New Political Article

[Cal Smith]

New article is up and it's about flag burning (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=1400005#post140000 5)

[colorlesscliche]

I don't agree, but I do see where you are coming from.

[Jason Tate]

cal, we agree on someting .. weird.

[LostSymphonies]

I feel it is wrong because of what it represents..but as far as being illegal thats a bit extreme..i'd much rather have abortion banned than flag burning (i may have just started some shit but i don't care)

[Cottage Cheese]

Does this cover American Flags or any national flag. I'm sure right-wingers have no problems with people burning a French flag.

[giveblood]

Does this cover American Flags or any national flag. I'm sure right-wingers have no problems with people burning a French flag.
There is a huge difference between burning the flag of the nation where you reside and another nation's.

[whitelines]

burning flags leaves a lovely scent.
BTW who makes American flags? special gov't people or sweatshops?!

[DeadVictoryRose]

The bottom line is this, although you may not agree with a political party, a person running the country, or an act the country is doing, making a demonstration against the iconic figure of the country should be protected. Think of it this way, the flag is our logo, it stands not only for the things you hate about this country but the things you love, and if you love nothing than you shouldn't be here. I will compare it to 2 things, which some will find harsh and irrelevant but they are organizational structures that our government often times shares organizational ways with(not beliefs or ties mind you, im not saying anything about that), business and religion. If an employee of Pepsi was seen defacing the Pepsi Cola logo as a demonstration against disagreeing with the latest move the CEO made, it surely would not be tolerated. Just as in a christian church if someone were to deface the cross, it would also not be tolerated, they may be forgiven, but they would surely be looked at differently. Now the difference here is that these are pretty common sense things, and it is sad that there has to be a law against it, it should be common sense, but it isn't. Many people just take for granted that they live here, and they think we fuck up every chance we can, and they are gonna make a stand for something greater. Well that's nice, but it doesnt help anything... It shows your ignorance and it shows hate, I consider it a personal insult towards me and anyone living in this country. There are far better ways to get a message across, and really what does burning a flag say? It says you are against that country, and if you are making that statement then really you should not be here. Give them a free trip to somewhere, let some people who have dreamed of living here for years in. There are far too many unhappy americans who dont enjoy the wonderful environment we live in. When I hear threats of "Im gonna move to Canada if..." and I see people who think Bush being in office is their personal war they must wage, and talk about how "this is a chance to gain ground" such as my adbusters communique said this week, it sickens me. I love America, its freedoms, its diversity, its imperfections, we must always strive to get better and be stronger, not see it as a failure and think radical change is neccesary, we are close, keep going.

Okay that was a rant, but yeah I think more laws are not the answer, but I also think that the common sense approach doesnt work for a lot of people, which is why we have laws, so we have to think if the flag really stands for the goodness we are or if its meaningless.

just thoughts...

[GAD_guy]

The bottom line is this, although you may not agree with a political party, a person running the country, or an act the country is doing, making a demonstration against the iconic figure of the country should be protected. Think of it this way, the flag is our logo, it stands not only for the things you hate about this country but the things you love, and if you love nothing than you shouldn't be here. I will compare it to 2 things, which some will find harsh and irrelevant but they are organizational structures that our government often times shares organizational ways with(not beliefs or ties mind you, im not saying anything about that), business and religion. If an employee of Pepsi was seen defacing the Pepsi Cola logo as a demonstration against disagreeing with the latest move the CEO made, it surely would not be tolerated. Just as in a christian church if someone were to deface the cross, it would also not be tolerated, they may be forgiven, but they would surely be looked at differently. Now the difference here is that these are pretty common sense things, and it is sad that there has to be a law against it, it should be common sense, but it isn't. Many people just take for granted that they live here, and they think we fuck up every chance we can, and they are gonna make a stand for something greater. Well that's nice, but it doesnt help anything... It shows your ignorance and it shows hate, I consider it a personal insult towards me and anyone living in this country. There are far better ways to get a message across, and really what does burning a flag say? It says you are against that country, and if you are making that statement then really you should not be here. Give them a free trip to somewhere, let some people who have dreamed of living here for years in. There are far too many unhappy americans who dont enjoy the wonderful environment we live in. When I hear threats of "Im gonna move to Canada if..." and I see people who think Bush being in office is their personal war they must wage, and talk about how "this is a chance to gain ground" such as my adbusters communique said this week, it sickens me. I love America, its freedoms, its diversity, its imperfections, we must always strive to get better and be stronger, not see it as a failure and think radical change is neccesary, we are close, keep going.

Okay that was a rant, but yeah I think more laws are not the answer, but I also think that the common sense approach doesnt work for a lot of people, which is why we have laws, so we have to think if the flag really stands for the goodness we are or if its meaningless.

just thoughts...


it also common sense that everyone should be given to exact same rights. yet guess what, we have a law against homosexuals being married. flag burning would not be such an issue if it were not for the hypocrisy it's outlawing would create.

[DeadVictoryRose]

it also common sense that everyone should be given to exact same rights. yet guess what, we have a law against homosexuals being married. flag burning would not be such an issue if it were not for the hypocrisy it's outlawing would create.

and oh my god people can't fuck dogs either, can't look at child porn. obviously the marriage one is a little deeper of an arguement, but we don't have total freedom here. i won't even enter the discussion about gay marriage aside from saying what i always say...

marriage is a union whose practice and orgin was in the church, which is why spiritual people are against homosexuals(who are committing a sin just like those spiritual people) marrying. Face it, a lot of laws are based to keep us living a sin free life, laws were first handed down by God(or whatever spiritual being you believe in) according to most historical spiritual writings(the bible, the torah, the koran). I also add that I fully support a civil homosexual union which enables the same powers and benefits as marriage. Marriage to a lot of people is defined as the union between man and woman, and a civil homosexual union wouldn't take that away from the people who hold onto the spiritual term Marriage.

[Jason Tate]

and oh my god people can't fuck dogs either, can't look at child porn. obviously the marriage one is a little deeper of an arguement, but we don't have total freedom here. i won't even enter the discussion about gay marriage aside from saying what i always say...

marriage is a union whose practice and orgin was in the church, which is why spiritual people are against homosexuals(who are committing a sin just like those spiritual people) marrying. Face it, a lot of laws are based to keep us living a sin free life, laws were first handed down by God(or whatever spiritual being you believe in) according to most historical spiritual writings(the bible, the torah, the koran). I also add that I fully support a civil homosexual union which enables the same powers and benefits as marriage. Marriage to a lot of people is defined as the union between man and woman, and a civil homosexual union wouldn't take that away from the people who hold onto the spiritual term Marriage.
Seperation of church and state?

What was that whole thing .. someone needs to remind me.

[OnLegendary21]

The bottom line is this, although you may not agree with a political party, a person running the country, or an act the country is doing, making a demonstration against the iconic figure of the country should be protected. Think of it this way, the flag is our logo, it stands not only for the things you hate about this country but the things you love, and if you love nothing than you shouldn't be here. I will compare it to 2 things, which some will find harsh and irrelevant but they are organizational structures that our government often times shares organizational ways with(not beliefs or ties mind you, im not saying anything about that), business and religion. If an employee of Pepsi was seen defacing the Pepsi Cola logo as a demonstration against disagreeing with the latest move the CEO made, it surely would not be tolerated. Just as in a christian church if someone were to deface the cross, it would also not be tolerated, they may be forgiven, but they would surely be looked at differently.

You are exactly the reason issues like these are even addressed to begin with. This is not supposed to be America the Conglomerate. So please stop reffering to where we reside as a corporation who's intrests need to be preserved with logos, and t-shirt sales, and the latest products in our line-up. We are people, not a top of the line, number one selling, "stirs your fucking martini for you" machine. And most importanly, not all of us are for sale.

[DeadVictoryRose]

Seperation of church and state?

What was that whole thing .. someone needs to remind me.

Seperation of Church and State actually only existed in a state constitution, I believe Virginia, but Im rusty on it. I have heard this several times, but could be wrong, that no where in our declaration of independance or constitution is anyhting on seperation of church and state.

Regardless, our laws are based of the laws first adapted from biblical teachings. That was/is my point and people often forget it.

You are exactly the reason issues like these are even addressed to begin with. This is not supposed to be America the Conglomerate. So please stop reffering to where we reside as a corporation who's intrests need to be preserved with logos, and t-shirt sales, and the latest products in our line-up. We are people, not a top of the line, number one selling, "stirs your fucking martini for you" machine. And most importanly, not all of us are for sale.

Did you read what I wrote? I said we share organizational ways(like that we have an executive and legislative group, so do corporations). I never referred to us as a corporation. I merely brought up the idea that the flag is the one symbol of this country we have. Your liberal adbuster anti-corporation mindset has misled you friend. I never said I or anyone was for sale, nor anything else you brought up. And I urge you to look at some of the finer corporations out there(Jet Blue and American Apparel for starts), because our government could take some examples from these two.

My point if you looked past the fact I used the word corporation in my paragraph is similiar to yours, we are an incredible people who have accomplished incredible things, there is no need for drastic change, we may not be perfect, and we can get better, but we are by no means the failure a lot of people make it out to be.

[Cal Smith]

cal, we agree on someting .. weird.

I dont know if I should be happy, or rethink my opinion :animateds

[OnLegendary21]

Did you read what I wrote? I said we share organizational ways(like that we have an executive and legislative group, so do corporations). I never referred to us as a corporation. I merely brought up the idea that the flag is the one symbol of this country we have. Your liberal adbuster anti-corporation mindset has misled you friend. I never said I or anyone was for sale, nor anything else you brought up. And I urge you to look at some of the finer corporations out there(Jet Blue and American Apparel for starts), because our government could take some examples from these two.

My point if you looked past the fact I used the word corporation in my paragraph is similiar to yours, we are an incredible people who have accomplished incredible things, there is no need for drastic change, we may not be perfect, and we can get better, but we are by no means the failure a lot of people make it out to be.

Name-dropping clothing lines advertised on myspace will get you nowhere. You state we are an incredible people who have accoplished incredible things, but on the reverse side of the page we are a terrible people who have commited terrible things. I'm not asking for perfection, because by nature the human race is flawed. Nor will I accept the "human condition" as an excuse for ignorance. But I will say this, we can and we should be doing a hell of alot better than this. Instead of the pursuite of "me vs. you" we should be aiming for unity. But I'm afraid we'll never see that day because there will always be conflicts of intrest, as it is the spice of life you might say. But it shouldn't escelate past that, a disagreement.

[DeadVictoryRose]

Seperation of church and state?

What was that whole thing .. someone needs to remind me.

a quick explanation of what i said earlier, who knows how legit. (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html)

it explains what i have heard numerous times(is obviouslt onesided, but everything was either one side or the other sorry, google seperation of church and state and you can find a lot on the other side as well, all very interesting), and i will sum up in this...

our forefathers never wanted a national religion, and wanted people to be able to choose their own, or not practice. religious persecution is what brought them here, and it was very important that it(rel. pers.) would not be a part of this new government. they never said they would not make decisions based on spiritual beliefs, or even have spiritual ideas in the government. From what I understand they had 2 provisions in the constitution one said there could be no religous pre-requisite for office, and another saying there would be no laws hindering one from practicing a religion.

... I havent studied this stuff for years, and I would love to see people who are studying this and have more facts debate it. I would say Paul and Cal should, but I don't know if you guys have a passion or have studied this. I think its a great and timeless debate, and no one will ever win. There are great points on both sides.

[GAD_guy]

Seperation of Church and State actually only existed in a state constitution, I believe Virginia, but Im rusty on it. I have heard this several times, but could be wrong, that no where in our declaration of independance or constitution is anyhting on seperation of church and state.

you are correct, seperation of church and state is not expressly written in the constitution. however it is a well known fact that many if not most of the founding fathers believed firmly in a seperate between the two. in fact, some of them were actually athiests. the seperation is one of the implied aspects of the constitution, and this has been confirmed by countless supreme court decisions. the constitution does not, for example, directly say that slavery is illegal. however, it has been interpreted that way, and i am sure not even you would argue that since the constituion doesn't say slavery is banned, it should be legal.

if you really think there should no seperation between the two then i guess we should just set up a national church and force everyone to be a member of that church and that church alone huh? that's how england used to be, but they have progressed beyond that. even they have an understood seperation between chuch and state now. in fact if you look at rights they now have they are exactly equal to ours if not more expansive. as far as i know, flag burning is not an issue in that country whatsoever. meaning anybody could do it, but they don't. i find it very very ironic that the country our forefathers faught so hard to gain independance from is now actually a freer people than we are.

[Cottage Cheese]

There is a huge difference between burning the flag of the nation where you reside and another nation's.

so you wouldn't mind if a north korean burned the american flag?

[DeadVictoryRose]

Name-dropping clothing lines advertised on myspace will get you nowhere. You state we are an incredible people who have accoplished incredible things, but on the reverse side of the page we are a terrible people who have commited terrible things. I'm not asking for perfection, because by nature the human race is flawed. Nor will I accept the "human condition" as an excuse for ignorance. But I will say this, we can and we should be doing a hell of alot better than this. Instead of the pursuite of "me vs. you" we should be aiming for unity. But I'm afraid we'll never see that day because there will always be conflicts of intrest, as it is the spice of life you might say. But it shouldn't escelate past that, a disagreement.

One I have never seen an AA ad on myspace, but im not on that much, so it may get past me.

Two, I personally know Dov(the guy who started American Apparel) and have been fortunate enough to have some wonderfully engaging conversations with him. It is not name dropping, it is a true suggestion, look into them, who they are. They kept business in America, and use all legal labour, and treat their employess wonderfully, even sponsoring citizenship for those only here on visas. They made their home in downtown LA, when every business was fleeing the area, and they really do things different. I have had the oppurtunity to deal with them on a large scale business level, and they still impress me to this day.

Three your superiority complex(which i cite in example of you feeling the need to call me a name dropper) is not "Unity" nor a "Disagreement," but words like spiteful and resentful do come to mind. I was right, you read adbusters don't you?

Aim for unity, that is what I said, now you are getting it, but damn then you just gave up? How sad, such passion, yet you throw in the towel so early? We HAVE done terrible things, I felt that was kind of obvious, didnt feel the need to mention it, but if we just keep talking about how terrible we are where does that get us? Lets do something, lets make things better, lets not just talk and hate on corporations and think all republicans/democrats(circle one) are evil.

It's so funny to me that you are arguing the exact same point as me, but you still find that we have to be in a disagreement.

you are correct, seperation of church and state is not expressly written in the constitution. however it is a well known fact that many if not most of the founding fathers believed firmly in a seperate between the two. in fact, some of them were actually athiests. the seperation is one of the implied aspects of the constitution, and this has been confirmed by countless supreme court decisions. the constitution does not, for example, directly say that slavery is illegal. however, it has been interpreted that way, and i am sure not even you would argue that since the constituion doesn't say slavery is banned, it should be legal.

if you really think there should no seperation between the two then i guess we should just set up a national church and force everyone to be a member of that church and that church alone huh? that's how england used to be, but they have progressed beyond that. even they have an understood seperation between chuch and state now. in fact if you look at rights they now have they are exactly equal to ours if not more expansive. as far as i know, flag burning is not an issue in that country whatsoever. meaning anybody could do it, but they don't. i find it very very ironic that the country our forefathers faught so hard to gain independance from is now actually a freer people than we are.

Actually Article XIII of the amendments to our constitutions states...

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I think I covered my arguement of seperation of church and state in what I said above you. there should be no national church, but nor should spiritual beliefs be kept out of government. Whatl the Forefathers expressed was the ability for anyone to practice any religion, and never have to be forced into one idea of thinking or another.

And on England being "freer" than we are, have you ever been to london town? Do you know that the inner ring has a complete video monitoring network where every person and vehicle is captured and has to pay a toll to even be there. They have their issues too, I would however not say they are a more liberated people, but they made a lot of progress, as have we.

[GAD_guy]

Whatl the Forefathers expressed was the ability for anyone to practice any religion, and never have to be forced into one idea of thinking or another.
.

that may be so, but they didn't want laws developed based on christian beliefs.

[DeadVictoryRose]

that may be so, but they didn't want laws developed based on christian beliefs.

Not to be a dick man but most of our laws ARE based on christian beliefs.

Ten Commandments Yo!!!! (http://www.gotquestions.org/Ten-Commandments.html)

Of those, the sabbath day had an appearance in the constitution or the declaration, again im rusty, im not sure exactly where. Obviously thal shall not murder, and steal you get. Adultery is illegal in many states, however I dont know about national laws, and even sodomy(oral sex) was illegal in the 1990's in D.C. You shall not give false testimont against your neighbor, has definitely been in our legal system and still is. So there are 5 of the 10 commandments, there are other laws based off what christians call the law of God. But that is a start.

[GAD_guy]

Not to be a dick man but most of our laws ARE based on christian beliefs.

Ten Commandments Yo!!!! (http://www.gotquestions.org/Ten-Commandments.html)

Of those, the sabbath day had an appearance in the constitution or the declaration, again im rusty, im not sure exactly where. Obviously thal shall not murder, and steal you get. Adultery is illegal in many states, however I dont know about national laws, and even sodomy(oral sex) was illegal in the 1990's in D.C. You shall not give false testimont against your neighbor, has definitely been in our legal system and still is. So there are 5 of the 10 commandments, there are other laws based off what christians call the law of God. But that is a start.

those things are pretty much major tenets of any religion. and for the most part the "ten commandments" were a good reference for our founding fathers. but they also used the words of many greek philosphers, and took example from ancient european governments. that doesn't mean we have to live by those philosphers, or in a socitey exactly like one in ancient europe. they just used certain aspects of those things to form the constitution.

[DeadVictoryRose]

those things are pretty much major tenets of any religion. and for the most part the "ten commandments" were a good reference for our founding fathers. but they also used the words of many greek philosphers, and took example from ancient european governments. that doesn't mean we have to live by those philosphers, or in a socitey exactly like one in ancient europe. they just used certain aspects of those things to form the constitution.

Hey man, Im addressing the fact you said they didnt want laws on christian beliefs. The ten commandments are staples of any christian religion as well as jewish teachings. Clearly the forefathers made laws based on teachings they learned through christian religions.

I never said we should live like moses, or like the times of Jesus, or follow every part of the bible in our government, if you read what i write, i said...

spirituality should not be kept out of our government, and spirituality should be allowed to be a part of decisions.

I love when debates turn into bringing up completely random stuff like greek philosophers, but for the record, I still support the pieces of those greek philosophers that are in our government and we still practice, and a lot of the things that were borrowed from not only ancient civilizations but also frances setup of democracy are still in place and should be followed.

Nice try acting like im saying our only laws should be those of god and the bible though. I appreciate it.

[GAD_guy]

Hey man, Im addressing the fact you said they didnt want laws on christian beliefs. The ten commandments are staples of any christian religion as well as jewish teachings. Clearly the forefathers made laws based on teachings they learned through christian religions.

I never said we should live like moses, or like the times of Jesus, or follow every part of the bible in our government, if you read what i write, i said...

spirituality should not be kept out of our government, and spirituality should be allowed to be a part of decisions.

I love when debates turn into bringing up completely random stuff like greek philosophers, but for the record, I still support the pieces of those greek philosophers that are in our government and we still practice, and a lot of the things that were borrowed from not only ancient civilizations but also frances setup of democracy are still in place and should be followed.

Nice try acting like im saying our only laws should be those of god and the bible though. I appreciate it.


ok you got me. let me be more clear. i don't think that at this point the beliefs of ANY religion should play any part in politics. some very basic teachings of christianity were ok at the beggining as a point of reference but that is it. using the bible to strip homosexuals of their right to marry is completely wrong. if the only thing we have to justify a law is a religious text with no proven historical truth, it should not play any part in the decision of a government. religion is necessary as a tool to explain and theorize about the meaning of our existance, and to provide structure and discipline to those in need of it. it is good for these purposes but when it comes to denying the rights of people it is downright wrong. christians need to understand that not everybody agrees with their faith and they cannot force others to abide by the rules of the bible.

[billcom7]

were not allowed to burn leaves, but we can burn the american flag, something doesnt add up there

i say ban flag burning, the freedom of speech it would encroach upon is so minimal it shouldnt even be part of the argument, there is nothing you can achieve through flag burning that cant be accomplished by making a sign and holding it up, except possibly setting stuff on fire

[youcomebeforeyo]

There was a case here in New Zealand last year over someone burning the flag. It brung up a lot of controversy for it's something unusual to happen here.

I support someones right to do it, I wouldn't want to myself unless I feel I had been betrayed by my country.

[DeadVictoryRose]

ok you got me. let me be more clear. i don't think that at this point the beliefs of ANY religion should play any part in politics. some very basic teachings of christianity were ok at the beggining as a point of reference but that is it. using the bible to strip homosexuals of their right to marry is completely wrong. if the only thing we have to justify a law is a religious text with no proven historical truth, it should not play any part in the decision of a government. religion is necessary as a tool to explain and theorize about the meaning of our existance, and to provide structure and discipline to those in need of it. it is good for these purposes but when it comes to denying the rights of people it is downright wrong. christians need to understand that not everybody agrees with their faith and they cannot force others to abide by the rules of the bible.

If it was okay to use the ideals in the beginning, why now should we go away from those? And I will mind you, no one is stripping away homosexuals right to marry, they have never been awarded that right(on a federal level), that is what the whole debate on it is, whether they should be awarded that right or not. The forefathers established this country on religious principles but also wanted to protedt people who might not agree with the exact principals of those in power, and that is pretty much what goes on.

There are plenty of historical truths in the bible, along with the fact that as you pointed out, these teachings are in numerous religions, this isnt some off the wall ideas, its pretty widely accepted, whether or not you believe Jesus was the son of God, there are plenty facts in the bible. Granted, I still will not say anyone should live their lives completely by it, and I believe it should not be taken 100 percent literal, it is open to interpretation.

Everyone is in need of structure and discipline, and saying that is what religion is used for is a very ignorant comment. I will however say that I hate religion, but fully support spirituallity, there is a difference. Religion can be skewed and used to manipulate, and the church has pushed many away with its actions. However spirituality and belief in a God does far more than the things you listed, and I don't think any truly spiritual person wants laws that force people to behave like them, because it takes away from the work of getting into your relationship with your God. However, these morals and beliefs are in just about every government there is, which ever religion it's founders practiced.

No one is using this to deny rights, to understand a Christians arguement of gay marriage understand what marriage is and where it came from, it came from God and was shown first with Adam and Eve, so saying that two men should be able to get married to a Christian is a lot like me saying to you that i should be able to fly by moving my arms, it just isnt in their comprehension. No one is making anyone abide by the Bible, you do it already by choice, whether you believe or not.

[Asterix]

were not allowed to burn leaves, but we can burn the american flag, something doesnt add up there

i say ban flag burning, the freedom of speech it would encroach upon is so minimal it shouldnt even be part of the argument, there is nothing you can achieve through flag burning that cant be accomplished by making a sign and holding it up, except possibly setting stuff on fire
ummm you can burn leaves and a flag as well... however if you do it on public land its considered criminal e.g. in a park is a no no

If it was okay to use the ideals in the beginning, why now should we go away from those? And I will mind you, no one is stripping away homosexuals right to marry, they have never been awarded that right(on a federal level), that is what the whole debate on it is, whether they should be awarded that right or not. The forefathers established this country on religious principles but also wanted to protedt people who might not agree with the exact principals of those in power, and that is pretty much what goes on.

There are plenty of historical truths in the bible, along with the fact that as you pointed out, these teachings are in numerous religions, this isnt some off the wall ideas, its pretty widely accepted, whether or not you believe Jesus was the son of God, there are plenty facts in the bible. Granted, I still will not say anyone should live their lives completely by it, and I believe it should not be taken 100 percent literal, it is open to interpretation.

Everyone is in need of structure and discipline, and saying that is what religion is used for is a very ignorant comment. I will however say that I hate religion, but fully support spirituallity, there is a difference. Religion can be skewed and used to manipulate, and the church has pushed many away with its actions. However spirituality and belief in a God does far more than the things you listed, and I don't think any truly spiritual person wants laws that force people to behave like them, because it takes away from the work of getting into your relationship with your God. However, these morals and beliefs are in just about every government there is, which ever religion it's founders practiced.

No one is using this to deny rights, to understand a Christians arguement of gay marriage understand what marriage is and where it came from, it came from God and was shown first with Adam and Eve, so saying that two men should be able to get married to a Christian is a lot like me saying to you that i should be able to fly by moving my arms, it just isnt in their comprehension. No one is making anyone abide by the Bible, you do it already by choice, whether you believe or not.


ok... well first off there were not any one ADAM AND EVE... thats just a reality... its a metaphorical representation...like honestly do you really think that a number of the people mentioned in the old testament and the torah were actually 800 years old??? because from what i know the average life-span was relatively shorter than 800 years...but perhaps my numbers are a little off... but thats another story ... who cares about what christians have to say about gay marriage there's substantial no debate over whether they can get married in a church.. they want the civil recognition from the government for many things...e.g. financial benefits that are applicable to heterosexual couples etc.

[DeadVictoryRose]

ummm you can burn leaves and a flag as well... however if you do it on public land its considered criminal e.g. in a park is a no no




ok... well first off there were not any one ADAM AND EVE... thats just a reality... its a metaphorical representation...like honestly do you really think that a number of the people mentioned in the old testament and the torah were actually 800 years old??? because from what i know the average life-span was relatively shorter than 800 years...but perhaps my numbers are a little off... but thats another story ... who cares about what christians have to say about gay marriage there's substantial no debate over whether they can get married in a church.. they want the civil recognition from the government for many things...e.g. financial benefits that are applicable to heterosexual couples etc.

wow great arguement. end sarcasm. when referring to adam and eve, i was referring to when marriage was proposed into teachings, whic was in the old testament. you have no better of an idea of the reality of things back then as I do, it could just as easily be true. why? because you have no facts either.

if you pay attention, i didnt say christians were against them getting married in churches, my whole point is why christians are against it, and it is the word marriage, and the origin of it. follow along, everyone else did.

[Asterix]

wow great arguement. end sarcasm. when referring to adam and eve, i was referring to when marriage was proposed into teachings, whic was in the old testament. you have no better of an idea of the reality of things back then as I do, it could just as easily be true. why? because you have no facts either.

if you pay attention, i didnt say christians were against them getting married in churches, my whole point is why christians are against it, and it is the word marriage, and the origin of it. follow along, everyone else did.
wow harsh words.. first off im saying that they can have their opinion but the government/society dont have to bend over backwards to follow christian beliefs because we are a heterogeneous society and christians are just one of the many groups of people that live in america and well ... and about the people living that long theologians (for the most part) believe that people really didn't actually live that long and that it was more or less a metaphor to represent seniority..wiseness... etc.. so why dont you open your eyes bro ... a large portion of the old testament is filled with metaphorical stories that are there just to teach a lesson....NOT TO TELL AN ACTUAL STORY...and come on ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANITY GOD WAS CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE AND WELL... DID HE NOT CREATE GAY PEOPLE....IF THATS WHAT GOD DID DONT YOU THINK TAHT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED ACCORDING TO YOU??

also the fact of the matter is that christians arent the only people that married in history... many other religions and not only one's that stemmed out of ABRAHAM so just because one religion's doctrine is against it... and in addition isn't marriage essentially about love??..

oh yes and in closing "there's substantial no debate over whether they can get married in a church" that means that i was saying that there is no debate ...hence they alright have steadfast opinion against gay marriage...SO why dont you try paying attention wiseass ;)

[Cottage Cheese]

So wait... if Adam & Eve were the first two humans and were married and had children, how did they start human civilization... I mean incest had to be involved. That's too icky to think about, that's why I trust my knowledge in good-old evolutionism. Darwin was right!

And oh yea, flag burning is a form of free speech if you ask me, BOOO-YEAAAAAAAAAA!!!!1!one!one

[DeadVictoryRose]

wow harsh words.. first off im saying that they can have their opinion but the government/society dont have to bend over backwards to follow christian beliefs because we are a heterogeneous society and christians are just one of the many groups of people that live in america and well ... and about the people living that long theologians (for the most part) believe that people really didn't actually live that long and that it was more or less a metaphor to represent seniority..wiseness... etc.. so why dont you open your eyes bro ... a large portion of the old testament is filled with metaphorical stories that are there just to teach a lesson....NOT TO TELL AN ACTUAL STORY...and come on ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANITY GOD WAS CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE AND WELL... DID HE NOT CREATE GAY PEOPLE....IF THATS WHAT GOD DID DONT YOU THINK TAHT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED ACCORDING TO YOU??

also the fact of the matter is that christians arent the only people that married in history... many other religions and not only one's that stemmed out of ABRAHAM so just because one religion's doctrine is against it... and in addition isn't marriage essentially about love??..

oh yes and in closing "there's substantial no debate over whether they can get married in a church" that means that i was saying that there is no debate ...hence they alright have steadfast opinion against gay marriage...SO why dont you try paying attention wiseass ;)

Homosexuals are accepted by christians... as sinners. By your theory God created murders, and thieves, so we must accept them and allow them to kill and steal? If you noticed the whole discussion we had earlier was on the fact that the government has pieces of religion embedded in it, either in the constitution/dec of ind. or in the way a certain president makes decisions, so it does mean a lot of those christian beliefs are followed. Most theologians believe the Bible pretty literally, it is forward thinking people, usually not accepted by the church that look at it more figuratively. I myself have an understanding of Genesis that differs from most theologians, but I would never be arrogant enough to tell people what is metaphorical representation and what is not, for reasons that it is differing for each person and I could never truly know for certain. If you understand religious history, I never said christians were the first to marry, simply put there were not christians before christs time. The story in the bible is, if you believe the bible to be true, God's word(which christians do, and since my statement is why christians find letting homosexuals marry a threat) that instructs those willing to believe how to live our life and walk with God. It is instructing us on marriage and many other things. One religion didnt stem out of Abraham, the lineage discussed in Genesis is theoretically the lineage of the world... theoretically of all religions, races, nations.

My intentions were never to get into a religious stance or converse on whether right or wrong, and Im over discussing it, since everyone wants to argue whether right or wrong, I am simply trying to enlighten people on why the religious community is so unaccepting.

And in conclusion anyone that can make sense of these precious segments wins a prize...

"there's substantial no debate over whether they can get married in a church"

"...hence they alright have steadfast opinion against gay marriage"

...I'm paying attention cunty, your just not able to correctly structure sentences.

So wait... if Adam & Eve were the first two humans and were married and had children, how did they start human civilization... I mean incest had to be involved. That's too icky to think about, that's why I trust my knowledge in good-old evolutionism. Darwin was right!

And oh yea, flag burning is a form of free speech if you ask me, BOOO-YEAAAAAAAAAA!!!!1!one!one

Well the bible tells the story, Genesis, read it. Then you can understand both theories of existance. Yes incest would have been involved, but the idea that we were some creepy one celled organism in a swamp doesnt bode much better than incest in my mind. ;) I actually buy into more of a scientific approach personally, but im sure somewhere in all of our lineages we have had incestuous ancestors, it was pretty common in older times, especially when people couldnt travel far away from their town or village.

[Cottage Cheese]

Well the bible tells the story, Genesis, read it. Then you can understand both theories of existance. Yes incest would have been involved, but the idea that we were some creepy one celled organism in a swamp doesnt bode much better than incest in my mind. ;) I actually buy into more of a scientific approach personally, but im sure somewhere in all of our lineages we have had incestuous ancestors, it was pretty common in older times, especially when people couldnt travel far away from their town or village.

But the thing is, doesn't mutations and biological errors come from incestion and in-breeding? You see, that's what I don't get. Plus, if they lived in far away villages, that seemed like a lame excuse. I mean, I'm not THAT lazy where I don't want to walk 5 miles down the road but instead bone my sister. And I like your description of evolutionism, as "some creepy one celled organism in a swamp"... but see I like my view on the Bible better, where I don't need to follow a 2000 year old text made up of heterosexual white men who thought it was okay to discriminate the blacks and gays and not give much equality to the ladies. That's why I trust evolutionism and the miliions of years we've been evolving. Something tells me you're one of those ca-razy creationists that don't believe in dinosaurs. I also take it that you've become the resident relious nut in this flag burning discussion. (In keeping with the flag burning scene, what's your take on your Cawzin Larry burning a Cross at a Klan meeting? I never understood that!) See, what I don't like about you is that you are imposing your ideals and opinions on others, making them sound wrong and you sound right, all the while thinking you're scoring brownie points with the Lord and you're gonna get a good seat in heaven. The only Christians I can respect are those who respect other people's beliefs and reasoning, and don't talk down to them in a condescending manner. So do yourself a favor, and start building that moat around your house, because ZOMBIE JESUS IS COMING!

http://modernfreaktshirts.com/ChoicesPics/zombiejesus300x300.gif

[A picasso blue]

did anyone see the Daily Show like two days ago? it was so bad cause Rob Corddry was holding a tiny american flag and a sparkler in one hand and then the flag burst into flames so he threw it on the ground and stomped out the fire.


i still dont know how they got away with that

[kylekillspeople]

Does this cover American Flags or any national flag. I'm sure right-wingers have no problems with people burning a French flag.
you make a good point.

im gonna come right out and say that i think burning the american flag is bullshit simply because of our boysfighting bleeding and dying under that same banner of colors throughout the world. i will say however that there is a defenite "the gods must be crazy" aspect to the issue, meaning that any object is only as important as you make it. what could be a sacred item to one person could simply be trash to another.

first off im saying that they can have their opinion but the government/society dont have to bend over backwards to follow christian beliefs

but then why should the government bend over backwards for gun control, gay marraige and abortion? there is a stigma in this country from the left about christian values, and it has been said that those who vote based on god, gays and guns are "closed minded", when it could be said that those with opposing views are radically liberal. why cant people in this country just realize that people in this country make their decisions for their reasons and that when somebody disagrees with you its their vote.

did anyone see the Daily Show like two days ago? it was so bad cause Rob Corddry was holding a tiny american flag and a sparkler in one hand and then the flag burst into flames so he threw it on the ground and stomped out the fire.


i still dont know how they got away with that

because everyone knows th daily show is the only legit form of news on television.

[Asterix]

i agree with you kylekillspeople ..and thats why i said that they can have their opinion but the government should analyze all aspects before following the opinion of a highly influential institution thats all good point though.. agreed

[1000shadesofred]

the president+ the senate+ the house= a conspiracy to roll back as many amendment rights as possible

[DeadVictoryRose]

But the thing is, doesn't mutations and biological errors come from incestion and in-breeding? You see, that's what I don't get. Plus, if they lived in far away villages, that seemed like a lame excuse. I mean, I'm not THAT lazy where I don't want to walk 5 miles down the road but instead bone my sister. And I like your description of evolutionism, as "some creepy one celled organism in a swamp"... but see I like my view on the Bible better, where I don't need to follow a 2000 year old text made up of heterosexual white men who thought it was okay to discriminate the blacks and gays and not give much equality to the ladies. That's why I trust evolutionism and the miliions of years we've been evolving. Something tells me you're one of those ca-razy creationists that don't believe in dinosaurs. I also take it that you've become the resident relious nut in this flag burning discussion. (In keeping with the flag burning scene, what's your take on your Cawzin Larry burning a Cross at a Klan meeting? I never understood that!) See, what I don't like about you is that you are imposing your ideals and opinions on others, making them sound wrong and you sound right, all the while thinking you're scoring brownie points with the Lord and you're gonna get a good seat in heaven. The only Christians I can respect are those who respect other people's beliefs and reasoning, and don't talk down to them in a condescending manner. So do yourself a favor, and start building that moat around your house, because ZOMBIE JESUS IS COMING!


Mutations and bilogical errors do come from inbreeding over many generations, however even by the theory of evolution there was a starting point where inbreeding would have been neccesary. A lot of creationists(as mentioned earlier by someone else in this post) believe that adam and eve were a metaphor, or not the only ones created, but the story was important. You may walk 5 miles not to have to fuck yr sister, but the fact is, in older times people would consistantly marry cousins and the likes. Besides when I say small villages, we are often times talking about 500 miles away from other things, and anything 5 miles would probably still be related to you.

Actually the bible wasn't made by white men, but good try. The bible as it is commonly accepted was written by the followers of christ and jews. This would make them middle easterners. The modern day bible was accepted upon by Constantine, at the Council of Nicea. Basically Constantine feared losing the roman empire to christianity and wanted to keep power, so he adopted it as the official religion and also decided what would be in the bible. Other writings/gospels were left out(the gospel of thomas) which scholars challenge show a different light of jesus as well as less of the chauvinism and negative attitude towards women(which you are correct about), however there is very little negatism about races or sexuality in the bible. Homosexuality is looked at as Sin, thats all, the same as me having sex with a women outside of marriage.

Actually you must not have paid much attention because early I discussed my view on the bible as well as the origins of earth, and that I don't but into the literal Genesis explanation. I am not at all a traditional creationist, nor am i a christian. I have studied religion and spirituality and history a great deal, and am simply sharing what I have learned.

As far as cross burning, I dont get it either, just as I dont get flag burning. I consider them insulting to people who believe in what they stand for. In general I think our country has a lot more people thinking against things rather than for things. Like Bush, everyone voted against him, not for their candidate. I just think thats a lousy rationale.

I don't think I was ever imposing my ideals and opinions on others. I was voicing my opinion, as are you and everyone on here. And the only reason this even got religious, was my attempt to help people undestand a different side of the arguement, and not me narrow minded. Im not even sure you know my ideals or opinion, because you clearly don't act like it. I never force my beliefs on anyone, and can't stand anyone who does so. I respect everyone's beliefs, maybe you just need to look at it more openly.

[Cottage Cheese]

I respect everyone's beliefs, maybe you just need to look at it more openly.

honestly dude, don't take what I said seriously. For one, of all the posts you've written, I read about 10% of it. So if I came off trying to prove you wrong, I wasn't. All that bullshit I said was nonsensical ideas I was throwing together for comical reasons. In all honesty, I don't see any good reason to ban flag burning, but at the same time don't think burning a flag means anything accept one disagreeing with their government's activites. It gets nothing accompished, but I don't see a need to ban it. As long as you're not harming others or other's property.

[kylekillspeople]

i agree with you kylekillspeople ..and thats why i said that they can have their opinion but the government should analyze all aspects before following the opinion of a highly influential institution thats all good point though.. agreed
agreed is right. i think people are so determined to get their way that our society believes that its going to be one way or another on most issues these days, when the rational thing to do would be to have a sit down and try to compromise for the betterment or our country rather than tear it apart over petty issues like gay marriage. im about as conservative as they come, but i dont see what the big deal is on that issue.

[Asterix]

agreed is right. i think people are so determined to get their way that our society believes that its going to be one way or another on most issues these days, when the rational thing to do would be to have a sit down and try to compromise for the betterment or our country rather than tear it apart over petty issues like gay marriage. im about as conservative as they come, but i dont see what the big deal is on that issue.
well put im liking you more and more with every response you make :love: i mean im pretty liberal but i like to hear out the other side of the arguement as to find out what the other side of the spectrum has to say and then solve the issue with some sort of middle ground...cause well then most likely both sides will leave happy instead of leaving one side with a spiteful opinion towards the other in the end etc...and plus its one of the lesser important issues because there are children hungry and starving in our country and yet that is put on the back burner in comparison to social issues which although affect people dont affect people as much as other serious issues e.g. the poverty, unemployment war etc..like we need to get our priorities straightened out

[UhCarolUmYea]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/uhcarolumyea/flagburn.jpg
had this on my computer. seemed appropriate.

[aminorthreat55]

Haha Carol, you're awesome.