The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

An apostate (a Muslim who denies one of the fundamental tenets of the creed) is punishable by death, is what the Qur'an says.

What did the people in Kobani do to deserve to be riddled with bullets? What crime did they commit?

"An Apostate will be suppressed three days in prison in order that he may repent ..... otherwise, he should be killed, because he has changed his true religion, therefore, there is no use from his living, regardless of being a man or a woman, as Mohammed said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him"

What century is this again?

Apostasy is punishable by death under the criminal code of the majority of Muslim states.

I had to look up apostasy which google tells me is a Swedish blackmetal band. Okay then..

Anyways, the only crime the muslims ISIS kills is that they don't follow their interpretation of Islam. It's like a conservative Christian killing a non-conservative Christian.

Those women being stoned for adultery are usually Muslim, too.

Yes, true... what about them that didn't commit such a crime. Man, if Christians were still stoning people for committing adultery, there wouldn't be a christian left in this world.

In other news, Tunisia is responding to the terrorist attacks by shutting down 80 mosques for incitement. Try that in Europe.

Mosques which aren't under government control you forgot to add, which they believe are places where radical ideas are being spread.

Like what Germany did in WWII with the jews you mean?

[mad_gater]

Which i found hypocritical. When the Scotus ruled against the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) in their decision the judges said it was done cause Marriage is not something the federal govt can dictate or decide. It is a state issue.

So how can they now say "it is a federal decision, and all states must adhere to it"?



I have spent quite a bit of time on the GOPUSA site, commenting about how i feel betrayed by the Republicans in Name only (Or Rinos for short) that have let all of us down, after we gave them a majority, cause we wanted them to start standing up to obama, but have not done so.

As to the attacks. I am getting sick of politicians and media pundits calling them radicals, when it seems from all i have read on the koran, that these 'radicals' are the only ones actually following its teachings.

I was also irked that during the 6+ hrs of continual coverage of the SCOUTS decision/funeral in Charleston, i sat through from 10.30am all the way past 3.30 pm when i left to do some OJT, that Obama found the time to not only make a public address 'Praising the decision of the court, but to make a phone call to one OF the plaintiffs in it, THEN fly down for the Funeral where he spoke.
BUT I didn't here even one comment from him on those 3 terror attacks.

yeah tell me about it....they just ran roughshod over states' rights

[Falcon Horus]

The SCOTUS has been talking out of its arse and ignoring the Constitution for a while now.

Odd since Kennedy mentions the Constitution, more accurately the 14th Amendment:

The Supreme Court said that the right to marry is fundamental — and Kennedy wrote that under the 14th Amendment's protections, "couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."

Reminder what the 14th Amendment entails:

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

The decision this week was a mistake in my opinion. It is in direct conflict with freedom of religion. It won't be long before churches and others who oppose gay marriage due to their beliefs will be forced to perform such services by force of government. I can also imagine a preacher/priest/etc. speaking to his congregation from the bible, teaching what is in the bible regarding homosexuality and being brought up on hate speech charges for doing so. Would such a church lose its tax exempt status? What about the rights of people to worship as they believe? They have opened up a can of worms here, and I highly doubt this issue is settled. Not by a long shot.

Freedom of religion according to the 1st Amendment:

Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.

Second, the establishment clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another. As the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, the establishment clause was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state," although the degree to which government should accommodate religion in public life has been debated in numerous Supreme Court decisions since then.

Now that we know what the constitution says on "freedom of religion", I'd like to know what you mean by it?

* the freedom to discriminate?
* the freedom to preach hate towards a certain group of people?
* the freedom to deny a widower to be recognized and recieve the benefits he would be entitled to were he married to a woman instead of a man who died of ALS?
* the freedom to preach intolerance?
* the freedom to pray and go to church on sunday?
* the freedom to marry the woman/man you love and receive the benefits of that union? (benefits, not children - whether they are benefits is debatable)

Will the marriage of your hypothetical gay neighbors change your life?

No, it won't, and you know it.

Hush now, don't you know it's impolite to criticize "the religion of peace" in public? It's just not done in polite company. You wouldn't want the media outlets to lose their stamp of political correctness, would you?

What's the religion of peace?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

I can also imagine a preacher/priest/etc. speaking to his congregation from the bible, teaching what is in the bible regarding homosexuality .

What does it say exactly?

If you're referring to Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. then you couldn't be more wrong.

There is absolutely no reference in the Bible to anyone in Sodom being gay, and even if they were, that's never given as one of the reasons God wanted to wipe the city out. If anything, the biggest sin of the people of Sodom was that they really hated foreigners.

[jelgate]

What's the religion of peace?

Baconism. We all eat bacon

[Falcon Horus]

Baconism. We all eat bacon

I can live with that.

[Womble]

What did the people in Kobani do to deserve to be riddled with bullets? What crime did they commit?

It's called being a Kurd. Gets you persecuted in four countries.

What century is this again?

For them, the Islamic Golden age of the Middle Ages is the ideal to aspire to, that's the thing.

I had to look up apostasy which google tells me is a Swedish blackmetal band. Okay then..

Anyways, the only crime the muslims ISIS kills is that they don't follow their interpretation of Islam. It's like a conservative Christian killing a non-conservative Christian.

Yep. Used to be a thing, a few centuries ago. Except the Christians have moved on, Muslims not so much.

Mosques which aren't under government control you forgot to add, which they believe are places where radical ideas are being spread.

Yep. The thing is, though, it suggest that the rest of the mosques in the country are under government control. How many mosques in Europe or USA are under government control?

Like what Germany did in WWII with the jews you mean?

Say what? What are you even replying to?

[Womble]

What does it say exactly?

If you're referring to Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. then you couldn't be more wrong.

There is absolutely no reference in the Bible to anyone in Sodom being gay, and even if they were, that's never given as one of the reasons God wanted to wipe the city out. If anything, the biggest sin of the people of Sodom was that they really hated foreigners.

And wanted to male-on-male rape them.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

And wanted to male-on-male rape them.

Which they weren't punished for. God had already decided to destroy the city before he sent the angels to warn Lot about what was about to happen.

The people were so enraged that there were strangers in town that they gathered their torches and pitchforks and marched on Lot's house to demand he let them know his visitors. That one line is the only reference to sexual activity in the whole story. And a poor reason to oppress an entire subset of the population.

And remember, the rules of your religion only apply to followers of your religion.

"You can't do that because of my religion!" Seems there's a lot of that going around at the moment..

[Coco Pops]

Why do children make a scene in a store when they don't get what they want?

Children do that to push their parents buttons.

Why did this idiot pastor say "I'll set myself on fire?" Who did he want to hear this?

[Britta]

The SCOTUS has been talking out of its arse and ignoring the Constitution for a while now.
The decision this week was a mistake in my opinion. It is in direct conflict with freedom of religion. It won't be long before churches and others who oppose gay marriage due to their beliefs will be forced to perform such services by force of government. I can also imagine a preacher/priest/etc. speaking to his congregation from the bible, teaching what is in the bible regarding homosexuality and being brought up on hate speech charges for doing so. Would such a church lose its tax exempt status? What about the rights of people to worship as they believe? They have opened up a can of worms here, and I highly doubt this issue is settled. Not by a long shot.

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with religious definitions of marriage, or religious speech. Churches are still free to decide what they consider to be a real marriage for spiritual purposes. This is entirely about the legal institution of marriage. Separation of church and state means that religions can't demand that their definitions be used for the law. It also means that the government isn't there to rubber stamp religious dogma. Religions have no right to take away other people's rights.

It is not a violation of your religious freedom to forbid you to violate other people's religious freedom, which includes a freedom from religion. If you object to same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It is that simple.

Also, you can't use slippery slope arguments to object to something that isn't inherently bad. The whole point of slippery slope arguments is to discourage people from thinking "well it's not that bad". It's about avoiding desensitisation to doing the wrong thing. Otherwise you could apply slippery slope to pretty much anything. Going outside might lead to the commission of a crime, so everybody should be put under house arrest?

[mad_gater]

I say get the government out of the marriage licensing business altogether....keep civil unions for those who are not religious at all and for churches let them decide on an individual basis who they'll marry and who they won't marry.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

I say get the government out of the marriage licensing business altogether....keep civil unions for those who are not religious at all and for churches let them decide on an individual basis who they'll marry and who they won't marry.

So only Christians are allowed to marry in your world?

[Britta]

I say get the government out of the marriage licensing business altogether....keep civil unions for those who are not religious at all and for churches let them decide on an individual basis who they'll marry and who they won't marry.

So no more tax implications to marriage, and no more automatically being considered next of kin right? If marriage is solely a religious matter, they can't give it any legal weight without violating the constitution.

[Annoyed]

This reply is also addressed to Britta.

What does it say exactly?

If you're referring to Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. then you couldn't be more wrong.

There is absolutely no reference in the Bible to anyone in Sodom being gay, and even if they were, that's never given as one of the reasons God wanted to wipe the city out. If anything, the biggest sin of the people of Sodom was that they really hated foreigners.

I'm not referring to S&G.
Myself, I'm an agnostic, so I'm not the greatest expert authority on the Bible. Nor does this matter a great deal to me personally; our country has far more serious issues to address than this.

But a minute or two with a Google machine turns up several references

Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I'm sure there are other references, but that is sufficient to tell me that the Bible teaches against homosexuality.

So, a priest/pastor/whatever and indeed, the church itself of the Christian faith is compelled to teach what is in the bible.

With this decision, I can easily imagine Gay/Lesbian groups attempting to use the power of government to force these churches to participate in activities that the Bible forbids, as clear violation of religious freedom.
I can also easily see Gay/Lesbian groups attempting to censor a member of the clergy who is attempting to teach what is in the bible in a sermon by accusing them of hate speech.

This is my problem with this decision; it elevates the rights of Gay/Lesbians above the rights of religious institutions.

If a gay couple wants to marry, it's really none of my business, nor is it the business of the church unless that couple wants the church in question to participate in direct violation of the teachings of that church, whichever one it happens to be. I maintain that the Church has the right to refuse to perform/participate in activities that violate the teachings of their religion, and I think this decision places that right in jeopardy. If a gay couple wants to marry, why don't they simply go to a church which has no prohibitions against homosexuality?