Even Massachusetts has crazy right-wingers

[Angelsjunky]

Exhibit A

 

Gotta love it.

 

Anyhow, here's a good quote from gubernatorial candidate Richard Tisei, a gay (and married) Republican who--obviously--supports gay marriage but also abortion rights:

 

“The Republican Party should lead the way in getting government off our backs, out of our wallets, and away from our bedrooms, and the Party hierarchy would be wise to adopt platforms that promote these values, which are shared by an overwhelming number of citizens in Massachusetts.”

 

Here, here! Where did that Republican Party go? When did it become so fused with the Religious Right and their 19th century worldview?

[nate]

He must not be up for reelection.

[nate]

By the way, sort of on this same topic.

 

[Angelsjunky]

Maybe it would be called Leviticus Survivor? That would be just cruel. No one would survive.

[HaloMagic]

“The Republican Party should lead the way in getting government off our backs, out of our wallets, and away from our bedrooms, and the Party hierarchy would be wise to adopt platforms that promote these values, which are shared by an overwhelming number of citizens in Massachusetts.”

Here, here! Where did that Republican Party go?

They became libertarians.

[Adam]

Anyone can call themselves anything then ask others to be like them. 

 

Parties are stupid. 

[Caralho]

Exhibit A

 

Gotta love it.

 

Anyhow, here's a good quote from gubernatorial candidate Richard Tisei, a gay (and married) Republican who--obviously--supports gay marriage but also abortion rights:

 

“The Republican Party should lead the way in getting government off our backs, out of our wallets, and away from our bedrooms, and the Party hierarchy would be wise to adopt platforms that promote these values, which are shared by an overwhelming number of citizens in Massachusetts.”

 

Here, here! Where did that Republican Party go? When did it become so fused with the Religious Right and their 19th century worldview?

 

In the 1980's.

[mtangelsfan]

Nate, Molly and AJ are all confused about Biblical law.  

 

But they have to be.

[Angelsjunky]

Anyone can call themselves anything then ask others to be like them. 

 

Parties are stupid. 

 

I agree, but...they're the reality of things. I'd rather have many parties, or no parties at all, but we're faced with this two party system.

 

Of course, in reality, there are really two or three "sub-parties" within each. What is bothersome to me is how the Republican agenda has become fused with a religious one, serving a specific religious ideology.

[Angelsjunky]

Nate, Molly and AJ are all confused about Biblical law.  

 

But they have to be.

 

Enlighten us.

 

The larger point, though, is that the Bible should have nothing to do with federal or state law, but the Republican platform says otherwise because its dislike of gay marriage (the abominable DOMA) and abortion is based upon religious (Christian) ideology.

 

The Constitution is not a religious document - it is secular. Yes, about 70% of the country can be categorized as "Christian," but even of those 70%, my guess is that half or less believe that the US should be a "Christian Nation."

[Adam]

I agree, but...they're the reality of things. I'd rather have many parties, or no parties at all, but we're faced with this two party system.

 

Of course, in reality, there are really two or three "sub-parties" within each. What is bothersome to me is how the Republican agenda has become fused with a religious one, serving a specific religious ideology.

 

What bothers me is people who identify with the two parties. 

[Jay]

These days it's more about voting against a party or candidate than voting for a party or candidate.

[Angelsjunky]

What bothers me is people who identify with the two parties. 

 

I hear you. I've been registering as "Independent" even though I've always voted for the Democratic presidential candidate. If its Hillary vs. Jeb in 2016, I might be voting elsewhere.

[Blarg]

There needs to be an end to the two family system.

[mtangelsfan]

Enlighten us.

 

The larger point, though, is that the Bible should have nothing to do with federal or state law, but the Republican platform says otherwise because its dislike of gay marriage (the abominable DOMA) and abortion is based upon religious (Christian) ideology.

 

The Constitution is not a religious document - it is secular. Yes, about 70% of the country can be categorized as "Christian," but even of those 70%, my guess is that half or less believe that the US should be a "Christian Nation."

 

Abortion is based on the notion that murder is wrong.  Is that only a Christian idea?

 

As for gay marriage, I kind of agree with you on that.  However, I also agree that Christians should not be forced to go against their beliefs and that the Constitution, even as a secular document argues that very thing.

[nate]

Who is forcing Christians to marry the same sex?  Where in the bible does it say performing a service for a sinner is a sin?  Doesn't it say the opposite?

 

The Koran is the book that says to turn your backs on non believers.

[mtangelsfan]

Who is forcing Christians to marry the same sex?  Where in the bible does it say performing a service for a sinner is a sin?  Doesn't it say the opposite?

 

The Koran is the book that says to turn your backs on non believers.

 

The first part of your question is silly.  The second part is not the point.  There are plenty of services that Christians can and should provide for anybody, most in fact.  There are also plenty of people willing to provide the services that might make some uncomfortable providing.  It should be a fairly simple issue to solve but everyone is so sue happy and sensitive today we all want the court system or laws to solve our problems than just handling them ourselves.  

[nate]

People were uncomfortable serving blacks 50 years ago.

 

This is just hatred and bigotry disguised as being forced to do something against your religion.  Xenophobia to the max.

[mtangelsfan]

People were uncomfortable serving blacks 50 years ago.

 

This is just hatred and bigotry disguised as being forced to do something against your religion.  Xenophobia to the max.

 

Except for me one is clear Biblically and one would be anathema Biblically.  The fact that a majority of the first abolitionists were Christians should tell you that.

[Crampknees]

The first part of your question is silly.  The second part is not the point.  There are plenty of services that Christians can and should provide for anybody, most in fact.  There are also plenty of people willing to provide the services that might make some uncomfortable providing.  It should be a fairly simple issue to solve but everyone is so sue happy and sensitive today we all want the court system or laws to solve our problems than just handling them ourselves.  

I just don't get the politicians now and "the attack on Christianity." Things are pretty much the same as they were years ago but all of a sudden it is amplified.  We only have more gays, etc. as the rise in population percentage.  More people, more shit. Christians should know to not get in the middle of this crap.

[mtangelsfan]

Who's getting in the middle?  They were sued.  They didn't ask to be.

[nate]

Except for me one is clear Biblically and one would be anathema Biblically.  The fact that a majority of the first abolitionists were Christians should tell you that.

 

Which can be seen in the heavily religious deep south where they still fly the confederate flag.

 

Answer this seriously, which state is more tolerant?  The heavily Christian South Carolina or the much more diverse and religiously lax California?

Edited February 28, 2014 by nate

[sneaky_flute]

Which can be seen in the heavily religious deep south where they still fly the confederate flag.

 

Answer this seriously, which state is more tolerant?  The heavily Christian South Carolina or the much more diverse and religiously lax California?

Well, the majority in California voted for Proposition 8.

 

It's funny how these Tea Partiers try to support their arguments by citing the Founding Fathers when most of the Founding Fathers hated religion. 

[mtangelsfan]

Honestly I guess it depends on what your opinion of what tolerance is.  If you define it as a total acceptance of homosexuality then sure, California wins.  I will point out that it wasn't that long ago that California passed the anti gay wedding proposition.  I don't know what South Carolina has or hasn't passed.

 

As far as how blacks are seen.  While outward prejudice in the south is certainly more prevalent I'm not sure that true prejudice is any greater in one place or the other.  Though if it is it's much more culturally driven that religion driven.

 

Do you deny that a majority of the first abolitionists were Christians?

[nate]

Well, the majority in California voted for Proposition 8.

 

It's funny how these Tea Partiers try to support their arguments by citing the Founding Fathers when most of the Founding Fathers hated religion. 

 

The biggest backers of Prop 8 were Catholics and religious groups.  Similar bills in the south go 70/30

 

The fact is all religion breeds intolerance.  The whole premise behind it is superiority.  The idea of "you are only good and are only saved if you follow my rules" breeds conflict and intolerance.