SubscribeMrs Obama: Moral Compass Beats Experience
From the DNC’s Washington Post:
Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, campaigns for her husband at a town-hall style meeting in Bedford, N.H., Monday, May 7, 2007.
Wife Touts Obama’s ‘Moral Compass’
By Politics
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; A03WINDHAM, N.H., May 7 Michelle Obama, making an early campaign foray for her husband in the state with the nation’s first presidential primary, praised her husband Monday for having a “moral compass” and contended that quality counts more than the “experience” on which many of his Democratic rivals are basing their campaigns.
Challengers have pointed to the relative inexperience of the senator from Illinois in national politics as a liability in his bid for the White House, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has attempted to undercut her main opponent by stressing her years in Washington. But Michelle Obama, a Harvard-educated lawyer who works in a management position at the University of Chicago Hospitals, said her husband has a more rounded résumé.
“I know that experience is important, right? But experience without the sort of moral compass is not enough,” she said at a house party not far from Manchester, where she also appeared on Monday. “And it’s not just enough to check off a bunch of boxes and say, ‘I’ve spent so many years in Washington,’ because Barack has those experiences. He doesn’t have the checked-box experiences, but he has experience that makes a difference.”
Michelle Obama used a similar line — a variation on one popularized by Obama aides in recent months — at a stop in Bedford, where she told several dozen voters that she and her husband had tried to be transparent because it is important for the public to see every aspect of a candidate.
“If we don’t know who people are inside, if we don’t trust their instincts and understand where they’re coming from, then we can’t follow them, which is why we’ve tried to be so open and clear about who we are and how we think,” she said.
Despite heightened security for the Obamas — the Secret Service assigned them a detail last week, the earliest a presidential candidate has been given added security — Michelle Obama promised that voters will see their two young daughters on the campaign trail.
She also said she campaigns “not just as a surrogate messenger but also as a surrogate ear.”
“I view these trips as an opportunity for me to get a better sense of what’s happening on the ground,” she said. She took no questions during the day, instead circulating in the crowd and talking to voters one by one.
All this may be so. But what evidence do we have that Mr. Obama has a moral compass, let alone a finely calibrated one?
Mr. Obama was a drug user as a youth. He is a lawyer. He has never held an honest job.
In his first job he worked for one of the most corrupt and socialist organizations in the country, ACORN.
Obama only rose to political prominence by being a bagman for Bill Clinton in the notoriously corrupt Chicago wards.
He only got elected to the Senate by one of the dirtiest tricks in the dirty history of US politics. The unprecedented publishing of the lurid divorce records of his popular Republican opponent.
He has regularly lied about his biography, his church and his personal history.
Lastly, Mr. Obama claims he was inspired to get into politics by his political and spiritual mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who is an ultra-left, America-hating racist crackpot. (To put it kindly.)
So what evidence do we have of him being so moral?
Because he is “clean and articulate”?
Related Articles:
- Obama Steals Website From Former Supporter
- Obama Pastor: 9/11 Wake Up Call For Whites
- Obama Gets History Wrong Again - At Selma
- Genealogist: Obama Ancestors Owned Slaves
- Barack Obama Throws Stovepipe Hat Into Ring
- Was Obama's Dad A Drunk Polygamist Bigot?
- Barack Obama's Pastor And "Spiritual Mentor"
- Obama's Afrocentric, America-Hating Church
May 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Because he is the Magic Negro.
He is black ,but not too black, enough for white liberals to feel good about voting for him and still get blacks to vote for him too.
Plus he does not take a stand on anything so he can not be pinned down on anything.
Now if he could just develop the multi-language skill that Ms. Hillary has, he would be a shoo in.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
His first job was at Business International Corporation.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
She has opened up Pandora’s box. If its all about his “moral compass” - game on.
Of course, she and Barack have to say this, knowing there is no substance to his expertise nor has he even spent even half the time in his district.
And his daddy is a real peach.
Moral compass, good luck with that Barack…
May 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Hold up, didn’t he get busted in the media for a fishy land deal not too long ago?
May 8th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
odie,
Apparently his mother wasn’t much better than his father.
When his multi-married father abandoned her and Barry, she went to Indonesia and hooked up with another muslim until he got tired of her.
At which point she shipped his Magic Negro Butt back to her parents and started on a long line of boyfriends which produced a long line of Barry’s step brothers and sisters.
I really don’t know which parent was worse, his mother or his father.
Apparently she was willing to bang anyone who was not white.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
ncj,
Yes but it was quickly hushed up.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Moral Compass? You mean the thing that points East? About 5 times per day? Can’t question that. It would be like questioning Kerry or Murtha’s ‘war hero’ status. Unthinkable. Shame on you.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
We were warned the anti-Christ would be “clean and articulate” and pour honey potion in our ears.
Kudos on the Mecca thing OG
May 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
‘Moral Compass’ Beats Experience says the fool to the wise man…
May 8th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
And btw - New Hampshire has about 39 black people…
When will the MSM understand NH as a primary in todays world is utterly useless, hence 28 other states changing their primary and caucus dates to compete.
Dont get me wrong - Tuckerman’s Ravine and the White Mountains are beautiful - but the ultra liberal NH (used to be a moderate state) is a joke.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
But he’s her ‘baby daddy’! What a joke.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:18 am
Articulate…??? “Obama da Magic Negro” put that fallacy to rest in the last debate. He has no specific agenda other than the current news headlines on CNN or MSNBC. WTF…???
May 9th, 2007 at 4:28 am
“Moral compass”…of course! I knew there was a reason why they’re better than us.
Um. About “drug user as a youth”…can’t honestly condemn him for that. Erm… (Looks shifty. Shuffles feet). Some of us…misguided….peer pressure….um. Art school environment…gulp. Look - it was the 70s, okay? A lot of things happened. Now get off my back!
May 9th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Firstly Artboy - you aint runnin for president and you’re not trying to claim you are morally superior to the rest of us - so keep on truckin. Peace man
The wife seems as big a waffler as her man. Policies? I dont need policies, I have lovely soft and cuddly ideas about a world where everyone has the best education and the best healthcare. Hey Bro - how do you plan on paying for this????
OsamaObama’s policy seems to be “Trust me, I know what I’m doing”. Yeah right, I wouldnt hire a plumber who cant prove experience in his chosen field, so why does this clown thinks he can be President. It would be more appropriate to put him in a home for the bemused rather than the White House.
Over here - the big news is that Obama has Irish ancestors from County Offaly. (God grant me patience…..)Here we refer to people from Offaly as BIFFOs - Big Ignorant F***ers From Offaly. Appropriate. Non?
May 9th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Eurocon -wanna get high, man?
May 9th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Hey, where’s his wife’s burkha? Muslims stone women for this type of behavior. Evidently those madrassa teachings didn’t take hold too well.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Irish ancestors? Yuch. As a good (grand) son of Eire, I’m embarrassed.
In some respect, he’s like Bubba. A smooth talker with no message.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Just started reading the posts today. Needless to say I really have a problem with the “Magic Negro” comment as would any person of color. Why is it necessary to do that? You may not agree with the man’s politics or even his experience but to label him the magic negro is insulting and degrading to him and other Blacks. I always find it interesting that some White people find it necessary to demean Blacks whom they either disagree with or feel threatened by. I haven’t read anyone call Gov. Richardson the magic beaner, Hillary the Magic bitch, Gulianni the magic wop you get my point.And WTF does his mother have to do with him or his politics? Is this how its done on conservitive sites? You disagree with a man’s politics and you ridicule his mother? I find that pretty fucked up IMHO.
Stay on point my melanin challanged friends. Its about him not his color and certainly not his momma or his wife.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Hey doc, we are just repeating what the liberal LAT called him.
What about those 10,000 people killed in Kansas? Haven’t heard much about that on the MSM, Have you?
May 9th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
LAT?
May 9th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
SG how do you really feel about Rev. Wright? Don’t hold back let us know how you really feel. One and done on this one just messing with you.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
LAT= Los Angeles Times.
Gee, I thought you said you were intelligent.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“What about those 10,000 people killed in Kansas? Haven’t heard much about that on the MSM, Have you?”
Yes
http://news.google.com/news?hl.....;scoring=d
May 9th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Obama’s reponse to “Barack the Magic Negro”: http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....ffend.html
May 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
For some background on his community organizing experience, read this Chicago Reader Article on Obama from 1995: http://www.chicagoreader.com/f.....rackobama/
May 9th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Dr -
Um, that article is actually from a BLACK author, Mychal Massie. I believe he is commonly refferred to as an “Uncle Tom” , “sell out” and “white slave”.
I have had no issues with you on past posts - and I hope have educated you in some ways, concerning Muslims beliefs - but do you see the irony in the fact you automatically assumed it was a “white persons opinion and verbage”?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/.....E_ID=55575
And if you actually read the posts - the fact Obama’s wife is claiming his “moral compass” is more important than experience - his moral compass is open game. Of course, statements like Ms Obama are akin to the entitlement mentality perverting blacks and minority groups today - and is necessary fodder for a liberal audience.
Questioning where that compass cames from - and who influenced that compass - teachers, parents, mentors and the like are open game.
If I told you I was the child of KKK members, was mentored by David Duke and went to Bob Jones University - would you be interested in how I came to my “moral compass?”
May 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
1st seeing that I am still fairly new to all of this please forgive MY ignorance on the abbreviations that are used. I can admit to my short comings in certain things. I will never hold myself to be knowledgeable in all things political, but believe me I will learn.
Obie, excellent point and again thanks for the knowledge.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Education is what we are all here for.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Anyone who doesn’t know that Barack the Magic Negro originated at the uber liberal LATimes and from a black man should spend a lot less time on boards fighting for his opinion to be heard and respected, as well as wrongly accusing people of racism. More time reading about the world as it TRULY is and not what they are spoon fed by like minded individuals and sources of dubious repute should be the order of the day.
But I try to live by the addage of……a closed mouth gathers no feet.
VoR
May 9th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Two lawyers married to each other with not much ‘political’ experience who come out of nowhere and have some ‘questionable’ connections, deals, jobs, and of course the personal baggage that is disturbing at best - dangerous at worst - - -Now group, where have I heard that one before? And do we remember exactly what happened when those two bespoiled the WH?
Dare we do this again. Typical of the dems - a known Evil (Hillary and Bill besmirching the WH, Presidency and American World image again) or an unknown Evil (Barack and Michelle) - with all the serious questions but quite simply the exact same pre-President senario.
Fool me once, shame on YOU; fool me twice shame, on ME. Either one (Obama or Clinton) is making a deal with the devil and America does not need that right now with radical terrorists and entitlement criminals flooding our country left, right and center.
Everyone - come on, give drobgyn a break, libs get their ‘news’ from MSNBC, Media Matters, Daily Kos, Dem Underground or the NYTs - they can’t be held for not knowing what is reality - they wouldn’t know reality or news if it bit them in the a** because all they know is indoctrination, brainwashing and lies, thrown at them 24/7/365 as ‘talking points’.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
If doc wants an education in reality he came to the right place.
If he wants someone to agree with everything he says, he is for damn sure in the wrong place.
But we all learn something new everyday here, may not like it but it will be backed up by facts .
May 9th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I give the Dr credit though, he has the ability to admit when he is wrong, as every bi ped is at times and stays around.
He doesnt flame, resort to hit and run liberal garbage and I believe actually learns and admits to learning - as we all should.
In my book - thats integrity.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I just wish Mrs. 1st would admit when she is wrong…
May 9th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I believe in integrity as well and when I see a person come in ill-informed and slam people (and paint an entire group with a broad, hateful brush) I have the integrity and courage of convictions to call that person a bigot and ignorant.
I think any learning being done is lip service to getting “caught in it” and for that I have zero respect.
This is twice that the race card has been trotted out and I for one will not sit back and let it go. I am sick to death ot this kind of crap and am not ashamed to say that it should stop. Here and now.
VoR
May 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
VoR -
Never said what you needed to believe or think, just gave my 2 cents.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
And Odie you are well wiithin your providence to lend support where you see fit. Perhaps you view this different that I. That is why they make vanilla and strawberry…..we don’t all make the same choices.
My problem was not with you at all.
This is twice I have seen the race card whipped out a la Rev Al and frankly I am not afraid to state that it is horse hockey. Not only was the race card played but a bit of insight into true feelings came to light when racial slurs were used to make the differing point.
Being ill informed does not preclude somebody from being called on it. And when said person’s first inclination is to reply using racially ugly language, I find that to be terribly enlightening.
Just because a person is black doesn’t stop them from being bigoted….as I have seen today.
VoR
May 9th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
1st, wives admitting they are wrong? Ummm, a utopian concept to be sure…:o)
For readers that require a refresher course, here is the original story on the origin of “Barack the Magic Negro”, LA Times columnist David Ehrenstein;
http://www.latimes.com/news/op.....ion-center
Doc, if you consider that comment as racist, so be it. Rush Limbaugh has been labeled as a racist by the PC media for his parody song of the same title;
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200012
Basically, the liberal media can use the expression but when Limbaugh parodies the comment, he is instantly anointed with the racist nom du jour.
Interesting, to say the least, double standards for liberals and conservatives rule the media.
BTW Doc, I love the “Richardson the Magic Beaner” and “Rudy the Magic Wop” banners.
As far as “Hillary the Magic Bitch”, stick around, she has been called much worse on this site. You may want to read “Unlimited Access” by Gary Aldrich. You will likely start calling her that all the time after reading that book…;o)
IMHO, Obama has become the darling of the media but the man has no qualifications for the office of POTUS. For Pete’s sake, he hasn’t even completed his first term as a Senator yet..!!
May 9th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Being black is not an excuse .
How do you know I am not Black?
The color of your skin is not an indication of your intelligence.
May 9th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
VoR -
I absolutely agree with everything you said and certainly didnt want to appear more “rightgeous” than you.
I guess I put a little more weight on “nurture” than “nature”. Bigots and race baiters come from all sides, knee jerk reactions and assumptions are generally a product of ignorance or specifically done with malice. What we know and what we learn is a continuing process. I understand why black people in America can have these reactions, though I may not agree with their reactions.
I pointed out the irony to the Dr, in his racist assumption, he responded “excellant point and thanks for the knowledge” That may seem “cheeky” to you - but I took it as sincere.
Influencing others cannot come from statements, but from active discussions. And some serious deviants or pure hatred also cannot be convinced, those are a rare few that I simply drone out and don’t even attempt a dialogue - Dr just doesn’t seem to be that way. Rev Al cannot be swayed. Nor can the New Nation of Islam.
Unfortunatley for people like George Wallace - it takes a bullet to make them see the error of their ways. I tend to side with a less destructive way…
May 9th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Unfortunatley for people like George Wallace - it takes a bullet to make them see the error of their ways. I tend to side with a less destructive way…
Uh, A white man shot Wallace.
May 9th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
You are correct, which emphasizes my point.
The fear of death goes a long way to acting like a human being and treating others properly.
Had it been a black shooter - I doubt it would have changed anything, in fact would have galvenized the racist white movement…
Back to “tater sticks” now.
May 9th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Going to the store, Yall need anything?
May 9th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Obama has said 10,000 died from the tornado in Kansas.
So 1st, He needs 9.988 corpses to lay around, If ya can help him out.
Do they have those at Krogers?
May 10th, 2007 at 4:47 am
I think Dr’s views are as much due to him being a medic as being black. Brother of Eurocon is a doctor and we cant believe the tripe that comes out of his mouth sometimes. Granted - like many if not most doctors - he is a very kind and caring person who genuinely does want to help people and is genuinely morally and ethically colourblind. However, he is mistaken in the belief that that makes him “liberal” - so, like most of his colleagues he automatically tends towards the liberal opinions “du jour”. You must remember, most doctors, due to the nature of their job, are almost isolated from the outside world - particularly young doctors who spend most of their waking hours in a hospital environment. The only proper “commentary” is what they hear from their colleagues.
I applaud Dr for logging in and participating. It not only opens his eyes to other view points, it gives us a bit of perspective as well. Like my Bro, once he is presented with a reasonable, cogent and true argument, he is prepared to open his mind.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Good points, Eurocon. My cousin is a doctor and, apparently, he’s a good one but otherwise, man, what a dunce. All that lib junk goes from the Boston Globe right into his head and it all comes right back out of his mouth, unfiltered and unchallenged. As for the “Magic Negro” thing, I think the term may have its origins in “The Numinous Negro”, an essay by Richard Brookhiser that appeared in the National Review back in 2001. If I remember right, the piece was about liberal’s ongoing search for some charismatic black politician whom they can adore and, in so doing, expunge all the guilt they think they need to feel about past racial injustice in America.
BTW, I almost removed the section with “the Reverend” from my Harry Reid saga, because I didn’t want my meaning to be misconstrued, willfully or not, by some people. Then I decided, what the hell, the Rev and people like them really are just conmen and shakedown artists, liars and exploiters, and they actually work against the interests of their own people, so screw them. The Rev stays. No offence meant, except to the Rev and his pals, and none taken, I hope.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
VoR I really do not have a problem when I’m told by members of this blog that I am wrong, because I have learned that you folks are quick to point out an error, which has been done to me on several occasions. I was wrong to assume that a White person came up with the remark, however I doubt that I am that far off in assuming that the majority of people on this site are White. That is not a racist statement. I made no referance to being superior or did I disparage anyone’s ethnic group. White people are melanin deficient and it was ment as a joke so relax.Would you agree that if it were said by a White person that my objections and disgust would be warranted? Yes, I was ignorant in who made the comment and I will definitly do my research before responding again.By using the analagy of the magic Beaner, Wop andBitch again was just to make a point that that term is demeaning. Lastly, can I be racially insensitive. Sure. Never said I was perfect and I recognize my own racial profilling issues. Can you say the same?This is not a color blind society and we all have pre-conceived ideas that may or may not be based in truth but only in experience. If I made a racially insensitive remark about White people I would assume that I would be malled by this group and rightfully so. So for me to respond to what I feel is a racially insensitive remark isn’t out of line. Now that a Black man made it just saddens me more than anything.
1st I know that I will not get most of you to agree with anything that I say, however I do think that by interjecting an opposing point of view makes things interesting. I don’t disagree just to be a “troll”.
Gila I probably should have delt with it as well as Sen. Obama did when told about the parody.
I agree with you that it would have been better for him to finish his first term before running for President. I had the opportunity to meet him, at Trinity Church, and I asked him about it and he said he just wanted to finish the first term and had no thought of running. Shit happens and things change. I believe that he should be the running mate of whoever wins the nomination.
Obie thanks for the remarks and I really ment it when I said thanks for the knowledge. I will readily admit that the majority of you are much better informed than I am on a number of subjects.But as long as I’m hanging out with you folks I really need to do my homework before writing.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Dr -
Its ODIE damnit!, lolol.
And again I stand by the integrity of who you are - and who knows - perhaps my g-friend will end up in your office some day. We all don’t agree here - I am more of a moderate conservative and there have been and should be disagreement between us concerning certain “conservative” issues. My love for Rudy is apparent - not all share this view. But I do take a lot of stock in where people have been raised and their experiences in life which should lead to our knowledge and opinions - whether “good or bad”, “right or wrong”. Dialogue is key. Gross assumption based on our skin color is myopic and ignorant. And all sides are guilty of it.
What does bother me is how “racist” can be thrown around loosley by both sides. It waters down true racism and gives a free pass to the likes of Sharpton and such to validate their grandstanding and blackmailing ways. The perversion of this tactic is what keeps a wall between an honest and open dialogue. Not pointing fingers at anyone specifically here - or you - just an observation in the illogical assumption of many. One of the best compliments I ever got was from a pretty radical black guy I came to know. We disagreed at first due to this wall, and on many issues, primarily based on artificial perceptions of what “white people and black people can say”. He refferred to me as a “brother of another color”…
May 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I don’t see why this is a race issue at all…it’s a liberal world view compass. Moral relativism at its best. It’s so hard to realize that there IS a set of rules, carved in stone, written into law that should be followed. There’s no relativism. It doesn’t “depend.” I don’t want someone running my country who has a moral compass. I want someone running my country who follows the law. We get into enough trouble with this loophole crap that we’ve been getting from both sides lately. ENOUGH.
Frankly what I’m looking for this time around, isn’t a Republican or a Democrat, it’s a person who doesn’t waffle or go with the polls (ahem, Hillary, step back) who is sure what is right and wrong and follows that. Not some shady “moral compass” or ANY special interest group. I’m sick of all this game play. So far the two I like most at this point are Romney and Thompson and I’m not sure on Romney.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Groovy,
I completely agree with you and just want to point out the race comments were about an article related to Obama, but not an indicator or necessity in any way to his “moral compass”. It sort of took a life of its own.
Though I am a Rudy/Huckabee guy.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
You’d probably win since my fave isn’t running.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
My bad Odie44. Would be my pleasure to take care of her. Should let you know I’m getting into cosmetic gynecology now. Birthin’ them babies is taking alot out of me.
Groovy what makes you believe that any politician remains steadfast regardless of the polls? Its the nature of politics to be full of shit regardless of party affiliation. Politicians will say whatever they need to say to get elected. I would say that most know the difference between right and wrong but they have a gift in seeing there are differing shades of right and wrong depending on their audience and the core beliefs of that audience. A good example to me is gay marriage. yes the Bible says that it is a sin, but the Bible also says that no one sin is greater than another. I don’t have the scripture reference but I think I’m on pretty solid ground on this one. So the many politicians believe in civil arrangements but not marriage. They say that discrimination is wrong in any form including sexual orientation. So to me its more grey than black-n-white, but depending on your belief you can argue until your head explodes about the issue. What may be right and wrong for you Groovy may not be for someone else.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Dr -
Her cosmetics are fine, lol… thank you for the kind sentiments.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
She may be interested in the G-Shot http://www.thegshot.com
This is for real. Just in case you thought it was a joke.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
You’re not going to like my answer but George Bush…for the most part, whether or not I’ve agreed with him, he has stood firm on what he believes. I DON’T agree with his immigration policies. I DO agree with him on the WOT (in general, sometimes the process hasn’t been good but the rest, he’s spot on). and other things. The Clinton’s constant trial balloons and swinging to whichever way the polls lie was ridiculous, stupid and deceptive.
And while you quote to Bible about sin and I agree, one sin is as bad as the next, that doesn’t mean we condone the sin because we’re supposed to love the sinner. We can’t just throw up our hands and look the other way when a sin is committed. That’s no way to act. It’s the same with abortion. Because some people are going to continue to seek abortion we should just let them have them? Even though we think it’s murder? Or drugs, do we legalize drugs and let people live in misery because they’re going to do it anyway? That’s the most asinine argument for legalizing something there is. People are always going to drink and drive should we let them? Murder has been around since the beginning of time, but that doesn’t mean we should legalize it.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“What may be right and wrong for you Groovy may not be for someone else.”
The CLASSIC definition of moral relativism…sorry, there ARE universal truths. Just because they adore female circumcision in other parts of the world, we are to let it happen, then? Cannibalism? Incest? Murdering live born babies because of their sex?
C’mon, doc, you’re a smart man. You know better! Jesus didn’t say love your neighbor as yourself, when in Rome.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Now now there are certain universal absolutes that no sane person would disagree on i.e. female circumcision, cannibalism, incest, murder of children, rape etc.. I was speaking on things that people can disagree on such as gay marriage, affirmative action, vouchers etc. And understand I will NEVER quote the Bible because I do know there are individuals who will quote scripture and verse without having to do a google search.
As far as your answer is concerned I understand why you said GWB. If anything he has demonstrated that he really doesn’t care what the polls say. He is going to do what he feels is right regardless of the polls. For that I can’t fault the man for his convictions and his sense of loyalty. I can’t imagine another politician sticking to his guns in the face of unrelenting criticism.
I agree with you that to condone certain behavior such as drug use, murder just because people will do it anyway is stupid. However I would disagree on homosexuality/gay marriage. Frankly I could care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. I have enough on my own plate that I can hardly keep up with so why should I concern myself with that? I’m not sure which comedian said it but why should heterosexuals be the only married people who are miserable? When having this discussion with some who feel strongly about the subject I ask, How has a gay couple affected you personally? When making this argument with Blacks who feel this way and use the Bible as the basis of their argument. I ask what is the sexual orientation of your minister of music? How many heterosexual men are in your choir? That usually stops that argument.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Cosmetic gynecology?
So now the term bumping uglies may become obsolete.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
We can now make it pretty, decrease the diameter thereby increasing friction and make the G-spot larger and more sensitive.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Doc, most of us don’t care what they’re doing, but marriage means the United States government forcing citizens to acknowledge homosexuals as married. In Massechussettes, the Catholic Charities of Boston has already had to shut down rather than spit on heir beliefs, because otherwise they would have had to pretend that homosexual couples are a ‘marriage’.
Does that affect me, personally, directly? Probably not–I don’t work with adoption agencies, and I’m not even catholic, so I can’t say shutting down a catholic charity (a yankee catholic charity) has exactly wounded me to the quick. But that doesn’t make it right, and that doesn’t mean I should stand aside when it happens.
After all, white people weren’t directly, personally repressed by segregation. On the contrary, it almost always meant better stuff for us–but when the movement fired up, millions of white people got up and marched alongside the people whose rights we were fighting for as fellow human beings. So tell me–do you really think that we should stand aside from an issue as long as it doesn’t affect us personally?
I won’t quote it because it’s as trite and overdone as the boiling frog story as far as internet argument is concerned, but surely you’ve heard of the protestant minister in Nazi Germany, who told of how the Nazis came for the communists, and since he wasn’t a communist, he didn’t speak up. And then the atheists, and the Jews, and (I think) the gypsies, until they finally came for him, and wasn’t anybody left to speak for him. It still fits.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Redneck -
As I mentioned a few weeks back - no one forced them to shut down, they decided to shut down based on a theological reasoning. In America - a new industry or business opens up every single day and there will be those who will purposely open up to cater to homosexual couples and their adoption needs.
From your favorite Yankee…
May 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I’ll let y’all throw some rocks at me. I’m single. Been that way for that past few centuries. Or so it seems. I object to subsidizing just about anything. Look at the tax tables. Single folk pay the highest rate. Granted, two working singles who marry get shafted as well. I object to 2fer1 offers. Per person, double occupancy. And subsidizing health insurance for families. The money comes from somewhere. Not that any of this will ever change, I just object to expanding it. (Half Scot, half Irish. Cheap. and crazy.)
BOsama would make a good phony televangelist (not all are, but some…). Smooth talk. Zero substance. Skin color makes not a bit of difference. He’ll probably be Hildebeest’s running lackey.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Redneck are you equating gay marriage with the civil rights movement? I see the point you are attempting to make…oh my God its starting to rub off
:-) First off I’m not gay but I have friends who are. So what is so wrong for two adults who say that they love each other and want to be in a committted realtionship so horrible? Why does anybody care about that? Again not trying to quote but doesn’t the Bible say something to the effect, that before you point out the sliver in your neighbors eye you should reomve the plank of wood out of your own first. I’m really interested in why this bothers many conservitives. Haven’t really ever got a good answer out side of the Bible says so.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Please forgive me if it appears that I’m picking on Doc, but I must interject on a statement made in this discussion.
I will expound on my views and keep an open ear and mind concerning same.
Gay marriage? Doc, in some ways I’m with you on this one but the following is the kind of crap that has now ensued and will continue until when?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271116,00.html
So, two lesbians previously joined in a civil union, now want the sperm donor father to pay child support now that the lesbians are “divorced”? Well, all I can say is…huuhhh???
Next…affirmative action…as GG stated previously on the original subject…moral relativism repeated and at worst…reverse discrimination. Lets hire a less qualified individual just because he or she is a minority?? Apparently, when considering affirmative action, we toss out the 9th, 14th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution not to mention the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Was it morally and lawfully right to discriminate against minorities, women, etc during the early days of our republic..?? Hell no, but that does not grant us the luxury of continuing discriminatory practices against another group to ease our collective guilt.
School vouchers shall remain for another day.
Moral compasses are a noble concept, unfortunately, they are usually skewed towards each individuals desired position. My opinions are naturally directed towards my preconceived predilections. So be it and I make the assumption that others here have their own, which I respect but may not condone.
May 11th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Odie, that they shut down before the feds showed up isn’t exactly proof that there was nothing wrong. They shut down because they had the choice of being in violation of the law or violating their beliefs.
Let ‘em. But I’m not going to pretend that it’s a marriage–and a law forcing me to is a pretty clear violation of my rights. Adoption agencies are just one area–what does a Christian marriage counselor do when Steve and Joe walk into his office and say, “We want you to keep us in a relationship with each other–and if you won’t, you’re in violation of the law”?
Gila, you think that’s bad? Check this out.
Or, since we’re still on a general ‘moral compass’ article, try this one..
Also http://crime.about.com/b/a/157325.htm“>here.
May 11th, 2007 at 8:51 am
“So what is so wrong for two adults who say that they love each other and want to be in a committted realtionship so horrible? Why does anybody care about that?”
If it were only that simple. We have a gay couple living next door to us. They don’t bother us and are for all intents and purposes, good neighbors. Where I have a problem is having the gay AGENDA shoved down my throat. There are now clubs in high schools that “celebrate” the “diversity” of being gay or transgendered. It’s all the rage to join them if you’re straight just to show how “tolerant” you are. I know a teacher that had her first: she had to break up a lesbian couple necking in the hallway. She said that a lot of girls feel that if they experiment with this “lesbian” thing, that they are technically still “virgins”. There are words that my sons can get in trouble for saying at school now: gay, queer, etc. These used to be just words until the gay agenda appropriated them. I don’t want my kids or grandkids being indoctrinated with homosexuality as an “alternate” lifestyle or that it’s “normal” for Heather to have two mommies. This goes against everything we believe in and are teaching our children. What happens if they speak up in school and voice their opinion? Will they be branded as intolerant or hateful? It DOES affect us and we are just starting to see the fruits of their labors. I don’t give a rat’s behind what people do in the privacy of their own homes. They have to answer to God for their behavior. But tell me, why should a group of people get special consideration just on account of who they choose to sleep with?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Read Tammy Bruce’s the Death of Right and Wrong - the so called “Gay Agenda” is putting our lives at risk.(And this is a lesbian telling us this…)
Please note I have nothing against gay people and are not saying that GAY PEOPLE are putting our lives at risk, just the GAY AGENDA.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Redneck -
Any religious entity can decide who they want to consel and who they don’t. If gay people were allowed to marry - it doesn’t change the religious doctrine nor does it make it “illegal” for a Christian counselor to not offer advice. What rights of your are being offended by this? I think you are confusing belief and rights. If you are a christian counselor - the counsel comes before the Christian. If not, they need to shield themselves within a Christian organization and not a public position. Happened with the pharmacists not doling out day after pills. They made a stand, SCOTUS said they had to - so they did. I don’t recall the mass fall out or sin from these pharmacists since then.
And it may seem like a perversion - but this is exactly what Imams in America are trying to do with their religious doctrine in the public space. When religion trumps social policy and laws, we have a problem.
Again, every single “anti” against same sex marriage is based on religious doctrine, i.e. a violation of seperation of church and state.
Euro - And I do agree, the gay agenda, in itself is wrong and damaging because it is a specialty based - minority decision set of laws that undermine the majority. I don’t believe in Hate Crimes - our penal code already establishes the levels of violations in society. I dont believe any group should get more rights, just the same rights.
I know its tough to believe - but the 2 issues aren’t “all or nothing”.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Zoomie I do understand what you are saying in regards to our young people today and the things that they have to deal with in HS. However, what about the gay teen in HS? Now I don’t particulary like the idea of the gay Student Alliance meeting next to the chess club but I’m sure its out there. In fact young girls are resorting to anal sex and oral sex in order to maintain their virginity. Do you think that gays and lesbians should be given the same rights as everyone else? Do you think that a gay couple should have the same rights in regards to hospital privledges, life insurance, visitation etc. as any other married couple? If it was called something different would that make it okay? I really don’t think they are asking for special consideration they seem to want what everyone else has in regards to rights.
Gay adoption big topic, but is it better for a child to be in a foster care system or in a single gender home where they are loved and cared for? There are more children available for adoption than there are people wanting to adopt.I’m sure that many of you can site articles that support the notion that a child living in a single gender home is worse off than a child in a 2 parent family. Would it be better for a child to be raised in a loving two parent traditional family? Yes, but we all know that that is not always the case. Not every traditional family should be raising children.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Gila -
This case has nothing to do with same sex marriage. If it was a hetero couple, who the man couldnt conceive and had a sperm donor who was also part of their life in Penn (odd, I know) - the court would have rendered the same decision. Its an odd ruling - but as society changes - laws will be needed to reflect these changes. Clearly the majority of states have considered this froma contractual point of view and have implemented laws to the such.
Notice at the bottom:
“The state Supreme Court is currently considering a similar case, in which a sperm donor wants to enforce a promise made by the mother that he would not have to be involved in the child’s life. That biological father was ordered to pay $1,520 in monthly support.
About two-thirds of states have adopted versions of the Uniform Parentage Act that can shield sperm donors from being forced to assume parenting responsibilities. Pennsylvania has no such law.”
May 11th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Any religious entity can decide who they want to consel and who they don’t. If gay people were allowed to marry - it doesn’t change the religious doctrine nor does it make it “illegal” for a Christian counselor to not offer advice.
Odie, you need to look at what’s happening north of the border to see the future of this grand social experiment.
Homosexuals are actively targeting Christian owned businesses (such as printers for wedding invitations), Christian organizations (such as the Catholic Knights of Columbus for rental of their halls for marriages) and even mariage commissioners -many of whom have deeply held Christian beliefs and who became marriage commissioners back when the Liberals were actively voting against same-sex marriage (and therefore didn’t expect to have this whole mess forced on them by the same Liberal government a few years later).
Now, commissioners are being forced to step down if they refuse to do SSM’s. Business face stiff fines, the churches risk losing their tax free exemptions. And there’s no need for it. There are plenty of commissioners who have no problem with SSM -why not go to them? Ditto for printers and organizations that have halls for rent. As noted above, there is a whole industry growing around SSM’s. So why deliberately target the Christians? It is nothing but pure vindictiveness -and they are allowed to get away with it.
Homosexuals are literally threatening their way to legitimacy. Other special interest groups are following now that they see how well it’s working.
Do you want to see that happen in the US?
Would it be better for a child to be raised in a loving two parent traditional family? Yes, but we all know that that is not always the case. Not every traditional family should be raising children.
Doc, as always, you have a point. The problem with that line of reasoning -and it is trotted out every single time this debate comes up- is that it compares the best of one with the worst of another. And that’s neither fair nor a sensible way to debate anything.
Of course everybody in a so-called “normal” household needs to hold up their end of the bargain. Unfit parents are a separate issue.
You’re an intelligent man. Tell me, since all this social upheaval started -the “me” generation/free love/let’s all get stoned/fuck the establishment/yadda yadda yadda- do you really think kids -or anybody- today are better off?
May 11th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Odie -
While I would agree that the law in question here is not about civil unions or gay marriage, the ancillary situation surrounding it does.
In this case, post dissolution, the non-custodial lesbian “parent” Shultz-Jacob, was ordered to pay child support by the court. The article isn’t clear as to whom actually brought the suit against Frampton, but it appears to be Shultz-Jacob based on the attorney quoted.
And to complicate matters further, the sperm donor is now dead.
My point is this, the departed lesbian is now going after the sperm donor in order to reduce her financial obligation. Why? She was responsible during the “civil union” but now she’s not? Basically, they wanted the right to have a gay marriage but not the financial responsibility that goes with it.
Let me ask this, are they suing the brother whom they adopted the kids from? Well he’s the biologic father, why shouldn’t he be responsible also? When does it stop?
May 11th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
DW my point about the families is that when the question of a single gender couple raising a child many tend to think the absolute worse in that particular situation. In no way am I suggesting that its a credible argument for either side. To take the extreams as the norm doesn’t make any sense. In your opinion can a single gender couple raise a healthy well adjusted productive child?
Are kids better off today? In some ways they are but in many ways I would say no. Life now for young people happens too quick for my taste. They skip adolescence and go straight to being young adults. I had a 13 year old girl text my 13 year old son saying that she wanted to f**k him. Part of me, the male part, was like damn I was in college before I heard something like that but thats my boy. The parent side was this is really messed up that he has to be put into a position to respond to something like that. He said he didn’t respond. By the way he has a phone so I can talk to him without having to deal with my ex-wife.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
“I want what I want. Now. And I won’t take any responsibility for it.”
Gotta love the ME generation.
Beam me up, Scotty.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
“but thats my boy”
I bet that if that was your daughter you would have a different attitude. No wonder Chicago is becoming a cesspool.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
In your opinion can a single gender couple raise a healthy well adjusted productive child?
Yes, absolutely. As can a single parent. To me, it’s not so much a question of “can we?” as it is “should we?” .
There’s a world of difference between doing something because there is no other alternative and doing it because it is “fashionable” -and that’s precisely what this is all about. As usual, those paragons of good sense and virtue in Hollywood are leading the charge and now they’re stuffing kids’ heads full of this garbage in grade school. They don’t learn anything about morality or responsibility -much less the three R’s or history, but they know all about “fisting” or “gerbiling” (one guy at work proudly informed us that he “iguana’s”). Kids get a master’s degree in contraceptive devices before they’re 10, but can’t even spell Wyoming -much less find it on a map- when they’re 20.
Look at these new and improved surgically enhanced vaginas you’re proudly announcing. Nothing against that Doc, and I realize that you’re an obgyn so that’s your specialty -but how much money goes into researching things like that, or bigger boobs and longer penises. We’re bleeding for GP’s and specialists in geriatrics (remember the baby-boomers) amongst other things, yet how many up and coming docs are going into things like cosmetic surgery because that’s where the money is.
How goes the battle for finding a cure for cervical cancer? Got lots of money for research for that? You can make it feel more pleasure, but can you keep its owner alive when the unthinkable happens?
Please Doc -don’t take that as a comment on your ability or dedication to your profession -it’s not meant that way at all. But be honest: where’s the bulk of the money and talent going these days?
It’s all about pleasure, today. We need to dial wayyyy back on all of that. Including all of this goofy social experimentation.
Remember, the kids we’re bringing up today are the same people we need to rely on to look after us tomorrow.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Gila -
You certainly are making a good point concerning the shared responsibility role between the lesbians in question - and agree some of the info in the article is confusing. I still believe the key is the contractual status and nature of the sperm donation - and the sperm donors role in the relationship.
Similiar to todays “divorce by night” proceedings - the roles, relationship and money are perverted after the fact of the wedding - and is why people recommend prenups. Divorce no longer has anything to do with the initial reason or “love” between 2 people and has everything to do with money, power and control further perverted by legal ramblings and lawyers. BUt again in your response - replace “gay” with “straight” and you still have the same questions and issues concerning who pays what and why, as you also have the responsibility issue. Hatred in divorce is the prevailing issue between both parties. And is why many able body people refuse to pay child support - it has nothign to do with the child, but everything to do with hatred of the former spouse.
And to the brother who they adopted the kids from - I can almost guarantee there is an explicit line alleviating financial responsibility, as is in most adoption cases. Due to the “newness” of sperm donors in couples lives - there really isn’t precedence - and this case isn’t over yet… though as stated 2/3rds of states already have the provisions listed in sperm donor proceedings.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
(one guy at work proudly informed us that he “iguana’s”)
Dude…………
Nah, wayyyyyy too easy, but still, dude……
May 11th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
DW -
Clearly there is a perversion of court proceedings by homosexual groups, in a deviant way to “pay back” Christian business owners, of which I disagree with. But that doesn’t change the fact that those providing services through a private business cannot refuse to accept business or a client based on their beliefs. I am not up to snuff with Canadian laws and processes, but in America - you can deny anyone from entering or doing business with you - based on whatever reason you want. Of course, people sue based on violations of “civil rights” or “sexual orientation” - and it exhausts the funds and time of business owners - but rarely do these people outright win, if the case goes to a judge or trial.
The refusal of OJ Simpson at a restaurant recently is a prime case. Notice the hack attorney for OJ immediately stated “Ruby violated Simpsons rights because he is black - a civil rights issue”. He knows he can’t go down the “private business owner refusing based on his dislike of a murderer” - becasue Ruby has every right to throw out whomever he wants. And considering Ruby had several black patrons and several past experiences with OJ, before he killed people and before he tried to write the infamous book “If I Killed Them” - this case will go nowhere - because Ruby has $$$ and can easily afford counsel and has the time to fight it, not because he isn’t a racist.
Clearly there is a perversion of tort and civil law in America - and sounds like Canada, brought upon by radical groups and radical judges creating laws from the bench. I think everyone can agree on this. THAT is what we need to be going after, not the individual rights of marriages or radical groups who are sue happy. Its political - and sullies up the situation - and clearly a dead baby channeling ambulance chaser running for President lets us know how little the outrage actually is.
We as a nation are sue happy, supported by inane laws ( I mentioned my distaste for Hate Crimes) and there is a double standard. But thats function over feature.
Now this may be offbase - but have you ever heard of the McLibel case in England?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
Money and power don’t always equate a “win”.
And I still , regardless of these cases and “wrong” suits - stand by the notion as society changes, people, orgs , religions, groups, etc need to change with them. All religous groups provide wonderful services to the poor and needy, I will not doubt that. But all religious causes aren’t always “right” within society. Sanctuary Churches for illegal immigrants is a fine example of theology usurping the law for all the wrong reasons. And it is why religion - as doctrine - must take a back seat to laws.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Odie -
You do have a point. Maybe it’s like comparing apples and oranges, they are both fruits but the similarities end there.
Being unfamiliar with PA’s laws concerning parental rights and responsibilities, I’m likely confusing the issues at hand.
However, based on AZ laws, if I were married but sterile, and as a couple we utilized a sperm donor for fertilization, at birth, I alone would be the father of record. Therefore, I alone, bear the responsibility for that child as the father. The sperm donor has no legal responsibility whatsoever.
Flipping that coin in a same sex marriage/civil union, does that legal responsibility still apply to the non-biologic “mother/father”?
IMHO, another Pandora’s box has just been opened.
You are absolutely right about the hatred in divorce issue and unfortunately, it is the children that end up suffering the most. I thank God every day that my ex and I are still great friends and parents. Matter of fact, I still love her to this day. We just couldn’t stand living together.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
When Mrs 1st had her stroke, I had to retire and provide care for her 24/7. After a few months she got better and I could leave her alone for a few hours at a time, so I looked for something to do close to home.
I built a small shop in the back yard and started working on ATV’s and motorcycles.
The name of the business was BOB’S CYCLE.
Business was pretty steady with many regular customers.
One day a man I did not know drove up with a fairly new ATV in the back of his truck and wanted to kinow how much I charged to do a routine service and check up. I told him the price and he siad he was going to take it to the dealer to have it done because they knew what they were doing.
Well, I told him that was the thing to do because I was not going to work on his stuff anyway.
He said I would have to if he wanted me to.
I grabbed him by the scruff of his shirt, drug him outside and pointed out the sign on the front that said”BOB’S CYCLE” and told him that I was Bob and would do whatever the hell I wnated to and the best thing for him to do was get his fat ass back in his truck and hit the road.
In the process of leaving he hollered out the window that he was going to tell everyone he knew just how bad I was.
Well a few days later, I started getting customers I had never seen before so I asked one of them why he brought his atv to me to work on and he laughed and said, ” Do you remember that fat SOB you ran off a few weeks ago”?
I said yeah and he told me that guy was his brother in law and that he started bad mouthing me and that since the rest of the family thought he was an asshole that I must be a pretty good guy.
I got a lot of business from that family from then on.
Moral to the story;
You are never wrong to run off an asshole.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I must say that I disagree completely. Your rights arealways protected, not just if you “shield” yourself within an organization. Do I only have the right of free speech if I join a journalist organization? Do I only have a right to keep and bear arms if I’m a member of the NRA? Must I join a PAC of some sort before the government must allow me to petition for redress of grievances?
Naturally, the government has neither the duty nor the right to force a Christian counselor to act against his faith–whether or not he ’shields’ himself within the auspices of some church. It’s a right they don’t have in Canada, and a right the homosexual-priviledge lobbies are trying hard to take away in America.
May 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
…as society changes, people, orgs , religions, groups, etc need to change with them.
How far does religion have to change? There have been some necessary changes -like the Inquisition being closed down, but then again, how much of what the Inquisition did was actually based on Christ’s teachings?
We’re not talking about a religion that espouses conversion by the sword or mutilating young girls. Just how far do the Christian religions have to go to accomodate the perversion-du-jour? More to the point, how far can they go before their beliefs are simply gone? And isn’t that exactly what the left is trying to achieve?
Yes, the church must take a back seat to the law, but wasn’t there some nagging little detail about freedom of religion? That’s not freedom to go out and “kill a queer for Christ”, but I fail to see why it is acceptable to punish a Christian businessman who does not wish to violate his faith by printing invitations for a same-sex wedding when there’s another printer just down the street who would be only too happy to get the business.
Christians have to accomodate homosexuals? Fine. Now explain to me why homosexuals don’t have to show equal consideration for Christians?
We seem to be agreeing for the most part -except for your last paragraph (and no, I hadn’t heard of the McLibel case -perhaps they should have just hired a McHitman).
All I can do is provide you with a snapshot of America two years from now when President Rodham and Vice-President Pelosi are running the show:
You’re already taxed right off the planet, but now some reedy-voiced, scrawny, aesthetic looking dweeb is threatening you with an intolerance complaint because you’re reluctant to part with even more money to fund a parade where he can march down main street in nothing but a jock-strap and feathers. That’s already happening here and bear in mind that the American left looks on Canada as some socialist, gun-free utopia where everyone smokes pot and gets to screw anything that’ll hold still long enough.
How far down that slippery slope do you want to let them take you?
(not to mention that countries with conservative governments like Canada, Germany and France (France!) will be sneering about “liberal, socialist, peacenik America”)
Let that happen, you must not, my young Jedi.
May 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
DW -
St Patty’s Day Parade in NYC - by the Hiberians. Gays sued. Lost. Now they try to counter march, of which Hillary now takes place in. Perfect example of a religious group not bending.
And I think you are confusing a point or 2 I am making. Nowhere have I said religion in itself or its doctrine needs to change - but when interacting or providing services outside that religion in the free market - laws guide the market, not the religious decree. I notice not alot of Catholic Abortion Centers.(sarcasm denoted) nor have I found any Islamic Bacon Outlets.
As mentioned in the Sanctuary Church cases - which side of this issue are you on? Is it ok for them, due to scripture (which is noble and worthy) to usurp federal laws?
And freedom of religion isn’t being encroached upon - in either case, as the 1st Amendment provides. Nor does it afford the insane requirement of Muslims to want state funded prayer rugs or wash basins.
I think (perhaps not you) people really do have trouble in seperating their religious beliefs and laws of the nation. They assume its an attack on their religion. Can I sue a rabbi for not marrying me, as a baptised, communed and confirmed Catholic? Sure. Will I win - no. In the same case listed concerning the Boston Charities - and the Christian printer - they folded under fear of getting sued. Not the courts decision.
If you are putting your religious doctrine in front of your free market business plan - be prepared to make less money - for you choose to limit who you do business with. And that right is protected. It works both ways.
May 11th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I cannot speak for other religions, but being a Christian, I have actual faith in the never-changing TRUTH of my God and salvation.
Christianity has been and will be constantly corrupted, diluted and polluted by humanity and yet is constantly renewed and re-refined by those who prayerfully follow God.
May 11th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Redneck -
Your right to freedom of religion is not being encroached upon. Your right to offer counseling services is. Big difference. That person decided to put their religion on the forefront - of which I respect, it is principles they choose not to do the work. Nowhere did anyone say “you can’t be a ________ follower” becuse you chose not to print a gay marriage couples invitation.
You have the right to bear arms - but not in the court house, or any other no gun zone.
You have the right to free speech, unless you slander someone, don’t you?
Again - it is no different than Muslims wanting certain parts of education taken out of their school curriculum - and notice the Holocaust case was in the UK, not here - and the story DW states is in Canada , not here. If and when Muslims in America want something based on their religion, in the public sector - it is wrong and violates Seperation of Church and State.
Prime example - the Georgian “intelligent design vs evolution” education case. Selman v. Cobb County School District.
May 11th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Curmudgeon -
What does that mean?
May 11th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Strayed a bit OT haven’t we?
VoR
May 11th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Nowhere have I said religion in itself or its doctrine needs to change
Observe your original comment:
And I still , regardless of these cases and “wrong” suits - stand by the notion as society changes, people, orgs , religions, groups, etc need to change with them.
To paraphrase: religions need to change.
As mentioned in the Sanctuary Church cases - which side of this issue are you on?
I would want to know, on a case by case basis, precisely why the individual or individuals were being granted sanctuary. And the scriptural basis (again in each case) for it being granted. That probably sounds like a wishy-washy answer -sorry. It’s the best I can give you on that subject.
And freedom of religion isn’t being encroached upon
No, it’s being deliberately and systematically attacked. Again, homosexuals are deliberately targeting Christian businesses.
I think (perhaps not you) people really do have trouble in seperating their religious beliefs and laws of the nation.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but were not the US and Canada both founded on the basis of Judeo-Christian principles? Both our laws come from English common law, which in turn comes from the Magna Carta which in turn is based on the 10 commandments (that bare spot on the wall of most US courtrooms is where they used to hang). Like it or not, religious beliefs and the laws of the nation(s) are intertwined.
Can I sue a rabbi for not marrying me, as a baptised, communed and confirmed Catholic?
Why would you want a Rabbi to marry you? Why should he have to?
If you are putting your religious doctrine in front of your free market business plan…
I am an agnostic, I have no religious doctrine. I’m just sick and tired of watching liberals -in all their various guises- attacking Christians.
…be prepared to make less money…
I seems to recall hearing lots of stories of Christians who gave up far more than the almighty dollar because of their “doctrine”.
…for you choose to limit who you do business with. And that right is protected. It works both ways.
People should be allowed to limit who they do business with. And that right is most definitely NOT protected in Canada -hence my warning to beware that it does not happen in your country.
May 11th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
DW -
The religion in question is not changing. The business practices of the religious person is. I understand how I confused that in my comment. Condoms are a fine example. Were those Catholics who used them pre 1996 (I think that was the year) sinners? Or did the Catholic church realize anti condom was a recipe for disaster?
“If you are putting your religious doctrine in front of your free market business plan - be prepared to make less money - for you choose to limit who you do business with. And that right is protected. It works both ways.” That was my comment, not just the end. The “if” was supported by the “then”
In the same way Muslim taxi drivers in Minn refused to carry passengers with alcohol, pork or dogs - and were fined. The illegally put their religious beliefs in front of a free market service. They have the right to believe whatever they want to - but do not have the right to be taxi drivers, with said doctrine.
What I find interesting is the argument being made is from the “majority” religion point of view, yet when the logic and law of denouncing Muslims (not popular) due to Seperation of Church and State is argued and used - people say “thats great”. This is about any religion and the sepration of church and state.
And certainly laws are based on principles of religion - but those principles aren’t exclusive to religion. I know some pretty moral and rightgeous atheists. Nor do you need to be religious to follow the laws. Since we are going through history - Ill point out the Inquisition… and their quest for conversion.
Whats also is interesting - I am agnostic currently. I read the bible daily, sometimes go to church, sometimes dont - have been saying prayers every night since I can remember. My faith wavers, as does many - yet I continue to seek out some form of answers, as do many.
The grotesque Catholic pedophile case and the church’s treatment of it are exactly why I want nothing to do with organized religion. Its group think at its worse. The real crime in that issue wasn’t just priests raping little boys, or the church heirarchy shuffling these priests around while keeping it quiet for years - it was the parents who, instead of calling the police and filing charges, relied on that very church, due to “keep it in the religion, don;t stray little sheep” group think. If my kid was raped by a priest - no doctrine or “rules” would have stoped me from calling the authorities or killing them myself. That is where religion meets society crossed the line for me. I didnt know anyone personally nor was I a victim myself - but considering thats how it went down - the rightgeous “religious leaders” can keep their flock, I will keep my brain and bible.
So when people talk about absolute morality , rules , doctrines and laws of religion - this is just one fine example of how unabsolute that doctrine really is. Similiar to the Church Sanctuary cases. Its pretty straight forward - church’s are allowing illegal immigrants to be housed within their church, in defiance of the laws - while protecting these people, getting lawyers, money, etc for them to remain. No background checks on these people - all in the name of Christianity. O’Reilly had a nun on last night discussing her side. Moral, yes. Rightgeous, yes. Illegal - you bet. I recall the outrage last week concerning the Maryland document telling people how to avoid prosecution - who are housed in a church - as a sanctuary church.
Irony is an odd bird…
May 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Odie,
I never understood the Catholic church’s aversion to birth control. On the other hand, westerners are literally being bred out of existence because we don’t reproduce enough to sustain our numbers. Maybe the Catholics were onto something there…
I put your whole “religious doctrine” sentence in there, but I broke into three pieces. I guess technically I was interrupting you -so for that I apologize.
As far as the Moslem cabbies refusing fares with alcohol -apart from the fact that again, this is a country based on Judeo-Christian principals- how’s this sound:
They can do as they wish, but have to put a crescent on their taxi flag? Ditto with Christian printers (albeit with a crucifix). I grant your point, I’m far less concerned about people going after Muslims than I am Chrstians and perhaps I shouldn’t be.
I mentioned the Inquisition already. You did read my posts did you not?
The molestations that went on the Catholic church and their coverup are, as you said, grotesque. It is worth mentioning (since I’m bashing homosexuals) that the majority of the victims were post-pubescent males. Either way it was unacceptable. Do take care however to not tar everybody of the Catholic faith with the same brush.
Speaking of searching for answers about God, you must come visit me at my lake sometime. It is a very old, very wild place and lends itself perfectly to such musings (which I do constantly under the stars and northern lights).
Since -as VoR pointed out- we’ve strayed way off topic (I blame the Doc :-) I’ll make like Bill O’Reilly and give you the last word on this.
Over to you sir…
May 11th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
She is an angry racial bigot. If it’s white….it ain’t right.
First Lady? Not a chance….when all she cares to talk about is “how bad” she thinks blacks have it in this country.
I think she’s the ambition behind her husband.
And Obama’s moral compass….it points to Mecca.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Odie.
I suppose I am responding to something I hear you espouse pretty often… that all the other religions of the world except Islam have “progressed” and changed to fit the times. Every time, it sort of grates, though I can see what you mean, just looking at various “Christian” governments in Europe during the rise of Protestantism, killing those who disagree with them as heretics. We do not see that type of behavior in this day and age by Christians.
My comment, much revised, and thus leaving out much of my original meaning :), was meant to say that I do not believe that true Christianity had changed from its original inception. It was corrupted in many ways and will be corrupted in many ways again, but it will constantly be renewed.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
DW -
Well, I agree we did go of course here, but a lively conversation. And an important one. Plus, it is Doc’s fault ;)
As to the cabin - I am jealous. My uncle had one in the Catskills - built in like 1908 - on the base of Slide Mountain - of which I had many memories there. Unlike a lawyer - he removed the phone, TV’s, etc and just had basic elctricity - due to literally wanting to “zone out of society” for a few days at a time.
Obama is a bastard… back on topic.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Curmudgeon -
Gotcha - and perhaps I misspoke, but understand what you mean. In the context of todays civilization - Islam still appears to be far out of touch - but I know plenty of Hasidic Jews who haven’t changed much, except for that diamond, garment industry thingy…lol.
Yet I agree the basis of each religion is still held as that religion, though humans may sully it up every now and then.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
So my right to freedom of religion isn’t being enroached upon if I’m told “spit on your religion or you’re breaking the law”? Me, I got to disagree with that.
Actually, it’s quite a bit different. Not changing the school curriculum to satisfy muslims (or to satisfy atheists, as in the jyhad against intelligent design or any other alternative to the discredited, hoax-supported Victorian-era theory) and possibly causing them to hear unpleasant truths does not enroach on their rights. Causing them to act in a certain manner, on the other hand–such as the “violate your beliefs and get shut down” measure that Catholic Charities of Boston and several Canadian businesses have suffered from, is a vastly different matter.
May 11th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Redneck -
I am pretty convinced whatever I post will not change your mind nor will it make you understand what the rights in the Constitution actually mean. I notice you backed away from the “freedom of speech” and “right to bear arms” absolute you used in an attempt to prove a point, after I easily debunked them.
Again, no one is told to spit on their religion - however they were told to not break the law. They chose to close down and not do both.
The fact you are trying to argue against same sex marriages with a religious organization validates my original and existing point - the only “anti” against same sex marriage is against Seperation of Church and State - religious decree…
May 11th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Oh shit.
Odie, I said I was going to give you the last word, but I have to jump on your last post.
You’re making the same mistake that all the pro-same sex marriage types make -namely that anyone who disagrees with it is either a homophobe or a religious zealot. And that is simply not true.
I, admittedly, am tired unto death of being threatened by homosexuals. Whatever sympathy I ever had for their cause has long since been lost in the barrage of “intolerant” complaints and watching all the tax-payer funded pagentry.
But that’s not my problem with SSM.
My problem with is that I believe -fervently- that the key to our survival -the very cornerstone to our civilization- lies in the traditional family. That means one father, one mother and whatever children they manage to have.
Dad earns the bread and looks after discipline. From him the kids learn about strength and responsibility.
Mom runs the household and tends to the “little things”. From her they learn about compassion and (again) responsibility.
Modern economics has made that very difficult, and admittedly that’s a rather simplistic way of putting it, but it has worked for thousands of years. Where it hasn’t worked has been because one or both has fallen down on the job. That doesn’t mean it’s not the way to go. It doesn’t mean that there’s a better way.
To reiterate what I said to the Doc: single parents, same sex parents -can it wor