WE Blog

Two things that don’t go together “Christian conservative” and “intellectual integrity”.

That was the punch line!
““If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity,”
chortle, chortle.

‘fair and honest’ have about as much business in the same sentence as Dobson and ‘fair and balanced’ does with FAUX!

:)

Here is the answer. Peter Weyner is not really a Christian.

He is a CINO (Christian in Name Only)

He is a liberal, agnostic, purple-haired, flag-burning, commie, nazi, pinko, homo, damn yankee who listens to jungle music. He needs to REPENT!!!!!

Now that the blog has been hijacked by the left and their attempt at humor is less that funny and Phillip is giving us recycled topics – didn’t we do Dobson once this week? The blog isn’t even worth checking on every now and then.

Seeing that they’ve got Tony Perkins chatting it up on every channel every night lately, yeah it is necessary to keep talking about it.

And there again, you have the militant radical Christians defining who is Christian and who isn’t. Are you ready to declare Jihad yet LLT

I thought it was “REPENT” PM. Or is it “thine own right way” or “bringing in the sheeves” I can never keep these things straight.

I thought the purple hair part was especially funny. I suppose OKOB wasn’t amused.

“ksgrm

We are sorry you are not enjoying your WE Blog experience. We know you have a choice in blogging and we wish you lots of good luck in your search for a forum more to your taste.”

Hee hee hee heeeeee….

good one JR!

oh, so it wasn’t the jungle music?

Well since we know from JR that he son inherited his attention span. In a few minutes he read the whole bible, and came to the conclusion that there were repeat statements in it and that they were silly.

Why JR you and your son give new meaning to the term ’speed reading’.

Ksfrmgrl you used to come up with informed decussions every now and then. Is this a thing of the past?

BTW JR I am still waiting for the worker bee link you promised so I can show you once again what a leech you are. I know why the statement was made.

uh oh.

Now I think grmie needs the waaaaaaaambulance.

It’s busy today!

I can handle jungle music VET. But I can’t stand YANKEES!

okob. I have been waiting for you to blog something worthwhile since I met you.

Why are you crying so much today?

This blog is about another Christian expressing his view that Dobson was out of line. Is it impossible for Dobson to be out of line?

No. Then stop crying because your views are not being validated.

“So why then are we having the second Dobson bashing thread this week?”

Um…. because it’s so much fun?

“Your intelligence can only be judged by those who are reading your post and there in no depth there.”

Therein is one word, HOG.

You also might want to work on your sentence structure before you come back under another nic – you need a serious lesson in grammar, grammie.

Granny,
We tried desperately to have informed discussions with the christian talibanners for several years and had to give it up because they were unable to comprehend the simplest rational thought. All they could do was quote verses and refer to anyone who disagreed with that manner of arguing fact as a sinner, plus whatever other irrelevant insult their preacher had told them to use that week, and that we were all going to burn in hell for (dare I say it) thinking!
It bothers me greatly that we’ve had to sink to your level to find any way at all of communicating. I’m sure we’d all be happier if you found yourself a site where you could quote scripture at each other all day long and not have to put up with people who think for themselves. Bye bye!

OKOB:

The same reason we have had the 5th Obama blog this week; 4th McCain; Teen smoking and junker cars. The same reason we had reverand Wright 6 times. The same reason why we had every flip-flop 3 times each:

I Don’t know. This blog is not the Obama election headquarters. Nor is it the McCain headquarters. It’s a BLOG.

This is a blog. Not a place to have your feelings and opinions validated. This isn’t designed to replace a shrink. If you disagree, scroll over it man.

Thanks kfg.

I’m here all week. Tip the veal. Try your waitresses.

Hey okfenokie?

Don’t tempt me you bitter old crone. I’ll be glad to help your foot find your mouth.

Stomp off in a huff and change hobble on back with a new nic grmie.

“Regular talking about maturity.”

McCluer (or whatever his nic/persona is today) and the word MATURITY should never be used in the same sentence.

that’s nice regular.

“We the Grand Jury were charged with investigating alleged violations of the laws related to abortion at the Women’s Health Care Services, Wichita, KS. After six months of conducting an investigation that included hearing extensive witness testimony, reviewing volumes of documents and medical records of patients of Women’s Health Care Services, this Grand Jury has not found sufficient evidence to bring an indictment on any crime related to the abortion laws.”

Awesome news. No doubt ORW will claim Tiller bribed the entire jury. At least now our tax dollars can’t be used to persecute him on these charges again.

And they are SO easy to set off the fundies.

Grm got her feathers wet about something I said on another thread. Then the littlest little jab over here and she goes boom.

Jed I am still looking for that one lib that can speak for himself. Your names are interchangeable over each response. They are just echo talk. Over and over and over and over again. The party line regurgitated repeatedly. Sorry your minds stopped working.

You noticed that too okobserver?

I had a mynah bird that had more vocabulary than some of these Libs.

It’s like listening to a broken record.

And, I do mean broken in more ways than one.

That’s nice Regular.

Now OKOB, you might have a point. There are some liberals who are just as hooked on validation. Like killing a homosexual should have another law against it. You are punished twice for harming a homosexual and only once for harming a heterosexual. In that you have a point.
Heterosexual or Homosexual, if you harm either one, you should pay.
I don’t mean to be flip okob. But after 3 months of blogging, Nathaniel and Regular aren’t going to get much more than a “that’s nice” from me.

Ben I don’t feel at all threatened. Why when I answer back with the same logic that was put out I am the one threatened? Vet just said we had to be validated and that everyone had to agree with us.

Why do you feel threatened by by beliefs and my positions on certain things?

okob – because I see friends denied equal rights. Tell me this: just how would extending the legal civil rights of ‘marriage’ to a gay couple harm you?

See?

The camel has been pushed almost entirely out of the tent so to speak.

The camel being fundamentalist Christianity and the tent being society.

There’s still that little bit of a nose in things like the “defence of marriage” stuff under the tent. But they know that is gonna go too.

Horrors! Then they could take what they believe and keep it in their homes and churches ALL to themselves! They wouldn’t get to “share” it with the uninterested.

in that we can agree okob. But with regard to marriage. It isn’t special rights for KSFG to be able to marry her partner.

To not allow marriage for gays is to give “special” rights to heterosexual couples.

On the other hand VET I would happily allow a church to refuse to sanctify that marriage. That is why I would remove the term ‘marriage’ from the civil arena altogether and replace it with something neutral like ‘union.’

Bluejay I’ll make you a deal. The day you stop sharing your opinions with the world on this blog I will stop also.

As usual BJ your word is worthless. It isn’t that you are for liberties for everyone it is that you want to shut up the opposition. That way your voice will be the only one heard. They did that in Castro’s Cuba, and in several other communist countries. How well did that work? You libs might want to think on that one..

The funny thing okob is that I am in probably one of the more ‘traditional’ marriages around here – 37 years ago sealed in a Nuptual Mass. Brides family there in force – father-in-law gave away the bride.

Actually, I got married twice that same day. The other time was when we filled out ‘Caeser’s’ paperwork. THAT is the only part I would change. ksfg would then be free to use that. But, I doubt that the Priest would handle it and he shouldn’t be asked to.

I’ll toss in another twist: suppose two widows want to ‘combine’ their lives for whatever reasons that may have absolutely nothing to do with sex. Why not let them? Gives things like hospital rights, survivorship, etc.

#
Indie
Posted July 2, 2008 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

thanks Jim

You win todays prize for leaving again leaving a big trail of evidence to show how small minded you are —- pathetic loser —- go oil your walker
———————————–
Must be one of the usual Libs who claim to hate trolling with more than one nic.

LMAO!

Not even close Grm to the same thing. Alexa’s law seeks to harm women and the marriage law seeks to allow MORE freedom.

And don’t give me the nonsense that it would allow people to marry animals. Animals aren’t people. There is nothing threatening your marriage.

Just LOOK at the show she is putting on.

Grm is the epitome of the busy body Christian!

She comes on here and proclaims the posts and posters unworthy of her presence.

And then sticks around.

We do the usual dance…..

She offers to shut up if I will.

(I never asked her to)

THEN she accuses me of trying to silence her?

Rave on!

I can agree to that. I’m not going to go to a gay pride parade and bask in the glory of the moment. Like I said, I also won’t validate homosexuality. The hate crime laws border on validation. The marriage laws (or civil unions) don’t.

I am not technically married to my wife. I wear a wedding ring. But I still believe that marriage is the number one cause of divorce. I am faithful to her. We share a joing bank account. We file our taxes jointly. I get to have her on my health insurance.

My choice to avoid “dearly beloved” isn’t affecting me in any way. As Jefferson said. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

CelticKin
Posted July 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

Agreed, Indie, this is just a pathetic, demonstrated lack of regard for the value of life Christian fundamentalists claim to uphold. No one who really cares for a life they say is invaluable would treat it in this glib and flippant way. Bearing false witness is the defining nature of too many modern Christians. I am increasingly filled with revulsion and unabated disgust by these people’s lack of reverence for Creation. It’s small wonder that they are losing membership in record numbers – reference the Southern baptist Convention. Who would want a child they lost in any fashion referred to this way? Or want to be in the presence of the man doing it, much less a church full of them?
———————-
Yet another multi-nic’d progressive liberal.

And they whine about more than one nic used?

LMAO!

Oh and thanks for the message Pope CelticKin.

Ate any good books lately?

That’s very nice Regular.

Political_mama
Posted July 2, 2008 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
Not even close Grm to the same thing. Alexa’s law seeks to harm women and the marriage law seeks to allow MORE freedom.

———————–

Pmom what you forget here is that not all of us see abortion the way you do. I look at Alexa as a very real human being who if she were born in a hospital would be alive today. Instead the life of her mother was snuffed out in that car and when her mom’s life was taken so was hers.

Nothing to do with stopping abortion. Everything to do with saying Alexa was a living breathing human one breath away from life.

I’m gonna have to figure out the number and nature of each of the stages of arguing with a fundamentalist. We’ve seen some of them here that are perfect examples for other situations.

Take prayer in school for instance. Dobson would say we have taken prayer out of school. But we never did. People can still pray in school. They just can’t have a show about it or make everybody else pray along.

This is exemplified in grms early reaction to this thread.

Then later, ksgrm tries to bargain with me. She’ll shut up if I do. Of course the implication is that I am attempting to silence her in the first place.

THIS is exemplified when the fundies try to get a moment of silence or teach “intelligent design”. The same sort of bargaining.

you obviously haven’t been reading parkay’s posts Grm.

I think Christians will always claim to be under attack. The devil, the liberals. Whatever. To me the law has always been the same. If this kid wants to pray, he can as long as he doesn’t disrupt class. If this kid doesn’t want to pray, he doesn’t have to as long as he doesn’t disrupt class.

Once again, it comes back to validation. They like to think that they are a CHRISTIAN School.

#
LLTVET
Posted July 2, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

I think Christians will always claim to be under attack. The devil, the liberals. Whatever. To me the law has always been the same. If this kid wants to pray, he can as long as he doesn’t disrupt class. If this kid doesn’t want to pray, he doesn’t have to as long as he doesn’t disrupt class.

Once again, it comes back to validation. They like to think that they are a CHRISTIAN School.
————————
“They”

Oh my, there is so much ambiguity usage LLTVET.

Do you sometimes use “them” as well?

If you unfold your ambiguous box of foes, does it add to your confusion or are you perpetually tied to a circuitous route lined with snarks and jabberwocky?

Vet you have been hanging out with BJ too long. Your post on Christians always claiming to be under attack couldn’t be more wrong as an example look to see who is moaning today.

*********
Regular

Posted July 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
Hey Cuz Maggot!

How’s the fetus incineration business going?” *********
A pathetic, demonstrated lack of regard for the value of life Christian fundamentalists claim to uphold. No one who really cares for a life they say is invaluable would treat it in this glib and flippant way. Bearing false witness is the defining nature of too many modern Christians. I am increasingly filled with revulsion and unabated disgust by these people’s lack of reverence for Creation. It’s small wonder that they are losing membership in record numbers – reference the Southern baptist Convention. Who would want a child they lost in any fashion referred to this way? Or want to be in the presence of the man doing it, much less a church full of them?

#
CelticKin
Posted July 2, 2008 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

*********
Regular

Posted July 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
Hey Cuz Maggot!

How’s the fetus incineration business going?” *********
A pathetic, demonstrated lack of regard for the value of life Christian fundamentalists claim to uphold. No one who really cares for a life they say is invaluable would treat it in this glib and flippant way. Bearing false witness is the defining nature of too many modern Christians. I am increasingly filled with revulsion and unabated disgust by these people’s lack of reverence for Creation. It’s small wonder that they are losing membership in record numbers – reference the Southern baptist Convention. Who would want a child they lost in any fashion referred to this way? Or want to be in the presence of the man doing it, much less a church full of them?
—————————–
As I said clones.

Pope CelticKin had to re-post its old post because it couldn’t think of anything else new.

Another multi-nic’d progressive lib going down in flames.

And You’ve also proven my point Grm. You mentioned Alexa’s life. you didn’t say a thing about her MOTHER, teh living breathing teen girl who was killed.

I didn’t assign any opinions to you grm.

I was just using your reactions here as illustration for some of the ways fundies behave.

I think fundamentalist Christians are going to have to get used to losing further ground in our society. They just are not good advocates for what it is they believe in.

Regular,

The “walker” reference is a metaphor for the fact that your remarks can’t stand on their own merits; they have no legs under them. Brilliance, you didn’t get that?

No Regular, I’m not making excuses. I admit it, you’re ignorant. And if I’m saying something to that effect in a disrepectful way, then I’m mocking you for your ignorance which I believe in your case is a handicap you’ve chosen.

#
CelticKin
Posted July 2, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

No Regular, I’m not making excuses. I admit it, you’re ignorant. And if I’m saying something to that effect in a disrepectful way, then I’m mocking you for your ignorance which I believe in your case is a handicap you’ve chosen.
——————–
Argumentative like Chas as well.

Celtic,
Reggie’s ignorance wasn’t a choice. It was inflicted on him by his daddy.

“My thing is that I would use ‘civil’ for ALL of us – no ’separate but equal’”

Yep Ben. And churches can continue to marry or not marry as they choose.

And as far as SS benefits… how about ALL married folks give up their partner benefits? It addresses the discrimination against single people and gay people.

I mean, cant straight couples take personal responsibility for their partner’s retirement just like gays and singles?

“Another multi-nic’d progressive lib going down in flames.”

The one guy that has been proven to have used at least a dozen nics is accusing others of having multiple nics?

Of course, he is also one of the two admitted liars on this blog and both of them accuse others of lying.

It must be challenging to live in the con world.

WS once again a no intelligence post from you. Do you have anything in your head besides name to call others.

WS when I need grammar lessons rest assured I will get them but it won’t be because someone with your credentials suggested it. As far as lying – well WS you would never have to worry about that would you because you never make a substantive post to be true or false.

Just pull blather off the top of that old gray head and put it out there. Always shows your true character.

Regular at least posts things that show he has researched a subject and also that he has a broad range of knowledge. Something no one will ever accuse you of.

Ben didn’t you have to hire a lawyer to get your will and other personal papers in order

Intestate succession combined with JTWROS will actually take care of a lot of that – for a married couple. So, againall I would be doing is leveling the playing field for all couples. this is especially true for people with not much in the way of assets – I kick off and my wife gets it.

My point is that ‘married’ gives a real good start in this.

As for SS – either survivor benefits for BOTH or for NEITHER. Again – equal.

And yes – “a church can marry or not” I’m not interested in interfering with the free operation of any church. THAT would be a very inappropriate interference BY the state into the church.

Please excuse my ignorance, but the question I have is why anyone who is not a belier in the faith would want to be tied down with “Marriage”?
Have you considered all the pros and cons of the marriage contract?
I believe that most of the major pros can be taken care of with contracts. Here are a few of the cons you might want to consider if you are not a believer of the Christian faith.
1. Right off you have the marriage income tax penalty
2. You are liable for you marriage partner debt.
3. This is a big one – .If your marriage partner becomes disabled, you would have to spend down your assets before they can get Medicaid to pay for the nursing home.
Why would anyone, straight or gay that is not of the faith want to have all the disadvantages of marriage?

It doesn’t require “Faith”, much less an exclusively “Christian” one, for a person to love and care for another to the extent that one is willing to assume those cons that come with marriage, is it not?

“Are you saying that businesses should be required to carry your partner on their group insurance?”

Are they required, for an extra fee, to carry YOUR partner on their insurance?

Then they should be required to carry mine.

What is it about equality that is so hard to understand?

And why do you insist on equality hinging on you privatizing SS? The two are not even remotely related. Benefits can be equal in the current system.

Nice try.

There have always been fundamentalists. In biblical times, for the Jewish people, it was the Scribes and Pharisees. These were the people that Jesus had issue with. With all the rules and regulations they espoused, they lost out on true abundant life as Jesus talked about. The same goes for so many of the fundamentalist leaders of today. They tell their flocks that they have to live as told or face damnation. They take the Bible literally even though there are many discrepancies and variations in the stories and events. That is why it is hard to reason with them.

Speak of a sanctimonious jerk and up he pops (reference to my comments re: Dobson on the open thread for 7/2/08).

This commentary was interesting because it highlights what is actually one of my biggest problems with Barack Obama (and it has been consistent since the 2004 election).

Barack Obama, in attempting to look respectful to people of faith, had disrespected people who do not have religious faith, and those who (non-religious or religious) strongly defend the separation of church and state. This started in 2004 when he identified a perceived hostility to people of religious faith as a primary reason for democratic losses (BTW, he was not alone, so did Hillary Clinton). What is interesting is at that time the fastest growing block of voters identified themselves as “secular liberals”.

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square…. To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

First of all, most secularists that I know of, including myself, do NOT ask believers to leave their religion at the door. But, the Constitution sets limits on how much believers, or for that matter non-believers, can use the power generated by the public square, government, to regulate the beliefs and freedoms of others. This is an enormous misunderstanding, and I have been more than a little disturbed that Barack Obama has often contributed to this misunderstanding, because at other times he seems to understand this concept quite well.

Secondly, much of what is called the Judeo-Christian tradition of morality is in fact western traditions of morality, and even some almost universal traditions of morality. The greatest predictor of one person’s treatment of another is that person’s assumptions about who is within his/her circle of moral consideration. Unfortunately, cultural variation of this definition is enormous. For example, in many parts of the world men do not inhabit the same circle as women. Other races or tribes or other ethnic groups do not inhabit the same circle as “us”. This has also been a substantial issue with religions where believers inhabit the circle of “us” and non-believers become “them”. For sociopaths, “us” is only me. For most other people, “us” is dependent upon the circumstances. In some areas, “us” is family, for others, it is people in our planet, country, city, neighborhood, religion, gender (or gender identity), “race”, party affiliation, political orientation, romantic/sexual orientation, or school background. Most people extend the circle of moral consideration to members of other species to greater or lesser degree. One of the biggest problems occurs when one circle considers members of other circles by definition immoral. Sometimes, there can be some cause, but most times, in my very strong opinion, there is not. But when people operating under the assumptions that “we” are moral and “you others” are not bring these assumptions to the public square, there is danger. That doesn’t mean that such people are banned from bringing their beliefs to the public square, but there are and should be limitations on the extent to which they can implement their beliefs in the public square. I think people in this country, by and large, understand this, and WILL REBEL at uncompromising attempts of one group of people to continue to push their presumed hegemony on morality. However, the group can sometimes do a great deal of harm before they are stopped.

While there are people who are properly defined as “anti-theists”, they hardly compose the majority of atheists, much less “secularists” (which include not only the so-called secular left, but also libertarians and even a surprising number of conservatives). “Secularists” are often just as likely to object to attempts to regulate the religious behavior of people by majorities as they are to impose majority religious considerations on a non-believing minority.

I am not sure why Obama has been saying what he has been saying on this subject. Is it a perceived loss of the high ground by Democrats or is it an actual expression of his beliefs? I am curious about this in particular because, by implication, one of the people he is critical of is his own late mother.

All that being said, he has exhibited a thoughtful approach overall to issues, and he still has my vote for 2006.