Fuck Katherine Harris

[PunkENG]

I just read this article and it completely appauled me.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/28/senate.harris.ap/index.html

What is worse electing her into office or a fucking KKK member? What is this country coming to?

[a speedo model]

hmm....

[aminorthreat55]

So sad I almost feel like laughing.

[thejetstolehome]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Zeran]

I just read this article and it completely appauled me.
i agree. while i am christian, i don't believe in people ramming their beliefs down other people's throats who obviously don't want to have anything to do with it and this is just another example of that. it's just a sad affair.

[YourMusicSucks]

Wow, I agree with you. Weird.

It's frightening to believe that there are people THAT stupid... and they are part of our government.

[thebestkylever]

she's going to hell.

[richter915]

I dunno about u, but I'd put my non-Christian dick in her.

[Justin_stacy]

I just read this article and it completely appauled me.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/28/senate.harris.ap/index.html

What is worse electing her into office or a fucking KKK member? What is this country coming to?

the looney left seems to have no problem with a klan member as their senate elder.......

[richter915]

the looney left seems to have no problem with a klan member as their senate elder.......
as a member of the looney left, I have no idea what ur talking about.

[Justin_stacy]

as a member of the looney left, I have no idea what ur talking about.

the grand dragon himself Robert "White ***---" Byrd of west virgina.....

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

the grand dragon himself Robert "White ***---" Byrd of west virgina.....

To be fair, Byrd was an "Exalted Cyclops" not a Grand Dragon. Seriously, where the fuck do they come up with this shit? It's like bunch of racist Dungeons & Dragon nerds got together to make a club.

Seriously, though, Byrd has publicly acknowledged and repudiated his past with the Klan. He admits it was a msitake made as a youth. Holding it against him now would be like me holding GWB's old coke habit against him. So he did drugs inc ollege - who cares, that's not him now. By contrast, Katherine Harris s openly stating that people should only vote for Christians because anyone else is going to "legislate sin" - she's currently encouraging political discrimination against religious minorities. That's pretty scary, dude.

[Justin_stacy]

To be fair, Byrd was an "Exalted Cyclops" not a Grand Dragon. Seriously, where the fuck do they come up with this shit? It's like bunch of racist Dungeons & Dragon nerds got together to make a club..

Mythology?

By contrast, Katherine Harris s openly stating that people should only vote for Christians because anyone else is going to "legislate sin" - she's currently encouraging political discrimination against religious minorities. That's pretty scary, dude.

Please, that doesn't make her scary dude, it makes her a politician with an agenda. And how many of those do we have? Is it scary that in this day and age there are still Politicians promoting a progressive agenda?

[Dan Hollister]

Um, hello, this broad has no support behind her. This is not a typical Republican, nor are the Republicans backing her, nor will she ever get voted for anything ever again. So while I share your distaste for what this woman thinks, I also find it pointless to whine about, since she's never going to have any sort of effect on this country ever.

[PunkENG]

Um, hello, this broad has no support behind her. This is not a typical Republican, nor are the Republicans backing her, nor will she ever get voted for anything ever again. So while I share your distaste for what this woman thinks, I also find it pointless to whine about, since she's never going to have any sort of effect on this country ever.

Yeah I think we all know this. It just makes me sick that people like this exist.

[fcknazisympathy]

I cant believe people are this dumb, wait nevermind, I remembered who our President is.

[Dan Hollister]

Yeah I think we all know this. It just makes me sick that people like this exist.

There's equally dumb people on the liberal side of things as well. Every group has a handful of extremists that ruin things for everybody else. It sucks.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Please, that doesn't make her scary dude, it makes her a politician with an agenda. And how many of those do we have? Is it scary that in this day and age there are still Politicians promoting a progressive agenda?

I'm confused. Do you think Harris promotes a progressive agenda? Because even my conservative friends think she's bonkers. I don't think it's having an agenda that makes her scary, I think it'd demonizing religious minorities that makes her scary. To put it bluntly, I'm an atheist, and I love politics. I would love to run for office some day, but people like Harris maintain the political climate which we have now... one in which more than 50% of Americans say they couldn't make themselves vote for an atheist, no matter how qualified. So yeah, that's a little upsetting for me.

[tearsofblack79]

Hi Im Gaby.

[BleedSound554]

hi Gaby.

[Justin_stacy]

I'm confused. Do you think Harris promotes a progressive agenda? Because even my conservative friends think she's bonkers. I don't think it's having an agenda that makes her scary, I think it'd demonizing religious minorities that makes her scary. To put it bluntly, I'm an atheist, and I love politics. I would love to run for office some day, but people like Harris maintain the political climate which we have now... one in which more than 50% of Americans say they couldn't make themselves vote for an atheist, no matter how qualified. So yeah, that's a little upsetting for me.

I'm not saying she progressive at all, what I'm saying is that just because she holds an agenda, and works to further said agenda, does not make her "scary".......it makes her a politician.

First off let me say I'm not defend Harris personally in anyway, school and the lack of any real conservative voices has made me drift way from following politics to closely, so really I have no idea what she stands for and why. What I take issue with is your ascertain that a religious agenda is somehow more "scary" and dangerous than anyone of the number of other agendas held by US politicians. I used "progressive" as the counter, opposite end of the political spectrum. I would ask if it’s scary that Harris is working to further what you perceive as an extreme agenda is also not scary when others, like those on the left, also work to further extreme agendas?

And with the 50% thing, do you ever wonder why in a relatively religious nation that is being force fed a non-secular agenda they don’t want, why they’d be hesitant to vote for an openly atheist individual? Can they not hold the same fears that you have with religious law makers?

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Except that you can promote a religious agenda without reducing it to cheap idenity politics... like saying that voting for Athesits, Agnostics, Jews, or Muslims is somehow going to reduce our government to Sodom and Gomorrah.

And I have never said or thought anything like Harris. Every candidate I have EVER voted for or campaigned for (and ther ehave been many) has been openly Christian. So no, I don't think what she said is understandable or justifiable.

And if people are so sick of not having a religious government, why not pass a constitutional amendment overturning the Establishment Clause? Oh right, then they couldn't bitch about how they aren't allowed to stone gays and teach that dinosaurs lived at the same time as people in classrooms. Seriously, I'm so sick of hearing about how a nation that is 80% Christian somehow persecutes its hristians. Christians are an over-privileged group in this country, and this idea that they're somehow entitled to spread their ideas and practies to the public square is just frustrating. And no, this isn't a sign of strong religious belief, most Jews, especially the more devout ones, are strong advocates of a strict seperation of church and state.

[Justin_stacy]

Except that you can promote a religious agenda without reducing it to cheap idenity politics... like saying that voting for Athesits, Agnostics, Jews, or Muslims is somehow going to reduce our government to Sodom and Gomorrah..

You can promote any agenda without resorting to cheap political tricks, but again how often does it happen?

What Harris did amounts to one of two things, either it was pandering to an overly religious base or she was using what are called “scare tactics” to drum up support because her poll numbers are down. Either way Harris’s actions are not solely her own. Politicians always pander to their bases often to the point of alienating others. I’m sure what Californian politicians say to their constituents would unnerve me out here in the “Conservative” mid-west, but it is not my vote or my opinion their after. And “Scare tactics” are used every political season to suppress African Americans and no one really gives two shits, but Harris uses them on religious folks and she’s automatically the second coming of Satan...

What Harris did that was wrong was saying publicly something that was, in our left slant world, politically incorrect. But even though the media portrays it differently not all of the nation cares about being politically correct, right or wrong. Many people are scared by the attacks waged by a small minority on religion, and Harris is trying to raise her poll numbers by feeding off that. Now is that wrong, maybe, but it is not uncommon. How many black leaders have portrayed Republicans as slave owners to drum up fear in the African American community? How many progressive leaders have compared Bush and the Neo-Con movement to fascism to “scare” up support among the mentally weak in the liberal community?

And if people are so sick of not having a religious government, why not pass a constitutional amendment overturning the Establishment Clause? Oh right, then they couldn't bitch about how they aren't allowed to stone gays and teach that dinosaurs lived at the same time as people in classrooms. Seriously, I'm so sick of hearing about how a nation that is 80% Christian somehow persecutes its hristians. Christians are an over-privileged group in this country, and this idea that they're somehow entitled to spread their ideas and practies to the public square is just frustrating. And no, this isn't a sign of strong religious belief, most Jews, especially the more devout ones, are strong advocates of a strict seperation of church and state.

Now who’s being crazy? At least when you accused me of crazy posting in another thread there was validity in my brash comment......here your just spouting more puppet like liberal bullshit.

And please if you’re going to use the establishment clause in an argument please understand it first. Who on the right is calling for a national religion?

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

You can promote any agenda without resorting to cheap political tricks, but again how often does it happen?

What Harris did amounts to one of two things, either it was pandering to an overly religious base or she was using what are called “scare tactics” to drum up support because her poll numbers are down. Either way Harris’s actions are not solely her own. Politicians always pander to their bases often to the point of alienating others. I’m sure what Californian politicians say to their constituents would unnerve me out here in the “Conservative” mid-west, but it is not my vote or my opinion their after. And “Scare tactics” are used every political season to suppress African Americans and no one really gives two shits, but Harris uses them on religious folks and she’s automatically the second coming of Satan...

Um, I care about supressing black people. But if you've got a problem with that, you might want to talk to the Republicans. Democrats usually work pretty hard to drum up votes from the inner-city minority communities, if for no other reason than they are almost a guaranteed Democratic vote. If your referring to some kind of suppression of this mythical black conservative community (let's face it, they are at most 10% of the black population) than, yeah, I'm not buying it.

What Harris did that was wrong was saying publicly something that was, in our left slant world, politically incorrect. But even though the media portrays it differently not all of the nation cares about being politically correct, right or wrong. Many people are scared by the attacks waged by a small minority on religion, and Harris is trying to raise her poll numbers by feeding off that. Now is that wrong, maybe, but it is not uncommon. How many black leaders have portrayed Republicans as slave owners to drum up fear in the African American community? How many progressive leaders have compared Bush and the Neo-Con movement to fascism to “scare” up support among the mentally weak in the liberal community?

Sweet, scare tactics are wrong, Katherine Harris was wrong. We agree. That's all I really wanted to hear. Although I think Bush is a fascist. Not like a Hitler/Moussolini fascist, but still a fascist. As Deleuze and Guttari explain in Anti-Oedipus, anyone can be anti-fascist on the molar level (government level). But guarding ourselves against our own mciro-fascist tendencies is much harder. The impulses to suppress debate in the name of security, concentrate power with the executive, and so forth are certainly fascist in nature, and I'm comfortable saying that even if Bush never changes his name to Joe Stalin and starts building gulags.




Now who’s being crazy? At least when you accused me of crazy posting in another thread there was validity in my brash comment......here your just spouting more puppet like liberal bullshit.

And please if you’re going to use the establishment clause in an argument please understand it first. Who on the right is calling for a national religion?

Well, if you don't want a secular government, and you wan't to be able to dictate policy based on religious reasoning, and want to be able to have your religious theories endorsed by the state through the school system (school prayer, intelligent design, whatever)... call me crazy but that seems like a national religion even if no one calls it the First Church of The US of A.

And If my rhetoric is "just crazy", please tell me which aprts offend you.

That conservative christians are really homophobic? As soon as I read a rational argument against gay marriage, or better yet, can feel safe being out in my hometown, I'll believe you that they aren't. And that's just homophobia, when Christians even try to clean up a little. Most conservatie Christians don't even pretend that they aren't transphobic (firing teachers who are trans, etc.)

Teach that dinos lived alongside people? If you buy Creationism it's either that or dinosaurs never existed. Pick which crazy you'd like to sample.

That the country is 80% Christian but still thinks they are being persecuted? I'm pretty sure you've heard someone bitch about "secular activist judges" or whatever else.

That Christians are over-privileged? Example: Christmas is the ONLY religious holiday that's also a federal holiday. Example: Find me an openly non-Christian and non-Jewish politican in a prominent national position.

That many Jews strongly support a seperation of church and state? Any politial demographcis willv erify that.

Seriously, what did I say that was so crazy?

[Justin_stacy]

Um, I care about supressing black people. But if you've got a problem with that, you might want to talk to the Republicans. Democrats usually work pretty hard to drum up votes from the inner-city minority communities, if for no other reason than they are almost a guaranteed Democratic vote. If your referring to some kind of suppression of this mythical black conservative community (let's face it, they are at most 10% of the black population) than, yeah, I'm not buying it.?

The problem should be discussed with the one perpetrating it not the opposing party. Democrats for years have used fear (read racism) and poverty sustaining programs to keep the black vote suppressed. Why you’d blame the Republicans for these is beyond me. But regardless what the Democrats do to minorities is a form of scare tactics. Harris i guess does it and some other Republicans do, but as you can see it is a tactic that both parties used.

Sweet, scare tactics are wrong, Katherine Harris was wrong. We agree. That's all I really wanted to hear. .

Never said she wasn’t, but what I refuse to do is single her out for excessive blame when all she’s doing is playing the politics game. And I‘m sure you would agree with me that politics is nothing more then a game without a ball.

Well, if you don't want a secular government, and you wan't to be able to dictate policy based on religious reasoning, and want to be able to have your religious theories endorsed by the state through the school system (school prayer, intelligent design, whatever)... call me crazy but that seems like a national religion even if no one calls it the First Church of The US of A


And If my rhetoric is "just crazy", please tell me which aprts offend you.

That conservative christians are really homophobic? As soon as I read a rational argument against gay marriage, or better yet, can feel safe being out in my hometown, I'll believe you that they aren't. And that's just homophobia, when Christians even try to clean up a little. Most conservatie Christians don't even pretend that they aren't transphobic (firing teachers who are trans, etc.)

Teach that dinos lived alongside people? If you buy Creationism it's either that or dinosaurs never existed. Pick which crazy you'd like to sample.

That the country is 80% Christian but still thinks they are being persecuted? I'm pretty sure you've heard someone bitch about "secular activist judges" or whatever else.

That Christians are over-privileged? Example: Christmas is the ONLY religious holiday that's also a federal holiday. Example: Find me an openly non-Christian and non-Jewish politican in a prominent national position.
That many Jews strongly support a seperation of church and state? Any politial demographcis willv erify that.

Seriously, what did I say that was so crazy?

Its hardly offensive, but one must be held to their own standards of craziness.

First which gay is being stoned? Who is being pelted?
By stoning I assume you mean suppressed, but stoning imply a physical abuse, so who’s being stoned? Using emotionally charge wording doesn’t prove a point, nor do ignorant, demonizing, labels like “homophobic”.

I guess what you’re attempting to say is that since Christians, AND the overwhelming majority of both liberal and conservative Americans, are opposed to changing/redefining/destroying (what have you) the traditional institution of marriage they are somehow suppressing, or “stoning,” those that choose to be different. But by choosing to be different one must accept that they can not force themselves on others or what they have personally chosen on others. Being different is just that, different. Tolerance and acceptance are not one in the same, and although in a society one must tolerate others, you can not force them to accept you. And that is where the gay community has faltered in its quest to redefine marriage. You don’t gain acceptance by ramming yourself down the throat of others. By taking the issue of marriage out of the publics hands and using back alley tactics like judge legislating, you create resentment. That resentment in turn created a movement which has worked to constitutionally ban gay marriage in many states and has resulted in the constitutional banning of civil unions, the very object which should have been the first priority of same sex couples, not marriage.

It is foolish on your part to portray those opposed to redefining marriage as religious or conservative, when it represents ALL Americans regardless of political or religious preference. By now Civil Union could have been universally recognized had that been the path and it was sold appropriately.

The sad part of the whole topic is that homosexual Americans are being used as pawn by the far left in a disguised attempt to further destroy the institution of marriage, just as females were in the 60’s.

([and]The firing of a “trans[sexual]“ individual has nothing to do with religion, but ones mental state and their interaction with shaping impressionable minds).

Two, of course I've heard about “secular activist judges,” you’d have to be deaf not to have. Although the use of judges as legislators is not solely a liberal thing, it is the left that has turned it into an art form recently.
And, yes, a small minority that has financial resources, the ability to judge shop and the sympathy of the press has the ability to “persecute” (lovely emotionally charged wording again!) or force its will over a majority. When you add in the help of fascist-like organizations like the aclu, who use the court system and a liberal “living” interpretation of the constitution and state laws to force there ideas and beliefs on the majority, you will have a majority that is fearful of its rights. Ilk like the aclu have singled out Christanity in their attacks because it is the religion mostly being observed.

Third, “over privilege” would imply that they are over represented for their portion of the population. You yourself use the 80% example. Now in a nation that is 80% one type of religion why would you wonder why their holidays are the ones being the most observed or Nationalized? 1% of the population is Jewish, less then 1% is Muslim, and it gets less and less of a percentage from there. So why would Ramadan be nationalized when the nation doesn’t observe it?
Also not to totally knock your argument, but Christmas, which is now a secular holiday, is the only Christian derived Federal holiday. One in a nation that is 80% Christian is hardly excessive.

So to sum up no one is being stoned, religion particularly the predominate one in the nation is under attack by a small wealthy minority, and Christian’s are hardly over represented for there portion of the population, in the context you are using.
Now I’m crazy when I say that vast majority of the Arab world supports the elimination of Jews, even though this is the STATED goal of those with power (and who grants power?), but yet you are not crazy when you make assertions and claims that are neither true or unquestionable......

[PunkENG]

Wow this is a heated debate. All I have to say is that if two guys want to marry or two chicks want to marry, why should I stop them? America is all about the pursuit of happiness and if being married will make gays happy then they should be able to. If two gay guys get married in San Francisco will it make my future marriage one day any less important or lower it standards.... not at all. I just don't get it why people get all upset about ruining the institution of marriage. If gays marry it will not make straight marriage any less important. I know tons of Americans are up in arms about this and I will never know why. I guess coming from Cali. I don't see the side of the conservative Americans in the south and midwest, but inheritly I think religious morals should be separated from politics. Gay people and illegal immigrants are not going to hurt you, so why the hell are we all up in arms about them?

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

The problem should be discussed with the one perpetrating it not the opposing party. Democrats for years have used fear (read racism) and poverty sustaining programs to keep the black vote suppressed. Why you’d blame the Republicans for these is beyond me. But regardless what the Democrats do to minorities is a form of scare tactics. Harris i guess does it and some other Republicans do, but as you can see it is a tactic that both parties used.

Yes, poverty-perpetuating programs like welfare stop the poor people from learning how to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. If we keep giving tax cuts to big businesses, all the black folks will realize that they too can be the next Ken Lay, and will continue to work as hard as they can. Which would be great, if social mobility weren't a myth in this country where the lowest 40% is concerned (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560).



Never said she wasn’t, but what I refuse to do is single her out for excessive blame when all she’s doing is playing the politics game. And I‘m sure you would agree with me that politics is nothing more then a game without a ball.
Great, we agree that Katy Harris is a psycho bitch. I'm not sure what that last sentence means, but I do know that I think people of all party stripes should be criticized in the sharpest language possible when they engage in intolerant rhetoric, whether it's for political games or just for shits and grins.




First which gay is being stoned? Who is being pelted?
By stoning I assume you mean suppressed, but stoning imply a physical abuse, so who’s being stoned? Using emotionally charge wording doesn’t prove a point, nor do ignorant, demonizing, labels like “homophobic”.
I wouldn't use "homophobic" if it wasn't accurate. I've never seen an argument against gay marriage that wasn't homophobic. And all homophobia is interconnected. You either fundamentally believe that people of all sexual orientations deserve equal rights and have equal value, or you don't.


I guess what you’re attempting to say is that since Christians, AND the overwhelming majority of both liberal and conservative Americans, are opposed to changing/redefining/destroying (what have you) the traditional institution of marriage they are somehow suppressing, or “stoning,” those that choose to be different. But by choosing to be different one must accept that they can not force themselves on others or what they have personally chosen on others. Being different is just that, different. Tolerance and acceptance are not one in the same, and although in a society one must tolerate others, you can not force them to accept you. And that is where the gay community has faltered in its quest to redefine marriage. You don’t gain acceptance by ramming yourself down the throat of others. By taking the issue of marriage out of the publics hands and using back alley tactics like judge legislating, you create resentment. That resentment in turn created a movement which has worked to constitutionally ban gay marriage in many states and has resulted in the constitutional banning of civil unions, the very object which should have been the first priority of same sex couples, not marriage.
Um, maybe no gay people want your fucking civil unions? We don't want to be second class citizens. If there are church's that are willing to let gays get married, the government has no place telling them that they can't.

PS: I never chose to be different.

The sad part of the whole topic is that homosexual Americans are being used as pawn by the far left in a disguised attempt to further destroy the institution of marriage, just as females were in the 60’s.
Lolz. Women didn't want equal paying jobs and the right to choose, they were just unwitting pawns of the big bad left. Which is, of course, why women so overwhelmingly vote Republican now that they are educated.

Also, and this is where your homophobia comes in, how the fuck does it destroy marriage if gays can get married? Straight marriages will still be valid, so you breeders can still get hitched and then half of you can get divorced. It's kind of hilarious, because abortion lovin', gay marriage allowin' Massachusett's has easily the lowest divorce rate in the country. But moreover, what the fuck does it even mean to destroy marriage? That it will change beyond its current popular form? By that standard, marriage was destoyed when women stopped being property, and destroyed again when interracial marriages were allowed. I mean, if you actually want to be taken seriously, you have to say WHAT IT MEANS for marriage to be destroyed. You can't just say it will happen.

I mean, your whole mindset here is so condescending. Gays vote against their interests because they are being used. So do poor people. So do women. So do Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, and Atheists. Apparently only straight white christian males have the intellectual ability to discern what's really best for themselves? Shut the fuck up.

([and]The firing of a “trans[sexual]“ individual has nothing to do with religion, but ones mental state and their interaction with shaping impressionable minds).
What does that even mean? Impressionable kids might learn that some people aren't happy witht heir biological sex? OH NOES! That's kind of hilarious, because thousands of children have gender identity conflicts where they don't identify with their sex. On 60 Minutes, a young boy talked about his love for painting his nails, playing with dolls, and stated that even though he was happy as a boy he wished he was a girl. I guess kids like that can't go to school either, eh?

Two, of course I've heard about “secular activist judges,” you’d have to be deaf not to have. Although the use of judges as legislators is not solely a liberal thing, it is the left that has turned it into an art form recently.
And, yes, a small minority that has financial resources, the ability to judge shop and the sympathy of the press has the ability to “persecute” (lovely emotionally charged wording again!) or force its will over a majority. When you add in the help of fascist-like organizations like the aclu, who use the court system and a liberal “living” interpretation of the constitution and state laws to force there ideas and beliefs on the majority, you will have a majority that is fearful of its rights. Ilk like the aclu have singled out Christanity in their attacks because it is the religion mostly being observed.
Lolz, again. You provide many. I don't know what the ACLU does that is fascist, but I guess stopping states from discriminating is pretty fascist. I mean, The shit Christians call persecution inludes not being able to kick gay kids and their straight allies out of their Christian clubs. Or to not be able to have overtly Christian prayers in public schools. Or not being able to teach evolution. Is that really them being persecuted? I don't really think you believe that. The idea of a war on religion, is just the reaction of a group of privileged people learning that they don't get to impose their ideas on others. But according to you, it's preventing the stuff I listed that's fascist-like? Holy crap I'm confused now.

Third, “over privilege” would imply that they are over represented for their portion of the population. You yourself use the 80% example. Now in a nation that is 80% one type of religion why would you wonder why their holidays are the ones being the most observed or Nationalized? 1% of the population is Jewish, less then 1% is Muslim, and it gets less and less of a percentage from there. So why would Ramadan be nationalized when the nation doesn’t observe it?
Also not to totally knock your argument, but Christmas, which is now a secular holiday, is the only Christian derived Federal holiday. One in a nation that is 80% Christian is hardly excessive.
No, over privilege means not getting more rights and privileges than they deserve. Which, if you accept the 1st and 14th Amendments, means they get no more privilege than any other religious group. But overriding bad laws using the Consitution... why that would be the doing of the Judicial branch... which would be ZOMG!!!!! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!!!!! The sworn enemy of liberty! I mean, forget that school integration, the idea that states had to respect the bill of rights, and the repealing of sodomy laws all found favor in the courts before the general populous embraced them, there is NO WAY they should go around making unpopular decisions, even if the Constitution demands that they do!

Also, over 10% of the country identifies as having no religion. And a total of 20% are non-Christian. So I will contend that those people don't need to be told to celebrate Christmas, to pray to the Christian God in class, to observe Christian rites of marriage, or to learn Christian pseudo-science. There's bible school for that, and saying that the Christians can have their Bible School in public while everyone else can't is... DING! Unequal privilege.

I'm so glad I'm a political science major. I mean, it's comforting to know what the hell I'm talking about rather than tossing around buzzwords like "judicial activism" like they actually mean something. But I guess that's probably the Stalinist liberal universities brainwashing me (truth be told, if I don't abort a fetus in the name of Che Guevara every Tuesday, I fail my classes).

[cal1082]

Um, I care about supressing black people. But if you've got a problem with that, you might want to talk to the Republicans. Democrats usually work pretty hard to drum up votes from the inner-city minority communities, if for no other reason than they are almost a guaranteed Democratic vote. If your referring to some kind of suppression of this mythical black conservative community (let's face it, they are at most 10% of the black population) than, yeah, I'm not buying it.



Sweet, scare tactics are wrong, Katherine Harris was wrong. We agree. That's all I really wanted to hear. Although I think Bush is a fascist. Not like a Hitler/Moussolini fascist, but still a fascist. As Deleuze and Guttari explain in Anti-Oedipus, anyone can be anti-fascist on the molar level (government level). But guarding ourselves against our own mciro-fascist tendencies is much harder. The impulses to suppress debate in the name of security, concentrate power with the executive, and so forth are certainly fascist in nature, and I'm comfortable saying that even if Bush never changes his name to Joe Stalin and starts building gulags.






Well, if you don't want a secular government, and you wan't to be able to dictate policy based on religious reasoning, and want to be able to have your religious theories endorsed by the state through the school system (school prayer, intelligent design, whatever)... call me crazy but that seems like a national religion even if no one calls it the First Church of The US of A.

And If my rhetoric is "just crazy", please tell me which aprts offend you.

That conservative christians are really homophobic? As soon as I read a rational argument against gay marriage, or better yet, can feel safe being out in my hometown, I'll believe you that they aren't. And that's just homophobia, when Christians even try to clean up a little. Most conservatie Christians don't even pretend that they aren't transphobic (firing teachers who are trans, etc.)

Teach that dinos lived alongside people? If you buy Creationism it's either that or dinosaurs never existed. Pick which crazy you'd like to sample.

That the country is 80% Christian but still thinks they are being persecuted? I'm pretty sure you've heard someone bitch about "secular activist judges" or whatever else.

That Christians are over-privileged? Example: Christmas is the ONLY religious holiday that's also a federal holiday. Example: Find me an openly non-Christian and non-Jewish politican in a prominent national position.

That many Jews strongly support a seperation of church and state? Any politial demographcis willv erify that.

Seriously, what did I say that was so crazy?

Wow, it frightens me that you are a political science major and have never heard a rational argument against gay marriage.

Also you are talking about Christians being "over-privaledged" and then to support what you are saying you ask for someone to find an openly non-Christian and non-Jewish politican in a prominent national position? What does that have to do with being "over-privaledged"? It's simply the obvious fact that if you have 75%-80% of your citizens as Christians that you will have them as your largest representatives. It has nothing to do with being "over-privaledged".

[cal1082]

HeyCoffeeEyes, the biggest problem I have with your overall argument is that you are ignoring something in your argument eventhough you recognize it in your argument.

Yes, I have no problem putting creationism in a public school, just as I have no problem putting the idea of the "big bang" in schools.

What's my point...................You are holding a double standard of sorts. In one sentence you say that if things like creationism is taught in schools it would be an "endorsement" of Christianity. So would that mean the fact that "the big bang" or "evolution" is taught in schools that they our government is endorsing them?

NO!!!! Ignoring the fact that 80% of your population is Christian and believe one thing is crazy. Of course you should teach creationsim in your public schools if 80% of your population believe it is true. Now does it belong in science.......no. It belongs in the a highschool elective relgious course that covers many beleifs.

Simply because something is taught by the state doesnt mean endorsement.

I believe the establisment clause was put in place to allow people to worship freely and keep religion out of laws (and that's what it has done). It is not in place to keep religious beliefs out of government. There's a major difference!

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Wow, it frightens me that you are a political science major and have never heard a rational argument against gay marriage.

How about typing one out for me?

The reason I say I have never heard a good argument is that critics of gay marriage tend to assert one or both of two things.

The first thing they do is cite the benefits of marriage for society, talking about how reproduction and stable child-rearing is an integral part of society. This is true, but it is not a reason to oppose gay marriage. Gays, bis, and lesbians won't just turn straight and start reproducing if they can't get married. Straight people will, of course, keep making and raising babies if gays can get married too. And there is no conclusive research proving that children need to be raised by a couple comprised of members of each gender, or even that they need to be raised by a couple at all.

The seond thing is to say that the institution of marriage will be destoyed if gays have access. This is problematic because they need to explain what, generally, it means to destroy an institution, and what, specifically, it means to destroy the institution of marriage. That established, the critic must explain how gay marriage does so, preferably by pointing to empirical data suporting the claim that gay marriage will lead to do the things defined as signifying the destruction of marriage.

Also you are talking about Christians being "over-privaledged" and then to support what you are saying you ask for someone to find an openly non-Christian and non-Jewish politican in a prominent national position? What does that have to do with being "over-privaledged"? It's simply the obvious fact that if you have 75%-80% of your citizens as Christians that you will have them as your largest representatives. It has nothing to do with being "over-privaledged".

Certainly, but they shouldn't have a monopoly on the offices. I think we get alarmed, and rightfully so, when we see males entirely dominating political offices, or whites entirely dominating or so on. Even though there is a statistically high number of educated white men, we expect to see diversity reflected in government. But even MORE than 75-80% of public officials are Christians. And whether that's justified or not, you have to admit that it's a pretty nice privilege knowing that the people in pwoer will share your faith, or at the very least, not be hostile to it. Atheists and Muslims certainly don't get that guarantee, and I'd say many Jews are in the same boat.

What's my point...................You are holding a double standard of sorts. In one sentence you say that if things like creationism is taught in schools it would be an "endorsement" of Christianity. So would that mean the fact that "the big bang" or "evolution" is taught in schools that they our government is endorsing them?

Yes, it would. And that is okay because the overwhelming consensus in the scientific ommunity is that those theories - evolution and the big bang - are far more accurate and parismonius in explaining how existence came to be.

Ignoring the fact that 80% of your population is Christian and believe one thing is crazy. Of course you should teach creationsim in your public schools if 80% of your population believe it is true. Now does it belong in science.......no. It belongs in the a highschool elective relgious course that covers many beleifs.

A lot of people endorsing a sceintific claim doesn't make it any less wrong if there is no evidence to verify it. In any event, I woldn't mind a "learn crazy ass religious theories about cosmology" class... okay actually I would. But the point is, the people pushing for intelligent design and creationism want to teach it in science classes. And they don't want their kids exposed to ideas about evolution without their consent. Again, Christians asserting a unique privilege. If I told the principal of my high school that I wanted to learn aout how Cronos and the Titans created the world, he would tell me, and rightly so, to fuck off.

It bears repeating: Fundamentalist Christians have the ability to learn about their wacky theories in Sunday school. Everyone else has to keep their religion to themselves too. As soon as they demand the ability to teach their theories on the public dollar and in the public square, they are asking for special privileges and violating the 1st Amendment.

[cal1082]

How about typing one out for me?

The reason I say I have never heard a good argument is that critics of gay marriage tend to assert one or both of two things.

The first thing they do is cite the benefits of marriage for society, talking about how reproduction and stable child-rearing is an integral part of society. This is true, but it is not a reason to oppose gay marriage. Gays, bis, and lesbians won't just turn straight and start reproducing if they can't get married. Straight people will, of course, keep making and raising babies if gays can get married too. And there is no conclusive research proving that children need to be raised by a couple comprised of members of each gender, or even that they need to be raised by a couple at all.

The seond thing is to say that the institution of marriage will be destoyed if gays have access. This is problematic because they need to explain what, generally, it means to destroy an institution, and what, specifically, it means to destroy the institution of marriage. That established, the critic must explain how gay marriage does so, preferably by pointing to empirical data suporting the claim that gay marriage will lead to do the things defined as signifying the destruction of marriage.

How about from a legal point of view. Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton defenitley defind marriage as an being between one man and one woman. Now if they wish to change the wording and say "one person and one person", how is that legally fair to someone who practices polygamy?

Why can you change the defenition for one group, and not another?

Fact of the matter is that since the government is involved in marriage it is there respoonsibility to set standards for it. That's why if you're a man you cant marry a 12 year old girl, another man, a dog, or 4 woman.

Now I have my own religious beliefs, but honestly you can marry anything you want to marry. I've always said the government should get out of regulating marriage altogether.

A gay couple can go to their church right now and get married. The only difference is it wouldnt be recongnized by the state.


Certainly, but they shouldn't have a monopoly on the offices. I think we get alarmed, and rightfully so, when we see males entirely dominating political offices, or whites entirely dominating or so on. Even though there is a statistically high number of educated white men, we expect to see diversity reflected in government. But even MORE than 75-80% of public officials are Christians. And whether that's justified or not, you have to admit that it's a pretty nice privilege knowing that the people in pwoer will share your faith, or at the very least, not be hostile to it. Atheists and Muslims certainly don't get that guarantee, and I'd say many Jews are in the same boat.

Why shouldnt they have a monopoly? If they are the one's voting and the nation is 80% Christian than they probably should have a monopoly. Yes, other religions dont have taht guarantee but we're not 80% another religion. You can't change the reality and obvious fact

Yes, it would. And that is okay because the overwhelming consensus in the scientific ommunity is that those theories - evolution and the big bang - are far more accurate and parismonius in explaining how existence came to be.

Yes, teach it in a science class! Now when 80% of your population believes in creationism, dont you think that deserves mentioning and teaching in some sort of religious class in school? I sure do because it makes common sense.

A lot of people endorsing a sceintific claim doesn't make it any less wrong if there is no evidence to verify it. In any event, I woldn't mind a "learn crazy ass religious theories about cosmology" class... okay actually I would. But the point is, the people pushing for intelligent design and creationism want to teach it in science classes. And they don't want their kids exposed to ideas about evolution without their consent. Again, Christians asserting a unique privilege. If I told the principal of my high school that I wanted to learn aout how Cronos and the Titans created the world, he would tell me, and rightly so, to fuck off.

It bears repeating: Fundamentalist Christians have the ability to learn about their wacky theories in Sunday school. Everyone else has to keep their religion to themselves too. As soon as they demand the ability to teach their theories on the public dollar and in the public square, they are asking for special privileges and violating the 1st Amendment.


Wow, I agree. But it's a small % of Christians demanding "big bang" being taken out of science and creationsim bieng put in science.

Both should be taught in the perspective classes because both are major beleifs within our society. You simply cant ingore one because it happens to be rooted in religion.