Welcome to America, where a message of tolerance has corporations shaking in their boots.
All three major networks refused a commercial for the United Church of Christ–one that featured two bouncers refusing admission to (among others) two men who one assumes were supposed to be gay. They weren’t skipping or fondling one another, and one of them wasn’t wearing a wedding dress. And the announcer’s voice said, “No matter who you are or where are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
ABC refused it because they don’t air religious ads (although dramas with nudity and profanity, that’s okay.) And CBS and NBC were skittish over the notion of advocating the notion that Jesus might accept gays (which is a hoot coming from the network that airs “Will and Grace.” Apparently it’s okay to laugh at gay men; just not accept them as people in the name of the Christian Messiah.)
This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It’s one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)
You just have to wonder how far this country has fallen when a simple message of tolerance and acceptance inspires fear of reprisal from those who preach intolerance and segregation. And how much further yet we can fall.
PAD
• 
No, Nova, you can’t.
You see, the Gummint isn’t some monolithic entity, separate from the people it governs – in this country, at least, the Government is the people. That’s why we hold these election things every few years – it’s one of the ways we can make our displeasure known.
On the other hand, I had no say whatsoever in the couple across the way getting married. I have no say in whether or not they’ll ever have children, and I’ll have no say in whether or not they get divorced. I’m not part of that couple. I am part of this country.
I may disapprove of the couple across the way getting an abortion. I may not. If I’m a hardline Catholic, I might even disapprove of their use of contraceptives so they’ll never be faced with the situation. However, in no event is the matter any concern of mine, because they’re not my family. In a very real sense, the Gummint is. (Sure, sometimes they’re like that strange uncle – you know, the one who always brings rum cake with more rum than cake in it to the potluck and Mom and Dad look at him funny – but still, they’re family.)
Can I get a Touche?
No, it wasn’t really a good analogy.
“Ok, you’re not in the government, so when the President and a majority of Congress says we’re going in to kick Saddam’s ášš. It’s none of your freaking business. You aren’t a part of the government are you?
Can I get a Touche?”
Uh, isn’t the government comprised of people who represent us? Don’t we give the government money to do such things?
Monkeys.
Jonathan (the other one) said I’m not part of that couple. I am part of this country.
The fact that you are a part of this country means you should have a say in whether or not someone has an abortion. If you believe that conception creates life and an abortion kills that life, you have an obligation being a part of our society to say that’s wrong and something should be done about it to protect a life that can not protect itself.
The couple getting married and/or divorced doesn’t prevent a life that has already started to form from conception, from being allowed the chance to live. An abortion is what prevents that life from being born and an abortion should never be taken lightly.
So the Douche wants a touche?
By Bladestar’s standards, this was both clever and unusually polite.
The government is supposed to do the will of the people, ALL the people, not just the rich and the religious fanatics…
Yes. Of course, the will of the people has been trending conservative for roughly the last generation. I hate to break it to you. Wait, no I don’t, I’m still gloating.
Bladestar said vThe government is supposed to do the will of the people, ALL the people, not just the rich and the religious fanatics…
I can just see the government representing Bladestar.
With Bladestar representing us instead of Bush…
“Saddam you can go f%$k yourself, you fascist pig. Saddam responds with, my sanctions are over now and here’s a newly developed nuclear weapon you can shove up your áršë you capitalist pig.”
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Nope, Saddam would’ve been quietly and covertly assassinated back when he invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait would owe us BIG TIME for the favor…
Sending americans to die in acountry that was no threat to the US was stupid, just what I expect from someone like bush
I say:
“You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried.”
Craig says:
“So, in your opinion, commanders are no longer responsible for the actions of their soldiers?”
No, I said that “You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried.”
That ignorance is excusable in the face of human rights violations?
No, I said that “You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried.”
Man, wouldn’t they have loved that excuse at something like the Nuremburg Trials.
Given that they had compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVED to be tried, I don’t see why they would have.
In regards to the “Will & Grace” point in this post:
Speaking as a straight guy with a a few very different gay and lesbian friends, I’ve always found a lot of other straight folks’ attitudes about gays pretty pathetic. Maybe it’s just me, but a good number of straights that I know tend to refer to gays and lesbians as “sick” or what have you, but never miss shows like “Will and Grace” or “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” They tend to remind me of white folks who frequented Harlem nightclubs in the 20s: they’re fine with a minority being an entertaining dancing fool, but not fine with sharing a table with them. The main reason for this, in my opinion, is our culture and our own personal upbringing. Most gay guys and lesbian girls that I know are by no means “flaming,” or obvious, nor do they necessarily have good taste. Most of the gay guys I know are just like every other straight guy friends I have, except that they want to have sex with men. Same with the lesbians that I know. To hëll with it, whatever puts a smile on your face, in my opinion. Most of the time, I “out-gay” my gay friends. For example: I cook better than any other guy that I know; for that matter, I dress better than most guys I know; the only guys I know who are more fashion conscious are straight. Go figure. My point: Gay guys and lesbian gals put their underwear on one leg at a time just like everyone else. Granted, you might respond to different kinds of folks in pørņ films, but that’s no reason to deny people spiritual enlightenment and happiness (or the lack thereof). Oddly enough, most gays and lesbians I know are pretty religous; much more so than I am not.
I would just like to take this moment to both affirm my support for gays, and to equally fervently support any measure made against Will & Grace, as that show is so painfully unfunny, it seems to actively suck the happiness out of all other shows near its programming block.
No, I said that “You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried.”
So, as long as Bush denies he wanted anybody tortured while at the same time WANTING us to ignore the Geneva Conventions, he’s free to go.
That’s good to know. I wouldn’t want him starting a war with somebody who didn’t have any WMD or anything. Oh, wait.
The main reason for this, in my opinion, is our culture and our own personal upbringing.
Well, whether it’s race, sex, or sexual preference, this country proves time and again that it is not a melting pot, but a cauldron of oils.
Just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions upthread. I am interested enough in discussing my religion and this topic, but not particularly interested in engaging in the, um, brawl-ish behavior currently going on.
I am a member of the United Church of Christ (UCC), Congregationalist. First, we are extremely different from Mormons (AKA Church of Latter-Day Saints, etc.); we are not at all like Mormons. We’re a fairly mainstream Protestant denomination. We believe in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and have no supplementary texts (such as the Book of Mormon or what-have-you). Mormons believe that under some circumstances God refuses to forgive people, and this is completely contrary to all UCC doctrine. Also, we do not endorse polygamy, polygyny, or any other things that are particularly outr
Liana Goldenquill said In February, our congregation is due to vote on whether or not to decide we are “open and affirming,” and I am not at all sure which way the vote will go. That’s what I think is the beauty of the UCC.
That’s just great. As society changes for good or ill, the UCC will change their beliefs accordingly regardless of what the Bible says.
How tragic, I hear that some churches are anti-slavery despite what the bible says. The horror, the horror.
Jon said How tragic, I hear that some churches are anti-slavery despite what the bible says. The horror, the horror.
The Bible does give instructions on how slaves should be treated, since it was prevalent in that era, but it doesn’t come out and say that slavery is the will of God.
I wonder if the liberals would challenge a vote cast at a UCC if it didn’t go their way. :0)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html
The Bible does give instructions on how slaves should be treated, since it was prevalent in that era, but it doesn’t come out and say that slavery is the will of God.
Bzzzzzzz!!!!!
Ephesians 6:5-9: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”
Heh, I started catching up on this at the bottom…saw a congregation was going to vote on the UCC? I thought “why is a church going to accept a provision of the Universal Commercial Code…” Oh….then I thought “stupide lawyer dork…”
Hey, can we have more Bladestar v. Novafan? Like, a whole thread with just them going back and forth on each other? That’d be good entertainment….
“proactive”…. “conservative”
Do you even own a dictionary?
“as long as Bush denies he wanted anybody tortured while at the same time WANTING us to ignore the Geneva Conventions, he’s free to go.”
What do the Geneva Conventions say regarding terrorists and other militantly hostile folk whom are not uniformed soldiers…?
Not only are they not protected by the Geneva Conventions… they rely only only on human mercy to protect them. Human decency or shite on them!
Oh well. If the POTUS were micro-managing in Iraq that never would have happened. If the POTUS was managing the war that closely I would have voted for someone else.
kingbobb said Hey, can we have more Bladestar v. Novafan? Like, a whole thread with just them going back and forth on each other? That’d be good entertainment….
Maybe I’m a glutton for punishment, but I actually like conversing with Bladestar. You know what he’s about from the first get go and don’t have to worry about him stabbing you in the back like you do with some people.
Den said Bzzzzzzz!!!!!
The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context. Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time ( Exodus 21:20-27 ; Leviticus 25:44-46 ).
In ancient times, slavery existed in every part of the world. Slaves had no legal status or rights, and they were treated as the property of their owners. Even Plato and Aristotle looked upon slaves as inferior beings. As inhumane as such slavery was, we must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.
In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population was comprised of slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order. 1 Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery
What do the Geneva Conventions say regarding terrorists and other militantly hostile folk whom are not uniformed soldiers…?
So, if the cops want to start torturing a murder suspect, because he’s not in a uniform or anything, that’s ok too?
We declared war on terror. So, it sounds like we should give them the protections of the Convention.
But then, if we don’t give it to our enemies, we shouldn’t start complaining when our soldiers are dragged through the streets, should we?
Feh…
If the “scriptures” were meant to be truly the word of “God” and a tool of the oppressors, they’d be writeen in plain, straight-forward language that not even a lawyer could twist…
Even more proff that religion is a sham (or that god is an áššhølë)…