I know it is; that's why I used it. So you agree with me that evangelical Christians do not advocate "killing Iraqis?" <b>That's what was stated.</b>
You are correct. I went off Glynch's follow up more than the original post, and probably overlooked the biased wording in the original post because my own prejudices on the matter clouded my view on the topic. But I will say that voting for someone who went to a pre-emptive war based on bad intel or even worse selective use and dishonest interpretation of the intel might give the appearance that they support those actions. I think the question was meant to be shocking, becaue many of us are so shocked that people would list certain values as their reason for voting, when lives are at stake right now. You are correct the question was baiting, and probably intentional in order to emphasize the point that lives are being lost. Meanwhile people are voting for a person who wants to change the constitution to make sure gays are never allowed to marry. I think the obvious urgency of the two issues, confuses many of us.
Of course it is and I hasten to point out that I never made the statement to which you refer. I hope that was part of your point!
Amplify please. Do you mean killing Iraqis for killing's sake or killing Iraqis who go against the US in the War on Terror? Or take it wherever you think it needs to go.
I think a better way of describing what surrender was saying is that all these evangelical christians will bomb abortion clinics (the extremists) or speak out against it and condemn it, but they won't protest or speak out when over ten thousand Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed in this war. You have people like giddyup claiming that since Roe v. Wade is 31 years old, and was made after the bicentinnial of our country, it is a right that can be stripped away. Turns out Roe v Wade is 31 years old, but according to my math and that of countless others, that falls before 1976, the bicentinnial of our country. According to giddyup's logic then, it is old enough to be considered a right. I don't blame giddyup for this mistake, cause it has become apparent in the American public. Most people just believe what they are supposed to believe. Why? Because of their preacher or Jerry Falwell, or something other than logical thought. I believe that Tupac best articulates my feelings on abortion: And since we all came from a woman Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman I wonder why we take from our women Why we rape our women, do we hate our women? I think it's time to kill for our women Time to heal our women, be real to our women And if we don't we'll have a race of babies That will hate the ladies, that make the babies And since a man can't make one He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one So will the real men get up I know you're fed up ladies, but keep your head up giddyup: No they have not, but before the 1860's did black's ever have the right to vote? No, but they did gain them. Just because something hasn't happened in history (although Massachusetts has allowed gay marriages) doesn't give you a good enough reason to deny a person that right. Black people have a right to vote, but they didnt before the civil war, does that mean that they don't have a right to vote? If your church doesn't allow gay marriages, thats fine, but a government works for the people and to give them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (according to jefferson). However, these rights can be limited somewhat if they infringe on another person's rights. For all you opponents of gay marriage, tell me how allowing 2 random people, who love each other, to wed will infringe on anyones rights. If you care about the sanctity of marriage, your church can make that decision. However, the american government, based on its principles that have guided it for over 225 years, has no right to deny two people of the same sex and of legal age or consent to marry. If they wish to adopt a child, thats one less child that has to live a parentless life. Thats my 2 cents.
First off, it was my math not my logic that was off. Sorry about that! It was pretty close... For most people opposition to abortion on demand is about the baby not the woman. Gotta love Tupac: "I think its time to kill for our women..." What in the hell does that mean? BTW, I don't find any reference to abortion is his "message"-- only a reminder that "No means no." For the record, again, I am supportive of gay civil unions or marriage in any church that wants to perform the marriage. I don't think the government has the right to tell a church that it has to perform a marriage between two entities which would violate its traditons.
i know you can't add, but i expected you to be able to read: as posted above from Tupac: And since a man can't make one He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one
Such personal insults are just immature and childish. In the words of one of my favorite posters on this BBS, let's keep D&D civil.
Isn't life sweet. You say tomato, I say tomahto. You see abortion, I see "no thank you..." Actually my problem was with subtraction not addition.
its not a personal insult, it just a way to start the post. I'm not blatantly attacking his family, just tying the last post into the other ones. Ridicule shouldn't be banned from the D&D as long as it doesnt get out of hand. I'm not attacking his family, but am just making fun of a previous post. Lighten up. Giddyup: I know its like tomato to tomahto. I just felt like i had to vent after reading through some these posts making fallacious or utterly moronic arguments against gay marriage or abortion. I'm sure you felt the same way when you read my arguments. All im trying to say is that abortion is a right that was given to women. I pray that bush doesnt appoint supreme court justices that will strip that right away. Also, im trying to say that the government should allow gay marriages, because it is a right that they deserve just as much as any male/female couple. Not allowing them to marry is simply another type of discrimination that has no logical basis. If gay's are allowed to marry, what will happen that is bad? someone tell me.
Ridicule is a gateway activity. Pretty soon it leads to out and out incriminatioin.... Abortion is a right that women did not have for a long time. Then it was given to them and its supporters act like it was God-given. My eyes are on and my heart is with the unborn children who will die because someone didn't think about his/her right to life. It's not a complicated argument I know; that's what makes it so beautiful. I think that gay folks should be able to be "joined together" and enjoy the full financial and legal privileges of men and women who "join together."
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave... Scalia says religion infuses U.S. government and history By VERENA DOBNIK Associated Press Writer http://www.newsday.com/news/local/w...,6235446,print.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire November 22, 2004, 4:04 PM EST NEW YORK -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Monday that a religion-neutral government does not fit with an America that reflects belief in God in everything from its money to its military. "I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," Scalia told an audience attending an interfaith conference on religious freedom at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue. An outspoken conservative, Scalia joined a gathering that included the chief judge of New York state, Judith Kaye, a member of this Orthodox synagogue where the late Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo had worshipped. The discussion in the century-old edifice was lively. "I have spent many private hours with Justice Scalia _ in print," said Kaye, who has led New York's highest court for almost a dozen years since she was appointed by Gov. Mario Cuomo, a liberal Democrat. Scalia, 68, addressed the topic of government and its relationship to religion. In the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation, he noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word "God." But, the justice asked, "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America? I don't think so." Also participating in the three-hour session was Shearith Israel's senior rabbi, Marc Angel, as well as prominent members of New York's Protestant, Roman Catholic and Muslim clergy. Speakers included the Rev. James Forbes Jr. of Riverside Church, the Rev. Arthur Caliandro of the Marble Collegiate Church and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the New York-based American Sufi Muslim Association, whose aim is to foster an American-Muslim identity. Scalia told them that while the church-and-state battle rages, the official examples of the presence of faith go back to America's Founding Fathers: the word "God" on U.S. currency; chaplains of various faiths in the military and the legislature; real estate tax-exemption for houses of worship _ and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Last year, Scalia removed himself from the Supreme Court's review of whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, after mentioning the case in a speech and complaining that courts are stripping God from public life. "None of this is compatible with what we say when we express the so-called principle of neutrality," Scalia said. He could be tapped as a possible nominee for chief justice should Chief Justice William Rehnquist step down because of his thyroid cancer. Scalia was named to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Reagan. Since then, Scalia _ a Catholic raised in Queens and father of nine children, one a priest _ has become an anti-abortion hero to many in the American political right and a leading conservative voice on the court. An "originalist," Scalia believes in following the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, rather than interpreting it to reflect the changing times. "Our Constitution does not morph," he said Monday, deadpanning, "As I've often said, I am an originalist, I am a textualist, but I am not a nut." Earlier this year, Scalia cast one of two dissenting votes in a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that states may deny taxpayer-funded scholarships to divinity students. At the time, Scalia wrote: "Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority."
