If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Michelle Bachmann, Pam Geller and the anti-Muslim fringe have won   (salon.com) divider line 143
    More: Sad, Pam Geller, Fox News, muslims, American Sociological Review, Ground Zero Mosque, psychological research, perverse incentives, cultural change  
•       •       •

20566 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2012 at 7:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-05 08:47:46 PM  
The One True TheDavid : The Unitarian Universalists not only ordain homosexuals, they have no problem marrying them either. Is this a "mainline" denomination is up for some debate, despite being one of the fastest growing denominations in the US.

There are several ministries in the US that depart from their official councils to uphold marriage equality, and that is sort of one of the hallmarks of Protestant denominations is that ability to disagree and continue on.
 
2012-12-05 08:47:47 PM  
I know you're all going to yell at me, and I'm not coming back to this thread to read it. Has anyone actually read or listened to Pam Geller? She is absolutely outspoken against jihadists - Muslims who commit acts of violence and subjugation, both against other cultures and against their own. She does not hate all Muslims, and has said so many times. Before ranting against anyone please understand their views.
 
2012-12-05 08:48:02 PM  
So much derp in one conversation.

See these Islamic radicals for what they are, animals. Filthy vermin to be taken out to the back 40 and put down. They'd kill you just for not worshiping Mohammad.

And so many of you give them a pass. Shame on you for not being informed.
 
2012-12-05 08:49:13 PM  

cc_rider: They haven't "won" anything, but simply put a bunch of irrational fears into low-information morons whose kind are dying out. The younger generations care nothing for those farktards and their bullshiat. The scaremongering about "creeping sharia" is working on us about as well as the threats of a "Communist, Kenyan, radical, president".

Anyway, I would call Pam Geller a coont, but that would be insulting to coonts.


I"m afraid you're wrong about the dying out part. Hate and fear sells.
 
2012-12-05 08:50:10 PM  
This article seems to conflate "Sharia" with "Muslim". Did nobody notice this besides me, or are we just playing along out of convenience?
 
2012-12-05 08:50:14 PM  

SirEattonHogg: MadSkillz
2012-12-05 08:11:28 PM


I don't like any religions at all, including Islam. There's just this cognitive disconnect. I've known people who, otherwise appearing normal and intelligent, are fervent believers who can't accept any other concept about their origins or future (big bang and a dirt nap?)


Interesting. Except the above poster so far, it's like all the fark atheists who were posting pretty loudly in the Charlie Brown Christmas thread suddenly just disappeared. I thought any possible attempt by religion to mix with government is wrong (Sharia would be that situation - the govt would accomodate it as a legal system within our secular legal system) no matter if it's Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, etc. etc.


Dude, did you even go to college?
 
2012-12-05 08:50:18 PM  
Well, there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims and so far the bad Muslims are winning.

What's a bad Muslim? The ones that want to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Mohammed.

So all of you apologists who think that all Muslims are 'good and decent': Fark you, you're an idiot.
 
2012-12-05 08:51:13 PM  

meanmutton: kbotc: somedude210: If only we had made it a requirement when we gave the rights to the TV wavelengths, that all channels had to show 1 hour of non-commercialized news. Imagine what life could've been like....

Non-commercialized news? Like CSPAN? I mean, unless you simply state facts after each other, you're inputting a bias. This has gotten more extreme as time has gone on, but it's impossible to separate bias from news reporting.

Actually, news bias used to be much worse than it is now. Didn't your American history classes talk about Yellow Journalism?


Fox News == Yellow Journalism, but people have more options is all...
 
2012-12-05 08:51:22 PM  

The One True TheDavid: trivial use of my dark powers: Diogenes: FlashHarry: ...

This, the fact that they refuse to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human and only adopted by God after his baptism by John on the Jordan River, and their heinous papist practice of "baptising" infants who cannot know what is happening let alone accept it, are why I view them as heretics. And don't give me that Paul nonsense: the so-called Epistles of Paul, the Book of Acts and the "Gospel" of John are spurious later accretions canonized for Roman political reasons....


What about the Gospel of Luke, written by the author of the Book of Acts?
 
2012-12-05 08:54:12 PM  

SirEattonHogg: Interesting. Except the above poster so far, it's like all the fark atheists who were posting pretty loudly in the Charlie Brown Christmas thread suddenly just disappeared.


I, for one, was off watching Top Gear reruns and otherwise enjoying my evening when a Muslim proselytizer came knocking on my door pestering me about how many virgins I'd have when I died. (For what it's worth, in the words of Walter, I'd rather have a few slutty broads who know what the fark they're doing.)

Sorry I can't be on call 24/7 for your edification, Sparky.

cc_rider: They haven't "won" anything, but simply put a bunch of irrational fears into low-information morons whose kind are dying out. The younger generations care nothing for those farktards and their bullshiat. The scaremongering about "creeping sharia" is working on us about as well as the threats of a "Communist, Kenyan, radical, president".


This.

Anyway, I would call Pam Geller a coont, but that would be insulting to coonts.

That, too.
 
2012-12-05 08:54:24 PM  
I don't know why anybody would believe that the USA is in any danger of falling under Muslim religious law. Given that there are just a tiny bit more Jews than Muslims in the USA, roughly 2.2% Jews vs. about 2% Muslims, you'd think we'd be more in danger of falling under Halakha than Sharia, and it's easier to find Kosher food than Halal. (It's a good thing that the Qu'ran allows believers to eat the food of other People of the Book; an Orthodox Jew visiting Lexington, KY might well be SOL at any local restaurant, as few if any Orthodox Jews live here and there's no Orthodox shul though there is a Chabad House near the UK campus.)

Actually the Jewish and Muslim views of God are far more similar to each other than either is the Trinitarian Xians -- for one thing both view worshiping a man as a god is blasphemy and polytheism -- yet you hear more about America's so-called "Judeo-Christan heritage." This is hogwash. The Jewish and Muslim religions really stand together against the True American Creed, i.e bowing low to the the Almighty Dollar while putting Jesus Fish on your SUV; as such all the truly Abrahamic faiths (including also the Karaites, the Samaritans and perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses) are subversive as all get-out. Even militant atheism is more American than the strictly monotheistic belief in one universal and transcendent Deity.

But why should a devotee of either major party ever need to apply rational inquiry to learn the truth about anything? Believing that it really matters whether the POTUS is a Democrat or a Republican is as counterfactual as believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, but there's no way you'll find that obvious fact in the MSM or the standard public school curricula.


/Why yes, I have been drinking this evening. Want to see me light a belch?
 
2012-12-05 09:03:59 PM  
"anti-Shariah groups' messages have been "heavily overrepresented" in the public discourse, whereas pro-Muslim voices have been largely underrepresented."

What is the definition of fringe which is being used here?
 
2012-12-05 09:09:24 PM  

douchebag/hater: So all of you apologists who think that all Muslims are 'good and decent': Fark you, you're an idiot.


So they're exactly like Christians, then?
 
2012-12-05 09:09:24 PM  
Ennuipoet:

dickfreckle:

It's disturbing how the press has dropped the ball in recent years, treating every wingnut as if they're an expert on the chosen topic. Since when have we been presenting "all sides" when that means tacitly suggesting that the 2+2=13 crowd has as valid a point as those who believe 2+2=4?

They do it because the press is the now the "Media" and the "Media" is big business. The "Media" lets morans like this have their own soapbox because people watch it. Those of us who think they are evil, idiot farks watch it because we hate them. Those who think like the evil idiot farks watch it because it validates their evil idiot farkery.


I don't own a TV or listen to talk radio, nor do I regularly read the mainstream press. Most of the time my sense of what Americans are supposed to "know" and regard as important is supplied by Fark, by the articles linked to and the discussions they provoke. E.g. I've never seen a single Lindsay Lo'an vehicle, nor have I wittingly listened to anything by Baldy Spears or Hannah Montana. So of course I have no idea who Michelle Bachman and Pam Geller are except that "liberal" Farkers dislike them.

Too bad for y'all that the vast majority of you repeatedly discount my opinions and even my right to opine because my perspective doesn't fit the "Reality" you get from TV. Oh well. At least it's free. 

PS: Farking while drunk is fun. But it takes TWO hands.
 
2012-12-05 09:10:20 PM  

SithLord: sammyk: Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

Yeah. Let's just ask the residents of Constantinople what they think of the Religion of Peace.


You do realize that the first time Constantinople fell it was to the Christian 4th Crusade? The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.

 
2012-12-05 09:10:56 PM  
So, now the Fark libby athiests are now religeous. I get it.
 
2012-12-05 09:11:27 PM  

FlashHarry: farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.


I think most Muslims do consider themselves to be white, except the ones actually from Africa?
 
2012-12-05 09:12:07 PM  

King Something: Lionel Mandrake:

Why do Republicans hate America?

Because they lost to a black guy.


A mulatto. Twice.
 
2012-12-05 09:13:27 PM  
TFA seems five or six years out of date.

Mrbogey: Shariah law has some pretty brutal allowances. I don't understand how people who criticize the crazy things that orthodox Jews do try and concern troll over disdain for the crazy things permitted under Shariah.


Enemy of my enemy and all that.
 
2012-12-05 09:16:13 PM  

KillerAttackParrot: SithLord: sammyk: Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

Yeah. Let's just ask the residents of Constantinople what they think of the Religion of Peace.

You do realize that the first time Constantinople fell it was to the Christian 4th Crusade? The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.


And to be fair, when the Ottomans did take it in the 15th century, the first thing their sultan did after the obligatory rape and pillage was to allow Christians and Jews to carry on with their own places of worship, bring in traders, merchants and craftsmen, and turned it back into a thriving city. Heck, the average Christian probably found his life a lot more stable in Ottoman Istanbul than in, say, Paris or London. Likely a lot cleaner. And the Jews in the city could go about their daily business without worrying about being hunted for sport.
 
2012-12-05 09:19:37 PM  
image.shutterstock.com
 
2012-12-05 09:19:42 PM  

SirEattonHogg: MadSkillz
2012-12-05 08:11:28 PM


I don't like any religions at all, including Islam. There's just this cognitive disconnect. I've known people who, otherwise appearing normal and intelligent, are fervent believers who can't accept any other concept about their origins or future (big bang and a dirt nap?)


Interesting. Except the above poster so far, it's like all the fark atheists who were posting pretty loudly in the Charlie Brown Christmas thread suddenly just disappeared. I thought any possible attempt by religion to mix with government is wrong (Sharia would be that situation - the govt would accomodate it as a legal system within our secular legal system) no matter if it's Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, etc. etc.


I believe in this really radical concept. It's called freedom of religion. What that means is that everyone is equally free to his or her own religious beliefs or to have no religious views at all. What that requires is that the government stay the hell out of religion so as to not impose the religious beliefs of one person or a group of people on another. There can be no freedom of religion if the government is imposing any religious beliefs on the people.

So, yes, obviously, that means Sharia through government is a no go. But that does not mean that I don't think Muslims have ANY less of a right in the US (or anywhere) to practice in their personal lives their religious beliefs than do Christians, Jews, Hindus or any other religion. Personally, my mind just doesn't grasp how someone could take any one of the thousands of religious beliefs in human history and believe it is the one that is True. However, I also believe in freedom of thought, speech, expression, and religion, so I don't believe I have the right to dictate my non-belief onto others personally or through my government. I just wish religious fundamentalists believed in giving everyone else that same respect/rights.
 
2012-12-05 09:21:27 PM  

douchebag/hater: Well, there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims and so far the bad Muslims are winning.

What's a bad Muslim? The ones that want to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Mohammed.

So all of you apologists who think that all Muslims are 'good and decent': Fark you, you're an idiot.


Actually, what I think I was doing was illustrating that some Muslims are in fact US citizens. Some of whom even serve the nation and have even given their lives in that service. By your "good/bad Muslim" metric, I think I was illustrating the point that Muslims aren't some nebulous outre grouping that is foreign or innately hostile, but often our own neighbors.

The "bad" Muslims that have your knickers in a twist, it might be worth mentioning, are reacting not just the calls to Jihad, but years of some odd treatment by the West. Not just by Israel. Not just support of the Taliban in Afghanistan when it served our interests to support them against the Soviets, and then abandoned to sort out their own government in a land that hasn't seen a cohesive government, pretty much since the days of Alexander, and even then it was sort of iffy. You want to look at how things fell apart you might want to look at Iran. Before the rise of the Ayatollahs.

Iran had one of the most progressive and democratic governments in the 50s of any Middle Eastern nation. It was a prize in both educated populace and very much an ally in the region. Until they made the mistake of nationalizing their oil fields, and that meant bringing back the Shah. Which was done by the West. We helped tear down one of the most democratic governments in the Middle East because BP profits were threatened. Not terrorists. Their legitimate government. The Shah's crackdown led directly to the rise of Fundamentalist movements to oppose the regime, and the Ayatollah Khomeini became a focus for many who wanted their nation back. When the Shah was forced to leave again, we backed him, as opposed to the populist uprising, and without any support or any input from the West, we pretty much lost any ability to influence their government or their support of causes that opposed not just Israel but Western influence throughout the region. Our support of Iraq, and oddly enough, that goofy Saddam BECAUSE he had beef with Iran, sort of colored a lot of folks' thinking about the West as well. Not to mention our blanket support of Israel, without much thought that some folks might sympathize with the Palestinians.

Therein lies the rub. It's not about "good" Muslims or "bad" Muslims, but a LOT of folks who have legitimate beef with how we've conducted policy in the region for generations. When Iran was having their "Green Revolution" there was a LOT of support here. Why? Because we were hopeful that the Fundamentalist elements might lose their grip a bit on the nation, and that the Persian people might have a nation returned to some semblance of sanity. Sort of how we have some hope that the Afghan people might be able to avoid the cycle of internecine violence that has rocked their nation for generations as well.

The thing is: when folks voice ire about the US and US backed efforts in the Middle East, there are a lot of folks who look upon it with more than just a small amount of suspicion. Not because they don't know what they're missing, but from bitter experience. The blowback from Middle East policy since WWII has bred a lot of animosity, and understanding that animosity, and understanding the mistakes that were made isn't so much thinking that all Muslims are good and decent, but recognizing that if we are to put to rest the cycles of violence, we have to recognize where the animosity comes from. And recognize that not all Muslims are Fundamentalist asshats who see violence as a solution. Not all Muslims see takfir--the declaration of Infidelhood--as being a legitimate means to silence opposition. Heck, MOST Muslims don't even live in the Middle East. Understanding that is perhaps something to chew upon. Only about 40% of Muslims live in the Middle East. A good chunk, and the melding of faith and nationalism is what has given many Fundamentalists power, but that is power that the West has sort of thrust upon them, as these Fundamentalists are often seen as the only folks who had the courage to stand up to the West, other than a round of weak letters from the UN.

Understanding the nature of these conflicts is perhaps hard. Understanding that the OTHER People of the Book hold the Middle East as holy as Jews and Christians is sort of important. Understanding that Muslim Fundamentalists have twisted the Koran about as far as they could possibly do, and equally screwy as Fundamentalist Christians who want homo hunting licenses and to bring about the End of Days to SAVE God's Chosen People is sort of important as well. Understanding the beauty and solace that many find in the Koran is sort of important. Understanding that many modern Muslims are trying to reconcile the teachings of their faith, as much as many modern Christians and Jews do, in light of that shared tradition of faith is kind of important. Understanding that Muslims, Jews and Christians share the same deity is sort of important.

It's hard, I know. It's easier to classify folks as "good" and "bad" and then hate on the "bad" ones and praise the "good" ones, but the situation in the Middle East is long past such simplistic labels, and in fact, that desire to use simple labels as opposed to understanding the factors that have brought us to this place has only continued the cycles of violence and reactionism. The reductionism is the enemy, and not just on the part of Fundamentalist Muslims, but all around the table, in nations in Europe, in Asia, in the US. And at some point we really need to put down the Idiot Stick that people seem Hells bent on beating ideas out of their heads with, on all those sides...
 
2012-12-05 09:22:10 PM  
Is this the thread where we say tolerance and acceptance are good qualities and then wish death upon people?
 
2012-12-05 09:23:28 PM  
Cool!
They can just join the trendy and chic anti-semitism that's all over University campuses these days. More derp to the party.
 
2012-12-05 09:27:56 PM  

COMALite J: The One True TheDavid: trivial use of my dark powers: Diogenes: FlashHarry: ...

This, the fact that they refuse to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human and only adopted by God after his baptism by John on the Jordan River, and their heinous papist practice of "baptising" infants who cannot know what is happening let alone accept it, are why I view them as heretics. And don't give me that Paul nonsense: the so-called Epistles of Paul, the Book of Acts and the "Gospel" of John are spurious later accretions canonized for Roman political reasons....

What about the Gospel of Luke, written by the author of the Book of Acts?


Prove it. And you do know there's more than one Paul, right?

The synoptic gospels are really just versions redactions of the long-vanished Gospel of the Hebrews, with a bit of inevitable local flavor.This is in keeping with the pro-Roman church fathers' decision to view earlier Judaizing gospels as noncanonical or heretical, by which they meant they encouraged doctrines that too closely resembled the Judaism that the Church was adamantly and vociferously declaring its difference from. The Jewish faith could never be the ideological glue of of a pagan Empire, unlike its Hejazi offspring.
 
2012-12-05 09:29:03 PM  

Kriggerel: Cool!
They can just join the trendy and chic anti-semitism that's all over University campuses these days. More derp to the party.


This is very true! If one considers being against some of the policies of the state of Israel to be equal to hating all Jews.

You know, just like when someone in American doesn't like the socialisms of Scandinavia it means they automatically hate Lutherans.
 
2012-12-05 09:30:11 PM  

KillerAttackParrot: SithLord: sammyk:

Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

Yeah. Let's just ask the residents of Constantinople what they think of the Religion of Peace.

You do realize that the first time Constantinople fell it was to the Christian 4th Crusade? The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.


Which POTUS declared Roman Catholicism to be a Religion of Peace?
 
2012-12-05 09:31:32 PM  

The One True TheDavid: KillerAttackParrot: SithLord: sammyk:

Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

Yeah. Let's just ask the residents of Constantinople what they think of the Religion of Peace.

You do realize that the first time Constantinople fell it was to the Christian 4th Crusade? The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.

Which POTUS declared Roman Catholicism to be a Religion of Peace?


Ah, if only Santorum were president elect of the United States right now...
 
2012-12-05 09:32:06 PM  

cynicalbastard: FlashHarry:

farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

I think most Muslims do consider themselves to be white, except the ones actually from Africa?


Most non-black Muslims are "orientals" now: Malaysians and Indonesians.
 
2012-12-05 09:33:21 PM  

douchebag/hater: Well, there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims and so far the bad Muslims are winning.

What's a bad Muslim? The ones that want to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Mohammed.

So all of you apologists who think that all Muslims are 'good and decent': Fark you, you're an idiot.


Who said ALL Muslims are good and decent? Citation?

If such a farker exists, then he or she is clearly an idiot, I agree. But I've never encountered this person.
 
2012-12-05 09:33:40 PM  

cynicalbastard: KillerAttackParrot: SithLord: sammyk: Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

Yeah. Let's just ask the residents of Constantinople what they think of the Religion of Peace.

You do realize that the first time Constantinople fell it was to the Christian 4th Crusade? The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.

And to be fair, when the Ottomans did take it in the 15th century, the first thing their sultan did after the obligatory rape and pillage was to allow Christians and Jews to carry on with their own places of worship, bring in traders, merchants and craftsmen, and turned it back into a thriving city. Heck, the average Christian probably found his life a lot more stable in Ottoman Istanbul than in, say, Paris or London. Likely a lot cleaner. And the Jews in the city could go about their daily business without worrying about being hunted for sport.


PSST. Knock it off with the factual history: you'll confuse them and they'll stone you.
 
2012-12-05 09:37:04 PM  
Part of it is that anti-Muslim fringe groups have learned how to essentially hack the media by taking advantage of the fact that reporters are drawn to highly visible displays of emotion and fear, argues Christopher Bail, a sociologist who studies the media at the University of North Carolina and University of Michigan Ric Romero.
 
2012-12-05 09:43:03 PM  
hubiestubert

What's not to like about the SAVAK?

//jk
//Winner winner (halal) chicken dinner!
 
2012-12-05 09:44:33 PM  
These are the same assholes that have been around for decades just made louder and more comfortable by the GOP which has found their bigotry more useful the past few years.
 
2012-12-05 09:46:11 PM  
TFA: "Muslim leaders are often angrier about terrorism than anyone else because they have to defend themselves on a daily basis, he said, but they don't let that anger show in public."


THIS. This is the problem. THIS is why people don't get taken seriously when they assert that most Muslims oppose terrorism.

Muslim leaders should be angry about terrorism NOT because it paints them in a bad light, but because people who subscribe to the religious/cultural institution of which they are leaders are f'ing killing people. And no - it's NOT enough to be privately, quietly "angry". (If you get angry at something that a child in your kindergarten does but don't speak up and tell the class that his actions were wrong, it will have no effect on their perception of his behavior and so the value of your anger is nil -- no matter how much you claim to feel it.)

So long as Muslim leaders are "angry" about terrorism because it's inconvenient and not because it's abhorrent, and as long as they keep quiet instead of speaking out and setting an example for their followers, people have every legitimate right to their skepticism/cynicism about the attitudes of the Muslim community at large toward terrorism.
 
2012-12-05 09:52:28 PM  

The One True TheDavid: lots of dogs redacted


/Why yes, I have been drinking this evening. Want to see me light a belch?


Uhm. Isn't that what you've been doing throughout the thread?

Here, you can borrow my Zippo.
 
2012-12-05 09:54:45 PM  

The One True TheDavid: trivial use of my dark powers: Diogenes: FlashHarry: farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

I think you're being too forgiving. Race and color aren't helping in the case of Muslims. But there's no limit to their intolerance and outright hate. Crap, alot of them don't even think Methodists are true Protestants.

Yeah. Methodists haven't signed on for burning the homogheys yet, so they're suspect.

AHEM.

From the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

¶ 304.3

While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. [emp. mine] Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals1 are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.2
1. "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual. See Judicial Council Decisions 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 844, 984.
2. See Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985.


This, the fact that they refuse to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human and only adopted by God after his baptism by John on the Jordan River, and their heinous papist practice of "baptising" infants who cannot know what is happening let alone accept it, are why I view them as heretics. And don't give me that Paul nonsense: the so-called Epistles of Paul, the Book of Acts and the "Gospel" of John are spurious later accretions canonized for Roman political reasons. But anyway.

As noted above, the UMC is fully and firmly on board in denying church office and full recognition to "self-avowed practicing homosexuals." Most Methodists I've met are nice enough and would not condone queerbashing, and there is a growing minority within the church to scrap the anti-gay stuff, but the enlightened position has not yet gained formal official acceptance by any General Conference.

If anybody knows of a mainline Protestant denomination other than the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that does officially ordain "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" and even marry them to each other please inform me. I do know that the more conservative Presbyterian church, the The Presbyterian Church in America, considers homosexuality to be sinful and perverted.


I'm sorry; I wasn't clear. They don't accept gays, but since they don't publically screech about the hell-boundedness of gays every chance they get, they're suspect to the fundies.

That's what I get for being lazy.
 
2012-12-05 09:57:11 PM  

seventypercent: Hey, Pam Geller, if you want people to take you seriously, get with the spoon-bending already.


Because everyone takes Uri Geller seriously....

/Still, I like it....
 
2012-12-05 10:00:20 PM  
Salon does a better job of implying all liberals must think Islam is a force for super niceness than Fox does of implying all Muslims want to asplode your babies. Drives me nuts.
 
2012-12-05 10:02:09 PM  

Calm: Salon does a better job of implying all liberals must think Islam is a force for super niceness


how do they do that?
 
2012-12-05 10:05:50 PM  
The One True TheDavid: lots of homosexual dogs redacted

Oh, also I found it interesting that you came into a Muslims AAGH thread with....teh gheys.

In case you didn't quite happen to notice, the thread is not about ghey people.
 
2012-12-05 10:06:26 PM  
The good news is that every single one of these assholes will die someday. They're a dying breed. Someday people like this will be viewed with just as much derision as white supremacists are viewed today. They used to be accepted too, but the rest of the world passed them by. Same thing will happen to people like Bachmann.
 
2012-12-05 10:07:24 PM  
You know who else is anti-Shariah? The Egyptian protestors that are currently being ignored.
 
2012-12-05 10:09:03 PM  

spmkk: it's NOT enough to be privately, quietly "angry"


Right.

CUZ IF'N YAIN'T A-HOLLERIN' ON TH' INNERNETS YEW DON' LUV 'MURKA!!!

No, Americans aren't actually required to show outrage to prove their patriotism.
Or wear flag pins.

In fact, your outrage doesn't prove your patriotism.
Just that you're a d*psh*t.
 
2012-12-05 10:11:28 PM  

Kittypie070: The One True TheDavid: lots of homosexual dogs redacted

Oh, also I found it interesting that you came into a Muslims AAGH thread with....teh gheys.

In case you didn't quite happen to notice, the thread is not about ghey people.


Did you notice that in that comment I was replying to a comment mentioning the Methodist's tolerance of gays?

Was it your ex-husband that came out or your son?
 
2012-12-05 10:18:17 PM  
I'd wager that Nidal Hasan did more to harm the Muslim cause than Michelle Bachmann ever could.
 
2012-12-05 10:22:53 PM  

Techhell: /Yes, it's a huge generalization. I used to work with a blond haired, blue eyed former Christian woman who converted to Islam for reasons that she tried to explain to me but made no sense. Something about being a better woman because she's a Muslim now and can wear the veil.


Shame is an incredibly powerful force among people who grew up with it, threw it off, and wake up one day with their lives not where they want it to be and look for any easy way out. The exact same force creates every born-again fundamentalist Christian.
 
2012-12-05 10:22:57 PM  

SirEattonHogg:

Interesting. Except the above poster so far, it's like all the fark atheists who were posting pretty loudly in the Charlie Brown Christmas thread suddenly just disappeared. I thought any possible attempt by religion to mix with government is wrong (Sharia would be that situation - the govt would accomodate it as a legal system within our secular legal system) no matter if it's Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, etc. etc.


I think that American atheists hate Christians (and maybe Jews) first. Islam hates these people also. So - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They won't hate on Islam but they sadly don't realize Islamists will kill them for their position once in complete power or they just don't think they could gain that much power. Europe is a good example of how wrong they are and they still don't see it.
 
2012-12-05 10:26:48 PM  

Mrbogey: Shariah law has some pretty brutal allowances. I don't understand how people who criticize the crazy things that orthodox Jews do try and concern troll over disdain for the crazy things permitted under Shariah.


Because they don't.
They're saying, "Hey, you Kansas Farktards! There is no danger that Sharia is going to take over your state!"
They're not saying that Sharia isn't every bit as farked up as any other religious laws.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report