Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation: Wasatch Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,178

    having women barefoot, pregnant and most importantly: SUBMISSIVE

    http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp

    this is the agenda of a HUGE fraction of the Republican Party; women under control

    what can you possibly say now, Little Miss Ayn Rand???

    I mean, you WANT these P.O.S. to have control, so that YOU are under control, right?

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: Nuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    15,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp

    this is the agenda of a HUGE fraction of the Republican Party; women under control

    what can you possibly say now, Little Miss Ayn Rand???

    I mean, you WANT these P.O.S. to have control, so that YOU are under control, right?
    Gee, Walt, I'll have to let my wife know, she's a hard core Republican. She's also a school principal, written 3 books (with a 4th on the way) and has a successful speech pathology business.

  3. #3
    Who are the brain police?
    Reputation: Locoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,993
    Congrats to your wife on her accomplishments. Outside of procreation, having work published is a great way to achieve immortality (in a way) in my opinion.

    But seriously Nuboy, how do you feel about this article about Orrin Hatch? Do you and your wife agree with Hatch?

    What about that reading from the bible on the senate floor? My guess is that that sits well with you. I find it alarming. How would you feel if Hatch was reading from the Koran? What if all senators decided to read the Koran on the senate floor -maybe as a way to start each meeting? Would that make you feel any different?
    The Who - Glittering Girl
    Ween - The Grobe
    Yellowman - Strong Me Strong
    all your base are belong to us

  4. #4
    banned
    Reputation: Nuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    15,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Locoman
    Congrats to your wife on her accomplishments. Outside of procreation, having work published is a great way to achieve immortality (in a way) in my opinion.

    But seriously Nuboy, how do you feel about this article about Orrin Hatch? Do you and your wife agree with Hatch?

    What about that reading from the bible on the senate floor? My guess is that that sits well with you. I find it alarming. How would you feel if Hatch was reading from the Koran? What if all senators decided to read the Koran on the senate floor -maybe as a way to start each meeting? Would that make you feel any different?
    Thanks, but honestly, I couldn't get the article to come up on this computer, so I really don't know what he said.

    I have no problems with him reading the Bible. If this were a Muslim nation, I guess the Koran would be appropirate but we're not a Muslim nation.

  5. #5
    Who are the brain police?
    Reputation: Locoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,993
    America has the separation of church and state clearly stated in both the Constitution and in the First Amendment. Reading the Koran on the Senate floor is just as appropriate as reading the Bible, that is they are equally inappropriate.

    The artical Walt posted reads...
    Hatch backs nominee who backs St. Paul
    By Christopher Smith
    The Salt Lake Tribune

    WASHINGTON -- Reading from the Bible on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch endorsed a federal judicial nominee who wrote that wives should have a subordinate role in marriage, with the Utah Republican emphasizing "millions and millions of people will agree with" that view.
    In a preview of the religious rhetoric that will likely dominate next week's scheduled Senate debate over a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Hatch led the fight for confirming Arkansas lawyer J. Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    With Hatch's support and that of Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, Holmes was confirmed 51-46 in the Senate on Tuesday evening, even though many members of the Senate predicted his nomination would be rejected.
    Holmes' writing on abortion, marriage, slavery and other theological issues generated opposition from not only many Democrats but also some Republicans.
    Fueling much of the debate is a 1997 article Holmes and his wife, Susan, wrote for Arkansas Catholic magazine titled, "Gender Neutral Language, Destroying an Essential Element of Our Faith." The couple wrote that under Catholic teaching, "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in marriage and "is to subordinate herself to the husband."
    Senate Democrats who are also members of the Roman Catholic faith, such as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, have said the positions taken by Holmes "reflect a narrow view of the Catholic theology and do not embody contemporary standards that should be followed by any federal judge in any state."
    Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., lashed out at Durbin's criticism during floor debate.
    "We hear so much from the other side about tolerance," said Santorum. "Where is the tolerance for people who want to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years?"
    After reading aloud from Chapter 5 of the Book of Ephesians, Hatch said "it gets pretty bad around here" when lawmakers condemn Holmes for quoting the teachings of St. Paul the Apostle.
    "I don't think anybody can read this without understanding husbands have tremendous obligations in order to gain the respect of their wives," said Hatch. "You might disagree with St. Paul but there are hundreds of millions of people who agree with St. Paul."
    Hatch also discounted criticism over a 1980 letter Holmes wrote to a newspaper arguing that rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has since apologized for the comment.
    "I find his statement to be insensitive and appalling," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, a former criminal prosecutor who cited studies showing an estimated 25,000 pregnancies occur each year due to rape. "Speak to the family of a 13-year-old girl who is pregnant by being raped by her family's best friend, the next-door neighbor."
    Said Hatch: "I believe all of us have made statements in the past for which we wished we could apologize."


    FYI: Religion breakdown for 2001
    American Adults Religious Identification (Age 18+)
    Christian Religious Groups
    Catholic 24.5%
    Baptist 16.3%
    Christian (no denomination specified) 6.8%
    Methodist/Wesleyan 6.8%
    Lutheran 4.6%
    Other [>1%]: Presbyterian; Pentecostal/Charismatic, Protestant, Nondenominational,
    Episcopalian/Anglican; Morman/Latter-Day Saints; Churches of Christ
    Other [= or >.3%]: Jehovah's Witness; Seventh-Day Adventist; Assemblies of God; Church of God;
    Holiness/Holy; Congregational/United Church of Christ; Church of the Nazarene
    Others [smaller representations yet]: Disciples of Christ; Church of the Brethren; Mennonite;
    Orthodox (Eastern); Quaker; Reformed/Dutch Reform, and many more
    Total Christian 76.5%
    Other Religious Groups
    Jewish 1.3%
    Muslim/Islamic 0.5%
    Buddhist 0.5%
    Other <.5 and >.3%: Hindu; Unitarian Universalist; Other [examples]: Pagan; Wiccan; Spiritualist;
    Native American; Baha'I; New Age; Sikh; Scientologist; Taoist; Deity; Druid; Eckankar; Santaria;
    Rastafarian
    Total Other Religions 3.7%
    No Religion Groups
    Agnostic 0.5%
    Atheist 0.4%
    Not a worldview group, but rather individuals who stated: "No religion" 13.2%
    Other [smaller representation groupings examples]: Humanist; Secular
    Total No Religion Specified 14.1%
    The Who - Glittering Girl
    Ween - The Grobe
    Yellowman - Strong Me Strong
    all your base are belong to us

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,936

    Disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    women under control

    It is truly appalling to see the underbelly of Conservatism exposed like this.

    Let me get this straight: Catholicism and Islam have the subjugation of women in common? Religious sickos––no need for me to apologize for saying it.

    I doubt any Republican woman on this forum will want to associate herself with gender discrimination and submission to male authority.

    Far-right-wingers seem to want to turn the clock back on centuries of social progress and return to a Dickensian world.

    Why?

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation: Nuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    15,649
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    It is truly appalling to see the underbelly of Conservatism exposed like this.

    Let me get this straight: Catholicism and Islam have the subjugation of women in common? Religious sickos––no need for me to apologize for saying it.

    I doubt any Republican woman on this forum will want to associate herself with gender discrimination and submission to male authority.

    Far-right-wingers seem to want to turn the clock back on centuries of social progress and return to a Dickensian world.

    Why?
    Oh..settle down..I think this was the gist of the whole thing..


    "I don't think anybody can read this without understanding husbands have tremendous obligations in order to gain the respect of their wives," said Hatch.

    That's not distrubing at all.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuboy
    Oh..settle down..I think this was the gist of the whole thing..


    "I don't think anybody can read this without understanding husbands have tremendous obligations in order to gain the respect of their wives," said Hatch.

    That's not distrubing at all.

    Hatch is not a federal judge. Leon Holmes is the federal judge. The federal judge said "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."

    That's "not disturbing at all"?

    Disturbs the hell out of me, Nu. A federal judge. What are the posibilities here? Cretinism? Gross bias? Your suggestion?

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation: Nuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    15,649
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    Your suggestion?
    We must go with the flow..grasshopper

  10. #10
    Who are the brain police?
    Reputation: Locoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,993
    Nothing shakes Nuboy. "We must go with the flow...". You seem more concerned with the party than what they do or say.

    That kind of opinion is close to...
    - - -"I was just following orders" - - -
    The Who - Glittering Girl
    Ween - The Grobe
    Yellowman - Strong Me Strong
    all your base are belong to us

  11. #11
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    What the constitution says is that there is no "state sanctioned church", it doesn't say that regilion is not allowable or can't be included in anything...
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  12. #12
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,495

    I think the courts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jm.
    What the constitution says is that there is no "state sanctioned church", it doesn't say that regilion is not allowable or can't be included in anything...
    would have a different opinion on your choice of words:
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...decisions.html
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  13. #13
    banned
    Reputation: Nuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    15,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Locoman
    Nothing shakes Nuboy. "We must go with the flow...". You seem more concerned with the party than what they do or say.

    That kind of opinion is close to...
    - - -"I was just following orders" - - -
    Loc..do you ever lighten up? My God, you people are so sullen you'll all die grief stricken about something at a young age.


    I've been going with the flow for a long time now, and I'm doing fine. Here's what I'm talking about Loc, I remember when Nixon got elected, I thought the world would end, it didn't. When Carter got elected, I thought it was the greatest thing that ever happened, it wasn't...and on and on. You and me will survive, no matter who's in there.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuboy
    going with the flow\

    I prefer the word "flush" if you are speaking about a Kerry victory in November .

    "Sullen" (gloomy silence) is not reflective of an attitude here, if I may say so. "Angry" is accurate.

    "Radical religious elitist" is a fair description of this Bush appointee.

  15. #15
    Ultimate Poseur
    Reputation: moff_quigley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by free-agent
    would have a different opinion on your choice of words:
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...decisions.html
    And do you know what book the SC used as a reference in quite a few of it's opinions before that 1948 decision? If you guessed the Bible, you would be correct. Going off a fading memory here about what I read about this before...one of the justices stated (off the record of course) something to the effect of "tell the people a lie long enough and they'll begin to believe it" concerning what the 1st Amendment says about "seperation of church and state". Up to that point in history the "no respect of religion" was widely interpreted as no state established or official national church. Do you know where we get the phrase seperation of church and state? Comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a certain denomination because this denomination was concerned that another denomination was gaining more prestige/respect/followers. Figures that even Christians can't get along. Do you also know that 39 of 50 original state constitutions stated that in order to serve as an elected official of the state one must be a Chrisitian? And the author of the 1st Amendment had at least 5 or more drafts that used "denomination" in the place of "religion"? I'll have to look up who said it, but one of the Founding Fathers is quoted as saying "The Constitution was not written for an ungodly and immoral people/society" or something to that effect. I mean you can't pass laws to enforce a certain morality can you? Oh wait, we've already tried and are trying to do that....

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,936

    U.S. "not in any sense" founded on Christianity

    Quote Originally Posted by moff_quigley
    Do you know where we get the phrase seperation of church and state? Comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a certain denomination because this denomination was concerned that another denomination was gaining more prestige/respect/followers. Figures that even Christians can't get along.
    "The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originated with a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson. President Thomas Jefferson coined this phrase in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802. It has since been widely picked up and invoked in major Supreme Court decisions."

    "How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution? Not at all. The U.S. Constitution is a godless document."

    How many times does the Declaration of Independence refer to Christianity or Jesus? Never. There is no mention of Jesus, Christ, Christianity, religious persecution, or religious freedom in the Declaration of Independence.

    "What does the First Amendment say about religion? 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .' The two clauses are referred to, respectively, as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

    In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:

    "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty was written under Washington's presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

  17. #17
    Ultimate Poseur
    Reputation: moff_quigley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    369
    [/QUOTE]In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:

    "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty was written under Washington's presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.[/QUOTE]


    Very nice response. Had never read the above before. Interesting then to think that when the Founding Fathers got together to draft the Declaration of Independence that they opened with a 3 hour prayer meeting. What do you think of this quote of Washington's in his farewell "address":

    "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

    Seems to me that the US is moving in the way that Washington warns that US as a society should not go. Interesting stuff to think about.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,936
    The Founding Fathers were men of their time and steeped in religion. I think it's interesting that Washington said "religion and morality are indispensable,' not "religious morality." I think that's a key thought (although he prevaricates later): There was a time when religion was supposed to own moral or virtuous behavior, but I hope we are past that misunderstanding by now (quite a ridiculous idea in light of modern understanding). Regardless, the Founding Fathers strove to omit religion from law, not from custom; they were wise.

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation: Nuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    15,649
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit

    How many times does the Declaration of Independence refer to Christianity or Jesus? Never. There is no mention of Jesus, Christ, Christianity, religious persecution, or religious freedom in the Declaration of Independence.



    I.
    Ahh..a crafty question from a crafty old timer...while true, there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the D of I, who was the "Creator" who endowed the certain unalienable rights?

    Is there a difference between "church", "religion" and God. Personally, I think there is.

  20. #20
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuboy
    Ahh..a crafty question from a crafty old timer...while true, there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the D of I, who was the "Creator" who endowed the certain unalienable rights?

    Is there a difference between "church", "religion" and God. Personally, I think there is.
    An equally crafty response from another crafty old timer.

    What about this part of BadHabit's post?


    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution? Not at all. The U.S. Constitution is a godless document.
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

  21. #21
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,997

    Not only are women equal in this country,

    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp

    this is the agenda of a HUGE fraction of the Republican Party; women under control

    what can you possibly say now, Little Miss Ayn Rand???

    I mean, you WANT these P.O.S. to have control, so that YOU are under control, right?
    if they are hot they are superior and ain't nothing ever going to change that.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuboy
    Ahh..a crafty question from a crafty old timer...while true, there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the D of I, who was the "Creator" who endowed the certain unalienable rights?

    Is there a difference between "church", "religion" and God. Personally, I think there is.
    I picked that crap off some "freedom from religion" website, Nu, and I noticed the same thing you did (the tipoff is the language precision--made me suspicious, too). I figured it was good enough for this discussion; I made a point of saying "excluded from law," which the D of I is not. I am not happy that the Founding Fathers were clearly Jehovah victims.

    I worry that my disrespect of religion is offensive, but I hope the all-encompassing nature of my disgust takes the edge off? It's just an opinion not likely to accomplish much in the face of the statistics provided above.

    I'm trying hard to be crafty, as you can tell, so I guess it's not working.

    Thanks for the lake pics; looks great!

  23. #23
    banned
    Reputation: Nuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    15,649
    Quote Originally Posted by andy f
    An equally crafty response from another crafty old timer.

    What about this part of BadHabit's post?
    "Congress shall make no law with regard to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    Could we be getting into the debate on the difference between "God" and "religion". Remember in 1770 the Church and State were almost one in the same and politics were preached from the pulpit. I think our founding fathers saw the difference between God, religion and church. While Jefferson was a Diest, most of the rest were either Episcopalians, Presbyterians or Quakers.

    I think BH answered his own question. Who was the "Creator" of the DI then?

  24. #24
    banned
    Reputation: Nuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    15,649
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit

    I'm trying hard to be crafty, as you can tell, so I guess it's not working.

    Thanks for the lake pics; looks great!
    You don't even have to try to be crafty...you are crafty!

    The lake is always great...I'm going back up there to get my daughter this weekend. I left her in the hands of my sister, who's thinks she's a middle aged 18 year old. My kid could be ruined for life!

  25. #25
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuboy
    "Congress shall make no law with regard to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    Could we be getting into the debate on the difference between "God" and "religion". Remember in 1770 the Church and State were almost one in the same and politics were preached from the pulpit. I think our founding fathers saw the difference between God, religion and church. While Jefferson was a Diest, most of the rest were either Episcopalians, Presbyterians or Quakers.

    I think BH answered his own question. Who was the "Creator" of the DI then?
    We're not in disagreement. You're still a crafty oldtimer.
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •