Totally speechless

---

Damn skippy they are feelings! Put yourself in my shoes one freakin day and tell me you wouldn't have high emotions over these topics. I'm tired of having aspects of my life decided by bigots like you. What I do with MY LIFE should be of no ones concern but my own. If I want to marry another man, why is it YOUR concern or anyone else’s? You worried about gay marriage affecting religion... here's a noble idea, don't marry another man! My relationship with god is my own personal relationship and doesn’t affect your relationship with god. So do us all a favor and quit butting in the lives of other people and live your own damn life. Be concerns with yourself. Wouldn’t it be grand if people would follow something so simple?And I think its great how people like you, Thor, easily ignore my question. I have asked it over and over and it gets skipped over. If a non-Christian heterosexual couples wishes to get married, should they be denied since in the eyes of people like you marriage is a Christian sanctioned tradition?

I've answered your questions before. They haven't changed. Neither have my answers.

Hmm I must have missed it.. please refresh my memory or direct me to the correct post..

What were you supposed to be criticizing in this post? It doesn't refute anything I said. Washington's quote essentially agrees with what I said. "..., George Washington, President of the United States, do recommend to all religious societies and denominations, and to all persons whomsoever, within the United States to set apart and observe Thursday..." THis is an extremely inclusive statement.re: your obsessive "liberal education" I find your views on this rather silly, but the question is what do you think education should be about?

Originally Posted By: thorI know…I’ll probably get called ‘mean’, ‘nazi’, ‘hater’, ‘bigot’, ‘fascist’ (you may want to look up the definition of that last one before using it) etc, etc by a few liberals that read this. Some will just read this and say, “hmm”…but it won’t be the first time (or the last).After reading this post I would not call you any of these things. What I would call you is pathetically infantile in your thinking, as well as delusional.

Originally Posted By: Thoughtfulre: your obsessive "liberal education" I find your views on this rather silly, but the question is what do you think education should be about? How about the truth. Your ideas about church vs state are the exact opposite of the founding father's intentions. The idea that church should not be involved with the state is a modern-day, liberal/athiestic construct you'll find everywhere these days, yet is absolutely false. No such thought existed in the minds of those who wrote the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Originally Posted By: Thoughtful

After reading this post I would not call you any of these things. What I would call you is pathetically infantile in your thinking, as well as delusional.

Cool...I'll add "pathetically infantile" and "delusional" to the "mean" list.

even if that may be, isnt it better that both parties just stay out of each others business? because whenever i hear anyone argue that, it always strikes me that they want the church to have some authority in the government and goings on of the U.S. but it seems to me that its best to stay completely separate. to a degree.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: Thoughtfulre: your obsessive "liberal education" I find your views on this rather silly, but the question is what do you think education should be about? How about the truth. Your ideas about church vs state are the exact opposite of the founding father's intentions. The idea that church should not be involved with the state is a modern-day, liberal/athiestic construct you'll find everywhere these days, yet is absolutely false. No such thought existed in the minds of those who wrote the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. You're still making absolutely no sense. What I said was: "They essentially rejected the European idea of a state church and a government controlled by strict religious principals." I will stand by that statement. If you think it's wrong, so be it.

Originally Posted By: Dantekeven if that may be, isnt it better that both parties just stay out of each others business? because whenever i hear anyone argue that, it always strikes me that they want the church to have some authority in the government and goings on of the U.S. but it seems to me that its best to stay completely separate. to a degree. I think that that's more or less what we have now...but though the church doesn't have authority over the government, Christianity had a big hand in shaping it..to the educated eye (and as long as that education didn't come from modern textbooks/teachings). I would, however, prefer it if the government (the courts in California, for example) would stay out of religious issues...such as marriage. Recognition is one thing...regulation, barely tolerable...redefining, inexcusable.

There is much to be said for the idea of removal of all state laws regarding marriage, in favour of self-determined registrations of next of kin for inheritance and medical purposes. Taxation laws may need to be amended, but this could be done. I don't know if the conservatives would be happy with it, though.

A summary of the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers can be found here. My impression is that the American Constitution, and its early amendments, owe more to the French philosophers of the Enlightenment than to the Bible. In any case, marriage is not a Federal matter but a state matter, and would need to be studied state by state. Common-law marriage is still a valid marriage in 11 states and in the District of Columbia, and was formerly valid in 26 other states (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States ), suggesting that these states never originally had the intention of restricting recognition of marriage to Christian marriages.

Your conservative education evidently didn't give a lot of time to the Vietnam War. It was not only a war between South and North; it was also a civil war in the south between forces loyal to the government and the NLF/Viet Cong. The latter had the support of a large proportion of the population, due to the corrupt and dictatorial nature of the successive South Vietnamese governments. This led to an effective guerrilla war that was impossible to win militarily. Withdrawal of US troops was a pragmatic necessity.

Withdrawal of US troops did not lead to Pol Pot's victory in Cambodia. At the time of withdrawal the Communist Party of Kampuchea already controlled 60% of Cambodia and their eventual defeat of the Lon Nol government was certain. Their cause was aided materially by the US bombing of Cambodia which turned the people against the pro-US government in Phnom Penh; historians are divided over whether they would have won without it. The eventual defeat of the Khmer Rouge by Vietnamese troops would probably not have been achieved if Vietnam has not by then been re-unified.

Originally Posted By: thor

Have you no knowledge of the history of this country and who it was founded by? Who wrote the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? 95% Christian and 100% believers in the Bible. Those are the folks this country owes a debt of gratitude to.

Abraham Lincoln. Not a founder, I know, but a very important figure.

"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans.

Thomas Jefferson believed in a "Creator" but he was not a Christian. Like Washington, he was a Deist or at most, just a Theist. He did see Jesus as an ethical figure in history but he certainly did not believe in the Bible.

Benjamin Franklin had no official religious affiliation, but it is strongly believed that he belonged to a Paganistic sex cult. The Adams's... John, John Q., and Sam were Unitarians which is not really a Christian religion as is known today as they do not believe in the holy trinity. Nathaniel Greene was a Quaker, but formally resigned from the Church because it did not fit with his beliefs. Thomas Paine wrote frequently about the "Tyranny of the Church". John Sevier, and most of the frontiersman refused to accept any constitution that required a belief in the Divinity of Jesus in order to hold a position of authority.

So I ask you sir, have you no knowledge of the history of your country and who it was founded by?

so if you want the government to stay out of it, that means gays should be allowed to marry and hold the same rights and recognition because the law shouldnt be allowed to intervene,thus prohibit the marriage of homosexuals right?say what you like, but marriage is about love, not god. otherwise there wouldnt be so many forms of it(im sure many of which came long before christianity). and being that love belongs to the entirety of humanity, it,and its forms, be they hetero or homo cannot and should not be defined by anyone. and neither should unions in its name be defined by anyone.

Just the point I was going to make.And so were some of the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers (most notably Benjamin Franklin, who felt it was good to sleep in a different bed each night [with different women]).

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorHave you no knowledge of the history of this country and who it was founded by? Who wrote the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? 95% Christian and 100% believers in the Bible. Those are the folks this country owes a debt of gratitude to.Abraham Lincoln. Not a founder, I know, but a very important figure.---------------------------------------------------"Sir, Washington was a Deist."The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans.---------------------------------------------------Thomas Jefferson believed in a "Creator" but he was not a Christian. Like Washington, he was a Deist or at most, just a Theist. He did see Jesus as an ethical figure in history but he certainly did not believe in the Bible.---------------------------------------------------Benjamin Franklin had no official religious affiliation, but it is strongly believed that he belonged to a Paganistic sex cult. The Adams's... John, John Q., and Sam were Unitarians which is not really a Christian religion as is known today as they do not believe in the holy trinity. Nathaniel Greene was a Quaker, but formally resigned from the Church because it did not fit with his beliefs. Thomas Paine wrote frequently about the "Tyranny of the Church". John Sevier, and most of the frontiersman refused to accept any constitution that required a belief in the Divinity of Jesus in order to hold a position of authority. ---------------------------------------------------So I ask you sir, have you no knowledge of the history of your country and who it was founded by? Mostly horse-hockey. Jefferson was a theist, Franklin a diest, and the rest were orthodox Christians. That's 96% of the original 50 Constitutional framers...and they all (100%) believed in the Bible. Jefferson's Bible was found with many personal notes in it not long ago...wonder why he bothered having something around that he didn't believe in to make notes in? When was the last time you carried a Bible around to make notes in, bob?

Originally Posted By: IneligibleYour conservative education evidently didn't give a lot of time to the Vietnam War.Whatever passes with you for education didn't seem to lend much credence to the truth...not surprising, really. They don't write textbooks the way they used to. It was the rapid pull-out of a large number of US troops that caused the de-stabilization that resulted in a rapid advance by enemy forces in South Vietnam. If they had remained to stabalize the situation, it certainly would have been a different story. Go study the way in which we gradually pulled out of Japan after WWII for an idea of the length of time it takes to stabalize a country in the many ways necessary after something so destructive as a war. You'll note it's not a simple matter...and certainly more complex than you've made it out to be.

Quote: They don't write textbooks the way they used toespecially if you consider the old testament as a "textbook"

I was following it as it happened. A policy of Vietnamisation started in about 1969, and U.S. involvement started being heavily scaled back in 1971. The Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973, and all remaining US troops were withdrawn within two months. There was widespread expectation at the time that South Vietnam would be rapidly overrun despite the ceasefire provisions, but this did not happen. Instead the South Vietnamese Army started pushing the Viet Cong back until late in that year, when there was a reversal and the Viet Cong pushed the South Vietnamese back to their former lines. North Vietnam recommenced hostilities in December 1974, and effectively pushed South Vietnamese troops southward, in what was eventually a rout exacerbated by poor generalship, ending in the fall of Saigon in April 1975.There was never any stability to be had in Vietnam. US troops were present to prop up an unpopular and ineffective government, and this was an unachievable goal. There's no similarity to the occupation of Japan - Japan had unconditionally surrendered. There was never any prospect of that in Vietnam.

Originally Posted By: Dantekso if you want the government to stay out of it, that means gays should be allowed to marry and hold the same rights and recognition because the law shouldnt be allowed to intervene,thus prohibit the marriage of homosexuals right?That's right...so long as it's not a Christian marriage. This would require (as I've already stated) for them to establish their own religion...and leave Christianity to the Christians.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleI was following it as it happened. So was I...in addition to having long talks with military officers who were there.Part of the point of bringing up Vietnam is because it parallels, in some ways, the mistake (and certainly the reason for it) set to be made in Iraq. But Japan is a closer example to point to with regards to how Iraq should be handled if one expects a stable situation.Now, do you have a point to make with regards to any of my points, or are you just picking nits?