If Jesus couldn't keep HIMSELF out of trouble...

[Uncensored2008]

That's not true at all.

What you posted? I know - which is why I refute the prevarication you post.

I'm a liberal,

You seem more of a leftist.

and I'm not interested in living in a dictatorship.

Really?

So, do you think Dear Leader should just be done with the obstruction by the Republicans and declare that taxes are going up, the party of "no" be damned?

I mean, it's just the right thing to do, right? The rich have more than their fair share and need to spread it around, right?

I want the right to vote,

Well of course. Now this idea that just anybody can run for office is questionable. The party needs to vet the candidates and only put the acceptable ones on the ballot, right?

and I want every citizen in the US to have equal rights.

Except maybe those Christians. Illegal gambling at a high school football game with a 50/50 from the PTA is cool, but we sure can't let some little girl say a prayer...

I'm a liberal exactly in the tradition of John Locke.

Che Guevara maybe, Locke - not a chance.

Some on the right, are in the tradition of Hobbs and Filmer.

Really - I mean, you wouldn't slander the opposition - would you?

They want to have an authoritarian, right wing Christian government ruled by biblical principles.

The authoritarians in this nation are the fascist democrats.

Look in this thread - who is the ONE person assaulting the 1st amendment right to the "free exercise therein?"

(That would be you, in case you didn't grasp it.)

 

[Sky Dancer]

That's not true at all.

What you posted? I know - which is why I refute the prevarication you post.

I'm a liberal,

You seem more of a leftist.



Really?

So, do you think Dear Leader should just be done with the obstruction by the Republicans and declare that taxes are going up, the party of "no" be damned?

I mean, it's just the right thing to do, right? The rich have more than their fair share and need to spread it around, right?



Well of course. Now this idea that just anybody can run for office is questionable. The party needs to vet the candidates and only put the acceptable ones on the ballot, right?



Except maybe those Christians. Illegal gambling at a high school football game with a 50/50 from the PTA is cool, but we sure can't let some little girl say a prayer...



Che Guevara maybe, Locke - not a chance.

Some on the right, are in the tradition of Hobbs and Filmer.

Really - I mean, you wouldn't slander the opposition - would you?

They want to have an authoritarian, right wing Christian government ruled by biblical principles.

The authoritarians in this nation are the fascist democrats.

Look in this thread - who is the ONE person assaulting the 1st amendment right to the "free exercise therein?"

(That would be you, in case you didn't grasp it.)

I'd prefer you respond to my posts in paragraphs instead of these single sentences.

I'm a liberal in the tradition of John Locke. I'm no fascist.

I have no problem with religion being exercised freely. I have a problem with the government establishing religion. Some of the right wing extremists want to make the US a theocracy, and push their narrow form of morality on ALL other citiens, regardless of our own beliefs.

I think that's wrong, and I will speak out against it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're right that the Southern Democrats opposed civil rights. Most of those folks have since changed parties.

You must admit that the Republicans who voted for civil rights were leaning to the left. The party of Lincoln has changed and moved decidedly toward intolerance.

No, it hasn't. That's patently false.

The GOP has sold it soul to right wing Christian fundamentalists. They are no longer the party of small government. They are the party of opposition to civil rights.

The Civil Rights Act was put forward by JFK, a liberal.

If you're not a left-wing atheist who thinks Christians should be banned from all participation in political activity, you've "sold your soul" to the fundamentalists. It's amazing how the alleged "champions of tolerance" still remain so goddamned intolerant. All they did was change which mob of bigots they fronted for.

When the Democrats react to government debts and deficits with calls for spending cuts rather than calls for tax increases FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A CENTURY, you MIGHT have the credibility to criticize the GOP for not being the party of small government. In the meantime . . . pot, meet kettle. Hypocrite, meet the mirror.

The GOP is the party of opposition to civil rights, are they? So why is it that they 1) were formed specifically for the purpose of opposing slavery, 2) elected the President who actually ended slavery in America, 3) passed the 13th Amendment, granting slaves their freedom, 4) passed the 14th Amendment, granting freed slaves citizenship, 5) passed the 15th Amendment, giving former slaves the right to vote, 6) sent troops into the post-Civil War South to actually enforce those rights against the opposition from Democrats, 7) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (I know you liberals like to call the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "The Civil Rights Act" as though there only ever was one, but it's not true), 8) passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, 8) signed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 into law via the Republican President, Ulysses S. Grant, 9) proposed a bill to protect black voters in 1890, antilynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938, and anti-poll tax bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946, all of which were blocked by Democrats, 10) denounced Democrat President Woodrow Wilson's institutional segregation of the federal government, 11) officially endorsed the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954 in their 1956 party platform (the Democrats did not), 12) desegregated the military in 1948 under Eisenhower's administration, 13) put blacks in prominent positions of Eisenhower's administration, 14) promoted and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was subsequently gutted by Lyndon Johnson, 15) created the US Civil Rights Commission under Eisenhower's administration, which prompted the Democrats to stage the longest filibuster in history, 16) passed the 1960 Civil Rights Act, on which every single vote against came from a Democrat, including George McGovern, who later was chosen as the Presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, 17) supported and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with huge majorities, although it's noticeable that when the Democrats started jumping on the bandwagon with THIS bill, it suddenly started including provisions that were arguably Unconstitutional, 18) ran as its Presidential candidate in 1964 the man who helped found the Arizona chapter of the NAACP, desegregated the Arizona National Guard while he was head of it, helped end segregation in Arizona schools, and personally decided to desegregate his privately-owned family business, 19) desegregated schools in the Nixon administration to such an extent that his first term can claim more school desegregation statistically than any other historical period, going from 68% of black students attending all-black schools to 18.4% in just two years, 20) instituted Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan", the first government affirmative action program, which imposed racial quotas and timelines in hiring in the building trades, (admittedly, conservatives don't like racial quotas, but the point remains that it was a Republican President who was trying to undo the racial discrimination in construction unions), 21) defeated Orval Faubus, a lifelong Democrat and segregationist, for governor in a state with only 11% registered Republicans (Arkansas), primarily by running on a platform of integration, 22) immediately desegregated Arkansas's schools and draft boards upon beating Faubus (by the way, did you know that Bill Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, invited Faubus to his gubernatorial inauguration?).

What's the Democrat track record on modern civil rights? Jumping on the bandwagon in 1964 (primarily because too many black people were voting for them to win), turning it into just another racket to gain power and undermine the Constitution, and spending the next 40-50 years inflaming racial hatreds and divisions so they could extend a war that had already been won to crazy-ass ideas that no one had ever viewed as "civil rights" before in the history of the world?

Time to put up or shut up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberalism has always been about challenging, old, established traditions.

One of the primary old, established traditions that the left challenges is that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights.

John Locke started the movement. He argued the government must operate by the consent of the governed.

You just contradicted yourself. The anti-liberty left promotes a top down, authoritarian structure, where Obama flows his decisions to the states, which enforce them to the counties, which enforce them to the cities, which imposes them on the people.

You spew a great deal of ignorant bullshit, does anyone take you seriously?

That's not true at all. I'm a liberal, and I'm not interested in living in a dictatorship. I want the right to vote, and I want every citizen in the US to have equal rights.

I'm a liberal exactly in the tradition of John Locke. Some on the right, are in the tradition of Hobbs and Filmer. They want to have an authoritarian, right wing Christian government ruled by biblical principles.

The desire for freedom for yourself doesn't constitute a disinterest in living in a dictatorship. All too often - as with you - it just indicates a desire to be the dictator.

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, it hasn't. That's patently false.

The GOP has sold it soul to right wing Christian fundamentalists. They are no longer the party of small government. They are the party of opposition to civil rights.

The Civil Rights Act was put forward by JFK, a liberal.

If you're not a left-wing atheist who thinks Christians should be banned from all participation in political activity, you've "sold your soul" to the fundamentalists. It's amazing how the alleged "champions of tolerance" still remain so goddamned intolerant. All they did was change which mob of bigots they fronted for.

When the Democrats react to government debts and deficits with calls for spending cuts rather than calls for tax increases FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A CENTURY, you MIGHT have the credibility to criticize the GOP for not being the party of small government. In the meantime . . . pot, meet kettle. Hypocrite, meet the mirror.

The GOP is the party of opposition to civil rights, are they? So why is it that they 1) were formed specifically for the purpose of opposing slavery, 2) elected the President who actually ended slavery in America, 3) passed the 13th Amendment, granting slaves their freedom, 4) passed the 14th Amendment, granting freed slaves citizenship, 5) passed the 15th Amendment, giving former slaves the right to vote, 6) sent troops into the post-Civil War South to actually enforce those rights against the opposition from Democrats, 7) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (I know you liberals like to call the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "The Civil Rights Act" as though there only ever was one, but it's not true), 8) passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, 8) signed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 into law via the Republican President, Ulysses S. Grant, 9) proposed a bill to protect black voters in 1890, antilynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938, and anti-poll tax bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946, all of which were blocked by Democrats, 10) denounced Democrat President Woodrow Wilson's institutional segregation of the federal government, 11) officially endorsed the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954 in their 1956 party platform (the Democrats did not), 12) desegregated the military in 1948 under Eisenhower's administration, 13) put blacks in prominent positions of Eisenhower's administration, 14) promoted and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was subsequently gutted by Lyndon Johnson, 15) created the US Civil Rights Commission under Eisenhower's administration, which prompted the Democrats to stage the longest filibuster in history, 16) passed the 1960 Civil Rights Act, on which every single vote against came from a Democrat, including George McGovern, who later was chosen as the Presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, 17) supported and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with huge majorities, although it's noticeable that when the Democrats started jumping on the bandwagon with THIS bill, it suddenly started including provisions that were arguably Unconstitutional, 18) ran as its Presidential candidate in 1964 the man who helped found the Arizona chapter of the NAACP, desegregated the Arizona National Guard while he was head of it, helped end segregation in Arizona schools, and personally decided to desegregate his privately-owned family business, 19) desegregated schools in the Nixon administration to such an extent that his first term can claim more school desegregation statistically than any other historical period, going from 68% of black students attending all-black schools to 18.4% in just two years, 20) instituted Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan", the first government affirmative action program, which imposed racial quotas and timelines in hiring in the building trades, (admittedly, conservatives don't like racial quotas, but the point remains that it was a Republican President who was trying to undo the racial discrimination in construction unions), 21) defeated Orval Faubus, a lifelong Democrat and segregationist, for governor in a state with only 11% registered Republicans (Arkansas), primarily by running on a platform of integration, 22) immediately desegregated Arkansas's schools and draft boards upon beating Faubus (by the way, did you know that Bill Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, invited Faubus to his gubernatorial inauguration?).

What's the Democrat track record on modern civil rights? Jumping on the bandwagon in 1964 (primarily because too many black people were voting for them to win), turning it into just another racket to gain power and undermine the Constitution, and spending the next 40-50 years inflaming racial hatreds and divisions so they could extend a war that had already been won to crazy-ass ideas that no one had ever viewed as "civil rights" before in the history of the world?

Time to put up or shut up.

I don't think Christians should be banned from politics. I think they should run openly, not as "stealth candidates". Truth is, the GOP is PWNED by Christian fundamentalists.

The GOP of Lincoln's time no longer exists.

BTW you ought to put in links. You're quoting a source other than yourself.

The Democrats in my lifetime who are civil rights activists include Jesse Jackson, RFK, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy etc.

Southern Democrats opposed civil rights, like Strom Thurmond, (who became a Republican).

 

[AllieBaba]

That's not true at all.

What you posted? I know - which is why I refute the prevarication you post.



You seem more of a leftist.



Really?

So, do you think Dear Leader should just be done with the obstruction by the Republicans and declare that taxes are going up, the party of "no" be damned?

I mean, it's just the right thing to do, right? The rich have more than their fair share and need to spread it around, right?



Well of course. Now this idea that just anybody can run for office is questionable. The party needs to vet the candidates and only put the acceptable ones on the ballot, right?



Except maybe those Christians. Illegal gambling at a high school football game with a 50/50 from the PTA is cool, but we sure can't let some little girl say a prayer...



Che Guevara maybe, Locke - not a chance.



Really - I mean, you wouldn't slander the opposition - would you?

They want to have an authoritarian, right wing Christian government ruled by biblical principles.

The authoritarians in this nation are the fascist democrats.

Look in this thread - who is the ONE person assaulting the 1st amendment right to the "free exercise therein?"

(That would be you, in case you didn't grasp it.)

I'd prefer you respond to my posts in paragraphs instead of these single sentences.

I'm a liberal in the tradition of John Locke. I'm no fascist.

I have no problem with religion being exercised freely. I have a problem with the government establishing religion. Some of the right wing extremists want to make the US a theocracy, and push their narrow form of morality on ALL other citiens, regardless of our own beliefs.

I think that's wrong, and I will speak out against it.

You are a fascist.

And you have no problemw ith religion being exercised freely...EXCEPT when it comes to Christians. You don't think they should be allowed to own their religion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberalism has always been about challenging, old, established traditions. John Locke started the movement. He argued the government must operate by the consent of the governed. His opponent, Hobbs, was a supporter of dictatorial authority.

Locke also challenged Filmer, a Conservative, who used the Bible to support the idea of the divine right of kings.

I'm sure that's what you'd LIKE to believe. Too bad that the reality in practice falls so far short of the theory on paper.

And hey, guess what? We're talking about today. If the only way you can claim that liberals are anything but mob-pandering, destructive racists is to point to one guy who died three hundred years ago, and then just claim everyone in history who ever did something you like was a liberal . . . well, that's just pitiful.

This is a lot like the people who try to proclaim that socialism is represented in the writings of Marx, rather than the actions of the people who put Marx's theories into practice . . . wait a minute. Those people are ALSO leftists! It's like a pattern of behavior, or something.

How is it that liberals are racist? Are you talking about supporting affirmative action? That was the right choice at that time. Minorities were able to catch up to the point now where they have greater opportunity to succeed then they once had.

I like how you make broad, sweeping generalizations of liberals. I get the impression that you like to demonize your political opponents.

Cheap tactic.

Sorry to break it to you, Chuckles, but as a group, leftists have been on the wrong side of civil rights since . . . well, forever. They still are, probably because they espouse positions in order to pander to whichever mob they want votes from, rather than doing it based on an understanding of right and wrong. Yes, I realize there are naive, gullible lefties in the rank and file who swallow every rationalization handed down by their leaders as though they were chocolate-coated crack and therefore genuinely believe they're motivated by doing the right thing, but it just ain't true.

Leftist liberals are racists primarily because, as others have pointed out, they're incapable of seeing people as individuals, rather than groups. It's the textbook definition of bigotry: one who attributes certain qualities and value to people based on their membership in a group, rather than on an individual basis.

Leftist liberal Democrats saw blacks as inferior simply because they were black back when white racists had a powerful voting bloc. Now that blacks have a powerful voting bloc, leftist liberal Democrats STILL see them as inferior simply because they're black. The only difference is that NOW they pity them for their perceived inferiority. They're either segregating blacks to protect white people from them, or segregating them to protect them from white people. But at no time does it EVER occur to leftist liberal Democrats that black people, individually, are just as smart and capable of achieving as anyone else is.

 

[AllieBaba]

The GOP has sold it soul to right wing Christian fundamentalists. They are no longer the party of small government. They are the party of opposition to civil rights.

The Civil Rights Act was put forward by JFK, a liberal.

If you're not a left-wing atheist who thinks Christians should be banned from all participation in political activity, you've "sold your soul" to the fundamentalists. It's amazing how the alleged "champions of tolerance" still remain so goddamned intolerant. All they did was change which mob of bigots they fronted for.

When the Democrats react to government debts and deficits with calls for spending cuts rather than calls for tax increases FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A CENTURY, you MIGHT have the credibility to criticize the GOP for not being the party of small government. In the meantime . . . pot, meet kettle. Hypocrite, meet the mirror.

The GOP is the party of opposition to civil rights, are they? So why is it that they 1) were formed specifically for the purpose of opposing slavery, 2) elected the President who actually ended slavery in America, 3) passed the 13th Amendment, granting slaves their freedom, 4) passed the 14th Amendment, granting freed slaves citizenship, 5) passed the 15th Amendment, giving former slaves the right to vote, 6) sent troops into the post-Civil War South to actually enforce those rights against the opposition from Democrats, 7) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (I know you liberals like to call the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "The Civil Rights Act" as though there only ever was one, but it's not true), 8) passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, 8) signed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 into law via the Republican President, Ulysses S. Grant, 9) proposed a bill to protect black voters in 1890, antilynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938, and anti-poll tax bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946, all of which were blocked by Democrats, 10) denounced Democrat President Woodrow Wilson's institutional segregation of the federal government, 11) officially endorsed the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954 in their 1956 party platform (the Democrats did not), 12) desegregated the military in 1948 under Eisenhower's administration, 13) put blacks in prominent positions of Eisenhower's administration, 14) promoted and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was subsequently gutted by Lyndon Johnson, 15) created the US Civil Rights Commission under Eisenhower's administration, which prompted the Democrats to stage the longest filibuster in history, 16) passed the 1960 Civil Rights Act, on which every single vote against came from a Democrat, including George McGovern, who later was chosen as the Presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, 17) supported and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with huge majorities, although it's noticeable that when the Democrats started jumping on the bandwagon with THIS bill, it suddenly started including provisions that were arguably Unconstitutional, 18) ran as its Presidential candidate in 1964 the man who helped found the Arizona chapter of the NAACP, desegregated the Arizona National Guard while he was head of it, helped end segregation in Arizona schools, and personally decided to desegregate his privately-owned family business, 19) desegregated schools in the Nixon administration to such an extent that his first term can claim more school desegregation statistically than any other historical period, going from 68% of black students attending all-black schools to 18.4% in just two years, 20) instituted Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan", the first government affirmative action program, which imposed racial quotas and timelines in hiring in the building trades, (admittedly, conservatives don't like racial quotas, but the point remains that it was a Republican President who was trying to undo the racial discrimination in construction unions), 21) defeated Orval Faubus, a lifelong Democrat and segregationist, for governor in a state with only 11% registered Republicans (Arkansas), primarily by running on a platform of integration, 22) immediately desegregated Arkansas's schools and draft boards upon beating Faubus (by the way, did you know that Bill Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, invited Faubus to his gubernatorial inauguration?).

What's the Democrat track record on modern civil rights? Jumping on the bandwagon in 1964 (primarily because too many black people were voting for them to win), turning it into just another racket to gain power and undermine the Constitution, and spending the next 40-50 years inflaming racial hatreds and divisions so they could extend a war that had already been won to crazy-ass ideas that no one had ever viewed as "civil rights" before in the history of the world?

Time to put up or shut up.

I don't think Christians should be banned from politics. I think they should run openly, not as "stealth candidates". Truth is, the GOP is PWNED by Christian fundamentalists.

The GOP of Lincoln's time no longer exists.

BTW you ought to put in links. You're quoting a source other than yourself.

The Democrats in my lifetime who are civil rights activists include Jesse Jackson, RFK, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy etc.

Southern Democrats opposed civil rights, like Strom Thurmond, (who became a Republican).

You've been asked repeatedly to provide verification of your claim that the GOP is somehow run by c. fundamentalists, and have never been able to do so.

You have also been asked repeatedly to provide some sort of evidence that there is *Chrsitian* legislation seeking to establish government-run religion. You have also failed to ever provide that.

It's all in your head, Sky.

 

[Sky Dancer]

One of the primary old, established traditions that the left challenges is that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights.



You just contradicted yourself. The anti-liberty left promotes a top down, authoritarian structure, where Obama flows his decisions to the states, which enforce them to the counties, which enforce them to the cities, which imposes them on the people.

You spew a great deal of ignorant bullshit, does anyone take you seriously?

That's not true at all. I'm a liberal, and I'm not interested in living in a dictatorship. I want the right to vote, and I want every citizen in the US to have equal rights.

I'm a liberal exactly in the tradition of John Locke. Some on the right, are in the tradition of Hobbs and Filmer. They want to have an authoritarian, right wing Christian government ruled by biblical principles.

The desire for freedom for yourself doesn't constitute a disinterest in living in a dictatorship. All too often - as with you - it just indicates a desire to be the dictator.

I am not interested in living in a dictatorship or being a dictator. You are lying about my position.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, she's not. You want perfect freedom to forward your own agenda, but you want to prevent others from enjoying the same freedom.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's not true at all.

What you posted? I know - which is why I refute the prevarication you post.



You seem more of a leftist.



Really?

So, do you think Dear Leader should just be done with the obstruction by the Republicans and declare that taxes are going up, the party of "no" be damned?

I mean, it's just the right thing to do, right? The rich have more than their fair share and need to spread it around, right?



Well of course. Now this idea that just anybody can run for office is questionable. The party needs to vet the candidates and only put the acceptable ones on the ballot, right?



Except maybe those Christians. Illegal gambling at a high school football game with a 50/50 from the PTA is cool, but we sure can't let some little girl say a prayer...



Che Guevara maybe, Locke - not a chance.



Really - I mean, you wouldn't slander the opposition - would you?

They want to have an authoritarian, right wing Christian government ruled by biblical principles.

The authoritarians in this nation are the fascist democrats.

Look in this thread - who is the ONE person assaulting the 1st amendment right to the "free exercise therein?"

(That would be you, in case you didn't grasp it.)

I'd prefer you respond to my posts in paragraphs instead of these single sentences.

I'm a liberal in the tradition of John Locke. I'm no fascist.

I have no problem with religion being exercised freely. I have a problem with the government establishing religion. Some of the right wing extremists want to make the US a theocracy, and push their narrow form of morality on ALL other citiens, regardless of our own beliefs.

I think that's wrong, and I will speak out against it.

You can prefer anything you like, but if you're going to say that many provably false things, you're just going to have to live with being rebutted in detail.

You don't have a problem with government establishing religion, because you have yet to ever actually OPPOSE it. This is because no one has been proposing any such thing for you TO oppose. What you actually oppose under the facade of "opposing government establishing religion" is the free exercise of religion by people you don't like and don't agree with. As long as you can claim that you're revoking people's First Amendment rights to protect against some apocryphal attempt to "make the US a theocracy", you can reassure yourself that you're not REALLY the dictatorial bigot that you are.

Case in point: the fact that in the last day-and-a-half, I have heard you pronounce that "right wing extremists want to turn the US into a theocracy" something like five times, in a variety of threads, many of which have ****-all to do with the topic of religion. I have yet to see you even ONCE give an example of any concentrated effort to impose a theocracy. I sincerely doubt you even know what would constitute a theocracy.

 

[AllieBaba]

She's been hitting the same mantra for years, and in all those years has NEVER provided any evidence it's true.

It's just that..a mantra...meant to excuse what she knows is bigotry, hatred and the proposal of systemic oppression on her part.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's akin to the Nazis claiming that Jews ate babies.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What you posted? I know - which is why I refute the prevarication you post.



You seem more of a leftist.



Really?

So, do you think Dear Leader should just be done with the obstruction by the Republicans and declare that taxes are going up, the party of "no" be damned?

I mean, it's just the right thing to do, right? The rich have more than their fair share and need to spread it around, right?



Well of course. Now this idea that just anybody can run for office is questionable. The party needs to vet the candidates and only put the acceptable ones on the ballot, right?



Except maybe those Christians. Illegal gambling at a high school football game with a 50/50 from the PTA is cool, but we sure can't let some little girl say a prayer...



Che Guevara maybe, Locke - not a chance.



Really - I mean, you wouldn't slander the opposition - would you?



The authoritarians in this nation are the fascist democrats.

Look in this thread - who is the ONE person assaulting the 1st amendment right to the "free exercise therein?"

(That would be you, in case you didn't grasp it.)

I'd prefer you respond to my posts in paragraphs instead of these single sentences.

I'm a liberal in the tradition of John Locke. I'm no fascist.

I have no problem with religion being exercised freely. I have a problem with the government establishing religion. Some of the right wing extremists want to make the US a theocracy, and push their narrow form of morality on ALL other citiens, regardless of our own beliefs.

I think that's wrong, and I will speak out against it.

You can prefer anything you like, but if you're going to say that many provably false things, you're just going to have to live with being rebutted in detail.

You don't have a problem with government establishing religion, because you have yet to ever actually OPPOSE it. This is because no one has been proposing any such thing for you TO oppose. What you actually oppose under the facade of "opposing government establishing religion" is the free exercise of religion by people you don't like and don't agree with. As long as you can claim that you're revoking people's First Amendment rights to protect against some apocryphal attempt to "make the US a theocracy", you can reassure yourself that you're not REALLY the dictatorial bigot that you are.

Case in point: the fact that in the last day-and-a-half, I have heard you pronounce that "right wing extremists want to turn the US into a theocracy" something like five times, in a variety of threads, many of which have ****-all to do with the topic of religion. I have yet to see you even ONCE give an example of any concentrated effort to impose a theocracy. I sincerely doubt you even know what would constitute a theocracy.

I know what a theocracy is. Tibet was once a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. The UK has been a theocracy with an official religion, the Church of England.

I support the First Amendment. I have no problem with any religion practicing it's tenets in the US.

I will point out dangerous trends in Christian fundamentalism in the US. The Canyon Ridge Church supporting Martin Ssempa, (author of the "kill gays" legislation in Uganda) financially.

Michelle Bachmann attended a university, and a law school that is Dominionist. That concerns me, because it shows how powerful and mainstream seemingly extremist religious politics has become.

That's completely different from Michelle Bachmann practicing her religion. She seeks to legislate it. That's an important distinction.

I oppose that. I support civil marriage equality.

 

[AllieBaba]

So what is she legislating? Please give us a link.

And again, you're proposing that people be barred from certain professions based upon their faith.

I'll check into the Canyon Ridge church. there were some Christians who did have dealings with Uganda's butcher based upon their desire to help bring him around...and when they discovered how whacko he was, they denounced him. I believe we had this convo once before, when you were making ridiculous claims about how Christians were responsible for supporting him and setting him up....

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, she's not. You want perfect freedom to forward your own agenda, but you want to prevent others from enjoying the same freedom.

What agenda do you think I have Allie? Do you think I would prevent you from practicing your religion somehow?

I wish you practiced it more.

 

[Sky Dancer]

So what is she legislating? Please give us a link.

And again, you're proposing that people be barred from certain professions based upon their faith.

I'll check into the Canyon Ridge church. there were some Christians who did have dealings with Uganda's butcher based upon their desire to help bring him around...and when they discovered how whacko he was, they denounced him. I believe we had this convo once before, when you were making ridiculous claims about how Christians were responsible for supporting him and setting him up....

That's a nice spin on the Canyon Ridge Church.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh I definitely think you would prevent people from practicing their religion, Sky. Absolutely, without a doubt.

I see you haven't answered any of the questions put to you. No surprises there.

 

[AllieBaba]

So what is she legislating? Please give us a link.

And again, you're proposing that people be barred from certain professions based upon their faith.

I'll check into the Canyon Ridge church. there were some Christians who did have dealings with Uganda's butcher based upon their desire to help bring him around...and when they discovered how whacko he was, they denounced him. I believe we had this convo once before, when you were making ridiculous claims about how Christians were responsible for supporting him and setting him up....

That's a nice spin on the Canyon Ridge Church.

You moron, I haven't spun anything. I don't even know who they are. Hence my first statement out of the box.

 

[AllieBaba]

"CRCC Statement Regarding Our Former Partnership With Martin Ssempa in Uganda
Released 10/25/2010

"Canyon Ridge Christian Church began work in Uganda with the intent of helping address the HIV/AIDS pandemic that was wiping out generations of people in that country and other parts of Africa. Our partnership with Pastor Martin Ssempa began in response to this intent.

Because of the current controversy in Uganda over the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and because of Pastor Ssempa’s involvement in the support of the bill, we have been in regular communication with him to clarify his positions and opinions. While we have come to understand that Pastor Ssempa advocates for an amended version of the Anti-Homosexuality bill that removes the death penalty and reduces other severe penalties, he still supports passage of this bill.

We, however, do not support him in this effort.

We are in the process of determining how we can redirect our support in Uganda to activities specifically related to addressing HIV/AIDS issues.

Further, we condemn acts of violence against any person regardless of sexual orientation."

Those awful fundamentalists, risking their lives to help AIDS victims. The SCUM!

Canyon Ridge Christian Church - Statement on Martin Ssempa