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/ (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."
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.
God bless the GOP. :laugh:
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.
Quote from: dalebert on January 10, 2012, 01:59:32 AM
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.
Star Control 2 - The Mycon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3OB7Kjfm0A#)
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.
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' )
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.
So it really is coming down to picking the biggest loser to run our country? I'll vote for Spock
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ypJYo_wY8V0%2FTnVmvbkXTwI%2FAAAAAAAAADs%2F4H4PX9hZP6U%2Fs400%2Fspock2012.jpg&hash=7b43f6b93edf70ce7a0ccab2176e61ed890ddf39)
Quote from: dalebert on January 10, 2012, 01:59:32 AMThat 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.
Quote from: Keaira on January 11, 2012, 11:57:38 PM
So it really is coming down to picking the biggest loser to run our country? I'll vote for Spock
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ypJYo_wY8V0%2FTnVmvbkXTwI%2FAAAAAAAAADs%2F4H4PX9hZP6U%2Fs400%2Fspock2012.jpg&hash=7b43f6b93edf70ce7a0ccab2176e61ed890ddf39)
Mr. Spock would certainly fit the criteria of "anybody but Obama"; however I don't think he is a "natural born citizen"!
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.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 13, 2012, 01:18:45 PM
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. :P
The thing is, it's supposed to be separation of church and state. These 3 might as well be dressed as bishops.
Quote from: Keaira on January 14, 2012, 12:29:20 AM
Why? there seems to be some debate of Obama's citizenship. :P
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.
Mr. Spock has always been a hero of mine, and I'd write him in if I could lighten up a little. :laugh:
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?
Quote from: justmeinoz on January 14, 2012, 01:17:36 AM
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.
Quote from: justmeinoz on January 14, 2012, 01:17:36 AM
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.
Quote from: dalebert on January 15, 2012, 01:03:28 AM
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.
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.
If they are talking about other countries where being a Christian can get you killed by Fascists pretending to be Muslims for example, yes. But in the USA? Seems to me they are trying to confuse people, in a desperate attempt to get into the White House.
Karen.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 15, 2012, 02:43:51 AM
Every country in the world has established citizenship criteria.
Yeah, I'm aware. It's on my list of things that people have been doing for ages that give me the heebee jeebees. I'm not of the mindset that something is moral or right because it's been done for a long time. I was taught in school that America was the exception--the big melting pot where everyone was welcome as long as you respect the choices and freedoms of others but I later realized that it was just rhetoric to make us feel superior so we could feel better about treating other people who aren't in the "exclusive club" like crap and even killing them for stupid reasons.
the big melting pot where everyone was welcome as long as you respect the choices and freedoms of others but I later realized that it was just rhetoric to make us feel superior so we could feel better about treating other people who aren't in the "exclusive club" like crap and even killing them for stupid reasons
Perhaps, but it's still the easiest place on earth to immigrate to and get citizenship. If you want hard, try Switzerland, which is almost impossible.
Quote from: Michelle. on January 11, 2012, 10:53:30 PM
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.
Quote from: justmeinoz on January 16, 2012, 04:51:34 AM
If they are talking about other countries where being a Christian can get you killed by Fascists pretending to be Muslims for example, yes. But in the USA? Seems to me they are trying to confuse people, in a desperate attempt to get into the White House.
Karen.
Uhh... and you people do realise that in "other countries where being a Christian can get you killed by Fascists pretending to be Muslims" gays and lesbians are also killed or imprisoned for being gays and lesbians, yes? Not to mention corrective rape of lesbians in many of these countries.
It isn't a competition, however, GOP types in the US like to play the victim when it is typically they or other religious fundamentalists who cause the oppression of others. Whether those "others" are discriminated against based on sexuality, sex, religion or otherwise.
The wingnuts really do engage in some logistical acrobatics to twist things around.
"You discriminate against me by not respecting my rights! And by rights, I mean my right to infringe on your rights and provide privileges at your expense to those who engage in behavior I find morally acceptable."
Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2012, 02:56:16 AM
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.
Here's the exception written in the U. S. Constitution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Joelene
Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2012, 02:56:16 AM
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.
Not true. The Framers of the Constitution considered the question and exempted all those born prior to the ratification, as they were part of the founding generation and had paid for their rights with blood.
Joelene9 quotes the appropriate clause, above
The "natural born citizen" issue has been resurrected several times in the last half century. Was Barry Goldwater a "natural born citizen," having been born in Arizona Territory? Was George Romney eligible, due to his birth in Mexico to American citizen parents? In the recent election, the issue was first raised about John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone whie his father was stationed there.
To suggest that the issue is ripe because Obama is black, is a misnomer. The issue exists because Obama's father was not a citizen, and passed his British, and later, Kenyan, citizenship to his son. And complicating the issue is Obama's Indonesian citizenship through his step-father, and the possibility Obama claimed foreign student status in college to obtain funding.
You are correct that the original meaning of the NBC clause has never been
directly addressed by the US Supreme Court; however, it has been mentioned more than once.
From Minor v Happersatt:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."This passage suggests the USSC would have "doubts" about the natural born citizenship of Mr. Obama.
Quote from: dalebert on January 16, 2012, 05:25:28 PM
The wingnuts really do engage in some logistical acrobatics to twist things around.
"You discriminate against me by not respecting my rights! And by rights, I mean my right to infringe on your rights and provide privileges at your expense to those who engage in behavior I find morally acceptable."
It's more that they look in the mirror and they see jesus they
love to play the martyr so makes them think they are holy or on a biblical crusade.