OK, This Is Just Crazy.

The history of colonial America is dominated by terrifying religious intolerance.

 

So bobble, what did you read in the story of this particular group that you would classify as a "good idea?"

I carry no party affiliation. But if distancing myself from all religious fanatacism makes me a dirty commie liberal, then I guess I'm a pinko.

 

Dude, I'll raise you Robertson and a dozen scary assholes like him for every Jesse you wing across the room.

dipshit

 

Bobble, I think a perfectly legit question was posed earlier, and yet you once again conveniently glossed over it.

And before anyone says it, I'm not trying to feed the trolls. I'm trying to get the trolls to speak a truth, even if it's one only they believe in. I've always found one of the quickest ways to end these debates is to demand an answer and not let up until it's provided.

So Bobble ... if a Muslim group had done the same thing, only dressing the statue in their garb, you're telling me you wouldn't be pissed, despite your half-hearted attempt at promoting a religious freedom that you yourself clearly don't believe in when non-Christian ideas are promoted.

Answer that question, and none other, and I'll be satisfied.

 

That says more about your mentality than you want made public.

 

No, I wouldn't have been pissed. It was done on the church's property. If I make a nude Statue of Liberty and drop it in my front yard, that's my business.

You see, what you don't understand is that I don't think, per se, that CHRISTIAN everything ought to be dominant in government. There are many, many, many moral guidelines that even the so-called deists of the Colonial era imparted as law. Many of those moral guidelines are part of many religions, and SHOULD lack offense to most athiests. My problem is blaming conservative evanglical America for all the wrongs, for seeing it as some cancer every time people of that loin speak out.

 

I've already begun a sci-fi novel with the title, "People Of The Loin."

 

Well at least you answered the question, although based on your other posts on other threads, I'm dubious about your claim that you wouldn't be upset by a burqa-adorned Lady Liberty. That being said, it's not that religious conservatives are automatically tagged with things liberals see wrong with this country. The problem is that religious conservatives are so often behind (or in front of) key issues that liberals attack and see as wrong with this country.

 

Seems as though the church's website has been bombarded with on-lookers. I could only guess the attraction is similar to that of a train wreck.

http://www.worldovercomers.org/

 

Glad you entered the parenthetical phrase. I was about to jump all over that.

Biblically, and from the Koran interpretation variances, I understand that Jews and Christians are enemies of Islam. Anyone who considers me and many in this country an enemy is deemed by me as a threat. That is not to say I've endorsed everything about the playing out of this war - I have stated before that I would have sealed the borders off, allowed the country time to get on its feet without outside interference, which in my mind, with the borders sealed, would have already been accomplished. Instead, we - or he - proclaimed mission accomplished in a real doofus act on a boat. He misread that like so many around him and BEFORE him misread intelligence.

I'm surprised the moral remarks weren't attacked...being that I've spoken against the G's so often. Whether I believe or not that it is immoral, the guidance of moral law and public law should be governed by the PEOPLE. We are a republic, with state's rights. The reason for that is that what seems right for San Francisco isn't right for places in middle America. Since a majority of states still reject by vote this issue, then the federal judiciary should not force them to accept it. But if Taxachusetts or Cal. embrace it, so be it. Judiciary should defend job discrimination, health care discrimination and such. It should not be involved in determining marriage laws, which are the state's laws to make.

That's enough for today.

 

"The G's"...do you find it that difficult (or repulsive) to even type the word GAY?

 

There's some really nifty stuff in here. First of all, where do the "Koran interpretation variances" come from? Secondly, your theory of American government lost a pretty big argument back at Gettysburg. Thirdly, you presumably reject Brown v. Board as judicial activism. Last, allowing gay people to marry is very much an issue of job discrimination and health-care discrimination. That you find what these couples do icky is a different matter entirely.