The Religious Right Is Un-American

[Hardrock69]

The idea of America as a Christian nation was anathema to the Founding Fathers, as it should be to all Americans.


Many people associated with the Religious Right in America would have us believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. They foster this lie because they want to force their narrow-minded religious beliefs down our throats. They would like us to envision that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison are standing with them shoulder to shoulder when they spout their distorted views on abortion, contraception, gay marriage, school prayer, evolution, etc. But to assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation is clearly un-American, if we define "American" as holding dear the precepts and values handed down to us in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. The framers of the Constitution had no intention of defining our country as Christian. On the contrary, they were deeply concerned about preventing any kind of religious tyranny.

On the Christian Coalition of America's website banner, the group proclaims that it is "America's leading grassroots organization defending our godly heritage." This statement begs the question, "Is our heritage a godly one?" The answer is a resounding "No." The United States of America was founded as a secular nation with a firm "wall of separation" between church and state. The Founding Fathers were against establishing a national religion because they were keenly aware of the results of such tyranny throughout history. This caution did not prevent them, however, from giving all American citizens the right to privately practice freedom of religion, even the freedom to have no religion at all. Everyone had the right to go to church, but the pew and the pulpit were not fit places for partisan politics, and vice versa.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, once wrote, "Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and all of which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project." Those are strong words that could justifiably be leveled at the Religious Right today.

Have you read the Constitution lately? The words "God," "Christ," "Christian," and "Jesus" do not appear even once. The word "religious" appears but a single time, in Article VI:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The word "religion" can be found only in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

When we see the words "religious" and "religion" in the Constitution, it is in the context of a warning against the use of religious pressure as a weapon of tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson, a leading voice behind including the Bill of Rights as an addendum to the Constitution, was adamant about building a "wall of separation" between church and state. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

When Jefferson wrote the following words that are carved on his memorial in Washington, D.C., he was specifically referring to the tyranny of state-sponsored religion:

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

In their book The Godless Constitution, Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore robustly point out Jefferson's attitudes toward religious tyranny. I think it will be clear that what Jefferson said about priests is applicable today to those of the Religious Right who proselytize that the only real American is a “Christian” American.

How shocking Jefferson's vitriolic attacks on ministers of God, especially those who meddled in politics, seem to late-twentieth-century sensibility. Christ saw no need for priests, Jefferson wrote. They were not necessary "for the salvation of souls." He suggested to John Adams, his friend after they had left politics, that "we should all, then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests," and "moralize for ourselves, following the oracle of conscience." The … irritable tribe of priests had subverted the pure morality of primitive Christianity to serve their own selfish interests, according to Jefferson. They "perverted" Christianity "into an engine for enslaving mankind, a mere contrivance to filtch wealth and power to themselves." On another occasion he labeled this as the priestly quest for "pence and power," which "revolts those who think for themselves." The clergy stood condemned, along with monarchy and the nobility, as the people's enemies. Like kings and aristocrats "in every country and in every age," Jefferson wrote, "the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

One can argue, of course, and use hundreds of quotations for support, that the Founding Fathers often thought and wrote about God and religion. But whether or not Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison believed in a Christian God is not the issue. The important thing is that these Founders wanted to keep religion out of politics for the good of religion. They saw religion as a moral and ethical guide for the individual, not the state. Moral men should establish the state; the state should not dictate morality to men. That's why the Founders were so adamant about personal freedom of religion, no matter what that religion was. They indeed went even further and defended everyone's right to full freedom of thought, even atheistic thought. Jefferson wrote:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights.

The Founders also believed that if religion were a part of politics, religion would lose its value as a moral force. After all, politics is a rat's nest of deceit, backstabbing, and manipulation. Why soil religious thought by embroiling it in politics? Religious principles, the Founders held, were an antidote of sorts to the detrimental chimeras and that try to crawl their way into the political mind. This is Jefferson again:

State support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

The idea of establishing a Christian nation was anathema to the Founding Fathers, as it should be to all thinking people. Jefferson wrote, "I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." So do not believe those proselytizers on the Religious Right who claim that they are true Americans, and that they uphold the true ideals of our Founding Fathers, when they make the specious claim that America is a Christian nation. They are spouting un-American nonsense.


http://interventionmag.com/cms/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1292

[BigBadBrian]

“The Founding Fathers & Deism”

I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the “voluminous writings”" of the Founders, but it appears that she has not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.

Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms “deist,” “agnostic,” and “atheist” appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?

None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on “The Study of God,” forcefully asserts that it is “the error of schools” to teach sciences without “reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin.” He laments that “the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.” Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning” built “on Christ, the Corner-Stone.” Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are”; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian”; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that “without a humble imitation” of “the Divine Author of our blessed religion” we “can never hope to be a happy nation.” Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them “a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ.” At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.

(For more on this topic see: Thomas Paine Criticizes the Current Public School Science Curriculum, Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention, Was George Washington a Christian?, The Founders on Public Religious Expression, & James Madison and Religion in Public)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Thomas Jefferson & the 'wall of separation between church and state.'”

In a recent letter on religion, the writer put supporters of public religious expression on one side and Thomas Jefferson on the other. This is logical given what most know about Jefferson's “wall of separation between church and state.”

Jefferson penned that phrase to reassure the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association that because of separation of church and state, the government would never interfere with their public religious expressions. For the next 150 years, federal courts followed Jefferson's intent and attached his separation metaphor to the Free Expression Clause of the First Amendment, thus consistently upholding public religious expressions. However, in 1947, the Supreme Court reversed itself and began applying the phrase to the Establishment Clause instead, thus causing federal courts to remove rather than preserve public religious expressions.

The proof is abundant that this was not Jefferson's intent. For example, two days after Jefferson wrote his separation letter, he attended worship services in the U. S. Capitol where he heard the Rev. John Leland preach a sermon. (As President of the Senate, Jefferson had personally approved the use of the Capitol Building for Sunday worship services.) The many diaries of Members of Congress during that time confirm that during Jefferson's eight years, he faithfully attended church services in the Capitol. In fact, he even ordered the Marine Band to play the worship services there. Jefferson also authorized weekly worship services at the War Department and the Treasury Building.

And on December 23, 1803, Jefferson's administration negotiated - and the Senate ratified - a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that stated “the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars for the support of a priest” to minister to the Indians (i.e., federal funds for Christian evangelism!) Jefferson also signed presidential documents, closing them with the appellation, “In the Year of our Lord Christ.” There are many similar surprising facts about Jefferson that are fully documented historically, but that have been ignored for the past 50 years.

So would religious conservatives and Thomas Jefferson really be on opposite sides of the church/state issue? Probably, for I doubt that conservatives would agree with using federal dollars for evangelization.

Link (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29)

[BigBadBrian]

A Few Letters from Thomas Jefferson to various individuals.

To Dr. Benjamin Rush
Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800
1800092
I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.

WISDOM AND PATRIOTISM
To Moses Robinson
Washington, March 23, 1801
1801032
DEAR SIR, -- I have to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 3rd instant, and to thank you for the friendly expressions it contains. I entertain real hope that the whole body of your fellow citizens (many of whom had been carried away by the X. Y. Z. business) will shortly be consolidated in the same sentiments. When they examine the real principles of both parties, I think they will find little to differ about. I know, indeed, that there are some of their leaders who have so committed themselves, that pride, if no other passion, will prevent their coalescing. We must be easy with them. The eastern States will be the last to come over, on account of the dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of union between Church and State, and began to indulge reveries which can never be realised in the present state of science. If, indeed, they could have prevailed on us to view all advances in science as dangerous innovations, and to look back to the opinions and practices of our forefathers, instead of looking forward, for improvement, a promising groundwork would have been laid. But am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.





"NEVER AN INFIDEL, IF NEVER A PRIEST"
To Mrs. Samuel H. Smith
Monticello, August 6, 1816
1816080
I have received, dear Madam, your very friendly letter of July 21st, and assure you that I feel with deep sensibility its kind expressions towards myself, and the more as from a person than whom no others could be more in sympathy with my own affections. I often call to mind the occasions of knowing your worth, which the societies of Washington furnished; and none more than those derived from your much valued visit to Monticello. recognize the same motives of goodness in the solicitude you express on the rumor supposed to proceed from a letter of mine to Charles Thomson, on the subject of the Christian religion. It is true that, in writing to the translator of the Bible and Testament, that subject was mentioned; but equally so that no adherence to any particular mode of Christianity was there expressed, nor any change of opinions suggested. A change from what? the priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments, of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the act of Virginia for establishing religious freedom. They wished him to be thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations. But I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives, and by this test, my dear Madam, I have been satisfied yours must be an excellent one, to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there. These, therefore, they brand with such nick-names as their enmity chooses gratuitously to impute. I have left the world, in silence, to judge of causes from their effects; and I am consoled in this course, my dear friend, when I perceive the candor with which I am judged by your justice and discernment; and that, notwithstanding the slanders of the saints, my fellow citizens have thought me worthy of trusts. The imputations of irreligion having spent their force; they think an imputation of change might now be turned to account as a holster for their duperies. I shall leave them, as heretofore, to grope on in the dark.


A UNITARIAN CREED
To Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse
Monticello, June 26, 1822
1822062
Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.



Thanks to Mr. Jefferson's guidance, the Virginia Constitution, to this day, contains "Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other":

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion - That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. 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 all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district with this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.Link (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29)

[BigBadBrian]

From actual letters (preserved) from Thomas Jefferson:

http://christianparty.net/tjchristian2.gif

http://christianparty.net/tjchristian.gif

[Satan]

If America is a Christian nation, I'm the Pope!

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
When we see the words "religious" and "religion" in the Constitution, it is in the context of a warning against the use of religious pressure as a weapon of tyranny.



Hmmm...

[Nitro Express]

What ever happened to states rights? The founding fathers gave most of the power to the states themselves. Do we need a federal ban on gay marriage? Hell no! Gay marriage may be accepted in certain states but deffinately not in others. Fine. The founding fathers knew each state was different and needed breathing room.

The problem now is the fedral govt. has gotten too strong. Hey, our local govts. have gotten too dependant on federal grants. If you don't like the federal govt. dictating what the local elections should decide, then don't take federal money.

We are addicted to federal money. The proffessor who's pro gay marriage but lives off of federal govt. grants is a hypocrite.

It's time for the states to tell Washington DC to fuck off. Just like the Confederacy did over taxation and tarrif issues. Walk the talk instead of complaining while living on federal funding. That's the real problem.

[Nitro Express]

Funny. The state of California wants it's freedom but it's $50 billlion in the hole and begs constatnly for federal help. Since, most people in the US are anti-gay marriage, San Fransisco will never get gay marriage until they buy their own freedom to do so. As long as conservative tax dollars bail out the gay communities they have no say.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Gay marriage may be accepted in certain states but deffinately not in others. Fine.



So what then if two faggot queer degenerates are married in one state and move to a state that doesn't accept it ??

[Nitro Express]

In other words, the gays are owned and out numbered. Now the conservatives are trying to use federal legislation to push their morality on the rest of us. I don't dig it. What's next? A state religion? I thought that is why our puritan ancestors came here to get away from.

[Satan]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So what then if two faggot queer degenerates are married in one state and move to a state that doesn't accept it ??

And how many gays would want to live in states where they were called "faggot queer degenerates"?

[Satan]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Funny. The state of California wants it's freedom but it's $50 billlion in the hole and begs constatnly for federal help. Since, most people in the US are anti-gay marriage, San Fransisco will never get gay marriage until they buy their own freedom to do so. As long as conservative tax dollars bail out the gay communities they have no say.

Conservative tax dollars....... ?

Might want to check your facts on that one.

For all the "red states" bitch and whine about paying taxes, the fact is that the blue states PAY more taxes, while the red states DRAIN more taxes from the system.

So any tax dollars being used in San Francisco probably came from California in the first place. And so did the tax dollars used in Wyoming, most likely.

It there ever is another civil war in your country between the red & blue states, the red states are going to be more financially fucked after that than they were in 1865.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Satan
And how many gays would want to live in states where they were called "faggot queer degenerates"?

That would make them want to live there more...


:elvis:

[binnie]

Thou shalt not kill

don't some states have the death penalty?


Also I think invading another country may be deemed un-Chrisitan too....

[Satan]

Really, Mr. Presley......

How in Hell's name does it affect YOUR life one way or another, if two guys or two girls, or a guy and a girl for that matter, who love each other get married.

The religious reich likes to float that hysteria, but they never can make the case for exactly HOW gay marriage would affect anyone else.

[binnie]

However, I don't think Christianity is a bad thing, its fundamentalism that's the problem.....

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So what then if two faggot queer degenerates are married in one state and move to a state that doesn't accept it ??

what happens if 2 divorced, dengenerate straight people are married in one state and move to a state that doesn't accept it?

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by Satan
Conservative tax dollars....... ?

Might want to check your facts on that one.

For all the "red states" bitch and whine about paying taxes, the fact is that the blue states PAY more taxes, while the red states DRAIN more taxes from the system. So any tax dollars being used in San Francisco probably came from California in the first place. And so did the tax dollars used in Wyoming, most likely.

It there ever is another civil war in your country between the red & blue states, the red states are going to be more financially fucked after that than they were in 1865.

I'm talking fedral funding here, not Republican state tax revenue. California generates a huge amount of tax revenue but still can't stay in the black. The state is at junk bond status and the govenor just had to issue $9 billion more to keep police on the streets.

What I'm saying is gays need to build their own communities because most people in the world aren't going to support gay marriage. As long as you take money from people who don't support your lifesyle you have no freedom. Hey, I know Democrats who are anti-gay marriage. This is not a Republican/Democrat issue.

[Unchainme]

Goddamnit, everybody here knows full well that both sides are trying to turn us into a fucking dictatorship. both sides trying to fucking push and pull us different fucking way.

[binnie]

That's what happens when both parties more or less occupy the middle ground...


Sucks don't it

[Unchainme]

yup, And the whole evolution debate is stupid, and there is one thing that could easily end the bloddy thing. In Germany all Students are required to take a Religon Based class, But it's not teaching all the world's religons, You just go to the class that you believe in IE If you're a Christian you'd go to a class that would teach the bible and have a Christian Teacher, If your a Muslim same thing, Learn about the Koran, and have a muslim teacher.

We should learn from the germans and use their school system it is set up far better than our's, I'm sure Natra knows more about it.

[binnie]

That sounds interesting, I didn't know they did that...

[diamondD]

FORD. did you believe Paula Jones? Do you hands down believe that Bill Clinton tried to use his position of power to get a blowjob? Do you belive all these women that made allegations against him? The Miller woman that claimed she had an affair with him was nuts. Her mother has lived down the street from mine all my life.

And don't give me that excuse about this woman running for political office giving her credibility. She's in Nevada and there's Mary Carey next door running for governor AGAIN.

[Unchainme]

Originally posted by binnie
That sounds interesting, I didn't know they did that...

They also have three types of schools you can go to.

One is an Apprentice School where you just learn to be a mechanic or something like that, and are out by the 8th grade I believe.

Another is a like a Tech School, I think you go to about the 10th grade and then you're done, And your basically like Upper Management of the mechanic like job.

The Final one is like Pre-college and it goes to like the 13th grade auctually, and is auctually equivlant to a College Education over here. Then you can go to college to get your degree after that.

They have it set up so much better over there.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
what happens if 2 divorced, dengenerate straight people are married in one state and move to a state that doesn't accept it?

Wait...

What ???


:D

[binnie]

Originally posted by Unchainme
They also have three types of schools you can go to.

One is an Apprentice School where you just learn to be a mechanic or something like that, and are out by the 8th grade I believe.

Another is a like a Tech School, I think you go to about the 10th grade and then you're done, And your basically like Upper Management of the mechanic like job.

The Final one is like Pre-college and it goes to like the 13th grade auctually, and is auctually equivlant to a College Education over here. Then you can go to college to get your degree after that.

They have it set up so much better over there.

Sounds like it, thanks for sharing that.

Our school system isn't anywhere near that well thought out either...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Wait...

What ???


:D

What if Newt Gingrich (married and divorced three times) and Elizabeth Taylor (married and divorced 7 times) got hitched.

Does that clarify it for you?

After all, marriage vows usually include "till death do us part". But obviously that meant nothing to Newt or Liz, so would they not be "degenerates" by your standard?

And clearly neither of them value marriage that much. So why should they have advantadges, legal or otherwise, over a gay gouple that truly loves one another?

[ELVIS]

So, because people divorce and remarry, fags should be allowed to get hitched ??

That doesn't make sense, but it lends insight into how a liberal mind operates...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So, because people divorce and remarry, fags should be allowed to get hitched ??

That doesn't make sense, but it lends insight into how a liberal mind operates...

The usual right wing argument is that gays getting married would somehow "harm" heterosexual marriage.

Yet 50% of all heterosexual marriages ended in divorce long before gay marriage was legal in Massachussettes. Even before civil unions were legal in Vermont.

So clearly, breeders are destroying their own marriages without any help from the queers.

Furthermore, if religious reich types are insistent tha any sex outside of marriage is a sin, and will therefore doom someone to eternity in Hell, then wouldn't the "Christian" thing be to allow them to get married and thereby save themselves from damnation?

Or do you still cling to the myth that someone can change their sexual orientation at will?

[Hardrock69]

That Thomas Jefferson letter is a well-known forgery.

Jefferson was an early espouser of the extermination of Jews, and believed that black men had larger penises than he did.

[Hardrock69]

He was also a well known homo, who used to drive his Cadillac around the plantation with his iPod stuck up his ass. He learned that trick from BigBadBRucie.
:D

[knuckleboner]

yep, FORD pretty much has it covered.

near as i can see, the bible is just as anti-divorce as it is anti-gay. something about what God has united, let no man divide?

yet we divide all the time. and i don't hear conservatives calling for an outlaw of divorce. why?

so let's hear it. is divorce bad for the institution of marriage? is it against God's law?

[Hardrock69]

Of course it is.

Why don't they outlaw stupidity?

Because if they did, we would have a load of criminals running the country...

Ooops...I guess we already do have a bunch of criminals running the country.

Never mind.

[jcook11]

I consider myself a "follower" of Christ, However I think Pat Robertson,Jerry Fallwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Benny Hinn,Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton and most of the A-HOLES on TBN as self serving thieves who take money from poor slobs. The good news is that GOD IS WATCHING and they will have to pay for EVERY WORD THAT COMES OUT OF THEIR MOUTHES!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by binnie
That sounds interesting, I didn't know they did that...

What?

They did that here too when I was at school.

[sadaist]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
yep, FORD pretty much has it covered.

near as i can see, the bible is just as anti-divorce as it is anti-gay. something about what God has united, let no man divide?

yet we divide all the time. and i don't hear conservatives calling for an outlaw of divorce. why?

so let's hear it. is divorce bad for the institution of marriage? is it against God's law?



From my viewpoint, when you get married, it is a religious ceremony and you make an oath before God to do certain things and not do certain things. Don't make a promise you can't keep.

But then again, God doesn't have to live with the bitch.

[DrMaddVibe]

Gay marriage amendment carries new support By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 7, 3:38 AM ET



A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is headed toward certain Senate defeat, but supporters say new votes for the measure represent progress that gives the GOP's base reason to vote on Election Day.

"There's many of us who have not had an opportunity to debate and discuss this," said Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., one of five freshmen supporters of the amendment who replaced opponents of the measure in the 2004 election.

Supporters say the amendment will win as many as seven new votes from freshmen elected after the amendment received its last vote in 2004. Their support is expected to produce a majority for the amendment in the 100-member chamber.

But 60 votes would be required for the measure to survive a test vote Wednesday and a two-thirds majority is required in both houses of Congress to send an amendment to the states. It then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Still, supporters were pleased.

"We're building votes," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., another new supporter. "That's often what's required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote."

A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as does the amendment, according to a new ABC News poll. But just as many oppose amending the Constitution, the poll found.

Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with their own state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the federal amendment.

The measure's looming defeat in the Senate is by no means its last stand, said its supporters.

"Whether it passes or not this time, I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it up."

The House plans a vote on the amendment next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."

Like the Senate, the House in 2004 fell short of the two-thirds vote needed.

Bush, his popularity sagging and his conservative base dissatisfied with Republicans' efforts on social issues, issued a fresh appeal for passage Tuesday, the third time in as many days.

"The administration believes that the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process, rather than by the court orders of a few," a White House statement said.

The Vatican also weighed in Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.

Senate Democrats, all of whom except Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska oppose the amendment, say the debate is a divisive political ploy.

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, whose state legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

Hatch responded: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"



Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

[DEMON CUNT]

Ha ha! "traditional family." That's cute.

Who's scheming now? And in the name of faith, even.

Is this you?

http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/images/misc/god%20hates%20fags.jpg

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

Hatch responded: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"


As few as that?

[Hardrock69]

This Gay Marriage Ban bullshit is a load of crap.

Firstly, there is not a snowball's chance in hell it will pass. Therefore Congress is wasting their time, and our taxpayer dollars even debating it.

Secondly, and more importantly, it exposes everyone who is in favor of it as a fucking asshole bigot fuckhead.


What people do in their private lives is the concern of nobody else.

There is such a stench of homophobia and absolute FEAR OF GAYS in Washington that it is amazing.


That said, the Religious Right needs to be destroyed.

There is no place for religion in government.

PERIOD.


Unless you want a government like the Taliban, or any of the other Islamic countries where people have no freedom for fear of the Religious Fuckhead Gestapo showing up at their door and beating the shit out of them for daring to think for themselves.

The Religious Right have more in common with Nazi Germany than with any kind of 'benevolent religious teachings'.

Imagine Jesus Christ goosestepping around Jerusaleum.

SIEG HEIL!!!

:rolleyes:

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by sadaist
From my viewpoint, when you get married, it is a religious ceremony and you make an oath before God to do certain things and not do certain things. Don't make a promise you can't keep.




but would you be willing to put that into law?

legally, which is all this constitutional amendment is dealing with, marriage is a civil contract between 2 people (currently of the opposite sex.) religion plays ZERO part in the legality of marriage.



but i'm curious...

for those in favor of a ban on gay marriage, are you also in favor of a ban on divorce? if not, why not?

[jcook11]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So what then if two faggot queer degenerates are married in one state and move to a state that doesn't accept it ??

My youngest brother is a homsexual he and his partner both have excellent jobs pay their taxes and don't bother anyone. They mind their own buisness. By the way I study the Bible quite a bit and I have yet to find a verse where Christ or GOD for that matter uses the term fag.

[jcook11]

Originally posted by Satan
And how many gays would want to live in states where they were called "faggot queer degenerates"?

My brother and his partner moved to Ohio last year ...Again they mind their own business,pay their taxes and don't bother anyone. yet they were made to feel so uncomfortable they moved back to California.

[Seshmeister]

The anti gay thing is in Leviticus for fuck sake. That whole book is full of other nutcase bullshit that Christians and Jews ignore these days.

The 'God doesn't like it crap' is just an excuse to try and prop up their bigotry.

Islamist are also anti gay yet Mohammed married a 5 year old girl and started fucking her when she reached 9 so I guess pedophelia is ok by them.

[Hardrock69]

Here is a great editorial by Lou Dobbs. Amazing how intellectuals see right through the idiocy of the Right-Wing Fascists, yet the multitudes of sheeple moo and fart in horror at the "non-issues" raised by these conservative hypocrites...

Dobbs: Gay marriage amendment sheer nonsense

By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Wednesday, June 7, 2006; Posted: 9:09 a.m. EDT (13:09 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush this week urged Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, at a time when the United States faces some of the greatest challenges in our nation's history.

So, logically, what could possibly better ensure the prosperous and bright future of working men and women and their families than for the Senate to work on a constitutional amendment that is guaranteed to fail?

It's clear that cynical, patronizing White House political strategists are trying to rally a conservative base that they believe is more base than conservative. They're wrong on all counts.

We're fighting a war against radical Islamist terrorists with ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're drowning in debt from our growing record trade and budget deficits and we're watching our public education system fail a generation of students. Congress has yet to act on an effective solution to our illegal immigration crisis as millions of illegal aliens flood our borders every year, and our nation's borders and ports are still woefully insecure, four and a half years after the September 11 attacks.

I believe most Americans are far more concerned about their declining real wages and the lack of real creation of quality jobs than the insulting insertion of wedge issues into the national dialogue and political agenda.

But President Bush and the Senate have decided they should take up a constitutional ban of gay marriage. Polls tell us most of us oppose gay marriage. Those same polls are also shouting to our elected representatives in Washington that we want real leadership and real solutions to real problems.

The president and the Senate's Republican leadership are now claiming that an amendment to our Constitution is necessary to save the American family. No matter how you feel about the issue, and many of us feel deeply, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is utter and complete nonsense. It's an insult to the intelligence of every voter, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.

The president and the Senate are focusing on one of the few reasons that has not been proven to cause divorce. They instead should look to financial hardships, and the lack of communication about family finances. The median family income is stagnating while gasoline costs and higher interest rates are eating up the family budget.

Nor is the Senate looking at the national tragedy of out-of-wedlock births: In seven states, more than 40 percent of our children are born out of wedlock. Nationally, more than one out of three of our children are born to unmarried parents.

Both political parties love to excite and enliven their so-called "bases" by focusing on wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, gun control, school prayer and flag burning. Both the Republicans and Democrats raise these issues to distract and divert public attention from the pressing issues that affect our way of life and our nation's future.

Are these wedge issues really how Congress should be spending its time, especially given how little time politicians spend in Washington, D.C., these days? I'd rather see our 535 elected representatives and this president use their time to combat poverty, fix our crumbling schools, secure our broken borders and ports and hold employers accountable for hiring illegal aliens. And like millions of Americans, I am desperate for a resolution to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How can we tolerate elected officials who press wedge issues when 37 million people in the United States live in poverty, one in every eight Americans? Almost 18 percent of children under the age of 18 live in poverty -- 13 million children.

Nearly 46 million people live without health insurance, about 16 percent of the population, a number that has risen by 6 million since 2000. More than one in 10 children are uninsured, and one-quarter of people with incomes below $25,000 also lack any health insurance.

College costs are skyrocketing. There's been a 40 percent jump (inflation-adjusted) in tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities over the past five years, according to the College Board. The costs for brand-name prescription drugs have also increased twice as fast as the rate of inflation. In fact, over the past six years, the average rise in the price of brand-name drugs is 40 percent, according to the AARP.

But while these increases in the price of the basics make it harder for hard-working men and women to make ends meet, the president and Congress would rather drive wedge issues than work toward real solutions.

I wonder if the president's political advisers know just how ill-advised and smarmy this wedge issue looks to the millions of us who want solutions to the critical, urgent problems facing this nation. Worse, I wonder if they even care.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html

[FORD]

I think the only reason Orrin Hatch is still pushing this thing is that he's still pissed about the polygamy laws.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

I really don't care what two people are doing behind closed doors, but am I the only one on this site that finds two men performing sexual acts on one another quite sickening. I refuse to agree with this type of behavior. I am not a basher or go around spewing hate towards homosexuals and lesbians, but I will in no way support their agenda. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
I really don't care what two people are doing behind closed doors, but am I the only one on this site that finds two men performing sexual acts on one another quite sickening. I refuse to agree with this type of behavior. I am not a basher or go around spewing hate towards homosexuals and lesbians, but I will in no way support their agenda. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Gay people find heterosexual acts just as sickening. Should they have the right to keep you from getting married?

I find it sickening that ill informed right wingers will get married and raise ill informed children and continue to spread hate and ignorance. Does that mean I should be able to prevent them from marrying their cousins?

Under the 14th Ammendment, gay couples are entitled to equal protection under the law. This was the basis on which the state courts in Vermont and Massachussettes ruled, leading Howard Dean to sign a civil unions bill in Vermont, and for gay marriage to be legalized in Massachussettes.

If the United States Supreme Court rules honestly and according to precedent, they will come to the same conclusion when this decision finally comes to them.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

I don't have a problem with civil unions, if their signifcant other becomes ill or passes away they should be entitled to receive that persons benefits or property, if left in a legal will. But do not call it marriage. Their was a woman on talk radio today who has been with her partner for 11 years and they have a child. She hired an attorney and worked out her finance's and property with her life partner and stated she has no need for marriage. It is a matter of perspective and I think ill informed right wing hate is a bit strong. Nobody is perfect and that includes liberals and conservatives.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by jcook11
My youngest brother is a homsexual he and his partner both have excellent jobs pay their taxes and don't bother anyone. They mind their own buisness. By the way I study the Bible quite a bit and I have yet to find a verse where Christ or GOD for that matter uses the term fag.

Right on. I am glad to hear this from you. You have first hand knowledge of what it is like to be a gay American. Props to your bro and his guy.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
I really don't care what two people are doing behind closed doors, but am I the only one on this site that finds two men performing sexual acts on one another quite sickening. I refuse to agree with this type of behavior. I am not a basher or go around spewing hate towards homosexuals and lesbians, but I will in no way support their agenda. Marriage is between a man and a woman.


You right wing types just enjoy controlling people you don't like or are afraid of.

You hate gay people and you don't know why. Unless of course... secretly you are one.

Does this picture make you wanna jack off?



It does! Go ahead, no one will see you...

[FORD]

Originally posted by jcook11
My youngest brother is a homsexual he and his partner both have excellent jobs pay their taxes and don't bother anyone. They mind their own buisness. By the way I study the Bible quite a bit and I have yet to find a verse where Christ or GOD for that matter uses the term fag.

This is something you should share with your fellow right wingers. I'll bet every Busheep on this board has gay family members. They might not know it yet, but they do.

The word "ignorance" is often confused with "stupidity". And it's true that ignorant people are often stupid, and that stupid people are always ignorant, but the two words are not synonyms. "ignorance" actually means that you lack knowledge. Homophobia is ignorance which comes from people who don't know (or at least, don't think they know) anyone who is gay. Once they find out that they DO know such people, their prejudice might well change.

Doesn't mean they'll become an entirely different person, of course. Dick Cheney is still an unrepentant war criminal bastard. But he's not a homophobe, at least.

[LoungeMachine]

DC.......

NO COCK PICS WHATSOEVER.

DIRECT FROM SARGE.


YOU KNOW I SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS, BUT PLEASE PHOTOSHOP THESE IN SOME WAY TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS, BUT STILL FOLLOW SARGE'S WISHES.


THANKS,

LM

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
The word "ignorance" is often confused with "stupidity". And it's true that ignorant people are often stupid, and that stupid people are always ignorant, but the two words are not synonyms. "ignorance" actually means that you lack knowledge. Homophobia is ignorance which comes from people who don't know (or at least, don't think they know) anyone who is gay. Once they find out that they DO know such people, their prejudice might well change.


I often find campy gay annoying but I find all sorts of things annoying and am slowly turning into a grumpy old man.

A bunch of us accidently staggered into a gay club in Manchester, England the other night after a gig and it was absolutely fine. This has happened to me a few times when I've been out in strange cities and I've never had any sort of problem at all. In fact it's better in a way because you don't have to worry about some drunken alpha male kicking your head in because you spill his beer or something.

An asshole is an asshole so to speak and there are plenty of gay guys that are twats just like anyone else.

Gay marriage is inevitable. In the UK there is a case going through our courts just now where a couple of lesbians married in Canada are fighting for their marriage to be recognised in the UK. Bizarrely since we had a change in the law here last year introducing 'civil partnerships' which have entirely the same rights bestowed apart from just the word marriage.

My only slight problem is that I do believe that ideally you shuld have a man and a woman as parents and that gay couples should be at a disadvantage in adoption only getting the kid if there is noone better.

This of course is dangerous fucking territory for the liberals because it implies that single parents are not so good which is of course true but you can't say that without a million single mothers screaming what a great job they do.

It's like work. How many people have yu ever met socially that have said 'I'm shit at my job'. Almost none but more than the times you have met a woman that said 'I'm a pretty shit mother'.

But we all knw there are millions of people that are shit at their job and millions of shitty one parent families.

We have to keep quiet about it though even if it is spectacularly more important than a couple of gay people entering into marriage. In fact I would like all gay people to be married I don't see why they shouldn't suffer like everyone else...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
DC.......

NO COCK PICS WHATSOEVER.

DIRECT FROM SARGE.


YOU KNOW I SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS, BUT PLEASE PHOTOSHOP THESE IN SOME WAY TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS, BUT STILL FOLLOW SARGE'S WISHES.


THANKS,

LM

Got it.

Here's a different jack pic for ULTRAMAN VH's spanking pleasure.

He a fireman and a hero.

http://stillmemory.ca/images/firefighter.jpg

[sadaist]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Right on. I am glad to hear this from you. You have first hand knowledge of what it is like to be a gay American. Props to your bro and his guy.

So many of you are fucking hypocrites. You sit here and preach tolerance and anti-hate. Not one bad thing to say if someone chooses to put a dick in their ass, that's their free choice and they should be treated like everyone else. But if someone decides to like OU812, boom! They are stupid, wrong, and are given grief to no end. I'm not talking about people like ritetoolforjob who come on here spamming looking for a quarrel, but people who like Van Halen, but then mention they like the song Right Now. If you are going to preach tolerance, you can't just apply to the places that you like and are convenient for you, it has to be all or nothing.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by sadaist
...if someone decides to like OU812, boom! They are stupid, wrong, and are given grief to no end. ...but then mention they like the song Right Now. If you are going to preach tolerance...

But dude, OU812 sucks and Right Now is a pretty gay song.

Aren't weddings pretty gay anyway?

[FORD]

Let it be known that it was NOT me who equated the album OU812 with "putting a dick in your ass".

And that's really all I'm going to say about that one.

Mostly because the only mention of Sammy Hagar on this forum should be his horrible political contributions. (http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Sammy_Hagar.php)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by sadaist
So many of you are fucking hypocrites. You sit here and preach tolerance and anti-hate. Not one bad thing to say if someone chooses to put a dick in their ass, that's their free choice and they should be treated like everyone else. But if someone decides to like OU812, boom! They are stupid, wrong, and are given grief to no end. I'm not talking about people like ritetoolforjob who come on here spamming looking for a quarrel, but people who like Van Halen, but then mention they like the song Right Now. If you are going to preach tolerance, you can't just apply to the places that you like and are convenient for you, it has to be all or nothing.

Not at all.

Your cock getting hard when you look at naked men is something you are born with.

Liking Van Hagar is just being fucking tasteless and stupid.:)

[jcook11]

Originally posted by FORD
Let it be known that it was NOT me who equated the album OU812 with "putting a dick in your ass".

And that's really all I'm going to say about that one.

Mostly because the only mention of Sammy Hagar on this forum should be his horrible political contributions. (http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Sammy_Hagar.php)

That and the fact that he is the biggest fattest cheesiest no talent that helped turmed the greatest rocknroll bag into a bunch of whining cheezey pussbags. People don't get it Real Van Halen is not just a band , it's an attitude a philosiphy...a way of life if you will. Lke Van Hagar if you must but don't ever kid yourself into believing it's something other than what it is....you can polish a turd but it still is a turd.

In the immortal words of Matt White "DAVE OR THE GRAVE!"MOTHERFUCKERS!" :cool:

[sadaist]

Originally posted by jcook11
That and the fact that he is the biggest fattest cheesiest no talent that helped turmed the greatest rocknroll bag into a bunch of whining cheezey pussbags. People don't get it Real Van Halen is not just a band , it's an attitude a philosiphy...a way of life if you will. Lke Van Hagar if you must but don't ever kid yourself into believing it's something other than what it is....you can polish a turd but it still is a turd.

In the immortal words of Matt White "DAVE OR THE GRAVE!"MOTHERFUCKERS!" :cool:


Jesus. Go back to playing with your Lite Brite. Has nothing to do with whether Sammy is any good or not. It's about libs preaching tolerance of gays. If you preach tolerance, you can't just apply it where convenient at the time. Tolerance for gays = tolerance for peoples choice of music = tolerance for different races, religions, etc...

I don't preach tolerance myself. I hate pretty much everyone.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Gay people find heterosexual acts just as sickening. Should they have the right to keep you from getting married?



Homosexuality is perverse, good ole "man on woman" fucking is not.

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!!!!

:D

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Homosexuality is perverse, good ole "man on woman" fucking is not.


It is if you do it properly...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by sadaist
Jesus. Go back to playing with your Lite Brite. .


:lol:

LMMFAO

My favorite retort of 2006.

[ I may steal this at a later date ]

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Hey, DEMONCUNT thanks for all your efforts on trying to figure out my sexual preference. SORRY little fella, I have no interest in you or your pal Lounge. Your actions clearly prove that LIBERALISM is a mental disorder.

[jcook11]

Originally posted by sadaist
Jesus. Go back to playing with your Lite Brite. Has nothing to do with whether Sammy is any good or not. It's about libs preaching tolerance of gays. If you preach tolerance, you can't just apply it where convenient at the time. Tolerance for gays = tolerance for peoples choice of music = tolerance for different races, religions, etc...

I don't preach tolerance myself. I hate pretty much everyone.
Sorry I just can't bring myself to "tolerate roy hagar"

[jcook11]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
He was also a well known homo, who used to drive his Cadillac around the plantation with his iPod stuck up his ass. He learned that trick from BigBadBRucie.
:D

Hey now FORD and LOUNGE have been seen around the "Republic of Cascadia" doing the same thing.:spank:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Hey, DEMONCUNT thanks for all your efforts on trying to figure out my sexual preference. SORRY little fella, I have no interest in you or your pal Lounge. Your actions clearly prove that LIBERALISM is a mental disorder.

Goodness! You sure are defensive, is that because you love cock?

Nice book, fag.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1595550437.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[jcook11]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:lol:

LMMFAO

My favorite retort of 2006.

[ I may steal this at a later date ]

Woudn't surprise me if you stole it since you cant' come up with an original thought on your own...just the dribble that FORD feeds you

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Homosexuality is perverse, good ole "man on woman" fucking is not.

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!!!!



This comment borders on retarded.

[Unchainme]

Religous Right is Unamerican
As is The Athetistic Left and The Athetistic Right.

All sides are fucking the country right now no matter how you look at it. Thanks to the Dems and Cuntservatives the government keeps getting bigger everyday, something I'm not big on.

[Unchainme]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Goodness! You sure are defensive, is that because you love cock?

Nice book, fag.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1595550437.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


Savage really is gay though, He just won't admit it. It's fucking hilliarious to listen to his show because he'll go on a rant about how he hates gays, When you know that he is not exactly straight. (Yes I listen to Cuntservative Talk Radio sometimes, I like getting both viewpoints, It's boring hearing the same point of view over and over again.)

[jcook11]

Originally posted by sadaist
Jesus. Go back to playing with your Lite Brite. Has nothing to do with whether Sammy is any good or not. It's about libs preaching tolerance of gays. If you preach tolerance, you can't just apply it where convenient at the time. Tolerance for gays = tolerance for peoples choice of music = tolerance for different races, religions, etc...

I don't preach tolerance myself. I hate pretty much everyone.

I don't dislike roy because hei s a fag I could care less I dislike him because he isa fake cheezy no talent lyrically challenged shitbag retard!

[sadaist]

Originally posted by jcook11
I don't dislike roy because hei s a fag I could care less I dislike him because he isa fake cheezy no talent lyrically challenged shitbag retard!
That's cool if you hate him, or anyone else. I have no problem with that. It doesn't matter why even. But, if you're a person who screams that everyone should be tolerant of peoples sexual preferences, yet turn around and are not tolerant of someones musical preferences, you are a hypocrite.

Hating the musician is one thing, hating a person for listening to it is a completely different.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Rip on Michael Savage all you want, but at least he calls it down the line. If The President is screwing up, which he is, Savage calls him on it. Savage basically states on his show that both Democrats and Republicans are running this country into the ground. So Demon Cunt Hair, keep defending the left wing politicians, because they are not looking out for you.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Rip on Michael Savage all you want, but at least he calls it down the line. If The President is screwing up, which he is, Savage calls him on it. Savage basically states on his show that both Democrats and Republicans are running this country into the ground. So Demon Cunt Hair, keep defending the left wing politicians, because they are not looking out for you.

Fag.

[Unchainme]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Fag.

Is that the only things you say, mate?

At least intelligently debate the neocons If you're as smart as you think you are.

You're just as annoying as bigblandbrian sometimes.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Unchainme
Is that the only things you say, mate?


Probably. Let's see.

Fag!

Yeah, I guess so. I sure hope that my inability to meet your high standards doesn't inconvenience you in any way.

http://www.weirdspot.com/alexandro/woman_big_balls.jpg

[FORD]

Michael "Savage" Weiner is a mental case. He lives in San Francisco, was a "close personal friend" of Allen Ginsburg, and has to "butch up" a nickname to ridiculous levels to avoid the obvious jokes that would come with his real name.

His ordinary right wing screaming would make him just another whore media annoyance. His nearly Phelpsian homophobic rants (i.e."all faggots deserve to die of AIDS") make him a fucking hypocrite of the worst kind.

[ashstralia]

FORD, i have a genuine question.

you proclaim to be a christian, right?

and even post here as JC.

now, i don't know which bible you're reading, but mine says homosexuality
is wrong.

so, how can you agree with homosexuality, and still be a christian?

[Seshmeister]

I have some genuine questions for you.

Do you believe in slavery?

Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."

Have you ever worked on a Sunday?

Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."


Have you played football, rugby or eaten ham?

Leviticus 11
7 and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
8 Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

Are you against women wearing trousers, is this an abomination?

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Deuteronomy 22:5

Do you think that if you are unlucky enough to have your balls crushed in an accident then you should have to go to hell for eternal damnation?

Deuteronomy, "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to he assembly of the Lord" (23:1). A similar passage in Leviticus declares that "no one who has a blemish shall draw near" the sanctuary, including one with "crushed testicles" (21:18-20).

Will I go on there are hundreds of these and the one for fags is just the same. Bullshit.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Seshmeister

Deuteronomy, "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to he assembly of the Lord" (23:1)...

Will I go on there are hundreds of these and the one for fags is just the same. Bullshit.

Nice one! Thank you.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ashstralia

now, i don't know which bible you're reading, but mine says homosexuality
is wrong.


Ha ha! Can you be more specific about that?

[Dr. Love]

I have yet to read a convincing argument against gay marriage. I have yet to read an argument against gay marriage that doesn't seem to include some moral grandstanding usually based on shaky religious grounds.

It's a shame that some people want to limit the harmless actions of others based on a narrow view of their own world. In another era, these might be the same people that believe that minorities shouldn't go to the same bathroom as them, or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'm all for limiting people's ability to get married, but I think it should apply to all people regardless of if whether you like weenie or not.

[Guitar Shark]

I would very much like to marry the woman in Doc's sig.

[LoungeMachine]

Why are none of these "Christians" rallying against all of the hetero couples who beat, abandon, or sexually molest their children?

"Marriage" isn't at risk because "gays" want to be married.

I think certain closet cases [Dobson] just need as much distance as possible.

Too close for comfort, if you will....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I have some genuine questions for you.

Do you believe in slavery?

Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."

Have you ever worked on a Sunday?

Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."


Have you played football, rugby or eaten ham?

Leviticus 11
7 and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
8 Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

Are you against women wearing trousers, is this an abomination?

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Deuteronomy 22:5

Do you think that if you are unlucky enough to have your balls crushed in an accident then you should have to go to hell for eternal damnation?

Deuteronomy, "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to he assembly of the Lord" (23:1). A similar passage in Leviticus declares that "no one who has a blemish shall draw near" the sanctuary, including one with "crushed testicles" (21:18-20).

Will I go on there are hundreds of these and the one for fags is just the same. Bullshit.

This speech was a great scene in an episode of The West Wing

[except the testicle part:D ]

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Christians do rally against scumbags who rape and molest children. Why don't you go after these far left activist judges who let these sick twisted losers go or grant them lite sentences.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
That's cool if you hate him, or anyone else. I have no problem with that. It doesn't matter why even. But, if you're a person who screams that everyone should be tolerant of peoples sexual preferences, yet turn around and are not tolerant of someones musical preferences, you are a hypocrite.

Hating the musician is one thing, hating a person for listening to it is a completely different.


Sorry man, but this a completely faulty logical, and an intellectually dishonest analogy.

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from buying or listening to OU812, nor am I obsessing over those that listen to the tragicomic piece of shit... In short, I am not trying to deny anyone their basic civil rights --however, there are those that are trying to deny gays their civil rights, such as: control over their inheritance, medical decisions, and family issues.

You're way off base here.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Christians do rally against scumbags who rape and molest children. \.


Except when it's done by their own priests.....

Then they just pay them off.:rolleyes:

[Dr. Love]

spread the other cheek...

[jcook11]

Originally posted by sadaist
That's cool if you hate him, or anyone else. I have no problem with that. It doesn't matter why even. But, if you're a person who screams that everyone should be tolerant of peoples sexual preferences, yet turn around and are not tolerant of someones musical preferences, you are a hypocrite.

Hating the musician is one thing, hating a person for listening to it is a completely different.

I agree with you Sadaist, If you like Van Hagar (GOD I hate that term)Knock yourself out .But Van Halen is
David Lee Roth
Edward Van Halen
AEX van Halen
Mischael Anthony. PERIOD! NOT roy hagar or Gary Cherone. I't would be like someone else trying to sing for the Rolling Stones,Nirvana The Doors or Queen .it just doesn't work All four members of Van Halen were unique like it or not They each brouhgt something different to the table!

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Can't argue with you on that point.

[ashstralia]

Originally posted by jcook11
Van Halen is....
David Lee Roth


i cuntcur cuntpletely! :hitch: :killer:

[Nickdfresh]

We should ban all marriages between Van Hagar fans in order to preserve the gene pool...