START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

MORE "Republican Family Values"

Posted 35 months ago|79 comments|577 views
Written by
Spirit of Ralphie
Long Beach, CA
You gotta' love them-there Republicans, the moral
compass of this country, and beholders of them-there
"traditional family values".
Sarah Palin's un-wed teen-age daughter Bristol
was fodder enough for that party's moral hypocrasy,
and now we have Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina
disappearing for a few days, including Fathers' Day,
only to emerge, like a cockroach from under a piece
of trash, to admit he was down Argentina-way doing
the horizontal tango with a woman he was definitely
NOT married to.
Way to go, "Gov. Love".
As they might say South of the Border:
"Gaucho est muy macho"!
Gosh darn it, family values just ain't what they
used to be.
But remember the old line, "Love is grand. Divorce...
is a hundred grand!"
Truly, the Republicans HAVE become..."The party that
just couldn't shoot straight!"
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
35 months ago: It's the hypocrisy that gets me, not the infidelity. Infidelity and bad choices happen, and frankly, I think the mistakes people make in their private lives are their own.

But when you hold yourself up as some super-human "family values" champion and denigrate liberals for not meeting your impossible purity litmus test, then don't be surprised when you get mocked for failing that test yourself.

We're all human. The difference is, we on the left accept that.
35 months ago: This load broke the trailer in half.

Now we have to pay the Highway Patrol, Fire Department, Hazmat Team and EPA to clean up this load of crap.

Thanks for raising my taxes California! Since your doing so well out there. I like that picture of Ralphie though since you hate Republicans and White Blues. This stuff can't be written by the best. Read the authors own BIO before IT has a chance to change it. Too funny.
35 months ago: At least republicans have a set of values they try to hold themselves to.

If this guy was a democrat, he'd be asked to run for president in 2016.
35 months ago: No, if he was a Democrat, the Republicans would be demanding his resignation, if not prepping the tar and feathers. And that's even if he'd never held himself up as some shining example of moral purity.

Get this through your heads: It's the hypocrisy. And as I recall, Jesus had a lot more to say about hypocrites than he did about infidelity.
Spirit of Ralphie
Spirit of Ralphie
Long Beach, CA
35 months ago: Funny, how the Love Gov. didn't want no stinkin' Federal
dollars to actually help the un-employed members of his
state. But apparently, HIS under-employed "member"
WAS able to use a little "stimulus package".
FOLKS, YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP, HAH-HAH-HAH!
Now, perhaps if the First Wife (we can't really call
her "First Lady" anymore) would change her hairstyle
from "Dear Abby, Circa 1966" to something a little
more contemporary (even for South Carolina), it
might help spice things up in the press room, if
not the bedroom!
35 months ago: Why would you think about quoting Jesus since your own bio says...

"Disdainer of monotheistic religions"

Who is the hyprocrite?
35 months ago: Uhh, TCG? That was *ME* pointing out Republican hypocrisy and how Jesus would feel about it, not Spirit of Ralphie.
35 months ago: Oh, and this is rich! Steamy emails: http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html
35 months ago: I'm cool with that HeyNoniNoni. Get it anyway you can. Even while cloking. Even better. I'm guessing your related to Spirit of Ralphie and answering your own original post. No? Include your zip codes in your profile. Atleast Spirit has the huevoes to do that.

Huh? on your weak link...

Must be nice to be on summer break.
35 months ago: TCG, what the hell are you talking about? "Cloking?" No idea what that is. Related to Spirit of Ralphie? Oh, of course! Because after all, there are only two liberals on the entire site. Or maybe just one, since you seem to think we're the same guy. And our writing styles are so similar, after all.

Oh, and now let's move on to the whole zip codes/huevoes thing... What, are you suffering from Internet Toughguy-ism or something?

Let's stick to the topic, shall we? And the topic is Mark Sanford (REPUBLICAN DEFENDER OF "FAMILY VALUES") has been sending his little pink sailor off to swim in some foreign waters, thus joining a growing hypocritical brotherhood within the GOP. The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do crowd is, let's face it, predominantly made up of Republicans.
35 months ago: Wow, I'm seriously having trouble coming up with prominent Democrats who've had the same kinds of trouble in the last decade. Let's see... There's John Edwards, and... er... Bill Clinton, squeaking in under the wire, just barely.
35 months ago: OH, a "Topic" call...

Sorry. Did I mention the fact that this post was pointed at "Republicans". So, why is it off topic to ask the same from the other side? I don't think it's off topic. I think it "IS the topic".
35 months ago: What about Eliot Spitzer? A former attorney general, who no doubt prosecuted Johns, gets caught frequenting a prostitute. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
35 months ago: Not off topic at all. But my zip code? Off topic.

So by all means, let's talk about hypocrisy on the left. Let's see... There's your theory that I would be a hypocrite, if I was Ralphie, since in Ralphie's profile there's a comment about his disdain for monotheism.

But even if Ralphie and I were the same person (and we're not), using Jesus' words to point out Republican hypocrisy would not be hypocritical. It would simply be saying, "Look, you guys aren't following the teachings of the guy you profess to worship."
Rudi Stettner
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
35 months ago: There are people who feign virtue to cover their own faults. Then there are people who rationally believe in virtuous ways but find temptation to be more than they can fight. Then there are people who say "Hey man! If it feels good, Do it!" The first two can be shamed. What can you do with the third guy?
35 months ago: Thanks Rudi. I think...
35 months ago: Thanks, Devils Advocate! I knew I was forgetting one, and you even found a real hypocrite, there.

Now then, off the top of my head... Mark Foley, and his penchant for underage boys. Larry Craig, of the "wide stance." John Ensign, who I *think* (not sure) was having sex with a staffer. I know he was recently in the news over it, but the hit parade has been going so strong, I've kinda lost track. David Vitter, the "DC Madam" customer, who as I recall was big on abstinence-only education. If a 48 year old man can't keep it in his pants, where does he get off (heh) telling a bunch of randy teenagers that abstinence is their only option? And now, of course, Mark Sanford.

Shall I continue? Looking back, there are such classics as Newt "I can't even keep track of how many times I've remarried" Gingrich, and since I mentioned Bill Clinton earlier, how could I forget Henry Hyde, who was so hot for impeachment he never stopped to consider how his own extramarital affair might look to others.

Seriously, if I'm going to list a generation's-worth of Republican hypocrites, this might take a while...
35 months ago: Rudi, the believer in "virtuous ways" who yields to "temptation" needs to get right with himself *BEFORE* calling out everyone else around him for being human. Such a person has no place calling for a no-tolerance policy on, say, homosexuality, if he's getting blowjobs in an airport men's room.
35 months ago: Or blowing hot air in this thread... Sorry Rudi.
I couldn't help myself...
35 months ago: Look everyone, it's very simple: We (the left) will stop mocking hypocritical right-wing Republicans as soon as hypocritical right-wing Republicans stop trying to legislate the very morality that they themselves can't adhere to.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
35 months ago: My favorite was Dan Burton, who denounced Clinton as a "scumbag" from the House floor--we later discovered that he had fathered an illegitimate child in an affair with a state employee. It's this capacity for self-delusion that still amazes me: to know that you have these skeletons in your own closet, and still take the sanctimonious tone.

No one party has a monopoly on this sort of behavior. And I think it's ridiculous that sexual indiscretions are now allowed to wreck otherwise worthwhile political careers. FDR, Eisenhower, JFK: all cheaters. The press knew it, but didn't feel a need to make sport of common human failing.

We're disqualifying half of Washington from higher office with these witch hunts. But these are the rules we all must play by, post-Clinton. Fun, huh?
35 months ago: Nanny:
You and YAK are hilarious.
Of course, Clinton is not a pervert with teenage pages in the Whitehouse.
Of course, Barney Franks has nothing to do with a homosexual prostitution ring out of his basement.
Of course, JFK had affair after affair, one of which had an unfortunate accident.
Oh yea, his broh teddy drove his car into the ocean with his date, but forgot to tell anyone.
I'd love to go back and forth on this topic.
Yee ha.
35 months ago: YAK:
Ooops.
I put your name in with Nanny's before I read your spiel.
I stand corrected.
I almost agree with you.
I apologize.
35 months ago: That's funny JAK.. Dan Burton.. a nobody..

How about JFK and RFK and the blonde babe that was married to Joe D., during the rise of the ...HUH??

RAT PACK

Your making this too easy...
35 months ago: Spirit.
Are you warped?
Does Gov. Love being immoral help you look in the mirror?
What has the Gov.'s life got to do with the price of cheese in China?
Are you married?
Does the oath mean nothing to you?
You and I, a Wallmart shopper, are on different worlds.
Thank goodness.
35 months ago: Pathetic... Really, guys, at least try. You've found Eliot Spitzer, a genuine hypocrite... and no one else. Instead, you dredge up JFK and come back with that old bunk about Barney Franks? Come on... I ask for hypocrites and give you a boatload of them from your side of the aisle, and in return you give me affairs from people who never tried to legislate their morality and kooky murder conspiracies.

Again, let's be perfectly clear: The subject is hypocrisy, and you guys are swimming in it. Don't wanna have your noses rubbed in it anymore? Then get them the hell out of other people's bedrooms.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
35 months ago: red: I accept, and will build on this new era of mutual understanding.

Cypress: That's what I'm saying: FDR, Eisenhower, JFK--cheaters. Brazen, unapologetic skirt-chasers. LBJ--said to have carried-on with Doris Kearns Goodwin. Harding invited hookers to poker games. Cleveland had an illegitimate kid--it was a focus of Harrison's campaign. Jackson married a woman who was still technically married to another man--the Adams camp charged him with polygamy. We could go on and on and on: these sexual scandals have always been with us. People took them in stride--they didn't automatically ruin careers. The Victorians were more forgiving than this generation of Republicans.

I don't care who these people are carrying on with--their affairs are each private hells, and it feels ghoulish to delight in them. As a factor in my vote, it's a low-priority. I accept the premise that man is failed and fallen--I have low expectations.
35 months ago: Oh, and I just remembered... the guy who tried to get Frank expelled from the Senate was none other than Larry Craig! Oh man, please try harder, guys, this is too easy.
35 months ago: Is that the best you have?

You are now in the "Big League" so get real.

Barney SucYurFrankErBoston..

Didn't good old Barney have a HHHHuuuuuMMMMM

GAY Prostitution ring running out of his house?

Is that the best you have? Real weak.
35 months ago: Heynonsequitur:
You have it all wrong.
You guys are the ones pushing legislation to allow homosexuals to marry other homosexuals, or pushing to allow homosexuals to have the same rights as a married man and woman, or seek a court order allowing 12 year olds to have access to homosexual websites at school, etc.
"Never tried to legislate their morality"?
That is a flat out lie....or is it "immorality"?
For crying out loud, you guys are ones jumping up and shouting "Look at me! Look at me! Please stick your noses into my bedroom.....please....please...please".
We could care less about you or your bedroom.
35 months ago: JAK:
Is someone other than you sitting down and typing into your computer?
35 months ago: TCG: You're making gay jokes and forgetting that Frank was acquitted. Hence my earlier dismissal of him. Big League? Come on... Elliot Spitzer was a real example of a sexual-morals hypocrite on the Democratic side. Don't you have any others? At least redstateguy has managed to make arguments instead of gay jokes. Big League my fanny...

redstateguy: Let's get something clear, OK? When I talk about legislating morality, I'm talking about legislation that limits what two consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own homes, because homophobic ****s get the heebie-jeebies every time they think about men having sex. The anti-sodomy laws, the laws against oral sex, and the laws against sex toys that all used to be on the books in many states? That kind of bull-pucky is legislating morality. That's homophobic ****s telling other people what they can and can't do.

Homosexuals getting married, though... How the hell does that affect anyone but the people getting married? How is your marriage or mine threatened if gay people can marry?

You say: "We could care less about you or your bedroom." Oh really? I have four words for you: Defense Of Marriage Act.

But all of this is really beside the point. Liberals don't pretend abstinence-only education is effective, or that homosexuality can be "cured," or that heterosexual sex in the context of lifelong monogamous marriage is somehow magically going to make everyone happy if we just work really hard to make any other sexual activity illegal. We accept humanity and its sexuality in all its flavors. *We aren't hypocrites*. (Well, except for Spitzer).
35 months ago: Siempre Solo, I can see your perspective. If guys like him weren't spending all their time in office moralizing about the behavior of others while playing their illicit games of hide-the-pickle, it wouldn't bother me, either.

But that hypocrisy really bugs the hell out of me.
35 months ago: Wow! to many bullets flying around here for me! There is one thing that comes to mind before I slide over to the next foxhole.........what was that old saying..... oh yea "let he who has no sin cast the first stone".
35 months ago: To all of you who keep writing about how republicans are hypocrits because they preach moral and religious values and do things that Jesus would frown upon: most people aren't religious because they think they are perfect. I have heard it said many times, "church is not a place where perfect people gather, it is a place where sinners gather to get closer to perfection," or something to that effect. The same holds true for anybody who preaches any kind of moral values. Yes, it would be nice if they would practice what they preach, and I would say it is even fair to expect it. However, there needs to be a certain amount of leniancy. They are after-all, human.
35 months ago: SugarPop, I don't want people who preach one thing and practice another setting U.S. public policy. If the people who believe so fervently that sex outside marriage is evil can't stop themselves from having it, why the hell should they get to put in place policies that punish that behavior for people who *DON'T* believe it's evil?
35 months ago: Heymon:
You will never understand, because you look at everything through jaded glasses.
For 1 minute, try to take those glasses off.
Here we go.
We don't care 1 bit what you or anyone else does. That is your business and not our business. You have to look in your own mirror. We don't care.
I am trying to raise young children to live their lives according to what Jesus (tried) to teach us.
In Matthew chapter 19, verse 5, Jesus said a man shall marry a woman. Period.
Now, tell me how I can explain to my children they can pick and choose which lesson they want to follow.

You guys are the only ones preaching.
35 months ago: right on sugarpop
35 months ago: redstateguy, that is your religion. We are a nation of laws, not a theocracy. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. But accept that when other people do it, however icky you may personally find it, it has no impact on you.

As for picking and choosing your biblical lessons, you have a real problem there. First, let's look at Matthew 19:5 (King James) - "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

Yes, looking at context, Jesus is espousing marriage as a divine joining of man and woman. But you can't pick and choose your Matthew passages. 19:12 - "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." In context, Jesus is giving special dispensation to eunuchs, who aren't able to marry women. Hmmm. Jesus seems pretty open-minded about sexuality, here.

And let's look a little further along. Jesus devoted 19:21, 19:23, and 19:24 to establishing quite firmly that the rich cannot enter Heaven. He says *NOTHING* -- in the entire New Testament, and all versions thereof -- about homosexuals (or eunuchs, if you prefer) being denied Heaven, but he had a lot to say about the rich and about hypocrites.

I've read my Bible, cover to cover. Have you?
35 months ago: sugarpop, I'm more of the belief that people aren't religious because there are too many hypocrits involved at any church any where you go. The are dishenhearted at what they hear from the pulpit and what they know goes on outside the door.

rsg, quoting scripture is not effective when your target audience doesn't put any credence in a book written by men who had an agenda. What you teach your children about religion is your business, not the governments. That means that I do not believe that the government should be involved in any religion and that elected officials should check thier religious doctrine at the door. Decisions, laws and other governmental actions should be based on verifiable facts and you can't get them from the Bible, Koran, or any other religious publication because to have any bearing, the citizenry must believe exactly as those using those publications for the laws to be valid.

I'm not saying that those books shouldn't be used to show examples for your children, just not to write laws that effect me.
35 months ago: hnn, well said.

Time to check out of the hotel and go see some aligators! Grandkids demand to see it all!!

Back next time I find a hotspot.
Spirit of Ralphie
Spirit of Ralphie
Long Beach, CA
35 months ago: DISCLAIMER: I, the contributor known as "Spirit of Ralphie", am not now nor have I ever been "HeyNoniNoni".
And because I'm NOT a republican, or any other brand
of politician, you CAN take me at my word.
Speaking of all things "republican", I think the initials
for the GOP now stand for:
"Gauchos Out Philandering!"
35 months ago: Did I lose you, redstateguy? I sincerely hope you're not replying because you're too busy reading your Bible, and not just the parts that agree with your preconceptions.
35 months ago: HNN, maybe RSG just doesn't want to respond to childish replies like the one you just posted.

It's just a guess...
35 months ago: howleanne, I wasn't being childish, I was being quite serious. Read my previous note: I've established that I know the Bible very well, while it appeared redstateguy had only read certain parts of it. I genuinely hope he's giving his Bible a more thorough reading right now.
35 months ago: Hey NoseyNosey:
I went backpacking for a long weekend.
I'd never runaway from gigging socialists.
You don't realize it yet, and you may never; however, you are blind.
Your elitism also contributes to your blindness.
I could care completely less about what homosexuals do in the privacy of their homes. It is none of my business. Period.

What I object to is homosexuals trying to impose their beliefs and attitudes on others. "We want gay marriage!", etc. Their sexual preferences have no impact at all on my life. Period. I DON'T CARE!

I do not perceive I have a problem because I seek guidance from the Bible.

That was exactly the verse to which I was referring.
Jesus said it. What I noticed is that you dodged that verse, and you failed to address it.

You socialist elites ignore anything that does not support your belief system, or lack thereof.

So what if the Bible talks about eunuchs. Jesus didn't say anything about eunuchs getting married to each other, did he? Are you going to dodge this point too.

I agree Jesus said nothing about homosexuals. Why did he have too? Homosexuals are no different to the rest of us. Does that hurt your feelings?

For crying out NoseyNosey, we are all sinners. Every last one of us, and we have to continually strive to overcome sin and become what God wants us to become.

And to boot, God loves every single homosexual just as much as rich people or anyone else you envy.

I have not read the entire Bible, put I'm working on it.
35 months ago: Sickholders:
I will pray for you.
Who's the one moaning and groaning about and insisting on passing laws?
You and noseynosey are blind.
35 months ago: RSG, I am not a sinner. That word has no meaning to me. I do right or I do wrong. In order to be classified as a sinner by you, I must believe the same way you do. In order for either of us not to be classified as hypocrites, we must both follow without exception, all the tenants of our religion. Since I will not adhere to one and you profess to be guided by one, only one of us can be a sinner and a hypocrite. Sure hope you got your ducks in a row because I don’t even need them.

Please do not misspell my identifier. I will refrain from misspelling yours.

If you feel you need to pray for me, please do, I can use all the help I can get, be sure and ask for some financial assistance as my monthly disability check was stolen by the insurance company that issued the long term disability policy I paid for and replaced with the minimum by law they can have to pay. Something about congress passing laws in the insurance companies favor……

I did not insisting on any laws being passed. If anything, I’m for wiping the slate clean and starting all over, be the fastest way to get religious based laws off the books. Just think how easy it would be to know what the law was without all that gibberish based on the infinite interpretations of the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud and what ever book was being consulted at the time. Even the Tarot Cards were used in some places to decide how a law was to be worded and possibly even an Ouija Board. All I insist on is that a law should not be based on religious doctrine.

Sorry, I’m crippled, not blind.
35 months ago: So homosexuals don’t bother you? What they do doesn’t bother you? So if they want to get married to each other, you have no objections? Where in the getting married to each other does it have anything to do with imposing their beliefs upon your? Does it have to do with the fact that in order for them to live the way they want and enjoy all the benefits of married life, that they must first have the laws changed so that it is legal and that all citizens are required to recognize that it is a legal, binding, contract with all the benefits and rights of a marriage the same as if it were between a man and a woman? Just trying to get a clear picture of what you meant when you said: “What I object to is homosexuals trying to impose their beliefs and attitudes on others. "We want gay marriage!", etc. Their sexual preferences have no impact at all on my life. Period. I DON'T CARE!”

My personal belief is that there should be no laws against it, therefore there should be no need of a law for it. Marriage is a contract between two people, “the state” shouldn’t have an input other than for the need to record it so that there will be a legal document to use for insurance and other purposes and to collect fees to offset the cost of maintaining the database.
35 months ago: Sixholdens:
Every European explorer who discovered this land were Christians trying to found a Christian nation. The founders of this country were Christians trying to form "One Nation Under God". Despite what you say, this country was a Christian nation. Period.
Now the libs have diverted it away from Christianity.
I disagree with you completely. Our laws were and should be based on Christian principles.
Unless you and others step on my toes, I do not care one bit what you do.
They have no right to get married. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Marriage is an institution created by Christian churches. Just because homosexuals want to pervert marriage doesn't mean they can.
As I've mentioned, I am trying to encourage young children to live their lives according to what Jesus said. You also don't have the right to pick and chose which teachings to follow and which teachings to ignore.
35 months ago: This is in response to redstateguy.

1) I've done you the courtesy of refraining from childish, name-based insults. Please do others the same courtesy. I don't want to report your account to the admins, but I will if you don't cut it out.

2) On the topic of gay marriage: if homosexuality doesn't bother you, what precisely do you have against homosexuals having the right to enter into the same social contract (marriage) as straight couples? Furthermore, where does Jesus say anything whatsoever for or against gay marriage? Again, this is unavoidable: he said *NOTHING* about it. Which you interpret as meaning it's sinful.

3) if you haven't even read the whole Bible, where do you get off lecturing anyone on sin? How much christian history do you even know? Can you tell me, without looking it up, who gave the famous "sermon on the mount?"

4) The founders were largely deists. Ever hear of the Jefferson Bible? He literally took scissors to the Bible and cut out every miracle, rejecting them as unscientific, magical thinking. And "one nation under God?" That was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 20th century.
35 months ago: RSG, Whoa boy, you are running off at the mouth. Basing laws on Christian principles is not the same as making laws that incorporate religious doctrine. Two different sides of the coin.

The European explorers who “discovered” this land, were not looking to found a Christian nation, I don’t even know if they had a “Christian” religion, I believe they were considered Pagans and to top it off, Christohper Columbus wasn’t the first European here AND he sure as heck wasn’t looking to found any Christian nation under God.

The majority of the people who came here may have been Christian so it goes without saying that the laws they wrote would be based upon their values. That does not mean that they made plans and laid down the ground work to make this a Christian nation, if they had when they wrote those documents that we live by they would not have specifically excluded a tie to any religion. Very specifically they did and for good reason. They did not want one religion being touted as “the only way”. Another thing is they were not all Christians as you think of, a large part of them were Diest, they had a belief in a God, but it is nothing like what the Bible is written about. That is where the phrase “Under God” comes from, not just the Christian Bible’s God. They recognized that there was one God and that is how they thought, one God, one nation.
35 months ago: Marriage is older than any Christian religion so you are blowing smoke when you say it was created by Christian churches. Get off your high horse, your way of life is based upon pagan religions and pagan celebrations so old that their beginnings are lost in time. It is only in the last 2000 years that the term Christian was coined and a religion was started and in reality, your brand of it is younger than that.

Since when did I lose my personal rights to pick and chose which teachings to follow and which teachings to ignore? Last I checked I was still a citizen of the USA and my right to do so is fully guaranteed by the documents that this country was founded with. No matter how warped your religion teaches the principles of our countries basic fundamentals, you cannot take my rights away nor should you teach those children that you can.

I see nothing wrong with encouraging young children to live there lives by those guidelines, I exposed my children to the same teachings. I do object to you demanding that they are taught those guidelines or that they are forced to abide by those teachings. See the difference?
35 months ago: The libs have worked to bring us back to the freedoms that our founding fathers dreamed we could have if we all worked together to create a nation guided by the documents they wrote. As time moved on and certain groups gain political power, we lost many, many, many of our individual freedoms, so many that the term “freedom” has been downgraded to “make sure that that is not against the law”. Thousands upon thousands of laws, written to take away our freedoms because some group “thinks” that an individual should not have the right to do something that does not involve any other person. Laws written to put a person in jail for pursuing happiness, one of the basic rights our constitution guarantees, the right to be happy.

You would work to take that from me and all the other citizens of this country. You are not a good citizen of the US, you are part of the problem and why the liberals have so much work to do. Wake up RSG, what you believe is your belief and to try and force it upon me or any other citizen is why the founding documents of this country were written in a way to keep religion out of the government. To allow for the freedom to believe any way a citizen desires, not your way, not my way, not the Popes way, not anybody’s way. Pure and simple US citizens are allowed to believe “there way” and no one should try to change that.
35 months ago: You are trying to change that basic right we all agree to uphold when we swear allegiance to this country. You are taking our founding fathers words and twisting them to your purpose, just as you have been taught in your Christian church to do, take the words and twist them around until the say what you want them to say. Yeah, I’ve been there, I’ve listened and studied and lived the life of a Christian, till I got fed up with the hypocrisy and the double sided meanings and the out-of-context scripture quoting. If that’s the way you want to live, feel free to do so, I will support no law that will attempt to take that from you.

I will support all laws or the removal of laws that take away freedoms that were once mine, I only had to live in the late 1700’s and early to late 1800’s to actually get them, after that, the religious fanatics started gaining political power and started writing law after law to take away my freedom because it was against their religious beliefs that I should be able to do what they were forbidden to do. See the point there? They believed in a certain thing, it was part of their religion, as a non-believer of their religion, I am not bound to abide by their beliefs and that makes them jealous. Jealousy breeds contempt and contempt leads to a feeling of superiority (in this scenario) and that results in the jealous person working to take away that which they are jealous of so that they don’t have those feelings any longer. To take something from someone else and to do it without direct action requires a law against that “thing” so that no one can have it or they will be punished for it, hence the overloaded law books of our country.

35 months ago: RSG, you teach those children to live life correctly. Use the teachings of all the great men in our collective human history, don’t limit them to one book, written by a group of men with a mission. Look around and open your eyes, there are peoples on this Earth that never heard what you have read in the Bible, and they live perfectly moral and just lives, they didn’t and don’t need someone telling them that they are wrong or that they are going to your version of hell or that they have to confess a belief or they will be damned after death. Their lives will be perfectly fine without all that and so will mine.

What I’m saying is, you stepped over a line when you told me I don’t have a right to pick and chose. I always have and I always will have that very right, even when you work to take it away from me by legislation, I’ll still have it. Might cost me my life or my freedom but it’ll always be mine, I spent 20 years of my life helping to defend that right by serving in the US Navy, you try and take it away and I have a few hundred thousand active duty behind me, and a few million retired brothers and sisters who will come to my aid. Who is going to stand by you? God? Jesus? Last I checked they are in my pocket too, along with a few dozen other great minds who are written about or who actually wrote their thoughts down.
35 months ago: Ditto what HNN said!
35 months ago: Christianity is a Pagen belief? Might want to get a bit more specific.. Like 'Roman Catholics' incorporated pagen holidays into their system.

Your correct to say 'One God' as I have tried to point out many times... I also have stated that Christ is not a God but a Savior of Man. A vessel of the word of God.

Marrage is older than the 'Christian' religion. It's also older than the Jewish religion. It is also older than all religions.

With that said, name a single religion or culture that has ever existed that is still in existence proclaiming it true for a man to man, or a women to woman marriage.

I guess you can post some far off religion or culture that was in existence a few thousand years ago. Where are they now?
They died off.

To state that RSG is not a good citizen of the U.S. because he holds firm to his beliefs really scares me.

That statement is in fact a double edged sword and you better watchout as you might just cut yourself.
35 months ago: TCG, Christianity of all stripes incorporated Pagan beliefs. Easter is an ancient Pagan fertility festival. Christmas is just about the only day biblical scholars agree Christ *wasn't* born on, but conveniently it falls smack dab on the old Pagan winter solstice holidays. Valentine's day is a celebration of the old Roman goddess of marriage, Juno Fructifier. So it's not just Roman Catholicism.

I also wanted to answer this: "With that said, name a single religion or culture that has ever existed that is still in existence proclaiming it true for a man to man, or a women to woman marriage."

That's a classic correlation/causation fallacy. I could turn it around and say, "Gosh, there are a lot more old, failed civilizations that only allowed heterosexual marriage! Does that mean heterosexual marriage dooms a culture to failure?!?" Obviously, it doesn't. It's assuming causation where none exists.
35 months ago: You fell short on your answer. I was hoping for some insight but found myself being sucked into a blackhole.
I'm guessing this is now turning into a lench the Christians thread. Me, I am a son of a Christian Minister. I was reared in the Church. I also have a big problem with the Church. I found that an actual heartfelt talk with the Almighty is possible without the Church. Does that make me less than Christian? No. I think it makes me more Christian. So, here is the big anti-God question...

I ask again for a single culture that continues today that had a doctrine of homosexuality. Go all the way back to your first 'big bang' and name one.
35 months ago: TCG, Based upon Pagan, not Pagan itself. Nearly all religions can trace their ceremonies to a beginning in pagan ceremonies, we, as humans, all want to celebrate certain occurrences during the year and certain other ones that we feel strongly about. Christianity is no different and my study of man has brought this fact to my attention, it’s not something I thought of, but something that was in the information I reviewed.

Thank you for saying that about Jesus, I get so tired of hearing Catholics say their prayers, they speak of Jesus as God, not as Son of God. Very poor wording on their part.

Marriage, that is why I stated what I did, RSG was trying to state that Christian Churches invented marriage totally ignoring written history of the last 5000 or so years.

No need to list any religion past or present, historical books abound with the recorded facts.

What I said about RSG is based on his failure to acknowledge the US’s stance on individual freedom. He stated that “You also don't have the right to pick and chose which teachings to follow and which teachings to ignore.” Very un-American to blatantly state that another American does not have the right to self-determination. You can condemn me for saying it, but it is my opinion, it doesn’t change the fact that I like some of what he says, just that he is treading on thinner ground than I and yes, you can probably find some point to slice and dice me with the same sword. I am not perfect and admit it freely.

I do take a strong stance against anyone who would attempt to deny me my rights, and I encourage others to do the same, it is our right as American citizens.
35 months ago: Gosh, there's Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands... Oh, wait, you arbitrarily want countries where homosexuals have been allowed to marry for hundreds of years if not more, because you know I can't find any. Again, you're attributing a causative effect (longevity) with a correlation (the absence of legal gay marriage). The two are *not related*.

Ever see the Simpsons episode where Lisa tries to explain this kind of logic to Homer? Lisa says she has a rock that keeps tigers away, the proof of which is the fact that there aren't any tigers in Springfield. Homer fails to understand that the rock isn't actually keeping tigers away -- he fails to understand that correlation does not indicate causation -- and offers to buy the rock from Lisa.

I feel like Lisa right now.

Anyway, no, this isn't a "lynch the Christians" thread. I just wish more self-described Christians were as well-read on the Bible as I am.
35 months ago: TCG, I can't give you a specific reference to your last question. There probably isn't one. There are many that did not have doctrine against homosexuality; it was considered part of life and the enjoyment thereof. The Romans basically believed that man and woman were both part of the, shall I say, fun. They coupled with either or both, in groups and signally. Their empire lasted a long time and was very successful. Sure it failed but not for that one reason.

As for your personal battles with “the Church”, I wish you well and that you find that inner peace we are all looking for, some find it with the aid of a good religion, some with a good book, even other find it in life itself. Keep searching for your answer, YOUR answer, not the one someone else tells you is the answer. Religions try that one all the time, sometimes it works, for me it does not.

Here’s a bit of non-doctrine for you. The Roman Catholic Church does not forbid a priest to marry and have children. At least I haven’t found where it is written yet, they mention some recommendations and some statements by a Pope or two, but they never actually made it a rule….. To me, their stance on a priest and not being allowed to marry is very near to encouraging bad behavior, sure they are supposed to be above that because they said they would be, but unless you have stronger will power than a normal human, you (as a priest) are a short way from breaking your vows.
35 months ago: If only the Bible wasn't the only book on religion some people have read. I feel that to be a good scholar on religion that you have to read all the books that are held in high regard by all the major religions. So many common threads, so much dependence on inner goodness. It is the doctrines that those in religious power write to promote their own little kingdom where the real problems lie.

I admit, I am not a scholar, not a total idiot (my opinion of course), but not as well read as I would like to be so you won't catch me quoting scripture or passages, at least not very often.
35 months ago: No HNN. My question was for something a bit longer than 2000 years.

Six. Your welcome. I do not think of myself as a Christian in the true Church belief. I do believe myself to be a Christian by the inspiration of someone touched by the Almighty. I have struggled with my break from the norm and my own upbringing. It's funny how once you come to peace with a decision like that you can actually do more with the Almighty.

And what is more intriguing. The Almighty allows you to do things that you would have never imagined.
35 months ago: Hey HNN. To quote you from above.

'Anyway, no, this isn't a "lynch the Christians" thread. I just wish more self-described Christians were as well-read on the Bible as I am'

What does that mean? Being 'well-read'?
What the real question is...

Are you 'well-understood'?
35 months ago: Yes, I'm "well-understood." I have, unlike most Christians I have met, read the entire Bible. And as I was not raised a Christian, I had no preconceived ideas about which passages are more important than others. For instance, when I read Matthew 19:5 (see above), I did not interpret Jesus talking about the divinity of the joining of man and woman to mean that no other divine combination is possible. I didn't "interpret" it at all. I took it at face value: Man+woman=groovy. Since I wasn't looking to interpret anything according to what anyone told me was important, I didn't value that line as any less important than, say, Matthew 19:29, in which Jesus makes quite clear that the holiest people abandon their families and riches "for my name's sake."
35 months ago: Does 'well-understood' mean your 'well knowing'?
35 months ago: HeyNN:

You socialists may rewrite history in your own minds, but not mine.

1. I'll behave better.

2) I can't figure out another way to try to explain to your "stuck in socialism" mind my view of "gay marriage".
If you are (striving to be) a Christian, you cannot pick and chose at your pleasure to follow or ignore what Jesus said. Also, I probably committed 37 separate sins today alone. I have enough to deal with on my own to care what if someone else is a sinner or not. I don't care.

3) I know very, very little; however, a good starting point is Jesus. The "Sermon on the Mount" was Jesus' canned speach for the masses. He preached it every where he went.....at least that's my reading of the Bible.
You tell me.

4) We can agree to disagree about the founders' beliefs. I believe you are dead wrong. I'll start a rave about that before too long.

5) You have to admit is was pretty shrewd for the early Christian churches to hi-jack on the old Pagan winter solstice holidays and substitute celebration of Jesus' birth.

6) You said alot to digest, and I will try; however, your most fitting statement was "I just wish more self-described Christians were as well-read on the Bible as I am."
I am laughting out loud.
You liberals absolutely lover yourselves, don't you?
35 months ago: Sixholdens.
I'm trying hard to follow you.

European explorers were so. Lief Erickson had a minister on his ship, and he was planning on starting a church where he landed. The first thing Christopher Columbus did where he first landed was erect a Cross. You reckon what for? (This will be Rave #2 coming up.)

They absolutely intended on creating a Christian Nation to spread Christianity. Period.

You socialists are not going to change history. (After I get some sleep, I'll rant a bit more.)

The Constitution said the government shall not establish or encourage or support a religion. Period.

We agree, the founders recognized there was 1 God.

It's late, and I'm losing you. I'll put up in a bit.
35 months ago: RSG, Leif Erickson converted to a version of Christianity in order to gain favor with his king. Part of the deal back then, you want to gain favor, trade or even live in that part of the world, you do things what ever way the king wanted and he wanted Leif to convert and spread the word. So far I have not found a reference to a minister on his boat, wasn't a big deal to them.

Same with CC, he did things the way the Queen wanted, also the Church was very influential in commerce, and everywhere the ships went, so did they, kind of like a political officer on a Russian Naval Vessel, they were there to keep tabs on the captain and crew. Don’t forget the Inquisition was popular for a long time and spies were everywhere.

You can say they did it to spread Christianity, but the real reason they did what they did was for money, land and power.

There is a good possibility that spreading religion was a requirement for having the voyages funded to start with but if you read the accounts of Leif’s life, you will not find it stated that he did it to spread Christianity.

CC may have erected a cross as his first act but that was because to fail to do so would violate his agreement with the church and the queen and that was where the money came from to fund his voyages. His stated purpose was to find a shortcut to the West Indies, if memory serves me and that was purely for profit taking.

Biting the hand that feeds you is not wise and CC was not a dummy.

I haven’t noticed anyone trying to change history, just get a better understanding of it. Those that wish to change history usually try to get their interpretation of it printed in some form or another then they keep going back to that and stating it as fact.

What part of my post is hard to follow? I’ll try again if I know what is confusing.
35 months ago: redstateguy:

1) Thank you.

2) That's what I've been trying to tell you. If you're Christian, you can't just zero in on specific things Jesus said and ignore the rest, and you can't pretend he said things he DIDN'T SAY. In the passage you quoted above, Jesus says men and women marrying is good, and that eunuchs (whether born or made that way) don't have to be in a man/woman marriage. Trying to interpret that as a ban on gay marriage makes no sense. Now, if your logic is that anything Jesus didn't expressly say was divine is automatically profane, then I hope you're prepared to give up cars, electric razors, daily showering, games of hopscotch, sandwiches, toothpaste, and the internet, as Jesus didn't make mention of any of them. Now, if you choose to believe gay marriage is a sin anyway, then that's your business, but don't pretend you learned that from Jesus. Jesus had nothing to say on the matter.

3) Very good! Yes, the Sermon on the Mount was Jesus, although it wasn't his "canned speech" or anything like that. It contains the Beatitudes ("Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" and so on). It is the central tenet of Christianity, which is why it always astonishes me when people who call themselves Christians can't name who gave the sermon, or give a ludicrous answer, like "Jerry Falwell" or "Billy Graham."
35 months ago: Part 2...

4) Yes, we can agree to disagree over things that are matters of opinion. But the beliefs of the founders aren't matters of opinion, they're well-established fact. They wrote copiously about their beliefs. Seriously, look up the Jefferson Bible. When you're done, look up Thomas Payne, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin... Most of the framers of the Constitution were either Deists or influenced by the Enlightenment. Franklin, in his autobiography, wrote: "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

5) No disagreement there. It was clever.

6) You yourself admitted you hadn't read the entire Bible, and you're by no means the first Christian I've come across who hasn't. I have read the Bible cover to cover. Is it so much to ask that true believers who wish to impose their beliefs on others be as well-versed in their religion as I am?
35 months ago: Sixholdens:
Are liberals clairvoyant?
I look at things through red colored glasses, and you look through blue colored glasses. We see things vastly differently.
Our interaction on rantrave is frustrating and maddening at times; however, I am finding my responses are becoming tempered out of respect for new friends.
Dangit.
35 months ago: RSG, I really don't know. I like to believe that "second sight" is real, but I sure wouldn't want just one group to have it.

Vastly different? Not always and not so different. We probably value the same things, but also want things to be a bit different in how we are treated and how we are allowed to treat others. How true would you say the color of our glasses are? Maybe they have variable tint? I'd like to think mine don't have any true color or maybe they are a kaleidoscope of color. To be nailed down to one point of view based on a political party would be like a prison to me but others may see me differently. I never was a good judge of what a persons political leanings were, I prefer to take them at face value and go from there, sometimes at odds and sometimes in agreement, sometimes I’m fooled into thinking someone sees things the same way I do and then they lower the hammer and I become disheartened about the whole issue, if I can, I try to change their point of view, if not, maybe they will change mine. Odds are, we will agree to disagree and go from there.

I am an admitted s.o.b., in the pain in the butt sense of the term. I have my opinions and am not afraid to voice them, sometimes even playing the devils advocate just to get someone to respond. Hopefully I am not perceived as evil for taking a stand for what I believe to be right. Some of the things I support are not popular, some are not even legal, they are what I feel should be the norm, not the exception and I lend my support to them because to not would be to fail to do my duty. Other topics I enter a discussion on are because I feel one side or the other is unjustified in its stance and I feel I can offer some opinion on it that might aid someone in making a decision or a judgment about.

35 months ago: We all make allowances for our friends, even those we barely know, to do otherwise would slowly but surely reduce our pool of friends down to a small group indeed! I too temper my responses, many times to those I’ve just met, no need to drive them away when we have just met or to get into a shouting match over a minor point of opinion, much better to draw them out and learn a bit about them and their real opinion and if things get out of hand, I can always withdraw or attack. BUT! Better to discuss and query and research as an attack may be met with all out war and I won’t say I am prepared for that, mentally, educationally, or even financially, could be a trap and me just a poor, dumb, country boy, just looking for some enlightenment instead of a headache.

Keep fighting; we all have our goals, our dreams and our demons, some are even the same.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave