mmmcheezy wrote:I have the hugest crush on Rachel Maddow!

mmmcheezy wrote:I have the hugest crush on Rachel Maddow!

natselrox wrote:

crank wrote:

DoctorE wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujoLI8Ej31U[/youtube]

I love it at the end with the Lars Larson caller saying they won't be happy until 'they impose gay marriage on all of us'. Damn, that woman has found us out, we're planning on making every straight couple divorce and the wives marry each other and same for the husbands.

Then she says it will get overturned, that time would set it all right. You can hear that bit of hysteria creeping in, that desperation, they know they are losing, she was whistling past the graveyard, time is winning out as the old fuckers die off and the youths accept it. Their ideology is a putrid rotting mass of medieval thinking that will soon be almost totally replaced.

To Crank.

And to Rachel!

natselrox wrote:

mmmcheezy wrote:I have the hugest crush on Rachel Maddow!

Move over, girl. She's all mine. :batsy: (But she's gay. So you have better chances.)

hackenslash wrote:

Barack Obama wrote:...With the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever. Whatever we once were we're no longer a Christian nation - at least not just. We are also a Jewish nation and a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers. And even if we did have only christians in our midst - if we expelled every non-christian from the United States of America - whose christianity would we teach in the schools? Would it be James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that slavery's OK, and the eating of shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith, or should we just stick to the sermon on the mount, a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own defence department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles now. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

Which brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values. What do I mean by this? It requires that the proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I can't simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke god's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now, this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the bible, as many evangelicals do but, in a pluralistic society, we have no choice.

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves compromise - the art of what's possible. And, at some fundamental level, religion doesn't allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. The god's spoken and followers are expected to live up to god's edicts, regardless of the consequences. Now, to base one's own life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy on such commitments would be a dangerous thing, and if you doubt that, let me just give you an example:

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by god to offer up his only son. Without argument he takes Isaac up to the mountaintop and he binds him to the altar, raises his knife and prepares to act as god commanded. Now, we know things work out. God sends down angels to intercede at the very last minute. Abraham passes god's test of devotion. But it's fair to say that if any of us, leaving this church, saw Abraham on the roof of a building raising his knife we would, at the very least, call the police, and expect the department of children and family services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we don't hear what Abraham hears. We don't see what Abraham sees. And so the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see and that we all hear. The common laws of basic reason.

So, we have some work to do here, but I am hopeful that we can bridge the gap that exists and overcome the prejudices that all of us to one degree or another bring to this debate, and I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may be or may not be people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide because in the end that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.

That jibes perfectly with his stance on this. He does oppose gay marriage, but he recognises that he can't come up with a universal reason for presenting it as law, that is amenable to reason.

Tyrannical wrote:Bypass the will of the people and advance your agenda through judicial fiat. How typical of the Left.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:

Tyrannical wrote:Bypass the will of the people and advance your agenda through judicial fiat. How typical of the Left.

I know. It's horrible when things aren't decided by the will of the people. I'm still disugusted that Congress proposed that ammendment that allowed those pesky blacks to vote.

Tyrannical wrote:Bypass the will of the people and advance your agenda through judicial fiat. How typical of The Left Constitution of The United States of America.

Tyrannical wrote:Bypass the will of the people and advance your agenda through judicial fiat. How typical of the Left.

Tyrannical wrote:Bypass the will of the people...

hackenslash wrote:

Barack Obama wrote:...snip

That jibes perfectly with his stance on this. He does oppose gay marriage, but he recognises that he can't come up with a universal reason for presenting it as law, that is amenable to reason.

Tyrannical wrote:Bypass the will of the people and advance your agenda through judicial fiat. How typical of the Left.

natselrox wrote:@Cheezy: I feel like floating in air when she starts to speak... Aaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Weaver wrote:

Tyrannical wrote:Bypass the will of the people and advance your agenda through judicial fiat. How typical of the Left.

Should we let majority votes decide whether or not we can own guns?

mmmcheezy wrote:I have the hugest crush on Rachel Maddow!

SPMaximus wrote:
Where is his adams apple?

*ducks and covers*

Strontium Dog wrote:

mmmcheezy wrote:I have the hugest crush on Rachel Maddow!

Well if you like her so much, why don't you marry her

Weaver wrote:

Tyrannical wrote:Bypass the will of the people and advance your agenda through judicial fiat. How typical of the Left.

Should we let majority votes decide whether or not we can own guns?

Some rights are too important to be left up to the "will of the people" - they must be protected by judges who know how to read and apply the protections enshrined in the Constitution.