Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBoth openly-gay members of Congress have now endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The New York senator secured the support of Tammy Baldwin, the Wisconsin congresswoman who is the only out lesbian in the House, months ago. And this week Clinton gained the enthusiastic endorsement of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the only out gay man currently serving in the chamber.
Frank specifically hailed Clinton's support for gay and lesbian rights in announcing his decision to back the woman who current leads in national polling on the Democratic race and who is the front-runner in most early caucus and primary states.
The Massachusetts Democrat said that he is "convinced that Hillary Clinton is the candidate best equipped to pass laws that will treat all Americans with dignity, fairness and equality no matter who they are or who they love."
That comment came as part of a particularly warm embrace of Clinton by Frank, who has traditionally been one of the party's most determined and effective campaigners among liberals in Massachusetts and other states.
"I have from the beginning of this campaign believed that Hillary Clinton was the candidate best qualified to serve as president," the congressman explained. "I am convinced that once elected, the qualities she will bring to the job -- commitment, intellect and political skills -- will make her an extremely effective leader in our effort to reverse the badly flawed course on which George Bush and past Republican Congresses have set this country."
Frank's sister, veteran Democratic party leader Ann Lewis, is a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign. He has been a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
When Baldwin endorsed Clinton last summer, she cited her longstanding friendship with the senator as well as a shared commitment to health care reform. In addition, the Wisconsinite described Clinton as "strong and vocal" in her support of ending employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Baldwin acknowledged at the time, however, that she and Clinton do not see eye to eye on the issue of same-sex marriage. The New York senator supports domestic partnership initiatives and civil unions, but has opposed moves that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.
"It's not my position," Baldwin said of Clinton's stance. "I support full marriage equality. We will voice encouragement for (Clinton) to be open to changing her opinion."
Clinton's chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, share the front-runners opposition to same-sex marriage.
In contrast, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a longtime colleague of Frank and Baldwin in the House who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nod, has been an outspoken backer of marriage equality for many years. Says Kucinich, "This is really a question of whether you really believe in equality. When you understand what real equality is, you understand that people who love each other must have the opportunity to be able to express that in a way that's meaningful."
"Barney Frank: Clinton 'Best Equipped' to Advance Gay Rights"
can i send that into the tonight show?
please?
""It's not my position," Baldwin said of Clinton's stance. "
again, the word "stance" has had wide usage of late.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/14/2007 @ 01:19am
seriously,
i bet mr. frank's a shoo-in to be canada's new ambassador in 2009!
you know, i think i'm gonna vote for this kucinich fellow quite frequently in the first few primaries and caucuses.
-----"commitment, intellect and political skills"-----
¿in which order?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/14/2007 @ 01:27am
And what do all the closeted members of Congress think?
Mark Canyon, you are aware there is a different between primaries and the general election? And those that think that homosexuality is a perversion? Not the general public. In fact, more people believe that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle than don't.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2007 @ 09:07am
Look, ANY of the Dems would be good on gay rights.
Frank's endorsement is based on one thing...
"Frank's sister, veteran Democratic party leader Ann Lewis, is a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign. He has been a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton."
Not anything specifically "more gay-friendly" that Hillary has done.
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 09:13am
Maybe Hillary can tell gay people the "right" questions to ask.....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2007 @ 09:48am
another lemming flings itself over the cliff. this time its a gay male. big woop...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2007 @ 10:03am
My views on homosexuality would no doubt be contrued as conservative, which gives me pause sometimes as to whether I'm too intolerant in my thoughts about it. Then I read the comments of Mark Canyon, and I feel much better...
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2007 @ 10:17am
Sorry, construed
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2007 @ 10:18am
"Can any other candidate boast that base?"
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/14/2007 @ 09:33am
They sure can. HRC hasn't won this race by any stretch.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 10:55am
Same Sex marriage is a state issue not federal. It needs to stay that way. The only way this becomes a federal issue is through a Constitutional Amendment----Don't believe that is going to happen anytime soon--thank goodness.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/14/2007 @ 10:55am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/14/2007 @ 10:17am
he's a 15-19 year old oppositional defiant nazi. the frontal lobes of his brain have not fully developed yet and despite some clever and well constructed grammar, sometimes falls into logically fallacious argument forms. if the largely semitic edirorial staff here does not boot him eventually, well, its a tribute to them.
on the other hand he might be a bright, bored as hell jewish adolescent working out issues and having fun yanking folks' chains...who knows? its the internet!
i like it when he gets really pissed and starts snarling and hissing and spitting like a rabid housecat...funny.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2007 @ 10:59am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 11/14/2007 @ 10:55am
well, eventually its going federal regardless, if not legislatively, then judicially...
tom and dick get married in gay-marriage state...move to no gay marriage state...split up...
uh oh...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2007 @ 11:01am
aRRRRGHCHCHHH ARRRGCHH HISSSS HISSSSS SPITSPITSPIT YER ALLLARGCHHHH SCUMBAGSARRRGCHH SPITSPITSPUIT
:)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2007 @ 11:03am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/14/2007 @ 11:01am
Yeah, LEN, it's GOT to become Federal at some point due to the "full faith and credit" clause (Art. IV, Sect 1)...to wit-
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
That means marriage licenses!
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 11:04am
They tar Hillary in the mind of a general public which still harbors a shudder on the subject of perverts
the only perverts were seeing in the news the last 5 years are actually straight guys......
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2007 @ 11:10am
and is there really anything wrong with perversion? i'm a pervert, and i have some nasty, disgusting (yet totally legal) fantasies running through my mind all the time.
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2007 @ 11:11am
Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2007 @ 11:11am
Oh, don't worry, about DD....MARKCANYON would send you to a gas chamber for being Jewish WELL before he'd send you to one for being a lesbian!
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 11:15am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 11/14/2007 @ 10:55am
I have to agree with Len on this one. However, IMO, if a democratic Congress made any constitutional admendments regarding gay marriage, they will lose just about all of the mainstream denominations and the military.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 11:22am
Nothing like a gays rights article to bring all the troglodytes out of their caves.
Anybody watch the two hour Nova special on Creation "Science"? The episode covered what the Intelligent Design frauds tried pulling in Dover, Pennsylvania. I couldn't help but think of some of the resident rubes, morons. Lying, cheating, distorting--doing everything they could to teach Christian mythology to high school students.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/14/2007 @ 11:30am
Posted by ACOOK
You would. Our Constitution forbids any form of discrimination. It's sad to see a black person endorse discrimination against another American minority.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/14/2007 @ 11:37am
Nothing like a gays rights article to bring all the troglodytes out of their caves.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/14/2007 @ 11:30am
Good thing it's not a "use of homophobic slurs" "gays rights article", huh, Empty?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 11:54am
"You would. Our Constitution forbids any form of discrimination. It's sad to see a black person endorse discrimination against another American minority."
Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/14/2007 @ 11:37am
MT, why is it sad? I'm discriminated against everyday. Why should I help gays attain "equality" over me and mine, when my own people (and latinos too) are still struggling just to get the basics?
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 12:12pm
MT, I not pissed at you. It just bothers me that people like Barney Frank think they can waltz in and step all over our civil rights platform Dr. King worked so hard for and they've done nothing to earn it. To me, being gay is only a situation, but being black is something I can never change.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 12:20pm
I can't believe a person's sexual orientation is still such a big issue in such a supposedly advanced and open society as the one the US boasts. Yawn.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2007 @ 12:25pm
ACook-The idea is for all people to have equality and not just blacks and Latinos.Blacks and Latinos are allowed to get married and have equal rights under the law, unlike gays.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 12:41pm
ACook-One cannot change their sexual orientation anymore than one can change their race..
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 12:42pm
ACook-One cannot change their sexual orientation anymore than one can change their race..
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 12:42pm
Exactly. I've always believed Dr. King's efforts were to erase discrimination on all fronts. If you can experience discriminiation, how can you not empathize with another person, or groups of people, who are being discriminated against for different reasons? Equality for some, but not all?
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 12:46pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 12:41pm
IM, the idea of "equal rights" needs to go back to the drawing board. As it stands, the law could care less if people of color married or not. We still face discrimination on every level of society.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 12:47pm
ACook-One cannot change their sexual orientation anymore than one can change their race..
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 12:42pm
IM, people can and sometimes do change their sexual orienation. They can blend in but I stand out.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 12:51pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/14/2007 @ 11:03am
that was pretty good...yeah...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2007 @ 12:52pm
By and large, intolerance of any kind is becoming less tolerated in our culture. People with intolerant beliefs are becoming increasingly marginalized, and I don't see THAT trend changing. We had our brief conservative heyday, with it's pinnacle at the peak of GW's reign, but those days are already gone. The public is moving on, wisening up, and learning from past mistakes. It's evloution suckas, get used to it.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 12:52pm
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 12:46pm
I don't empathize with the gay community at all. They have and are given more advantages then minorities.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 12:55pm
ACook-It isn't just blacks who face discrimination.In fact,many blacks act just like white racists.Disabled people and gays can legally be discriminated against whereas blacks cannot be and blacks do have courts they can go to unlike the disabled and gays.The Americans with disabilities act does little to protect the disabled because of the way it's worded and gays have no protection.Other groups like Asians and Jews manage to do well despite being discriminated against as do most disabled and gays so maybe blacks need to learn from these other groups and pull yourselves up.Either you believe in equality or you do not.If you don't then are a bigot even if you're black.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 12:57pm
IM, people can and sometimes do change their sexual orienation. They can blend in but I stand out.
Posted by ACOOK 11/14/2007 @ 12:51pm
So, the social stigma of being gay is really nothing, so long as a gay person "acts straight", they should be just fine?
Discrimination is different for varying situations, but should it be tolerated in one, but not another? Why should we turn a blind eye to injustice on any front?
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 12:58pm
I don't empathize with the gay community at all. They have and are given more advantages then minorities.
Posted by ACOOK 11/14/2007 @ 12:55pm
Please explain why you think gay people have been given more advantages.
What would you do to better help black people triumph over discrimination?
Since you do believe that gays have been given preferential treatment over blacks and/or minorities, what would you propose to counterbalance this perceived injustice?
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 1:02pm
"so maybe blacks need to learn from these other groups and pull yourselves up."
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 12:57pm
That may be, but it's kinda hard when we don't have the same types of support systems.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 1:04pm
ACook-No one has ever changed their sexual orientation.You would stand out if you are in a white community,but would not stand out in a black community.I would much rather be a straight black than a gay white because the gay white is more discriminated against and a gay minority is doubly screwed.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 1:07pm
"Since you do believe that gays have been given preferential treatment over blacks and/or minorities, what would you propose to counterbalance this perceived injustice?"
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 1:02pm
I didn't say gays get preferenial treatment, I said they have more advantages. They're better educated and have more money.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 1:09pm
ACook-You have the same support systems as any other group that is a minority.Stop making excuses.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 1:11pm
ACook-Many gays are black.Why are they more educated and make more money?
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 1:12pm
They tar Hillary in the mind of a general public which still harbors a shudder on the subject of perverts. It will incline more voters away from her than toward her.
MarkCanyon,
Although the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they do not share you bigoted views that homosexuals are "perverts".
Posted by Metteyya at 11/14/2007 @ 1:13pm
That may be, but it's kinda hard when we don't have the same types of support systems.
Posted by ACOOK 11/14/2007 @ 1:04pm
What kind of support systems would you propose? And again, what would you do to counterbalance the fact that you believe gay people are better educated and have more money?
Not every injustice is economic. There is a real, quantifiable, correlation that exists with race and class,yes, but there is no demographic for homosexuality; it exists everywhere. No one has suggested any type of financial aid program for homosexuals. Just the opportunity to marry the person they love. How does that impose, or affect in any way, the economic struggle that minorities face?
And I'm curious what, if anything, you would suggest to address the economic disparity in this race-class equation, that you yourself identified? Nothing? Isn't that what the conservative leaders suggest? Let "them" sort things out themselves because government is such a monstrous beurocracy that it can't be counted on to solve anything? Let the market solve it? Good luck with that philosophy. It sure hasn't worked yet.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 1:21pm
http://q6.com/Global/story.asp?s=7282663
It just couldn't wait to happen again!
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 1:25pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/14/2007 @ 12:25pm
How are homosexuals treated in "advanced and open societies" like....
Colombia? (and not just Medellin or Caracus?)
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 1:32pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/14/2007 @ 12:25pm
Yes, yes, Caracus is in Venezuela....just to clarify, I'll apply that to ALL of South America!
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 1:33pm
Mattman,
Your assumption in your 12:52 post (conservative heyday) that predjudice & racism MUST come from the "conservative" side is flawed. You think liberals have shed all their predjudices? The entire liberal concept of taking the minorities "under their wing" of "protecting" them is itself rooted in a base predjudice that says they can't take care of themselves. Hence the term "the liberal plantation". For example, "enlightened" types feel reparations is a good idea. You think thats anything less than a subtle, maybe unconscious attempt to keep control over blacks?
A racist is a person who can't keep his predjudices under control (and we ALL have them) True conservatives simply believe that blacks, like others, and in the spirit of MLK, should be educated and them left to make their own way in the world, that in the long run this will be more beneficial to them. There's a big difference between that an some asshole who thinks its funny or righteous to drag a black to death behind his truck.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2007 @ 1:41pm
And those that think that homosexuality is a perversion? Not the general public. In fact, more people believe that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle than don't.
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/14/2007 @ 09:07am
It is still not a majority of Americans. the indepth polling data shows this trend is mostly due to the polling results with younger people who have been unfortunately brainwashed by the mostly leftist public education system. Those over 55 continue to poll negatively against this perversion. Sadly, America continues albeit more slowly, to adopt the moral abyss that has overtaken Europe. I doubt that 50 years from now, unless Americans repent, that it will have any moral basis in society. It will have degenerated into another Roman or Greek decadence.
Data Sept 7-8 2007
Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?
Acceptable 48% Not Acceptable 46% No Opinion 6%
May 10-13 2007 In your view, is homosexuality – [ROTATED: something a person is born with, (or is homosexuality) due to factors such as upbringing and environment]?
Born with 42%Upbringing/Environment 35%Both11%Neither2%NoOpinion9%
January 15-18 2007
Would you like to see homosexuality be more widely accepted in this nation, less widely accepted, or is the acceptance of homosexuality in this nation today about right?
More Widely Accepted 33%Less Widely Accepted37%About Right 27% No Opinion 3%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/Homosexual-Relations.aspx#1
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 1:51pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2007 @ 11:11am
and is there really anything wrong with perversion? i'm a pervert, and i have some nasty, disgusting (yet totally legal) fantasies running through my mind all the time.
Interesting turn of phrase. Suppose a member of the Armed Services in Iraq has a fantasy of having oral sex with their spouse in a humvee. Totally illegal to do under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But since it is merely a fantasy, it's not a crime.
My point? There are no illegal fantasies - at least not yet.
Nasty and disgusting? For whom? The U.S. Army? Not very hard to do.
I think the most problematic part is the "all the time". You might need to take a break, maybe fantasize about something vanilla for a change of pace, like raking leaves or something.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2007 @ 2:00pm
Lvliberty-Sounds like young people believe in what America stands for ,but most old folks don't.That's good news since the young are the future..
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 2:05pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 1:51pm
Your point? Isn't 48% more than 46%? And how exactly is homosexuality a moral question? Most gay people I know are in committed relationships that aren't any different than married heterosexual couples. Roman style decadence? About the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals.
The sexuality question is different from the morality question. Why is it that conservatives have such a hard time with this simple fact?
Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2007 @ 2:06pm
A racist is a person who can't keep his predjudices under control (and we ALL have them) True conservatives simply believe that blacks, like others, and in the spirit of MLK, should be educated and them left to make their own way in the world, that in the long run this will be more beneficial to them. There's a big difference between that an some asshole who thinks its funny or righteous to drag a black to death behind his truck.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/14/2007 @ 1:41pm
How ya doin Chip? The dragging-behind-the-truck cliche is a racist charicature; just one face of many racist guises. You said you think blacks should be educated. Herein lies another correlation, this one negative, between ethnicity and quality of schools. If you believe they should be educated, stop supporting programs like No Child Left Behind that punish schools that don't make sufficient test scores. I agree with ACOOK, that discrimination, and yes, racism, are still prevalent today, though it is more difficult to measure as it is covert and systemic. The stereotypes associated with being black still harm them as a people and as individuals. Society has changed so that it is no longer acceptable to voice negative opinions about blacks (or any minority), but the attitudes are often just as negative, and are therefore expressed in other ways, usually in some way barring them from entering into some facet of mainstream society such as an institution or job opportunity.
The deck is stacked in favor of whites. Black people are more likely to be born into poverty. I believe that one goal of liberalism is to encourage a pluralistic, multicultural society in which social justice is sought. Racist whites in power positions may not use the N-word as much these days, but many of them still do all they can to maintain the economic situation.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 2:09pm
The sexuality question is different from the morality question. Why is it that conservatives have such a hard time with this simple fact?
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/14/2007 @ 2:06pm
They've been brainwashed beyond repair by the bible in their youths
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 2:13pm
It's sad that so many Christians believe that they can pick and choose which "sins" to place importance on and which to ignore.Jesus never mentioned homosexuality,but did mention adultery,but most conservative Christians ignore that because so many of them are committing adultery so they emphasize the "sin" they aren't doing.The ones that go to military funerals in order to blame gays that are in the military forget that adultery is common place in the military,but homosexuality is not.Of course,there are the ones like Haggard who doth protest too much.Either obey the entire Bible or forget the Bible.Picking and choosing is lame.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 2:15pm
ACook-One cannot change their sexual orientation anymore than one can change their race..
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 12:42pm
That is pure leftwing spin. There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. It comes under either 1)a choice 2)demonic influence that is acted upon.
Like all immoral behavior, homosexuality is a result of living out temptations and/or influences. It is no different than the chronic thief, habitual liar, or chronic adulterer who claims they cannot change their behavior because they were "born that way".
The action taken by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 was first of all a political decision by their board based upon pressure by pro-homosexuality groups. Because of protests by many psychiatrists over this action, a vote was taken, but without widespread notification. As a result, approximately 25% of the APA members voted on this decision with 58% of the 25% voting to affirm. The American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975.
This was a political decision and not one based upon science. These organizations have continued in their path of devaluating moral standards in the name of political agendas ever since.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 2:23pm
I agree Mattman, the battle isn't over yet, and there will always be some amount of racism. But the laws are on the books, and you can't make people think a certain way.My point was to keep in mind two things:
.1 Racism is not limited to conservative thinking people, just because their method of resolving the problem doesn't jive with conventional wisdom of the day.
.2 There is a big difference between a guy who simply prefers being with his own kind (Predujice, and like it or not, his right) and someone with whom this feeling dominates his rational thought processes to the point of interfereing with that someones life and liberty. (Racism)
The murder of the guy in Texas seems to be dismissed by libs in discussions like these when brought up, and I can't help think its because it defines the racist parameter, shows that rejection & revulsion of such an act indicates the progress made in race relations over the years. Libs don't like that: After all, once the parameters begin to be defined, the end of the crusade becomes viewable, and for "Social Justice" types, ultimate victory would translate into thier own obsolescence. No insult intended to you: Its an observation I've made of late.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2007 @ 2:33pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 2:23pm
There's so much scientific data out there linking homosexuality to demonic influence, why is this even an issue?
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 2:37pm
MATTMAN, In Texas last year some mayor of a dinky town decided to make it a $500 fine to say the word "nigger". Now, I assume you don't get to be mayor without at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution, so I have to conclude that he was perfectly prepared to stomp all over the FF's principles in the interests of "Social Justice". His action was clearly illegal, and I hope his proposal fell flat (never heard the result)This is NOT the way to solve the problem, but am I, a conservative thinker, racist because I oppose the rule? Hardly.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2007 @ 2:38pm
LvLiberty-There isn't a shred of evidence that even implies that demons exist nor is there a shred of evidence that homosexuality is chosen.Straight men view sex with other men as repulsive and disgusting and certainly nothing that we would choose to do.Maybe many of you find the idea of sex with other men as a turn on and would then view it as a choice,but that is not the case with a truly straight man.Those of us who have known many gays quite well know that it isn't a choice.Many of these people struggle with this and deeply wish they were not gay.You people tell yourselves that it's chosen so you can feel good about discriminating against them,but few would choose to be gay and that is particularly true of men.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 2:40pm
ChipThorton-You have a strange view of liberals that does not exist in reality.We do not fear social equality for all.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 2:44pm
LvLiberty-I've never known a thief,liar,or adulterer who claims that they were born to do that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 2:46pm
There are some interesting undertones to this discussion. As with so many issues some go to extremes and exaggerate to make their points but at least there's an open dialog.
An entrenched culture of racism and other prejudices of the right - seen close-up, as a student worker on the campaign trail - was a major reason that Hillary abandoned the Republican Party (which her father had embraced) when she was in college in the late 60's. (This was a time when George H. Bush had been elected to the House as a Texas rep partly for his vocal opposition to the Civil Rights Act.)
The eternal dilemma of the left is when to go with the approach that Hillary adopted at that young age, of working within the system to make it better and get those on the other side to talk to you - a Sun Tzu strategy, in a sense - and when to follow the Abbie Hoffman legacy of protest and take-no-prisoners ideological stances. Both approaches certainly deserve some credit opening up public awareness and discourse, and for the push toward less discrimination and more equality. It is probably not an either-or scenario; without those working within the system to push for reform, those determined to rail outside the system might only accomplish marginalization (and opposite reaction) for their causes.
The left's choice, and indeed the entire world situation and political landscape, is in many ways eerily similar to 1968. But which approach, one may still ask with relevance, will lead to progress, win the hearts of American voters, and ensure that the right loses ground in 2009 - the vehement anti-establishment approach which blames "the system" and its inherent corruption for every ill, or the consensus-building approach that Hillary still embodies? Barney Frank suggests his answer with this endorsement. He wants more than protests for gay rights, more than self-righteous name-calling which will only provoke a backlash. It's time that equality and tolerance make some long-term gains with some real political power - something Hillary knows how to accomplish.
Posted by ccorbell at 11/14/2007 @ 2:53pm
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 12:52pm | ignore this person
I wouldn't go so far as to say al-Amriki is sloughing his native ignorance, discrimination, hatred, fear, intolerance or stereotypes, for there is ample proof from coast to coast that asininity is not only thriving but quite possibly ineradicable. Millions of people still believe in ghosts and gobblins, that JC was born on July 4th, that democracy not only works but is in actual practice in their country, that politicians truly want peace on earth and war is always a last resort. More, he doesn't see that politics, religion, news, education and commerce are all adjuncts of show business, that the promise of a better tomorrow has been overthrown by the deadly, dangerous and tireless efforts to prevent countless nightmares from occurring - all of them hokum. He fails to see simple visual stimulation has supplanted thought and reason, that truth is what the public most frequently reads and hears, he boasts that his country will be the last on earth to march into oblivion when in fact he is already dancing his way there with an amused look on his face and of course, a menagerie of technological narcotics.
The view of the vast world beneath an infinte firmament in L'Amérique is one that is decontextualized, discontinuous and disordered. It is detached from reality, and the very meaning of reality, by being fastened to television entertainment, has become more associated with trivia than ever, making the real world that much more of a farce. There are no opinions, merely emotions, and those are so easily manipulated we see them change weekly by just looking at polls.
Iran is very much in the news now and yet another threat to the very existence of not only America, but the world America cares so much about preserving. But how many people in the US can find Iran on a map? How many people know of the cultural, ethnic, religious, or historical realities of Iran? How many people know what language the Iranians speak? What do the words Shia, Sunni, Ottoman, Mesopotamia or Fertile Crescent mean to the average American? My guess is nothing. All they know are threats of mushroom clouds and devilish dictators who want to destroy their way of life, enslave them and force their women to wear burkas. And while the term World World III has been used a few times, what does the average American truly even know about the two prior World Wars?
No, al-Amriki is getting dumber and never missing a chance to entertain himself. And as a result, the real horrors of the world aren't worth paying attention to, which is why in the end no one counts the dead Iraqis or actually supports the troops once they return in pieces. Next time you see one of those assholes with a magnet on their car that says "Support Our Troops", ask them what they do besides drive around with that empty slogan. But hey, empty slogans, meaningless symbols and catchphrases rule the land, dominate the discourse and fill the papers and news channels. This is what passes as mental gunpowder...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2007 @ 2:55pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/14/2007 @ 2:38pm
I don't really understand how the guy-getting-dragged-behind-the-truck-in-texas anecdote defines the racist paramaters. I'm not secretly mad that people were repulsed by this act; that's absurd! I think maybe I wasn't clear before with what I wrote. Hate crimes, such as the above, are obvious acts of racism. That's why I called it a "racist charicature". Anyone would recognize it as racist, and all but Mark Canyon would vehemently condemn it. Your remark that "there will always be some amount of racism" offhandedly excuses it's deceptive practice. It's my opinion that economic practices, that also hurt anyone at the bottom of the wealth distribution scale, do the most damage to minorities in that the majority of these populations are in that economic stratum.
I'm not calling you a racist Chip. I admire many traits of the conservative ideologue, such as adherence to self reliance, individualism, and determination. Many great people no doubt have had those same traits. But I also believe it is fallacious to presume that everybody has an equal shot at their slice of the pie. The fact is that some people have a much, much easier time making their way in life, whereas it is statistically improbable for others to transcend poverty. It's not just, and I don't accept this as the natural order of things, because it's a very man-made situation, and it calls for a man-made solution.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 3:04pm
It's sad that so many Christians believe that they can pick and choose which "sins" to place importance on and which to ignore.Jesus never mentioned homosexuality,but did mention adultery,but most conservative Christians ignore that because so many of them are committing adultery so they emphasize the "sin" they aren't doing.The ones that go to military funerals in order to blame gays that are in the military forget that adultery is common place in the military,but homosexuality is not.Of course,there are the ones like Haggard who doth protest too much.Either obey the entire Bible or forget the Bible.Picking and choosing is lame.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 2:15pm
IM,
You seem to ignore the fact that I have stated to you previously that homosexuality is no more sinful than adultery, lying, or any other sin. God does not have a priority ranking for sin. I have never met another pastor who condoned any other sins while focusing solely on homosexuality. It is the media which highlights when we comment on homosexuality while excluding our comments on all other sin.
The Billy Graham Association does an excellent job of summarizing this point. An interpretation shared by most evangelicals (including Jerry Falwell during his ministry).
Q: Are all sins the same in God's eyes?
A: It is always difficult and dangerous to attempt to list sins according to their degree of seriousness. In one sense, all sins are equal in that they all separate us from God. The Bible's statement, "For the wages of sin is death ..." (Romans 6:23), applies to all sin, whether of thought, word, or deed.
At the same time, it seems obvious that some sins are worse than others in both motivation and effects and should be judged accordingly. Stealing a loaf of bread is vastly different than exterminating a million people. Sins may also differ at their root. Theologians have sought for centuries to determine what the essence of sin is. Some have chosen sensuality, others selfishness, and still others pride or unbelief.
http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=60
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 3:07pm
LvLiberty-I've never known a thief,liar,or adulterer who claims that they were born to do that.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 2:46pm
Probably because you are not engaged in counseling as I have done with a great many people over the past 25+ years.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 3:09pm
Those who continue to propagate this myth of homosexuality as something you are born with cannot justify this position on the simple basis that it violates statistical probability that this is a normal genetic development in society.
If homosexuality was a normal genetically developed "orientation" as the libs want to suggest, than we should see a much higher proportion of the population as homosexual. Rather than the 2-3% that exists in the US (as an example), we should find something at least approaching 30%, 40% or more. Because homosexuality is defined by behavior (despite the claims otherwise by the pro-homosexual lobbys), it cannot even be linked to other abnormalities which while genetic defects, are not viewed as moral deficiencies by any segment of the populace (ie autism, Down Syndrome).
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 3:19pm
I can see CCORBELL that you are under some of the same misgivings regarding the Rights "monopoly" on Racism
And I"M NOBODY, I'm not sure I ever said Libs were afraid of social equality. Its their attempts to schieve it that constitutes the problem.
I see where you come from MATTMAN. We'll have to disagree on some points I guess. Remember though there's a lot of poor whites with only poor choices too, & Latinos, etc.
Like you say, though I guess the one thing we can agree on unequivocally is that MARRKCANYONNN's A JERRRK!!!!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2007 @ 3:25pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person
And here we have ample proof of the problems bringing down the country and leading its decline - literate swine who work as part-time vice-crusaders and therapists, all the while mouthing their distorted and selfishly manicured view of Holy Writ. When two-bit fakirs like LL and his ludicrous verbigeration receive anything other than a howling concert of laughter you know the country has lost its rudder. Where do such anthropoids come from and why do people even listen to them? He has the decency of a grave robber and the tolerance of a storm trooper. Yeah, LL's a real counselor and a great listener, but something tells me he'd be deaf to the bleating of his antagonists being herded off in cattle cars if he lived in a world more suited to his lunacy...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2007 @ 3:29pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/14/2007 @ 3:29pm
hello chimi
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 3:41pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 3:07pm
Graham realizes the theological dilemma "equality of sins" puts him in. On one hand, a good case is made in the Bible that they ARE "all the same"...from genocide of millions to thinking about your old cheerleader girlfriend after you're married to simply not being a Christian.
On the other, it becomes an exercise in ridiculous "over-kill" on God's part that Hitler and Gandhi are punished for EXACTLY the same "reason" (Much less to the same degree).
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 3:19pm
Two-fold reason, LL better PRAY there is never any solid evidence of hereditary homosexuality....
1. Obviously, it negates the Biblical sanction against it. How do they explain GOD creating a genetic structure in Mankind to "commit an immorality".
2. It means that a lot of those "pro-lifers"...when their fetuses are screened for the "gay gene"...suddenly aren't so concerned about "the life of the unborn" and more with "having a fag son or lezzie daughter"!
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 3:41pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/14/2007 @ 3:29pm
No doubt
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 3:43pm
LL,
I think you should go and give your homilies on homosexuality during shower time at San Quentin. Water cleanses, you know?
Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2007 @ 3:45pm
BTW, the answer to the question about the "advanced and open society" in CHIMI's semi-demi-adopted homeland is...
Posted: June 20, 2007 - 11:00 am ET
(Bogota) Less than a week after Colombia's Congress passed legislation giving same-sex couples most of the same rights as opposite-sex married couples the bill has died in a procedural move by conservative senators.
The lower and upper houses of Congress last week passed slightly different versions of the bill. (story) After harmonizing the two pieces of legislation into a single bill the measure passed the lower house but in the Senate conservative senators who had initially supported the bill pulled out sending it to defeat.
The reversal came after the powerful Catholic Church in Colombia warned lawmakers they were violating Vatican policy and could be denied the sacraments.
President Alvaro Uribe had said he will sign the bill into law, making Colombia the first Latin American country to nationally allow civil unions.
Under the legislation same-sex couples would have been able to register as partners. They would have to have had to live together for more than two years and be of legal age.
In return they would have received the same social security and inheritance rights as married couples.
It is the fifth time since 1999 gay-supportive have attempted to pass the legislation, but each time it failed after opposition from the Roman Catholic Church.
Supporters of the bill say they will re-introduce in the next session of Congress.
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 3:45pm
Posted by MASK 11/14/2007 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person
Hey loggerhead - do some research on the rest of the region and you'll see Colombia is one of the most conservative countries in Latin America. We don't have National Orgasm day yet as they do in Brasil, but we're coming along.
BTW, your local library called and said 'The Joys of Celibacy' is overdue...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2007 @ 3:50pm
LvLiberty-I was a counselor.That was my profession for over 20 years and I never heard one person claim that they had a genetic predisposition to lie,steal,or commit adultery.If they had I would have told them that they were being silly and know better and we would have moved on from there. Most habitual liars and thieves were raised by parents who were also that way and they did know the difference between born to do it and raised to do it.Those that weren't raised that way knew it was a controllable compulsion which is why they sought counseling.Many serial adulterers were child sex abuse victims who act out sexually whether they are married or not and know they weren't born that way.I have had patients say that they always were like this(which is different from genetic predisposition),but then I would remind them that they were not always that way.They have told the truth many times,and have not stolen most things they see,and they had no knowledge of sex that young so they couldn't have always been that way.I would,also,remind them that all kids were born to lie and steal since all do it so all humans could make that claim.It didn't take long to get them over the idea that they were always that way,but that's not true of gays.I've never known a gay person say that first they got turned on by the opposite sex and then decided later on that their own sex was better and then decided to become gay and I don't believe in massive conspiracies so I don't buy into any ideas that gays plotted to con us into thinking that they always felt sexual desires for their own gender only.People who have desires for both genders aren't gay.They are either bi sexual or sex addicts.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 3:54pm
Mask,
A day late but here is that answer I promised you:
He's mostly honest...if hypocritical, MATT. I think he WILL answer me on Tuesday. But it'll be self-serving and self-incriminating.
Notice what he tried...he wanted us to compare NEW Testament Christianity to the whole of Islam/Qu'ran.
Yet, do you think LVLIB ONLY uses the New Testament in his sermons and writings? When it comes to war, homosexuality, etc....how much "OT" and how much "NT" you think his ratio is?
Posted by MASK 11/09/2007 @ 7:52pm
Mask,
You ask a good question but you will find perhaps that my answer doesn't line up with your expectations.
Do I refer to the Old Testament in my sermons? Of course. However I do not do so in a way that you have suggested. I do not use it to justify my positions on subjects like abortion or war (the two examples you cite). The Old Testament is meant for Gentile believers in many different ways, but none as legal justifications. As Jesus stated, "the law and the prophets were until the time of John. Since that time, the Kingdom of God has been preached". Luke 16:16
So as regards your suggestion on my ratio of NT to OT on subjects like abortion and war; it is about 99.9% NT.
In other ways, Christians look to the OT for examples of what not to do as Paul clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11
Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." [fn1] 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now [fn2] all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
Of particular importance and relevance to my point is the Council of Jerusalem in 49AD in which the Apostles led by James, the brother of Jesus issued their decree that Gentiles were not under the law of Moses. This decree is found in Acts 15.
As to other parts of the OT, the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclessiastes offer Christians wisdom, poetry, encouragement, and songs that lift our spirits and our hearts but they are not essential for salvation.
The Prophets offer Christians warning, example, and in a few cases a glimpse of the future, especially as regards Israel. Again, we can take comfort or exhortation to change from these passages, but they are not essential to our salvation nor do they direct us towards actions against other nations or unbelievers. They can however help us further understand how to live in Christ's love towards others and how important it is to God to help the needy (Isaiah 58 as an example).
We can find a great deal of typology in the OT, especially as the book o Hebrews instructs us that Jesus is the true High Priest without comparison. We can see the typology of the Tabernacle and Christ revealed and explained in the books of Hebrews and Revelation.
But I do not preach or teach the death penalty because of the OT. Jesus Himself did nothing to abolish the law of God that taking a life meant that justice required your own life. Paul who said that he was taught not by man but by Jesus Himself (during his 3 years in the Arabian desert after his conversion) made it clear in the book of Romans that governments were instituted by God to administer justice including the sword against evil (this would include civil and international).
We find also that Jesus validated the book of Genesis record of creation, of Adam and Eve and marriage. So, in this specific regard you may have a point. However it doesn't translate into my teaching government coercion as our debate v Islam is centered around. I have said continuously that I acknowledge that this is not a Christian nation nor will it ever be.
Islam mandates it's rule over nations and unbelievers. Christ instructs believers in the NT and is echoed by the Apostles that believers are not to judge the world. Christ will judge the world one day. I instruct my church members constantly not to expect the world to act according to Christian standards. I also teach that many as Jesus Himself warned, would say they are believers, but their actions will betray them as not genuine.
This is still a very brief summary of what is actually a subject requiring much lengthier discussion to truly expound in full.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 3:59pm
LvLiberty-Never have heard one of you blame natural disasters,9/11,military deaths, etc on adulterers,but have heard many of you blame these things on gays,but there are many more adulterers than there are gays and Jesus never mentioned gays,but did mention adulterers so logic dictates that adulterers are to blame and Christian adulterers in particular since they know better and conservative Christians best not be engaging in sexual sin if you're judging others by blaming them for 9/11 type events since those nasty things are probably being caused by them and not gays.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2007 @ 4:02pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/14/2007 @ 3:50pm
National ORGASM Day?? I think we could all learn a lot from our neighbors below the equator! When is this? I'm going to go ahead and plan my dream vacation now...
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 4:03pm
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person
Yeah, it doesn't take long to get used to the warm climate and even warmer people down here. Treat a latina well and she'll make you a king.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2007 @ 4:10pm
"do some research on the rest of the region and you'll see Colombia is one of the most conservative countries in Latin America."----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/14/2007 @ 3:50pm
and why don't YOU try to reconcile your posts, CHIMI?!?!?
"I can't believe a person's sexual orientation is still such a big issue in such a supposedly advanced and open society as the one the US boasts. Yawn."----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/14/2007 @ 12:25pm
Or have you actually said that there is something Colombia and the USA share in common?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 4:18pm
So as regards your suggestion on my ratio of NT to OT on subjects like abortion and war; it is about 99.9% NT. ---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 3:59pm
So, what part of the New Testament would I find THIS in, LL?---
"3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm---BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 4:22pm
Or how abou this??.....Luke?...Matthew?....John?
"Tell the military to take off their safety's, find some "Patton" style leaders; also, think Dresden; tell the president, his advisors, and the military staff to quit worrying about public opinion and just destroy every enemy-no prisoners."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 10:50a--- BLOG | Posted 10/19/2007 @ 4:50pm Comments for "Moyers/Scahill Expose Blackwater"
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 4:24pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 3:19pm
You are still not touching on how homosexuality is inherently immoral. Adultery, lying (I'll take your meaning to be false witness), and stealing are all there in the ten commandments. And clearly, these behaviors are unjust. Explain to me how homosexuality is unjust and your New Testament basis for your explanation - because I don't get it.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2007 @ 4:26pm
Thought I'd post a few links in honor of...
1. Wednesday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqZcYPEszN8
2. What Darla might be into - in the nude...with the food
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY8jaGs7xJ0
3. LVLIBERTY, you've got it going on...and I don't mean that in a gay way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4sizhcx06Q
Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2007 @ 4:43pm
Someone please tell Peter Rothberg we need an ACT NOW!! article re: National Orgasm Day in the USA, equipped with links to our members of congress, urging that we expediently mark a day to celebrate life, sexuality, and pleasure however one chooses to define it!
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 4:47pm
Video of LL in action. This is what his drivel sounds like to me.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/255/
Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2007 @ 4:51pm
"ACook-Many gays are black.Why are they more educated and make more money?"
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 1:12pm
IM, I don't know where you got your info from but many gays in the black community struggle just like straight black folk.
Better education and better pay is another myth. Black gays are no more likely to attend college than straight blacks. Stats show black women have a higher rate of attending college than black men.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 4:54pm
"You have the same support systems as any other group that is a minority."
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/14/2007 @ 1:11pm
No we don't.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 4:59pm
Mr. Frank has a right to his belief that Mrs. Clinton is the "best equipped to pass laws that will treat all Americans with dignity, fairness and equality no matter who they are or who they love" but he clearly stopped short of saying she has the best RECORD and current positions for LGBT equality. Whereas Mrs. Clinton's stance against DOMA is both recent, and only partial, Mr. Obama has always been against DOMA, which includes his current support to repeal the provision that allows states to not recognize same-sex marriage of other states. This is a bold stance by Mr. Obama (only matched by Mr. Kucinich), and a distinction that Mr. Frank, nor Clinton's cronies at HRC (the organiz.) fail to point out in their questionnaire to the candidates.
I hardly find Mr. Frank's endorsement to be in the best interests of the LGBT community when he's endorsing a candidate who stood by and watched in silence (Mrs. Edwards speaks out) while her husband ran Christian radio ads during the 1996 campaign, touting his support and passage of DOMA. Why isn't this being discussed more in the LGBT community? Do we forget? Melissa Etheridge didn't,and I surely don't. When I have a record, of past behaviors that show lukewarm support, I pay attention to it, the rest is pure BS and manifestations of the establishment patting each other on the back.
Lastly, I do not think Mr. Frank has some gall to use these words just after ENDA passing in the house, he says that Clinton would support "no matter who they are", when he voted to an ENDA which clearly states "it matters who you are" if you are a transgendered individual. I know this subject matter of T or no T is being debated in the LGB community, but I for one, find it the ultimate form of being hypocritical to not include the T. The same folk that scream about full marriage equality, somehow now feel incremental change is ok. Is incremental ok if and only if you benefit yourself?
See clearly the Obama vs. Clinton difference on LGBT issues at http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/11/ the-obama-hilla.html
Posted by TimInChicago at 11/14/2007 @ 5:00pm
"And I'm curious what, if anything, you would suggest to address the economic disparity in this race-class equation, that you yourself identified"?
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 1:21pm
First, I'd start with the educational system, then move on to the banking industry (they have issues loaning out money to qualified black folk), then the insurance industry, then healthcare and housing.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 5:07pm
So, what part of the New Testament would I find THIS in, LL?---
"3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm---BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel
Posted by MASK 11/14/2007 @ 4:22pm
I never said that was a religiously based comment. I am a citizen and a military veteran and I believe the constitution still allows me to posit my political views apart from my religious faith.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 5:18pm
First, I'd start with the educational system, then move on to the banking industry (they have issues loaning out money to qualified black folk), then the insurance industry, then healthcare and housing.
Posted by ACOOK 11/14/2007 @ 5:07pm
These are all prime examples of systemic racism. Now, in your opinion, what is the best way to correct this situation?
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 5:22pm
I never said that was a religiously based comment. I am a citizen and a military veteran and I believe the constitution still allows me to posit my political views apart from my religious faith.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 5:18pm
Mutually exclusive states of being, in other words.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 5:22pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 5:18pm
...the constitution still allows me to posit my political views apart from my religious faith...
The Constitution may, but it is odd state of affairs. Like claiming to be vegetarian....between meals.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2007 @ 5:37pm
I never said that was a religiously based comment. I am a citizen and a military veteran and I believe the constitution still allows me to posit my political views apart from my religious faith.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 5:18pm
Mutually exclusive states of being, in other words.
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 5:18pm
...the constitution still allows me to posit my political views apart from my religious faith...
The Constitution may, but it is odd state of affairs. Like claiming to be vegetarian....between meals.
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/14/2007 @ 5:37pm
I'd love to know on what basis you both who strongly believe in separation of church and state believe that I as a Christian can only express political views that coincide with my religious beliefs?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 5:52pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 5:52pm
It is not for me to dictate to you what you should believe or express. However, it is well within my right to point out your positions are incongruous and they suggest some hypocrisy on your part.
I understand that it is difficult to live according to the Gospel message. I also understand that failure to do so by people that profess the Christian faith and the hypocrisy of Christians turns many people away from God. We do God, and ourselves, a disservice when we lose sight of that fact.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2007 @ 6:17pm
"These are all prime examples of systemic racism. Now, in your opinion, what is the best way to correct this situation?"
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 5:22pm
Starting with the educational system, I'd like to see all of the old outdated school books black children use, thrown out. Allow us to receive the same reading material as the affluent school systems. Don't give our educational money to city government because they will spend it. Let us go out a recuit for quality teachers and pay them well. We deserve to have teachers with Masters and PhD's in our classrooms.
With the banking industry, I'd like for them to treat us as hard working customers and not credit liabilities. If I'm offered a credit card, I want it to be an unsecured card, a secured one with an annual fee of $39 and 24% interest rate and my limit will go no higher than $650.
With the insurance (home, auto, health) industry, don't make me pay through the nose in high premiums because of where I live.
With healthcare, I would reduce the number of fast food restuarants within a 50 mile radius of good neighborhoods and schools. We're often sick because there are no quality grocery stores where we live. More green space and parks to walk in. And I would put a moratorium on issuing liquor licenses to anyone who wants to put a liquor store in a poor neighborhood. Come to think of it I would totally eliminate all liquor stores.
With housing, I'd put a moratorium building licenses and on zoning for more apartments. Part of the problem with our neighborhood is the lack of homeownership. If there were more homeowners, our tax base would improve and we could get the services we so desparently need. (See banking and insurance industries)
However, if these industries are not willing to work with us, then allow us to open up our own black business and stop putting up barriers to obtain them.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 6:18pm
correction to my 6:18pm post: "and not a secured one with an annual fee of $39 and 24% interest rate and my limit will go no higher than $650."
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 6:20pm
I'd love to know on what basis you both who strongly believe in separation of church and state believe that I as a Christian can only express political views that coincide with my religious beliefs?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 5:52pm
You can believe whatever you want buddy, and even express it. That's the beautiful thing about our constitution; it protects our rights to say and believe whatever we want to. But for you to say out of one side of your mouth that you are Christian, and live by the Gospel and the New Testament, and whatever else, and then out the other side (the political side), that you would nuke this country, and kill em all without blinking an eye is simply hypocritical. No one said you don't have the right to think and speak like a hypocrite, of course you do! But your religious and political personas seem to negate each other! What's the common ground? You would defy your religious beliefs with adherence to the neocon philosophy? Good luck gettin into heaven! Try your logic with old Saint Pete!
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 6:27pm
Posted by ACOOK 11/14/2007 @ 6:18pm
These are all wonderful ideas. I won't condescend to you because I respect that you're generally conservative, but I have to ask; which party do you think is more likely to come closest to making the changes such as the ones you've proposed?
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 6:34pm
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 6:34pm
Which party? The one that's not beholden to corporate or special interest. Of course that party is only a figment of my imagination.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2007 @ 6:41pm
You are still not touching on how homosexuality is inherently immoral. Adultery, lying (I'll take your meaning to be false witness), and stealing are all there in the ten commandments. And clearly, these behaviors are unjust. Explain to me how homosexuality is unjust and your New Testament basis for your explanation - because I don't get it.
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/14/2007 @ 4:26pm
SRJ,
I know you are knowledgeable about the scriptures so I find it to be disingenuous that you would suggest it is unclear in the NT about homosexuality.
1. Jesus made it quite clear that God created a man and a woman for marriage. (Matthew 19:4-5 Nowhere can you find any suggestion that He was upholding any other possible combination for the sanctity of marriage. And if not marriage than it would be fornication which He also condemned.
2. Jesus Christ did censure homosexual activity--when he condemned "fornication."
First, the Lord made "fornication" the only cause for divorce (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and, thus, by implication denounced this evil. In a graphic rebuke of moral transgressions, Jesus characterized "fornication" as a defiling act, under the same condemnation as theft and murder (Matthew 15:18-20; Mark 7:21-23). Homosexual activity is but a sub-category of the more generic term porneia (generally rendered "fornication" in the better translations--KJV, ASV). In the world of the ancient Greeks, from the time of Demosthenes onward, the term porneia was applied to a wide variety of sexual sins, including homosexuality (see: Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, Vol. I, pp. 497-501; see also: Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 854).
3. Jude explicitly identified homosexual conduct as a form of "fornication." Regarding the antique cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the sacred author notes that the men of Sodom, etc., gave themselves over to "fornication" (ekporneuo--intensive sexual activity), pursuing "strange [heteros] flesh" (v. 7). Those ancient deviants "were interested in sexual relations with men," hence they "perverted the created order of natural intercourse" (Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987, p. 381). Professor Ralph Earle declared that the term "fornication" in this context "obviously suggests homosexuality" (Word Meanings in the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000, p. 455).
4. Finally, Jesus stated that anyone who rejects the teaching of his appointed representatives, rejects him as well. To the seventy disciples he said: "He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
If such was the case with reference to that group, it certainly was no less true of the Lord's apostles.
In this regard, Paul, the apostle of Christ, unequivocally condemned homosexual activity along with other forms of fornication (see: Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Col. 3:5,6; 1 Timothy 1:10).
Peter stated that Paul's letters are scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16)
Lengthy theological examination is found in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology on the subject of human sexuality.
Bakers [tinyurl.com]
Baker's specifically on sexual immorality
Baker sexual immorality [tinyurl.com]
An excellent guide to Biblical Hermeneutics (Interpretation) is found at this site
http://www.digistat.com/gcf/8rules.htm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 6:44pm
Posted by ACOOK 11/14/2007 @ 6:41pm
I know what you mean. I wasn't sure how to approach this to be honest. I have other ideas as well, like paying people more for the laborous jobs no one else wants, or paying people more in general by implementing living wage standars. Also, we could re-define poverty. The technical definition of poverty is much lower than it should be. I guess my rationalle is that in combating poverty, we can also combat the racial disparity situation since so many minority citizens are stuck within the rut of poverty.
I can't help but think that your ideas are out of step with your conservative philosophy. Your suggestions are all quite liber, I guess in my opinion. I agree with your point about the corporate special interests, but I think that progressive leadership would be most likely to come anywhere close to attacking this social injustice in our country.
Hey it's been nice chatting with you. I need to get some work done before I go home! Have a great night!
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 6:56pm
You can believe whatever you want buddy, and even express it. That's the beautiful thing about our constitution; it protects our rights to say and believe whatever we want to. But for you to say out of one side of your mouth that you are Christian, and live by the Gospel and the New Testament, and whatever else, and then out the other side (the political side), that you would nuke this country, and kill em all without blinking an eye is simply hypocritical. No one said you don't have the right to think and speak like a hypocrite, of course you do! But your religious and political personas seem to negate each other! What's the common ground? You would defy your religious beliefs with adherence to the neocon philosophy? Good luck gettin into heaven! Try your logic with old Saint Pete!
Posted by MATTMAN 11/14/2007 @ 6:27pm
You seem to misinterpret my remarks and for that I must plead at least partially guilty. In stating that I form views that are my right as a citizen outside of my faith does not mean that those views violate my faith.
Take the war example and Mask's repeated posting of my nuke argument. That view contrary to what liberal Christians and non-believers would suggest is not outside of New Testament doctrine.
Romans 13:4 clearly states that God has ordained governments; that he also has empowered them to wield a sword (weapon) to execute justice against evil (greek ekdekos orge eis prasso kakos= justice/penalty/revenge wrath upon him who does evil)
That the Chinese communists of 1949 were an evil bunch is not in dispute by any but the most hardcore maoists. That Christ will also one day execute wrath on evildoers (Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation)is also consistent with scripture and thus does not make my views hypocritical.
It is also wrong to suggest as you input by your own interpretation and not words I have stated. I have never said "without blinking an eye". God has said that He takes no pleasure in the death of a sinner. No Christian can therefore take pleasure in the death of even the most vile person, nor treat it lightly. But I do believe in justice/judgment as is commanded by Christ and is His to execute (John 5:22-30).
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 7:12pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 7:12pm
You've clearly done some thinking, researching, twisting, wrenching, maybe even force-fitting to get these two personalities of yours to reconcile. Congratulations, you've finally managed to squeeze something together that hopefully makes sense to you!
Well, it's good to know you'd at least blink from the flash of the nuclear blast that would vaporize millions of inn.... oh I almost said 'innocents' but they're not Christian, they're enemies, and you've shown that the Bible clearly endorses nuking enemies. Sorry about the confusion--bombs away!
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/14/2007 @ 7:31pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 6:44pm
I don't pretend to be a theologian. But here's my take.
Matthew 19 is responding to Pharisee legal questions on divorce. A less literal reading would place Adam and Eve as the first example of a committed relationship and how the Jews were unable to live up to such a high standard. It ends, in my version, with: "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given...Let anyone accept this who can." Could we not interpret homosexuals as people to whom this teaching was not given?
Porneia has a number of connotations, some like sexual misconduct. Others like sex with temple prostitutes. Still others favor "unlawful marriage".
I can understand condemning sexual misconduct. I do not understand the claim that all homosexual sex - such as within the context of a committed relationship - constitutes sexual misconduct. The semantic case isn't cut and dried either.
It is also interesting that in the classic Jewish interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah, they focus on the sins of injustice, inhospitableness and so forth and not their homosexuality. It suggests to me that modern scholars might be bringing something to the text that may not be inherent to it.
As for your fourth point, I find it rather ironic coming from a Protestant pastor. Do you wish to get into questions of lineage? Do you want to explain how Paul is Christ's chosen representative - upon this rock, Peter's recognition of Paul and all that? How the Catholic church isn't the "true" church? Etc.? I must say, I don't.
I'll not get into all the problems of Paul. I will say that I don't think Paul's notions regarding what is natural - such as "Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife." - as divinely inspired.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2007 @ 7:50pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 5:18pm |
Do us a favor then, huh? Put an * (asterisk) or something beside your comments that are "civilian" or "political" and a # (ampersand) beside those that are "religious" or "Biblically-based".
That way when you recommend nuclear annihiliation for millions of people to grant a military leader a "victory"....or recommend flattening entire cities with fire-bombing....
we'll know you've turned off your Christianity!
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 7:55pm
that he also has empowered them to wield a sword (weapon) to execute justice against evil (greek ekdekos orge eis prasso kakos= justice/penalty/revenge wrath upon him who does evil) That the Chinese communists of 1949 were an evil bunch is not in dispute by any but the most hardcore maoists.--Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 7:12pm
So EVERY one of the MILLIONS...men, women, CHILDREN that you wanted to see vaporized (and burned and suffer the lingering effects of radiation poisoning, disease, and starvation)...
were "evil"?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 7:56pm
As for your fourth point, I find it rather ironic coming from a Protestant pastor. Do you wish to get into questions of lineage? Do you want to explain how Paul is Christ's chosen representative - upon this rock, Peter's recognition of Paul and all that? How the Catholic church isn't the "true" church? Etc.? I must say, I don't.
I'll not get into all the problems of Paul. I will say that I don't think Paul's notions regarding what is natural - such as "Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife." - as divinely inspired.
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/14/2007 @ 7:50pm
There are a number of problems with this response on your part. Rather than your SOF background, your comments seemed like a defensive Catholic position.
1. I in no way made any suggestion that Paul was in a position surpassing that of the other Apostles.
2. The upon this rock citation is not about Peter as the rock of the church. It was the truth of Peter's statement identifying Jesus as the Maschiah (the Christ), the son of the living God. It was upon that truth that the church would be built and not upon Peter.
It was not Peter who led the early church, but James the brother of Jesus. Peter was obviously a central figure and a key figure in the development of the early church.
3. Your problems with Paul's teachings put you in a difficult predicament since the other Apostles clearly accepted not only his right to be accepted as one of them, but as Peter clearly states, that his writings are also scripture. Therefore you must make all of them suspect to justify your position. A position I might add that was not held by any of the Church fathers through the first few centuries.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 10:44pm
Do us a favor then, huh? Put an * (asterisk) or something beside your comments that are "civilian" or "political" and a # (ampersand) beside those that are "religious" or "Biblically-based".
That way when you recommend nuclear annihiliation for millions of people to grant a military leader a "victory"....or recommend flattening entire cities with fire-bombing....
we'll know you've turned off your Christianity!
Posted by MASK 11/14/2007 @ 7:55pm
It's not necessary. When I make a comment based upon my faith, I cite the reasons for it, usually accompanied by scripture.
To somehow suggest that conservative Christians are not allowed to have opinions apart from their faith is indicative of the arrogance and snobbery of liberalism which I continue to find you a bigger part of than you want to acknowledge.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 10:50pm
So EVERY one of the MILLIONS...men, women, CHILDREN that you wanted to see vaporized (and burned and suffer the lingering effects of radiation poisoning, disease, and starvation)...
were "evil"?
Posted by MASK 11/14/2007 @ 7:56pm
Again, more lies and attempts to twist my statements. My original comments last year stated that the nuclear attacks should be directed towards remote military centers in Northern China/Mongolia that would have sent a message to the Commmunists and hopefully have inspired anti-communists forces to overthrow Mao.
At now time except in your twisted little mind did I discuss targeting civilian populations.
BTW, are you aware that more people died from the conventional bombing of Tokyo than from the two nuclear bombs?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2007 @ 11:02pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 10:44pm
I was addressing your fourth point - which had two aspects, an argument that Christ essentially legitimizes Paul's teaching and that Paul taught against homosexuality.
I went for the easy route and made an argument that Paul was not one of Jesus's apostles - and given your literal rendering of Biblical text - this statement cannot apply to him.
Further, Paul isn't passing along the teachings of Jesus as a scribe. He is clearly teaching himself. I'm a Christian not a Paulian. I don't think all of Paul's teachings reflect Christ's teachings nor do I think they all are divinely inspired. This is not a Catholic position.
If I were inclined, I could also go through each of Paul's writings you cited and offer a semantic argument. However, I'm not willing to spend the time to do that - it's easy enough to find if you are interested.
While I grew up in the Catholic tradition, these arguments from authority are an important reason why I am not a member of the Catholic church. Since you are making arguments from authority, then I have to wonder why you don't recognize the authority of the Catholic church.
The argument you seem to be offering is that James led the early church and "the rock" comment applies to the topic that Jesus being the Messiah not Peter, the man. Fair enough.
It still leaves you with this argument that Paul's teachings are scripture because Jesus validated his disciples and the disciples validated Paul. All the disciples recognized Paul, so if I question Paul, I'm questioning all of them too.
Besides the fact that this is a rather weak argument, it wouldn't make much difference to me if it were a strong one. Even in the Gospels, it is quite clear that the disciples of Jesus had a hard time following the meaning of the man when he was present. I think it is a very legitimate question to wonder: how much of the meaning did they fail to get when he was no longer with them - and over the course of many years of oral tradition?
Luckily, there is another tradition with Christianity - the Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Light Within, whatever you like to call it. And it is this living manifestation of God that continues the revelation. This makes the mistakes of the disciples, the mistakes of Paul and the limits of their historical situation a problem that can be transended.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/15/2007 @ 10:38am
"You would. Our Constitution forbids any form of discrimination. It's sad to see a black person endorse discrimination against another American minority."
Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/14/2007 @ 11:37am
MT, why is it sad? I'm discriminated against everyday. Why should I help gays attain "equality" over me and mine, when my own people (and latinos too) are still struggling just to get the basics?
Posted by ACOOK
Because discrimination is discrimination, and your obvious disregard for the rights of Americans with sexual preferences different from yours only serves to demonstrate how acceptable discrimination is--not just here in the US, and not just against blacks (hell, there is bias, discrimination among blacks with differing darkness of skin). And save that bs about how they can change their preferences. Who are you or anybody else to say what is proper, correct? You should know better; you're no better than the whites that discriminate against you.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/15/2007 @ 1:42pm
Good thing it's not a "use of homophobic slurs" "gays rights article", huh, Empty?
Posted by MASK
Anybody fail to see that coming?
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/15/2007 @ 1:43pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/15/2007 @ 1:43pm
Not really...they've pretty much figured you out by this point, Empty. The "progressive" who thinks it's okay for HIM to use homophobic slurs, since "obviously" he's not homophobic!
Posted by Mask at 11/15/2007 @ 2:51pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/14/2007 @ 11:02pm
Your ORIGINAL post on "3-5 nuclear weapons against China ...."-P