CDIH

Full Version: Pollute a river and be saved! - you fucking heathens!!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
i was sure that you were a little bit of A, conceded specimine.
What have you heard.
Here's a good article on the christian rigt from the latest issue of Rolling Stone. It's long, but worth it.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politic....12.1040">http://www.rollingstone.com/politic....12.1040</a><!-- m -->

Quote:Reverend Doomsday

According to Tim LaHaye, the Apocalypse is now

By Robert Dreyfuss


It might seem unlikely that the commander in chief would take his marching orders directly from on high -- unless you understand the views of the Rev. Timothy LaHaye, one of the most influential leaders of the Christian right, and a man who played a quiet but pivotal role in putting George W. Bush in the White House. If you know LaHaye at all, it's for his series of best-selling apocalyptic novels. You've seen the Left Behind novels everywhere: aboard airplanes, at the beach, in massive displays at Wal-Mart. In the nine years since the publication of the first novel, the series has sold 60 million copies. Next to the authors of the Bible itself, who didn't get royalties, LaHaye is Christianity's biggest publishing success ever.
LaHaye is a strict biblical reconstructionist -- taking the Good Book as God's literal truth. His books depict a fantastical, fictional version of what he and his followers think is in store for the human race. Not allegorically, not poetically, but word-for-word true. If the Bible (Revelation 9:1-11) says that billions of six-inch-long scorpionlike monsters with the heads of men, "flowing hair like that of women" and the teeth of lions, wearing crowns and helmets, will swarm across the globe gnawing on unbelievers -- well, that's exactly what LaHaye says will happen. And soon.

LaHaye's books, and his quirky interpretation of biblical prophecy that stands behind them, revolve intensely around Iraq, because LaHaye believes that Armageddon will be unleashed from the Antichrist's headquarters in Babylon. Since the 1970s -- when Iraq began a reconstruction project on the ruins of the ancient city, near Baghdad -- LaHaye has said that Saddam Hussein is carrying out Satan's mission. In 1999, LaHaye wrote that Saddam is "a servant of Satan," possessed by a demon, and that he could be "the forerunner of the Antichrist." Ultimately, says LaHaye, before Christ can return to Earth, Iraq, led by the Antichrist, must engage in a world-shaking showdown with Israel.

Of course, there have always been preachers on the margins of the religious right thundering on about the end of the world. But it's doubtful that such a fanatic believer has ever had such a direct pipeline to the White House. Five years ago, as Bush was gearing up his presidential campaign, he made a little-noticed pilgrimage to a gathering of right-wing Christian activists, under the auspices of a group called the Committee to Restore American Values. The committee, which assembled about two dozen of the nation's leading fundamentalist firebrands, was chaired by LaHaye. At the time, many evangelicals viewed Bush skeptically: Despite his born-again views, when he was governor of Texas, Bush had alienated many of the state's Christian-right activists for failing to pursue a sufficiently evangelical agenda. On the national level, he was an unknown quantity.

That day, behind closed doors, LaHaye grilled the candidate. He presented Bush with a lengthy questionnaire on issues such as abortion, judicial appointments, education, religious freedom, gun control and the Middle East. What the preacher thought of Bush's answers would largely determine whether the Christian right would throw its muscle behind the Texas governor.

Mostly preferring to stay out of the limelight, LaHaye has been the moving force behind several key organizations on the Christian right that have redrawn the boundaries of American politics. In 1979, at a time when ministers confined themselves to their churches, he prodded the Rev. Jerry Falwell to found the Moral Majority, a group that launched today's cultural wars against feminism, homosexuality, abortion, drugs and pornography. In 1981, he helped found the little-known but vastly powerful Council for National Policy, a secretive group of wealthy donors that has funneled billions of dollars to right-wing Christian activists. "No one individual has played a more central organizing role in the religious right than Tim LaHaye," says Larry Eskridge of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, calling him "the most influential American evangelical of the last twenty-five years."

When the meeting with Bush ended, LaHaye gave the candidate his seal of approval. For Bush, it was a major breakthrough, clearing the decks for hundreds of leaders of the Christian right, from TV preachers and talk-show hosts to Bible Belt pulpit pounders, to support the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2000. "Bush went into the meeting not totally acceptable," recalls Paul Weyrich, the grandfather of the religious right, who has known LaHaye for thirty years. "He went out not only acceptable but enthusiastically supported."

More than half a century ago, as a student at Bob Jones University, Timothy LaHaye began his public ministry as a pastor at a small church in a tiny town in South Carolina, not far from the campus. He'd grown up dirt-poor in Detroit, peddling newspapers during the Depression. His father had died when he was ten. In 1944, after finishing night school and attending a Bible institute in Chicago, he enlisted in the Air Force at seventeen and served in Europe as a machine gunner aboard a bomber.

At Bob Jones, the Christian-fundamentalist college famous for being anti-Catholic, LaHaye met and fell in love with a fellow Detroiter, Beverly Jean Ratcliffe. The two followed the school's strict "no touching" dating rule, which required lovers to stay six inches apart; a year later, they were married. In 1958, they moved to San Diego. At that time, Southern California was a hotbed of former McCarthyites, neo-Nazis and the John Birch Society, a right-wing group so paranoid and extremist that it denounced President Eisenhower as a communist. They all muttered darkly about secret societies, the evil United Nations and one-world-government conspiracies, views that LaHaye would soon make his own. For years, LaHaye spoke at Birch Society training sessions, getting to know many of its leaders and building his ministry in the part of California that, twenty years later, would be the launching pad for Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential bid.

In the next dozen years, LaHaye built a veritable Christian empire: three churches, twelve elementary and secondary schools, a Christian college, an anti-evolution think tank called the Institute for Creation Research, the Pre-Trib Research Center to promote his views on how the world will end, and Family Life Seminars, a lecture program on sex, marriage and Christian living -- all while writing dozens of books. The Act of Marriage, a best seller published in 1976 and co-authored with Beverly LaHaye, is an explicit Christian sex manual, condemning "petting," abortion and homosexuality.

In the early 1970s, alarmed by laws and court decisions on abortion and school prayer, LaHaye began organizing the churches of Southern California for political action. In 1979, he established Californians for Biblical Morality, a church-based political group that lobbied in Sacramento. In many ways, it was the genesis of the Christian right. "I met Tim and Beverly about thirty years ago, while I was on a preaching tour of Southern California," says Falwell. "I found out that he'd done something no conservative minister had ever done before: He'd organized hundreds of churches into a political bloc. At the time, I'd never heard of mixing religion and politics." LaHaye persuaded Falwell to consider doing the same. "More than any other person, Tim LaHaye challenged me to begin thinking through my involvement [in politics]," recalls Falwell. Paul Weyrich confirms Falwell's account. "He encouraged Falwell to get involved in the political process," says Weyrich, who heads the conservative Free Congress Foundation. "But Falwell was reluctant to do so, because he thought it would ruin his ministry."

In 1979, LaHaye and Falwell established the Moral Majority, with Falwell as its leader and LaHaye as a guiding member of its three-person board of directors. The Moral Majority drafted tens of millions of conservative Christian voters into the culture wars, swelling the ranks of the Republican Party and serving as Reagan's core constituency. But while Falwell was catapulted to national prominence, LaHaye stayed in the background. "He flew under the radar, very behind-the-scenes, and didn't seek publicity," says Falwell.

Two years later, LaHaye founded the Council for National Policy. An elite group with only a few hundred members, the CNP meets three times a year, usually at posh hotels or resorts, going to extraordinary lengths to keep its agenda and membership secret. According to members willing to speak about it, however, the council unites right-wing billionaires with scores of conservative Christian activists and politicians, and these encounters have spawned countless campaigns and organizations. Its ranks have included prominent politicians such as Ed Meese and John Ashcroft, and among its members can be found an editor of the conservative National Review, leading televangelists such as Pat Robertson and Falwell, representatives of the Heritage Foundation and other key think tanks, and activists including Grover Norquist and Oliver North.

Supported by moneybags such as Texas oilman Nelson Bunker Hunt, Amway founder Richard DeVos and beer magnate Joseph Coors, some in the group helped fund Oliver North's secret campaign to aid the Nicaraguan contra rebels during the 1980s and financed the right-wing jihad against President Clinton in the 1990s. (The impeachment effort was reportedly conceived at a June 1997 meeting of the CNP in Montreal.) In addition, the group has funded an army of Christian organizers. Falwell says that in the past two decades, he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for his ventures, including Liberty University, through the CNP. "My guess is that literally billions of dollars have been utilized through the Council for National Policy that would not otherwise have been available," he says. Bush attended a CNP meeting at the start of his presidential campaign in 1999 to seek support, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took part in the group's gathering last April in Washington, D.C.

"Without [LaHaye], what we call the religious right would not have developed the way it did, and as quickly as it did," says Weyrich.

Besides the Moral Majority and the CNP, LaHaye established a third organization, Concerned Women for America, run by his wife, Beverly, which today claims 600,000 members. From the late 1970s into the 1980s, CWA, in coordination with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, led a successful battle against the adoption of the feminist-inspired Equal Rights Amendment, and it thundered against gay rights, sex education in schools and abortion. While Schlafly organized the women in Republican clubs around the country, Bev LaHaye reached out to the women in churches, "the ones who were never involved in politics, who'd go to Bible-study groups," says Schlafly. "She reached a lot of people, particularly in the Christian churches, that I might not have been able to reach." Many of these women stayed involved, joining the ranks of religious-right activists.

By the mid-1980s, LaHaye was at the top of his game, powerful and well- connected, plugged into the Reagan administration and, through yet another of his groups, the American Coalition for Traditional Values, a pivotal factor in the 1984 election, registering Christian conservative voters through "pastor-representatives" in all 435 congressional districts. But he was also headed for a fall.

Lahaye's free-fall began in the mid-1980s, and by the end he'd almost been expelled from the political Garden of Eden. What set it into motion was his connection with the weird would-be messiah Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose Unification Church cult of "Moonies" was viewed by most Christians as laughably heretical. When Moon got entangled in legal controversy, LaHaye sprang to his defense, amid reports that he'd received substantial funding from the wealthy Moon. By the time LaHaye backed away, it was too late. His credibility was shot, and the American Coalition for Traditional Values soon folded.

Then it got worse. In 1988, LaHaye was bounced from the presidential campaign of former Rep. Jack Kemp when the media learned of LaHaye's anti-Catholic views (he considers Catholics to have strayed from biblical truth and has referred to popes as "Antichrists"). After that, he was deemed nearly radioactive in politics. When he showed up later that year for a campaign event at the elder George Bush's home, the vice president rushed to Doug Wead, his liaison to the religious right. "Tim LaHaye is here!" Wead recalls Bush saying in alarm. By the early 1990s, LaHaye had retreated to a small Baptist church in Rockville, Maryland, and the Moonie-owned Washington Times noted that he had "left the national stage."

Within a few years, however, LaHaye would ride Left Behind back to the top. As LaHaye tells the story, one day, about 1994, he was sitting on an airplane, watching a married pilot flirting with a flight attendant, and it hit him: What would befall the sinful pilot if the Rapture happened now? What if, as LaHaye believes the Bible foretells, God suddenly snatches up to heaven all of the believers in Jesus? And that is how Left Behind starts. Everywhere, hundreds of millions of people vanish, leaving the unbelievers behind, from insufficiently pious Christians to Muslims, Catholics, Jews and everyone else. What follows is the Tribulation, in which God visits unspeakable plagues on the Earth, amid a climactic worldwide battle waged by a band of new believers, called the Tribulation Force, against Satan and the Antichrist. Seas and rivers turn to blood, searing heat burns men alive, ugly boils erupt on the skin of the disfavored, 200 million ghostly, demonic warriors sweep across the planet exterminating one-third of the world's population -- well, you get the idea. And why does a merciful God visit such horrors on mankind? According to LaHaye, "God intends that the terrible plagues and judgments of the Tribulation might cause the people of the world to repent and turn to him."

Reviewers trashed the Left Behind books as "almost laughably tedious" and "unrelievedly vomitous badness," and prominent Christian leaders condemned them as "unscholarly" and a "perversion" of the Bible. But the series gradually blossomed in Christian bookstores, gaining readers by word-of-mouth. In 2001 alone, the books sold a staggering 15 million copies. The intent of the books is frankly evangelical. "Our hope is that some people will be persuaded," says Jerry Jenkins, who co-authored the series with LaHaye.

The success of Left Behind gave LaHaye an enormous boost, returning him to prominence and making him truly born again. "At meetings of the Council for National Policy now, Tim and Bev are treated like rock stars," says Grover Norquist, perhaps Washington's leading conservative activist. Last fall, LaHaye released the first book of a new series called Babylon Rising, which takes his apocalyptic notions even further. Striking while the brimstone is hot, LaHaye has already received a reported $42 million advance deal from Bantam Books for the Babylon books, built around a swashbuckling, Indiana Jones-style biblical archeologist in the Holy Land.

Now seventy-seven, lahaye is considered rather scowly, even by his friends. A thin man who dyes his hair black, he wears a battery-powered earpiece and favors clashing polyester suits. "He can come across as stern and unloving," says Jenkins, especially when he gets up on his soapbox. "Then people say he can be too severe."

He is certainly gloomy about Earth's future. "We have more reason to believe that ours may be the terminal generation than any generation since Jesus founded His church 2,000 years ago," LaHaye told Rolling Stone via e-mail from his home in Palm Springs, California, citing not only biblical prophecy but weapons of mass destruction, incurable diseases, pollution and overpopulation. Despite Bush's election, Republican control of Congress and the success of his own organizations, LaHaye says that things are getting worse, and that "liberal, anti-Christian secularists still control government, media, education and other important agencies of influence."

That's a succinct summation of the tangled, conspiratorial mind-set conveyed in his books. In Left Behind, the "bad guys" just happen to be the same ones whom LaHaye, the Christian right and their allies usually demonize: the United Nations, the Europeans, Russia, Iraq, Muslims, the media, liberals, freethinkers and "international bankers," all of whom team up with the Antichrist, who ends up heading the U.N. and moving its headquarters to Babylon, Iraq. The "good guys," of course, are Christian believers, Israel and a phalanx of 144,000 Jews who accept Jesus. Another heroic force in the series is the right-wing American militia movement, which, as a world war erupts, makes a last-ditch, ultimately futile stand against the forces of Satan and the Antichrist in the United States.

According to LaHaye, civilization is threatened by a worldwide conspiracy of secret societies and liberal groups intent on destroying "every vestige of Christianity." Among the participants in this conspiracy are the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, "the major TV networks, high-profile newspapers and newsmagazines," the U.S. State Department, major foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford), the United Nations, "the left wing of the Democratic Party," Harvard, Yale "and 2,000 other colleges and universities." All of this is assembled to "turn America into an amoral, humanist country, ripe for merger into a one-world socialist state."

LaHaye professes no knowledge of whether President Bush buys into his views. "I have seen nothing from this president that would indicate that he is influenced one way or the other by my prophesy teaching," he says. But for Bush, an emotional, evangelical president who has repeatedly described the struggle against Saddam as a conflict between good and evil, LaHaye's views resonate with his. And though it's not known whether Bush has read any of the Left Behind books, he is a regular consumer of writing by other evangelists. Just recently, according to Falwell, Bush called a well-known born-again author, Rick Warren, to say he and Laura Bush had loved reading his new book, The Purpose Driven Life. Asked whether Bush is in accord with the End Times views of LaHaye, Falwell says, "My guess is that his views would differ very little, but that's conjecture." Jenkins, LaHaye's co-author, says only, "Every Christian ought to be happy that we have someone in the White House who says he believes what we do."

But the idea that Bush, in going to war against Iraq, might have been moved not by politics but by an apocalyptic vision is terrifying to some. Last October, the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance wrote a formal letter to Bush, saying, in part, "Please assure the American people that you are not developing foreign policy on the basis of a fundamentalist biblical theology that requires cataclysm in Israel in order to guarantee the return of Christ." So far, he has not received an answer, and the White House didn't return calls from Rolling Stone asking whether the president has read Left Behind.

The final volume in the Left Behind series appears in the spring.

(January 28, 2004)
You get your political thinking from Rolling Stone?
nice retort.
In what part of Revelations does it detail when oil prices will go down?
Wait. I thought we were there for oil?
Quote:We should ban gay marraige.
Where does it stop? Should we allow polygomy and everything else?

Theres a fairly lengthy discussion on gay marriage on this board, it was one of the nominations for thread of the year last year. I made my feelings on the subject known there. In short, I think the "where does it stop" argument is ridiculous. It the party line for conservatives. The precise challenge for morally serious people is to make rational distinctions between what is arbitrary and what is essential in important social institutions. If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading. But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage—or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs

Quote:Do you think they're all just jesus freaks doing the voting?
I think not.

No, but I believe the far right had a big impact on swinging the election and was more mobilized and emblodened to vote. Unfortunately, it seems that the moderates that I believe are the true conscience of this country did not do their duty.

Quote:Roe V Wade will never be overturned.
But you can't group late term abortions in with Roe v Wade.
There HAS to be a limit.

I'm fine with that, but the far right christian agenda calls for way more than that.

Quote:The 10 commandments are representative of our penal system.
They were already there, it's the radical minority that wants them out.
It's freakin' statue.
You can't say Janet Jacksons nipple is petty and still proclaim an statue with words on it in a court house is offensive.

Keep your religious items out of my houses of goverment. The government should not be showing preference to one religion or another especially by sanctioning a statue of religious nature. The first commandment requires that no god other than Yahweh is to be worshipped. This is in open conflict with the "first freedom" in the U.S. and Canada -- religious freedom. The second commandment, interpreted literally, punishes a man's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and perhaps even great-great grandchildren if the man has sinned by serving other Gods. Spreading the responsibility for one person's sin onto innocent descendents was common in the ancient Middle East. However, most contemporary ethical systems -- both secular and religious -- hold a person responsible only for their own actions. Punishing innocent children widely considered a seriously immoral act. The fifth commandment requires that children honor their parents. Many would feel that it is unreasonable to expect a child to honor a parent who was a sexual molester, a physical abuser or was guilty of neglect. There are two problems associated with the tenth commandment:
It treats women as pieces of property It condones slavery. The terms "manservant" and "maidservant" in the King James Version of the Bible refer to male and female slaves. Equal treatment for men and women form an integral part of many religious groups' beliefs. Almost all North American religious groups reject the concept of owning another human being in a state of slavery.

Quote:Again, your take that Iraq is a religious war is completely unfounded because there are too many realistic ingredients that made it unavoidable.

you need to be more specific in your response as to why my take on Iraq is unfounded.
SERVED!!!
Quote:Theres a fairly lengthy discussion on gay marriage on this board, it was one of the nominations for thread of the year last year. I made my feelings on the subject known there. In short, I think the "where does it stop" argument is ridiculous. It the party line for conservatives. The precise challenge for morally serious people is to make rational distinctions between what is arbitrary and what is essential in important social institutions. If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading. But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage—or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs

I would never be so petty and ridiculous as to claim “people will end up marrying their dogs” and no, I will not make the argument that homosexuality or lesbianism is related to or comparable with child molestation. I am however using the “where does it end” argument when it comes to polygamy. What do you say to the wife who’s husband comes home to his family of three that he cannot support and says, “Hey honey, guess what. I got married, again”. Where does that leave the wife? She can’t divorce on the grounds of adultery because his other marriage is legal. What would this do to healthcare costs? How many families will be covered? Bottom line is this. We are a country that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. We will not discriminate against those who choose and alternative lifestyle, BUT, we will not change our laws to accommodate the you. We are a nation of toleration, not adaptation to anything and everything.


Quote:I'm fine with that, but the far right christian agenda calls for way more than that.
You’re talking far right. Not what’s in control of the White House and that’s not what mobilized the Republican vote this year. Sure, there were some morality issues but there were many, many more issues than that. One of which was the Democratic ticket containing a weakling cardboard prop who couldn’t take a stand on anything because he had to please too many bases. One of which was the extreme left cooks, the conspiracy theorists and all around Bush haters. He allowed them to control him and that’s the last thing we need in a time of war.

Quote:Keep your religious items out of my houses of goverment. The government should not be showing preference to one religion or another especially by sanctioning a statue of religious nature. The first commandment requires that no god other than Yahweh is to be worshipped. This is in open conflict with the "first freedom" in the U.S. and Canada -- religious freedom. The second commandment, interpreted literally, punishes a man's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and perhaps even great-great grandchildren if the man has sinned by serving other Gods. Spreading the responsibility for one person's sin onto innocent descendents was common in the ancient Middle East. However, most contemporary ethical systems -- both secular and religious -- hold a person responsible only for their own actions. Punishing innocent children widely considered a seriously immoral act. The fifth commandment requires that children honor their parents. Many would feel that it is unreasonable to expect a child to honor a parent who was a sexual molester, a physical abuser or was guilty of neglect. There are two problems associated with the tenth commandment:
It treats women as pieces of property It condones slavery. The terms "manservant" and "maidservant" in the King James Version of the Bible refer to male and female slaves. Equal treatment for men and women form an integral part of many religious groups' beliefs. Almost all North American religious groups reject the concept of owning another human being in a state of slavery.

No one is saying they need to be there for guidance. They’re there for symbolism. Judges and juries do not refer to the 10 commandments statue to help them make their decisions.
It’s just another exercise in extreme political correctness to throw a hissy fit over a statue.


Quote:you need to be more specific in your response as to why my take on Iraq is unfounded.

You say it’s a religious war, yet the only thing you back it up with is that Bush readily admits he’s a person of faith and some obscure 3rd hand quote printed by some sand nigger that doesn’t even speak English.
This war has to do with 9/11 and the results of complacency. It has to do with Saddam having 13 years and 17 U.N. Resolutions to comply (which we now don’t blame him for not doing given his false impression of protection due to the U.N. Oil For Food Scandal involving many of our allies)
Go back to the late 90’s and read some of the Clinton administrations statements on Iraq, you’ll find that they aren’t all that different then the statements made by the Bush administration. Oh, and spare me the no WMD argument. While I admit that’s a blow, it still doesn’t answer where they are.
Saddam was responsible for proving they were destroyed – he didn’t.
Every nation on earth with an intelligence agency said they knew Saddam had WMD’s. Including those countries who opposed the war. (France, Germany and Russia)
Hell, a few months back Putin even admitted Russian intelligence had information that Saddam was interested in helping to strike the U.S. after 9/11.

So yeah, I think calling it a religious war is intentionally leaving out a mountain of issues.
keyser wins
Arpikarhu Wrote:keyser wins
You sound like Iron Mikes towel boy.
oh snap, Sir O's gonna rip Hoon a new asshole!
dont get bitchy cause you cant accept losing.
Sure I can. I'm indifferent.
But you're hardly an objective source. So I take your opinion with a grain of salt.
Sort of like Sir O's links.
Quote:I would never be so petty and ridiculous as to claim “people will end up marrying their dogs” and no, I will not make the argument that homosexuality or lesbianism is related to or comparable with child molestation. I am however using the “where does it end” argument when it comes to polygamy. What do you say to the wife who’s husband comes home to his family of three that he cannot support and says, “Hey honey, guess what. I got married, again”. Where does that leave the wife? She can’t divorce on the grounds of adultery because his other marriage is legal. What would this do to healthcare costs? How many families will be covered? Bottom line is this. We are a country that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. We will not discriminate against those who choose and alternative lifestyle, BUT, we will not change our laws to accommodate the you. We are a nation of toleration, not adaptation to anything and everything.

"It's a slippery slope. If black men are allowed to vote, then eventually maybe women will be allowed to vote. And if you're going to allow them to vote, why not children, or dogs"
--Hoon, 1867

It's not a slippery slope. It's a bullshit claim by closeminded, bigoted, merely lazy "pro status quo" fools. You claim this clear line of marriage for two, previously unmarried adult, heterosexual, men and women, if moved will destroy the institution of marriage and corrupt the way things run. I say move the line, just a smidge to two adults. That's it. That's the only thing that changes. There is no difference between preventing women or blacks or jews the right to marriage because of how they were born. If jailed felons and retards can get married then certainly having gays get married isn't going to sully the pristine institution more than what already exists.

And the fact that the country DIDN'T define marriage as a man and a woman is the reason why all these gays are getting married. States, and now the federal government want to go and change the law to specifically exclude gays from getting married now that many state supreme courts (correctly) interpreted laws currently on the books. The country IS descriminating and IS adapting their laws SPECIFICALLY TO EXCLUDE AND DESCRIMINATE

Quote:No one is saying they need to be there for guidance. They’re there for symbolism. Judges and juries do not refer to the 10 commandments statue to help them make their decisions.
It’s just another exercise in extreme political correctness to throw a hissy fit over a statue.
The only "symbolism" is Christian God. Just because the symbols have been so pervasive to have lost meaning to most of the populace, doesn't mean that the symbol has changed. The 10 commandmants certainly have some laws which align with our moral code (don't kill, don't steal) and laws of the country, but it doesn't matter. It also has some that are completely at odds with the moral code of many individuals that doesn't conflict with the laws of the country. There is no place for any religion anywhere on public property. No 10 Commandments. No minorahs, no crosses. No Christmas trees. If individuals who work there wish to decorate, then they can decorate in any manner they want (no matter how religious), but the state itself shouldn't either directly or indirectly support any religion (which is exactly what a Ten commandments does)




Edited By Galt on 1107312647
Quote:It has to do with Saddam having 13 years and 17 U.N. Resolutions to comply

Only the UN can enforce it's resolutions, no nation can legally do so. When the UN authorizes the use of force, it words it as "the use of all necessary means." That's how it was worded in 1990 when condemning Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and authorized the use of force against Iraq.

It is well documented that Dubya assured our allies diplomatically that 1441 was not going to be used as an automatic justification for invasion. The initial draft would have allowed for that, but the French and Russians wouldn't agree to it, so a compromise was made.

Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq

# 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

# 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;


The arms inspectors did report back to the UN, and the Security Council convened immediately, but did not authorize "the use of all necessary means." Bringing up the "serious consequences" in #13 is good PR, but a stab in the back diplomatically to the countries who voted for 1441 with the agreement that it would not by itself justify an invasion. That's why so many of our allies were so angry when the Administration started using 1441 as justification.

Here's one website arguing the case

A more balanced account, but still dismissive of the "serious consequences" argument

Also to note: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any nation from using force. The Charter contains only two exceptions: when such force is employed in self-defense or when it is authorized by the UN Security Council. Thus far the Security Council has been unwilling to authorize a U.S. attack against Iraq. This refusal, reflecting the widespread international sentiment against war with Iraq, makes any unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq illegal under international law.

Article 51 of the Charter sets forth the exception for self-defense. A nation can employ self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs," or, as a number of authorities have argued, in response to an imminent attack. None of the reasons given by the Bush administration for attacking Iraq, including destruction of claimed weapons of mass destruction or overthrowing Saddam Hussein, constitute self-defense under the UN Charter. The Bush administration has presented no evidence that Iraq currently presents an imminent threat of attack against the U.S.



FPIF.org




Quote:Oh, and spare me the no WMD argument. While I admit that’s a blow, it still doesn’t answer where they are.

Lessons of the Duelfer Report

The main finding of the top US arms inspector for Iraq, Charles Duelfer, was that his team couldn't find any major weapons stockpiles in Iraq and that Mr. Hussein had not kept an active capability to resume his chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons program.

The reason Hussein gave up his weapons program, the report concludes, is that the UN-sponsored embargo of oil exports denied him the billions and billions of dollars needed to keep them going. But in order to maintain prestige among Arabs and deter another war with Iran, Hussein kept secret for many years that he had abandoned the programs.


Duelfer Report in its entirety

Seriously, were you still trying to imply that there are still some secret, hidden WMDs? Are you retarded?
*insert something edgy here*
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://quinnell.us/conflict/casualties.html">http://quinnell.us/conflict/casualties.html</a><!-- m -->
*insert sarcastic comment about DIG's edgy post here*
Pages: 1 2 3