GOP Says Christians Disciminated Against More Than Gays

[Shana A]

Posted on Advocate.com January 08, 2012 10:56:06 AM ET

GOP Says Christians Discriminated Against More Than Gays
By Lucas Grindley

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/01/07/GOP_Says_Christians_Discriminated_Against_More_Than_Gays/

When a viewer asked what gay couples should do who want to "form, loving committed relationships," answers from Republican candidates during Tuesday's debate devolved into a case for why it's actually Christians who are being persecuted.

"The bigotry question goes both ways," declared Newt Gingrich. "And there is a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concern on the other side, and none of it gets covered by the news media."

[Kreuzfidel]

I wonder if they ever stop to think that, if Christians are being discriminated against, maybe they deserve it for all of centuries of murder, oppression and abuse that has been the legacy of "Christianity".  Interesting how they whine when the tables are turned.

[Felix]

God bless the GOP.

[dalebert]

So... if Christians are prevented from using government force to discriminate against LGBT people... they're being discriminated against? That kind of thought process takes some seriously elaborate logic acrobatics.

[pebbles]

So... if Christians are prevented from using government force to discriminate against LGBT people... they're being discriminated against? That kind of thought process takes some seriously elaborate logic acrobatics.

bear in mind this is from a group of pepole who refuse to look at a thermometer that tells them that the planet is warming up, ignore the fact that if evolution dosen't happen the way it's discribed then most medicine used in the modern world shouldn't work. Or outright deny what scientific findings say about techniques that do work because they don't fit into their ideological principle. (Stem Cell research, Medical uses for marijuana ect)

To be fair I suppose they arn't illogical they don't even accept logic exsists... Trying to discuss scienctific issues or logic with pepole like that is much like having a conversation with a Mycon from star control. Basically impossible it's just a series of inconsistent ramblings.

[justmeinoz]

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Here they would be laughed out of town as a "pack of Bible Bashing Bast***s."  It really is a worry that a lunatic fringe has such a hold on one of the US major political parties.

[spacial]

I suggest he is actually referring to certain political types. Nothing really to do with Christians or any other religion.

But frankly, going to a meeting of that type and asking a question about the problems facing gay people was probably provocative.

Bit like walking up to a group of drunken KKK hill billies and asking. 'Hey, Where dem white women at?' (apologies to 'Blazing Saddles' )

[Michelle.]

His referring to the oppression of Christian minorities in places like China, Iran, the Middle East and Africa.

Oppression in this case means de facto ethnic cleansing. Few, if any, sizable Christian population remain in Muslim nations. Churches have to be monitored, really run, by the Chinese communists. Whole groups are being burned alive in Nigeria.

Etc etc etc.

[Keaira]

So it really is coming down to picking the biggest loser to run our country? I'll vote for Spock

[VeryGnawty]

That kind of thought process takes some seriously elaborate logic acrobatics.

Actually, they often skip the logic part completely and go straight to training their acrobatics.

[Jamie D]

So it really is coming down to picking the biggest loser to run our country? I'll vote for Spock

Mr. Spock would certainly fit the criteria of "anybody but Obama"; however I don't think he is a "natural born citizen"!

[Jamie D]

Bigotry comes in all shapes, sizes, colors, and creeds.  That includes bigotry committed by Christians and against Christians.

I'm not a particularly religious person.  I don't belong to any particular faith.  But I easily recognize anti-religious bigotry when I see it.

All bigotry is ugly.

[Keaira]

Mr. Spock would certainly fit the criteria of "anybody but Obama"; however I don't think he is a "natural born citizen"!

Why? there seems to be some debate of Obama's citizenship.

The thing is, it's supposed to be separation of church and state. These 3 might as well be dressed as bishops.

[Jamie D]

Why? there seems to be some debate of Obama's citizenship.

The thing is, it's supposed to be separation of church and state. These 3 might as well be dressed as bishops.

There is little doubt that Mr. Obama is a citizen.   "Natural born citizen" is a different requirement, however, unique in the Constitution to the President.

I suppose Mr. Spock could be considered a citizen of the Earth, as his mother was a Terran.

[Felix]

Mr. Spock has always been a hero of mine, and I'd write him in if I could lighten up a little.

[justmeinoz]

Natural Born Citizen? As opposed to Unnatural Born Citizen?
If place of birth is so important, when are you going to get your first Native American President?

[Jamie D]

Natural Born Citizen? As opposed to Unnatural Born Citizen?
If place of birth is so important, when are you going to get your first Native American President?

"Native Americans"??  You mean the east Asians who walked across the Bering Ice Bridge some 30 to 40 thousand years ago?

The Framers of the US Constitution, in 1787, felt that it was important that the President, in his (originally, or her), role as Commander-in-Chief, have no other allegiances.  It was then, and is now, a wise requirement.

[dalebert]

Natural Born Citizen? As opposed to Unnatural Born Citizen?

I'm with you there. Treating people as having different rights based on which side of an arbitrarily-drawn border they were born on makes no more sense to me than treating people as having different rights based on what race they were born into.

[Jamie D]

I'm with you there. Treating people as having different rights based on which side of an arbitrarily-drawn border they were born on makes no more sense to me than treating people as having different rights based on what race they were born into.

It is a fundamental tenet of any society that its members have the right to determine who can become a new member and how.

When speaking of nation-states, that membership is called "citizenship."  In the United States we recognize two forms of citizenship.  They are divided into citizenship by birth, and citizenship by statute.

Citizenship by birth can be derived from jus sanguinis - the right of blood; being the offspring of a citizen - or jus soli - the right of soil; being born within a jurisdiction.  Citizenship by statute is better known as naturalization.

Every country in the world has established citizenship criteria.

[tekla]

The Framers of the US Constitution, in 1787, felt that it was important that the President, in his (originally, or her), role as Commander-in-Chief, have no other allegiances.  It was then, and is now, a wise requirement.

It never seemed to bother them much before a brother made it into the White House.  Jackson would not have qualified under some of the 'opinions' offered on the topic, nor would have Chester A. Arthur.  But since it's never been adjudicated by the Supremes, there is no authoritative ruling to point to.

And I'm not even sure about George Washington, John Adams ,Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams - none of whom were born in the United States.