published Thursday, August 12th, 2010

The Winner

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

117
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
OllieH said...

LOL.

Very funny, Clay!

August 12, 2010 at 12:09 a.m.
Salsa said...

I doubt that the Imam would allow it.

August 12, 2010 at 12:18 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Now THAT'S tolerance. Great toon.

August 12, 2010 at 1:55 a.m.
EaTn said...

This toon reminds me of the old joke about the church deciding to recognize the most humble person in their congregation. They finally decided that Uncle Bob was by far the most humble among them, but when he came forward in the Sunday service to accept the award they had to take it back.

August 12, 2010 at 6:27 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Tolerance for unwanted unborn babies, or does Mr Bennett approve of murdering them?

Tolerance for Sarah Palin, or slander her?

Tolerance for Christians and other non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, or does their plight not interest Mr Bennett? I'd think he could find something cartoonable in a country where women can neither drive nor vote, and where the law forbids Muslims to become Christians and forbids Christians to build church buildings.

Tolerance for wondering whether liberalism could be narrow-minded and hypocritical....

www.lohr84.com

August 12, 2010 at 6:34 a.m.
chattreb said...

They would hang em before they would marry em.

August 12, 2010 at 6:50 a.m.
woody said...

I used to think I was fairly tolerant, then I read what Andrew just posted.

Actually, Clay, your 'toon' today goes right to the heart of the matter. In our misguided efforts to be 'everything to everybody' here in the U.S. we have gone from a 'majority rules' type of society to one in which any and every minority that comes along is more powerful than the last.

It's okay to give each its own 'props', so to speak, but a line must be drawn when what 'they' want doesn't gel well with what is best for the country, as a whole.

What's best for the country, as a whole, is what makes this country great. Our tolerance and diversity makes us strong, but as Lincoln urged, "...a house divided...."

Good morning, Woody

August 12, 2010 at 7:11 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

woody on: August 12, 2010 at 7:11 a.m. "we have gone from a 'majority rules' type of society to one in which any and every minority that comes along is more powerful than the last."

No.. you must be one of those stains that think their rights are being taken away.

It is not that every minority is being more powerful the the last... it's that all men are born equal and should be treated as such and not as second class citizens... slowly the rights of all will equal out, with or without the aide of the christains or islamics

Quoting Lincoln "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

If you want to live in a caste system, move to India. You should be able to get a tech support job.

August 12, 2010 at 8 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I would not expect everyone to accept all things that all people are and do. However, I would expect the government to protect the rights of all people, regardless of who they are. Applyng the constitution to protect the rights of gays ("equal protection under law") will not make those that abhor homosexuality change their minds. It doesn't have to. Although I would not equate this with equal rights for women or minorities (I don't believe gay men were ever denied the right to vote or hold property) there is a similarity. It will take generations to reduce the bigotry towards gays. Blacks and women, as well as those of other religions were discriminated against for a long time, and in some sense still are even though protected by law. But generations of diverse people forced together by changing laws have learned to work together and from exposure have learned that we are not so different after all.

Just like today, most (not all) people have no problem with marriage across religious and racial lines, and women/minorities in high positions in government, business, and the miltary, in some future our citizenry will have no problem with gays and lesbians.

August 12, 2010 at 8:07 a.m.
Conrad said...

"Tolerance for unwanted unborn babies, or does Mr Bennett approve of murdering them? Tolerance for Sarah Palin, or slander her? Tolerance for Christians and other non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, or does their plight not interest Mr Bennett? I'd think he could find something cartoonable in a country where women can neither drive nor vote, and where the law forbids Muslims to become Christians and forbids Christians to build church buildings. Tolerance for wondering whether liberalism could be narrow-minded and hypocritical...."

This toon just went right over you head didn't it? Tell me. Is ignorance bliss?

August 12, 2010 at 8:16 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

AndrewLohr wrote: Tolerance for Christians and other non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia(?)

I've heard this argument before. Christians are discriminated against in Saudi Arabia (or another Islamic nation) so why do we tolerated Muslims here?

I was about to write, DUH!, but then I realized some of you probably wish America were more theocratical.

As a christian, how can you discriminate against Muslims and then say you are better than them.

If you really believe your god is better than their god, why don't you wonder WWJD?

August 12, 2010 at 8:35 a.m.
bret said...

Odd that Mr. Lohr points out the intolerance of other nations, and yet wants us to be just like them. I like to think we are better than them.

August 12, 2010 at 8:46 a.m.
hambone said...

I didn't know it came with an asterik?

"with liberty and justice for all" *

  • exceptions Gays Those that have an abortion Muslums blacks Hispanics democrats Indians (both Souix and Bombay) Orientals people on the left lefthanded people Liberals people who don't watch Foxy News and all others you don't agree with
August 12, 2010 at 9:36 a.m.
Clara said...

I used to be somewhat unhappy about the fact that a prisoner would cost about $30,000 a year to maintain, (Probably more now.), about three times what I get in Social Security. Then I thought about all the people who would lose their jobs if we freed them...the loss of guard pay, construction workers, food handlers, staff, etc.

August 12, 2010 at 9:56 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Hambone, I have known many liberals who are intolerant of anything on the right (much like many of the posters on this very site) BTW, I'm left handed and on the right. I guess I'm intolerant of myself, huh?

August 12, 2010 at 10:58 a.m.
kitdoc said...

I get what Clay's saying but shouldn't he have put his own face on this character since he obviously is in support of these things? Just a thought...

August 12, 2010 at 11:25 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

MusicMan375

Just because I may disagree with you doesn't mean I don't tolerate you.

Free speech.

Free to agree and disagree without risk of prosecution.

Too many think anyyone who disagrees with them is evil.

Hope you're not one of them.

August 12, 2010 at 12:05 p.m.
BobMKE said...

To Dewey60 amd the other Lib's,

The Democratic party has moved to the far left. It is NOT the party of John F. Kennedy, A. Stevenson, Truman, L. Johnson anymore. In the late 60's the party started moving to the left with Humprey, McGovern, Carter I, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and now the real far lefty Jimmy Carter II. And here we are in the present time with naive people still thinking this is the old Democratic party. A good portion of the people listed above who are voting Democratic feel that they are victim's and are in the need of Government handouts. "We are getting money from Obama's stash." Big government is their Daddy. They have Hope but it really doesn't happen. The Libs just use them to get elected. Ask our citizens this, do you want a job? Or do you want handouts? Do you know of anyone who ever got a job from a poor person? People who took the chance to create a business and hire people, are they evil? Union workers vote Democratic because they want to keep their tax payer funded jobs but God forbide that they have to be fiscal responsible. Next budget will always be higher, and again more power for the Libs. Do they like to keep paying higher and higher taxes? Do you Dewwey? When there are more people in the cart then pulling the cart it is the end and then what do we do. As I said before, the silent majority have finally awoken. The people who are running as Democrats now realize that they can no longer be associated with the far left of the party. Watch the elections this fall and again in 2012. No threats, just my humbled opinion.

August 12, 2010 at 12:23 p.m.
harrystatel said...

As to straight marriage, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, or any other form of voluntary association, it's none of my business. I don't care.

I am opposed to any government decree that would legitimize one form of voluntary association over another. What right has the State to get its nose in private matters between consenting adults?

The State that can tell you who you can or cannot voluntarily associate with is a State that will dictate what you must or must not do. That's the inherent problem of all governments.

For a libertarian approach to "marriage" and other restrictions of government, here is a great read and that can be saved to your computer.Read at your own risk as it may change your opinions so the scared, timid, religious fanatics, and bleaters (sheep supported by government) may faint from fear.

"Bourbon for Breakfast" — Jeffrey Tucker, Chapter 45, page 209

http://mises.org/books/bourbon_for_breakfast.pdf

Enjoy the book.

Harry Statel

harrystatel.wordpress.com

August 12, 2010 at 12:29 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Thanks for your comment, blackwater. I am not one of those.

My point was that Hambone's exceptions seemed to me to be what he considers the conservatives showing of intolerance without showing any from the other side. Many liberals, like many conservative, do show intolerance toward people of different minds, so why post only half the story in hopes of fooling someone into believing that's all there is to it?

August 12, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

"Thanks for your comment, blackwater. I am not one of those."

Just to be clear on this, it wasn't directed at you in a derogatory manner. Seriously, thanks for saying that. It's nice be reminded of that type of thing, from time to time, on a forum such as this. I do have some very liberal friends, and we get along very well... as long as we don't discuss politics. hehe :P

August 12, 2010 at 12:51 p.m.
nucanuck said...

BobMKE,

I agree,liberal Democrats are moving closer to the teachings of Jesus.

...more of a we society than a me society.

August 12, 2010 at 1 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Just as Democrats are becoming more "left", Republicans are becoming more "right"; since Billy Graham established a relationship with Richard Nixon, and then went on to influence Reagan and both Bushes, the religious right has gained a toehold in the Republican Party, making religion (read: fundamentalist Christianity) and its social agenda (abortion, gays, creationism, guns and prayer in schools) a leading foundation for Republican Party platforms. Although as a liberal, I would like responsible government, less waste, lower taxes, and welfare cheats exposed and removed from the teat, I will not vote for a party that interferes with my private life the way the extreme right will do, or a party in which a good proportion desires a biblical government, and the more moderates don't have the guts to tell them to STFU.

After the last Bush, I see that big business had a stronger hand in his government, and I think business has too strong an influence on Obama's, too. That seems to be a characteristic of both parties, though. To quote an old "Bloom County" cartoon, the system of government that we have in the US is "money talks".

August 12, 2010 at 1:17 p.m.
whoknows said...

eeeeeek: The words "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" was written in the Declaration of Independence. 30 years before Lincoln's birth, so was probably a phrase of Thomas Jefferson. Just to clarify.
But they are many more words after that. Most importantly those saying that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Continuing to say that we, as a people have the right to live our lives as we want. And if our government ever develops into one of oppression, tyranny, or destructive to its own people, we have the right to overthrow it. I understand forgetting who or what the phrase was from. But do not misquote it in the form that you did.
We all are created equal. That does not mean we remain equal. Do you really think you are equal to… Clay Bennett? With an imagination so great that in even his simplest of cartoons he can make people mad, happy, cry, laugh, or any other multitude of emotions? Are you equal to Bill Gates? Are you smart enough to start and maintain a multi-billion dollar corporation that everyone said you were crazy to even try? Are you equal to Obama? Are you suave and smooth talking enough to deceive more than half a nation? (sorry, just had to throw that one in there). So, because of that, do you think you should be given part of Clay’s salary, or part of Bill’s salary, or part of Obama’s salary every year to make up for your ineptitude in the skills they have? Yes, we are created equal with the same rights. As the Declaration of Independence said. But we are not equal with the same talents and abilities, which is why the Declaration did not state that. But if you think that we are all created equal, and should therefore be treated equally? Do you agree that there should be set up black only scholarships? Or black only schools? As there are now? Should there be minority provisions by the government, that say just because you are black, Mexican, or anything else not white, you can get government aide in most every aspect of your life? Including acts such as EOE to make employers think that if they don’t have at least a few people of race on staff (even if they are not qualified to do the job) they can get fined or shut down? I would much rather make it on my own merit, which I do, than take advantage of being a minority. So putting words in Woody’s mouth, he is losing his rights as a white American, as he does not have the same rights as a minority American, simply because he is not one. Is that treating us equally? Woody’s post was spot on. We, as a nation, have pushed to be SO politically correct, that we are dividing the nation further by trying to be so inclusive. The only way, as you put it, that “the rights of all will equal out” is if we actually treat everyone the same, no matter their race, creed, religion, or philosophy.

August 12, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.
hambone said...

What a bunch of knukleheads!! My point is it does not and never has come with an asterik* No matter who when what or how you are there is no asterik* in "liberty and justice for all"

August 12, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.
hambone said...

Very good Dewey!! I have only been posting on here a few days but what has become clear to me is that a lot of people are educated beyond their intellegence, They will use up a lot of bytes saying something when really what they are saying can be found on the ground in a barnyard!!

August 12, 2010 at 2:04 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

whoknows -- my bad... quoted from the wrong text file.. hard at work and absent minded.

"our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

It is well known, and well written about(except maybe in Texas) that Lincoln believed wholeheartedly in the previous mention quote from the constitution.

And ALL will be equal one day...

August 12, 2010 at 2:28 p.m.
whoknows said...

eeeeeek: "It is well known, and well written about(except maybe in Texas) that Lincoln believed wholeheartedly in the previous mention quote from the constitution." The "except maybe in Texas" cracked me up! Thanks.

And you are more optimistic than I am.
I agree with Lincoln completely. Is making people unequal due to race, truly the way to bring about equality, though? Or is letting (wo)mankind, no matter what (s)he is or believes, be themselves, promote themselves, motivate themselves or break themselves as evil as many want us to believe? I think not. What are you, then, but a leech living off of other people's prosperity if you insist on living off of what is given to you, because of your unequal, minority status?

August 12, 2010 at 2:38 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Yes, eeeeeek, we'll ALL be equal one day.

When we're dead.

Not trying to be funny.

Most of us are too busy trying to "eke" out a living to pay attention.

August 12, 2010 at 3:01 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

me thinks dewey and hambone are one and the same... unless there are 2 idiots that think the exact same way around here.

August 12, 2010 at 3:01 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

In the future I envision, everyone will feel the need to better themselves to better humanity. Those who have mental and physical problems will have access equipment that will make them productive and share in the future.

There will still be leaders and followers, but hopefully most of the greed of want will be stamped out, as it is the main "evil"

August 12, 2010 at 3:17 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

dream on eeeeeeek. It is only down hill from here I am afraid.

August 12, 2010 at 3:20 p.m.
Clara said...

My lone remark at 9:56 a.m. after a long dry spell, sounds absolutely stupid! Been in the hospital, still recovering, computer failure, etc. I guess I'm turning senile, too.

Sorry!

August 12, 2010 at 3:29 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

A great man once said the root of all evil is anger, greed, and stupidity, or any combination thereof.

I'm on your side.

I'm reminded of the song lyrice:

Somewhere over the rainbow skies are blue, And the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true."

There's always hope.

August 12, 2010 at 3:37 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Clara, I'm glad to see you're recovering. Welcome back! Now we just need to figure out where rolando and walden have been hiding.

August 12, 2010 at 3:49 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Stop voting Republican.

Geeeessshhhhhhh

Dewayne Callahan East Ridge Username: dewey60 | On: August 12, 2010 at 1:40 p.m.


You got the point but you should have said........

Start voting Independent !

August 12, 2010 at 5:53 p.m.
FM_33 said...

SSM......is not new the bible that certain people had been doing this act for years back in the old testament days.

The issue is what does God say about it ?

What is the punishment for people who would like to break this divine law ?

Any takers on this one.

August 12, 2010 at 5:56 p.m.
FM_33 said...

SSM......is not new the bible said that certain people had been doing this act for years back in the old testament days.

The issue is what does God say about it ?

What is the punishment for people who would like to break this divine law ?

Any takers on this one.

  • correction of other post *
August 12, 2010 at 5:57 p.m.
FM_33 said...

See how easy this is. Thats just a tip of the iceberg. I could fill pages with stuff like this. Thats why I will always ALWAYS be a Democrat. I know the Democrats have their problems also,but thats fine with me.

Dewayne Callahan East Ridge Username: dewey60 | On: August 12, 2010 at 8:41 a.m.


Dewayne with that said may i ask you a question and please don't get pissed off at me ok........

Would you say that you're more of a

  1. Moderate Democrat

  2. Progresssive Democrat

and your answer is ?

August 12, 2010 at 6:01 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Very good Dewey!! I have only been posting on here a few days but what has become clear to me is that a lot of people are educated beyond their intellegence, They will use up a lot of bytes saying something when really what they are saying can be found on the ground in a barnyard!! Username: hambone | On: August 12, 2010 at 2:04 p.m.


Hey hambone more like an outhouse.

August 12, 2010 at 6:31 p.m.
hambone said...

Dewey, "nurseforjustice" thinks we are one and the same. We should sue for slander. You go first.

August 12, 2010 at 7:20 p.m.
Clara said...

Musicman,

Don't forget Canary! I've been following a bit on the library computer, but half an hour twice a week doesn't cover what I missed, and haven't been able to catch up. Also, a lot of the cartoons by Clay, although excellent, were beyond my knowledge to write anything coherent.

August 12, 2010 at 7:35 p.m.
softnotes37 said...

You said every thing that a lot Americans think but with a smile. Well, I guess that makes me a bad guy.

August 12, 2010 at 8:28 p.m.
Allison12 said...

Missed the mark for interesting.

August 13, 2010 at 7:33 a.m.
quietreader said...

Clara, I think a lot of the old regulars got tire of reading the garbage being dumped here these days.

August 13, 2010 at 9:47 a.m.
caddy said...

Wow Dewayne, LOL ! I'm thinking Turnip Truck !

August 13, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

quietreader, that is basically where I am. The dewey decimating system has been up to it again.

Hambone, go ahead and sue. You and your boyfriend are the slanderers... and you can't get blood from a turnip.

August 13, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
caddy said...

I'm just thinking how that t-shirt might read 20,30,40,50 years from now given our current skewed emphasis on Tolerance.

August 13, 2010 at 10:39 a.m.
Clara said...

quitreader,

I think you are right! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dewayne Callahan,

I see you posted about 14 times on this blog. I think 3 to 5 merged would be enough. That's usually about the average.

I do think you make some good points, but try to get it into less space.

August 13, 2010 at 10:49 a.m.
caddy said...

It seems to me the "goal" of tolerance is that we may one day tolerate almost anything. Wasn't it Nietzsche who said, "I love him who does not have too many virtues" ?

He went on, "One virtue is more than two, because it is more of a noose on which his catastrophe may hang."

Our ancestors spoke frequently about virtue and God-given morality, a law that was "written on the heart" of every man, instilled in every man--but suppressed equalled by all. Our problem: We know the good but can't keep it. We know right from wrong but don't care to do it. We would rather "tolerate" the pet sins of others because we have our own. No one wants their own sin condemned now do they? We nurture those things as we would a favorite puppy. They are ours! Who would condemn me but my conscious; and that was seared long ago. What's to stop the onslaught of what is tolerated given the moving target of morality we've made for ourselves ?

So, how did we get here ? The usual way of betraying a vocation or piece of knowledge is through neglect. Betrayal can also be accomplished through continued indulgence of our pet sin or vice.

So, let's call tolerance what it really is: Ethical neutrality. The problem is, we all really know better. Some things we want to be neutral are anything but, things that ought not be tolerated.

August 13, 2010 at 12:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Being tolerant of (and treating equally) gays and lesbians is hardly "ethically neutral".

August 13, 2010 at 12:31 p.m.
caddy said...

Who says Ikeithlu ? The State ? There is a higher law than the state. For many the state is a Father, a maker of rules, even of morality and right. By rejecting metaphysical universals and locating law in the will of men rather than in the will of God, we have created a new order, a "new theology" and philosophy. This new philosophy is really nothing new because there is "nothing new under the sun." This seemingly new buzz word has stripped much subsequent Western thought of a universal foundation for morality and reduced civil law to the arbitrary will of the legislator. I contend, we all really know better. We just suppress what we already know to be true. Shoving things into places they weren't designed has never made moral or logical sense, but we've always "known" that. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we "ought" to do something. But I contend, we know that too. We want what we want though don't we ? Roman Polanski and Woody Allen would be proud of your stance ikethlu.

August 13, 2010 at 12:57 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Roman Polanski, as I understand, had sex with an underage female. That is wrong, because the girl was a victim (too young to be able to consent to such activity). That is ETHICALLY wrong, because someone's rights were violated. (I don't know Woody Allen's story, but I have to assume he did not break the law. That he was sleazy, well, it's not against the law to be sleazy)

Last I checked, this was a nation governed by constitution, not a theocracy. If you can make a secular argument or a constitutional argument to discriminate against those who are gay, then let's hear it. But don't wave your bible at me and claim that it can be used to deny full rights to a citizen of this country.

August 13, 2010 at 1:06 p.m.
caddy said...

Ikethlu, homosexuality used to be "wrong" at one time in our land, ( though it has always been 'around') as was abortion, marrying in one's family.

Many want Polanski back in the country, thinking he's served his time, though he's not served any time for his crime.

Allen married his step-daughter. In his words: "The heart wants what the heart wants." The point I am trying to make is: these types of evils have always existed, but we've always known they were wrong as well. A thief may continue to steal, but a thief also hates it when someone steals from him. We don't really have to ask why now do we ?

You are right. We do not live in a theocracy ( and I'm am not proposing one), but every good law we have has come from God above. That too, we can't deny, but that too, as you allude, we'd rather not like to think about too much.

Just as there are civil penalties for breaking the human law, so there are natural penalties for breaking the natural law--and for those who don't read the road signs, they are one of the ways it is known. This too is a part of our desgin, but it is the way the design kicks back when we ignore it: the witness of natural consequences.

For breaking the foundational moral principles which "We Can't Not Know," one penalty is guilty knowledge, because deep down we can't help but know the truth. For breaking ANY precepts of the natural law, foundational or in the upper stories, there are other penalties too. Those who cut themselves bleed. Those who give offense to others are hated. Those who live by knives die by them. Those hwo betray all their friends have none left. Those who abandon their children have none to stroke their brows when they are old. Those who torture their consciences are tortured by them in return. Those who suppress their moral knowledge become stupider than they had intended. Those who refuse the one in whose image they are made live as strangers to themselves. We see that the principle tha tGod is not mocked, that whatever one sows he reaps, is woven int the fabric of our nature. Not all our disobedience can unravel a single stitch, try though we might. Some penalties show up within the lifetime of the individual. Ecclesiastes, however, shows us that justice doesn't always come in this life; others may tarry until several generations have persisted in the same wrongdoing. But the penalties for defiance are cumulative, and eventually they can no longer be ignored.

Edward Gibbon told us Rome crumbled from within. It wasnt' the Visigoths and hording bands, but moral laxity. Rome had many gods, just as American -- now -- has many gods. The latest one is called "tolerace." It is just another in the long line of gods that is making America crumble from within.

August 13, 2010 at 1:41 p.m.
Duford said...

You're all missing the real argument:

Why does the government have ANY say in marriage?

Is marriage a governmental institution?

Or is it an arrangement between two individuals, at a minimum (and a higher power at the max)?

Why do married couples get a privileged status in the eyes of government?

Better yet, is it even MORAL to step in the way between to consenting adults and their decisions, given it causes no harm to you?

Something for all of you to think about.

August 13, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.
caddy said...

I like Calvin's comment:

"Section 15. Distinction to be made between Spiritual and Civil government. These must not be confounded. How far conscience can be bound by human constitutions. Definition of conscience. Definition explained by passages from the Apostolic writings.

Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to performs (see 4.10.3 - 6). To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom."

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/html/institutes/index.html

Calvin's Institues, 3.19.15

August 13, 2010 at 1:47 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Duford

A voice of reason.

August 13, 2010 at 1:48 p.m.
caddy said...

How do you know what is a harm to you or me Duford? Can you see the events and maschinations in every detail worked out in the lives of other men? You presume you know these things by making a broad statement. How do you KNOW them from beginning to end ?

Every man's sin affects not only his own person but others as well. When I know something that is right and I fail to do it, the harm or inaction not only affects me, but affects the person to whom I should have done right by.

Rationalzation is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.

August 13, 2010 at 1:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

caddy, I am still waiting for the constitutional or secular argument (as we are not a government based on religion) as to why gays and lesbians deserve to be treated differently than any other adult citizen. What Calvin or the Bible says is not my concern, as I am a non-believer and don't subscribe to religious or spiritual notions (and this is why I live in the US, where my freedoms and rights are based on a constitution) When you can articulate these, then we have a basis for conversation. Until then, you are just imposing your religious views on others.

August 13, 2010 at 1:53 p.m.
caddy said...

Ikeithlu, The overarching question is: "Is there a law above the law of man?"

For you the answer is no: the law of man is suprememe. Your Father is the state and His rules trump all others.

Just remember, one of our founders, though not perfect by any stretch of the imagination stated: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."

The question then will be: "What recourse will you have then" ?

Humanistic man--of which you allude to being--wants total liberty, but he does not realize that total liberty leads only to total anarchy, and that leads to the death of law and liberty. Unless every man's liberty is limted by law, no liberty is possible for any one. Again, there are laws of men and there are laws we can't deny to be right even though our government says otherwise.

In the Western world, we have the cynicism of Machiavelli concerning man, and hence the need for the control of most men by the superior few. We have Locke's passive, neutral man whose mind is a blank paper, and we also have the good, natural man, derived from one facet of Rousseau's thought.

These--and your--various forms of humanism all assume either a common goodness or neutrality in all men, or else a common evil which an elite group can escape. This evil is curable by man. For you, the constitutional argument is supreme. Freedom is thus a possiblity for man through man and by natural means. The two basic instruments for the natural salvation of man are, first, education, and, second, state planning and control. Both of these instruments are in full use today.

FWIW: I'm all for being gracious to those with sinful habits, addictions, bents, if you must know. Why? Because all men, including myself have been controlled by one or more at different times. I don't want the liberty, however, of determing the "good" and the "right" but in obeying what I know to be the good and the right.

August 13, 2010 at 2:18 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm still not hearing an effective argument for denying gays their full rights as citizens.

August 13, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
caddy said...

I am not suggesting we deny their rights as citizens. I am simply suggesting we--as a nation--not condone their sin and behavior by enacting laws ( striking down others, i.e Prop 8 ) that favor their spread and proliferation.

With that said, we are far past that mentality in America though aren't we ikeithlu ?

Whoever said "America is great because she is good" is on the verge of seeing her steady decline--and all in the name of progress and toleration.

August 13, 2010 at 2:34 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

At one time homosexuality was a very accepted in the Americas.. even honored and cherished as they were believed to be special beings touched by the "higher spirits".

It wasn't until the Europeans came with their "values" that began to change..

Your assignment today is to research the two-spirited (the adopted European term)

August 13, 2010 at 3:05 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

caddy said:

"With that said, we are far past that mentality in America though aren't we ikeithlu ?

Whoever said "America is great because she is good" is on the verge of seeing her steady decline--and all in the name of progress and toleration."

I would like to know just what we have done that warrants this assessment. After all, the more things change, the more they stay the same:

Child sexual abuse-check-been going on for centuries, even in the church Alcohol abuse-check-going on for millenia Drug abuse-might be that meth replaces laudenum or opium, but drug abuse is not unique to the 20th century. Minorities become full citizens-how is that not a good thing? Women gain control over their sexuality (of course, before the 60's they had some control, and many died because they exercised that control) Sex outside of marriage-check-been going on for generations Animal neglect and abuse-check-ditto

The difference between the "good old days" and now is not that these behaviors did not exist then, it's that we have learned how to talk about them and educate ourselves and our children. We have enacted laws to protect those that cannot protect themselves. We've built a world that is accessible to the disabled, making it possible for them to lead lives that are closer to normal than in generations past. We live in a country that is less polluted, eating food that is (yes, believe it or not) safer.

I guess I should mention here that it was the evil Liberal-Progressives that made most of this happen.

I see no value in continuing to judge what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. If they break laws, then nail them. Theft, arson, child abuse and neglect, animal abuse and neglect, drugs. There are laws against these for a reason. Just as an Orthodox Jew has no grounds to condemn you for eating meat and dairy at the same time, or turning on the lights during the Sabbath, you have no right to interfere in the lives of others for religious reasons. If we as citizens did, then I would prosecute many religious groups for committing what I see as child abuse, threatening kids with the notion of a hell, or demon possession, that a jealous and wrathful god sent your favorite uncle to the hot place because he wasn't a member of your church, that women can only get to heaven by being married, etc.

So, where is the secular or constitutional reasons for passing judgment on gays in consenting, private, adult relationships?

I think our country is greater now than ever, because we have learned how to get this and other things out in the open where we can learn.

August 13, 2010 at 3:27 p.m.
harrystatel said...

CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin. Ambrose Bierce

If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be--a Christian. Mark Twain

If it's necessary to tell people you're a "Christian", you're not. Harry Statel

harrystatel.wordpress.com

August 13, 2010 at 3:58 p.m.
anniebelle said...

Clara, keep me posted -- we know how many times dewey posted. How many times did caddy throw his garbage on this board today? I wasn't aware there was a limit until lyin4life informed me the other day that I was not "allowed" to post a comment in response to the person just above me. I guess I need to read the rule book again.

August 13, 2010 at 4:17 p.m.
FM_33 said...

I wasn't aware there was a limit until lyin4life informed me the other day that I was not "allowed" to post a comment in response to the person just above me. I guess I need to read the rule book again. Username: anniebelle | On: August 13, 2010 at 4:17 p.m. _________-

Is that on every board our just Clay's boards ?

August 13, 2010 at 5:02 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Roman Polanski, as I understand, had sex with an underage female. Username: lkeithlu | On: August 13, 2010 at 1:06 p.m.


How did he get out of the country even after law enforcement knew that fact ?

August 13, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I believe he bolted quickly, and this was way before 9/11, and national computer systems that would have alerted someone in time. However, I'm not entirely sure.

August 13, 2010 at 5:08 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nabo1iTcA...

Evolution at work. No country hicks please

Dewayne Callahan East Ridge Username: dewey60 | On: August 12, 2010 at 7:33 p.m.


Hey Dewey watch this it might work better on the mind when making a point.

http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/bombtech061308/bombtech061308.htm

August 13, 2010 at 5:16 p.m.
FM_33 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fttjm_VTY...

Donot vote republican

Dewayne Callahan East Ridge Username: dewey60 | On: August 12, 2010 at 8:52 p.m.


LOL...how about this video.....

http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/backfire111908/backfire111908.htm

Do your part you good old Democrat and get a reward to.

August 13, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.
FM_33 said...

I believe he bolted quickly, and this was way before 9/11, and national computer systems that would have alerted someone in time. However, I'm not entirely sure. Username: lkeithlu | On: August 13, 2010 at 5:08 p.m.


Thank you because that jerk should have been hung by a noose like the US Marshals used to do to criminals like that back in the day.

August 13, 2010 at 5:21 p.m.
FM_33 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-pzlZPRv...

Nuf said

Dewayne Callahan Username: dewey60 | On: August 12, 2010 at 9:52 p.m.


Here's another one to check out Dewey..... http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/cfr022309/cfr022309.htm

Vote Independent !

August 13, 2010 at 5:25 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Let me explain the republican party and sarah palin. This goober has gone on record saying that she knows the earth is only 6 thousand years old because she has seen a footprint from a man in a dinosaur fossil.

Now,let that stew like a good pot of pinto beans.

This is real people.

Dewayne Callahan East Ridge Username: dewey60 | On: August 13, 2010 at 5:20 p.m.


Dewey a independent is not a closet republican ok. Stop watching the CNN / FOX news feed all the time and letting them think for you and letting them tell you what is what.

I have been an INDEPENDENT for years since the early 80's and have been that way most of my life. I grew up in a ALL DONKEY FAMILY but could not stand all that NEW LEFT COMMUNIST crap that they have turned into and let them control ther ass like a puppet on a short string.

The 3rd party buddy saved my life because if i had to be in either one of these sorry sad sap partys i would leave the damn country for good !

Get it !

August 13, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Hey Dewey got a few bucks for a plane ticket ?

August 13, 2010 at 5:39 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Dewey have a nice weekend and we'll chatt some more latter. I hope that you will see the light from the "Lighthouse" soon before this country gets turned into "Soviet America.

Peace

August 13, 2010 at 5:43 p.m.
FM_33 said...

The GOP has gone way right wing so in that you have made a point.

August 13, 2010 at 5:45 p.m.
hambone said...

Clay, we need a new cartoon. The residue from this one has filled up the barnyard!!

August 13, 2010 at 6:08 p.m.
ITguy said...

Who is this caddy guy and why would anyone quote John Calvin?

August 13, 2010 at 8:04 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm afraid the dewey avalanche has discouraged Caddy from answering my question regarding secular/constitutional arguments. Pity-I really want to hear them. I have yet to get one from anyone that is not religious.

August 13, 2010 at 8:58 p.m.
ITguy said...

Friday night. Dewey is hitting it hard?

August 13, 2010 at 9:28 p.m.
Duford said...

"How do you know what is a harm to you or me Duford? Can you see the events and maschinations in every detail worked out in the lives of other men? You presume you know these things by making a broad statement. How do you KNOW them from beginning to end ?

Every man's sin affects not only his own person but others as well. When I know something that is right and I fail to do it, the harm or inaction not only affects me, but affects the person to whom I should have done right by.

Rationalzation is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge."

Thus the slippery slope.

The one miraculous thing about Jesus I've come to realize is that he did not force ANYONE at gunpoint (okay, swordpoint in those days) to swallow His gospel.

Jesus simply laid out truth for those who wanted it, while respecting a man's freedom to deny/object to it.

Thus the exultation of Jesus and the Gospel is one thing, but the forceful imposition of such law is not righteous. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

The "moral" (no pun intended) of the story is that simple fact that man EXISTS WITH SENTIENCE demands that you respect the rights he has, simply because he exists. That means if same-sex couples want to marry under their own accord, or if someone wants to smoke a joint in their own peace, that's only of THEIR CONCERN -- of course, until they infringe upon your rights, like crashing his/her car while stoned into your house.

In summary, every attempt to bestow a monopoly of force through the government to restrain, restrict, and punish people and their self-apparent rights certainly is not only utterly IMMORAL, but also UNGODLY, as it is an attempt to take the place of God and attempt to act out His will (according to flawed, sinful men as you described).

August 13, 2010 at 10:23 p.m.
Clara said...

Clay,

I think I'll just sit back and read for the good parts and won't comment. I also don't seem to be able to vote, although I get the screen that says my vote has been counted. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anniebelle, There is no limit on posting. It's a question of trying to control a blog with nonsense like Dewey and FM, and a few others. It also seems to be a childish need for attention,IMHO!

August 13, 2010 at 10:48 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

ITguy wrote,

"Friday night. Dewey is hitting it hard?"

Sure seems to be. It's kind of sad actually.

August 13, 2010 at 11:12 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

My new theory on Dewayne's rants:

Before reading the long line of posts, replace the words music, song, rock, roll, tune, and Irish with any of the following; beer, whiskey, bourbon, bong, bud, and weed, and you will have unlocked the secret code with which he is typing.

Again, this is just a theory.

August 14, 2010 at 12:08 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

"A true marriage is a natural concord and agreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not even imagined; it is a mingling so perfect that only one seems to exist; all other considerations are lost; the present seems to be eternal. In this supreme moment there is no shadow - or the shadow is as luminous as light. And when two beings thus love, thus unite, this is the true marriage of soul and soul. That which is said before the altar, or minister, or magistrate, or in the presence of witnesses, is only the outward evidence of that which has already happened within; it simply testifies to a union that has already taken place" -- Col Robert G Ingersoll

August 14, 2010 at 6:36 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Clara, Thanks for clarifying that for me. There are so many on this board that plant false information day in and day out and many many useless paragraphs of hateul vitriol. I don't know about Americans anymore, the older I get, I see the more they want to take our liberties away, just like the bush/cheney cabal. If you don't spin their version of a story, you're somehow un-American and not deserving of being a citizen. The whole GOP/Regressive movement needs to move to Iran - that sounds like their ideal set of rules. Nothing but the holey book to guide their laws. That's what I'm hearing here day after day. If it's not a gay, black or brownskinned person, it's all those that don't believe in their fairytales. I, for one, am sick of it! And I'll be here exercising my rights every day. It's hard to argue with morons and people that are proud to be stupid. Someone tries to introduce facts on this board and cuckoointheouthouse comes on with 50 paragraphs of NOTHING to defute the truth. It's pretty bad when we've overtaken South Carolina's spot on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

August 14, 2010 at 6:37 a.m.
acerigger said...

Good rant,Annie! It seems that the whole repub scheme is to divide this country,and it may be working.The entire "take our country back","with us or against us" tripe, borders on treason and is an insult to America.I'd much prefer to "take our country forward!"

August 14, 2010 at 8:46 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Nicely said, ace. Rather forward than back when:

Women were under complete control of husbands-financially, sexually, legally Blacks "knew their place" and stayed quiet Gays were in the closet Mental illness was weakness or demon possession Kids had no idea what "inappropriate touching" was and that they were at fault if they were abused Jews, Muslims and other people of other faiths had their children preached to by Christians in public school The disabled were forgotten or lived in homes Women died from back-alley abortions Teen boys were encouraged to "sow their wild oats" while teen girls were threatened to remain virgins until married Corporations could pollute at will and allow unsafe working conditions

I could go on, but I have lots to do today!

August 14, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.
harrystatel said...

"Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free." – Harry Browne

harrystatel.wordpress.com

August 14, 2010 at 10:22 a.m.
Sailorman said...

lkeithlu

All that you listed and more were truly evils to be rectified.

BUT the quote harry posted is likewise true.

ace - you and your screeching friend annie have a twisted view of "take our country back". You infer back in time to the attitudes of yesteryear. Not so. It means limiting government to its rightful role. Going forward doesn't, or shouldn't, imply a bigger and more intrusive government. Somewhere there is a balancing point but no matter the number of affirmative action plans, social engineering schemes, or bailouts, there will ALWAYS be a group offended by something.

Treasonous is allowing, even encouraging, the government to control your life. That, sir, is an insult to anyone with half a brain.

August 14, 2010 at 11:06 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Those are good points, Sailorman. And I don't want intrusive government either. I do recognize the need for some government services, and I agree they can go too far. But I also recognize that left to their own devices, large corporations, banks and Wall Street will govern us more extensively than the feds do now. I'm also fully aware that some "smaller government" demands are tied with state's rights and a desire to legislate the moral views of the majority, to the detriment of individual freedom. Let's be sure that we don't get the poison along with what we desire.

August 14, 2010 at 11:26 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

That's a wonderful attitude you have there anniebelle. It's particularly nice how you wrote "There are so many on this board that plant false information day in and day out and many many useless paragraphs of hateul vitriol. I don't know about Americans anymore" followed by a useless paragraph of "hateful vitriol" which included false information about repubs. Nice touch.

August 14, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.
Sailorman said...

lkeithlu

We're generally in agreement. I don't know that corporations could be any worse though. The Feds have the advantage of a bajillion regulations (and more every day). The corps have the advantage of the economic stranglehold. At any rate, I think they generally operate in lockstep - to our detriment.

Side note - if you want an interesting, if unnerving, read, try

One Nation Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty

http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-Arrest-Prosecutors/dp/0891951342

August 14, 2010 at 1:35 p.m.

Top Ten Gay Marriage False “Facts” Part 1 8/12/2010 Frank Turek

When one judge overturned the will of more then seven million Californians last week in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, he listed 80 supposed “findings of fact” (FF) as evidence that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many of those 80 findings are not facts at all. They’re lies or distortions. Before we address the top ten false “facts” asserted by Judge Vaughn Walker, there is one real fact in his opinion that defeats the entire case for his opinion. Here it is: “The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.”

Since that fact is unquestionably true, how can Judge Walker honestly declare that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment? Certainly no one in 1868 intended the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine marriage. Only the most tyrannical form of judicial activism can get Judge Walker to his conclusion.

Second, Prop 8 doesn’t violate the Fourteenth Amendment because every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.

What about homosexuals? That leads us to Judge Walker’s first false “fact.” 1. “Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group.” (FF 44) This is the most important of the false facts because Walker’s entire case collapses without it. The “fact” is false because it ignores the difference between desires and behavior.

Having certain sexual desires—whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life—does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker’s false “fact” was a real fact, we’d have to redefine marriage to include not just same sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are “sexual orientations” too.

In other words, there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, multiple partners or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that's a job for the people, not judges.

August 14, 2010 at 1:51 p.m.
  1. “California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.” (FF 47) Other than helping them avoid disease and live longer, absolutely no reason. As I document here, health problems are higher and life spans shorter for homosexuals. This has touched me personally (and perhaps someone you know as well)—a childhood friend of mine died from AIDS at the age of 36. How is it wise public policy to endorse behavior that leads to such tragic results? That’s exactly what same-sex marriage does—it endorses homosexual behavior, which results in serious health problems and shorter life spans. Permitting unhealthy behavior is one thing, but endorsing it is quite another.

But won’t same-sex marriage help reduce gay health issues? Not likely. See Judge Walker’s next false fact. 3. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.” (FF 48) What does “successful” mean? It has nothing to do with children according to Judge Walker. In his “the stork brings children” universe, marriage is merely about coupling; procreation is just incidental to it. He thinks a “successful” marriage is merely about commitment, but he can’t even support that case.

In another instance of special pleading, Judge Walker ignores the evidence that at least half of committed homosexual relationships are open as even the New York Times reported. (Other studies found even higher rates of promiscuity and infidelity.) This is so well known it’s a travesty that Judge Walker claims exactly the opposite is true. The Times reported, “None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.” Maybe Judge Walker was worried too, and that’s why he didn’t bother mentioning this real fact with his false facts.

  1. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” (FF 55) Judge Walker cites just four years of data from Massachusetts to make that sweeping conclusion about the most important relationship in human civilization. The truth is that evidence from other countries over a much longer period shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. And the disastrous results of 40 years of liberalized divorce laws show how monumentally important marriage laws are to the health of marriages, children, and the nation.
August 14, 2010 at 1:54 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oh, great. Some bird came and pooped all over the thread.

August 14, 2010 at 1:55 p.m.
Sailorman said...

And the adage "You can't legislate morals" should be tattooed on the eyelids of congress. It's none of their d*mned business at ANY level of government.

August 14, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.
  1. “Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.” (FF 62) It’s too bad Judge Walker didn’t look to evidence from Massachusetts for this false fact. If he had he would have seen that court-imposed same-sex marriage has severely affected First Amendment rights. Same sex marriage may not affect heterosexual marriage behavior quickly, but it certainly affects the free exercise of religion very quickly.

Parents in Massachusetts now have no right to know when their children are being taught homosexuality in grades as low as Kindergarten, neither can they opt their kids out (one parent was even jailed overnight for protesting this). Businesses are now forced to give benefits to same-sex couples regardless of any moral or religious objection the business owner may have. The government also ordered Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals wanting to adopt. As a result, Catholic Charities closed their adoption agency rather than submit to an immoral order. Unfortunately, children are again the victims of the immorality that comes with same-sex marriage.

“But you can’t legislate morality!” some say. Nonsense. Not only do all laws legislate morality, sometimes immorality is imposed by judges against the will of the people and in violation of religious rights. There is no neutral ground here. Either we will have freedom of religion and conscience, or we will be forced to adhere to the whims of judges who declare that their own distorted view of 'morality' supersedes our rights—rights that our founders declared self-evident.

Think I’m overreacting? If this decision survives and nullifies all democratically decided laws in the 45 states that preserve natural marriage, religious rights violations in Massachusetts will go nationwide. In fact, it’s poised to happen already at the federal level. President Obama recently appointed gay activist Chai Feldblum to the EEOC. Speaking of the inevitable conflict between religious rights and so-called gay rights, Feldblum said, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

[Feldblum btw subscribes to a multi-gay/transgender form of 'marriage', believing that multiple partners (as she herself lives with) is "far superior" to the 'useless Heterosexual marriage type'. She has already pushed for California and the nations school texts to reflect this belief, along with Obama's National Director of Education, who is an adherent to the Man/Boy Love Organization and national movement propagating adult/child sex].

August 14, 2010 at 1:58 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Given your propensity to lie, even in the face of evidence presented to you, nothing you have typed here is worth reading. (Not to mention your habit of using 15 paragraphs to say what could be said in two sentences and calling anyone who doesn't agree evil)

August 14, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.

So in answer to the question, should Government (humans) be allowed to mandate the institution marriage in the first place? I think the answer is it doesn't matter, it's already too late. Humans never did on their own, and left to their own devices, would rut and behave worse than even the animal kingdom has on occasion. Moreover, if we look at what the State (Federal Government) has done to date, to circumvent, legislate and dictate all of our lives, including what's coming down the pike, many of us would say go back to the dark holes you all crawled out of. We're paying for THIS???

[Nearly 5700 years ago, twelve tribes of a small nation of Hebrews were given the commandment for a man and a woman to unite, create a family and have children. By their Creator, known later by Moses as YHVH or Yehovah. Why? The unit or team known as Man/Woman/Children, for thousands of years since has proven to be the most stable, viable form of family that nurtures the human being and sends that same human out into the world to continue a productive growth cycle and to enrich (bless) his/her society. With the caveat that these tribes and these families trust, obey and follow their Creators Laws, THEN they would see those blessings. Or as one poster above mentioned, it's only in recent decades we have seen the extreme decline of the family, divorce and cheating on a steep upward trend, relevant to the upward 'trend' of "Progressive values", in other words, non-values. In the past, these same deviant behaviors in any society or 'civilization' portended doom for that civilization, a society with little or no mores, ethics, values and the Laws of Yehovah, sooner or later implodes. As we are witnessing today.]

August 14, 2010 at 2:14 p.m.
harrystatel said...

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

harrystatel.wordpress.com

August 14, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Hmm, I have to wonder if a certain poster here might be more comfortable living in a country that forces persons to adhere to religious law instead of secular laws like ours. I hear countries like Iran have permanent solutions to problems like homosexuality and adultery.

They would not have to worry about all those pesky things like equal rights and freedom of expression.

"Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be". ~Thomas à Kempis

August 14, 2010 at 2:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Indian, perhaps you and canary need to get togther, share tinfoil hat technology, and prepare yourselves, homes and families for armagheddon.

Please forgive me if your comment was tongue in cheek and not meant to be taken seriously. It's crazy enough to have given me pause.

August 14, 2010 at 3:07 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

lkeithlu-looking at his past posts I don't think his post was "tongue in cheek".

Perhaps "foot in mouth", especially in regards to the comment of Obama's citizenship, which as been firmly established. Or the fact that our country cannot interfere in freedom of religion, as per our Constitution, such as building a place of worship.

August 14, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

dewey, you remind me of a cartoon on Adult Swim called Squidbillies. I am CONVINCED that you are the inspiration for Early Cuyler, the main character, after reading all of your inane postings.

You are a YouTube fanatic...look up Squidbillies and see for yourself.

August 14, 2010 at 11:50 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

I must be crazy. After "listening" to dewey and FM go on and on, I was actually glad to see canary and keith have an intelligent disagreement. FINALLY!

August 14, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.
anniebelle said...

Sailorman, I see you've come out and exposed yourself as one of he knuckledragging, neanderthals that live in this uneducated state. You wouldn't know truth if it came up and knocked your door.

August 15, 2010 at 7:10 a.m.
Sailorman said...

annie

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

August 15, 2010 at 8:47 a.m.
sd said...

Canary, a few quick points, tried to keep it under 3000.

"...We’d have to redefine marriage to include not just same sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are “sexual orientations” too." The definist fallacy. Sexual orientation relates only to sexual attraction and gender.

  1. "“Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.” What does “successful” mean? It has nothing to do with children according to Judge Walker. In his “the stork brings children” universe, marriage is merely about coupling; procreation is just incidental to it." Religious abstinence is the only instance I'm aware of in which people marry to have sex. People have sex and produce children outside of marriage. Childless couples can have successful marriages. Sex and children are not the end-all, be-all to marriage.

  2. "“Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” The truth is that evidence from other countries over a much longer period shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy." I'm not sure what this means. He is saying that when gay people get married more heterosexuals have children out of wedlock? What?

  3. "“Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.” ...Court-imposed same-sex marriage has severely affected First Amendment rights. Same sex marriage may not affect heterosexual marriage behavior quickly, but it certainly affects the free exercise of religion very quickly." Complex tying. Homosexual marriage has no bearing on the practice of religion in this country and these two things are unrelated.

"Businesses are now forced to give benefits to same-sex couples regardless of any moral or religious objection the business owner may have." All married couples must be treated equally, so a married same-sex couple would be eligible for the same level of benefits as a opposite-sex married couple. Many businesses offer non-married couples benefits, regardless of their sexual orientation. It would be discrimination to offer marital benefits to opposite-sex married and unmarried couples, but not to offer the same benefits to same-sex married and unmarried couples. It's like saying you don't want to offer benefits to Muslim employees because you're a Christian and you're opposed to Islam.

August 15, 2010 at 11:03 a.m.
anniebelle said...

I'll keep that in mind, Sailorman. You will never find fiction, lies, half-truths in any of my posts. You let me know when you do, and I'll certainly take heed. Until then, STFU.

August 16, 2010 at 5:39 a.m.
Sailorman said...

STFU? How classy.

You demonstrate clearly the superior intellect and persuasive dialog of those who aren't one of the "knuckledragging, neanderthals". Or think they aren't.

Come back if you find yourself capable of rational discussion. Otherwise, I'm done.

August 16, 2010 at 7:23 a.m.
FM_33 said...

hambone>

I am digging on that name. I am a true southern Democrat and these republicans are pissing me off. Help me out.

Dewayne Callahan East Ridge Username: dewey60 | On: August 13, 2010 at 6:13 p.m.


I bet you have all the Dirty Harry Movies in your DVD collection don't you Dewey ?

Hey they are classic DEM movies after all.

August 16, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
FM_33 said...

quitreader,

I think you are right! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dewayne Callahan,

I see you posted about 14 times on this blog. I think 3 to 5 merged would be enough. That's usually about the average.

I do think you make some good points, but try to get it into less space. Username: Clara | On: August 13, 2010 at 10:49 a.m.


I agree and the fact that Mr. Dewey needs some more metal music in his life which would help as well.

August 16, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.
anniebelle said...

Sailorman, buh bye.

August 17, 2010 at 6:11 a.m.
anniebelle said...

I forgot to mention, for months on this board I tried to make sense of people like you who post their garbage on this board and think they're so above-it-all. You are one of the major ills that face this country today. And Classy -- this is not American Idol or a popularity contest, this is to try to inform Americans how they are being brainwashed by all this hocus pocus coming from the wrong-wing.

August 17, 2010 at 6:16 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.