Just listen to yourselves...
 

I've got to voice my concern over some of the comments I've consistently read in many of these threads. The scapegoating of evangelical Christians because the candidate of a person's choice wasn't elected is getting out of hand. Some of the things posted are downright hateful and wouldn't be tolerated if they were directed at any other group.

Christians each possess a single vote. Their vote is worth no more or no less than any other. Some whine that Christians legislate morality... yet grievously complain when they simply cast a vote in opposition. Who desires to dominate the other?

You are no better than a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise.

You are no smarter.

Your vote is not cast with more care or more wisdom.

You are just... different. Liberal tolerance is so often only extended to fellow liberals and the enemies of conservative philosophy.

Since as a rule the liberal elite like to sneer at anyone who openly says they are a Christian, they will have no problem 'blaming' them for the Bush victory.

Heaven forbid they look into their own wacky ideas to see why they were rejected.

This post is dead on. Good one irate

irateplatypus - you are confusing intolerance with intolerance of intolerance.

Liberals have NO issues with a fundamentalist living their life as a fundamentalist. It is the fundamentalist who wishes to control the liberal.

Projection of personal morals is unacceptable.

And further, it is not scapegoating. Bush won this election because liberals are more likely to live up to being a liberal: the non-projection of personal morals. As such, they are not as easily roused from sleep. Fundamentalist Christians eagerly desire their own beliefs to be shared, and forced, on others. This election was a moral referendum on our country - and because of the nature of the philosophy's of the opposing groups, the fundamentalists triumphed. And now it is a "mandate".

Don't blame Christians because they voted. Blame the liberals who weren't "roused from sleep" enough to vote. It's not the Christians' fault that sleepy liberals didn't vote. They could have voted, but they just didn't care enough.

Don't scream at people because they voted for Bush. Scream at the people who would have voted for Kerry but didn't.

In any case, the majority of the US wanted Bush. Nobody can deny that. Democrats wonder why Kerry didn't win, when the answer is in plain sight: MORE PEOPLE WANTED BUSH IN OFFICE.

I still wonder why the Democratic Party decided not to choose a Democratic candidate this election. Why would any sane person vote for Anybody But Bush? I'd much prefer to vote for an actual candidate.

Four years of 'hail to the thief'.

Four years of 'selected not elected'.

A premptive war.

Four years of hate and vitriol and the left was still sleeping?

What exactly does it take to wake them up?

Yep, you called it. Evangelicals can do whatever the hell they want as long as they leave me alone. However, leaving everyone else alone doesn't seem to be in the cards:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0411031109.asp

The Christian Right has every right to vote for whomever they choose. They have also proven time and again that they are ready, willing and able to get involved and to vote. If Dems are pissed that there is a strong Conservative, Christian movement withing the US, then they need to offer a viable alternative. I personally loathe the mixing of Church and State. I have a strong religious background,and frankly don't want God in my government nor do I want government in my God.

Just like you right wingers sneer at anyone who is a liberal and call them "unpatrotic."

Because you've made a single response to all the posts lamenting the Christian right, I feel I should set myself apart. I have never supported Kerry nor do I scapegoat evangelical Christians for the reelection of Bush. It goes without saying that their votes are cast with the same thought and conviction as anyone else's. I simply find it disturbing that this group, and even those much less religious, are energized by such issues as treating gays as second-class citizens. Out of the eleven states that passed a ban on gay marriage, eight of those also banned same-sex civil unions. Is this where America is headed? I don't find it comforting that with these bans, Bush is given a mandate to push forward with a constitutional amendment to waste more time on, what I consider, a non-issue.

Even though America will never be behind a man like Ralph Nader (whom I voted for), the least I could hope for is a Congress and President that are not so polarized by their personal religious beliefs. It seems at least half of America doesn't agree, and that just depresses me.

I suppose a key part of it is that I and others view gay marriage (and some other issues) as a minority right, not as something the majority should be able to impose one way or the other.

Irate, EXCELLENT post.

I agree that gay marriage is a minority right. In the end, I have confidence it will be found unconsitutional to ban it (and, maybe even, unconstitutional for the government to be giving "permission" to marry in the first place through marriage licenses). That's about the only real complaint though. If you want to complain about the gay marriage bans, that's fine. But scapegoating Bush's re-election is just silly.

It seems to me that to deny this election was won due to the "moral" issues of Fundamentalist Christians is the silly aspect.

Whether you believe it will be deemed unconstitutional to ban gay marriage has little to do with the reality that all 11 states which had it as a ballot initiative, passed it resoundingly.

Good thread and an important one.

If the majority of the country supported the republican view of religion then I guess they were heard and the election did exactly what it was supposed to do.

So many times I see people judging Bush and saying how he fooled people into voting for him. that all of his views are terrible that may becasue a lot of the libreal democrats may be blinded by thinking that there beleifs have to be correct.
That any opposition to them has to be off its rocker.

for the record no I do not agree with all of the Republican values but some key issues to me are represented by them.

I've stated this elsewhere....I believe in God, I do not believe in "religion" I do not go to church but my child does (with her grandmother) because it is up to HER to decide what she believes...I grew up in church and as I got older realized that its full of nothing but hipocrites and preachers telling congregations from the pulpit what to vote for. That being said......Im a republican....as another person said...the KEY issues of the party are what I believe in.

Im tired of being called gullible or misled or blind because...whoops I believe in God AND I believe in Bush, and god forbid what I think is important doesnt coincide with what others do...well let me tell some of the people that want to "blame" christians for Bush being re elected....Its not OUR fault enuff people didnt get off their butts to make a difference...Maybe its time for people to realize that belief in God is not a past time or a dead issue....if you WANT to believe that people that re elected him are all "moral" "religious" people...think again....I have morals when it comes to how I treat other people....but if I were Catholic I'd be in a confessional for the rest of my life...as would most of the other "religious" people I know...I know SEVERAL, and when I say several I mean more than about 50 atheists/agnostics that believe in Bush just as much as I do, and "moriality" and "religion" had no play in their vote for him.

I've seen posts here and elsewhere from people telling people to stop being a sheep...vote for the 3rd party, many of them from what I can tell JUST to vote for a 3rd party...somebody tell me how that translates into not being a "sheep" The people that say that are no better than the preachers (IMO) that tell their followers who to vote for bercause they want a heard of people voting for something they dont believe in JUST to take the herd in a different directions.

Im am flat out disgusted with the attitudes of the anti bush people...I saw a post (not here) where someone said

Well wait just a darned minute.....Im educated, Im skilled, Im pro environment, Im pro choice....and I wouldnt have voted for Kerry if you'd paid me too

Im not "religious" I voted no on the gay marriage ban, I think abortion should be legal and I agree with stem cell research.....and I voted for Bush, HE is the man I want running this country in this day and age.

Im also for the decrim of marijuana

Its attitudes like keep getting posted here that are going to keep our country from moving forward at all.

Please quit blaming the "christians" and the "moral" people because we are proud enuff and responsible enuff to get out and have our vote count

I won't scapegoat the Evangelicals. They won, they had more desire to see Bush get reelected and have his agenda passed than we did to get him out. For that we now reap what we sow. I am sad that they got their way. I am scared for the direction I see this country now taking, but I won't malign them.

I, openly, am a christian. lapsed catholic actually (and getting more lapsed by the day). I wear a crucifix daily, I am proud of my beliefs. As a liberal, I know everyone should be able to live as they want. The imposition of christian fundamentalism scares me. The buzz words being thrown around are "Moral Issues" for the predominant reason why people voted for Bush. Not terrorism, not our economy. And that buzz word is just code for gay rights, abortion, indecency on television and radio. I see this vote as finally pushing TFP, my favorite place on the web, into the counterculture. Everything about this election has been a decision against what this place stands for. I find it ironic and disheartening that people who are part of this community don't realize this.
It scares me that our people would vote religion into government when religion is a personal thing and should be carried out by individuals and community, not legislation.

I am angry at liberals in america who are so apathetic they refuse to vote their interest. As a movement, liberals don't act until we are completely backed into the corner. I mourn the loss of freedom to follow our own path in this country.

You won't be finding a more non-religious person than myself. I have no use for it at all. That being said, I have no problem with the kind of government that is created by the`will of the people expressed by their votes. If a majority of voters want a more traditionally religious representation in their government, then it's a political issue. I don't have an interest in disenfranchisiing any point of view.

I tip my hat to you!!!

Do you actually believe in this liberal caricature that you reference so often or is it just a political gambit? Whatever the case, it is far removed from reality. Maybe Rush shouldn't be a primary source in a political belief system....

Edit: hey, the elections over...why not lose that incredibly deceptive sig? Do we need to carry our campaign lies into the next four years? I've often been curious just why you sported it when you knew that the full quote actually meant the opposite of your intended point. Is victory worth deception of the self and others?

It is utterly ridiculous that people can IGNORE the major issues of the last four years.
1. The 2000 election for a starter.
2. The lack of investigation into the 9-11 tragedy.
3. The aggression in Afghanistan; which if you dont know has OPENED the floodgates for OPIUM production.
4. The War in IRAQ. This issue is so important to our history and in a true court of law OUR WHOLE COUNTRY COULD BE SENT TO JAIL for our actions.
5. The economy and tax issues.
6. The simple fact that people dress for success..you want your mouthpiece to sound educated. I dont think with Kerry there would be a Democratic set/group or Bildebergers, Rockefellers and Rothschilds et al., pushing the buttons...Kerry would be making the same kind of moves...bu t the manner in which GWB rationalized the USA's activities to the world was straight up ignorant.

People ignore all of this because of Gay Marriage & Abortion?
Then tell us that our supposed enemies hate us because we are FREE?!?!? As a whole we are not free, we are a bunch of standing & walking in line non-thinkers.

I seldom say this, but this position is absolutly insane and deluded. Afghanistan is the most justifiable military action by the US since WW2. Your views on it automatically make me question your views on any other issue, and ignore you.

Please just justify instead of telling me how you feel about me.

The Opium harvest is now in full swing....Osama is stil making tapes. Although I dont really consider Osama as authentic more like a stooge the fact remains that calling AFG a terrorist hotbed over a few shoddy videos and not considering elsewhere in the world is a bit scripted.

You mean to sit there and tell us that the agression towards Afghanistan is a bad thing? You mean to sit there and tell us that we shouldnt be aggressive to a country that harbors terrorists ESPECIALLY OBL? Hell the UN issued sanctions in 2000 because the Taliban was harboring him

http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh00122102.html


If you honestly believe the agression towards that country from the US is unfounded then I have to agree that that opinion is the most deluded I've heard on this board

Ok, getting back to WHY Bush won, since terrorism was not the factor. Moral Issues. We had a vote on a Constitutional amendment to forever ban gays from marriage. That put everyone on record, (Senate, congress and both pres candidates). And 11 states added such legislation to their own constitutions. It is these people who created the majority for Bush to win. Kerry actually won the liberal (86-13) AND the moderate vote (55-45) (as self described). Conservatives came out and voted for hate in great numbers and gave it to Bush by an (84-15) margin.
It is solace, small solace, but still solace to know that the moderates in america, largely did not support this. It's just incredibly distressing to know the most active segment of the american electorate voted to overwhelm us.

This is the base that elected Bush
link

I believe if it is a blunder if we didnt get the intended target, killed MANY civilians, didnt wipe out the Taliban and now the drug opium is being harvested like its all good.

I don't have a problem with fundamentalists electing one of their own, I have a problem with politicians who belive that it is their divine mandate to impose their beliefs on me and on my fellow Americans.

I don't think the gay marriage issue had anything to do with it for MOST voters.

I have to agree with Manx on this one, my problem with fundamentalist Christians, generally speaking (not all of them are like this, but most are), is their habit of believing that they're right and everyone else is wrong, of pushing their belief system down everyone's throat. To anyone who says they don't, ask them how they feel about prayer in public schools. It is absolutely undoubtedly a violation of the separation of church and state, and yet all of them believe, no, INSIST that they have a right to it, and if you oppose them, you're doing Lucifer's work.

"Allah" is merely the Arabic word for "God". Ask them if they would object to a teacher of Arabic descent stating "one nation under Allah" in class, and you'll find out just how intolerant and self-righteous these people are.

I am a pagan minister who regularly feels the scorn, disdain and obsessive drive to "save" everyone else that this group feels for anyone not a part of it. There are exceptions, yes, fine individuals who are fundamentalist who disagree with me entirely, yet who remains my friends, respect my views, and, hey, can even go through a normal day without mentioning Jesus to other people 753 times.

I have no problem with Jeheshua Bar Joseph, the man you erroneously call Jesus. It's the majority of his followers that I have a problem with.

I wonder how Christian it is to drop napalm on civilians, including children, in violation of a UN Resolution banning napalm that we signed years ago. I wonder how Christian it is to use depleted uranium bunkerbuster bombs that cause radiation sickness and mutated fetuses for control of the world's oil in an act of military aggression without legal standing (yes, another UN resolution violated, making every death in this war a murder). So many of you walk around with "What Would Jesus Do?" shirts and stickers. I'd like to hear your answer. Anyone here picturing Jesus firing an automatic rifle into a crowd? Anyone here imagining Jesus saying he'd murder another man for making a pass at him (as REVEREND Jimmy Swaggart recently said, presumably not in the presence of one of his hookers).

I have zero problem with your belief system, and will always defend your right to believe what you wish to believe. But the collective hypocrisy of this group of people, who are the majority of voters in this country, and their bias against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them, is nauseating.

One last suggestion: the next time a fundamentalist Christian tells you that his religion doesn't dictate his politics, ask him if he'd vote for a candidate who agreed with his position on absolutely every issue, but the candidate was a Muslim, or a Pagan, or an atheist.

Gotta go, someone's knocking on the door, perhaps it's the FBI coming to "liberate" me from my civil rights.

i have not understood, and still do not understand, why folk find it so easy to move from opposing a political position--in this case the mobilization of protestant fundamentalists as a political block in significant areas of the the country--to attacking the people who make up that bloc---i sometimes do not understand why i find it so easy myself.

because it does not help anything.
it does not constitute an analysis.
and what seems clear to me at least is that understanding what happened in this election is pretty important.

1. the "red states" were often themselves highly divided. so the situation nationally is not red/blue--unanimity in the "red" areas is far far far from accomplished.

but what you are looking out there at is the result of a really successful, highly organized political mobilization undertaken by the right.

their success in creating a politics force of protestant fundamentalists is an imposing achievement--ironically one that runs directly counter to the ideological emphasis on individuals---even the right knows that if you focus on individuals, you evicerate yourself politically--power comes for collective mobilization. their own political position is evidence of that. so i guess what is important for the right is that people who are not in positions of pwer understand the world in terms of isolated individuals so as to maintain powerlessness--but that the machine is itself not bound by the ideology it manufactures.

the discourse of the right works is designed to make and maintain a sharp division between inside and outside.

it is structured as a double of a religious belief system, but is not itself one.

it seems to involve a control of the premises for political debate that pretty much insures that folk inside and those outside conservativeland will talk by each other.

so it poses analytic problems that are similar to those of the sociology of religion--explaining belief from an outside position does not coincide with teh views of those who believe--i might understand conservative discourse as a flight from uncertainty caused by globalizing capitalism, but saying it is probably not going to make much impact on someone who believes.

what is unnerving in all this is the simple power of the discursive space.
what is reassuring is that its power is far from uniform, even in the areas where it mobilized--to a certain extent--a majority.
what is a problem is that is seems too easy to confuse the surface features of conservative discourse (see above) for the nature of the constiuency.
if all there was to the right was protestant fundamentalists, they would be a marginal party.
i think it is a distraction to focus too heavily on this element.

Yep, I only have to look at these boards to reinforce it.

What I don't get is why so few liberals are proud to say they are liberal. Is it because Reagan made it a dirty word? If you believe it, shout it out, say this is who you are, this is how I think society should be run.

Of course that would never get them elected, but at least they would be honest.

Love him or loathe him, everyone knows where GWB will stand on an issue. He will state quite openly what he believes. When I voted for Bush I knew what I was getting, and I don’t like all of it, but I knew I could live with it. When I looked at Kerry I had no idea how he would react to certain issues. Sometimes he was a hawk, sometimes a dove, sometimes a hippie. Some of Kerry’s interviews and speeches before he went for the nomination I would have thought ‘here is a good democrat I can live with’, but again speeches are just words. When you look at Kerry’s actions and inactions in the senate it tells another story. So should I have believed what he said or what he did? Should I think he will be a different man as president then he was as a 20 year senator? Should I listen to the hawk Kerry of 1998, or was he just saying things to be in lock step with Clinton? Should I listen to the dove of primary or the moderate of the presidential campaign?

I think what many are reacting to is the fundamental belief that religion and politics should remain seperate.

The Bush stratigests purposefully played the religion card. They motivated a segment of society that views God (and the morality that God implies) to get out and vote for someone who shares their belief. The evangelical sector of America is *very* organised and *very* motivated.

I see no need to scapegoat or blame. I just sit back in awe at their determination and drive. I sit back in awe the same way I would of any special interest group that manages to tip the balance in their favour (be that the NAACP, Gay, White Supremists, Parents in need of daycare).

If anything, this has convinced me just how strong a figure God is in American politics (right or wrong). The people who are upset by this, generally speaking, just can't fathom the depth of faith many of these people have. I know I can't.

To me (and many others) God has no place in politics. This is one of the few things I am absolutely firm on when it comes to the political sphere. It toubles me to my core when I think that God will have anything to do with the direction in which *any* country will be steered.


(by the way... I AM A LIBERAL thinking and acting person... damn proud of it... but then I am Canadian so it's to be expected, isn't it)

Right - so it is a conflict of belief systems. Both sides need to comprehend that they are both battling for their beliefs. In brief, belief is always politicalized.

If I judged all conservatives by the actions of a few posters here than I, too, might have such a skewed, venomous, downright dishonest view of the polotical opposition. Thankfully, I am more honest with myself.

20+ years of propaganda HAVE made liberal a dirty word. I've always given Republicans credit for their success in redefining the political vocabulary in this country. Of course, that's had the effect of narrowing the political spectrum in this country so that the accepted bounds now stretch from centrist left to far right (ie - Coburn). The country will suffer from this paucity of viewpoints.

If honesty is so important to you than why will you never respond to the comments made about your own little piece of propaganda you call your sig? Apparently, some standards only apply to the other guy.

Yes, you know what you got with Bush. You got eight new states who now restrict all relationship rights to gay couples. No more legal right to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to be secure in the legal status of their children.

America put the minority population of homosexuality up for referendum, and the minority lost. What this country achieved between the wee hours of November 2 and 3 was the collective terrorizing of all homosexuals in america. For anyone here who knows gay people, ask them what they think of 11 states banning their union and some of the most virulent anti-gay legislators being elected to the senate. They are terrified right now, and rightfully so.

The legacy of the 2004 election, the one that gave the Republicans a larger majority among all branches of government is the oppression of homosexuals. You rode that to victory. Can you enjoy it and justify it? I see it as no better the realignment of the south to the Republican after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. That's nothing to be proud of.

We don't know everything that Kerry would have done, but it wouldn't have been to surf on this. What we just did is the antithesis of what America stands for.

I think a lot of people are getting confused, or at least are misunderstanding others.

If everyone in the country but me was christian and voted Pat Roberston into president, then whatever - it's just that any law that his administration imposes had better not be one that attempts to control my actions based on their morals or beliefs.

That's what people aren't understanding here. There are a LOT of conservative ideas that I like, but one thing about conservatives I can't stand is their constant need to try and control how others live through moral law. It makes no sense and really does go against everything this country was built upon.

And I know some goon is just WAITING to harp on this post and reply with some junk like, "Yeah, you think you should be able to murder, huh?! or Rape/steal/whatever". No.

The reality is, Bush being president won't affect *me* personally, but may affect society due to his religious beliefs influencing his decisions - especially in the area of science (stem cell research). Same for gay marriage, etc.. It's like when a black/white couple couldn't get married, that was pretty stupid. We agree now, so how is it any different for same sex? It's not.

I think we can all agree (as conservatives, liberals, etc) at this point in time that it was a good idea to stop slavery and to stop racial segregation. So... why continue the same ignorant thinking with another group of people?

Prime example of people using their beliefs to control what others do. Sorry if you don't agree, but it's wrong.

This country was founded by men who were religious and believed in god, but the foundation of this country states that no religion shall be forced on anyone else, so why do it? Why is it okay to create laws based around beliefs that one person has, but others don't?

There are certain givens that should be law, such as murder, stealing, rape, etc, but then there are items (like stem cell reasearch) that, if it wasn't for religion, would have no problems at all trying to stay afloat in our society.

Believe in whatever you want - live your life the way you want, but don't take any trivial beliefs you have and try to apply them to all of society.

*That* is the problem that most people have, not "oh, Christians suck."

Delicious post, Stopmy. You hit the nail on the head. Philosophical morality is different than social morality.

Everyone who has power takes their beliefs, trivial or not, and applies them to all of society through legislation. Why would you run on something and then not put it into action once elected? Kerry ran on a bunch of beliefs in the power and role of government as applied to individual issues (by the way, he was anti gay marriage). The problem for most of you here isn't that they are christians or that their motives are bad, its that they won.

And it isn't just the Bush people and the christians who oppose gay marriage. John Kerry does. Look at the returns on this issue. These were landslides.

As to those who think gay marriage is some sort of right, tell me where you think it is in the constitution and then let me know if you oppose all gun control and registration.

Just because it's a landslide doesn't make it right. The returns on the issues against gays wasn't just to restrict gay marriage, it was to restrict any and all rights to gay couples. 8 new states now restrict all legal rights that a gay couple could have by being a couple. No civil unions, no visitation rights in the hospital, no common property with partner inheritance rights, no rights to children in the birth parent dies.

BTW, Marriage, for straight people isn't in the constitution either.
And that argument "think gay marriage is some sort of right, tell me where you think it is in the constitution" was used to keep interracial couples from legally marrying until the late 1960's as well.

Oooh the hypocrisy! It's just as much of a right for them as it is for you. What makes you any more special, and why? Show me where in the constitution where you have the right to get married!

That's another thing I get upset about: constant contradtiction.

Now, give me one good (intelligent and coherent) reason why a gay couple shouldn't be married :) Oh, and when you do, perhaps substitute "gay couple" with "black couple" or "hispanic couple"... do you notice that it's the same idea? *gasp* There are DIFFERENT people in this country?! Whoa!

I don't oppose gun control in the slightest bit. I fully support the second amendment.

That means something - necessary to the security of a free State. You can't defend a free state with a small pistol compared to the weapons our military and police carry. I think we should be able to own an Uzi or an AK-47 if we want.

I also wonder why, just because I don't vote republican, am against Bush and against most every bit of his platform, that I am immediately assumed to be an anti-gun nut.

Odd, but an expected stereotype.

What does the right to vote have to do with getting married?

Sorry, I forgot to edit that prior to posting :)

Anyway, I know the need is strong to want to get off topic and divert attention away from an otherwise good post that will expose some ignorance, but let's try to stay on topic :)

This is another reason why so many people feel Democrats know nothing but attack, attack, attack. As a black person I am always offended, and disturbed, at gays being associated with the civil rights struggle of true minorities. There are contractual remedies in place to allow transfer of property at death, allowing hospital visits, and even child custody (although many people, including some gays, disapprove of homosexuals adopting). The main reason I voted to ban gay marriage is I feel businesses should not be forced to support relationships that cannot produce children.

Here is a liberal criticizing people (and a large section of people) for disapproving of certain actions of another group, and not wanting the government to sponsor those actions. I can only speak for myself, but I personally don't care what people do in their homes. But you cannot expect to be able to force acceptance of your BEHAVIOR on others.

That got a little off topic, but I think it helps show the mindset of alot of democrats, and why they all seem to see republicans as racist, bible-thumping evangelicalists. In their view, anyone can hold convictions as long as they agree with them, if anyone disagrees their views are obviously inferior.

But you are making a moral assumption that murder, stealing, rape, and etc. (the etc. seems to leave in room for alot, but whatever) should be outlawed. That belief is as arbitrary as any Christian's. What arguement could you make for those being outlawed that doesn't involve morals being applied to society? It isn't rediculous, so just saying that is no real arguement.

Why does this matter? I'm assuming you're talking about providing health care and whatnot? What is the difference then between a married couple who refuses to have children vs two women who (obviously) can't have children?

It's not like they're walking around having gay sex in public. Therefore, they are not forcing any acceptance of "behavior" on others. What behavior are you referring to?

And 10+ years of propaganda has been aimed at making "Christian" a dirty word.

Show me a society our country that promotes any of those and then we'll talk :thumbsup:

Those things are quite different from abortion, porn, alcohol and drugs, etc.

The meaning of that paragraph I wrote was: don't even bother comparing any of the much smaller items to something extreme like rape, murder, stealing, so on, because it just won't work.

The Civil Rights Act goes beyond what happened to blacks. You don't own it exclusively. Is homosexuality not a true minority? Why do you not think they are? They constitute only 11 percent of the population and their right to do as others do are being restricted. There CAN be contractual remedies to supplant marriage, but 8 of the 11 states that had a hate amendment on their ballot had wording in it that not only forbid gay marriage but forbid the rights to "allow transfer of property at death, allowing hospital visits, and even child custody".

Why should businesses not support relationships that cannot produce children? Some of these states amendments, first of all actually FORBID businesses from providing civil benefits for same sex partners. Also, what about an infertile couple? Can a business refuse to support that relationship too? That reasoning is whacky...

What is WRONG with their behavior? You complain about it but then say you don't care what they do in their bedroom? Wha? Gays aren't looking to take over the world, they just want some civil security, to visit their partner if they get sick, to retain custody of their children if their partner dies, to get to keep their damned house and savings if their partner dies!

Interesting and very valid points. However, both sides are guilty of attempting to impose their moral and philosophical beliefs onto others. The left is just as guilty as the right in some respects.

Which I personally don't think they should gain heath benefits either, but they have the option to have children. Honestly, I don't think any spouse should gain benefits, only children.

They are forcing people to accept same-sex relationships. They want that behaviour to be protected over other behaviours people might find objectionable. Just because sex is involved doesn't mean that it's any different than any other behavior. No other behavior set gains any special protection.

I do not understand these two statements at all :confused:


and what do you consider a "true" minority?

Many dictatorships practice these things regularly. Some would argue that America practices those principles (outside of the rape).

And some people find homosexual behavior to be "extreme" some find drugs to be "extreme", some think abortion IS murder. Simply because you have chosen those to be of small concequence and others to be extreme does not mean you are correct.

True, but the difference as I see it being.

One side is for giving people more rights

The other is for taking them away.

Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Our constitution is a list of rights that everyone is given, the only amendment which took away american rights was repealed only a few years later.

Do tell me how that's different from the civil rights blacks people.

This same argument was used them: They are forcing people to accept equal rights for blacks.

So... no one found it objectionable to allow people these rights back then?

It's the same exact thing - intolerance. The only difference here is it's based on sexual preference, not color of skin.

Anyway, I don't want to get too off topic. The things you tried to list above (murder, stealing, rape), no one wants those, and it doesn't matter who you are. Those are things that directly affect other people regardless of religion.

Things like (and these are just examples, not getting into debates here) limiting stem cell research, abortion, drugs, alcohol... all those are things that are more or less feared by those who are religious purely for religious reasons (for the most part).

It's just like I said above - live your live how YOU want to live it, but don't force me to follow your morals. I'll accept and understand them, but don't FORCE me to comply.

Things like gay marriage: it's not forcing you to become gay. It's telling you to become tolerant and accepting.

Compare that to moral laws such as "you can't look at porn" or (a favorite here in Michigan): "you can't buy beer before noon on sunday". No matter how big or small the law, it's equally as ignorant.

And interracial marriage was deemed "extreme" until the period between 1965 to 1969.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The last three things in your post can all be handled through contracts between the two parties. I have no problem with individual contracts of that nature. And the law in Michigan forbids businesses from providing benefits for same sex partners IIRC, which I also don't mind (and why I voted for it). The part about only couples with children getting benefits is part of a personal belief I have about the secular reasoning for marriage. I didn't elaborate more because it would go too far off topic.

And homosexuals are not a true minority, they are a self-created minority. By this I mean it is their personal actions by which they define themselves. I watch football. Am I now a minority because I watch football? Should I not be allowed to work on sundays, monday nights, and the occasional thursday game? I also like to dress casually, so I could be in the "slacks and polo shirt" minority. Now my employer should allow me to wear my cutlural garb, correct?

What is a "right"? Doesn't the first amendment take away a businesses' right to hire based on religion? Doesn't the 14th amendment take away a restaraunt's right to not allow blacks or jews to eat at their establishment? The ability to not do something is the same as the right to be able to do something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee And 10+ years of propaganda has been aimed at making "Christian" a dirty word.

I agree alansmithee

There is a BIG difference. Being black is not a behavior set. If I apply for a job and am not hired because I'm black, that is unfair. My race is something I cannot do anything about. But if I show up for an interview with a backwards baseball hat, baggy jeans, a t-shirt and start of saying "YO YO YO WHAT"S UP DOG!" he can certainly not hire my ignorant ass. However if that's how I present myself after hours, he cannot fire me. Point being, black (or white or mexican or any other race for that matter) does not have an active choice associated with it, I can no more stop being black than I could take off my skin. However, men can stop having sex with men and women can stop having sex with women.

And as for nobody wanting murder, rape, or stealing-there are quite a few of killers, rapists, and thieves that would probably disagree. Why are you criticising their lifestyle choice? :p

They. Have. Been. Expressly. Forbidden. To. Same. Sex. Couples.

Again, a couple who is infertile, or who chooses to not have children, they don't deserve benefits?
A homosexual couples personal actions are not a choice, they are born gay. It is hardwired in their brains to be gay. That makes them a natural minority. You watch football by choice, wear polo shirts by choice, you are an artificial minority, If I cut your leg off you become handicapped, you have become a natural minority.

What is the secular and religious reasoning for marriage? By secular I guess you mean natural, do you know that there are dozens of animals which practice homosexuality?
Did you know up until the Late Middle Ages (12th century), marriage was a personal affair? No church involved whatsoever, no prayer just the community (as witnesses). Father transfers his daughter and a dowry to ownership by the husband, they ate a meal together then went the husbands merry way.
Not quite the pomp and circumstance we have injected to it since. You can thank a fervently evangelical Catholic church at the time for everything beyond the simple transfer of ownership.

I guessing here...but its probably because a lot of people believe that the purpose for marriage is procreation....like the catholics...thats why they dont advocate birth control

Exactly, it all stems:

Genesis 38:9 "And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother."

Then God killed him. That is the basis for no birth control in the Catholic church.

Well, I haven't read all the posts here. Not enough time right now, I still how ever, want to throw in my 2 cents. I wouldn't be me other wise. I've often described myself as a conservative with anarchist tendencies. That said, I am a conservative, and even being such, Bush scares me, and that he won again scares me even more. He is just as much of a religious nut case as the suicide bombers in the Middle East. But he's one of ours, so it's ok I guess. That this man would go so far as disgrace the fucking CONSITUTION with his narrow minded, ill-founded hate makes my stomach churn. He won because of two reasons. He has the backing of the Christian fundamentalists, and a good portion of the liberals have bought into the fear propaganda being forced feed to this nation every damn day. I find myself at a massive moral dilemma these days. I took an oath to defend the constitution, against all enemies, "both foreign and domestic", but how do I defend it when what seems to be it's enemy is running the show? I just don't know anymore. Seems this country won't be happy until it's put a gun to its head and done OBL's job for him.

That's based off of your assumption that people CHOOSE to be gay. People don't just up and decide, "Shit, today is tuesday, I think I'll be GAY today!"

You are attracted to women - you are not attracted to men. Do you concsiously CHOOSE that, or is that just the way things are for you? Same thing for them.

You may feel absolutely no attraction to a man whatsoever, but in the same sense, they don't feel that way about their oppposite sex!

It's all tolerance and understanding.

Why are we stuck on this still? Hahaha :lol: It's NOT THE SAME!! Not even REMOTELY close to the points I am trying to make! Someone gay who is married has NO EFFECT on your life! Someone who walks up to your mother and shoots her in the face or forces her to have sex against her will does affect you. If you can give me a reason how it affects you that two men are married, I'll let it be.

If I have a good time with myself watching porn while smoking a joint, does that affect you?

These are the things I'm trying to get at. Personal choices, personal responsibility, amongst other things (stem cell research falling into neither category).

I know you're trying to make a point, but you're choosing the wrong examples.

Ok let's all have a big wonderful group hug. One side is as guilty as the other on different issues. The extremist minorities from both sides leave such a terrible taste in the mouths of the other that we can't ever seem to meet in the middle anymore. The people that are actually in the middle are busy defending the extreme idiots and their views are automatically lumped in with the extremist. It seems to be a "all or nothing" mentalilty, so we get nothing but gridlock. This is America folks, lets attempt to find that middle ground so everyone can live the dream of life, liberty and happiness.

It isn't a scientific proof that homosexuals are born that way. But let's assume that's true, they still have a choice to act on those feelings. The act is a choice. I start having sex with guys. Yay, i'm gay! I don't want to have sex with guys anymore. Now I'm not gay.

See, that's your problem, you still think it's a choice.

Can you tell me you could possibly find a guy hot, and that you would want to have sex with him?

Do you even know a homosexual and know the kind of rejection and hate that they have had to put up with since puberty?
Please, for the sake of america, go meet a gay man or woman.

Anyone know a member of this board who is homosexual who can come on here and at least attest that it isn't a choice?

I am attracted to women. But getting married and having sex are CHOICES I make. And it isn't even proven that gays are hardwired to be attracted to women.


Living in a society, other peoples' actions do have an affect on you. If you are smoking a joint and watching porn, someone had to provide that stuff(unless you are making porn solo and have a hydroponic lab in the basement ;) ). Being that one is illegal and the other is often associated with illegal acts or behavior that is found usually unacceptable (i'm talking more the degredation of women), society is paying a cost to allow you to have porn and weed. It might not be as direct, but they still affect other people. By purposly choosing exaggerated examples, I am trying to show that there is no absolute, and all limitations are merely a discussion of degree and none more inherently correct than the other.

I really dont understand how someone in this day and age can beleive that people simply CHOOSE to be gay. They dont just decide "I want to be gay today". They feel attracted to other men, thats just how it is. Leave them alone and let them do as they please.

Out of curiosity, do you know or are you friends with any gay people? Because I know a few, infact, I have a cousin that is gay. Its not easy for him as it is, and thinking that people will try to take away his rights, because he is wired differently, just gets me extremely angry. It can be easy for some people to THINK that people decide to become gay, seeing as they werent like that as kids usually. But the reason they dont act like that from the get go, is because they are raised to feel like Men are attracted to Women and thats just how it is. But when they realize this attraction thing people are talking about just isn't happening or doesn't feel real, thats when they might "come out of the closet" so to speak.

I have known gay people. I worked with one before, and he was a great guy. Hell, my grandfather was gay. But there is no proof that it isn't a choice. Just saying it repeatedly doesn't make it so.

I guess Matthew Sheppard was just testing the bigots to see if they would actually drag him behind a pickup truck.

Some F-ing choice.

And just because its not proven to be a choice or not, does not give us the right to tell them they cannot express their feelings for eachother, choice or not. And I fail to see how a gay couple getting married could dramatically or even insignificantly effect your life. Are you offended when you see a gay couple together? (I am really just trying to understand your stance on this)

There are other threads where this very specific issue is discussed.
This thread doesn't need to devolve into a pro/anti-gay thread.

I guess we are talking about different things when we talk about rights. I think of rights as those guaranteed by the consitution or given by legislation or made law by ballot initiative. If something isn't in the constititution and is defeated at the ballot box, you haven't lost a right just because the proper order of this government decides not to confer it upon you.

The right to marry who you want isn't in the constitution and, if defeated through an appropriate election, isn't your right. You are correct that this argument was often made to allow a state to ban interracial couples from marrying. Here's the thing. The argument was correct, the state policy was wrong. The court was wrong to change the state law. The state should have done it.

States and congress make dumb laws all the time. That doesn't change what the constitution does and doesn't say.

I don't assume that anyone here is an anti-gun nut. My experience is that most people who have broad views of the right to marry, have sex, use contraception, and other privacy issues take a very expansive view of the appropriate constuction of the constitution on those issues, but often take a very restrictive view of the right to bear arms.

I still don't know where the right to gay marriage is found in the constitution.

If it is a right and the constitution says so, what is the argument for why polygamy and marriage between cousins is not a right?

What you say is true, Evangelicals deserve representation in government as much as anyone. The flip side of the coin is that 40-50 million Evangelicals did vote to install one of their own in GWBush. Bush owes them a great political debt and he will push the Evangelical agenda. These things are given. It remains to be seen if the Evangelical agenda will be wholey accepted by the American public. Centrist Republicans made the choice to be represented by Evangelicals and have no ground for criticizing that agenda.

I hope you don't think I assumed you to be an anti-gun nut. I haven't made any such assumption. It was just a question about how broadly you think we should be construing all of the these rights we are talking about. I like the gay people I know more than guns. I just disagree with the people who tell me gay marriage is a right and having guns is not.

ii'd also like to point out that bush likely got more of the non-fundamentalist christian votes. not everyone in church thinks the universe was created in 6 days and is only 6000 years old; in fact most people don't. kerry just wasn't attractive enough to pull them away from bush. his positions were extremely nuanced and open to misinterpretation.

so liberals do need to reach out to these people. to begin, dispense with the postmodern relativism and show some backbone. bush is respected for his convictions. he believes in his actions very deeply, and his confidence is apparently attractive...surprisingly enough to make people overlook his failures. meanwhile kerry came off as a soulless politician. maybe he could do a better job as president, but people didn't see any heart until his concession speech.

important question (insulting, yes), as congress will be farther right in 2 years unless something changes...

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mi...BFB6FA0000.jpg

I posted this a couple of months ago and was called a Karl Rove cocksucker and a troll by some of the esteemed board posters. I don't think they get it yet.

Edit: On a side note, I love that picture. I hope it gets play next election, as calling a majority of the American voters dumb is a great way to help ones cause :)

It's not really the anti-evolutionists that are a concern. There is not really any desired legislation concerning evolution vs. creationism (although if you take a look at some states, which are placing Intelligent Design on equal ground with evolution, there is a concern for the future of our public schools). Rather, the resounding support for the anti-gay marriage resolutions and how they motivated people more likely to vote for Bush is where liberals are concerned.

How exactly do you propose the liberals "reach out" to those people?

This suggestion, that liberals need to reach out to these people, sounds like nothing more than "liberals need to just accept things as conservatives and fundamentalist christians want them to be".

Reach out = renounce your liberal ways.

Haven't you realized yet that it isn't the message but the delivery that's the problem? Haven't you "got it" yet? Of course, if all you see is "evil, unfair liberals" aligned against you wherever you go, you probably never will get it.

i was just pointing out that not all of bush's support came from the dreaded fundamentalists. christians with more of an open mind also voted for him. i understand evolution is not a political issue.

there is another thread about what democrats need to do to attract more people, so i won't go into too much detail. but i think that liberals need to show that they too have strong values that can be backed up bibilically if necessary. republicans don't own god, but many of them can speak about god in a genuine manner. some are simply putting up a facade, but i don't think bush is. talking about religion and faith in the blandest way possible isn't very helpful to liberals, especially when universal concepts of altruism and stewardship shouldn't offend anyone.

Only if you work at Mc Donald's, you haven't washed your hands and you give me Mcnuggets instead of the Big Mac I ordered. :lol: Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on.

To those who think rights come from the constitution and who are religious, I point you to something you may have heard in school before (although I think you probably forgot about it):

All men and women are created equal, and God gives them their rights, not YOU, not the constituion. AMONG these rights are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

What is the american dream? A goal of happiness. It usually involves getting a job, getting married, a good job, having kids, growing old with the hope that your hard work will help your decendants.

Gays have been denied the right to happiness by these states banning their ability to get married, (probably adopt), and pass on their earnings when they die.

Your country declared its independance from a religious tyrant. Why do you elect one? Why do you want to be one?


Note: I said God gives rights for your benefit. I don't actually believe in some particular God.

I'm unclear what y'all mean when you say we are "scapegoating" evangelicals. Did they not vote for Bush in large numbers? Do they not (mostly) support gay marriage bans? Prayer in schools? Etc.

Evangelicals supported Bush and expect help from him in appointing more conservative SC justices (goodbye Roe v. Wade), passing an anti-gay marriage amendment, etc. What about this is scapegoating? It is self-evidently true.

Sure, some people do not fit that profile but voted for Bush nonetheless. (God only knows why, but so what? It's not the issue at hand.) But my discomfort with the evangelicals (based on their political aims, which I disagree with -- I couldn't care less what they want to believe in their own homes) is completely rational. And the fact that Bush is their boy is a good reason for me to be leary of him.

I AM A LIBERAL!!!!!

I thought that might make you feel better. :thumbsup:

If what you want in leadership is simplicity, you got it. I prefer a more, to use the hot word of this election, "nuanced" approach to leadership. I approve of changing tactics when the facts changes. I often get the impression that conservatives don't like to think too much about issues, they just want an easy, simple answer. They cannot seem to grasp that the world is indeed a complicated place where actions have consequences. I am sure that is not necessarily true, but that is often how it seems. It really is the only reason I can come up with as to why so many people voted to continue the Bush Administration.

The document you quoted is the Declaration of Independance. That document at it's core nothing but a puffed-up propaganda piece, and has no basis in American, nor any other countries' law. And the author was such a noble-minded person that he held 100's of slaves, of which he fathered children with, and could not be bothered to be present in the country for the formation of the legal document, the Constitution.

Boy, that's one screwed up view of Jefferson. Did you know that he wrote the first draft of the Virginia constitution and in it he made slavery illegal? That's not to say that he was racially "sensitive" in modern terms, but he was less conflicted than most of the other founding fathers. As for the "could not be bothered to attend" crack, he was serving abroad at the time...they didnt have 767s or transAtalantic cables back then, you know.

Just out of curiosity, when did King George III become a religious tyrant?

Is this more politico-historical revisionism?


Mr Mephisto

The couldn't be bothered to attend crack was a little low ;). But given the choice to not own slaves, he decided to own them. He was probably the most brilliant man to serve as president, but he was also the biggest hypocrite. One of my personal pet peeves is hypocracy. And when he is known most for his high-minded beliefs in liberty while he held slaves, he comes out a big hypocrite to me.

Kings are by definition religious. And the declaration of independance refers to him as a tyrant several times. I don't know when he became one, probably when he was crowned.

(sorry for the language)

Why do ideals like "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness" have to be in a document like the constitution for them to ring true for some people? They shouldn't even have to be written down. These are things that EVERY person in this country should hold true. And regardless of them being "law" or not, this country was founded on these Ideals. These ideals are what make this such a great place to live.

Some of the opinions i've seen in this thread give me a feeling of deep sadness and loss of hope for our future. We are never going to go anywhere if shit like this is even an issue. In the whole scope of things, what the fuck does it matter if two people of the same sex get married or not? The Bible may disagree with same sex relationships, but guess what, a lot of people dont follow the Bible and you have NO RIGHT to force your religious views onto someone else.

And I hope people realize this post is about more than just same sex marriages.

Fuck Presidents, Fuck Government (meaning they should be irrelivant on these points, not that we shouldn't have them), this is OUR country. We are fucking it up and have no one to blame but ourselves. Its because of our division and lack of respect for eachother AND other countries that shit like 9/11 can happen.

We as a people are so fucking arrogant and full of ourselves that we completely forget there is an entire universe out there, and we are a speck of dust that means nothing. All we can do is sit back and enjoy the small amount of time we have here. People think about trivial issues way too much and I really hope we can all get past them at some point, or there is no hope for us.

I hope you will reflect on life after reading this and REALLY think about whats important.

Please no one take this as a personal attack (though I dont really see how someone could...). Anyway, I hope my point came through ok, thats all that matterd in this post.

Oh, and the quote in my sig fits nicely with this post.

rukkyg,
Kings are not "by definition" religious.

he may have worded it poorly, but rukkyg is correct in what I interpretted him to mean.

kings ruled by divine right in Europe during the disputed time period that being the time frame rukkyg is referring to--although it may be more accurate to say that George 3 was trying to create a modern equivalent to DROK. I don't know anymore, maybe I'm just tired of people parsing shit so thin it becomes meaningless to speak to one another. maybe that was art's intention, after all. hell, I'm done rambling.


edits in bold for clarification. better roachboy?

the divine right theory of kingship is a function of the development of absolutist monarchy. it is a 17th century invention. you might think of it as an early expression of the ideology of nation-state.

before that, the relation of kingship to "god" was more variable.
one extreme might be charlemagne...you can see the entire theory of kingship in the layout of the cathederal in aachen. but there was no split between the king and nobility in kind for him.

another might be henri 4.

either way, it is not correct to equate all conceptions of kingship with divine right.
sorry.

Whether your rights come from God or space monkeys, your rights in this country are enumerated in the Constitution. Your government is soverign and has the power to make laws criminalizing certain behavior and activity. To simply assume you have rights not enumerated that cannot be infringed upon by the majority through legislation or ballot initiative doesn't really move the ball as far as the discussion goes. It is a fair question to ask where is the right that you assume to exist found in the Constitution.

linky

prej·u·dice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds)
n.

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

This gate swings both ways.

Please in no way take this as an attempt to single anyone out. I believe this is the sad state of political discourse nationwide at the moment. My personal feelings are that it stems from the "news" shows and even more from the pseudo-news shows where debate and discussion have been replaced by rhetoric and even worse, the snazzy one-liner to get the crowd to cheer.

I feel conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Used to be I would have been respected for taking issues as seperate matters as I approach them. Now I get the distinct impression I'm a fucking idiot in the eyes of at least half of the people who hear me.

-sad fibber


-fibber

I blame the daily show.

heh sorry if anyone thought I meant the daily-show in that context, I'm trying to refer to the "pundit" shows as pseudo-news. The one where they slap your party affiliation on-screen with your name before you can speak.


-fibber

I knew what you meant. It was Stewart's somewhat similar complaint on Crossfire that pushed him over the line from funny to annoying in my book--not that your post wasn't both funny and unannoying. I think there is some similarity, when a show just presents the polar opposites, it gives a skewed view. When a comedy show just presents one skewed view over and over, it ceases to be funny.

I think this is an excellent thread. There has been a lot of good discussion and points raised.

I still think it's funny that the left still wants to "scapegoat" the loss, if not on the Christians, then on the so-called "sleepy liberals" who didn't get out and vote. That mindset is still condecending to the outcome of the election. Basically, they still want to believe that they are in the majority, but just couldn't get their people to show up. We saw turnout in record numbers all over this country. One precinct in my county had 88% turnout. Just once, I would love for a liberal to at least consider the possibility that they TRULY ARE IN THE MINORITY right now.

Seriously, there has been a saying on the hill for quite some time among Republicans that the Democrats feel ENTITLED to govern and when they lose it's a travesty because the views of the "true majority" aren't represented.