With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in

[Figleaf]

Okay, I just want to know where you guys (Kuzadd and Figleaf), are coming from, obviously your rabid anti-religion (specifically anti-Christianity) is quite intriguing....and on numerous times, quite baffling.

I don't think I'm specifically anti-Christian. But I'm definitely anti-religion. It's all bunch of meaningless superstition that lures people into relying on it instead of relating to reality as it is. It distracts people from things that matter, and causes them to elevate things that don't matter into exagerated importance.

Religion demands that adherents be irrational, at least to the extent of 'believing' something in the absence evidence and without logic. And it insists that it is more important and authoritative than anything else, even the obligations of personal ethics that we owe to other human beings.

... as you well know, I'm a Christian.

But what about you, Figleaf and Kuzadd?

I'm a Discordian Taoist Agnostic.

[kuzadd]

Gun control would be a key liberal issue, i do not advocate for gun control, therefore you assumption is false, and that is all it is ,assumptions, a pile of them based on your own pre-supposed idea's.

My stance on SSM is pure common sense.

Consenting adults, marrying the person they love.

Your bias lies in your religious belief, which is not common sense, but indoctrination.

was Clinton not a christian, does it even matter,?? IMO. NOPE!!!

Like I said, your own assumptions , piled up.

Did I mention gun control? You did. But to be honest, I was surprised to hear you don't approve of the gun registry. So yes, that part would've been "assumptions".

Which you also do, assuming my "bias on SSM lies in my religious belief and indoctrination."

But you see, I've always maintained in this board from other gay-related threads that it is not for me to judge about the sins of others. That is for God. My resentment towards SSM is not about the union of homosexuals, but the changing of the traditional definition of marriage. I've also pointed out that there was a group of homosexuals who had taken out an ad, opposing this change and had expressed support for upholding the true definition of marriage! I salute those folks!

I guess they understood only too well the importance of this definition to a lot of people.

There wouldn't be so much open resentment now if gays had only decided to coin their own word for such a union, acknowledging with grace and fairness that the word "marriage" is already taken. That is only common sense to me.

Basically, marriage is a legal agreement, between two people. A contract. That is the traditional defintion.

Between a man and a woman , for the purpose of procreation ,is a societal definition.

IMO.

[guyser]

There wouldn't be so much open resentment now if gays had only decided to coin their own word for such a union, acknowledging with grace and fairness that the word "marriage" is already taken. That is only common sense to me.

Common sense? To use your analogy from an earlier post on this thread, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its a duck.

So two people getting married, for life, obtain a marriage certificate, go through all the rigmarole of getting married should not be allowed to call themselves "married" because they are of the same sex.

Common sense would dictate that any other marriage than your own is validated by you and your spouse, not by any outside measure.

But your religious upbringing doesnt allow that.

[M.Dancer]

But if everyone used the King James there would be less open to interpretation than there is today.

Again, why? Since the advent of the KJV, there have been dozens of petty schisms and theological questions. Believe it or not, modern Chritianity doesn't demand unquestioned obediance. Sort of like the yeshiva, theological points are debated earnestly and rigouressly. For a university divinity student it is expected that they have a working knowledge of Biblical provenance and a etmological grasp of the languages.

That being said, modern theological thought doesn't hold just becasue you are lucky to belong to the right denomination, you are saved. Aside from the most unsophisticated literalists, most believe that sincere faith is rewarded regardless of the denomination.

[newbie]

Believe it or not, modern Chritianity doesn't demand unquestioned obediance.

Tell that to a Mormon or J.W. Mormons can be excommunicated and J.W.'s are disfellowshipped for disobedience. Catholics can be thrown out as well for serious and flagrant violations.

[M.Dancer]

Believe it or not, modern Chritianity doesn't demand unquestioned obediance.

Tell that to a Mormon or J.W. Mormons can be excommunicated and J.W.'s are disfellowshipped for disobedience. Catholics can be thrown out as well for serious and flagrant violations.

1) Mormons aren't Christians

2) Anyone can be excommunicated for serious violations, so what?

[Catchme]

excerpt of an article from his site:

The CRUSADERS-Robert Koehler

And, of course, just the other day, Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, who conducted the first official investigation into Pat Tillman’s death, opined that Tillman’s family is only pestering the Army for the, ahem, truth about how he died because their loved one, a non-believer with no heavenly reward to reap, is now “worm dirt.”"

yah Pat Tillman's family, how dare they?! Just a "non-believer"

"Until I read the newly published “With God on Our Side: One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America’s Military” (St. Martin’s Press), Michael Weinstein’s disturbing account of anti-Semitism at the U.S. Air Force Academy, I shrugged off each of these remarks, and so much more, as isolated, almost comically intolerant noises out of True Believer Land. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do . . .

Now my blood runs cold. Weinstein, a 1977 graduate of the Academy and former assistant general counsel in the Reagan administration, and a lifelong Republican, has devoted the last several years of his life to battling what he has come to regard as a fundamentalist takeover of the Academy, turning it, in effect, into a taxpayer-supported Evangelical institution. He charges that the separation of church and state is rapidly vanishing at the school, which routinely promotes sectarian religious events, tolerates the proselytizing of uniquely vulnerable new recruits and, basically, conflates evangelical interests and the national interest."

>>>>>>>>>>

The attitude he has encountered in his attempt to hold the institution, and the rest of the military, accountable smacks of a coup: “The Christian Taliban is running the Department of Defense,” he told me. “It inundates everything.”

During the interview Mike Weinstein spoke of the whole rapture thing, and, interestingly he quoted his wife's words. The Evangelical Christians look on the Jewish, like the Pilgrims, looked at the Turkey prior to , thanksgiving dinner.

I get a real vivid image and understanding from that.

Really, it is the Domionists who are the driving force behind this, in their insane attempt to control, if can't control, destroy the planet. Or rather those who control the Dominionist's.

[betsy]

Kuzadd and Guyser, I don't want to get into the marriage debate...I've been in a lot of it in this forum, and I'm just sickand tired of it. Everything I have to say about it had been said numerous times in those debates.

The only reason I mentioned it was to point out to Kuzadd that indeed, she also made assumptions about me.

[sharkman]

Catchme, do you belong to pro can? A lot of the bigotry you spout is very similar to that hate group.

Does anyone know what the complete sub title of this thread is? It starts off, "With God on Our Side, One Man's War Against An Evangelical Coup in..." I'd really like to know the rest of the title. Sometimes thread starters don't realize you can't type indefinitely when making a title.

[newbie]

Believe it or not, modern Chritianity doesn't demand unquestioned obediance.

Tell that to a Mormon or J.W. Mormons can be excommunicated and J.W.'s are disfellowshipped for disobedience. Catholics can be thrown out as well for serious and flagrant violations.

1) Mormons aren't Christians

2) Anyone can be excommunicated for serious violations, so what?

Kinda hard to respond since you're defining who a Christian is. Better throw the Catholics in to. Someone once told me they weren't Christians either. Sheese.

[Figleaf]

Believe it or not, modern Chritianity doesn't demand unquestioned obediance.

...

Yes, since 'modern' times Christianity has been precluded from effectively 'demanding' anything from unwilling citizens. Until modern times, however, Christian religious authorities enforced adherence through coercion of various kinds.

Even modern Christianity, however, still asserts that God will condemn you to eternal torment if you step out of line. Presumably this is a very effective motivator for those willing to believe in it.

[kuzadd]

Kuzadd and Guyser, I don't want to get into the marriage debate...I've been in a lot of it in this forum, and I'm just sickand tired of it. Everything I have to say about it had been said numerous times in those debates.

The only reason I mentioned it was to point out to Kuzadd that indeed, she also made assumptions about me.

Betsy: i have no wish to do a SSM debate, as stated, there is no debate, it is common sense, to let ALL consenting adults, marry the person, they wish to, the person, they love.

There is no common sense in denying that right because of, some peoples, religious beliefs.

You claimed it was about the word "marriage". The word marriage, by persons like yourself is attached to some religious signifigance (from god, with god's blessing, etc.,) That is why you wish that gays did not use that word.

As you do not see a SSM , as a 'marriage' in the eye's of God. I am quite confident, I am correct on this, but, feel free....

Definitions of marriage on the Web:

* the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage";

* two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

* the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel," editted to add: or at the jp's office, or in the synagogue the mosque, in the park, in the mountains, on a plane

* a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

marriage: defined is an intimate union of two.

Is a marriage of ideas or music or words not a marriage, it most certainly is!

There is no spiritual connotation, except the one organized religion gives it, to claim ownership of it, to negate SSM. PERIOD!

That's why I said my stance on SSM, was pure common sense.

There is no reason to deny the right, to some consenting adults, while extending it to others.

[kuzadd]

Catchme, do you belong to pro can? A lot of the bigotry you spout is very similar to that hate group.

Does anyone know what the complete sub title of this thread is? It starts off, "With God on Our Side, One Man's War Against An Evangelical Coup in..." I'd really like to know the rest of the title. Sometimes thread starters don't realize you can't type indefinitely when making a title.

sharkman: in your zealousness, to disparage, you were incapable of clicking a link to find that out for yourself??

[betsy]

Therefore you agree, we should scrap multiculturalism....since it's only fostering division and encouraging segregation! Because it is (to use your word), "COMPARTMENTALIZING" people into various groups!

Right?

NO. I am not advocating that.

I don't find it is fostering division, nor encouraging segragation.

I am the child of an immigrant.

Believe me when I say this country, doesn't need more of what you are calling for.

I'm glad to hear that you're not a liberal through and through, it's nice to know you're not advocating control of all those who don't agree with you. But you must admit that advocating a woman's right to kill her child and supporting multi-culturalism is supporting misguided liberal ideologies. They're based on a relative moralism that allows each individual in society to do his/her own thing. Ironically that individualism is tempered with a heavy stick of control.

You were the one who brought up the word "compartmentalize"...and I only gave you a good example of it: multiculturalism.

[betsy]

Kuzadd and Guyser, I don't want to get into the marriage debate...I've been in a lot of it in this forum, and I'm just sickand tired of it. Everything I have to say about it had been said numerous times in those debates.

The only reason I mentioned it was to point out to Kuzadd that indeed, she also made assumptions about me.

Betsy: i have no wish to do a SSM debate, as stated, there is no debate, it is common sense, to let ALL consenting adults, marry the person, they wish to, the person, they love.

There is no common sense in denying that right because of, some peoples, religious beliefs.

You claimed it was about the word "marriage". The word marriage, by persons like yourself is attached to some religious signifigance (from god, with god's blessing, etc.,) That is why you wish that gays did not use that word.

As you do not see a SSM , as a 'marriage' in the eye's of God. I am quite confident, I am correct on this, but, feel free....

Definitions of marriage on the Web:

* the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage";

* two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

* the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel," editted to add: or at the jp's office, or in the synagogue the mosque, in the park, in the mountains, on a plane

* a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

marriage: defined is an intimate union of two.

Is a marriage of ideas or music or words not a marriage, it most certainly is!

There is no spiritual connotation, except the one organized religion gives it, to claim ownership of it, to negate SSM. PERIOD!

That's why I said my stance on SSM, was pure common sense.

There is no reason to deny the right, to some consenting adults, while extending it to others.

Like i said, I don't want to get into another marriage debate, but I have to ask, what is the significance of the definitions of marriage you found on the web?

They're essentially the same as a modern dictionary definition. Dictionaries describe CURRENT usage. So what? It hardly resolves the issue. Unless of course, you're music and dance. You forgot the marriage of Figaro. Marriage had been re-defined in the last few years, by a liberal supreme court in our dysfunctional dominion. Declarations don't change essential characters of our society. By the way, homosexuals have always had the same right to marry as anyone else. That they didn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean they didn't have the right to. The suggestion that they didn't have the right that we had is nonsense. They just didn't want to exercise their right tp marry. Instead they chose an alternative behaviour and then demanded that it be called marriage. Typically, our supreme court went for it hook, line and sinker.

[guyser]

They're essentially the same as a modern dictionary definition. Dictionaries describe CURRENT usage. So what? It hardly resolves the issue. Unless of course, you're music and dance. You forgot the marriage of Figaro. Marriage had been re-defined in the last few years, by a liberal supreme court in our dysfunctional dominion. Declarations don't change essential characters of our society. By the way, homosexuals have always had the same right to marry as anyone else. That they didn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean they didn't have the right to. The suggestion that they didn't have the right that we had is nonsense. They just didn't want to exercise their right tp marry. Instead they chose an alternative behaviour and then demanded that it be called marriage. Typically, our supreme court went for it hook, line and sinker.

Go back to school and learn the merits of this debate. They are not allowed property rights, authority rights etc.

In other words, they were being discriminated against. The SC made it right.

Besides, the hetero marriage that 60+% piss upon, treat like a sham and enter into willy nilly is defended to the hilt by religious is the epitomy of hypocracy.

Shoe meet foot.

[betsy]

They're essentially the same as a modern dictionary definition. Dictionaries describe CURRENT usage. So what? It hardly resolves the issue. Unless of course, you're music and dance. You forgot the marriage of Figaro. Marriage had been re-defined in the last few years, by a liberal supreme court in our dysfunctional dominion. Declarations don't change essential characters of our society. By the way, homosexuals have always had the same right to marry as anyone else. That they didn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean they didn't have the right to. The suggestion that they didn't have the right that we had is nonsense. They just didn't want to exercise their right tp marry. Instead they chose an alternative behaviour and then demanded that it be called marriage. Typically, our supreme court went for it hook, line and sinker.

Go back to school and learn the merits of this debate. They are not allowed property rights, authority rights etc.

In other words, they were being discriminated against. The SC made it right.

Besides, the hetero marriage that 60+% piss upon, treat like a sham and enter into willy nilly is defended to the hilt by religious is the epitomy of hypocracy.

Shoe meet foot.

And what school are you talking about? The School of Dumb Ideas? The School of Distorting The Charter Of Rights? The same school the liberal left judges of our supreme court went to to learn how to read the Charter of Rights to suit their own ends?

You go back to school.

There are NO merits! The issue of the rights of a homosexual couple living together has nothing to do with defining that union as a marriage. You can call it a Union of Sodomy, or Poofsters' Progress, for all I care....

There is no such thing as discrimination against an illegitimate union. The courts knew that, so they legitimized homosexual relationships. They acquiesced and allowed it to be called "marriage." If the courts had done the right thing, and legitimized it by making it a civil union between homosexuals, without calling it marriage, they would've accomplished the same thing without degrading the institution of marriage.

[cybercoma]

What makes their union illegitimate?

[betsy]

What makes their union illegitimate?

It wasn't legal.

[guyser]

And what school are you talking about? The School of Dumb Ideas? The School of Distorting The Charter Of Rights? The same school the liberal left judges of our supreme court went to to learn how to read the Charter of Rights to suit their own ends?

The school of rational thought.

There are NO merits! The issue of the rights of a homosexual couple living together has nothing to do with defining that union as a marriage. You can call it a Union of Sodomy, or Poofsters' Progress, for all I care....

There is no such thing as discrimination against an illegitimate union. The courts knew that, so they legitimized homosexual relationships. They acquiesced and allowed it to be called "marriage." If the courts had done the right thing, and legitimized it by making it a civil union between homosexuals, without calling it marriage, they would've accomplished the same thing without degrading the institution of marriage.

A marriage is two people giving vows to each other. So a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. Does nothing to detract from yours or anyone elses. That you think so only shows that you are coming from a religious bent, and such safeguards were put in to alleviate that. A church can refuse. There you go.

The courts did the right thing. There was inequality, now there isnt.

The law recognizes property rights for you and your spouse, and that same treatment should be for others. It is now, regardless of any religious ranting.

The institution of marriage ? What does that mean. Quite laughable really, more than half are cheating, divorce is very common, people pissng on their marriages.

Institution be damned.

I have nothing against marriage and feel it is great for those that partake. Just dont talk to me about institution

[Figleaf]

...I'm glad to hear that you're not a liberal through and through, it's nice to know you're not advocating control of all those who don't agree with you. ...

??? If that is meant to suggest that you think liberalism is about controlling disagreement, then you labor under a profoundly mistaken grasp of that subject.

[betsy]

And what school are you talking about? The School of Dumb Ideas? The School of Distorting The Charter Of Rights? The same school the liberal left judges of our supreme court went to to learn how to read the Charter of Rights to suit their own ends?

The school of rational thought.

It looks to me like most posters on this topic failed dismally at the School of Rational Thought. BUT, that's just an opinion.

A marriage is two people giving vows to each other. So a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. Does nothing to detract from yours or anyone elses. That you think so only shows that you are coming from a religious bent, and such safeguards were put in to alleviate that. A church can refuse. There you go.

A marriage NOW is two people giving vows to each other. We have the Supreme Court of Canada to thank for that, Dube' et al, and let's not discuss the "merits" of THAT group of nine.

So a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. I'm glad to see that at least you've got the numbers right. Soon, it will be a marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. And once we've got the numbers organized, we can throw in "between any number of living beings." Owning a kennel will take on a whole new meaning.

I'm not sure about your safeguards. But the safeguard of the Constitution, the whole point of a Constitution, is so that the terms of it are un-changeable....or at least very difficult to change. The fathers of our constitution, at least as they imagined themselves, because I'm talking about the Trudeaupean loonies who brought in the Charter of Rights. Even they had the sense to explicitly state that sexual orientation was NOT protected as a right under the Constitution and the Charter Of Rights. Then our supremely loony court decided to ignore the architects of the Charter Of Rights and imposed on society their own will and agenda.

Nobody is asking you for your opinion, or anyone else's, as to whether allowing homosexual marriage detracts or doesn't detract from anyone else's arrangements. That isn't the issue. Your opinion isn't what we're talking about. No matter how popular it is.

The courts did the right thing. There was inequality, now there isnt.

No, they didn't. They did the absolutely wrong thing, both morally and legally. Furthermore they've abdicated their responsibility to the Charter Of Rights, and to the people of Canada in order to promote their own l(L)iberal agenda.

I know you have difficulty with equality. You're a liberal. In the liberal mind, not being able to do what you want to do is inequality. Because you imagine everyone else can do what they want to do. And if they can't, they should be able to.

Doing what you want to do without restriction, and at your own whim isn't equality. It's anarchy.

The institution of marriage ? What does that mean. Quite laughable really, more than half are cheating, divorce is very common, people pissng on their marriages.

Institution be damned.

I have nothing against marriage and feel it is great for those that partake. Just dont talk to me about institution

What do you mean what does it mean? It means what it says. Do I have to analyze the language for you?

Your contempt for the institutions of our society is what's laughable. And what does the quality - pissing on their marriages, as you so delicately put it - have to do with institutions?

And what is this nonsense about the quality of marriages anyway? Of course many marriages end. Our society has degraded over the last few decades, in no small part, thanks to the liberal nonsense of the "ME" generations.

What does that have to do with anything? How many homosexual relationships had begun and ended in the same way? No it's not adultery....we define adultery as an illicit relationship between a man and a woman married to diferent people. But it is promiscuity. I no more condone promiscuity in a heterosexual marriage than I do in a homosexual relationship. But we all know that homosexual relationships are much more likely to disolve.

Anyway the quality of relationships isn't the point. Not that I expect you to stick to the point. But hey.

The law recognizes property rights for you and your spouse, and that same treatment should be for others. It is now, regardless of any religious ranting.

Property rights originated and developed from the societal assumptions of family and inheritance. Although there's nothing simple about this, your declaration, whatever it means, doesn't alter the fact that changing centuries of legal developments has its consequences. We'll be dealing with them for generations.

"It is now, regardless of any religious ranting" - And what does this mean? Nothing.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree. You're wrong and I'm right. We've already gone over all these points on this site. At least take the time to research the site if nothing else.

Hasta la vista.

[betsy]

...I'm glad to hear that you're not a liberal through and through, it's nice to know you're not advocating control of all those who don't agree with you. ...

??? If that is meant to suggest that you think liberalism is about controlling disagreement, then you labor under a profoundly mistaken grasp of that subject.

I'm very well acquainted with what liberalism means, believe me. And it means nothing like what post-modern leftwing loonies who call themsleves liberals think it means.

[Figleaf]

...I'm glad to hear that you're not a liberal through and through, it's nice to know you're not advocating control of all those who don't agree with you. ...

??? If that is meant to suggest that you think liberalism is about controlling disagreement, then you labor under a profoundly mistaken grasp of that subject.

I'm very well acquainted with what liberalism means, believe me. And it means nothing like what post-modern leftwing loonies who call themsleves liberals think it means.

Your second sentence is correct, but there is no reason to think the first one is.

[betsy]

Your second sentence is correct, but there is no reason to think the first one is.

Okay.