Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mormon temples pass out Yes on 8 signs today - imposing its religion on everybody again

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 04:46 PM
Original message
Mormon temples pass out Yes on 8 signs today - imposing its religion on everybody again
The Mormon "church" near my house is passing out dozens of Yes on 8 yard signs from its parking lot, giving them to each car as it leaves. This supports the various decpetive and dishonest advertising campaigns which claim gay marriage will force churches to preach acceptance of gays against their wills.

Once again it is trying to impose its peculiar religious superstitions on everybody in California, Mormon or not.

That's what Yes on 8 is, imposing the values of various religious cults on everyone in the state, even though you may not belong to or agree with those religious cults. You MUST live according to their religions whether you like it or not.

The systematic destruction of non-white non-christian cultures is not enough for them.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. I hope that church loses its tax exempt status. Please report them.
I just saw Religilous. 'Cult' is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. they are allowed to do this, only human candidates are restricted from direct promotion. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
72. Well, maybe that needs to change
just like we (Dems) close tax loopholes when we find them. (Repukes, of course, go out of their way to create them.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Dum..Dum..Dum...


Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalNative Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Californians really need to wake up
and think long and hard about whether or not they want people who wear special underwear and whose original prophets were polygamists dictating public policy in this state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. There needs to be more emphasis on the out-of-state funding on Prop 8.
One thing Californians hate is people who don't have the good sense to live here thinking they can tell us how to run the place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
30. I agree, LeftyMom.
I am really dealing with some angry feelings right now. I am particularly resentful of recent arrivals to the State, who have no idea that I have always lived among those who favored people being free to be who they are, and live happily, with the equal protection of the law being afforded to everyone. I am very resentful from out-of-state money coming in and trying to change the culture of MY state. Keep out of MY business, Dobson and other out-of-staters!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. SoCalNative
Edited on Sun Oct-12-08 05:37 PM by Diclotican
SoCalNative

To be fair here.. 1 The CHURCH OF LATER DAY SAINTS do not have polygamist in their Church.. If there is polygamist, they have two choice.. One is to go into a real marriage, with ONE of his wife.. Or leave the Church.. What the other Church who claim to be the Real Later day saints or what they then want to tell, is NOT the same as LDS... Believe me, I should know because I am one of them

And for the underwear.. I have to say I use regular Boxer shorts.. No specially holly about them at all, and they go in the washing Machine as the rest of my under wear... And I am pretty sure that in my community the most of the members are still using regular underwear.. Have never been asked if I use some holy under wear yet.. But then I have not been to US, or to Utah, So I guess that is the case...I really believe that that "under wear issue" are something that is something very few are taking to serious anyway..

Yes we do have a person we look as our Prophet, but I doubt he are like Warren, who are not an member of the LDS anyway.. But it is very easy to confuse the names then.. Maybe therefore many still believe that LDS and RLDS and the other groups who have been splintering out of the mother Church (as sort of ) over the last 100 year still are part of the LDS.. But they do make a havoc of what the LDS is standing for..

When it come to this Gay thing, and that the Church promote an specially interest of that, public. I as one of the member have just to say. I feel sorry that the Church is talking politic.. I know our Church standing, and I guess for the most part every one else know the Church standing of it. But I do not believe for a second that our Church should get into this thing at all..

I do believe it to be wrong, and I believed it to be wrong long before I was baptized into the Church. But I also have to say, I respect every one who are gay, even by "choice" or by what they are born as.. I have no problem with two people who are in love, and would care for each other for the rest of their life living together.. And it they do want to get into a partner ship, as man and wife.. Then so be it.. I even have friends, who are pretty openly gay, and I respect is. As I would respect every one else on this planet.. Have no interesting trying to "convert" homosexuals.. But if they ask Me what I feel I would say I have my reservations against the whole thing. But that I respect their choice, even if it means been Gay.. They are my friends after all, and I admire that they are willing to risk everything to live that life they really feel is important for them.. AND I for one would not be the one to push them away.. Have not that many friends, and want to have them who I already have..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Diclotican, I love ya, BUT...
SoCalNative is right about the original prophets of the LDS Church being polygamist. Joseph Smith (church founder) was either married or "sealed" to 33 known women; Brigham Young was sealed to 57 of them and was in sexual relations with 16 of them. The Church disavowed the practice because the US government said they wouldn't allow Utah into the Union until the practice of polygamy in the LDS Church was abolished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. jmowreader
jmowreader

It is true that the Church in the past have had polygamy and all what come with it.. It was "right" then, but not today.. And LDS have made the whole affair in more than 100 year. I for one would never have more than ONE wife, when I got one that is. Newer more than one woman. Why?.. I feel it is wrong and in any cases it is illegal where I live anyway.. But think about it, to have more than one wife.. It would say that if they was feeling insulted about you, you could get into far more problems with two wifes than one.. And I for one have no power to fight TWO woman at the same time... And if you have two wifes, you might even ha two mother in law... O dear.. They who had more than One wifes must have been either more powerfully than the most of us. Or more stupid that we are.. I do not know :P. But I for one think the whole polygamy cases is a thing of the past, and have no place in the modern LDS Church.. No place at all... The Fundamentals who still believe in polygamy would be thrown out of the Church, if proven have more than one wife I hope.. Even that I know that in some part, the LDS do have some issues... But I hope the leaders who are working with it, is doing their best to tell their "flock" that the only legal thing, is to have one wife.. And no more than One..

It is also true that the State of Utah had to choice between a star on the US flag, or polygamy.. And in fact for the Church it would end in ruin if they had decided to fight the US government in this case.. The whole Church property, and every property owned by member would be confiscated by the american government - if the Church decided that polygamy was something of the past.. And thankfully the Church decided that the smart ting was to decide that polygamy was wrong, and that only one man, and one wife was the only and truly way of marriage..

Anyway. I at least believe that the whole concept of polygamy have no place in the Church anymore.. Even that the past seen to have long shadows into the future.. But I am least are in totally disagreement about the whole polygamy thing.. Who have not part of LDS.. The other splinter groups have no contact with the LDS as I know it.. Maybe some have, but I would guess the policy is pretty strict there.. If they want to be a part of the LDS Church, no polygamy.. If they want to be part of the splinter groups , so be it.. But then you have no right, no duties or what ever in our Church..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Mormans for the "traditional" definition of marriage. How freaking ironic
but of course, they'll never understand that no matter how much you try to explain it to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. BR_Parkway
BR_Parkway

Then I might tick you.. I belive strongly in the fact that the marriage is a comunion between man and an woman.. I do not belive that, what we would call "traditional marriage" is something between two of the same sex..

Yes Partnership, where two adult peopole are agreeing to live togheter for their rest of their life is no problem for me.. But MARRIAGE.. That is an another case.. A Parnership is the closest I can agree about..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cresent City Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. What's the difference between "marriage" and "partnership"?
Why draw a line at legal and social acceptance? People only oppose gay marriage because because of the idea of having homosexuality sanctioned officially would make them have to accept socially what they call a sin in their particular religions. The outlawing of gay marriage serves no purpose other than preventing gays from marrying.

Some christian/judeaic/muslim sins should be laws, like no murder. Others don't affect anyone but the consenting people involved. Opposition to gay marriage is a manifestation of people being overly concerned about the religion of otehr people. In my religion, THAT's a sin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Cresent City Kid
Cresent City Kid

At this point in my life, I would find a Partnership, the most important for a gay couple. What come in the future I do not know.. Maybe in a decade or two times I would accept the idea of a gay couple get a regular, traditional marriage as I would have it, when I marriage my self... But at this point in my life I have to say, that an registered partnership, is as far as I can possible stretch it.. Are I am a bad person because I just can't accept that same sex partners get an traditional marriage?.. i do not know..I hope I am not an bad people.. But I would rather take it slowly, and got there in time, than to rush it and get a backlash.. It is not that long ago, the whole concept of gay was illegal if most country in the West.. Thankfully we have coming a far way longer into the future.. 30-35 year ago, it was an illness to be gay in my country. You could be send to a mental institution if you was openly gay.. Thankfully that is not the case today.. Thankfully we as humans have evolved somehow..

I do not care if two grown up people decide to live and to care with each other, even if they are same sex. And if they want to act as man and wife that is ok for my.. It should be their legal right to do it. And an Partnership would be good enough. We can have a sermon, where they promise to care for each other.. Love each other - and when they become old, in heritage each other.. Tis is something I have not a objection about. What two grown up, consenting people are doing behding closed door, in their bedrom, is something I, am every one else have no interst in.. Even if it against what we belive in... If that make us a sinner, then I am a sinner.. If that I have some objection against it, then I maybe is a sinner.. I have just to hope, that my action are not that bad, and that when my time would came are in the position to say, that I was trying to live my life as best I could posible do. And that I have not made to mutch error in my life.. That is my hope, in the end..

What I have a objection about, is the Fraze MARRIAGE. I still believe that to be an institution, made by man and woman, and also an holy institution.. And not to be played with.. A Partnership, between same sex couple I have no worry about. They can after the sermon, claim to be married but the Symbol of Marriage I still believe is an institution who are somewhat for the moment out of reach for gay couple.. yes I am maybe out of my league here. I am maybe full of sin here.. But I have to say, that is what I feel about it..

The important for the moment, is to make accept that gay people can get an partnership, and that same sex couple can be treated as equal in the aye of the law.. In to many country gay couple is still treated as second class people who are been harassed and treated bad, by the same folks who claim to be christians.. And that is some hing I feel very sorry about by the way...


Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cresent City Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Nobody's a "bad person" for their beliefs
The issue is the place of belief in our laws. You have every right to oppose gay marriage in the sense that you believe it's wrong. Even the most intolerant religions have their right to be practiced by those who agree with them. To have a society that allows any religion, we have to allow all religions, without any one of them forcing laws on any other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
45. Cresent City Kid
Cresent City Kid

Off course, but I for one would _never_ stand in the way of two people who want to be together, to love each other, and to care for each other?. Why should I?.. I do believe it to be "wrong" and I do believe all my friends, even my gay one know what I feel. But I have no interest what so ever to try to judge others, because of who they are in loving with.. That is not my right to judge others..

But I do believe Church, any Church have no right to try to impose an laws, like banning same sex partnership on the society as an hole. That goes for the LDS as every other Church I would know about. And I do not like this story about member of the Church trying to convince people to say yes to a apparition who in fact would make it illegal to be in an partnership in the state of California.. Specially when it are in an Temple.. Politic and the work who are been doing in Temples have no right what so ever with each other..I believe it to be wrong to get into the politic stuff when walking away from an holy place.. As we mormons believe the Temples to be. That is a place of reflection over things. Not a place to make a public statement make a political stunt, like this.. It is wrong, and possible against what the Church is teaching also..

But we would ever have "some" who would go little over the top. I would never excuse it. I do believe it to be wrong by the way..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #45
97. Diclotican
I am a straight married man, and as such I can legally sign my wife as the benefactor on my life insurance policies and carry her on my medical insurance policies. If I were in the hospital, she could legally make medical decisions on my behalf, and could overrule my families decisions (of course, she never would have to- my family knows my feelings on life support). We were able to legally sign our mortgage together. Since the house is in our name, if I die she does not have to pay an inheritance tax. Then there is the income tax benefit we receive as a married couple. The problem in this country is that in most places gay couples cannot share just these few benefits me and my wife do, and that is wrong. There are others that can elaborate on more subjects, but this is just a few that popped into my head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. Great point . . . !!!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
46. BR_Parkway
BR_Parkway

Try me, try to educate my sorry mormon ass?.. I would love to be educated and to know more about the world I am living at.. I am an member of that shurch, and would like to be educated why the right is to have same sex marriage, or as I want to call it, partnership..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. What did you think religion is for anyway?
Edited on Sun Oct-12-08 05:40 PM by kenny blankenship
Religion without coercion is a barkless dog.
You never liked the barking but once it's gone you can't help but feel the creature's reason for living has vanished too. Something essential is missing. God can't be God unless He's smiting and chastising, a-whomping and a-waling, and you know how upset it makes God's people to see Him feeling down and out of sorts. It's in the very nature of religion to impose itself on people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. No one wants to be miserable alone . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
9.  msongs
msongs

I Really do not believe that the Church have to teach acceptance when it come to gay, even that if California decide that Gay have the right to be married in the "traditional" way anytime soon.. Yes they might have to be more carefully of how they treat the homosexuals.. But I for one would doubt that it would end in some horrible schism in the Church..

I for one are not afraid of gay, or what they want to do in their bedroom. If two grown up men/woman want to live in partnership, and be man and wife then it is pretty ok for me.. I have some friends who have "coming out of the closed" lately, and even that it was some shock for me, it was good and close friends who I would have as friends, even that they was coming out as openly Gay..I do not care if they are Gay. They are the same persons anyway. Yes they might get very close friends who are more than just "friends". But as long as they are not having sex in the same rom as i am, then I have no problem with it..

I feel sorry for you, if you feel insulted by this. I feel sorry for member of our Church who are ignorant or do not have the knowledge about that gay people are humans, as the rest of us humans.. I for one do not care if an person is gay or not.. What is inside them, is the most important.. Not why them are sexually..

Maybe I am little liberal here, But I think it is many more important thinks to worry about, then if two adult men or woman want to live together.. Sorry... I am just that way..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
10. The Catholic church I take my elderly parents to every weekend
pulled the same stunt today. They had a husband/wife get up to talk about the sanctity of marriage and then told everyone to vote Yes on 8. Yard signs were available in the back of the church.

It was clearly wrong to mix religion and politics, and upset my 15-year-old so much that she started to cry and walked out. I followed right behind as did another woman.

My 85-year-old mom later said she felt very uncomfortable sitting there listening to it. She has a good friend with two gay kids who is a member of the same church and was sitting just a few rows in front of us. My mom thought it was awful that her friend had to be subjected to that.

Just terrible, and completely inappropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Well, the booing should start from the pews . . . !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. So, when Quakers and Methodists pass out...
anti war signs, and Unitarians pass out pro gay marriage signs, and Catholics pass out anti-death penalty signs...

These are all bad things, too? They are imposing their religion on us?

Religion cuts several ways, and tough shit to those who don't like some of those ways-- it comes with the territory.

Work with those you agree with.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Does that happen?
I haven't made my Easter duty in near on 20 years now, so I just don't know. Have there been Unitarian churches passing our No on 8 signs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #14
41. Well, this Unitarian has been passing them out to receptive people wanting information.
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 02:16 AM by Maat
We've been registering voters, giving them information, and phonebanking for the No-On-8 side (we can use church resources, for it is an issue, not an endorsement of a party or a candidate).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #14
98. Actually,
the Methodist church was VERY vocal about their feelings on the Iraq war. Church leaders even went to Bush before it to try to get him to stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
99. DUPE
Edited on Tue Oct-14-08 12:30 AM by awoke_in_2003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
100. DUPE. nt
Edited on Tue Oct-14-08 12:31 AM by awoke_in_2003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
101. DUPE. nt
Edited on Tue Oct-14-08 12:31 AM by awoke_in_2003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Radical Dominionists have infiltrated other churches
I was reading the Daily Kos about Palin and her Dominionist extremist connections and going further into the links, I read past articles about how they were targeting the Mormons, the Catholics, had had a hand in the divisive nature within the Episcopal Church and other Religions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #16
48. That may be, but...
not only is there plenty of resistance to that line of thought, advocacy of ethical positions is central not only to many religions but to our fundamental concepts of free speech. It's also central to just as many secular organiizations.

(Not just advocacy for ethical postitions we agree with.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. Preaching hatred for Jews or gays from the Bible is different from
human objections to the death penalty --

If they were quoting the Bible as an authority FOR the death penalty -- or stoning, for

instance -- that would be different.

Arguments against slavery went AGAINST Bibical teachings at the time --

Churches have a choice . . . they can either give up politics or they can pay taxes on

their property. No tax examption if they want to preach politics!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
49. It's not that simple...
since other tax-exempt entities have the ability to lobby and publicize their causes. Besides, how can you completely separate politics from ethical teachings? If churches didn't advocate their moral teachings, they would often be dismissed as hypocrites by many of the same people who complain about their advocacy now.

You pick out slavery as an issue that many churches were on the wrong side of, but it was also the abolitionist churches that worked the Underground Railroad and helped keep the anti-slavery movement alive. How about finding the churches that agree with you and supporting in some way their efforts just as you would support MoveOn, the ACLU or other secular advocacy organization?

(Ever bother to see what the American Friends Service Committee or Mennonite Central are up to?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. Other "entities" aren't religions . . . and subject to Separation of Church & State . . .
so it is that simple --

Our founders didn't separate State from candy makers, or glue makers, or the Girl

Scouts, nor separate it from car makers -- the founders separated STATE only from

CHURCH --

And if you understand the meaning of democracy you know our highest privilege is

freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and self-determination. Separation of

Church & State provides that right, that guarantee.



As for "moral" teachings, in fact, organized patriarchal religions have been shockingly
immoral -- with Medieval Christainity having been described "as a moral setback for humanity."
And it doesn't take much to understand the immorality of a one-male-god/patriarchal religion
when the majority of humans born onto the planet are female.

No . . . the Bible, itself, was used in Congress to advocate for slavery . . . so it's more
than simply groups or a church here or there. KKK connected itself to "Christianity" in its
advocation for white supremacy.

Why would any feminist support organized patriarchal religion of any kind?

Why should any enlightened male support organized patriarchal religion of any kind?




It's not that simple...
Posted by TreasonousBastard
since other tax-exempt entities have the ability to lobby and publicize their causes. Besides, how can you completely separate politics from ethical teachings? If churches didn't advocate their moral teachings, they would often be dismissed as hypocrites by many of the same people who complain about their advocacy now.

You pick out slavery as an issue that many churches were on the wrong side of, but it was also the abolitionist churches that worked the Underground Railroad and helped keep the anti-slavery movement alive. How about finding the churches that agree with you and supporting in some way their efforts just as you would support MoveOn, the ACLU or other secular advocacy organization?

(Ever bother to see what the American Friends Service Committee or Mennonite Central are up to?)






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. You're dead wrong about that-- the Constitution does not...
put up a wall between church and state, it says the state will neither establish a state religion nor interfere with believers. It protects religion, even those that might believe slavery is a God-approved status for some. No one is allowed to actually own slaves, of course, but believing in slavery is allowed.

There are lines that can't be crossed, such as religious symolism, prayers, or such that imply state approval, or actions by believers, as opposed to belief. (Or actually owning slaves-- you can argue all you want for the right to own slaves, but owning them or encourging others to own them will get you fun time in federal prison.)

We can't have the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and Native Americans can't use peyote in ceremonies. these are fairly chickenshit decisions in themselves, but they draw a line. Without the line, we could see judges using Mosaic instead of case law and the "right" to bomb abortion clinics being argued.

Oh, and don't blame Christianity for the Klan or anyone else using it to further their agendas. You don't blame a baseball bat when it's handy use to to bash someone's head in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. To bar the STATE from establishing any religion . . . is to put up a wall of protection
against organized religion --

Because of this separation EVERYONE has the right to think for themselves, the right to
personal conscience and self-determination which also includes the right to follow any
dumb religious belief you want to -- even one which interprets the Bible as anti-female,
anti-homosexual, or pro-slavery.
HOWEVER, there will no state advocation for any religious belief you may adopt.

Again . . . the "line" you're talking about is Separation of Church and State and until
the corruption of our Constitution/government offices by the Repugs and the fanatical
religious right, the ban continued on barring government from financially supporting
organizations with religious affiliations. Corruption works for Repugs and the religous
right!


PS:

As for the Ten Commandments . . . again, let me remind you they were originally written
as instructions to MALES ONLY -- !!!

And re Peyote and native Americans, I would guess that ruling has more to do with our
phony Drug War and the desire to keep possession and understanding of any natural plants
out of the hands of citizens

And, again, Christianity is based on a Bible which advocates slavery . . . so, yes, the
KKK was simply spreading widely held Christian beliefs!




You're dead wrong about that-- the Constitution does not...
put up a wall between church and state, it says the state will neither establish a state religion nor interfere with believers. It protects religion, even those that might believe slavery is a God-approved status for some. No one is allowed to actually own slaves, of course, but believing in slavery is allowed.

There are lines that can't be crossed, such as religious symolism, prayers, or such that imply state approval, or actions by believers, as opposed to belief. (Or actually owning slaves-- you can argue all you want for the right to own slaves, but owning them or encourging others to own them will get you fun time in federal prison.)

We can't have the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and Native Americans can't use peyote in ceremonies. these are fairly chickenshit decisions in themselves, but they draw a line. Without the line, we could see judges using Mosaic instead of case law and the "right" to bomb abortion clinics being argued.

Oh, and don't blame Christianity for the Klan or anyone else using it to further their agendas. You don't blame a baseball bat when it's handy use to to bash someone's head in.

http://vanishingquaker.blogspot.com /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #58
96. Hard to tell the difference between you and a Freeper
you think so much alike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
32. Not so.
I am advocating a legal system that is as permissive as possible, affording everyone equal protection of the law. I want everyone to be able to be who they are, and live how they feel they need to live (as long as they are not physically and seriously harming another).

THEY are advocating for an oppressive system in which people can only live according to their ideals (marry someone of the opposite sex). They are it in such a way that, if passed, it would be like swimming against the tide to reverse it. They are being BULLIES.

When I hold my peace sign, as a Unitarian Universalist, I am asking people to choose peace, not shoving it down their throat forever.

It's not the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #32
50. I fully understand what you are saying...
that holding a peace sign does not imply any infringement on fundamental rights the way Prop 8 would, so there is a difference between their advocacy and ours.

That's a distinction all right, but I'm not sure how important that distinction is. There's a line somewhere before advocating death and destruction, but that line mosves around a lot.

I just don't completely agree that anything can or should be done about their advocacy, except to get out in public and argue the alternative. There will never be a time when there won't be someone out there advocating a disgusting policy-- someone who no doubt feels our policy objectives are equally disgusting. The struggle isn't to find ways to shut them up, but to properly argue our side and let the flows of history decide. They are arguing ethics and morality from basic positions that are as real to them as ours are to us, and have that right to .

We're gonna win some and we're gonna lose some, and that's the way it should be. If we win them all, we are not progressives, or (small d) democrats, but have become dictators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #50
70. I hear what you are saying.
If we all had equal amounts of money, then it would be fine to go out and 'argue in the public square,' so-to-speak. Unfortunately, those advocating equal protection of the law, and peace, for example, don't have tons of ad money so that they can inundate the public with ads on their conservative buddies' television and radio stations.

This will set California rights back 20 years (I'm thinking of the Prop. 8 initiative on the ballot out here), if passed, for example. It's not just a 'win some, lose some' thing. That is why feelings are so hot right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
91. As I was brutally reminded of this morning by my fellow DUers...
As long as the religion agrees with our political positions, they are enlightened, progressive, acceptable, or at least tolerable. Should a faith take a position in opposition to our positions, they are excerable, bigoted and worthless, needing to be hacked from the body politic as the cancer they plainly are.

In my attempt to ask for a little civility I was called deluded and foolish.

So, no there apparently is no equality of position here, Mormons are just monsters for their political activism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. I regularly thank my God that...
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 06:47 PM by TreasonousBastard
as much as I love this place, DUers spend too much time typing to actually find themselves in positions of power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. Prop 8 is pure fucking evil.
All it is designed to do is to enrage the fundie voters by getting them to the polls because it's their big issue. Fuck them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
23. Blame Mormoms For Marijuana Being Illegal
For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It's not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600's, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900's.


However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

http://www.congressunderfire.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Ghost in the Machine
Ghost in the Machine

Do not blame the mormons for the fact that marijuana is illegal please.. Yes the Church are an power to reckon with.. As the Catholic Church are it in Italy.. And in the Western world by the way..

It is many reasons because this type of plants is illegal. Yes it have been used for thousands of year.. But as people got to know how the "bad" habit you can make about using it, and the fact that the stuff you might smoke today, is far more powerfully than the stuff the indians was using 7000 year ago, when the plant was just an plant with some stimulation processes.. And by the way, the old indians was not smoking weed every single day, 365 day at the year. It was been using just a couple of days, specially under holy sermons.. That is a Great different between smoking it to get closer to what ever good you want to be close to. Than to smoke you shitthead every day as many are doing.. It a big diference...

And in many country in Europe, weed, and other drug was made illegal far before the LDS was coming into play.. But maybe you should claim that the Catholic church was to blame.. Or every single national Church in every european country??

Sorry, that claim is just not falling to good earth.. To claim that ONE Church alone can go the drug illegally in so many states, against the will of the people is just plain stupid.. I just don't believe you.. Sorry about it..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I understand that English isn't your first language but please try to comprehend what you're reading
The post and link i posted clearly states, as fact, that Mormons were the first to outlaw marijuana in the United States.

"To claim that ONE Church alone can go the drug illegally in so many states, against the will of the people is just plain stupid.. I just don't believe you.. Sorry about it.."

I don't care *what* you "don't believe", so the best thing for you to do is to produce a link backing up your assertions, just like I did... then we can go from there...

Thanks,

Ghost

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
47. Ghost in the Machine
Ghost in the Machine

Wel then, Was it WRONG to deside that Weed, or Marijuane was illegal?..

As I understand it, the Weed many smoke today is fare more toxit than the drug used by the old indians, and other cultures who used it under some religous sermony.. I doubt really that many of them who use the drug regulary today, is using it to come in contact with their god, whatever that might be..

I do belive for the most part, they who use this type of drug today, is misusing it, and is claiming that it is for medicial use.. For the most part it is becose they have an addiction to it. Not becouse they "need" the drug

But off course, if the stuff was ever made legal I would have not other objection to it. But I do not se anytime soon that Marijuhana would be made legal for the joe public.. Not in Norway and not in the USA. I do belive that the government do have their reasons to make weed illegal, as they have been make other drugs illegal for years..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. #1, Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, so no one is addicted to it..
#2: Churches have NO PLACE in our government. Period.

#3: the reason the government keeps marijuana illegal is a twofold purpose. The first reason is that it feeds the Prison Industrial Complex and the second is due to major lobbying by Pharmaceutical companies because they can't patent marijuana and make billions off of it.

I smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes. It helps my chronic pain whereas every prescribed pill I've tried has never even come close to relieving the pain. At most, all they do is leave me unable to function and/or make me physically sick to my stomach.

I think it would you serve you well to do some research on the benefits of medicinal marijuana before you comment any further here...

Peace,

Ghost

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #52
62. Ghost in the Machine
Ghost in the Machine

It depend of how you use it I guess.. Yes it is, as I am been told many times over, a perfect painkiller, and should maybe even be legal - as such.. But as I know some who are using this stuff, not as medical using, but more as an bad habit, who they have been doing for many, many year.. And they even had to come to some clinic, to get the habit out of their system..

2 I am totally in agreement that Church have no place in Government, period. But that was not what I ask about..

I have been reading a lot of both the pro and con when it come what is commonly been known as Weed. And the policy from the government side is to make it illegal. And on the other side, we have the supporters who claim every single positive thing about the drug, and what it can do

But the fact is, in the legal sense of the word, that Weed is classified as an drug, and should be treated as such. Are I am bad person, who believe that the government know thing better than I do?. Are I am bad person because I disagree with you, when it come to the use of an drug that many indeed are using as a way of killing pain, or for the most part, to get loose from their life?

Have some "friends" who are known to use the stuff.. And I have to say, they have not been smarter over the year I have know them. Rather the opposite.. And when they have been smoking a lot of the stuff, their actions is just... silly at best.. I am not judging anyone who are using it, that is their case and up to what they decide with their life. But as long as the drug is ILLEGAL in most country - regardless of church or something like that it should be treated as an illegal substance.. Even that some claim it to be an perfect painkiller, who are better than everything else they have been using.

But if Weed, in the future is made legal, as an medical substance, and can be used in the same way that other legal drugs are been used.. Then I for one would have no problem what so ever with it. If WEED was made legal, and you cound go to your farmacoite, and request 5 gram of the stuff, to give you an painkiller for what ever medical need you have.. I would not say a word. That is something that is between you and your doctor. Not that something I would have to say.

It is NOT he USING per se that I am against. It is the MISUSE of the stuff that I am against.. And many, millions who are using weed, have no medical need of weed. They are doing it just for one thing, to get high and "Loose" it for some hour.. That is stupid in my book...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. ...
"Yes it is, as I am been told many times over, a perfect painkiller,"

Who's told you that? I've never heard anybody claim it had excellent analgesic properties, particularly users of the drug.

"But the fact is, in the legal sense of the word, that Weed is classified as an drug, and should be treated as such."

Alcohol's a drug. So is caffeine. So is nicotine.

"Are I am bad person, who believe that the government know thing better than I do?."

Yes. If you support a law because you think the government knows better, you're a bad person. That's an argument from ignorance.

"And I have to say, they have not been smarter over the year I have know them."

I'd say you're not in much of a position to judge who is and isn't smart.

"Sorry my bad english not my native language"

Your English is terrible. Almost like an American pretending to be a poor English speaker. But how do you explain all the faults in your information and logic?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. ummmmmm....
"Who's told you that? I've never heard anybody claim it had excellent analgesic properties, particularly users of the drug."

It was my Neurosurgeon who told me that marijuana was "the best painkiller known to man".... I'll trust his word & judgement over an anonymous internet poster ANY day....


I won't pick on the other dude about his english... at least he's attempting to learn... sure, his judgement may be a little fucked up, especially if he trusts what the government tells him is right or wrong, but that has no bearing on his english speaking/writing abilities at all, imho.....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Argument from authority.
You realize, of course, you don't have to trust either of us.

And could just look it up for yourself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. No, argument from experience....
I *know* what it does for me, as compared to the dozens of different man made pain pills they've tried on me.

You could try a little research yourself...

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Well, hell.
If I say it gives me the ability to fly and shoot lasers out of my eyes, that doesn't make it true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. No, that's PCP, dude...
:hi:


Put the pipe down and back away slowly. Quick movements upset the dust bunnies and underwear gnomes under your couch and/or bed....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #67
77. Ghost in the Machine
Ghost in the Machine

I am not an native english speaker, and I am warning every singe time I am here on DU to the case. But if someone want to be the grammar police, then do be it.. But have they who are been "grammar police" at least trying to learn another language?.. I guess not.. I for one would like to se one of you write a sentence in norwigian, who are my native language with some sense.. Or trying to Speak the language.. I know some american who are living here, and they have been here for more than 25 year now. And they still have problem with the spoken language... But then I know an american know everything better than everyone else in the world :sarcasm:


Diclotican

Sorry my english not native language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #66
76. Bornaginhooligan
Bornaginhooligan

First of all. I am NOT an american, thankfully for that if I may say it. And if you want to be the "grammar police" here I would challenge you to get ONE single sentence in Norwegian who are not false.. I would believe I am better in english, than you are in Norwegian, at an bad day, as in a good day.. And I do mean, a sentence with SENSE. Not just a sentence you have translated from some of the many "translate word for word" systems you can find online.. I would say you would have a lot more difficulty to get that right, than I have to get a sentence in english right by the way.

I support the law, because it is the law in the land. If the law was revised, and it was legan to smoke weed, because of "medical use" I have no other choice than to support that to. But to claim that I am ignorant because I do support a law, who i find sound and legal... That is maybe little over the fall.. And very sad on your place maybe..

What failure in logic and information are you attaching.. That I really DO believe weed to be a drug who are and should be made illegal?.. Then you are against the most of scientific community who have been working with drug addiction for more than 50 year.. Yes Weed are not like Heroin, or other hwy drug, but it is an drug who are addictive and should be illegal. And I for one would say, that your reason to say that the drug should be made legal, and that we who support the illegality of the drug have no logic is just dam stupid..

I know a few who have been using weed, and lot more of the stronger drugs, and every single of them claim that they started with the weed, and worked their way up to stronger, and more dangerous stuff when the habit was crippling their life.. No I do not support drug, and I do not support make weed legal.. Not for that reason you are putting into the field.. It is an illegal drug, and should be like that...

I know about the problems with alcohol more than you might understand.. Coming from a family with that type of problems I know so vell wat alcohol can do. Splitting families, and make relations between family members so much harder than it is in the first place.. If it was up to me,it should be far more strict rules when it came to alcohol use.. And by the way, Norway do have one of the strictest rules when it came to using alcohol that exist. United States of America are decades behind when it came to that type of things..

Yes I know about Caffeine and Coffee.. That is one of the reason I quit drinking Coffee in the first place.. Even that I miss the dam stuff in the morning. But hey I cal always make a cop of nice tea at least.

Diclotian

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. Your horrible English is something I don't care about.
Your abuse of logic and reason is offensive in any language.

"I support the law, because it is the law in the land."

That's some mighty circular reasoning.

"I have no other choice than to support that to."

Why?

"Then you are against the most of scientific community who have been working with drug addiction for more than 50 year."

There's no scientific evidence to suggest marijuana is addictive. Furthermore, the scientific community at least the people at the Food and Drug Administration, approved THC for human use back in the 1980s. There is no scientific evidence to support the criminalization of marijuana consumption, and plenty against it. Any scientist who supports the laws against marijuana is a hack.

"But to claim that I am ignorant because I do support a law, who i find sound and legal..."

You're ignorant because you make incorrect claims about a drug you clearly know nothing about, and support unjust laws for no reason what so ever.

"I know a few who have been using weed, and lot more of the stronger drugs, and every single of them claim that they started with the weed, and worked their way up to stronger, and more dangerous stuff when the habit was crippling their life.."

Anecdotal, third person evidence. Did they really claim this? Or did you just transcribe this from some D.A.R.E. literature?

"Yes I know about Caffeine and Coffee.. That is one of the reason I quit drinking Coffee in the first place.. Even that I miss the dam stuff in the morning. But hey I cal always make a cop of nice tea at least."

So would you support laws against coffee?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Bornaginhooligan
Bornaginhooligan

Ah, one of them fellows... O yes, you are so much smarter than every one else in the room.. Or in this case, at DU I guess.. And why?. Because I support a law that is barring you from using a drug legally.. IF i had sad that I support your drug habit I would be your best friend I guess. But because I do not support your drug habit, then I am a lack of logic.. To me you sound like one of the Freeper you are so angry about..

I do not believe we have been reading the same documents then.. But for the long time uses of the drug, it is a reason to believe that weed indeed make human additive to the stuff.. And therefore it is been made illegal.. Of course, compared to other drug, weed are a drug who are not that bad, and is an mild drug compared to heroin and such stuff.. But it IS illegal to use, and therefore a criminal offense. And it should be like that to if it was up to me.. But I am just one single man so I guess I have no say about it anyway..

One of them are my nabour, so I guess I have the drug case little closer than comfortable is. I do not like it, and he know it dam well that I do not approve of it.. Thankfully he is not wall to wall to me, but he is far more close to me, than I feel is comfortable sometimes when he have been using the stronger stuff he sometimes are using...
You can claim it to be "third personal evidence" Anecdotal and so on. But that is the world you would find in many who are today using strong illegally drug... They was starting in their 14-15 with Weed, because it was "cool". AND then get addicted... But do not take my word for it. Just something I have been told by the "experts" who have been using drugs for 20-25 year.. So I guess I have no clue what so ever about the stuff....

I have no clue what D.A.R.E literature is, so I have decline that.. Have no clue what it is...

Well, I do not believe Coffee to be that an dangerous to the community that Weed are in any cases. It are more like a personal thing to do stop drinking that stuff.. But it have been more difficult social because Norway is one of the most coffee drinking country in the whole world.. So it is very common to drink coffee when gartering.. And there I am asking about a cop of tea or a Glass of water instead...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Hey now.
"O yes, you are so much smarter than every one else in the room.."

Listen, just because I think I'm smarter than you, it doesn't mean I'm bragging.

"IF i had sad that I support your drug habit I would be your best friend I guess."

Actually, I'd just consider you a decent human being. If you had continued to use horrible logic and misinformation, I'd still have called you out on it regardless.

"But for the long time uses of the drug, it is a reason to believe that weed indeed make human additive to the stuff.. And therefore it is been made illegal.."

Marijuana is not addictive, therefore this is not a good reason for marijuana to be illegal.

It's a bit like saying "Saddam was going to blow us up with his WMDs. That was the reason for the invasion in Iraq. Therefore Saddam's WMDs are the reason I support the war in Iraq."

"They was starting in their 14-15 with Weed, because it was "cool". AND then get addicted..."

Only in your own imagination.

"So I guess I have no clue what so ever about the stuff.... "

That's something we can both agree on.

"I have no clue what D.A.R.E literature is, so I have decline that.. Have no clue what it is... "

Then you must be psychic, because you're practically transcribing it.

"Well, I do not believe Coffee to be that an dangerous to the community that Weed are in any cases."

Actually, caffeine is more dangerous. It really is addictive. It can cause negative effects upon withdrawal like headaches. It can causes miscarriages in pregnant women (could be a major player, actually). It can cause high blood pressure with chronic use. And you can overdose and potentially cause death with it.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. ornaginhooligan
ornaginhooligan

Your sure sound like a person who really like to brag about how smart you are.. Even if it means walking all over the rest of the rom :sarcasm:

It is reasons why weed are illegal, and that is the reason I support the illegality about it. You claim it to be less dangerous than a cop of coffee.. Then you might stick your ass out of your sofa, and work harder to make weed legal then. If you are that smart as you claim you should have more than enough prove to get the government around, to your point of view. That WEED is an drug who should be made legal, as other stuff who have been made legal over the year.. Or if everything else was falling apart do have heaven in the Netherlands, who "personal use of the drug is legal". I believe it to be fewer than .5 gram on a persons body

If you drink a lot of coffee you do get into trouble. As I once experienced when I was younger.. Was drinking more than 2 liter of the stuff in a few hours and really had some problem with the caffeine stuff.. COuld not possible sleep at night And smelled like a old brewery when up again.. And I had a driver license test that next day. But it worked out better than expected. And I got my driver license.. But yes it was hard to concentrate to get that license because of the withdraw of coffee..

Coffee ne is dangerous when using more than "normally".. As everything you use wrong..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Like I said, I'm not bragging.
I just show up to the room armed with facts. If other people get their feelings hurt, too bad for them.

"It is reasons why weed are illegal, and that is the reason I support the illegality about it."

I distinctly said a "good" reason. Not an imaginary, pseudo-scientific reason.

"If you are that smart as you claim you should have more than enough prove to get the government around, to your point of view."

That argument only makes sense if you think the government only does things for good reasons.

"If you drink a lot of coffee you do get into trouble."

And that's one reason why caffeine is more dangerous than marijuana. You cannot overdose on marijuana.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #89
90.  Bornaginhooligan
Bornaginhooligan

Well then I am you would never se aye to aye when it come to the legality of weed, and why it should be made legal or not. Just to claim it is not additive are not exactly doing your side of the story something better to. If you have Prof of your claim, that your using of the drug is harmless I would hope you would make it an paper in some journal, and at least give the people a right to understand why people want to drug them self with that stuff

Maybe it is time to just say, we would never manage to get it Right. I would never se your point of view, and you would sure never willingly se my point of view.. I do not know why the reason.. But that is the case.. We are just not on the same view here...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Uh, people have published that it's not addictive.
You can take the Shafer commission, for instance. The 38 year old government review of all available scientific information that concluded it was addictive. Or the FDA report.

Or marinol fact sheets.

http://www.aegis.com/news/pr/1997/PR970809.html

No physical addiction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
64. Pff.
"As I understand it, the Weed many smoke today is fare more toxit than the drug used by the old indians, and other cultures who used it under some religous sermony.."

You're incorrect.

"I do belive for the most part, they who use this type of drug today, is misusing it, and is claiming that it is for medicial use.."

Most people who use it don't claim to use it for medicinal use. Unless they're fucking with you.

"For the most part it is becose they have an addiction to it."

Marijuana is not an addictive substance.

"I do belive that the government do have their reasons to make weed illegal"

Name one good reason, and explain how this comment does not contradict this one:

"if the stuff was ever made legal I would have not other objection to it."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #64
79. Bornaginhooligan
Bornaginhooligan

That is not what the scientific community in many country, include US have been told world for more than 25 year now.. Of course you, know the fact better, than they who have working with the drug, both at street level and in the scientific community better than everyone I guess :sarcasm:

Some claim it to have medical use.. But I for one believe that the drug are been used, not because of medical use, but because they do are addicted to the stuff.. Yes you CLAIM IT IS NOT ADDICTIVE.. But then I challenge you for one thing. The next Month or two, do not use Weed in any cases.. Not one single time.. And then came back to say that you are not been addict to the stuff.. In 99.99 you would have had a break many times before the 2 month time is up.. I would guess you would not last a week without the stuff.. Maybe not even days.. And one of the hallmark of misuse and addiction to a drug, are that you are using it day, by day, by day every week, every month, and every year around...

I am not expert of drug, and I have no intention to "claim" some authority about it.. But I know what can come when an addiction are going south. Even that I can not "PROVE" TO YOU why Weed should be continuity to be made illegal, I have a long story to tell, if you want in my miserable english, to say why I do support the illegality of drug, or other controlled substances.. I know it little to well, what it can destroy a kids life, and made it difficult for the rest of their life... Sorry, no sympathy for me, if you feel little "roughed up".. I know to well what an addiction can do..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. There's no scientific evidence marijuana is addictive.
Let me rephrase that. There is scientific evidence that marijuana is not addictive.

It's been out there for decades.

Arguments otherwise is racist propaganda from the American war on drug.

"The next Month or two, do not use Weed in any cases.. Not one single time.. And then came back to say that you are not been addict to the stuff.."

Considering I've been using marijuana off and on for forty years, going months or years without it with no ill effect, I can honestly say I'm not addicted to the substance. Of course, that's only anecdotal evidence. If you've got any example of, say, marijuana users experiencing any withdrawal symptoms from ceasation of marijuana use, please let me know about it.

"n 99.99 you would have had a break many times before the 2 month time is up.. And one of the hallmark of misuse and addiction to a drug, are that you are using it day, by day, by day every week, every month, and every year around..."

The facts are, kid, about 30% or so of the general population has used marijuana in their lifetimes, usually in their youth. And most gave it up with no ill effect. The others are perfectly capable of giving it up with no effect, but choose not too. It is not like, say, nicotine or caffeine, both of which are addictive and cause negative side effects upon withdrawal.

"Even that I can not "PROVE" TO YOU why Weed should be continuity to be made illegal"

I don't want you to prove to me that marijuana should be illegal. I want you to come up with one good reason why it should be illegal.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. Bornaginhooligan
Bornaginhooligan

Off course, it will always be someone who want, or make the claim that an drug or some drugs should be made legal, as weed.. And it Will ALWAYS bee someone who would claim that the use of drug is harmless, and like smoking is someone every one can stop using in an instant.. We know that quit smoking can be hard for them who smoke. And often is something that the smoker who have been smoking for many year would have great difficulty to stop..

Some have told me, that they have withdrawn symptoms when the drug is going out of their symptoms.. Of course I can not clinical prove it for you, but I have to trust them when they are telling me that they have had problems when they have been smoking weed for a long time, and then stop smoking it..

I am not a kid anymore.. Off course, younger than you I guess, but still not an kid<,9 That you have been using weed on and of for more than 40 year, are not the same that EVERY ONE ELSE who have smoking the stuff, have not ended into harder stuff than Weed.. DO you thing every heroin addict in Oslo started at Heroin the first time around??.. No they do not.. For the most part they was staring with the innocence of weed and what came with that,when i came to the "fun part".. And then got stuck into a bad habit.. That have been lurking them into the harder stuff, like heroin and other drug... Many can stop using weed, as many stop drinking or smoking cigarettes, because they made a dessication, and decide to stick with it.. But many who started with weed, never stop using it, or was staring to use the more dangerous stuff. because of what they experimented with weed...

If you want reason to why the drug is illegal, why do not ask your government?. Why just ask them why a drug, who you claim to be totally harmless, with no addiction what so ever to the user could not be made legal, like se, paracetamol or other medical helps.. Hey you might work hard, to get your drug legal, so you can get it at you local superstore too?..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. You're still failing to answer the question.
Why can't you come up with one good reason why marijuana should be illegal.

"Of course I can not clinical prove it for you, but I have to trust them when they are telling me that they have had problems when they have been smoking weed for a long time, and then stop smoking it.."

Why do you have to trust them?

"That you have been using weed on and of for more than 40 year, are not the same that EVERY ONE ELSE who have smoking the stuff, have not ended into harder stuff than Weed.."

I'm not using my personal experience to claim that marijuana is a gateway drug. Scientific evidence shows that marijuana is not a gateway drug.

"DO you thing every heroin addict in Oslo started at Heroin the first time around??.. No they do not.. For the most part they was staring with the innocence of weed and what came with that,when i came to the "fun part""

They were probably using marijuana before they used heroin. And they probably drank coffee or alcohol before trying marijuana. And they probably ate sugary candy before they tried coffee or alcohol. You're like one of those people who say listening to heavy metal music causes people to commit murder.

"But many who started with weed, never stop using it, or was staring to use the more dangerous stuff."

The vast majority of people who start with weed stop using it. And there's no evidence that marijuana leads to "harder" drugs.

"If you want reason to why the drug is illegal, why do not ask your government?"

My government has no good reasons why marijuana is illegal. I'm asking you.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Complete fucking horseshit. My DOCTORS know more than you.
You are wrong about this beneficial herb - educate yourself.

Better yet, have someone else do it, you're clearly incompetent at doing so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #29
44. Zhade
Zhade

By all mens mr Zhade.. If you want to smoke weed, go forward and Do it every time you want?.. But if been arrested, take the responsibility to it to... Many who smoke weed are complaining both right an left how bad it is because you would be arrested, and even get a fine over the stuff... And you loose what ever you was in possession of

If the government, in the US at one time was to give it up, and make it legal, and then many in the western world would follow suit I would have no reason to complain.. But as long as Government in most country do have a reason to make it illegal. I have my dam right to have something to say about it..

Off course, I do hope a Doctor have more knowledge about different drugs than I do, all the time I am not a doctor, or have no medical education, I should really hope my doctor, or any doctor that is, have a better idea of both benefit and defect about a drug.. Even a mild drug as your habit of smoking weed...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #29
51. Apparently...
pot does not chill people out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-08 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
25. TAX the shit out of them. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
31. On second thought...
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 01:35 AM by Iggo
LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
33. Mormon temples passed out stuff today? That doesn't make sense; they're not open on Sunday.
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 02:02 AM by Herdin_Cats
They expect everyone to be in church on Sunday, so it's not a day for temple work. And wouldn't it be more effective to pass out propaganda at their actual churches since their members go there every week, but often don't go to a temple for years at a time?

Sorry. I know I'm nitpicking. But if you only recognize the Mormon temples as belonging to Mormons and not their millions of regular churches, you don't realize how pervasive they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. The dreaded signs showed up yesterday.
They are all around my neighborhood. They were obviously passed out on Saturday. Sadly, I arrived home from phonebanking against 8 to see them in my neighbors' yards. I told my kid, "It's on!" and I posted No-On-8 signs in every window of my home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. My point was, it was the churches that passed them out. Not the temples.
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 01:58 AM by Herdin_Cats
I can almost guarantee that.

Like I said, it helps to know that they attend church in church houses, not temples. Temple attendance is relatively rare. If you think they are attending worship services in their temples, you won't recognize the numerous Mormon churches around you and or how many of them there are.

The temples are for endowments, marriages, and work for the dead. They are generally large and spacious buildings (little bit of exmo humor), quite ornate, and uncommon--only 114(?) worldwide. The church buildings (ward houses and stake centers) are small, unassuming buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Ah, I see.
Thanks for the clarity (and I mean it).

All I saw was a bunch of thugs harassing my more progressively-minded neighbors, bellowing about 'saving children' and 'preserving tradition.' They were told to get the Hell off of my property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. I wish I could get away with telling them to get the hell off my property.
If I did that, I'd be run out town on a rail. I have to be polite to my Mormon neighbors or I wouldn't be able to live in this town.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
54. Uh-oh ...
surrounded, are you?

You have my sincere sympathies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
34. I wish we could have the law changed so that churches can't campaign on ballot initiatives
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 01:48 AM by Herdin_Cats
without losing their tax exempt status. As it is, they can campaign for or against those all they want, just not for candidates.

I don't think it's right for churches to get involved in this kind of thing. It violates the separation of church and state.

The Mormon church is trying to dictate how people who are not members of their church live their lives. They don't want their members to participate in gay marriage, but they have no right to, through intense propaganda efforts, force a state to enforce that law on everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blount Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. I thought they could not campaign already
Correct me and my massive ignorance if I am wrong, but part of the mandate of tax exempt is to stay out of the political arena? Why is this action NOT a no-brainer to pull the tax exempt status?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. They can't campaign for candidates for office, but, unfortunately, they can campaign for
or against ballot initiatives, like Prop. 8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
39. It is hard to report them to the IRS without specifics...
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 02:17 AM by and-justice-for-all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
43. There is no such thing as enough to fanatics.
Not to pick on the Mormons in particular, but fanatics of whatever stripe cannot comprehend the idea of enough. Sadly, even when they win, they quickly turn on each other.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
56. Church of hate.
Prop. 8 is bigotry, pure and simple, and is a tool to motivate the rubes to get out and vote McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scorpiogirl Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
57. Prop 8 is disgusting!
And so is ANYONE who supports it!

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
59. Our neighborhood Christian (sic) Church...
Has a message on their sign saying: "Protect Your Marriage! Vote YES on Prop 8!"


Whatsoever you do for these the lesser of your brothers, you do for me... or to me...


Somewhere, Jesus is crying.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ioo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
60. Call the IRS - Why are they tax exempt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
61. Ritualistic religions tend to be strongly opposed to human rights.
The more ritual a church has, the more likely it is fascist in nature.

Most churches are about controlling humans in communities now, and have zero to do with the spiritual or any life after death. Oh, sure, they talk about such things, but they're about controlling humans with fear, while appealing to ego.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
63. Ah yes, the fucking "we don't interfere in politics" mormons strike again.
Do you know why the mormons, catholics and all the other gutter christian religions are so threatened by Gay marriage? Because it calls into question their very core belief system. They will resist kicking and screaming ANYTHING that they feel bestows any type of legitimacy on homosexuals. And they are fairly quaking in their boots that scientific evidence is pointing to the fact that homosexuality exists in every mammalian species, including humans. We are as natural as the sunrise, as opposed to the gutter religions which are as contrived as sappy poetry about said sunrise.

Fuck the mormons. Their history is riddled with error, strife, murder, infidelity, plagiarism and the worship of money. I know, I was raised in the church and was able to escape before permanent damage set in.

Please, someone in California, TAKE PICTURES next Sunday and make them available. I can get mileage out of those snaps. Thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Christians, Jews, Hindus & Muslims are anti-Gay,
What is the "very core belief system" of these religions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. Are you just asking or looking for a good intro for a homophobic rant?
Christian, Jews and Muslims are the three Abrahamic religions and based upon the old testament, which derives most of its anti-gay bullshit from leviticus. Do we really need to go into all the falacies and inconsistencies in old testament history and theory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
78. Hindus and Homosexuality
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 04:04 PM by Raster
Currently, the issue of homosexuality within Hinduism is controversial, especially amongst Hindus in countries where homosexuality is generally accepted. Hindu views of homosexuality are varying and diverse, in part because the accepted Hindu religious texts do not explicitly mention homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also a complex matter in Hinduism because of the many types of religious life. In general, "twice-born" Hindus are prohibited from homosexual acts (maithunam pumsi), such as in Manusmrti 11:174, which mentions both men and women.

On the other hand, the famous Kama Sutra states that homosexual sex "is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts." In general, then, the Hindu evaluation of homosexuality depends heavily on the context.


<more>

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/hinduism.htm
-------------
So to say Hindus are "anti-Gay" is incorrect. I guess that shoots the hell out your "Hindus are anti-Gay".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #65
80. Homosexuality and Christianity
There is no single position that could be called the Christian view of homosexuality. Virtually all Christians confirm the importance of accepting and welcoming homosexuals into their communities and protecting their civil rights. But with regard to homosexual orientation and behavior from a religious point of view, some Christians condemn homosexual acts as sinful while others regard it as a natural, acceptable alternative.

Views sometimes differ between Christian denominations but they are more commonly seen between liberal and conservative branches of each denomination. Recently, Christian disagreements about homosexuality have been at the forefront with regard to the controversial ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as an Anglican bishop (left). This issue is threatening to cause a schism within the third largest Christian denomination.

As with most Christian debates on ethical issues, the problem centers on how the Bible ought to be interpreted in light of textual criticism (i.e., historical context, meaning of words, etc.), modern sensibilities and modern science.

The following article provides information on what the Bible says about homosexuality (which is usually central in debates over the issue), historical Christian views of homosexuality, and a list of modern Christian views on homosexuality.

<more>

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/christianity...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #63
93. So, I suppose we won't be expecting you at Sacrament Meeting this Sunday?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. Nope, nor at Relief Society on Wednesday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
69. Tax the Mormons
Edited on Mon Oct-13-08 02:32 PM by slackmaster
And every other non-profit that violates the conditions of their tax status.

msongs, you should file a complaint with the IRS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-08 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
83. It really must be time to start taxing churches. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
102. And you in turn...
... have every right to tell the person handing out the flyer what your point of view on the matter is. Refuse the flyer, tell em what you think and why.Expecting other groups you disagree with to shut up because you believe them to be wrong is nuts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Religions have NO PLACE INTERFERING in secular matters. NONE!
Expecting other groups I disagree with to shut up is nuts. They have their right to their opinion. Churches, on the other hand, have a moral obligation to stay out of the political arena, especially this arena.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. If you belong to hate mongering orgranization, expect others to disdain you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
104. When religions go after gays, such religions shouldn't complain when their bigotry is discussed.
That's what really pisses me off. When one's religion calls homosexuals sinners, when it taunts and torments them, when it targets them for scorn, and openly opposes rights for gays, how can such religions have the chutzpah to complain when gays say "your religion sucks!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC