tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post666219570372477838..comments2024-03-28T14:52:13.218-05:00Comments on Stonekettle Station: Don’t Let The Door Hit You In The Ass, Mike HuckabeeJim Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-67470599196767177552013-04-07T11:25:10.247-05:002013-04-07T11:25:10.247-05:00I doubt that gay marriage will cause evangelicals ...I doubt that gay marriage will cause evangelicals to run and hide. They know a small Tea Party wouldn't rein in the minions of Satan either. The only hope for them is to whip the servants of God into a righteous frenzy, frighten them half to death and stand back to watch the carnage. They'll carry four or five blood red states, but that won't be nearly enough for the freaks of nature who prefer to take up arms. Fear translates to hatred; the last ingredient of any fundamentalist soup. <br />I'm firmly convinced that a lot of the mass killings and murder/suicides we've seen in the last decade are fueled by religious noise that is bound to drive the ignorant into a panic that results in violence. It doesn't even require religious certitude or the threat of the nation's collapse. All it takes is atmosphere. When a troubled person is exposed to the news stories and the amorphous anxiety of the community around them, their psychiatric condition is impacted, and not in a good way. Gun laws and mental health care can only take the edge off their kind of chaos and it won't stop the violence. As long as there are white extremist Christian churches, militias and survivalists there will be resulting violence. What's worse, to me, is they won't even be hiding and their legally owned guns will come in real handy. The seriously mentally ill will stay in hiding, in Mom's basement, until the noise of fear and hatred drives them to seek relief in violence and death. The Tea Party won't take credit for that. They have lots of other people to blame. Nancy Alborellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09670097162853715770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-37308965708393017962013-04-06T06:24:06.277-05:002013-04-06T06:24:06.277-05:00Pamela, you also miss the point:
1. Yes polygamy...Pamela, you also miss the point:<br /><br />1. Yes polygamy is illegal. But if it WAS legal, it would have to be available for everyone, not just some.<br />2. Whether it plays to the male ego is only relevant to a discussion of the pros and cons of polygamy, not to the civil rights issue of making sure what is available to some must be available to all. <br />3. Ditto number 2 above. The point is, some people make the (false) argument that allowing gays to marry means every other kind of marital arrangement must also be allowed, including humans & animals, etc. Clearly nonsense, but they keep trying it on. So it's important to understand that the only thing at issue with gay marriage is that a civil right extended to some members of the population must be extended to all. One could, in fact, make substantive arguments against marriage full stop, same as you are arguing against polygamy. But that would be a very different discussion. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-35260906167336733202013-04-05T12:55:44.925-05:002013-04-05T12:55:44.925-05:00Polygamy is different --
1. it it illegal
2. ...Polygamy is different -- <br />1. it it illegal <br />2. it plays to the male ego/fantasy<br />3. it debases woman as no more than property with none or very few legal rights<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18117837896972479819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-69518080759795155502013-04-05T12:24:46.937-05:002013-04-05T12:24:46.937-05:00I recently stumbled across this post that explains...I recently stumbled across this post that explains pretty well the animus behind the Religious Right's hatred of gays:<br /><br />http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex-marriage-does-threaten-traditional-marriage/<br /><br />"Opponents to same-sex marriage reject the idea that marriage should be redefined as “genderless.” Feminism has been arguing for genderless marriage – for marriage equality – for decades! Most of that focus has been on equality within marriage – in matters of housework, childrearing, and sexual satisfaction. Same-sex marriage is the next step in the struggle for marriage equality, but also in the broader struggle for gender equality. So, yeah, same-sex marriage does threaten traditional marriage. And that is why it is being resisted as vigorously as women’s rights and African American civil rights were (are) resisted. It’s not just a matter of a “right to privacy” or live and let live. We are trying to argue it as such. But it’s more foundation-shaking than that. The opposition to same-sex marriage is opposition to a half century of feminist redefinitions of and challenges to “traditional” marriage that have brought us to this historic moment. To quote Ellen one last time, “Asking who’s the ‘man’ and who’s the ‘woman’ in a same-sex relationship is like asking which chopstick is the fork.”"Corbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00924421679379827065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-38489267643709809732013-04-04T17:40:28.494-05:002013-04-04T17:40:28.494-05:00polygamy is of course different in only one respec...polygamy is of course different in only one respect: it is currently legally available to no one. <br /><br />If in the future it is made available to some, then it should, by law and all fairness, be available to all. Or to none. Same as marriage between merely two. <br /><br />Equality under the law. It's easy, once you grasp the fundamentals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-60258139164675823722013-04-03T22:50:41.622-05:002013-04-03T22:50:41.622-05:00Even if they are relatively OK with the evangelica...Even if they are relatively OK with the evangelical agenda. And there are an awful lot of sheeple out there who, if someone invokes God, will actually take it seriously. I see that all the time.Taruhan bolahttp://www.indobookies.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-60588595917822051402013-04-03T14:01:49.864-05:002013-04-03T14:01:49.864-05:00One doesn't have to be a church goer to see wh...One doesn't have to be a church goer to see which hypocrites take themselves off to church each weekend. <br /><br />From my experience, the most hypocritical, the most dishonest, the most judgmental and hateful members of any community are the self-styled pious church goers.<br /><br />Simply saying it's otherwise won't make it so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-43388785259447300872013-04-02T23:05:37.144-05:002013-04-02T23:05:37.144-05:00What's your problem with people who prefer mul...What's your problem with people who prefer multiple partners, and how is that any different than people saying gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? It's still you dictating your personal definitions on people who don't adhere to them.<br /><br />And you pointedly mentioned this, so it's obviously something you're worried about. BabyRaptornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-12016079572653234522013-04-02T20:34:46.863-05:002013-04-02T20:34:46.863-05:00"The mistake is that we sometimes base our pu..."The mistake is that we sometimes base our public policy decisions on how we feel, how we think..." Well holy hell, don't base your policy on thinking, that would totally screw things up! <br />And for the record, the Bible makes no mention of Jesus' stand on homosexuality. Jesus is silent on the matter. In the entire Bible there are few mentions of homosexuality, but LOTS of mentions of greed, caring for the marginalized, widows, poor...Wouldn't want to pay attention to that part, it wouldn't fit into the agenda.<br />Msttfnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-91215531803261613772013-04-02T17:40:48.444-05:002013-04-02T17:40:48.444-05:00The overwhelming majority of US Christians are not...The overwhelming majority of US Christians are not zealous and cruel. Politically, a large number, perhaps as many as half, are liberals. <br /><br />But the radical right faction has a very large megaphone and a lot of money, and those are the ones we hear the most about, unless we are church-goers.Raven Onthillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634556869209594389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-68447664435101718072013-04-02T17:31:05.189-05:002013-04-02T17:31:05.189-05:00Steve, I've been reading your comments here fo...Steve, I've been reading your comments here for a while. I hope you were being just a little sarcastic in your comment and I missed it. The GOP has been the party of fiscal wastefulness and social repression for as long as I have been voting (some decades). The GOP talks about fiscal responsibility, but look at the actual numbers. When the GOP is in power, the economy does poorly or tanks, much worse than the Democrats. They talk about unleashing business, but the only people who do well are the very biggest businesses and their CEOs, never small businesses. When the GOP is in power, their record of sky-high increasing deficits makes a drunken sailor on shore leave look like a tightwad Puritan with a chastity belt. Doubled under Reagan, doubled again under Bush Jr. Going to the GOP for fiscal responsibility is like asking a criminal gang to house-sit for you while you're on vacation. As a nation, we've been doing it for years, and the situation isn't pretty. Jerry A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01835584492326180042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-23137395198224223432013-04-02T05:27:51.389-05:002013-04-02T05:27:51.389-05:00Aramiac is a 3,000 year old written and spoken ser...Aramiac is a 3,000 year old written and spoken series of languages - don't confuse the early Jewish history with early Christianity. granted, the Gospels were not written until the second century AD, probably from both written and oral tradition, as heavily biased by the writers as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_languageDave Schlierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03605415222945400090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-20955905770984148832013-04-01T20:02:03.031-05:002013-04-01T20:02:03.031-05:00Sophie,
Or as John Fugelsang said lately: "Je...Sophie,<br />Or as John Fugelsang said lately: "Jesus is like Elvis. I really like the man. It's a lot of his unauthorized fan clubs I can't stand."Lucas Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-73373131637995914122013-04-01T17:20:22.045-05:002013-04-01T17:20:22.045-05:00Down here in Texas I see a reasonably large number...Down here in Texas I see a reasonably large number of wack-job fiscal reactionaries. Mexi-phobics, Islamo-phobics, moms-against-abortion, and general anti-Obama birther zealots. I think the GOP could hang onto all of those; it's true that there is some overlap with the evangelicals but not all of the former identify primarily as evangelicals. Even if they are relatively OK with the evangelical agenda. And there are an awful lot of sheeple out there who, if someone invokes God, will actually take it seriously. I see that all the time.<br /><br />Huck's gonna be a featured speaker somewhere down here; I just saw a billboard in the last few days. Marveled that anyone would still take him seriously.marmernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-26678184137082687712013-04-01T16:46:33.064-05:002013-04-01T16:46:33.064-05:00Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which was un...Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which was unanimous by the way, settled the miscengenation question for the country. It did away with all state and local statutes prohibiting mixed-race marriage, which by that time, existed only in the South. It more or less said that if a couple is married in one state, they are married in all states. It seems to me that, despite what Scalia makes up and calls precedent or law, there is such a strong parallel that the pro-gay marriage arguments before the court are no-brainers. Of course, "the Court must consider blah, blah, blah."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-25892944135460933762013-04-01T15:43:05.328-05:002013-04-01T15:43:05.328-05:00"Why, they might even eventually become a rea..."Why, they might even eventually become a reasonable party of rational people who could actually attract moderates from both sides of the political spectrum and who could reach a useful accommodation with the rational members of the Democratic Party and return the federal government, and hence the entire country, to some semblance of functionality and stability."<br /><br />But at this point, what policies do the Republicans really have, if they abandon homophobia, racism, and misogyny? I suppose there is still "cutting the taxes of the rich, and making everyone else pay more" but it is hard to see that as a politically plausible or sustainable path.<br /><br />The Democrats have swung so far to the right, fiscally, that there just isn't much room left for a fiscally "conservative" Republican position that isn't just batshit insane. If there were still a viable political left -- if there really was anyone arguing for *really* high taxes, and *really* robust social services and policies (serious funding of education, serious funding of infrastructure, serious attempts to restore workers' rights, etc etc.) -- then, sure, a party that argued that those kinds of policies might suppress growth, or were unfair, etc., would provide a good balance. But no one is arguing that (arguably, no one "important" has publicly argued for anything like that since McGovern, and that was a bit before my time...).<br /><br />When your party's only policy recommendations are to 1) hurt whoever the worst-off members of society happen to be, for whatever crazy reason you can cook up, and 2) get as much money as possible concentrated in the hands of the already disgustingly rich, well, I really don't see where you can go, politically, that any sane person would find attractive.<br /><br />I suppose if some Republicans adopted the policy recommendations re: taxes, healthcare reform, budgeting, of the current more conservative Democrats, they might be able to pull the party back into the middle, and force the Democrats to explain what made them Democrats. ("These are, traditionally, our policies. Reasonable tax rates, a reasonable safety-net that yet encourages responsible behavior, funding of research that promotes growth, etc. What are yours, again?") That'd be nice, I suppose. Not holding my breadth, of course.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364316598293820961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-11238664757008560452013-04-01T15:30:49.216-05:002013-04-01T15:30:49.216-05:00For what it's worth, The Huckster's educat...For what it's worth, The Huckster's education consisted of:<br /><br />"He [Huckabee] graduated magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University, completing his bachelor's degree in Religion in 2½ years before attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He dropped out of the seminary after one year in order to take a job in Christian broadcasting.<br />-- Wikipedia<br /><br />He was also Student Council President in high school and plays bass guitar in the his cover band, Capitol Offense.<br /><br />What a guy!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-89426319538189596252013-04-01T14:53:16.985-05:002013-04-01T14:53:16.985-05:0092 MOG, so it comes down to does public policy of ...92 MOG, so it comes down to does public policy of one state trump the rights of individuals? Guess that's why it's in the Supreme's lap.sophienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-42189283399377625892013-04-01T14:52:59.326-05:002013-04-01T14:52:59.326-05:00Some of you would probably really enjoy the Facebo...Some of you would probably really enjoy the Facebook page, "The Christian Left", 134 thousand and growing. It's a group of Christians tired of hateful, rigid, narrow-minded Christians giving Christianity a bad name. Sense of humor and tolerance are a must. Many atheists (like myself)support and follow the group, grateful to see Liberal Christians being loving and supportive, and overshadowing the bigoted, small-minded radical right.Debteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04197703432632549237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-54822293668321085592013-04-01T14:46:56.646-05:002013-04-01T14:46:56.646-05:00"I like your Christ; I do not like your Chris..."I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi.<br />I do know some Christians that live a Christian life; they are rare. sophienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-71616404065527220002013-04-01T14:28:58.670-05:002013-04-01T14:28:58.670-05:00“Politicians have an obligation to be thermostats,...“Politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers"<br />Well, there are two kinds of thermometers; I think we know what type the politicians are, eh ?bearsensehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12000858896207125033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-77561317130465574192013-04-01T13:41:46.574-05:002013-04-01T13:41:46.574-05:00The thing is, pariah in English is not the equival...The thing is, pariah in English is not the equivalent of the word n***er, or untouchable, which i realize is a term for people of alternative sexuality or transgender people in India. I realize the word is horrible in India, but the word as used in English is simply a catchall for anyone out of the social norm, and has been for well over a century or two. It's not used in English quite the same way, and I don't think it should not be used for the way English speakers use it. If i were speaking your language, I would avoid it, but it about context, and how the word is used. Words shouldn't be banned, because that limits expression. People over there should reclaim Pariah, use it as a badge of honor, and that in effect will take most of the stigma away from it. It would be like taking the shots fired and firing them back. Or, in a sense, it would become a shield, an effective tool of deflection against slurs. GLBTQ people in the United States, like myself, have done that and it seriously does work.Kawamuranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-24015212210473706282013-04-01T13:30:47.198-05:002013-04-01T13:30:47.198-05:00I have to agree with Tristan, most of the people I...I have to agree with Tristan, most of the people I have met who identify themselves as 'Christians' are hateful, judgmental hypocrites. <br /><br />I believe that's a commonality shared by most 'Christians', not an aberration. In my lengthy experience, honest, non-judgmental, loving and peaceful Christians are the exception, not the rule.<br /><br />That's not altered or tempered by whether or not they preach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-67265787699645123812013-04-01T13:14:39.941-05:002013-04-01T13:14:39.941-05:00Not to mention all of the non-abrahamic, as well a...Not to mention all of the non-abrahamic, as well as neo-pagan religions who follow the basic admonishments of Christ, whereas most evangelicals don't.Kawamuranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-60544770207185666742013-04-01T12:32:31.331-05:002013-04-01T12:32:31.331-05:00Except perhaps when the violates the public policy...Except perhaps when the violates the public policy of the other state.92 MOGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09740446813671879298noreply@blogger.com