Skip to main content

Follow me on Twitter @MattBors and order a copy of my latest book, Life Begins At Incorporation.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Comics.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  They always wind up saying it's literally true (10+ / 0-)

      metaphorically speaking, if you question them about it.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:11:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  genesis is literally true (12+ / 0-)

        the part about not having tattoos? David and Jonathan's sexual relationship? David and Soloman's many, many wives and concubines? nah. metaphor.

        how convienent.

        Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

        by terrypinder on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:18:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please get your criticisms correct (4+ / 0-)

          The Bible doesn't say that David and Jonathan's relationship was sexual.  (Nor does it say that it wasn't.)

          Lots of important patriarchs having many wives?  Yup, happened.  How does it affect the "Marriage always meant one man and one woman and the definition never changes" argument?  Yeah, pretty much blows it away, and in case they try and argue "well, things were different before Jesus", St. Paul didn't require polygamous converts to divorce their extra spouses, though he wouldn't let them be bishops.  Monogamy, and Jesus's teachings against divorce, weren't definitions, they were moral prescriptions, and any of the "won't let gay couples in my store" folks who do serve people who got divorced and remarried are still homophobes.

          The part about tattoos?  It's certainly not written as metaphor, though some people might claim it has context that was written down, e.g. it might have been one of the neighboring tribes' religious practices, but they'd still have to make their point.  

          The prohibition on mixing fabrics definitely was symbolic; it's a reminder not to go mixing with the neighboring tribes and their religions.  Doesn't mean the requirement goes away.

      •  Then you keep on showing where it ISN'T such as (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, David54, JerryNA, PSzymeczek

        π = 3.0 <-- pi

        And they keep retreating and retreating to metaphor, God is mysterious and all that...

        Then when you are about to win they say

        "But I still believe it's literally true."

        Meh. Thumpers.
        Meh. Fundies.
        Meh. Uneducated, southernIST neo-Confederates...
        Meh. ____

        Ugh. --UB.

        "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

        by unclebucky on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:24:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Peneteteuch is litteral true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in the original languages it was written in
        except for the religious gloss that came later
        and assuming you are willing to allow that bronze age
        wordsmiths could preach a sermon on more than one level.

        My favorite example is Genesias 14 which passage speaks of four kings and a rebellion against them

        14 At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar,[a] Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, 2 these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). 4 For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
        It begins l
        At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar,[a] Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim
        is written in Akkadian and refers first not to four kings but to the time of a ruler, a standard of  Amraphael (Hamurrabi or Hamurappi)

        Ruler has the sense of both king and standard of measure. Because the king measures, weighs and judges what is right and proper he often holds a cubit rod as a symbol of his power.

        In effect a different standard is a thumb on the scale. If you tax at one standard but bestow beneficence at another what you are doing is raising taxes without fair representation.

        Akkadian was the linqua franca of that time, Hebrew and Hebrews didn't exist yet. What we are talking about in Akkadian is the period when the standard of Eshunnah was adopted as the standard of "This place here" meaning Canaan.

        Shinar was Eshunna (Tell Asmar, Iraq) a city located
        33°32'N, 44°58'E

        Arioch is accepted to be a Logogram in Akkadian for Sumerian URU URU...KI which means "this place here"

        ElLasar is El Larsa (Tell Senkereh, Iraq) a city located
        31°15'N, 45°51'E

        Kedorlaomer is a phrase reading Ked (or ched) orla omer.  Ked is portrayed pictographically in cuneiform and hieroglyphically in Egyptian as a boat drifting downstream and refers to the stasis of a passive action, something allowed to happen but not caused by us.

        The omer is a standard of measure and in Akkadian orla means uncircumcised, not kosher, corrupted; illegitimate, a corrupted standard of measure

        tDal means they came

        Goyim means foreigners.

        At the time when Amraphel was the ruler of Shinar,[ain this place here (Canaan) the ruler of Ellasar, was the corrupted illegitimate bastard ruler of Elam Tidal the  ruler of the foreigners came.

        Hamurrapi was ruler as the Hittites and the indo European language as evidenced by the instructions of Kikul the horse trainer first emerged. Its likely then that these Goyim or foreigners are the Nahrin or Mittani.

        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

        by rktect on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:04:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They say only the parts they want to (4+ / 0-)

        ... are literally true.  All the parts they don't want to recognize are either ignored or explained away.  Thus, why there is no push for Constitutional Amendments banning divorce (or shrimp, or Nike clothing, etc, etc).

    •  Littorally true, sort of around the edges. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, PSzymeczek
    •  ... (6+ / 0-)

      Many, but not all.  Please be correct and not lump all together.  For example, the UCC denomination tagline is taking the bible seriously, not literally.

      •  i thought i did. literalists are a minority (5+ / 0-)

        within Christianity. I was refering to a very specific group when I used the phrase "Bible-Is-Literally-True Christian" and then remarked on (from personal experience) how they too don't really believe that it is. Things they don't like (or are unpalatble to the wider society) are metaphor or "in context."

        Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

        by terrypinder on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:29:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately, ... (4+ / 0-)

          ... as with many public policy (AND theological) issues, the most conservative appear to hold the high ground, and this makes them not only appear more powerful than their real numbers suggest, but allows them to actually wield more power than their numbers and [im]moral positions should allow.

          "Equal rights for gays." Yeah, it's just that simple.

          by planmeister on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:02:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  True (5+ / 0-)

        So right. It disturbs me when DKos (much of it) goes instantly stupid when it comes to the Bible and Christians. It's our own fundamentalism.

      •  How can you take it seriously (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        its a collection of many books written by many people at different times in different languages all kneaded together into unleavened pomposity.

        Another of my favorite parts of the Old Testament is when people speak about Mosaic law as if he were its author.

        The Book itself goes to great lengths to show that it doesn't mean that, and when I say great lengths I mean several separate glosses over the original version.

        First off he's illiterate. he needs Aaron to be his mouthpiece at court.

        Secondly he literally and figuratively breaks every one of the ten commandments.

        Its the intent of the Bible, or at least of that portion of the Old Testament known as the Pentateuch to be a law book.

        There aren't ten commandments there are hundreds. The whole idea is to create a new religion based on a consensus to be law abiding and to make the written law sovereign over the dictates of kings and dictators.

        After half a millenia in Egypt the sons of Israel might be expected to be and are fairly well assimilated.

        They live among other people and worship their gods, on the tribal level and are not yet a nation. They have Patriarchs and judges rather than kings. Their priests worship Egyptian gods in the Egyptian manner. They carve an image of the god in stone, place the image in an ark and the ark in a sanctuary.

        The Ten Commandments are just the image of The Law, the new god, carved in stone. They go in the ark and the ark goes in the sanctuary.

        Moses isn't a very good leader, both Aaron and Miriam have to repeatedly correct his mistakes and work around him

        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

        by rktect on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:36:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Layering the cake? Say it ain't so! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          One of the best things any atheist can do is to read the midrash, the commentary on the Torah.

          The fables, puns, word associations, alliteration, and just plain made-up bulshytt is a tremendous read.

          The other thing I'd strongly recommend is to get hold of a good concordance. These usually cover the Old Bulshytt and the New Bulshytt. And they literally take the book apart.

          I love reading about the shortcuts and the puns, but the layering of corrections and reversions would make the original bible three feet thick, full of correction fluid and deletions.

          I'm still learning this stuff, so I really appreciate the detailed response you gave. Huzzah for knowledge, rationality, and reality!

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            particularly if you are trying to find out what a word originally meant a concordance is fascinating.

            Take for example the stations of the Exodus. They all have toponyms which tell you something about each place and the route that ties them all together. After crossing the Red Sea along ancient trade routes that brought all the necessary mortuary goods to Karnak from Elat at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba to Elim which was Thebes Red Sea Port in the Chain of Aphrodite, a series of oasis along the west coast of the red Sea used as ports, the stations walk the metes and bounds of Edom and then come back to Elat.

            The concordance tells you all you need to know to follow the route. I put all this into a Wikipedia article on the stations of the Exodus and it got removed by zealots who prefer their Midrash version with no details, but you can go back into the earlier postings and the info is still there.

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:45:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Treating the Bible like a menu board at McDonald's (4+ / 0-)

      I believe in the Big Mac, but not the Quarter Pounder. Both are on the board, but I only want to believe in one of them.

      Sound familiar? Have to love Leviticus. All those sins and remedies. From what I have seen, the ONLY verse that anyone pays attention to is Lev 18:22 "Man lying with man as with woman is an abomination."

      The problem with Leviticus is ALL the other sins and abominations that are routinely ignored. The whole McDonald's menu board issue.

      Lev 10:9 proscribes the drinking of wine or other fermented beverages in temple. Guess that makes parishioners in churches that use wine during communion sinners.

      Lev 11:4 proscribes eating camels.

      Lev 11:6 proscribes eating rabbits.

      Lev 11:7-11:8 proscribes eating pork.

      Lev 11:9-11:11 proscribes eating shellfish.

      One of my favorites is Lev 12:2-12:8 that declares a woman is unclean for seven days after childbirth and may not be cleansed for 33 days after giving birth to a son, and 66 days after giving birth to a daughter. She can only be cleansed after presenting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering along with a young pigeon or dove for a sin offering.

      Is it just me or is there a distinct lack of burning alters in our cities?

      Most of Leviticus is about sin and how to absolve it. There are verses relating to leprosy, boils, blood, food, drink, sins by the priest, female menstruation, etc. All involve ritual cleansing requiring sacrifices usually burned on the alter. It might be sheep, goats, lambs, doves, or other animals, but all the sins require one or more of these sacrifices.

      If you are going to hold the Bible up as the literal word of God, then you cannot be allowed to pick and choose (McDonald's) which parts of it you believe in, and which parts you just ignore for convenience.

      Until the ritual burning alters start springing up around the country, shut the fuck up about your "literal word of God" bullshit.

      •  Did you hear the nutjob preacher who died from his (0+ / 0-)

        snake bite, really by refusing to go to the hospital or receive any medical treatment? What a nut. But if that's what he wants to do with his life/death, ok.

        He keeps a large amount of snakes on hand, they have a whole snake entourage in a cage enclosement section, I think around 40-50.

        NPR did a feature the other day, or they had previous tape of him they ran. What a nut. He recently had another lady church member die of a snakebite, and now feels sad but it's God's will. So if you have a giant enclosure of snakes you keep... god's will etc. What a nut.

      •  I used to describe Leviticus (0+ / 0-)

        as a combination cookbook, garden planner, and fashion guide. Burnt offerings make a smell pleasing to the Lord (and the neighbors,) say no to crop rotation (OK, I never said it was a GOOD garden planner), and no wearing mixed fibers, (especially not Spandex, God hates Spandex...) sort of sums it up.

        And don't eats birds of prey... like bats or four-legged fowl. Or four-legged insects. And other creeping things.

        I bet that diner in the cartoon serves something God forbids.

      •  literal v. figurative bible (0+ / 0-)

        I think all of these discussions have to go back to Lewis Black and his "Old Testament" diatribe on youtube.  In it he points out that the Torah was written by Jews, for Jews.  Of the 613 commandments in it, many refer to the Temple in Jerusalem, the only place this primitive people could sacrifice to God.  It wasn't until Matthew, Paul, Luke and John that a number of Jews and pagans began to worship a Jew(one of thousands) who had been crucified by the Romans.  And since he had died a Jew, only knowing of Judaism, they had to figure out some way to take the Torah for themselves.  They rewrote parts and called it "Old Testament".   The problem is that they want to interpret it for their congregants.  But since they didn't understand Judaism, they figured that it was all Undeniable Truth, and literal.  So, when crazies start quoting Leviticus and why they can just believe this ONE LINE of it, ask them why they are still eating shellfish.  They can believe their own book is literal, but if they believe that MY book is literal, they have to believe also that God is an evil genius bent on trying to fool us with facts (and fossils!).  God gave us brains; it is up to us whether we use them or not.

    •  Rational people don't believe the Bible is (0+ / 0-)

      literally true.

      Fundamentalist Bible-Thumpers will tell you they believe it is literally true, but when you dig a little deeper, you'll find that they don't, really.  Ask them about some of the wilder things, like stoning adulterers or taking an eye for an eye, or wearing clothing made of two or more fabrics (like something made out of cotton and polyester, like many garments made today).  

  •  inerrancy spouted by the errant /nt (11+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:04:08 AM PST

  •  Those are all legal excuses to refuse service (8+ / 0-)

    Under the new law.

    Just like Stand Your Ground the gullible legislators who support it lack the imagination to see how it can be abused.

    I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong. Seldom turns out the way it does in this song.

    by mungley on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:04:50 AM PST

  •  Leviticus Franchises!!! In various industries.... (18+ / 0-)

    The fundamentalist-devout Leviticus-bangers could open up diners, dry cleaning places, hobby stores, pizza chains, etc.  No matter the business, if a customer does not smear the ram's blood in proper form, he is not served.  If a customer does not properly sacrifice the kid goat, he is out.  If a customer refuses to sacrifice his first born son, he is banned and can never again bring in his soiled shirts for washing in harmful chemicals; or perhaps order the early bird special.

    Notice I said "he" for every customer. This is ancient biblical stuff, man.  NO WOMEN ALLOWED EVER!!!

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:05:30 AM PST

  •  The gentleman missed (16+ / 0-)

    people who plant their lawns in mixed fescue 'sewing their fields in diverse seed', for this is an abomination.

    He's already against hybrid cars, though not for the right reason, namely they are a yoking together of different animals.

    Restore the Fourth! Save America!

    by phillies on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:06:24 AM PST

  •  That's all I have to do to give these people a (10+ / 0-)


    1. Claim or look homosexual (check)
    --To Do
    2. Get tattoo of a crap
    3. claim to have sacrificed child to Molek

    That's a super easy 1-2-3 list.

    I bet if I wave my voter ID card around, that would be insurance for total, teeth gritting, hyperventilating, heart failure.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:08:07 AM PST

  •  My conservative brother had this posted on his (40+ / 0-)

    Facebook page yesterday:

    lunch counter

    That's right.  My CONSERVATIVE brother.  We usually don't see eye-to-eye on anything.

    This gives me hope like you can't imagine!  

    Somebody told me that you had a boyfriend who looked like a girlfriend that I had in February of last year.

    by koosah on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:08:39 AM PST

  •  Big problem for Leviticus-spouting "Christians" (13+ / 0-)

    is that Jesus guy.

    He loved everybody and wanted us all to love each other.

    And they say Marx was a commie.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:09:15 AM PST

    •  The Jesus guy went around violating (12+ / 0-)

      Leviticus so much that they positively crucified the guy. What a troublemaker!

      "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

      by Lily O Lady on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:16:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And the Constitution. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geez53, foresterbob, JerryNA, mmacdDE, Cephas

      Freedom of religion applies to private acts. Fine, if a church or private religious club requiring membership based on specific beliefs wants to have such restrictions the law, with a few general exceptions (no, you don't get to sacrifice your children and such and, yes, fire codes do apply), does not intrude.

      Once those believers enter the public sphere, commerce in "public accommodation" explicitly, their right to refuse to provide service on such grounds vanishes. If they don't like it then they have the individual choice of following their "conscience" and withdraw from public commerce. Of course that might limit their income to what trade they can generate in their little religious community, but so be it. Groups such as the Trappist and Amish manage with somewhat limited entry into "the world" and even they know that if they go to the farmer's market in the town square their right to refuse to sell is limited by law.

      As a side note, in a more rational world we could get off this entire same sex marriage thing with one simple strike. Even in some "Catholic" countries the priest's ceremony only applies to the church. A required civil function must be done before any legal benefits of "marriage" apply. So, if we as a nation stripped every "believer" functionary of ability to invoke the civil contract aspects of marriage and required couples to appear before a purely civil authority for the contract invoking those benefits the state grants we'd be off this hook to a large degree.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:40:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "By the power invested in me by the state of _ _ " (0+ / 0-)


        A real time saver. ;}

        21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

        by geez53 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:54:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Spoken by a civil official--not a religious one-- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          conveying whatever legal privileges the state provides to people engaging in a contract to share property and care for children and so forth. It is all there already. Community property, tax benefits for those sharing income and responsibilities (particularly care of the young and each other when sick or feeble), natural births and adoptions, inheritance, rights to share medical information and visitation—it all exists in civil law now.

          Actually I view it as a very clear logical violation of the establishment clause that any non-civil functionary, in particular religious functionaries, are deputized by the state to grant such purely civil benefits. An interesting exercise is envisioning a series of suits challenging the constitutionality of that breach of the wall. The only persons authorized to perform the civil "marriage" should be civil servants following purely civil law.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:13:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I have no problems with churches doing marriages. (0+ / 0-)

        I have a big problem with the state doing marriages.

        The state should do nothing more than the assorted paperwork granting the assorted civil rights we confer on those who commit to a long-term personal union.

        If people want to get married -- cool. Big wedding, preachers, more power to them.  Just like first communion or Bar Mitzvah.  Lovely thing.

        If the state wants to confer the power to sign the final paperwork to wedding presiders so that the civil union commences as of the wedding, that's fine with me, too. Save some tax dollars that could go elsewhere.

        But -- marriage is different things to different people and different groups of people. Better to keep the state the hell out of that.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:58:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only because "marriage" has been tainted with a (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JerryNA, Eagles92, TrueBlueMajority

          particular religious overtone "married" to legal privileges granted by the state. Divorce of that concept, possibly by constitutional challenge as I note above, goes a long way to untangling this mess.

          In current popular use "marriage" among heterosexual couples implies nothing religious. I know no few proclimed atheist that use the term "married" to describe themselves. There are plenty of people shunned by their "church" who are now married outside because their church refuses to recognize their status, divorced Catholics as one example. I knew many more whose only appearance was before a Justice of the Peace somewhere with a record of that appearance in some court house filing system.

          In my opinion we can do a purge of all law and public documents replacing "married" with some other term for those civil rights given to unions or just accept the fact that there are religious "marriages" valid only within a religious context conveying not one civil right and civil "marriages" without religious overtone valid in the legal sphere. To me the second seems the easier way—just to save printing cost if nothing else. What I would like to see, and it is practical because I've experienced it elsewhere, is the "church marriage" being valid only within the church and the civil appearance being the only thing granting legal status.

          An easy way out is to end the practice of religious functionaries  obtaining and signing that state "license" that is filed in those court houses. Say your words, convey your "blessing," dance under the moon naked, chant, whatever and its legal meaning is null, zilch, void. Nope, the only thing in the court records valid for any civil recognition whatsoever is signed and sealed by a public official acting under public law without religious taint as required by the establishment clause.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:35:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Marriage has had religious overtones for years (0+ / 0-)

            The fact that atheists use the term doesn't change that, but does support my belief that the state should have no part of it.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:30:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dino: Your knowledge of marriage history is short. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mmacdDE, TrueBlueMajority, pelagicray

              Many different religions (most Christian sects included) for many hundreds of years explicitly stated they blessed and recognized a marriage. They did not create it, the couple did.

              Your knowledge of law is nonexistent. A marriage license is a legal document (contract) issued by the state conferring certain legal benefits. A religious leader is not required to be involved for it to be legally binding.

          •  saying the words, conveying the blessing, etc. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, pelagicray

            already has no legal meaning

            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
            DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:28:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope. Good niche for preachers and new age healers (0+ / 0-)

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:16:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And my point is they should have no legal function (0+ / 0-)

                whatsoever. "Deputizing" them to enact the civil aspects of the state which the state terms marriage, the material contract, is state recognition of religion.

                In countries of my experience, some with very dominant religious tradition, there seems to be less confusion on what is "god's" and what is "Caesar's" here. Couples can have a ceremony in the Cathedral if they wish, with the Archbishop himself performing the "marriage in heaven"—but they have to haul themselves or otherwise arrange to appear before a judge or other such official to have that union recognized by the state. Far, far less confusion of what is "spiritual" and what is a contract bearing on material goods and state benefits.

                The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                by pelagicray on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 05:40:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What legal function do they need to have, aside (0+ / 0-)

                  from that any bank notary has?

                  In my view, the city clerk can witness the papers on the spot or give the new couple the chance to let an appropriate somebody else witness them.

                  That is probably the solution that is most in harmony with the first amendment and the Supreme Court's tortured history of trying to find the right balance between church and state.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 06:17:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  those two things are already different & separate (0+ / 0-)

          Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
          Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:27:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, that's how it's done in England (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There's a religious ceremony and a civil one, unless you get married in an approved religious facility. Church of England is of course an approved facility, as are some other churches. Places that can perform a legal civil marriage MUST be public. There's always at least one, the local registry office (which is always very nice). Often large halls that can hold the reception as well are licensed facilities.

        IIRC, that's part of the reason why Charles and Camilla got married in the registry office and not the chapel at Windsor

        On 17 February, Clarence House announced the marriage's change of venue from Windsor Castle to the Windsor Guildhall, immediately outside the walls of the castle.[8] This substitution came about when it was discovered that the legal requirements for licensing the royal castle for civil weddings would require opening it up to other prospective couples for at least three years.


        Civil ceremonies are CIVIL. No mention of religion at all. You can use your own vows, or the standard ones, but if you use your own they must be approved beforehand, and cannot contain any religious references.

        And please note - England DOES have a state sanctioned religion. But there's much more separation of church and state than I've ever seen in this country.

        •  My husband and I were married on Gibralter, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          under English law.   Just went to the registry office, had 2 witnesses, asked us each if we agreed to be husband and wife, said yes, signed papers, all over.  Simple and to the point.  Went back to the hotel we were staying at for dinner, where we were surprised by the president of Pannam airways who was on holiday with his wife.  They heard we and the couple we were with were getting married, ordered a cake for us and bought us dinner!  Very nice people!  I like the British, very nice people and fun. Got to know several while stationed in Spain, as there were British bands playing in the clubs.  My husband and I have been married 38 years, no church service required.  

    •  Also, ... (3+ / 0-)

      He said, "You have heard it said ... [quoting an Old Testament law], but I say to you ... [essentially gutting said OT law by reinterpreting it.]."

      "Equal rights for gays." Yeah, it's just that simple.

      by planmeister on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:54:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those who actually opened their bibles to peruse (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, Cassandra Waites, Cephas

        the New Testament discovered that the very reason for Jesus's presence on earth was to undo a lot of that Old Testament stuff, or, at least, forgive it so that people can be welcomed into Heaven.  In the NT, sin is sin, and sin is forgiven by accepting Jesus.  There is no basis for singling out gay people, fat people, adulterers, thieves, or lusty lusty laddies and ladies.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:34:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  we just had that lectionary reading on Sunday (0+ / 0-)

        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:30:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Keepin' it real..." (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, CwV, GrindtheHills, ZedMont, Aunt Pat

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:10:37 AM PST

  •  Cartoon makes an excellent point. You could very (4+ / 0-)

    easily demonstrate (with the bible) that these folks were discriminating cafeteria style with the religion they claim as a defense.  Their defense would be weakened by their failure to discriminate against other "sinful" behaviors, especially their failure to shun 65/35 tee shirts and habitual Red Lobster diners.

    Ted Cruz president? Pardon my Vietnamese, but Ngo Pho King Way.

    by ZedMont on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:18:05 AM PST

  •  Refuse service to those who lost their virginity (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, SueDe, foresterbob

    Before marriage.
    Restaurant clears out.
    No more business for Bob.
    Bob goes out of business.
    Problem solved.
    Periodic cleansing of the gene pool.

    "For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it." - President Barack Obama, Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 2013.

    by surfermom on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:19:12 AM PST

  •  Why are the Southern states all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?

  •  Don't forget cheeseburgers, another abomination. (8+ / 0-)

    And I have a question for kosher Kossacks . . . I understand why a cheeseburger (cheese from cow's milk on top of ground beef) violates the "thou shalt not boil a baby kid in its mother's milk" deal . .. .  but why is cheese on a TURKEY SANDWICH not okay?  While cream cheese on smoke salmon is okay.  

    Help me on this.

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

    by bobdevo on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:19:16 AM PST

  •  I hope guys like him get 100% of nothing! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  These witch hunting thumpers are destroying my (11+ / 0-)

    grandfather's Christianity .....aaagin.

    Paw Paw was OG Old School Baptist, informed by his religion to be kind and tolerant to everyone. So he probably would say something like; "Pay them no mind buddy, they're just a little touched in the head".

    What's going on now is exactly why the framers wanted a durable wall between church and state. The damage done by using religion as a political division tool is ALWAYS disastrous to both, no exceptions.

    21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

    by geez53 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:25:48 AM PST

  •  The next panel in this cartoon should (9+ / 0-)

    show Bob's Diner's front door with two signs on it:  one says "Closed" and the other saying "For Sale."  And Bob should be shown panhandling on the street corner.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:26:57 AM PST

    •  Yes, exactly SueDe. This is why the law is so dumb (6+ / 0-)

      Businesses do not stay in business by telling customers to take their money elsewhere. Almost no one wants to even do that, ever, and those that do probably already do that anyway, and will suffer the consequences to their bottom line.

      In fact, this cartoon misses the real core trouble here, that law is very dangerous for employers, business owners, because it allows individual employees to discriminate against their customers, based on their religious beliefs, even against a company policy of being welcoming or treating everyone equally.

      If a waitress, cashier, or whomever says their religion prevents them from dealing with certain customers, the employer would be forced to accommodate that! Your staff could be driving away your customers and protected from being expected to do their job! This is beyond ridiculous and it's why even the idiots who passed it are now saying oopsie, we didn't mean it, Brewer please save us from ourselves! Fucking morons. I wish she would hurry up and issue the veto already.

    •  Sings on the Door (0+ / 0-)

      "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

      by midnight lurker on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:49:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's "Signs" on the Door, of Course. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

        by midnight lurker on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:52:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Arizona is the new Uganda (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Thier is open season on gays in Uganda since the President of Uganda sign the  anti gay legislation ,they have gone so far as too print the  name and address of gay  people in Ugandafro reprisal     ,the same American  Evangelical Christian have spread thier anti gay hatred to parts of Africa go to Google and Search "Uganda Gay "

  •  All the more reason to listen, instead, to (4+ / 0-)

    the actual words of the Prince of Peace.

    Now I know he said to take care of the poor 1,300 times, but - remind me - how many times was it that he condemned homosexuality?

    A sidenote -  us Zen Budis-jin have historically thought very highly of Jesus the Christ.  Interestingly, to us he is historically known as the Prince of Tolerance.

    Make Plutocratic influence on the Government so small you can drown it in a bathtub.

    by thenekkidtruth on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:39:38 AM PST

  •  New Dinosaur Species Leviticus Wrex nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:47:50 AM PST

  •  Also, no ham or pork chops. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  I'm a true Christian Clergyman and this is wrong.. (6+ / 0-)

    From a religious perspective, we're taught to hate the sin not the sinner. Jesus went into the slums and bars to help those in need, supplying their needs and giving an encouraging word of love. Repugs are hypocrites and can be considered as the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. This behavior reminds me of the Civil Rights movement and the Woolworth Greensboro, NC sit in conducted by the students from A&T. It hurts to see the same people still continue to demonstrate hate, just now it's against Mexicans and Gay/ Lesbians. I don't condone their lifestyle, but it's their choice and the teaching of Christianity says God gives every one a choice. We don't force our beliefs on anyone! If only I had a platform to teach this subject correctly to the misinformed. The Repugs and Tea Sacks don't have Christians values in their agenda. Your being manipulated to get your vote to get the true agenda completed for the 2%, rich, oil cronies, Wall Street, big corporations... tax cuts and laws to keep them from being convicted and intern they receive the kick back. What do you get... screwed in the #@$ like the average citizen!
     Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    •  Being gay or lesbian is neither a "choice" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      nor a "lifestyle" based on "beliefs." You appear open-minded enough to be willing to review those beliefs upon further information and reflection.

      But I agree with the rest of your comment.

      Rick Perry doesn't think there should be a minimum wage
      and Ted Nugent doesn't think there should be a minimum age. Merica
      ---> @LOLGOP

      by smileycreek on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:48:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  i'm tempted to hide this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smileycreek, novapsyche

      for the RW "choice" talking point

      but since some of the rest of what you say is on point, I'll let it go

      welcome to Daily Kos... our community standards do not approve of conservative talking points even in passing

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:36:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, just had to comment (3+ / 0-)

      I agree with a lot of what you said, but couldn't let a couple things go by.  BTW, I've been a Christian for 50+ years, am a Bible college grad, and am a Progressive. I know, that is a rare bird, right?  Anyway, no where in the Bible can you find "hate the sin not the sinner."  We are all sinners for whom God sent his Son Jesus, who gave his life for our sins.  Jesus taught us to love all, even our enemies, as we love ourselves.  Period.  Secondly, being gay is not a "lifestyle" it's not a "choice" any more than my being left-handed is.  And boy, am I glad that we don't discriminate against left-handed people!! What is required of us?  "To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God."  You're right, the hate that's being flung out by "Christians" at others who aren't just like them is appalling.  I have enough to do to keep myself in check, let alone make judgment about anyone else.  I have a sneaking suspicion we're someday going to get a lot of surprises on who got this right and who got it wrong.  Anyway, thanks for your post.  Peace.  

  •  I wonder if you'd be served... (0+ / 0-)

    ... if you walked into a kosher restaurant in the heart of a hasidic neighborhood in Brooklyn, dressed in "immodest" clothing, cuddling up to your gay lover, and asking for a ham and cheese sandwich.  

    My guess is no.

  •  Is there a statute of abominations? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foresterbob, planmeister, Govnor, Cephas

    Leviticus is pretty confusing about this.  Which ones are first degree abominations, second degree, third degree?  

    Are there negligent abominations (forgot to check the materials before putting on the shirt)?  How about a misdemeanor abomination?

    How about aggravated abominations (surf 'n turf with a cream sauce, anyone)?

  •  Two sides to a story; two options to a choice. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In the beginning, there was God and his Ten (10) Commandments.

    One day, there came along a bunch of elderly gentlemen in head-to-toe black robes, calling themselves "priests."  Now mind you, these were the same fellows who got everyone to throw their gold into a big melting pot so they could make themselves a great big golden calf in the middle of the desert; a place where a golden calf would be the very last thing that any living thing would ever need in a desert.

    The golden calf got smashed to smithereens, and the "priests" --- now possibly thought of by some as little more than grumpy old bearded guys in floor-length evening gowns --- had to trounce around in the desert carrying a really heavy box with the shards of those Commandments for a very, very long time.  They got older, their beards got longer, and they fumed and roiled and hated on everything and everyone until they had invented 600-and-some-odd hate-filled regulations hiding behind something called Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

    Now, I ask you: on the one hand, I have those Ten Commandments, and on the other hand I have the geriatric, cross-dressing, anger-management-issue-breeding ancestors of every drop of hate ever foisted on humankind.

    Is there really any debate as to which side I should choose; as to which side you should choose?

    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:01:37 AM PST

  •  The Rasta in the head shop just refused me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    My stash was too brown.  I wasn't high end enough for him.  

    Actually, it was the Baconator(tm) I was eating that offended him.

    God, who could ever think up such stupid fucking laws???

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:03:48 AM PST

  •  One thing that has me a bit concerned here... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... is the prevalence of comments claiming that bigoted policies will be bad for business.  That is (or ought to be) true.  But the libertarian response would be: "Exactly.  Let the marketplace crush bigotry.  No need for legal protections."

    There are good reasons why we need legal protections, and we should focus on those when arguing against libertarians and right wingers.

    Full-scale militarization of our society will have to proceed slowly so as not to disturb your consumer haze... -= Austin Cline

    by suburi on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:24:29 AM PST

  •  Don't stop in Arizona for a snack. Your daily (0+ / 0-)

    daily bread is against MY RELIGION.

    Arizona is not a state of Grace.

    Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

    by 88kathy on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:28:51 AM PST

  •  Love it! Love it! Love it!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, Cephas

    As a retired former Old Testament prof, I LOVE asking this sort of question of people pulling this or that single item out of Leviticus.

    The best antidote for bogus "bible-based" so-called "morality" -- require all adults to actually read the Pentateuch (first five books), actually read 'em.  They might need a little help with content (vocabulary, theology, world-view) and context (geographic, historical, political, archaeological).  But even without these aids, it's hard to read those texts with care and not come away convinced that there's a real problem with the concept of biblical inerrancy.

    "Equal rights for gays." Yeah, it's just that simple.

    by planmeister on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:43:28 AM PST

    •  Well..... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, TiredOfGOPLies
      But even without these aids, it's hard to read those texts with care and not come away convinced that there's a real problem with the concept of biblical inerrancy.
      I have to disagree here, its not like this hasn't been tried umpteen times in the past. In my experience, having dealt with a few of the bible is inerrant types I can tell you with confidence that no amount of reading, reason, logic or education will alter the opinion of the dyed-in-the-wool (not mixed fabric) bible is inerrant type.

      You cannot reason a person out of a position if that person thinks reason goes against his religion

      Religion is like a blind man, in a pitch black room, searching for a black cat that isn't there.....and finding it.

      by fauxrs on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:12:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've found they almost exclusively (0+ / 0-)

      haven't read a single word beyond their pastor's talking points. They have no clue what's hidden between the catchphrases, and even if they are forced to read the jibber-jabber (no offense, prof, I truly respect your erudition!) they fall back on the "context" or "metaphor" cop-outs!

      If they only knew there were no vowels or accents in much of the original text! It might've been a recipe for tiramisu!

  •  Actually, there is a diner (0+ / 0-)

    in Tucson that came immediately to mind when I saw the cartoon. Alas, it must herein remain as unnamed as it is un-patronized by me and mine....

    ¡No más no me chingan!

    by dobleremolque on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:48:26 AM PST

  •  Love it, love it, love it!!! (0+ / 0-)

    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

    by occupystephanie on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:19:35 AM PST

  •  Arizona "Religious Freedom" Law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The thought had occurred to me: under the terms of this law, could an observant Jew take a job as a butcher at the supermarket and then refuse to handle any non-kosher meats? (or a Muslim, and refuse to handle non-halal meats?)

  •  please consider (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that even if we want to consider every word, every phrase in the bible as inerrant and absolutely accurate, it does not follow that any person's interpretation of those words meets the same standard. we're on very shaky ground when we attempt to legislate, or regulate our lives, in any manner, based on opinion.  just a few weeks ago we saw that one man's metaphor was another snake handling preacher man's death.

  •  wonder what happens (4+ / 0-)

    if this bill is passed, if a gay active-duty servicemember comes in and is refused service.

  •  To be fair... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, novapsyche

    I would probably discriminate against potential clients who had sacrificed their children to Molek.

    On the other hand, if they'd sacrificed them to Baal, well... I've always had kind of a soft spot for that guy.

    "Republicans Vote To Repeal Obama-Backed Bill That Would Destroy Asteroid Headed For Earth." 2/2/11 The Onion

    by brooklyns finest on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:24:35 AM PST

  •  ehh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue muon

    Although who'd want to eat there anyway ?

    Dunno, if the impact really would matter, Although it's an asinine law.

  •  Belt buckle is a nice touch (0+ / 0-)

    But would they really refuse to serve gays. I mean, I don't doubt that they hate gays with a white hot passion, but it seems to me that these people love money more than they hate gays.

    The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

    by TiredOfGOPLies on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 11:42:58 AM PST

  •  Damn! (0+ / 0-)

    Knew I shouldn't have sacrificed that kid to Molek!

  •  love the dude's belt buckle.... n/t (0+ / 0-)

    You WANT me on that server! You NEED me on that server!

    by nota bene on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:01:54 PM PST

  •  Time To Stop (0+ / 0-)

    Eating at Bob's diner.

  •  Maybe I should move to AZ (0+ / 0-)

    and open the ONLY store that will gladly serve that long list of folks who are shunned by evangelicals/racists/tea-party members. I'd love to take away their business.

    More Prometheus, less Tony Robbins

    by OKParrothead on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 05:30:03 PM PST

  •  Bible is right about mixing fabrics. I have a (0+ / 0-)

    knit shirt from hell made of cotton, spandex, and flax. Itches like the DEVIL!!! Evil, evil. Man was never meant to wear blends.

    "Trudy is beauth, beauth trudy."

    by Cuester on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:48:26 AM PST

  •  Now is the time for all good men and women (0+ / 0-)

    Too support separation of church and state. Arizona legislators are a good example of why the two sides need separating.

  •  If it weren't for the Fundies and Evilgelicals, (0+ / 0-)

    I wouldn't have any laughs or humor in my life!

  •  Cherry Picking made easy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If you're going to keep insisting that gays are evil and should be put to death, don't forget to add recalcitrant children and those who fail to keep the Sabbath to your list of people who should be receiving the wrath of the Lord.  I don't recall anyone being up in arms about these commandments.

    Exodus 35:1-2  "These are things the Lord has commanded you to do:  For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord.  Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."

    Deuteronomy 21:18-21  "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother, and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.  They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious.  He will not obey us.  He is a profligate and a drunkard.'  Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death.  You must purge the evil from among you."

  •  Your Rights ... ??? (0+ / 0-)

    Here are some notable quotes made by some of this country's most honored and revered Founding Fathers. There are many more that make equal or even more profound points, but this should do.

    “Churches were human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind," Thomas Payne said.

    “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there would be no religion in it,” John Adams said.

    “Lighthouses are more useful than churches,” Benjamin Franklin said.

    “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man,” Thomas Jefferson said.

    "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison said.

    Jefferson went so far as to completely rewrite the Bible, excluding any miracles attributed to Jesus Christ and omitting any reference to divine intervention. Those of my friends on the right forget that our nation was truly founded by folks whose ancestors had fled from religious persecution in their homelands all across Europe. Many of the first Americans had escaped the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, the persecutions of Catholics by Protestants, Protestants by Catholics and non-conformists by conformists.

    Currently, 16 percent of Americans say they are Agnostic, Atheist or unaffiliated with any church, religion or organized belief system. This percentage, at first glance, seems insignificant until you compare some other percentages. Jews in America make up only 1.4 percent of the population, black people make up only 12.2 percent of Americans, gays make up only 3 percent and NRA members only 1.3 percent. That 16 percent figure is not as insignificant as it first appears.

    Liberals, Progressives and most Democrats would argue to their dying breath for the right of anyone to practice their religious faiths and pursue their religious beliefs any way they wish. By the same token they would argue that these same rights do not apply when the Conservatives on the right try to blur the lines by injecting religion into our government, our schools and our system of justice/laws.

    Our forefathers were correct when they called for a separation of church and state all those many years ago. They were right then and they remain right to this very day.

    Personally, I'm tired of hearing about your rights, especially when they interfere with mine.

  •  let them rant (0+ / 0-)

    the more these fundamentalists rant and rave their insanity the more people realize how full of crap they are.
    I have several people in my family who are very religiously conservative. They come up with a lot of insane crap like the Bible is literal and the proof of it is in the Bible. What incredible logic. They come up with insane theories on how things happened in the Bible. Completely discount physics. Completely ignoring logic and reason. Only because they have been brainwashed, and of course the willingness to be brainwashed, that the Bible is literal and 100% true.
    So I have to argue with them repeatedly and frequently. I have to listen to them tell me that everyone has to believe what they believe. That what they believe should be the law of the land. And for some reason they think that when their logic fails against reason that somehow they are not up to snuff on reality enough to present the truth to the arguement. Some of them even admit that they do not think these things through and that is good enough. Blind faith.
    We just have to be ever vigilant against unreasoning minds.

  •  SO!!! THAT IS HOW YOU CAN TELL... (0+ / 0-)

    who is gay and who is not!!!!

    I asked my gay sister-in-law (from Arizona) how you can tell if someone is gay; she said she would get back to me. So far, she hasn't come up with a sure-fire answer.

Click here for the mobile view of the site