I had a forehead slapping ephipany re: Prop 8

[heberlein]

I had a forehead slapping ephipany re: Prop 8 I am VERY grateful that Proposition 8 was overturned by the California voters.....thus denying gays and lesbians their right to "marry" Clearly....had it not been overturned, then only people residing in California would have had the right to marry, thereby excluding gays/lesbians residing in the other 49 states - and each of those states would have had to have just as determined and "aggrieved" parties/attorneys to contest the ban of same sex "marriage" thus resulting in each state having trial after trial, thus preventing a uniform application of the right to marry a consenting - non-relative adult of your choice. In a way, the "U.S. vs. Loving" (interracial marriage) decision started it. this way...the voters of California (and who knows....I wouldn't put it past many of the gays and lesbians actually casting their vote to overturn Prop. 8 to FORCE it to be heard at the next level and then the next level, until it reaches - once and for all - the Supreme Court) set in motion the catalyst vote - erego, by taking away the right of same sex marriages for residents of California, it immediately set in motion the catalyst for the appeals to eventually benefit all same sex marriage seekers - across every single state in the United States - by making it a FEDERAL mandate that same sex partners be granted the same rights as heterosexual partners. In this way, we are avoiding DECADES of state by state piece decisions regarding same sex unions/marriages. From the bottom of my heart, I, as an out and fierce lesbian: Thank YOU Mormon Church Thank YOU Family Coalition Thank YOU Christian [insert whatever name you desire] By your thinking (via your vote) that you were barring same sex unions ....your vote against same sex unions/marriages actually swung that closet door WIDE open! - (Not to mention Obama surreptitiously assigning enough gays/lesbians to keep the momentum going - tied in with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy) My God.......what an ephiphany Truer words were never spoken: GOD...indeed has BLESSED America, for even HE recognizes the power of reverse psychology to his lesser informed children.... - is this country *wink* great or what?

[kinion]

If you were more familiar with Loving vs. VA you would know that it came only after a majority of U.S. states had legalized interracial marriage. Just as Brown vs. Board of Education came only after a majority of U.S. states had integration ( the much earlier attempt to take the issue directly to the Supreme Court Plessy vs. Ferguson failed). P.S. I don't believe in your god just as you probably don't believe in Shiva and Pallas Athena so please leave me out of any blessings applied to America. As an adult with free will I don't happen to be one of your god's "children". Like many nonreligious people including Thomas Jefferson I happen to be an American too.

[chico]

as a historical aside Homer Plessy was mixed race ( 7/8 white, 1/8 black) , listed his race as white and was generally perceived as white. The train conductors recognized him only because he had a history of civil rights protesting. When they asked him if he was white he could have just stayed in his seat. The Citizen's Committee of New Orleans knew they would probably lose their Supreme Court case and brought it mostly to bring national attention to segregation. Plessy was part of the history of mixed race people in the civil rights movement (especially in New Orleans and especially in the early days of the movement) that just isn't remembered as much as it should be.

[colgan]

If you were more familiar with Thomas Jefferson you would know that this land is a place where you can enjoy the freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. As an adult with free will I don’t concern myself with whose child you don’t want to be when I speak of everyone as being Buddha’s children. Please understand that when people are speaking in generalities on an anonymous forum that they aren’t speaking to you personally or about you…you weren’t included in any blessings (feel better now?). Like many spiritual people I happen to be an American too. Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion. - Dahli Lama Oh Jesus, I love You And I love Buddha too Ramakrishna, Guru Dev Tao Te Ching and Mohammed Why do some people say That there is just one way To love You, God, and come to You? We are all a part of You You are un-nameable You are unknowable All we have is metaphor that´s what time and space are for Is the universe Your thought? You are and You are not You are many, You are one Ever ending, just begun

[kish]

congradulations even a broken watch is right for 2 minutes out of every day

[hust]

For the sake of my own understanding, how is freedom OF religion any different from freedom FROM religion, which it contains? > this land is a place where you can enjoy the freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion.

[kasal]

it kind of says something that he had to quote the Dalai Lama instead of Jefferson because Jefferson was very clear on this subject over and over again mentioning atheism, deism, non-belief and separation of church and state (the "wall") repeatedly in all his writings from the Jefferson Bible to his letters. Because the whole freedom from/freedom for argument is such a hallmark of reactionary politics despite being debunked by historians I think this troll just vacations from religion forum to post here only when religion comes up. "Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries. -- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. In a letter to Samuel Miller, Jefferson wrote: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government."

[norland]

You are not protected from hearing people profess their belief that God has blessed America. You are not free from seeing crosses, the star of david, or buddahs. You are not protected from the freedom of people to profess or deny a religion. I am not protected from ignorant, vile, rhetoric spewing, closed minded atheists trolls like you that frequent this forum…unfortunately. You are free from religion being imposed upon you but the OP wasn’t imposing her belief in God on you, she simply made reference to her belief that God has blessed America. Which you somehow took offense to and wanted to be excluded from (Oh brother…you are so petty in your complaints). It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. Thomas Jefferson An Act for establishing religious Freedom. Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, … Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be FREE TO PROFESS, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. Thomas Jefferson Asking someone to refrain from professing their beliefs is un-American (especially from a resident troll that enjoys ing believers stupid without challenge here) and inferring any similarity between you, your opinion and the great American Thomas Jefferson is deplorable, idiotic and narcissistic beyond measure.

[Deborah]

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. Thomas Jefferson You are intolerant of others rights to profess their beliefs. You only want To protect your right to have your beliefs heard because you believe that you know everything and that your belief is the right belief. Your tone to people of faith is condescending and intolerant. So if you must act like the vile resident troll that you are please do not diminish the words or beliefs of Thomas Jefferson by misrepresenting his beliefs in regard to separation of church and state by using them to support your intolerance of others. "I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own. A costive reserve on these subjects might have procured me more esteem from some people, but less from myself." Thomas Jefferson Funny he doesn’t sound similar to you at all. Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. Thomas Jefferson This question “Why the constant insistence that their beliefs apply to everyone or apply to a secular nation where lots of different people live? Is beyond stupid…why do you think they insist in believing in their own beliefs? Well uhhhhhh Could it be that it’s part of their belief…that all people are god’s children? It might be difficult for some to understand because the whole world doesn’t actually revolve around them and that the words God bless America have nothing to do with you if you don’t believe in God. Does someone really need to tell you that? You don’t want others to profess their beliefs that God blessed America just to suit your comfort level. So obviously you don’t believe in freedom of religion for everyone, just for you. How very enlightened you are.

[Seelan]

Your overblown know-it-all ego has again turned a difference of opinion with the OP into you again telling the forum how much you know about history and everything else under the sun. If you are such an authority on everything and such a genius why aren’t you busier saving and informing the world instead of coming here all the time to tell a room full of people that think just like you or are too afraid to disagree with anything you say (because you will resort to the juvenile name ing and accusations of stupidity)? Nothing you posted grants you the protection from someone blessing you or America so from me to you God bless you Ulula, and buddah blessing too. You are the best example of stupid is as stupid does…because you come here to get accolades on how intelligent and knowledgeable you are by giving personal unrequested interpretations of history while claiming them to be factual to everyone here (here’s a clue…google is our friend too). Why aren’t you conversing with the other great scholars “equal” to your great self instead of coming here? What’s wrong with the Yale crowd? Won’t they listen to your trifling know-it-all rhetoric? What’s wrong, they can’t stand your verbose tiresome bitter gripes or can’t they stand the juvenile way that you act when someone disagrees with you? Why don’t you take your long winded diatribe of bs to a mensa forum where other Bitter disgruntled know-it-alls like you can whine and moan about how others say things they don’t like. I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Thomas Jefferson

[campobasso]

Hahah, good on the previous post You obviously pissed the troll off because it always posts 3-4 rants right in a row whenever you do that to it. I like how it brought up Yale and wanted to know why you didn't only hang out with Yalies. It reminds me of that time it got so hysterical about IQ. Obviously some sort of self-esteem issue and also exposes a deep need for hierarchy and ranking other people, but it immediately feels deeply threatened by anything that it personally qualifies as "better" (better or worse, smarter or not, richer/poorer, etc). You can tell because it can't even fathom why we would like hanging out with all different sorts of people who do NOT have the same background, just because we like them and because we think they have something to offer us just by being who they are. And in that sense we just see everyone on here as different but equal. It's like that concept doesn't even compute for the troll. Everyone has to be "pure" and stay in their own little world and never intermingle. Of course, the troll also has stated that it comes here precisely because it *doesn't* like anyone on the forum, so I guess it really would have a hard time understanding things like that.

[lapidus]

Calling me a troll and then suggesting that I would be pissed off because of nasty banter is contradictory to the definition of a forum troll. If I am a troll then I would love to be pissed and cause disruption. Seems that ulula wants the title for herself. Since you have trouble with the truth let me recount some facts that you have again fudged to match your intent. I didn’t care who thought themselves to be of genius IQ, that was another poster (I know, I know, we’re all the same but you’re all different). You wrote “Obviously some sort of self-esteem issue and also exposes a deep need for hierarchy and ranking other people”. Don’t assume that I am like you. If I was interested in ranking people based on any of the criteria you mentioned I would place myself at the bottom. It is people like you, ulula, bb and others that feel superior to others and proclaim your superior knowledge of history (even when you’re wrong) then when someone challenges your adamant but poorly thought out position you start the attacks on gender, IQ and resort to name ing. When the vile attacks are returned you titty babies cry foul because NOW someone has offended you!!!! Since you and ulula support the need for exclusions in blanket statements from others (don’t include me in your hugs, or don’t include me in your blessings) why don’t you caveat your misinformation on history with “this is what I believe happened” or “this is what I believe it means”. What’s obvious is that you want others to treat you and your allies the way you want to be treated but aren’t willing to treat others the way they want to be treated. Believe me Moron coming from two geniuses like you that think that others shouldn’t be allowed to express their belief because it infringes upon your belief, then to proclaim your right to freedom from religion is priceless in its twisted genius. Congratulation I think you two might have lowered the curve for college grads.

[lukin]

The irony isn’t lost on me that it’s the same reasoning for you as why it’s okay for Palestinians to kill Israeli children but it’s not okay for Israelis’ to kill Palestinian children. Because it is you who ranks people and nations worthy or not of their own beliefs. To you if someone believes as you do, then you deem them worthy and righteous in attacks on others but when someone is just as adamant in their belief that you’re beliefs are wrong, then you deem them unworthy to even have the right to defend themselves the way that they feel necessary. And you support your allies in the face of their ignorance just like the US seems to do with Israel. Have you figured out now that the Germans didn’t start the Jews return to the Middle East or are you still mad that you spoke with such blind authority about something you knew little about? You wrote: Of course, the troll also has stated that it comes here precisely because it *doesn't* like anyone on the forum, so I guess it really would have a hard time understanding things like that. FTR – I never said that. WHY MUST YOU LIE AND MAKE THINGS UP TO MAKE YOUR POINT? Is it three posts that mean I’m mad or four…it would really be helpful for a moron like me if you could identify the threshold of my anger for me.

[livesey]

hahaha, ulula was right, you ARE a moron Let me clear up some of my positions, since you keep insisting on misrepresenting them, whether through sheer idiocy or intentional dirty rhetoric. I'm assuming idiocy, but you ARE a malevolent fuck, so I suppose it could be intentional. Really, is there anything worse than an evil idiot? Don't answer, it's rhetorical. First, I never said that 1 Israeli child's life is worth less than 1 Palestinian child's life. Based on the website and statistics I cited, I would hope it would be obvious that I believe that 1 Israeli child's life is less valuable than 20 Palestinian children's lives. It is a very, very old and venerable part of the just war tradition that a just war must be PROPORTIONAL. Any war which is hideously disproportionate, as with the Is-Pal conflict, is unjust by definition. Second, the Germans did not start the Jews' return to the Middle East, but the conflict did not erupt in a notable way until the Germans got on board with the Zionist project and shipped people off there wholesale, at which point the # of Jews in Israel skyrocketed and the level of violence exploded. If you plot a timeline of immigration against a timeline of violence, it's informative. Third--you keep correcting me on non-substantive points. Would it make you happy if I said you were correct that it is properly referred to as the UK or Great Britain or oogamallooga or whatever? SO WHAT? You have corrected me on multiple points that are MEANINGLESS to the argument. I was trying to be polite by not pointing that out, but since you insist on being a pedantic douche, I'll drop the niceties. I hate pedants in academia, and I hate them out of academia. It's a cover up for the fact that they cannot attack or even recognize the actual meat of the argument and so they get caught up in the irrelevant details. As for you saying you come here because you don't like anyone. Jesus, dumbass, you say it all the time. You come here to keep us in line because we're all evil, cruel, heartless bitches and it is your whole mission in life to make us stop. So, unless you happen to LIKE evil, cruel, heartless bitches, I think it is safe to assume you do not like the forum. In conclusion: I hate you. LOL.

[callie]

Your judgment that the war/conflict losses are disproportionate is your own standard. You adamantly believe that your yard stick of justice and right and wrong is accurate and fair even though you aren’t even directly involved or affected by the conflict. You profess to know who is being more unfair because someone told you something and you read some propaganda about the issue without consideration of the other side of the issue. Again…I believe that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Wars should be proportionate? Is that what you believe? You speak of war/conflict as if it were a board game or a school yard fight. To engage in war/conflict where a proportional tit for tat policy is adhered to would be an attempt by all to seek revenge. War should not be about revenge because neither side can ever receive true justice or compensation for their losses. War should be about survival, so the level of response to an attack doesn’t need to be proportionate to the attack received, but proportionate to ones desire to end the conflict. The mother that has lost a child to war does not feel that her child is less valuable than 100 or 1000 other children. Don’t you understand that a PROPORTIONAL war would be fought by people fighting for a principle not for survival? What mother, father, parent wouldn’t kill 100 people to protect their child especially if they have already lost one child to the war/conflict? So what you meant to say was “the Germans did not start the Jews' return to the Middle East, but the conflict did not erupt in a notable way until the Germans got on board… But what you actually wrote was: “Given that the Germans were the ones who initiated the Jewish settlement in Israeli”. So you’re backpedaling to fend off your embarrassment. How cute.

[mastriano]

I hadn’t mentioned the GB thing in this thread and I agree that the point was somewhat meaningless to the argument but it seemed to me that it spoke to your lack of understanding about historical events that took place that set the stage for the conflict in the Middle East long before the Nazis came to power. You want everyone else to be precise in their words, by requesting that they exclude others from blanket statements like god bless America or hugs (and you support your allies that people stupid for typos and misspellings) but you some how think it is MEANINGLESS FOR YOU to be less than precise about historical facts. You’re right it doesn’t matter what you the nation of GB (doesn’t seem that hard to remember though) but make sure that you defend as MEANINGLESS the simple mistakes and typos of others. Oh that’s right…I’m talking to an unconscionable hypocrite. As for me saying that I come here because I don’t like anyone. Holy ulula, fucktard that is completely untrue. You seemingly feel the need to expound my words to suit yourself… since you keep insisting on misrepresenting my words, whether through sheer idiocy or intentional dirty rhetoric. I'm assuming idiocy, but you ARE a malevolent genius fucktard, so I suppose it is intentional. Is there anything worse than an evil idiot? Yes the evil idiot that thinks he’s a genius. Because they like to give unrequested and personally biased history lessons to strangers on a forum. Thanks for the benevolent gift that geniuses like you bestow on the rest of us. What would we all do without you and ulula telling us all what is informative and important to notice in history? Hate is so close to love that I pity you. I don’t hate you at all even after your many threats of violence toward me. I have complete indifference for you because you are so close minded as to be insignificant to the world. This country is full of people like you…people that believe that they have cornered the market on knowing what is just and right for everyone and that they leave no room for anyone else’s beliefs or even mistakes other than their own. Peace.

[cepeda]

I just farted

[kiel]

I think the closest you could get is if the point had to do with interpersonal freedom vs personal freedom. One cannot be free from other peoples' religious proclamations, even though one can personally choose to not be religious. So if someone snapped at someone else for the latter proclaiming their beliefs, they would be in error. Even (or especially) if that were the point, it would seem to be undermined by maliciously wielding other people's peaceful religions that one does not even believe in to try to make someone else stop proclaiming their own religion. Seems not only tasteless but also wholly contradictory.

[lias]

there is a difference between statements like "I feel blessed" or "god is good" and statements like "one nation under god" or "god bless America" or "all god's children". The difference is who it applies to and what it presumes. The difference is the constant encroachment of religious sentiment in to civil life and political matters and the relentless need to proselytize and push religion not just on the non-religious but on people of different faiths. If they are so certain of what they believe why do they need to apply it to others who don't believe or believe differently? Why the constant insistence that their beliefs apply to everyone or apply to a secular nation where lots of different people live? I'm just saying don't include me. I'll take a pass. I don't believe in what you insist is universal and somehow applies to everyone. Don't include me in thanking Mormons/Catholics/ Evangelicals for Prop x. Because the hell of it is Mormons/Catholics/Evangelicals don't just want to decide who gay people can marry or how nonbelievers should think or what women can do with their bodies (which by the way is not very "peaceful" IMO, please explain how these are "peaceful religions") they want to tell other churches who are already conducting same sex ceremonies and blessings who they can and can't marry. This is why a coalition of religious groups (two Episcopal Bishops, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, Reform Jewish congregations) sued over Prop x. If I feel like thanking some churches I would probably thank them. Hey United Church of Christ thanks but I'm not surprised because you guys have been trailblazers for a long time. Unitarian Universalists you guys are consistently pretty great. Right now nobody is telling Evangelicals who they must marry in their churches. Evangelicals are telling rabbis who conduct same sex blessings that those ceremonies aren't equal. Reform Jews should be free *from* the beliefs of Evangelical Christians so they have the freedom *of* their own beliefs. This is why freedom of religion and freedom from religion are so closely linked in our history and in the writings of those who wrote our Bill of Rights. Finally at the risk of stating the painfully obvious the Lovings were married. If they couldn't have been married in the District of Columbia then Loving v. Virginia would never have happened.

[aparicio]

Yes, yes I grew up in a vehemently atheist household with a father who would probably blow Richard Dawkins if he had half a chance, so I understand the general gist of the position. Are you telling it to me? Or the benefit of the board? I get it, anyway. That said, the only point I would make would be that we need to stay clear on what we are talking about. I think that it probably behooves us (Americans) to make a distinction between the public sphere and the governmental sphere, which I think are increasingly conflated. Surely as a libertarian you would agree? The separation of church and state at least as I understand it applies to the governmental sphere. This is why Prop x was not appropriate. It tried to put what belongs in the private (and, in limited ways, the public) sphere into the governmental one. Proselytizing, on the other hand, while annoying, falls within both the exercise of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. So if some fundie wants to come along and tell me to have a blessed day, they are just as welcome to do that as you are to tell them their words do not compute. Please. Do you really think I am agreeing with Lichens--quite possibly the evilest, most malicious piece of stalker shit on here? Hardly. I'm just translating the half-baked babble into something normal people can understand. This does not imply that I realistiy expect them to agree with it since, given the original source, it is the height of contradiction and incoherence. PS: As for the "peaceful religion," I was referring specifiy to lichens' use of the Dalai Lama, I was not speaking of anything else. On the whole, I do not find religion more or less peaceful than any other human endeavor being, as it is, practiced by humans.

[Raju]

well we can probably agree onthing there are plenty of religious people who aren't trying to push anything on anyone and if anything go out of their way to protect other people's rights. So a big thank you to all the Quakers and liberal Jews and Episcopalians and also Born Agains who read the Bible at home and don't care what other people do. May the xst amendment protect them as well as me. I'm fine with religion when it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket ( Jefferson) but when it starts leg breaking and pocket-picking that is different. I don't think people like Catherine MacKinnon are less scary than religious fundamentalists. I keep getting emails from lefty groups including Equality Now and Change.org pushing the idea that porn should be restricted because all the women in American porn ( predominantly blond, white adults who signed release forms) are somehow sex trafficked, enslaved teenagers from Bangladesh. All the research I've done points to people including Sheila Jeffries and MacKinnon being involved and they've had some success (getting Apple to limit porn access on the iphone). I think we as a society need to stop giving religion a free pass to limit the rights, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others. Calling oneself a feminist and speaking for feminists doesn't give anyone the right to limit other people's freedoms and neither does ing oneself a Christian or pretending to speak for all Christians. I'm sorry but I think you sometimes seem to expect me to be overly nice. People have a right to opinions and thoughts but any belief about other people's bodies, sexuality, rights and autonomy and any mpt to legislate them isn't just a thought it's an act of violence. You can't have a debate of ideas in the realm of ideas when some of those ideas are actually violating a personal realm of freedom, autonomy and ownership of one's own body and mind. So I'm not really obligated to be nice or to debate politely when anyone applies their ideas to other people's freedoms. Mormons are allowed to say what they think. I'm allowed to say I think it's crap. The difference is I'm not telling them who to marry or how to live. They make up just x% of the population. LGBT people make up x%. Nonreligious people make up x%. I respect their rights as a minority group even as they disrespect mine. But their actions aren't just ideas.