sharkman

For those of you who think our religious leaders are bad for being against gay marriage, get a load of this: Richard Gere is now the subject of possible legal action in India for a smooch gone awry after three attorneys filed formal complaints alleging the actor committed an "obscene act" by kissing Bollywood beauty Shilpa Shetty at a public conference Monday. The PDA sparked a firestorm of controversy in a male-dominated country that prides itself on modesty and touched off protests organized by religious conservatives that saw Gere and Shetty burned in effigy throughout the country. Per India's Press Trust news agency, two lawyers filed an obscenity claim in Ghaziabad, a town outside the Indian capital of New Delhi, against Shetty, as well as several private TV news broadcasters for airing the incident. Another lawyer, Poonal Chandra Bhandari, filed a separate complaint blasting the Chicago star for his overly exuberant behavior. (End quote) So, they have actually sued TV stations and began burning Gere and Shetty in effigy. Now THAT is religion running amock, folks. You might hate religion, you might be indifferent as long as they don't bug you, but all in all, you don't have much to complain about in Canada. The link says that within hours of the kiss, groups of men organized demonstrations in several major cities and began torching posters of the stars and dancing around the ashes. In Canada, however, no such protests were organized by religious leaders. I thought I'd just point that out.

Give me a call when the Catholic Church cares as much for gays as they do for pedophile priests. Morals and the Catholic Church.....now that is funny. Is this somehow supposed to disprove a universal moral law? Just because certain priests in the Catholic church sinned against this moral law, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. From a Christian point of view, the reason these priests were exposed in the first place is because God gave them time to admit their sin, and they wouldn't so He revealed it so they would stop wrecking innocent lives - and their own.

LOL!! We should start a campaign, killing trees as we go.

Fig, that's way too left brained of an approach. That also turns people off at times.

So we were to glean THAT much out of you one line remark? I will say this, you seem rather down on religion. Every time you reference it in general, you call it superstition and religious dogma. If you wanted to actually discuss religion in general as you claim, you might want to approach the topic in neutral terms, and then lead your audience toward the superstition dogma areas. That way you don't lose people right at the start.

Dancer, get a load of this guy, eh? What do you do with a guy like this, I don't like to put people on the ignore list, but what is the point of bothering with such?

Tell you what, I withdraw the comment.

Nice attempt at spin, but your post is there to see and is quite plain, you made no such explanation in that post. Now you want to change what you were mocking. Sure, go ahead...

Geez you are stubborn. When I told you about the edict from Greg, it was right after your post which included the phrase, right wing nut cases. That is name calling, hence the friendly warning.

Let's have a logical, reasoned discussion on ghosts, the tooth fairy and sasquatch too. So, let's see. Cyber mocks the idea of having real discussion on Islam, but in the Radical Islam is wrecking the world... thread, he wants to have such a 'discussion' of Christianity. What a hypocrite.

You see, this is the problem with those who think they've solved all of their problems when they reject their parents faith and or church. They think they can answer the enigma of religion and God for ALL of mankind, all based on their singular experience. Like I said, get some time in kid.

I'll get back to you when your comments aren't hate filled rants on religion, with such easy to disprove nonsense, all based on your experience of sticking it to the man when you rejected your parents' faith. Get some more time in.

Well, I didn't. My parents not only raised me in the faith, my dad was a pastor. So I know a thing or two as well. So what? There is plenty of blame to go around in history. But we were talking about modern times, and like the typcial response when faced with the fact that Christianity isn't flying planes into bluildings, you go,"yeah? Well what about the crusades?! " Like that has anything to do with today.

Christians believe the Apocalypse is the defining moment of mankind. All of our attempts at peace and love fail. War has been right up there with death and taxes since mankind began. For accuracy, the Apocalypse is to occur on Israel's land, when Gog and Magog as well as others attack and wipe out Israel. THAT is the Apocalypse. That is when God is supposed to come back and wipe out THOSE armies. This nonsense about New York being wiped out as a sign of the Apocalypse is silly. The United States is arguably not even mentioned in Revelations. Some scholars think this means she will have no influence on world events by that time. You suggest the Old Testament has the most horrific violence? Grab a brain. The nuclear weapons the U.S. unleashed on Japan far outdid anything in the O.T. As did the sum of Hitler's Germany. If you are going to make wild eyed accusations like this which are so easy to knock over, at least pretend you are joking. You suggest we are moral because we are animals and need to survive? If we were moral, there would be no rape, murder, stealing, road rage, and a host of other things. You obviously aren't very familar with morality.

Ah yes, strains of the Lennon song. I'm afraid you are going to be stuck with the world as is. By your comments it's plain you don't know too much about religion. But you simply can't bring forth examples of other faiths flying planes into buildings, because they are not.

It gets tossed out the window? Why, who tossed it? Since Rosie defended Alec publicly, her actions are fit for discussion, plain and simple. And she was indeed wrong to defend his actions. He was wrong to defend his actions, and obviously needs help.

Okay, J, you gotta be involved in politics with all of these money questions concerning Tory expenses. Next you'll be outraged about breath mint expenditures. Have you wondered who's picking up the tab for coffee? You should look into it! Edit: I just read your latest comment in the Harper make up thread, and this is not a personal attack, just noticing how much you've been attacking Harper and the Tories.

This sounds like a classic case of selective outrage. How come her dropping the "f-bomb" (which, by the way, isn't a real bomb) in front of the likes of Helen Gurley Brown is considered so offensive, and Rush Limbaugh can say stuff like the following, as cited on Joan Walsh's blog, with nary a peep from anyone: "Limbaugh insisted that Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-hui 'was a liberal.' How did Limbaugh reach that conclusion about the mentally ill Cho, raised a devout Christian in a red state, who had no apparent political affiliations? "This guy had to be a liberal," the pain-med aficionado told his listeners. "You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act." If Rosie O'Donnell had pointed out that the shooter was raised a Christian, she'd be lynched. I don't know about the lynching, but if Rosie claimed Cho was a conservative, which is more comparative to what Limbaugh said, us conservatives would probably react with about the same knee jerking that Joan Walsh did, whoever she is.

Were you going to get around to answering my question about this in post #634? To refresh your memory, I asked: "How will the change to SSM affect society? If you forsee a danger, we need to understand what it is. Just so you know, I start from a liberal standpoint (what isn't harmful to society, society should not prohibit)." No, you argue for the sake of out-arguing the other person, not analyzing to see who might have some common ground. Do you ever wonder why you draw the ire of so many people on this forum? You may not mean to, but you come off sounding like a know-it-all. I am not interested in trying to debate something with somebody who thinks they know it all.

Well, how 'bout the right wing nut cases start with the group that was responsible for the LAST terrorist attack on American soil, or the biggest one, hhmmm?

Hey, just a heads up Guthrie, Greg has recently issued a zero tolerance on rule infractions, so you might want to watch the name calling for a while.

Rue, you sound like a complicated persn and I like that in people. Or maybe it's just your impatience with figleaf.

Are you basing that on the above list provided by mdancer? Because a filling can last 30 years or more and CFLs maybe a couple of years, depending on use. If you have 20 bulbs on the go every 2 years, it adds up. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs will last anywhere from 8000-10000 hours. Under normal circumstances that means they'll last up to 10 years. ah, I was basing it on my usage, I've had a couple crap out on me I guess.

Are you basing that on the above list provided by mdancer? Because a filling can last 30 years or more and CFLs maybe a couple of years, depending on use. If you have 20 bulbs on the go every 2 years, it adds up.

It does, because it frightens me. It will create tension and people might change their habits. If someone is WILLING to murder someone else, it makes me worried about the safety of my own wife and children. I don't really see any parallels between gay marriage and murder. My guess........Dj's will be just as bad, Dresses will be just as expansive (adjusted for inflation of course), people will get just as drunk, but other than that, it won't. If 10% of people are gay today, than I think it's safe to assume that 10% of people will be gay tomorrow, or next year, or in 30 years. I'm glad you see no parallels between gay marriage and murder because there are none and I wasn't claiming any. You suggest that some half wit who at random murders his wife(it could be on the other side of the country) affects you, but changing the institution of marriage will not affect society over a span of 30 years. If you are affected by random murders, then you must be very frightened indeed since murders occur quite often. The reason most can't see that changing the institution of marriage will have an affect on our society is because very few can actually analyze the effects of something over a 30 year span. To talk about it in terms of clothing costs and levels of drunkeness doesn't prove anything.