Darleen's Place: Mmm...smells like...

« Deja vu | Main | 'This is not the Climate Change I knew' »

November 15, 2008

Mmm...smells like...

... tolerance.

Posted by Darleen at November 15, 2008 11:03 AM

Comments

Must have been fundamentalists.

Posted by: Chris at November 15, 2008 01:28 PM

If tolerance is your issue, here's the kind of stories you really need to be concerned about.

2nd and 3rd graders in Idaho chanting "Assasinate Obama."

It's good to see the decent American man who brought this to light, but it's terrifying to think how much sickness there is in some American families - enough that a group of little innocents, repeating what they'd learned at home, thought it was fun thing to do.

The hatred in the minds of the right wing is a disease. And they're infecting their children with it.

Posted by: Leah at November 15, 2008 06:31 PM

Actually Leah, since the kids (number unknown) didn't grasp what the word meant, it is just as conceivable they come from a Leftcultist/Obama zombie home where Obama assassination porn has been an obsession ever since The One decided to run.

Bet the chanters' parents read Huffington Post outloud after dinner each night.

Posted by: Darleen at November 15, 2008 07:40 PM

Uh...you caught the part where this happened in [i]Idaho[/i], right?

Leftcultist/Obama zombies taking over a town in Idaho...That sounds like a great idea for a sitcom. LOL! Do you ever get a look at yourself in the mirror and realize you've gone nuts, Darleen?

This is happening. My kid works in an after school program for little kids. When one 6 year old saw another kid wearing an Obama shirt he said "I hope he gets shot soon.." A 6 year old! Where do you think he heard that? From his leftcultist/obama zombie parents?

Why don't you address what this video [i]really[/i] indicates about the right? It's not the lefties, zombie'd or otherwise, who want to see anything bad happen to Obama.

Posted by: Leah at November 15, 2008 08:11 PM

wow, leah, some [unknown number] of 2nd graders have taken over a town in Idaho!

Um, I guess you didn't catch where this incident was troubling enough to the parents and school district that they are taking steps to confront any such student about unacceptable behavior.

one 6 year old saw another kid wearing an Obama shirt he said "I hope he gets shot soon.."

Unacceptable, IF it happened, but face it, Leah, the brownshirts are firmly established on the Left, not some random stuff from far right fringies.

and of course you had no problems with the teacher who mocked and was cruel to the girl who's dad was in Iraq or the middle schooler who as threatened for wearing a McCain shirt.

Last I looked, it wasn't the "right" running around in the streets with giant papermache puppets or signs called for US troops to murder their officers.

Don't think that the right has some sort of exclusive on "hate", sweety ... Leftcultists are pickled in it.

Posted by: Darleen at November 15, 2008 08:23 PM

The video shows ONE parent who brought it to the school's attention. A very admirable guy.

And the cop was a decent, good guy as well. Or was he a leftcultist/obamazombie in disguise? Did you catch how he said that the family had just come from living in the Mideast, where they never heard anyone talk about assassination? (Highly suspicious, if you ask me.)

I thought it was odd that they only talked to the children about being "inappropriate" rather than dealing with exactly what happened here - enough parents talking about Assassinate Obama (two words 7 year olds aren't going to automatically connect) that kids on the bus were chanting it.

I have no idea what you mean about brownshirts on the Left. But this incident wasn't organized by anyone. It's just the evidence of rancid right wing hatred, being revealed from the mouths of babes.

Posted by: Leah at November 15, 2008 08:31 PM

Yes, because sending envelopes of powder to churches is NON-rancid Leftwing hate, eh? Also going after small private donors to the pro-Prop 8 campaign and harassing them and threatening them is a function of NON-rancid Leftwing hate?

Posted by: Darleen at November 15, 2008 08:40 PM

I guess you missed how I condemned the teacher who mocked the soldier's child. And you're missing the point here as well - no surprise there.

This isn't about organized political fringe groups. This is about the hatred that exists in your normal, everyday,average looking right wing home. The things they say in private. The things their children hear and innocently expose for the world to see. That's what makes this incident so poignant. These children's parents aren't freaks or political activists. They are just average Americans, filled with average rightwing violence and hatred, and passing it on to their young.

If I was the father that exposed this, I'd think long and hard about raising my kids in a different place.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 03:50 AM

Oh, Darleen, you are so ignorant in your sad attempts to play the victim. Your brownshirt comment is pure projection.

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=978

After Ashley Todd you should probably just keep your mouth shut about this kind of thing.

Posted by: Josh at November 16, 2008 07:18 AM

And the Gayhad in California continues,

Ironically most if not all of the gays are carrying signs that say stuff about stopping hate.

Fu**ing hypocrites and their “excuses” for their hate.

I would have voted for gay marriage, if they would call it gay marriage, but after the last round of gayhad, I will never reward those hypocrites for their bullshit behavior.

Next perhaps they will explain how their behavior is not a choice, its how they was born.

P.S.
I am tried of living a lie, I must explain to the world that I am a straight man.

Posted by: ML at November 16, 2008 08:39 AM

Next perhaps they will explain how their behavior is not a choice, its how they was born.

I think you can explain it yourself. Just explain how and when you "decided" to be straight.

LOL! Ashley Todd! The most dysfunctional brownshirt in US history. She's straight out of a Cohen Brothers movie. A backwards B! When she could have just saved herself the humiliation if she'd only thought to carve an O in her face instead! LOL.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 08:49 AM

Josh

Did you see me cite Todd anywhere on this site? Maybe you failed to see the numerous non-left writers who were immediately suspicious and put on the 48 hour rule.

So, what about Diantha Harris? THAT wasn't a hoax.

Now, why should I shut up when thugs are combing over donation lists then harassing and physically intimidating private citizens who did nothing more than support Prop 8? Why should I shut up when someone(s) in the anti-8 camp sent envelopes of powder to LDS churches?

The SSM advocates LOST this round in trying to change a public institution ... it has no effect on private same-sex relations, domestic partnership still exists, most companies extend benefits to registered domestic partners.

SSM has nothing to do with "gay rights". Either society can define the parameters of public institutions or it cannot.

I know you, as a Leftist, wish to get rid of that line between public and private, but don't try that crap here.

Posted by: Darleen at November 16, 2008 08:51 AM

Todd was a disturbed Paulian.

and whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" is irrelevant to a discussion of the public institution of marriage.

Note that never in marriage statutes is either orientation nor "love" a requirement. Just number, sex and age.

Posted by: Darleen at November 16, 2008 08:54 AM

How is the "choice" issue not relevant to a discussion of public institutions. If you have a social right - the right to marry - and you deny it to certain human beings on the basis of a condition they have no choice over, then that is an entirely different question than denying it to people on the basis of choice. By that logic, a plurality of citizens can decide to withhold marriage from any type of person they deem unworthy - maybe they can forbid retarded people from marrying, or handicapped or mentally ill people. Why not? None of those things are choices either.

To say orientation is not a requirement, but that sex must be defined as male/female is a canard. You're saying, a man and woman may marry, even if it's for some ulterior motive like financial expedience...but two men or two women who are devoted to one another may not. Because...why?

I love that government should not be responsible for things like public education, but they should be able to deny basic social rights to certain individuals on the basis of an innate natural condition. It's such a skewed, backassward world view.

P.S....Darleen, go back and read your own blog. No one defended Diantha Harris. Give it up. I know you expected the leftcultistobamazombies to all think it's awesome when a teacher politically bullies a little child...but sorry to disappoint. She sucked and everyone said so.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 09:56 AM

Leah

I was doing a play on words, the behavior I am speaking about is not of the sexual nature.
Its that other behavior that I find appalling, anti-American, adolescent and terrorist in nature, but its also a view of their values or extreme lack there of that people should take notice of.

With regard to choices of the sexual kind or any other kind for that matter, desire does not nullify actions.

But that is exactly what homosexuals claim, they desire it and thus it nullifies their actions (choices). When in reality they first had the sexual desire, then they acted upon that out of their own free will, which is a choice.

Does a murderer have a choice?
Does a rapist have a choice?
Does a drunkard have a choice?
Does a thief have a choice?
Does a straight man have a choice?

All had a desire that had to be acted upon, the desire itself causes nothing without action (choices).

Posted by: ML at November 16, 2008 10:07 AM

Most confusing, ML. Are you comparing gays to murderers? But then you ask if straight men have a choice. I don't get it.

Yes, gay people act on sexual desire as a choice...errr....the exact same way that straight people do. I don't see what Constitutional right there is for some people to decide which rights other people can have...just because they think gay sex is icky. You're segregating citizens into straights - who get to choose whether or not gays should marry - and gays - who are apparently second class beings who are at our mercy. It's not only fundamentally unConstitutional, it's immoral.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 10:13 AM

Leah

Explain to me that if the law cannot, in your opinion, define the public institution of marriage to one man/one woman, (sex and number) why should it be allowed to restrict it to number?

Why are you for denying the "right" of polygamists?

Either the law can define the public institution or it cannot. Either the US military can define by age and physical agility entrance into its institution or it cannot.

Either/or, Leah. Make your choice then logically support it, instead of bleeting "how can you deny someone who wants to marry the person THEY LOVE??" That is a false argument because the love is not a requirement of marriage. Otherwise, why deny marriage between a brother and sister? Or one man and 3 women? All consenting adults, so why do you hate them so, eh?

Posted by: Darleen at November 16, 2008 10:34 AM

I have logically supported it. The US military does not have arbitrary requirements. Age and health are necessary qualities for the jobs to be done. That is logically irrelevant to this argument.

The polygamy argument is a total strawman. Polygamy, quite obviously, IS a choice. We are not talking about permutations of legal sexual union -we are just talking about legal sexual union. If marriage can be denied on the basis of sexual orientation (which is what we're talking about, so let's not play semantic games), then why can't it be denied based on racial orientation? As it once was - of course interracial marriage was once illegal. Our courts decided that one group did not have the right to decide who got to participate in a universal social right, based on the race of the ONE unrelated person they wished to marry. There is absolutely no difference here. If you had asked the voters in Alabama to vote for a Constitutional amendment forbidding interracial marriage, you know damn well it would have passed.

So explain the difference to me. Logically, of course.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 10:48 AM

Leah

No I am not comparing gays to murderers or rapist or drunkards or straights, please learn how to read.

I am comparing “desires” and “actions” to dispel the “I don’t have a choice myth” that you desperately parlay.

Marriage is not a “right” it requires a license from the state and is regulated by the state and for the future of the state. Its like a drivers license, not everyone is entitled.

The cornerstone of marriage has always been between a man and a woman which is derived from Judeo-Christian values. Sex outside of marriage was considered a sin or sex with someone other then your spouse was and is still considered a sin.

If that basis is removed then what is the new basis based upon?
And then what stops marriage from being between a brother and sister or a son and mother or a daughter and father or a man and many women or a woman and many men?
On what basis could we then say that is not right and is thus denied, is it just because?

I am against redefining what traditional marriage is, I would have supported a gay civil union or even gay marriage, just not the redefining of traditional marriage.

I do not want any churches forced to marry gays because they also marry straights and denying gays would be discrimination, its just a way to force gay values upon the rest of America.

Of course after seeing the gayhad lately, I will know longer support even a gay civil union bill, when they can grow-up and act like adults then perhaps they can receive adult things.

What gays are really trying to do is justify their gayness, they are tired of some Americans not approving of their choices and they believe that doing this will cause them to be accepted like straight couples. It will not.

Posted by: ML at November 16, 2008 11:24 AM

This is so simple it's silly. Marriage is simply defined as the legal union of TWO PEOPLE who do not share an immediate family connection. Ta da! All done.

Churches define marriage any way they want. They would never be required to redefine anything. Ta da! All done.

I love that ML, expressing a very common viewpoint, falls into the category of people who - by virtue of their membership in the majority heterosexual community - get to decide who will be entitled to what legal rights. It's NO different than when white people assumed it was their right to decide what rights black people are entitled to.

Marriage is pretty darn close to a right - it falls pretty clearly under the "pursuit of happiness" umbrella. It is natural that people will want to form monogamous legal unions. Of two people. Who aren't family. There is no basis to further define the two people - not by age or race or mental capacity or health or sexual orientation. The whole thing is completely intuitive.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 11:33 AM

And here you can hear the voice of ignorance and bigotry.

A - they don't get a choice, any more than we had a choice to be straight.

B- No one needs to approve of them being the way they were born. They don't need your approval, any more than blue eyed people need your approval of blue eyes.

C - They are "really trying" to have legal sexual union the same as any other lawabiding, tax paying American citizen, nothing more or less.

And D - as for 'being accepted like straight couples", speak for your own bigoted self when you say that won't happen. The generation that is coming up is going to shake their heads about this as much as we do when we remember how bigots of the prior generation thought they had the right to deny marriage rights on the basis of race.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 11:37 AM

Skin color is not a choice being gay is

just ask the African Americans here in California that voted against gay marriage by a 2-1 margin.

Posted by: ML at November 16, 2008 12:42 PM

Skin color is not a choice being gay is

Which brings us back to the burning question - when and how did you "choose" to be straight? If sexual orientation is a choice, like registering for one political party or another, then there has to be some point in time when each of us makes that choice. When did you choose?

Or did you just always "know" you were straight...did it just happen naturally that you became aware of sexual attraction to the opposite sex, without you having any control or choice in the matter? In other words...you were made that way. Choice played no part whatsoever in any of it.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 01:33 PM

Marriage is simply defined as the legal union of TWO PEOPLE who do not share an immediate family connection.

No, it is defined by age, sex and number. You have unilaterally decided that defining the sex is an unacceptable abrogation of a "right". So why shouldn't someone call YOU a "bigot" and "hater" because they have decided that defining the number of participants in a marriage is an unacceptable abrogation of their "right"?

and stop with the "bigoted" stuff because there is already several cases and plenty of quotes that demonstrate that SSM is a way for "gay rights" advocates to have churches stripped of their tax status and people lose business licences/professional licenses or charged with "hate" crimes for expressing the opinion that homosexual behavior is a "sin."

Posted by: Darleen at November 16, 2008 01:40 PM

BTW Leah

Sexual orientation is not either/or, but runs along a continuum. And even though one might be able to point to a spot and say "that is my orientation", expressed behavior does not necessarily follow.

Circumstance frequently finds people acting outside their basic orientation ... ie there is a lot of homosexual behavior in prison by straights. There have also been a lot of gays who pass for years as a functioning straight, so great is their desire for children.

Circumstance can also be societal. In ancient Greek and Roman societies there was a great deal of homosexual behavior and pedastry was encouraged as correct and desirable behavior for male citizens. Yet no one seriously posits that the percentage of gay/straight orientation was radically different from today. And even as that was celebrated behavior in those societies, legal marriage was restricted to man/woman. Now such contracts were private - the public institution didn't exist - but the state had the power to settle any disputes of lineage/inheritance/property where it concerned marriage.

What Judeo-Christian morality did, by channeling male sexuality into a monogamous heterosexual paradigm is actually raise the status of women - from vessels of family line to partner.

It would behoove you to study some history, Leah.

Posted by: Darleen at November 16, 2008 02:42 PM

Leah

Your questions are irrelevant you are only speaking about “desire” and pretending it nullifies choice to which I have already answered.

Posted by: ML at November 16, 2008 03:30 PM

Leah

What most people fail to realize is this is about the redefinition of terms, its not about bigotry or hatred.

Church people or any other people are not looking to deny gays any privileges I mean almost “rights”.

A same sex marriage or civil union bill would pass if churches are allowed to discriminate and not have to preform same sex marriage if they do not want too.

Posted by: ML at November 16, 2008 03:58 PM

No, it is defined by age, sex and number.

And until 1967 it was also defined by RACE in many US States until that was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the Equal Protection clause. Historically, it was defined by RACE at one time or another by almost every state in the Union.

I don't particularly care about churches being able to protect their bigotry and their institutionalization of a judgment CHRIST never passed on anyone, but if they need special legal protections to continue their rights to hate their fellow man, then so be it. Give them whatever legal protections they need, just stop discriminating against good Americans in the name of Christ.

And thanks for your silly "history" lesson, Darleen. Marriage has had many forms throughout history. It was a business instrument and a vehicle for human reproduction. That is no longer our society's interpretation of its purpose - although both those considerations still exist.

And spare me your "Judeo Christian morality" please. That phrase is fast on its way to becoming an oxymoron, as situations like this well demonstrate.

Posted by: Leah at November 16, 2008 07:31 PM

Oh looky at Leah the bigot! She's teh hatey one because she refuses to allow a man who LOVES two women to marry!!

Look you silly bint, RACE is a biological myth. Melanin level is no more significant than eye color.

A "black" man is no different than a "white" man.

There are significant differences between the sexes.

And if you wish to reject the historical roots of this country (Judeo-Christian) then MOVE the fuck out.

Posted by: Darleen at November 16, 2008 09:52 PM

BTW Leah

Children deserve first crack at a mother and father. Why do you want to deny them that? Why do you charge the ideal of one man/one woman marriage as "bigotry"?

What issues have you so wrapped in hatred?

Posted by: Darleen at November 16, 2008 09:54 PM

Darleen, if you actually practiced law you'd realize how weak slippery slope arguments are, and you'd be embarrassed to use that incredibly weak polygamy bugbear as a pretext for your bigotry. It's a pretty hilarious irony that you're pulling out the polygamy canard in a post about the LDS church. You don't think too hard about what you write, do you?

And if you studied your constitutional history you'd also realize that Madison and the framers made an explicit choice to omit any reference to Judaism or Christianity.

And if you'd ever read the Bible you'd realize that the Judeo-Christian tradition you claim to defend was rife with polygamy. You don't know anything about religious history, which makes your asinine lectures all the more risible.

You don't know much about either law or religion, yet you want to use the former to impose your interpretation of the latter. You have a lot more in common with Islamofascists than you realize.

Posted by: Josh at November 16, 2008 10:46 PM

That is comical indeed.

A more accurate view of Biblical history would show the practice of polygamy more in the Judaism part not so much in the Christian part.

From that thought process one would conclude that Washington DC does not have a law making the selling of drugs a crime.

People not following a standard does not nullify the standard.

Posted by: ML at November 17, 2008 02:48 AM

She's insane, Josh. I've stated outright the ways polygamy is a non issue. She keeps using it. It's not that she doesn't realize that argument was destroyed. It's just she doesn't know how to think for herself, and that's one of the anti-gay marriage arguments she's been programmed with.

Then she uses her tried and true "race is a biological myth"(which has to be one of her more asinine core principles) ... neglecting to address the fact that bigots of her ilk from a previous generation used EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS to deny marriage rights to interracial couples for hundreds of years that she's trying to use against gays. ... Think of the children! We can't have mixed children roaming the streets, destroying the fabric of our society!

And when all else fails, we get the "children deserve a mother and father" nonsense. From the person who just said repeatedly that LOVE is not a factor in the definition of marriage....Now suddenly she's wandered off the Logic Farm to make this all about her definiition of childhood psychology!

And if you wish to reject the historical roots of this country (Judeo-Christian) then MOVE the fuck out.

To which I respectfully say, read your fucking Constitution. Your entire line of thinking is a disgrace to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. They knew full well there would be religious fanatics like you throughout history trying to impose their narrow minded bigotries on the rest of us, and they wanted to make damn sure you lot were kept in your crazy boxes.

While you're at it, read some of the Gospel, you horrid woman. The beautiful Christ never spoke a word about homosexuals. He would be horrified at the gun loving, war loving haters who now abuse other people in his name.

Posted by: Leah at November 17, 2008 03:04 AM

Matthew 19:4-6 ASV
(4) And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
(5) and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?
(6) So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Marriage as defined by Christ.

Posted by: ML at November 17, 2008 03:44 AM

Nice cherrypicking, ML, but try putting it into a little context. The passage is preceded by this:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

So this answer from Christ is prohibiting DIVORCE. All you Judeo Christian warriors out there need to be trying to amend your state Constitutions to prohibit DIVORCE. He wasn't addressing the issue of homosexuality. The question was unrelated to that.

Got that, Darleen? Christ was proclaiming DIVORCE to be sinful and against the will of God. Not homosexuality. Let's at least try to be intellectually honest.

Of course, it's not convenient to be honest...because so many of you Judeo Christian warriors are ....um, DIVORCED! LOL.

Posted by: Leah at November 17, 2008 04:00 AM

Leah

Of course the question was about divorce but the answer given by Jesus who is quoting Moses covers more than just divorce, it’s the very definition of marriage which excludes polygamy and divorce.

I thought you have claimed to have read the gospels?
Guess that is not true, otherwise you would know what Christ said about divorce and everything else.

I do get a kick out of watching you obfuscate and talk about cherry picking and being out of context, you take the gold medal in both.

Posted by: ML at November 17, 2008 04:26 AM

ML, if I'm obfuscating, please explain why - if Christ spoke explicitly against divorce - why are there so many divorced Judeo Christians running around passing judgment on homosexuals...who Christ never spoke about, not once?

And why don't they fix this divorce problem - work with Christian fervor to impose their religion on our legal system - before they address the gay issue? Why aren't they running ballot initiatives to make divorce unconstitutional?

Maybe because they'd rather sit on their high horses and hate on people who are different than themselves, while turning a blind eye to what outrageous hypocrites they are themselves?

Posted by: Leah at November 17, 2008 04:36 AM

Its called a sinful nature, you know the story about Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve and the apple tree.

I don’t see any Christians running around passing judgment or hating gays,
I do see gays hating anyone they perceive as voting against the redefinition of marriage that was voted upon years ago and then over turned by a few activist judges.

Maybe because they'd rather sit on their high horses and hate on people who are different than themselves

That’s just a bit unhinged and hard to take seriously.

Posted by: ML at November 17, 2008 05:06 AM

Yeah, Leah. Darleen has a couple talking points that she mindlessly repeats. That one about race is one of them.

That passage has nothing to do with polygamy, ML. There's nothing at all to suggest that a man couldn't be one flesh with his first wife, marry another and become one flesh with her. You should have read a little further, to Matthew 22:23 where Jesus tacitly endorses polygamy. The ignorance of many Christians about their own religion is truly stunning.

No Christians running around passing judgment on gays? What country do you live in? Ever heard of Fred Phelps?

Posted by: Josh at November 17, 2008 07:33 AM

Fred Phelps does not belong to any church but his own wacked out church that has as members his family - that is it. He is not representative of Christians at all.
I have chased his group off of my property when they were protesting at a wake of one of my son's highschool classmates, killed in Iraq.

Josh,

you are very odd. Don't know what your problem is.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at November 17, 2008 08:10 AM

Fred Phelps is a Democrat, by the way:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=184

You own him, libs.

Posted by: Nice Deb at November 17, 2008 08:50 AM

Also, take a gander at all of these examples of insane left-wing rage and destruction:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/crush-the-obamedia-narrative-look-whos-gripped-by-insane-rage/

and then come back try to cite the one or two paltry examples of anti-Obama displays as something in any way comparable.

Please.

Posted by: Nice Deb at November 17, 2008 08:57 AM

Darleen,

Why argue with these people? Anyone who doesn't think that crazies are all over (but more so on the left, sorry, that is just the way it is) are only fooling themselves.

Hanging Palin from a noose in California. Saying McCain should be in a wheelchair (Ludicris in his Obama love song). Wearing "Palin is a c**t" T-shirts. Running up to our Sec. of State with "blood" on your hands like Code Pink did. All of this is a part of hate. But in those cases they aren't just kids saying stupid things, it's ADULTS on the left showering this country with hate.

People who don't understand it are living in a bubble and no amount of arguing with them will change their view.

Posted by: Kathleen at November 17, 2008 09:12 AM

Josh

I had know expectations that you could comprehend it.

If anything you are completely wrong all the time which is great consistency.

Posted by: ML at November 17, 2008 10:19 AM

Little Hussein disagrees with you, Kathy. He thinks Obama is a terrorist and should be killed.

Beth, I know what your problem is. You aren't very smart.

Posted by: Josh at November 17, 2008 05:20 PM

Wasn't the whole point of this post to point out that some of the very people who are demanding tolerance and acceptance were not so tolerant when they didn't get their way? When the majority of voters decided at the ballot box on the prop, that wasn't good enough. So some of them threw little temper tantrums to prove just how tolerant they really were. They invaded sanctuaries with their shouting and demonstrating. And now it appears they have made attempts to destroy property.

Here is a way I would frame the tolerance comparison - had Prop 8 favored homosexual marriages, do you think that all the Judeo-Christians across the country would have gone to gay bars and painted graffiti? Or started wearing G-d hates f*gs t-shirts? Or staged heterosexual make-out sessions in front of Congress to prove how it should be accepted? Of course not, even though there are many Christians who would battle the issue in the court of public opinion and even the legal system.

There is indeed a lack of tolerance on both sides, mostly by extremists. But to declare this the norm for most of society is utter stupidity.

So Josh, your argument about Fred Phelps being representative of any sect of Christianity is weak and clearly ignorant of the obvious. I know of no church group - large or small - that would claim Westboro and/or support their twisted endeavors.

So before you accuse Beth of not being very smart, perhaps you should find that scripture that refers to taking the log out of your own eye before you worry about her little speck.

News flash to those who think it is their job to crucify every person who claims to be a Christian when they commit a sin or sins: Christ already made the ultimate sacrifice to pay for each one of them. Acceptance of that gift and repentance is strictly between that person and G-d.

Posted by: Conservative Belle at November 18, 2008 11:37 AM

Darleen's Place

Politics, parenting and other prattlings.

November 15, 2008

Mmm...smells like...

Comments