Pat Robertson on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act: "The noose has tightened around the necks of Christians."

If they have a reason to fear this bill then its doing its job already.

why do Christians fear they shouldn't be hating in the first place....

If Pat Robertson wasn't crazy as a @!$%# house rat, I might be concerned by what he thinks.

I don't advocate lynchings, but this guy has made a career out of hate in the name of God.

Despicable trash.

If Pat Robertson wasn't crazy as a @!$%# house rat, I might be concerned by what he thinks.

Don't be concerned about Robertson. Be concerned about those who tune in and think he makes sense on any level.

Don't be concerned about Robertson. Be concerned about those who tune in and think he makes sense on any level.

Those are the ones I fear.

Lord, protect us from your followers!

christians just love to hate. scary part is many love guns to.

Not much faith in God's ability to smite their enemies.

Have you ever tried to conjugate smite?

It's fun.

Smeet Smite Smote.

There you go!

Krankee:

christians just love to hate.

Not really... just fanatical extremists like Robertson.

scary part is many love guns to.

Sad but true

Smeet Smite Smote.

hahahaha

just smeetin my way down the road.

Let talk about history,

Right Wing Christian Conservatives opposed the civil rights bills too in 1965.

The said many similar thing about newest hate bill too. Again, many people from the South opposed Civil Right bills. Irony, it White Right Wing Christian Conservatives.

In the 1920's, similar groups people opposed and called Susan B Anthony a Scarleton, Whore and opposed more rights for women too.

Pat Roberston is not promoting true Christianity. If y'all knew enough about what you're talking about, you'd already know that.

Outlawing committing violence against gay people is not in any way a blow to Christianity since Christianity doesn't promote that anyhow.

I'm stating the obvious...is there anyone on here who knows that besides me?

Well now! they are getting some of what they have been dishing out for centuries! Ropes around peoples necks. But Pat's turboshaft does not go all the way to the bridge! No Pat!!! now you and your hate filled ilk are now going to held accountable for all of the prejudice and dogma fueled insanity that gives you free reign to despise in the name of God!

Jesse Jackson isn't speaking for all blacks either. However, as a leading voice in the black community, his words carry a little bit more weight than say Joe Blackman, a black man in Detroit.

We know Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians or represent "true Christians", but you're certainly not implying that there aren't those that agree with him? While it may not be a majority or anything, he is definitely speaking a viewpoint that is shared by others in the Christian community.

I agree with you, Justme. Pat Robertson and the fundamentalists do not represent true Christians - just a sick, hatemongering perversion.

dAt crAzy bOk,

Robertson speaks a viewpoint that is shared by a select number of his followers. To assume that he speaks for a majority of Christians is a slap in the face of Christianity.

Robertson is a hack.

KillFile..remember when Virginia Foxx claimed that Mr. Sheppard was the aggressor and that those murderers claimed that they were the victims? I can't wait for Virginia.Both Michell's and the Fox Hounds to vent their wrath on the nation. You know the last time I saw a face like Virginia Foxx's it was eating cat food out of a bowl on my front porch at midnight and was attached to the head of an Opossum! Seriously! if you look at her from a higher vantage point looking down she looks like a frakkin' Opossum!

Against Christians!

Really?

In this conservative, Evangelical country?

Methinks the freethinkers are castigated in the U.S. of A.

How, again, are Evangelical Christians any different from the Wahhabist Taliban?

We know Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians or represent "true Christians", but you're certainly not implying that there aren't those that agree with him?

Of course there are. I didn't say anything about that actually. Going by the definition of "Christian" = Christ-like do you really think this man is Christian? Do you know enough about Christianity to realize that it denounces the kind of thinking and behaviour he represents? Do you call KKK members Christians too?

Mother and Snotrag, :) Yippee!! So glad to see I'm not the only one! It's amazing how much hate people throw out there against something they obviously don't know a lot about.

I guess if you look at the bible it says you shouldn't judge. I wouldn't pass judgement on his level of "christianism" or whatever, because it isn't my place. The bible specifically states that. But then, I am an atheist what do I know?

The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their mouths, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

I'll ask my KKK friends if they are Christians, lol. I am black. Don't really know too many KKK members. I would bet my bottom dollar that more than likely they will say yes, though.

It is amazing how many different view points that being a Christian entails. And how Christians have the nerve to tell other people who profess Christ that they are less of a Christian than someone else. Although, reading the posts on Newsvine, it isn't hard to see the degree of close-mindedness that causes this.

We should not be surprised, like any successful thug he is just protecting his turf and gang. Probably 20% of the population consider themselves fundamentalists. Sad thing is, "mainstream religion" uses the same control techniques as the leaders of these scum. All religions are exclusive. "if your not with me, your against me." Who would that be? Gays, Lesbians, abortion providers, abortion patients, fornicators, Blacks, Mexicans, Women, Yankees, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Democrats, Government workers, the poor, the educated, union members...who else?

Going by the definition of "Christian" = Christ-like do you really think this man is Christian? Do you know enough about Christianity to realize that it denounces the kind of thinking and behaviour he represents? Do you call KKK members Christians too?

Nope. The definition of Christian is "believer in Christ". From merriam-webster.com:

Main Entry: ¹Chris·tian
Pronunciation: \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos
Date: 1526
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress

Also, according to your bible, all one need do to be "saved" is to believe in your Jesus.

Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. -- John 3:36

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. -- John 6:47

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. -- Acts 16:31

To answer your questions, yes, Pat Robertson and his ilk are Christians. The members of the Ku Klux Klan are Christians. They profess a belief in Christ. Your cries that the are not Christians have no merit. It's the "no true Scotsman" argument. While the actions they take in the name of your Christ might cause you embarassment, that does not mean they are not Christians. It only means that you have enough good sense to be embarassed by their actions.

Morons-1102616
(cough)

Right Wing Christian Conservatives opposed the civil rights bills too in 1965.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act#By_party

At the time, the Southern right-wing christian conservatives were Democrats.

Bill Moyers, a former aide to LBJ, recalled, in a statement during a 1990 symposium at the Johnson Library:

The night that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, I found him in the bedroom, exceedingly depressed. The headline of the bulldog edition of the Washington Post said, "Johnson Signs Civil Rights Act." The airwaves were full of discussions about how unprecedented this was and historic, and yet he was depressed. I asked him why.

He said, "I think we've just delivered the South to the Republican Party for the rest of my life, and yours."

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act-2.html

1. Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians.
2. The focus should be on education and wealth creation. If you look at the foot soldiers of any intolerant group, they generally share two common traits -- poverty and ignorance.

So Christians are upset that when they murder and rape, they might get a few more years if it's deemed a hate crime?

How about this, you insane nutters. DON'T RAPE AND MURDER!!!

Funny how many of the "christians" I know have the most hell in them.

wow, looking at you guy's posts, I can understand why he said what he did!

If Pat Robertson were a representative of the Catholic church, I can imagine the Pope would put a muzzle on his face because every single time he opens his mouth he shames the faithful

Yes, but Christianity doesn't have one central leadership figure, as Catholicism does. This causes quite a dilemma.

Robertson argued, was a targeted attack on homophobic Christians like himself. Robertson said the new law is the latest example of a "noose" tightening around "the necks of Christians." Later in the segment, he implied Democrats in Congress were "opposed to many of the fundamental Christian beliefs"

I didn't know that beating the @!$%# out of gay people was a fundamental Christian belief. The more you know...

Do you call KKK members Christians too?

They call themselves Christians. Their ministers call them Christians. They are Christians.

Like I just posted above, a prominent member of the Christian clergy called their beliefs fundamental to the Christian faith. Surely a man of faith within the clergy knows his religion better than the lay people.

Ain't nothing better than "christian love". Maybe he'd vote for a Tim McVey holiday.

It seems to me most homophobic people have gay tendencies.

Call it my Haggerty rule.

dAt crAzy bOk

but Christianity doesn't have one central leadership figure, as Catholicism does.

Oh but Pat has been desiring to make himself Lord and King of America for a long time....Imagine what a dilemma that would be.

Killfile,

Have you read the bill? I haven't yet. It was attached to the Defense Authorization Act of 2010, under Division E. From what I understand it is not supposed to infringe upon Freespeech as protected under the 1st Amendment. What may trouble some libertarians is the fact that many of the Attorneys General who supported the bill, made comments that it was a necessary trampling of the 14th Amendment, well maybe not trampling but the ole soft shoe. I don't know but I'm going to read it.

What exactly do you know about it?

Would it be called a hate crime, if a Christian were brutally killed, one of you folks posting in here were a "person of interest" or as we used to call them "a suspect" based upon description or some circumstantial anomoly? And when your anti-Christian or pejorative posts above were subpoened and linked to cause or motive despite your innocence, how would that make you feel? Indignant no doubt.

So that means it was exclusively Republicans who passed this huh? So Aalaf Alot's post is wrong.

No, it doesn't. In 1964, the Republicans were not the right wing christian conservatives - the Democrats were. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law, the right-wing xtian conservatives switched parties in protest, and thus began the evolution of the Republican party from a relatively progressive thinking group to a bunch of bible beating wingnuts.

1standlastword

You're scaring me. That would be so much worse than a dilemma. That would be catastrophic. We'd be like Saudi Arabia with control issues.

"Would it be called a hate crime, if a Christian were brutally killed, one of you folks posting in here were a "person of interest" or as we used to call them "a suspect" based upon description or some circumstantial anomoly? And when your anti-Christian or pejorative posts above were subpoened and linked to cause or motive despite your innocence, how would that make you feel? Indignant no doubt."

Nope. i'd have nothing to fear, since I didn't kill a person. And I have the right to disaparage a bigot, including a christian bigot, who is angry that he can't kill a gay person and get away with it.

that's what this boils down to. Christians like Pat Robertson are supporting people who murder gays...they are upset that murderers might get a little time tacked onto their sentences. what a sickening, soft of crime attitude.

Has Pat Robertson ever bashed or murdered a gay person? One wonders why he's so frightened of this bill.

and thus began the evolution of the Republican party from a relatively progressive thinking group to a bunch of bible beating wingnuts

And that little event was followed by the Reagan revolution and the incorporating of the moral majority who shortly there after declared a CULTURE WAR on the rest of America and have been gnashing their bigots teeth and rattling their hysterical hypocrisy in everyone's faces ever since. It is the uber Fundamentalist Christian Right that declared war on me and my country and against the faith while claiming to be the faith and against my secular democracy. It is the 'c'hristian right ala Robertson, Falwell and now Warren and the Mormons' and 'c' street pushing their self righteous ignorant agendas like gay bigotry and their Christian Nation crap with Creationism and the doctor murdering insanity which has now become the flaming idiocy and out of control bull@!$%# that calls a miserable piece of work Robertson a man of god, a leader, a respected man in their circles and beliefs and a 'Christian' which in itself is a crime against the word and decent Christians everywhere.

I don't dislike Christians. But I will not back away from a war declared by a fifth column from within my country just because they claim, they LIE, and say they think they are working for god. In fact I can say quite easily, bull@!$%#.

I don't hate Christians. I do hate ignorant liars, bigots, racists, ideologically retarded loud mouthed hypocritical imbeciles who call themselves Christians and claim to speak for all Christians though, that I admit. I work to forgive them their insanity and ignorance but most days I don't make it. 30 years of their crap, to tell you the truth I have had enough.

The only difference between these people and the jihadists is a knife and a video camera. They prefer to get others to do the beatings and killings for them by hinting to their unstable fan base by just suggesting what should be done in god's name. It's so much more civilized that way you know.

But to continue the thought in the quote, the finishing touch was this Palin thing. Something cracked in them, between her advent and Obama the crowds changed to mobs, angry ignorant mean mobs. And I for one don't like what I see, not at all.

I'm totally confused. Why would protecting gays against a hate crime be "tightening the noose" around the christians necks? Seriously?

Agree with most of the comments here, Christianity is about love, tolerance and forgiveness.

Sounds like this guy got confused, perhaps he should become a muslim, his attitudes would fit right in there.

Christianity is about love, tolerance and forgiveness

or is supposed to be anyway. it's time church goes who claim it to show it, be who you say you are even if it takes leaving a church that continues to support hate through not showing the love and forgiveness of Christ to all men and women. straight or gay, black or white (or any other color for that fact) and regardless of gender. if you want to call yourself a christian, quit listening to those who thump their chests concerning their knolege of the bible and go to the sermon on the mount and just start practicing what Jesus told his followers to do. it's really quite simple to understand, he says to love your brother as yourself, to take care of him or her in any way you can help.

and who is your brother? why just look around you, any direction you look, there he is. whether gay or straight, black or white or either gender. it just don't matter, thats who your brother is.

it's a shame that people like pat robertson who have a voice that reaches so many other people don't believe this and put it to practice.

hey oldcynical, on another post we discussed tolerance and another person said, and i agree it for here, needed more than tolerance is acceptance of the other person. not that your words are wrong, because they are not. just adding to them.

Jesse Jackson isn't speaking for all blacks either. However, as a leading voice in the black community, his words carry a little bit more weight than say Joe Blackman, a black man in Detroit.

Sir, I know Joe Blackman, and Jesse Jackson is no Joe Blackman.

And Jesus said, "How blessed are the homophobes, they shall have the closet for their abode".

Difference between Jesse Jackson and Pat is that when Jesse speaks crap, plenty black folks jump down his throat about it. When Pat speaks crap... people turn into apologists, and whine that he has free speech and it's religious so it doesn't matter it's crap and doesn't make sense.

Live by the noose, die by the noose, Pat

In response to the question, "Do you call KKK members Christians too," Buckeye Voter wrote:

They call themselves Christians. Their ministers call them Christians. They are Christians.

Like I just posted above, a prominent member of the Christian clergy called their beliefs fundamental to the Christian faith. Surely a man of faith within the clergy knows his religion better than the lay people.

1. Do you hate all religions, or just the ones that the DNC tells you to? I'm guessing it's the latter.
2. I don't care for any organized religion. They all prey upon their followers, regardless of their fundamentalism. To suggest that intolerance is strictly a Christian problem is absurd, though.
3. How do you feel about Muslim extremists, who use religion to sonspor and promote terrorism? Is that equally appalling or do you find excuses to justify their hate? Again, I'm guessing it's the latter.

Hate Pat Robertson, hate Christians, hate whoever. I don't mind. It's the hypocrisy that kills me. If you're going to call out religions, call them all out. Few (if any) are without their faults.

Bleat_On

Democrats do not fall rank in file into step with their respective leaders, like the GOP. We do not hate religion, most of us are Christians but the door is open to all including those of no faith. The DNC has never sponsored any war on religion, but projecting what the GOP does to anyone who does not believe as they do onto Democrats is just ridiculous.

I'm spiritual, and religious of my chosen religion. I don't hate christians, I despise people who use their religious views to harm others.

For Obama to sign this bill should be no surprise.

It was a promise he made during the election, and on his official platform.

For the record, Adventure Books of Seattle fully supports the Matthew Shepard Act.

Bleat_On

Democrats do not fall rank in file into step with their respective leaders, like the GOP. We do not hate religion, most of us are Christians but the door is open to all including those of no faith. The DNC has never sponsored any war on religion, but projecting what the GOP does to anyone who does not believe as they do onto Democrats is just ridiculous.

Watch any liberal, political commentary, and you're certain to hear criticism of Christians/Christianity...Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Jon Stewart -- they all do it on a regular basis. Again, I don't care. I hate all organized religions and the sheep that follow them. To suggest that Democrats have no issue with Christianity is absurd, though. They clearly do.

What is it with the right? I mean seriously, pffft, now regular lies aren't good enough? Now its has to be lies so stupid, so obvious, such silly lies that its just hasn't to match anything that can actually be proved in any way shape or form. Its look, flying pig, no I swear, I saw a flying pig, flames out its rear end, with pinstripes, I swear to God, anything at all goes and is even preferred. And no one is even the least little bit embarrassed by just how pathetic it all is.

And so it goes, right, always right, past ideology and even cultism, into some personally projected ideological dream state. Like a psychotic in a cell fantasizing its victim as sadistic guard coming for them..

I mean really, if we are going to pretend lets just go all the way here.

Here, print this, take it to a professional psychiatrist, ask that they read it so they understand the problem and then drop to your knees and beg them for help.

Bleat_on
To suggest that Democrats have no issue with Christianity is absurd, though. They clearly do.

No, we don't. We have a problem with christians who think that the law should conform to their religious understanding. I have no problem with christians at all. Some people I know, love, and respect are deep loving christians. They however understand when it comes to politics they need to look at the world and the laws and not their bibles.

The only christians I have a problem with are those who preach hate, demand I follow their scripture, or tell me I am damned because I don't kiss the ground they walk on.

The only christians I have a problem with are those who preach hate, demand I follow their scripture, or tell me I am damned because I don't kiss the ground they walk on.

1. How do you feel about the U.S.-Israeli relationship?
2. Why do you assume that Christians are the only ones that vote according to their spiritual/cultural upbringing?

I think I don't have all the info and there is too much 'memory' going on to settle this any time soon. Not that that has anything to do with my reply. Stop diverting

Why do you assume that Christians are the only ones that vote according to their spiritual/cultural upbringing?

I never said it... YOU said "To suggest that Democrats have no issue with Christianity is absurd, though. They clearly do."

My reply is to that and that alone. Your claim is that Democrats have an issue with christianity and I said not all do. I object to your blanket statement. Where in my reply do I say that only christians vote according to their upbringing. First off, christian upbringing is spiritual, their culture is American maybe mixed with another country's culture unless they are first generation. Secondly, you assume I made an assumption which is by no means even mentioned in my reply.

My reply was simple. That I as a Democrat have no problem with christians as long as those christians do not try to force their religion on me. As long as they do not try to change the laws I live under to conform to whatever interpretation they believe in. My mother is religious but when it comes to voting and understanding politics, she doesn't consult the bible to tell her how to vote. She looks at the world and says, will this law benefit society? My hair dresser, sweet lady, Republican, Catholic, religious... we have political discussions all the time and she understands that 'because the bible/god says so' is not a valid rational reason. She knows she can't just say 'it's immoral' and expect any of us there to accept it. The real world doesn't work that way. Her religion and her interpretation of her bible is not the same as someone else's, so who's bible you going to use now?

I don't care if it's the torah, quran, the bible, the rig veda, I don't care which holy book or text or discourse it is. It doesn't belong in politics. It belongs to the individual and you can choose to live your life in whatever manner is consist with that religious manual. However, you live in this world. Violate the law in this world, I don't care if it will help you in the next world. Your soul is not my problem. My soul is not your problem. We live here and now. Deal with here and now, with the real world, not the next.

Rahlly...you have a bright mind and you write very well.

bleat_on is playing the ole "bait and switch" on you. He uses one of your quotes and then diverts the topic to his totally unrelated race/hate agenda. I've watched him do this numerous times on this and different articles...all the while avoiding answering any direct question. He and Black Spider travel together feeding off of your angst, anger and frustration and he will continue to provoke and "feed", bleeding you out as long as you and others respond. They have no desire to "dialog"...their intent is simply to provoke your ire, frustration and anger to feed their dark souls.

Feed them if you must, but I would seriously advise you to simply ignore their posts for they are contemptible bottom feeders.

Time Lord,

Love the name, ::grin:: Gallifrey lives!

Awww shucks!

I keep reading about putting people on ignore but I can't figure out how to do that. Can anyone tell me how to do it?

Sure in the lower right hand there are two greyish buttons, one is an arrow pointing up that's your approve button, you click that to give an approval. Next to it is an ! button, if you click that you get a drop down menu. First a Red box saying Report This Item. You can't click that, but under that are 3 black boxes and a grey one, You can click no value, inflammatory, or advertising in the black boxes, these are you objections. There there is this gray box that says Ignore This Author, click that and their comment is collapsed automatically, you don't have to read it. If you really want to you need to click the + by their comment. However if there is a new reply to their comment you can't navigate to it with the new circles (green) That's all there is!... kk? Later!

Thank you!

Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about knows that hate crimes are not part of "Christian beliefs" and go against Jesus' teachings. Just because someone claims they are something doesn't make it so. Criminals claim they are innocent all of the time.

For those who need quotes to have an opinion...

"Woe to the obstinate children," declares the LORD, "to those who carry out plans that are not mine, forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit, heaping sin upon sin;

And let us watch against pride and self-preference, remembering that every sin, and the most secret thoughts of man's heart, are known and will be judged by God.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

And God's glory is to resist the proud, and give grace to the humble. Justification is of God in Christ; therefore the self-condemned, and not the self-righteous, are justified before God.

So no I don't believe that putting the badge on your sleeve and making a proclamation makes it so. And no I don't believe that being "saved" means you can go out and do whatever it is you feel like doing.

And how Christians have the nerve to tell other people who profess Christ that they are less of a Christian than someone else.

There is no "level" to it. This isn't about whether or not he goes to the "right" church or goes often enough, or has memorized enough scripture or whatever. This man spews hate and intolerance, and calls it Christianity. It is not Christianity and not what Jesus taught. He should not presume to speak for all Christians if he is going to go against Christianity.

Justme - That was extremely well put and I appreciate your post.

Your claim is that Democrats have an issue with christianity and I said not all do.

When did I refute that?

My reply was simple. That I as a Democrat have no problem with christians as long as those christians do not try to force their religion on me.

How do you feel about certain Islamic and Jewish faiths that hold the same intolerant views towards homosexuality? I didn't notice any criticism directed at either. So I can only assume you're ok with it.

I don't care if it's the torah, quran, the bible, the rig veda, I don't care which holy book or text or discourse it is. It doesn't belong in politics. It belongs to the individual and you can choose to live your life in whatever manner is consist with that religious manual. However, you live in this world. Violate the law in this world, I don't care if it will help you in the next world. Your soul is not my problem. My soul is not your problem. We live here and now. Deal with here and now, with the real world, not the next.

So is it safe to assume that use refuse to carry or use U.S. currency then? Or do you support the phrase, "In God we trust"?

bleat_on is playing the ole "bait and switch" on you. He uses one of your quotes and then diverts the topic to his totally unrelated race/hate agenda.

1. I hate all organized religions and their sheepish followers. Can you say the same? I'm guessing you can't.
2. The "bait and switch" you refer to was an attempt to illustrate the hypocrisy of criticizing only Christianity when there are clearly Islamic and Jewish faiths that hold the same intolerant views towards homosexuality. I know that doesn't fit into your "let me bash only Christians" world, but it's a fact.

They have no desire to "dialog"...their intent is simply to provoke your ire, frustration and anger to feed their dark souls.

Intent? That's a bit strong. I would say it's more of pleasant coincidence.

The fact is, I'm calling people out on the hypocrisy of bashing only one intolerant religion, and you don't like it. There are Muslim and Jewish faiths that hold the same views on homosexuality, and you rarely see anyone criticize them for it. That's hypocrisy, whether you like it or not.

Thanks Belinda. :)

Bleat - if you really want to take it a step further in calling out hypocrisy...intolerance is in no way exclusive to the religious. Imho it is a human condition.

Bleat - if you really want to take it a step further in calling out hypocrisy...intolerance is in no way exclusive to the religious. Imho it is a human condition.

Classic...anything to avoid criticizing non-Christian faiths.

Classic...anything to avoid criticizing non-Christian faiths

The title and topic of the article indicates it is about Christians. And Pat Robertson. And this has what to do with non-Christian faiths, other than attempt to derail the topic?

Bleat, maybe you should consider writing an article about what is concerning you?

bleat_on: As to whether Jewish faiths have any issue with homosexuality, you'd have to specify whether you're talking about Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform; only the first really holds to any particular proscription in that regard.

More importantly, though, I imagine that the focus on Christian dogma has more to do with the fact that Muslims aren't really voting in large enough blocks--or holding enough sway on the street--to seem like much of a presence when it comes to affecting societal change here in the West. Most of us deal every day with a predominantly Christian population (at least in communities where there's much religion at all; being as most of the people with whom I live, work, and do business are atheists or agnostics of one stripe or another, my wife's and my pantheistic Buddhism is something of an oddity).

Classic...anything to avoid criticizing non-Christian faiths.

To say that intolerance is exclusive to the religious is a fine display of tunnel vision. That was my only point.

Am I avoiding bashing non-Christian faiths? Sure. Why not? Why do I need to? First, I don't know enough about any to make an intelligent and rational argument against them. Even if I did, why would I want to? Because it's not my faith? Because I wouldn't agree with some of their beliefs? Who cares? I don't. It's not my chosen religion, and not my life.

I'm not the type who runs screaming to her therapist every time I'm exposed to something different so feel no need to belittle things I don't understand.

justme, lyamehound, roy...you're getting played. Post 1.59 and 1.67. Feed if you must.

Thanks the for the heads up Time Lord. I actually thought Bleat was joking the first time I read 1.67. Typically when people have issues that serious they try to cover it up.

Lol well that explains the non-response to Lyam's post....way too much intelligence and logic to work around.

The title and topic of the article indicates it is about Christians. And Pat Robertson. And this has what to do with non-Christian faiths, other than attempt to derail the topic?

Bleat, maybe you should consider writing an article about what is concerning you?

Too much work. I'll just join the "I hate ALL Christians" parade instead.

As to whether Jewish faiths have any issue with homosexuality, you'd have to specify whether you're talking about Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform; only the first really holds to any particular proscription in that regard.

Obviously Orthodox.

More importantly, though, I imagine that the focus on Christian dogma has more to do with the fact that Muslims aren't really voting in large enough blocks--or holding enough sway on the street--to seem like much of a presence when it comes to affecting societal change here in the West.

So that makes it ok?

Most of us deal every day with a predominantly Christian population (at least in communities where there's much religion at all; being as most of the people with whom I live, work, and do business are atheists or agnostics of one stripe or another, my wife's and my pantheistic Buddhism is something of an oddity).

I get the whole "I hate Christians because they vote along their beliefs." What I fail to understand is why you single out Christians as the only group that does so. I'm sure for instance, that there are SOME Jews that vote according to U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. I'm sure there are SOME Muslims that vote according to U.S. foreign policy towards predominantly Islamic nations. Why is it, that you only have an issue with Christians?

Allegory, thanks mate. Great post.

To say that intolerance is exclusive to the religious is a fine display of tunnel vision. That was my only point.

Am I avoiding bashing non-Christian faiths? Sure. Why not? Why do I need to?

If you're annoyed with organized religions that preach intolerance towards homosexuality and oppose gay rights, then you wouldn't have a problem criticizing non-Christian as well as Christian faiths. If you single out the latter, which many of you clearly do on a regular basis, your problem isn't with intolerance towards homosexuality or with opposition to gay rights. It's simply with Christianity and its followers.

First, I don't know enough about any to make an intelligent and rational argument against them.

Again, so intolerance and bigotry really don't matter to you. You simply have a problem with Christians.

Even if I did, why would I want to? Because it's not my faith? Because I wouldn't agree with some of their beliefs? Who cares? I don't. It's not my chosen religion, and not my life.

Exactly. So your real issue is with Christians, not with intolerance towards homosexuality or opposition to gay rights.

I'm not the type who runs screaming to her therapist every time I'm exposed to something different so feel no need to belittle things I don't understand.

Right, so again, you simply have a problem with Christians. This has nothing to do with gay rights or intolerance.

So that makes it ok?

No, it makes it less of a concern than the larger Christianist problem. Just because you and the Islamists disagree with each other on minor details of dogma doesn't make either of you my friends, I'm afraid. You're both still theocrats, an utterly discredited form of governance.

I don't know why you've got your knickers in a twist, bleat_on; I have relatively little animosity toward Christians. I'm just pointing out that most people are likely to notice the opposition on the lawn before they notice the opposition elsewhere.

Obviously Orthodox.

I'd be willing to bet that a significant majority of American Jews are either Conservative or Reform. The distinction, then, is too important to be relegated to the merely "obvious."

More importantly, though, I imagine that the focus on Christian dogma has more to do with the fact that Muslims aren't really voting in large enough blocks--or holding enough sway on the street--to seem like much of a presence when it comes to affecting societal change here in the West.

So that makes it ok?

Nope. Or rather, the question of whether it's okay isn't really on the level of the question you asked, which is why it might be the case. Whether it's right is for another debate; I'm interested, for the moment, in what makes it understandable.

That said, I think it's fair to say that I don't concern myself as much with what Muslims believe about sexual morality for the same reason I don't find myself worrying all that much about communists--there really aren't enough of them around for me to get any impression that they're up to something.

What I fail to understand is why you single out Christians as the only group that does so. I'm sure for instance, that there are SOME Jews that vote according to U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. I'm sure there are SOME Muslims that vote according to U.S. foreign policy towards predominantly Islamic nations. Why is it, that you only have an issue with Christians?

I'm not particularly offended by either our policies toward Israel or toward Islamic nations. Your examples don't really tickle anything here.

When it comes to matters of sexual morality, and the ways in which government can become involved therein, I'm concerned about any individual that votes to proscribe action based solely on subjective metaphysically based moral constructs. But the fact is that Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't constitute a large enough voting block to feel that any persuasion there will carry much weight (and there's no, say, opposition to gay marriage coming from Buddhists and Hindus).

No, it makes it less of a concern than the larger Christianist problem. Just because you and the Islamists disagree with each other on minor details of dogma doesn't make either of you my friends, I'm afraid. You're both still theocrats, an utterly discredited form of governance.

1. I'm not a Christian.
2. So you're real problem isn't with intolerance towards homosexuals or opposition to gay rights? You simply don't like Christians.

I don't know why you've got your knickers in a twist, bleat_on; I have relatively little animosity toward Christians. I'm just pointing out that most people are likely to notice the opposition on the lawn before they notice the opposition elsewhere.

Come on. You're among friends. Everyone on this board hates Christians. You can admit it. It's certainly not going to harm you. I mean, really? Who cares about gay rights or intolerance. This is all just an excuse to Christian-bash. Why not embrace it?

I'd be willing to bet that a significant majority of American Jews are either Conservative or Reform. The distinction, then, is too important to be relegated to the merely "obvious."

I would bet that the majority of American Christians aren't the Pat Robertson variety.

Intolerance in any faith is generally relegated to those that take a literal interpretation of their religions' laws/writings. That's not specific to Christianity.

Nope. Or rather, the question of whether it's okay isn't really on the level of the question you asked, which is why it might be the case. Whether it's right is for another debate; I'm interested, for the moment, in what makes it understandable.

Seriously. Come on. We all watch Jon Stewart. It's ok. I've already admitted to hating ALL Christians. Why can't you? You obviously have a bigger issue with them than I do.

That said, I think it's fair to say that I don't concern myself as much with what Muslims believe about sexual morality for the same reason I don't find myself worrying all that much about communists--there really aren't enough of them around for me to get any impression that they're up to something.

But you worry about the thriving KKK and Pat Robertson communities...Interesting.

I'm not particularly offended by either our policies toward Israel or toward Islamic nations. Your examples don't really tickle anything here.

My point was -- you're annoyed with Christians because you think they try to force they values upon you through legislation/the political process. I brought up those examples to illustrate that you really don't have an issue with people voting along their religious beliefs -- you simply don't like Christians. Thanks for proving me right.

When it comes to matters of sexual morality, and the ways in which government can become involved therein, I'm concerned about any individual that votes to proscribe action based solely on subjective metaphysically based moral constructs. But the fact is that Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't constitute a large enough voting block to feel that any persuasion there will carry much weight (and there's no, say, opposition to gay marriage coming from Buddhists and Hindus).

Write it with me, "I H-A-T-E C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N-S."

Ever seen the South Park with the crippled fight?

I really don't hate Christians, bleat_on, whether we're talking about my Mormon in-laws or my nebulously Catholic mother. I think that all anthropomorphic monotheistic religions are founded on faulty premises; I may even think that Christianity, in some ways, is uniquely so. But if I had to single out a group for whom I had greater contempt, I spend more time worrying about Hootie and the Blowfish fans and people who think Adam Sandler is funny.

I would bet that the majority of American Christians aren't the Pat Robertson variety.

I both hope, and suspect, that you're right. But the passage of Prop 8 in CA last year strikes me as a good example of how effective that sort is at mobilizing voters.

Intolerance in any faith is generally relegated to those that take a literal interpretation of their religions' laws/writings. That's not specific to Christianity.

No, but it seems to be more prevalent in Christianity (though that could simply be because I'm more consistently surrounded by Christians). I does seem fairly specific to anthropomorphic monotheism.

My point was -- you're annoyed with Christians because you think they try to force they values upon you through legislation/the political process.

I'm annoyed by people who try to force any values I find annoying on me through the legislation process, most notably if the behaviors they wish to proscribe do no demonstrable harm to person or property. That some might be Christian is, for me, incidental.

As a former Catholic well read in apocryphal text, I may be more likely to engage the Christian, but that's just because I know more about their doctrine and history than I do about Muslims. I have a friend who's a Reform Rabbi who can make better arguments vis-a-vis Judaism than I ever could.

I brought up those examples to illustrate that you really don't have an issue with people voting along their religious beliefs -- you simply don't like Christians.

What have I said, specifically, to make you believe I don't like Christians? Exact words that I've used, please. Anything else shall be considered . . . well, bleating.

Thanks for proving me right.

I anxiously await your illustration of my hate.

I really don't hate Christians, bleat_on, whether we're talking about my Mormon in-laws or my nebulously Catholic mother. I think that all anthropomorphic monotheistic religions are founded on faulty premises; I may even think that Christianity, in some ways, is uniquely so. But if I had to single out a group for whom I had greater contempt, I spend more time worrying about Hootie and the Blowfish fans and people who think Adam Sandler is funny.

You only hate the ones with politically opposing views. I know. It's very convenient.

I both hope, and suspect, that you're right. But the passage of Prop 8 in CA last year strikes me as a good example of how effective that sort is at mobilizing voters.

You mean when religious minorities (i.e. not exactly Pat Robertson's demographic) voted against California recognizing same-sex marriages?

No, but it seems to be more prevalent in Christianity (though that could simply be because I'm more consistently surrounded by Christians). I does seem fairly specific to anthropomorphic monotheism.

Yeah, and how many of those Christians are in your face everyday telling you what you can and can't do with your life? For that matter, how many of them are even telling you what faith they practice?

I'm annoyed by people who try to force any values I find annoying on me through the legislation process, most notably if the behaviors they wish to proscribe do no demonstrable harm to person or property. That some might be Christian is, for me, incidental.

We both know that isn't true.

As a former Catholic well read in apocryphal text, I may be more likely to engage the Christian, but that's just because I know more about their doctrine and history than I do about Muslims. I have a friend who's a Reform Rabbi who can make better arguments vis-a-vis Judaism than I ever could.

Just admit that you hate Christians. Why are you trying to hide it? I'm all but defending them and I've admitted as much. You're not fooling anyone. WE all hate Christians on this thread. Don't worry. Newsvine is cool with it.

What have I said, specifically, to make you believe I don't like Christians? Exact words that I've used, please. Anything else shall be considered . . . well, bleating.

The fact that you responded to the this thread alone is very telling. You all but confirmed it when you not only refused to criticize other faiths for their equally intolerant views but made excuses for doing so.

I anxiously await your illustration of my hate.

You already have. You're simply afraid to admit it because you think it will somehow tarnish or detract from your progressive reputation on this website. You know that.

You only hate the ones with politically opposing views.

Not really (thought I grant that I hate their views).

You mean when religious minorities (i.e. not exactly Pat Robertson's demographic) voted against California recognizing same-sex marriages?

If they share Robertson's hysteria about the nebulously defined damage that same-sex marriage would do to the institution of family, the question of demographic becomes moot.

Yeah, and how many of those Christians are in your face everyday telling you what you can and can't do with your life?

Being as my wife and I live in a predominantly gay urban neighborhood, I can safely say that there's a gaggle of them on the public thoroughfare with sandwich boards and megaphones at least weekly.

For that matter, how many of them are even telling you what faith they practice?

See above. It may be coincidental that I've never seen any Orthodox Jews or Muslims up there, so I actually make something of a point of not singling out Christians.

I'm annoyed by people who try to force any values I find annoying on me through the legislation process, most notably if the behaviors they wish to proscribe do no demonstrable harm to person or property. That some might be Christian is, for me, incidental.

We both know that isn't true.

So far, you haven't displayed the perceptual acuity one might require of a tailor; I'm not sure how you've promoted yourself to being my psychologist.

Just admit that you hate Christians. Why are you trying to hide it? I'm all but defending them and I've admitted as much. You're not fooling anyone. WE all hate Christians on this thread.

Frankly, given your character as displayed, I'm pretty sure you're within a few posts of admitting that you eat babies and f**k goats; I don't plan to join you in admitting that, either.

There's actually much in Christianity, and of Christians in general, that I would gladly defend, and I daresay I'd do so far more eloquently than you. I have no enmity to confess.

You all but confirmed it when you not only refused to criticize other faiths for their equally intolerant views but made excuses for doing so.

Ah, but I didn't refuse to criticize other faiths for their intolerant views; I am, in fact, rarely to never confronted with those views. If there's a Muslim or Orthodox Jew around who'd like to debate me on matters of deity or the social costs of homosexuality, he/she may bring it on. I'm fairly certain that the least of them would be a considerably more worthy opponent than you.

thelyamhound,

I suggest you put the whiny little bleater on ignore. They need to feel victimized, much like Patty does. It justifies their martyr complex. It makes them feel justified and holy... see like christ I was persecuted. Like paul, I suffered. As they sit in their air conditioned home in front of their large screen computer. Since only those who are pure and tell the truth are attacked, so that means they too are pure and tell the truth... yeah right! Put em on ignore, make your screen happy!

In 1964, the Republicans were not the right wing christian conservatives - the Democrats were. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law, the right-wing xtian conservatives switched parties in protest, and thus began the evolution of the Republican party from a relatively progressive thinking group to a bunch of bible beating wingnuts.

Wow! what a dumb statement. Lay off the crack yeah?!

Rahlly,

I suggest you write something intelligent.

1. I'm not a Christian, and I couldn't care less how much you criticize them. Stereotype away.
2. My problem is with hypocrisy -- more specifically, acting like you're concerned with gay rights when you're really justing looking for an excuse to bash your political opponents.

By the way, the "two" party system is a fraud. Wake up/stop drinking the kool-aid.

Not really (thought I grant that I hate their views).

You're so close. Just write it already. You know you want to.

If they share Robertson's hysteria about the nebulously defined damage that same-sex marriage would do to the institution of family, the question of demographic becomes moot.

Ok. So all minorities that voted for Prop 8 are 700 Club nutjobs.

Being as my wife and I live in a predominantly gay urban neighborhood, I can safely say that there's a gaggle of them on the public thoroughfare with sandwich boards and megaphones at least weekly.

Please. I would have seen that on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN by now. Show us some evidence. Post a video.

See above. It may be coincidental that I've never seen any Orthodox Jews or Muslims up there, so I actually make something of a point of not singling out Christians.

Just admit it already. Christians are destroying the world. You'll feel better once you type it. Everyone here agrees with you. Don't be afraid.

So far, you haven't displayed the perceptual acuity one might require of a tailor; I'm not sure how you've promoted yourself to being my psychologist.

I may be an idiot, but you're transparent despite your best efforts otherwise.

Frankly, given your character as displayed, I'm pretty sure you're within a few posts of admitting that you eat babies and f**k goats; I don't plan to join you in admitting that, either.

What's wrong with eating babies and f**king goats? Stop forcing your values on me.

There's actually much in Christianity, and of Christians in general, that I would gladly defend, and I daresay I'd do so far more eloquently than you. I have no enmity to confess.

Hypocrisy. Condemn or defend them. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Christians are evil. All true Newsvine posters know that.

Ah, but I didn't refuse to criticize other faiths for their intolerant views; I am, in fact, rarely to never confronted with those views. If there's a Muslim or Orthodox Jew around who'd like to debate me on matters of deity or the social costs of homosexuality, he/she may bring it on. I'm fairly certain that the least of them would be a considerably more worthy opponent than you.

I'm not a misguided practioner of any organized religion, and I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals. Where have I written otherwise? I know you want to make me into a Christian, but it's not going to happen. I hate them more than you do. I'm simply pointing out your politically motivated hypocrisy. You're not fooling anyone.

In 1964, the Republicans were not the right wing christian conservatives - the Democrats were. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law, the right-wing xtian conservatives switched parties in protest, and thus began the evolution of the Republican party from a relatively progressive thinking group to a bunch of bible beating wingnuts.

Wow! what a dumb statement. Lay off the crack yeah?!

Dumb statement? I love it. It shows the real motivation of this thread -- it's purely "two" (wink, wink) party hypocrisy. No one bashing Pat Robertson cares about gay rights. They simply hate Christians because they think they're republicans. At least that poster was honest enough to show his/her true colors.

You make a good point bleat_on

Bleat, re 1.78 you have me wrong. I am a Christian. I really don't enjoy the rabid, hateful types but that applies to all belief groups. In my earlier posts on here I was only pointing out that anyone who would say that promoting violent hate crimes is somehow Christian is completely ignorant and idiotic. If I stick a cone on my head and call myself an alien it doesn't make it true.

In reading your further posts I get your point and agree. There are plenty on the vine that will grab onto even the most ridiculous statements and headlines and use them as an excuse to bash Christians. You're barking up the wrong tree with Lyam though. He may not agree but he's a bit more educated and mature than your average "non-Christian".

Being as my wife and I live in a predominantly gay urban neighborhood, I can safely say that there's a gaggle of them on the public thoroughfare with sandwich boards and megaphones at least weekly.

Please. I would have seen that on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN by now. Show us some evidence. Post a video.

I don't know why you're so certain a video would be posted. There's a schizophrenic Cuban immigrant who stands outside one of our malls screaming that the Seattle Police and his former landlord are in league with the communist party in Cuba; I've never seen him get any air time outside of our alternative weeklies. We have a local pastor who consistently mobilizes anti-gay demonstrations by the name of Ken Hutchinson; you can get a lot of google hits on his name, but relatively little national coverage.

I think you overestimate the importance the media grants to religious fundamentalism.

Christians are destroying the world.

Nope. Humans are destroying the world, and sometimes humans are Christian. The names in which we perform atrocities are incidental; a gift for atrocity precedes the ability to walk in the pantheon of human capabilities.

What's wrong with eating babies and f**king goats? Stop forcing your values on me.

I'm sure you think you're being clever.

In fact, there might be nothing wrong with f**king goats, depending on whether and how we can recognize passive, non-verbal forms on consent and assent; we can even differentiate it from a child or mentally disabled person in that the child might reach a capacity to consent, whereas the mentally ill individual deviates from an empirically useful normative standard determining his or her lack of capacity to consent.

As to the matter of baby eating, at base, no freedom for the individual to pursue value can exist unless life--particularly human life (since that's all we've any ability to negotiate over)--is valued; a non-living organism has no apparent capacity for pursuit or creation of value. Therefore, proscriptions against baby-eating serve a demonstrable good.

I suppose if you didn't kill the babies yourself, and if their families had no funereal plans, then the argument is a strictly culinary one. Given that some cannibal cultures refer to human flesh as "long pork," I recommend sage (both dried and fresh) and thyme (fresh only, with the leaves stripped off and strewn about the roast, the twigs shoved under the skin at regular intervals.

Hypocrisy. Condemn or defend them. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oh, but I can, just as I can be a great admirer of De Sade without embracing his love of hurting others; just as I can agree with Marx that capitalism reduces the poet and the healer to mere wage-earners while disagreeing with him about violent revolution and suppression of dissent; just as I can agree with Nietzsche and Rand that the willful individual is the engine of history without subscribing either to the former's nihilism or the latter's objectivism; just as I can agree with conservatives about gun control or hate-crime legislation (which I oppose) and HSAs or school vouchers (which I support) while disagreeing on drug policy, gay rights, and abortion.

I think it was F. Scott Fitzgerald said that intelligence is the measure of one's ability to hold two contradictory ideas in his mind and find them both true.

I'm not a misguided practioner of any organized religion, and I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals. Where have I written otherwise?

I am a practitioner of an organized religion (easier to keep track of than disorganized religion; as a martial artist, I consider it a priority to always know where the people in any given room are) that has no concept of hell (outside the hell through which we put ourselves), so I'm not really concerned with that one way or another.

Nor do I think I ever implied that you were either a Christian or a homophobe. Please quote the passage wherein I did so. I clearly remember suggesting that you're a baby-eater and a goatf**ker, but that's not really reflective of any particular socio-philosophical position on your part; I was merely speaking to character. Indeed, my highly conservative Mormon in-laws are quite a bit more considerate than you . . . which might actually be attributable to their religious beliefs and practices. Or it might just be illustrative of your being a sandy little @!$%#.

I know you want to make me into a Christian, but it's not going to happen. I hate them more than you do.

Again, I never sought to make you into a Christian. And being that I don't hate Christians at all, your hating them more than I do is an all but foregone conclusion.

JustMe: Thanks for the support.

Great post lyam. (1.94)

Thanks, dAt crAzy bOk, but I have to say, I'm not even sure what's being argued at this point aside of bleat_on's nigh impressive density and presumptuousness.

I've been kind of lost for a few days on bleat. I dunno what he's exactly looking for, but your combination of sarcasm, wit, with biting commentary and facts was quite a post.

Thanks for the support.

Anytime Lyam. Excellent post (1.94). I doubt any of it will stick to Bleat but it was definitely a good read.

I don't know why you're so certain a video would be posted. There's a schizophrenic Cuban immigrant who stands outside one of our malls screaming that the Seattle Police and his former landlord are in league with the communist party in Cuba; I've never seen him get any air time outside of our alternative weeklies.

Ridiculing a homeless guy for a laugh is a little different than exposing Christian bigotry. Major media outlets eat up the latter. Everyone knows that.

We have a local pastor who consistently mobilizes anti-gay demonstrations by the name of Ken Hutchinson; you can get a lot of google hits on his name, but relatively little national coverage.

Well maybe when you live in an area that votes on gay marriage...

I think you overestimate the importance the media grants to religious fundamentalism.

Really? Turn on any political commentary show. You're sure to hear a talking head take shots at Christianity. Stewart, Maher, Maddow, Olbermann...they all do it regularly. Even mainstream reporters throw in their two cents, albeit much more subtly.

Nope. Humans are destroying the world, and sometimes humans are Christian. The names in which we perform atrocities are incidental; a gift for atrocity precedes the ability to walk in the pantheon of human capabilities.

Come on. Just write, "I hate Christians," and we can all move on.

I'm sure you think you're being clever.

I'm always clever, but thanks.

In fact, there might be nothing wrong with f**king goats, depending on whether and how we can recognize passive, non-verbal forms on consent and assent; we can even differentiate it from a child or mentally disabled person in that the child might reach a capacity to consent, whereas the mentally ill individual deviates from an empirically useful normative standard determining his or her lack of capacity to consent.

As to the matter of baby eating, at base, no freedom for the individual to pursue value can exist unless life--particularly human life (since that's all we've any ability to negotiate over)--is valued;

Not abortion too. No one wants to argue that.

a non-living organism has no apparent capacity for pursuit or creation of value. Therefore, proscriptions against baby-eating serve a demonstrable good.

Well if it's an aborted baby, where's the harm?

I suppose if you didn't kill the babies yourself, and if their families had no funereal plans, then the argument is a strictly culinary one. Given that some cannibal cultures refer to human flesh as "long pork," I recommend sage (both dried and fresh) and thyme (fresh only, with the leaves stripped off and strewn about the roast, the twigs shoved under the skin at regular intervals.

I'm vegan, but I'll pass that along when the government gives us the O.K.

Oh, but I can, just as I can be a great admirer of De Sade without embracing his love of hurting others;

Speaking of De Sade, when are prostitutes going to get some rights?

just as I can agree with Marx that capitalism reduces the poet and the healer to mere wage-earners while disagreeing with him about violent revolution and suppression of dissent;

This site is all about suppression of dissent. I've been banned multiple times for simply having an opposing viewpoint.

just as I can agree with Nietzsche and Rand that the willful individual is the engine of history without subscribing either to the former's nihilism or the latter's objectivism;

O.K. We get it. You're well read. Bravo.

just as I can agree with conservatives about gun control or hate-crime legislation (which I oppose)

How can you oppose hate-crime legislation and support gay marriage? That's rather contradictory.

and HSAs or school vouchers (which I support)

Gun control and school vouchers too? What would the DNC say about that? Shame on you.

while disagreeing on drug policy, gay rights, and abortion.

I think it was F. Scott Fitzgerald said that intelligence is the measure of one's ability to hold two contradictory ideas in his mind and find them both true.

Isn't that what I've been arguing the entire time?

I am a practitioner of an organized religion (easier to keep track of than disorganized religion; as a martial artist,

Just tell me it's something worthwhile like Muay Thai or Jiu-Jitsu. Please don't say, "Akido" or "Capoeira." Those are only good for TNT movies.

I consider it a priority to always know where the people in any given room are)

Easy, Nixon.

that has no concept of hell (outside the hell through which we put ourselves),

You Buddhists and your suffering...

so I'm not really concerned with that one way or another.

Nor do I think I ever implied that you were either a Christian or a homophobe. Please quote the passage wherein I did so. I clearly remember suggesting that you're a baby-eater and a goatf**ker, but that's not really reflective of any particular socio-philosophical position on your part; I was merely speaking to character.

What in your extensive character analysis lead you to believe I fornicate with animals or eat babies?

Indeed, my highly conservative Mormon in-laws are quite a bit more considerate than you . . .

Who said I was conservative? I hate religion and I have more gay friends than most of the people on this thread.

which might actually be attributable to their religious beliefs and practices. Or it might just be illustrative of your being a sandy little @!$%#.

Perhaps...

Again, I never sought to make you into a Christian. And being that I don't hate Christians at all, your hating them more than I do is an all but foregone conclusion.

Embrace the hate. Newsvine totally supports and accepts it.

I've been kind of lost for a few days on bleat. I dunno what he's exactly looking for, but your combination of sarcasm, wit, with biting commentary and facts was quite a post.

Sounds like someone's got a crush...

What does my love life have to do with this?

Well maybe when you live in an area that votes on gay marriage...

Look up Initiative 71, Washington.

I'm always clever, but thanks.

Good for you! Plan to start flaunting any of that here?

Well if it's an aborted baby, where's the harm?

Indeed.

Speaking of De Sade, when are prostitutes going to get some rights?

I don't know. I, myself, support decriminalization of prostitution and unionization of said industry.

I've been banned multiple times for simply having an opposing viewpoint.

How certain are you that's the reason?

How can you oppose hate-crime legislation and support gay marriage? That's rather contradictory.

I don't see how. I'd almost like to find out why you think so (so I can decimate your reasoning as thoroughly as I have the rest of your reasoning), but then I'd have to read more of your writing. So I'll lay out my general reasonings as they stand:

I oppose hate-crime legislation because I don't like the idea of marking off special classes of victims; I'd rather undermine the arbitrary distinctions that allow both criminals and juries to view certain classes of victims as something other than human beings, citizens, deserving of full protection of the state. As the nature and intent of a crime already comes into play when determining motive, guilt, and, ultimately, sentence, hate-crime legislation duplicates these processes; what's more, it puts the blunt instrument of the state in a position for which it is uniquely unqualified--teasing out moral and ideological nuances.

Conversely, I feel that the state has a few options with regards to marriage and whether to extend it to same sex couples: First, it can eliminate the civic institution of marriage entirely, eliminating the subsidies and special legal classifications that come therewith, leaving the entire matter to churches and communities; second, it could offer such contracts only to child-bearing couples, making all benefits contingent on producing offspring; third, it can offer these contracts and benefits to same-sex couples and plural (polygamous) households on the same basis that it offers them to childless married couple now (like my wife and I). We could further bifurcate that third option, and suggest either a situation in which this contract is called a civil union in ALL cases (because I don't believe special classifications are warranted), leaving "marriage" entirely to families and faith communities, or in which all such contracts are called marriage.

In each of these situations, the subsidy that already exists is being offered on an equal basis. Currently, it is not being offered on said equal basis.

Just tell me it's something worthwhile like Muay Thai or Jiu-Jitsu. Please don't say, "Akido" or "Capoeira." Those are only good for TNT movies.

All of the above, actually (Muay Thai, Jiu-Jitsu [not my strong suit, but I've learned a little], Aikido, and Capoeira), plus Savate, Panantukan, Combat Submission Wrestling, and Goju-Ryu karate. Of course, as a professional actor, TNT movies might be said to be more my desired end point, anyway.

Who said I was conservative?

Not me. In fact, I was illustrating that religious conservatives are, in some cases, more decent as people than some who might, under some circumstances, claim to be on my side.

I hate religion and I have more gay friends than most of the people on this thread.

I work in theater, dude, and practice a religion that recognizes gay marriages. You may have more gay friends than some of the people on this thread, but I'd bet good money you don't have more than I do. :)

What does my love life have to do with this?

Don't be selfish.

Look up Initiative 71, Washington.

That would require effort on my part.

Good for you! Plan to start flaunting any of that here?

Isn't it obvious?

I don't know. I, myself, support decriminalization of prostitution and unionization of said industry.

Unions??? Why would they possibly need to be unionized?

How certain are you that's the reason?

I'm absolutely certain of it. See for yourself. http://ladyblue999.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/12/3373672-possible-major-speed-bump-on-the-way-to-legal-marijuana

I don't see how. I'd almost like to find out why you think so (so I can decimate your reasoning as thoroughly as I have the rest of your reasoning), but then I'd have to read more of your writing. So I'll lay out my general reasonings as they stand:

Because the only people that oppose hate-crimes legislation are racist/bigoted conservatives or so the newsvine community tells me...

I oppose hate-crime legislation because I don't like the idea of marking off special classes of victims; I'd rather undermine the arbitrary distinctions that allow both criminals and juries to view certain classes of victims as something other than human beings, citizens, deserving of full protection of the state. As the nature and intent of a crime already comes into play when determining motive, guilt, and, ultimately, sentence, hate-crime legislation duplicates these processes; what's more, it puts the blunt instrument of the state in a position for which it is uniquely unqualified--teasing out moral and ideological nuances.

So you're not a fan of seperate and unequal.

Conversely, I feel that the state has a few options with regards to marriage and whether to extend it to same sex couples: First, it can eliminate the civic institution of marriage entirely, eliminating the subsidies and special legal classifications that come therewith, leaving the entire matter to churches and communities;

If they elminated the civic benefits, no one would do it.

I don't know. I, myself, support decriminalization of prostitution and unionization of said industry.

Unions??? Why would they possibly need to be unionized?

For the same reason actors are unionized--collective bargaining is a way of avoiding underbidding by prospective employers and pooling resources for health insurance (important, I'd think, in a high risk industry like sex work), etc. There are probably lots of other reasons, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Because the only people that oppose hate-crimes legislation are racist/bigoted conservatives or so the newsvine community tells me...

I don't parrot party lines. I think that a morally non-invasive government remains preferable even if I agree with the moral stances the government takes. I think the left is right on the matter of gay marriage, and wrong on the matter of hate-crimes. It really is that simple.

So you're not a fan of seperate and unequal.

Indeed, I am not.

If they elminated the civic benefits, no one would do it.

I disagree. Homosexual couples are already going through marital ceremonies in Quaker churches in the absence of state recognition; I know at least a couple of "married" gay couples who enjoy building a household without those civic benefits.

Hell, my wife and I don't even make enough collective money to enjoy those benefits; her being an independent contractor, it's cheaper to buy her insurance out of pocket than it would be to put her on my insurance (for instance).

On the other hand, I grant that there are some civic benefits--like, say, immigration rights--without which certain marriages wouldn't happen (fewer cross-continental marriages, for one thing).

For the same reason actors are unionized--collective bargaining is a way of avoiding underbidding by prospective employers and pooling resources for health insurance (important, I'd think, in a high risk industry like sex work), etc. There are probably lots of other reasons, but those are the ones that come to mind.

So you're equating actors to prostitutes? I would think there's a lot more training and specialized knowledge with the former, but to each his own.

That said, I'm not sure the likes of Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston, etc. really need a union to help them negotiate their outrageous salaries/benefits.

I don't parrot party lines. I think that a morally non-invasive government remains preferable even if I agree with the moral stances the government takes. I think the left is right on the matter of gay marriage, and wrong on the matter of hate-crimes. It really is that simple.

Interesting contradiction.

I disagree. Homosexual couples are already going through marital ceremonies in Quaker churches in the absence of state recognition; I know at least a couple of "married" gay couples who enjoy building a household without those civic benefits.

Interesting.

Hell, my wife and I don't even make enough collective money to enjoy those benefits; her being an independent contractor, it's cheaper to buy her insurance out of pocket than it would be to put her on my insurance (for instance).

Your coverage is probably better, though. I'm guessing lower deductibles at the very least.

So you're equating actors to prostitutes?

Broadly speaking, why not? Both are using a talent to sell a service generally thought of as entertainment.

I would think there's a lot more training and specialized knowledge with the former, but to each his own.

I suppose it would depend on the level of specialization of the prostitute.

That said, I'm not sure the likes of Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston, etc. really need a union to help them negotiate their outrageous salaries/benefits.

The average stage actor makes $300-$600/wk., which doesn't even account for the sporadic nature of the work.

I don't parrot party lines. I think that a morally non-invasive government remains preferable even if I agree with the moral stances the government takes. I think the left is right on the matter of gay marriage, and wrong on the matter of hate-crimes. It really is that simple.

Interesting contradiction.

I think I've asked you twice, now, to illustrate why that's a contradiction. You've yet to do so. The only thing being contradicted is the party line.

Your coverage is probably better, though. I'm guessing lower deductibles at the very least.

Actually, no. My deductibles are quite high. I spend my desk hours working for a non-profit corporation. Our plans are actually nigh identical, but it costs $200 less per month to buy hers independently than it would cost to put her on my plan. Probably has something to do with being primarily self-employed.

I do have her on my dental plan, because that's separate.