I understand what your saying DG, one just has to read to do that. However my comment, you quoted, above was strictly for Lula's consumption and secondly anyone so inclined to read it and understand it was for Lula (I believe you fall into this category) as an observation from my point of view. Anyone offended can, well just be offended, as I didn't call anyone out by name, and certainly provided no content that isn't visible on this thread available to all readers.

I know on occasion I have a difference of opinion with Lula, but she has never disparaged me for my beliefs and she argues her position pretty well (of course you don't see me hanging out on the religious threads, I'm here because this is not a religious issue in my opinion). I hardly would consider her an easy target. I believe some here think it is easy to attack someones belief system. Yet they don't realize when they do they are exposing their own little by little. and it doesn't even have to be religious. Luckily for, for the most part, the regulars here are relatively non-aggressive (until provoked) and don't use that knowledge to ridicule every chance they get.

The purpose is to debate, or at least provide enough insight to question the status quo, or even build a consensus . The funny thing is I don't see a single position changing from the first comments by all concerned parties. I'm not bothered if someone disagrees with my position, just so it doesn't devolve, I can (and did) go there if so inclined, but that's not my nature. I am amused when one argues the rights of some in one breath and labels and demeans others in another breath. At least do it in a separate article, for those with poor memories. I'll try to remember some are still developing their worldview, often through a narrow or selective view. I actually enjoy hearing opposing views, some just do it better than others.

And besides I told Jafo I'd play nice!

No need for that, read the second half of that sentance. It would only apply to anyone that didn't care for what I had to say to Lula and I know you understood and were not offended by my comment as such. It just doesn't sound as intended in my comment. 

I already provided you a link to one individual who was calling for a nationwide moratorium on the building of mosques. 

No.  That's simply incorrect. 

LOL Ok Dg.  Keep telling yourself that.  Sure they called him a coward and surrounded him and wanted to fight him, sure they surrounded him again to say "allah is a pig", sure----but it was 'peaceful'.  What planet do you live on? 

I remember why.  Because he was a racist...in the tea party which has no racists.  Right? 

All totally untrue.  Again the words of simple people. 

You didn't answer the question:  Do you feel that Vatican II was part of the liberal agenda?

Well that's why do don't want the mosque built, right?  Because you're afraid of the Sheria law? 

Look:  it's not a coincidence that the most dogmatic religious fundamentalists are amongst the poorest and least educated.  That's universal.  Look at countries where fundamentalists islam has taken over.  Look at the areas with high concentrations of fundamentalist christians.  Look at the inner cities where NOI does well.

These things aren't coincidental and it's not random.  

So if by elitism, you mean I ignore hayseeds and illiterates - fine.  As well I should.  I recommend you do the same as well. 

I'm not making any assumptions.  You've apologized for Christian violence but seem to hold up for Muslim violence. If you're going to beef with Muslim folks because they've killed people - you have to hold Christians to the same standard. You can't express a difference when they are, in fact, the same.  

So that is an affront to your freedom?  How?  Tell me how. 

Fascinating that you don't consider people making religious based laws a problem for freedom an issue. 

When?

Read the part where I said "blocking traffic." People should be free to drive across town.  If they (and  protesters of any stripe, I'm not singling out gays here) want to keep their group tantrum out of the way, then fine.

Depends on the law, I guess. I don't have a problem with the law based on the religious principal of "Thou shalt not kill", for instance, even though it means you're not free to murder other people. If encroaches on a more harmless freedom, then yes, I'm against it. But since I'm not really against gay marriage, but on the other hand I just can't bring myself to take the side of a bunch of obnoxious children, I stay out of that particular fray. Is my reasoning petty?  Maybe it is. Sue me. (But at least my reasoning isn't religious, right?) There are a lot of people like me out there (and some of them are gay--there are many, many reasonable gay people who are quite embarrassed by the behavior of the "We're here, we're queer" crowd).

If you want me on your side, your first step would be to get the hell out of my face. Watch the Home Design shows. If that was the main way gays portrayed themselves to the world, you'd have your gay marriage already.

"Let them eat cake."

Gotta admire that liberal love for the common folk, it's so touching!

big·ot·ry

  /ˈbɪgətri/  Show Spelled[big-uh-tree]  Show IPA

–noun, plural -ries.

1.

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2.

the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

 

prej·u·dice

   /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/  Show Spelled [prej-uh-dis]  Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.

–noun

1.

an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2.

any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3.

unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

4.

such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

5.

damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

 

 

 

One shouldn't be so quick to "ignore" their  base.

 

Great!  But it doesn't make it any more compatible with modern living in the United States.  It's still violence.  They're the exact, same thing. You think the victims of a clinic bombing give a shit whether jeebus sanctioned them getting blown up?  Hell no.  They just care that some jesus kook tried to kill them. 

You continuously refuse to equate Christian violence with Muslim violence.  You apply a double standard - where one gets by with a wink and the other does not. 

LOL.  So, blocking traffic is an affront to your freedom.  Shoving religious values down your through  ---- ok ok ---provided that they're christian religious values ---- doesn't bother you. 

Right.  Because the only reason we have laws against murder is because Jeebus says so.  

Nop. 

Nop.  You asked for links.  I gave you links.  To exactly what we were discussing. 

Again, maybe it's an issue of upbringing.  If you don't see anything violent in that video, you're absolutely out of your mind. 

LOL.  DG:  you're not the pope.  You don't decide who understands Catholicism.  And again, I've got quite a bit more exposure than you to the issue. 

Nop.  You're just changing your story. 

Wrong.  How do you explain it DG? 

Prop 8.  Move on. 

Well what do you want Nitro?  They're hayseeds. Why else would they stick to the fervent beliefs in a 2000 year old irrational belief system? 

I guess all you know are links to clowns since you have given no links to back up anything you say.  Are you really bee pee under another name?  You are acting just like him.  Perhaps it is just a symptom of the malady called liberalism.

BTW:  The word is No, Nope.  Nop mean no operation - as in you have no clue.

Note to the clueless - THERE IS NO VIOLENCE IN THAT VIDEO. Period.  if there was, anyone could see  it, yet the only violence that has been seen is by the liberal NYDan" that stabbed the cabbie.

I am not Euclid either, but I can say who understands Euclidean geometry - BECAUSE I DO UNDERSTAND IT.  You do not have to be Catholic to understand Catholicism, and I dare say that most people understand it better than you, catholic or not.

Another lie - My story has stayed the same while yours is waffling worse than a carnival snack stand.

Liar - How did that take away any of YOUR rights.  And I will even let you include ANYONE's rights.

Yes, the arrogant egotists who is so stupid, he does not realize that his condescending and ignorant trash talk is not winning friends, just antagonizing potential allies.  I am surprised you can fit that head through any door way.  It being empty only means it is easier to carry.

Humbordt, you mean I can agrue for something that I am totally against and no one will know!  Also, some people may feel that they are changing the world by changing one person's view.   Heck, with one less person that only leaves 6,864,826,224 more to go. 

Yet, for some to change their views there does need to be some rational and logic.

How then shall we live?  I don't know who this 'Jeebus' is, yet how do you feel people should live?  Also, age of a belief system doesn't necessary make it irrational.  You have a belief system and there is faith involved whether you're atheist or agnoistic.  Since, you're not an advocate for 'Jeebus', what is your belief system?

you can't equate them.  A "Christian" (so called) is doing it AGAINST their leader's wishes and against  fellow believers.  A Muslim is doing it with many blessings from their leaders and generally with help from their fellow worshippers.  There's is no equation. It's the exact opposite (which is how Satan influences people to go) of the Christian faith.    When you have full support and comraderie, from your leaders and friends behind you, there's going to be a lot more killing from that side than from the side where  any type of violence is strongly discouraged. 

Agan... a "Christian" (So called) is doing this by himself, a lone ranger so to speak going AGAINST the faith.  A Muslim has pals and clerics who help him kill as many with one shot as they possibly can with no thought to their own life in the process.  It doesn't go against their faith,  In fact, it's applauded. 

No equation at all. 

That's the point I was making (that no degree is acceptable--I seem to recall somebody saying that), but I really can't honestly say I get all that indignant when things like that happen.

I'm not arguing something I'm totally against (although, yes, you can do that), I'm just not as passionate about it as I may have let on. It causes me more eye-rolling than righteous anger.

And Dan's not trying to change anybody's mind, he's lashing out (if he is trying to change minds, he's going about it in a highly questionable manner). And I don't believe I could change his mind even if I wanted to. He's not here to exchange ideas, he's here to scream in people's face. I'll play with him for as long as I feel like doing it, but nothing I (or anybody else) has to say is going to change him. He'll either let go of all that hate one day or he won't.

And Dan, I realize I'm talking behind your back here (well, sorta-kinda), but I still love ya, man!

Good point - but then that seems to be the modus operandi of most liberals.

I have heard that suggested (and many more names for the club).