The homophobic thread :>

[neoplacebo]

You're probably correct but that doesn't mean that someone that's since become "butt holier than thou" (neoplacebo - "hominy", "dubmass" and now this, you're on a roll) shouldn't still honor the oath.

I remember taking the oath, and took it seriously. Butt I never considered myself butt holier than thou until I was the only one of about ninety guys who didn't have any cavities in their teeth. At that point, I realized I was, indeed, butt holier than those, because I was questioned about where I grew up, if the water supply was flouridated, and various other queries that those less butt holier were not subjected to. I still have no fillings or dental work because I am, in fact, an alien life form sent here to observe and report.

[Mr.B]

When I enlisted and took my oath, I was serious about that oath. Now. since the U.S. is "rolling down hill like a snowball headed to hell", that oath is long gone.

We can't trust our government; local, state, or federal; moral, decent, and spiritual values are giving way to radical factions who prefer that God and laws of the land be banished and people live and conduct themselves as each individual sees fit, and members of these radical factions are getting elected to this country's lawmaking offices.

Oath...to this country? I owe no loyalty to this country anymore. My loyalty is to my Creator.

[Mr.B]

"I applaud Mr.B for admitting that his oath to the Constitution, one likely sworn to God, is outweighed by his pitiful, childish and obsessive bigotry. Maybe he would prefer an atheist nation without a Constitution since he's now rejecting both God and our Constitution."

So tell us, O Perfect One...since you acknowledged there is a God and I've rejected Him, when did you swear to uphold God and the Constitution?

You spew Constitution this and Constitution that, yet you are the one who supports people with morals of an alley cat.

FWIW, this nation is already on it's way to being an atheist nation; without any help from me.

[O Really]

We can't trust our government; local, state, or federal; moral, decent, and spiritual values are giving way to radical factions who prefer that God and laws of the land be banished and people live and conduct themselves as each individual sees fit, and members of these radical factions are getting elected to this country's lawmaking offices.

.

You wouldn't happen to have any examples of those getting elected who "prefer that God and laws of the land be banished" would you? I will agree that it's a problem that the "radical factions" are getting elected though. They've taken over majority in both House and Senate.

[bannination]

We can't trust our government; local, state, or federal; moral, decent, and spiritual values are giving way to radical factions who prefer that God and laws of the land be banished and people live and conduct themselves as each individual sees fit, and members of these radical factions are getting elected to this country's lawmaking offices.

.

You wouldn't happen to have any examples of those getting elected who "prefer that God and laws of the land be banished" would you? I will agree that it's a problem that the "radical factions" are getting elected though. They've taken over majority in both House and Senate.

Indeed it's impossible to be elected without being a Christian or Mormon. -- Here comes the "not real Christians according to the book of Mr. B"

[bannination]

How does one banish God anyway? Is he really that weak?

If the religious are doing so poor at running the country (and I'd agree with you Mr. B) why not try some atheists? They are the most underrepresented members of congress.

[Mr.B]

"You wouldn't happen to have any examples of those getting elected who "prefer that God and laws of the land be banished" would you? I will agree that it's a problem that the "radical factions" are getting elected though. They've taken over majority in both House and Senate."

You are of course, speaking of Republicans, but it's hardly just Republicans that can be labeled 'radical factions'. I'm speaking of course, of the God-haters, homosexuals, self-serving money-grubbers, and those who just generally want to make a name for themselves.

Atheists and homosexuals top the list. I believe it was one of your favored party that first came out and announced that he was a queer; (opps...homosexual) Barney Frank to be exact, wasn't it? Since then, Dems and Repubs alike have been jumping on the bandwagon hoping for a popular vote. Some however, (Dems and Repubs) have been caught with their pants down while publicly decrying the very same thing they got caught doing or attempting to do.

Laws of the land...? Legalizing drugs (not pot) for starters; (a la Vrede's crusade) stating that legalization and control would lead to a reduced crime rate; and that it was none of big brother's business what people did to their own bodies.

Just sayin'

"Indeed it's impossible to be elected without being a Christian or Mormon-- "

Since when?

[Mr.B]

"How does one banish God anyway? Is he really that weak?"
Comprehend much?

"If the religious are doing so poor at running the country (and I'd agree with you Mr. B) why not try some atheists? They are the most underrepresented members of congress."
The religious aren't running the country.

[bannination]

"You wouldn't happen to have any examples of those getting elected who "prefer that God and laws of the land be banished" would you? I will agree that it's a problem that the "radical factions" are getting elected though. They've taken over majority in both House and Senate."

You are of course, speaking of Republicans, but it's hardly just Republicans that can be labeled 'radical factions'. I'm speaking of course, of the God-haters, homosexuals, self-serving money-grubbers, and those who just generally want to make a name for themselves.

Atheists and homosexuals top the list. I believe it was one of your favored party that first came out and announced that he was a queer; (opps...homosexual) Barney Frank to be exact, wasn't it? Since then, Dems and Repubs alike have been jumping on the bandwagon hoping for a popular vote. Some however, (Dems and Repubs) have been caught with their pants down while publicly decrying the very same thing they got caught doing or attempting to do.

Laws of the land...? Legalizing drugs (not pot) for starters; (a la Vrede's crusade) stating that legalization and control would lead to a reduced crime rate; and that it was none of big brother's business what people did to their own bodies.

Just sayin'

"Indeed it's impossible to be elected without being a Christian or Mormon-- "

Since when?

Well... can you name anyone in congress right now that's an atheist? If so, how many can you name?


I'll save you the trouble.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 44108.html

It's becoming more common not to believe in God or organized religion these days, so it would only be natural for a few atheists to have made their way to Congress, right?

Below, we've managed to cram all of the atheists serving on Capitol Hill into one important GIF:


Yeah, there isn't a single admitted atheist currently in Congress.

[bannination]

"How does one banish God anyway? Is he really that weak?"
Comprehend much?

"If the religious are doing so poor at running the country (and I'd agree with you Mr. B) why not try some atheists? They are the most underrepresented members of congress."
The religious aren't running the country.

Are you stupid? Willfully ignorant?

[bannination]

Mr. B logic?

[Mr.B]

"Yeah, there isn't a single admitted atheist currently in Congress."

"admitted"

[Mr.B]

Opps.....guess I got that one wrong, didn't I? My bad.

[bannination]

"Yeah, there isn't a single admitted atheist currently in Congress."

"admitted"

You're right, they're really all atheists.

[bannination]

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. -- A founding father of America

Little did he know the dumbest people would start being elected to congress by those that can't figure out the truth.

[O Really]

"You wouldn't happen to have any examples of those getting elected who "prefer that God and laws of the land be banished" would you? I will agree that it's a problem that the "radical factions" are getting elected though. They've taken over majority in both House and Senate."

You are of course, speaking of Republicans, but it's hardly just Republicans that can be labeled 'radical factions'. I'm speaking of course, of the God-haters, homosexuals, self-serving money-grubbers, and those who just generally want to make a name for themselves.

Atheists and homosexuals top the list. I believe it was one of your favored party that first came out and announced that he was a queer; (opps...homosexual) Barney Frank to be exact, wasn't it? Since then, Dems and Repubs alike have been jumping on the bandwagon hoping for a popular vote. Some however, (Dems and Repubs) have been caught with their pants down while publicly decrying the very same thing they got caught doing or attempting to do.

Laws of the land...? Legalizing drugs (not pot) for starters; (a la Vrede's crusade) stating that legalization and control would lead to a reduced crime rate; and that it was none of big brother's business what people did to their own bodies.

Just sayin'

"Indeed it's impossible to be elected without being a Christian or Mormon-- "

Since when?

Yes, Barney Frank is a Democrat and he's homosexual. He represents one district in Massachusetts. That hardly supports an argument that "homosexuals" with an "s" are ruining the government. I think Banni's chart portrays pretty clearly that one has to profess to be religious in order to get elected, and that there is no trend of people who want to banish God, yada, are taking over. The problem with the Christian version of religion is that you don't have any entry or qualification requirements. If you say you're a Christian, you're a Christian. At least to be Jewish you have to sacrifice part of your dick, to be Muslim you have to have a beard and make your wife/girl friend wear a bag, to be Amish, you have to not only have a beard but wear really shabby clothes and ride around in horse buggies, and to be Morman you have to spend a couple years in a cheap tie on a bicycle. To be a Protestant Christian, all you have to do is say "I am one."

[neoplacebo]

Members of Congress that responded with "Unspecified / other," "Unaffiliated," and "Don't know / refused" account for 69 members. That's well over ten percent. I'd venture to day most of those don't really believe. And I bet a lot of those other respondents were lying because they would never admit they don't really believe in god.

[neoplacebo]

The "Unspecified/Other", 58 of them, are in the Protestant category.

Opps! I didn't notice the indent.......I still think they're not being honest.

[Mr.B]

I bet you impressed the hell out of him.

"This is what it's come to, pols so gay obsessed (hmmm)..... "
"Hmmm..?"...Good memories, huh? You daydreaming about all your "gay old times" ? nttawwt, of course.

"So, a magistrate claiming “sincerely held” religious objections could refuse to wed Christians, people of other faiths, whites, people of other races, interracial couples, Republicans, people of other political parties, the elderly, the sterile, slimy, hateful politicians, etc."
How silly! I bet 'ol Tom is laughing his head off; also wondering the mentality of the one who keeps writing these whiny, sniveling emails. Thanks for the laugh of the day.

So...tell us, what part of the following are you having such a hard time understanding? Email pilgrim or Banni; maybe they can "splain" it to you...doubtful, but just maybe.

"An effort to give state officials who object to gay marriages a legal means to avoid serving same-sex couples passed its first legislative hurdle Tuesday."

[O Really]

I don't doubt ol' Tom is laughing his ass off. That's pretty much his reaction to anything outside his right wing scope of understanding. But Vrede's right in that if you let people opt out of their government jobs for religious reasons, they can use that for things other than just marriage equality matters. Otherwise, the law would be seen as what it is - a blatant attempt to continue practices already ruled unconstitutional. When the law prohibited marriage equality, a person issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple would have been fired. S/he couldn't have said, "my religion compels me to issue it." Now the law prohibits such discrimination and they want to carve out exceptions. But sure - if it passed and wasn't declared unconstitutional almost immediately, a person could use the same reason to decline marriage licenses to rednecks. Oh wait - maybe it is a good idea.