Sarah Palin: An "unholy amalgam"?

Ice Dancer said:
Or maybe you just throw shit out there and hope some of it sticks.
Click to expand...

The two quotes I posted showed his ignorance about Wicca. The fact that he was willing to say that in very public places shows his bigotry.

Wicca was accepted by the military before he was elected. The fact that the first tombstones bearing wiccan symbols were placed during his first term is not anything that he did. He was just there when the soldiers died.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Because a man and woman uniting in matrimony is the intended purpose of the sacrament their beliefe or unbelief is not in question.

As to men abusing what God meant for good? That's a straw man argument as man corrupts everything as a fallen creature.
Click to expand...

HUH? I thought they go married to get tax breaks, non bastard children, supported by one or the other, etc..

I guess it is all the intended purpose of holy scarement. That is why there are so many divorces in the bible belt?
 
ID, there are many churches that perform marriages for homosexuals. If it was solely a religious thing (I agree, the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all IMO) then gays are already married.

The government should not have the power to draw the line on the definition of a religious ceremony either for or against what the majority who practice the religion think. It isn't the government's place to protect the sanctity of anything, literally nothing.

The government cannot make your marriage any more sanctified than you do, the government cannot stop a church from giving gays a ceremony nor force them to give gays a ceremony, gays being married in a church but not recognized by the government doesn't change that they are married if it is solely a religious thing.

The fact is the only people who can desanctify your marriage are yourself or your husband. No other marriage has any bearing on the sanctity of your marriage. Imagine if it did, all those plural marriages performed in other nations, marriages with people we would consider children, etc, would already have desanctified your marriage.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Because a man and woman uniting in matrimony is the intended purpose of the sacrament their beliefe or unbelief is not in question.

As to men abusing what God meant for good? That's a straw man argument as man corrupts everything as a fallen creature.
Click to expand...

So you claim that two athiests getting married in a courthouse is part of a christian sacrament? lmao


Its not a strawman argument. When half of marriages end in divorce and there are as many women being beaten by their husbands as there are, to claim that two gays being married will destroy the sanctity of marriage is nothing short of hypocrisy.
 
Damocles said:
ID, there are many churches that perform marriages for homosexuals. If it was solely a religious thing (I agree, the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all IMO) then gays are already married.

The government should not have the power to draw the line on the definition of a religious ceremony either for or against what the majority who practice the religion think.

The government cannot make your marriage any more sanctified than you do. In fact the only people who can desanctify your marriage are yourself and your husband.
Click to expand...

Many people also get married by legal not religious entities.
I wonder what the percentages are of marriges performed by religious vs non religious entities is?
 
Demwit said:
Many people also get married by legal not religious entities.
I wonder what the percentages are of marriges performed by religious vs non religious entities is?
Click to expand...
IMO, the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. All things outside of the religious ceremonies should be under contract law and have 'union' licensing rather than marriage licensing. Even if you were to take on the religious ceremony (What God has brought together, let no man tear asunder) and were married you should still receive that same 'union' license rather than a marriage license. It just isn't the government's place to define what is sanctified, to protect what is sanctified, or to preside over the sanctity of anything at all.
 
Damocles said:
IMO, the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. All things outside of the religious ceremonies should be under contract law and have 'union' licensing rather than marriage licensing. Even if you were to take on the religious ceremony (What God has brought together, let no man tear asunder) and were married you should still receive that same 'union' license rather than a marriage license. It just isn't the government's place to define what is sanctified, to protect what is sanctified, or to preside over the sanctity of anything at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.
 
WinterBorn said:
And the only reason Reagan did this was so they could have religious freedoms?

Here is what Reagan said in a press conference in 1981 after Poland declared martial law in response to a Solidarity uprising.

"All the information that we have confirms that the imposition of martial law in Poland has led to the arrest and confinement, in prisons and detention camps, of thousands of Polish trade union leaders and intellectuals. Factories are being seized by security forces and workers beaten.
These acts make plain there’s been a sharp reversal of the movement toward a freer society that has been underway in Poland for the past year and a half. Coercion and violation of human rights on a massive scale have taken the place of negotiation and compromise. All of this is in gross violation of the Helsinki Pact, to which Poland is a signatory.
It would be naive to think this could happen without the full knowledge and the support of the Soviet Union. We’re not naive. We view the current situation in Poland in the gravest of terms, particularly the increasing use of force against an unarmed population and violations of the basic civil rights of the Polish people."

The bold face is mine to show Reagan was working to help intellectuals and trade union leaders. Neither of which are concerns of social conservatives.

This quote also shows that Reagan was blaming the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

It would be refreshing for once if you would attempt to counter my argument instead of creating a caricature of it then arguing that. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
It would be refreshing for once if you would attempt to counter my argument instead of creating a caricature of it then arguing that. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I challenged you to tell me something that Reagan DID that was in keeping with the social conservative's agenda. You posted that the aid in freeing Poland was something Reagan did, and defended your post by saying that all conservatives are for religious freedom.

I posted showing that Reagan's motivation was not religious freedom but to fight against the Soviet Union and to promote freedom for everyone around the world. That is certainly not a social conservative ideal but one that comes from a much broader range of people.
 
WinterBorn said:
I challenged you to tell me something that Reagan DID that was in keeping with the social conservative's agenda. You posted that the aid in freeing Poland was something Reagan did, and defended your post by saying that all conservatives are for religious freedom.

I posted showing that Reagan's motivation was not religious freedom but to fight against the Soviet Union and to promote freedom for everyone around the world. That is certainly not a social conservative ideal but one that comes from a much broader range of people.
Click to expand...
Then you made this ridiculous statement:
And the only reason Reagan did this was so they could have religious freedoms?
Click to expand...
*shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Then you made this ridiculous statement: *shrug*
Click to expand...

YOu said that I had been fooled. So I posted "What did Reagan do that helped the religious right's causes?"

So unless Reagan did it just so they could have religious freedoms, your claim that his working with the Pope to free Poland is nothing but bullshit.

So apparently I was not the one fooled. If the religious right or moral majority still thinks Reagan was one of them, they were certainly fooled.

Unless you can come up with something else he did that helped the religious right's causes? He was in office for 8 years surely he did something else that was mainly for the social conservatives?
 
Again a caricature, now founded on false logic. It is funny though how long winded you get when I hit you with a succinct position that you can't defend against. Good ol' Solitary. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Again a caricature, now founded on false logic. It is funny though how long winded you get when I hit you with a succinct position that you can't defend against. Good ol' WinterBorn. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Now this is funny. You want to point at me for doing something when you claim I have an undefendable position.

But your claim that Reagan was a social conservative's friend and that he did more than use the religious right to get votes is totally indefensible. I challenge you to show me something and the best you can come up with is "He worked with the Pope to free Poland"?

That is great. Project much?
 
Southern Man said:
You're unintelligible now. Typical of WinterBorn due to limited mental capacity. :)
Click to expand...


My limited mental capacity has run rings around you.

But lets try it again. Tell me something that Reagan did that was for the benefit of the religious right more than other groups?
 
Southern Man said:
Another caricature; what a surprise. :)
Click to expand...

LOL! Another dodge what a surprise.

In post #9 you said I had been fooled. Now you refuse to offer anything to backup your claim. What a surprise.

If you are going to claim that Reagan didn't just use the religious right to get elected tell me something he did that was in for them or in keeping with their agenda and no one else's. Because if it was in someone else's agenda as well then Reagan still used the religious right.

Come on. Give it another shot. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top