A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Hmm you prove that some subjects should be left to the pros.
- Status
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
It helps to laugh. and to love all humanity in all its silliness, error and stupidity. It’s either respond to hatred and bigotry with love and compassion, or become disillusioned, bitter and twisted. You have to learn to forgive yourself - meaning that you have to recognise your own errors, be sincerely contrite, do penance and provide what restitution you can, first - then forgive others as you forgive yourself for being imperfect and merely human. They are too, you see. In order to love the sinner, you must first look at the sinner that is you - and if you don’t like what you see, work to better that person so you can forgive them, despite their imperfections. Once you can do that, loving and forgiving other sinners like yourself is easy, no matter how much you may hate their sin.That’s putting the paradox to good use.I tried not to laugh but I couldn’t do it.
So when you see an editorial in a mainstream newspaper that says
Then goes on to quote almost verbatim proven lies and distortions from a professional hate group like the KKK or TVC… it helps to laugh at their bizarre statements.
I mean really - my existence “undermines standards of decency”? That I should be kept isolated from children so they don’t know I can exist, let alone that I do? What about my own child, has he now been “contaminated”?
Still, it’s marginally better than being called a threat to all humanity. By any other name, Vermin in the Human Ecology.
Lord, what fools these mortals be! - A Midsummer Night’s Dream | Act III, Scene II
You have to shake your head, laugh, and love them. As you do when you see your own many imperfections, before trying to put them aright.
B
Benadam
Guest
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Did that editorialist briefly travel here in a time machine from the 8 th century. I have never read such medieval drivel in my life! I know an ( f to m) transsexual who hasnt gotten the big surgery yet, but if he were to walk in the ladies room like some stupids laws say he is supposed to do he’d cause big problems because the looks and voice are definitely male. With all this whining and sniveling about who goes in bathrooms, maybe its time that all public bathrooms be singuler private.
B
Benadam
Guest
I doubt most of us would notice someone who has ‘had the surgery’ if they went to the bathroom appropriate to their appearance. Wouldn’t you think a men’s, women’s and a private facility be a bit more accomodating for everyone?
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
I agree. One for men, one for women, and one for people who are uncomfortable being amongst blacks, jews, catholics, intersexed or trans people.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
all bathrooms being private would solve a lot of whining and sniveling in this case.
D
Dale_M
Guest
If you are suggesting that each toilet be in a separate room, not simply in a separate stall, yes, it would take care of the transgender bathroom issue.
However, I think it would significantly increase the expense of providing bathrooms to the public. I don’t think we could expect wide scale implementation without a law requiring such a change… and I suspect that law would be fought by the business sector.
I do like the suggestion of a single toilet restroom. When I go to a business which offers it along with traditional restrooms, I opt for the single toilet room because it tends to be cleaner.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Businesses always whine and snivel when they have to spend an extra dime, just make them do it. My view of restrooms may be a bit off the beaten path because I had a momther who strictly forbade her children from using public restooms because of possible disease and the presense of strangers.If you are suggesting that each toilet be in a separate room, not simply in a separate stall, yes, it would take care of the transgender bathroom issue.
However, I think it would significantly increase the expense of providing bathrooms to the public. I don’t think we could expect wide scale implementation without a law requiring such a change… and I suspect that law would be fought by the business sector.
I do like the suggestion of a single toilet restroom. When I go to a business which offers it along with traditional restrooms, I opt for the single toilet room because it tends to be cleaner.
R
ryecroft
Guest
I believe this about as much as I believe all abortions will end tomorrow…*U.S. Parks Police spokesman David Schlosser tells POLITICO his service erred in pushing the reporters back, and stressed that the White House played no role in the move.
“That was strictly the U.S. Parks Police that screwed up – that has nothing to do with the Secret Service of the White House or the Administration,” said Sergeant Schlosser. “We had some young officers who, when they were told to move the people back – which we typically do when we’re going to make arrests - they moved the people back a lot further than we typically do. That was a rookie, amateur error and they screwed up on that.”*
I feel sorry for these openly gay service members…I know they feel marginalized…but it’s such a sticky wicket.
Rye
F
fkjuliano
Guest
Obviously, this is a minority view here, but I really do not have any sympathy for individuals who agitate in favor of special rights for homosexuals. Yes, don’t-ask-don’t-tell should end, but that does not mean homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military. On the contrary, prospective service members should be clearly warned that homosexuality, as well adultery and other sexual misconduct, by members of the military is unlawful, and that if they engage in such behavior they will be subject to a dishonorable discharge and imprisonment.
The bottom line for me is that some things are more sacred than the right of protest. Among these is the right to life. If the NARAL, NOW and the rest of the disgusting pro-abortion alphabet soup had been curtailed in their agitation, then perhaps the U.S. would not be in the middle of committing the greatest holocaust in history against the unborn. Similarly, respect for God justifies, in fact mandates, curtailing the activities of those who seek to institute homosexuality as normal in all spheres of life, which by making it even more fashionable would cause ever greater numbers of confused souls to fall into the trap of homosexual sin.
I realize that the motivation of the policemen probably was not to enforce moral standards, but simply to assert the authority of the government, but I will never be one to lament when those advocating against the eternal word of God are hindered by secular authorities, even by accident.
The bottom line for me is that some things are more sacred than the right of protest. Among these is the right to life. If the NARAL, NOW and the rest of the disgusting pro-abortion alphabet soup had been curtailed in their agitation, then perhaps the U.S. would not be in the middle of committing the greatest holocaust in history against the unborn. Similarly, respect for God justifies, in fact mandates, curtailing the activities of those who seek to institute homosexuality as normal in all spheres of life, which by making it even more fashionable would cause ever greater numbers of confused souls to fall into the trap of homosexual sin.
I realize that the motivation of the policemen probably was not to enforce moral standards, but simply to assert the authority of the government, but I will never be one to lament when those advocating against the eternal word of God are hindered by secular authorities, even by accident.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
What about breaking the 10 commandments, such as worshipping multiple gods?
Not all religions believe that homosexuality is sinful. Not even all Christian sects believe it. Where do you draw the line? Do you imprison anyone else guilty of sexual misconduct such as divorce, or fornication, or masturbation too? If such acts are not illegal outside the military, why should they be subject to such penalties inside - and if illegal within the military, why do we not imprison divorcees?
It’s all very well to argue that the US should be a Theocracy, with any sin (as viewed from a Catholic perspective) subject to secular punishment. By all means make it so - if you can convince the electorate of that. Baptists, Anabaptists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists can also make their cases, for imprisoning those guilty of eating pork, or shellfish, or beef, or meat of any kind.
It’s difficult to see how not being subject to such penalties is a “special right”.
F
fkjuliano
Guest
Apparently, you have misunderstood the thrust of my argument. The point is that, in what I think is the true Catholic and Christian point of view, society’s interest in suppressing immorality trumps the right of protest, because God’s law trumps any man-made law. As to religions other than Catholicism, I am well aware that some have different positions regarding non-marital sexual relations, including homosexuality. I am just not very concerned about them, since I believe the Catholic Church is the only true faith.
But since you want to talk about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell specifically, I would like to clarify that I do not advocate a theocracy based on Mosaic Law, especially since Christians have been largely exempted from such strictures by the authority of Jesus Christ. What I do think is necessary is for the U.S. Military to take seriously its own law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, instead of coddling perverted alternative lifestyles, as the protesters in the park demand. Here is what I mean:
Why should service members be subjected to these provisions when civilians are not? Because military discipline and cohesion requires it. Besides, anyone who thinks military law is too restrictive has the choice of simply not joining the all-volunteer military. But to join and then demand the Military change its laws and tradition is indeed to demand a special right.
R
rowenacg
Guest
Most of the thread has been devoted to the issue of homosexual rights so I’ll leave that, as I’m interested in your question “Is that what they mean by fascism?”
In short, no, it’s not fascism.
The government was fairly elected so it’s a democracy, and the right to protest has to be balanced against the government’s duty to maintain public order.
Fascism is a really complex system that uses aggressive capitalism to gain as many resources as possible, but borrows characteristics from socialism only to the extent that everything is owned and controlled by the State.
So basically it’s the worst of both worlds…the economic and social inequalities from capitalism stay but people don’t have the freedom to pursue their own interests because they are just employees of the State, which has no interest in redistributing wealth fairly to make a better standard of living for everyone - it’s just to be able to build up the power to expand and take over other places.
I don’t want to sound patronising but Americans can’t seem to grasp how either fascism or socialism actually work - but maybe it’s a good thing because you should consider yourselves lucky that you’ve never had to live through either!
Maybe it was bad that they shut down the protest, I don’t know enough to judge…maybe it wasn’t in the spirit of freedom and respecting everyone’s views, but it wasn’t full-on, jack-booted, goose-stepping, total-obedience-to-the-Leader-style fascism. Rest easy that you’ll never have that in the US!
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Same from the viewpoint of the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (My Her Holy Hooves Never Be Shod). We believe that homophobia is immoral, so DADT is immoral. Society’s interest in suppressing immorality trumps the right of protest in favour of DADT, because Her law trumps Man-made law.
See my point?
It can be argued whether or not homosexuality is sinful from a Christian viewpoint. Opinions differ there, but from my reading, it’s quite clear they are. Certainly from a Catholic viewpoint they are. But to convince other people, who may be Christians in name but not substance, or may not even claim to be Christian, appealing to biblical law or the magisterium is insufficient. Exactly such claims were used to justify slavery, and exactly such claims are used to deny the ordination of women currently in some Christian sects, but not others.
No, they want the UCMJ to be changed to reflect current social mores, as it has been in the past, and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.
All you have to do is convince the electorate that Homosexuality is immoral on secular grounds. It would be best to do this by telling the truth, though that could be difficult or even impossible.
You mean like its former tradition of racial segregation?
The Army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success. Experiments to meet the wishes and demands of the champions of every race and creed for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.
That was Col. Eugene R. Householder, addressing a gathering of Negro Editors and Publishers the day after Pearl Harbor, to tell them that the Army couldn’t Integrate now.
We’ve heard such arguments before.
Either convince the electorate to Catholicise - a preferred option I should imagine - or make your case on non-religious grounds.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Not again, you mean.
Though a better example of Facism - American Style is Huey Long:
I’m Australian, and I sometimes marvel at the lack of knowledge amongst many Americans about US history. Those who lack knowledge of history are often condemned to repeat it.
F
fkjuliano
Guest
I strongly encourage you to advocate for homosexuality based on the authority of any number of invisible unicorns.
As to the comparison between blacks and homosexuals, conflating a behavior (homosexuality) with an inborn physical feature (skin color) is just too dishonest and ridiculous to merit a response.
R
rowenacg
Guest
Erm…I’m not American. I’m speaking as a European who wasn’t taught much about American history at school and is aware of fascism as a uniquely European doctrine / practice.
I appreciate that you’re right and I apologise for being ignorant of Huey Long - but from what I can see he was only as good an example of fascism as Oswald Mosley with his Blackshirts in England, i.e. loud and unpleasant, but nowhere near powerful enough on a national scale to wreak the kind of damage Hitler and Mussolini did.
F
fkjuliano
Guest
I think that the idea that Huey Long was a fascist cannot go unchallenged. He was definitely a populist and he had a demagogic streak, but that is hardly enough to qualify him as a fascist, since fascism includes the idea of uniting government and big business, and he actually combated the excessive power of big business. For instance, he very reasonably sought to impose a tax on all oil extracted in Louisiana, and for that he was impeached by the conservative legislature. If anything, he was more of a socialist who taxed the rich to build roads and schools in what was an amazingly backward state. Also, he was very enlightened on race by the standards of the time and fought to lift all citizens of Louisiana from extreme poverty, and for that he was loved by African-Americans.
In my opinion, the real fascists were the ones who popped champagne corks when Huey Long was murdered. Of course, their modern-day descendants, who very much mix big business and government and support wars of aggression overseas, until recently had a stranglehold on political power in Washington. Now they are poised for a comeback, but given the appalling record of the Obama administration on pre-natal infanticide and other moral issues, that is actually the lesser of two evils.
Also, why is a picture of a march by the admittedly pro-Nazi German-American Bund being conflated with Huey Long?
I pray that God almighty has received the soul of Huey Long, a flawed man, but a good man.
In my opinion, the real fascists were the ones who popped champagne corks when Huey Long was murdered. Of course, their modern-day descendants, who very much mix big business and government and support wars of aggression overseas, until recently had a stranglehold on political power in Washington. Now they are poised for a comeback, but given the appalling record of the Obama administration on pre-natal infanticide and other moral issues, that is actually the lesser of two evils.
Also, why is a picture of a march by the admittedly pro-Nazi German-American Bund being conflated with Huey Long?
I pray that God almighty has received the soul of Huey Long, a flawed man, but a good man.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Exactly like Benito Mussolini.
And remember - NSDAP or Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers Party.
In fact, the economic philosophy was very similar to the New Deal. Also a form of National Socialism, just one without the mass murder etc. It’s that distinction that’s important, not the economics. Or the heraldry.
http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/nra_eagle_we_do_our_part.jpg
http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/uploaded_images/new_deal_wpa-741986.jpg
The New Deal was National Socialism. But not Fascism. As I said, Fascist is as Fascist does. The philosophy doesn’t matter, only the methods.
I differentiated them, giving Huey Long’s popularism as a better example of American-style rather than European-style Fascism.
Fascist is as Fascist does. Secret political police, shutting down the press, “disappearing” opponents… whether in the name of the State, the Volk, the People, or whatever, it’s the methods they use, not the particular political philosophy they pay lip-service to.
- Status