. The religion then becomes an arm of the government.

Like we forced the catholic church to marry previously divorced people, right?

Previously divorced people aren't a protected class in the constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

They have. Maybe you missed it.


They also elect blacks to positions of power by nearly 100 to 6 in the last 100 years - compared to pubs.


Oh well. Maybe your party can get the minority votes.

One of these days.

Your party has NEVER offered an apology for slavery or for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

<cough>

1. Congress Apologizes for Slavery, Jim Crow : NPR
   NPR National Public Radio News Analysis World US Music Arts NPR › News › US › Law
2. NPR
   Jul 30, 2008 - The U.S. House of Representatives issued an unprecedented apology to black Americans on Tuesday for the institution of slavery and ...
3. Text of H.Res. 194 (110th): Apologizing for the enslavement ...
   GovTrack.us Tracking the U.S. Congresscongress/bills/110/hres194/text
4. GovTrack
   194 (110 Congress, 2007–2009) ... Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured ...
5. Congress' apology for slavery just proves it's hard to say sorry
   www.mcclatchydc.com/.../congress-apolo...
   McClatchy Washington Bureau
   Jul 2, 2009 - Two weeks ago, the Senate passed a resolution calling on the U.S. to apologize for more than three centuries of enslavement and segregation.

I dont see "Democrat" anywhere there.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Still in fantasy land.

You realize you're arguing that requiring blacks to sit in the back of busses was not discrimination.

Since you have no justification for different treatment under the law, you figure you can just make up idiotic bullshit and no one will notice?

 

[Uncensored2008]

They have. Maybe you missed it.


They also elect blacks to positions of power by nearly 100 to 6 in the last 100 years - compared to pubs.


Oh well. Maybe your party can get the minority votes.

One of these days.

Your party has NEVER offered an apology for slavery or for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

<cough>

1. Congress Apologizes for Slavery, Jim Crow : NPR
   NPR National Public Radio News Analysis World US Music Arts NPR › News › US › Law
2. NPR
   Jul 30, 2008 - The U.S. House of Representatives issued an unprecedented apology to black Americans on Tuesday for the institution of slavery and ...
3. Text of H.Res. 194 (110th): Apologizing for the enslavement ...
   GovTrack.us Tracking the U.S. Congresscongress/bills/110/hres194/text
4. GovTrack
   194 (110 Congress, 2007–2009) ... Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured ...
5. Congress' apology for slavery just proves it's hard to say sorry
   www.mcclatchydc.com/.../congress-apolo...
   McClatchy Washington Bureau
   Jul 2, 2009 - Two weeks ago, the Senate passed a resolution calling on the U.S. to apologize for more than three centuries of enslavement and segregation.

I said the party son, not Congress,

The democratic party has NEVER apologized for slavery, nor for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

 

[ogibillm]

Still in fantasy land.

You realize you're arguing that requiring blacks to sit in the back of busses was not discrimination.

Since you have no justification for different treatment under the law, you figure you can just make up idiotic bullshit and no one will notice?

It's the same argument. you're saying it's acceptable to limit services to a customer based on an arbitrary characteristic of that customer.

Either that is discrimination or it isn't. Which do you believe it is?

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to prove me wrong.

As has been pointed out- Jefferson Davis invoked God when seceding from the Union. Southern ministers regularly preached that slavery was god's will. The KKK claimed that they were Christians and started off each meeting with a Christian prayer.

This is not an indictment of Christianity- the majority of soldiers and politicians and citizens in the North and South were regular Christian church goers- but it is an indictment of those who want to claim that Christians led the fight against racism without acknowledging that other Christians led the fight for racism.

Don't believe me? Maybe you would believe the Southern Baptists Convention?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – The Southern Baptist Convention is taking its biggest step to date to confront the legacy of support for slavery and segregation that still looms over the denomination.


The two-day “Gospel and Racial Reconciliation” summit in Nashville wasn’t a how-to seminar on making churches more diverse; it wasn’t long on solutions. It was more of a call to arms, with speaker after speaker proclaiming the evil of racial divisions.


Southern Baptists discuss race slavery and segregation New Pittsburgh Courier

Everyone in the nation was "christian" at the time. Slavery had nothing to do with it. The Roman empire was the most prolific perpetrator of chattel slavery in history,. followed closely by the Mongols. Neither were Christian.

Yep- and thanks for showing how you jump into a discussion with your head placed firmly up your posterior.

The claim was that Christians were opposed to slavery- and that Christians didn't support slavery.

My response was pointing out that Christians were both the leaders against slavery- and the leaders for slavery.

Why haven't all Christians apologized from slavery?

 

[Syriusly]

They have. Maybe you missed it.


They also elect blacks to positions of power by nearly 100 to 6 in the last 100 years - compared to pubs.


Oh well. Maybe your party can get the minority votes.

One of these days.

Your party has NEVER offered an apology for slavery or for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

<cough>

1. Congress Apologizes for Slavery, Jim Crow : NPR
   NPR National Public Radio News Analysis World US Music Arts NPR › News › US › Law
2. NPR
   Jul 30, 2008 - The U.S. House of Representatives issued an unprecedented apology to black Americans on Tuesday for the institution of slavery and ...
3. Text of H.Res. 194 (110th): Apologizing for the enslavement ...
   GovTrack.us Tracking the U.S. Congresscongress/bills/110/hres194/text
4. GovTrack
   194 (110 Congress, 2007–2009) ... Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured ...
5. Congress' apology for slavery just proves it's hard to say sorry
   www.mcclatchydc.com/.../congress-apolo...
   McClatchy Washington Bureau
   Jul 2, 2009 - Two weeks ago, the Senate passed a resolution calling on the U.S. to apologize for more than three centuries of enslavement and segregation.

I said the party son, not Congress,

The democratic party has NEVER apologized for slavery, nor for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

Christians have never apologized for slavery, nor for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

See how easy that is?

Meanwhile- how many supporters of the Confederacy today are Democrats?

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals want the government to have veto power over religious doctrine. The religion then becomes an arm of the government.

Like we forced the catholic church to marry previously divorced people, right?

Previously divorced people aren't a protected class in the constitution.

There are no 'protected classes' in the Constitution.