Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Vandalshandle]

Vandal...can I just use "Vandal" when I post to you...it is a little quicker...if not, I'll write your whole name...

Thanks for your civility, Bill. Just call me VH.

 

[bodecea]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, to start off with, he would have to renounce Judaism before he could become fit to be a member of a Christian Church. he certainly never did that during his lifetime.

The first Christians were all Jews.

Yes...and the later christians turned on the jews.

You're confusing Christians with the Progressivism of the early 20th Century. That was then as it is today, an exercise in abject, unadulterated evil.

 

[bodecea]

Well, to start off with, he would have to renounce Judaism before he could become fit to be a member of a Christian Church. he certainly never did that during his lifetime.

The first Christians were all Jews.

Yes...and the later christians turned on the jews.

You're confusing Christians with the Progressivism of the early 20th Century. That was then as it is today, an exercise in abject, unadulterated evil.

Oh, the christians turned on the jews well before the 20th century.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

Deny?
ROFL!

That's CRAZY IRONIC!

Your argument was just eviscerated.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

Deny what? You proved nothing.

Well, that's not quite true. You have proven that you don't understand how to debate. See, if you claim someone said or did something, you have to PROVE they actually said or did it. Not provide a link to three opinion pieces with say they did it.

How absurd

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, to start off with, he would have to renounce Judaism before he could become fit to be a member of a Christian Church. he certainly never did that during his lifetime.

The first Christians were all Jews.

Yes...and the later christians turned on the jews.

You're confusing Christians with the Progressivism of the early 20th Century. That was then as it is today, an exercise in abject, unadulterated evil.

Oh, the christians turned on the jews well before the 20th century.

Christians turned... it happens. Ya see, Christians are human beings, so they are inherently prone towards turning toward the illusion of 'the easy way'. (That's sorta the whole point for Christ coming here to provide us with God's grace, because on the whole, we're a pretty screwed up organism.)

Understand that all the Ideological Left is, is the means by which evil is advanced, politically. And there is no greater threat to the Jew, then the Ideological Left. The same goes for public money, cultural viability, and the lives of pre-born children.

OH! And white, anglo-saxon male Christians.

 

[bodecea]

Well, to start off with, he would have to renounce Judaism before he could become fit to be a member of a Christian Church. he certainly never did that during his lifetime.

The first Christians were all Jews.

Yes...and the later christians turned on the jews.

You're confusing Christians with the Progressivism of the early 20th Century. That was then as it is today, an exercise in abject, unadulterated evil.

Oh, the christians turned on the jews well before the 20th century.

Christians turned... it happens. Ya see, Christians are human beings, so they are inherently prone towards turning toward the illusion of 'the easy way'. (That's sorta the whole point for Christ coming here to provide us with God's grace, because in the whole, we're a pretty screwed up organism.)

Understand that all the Ideological Left is, is the means by which evil is advanced, politically. And there is no greater threat to the Jew, then the Ideological Left. The same goes for public money, cultural viability, and the lives of pre-born children.

OH! And white, anglo-saxon male Christians.

Pograms and anti-semitism....blaming that on the Ideological Left, are you?

 

[bodecea]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

Deny what? You proved nothing.

Well, that's not quite true. You have proven that you don't understand how to debate. See, if you claim someone said or did something, you have to PROVE they actually said or did it. Not provide a link to three opinion pieces with say they did it.

How absurd

Deny Deny Deny....you were given some very solid links plus all you have to do is google "christianity used to support slavery"....but you wish to deny what is there. That makes you worthy of pity and/or laughter. I'll take laughter.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Did you just put that out as an excuse?

Oh, I think the fact that gays aren't lining up to get married is certainly evidence of the fact that most gays don't give a shit about marriage.

But, we've already established that you are illogical, and dishonest so a reply isn't necessary here.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, to start off with, he would have to renounce Judaism before he could become fit to be a member of a Christian Church. he certainly never did that during his lifetime.

The first Christians were all Jews.

Yes...and the later christians turned on the jews.

You're confusing Christians with the Progressivism of the early 20th Century. That was then as it is today, an exercise in abject, unadulterated evil.

Oh, the christians turned on the jews well before the 20th century.

Christians turned... it happens. Ya see, Christians are human beings, so they are inherently prone towards turning toward the illusion of 'the easy way'. (That's sorta the whole point for Christ coming here to provide us with God's grace, because in the whole, we're a pretty screwed up organism.)

Understand that all the Ideological Left is, is the means by which evil is advanced, politically. And there is no greater threat to the Jew, then the Ideological Left. The same goes for public money, cultural viability, and the lives of pre-born children.

OH! And white, anglo-saxon male Christians.

Pograms and anti-semitism....blaming that on the Ideological Left, are you?

Anti-semitism is axiomatically synonymous with the ideological Left. Without one, there cannot be the other.

When you people are crying about the '1%, Banks, Corporations, THE RICH' you use those words and phrases because you really screwed up old-school ant-semitism, back in the 30s and 40s; to cry "KILL THE JEWS!" just can't be done anymore (by white folks), no matter how much ya really NEED to say it. That's why you people are so close to Islam. You both hate the Jews and have no means to recognize or engage in common sense. (FYI: Islam is the means through which evil is advanced, through religion).

It's the same with how socialists, turned from the chronic use of "communism". Then ya discredited THAT and moved to socialism, screwed that up by letting people know what ya meant by it, which menat ya had to then to turn to the old standard: 'liberal', from there to progressive, back to liberal, then to "No NAME!" (my personal fave) that flamed out in record time, and you're all BACK to progressive... you people are about NOTHING if not anti-semitism. And lying, stealing elections and murdering pre-born children... .

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

Deny what? You proved nothing.

Well, that's not quite true. You have proven that you don't understand how to debate. See, if you claim someone said or did something, you have to PROVE they actually said or did it. Not provide a link to three opinion pieces with say they did it.

How absurd

Deny Deny Deny....you were given some very solid links plus all you have to do is google "christianity used to support slavery"....but you wish to deny what is there. That makes you worthy of pity and/or laughter. I'll take laughter.

Look, I DESPISE dishonesty. If you have a quote from ANYONE of that era using Christianity to support slavery, post it, it's that simple. If you don't , well you won't post it.

The excuse of "you can read the links, or Google it yourself" won't cut it. You made a claim, back it up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

Deny what? You proved nothing.

Well, that's not quite true. You have proven that you don't understand how to debate. See, if you claim someone said or did something, you have to PROVE they actually said or did it. Not provide a link to three opinion pieces with say they did it.

How absurd

Deny Deny Deny....you were given some very solid links plus all you have to do is google "christianity used to support slavery"....but you wish to deny what is there. That makes you worthy of pity and/or laughter. I'll take laughter.

Look, I DESPISE dishonesty. If you have a quote from ANYONE of that era using Christianity to support slavery, post it, it's that simple. If you don't , well you won't post it.

The excuse of "you can read the links, or Google it yourself" won't cut it. You made a claim, back it up.

What you're describing there, in your opposition... is known as a default concession. Call it what it is... or give them the out, through the illusion that there was some miscommunication; which there wasn't.

You shot that argument down, caught it, then SLAMMED it with a spike and danced on its burning hulk! Solid work!

 

[bodecea]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

Deny?
ROFL!

That's CRAZY IRONIC!

Your argument was just eviscerated.

Argument? Those were simple facts. But feel free to deny deny deny.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

Deny?
ROFL!

That's CRAZY IRONIC!

Your argument was just eviscerated.

Argument? Those were simple facts. But feel free to deny deny deny.

This is hilarious, you posted no facts at all. It's simple post a single quote from ANYONE from that era using Christianity as an excuse for slavery. Not some link and tell me "to find the quote yourself" post the fucking quote if you have one. Hell, I'll take an ALLUSION to Christianity being used to support slavery . What I won't take is some OPINION that that is what people did simply because you dislike Christians because they think you're a sinner.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

Ah...deny deny deny....

Deny?
ROFL!

That's CRAZY IRONIC!

Your argument was just eviscerated.

Argument? Those were simple facts. But feel free to deny deny deny.

"Facts?"

LOL! What those were, were 'links' which you deceitfully used as a fraudulent means to imply facts, toward the goal of influencing, the ignorant.

Which were summarily exposed as such, by our fellow contributor. Since then, those would-be 'facts' have been known as "TOAST".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nonsense.


Whether gay Americans 'accept' allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment or not is completely irrelevant – one's civil liberties are not subject to opinion polls or popular vote.


This issue has nothing to do with 'normalizing homosexuality,' it has to do with gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights and the consistent application of Constitutional case law, where the states cannot make a class of persons a stranger to their laws.

Yet you insist on subjecting rights to government decrees that are swayed by opinion polls.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I have no agenda here, and no offense but in the 24 hours I've been aboard you come across as a whack job.
Maybe turn the rhetoric down from a 10 to 4?

Check. I got the drift from your George Washington crack. . . .

Your assessment is based on 24 hours, based on one topic, from one thread. Not very wise.

Your assumption that my view of inalienable rights relative to homosexuals was wrong, indeed, based on thin air. Not very wise.

The nonsensical suggestion that my reformulation of "First they came . . ." is not correct, when quite obviously the whole point was to make essentially the same point, albeit, with a slightly different emphasis it still a head scratcher. Not very wise, or should that be huh?

Are you even aware of the fact that Niemöller himself penned several versions of it to suit a number of different venues at which he spoke over the years?

Not very wise.

And that was the first time you presumed to tell me how to express myself on this forum. Hell, I have never presumed to tell anyone, not even lefty, how to express himself. Recall. "Shut the hell up" merely alludes to his hypocrisy.

But then, you're wrong, by the way, regarding your understanding of the Framer's original intent relative to the imperatives of natural law and nature's God, insofar as the perfection of that is concerned, in spite of the historical wrinkle of that peculiar institution.

And at this point, no doubt, you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about.

Where_r_my_Keys is correct about the distinction between the legitimacy of behavioral/ideological discrimination and the illegitimacy of discrimination based on the benign, morphological traits/features of humanity. But to understand why that’s true, one would have to have a background in the historical and philosophical development of the construct of natural law, and be especially familiar with its systematic formulation in Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government. After all, Locke's sociopolitical philosophy coupled with the Gournayian construct of laissez-faire are the essential core of this nation's founding ethos.

I'm not interested in your opinion in this case necessarily as I know better, but suffice it to say, it's perfectly consistent with the Framers' original intent, as anyone may known from Lockean natural law and the Federalist Papers, for the body politic to prohibit discrimination in commercial transactions among parties, with certain kinds of exceptions, of course, based on criteria that is contrary to the normal, universal facts of nature.

A number of the contradictions you alleged in your conversation with Where_r_my_Keys are illusory, though I might have argued the matter differently, because the body of the Constitution proper, before the judicial shenanigans of the Twentieth Century, and the Bill of Rights are not the whole story. Divorce the Constitution from the foundational construct of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, which entails the doctrine of nature's God, the Constitutional can be made to mean virtually whatever you want.

Of course, the World Watcher Solution is fine too. The key is equal and universal application.

Point?

You may not have the background in the history of ideas and events that I have, which is significant. You may not fully appreciate certain realities about the problem of evil and human nature as rightly understood by Locke, the Framers and others. You may not fully appreciate the essence of a certain agenda and the urgency of the current political climate. I do.

But in any event, I'll slam these murderous, statist thugs as hard as I please, as it suits me and my agenda, not yours. You don't know about the insanely monstrous ideas that have been sported by a number of the people on this thread, especially by Clayton Jones, over the years.

But by all means feel free to think or say whatever you please. I would never presume to suggest otherwise. But, please, and I'm asking you, not telling you, as you impertinently told me, not once, but twice, don't bore me with anymore of these drive-bys that don't amount to anything. You'll find me to be reasonable and civil in any discussion as along as you keep it real and interesting.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I have no agenda here, and no offense but in the 24 hours I've been aboard you come across as a whack job.
Maybe turn the rhetoric down from a 10 to 4?

Check. I got the drift from your George Washington crack. . . .

Your assessment is based on 24 hours, based on one topic, from one thread. Not very wise.

Your assumption that my view of inalienable rights relative to homosexuals was wrong, indeed, based on thin air. Not very wise.

The nonsensical suggestion that my reformulation of "First they came . . ." is not correct, when quite obviously the whole point was to make essentially the same point, albeit, with a slightly different emphasis it still a head scratcher. Not very wise, or should that be huh?

Are you even aware of the fact that Niemöller himself penned several versions of it to suit a number of different venues at which he spoke over the years?

Not very wise.

And that was the first time you presumed to tell me how to express myself on this forum. Hell, I have never presumed to tell anyone, not even lefty, how to express himself. Recall. "Shut the hell up" merely alludes to his hypocrisy.

But then, you're wrong, by the way, regarding your understanding of the Framer's original intent relative to the imperatives of natural law and nature's God, insofar as the perfection of that is concerned, in spite of the historical wrinkle of that peculiar institution.

And at this point, no doubt, you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about.

Where_r_my_Keys is correct about the distinction between the legitimacy of behavioral/ideological discrimination and the illegitimacy of discrimination based on the benign, morphological traits/features of humanity. But to understand why that’s true, one would have to have a background in the historical and philosophical development of the construct of natural law, and be especially familiar with its systematic formulation in Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government. After all, Locke's sociopolitical philosophy coupled with the Gournayian construct of laissez-faire are the essential core of this nation's founding ethos.

I'm not interested in your opinion in this case necessarily as I know better, but suffice it to say, it's perfectly consistent with the Framers' original intent, as anyone may known from Lockean natural law and the Federalist Papers, for the body politic to prohibit discrimination in commercial transactions among parties, with certain kinds of exceptions, of course, based on criteria that is contrary to the normal, universal facts of nature.

A number of the contradictions you alleged in your conversation with Where_r_my_Keys are illusory, though I might have argued the matter differently, because the body of the Constitution proper, before the judicial shenanigans of the Twentieth Century, and the Bill of Rights are not the whole story. Divorce the Constitution from the foundational construct of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, which entails the doctrine of nature's God, the Constitutional can be made to mean virtually whatever anything you want.

Of course, the World Watcher Solution is fine too. The key is equal and universal application.

Point?

You may not have the background in the history of ideas and events that I have, which is significant. You may not fully appreciate certain realities about the problem of evil and human nature as rightly understood by Locke, the Framers and others. You may not fully appreciate the essence of a certain agenda and the urgency of the current political climate. I do.

But in any event, I'll slam these murderous, statist thugs as hard as I please, as it suits me and my agenda, not yours. You don't know about the insanely monstrous ideas that have been sported by a number of the people on this thread, especially by Clayton Jones, over the years.

But by all means feel free to think or say whatever you please. I would never presume to suggest otherwise. But, please, and I'm asking you, not telling you, as you impertinently told me, not once, but twice, don't bore me with anymore of these drive-bys that don't amount to anything. You'll find me to be reasonable and civil in any discussion as along as you keep it real and interesting.

 

[bodecea]

Nonsense.


Whether gay Americans 'accept' allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment or not is completely irrelevant – one's civil liberties are not subject to opinion polls or popular vote.


This issue has nothing to do with 'normalizing homosexuality,' it has to do with gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights and the consistent application of Constitutional case law, where the states cannot make a class of persons a stranger to their laws.

Yet you insist on subjecting rights to government decree3s that are swayed by opinion polls.

So...what's your take on judges and courts making these decisions?