The Left Loses Ground...

[Bfgrn]

Citing that disingenuous speech of Hitler's is almost as disingenuous as the speech itself.

REALLY???

 

[Kondor3]

Citing that disingenuous speech of Hitler's is almost as disingenuous as the speech itself.

REALLY???

Yes, really.

If you read 'Mein Kampf' in your student years and/or various subsequent analyes of Hitler's disingenuous and false showmanship-caliber deference towards Christianity, while simultaneously attempting to supplant it with German Paganism of a bygone age, and if you took a half-second to contemplate the manner in which he acted vis-a-vis the core teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and if you had the slightest glimmer of understanding of his contempt for Christianity in all its forms, you would realize just how foolish you sound, in insisting that Hitler was a Christian operating upon Christian principles. He was baptized a Christian, and pretended to be a nominal Christian, in order to gain power within and sustain his power within a Christian country, but he was about as far from both Jesus of Nazareth and mainstream Christianity as the Adromeda Galaxy is to us. Epic Fail.

I invite you to reconsider your position on this.

 

[Kondor3]

6. ".... not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues.

The ignorance of the OP is never far from the surface!

Quick Google search found the following religions endorsing same sex unions as of 2012.

Religious Groups Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage Pew Research Center

Episcopal Church
In July 2012, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church approved a liturgy for blessing same-sex relationships. The new liturgy, which will take effect in December 2012, falls short of a marriage rite. However, the “blessing” ceremony resembles the marriage ceremony in most ways, including an exchange of vows and agreement by the couple to be in a lifelong committed relationship.

The Episcopal Church has been moving toward recognition of same-sex marriage for some time. In 2006 the church stated its “support of gay and lesbian persons and [opposition to] any state or federal constitutional amendment” prohibiting same-sex marriages or civil unions (Resolution A095).

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a position the church’s General Assembly reaffirmed in 2010. In 2000, however, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – the denomination’s highest judicial body – issued a decision allowing Presbyterian ministers to bless same-sex unions as long as those ceremonies do not equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

United Church of Christ
In 2005, the United Church of Christ’s General Synod voted to legally recognize and advocate in favor of same-sex marriage.​

As usual PoliticalSpice is long on BS and falls way short on facts.

And the most staunch religious institution is changing...

Pope Says Church Is ‘Obsessed’ With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control

Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he had chosen not to talk about those issues despite recriminations from critics.

His surprising comments came in a lengthy interview in which he criticized the church for putting dogma before love, and for prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized. He articulated his vision of an inclusive church, a “home for all” — which is a striking contrast with his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, the doctrinal defender who envisioned a smaller, purer church.

Francis told the interviewer, a fellow Jesuit: “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”



Majority of U.S. Catholics’ opinions run counter to church on contraception, homosexuality

Pope Francis already has made headlines for several reasons in his six months as pontiff, but an interview that became public Thursday may contain some of his most attention-grabbing comments.

The pope said that the Roman Catholic church cannot be “obsessed” with imposing certain doctrines and that he wants to “find a new balance.” Although he did not directly mention abortion, gay marriage and contraception in that immediate context, he had referred specifically to those three issues earlier.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” Francis told Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal.

The church teaches that abortion, artificial contraception and homosexual activity are wrong. However, majorities of American Catholics have opinions on contraception and homosexuality that run counter to church doctrine.

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. About half (54%) of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, according to aggregated Pew Research data from this year, and just a third (33%) say homosexual behavior is a sin, according to a May survey.

Meaning, of course, that the definition of 'Sin' rests upon fickle and ever-changing survey polls, yes?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. ".... not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues.

The ignorance of the OP is never far from the surface!

Quick Google search found the following religions endorsing same sex unions as of 2012.

Religious Groups Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage Pew Research Center

Episcopal Church
In July 2012, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church approved a liturgy for blessing same-sex relationships. The new liturgy, which will take effect in December 2012, falls short of a marriage rite. However, the “blessing” ceremony resembles the marriage ceremony in most ways, including an exchange of vows and agreement by the couple to be in a lifelong committed relationship.

The Episcopal Church has been moving toward recognition of same-sex marriage for some time. In 2006 the church stated its “support of gay and lesbian persons and [opposition to] any state or federal constitutional amendment” prohibiting same-sex marriages or civil unions (Resolution A095).

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a position the church’s General Assembly reaffirmed in 2010. In 2000, however, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – the denomination’s highest judicial body – issued a decision allowing Presbyterian ministers to bless same-sex unions as long as those ceremonies do not equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

United Church of Christ
In 2005, the United Church of Christ’s General Synod voted to legally recognize and advocate in favor of same-sex marriage.​

As usual PoliticalSpice is long on BS and falls way short on facts.

It takes a dunce like you to doubt me.


For your sorely needed edification:

1. The percentage of Americans who attend and belong to a church has remained constant for over 70 years. But predominantly liberal mainline Protestant denominations have lost members for over 50 years. “From 1960 to 1988, mainline church membership declined from 31 million to 25 million, then fell to 21 million in 2005.[6][7]Today, they are a minority among American Protestants, claiming approximately 15 percent of American adults among their adherents.[8]” Mainline Protestant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
2. Could it be that their elite’s rejection of traditional beliefs and embrace of the Gospel of “social justice” has something to do with it? Another coincidence: the shift to the left started right around the time the Progressive era was getting into full swing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals ...

What are these Theocratic Goals?

Specifically?

(Reader, there are no theocratic goals, in the RFRA. Therefore there will be no answer from the above cited would-be 'contributor'.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

1. The percentage of Americans who attend and belong to a church has remained constant for over 70 years. But predominantly liberal mainline Protestant denominations have lost members for over 50 years. “From 1960 to 1988, mainline church membership declined from 31 million to 25 million, then fell to 21 million in 2005.[6][7]Today, they are a minority among American Protestants, claiming approximately 15 percent of American adults among their adherents.[8]” Mainline Protestant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
2. Could it be that their elite’s rejection of traditional beliefs and embrace of the Gospel of “social justice” has something to do with it? Another coincidence: the shift to the left started right around the time the Progressive era was getting into full swing.

6. ".... not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues.

The ignorance of the OP is never far from the surface!

Quick Google search found the following religions endorsing same sex unions as of 2012.

Religious Groups Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage Pew Research Center

Episcopal Church
In July 2012, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church approved a liturgy for blessing same-sex relationships. The new liturgy, which will take effect in December 2012, falls short of a marriage rite. However, the “blessing” ceremony resembles the marriage ceremony in most ways, including an exchange of vows and agreement by the couple to be in a lifelong committed relationship.

The Episcopal Church has been moving toward recognition of same-sex marriage for some time. In 2006 the church stated its “support of gay and lesbian persons and [opposition to] any state or federal constitutional amendment” prohibiting same-sex marriages or civil unions (Resolution A095).

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a position the church’s General Assembly reaffirmed in 2010. In 2000, however, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – the denomination’s highest judicial body – issued a decision allowing Presbyterian ministers to bless same-sex unions as long as those ceremonies do not equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

United Church of Christ
In 2005, the United Church of Christ’s General Synod voted to legally recognize and advocate in favor of same-sex marriage.​

As usual PoliticalSpice is long on BS and falls way short on facts.

It takes a dunce like you to doubt me.


For your sorely needed edification:

1. The percentage of Americans who attend and belong to a church has remained constant for over 70 years. But predominantly liberal mainline Protestant denominations have lost members for over 50 years. “From 1960 to 1988, mainline church membership declined from 31 million to 25 million, then fell to 21 million in 2005.[6][7]Today, they are a minority among American Protestants, claiming approximately 15 percent of American adults among their adherents.[8]” Mainline Protestant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
2. Could it be that their elite’s rejection of traditional beliefs and embrace of the Gospel of “social justice” has something to do with it? Another coincidence: the shift to the left started right around the time the Progressive era was getting into full swing.

So you really think that the Catholic Church's now comical opposition to contraception, that pretty much none of the rank and file of church's membership takes seriously, is some sort of symbol of liberalism losing ground?

Goddam that's a good one.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation -

...Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural...."

Why Miscegenation is being conflated with the irrational behavior consequential of mental disorder:

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.

In reality, thus in truth, there is no potential correlation between the decisions which set aside restrictions upon genetic minorities and the BEHAVIOR, OKA: Sexual Deviancy.

The attempt to correlate such, is a LIE, enjoying NO BASIS in reality and is not now and never been anywhere as popular as the idiots that advocate for it, would 'advise' you that it was or is.

It's just a lie, being passed along by immoral reprobates.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you really think that the Catholic Church's now comical opposition to contraception, that pretty much none of the rank and file of church's membership takes seriously, is some sort of symbol of liberalism losing ground?

Goddam that's a good one.

Says a God Damn Liar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Interracial marriage was "forced on us by a judge"...when everyone was against it too...

That's another canard they fall back on, until the judiciary does something they like.

Canard means 'unfounded.'

But you just admitted it has happened and will again.

Try not to pretend you SAT score has more than two digits.

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Oftentimes I suspect most posters don't bother to examine your posts with sufficient scrutiny to see how truly mental they are.

The above is a perfect example.

Note: her quote is supposed to prove why the power of judicial review is illegitimate.

A random bowl of alphabet soup could have produced as relevant a response.

 

[NYcarbineer]

History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation -

...Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural...."

Why Miscegenation is being conflated with the irrational behavior consequential of mental disorder:

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.

In reality, thus in truth, there is no potential correlation between the decisions which set aside restrictions upon genetic minorities and the BEHAVIOR, OKA: Sexual Deviancy.

The attempt to correlate such, is a LIE, enjoying NO BASIS in reality and is not now and never been anywhere as popular as the idiots that advocate for it, would 'advise' you that it was or is.

It's just a lie, being passed along by immoral reprobates.

It's not conflation. It's the historical record. Christian-based defenses of anti-miscegenation laws were commonplace.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you really think that the Catholic Church's now comical opposition to contraception, that pretty much none of the rank and file of church's membership takes seriously, is some sort of symbol of liberalism losing ground?

Goddam that's a good one.

Says a God Damn Liar.

If you want to argue that the Catholic prohibition on any artificial birth control is widely followed by Catholics,

by all means, let's hear it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oftentimes I suspect ...

LOL! Gilligan, what value do you suppose the value of your suspicion represents?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Interracial marriage was "forced on us by a judge"...when everyone was against it too...

That's another canard they fall back on, until the judiciary does something they like.

Canard means 'unfounded.'

But you just admitted it has happened and will again.

Try not to pretend you SAT score has more than two digits.

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Oftentimes I suspect most posters don't bother to examine your posts with sufficient scrutiny to see how truly mental they are.

The above is a perfect example.

Note: her quote is supposed to prove why the power of judicial review is illegitimate.

A random bowl of alphabet soup could have produced as relevant a response.

Let's get this on the record.

Your claim is that you lack the ability to understand Chief Justice Rehnquist's statement.


Stupidity is your defense!

Priceless!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you really think that the Catholic Church's now comical opposition to contraception, that pretty much none of the rank and file of church's membership takes seriously, is some sort of symbol of liberalism losing ground?

Goddam that's a good one.

Says a God Damn Liar.

If you want to argue that the Catholic prohibition on any artificial birth control is widely followed by Catholics,

by all means, let's hear it.

I don't worry about Catholics... The only thing I pointed out is that you're a liar.

If you want to argue that you've some inside information on which catholics do what, then by all means, let's hear it.

And as is always the case Gilligan, you aren't going to enjoy it.

But by all means... pray tell Gilligan, lay out the facts to which you specifically referred, when you assured the readers of this board that most Catholics do not adhere to Catholic principle.

Let us review your data... .

When ever you're ready Gilligan.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Citing that disingenuous speech of Hitler's is almost as disingenuous as the speech itself.

REALLY???

ROFLMNAO!
GOOD ONE!

Now post the Memes where Obama is a Christian...


LOL! I absolutely LOVE THOSE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nothin' comin' to mind there, Gilligan?

YA see, THAT is what I meant when I noted that you're a LIAR!

Now... do ya see how easy that was?

(Reader, Gilligan is presently pouring over Google in desperate search for how many Catholics use contraception. Which > IF < it came back with the names and addresses, with accompanying photos of every single Catholic in Catholic History buying contraception, that would not change the fact that it lied when it advised you that most catholics disregard the rules of their church. And what's more, that it is presently groping its way through google, proves that it KNOWS that it was lying when it advised you that something that it did NOT KNOW TO BE TRUTH, was truth. OKA: A LIE)

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's another canard they fall back on, until the judiciary does something they like.

Canard means 'unfounded.'

But you just admitted it has happened and will again.

Try not to pretend you SAT score has more than two digits.

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Oftentimes I suspect most posters don't bother to examine your posts with sufficient scrutiny to see how truly mental they are.

The above is a perfect example.

Note: her quote is supposed to prove why the power of judicial review is illegitimate.

A random bowl of alphabet soup could have produced as relevant a response.

Let's get this on the record.

Your claim is that you lack the ability to understand Chief Justice Rehnquist's statement.


Stupidity is your defense!

Priceless!

I understand it perfectly which means I know for certain that it is in no way a case for taking the power of judicial review away from the court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothin' comin' to mind there, Gilligan?

YA see, THAT is what I meant when I noted that you're a LIAR!

Now... do ya see how easy that was?

(Reader, Gilligan is presently pouring over Google in desperate search for how many Catholics use contraception. Which > IF < it came back with the names and addresses, with accompanying photos of every single Catholic in Catholic History buying contraception, that would not change the fact that it lied when it advised you that most catholics disregard the rules of their church. And what's more, that it is presently groping its way through google, proves that it KNOWS that it was lying when it advised you that something that it did NOT KNOW TO BE TRUTH, was truth. OKA: A LIE)

So you really think that the Catholic Church's now comical opposition to contraception, that pretty much none of the rank and file of church's membership takes seriously, is some sort of symbol of liberalism losing ground?

Goddam that's a good one.

Says a God Damn Liar.

If you want to argue that the Catholic prohibition on any artificial birth control is widely followed by Catholics,

by all means, let's hear it.

I don't worry about Catholics... The only thing I pointed out is that you're a liar.

If you want to argue that you've some inside information on which catholics do what, then by all means, let's hear it.

And as is always the case Gilligan, you aren't going to enjoy it.

But by all means... pray tell Gilligan, lay out the facts to which you specifically referred, when you assured the readers of this board that most Catholics do not adhere to Catholic principle.

Let us review your data... .

When ever you're ready Gilligan.

The Vatican itself has confirmed it:

Catholics divided on issues such as divorce and birth control - Telegraph

 

[Dot Com]

Interracial marriage was "forced on us by a judge"...when everyone was against it too...

That's another canard they fall back on, until the judiciary does something they like.

Canard means 'unfounded.'

But you just admitted it has happened and will again.

Try not to pretend you SAT score has more than two digits.

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Oftentimes I suspect most posters don't bother to examine your posts with sufficient scrutiny to see how truly mental they are.

The above is a perfect example.

Note: her quote is supposed to prove why the power of judicial review is illegitimate.

A random bowl of alphabet soup could have produced as relevant a response.

PoliticalSpice just "doesn't get it " that even Rightists avoid her word salad OP's like the plague

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nothin' comin' to mind there, Gilligan?

YA see, THAT is what I meant when I noted that you're a LIAR!

Now... do ya see how easy that was?

(Reader, Gilligan is presently pouring over Google in desperate search for how many Catholics use contraception. Which > IF < it came back with the names and addresses, with accompanying photos of every single Catholic in Catholic History buying contraception, that would not change the fact that it lied when it advised you that most catholics disregard the rules of their church. And what's more, that it is presently groping its way through google, proves that it KNOWS that it was lying when it advised you that something that it did NOT KNOW TO BE TRUTH, was truth. OKA: A LIE)

So you really think that the Catholic Church's now comical opposition to contraception, that pretty much none of the rank and file of church's membership takes seriously, is some sort of symbol of liberalism losing ground?

Goddam that's a good one.

Says a God Damn Liar.

If you want to argue that the Catholic prohibition on any artificial birth control is widely followed by Catholics,

by all means, let's hear it.

I don't worry about Catholics... The only thing I pointed out is that you're a liar.

If you want to argue that you've some inside information on which catholics do what, then by all means, let's hear it.

And as is always the case Gilligan, you aren't going to enjoy it.

But by all means... pray tell Gilligan, lay out the facts to which you specifically referred, when you assured the readers of this board that most Catholics do not adhere to Catholic principle.

Let us review your data... .

When ever you're ready Gilligan.

The Vatican itself has confirmed it:

Catholics divided on issues such as divorce and birth control - Telegraph

That doesn't help you Gilligan.

You're a liar. Plain and simple.