You have to wonder about the wisdom contained in any post which starts with the statement “I’ve always enjoyed LaShawn Barber’s blog,” but Dean Esmay has a great piece up on what he calls the Hate America Right:
But here’s a news-flash for the dour “America sucks” conservatives: the divorce rate is down, not up. Illegitimacy is down, not up. The “free love” movement ended over 20 years ago. Single motherhood is viewed as either an unfortunate situation or is outright frowned on by most of society and is on the decline. And sexually transmitted diseases are less of a problem today than when our grandparents were young.
Also, isn’t there something just a wee bit hypocritical about conservatives who angrily rail against abortion, and yet also angrily rail against single motherhood? So what do you want: to continue to stigmatize women who get into unfortunate circumstances so they’ll feel they have to run and get abortions? Or will you do more to support them and help them when this happens to them rather than condemning them as vile fornicators?
Or is the answer just “people should have less out of wedlock sex?” But you know, it’s a lie to say that didn’t exist until this generation. As I’ve noted, there were hundreds of thousands of syphilitics in FDR’s America. Where do you think they came from? Toilet seats?
Read it all.
ppGaz
Good grief, John, are you going to go on record as the only intelligent person in America who didn’t know that most of the “pro-life movement” is actually a cover for the Sex Police?
A lot of us have known that for at least 30 years. Most of the “pro-life” crowd doesn’t give a fuck about life. What they care about is controlling life, mostly other peoples’. Hasn’t the reign of the Dobsonites taught you anything?
Krista
I do think it’s quite rich that a lot of the more strident pro-life politicians are also anti-contraceptives. It makes me want to bang my head against the wall. I can’t even express how incredibly stupid and shortsighted and obtuse that is. There isn’t a whole lot that drives me into a rage, but that makes the shortlist.
KC
That was a great read.
Nikki
Why is the filed under Republican Stupidity? I would think that whatever that idiot LaShawn Barber (shudder) wrote to inspire this column (or rather everything she writes) would fall under this category, but, though I didn’t agree with everything he said, Esmay’s piece definitely does not fit there.
JonBuck
Krista:
My thoughts exactly. It really bothers me that the same group of people who are so against abortion often equally abhor birth control. Talk about having a plank in your eye.
Defense Guy
I hate America, but only the self loathing liberal commie baby killing half of it. The sexually repressed no gay marriage minority hating half is what made this country great.
I abhor abortion, but not birth control.
docG
A quote from songwriter Butch Hancock, originally of Lubbock, Texas (the buckle of the Bible Belt) on the two things he learned as a child:
“One is, God loves ya and he’s gonna send ya to hell. The other is that sex is dirty and evil and nasty and filthy and sinful and bad and awful and you should save it for the one you love.”
Krista
JohnBuck – I think the thing that pisses me off the most about it is that most of these people who are against both abortion AND birth control, are also against any kind of subsidized daycare, which would help unwed mothers hold down jobs and not have to be on social assistance. Their stupidity and arrogance and lack of empathy is directly contributing to the very issue that they claim to be against. If they had one brain amongst the bunch of them, they’d realize that affordable, accessible contraceptives are certainly the lesser “evil”, and would go a long way towards ensuring that fewer women will ever have to even consider abortion.
Grrr…..oh, that just makes my blood boil.
TallDave
One of Dean’s best efforts, I thought.
Any coders out there, be sure to catch the vi bit he linked to.
Mike
ppGaz Says:
“A lot of us have known that for at least 30 years. Most of the “pro-life” crowd doesn’t give a fuck about life.”
And you know this because…?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
John S.
Because the Pro-Life crowd also usually favors the death penalty. Therefore, it is a matter of simple deduction. If the ‘pro-life’ crowd is also ‘pro-death’ (so long as it isn’t a fetus), then obviously their label is a misnomer, they are hypocrites or their motives are precisely as ppGaz described.
srv
Would I be the first to suggest that the Republican Stupidty category be renamed “Republicanism”?
jobiuspublius
Finally, some sanity.
Mike S
So funny that I thought it should be read twice.
quackquack
I am agree with many of the assertions set forth here, but doesn’t this seem a bit simplistic? How can a set of bacterial diseases be more of a problem than some of those nasty viruses going around? I am no medical authority, but I believe that since World War II, penicillin has been known to be an actual cure for syphilis.
This, however is an amusing inside (my head) joke:
Indeed it did Dean. Indeed it did.
quackquack
Please strike the “am” from “I am agree”. I am not a simp, I simply haven’t slept in a while. And yes, you eggheads, I know that there is a “Preview” section below.
Mr Furious
srv: LOL!
Krista: Right you are!
Defense Guy: Going for one of those posts where I hope you’re joking?
Ay, and of course there’s the old “Michael Moore hates America” canard… get some new material guys. Otherwise, a pretty good read.
Gamer
John S.,
Speaking as a person who is pro-choice and pro-death penalty (that’s me, charter member of the party of death), I see it as a big problem that there is a presumed equivalence between the fetus and a condemned killer. What you see as a contradiction arises when a person places their dedication to the idea of justice over that of life.
Mike
John S. Says:
“Because the Pro-Life crowd also usually favors the death penalty. Therefore, it is a matter of simple deduction. If the ‘pro-life’ crowd is also ‘pro-death’ (so long as it isn’t a fetus), then obviously their label is a misnomer, they are hypocrites or their motives are precisely as ppGaz described.”
Wrong Answer.
I’m not gonna get into a debate on abortion or the Death Penalty with you, but in one case we are talking about the innocent who have never had a chance one way or the other to do right or wrong. In the other case we are talking about the guilty who DID have such a choice, and chose to perform some suitably heinous crime. I hope you can tell the difference.
John S.
What I see as a contradiction arises from those Pro-Lifers that cite the Bible or religion as the source of their notions for being against abortion. If the teachings of Jesus were really what motivated them, then they would have to also be against the death penalty. One cannot pick and choose which portions of the Bible they agree with depending on the circumstances.
What I see as a big problem are people who are hypocrites, and attempt to hijack the Holy Scriptures in a feeble effort to define their quasi-Christian ponts of view. If you are pro-choice and pro-execution, then at least your views are consistent, and I have no quarrel with you.
John S.
Mike-
I’m sorry if you don’t like answers that shake the foundations of your flawed notions.
Of course you won’t.
The bottom line is if you cite the Bible as the source of your moral compass, then you would have to be pro-life all the way. If you see God’s law as applicable only to innocent fetuses and not applicable to adults who have sinned (which includes everyone), then the difference you see is merely a poor understanding of the teachings of the Bible.
Tim F
Actually for some time many anti-abortion activists also opposed the death penalty, particularly in Catholic circles. That nuance is lost today because the Movement Conservatives such as Mike practically own the public discourse.
John S.
As well they should. Nice to see somebody actually reads the book they put so much stock into.
demimondian
Yeah, there was this guy, Karel Wojtyl, who talked like that a lot. Who’d a thunk that a pro-lifer would oppose the War or Terra in Iraq!
John S.
LOL
Good one.
Ancient Purple
Yes, I can tell the difference. However, if you are a Christian, that difference is irrelevant. The mandate of Christianity says nothing about executing criminals and sinners as a panacea to solve societal ills.
Or are you suggesting that Christ would have been more than happy to throw the switch?
Darrell
Amen.
Not at all. The commandment “thou shalt not kill” in the bible is actual an misleading translation from the original Hebrew word “ratsach” which translates into killing without cause, an entirely different animal.
Source
That some of you leftists actually equate the justifiable execution of vicious murderers with the abortion of innocents demonstrates how warped you truly are
Charlie (Colorado)
You’re missing the “when our grandparents were young” part. When my grandparents were young at least — say 1910 to 1930 — syphilis was a dread disease, disfiguring, with increasing disability and dementia in its tertiary stage, and commonly terminal. The only treatment was essentially protracted mercury poisoning; worse, it was something that could be asymptomatic, so someone could have contracted it and not know it. (This is why most states started requireing a blood test, specifically a Wassermann test for syphilis, before issuing a marriage license.) The fact that penicillin could cure syphilis, and do so quickly and almost instantly, is one fo the reasons it was considered such a miracle drug.
So, well, that’s how.
Defense Guy
Mr. Furious
Yes, joke. I really hate all of it and love it with all my heart. I abhor abortion, but not those who have had them or even those who have performed them.
I am torn on the death penalty, but could live with life imprisonment without parole.
If pro-life is a rather inapt naming, than should pro-choice be referred to as pro-killing your unborn child? Too wordy?
John S.
Darrell-
What a deceptive character you are…first of all, if you are a CHRISTIAN then you are to follow the teachings of Jesus found in the new testament – not adhere to the Jewish teachings found in the old testament. Second, I would like to see you refute Jesus’s own words regarding capital punishment:
It seems pretty clear that in the case of the woman who was found guilty of committing a capital offense (adultery), that Jesus was against her execution – not for it.
Mac Buckets
I didn’t think much of Dean’s piece, actually. I thought the notion of the Hate America Right, while at first blush shocking and clever, was weakly thought. Granted, if anyone feels that God is currently striking down America because of its wickedness (and I’m sure that’s not limited to the Right as Esmay indicates), then they’ve got some reading to do.
I think where he gets wrongfooted is that the Hate America Left (as he defines it and believes it exists) is the only side which would actively hate and seek to change “America” (as defined by representative government and capitalism), while the Hate America Right (as he defines it) largely loves “America” (the nation defined by representative government and capitalism) but hates certain sexual attitudes which happen to be practiced in America, as well as much of the rest of the world. I don’t think the pro-life Right feels abortions are just fine, as long as they happen in Mexico. I feel safe in saying that they are against the behavior, not the structure of the actual country.
If opposing widely-held American moral stances or legal principles defines you as an America-hater, then we’re a country full of them. By this wild definition, wouldn’t moderates who seek drugs legalization or despise the death penalty be called the “Hate America Moderates?”
To put it another way, Dean seems to be saying that America’s current sexual attitudes are as much a part of “America” the country as democracy and capitalism are. I think that’s silly to assert and impossible to prove.
John S.
Some other views held by Christians:
Sounds like a good case for execution to me.
quackquack
True Charlie. But my grandparents were young after that and he specifically mentions “FDR syphilitics”. I guess it is a matter of perspective. Does this mean though that syphilis is (or I should say was)worse than say, HIV(which is also asymptomatic)is? At best I think that it is comparing apples and oranges, at worst the Flintstones and the Jetsons (no offence meant to you older people).
Another interesting point: it may have been asymptomatic for some but some may have been forced into denial as a “symptom” of shame.
Though I think the right is ridiculous sometimes, I feel that we have lost some shame. Yes, a lot of the ills of our
nation are more complex than this but have you ever stopped to think about what sometimes makes one who was once poor, rich? Once fat, slim? Once greedy, a philanthropist?
Darrell
JohnS, are you really so incredibly stupid as to believe that Christians are NOT to adhere to the old testament?? That is what you wrote, is it not?
Slides enlarged ego
Don’t even get me started on moderates. Anyone who can’t take a side with the extremists, I have no use for. Ship em all of to Eurabia says I.
Jew #1: I think he said ‘Blessed are the meak’
Jew #2: The meak?!? There the problem they are.
(from memory)
John S.
Darrell-
Like I said, you are an exceptionally deceptive character. Let me spell it out clearly so that you cannot distort what I am saying.
Christians follow the teachings of Christ. These are found in the new testament. Therefore, to cite the old testament as a basis for the teachings of Jesus is erroneous.
This is not to say that the old testament is irrelevant. Jesus himself said he came to uphold the old laws, not replace them. However, a good number of Jesus’s principles do contradict certain notions found in the old testament (such as the ‘eye for an eye’ scripture).
Therefore, if you want to call yourself a Christian, then Jesus’s teachings are the final word, not the old testament. If you think the torah trumps Jesus, then call yourself a Jew.
Or are you so incredibly stupid as to not understand the fundamental difference between the two religions, or even understand which views you adhere to?
ppGaz
Because I watch them and listen to them and read them, and I know what they really think, because they will tell you.
There are a thousand examples available, but just for obvious starters:
1) What does the ugly and disgusting Schiavo spectacle earlier this year have to do with respect for “life?”
2) What does trying to control sexuality and how people decide to construct their families have to do with respect for “life”?
To me, respect for life begins with respect for people (who are living, you see) and letting them live as they see fit. Letting them make their own choices and control their own destinies.
The “values” crowd is all about the opposite of respect, they are about disrespect for anything but their own preferences. They are intolerant, and they use faux morality as a club to browbeat others into submission.
Then, when you fight back, they accuse YOU of being intolerant and unreasonable.
They must be given no quarter. They have declared war on half of their own country, so I say, “Fine. You want a war, you got a war.” If they want peace, they can ask for it. But as long as they ask for war, I intend to give them what they ask for. War. No quarter. No compromise, not an inch of ground.
What did they think would happen when they declared war on their own country? Flowers and music? Fuck ’em, and the horses they rode in on.
ppGaz
You have no idea.
Harry Atkinson
From the new AP Poll: By an 8-point margin, voters are more likely to call themselves Democrats. For the first time, senior Republican consultants and lawmakers are warning the White House that Bush’s base is perilously close to deserting him.
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans can disapprove of Bush’s job performance ..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katrina_bush_ap_poll
StupidityRules
Ok, you can’t kill your unborn baby according to the Bible. But don’t despair. Wait some years until he becomes a teenager and then kill he or she claiming that he/she was disobedient.
If you cherrypick from the Bible you’ll go straight to hell.
Don
Saying “I’m not going to talk to you” and then following up with a few minutes of talking is hard to take seriously. Or did you mean you’d take the time to put forth your position and then refuse to listen to anyone else’s?
Doug
Don’t you get it? Jesus was a hippie-freak America-hater. I don’t think a Conservative Jesus would like what his long-haired counterpart did to the money changers in the Temple. Certainly a Conservative Jesus would never have said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Supply-side Jesus, (Caution, link is to Buzzflash) on the other hand, is the True Jesus.
Darrell
John S. wrote:
Here you accuse me of being “deceptive”, yet you are such a dishonest sack of shit that you insert words into my mouth which were NEVER said, written, or implied. I never cited the old testament as the basis for the teachings of Jesus you moron. Never said it. you simply made that up.
Yes, you * really are * that stupid. No surprise you’re a leftist
Doug
Many Right-to-Lifers seem to be in favor of a right to life without rights.
John S.
I believe the Bible itself ends on that note:
Also, it is worth mentioning that all your quotes come from the old testament – which by far is more ‘fire and brimstone’ then the ‘love thy neighbor’ new testament.
quackquack
Darrell
The correct word is not “stupid” but it may be “naive”. I think that we all select to become naive to those things that we find to be contrary to our own views. I see in the national debate, especially when it comes to religion, both sides (and I mean BOTH)will pick their own philosophies out of scripture to justify their position, which is fine with me as I see religion as being a set of philosophical beliefs that can become totalitarian if taken as a whole by those who adhere to it, but individually enlightening and enriching if people take out of it some sort of positive (at least to the individual) outlook on life.
John S.
Darrell-
This is the portion of the programme where you are proven to be a liar and then summarrily dismissed from further interaction:
I suppose when you blockquoted this statement:
And then responded to it with this:
I suppose that wasn’t you citing the old testament in reference to explaining how the teachings of Jesus should be interpreted?
Uh-huh.
Tim F
ppGaz, baby Jesus thanks you for not dragging us back into that debate.
Mike S
If I’m reading this right, you seem to be saying that the “hate America” right doesn’t want to change America. To say that you have to ignore the Christian Exodus crowd who want a govenment based on the bible. Or Randall Terry who said.
Of course if someone on the left were say they want to “conquer this country” the right who so loves this country and doesn’t want to change it would label it treasonous. When someone from the right does it they are still able to get congress to run to their side.
Funny that.
John S.
Quackquack-
Would you please explain how me thinking that being pro-lfe and pro-death penalty are in direct conflict with each other from a Christian perspective (based on what is actually written in the Bible) is a naive point of view?
StupidityRules
John S, well it seems that most people who wants make parts of the Bible into law stopped reading after the Old Testament…
And thanks for Revelations 22:18-19.
jobiuspublius
A cartoon:
This Modern World
Bush, Cheney Actually Radical Leftists
by Tom Tomorrow
September 20th, 2005 11:53 AM
quackquack
John S.-
I never said that that particular view was naive. I was only commenting on the general direction of the conversation. If you read my whole post, you would see that I said that BOTH sides use scripture to justify their views.
Steve S
It is a good point. Every time conservatives whine about the end of America… We end up doing better than ever.
Compared to Liberals, who generally end up being right. :-(
John S.
quackquack-
That is why I was seeking clarification for your overly generalized statement, as I was uncertain as to whom it pertained to.
But specifically, do you find a pro-life stance to be inconsistent with a pro-death penalty stance based on moral grounds?
jobiuspublius
quackquack
John S-
What moral grounds?
I suppose that you want to see where my dog is in this so that you can give him a treat or kick him?
I wouldn’t give any of you that satisfaction. In fact, I hope that all of you yahoos damn me to hell on different “moral grounds”.
ppGaz
You must have satellite. I have cable, there’s no Baby Jesus channel.
I do get the Jesus H. Fucking Christ channel, though.
quackquack
Sorry about that outburst. I have done little to expound on my original point which is that we all stand on different moral grounds.
I make general statements because they are the least authoritarian (imagine that!).
Mac Buckets
Dean wasn’t defining the Hate America Right as the theocracy freaks (and yes, I ignored them, too, because they just aren’t a significant movement).
I don’t think that even Terry would have a problem with this theocratic notion being called “treasonous.”
Mike S
What planet do you live on?
Huh? Are you saying that Randal Terry would call Randall Terry Treasonous?
jobiuspublius
Did someone say Jesus? Well, then, you need to hear from his general, Jesus’s General.
John S.
quackquack-
Err, yeah…
I prefer the grounds I stand on to be firm, rather than ever shifting. Possibly with some nice golf course grass on top.
That’s all I’m saying.
Vladi G
Ahh, I see more people are coming to the realization that Darrell is a serial liar.
Although I’m beginning to think that maybe he’s just a total moron. Probably both.
Darrell
Dean makes some good points, but anything from the ‘Hate America Right’ even remotely equivalent to the vermin on the ‘Hate America Left’? How about this?
Mike S
I consider myself more of a member of the “hate stupid people, left.” Whenever I need a reminder of who that describes, I come to Balloon Juice and search out one of Darrell’s comments.
Worls every time.
Com Con
Another thing: if Jesus was so peaceful as the leftos say, then how is it that he was also the mightiest warrior of ancient times. Doesn’t that seem a little contradictory to you?
ppGaz
I don’t really hate people like Darrell. What I hate is having to share a country with people like Darrell. If they all lived on an island somewhere, I could appreciate them as funny little potatoheaded people with their funny little potatoheaded ways. Margaret Meade might have written about them.
But knowing that they are right here, in my own neighborhood, and unliked registered offenders, their exact locations are not known. They could be …. anywhere.
It’s quite scary.
goonie bird
The hate america left hollywoods full of them NUKE HOLLYWOOD
Com Con
You just say that because you don’t agree with him. He makes a lot of good points and all you people do is mock him.
John S.
I’m sorry, Jesus was a warrior?
What Trinity Broadcasting station did you hear that whopper on?
Com Con
He defeated an entire Roman legion with only his staff. None of them were killed or hurt badly, but all of the fled.
Mike S
I think he may have meant Inigo Montoya.
John S.
Indulge me…what scripture discusses this event that you are referring to?
Also, might not your original assertion of Jesus as a “mighty warrior” be a bit off the mark? It seems to contradict the very definiton of warrior as one engaged in battle or warfare if he never engaged anyone in combat.
StupidityRules
Yes, Jesus was the mightiest warrior of ancient times. Sadly the loony left removed all information about his feats about 1600 years ago. For instance the parts about him wandering in the desert has been altered, what he actually did during that time was killing Arabs. Lots of Arabs.
demimondian
Oh, but Com Con is absolutely right. Jesus was one of the greatest warriors of ancient times. That’s why he led the revolt that drove the Romans out of Judea during the time of Pilate, then succeeded him as ruler of all Israel.
His marital prowess was prove with Mary Magda…oh, sorry, we’re talking about “martial prowess”.
His martial prowess was proved when he stood in the Garden of Gesthemane, and, with just his bare hands, ruptured the spleens of the decade which had been sent to take him, before he marched, juggling their swords, to confront, terrorize, and rout the century which had previously oppressed the Jews in their homeland.
Unfortunately, the leftos of the Council of Nicea were a bunch of winps, and relegated the great tales of all those manly, red-blooded exploits to the fires, leaving us with only a wimpy and uninspiring Savior to follow.
Tim F
I gots me my own religion, thank you very much, and unless you ever cheerleaded for the Cowboys, or you’re me, you’re going to Hell along with everybody else.
Krista
Wow…I’ve been away for a few hours, and somehow, the conversation has digressed from a woman’s right to control her own reproductive organs, to an argument about scripture.
Impressive.
demimondian
Krista
No, really, the topic hasn’t changed. What you saw as a discussion of reproductive and human rights was a cover for a discussion of whether a small minority could read their Bibles into our lives. That topics carries through, with the usual twist: whose Bible?
Krista
Demimondian – nice summary. I’m very much of the opinion that if you want to live your life by a certain value system, be it from the Bible, the Koran, or Dr. Seuss, then that’s your business and if it brings you happiness, then I’m happy for you. However, do not impose your value system on me, thank you very much.
John S.
Fiction can be fun.
Meanwhile back on the ranch…
The scriptural portion of tonight’s programme evolved from the inconsistency of the views people seem to have when basing their moral compass on certain religious works.
At the end of the day, people don’t read – and that gets them into a world of trouble. Especially when you’re trying to base your morality on “Horton Hears a Who”, and you haven’t even cracked the spine.
DougJ
This may not amuse anyone but me but I fondly recall a David Letterman top ten list of “Banned Dr. Seuss books”. Number three was “Horton Hire a Ho.”
Sojourner
Actually, Jesus was a Socialist.
Tim F
The fundamental question centers on whether a scripturally-based person can both oppose abortion and support the death penalty.
On the liberal side the answer is pretty clearly no because the New Testament leaves the Ultimate punishment up to god. On the conservative side Mike answers in the affirmative without actually quoting scripture (bad Mike!) while com con claims that Jesus was really Steven Seagal. It’s not clear whether being Steven Seagal (or, as some would have it, Inigo Montoya) justifies the death penalty since the Romans apparently ran away after seeing the Son of God’s kung-fu skills, but there it is. It’s also not clear that this segment actually made it into any modern translations of the Bible but I’m giving com con the benefit of the doubt.
demimondian
Subtle. Very subtle.
(Then again, I was unaware of that particular passage of the synoptics myself. But the Lord spake unto me, and, lo, mine eyes were opened. Or something like that.)
DougJ
I wonder if the passage Com Con referred to is in those Gnostic Gospels everyone is always talking about. I also wonder if Mel Gibson will make a movie of the passage.
demimondian
You know, I’m going to challenge this notion.
There are parts of my value system which you very much want me to impose on you. I would assume, for instance, that you’d perfer me to impose my belief that romantic partnership does not entail the right to batter. That’s quite a modern notion, and it’s certainly a moral value, even if it has a pragmatic basis. I would also assume that you’d prefer me to impose my belief that morals which belong in law need a measurable, pragmatic basis. That’s an incredibly modern assumption, and the fact that it seems to work is hardly _a priori_ justification.
demimondian
He’s allegedy already working on remake of _The Passion of the Christ_. I gather he’s planning on taking a rather more…generous…interpretation of “passion” this time out.
ppGaz
Com con is the new DougJ.
DougJ
Passion II: The Resurrection.
It’ll kill at the box office.
DougJ
Speaking of which, has any of you ever listened to Christian radio. Not the fire-and-brimstone stuff, the poppy music stuff. I defy you to listen to it for fifteen minutes and not come to the conclusion that civilization is coming to an end.
John S.
Yes, I’m thinking something along the lines of The Running Man, with Jesus playing Ben Richards and the Jews playing Damon Killian. Pilate would be an awesome Captain Freedom.
demimondian
You could have ended that sentence with the word minutes.
DougJ
The beauty part is that Jesus could use his divine powers to bulk up without using steroids.
demimondian
I hear that he’s working on a prequel, too: _The Passion of the Christ, Part I_: An immaculate conception. It’s going to be strictly high concept. The future Savior will be discovered by three members of an obscure sect of astrologers, and he’s taken away by these mystics and visionaries on a journey of the mind, in which his hidden powers are revealed, and he learns his future destiny.
srv
You know, it would be really fascinating to see the New Testament portrayed in a movie compliant with pop-Christianity.
ppGaz
Does life begin at immaculate concpetion?
Ancient Purple
By all means, please list the scriptural reference for this. I am dying to see where Jesus takes on a Roman legion.
Boronx
My problem with Jesus is that if a virgin were to get pregnant, the baby would be genetically a female.
Was Jesus a cross dresser?
Are we going to see on the screen some day the inspiring tale of a young woman struggling to make something of her self in the patriarchical society of Judea 33 A.D, and just maybe save the world along the way?
Boronx
He defeated an entire Roman legion with only his staff. None of them were killed or hurt badly, but all of the fled.
I would give anything to here Bush reference that verse in earnest in a network televised speech.
Krista
Ooh…good point. I was wondering whether or not to include the legal aspect in my original posting. Of course, if someone’s moral values allow for the killing of innocents or the mugging of old ladies, then yes, at that point there has to be some imposition. It comes down to the right of the individual vs. the greater good.
So let me rephrase: I’m very much of the opinion that if you want to live your life by a certain value system, be it from the Bible, the Koran, or Dr. Seuss, then that’s your business and if it brings you happiness, then I’m happy for you. However, if I am acting within the law, and my actions are not harming you, then do not impose your value system on me, thank you very much.
Slides stalking victim
Krista
Would it be imposing my moral value system to simply inform others that they are going to burn in Satans playground while demons rip the flesh from their bones for all eternity, all while they feel the absolute despair of being shut off from G-d’s love? In addition would it be wrong to point out that if you died a sinner today, Satan would never allow you to find out what’s in that stupid hatch on Lost tonight? Or is that merely passing along some information?
Just wondering.
Ancient Purple
Of course not. Evangelize and witness to the people all your little heart desires.
However, it is not the place of the government to punish me for masturbating or breaking out the whips and chains when I have sex during a one night stand after drinking copious amounts of alcohol preceded by a gluttonous banquet of food fit for a king, all the while saying that it is solely to make me understand that the government simply doesn’t want me to “burn in Hell.”
Vladi G
You’re talking about a virgin getting pregnant, and your only issue with that is that they get the genetic part of the science wrong? You’re like one of those people who didn’t like Star Wars because they get the gravity wrong on the death star.
Slides colon
Thank G-d you don’t live in a country like that. However, should something untoward happen during your quest for the greater lust and gluttony, neither should the government be required to pay for fixing your broken ass. Capice?
Sinner, don’t you know you’ll go blind doing that?
Krista
An example of what I am talking about is would be a pharmacist who refuses to fill a woman’s prescription for birth-control pills, because it conflicts with his/her morality.
Cyrus
Mac Buckets Says:
Claiming that the “hate America” groups on the left and on the right are similar is ridiculous. Liberals that complain about problems with America, very roughly speaking, blame it on the people in charge. Right-wingers that complain about problems with America blame it on people who are already marginalized and stigmatized (damn, sorry to use that word in this thread…) Argue all you want about liberal policy ideas, but the two attitudes aren’t even remotely comparable.
This kind of thing makes me want to spend my entire workday at thesaurus.com trying to find the most forceful way in English to say “incorrect.” Those on the left who “hate and seek to change” representative government and capitalism (I assume you mean “get rid of,” because if not there’s no content to your statement at all) are a state college professor, some two-bit punk rockers and diehard “Fight Club” fans. Those on the right who hate and seek to change representative government are the Constitution Party, Operation: Rescue, the 700 Club, and a dozen similar groups. To put it another way, do you have the slightest bit of evidence of what you’re saying, or are you just making shit up?
You’re absolutely right, but calling them the Hate Modernity-Diversity-Sexuality-and-Science Right is too long and unwieldy.
I bring all that up because you conveniently ignored big chunks of what the HMDSS Right talks about, like blaming the looting and anarchy in New Orleans on black culture, a mentality of victimhood and dependence, and claiming every major disaster was God’s punishment for tolerating homosexuality.
About %40 of America votes, depending on the election. About %80 of America practices non-procreative sex, to pull a statistic out of my ass. Therefore, I assert that sodomy is twice as American as democracy. /snark
More seriously – America is the people in it. It might not fit in your view of the world, but homosexuals and single mothers are Americans too, whether you like them or not.
Ancient Purple
Ah, so your morality is actually tied to keeping your taxes low. Kudos.
Perhaps, but at least I will be blind with a very huge smile on my face.
Krista
E-zactly. Ignorance is bliss, so maybe these people figure that if the gays, and unwed mothers, (and anybody who isn’t white, Christian and prosperous) are given a hard enough time, maybe they’ll return back into the hidden fringes of society, and be hushed up like before. And then they won’t have to waste their beautiful minds looking at all of that unpleasantness. But that’s not going to happen.
W.B. Reeves
I too would dearly love to have Comcon provide a citation for this. I don’t even care whether it’s scriptural or not. I’m just curious about where he got it from and how many other poor souls are likely to be walking around with this notion of Jesus in their heads.
Hmmm. This sounds like baiting on Mac’s part to me. Having met Randall Terry on more than one occaision and having followed his “career”, I have no doubt whatever that he approves of theocracy, so long as the ruling theology is his own. I suspect that Mac knows this as well. Note that he doesn’t say that Terry would condemn the “theocratic notion” as treason, just that he would agree that it was “treasonous”.
Terry would be completely capable of arguing that treason to present day America is obedience to God. In his view, if the Constitution validates abortion rights it amounts to “a compact with hell”.
Darrell
Where in the article you linked to does anyone blame looting and anarchy on “black culture”. I mean, I realize it makes you leftists feel all self righteous talking ‘truth to power’ and all to write things like that.. but who actually said or wrote it?
And is there even a SHRED of honest doubt that where there thrives a “mentality of victimhood and dependence”, that is also where crime and other anti-social behavior flourishes? Is making that link really so controversial to you kooks?
I agree with your disgust regarding those who blame disasters as “God’s punishment”, although I think only a tiny fraction of those on the right believe it. Contrast that with the 60%+ of blacks who agreed with K. West’s comment that Bush “doesn’t care about black people”
W.B. Reeves
This is certainly true in the case of Homosexuality. I’ve actually been present when one such “christian” argued that it was alright to impose the death penalty for sodomy, not in order to actually execute anyone but rather to “terrorize homosexuals back into the closet.”
So much for the golden rule.
W.B. Reeves
I don’t think there is any doubt that those who feel victimized are prone to victimize others. Dog eat dog you know. Or as Auden put it, “Those to whom evil is done do evil in return.”
The linkage to “dependence” is far more doubtful. Is there a crime wave amongst Medicare and Social Security dependents? Are the streets of America terrorized by gangs of wheelchair and walker bound super predators? Are RV driving grandparents our present day Bonnie and Clydes?
Sounds pretty kooky to me.
Darrell
Or those who continually blame others for their own self-inflicted failures are more prone to act without conscience.
No surprise you kooks can’t tell the difference between receiving Welfare, and Social Security, a system in which recipients are receiving benefits from contributions that THEY HAD ALREADY SPENT A LIFETIME PAYING INTO. Why is it leftists are sooo stupid?
John S.
I’m sure out there on planet Full-of-Shit, everyone seems stupid to you unless they orbit your fetid little rock.
By the way, I see you apply Bush techniques to your posting methodology. When someone nails you for lying, you just ignore it and move on.
W.B. Reeves
Ah, so you deny the Conservative meme that SS is a wealth re-distribution scheme. Interesting.
I note that you ignore Medicare in your “response”.
In any case it isn’t I, or even Liberals, who have spent the last several decades attacking SS as an example of dependence on government. That argument originated on your side of the tracks. If you think it is a stupid argument, you need to discuss it with your fellow partisan hacks. Evidently they haven’t gotten your memo.
If you don’t want people to confuse “welfare” with SS you should drop the dependency meme and say what you actually mean. The poor = criminal class.
Com Con
Good point, Darrell. Both beliefs are equally ridiculous, that Bush doesn’t care about black people and that the hurricane was God’s punishment. Yet, the liberals praise Kanye West, and buy his profanity-filled record about pimping hos and smoking “chronic”, while brutally attacking those on the right who say it was God’s punishment. I don’t think it was God’s punishment, but it’s a free country, and those people are free to express their opinions. And who knows? It could turn out that they’re right.
W.B. Reeves
BTW, people who “act without conscience” have no need to blame anyone for anything, since they feel no need to justify their actions.
W.B. Reeves
Glad to see you come out of hiding ComCon. Now will you be so kind as to provide us with the source for your assertions about Jesus Christ: Warrior Prince (of Peace)?
Com Con
Here you go, WB Reeves
http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/jesus_warrior.htm
Com Con
And here’s another
http://www.rustyparts.com/articles/song_of_the_sea.html
Ancient Purple
Let me get this right. You claim that Christ was some warrior that defeated a Romam legion with a staff and then, when asked to provide some scriptural basis, you link to some hideous webpage that has no author’s name, no citation, no way to peer review the “facts.”
Any direct scriptural basis for your statement, Com Con, or do you just like being disingenuous all the way around?
W.B. Reeves
Thanks for the links ComCon. The first one answers my curiousity about who would buy into this apocrypha. Answer: the credulous, the simple and those who’ve taken too many mind altering substances. The second makes no reference to Jesus at all, which I’m sure you were aware of when you posted it.
Thanks for the chuckles.
Mac Buckets
I never did that, so OK.
Your frankly dumb rhetoric aside…
No, “America” is a nation established by the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution of 1787. “Americans” are the people inhabiting it at a given time. America’s basic tenets of democracy and capitalism have not changed significantly in 230 years. The attitudes and make-up of “Americans” is constantly changing, as reflected by the changing of laws over time. So hating “America” must, therefore, mean something different than hating “Americans” or “some Americans’ attitudes.”
I think you’re not being honest. Many of the leftist groups that marched in the anti-Iraq War demos were socialist and communist groups who hate (to use Dean’s term) the American system of capitalism and/or representative government. They “Hate America,” and they are not just a couple of college professors.
On the other side, while the 700 Club and Operation Rescue might want certain American laws changed to reflect their morality, and they might “Hate American Sexual Attitudes” or even “Hate Some Americans,” but they don’t want to do away with the tenets of capitalism or democracy as defined by the FOunding Fathers (in fact, it could easily be argued that they seek to get CLOSER to the government as it was in 1787). They don’t “hate America.” There are a very, very few theocracy nuts out there who might wish strict rule by religious leaders, but they are outnumbered many, many, many times by even such small groups as American ANSWER.
goonie bird
These liberal idiots would demand we replace the eagle with a stupid pink chicken have the rainbow flag of the new age earth freaks in place of old glory and make that dumb song AGE OF AQUARIUS or national anthem and replace IN GOD WE TRUST with THE EARTH IS YOUR MOTHER just typical of those who went to the WOODSTOCK concert
Mike
“John S. Says:
I’m not gonna get into a debate on abortion or the Death Penalty with you
Of course you won’t.”
In order to do so I’d have to:
a) Care enough to argue about this stuff ad nauseum
b) Think there might be some way to change your mind
c) Give a fuck what you think, or think you might give a fuck what I think.
None of the above is true.
John S.
Mike-
I have a rattle and a baby bottle for you.
You’ll have to burp yourself, though, I’m afraid.
W.B. Reeves
Excuse me but where in the Constitution is the basic “American tenet” of Capitalism enscribed? You might also explain how extending citizenship to the previously enslaved population, as well giving suffrage to women, didn’t constitute significant changes in the tenets of U.S Democracy.
While you’re at it, explain how enshrining the doctrine of the U.S. as a Christian nation in law would not be a violation of the establishment clause.
You obviously know little or nothing about the agendas of Terry, Robertson, et al. That, or you know perfectly well what they are about and are simply dissembling.