CosmicBills

Not saying you're wrong, but here's an honest question: All things being equal, who would be more likely to put their political career ahead of the best interests of the nation -- a President with no more elections left? Or a first termer looking for a second?

Thanks for the answer. Cheers.

... I don't have a dog in this fight so this isn't a shot at all, it's a legit question from someone who often wears a hoodie in the rain here in California ... why is it suspicious for me to wear a hoodie in the rain?

NSFW due to language but somehow this seemed appropriate ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI0-3BRjAYU

I did. But you wouldn't be interested in it. It was all about bad hair bands from the 80s and horrible mini-series that my grandfather watched. But that's not what you said. You said this: "just becuase a religious institution wants to limit who they marry to men and women, that shouldnt affect a gay couple from being allowed to marry through one of the many other channels to do so available to them." In NC they not only banned gay marriage but they banned civil unions. There is absolutely no recourse left for gay couples in NC to marry -- inside the church or outside of the church. It flies in the face of what you're advocating. How do you rectify that if you're a NC citizen?

I'll give you a different ballpark. My belief is that whitewashing of history, in any form, is dangerous. Which is what banning books such as Huck Finn for the language used is to me. The language used in literature is a reflection of the time in which it was produced and should be used as a learning tool. Not erased.

I am in no way, in any of my posts, attempting to judge what's in your heart, RkFast. I'll call out your dated pop cultural references as a means of poking fun, but not in a serious way. I would never assume you wanted "gays to burn in hell" even if you're against gay marriage. It's your right to be against it. But as much as you're complaining Liberals don't get your central tenant, the underlined portion of your quote above is the problem I personally have with your viewpoint. Maybe you can help me understand it (seriously, not trying to be a dick, I'm honestly asking). No (serious) person is asking the Federal Government (or State) to force any Religious institution to marry gay couples. They are asking for equal rights for gay couples under the law -- it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with equal protection for citizens. Even if you think being homosexual is a sin (and I'm not saying you do), I think most reasonable people would agree that it's a sin that does not affect anyone other than that person. It's not as if the homosexual community is attempting to punish straight men and women for having a different sexual orientation or deny them any freedoms or rights. But what happened in NC for example is essentially straight men and women limiting the rights of people who do not share the same sexual orientation. They didn't pass legislation that said the Church doesn't have to marry gay couples -- they passed legislation that removed any option for homosexual couples to be a couple in the eye of the state. You're saying a religious institution has the right to determine who gets married and who doesn't so long as there are other channels available. But, in the most recent case, the vote was to remove ALL channels. How is that not discrimination?

Actually, I didn't make an incorrect statement. I made a point which you completely missed. But based on the rest of the post, that's not surprising. You are so angry and so quit to dismiss something that you don't agree it's actually quite amusing. Yup. That's exactly what I meant by study and debate. Thornbirds? Of all the references you could have pulled from you choose the Thornbirds? Come on, at least try to be entertaining if you are incapable of having an honest discussion. I have never claimed to be an expert. But you continue to think I'm some sort of atheist. In fact I am anything but. Absolutely not. I don't work in academia. Do I believe in education? Absolutely. Education doesn't only exist within the walls of academia. Again, you're not even engaging in the discussion now. You're just spouting nonsense like an angry man yelling at the grass for growing too loudly. Here's a tip, if you wish to engage in an honest discussion that requires you to listen and actually consider the points being raised -- even if you disagree with it. ESPECIALLY if you disagree with it. That way you can come back with a real retort, something with substance (or at the very least humor) ... both of which appear to be foreign concepts to you. Shame. I hate to tell you, but saying "who the !@#$ am I" really doesnt cancel out all the other stuff youve already said proving youre a total pompous ass. Other stuff I've already said? Such as what? Such as my desire to learn more about religion in general? To seek out counsel from spiritual leaders in my community in an effort to expand my own horizons? Or maybe it's my assertion that I realize everything I'm saying is just one man's opinion. Yes. That makes me a pompous ass? No, what would make me a pompous ass would be if I recommended that you actually looking up the definition to big words like "pompous" before throwing them around in a spastic, rage-filled rant that makes you look like an ass more than hero. But I didn't say that. In fact I said the exact opposite of that. Speaking to a million priests and nuns and monks (monks??!!!??) doesnt reveal this. Two open eyes do. I haven't spoken to millions. I haven't been around long enough ... I've barely been around long enough to catch your hip references like the Thornbirds. But it is interesting that you believe it's impossible to learn something from other people's experiences and perspectives. In fact, it sums up everything that's wrong about your responses to my thread. You are either too stubborn or to obtuse to actually engage in an honest conversation. I for one believe that I'm not smart enough to know everything intuitively. You might feel differently. But it's silly to shut yourself off to opinions that differ from your own. How else can you test the validity of your own beliefs and views if you're never presented with options? Free will is a gift given to our species. But it's not free. There's an intellectual cost to free will. To say there isn't is to live your life in the darkness. So because I can look up why Van Halen is cancelling tour dates on a computer, religious institutions should change the underpinnings of thousands of years of doctrine. Brilliant. You are missing the overriding point (again). The point was that throughout history, Religion (general term) was the only source of knowledge for most of the world's population. They were the keepers of knowledge, spiritual and intellectual. They controlled the access to knowledge and, often times, used that power to thwart the growth of progress. The Catholic Church is the most vivid example of this, but it happened across the globe with nearly every religion in one form or another. Knowledge is power. And now that power is available to everyone who cares to take the plunge. That has never been the case before in the history of mankind. Now you may use the new fangled data machines to look up Van Halen tickets (Thornbirds and Van Halen ... quite the picture you're painting of yourself) -- but even you have to admit that other people who may be interested in learning stuff are using the fancy computers to educate themselves. This is both a blessing and a curse for religion as a whole. And, as I pointed out, even your Catholic Church has begun to adopt views its held for a millenia due to the undeniable progress of general knowledge. Um...the Earth was proven to be round hundreds of years ago. Your point holds ZERO water. But I do....hold on, I gotta pee. Actually my point more than holds water. It's not even a debatable fact. Religion has often responded to new ways of thinking, and science in general, with intimidation and violence. Admitting that something happened historically doesn't diminish the positive impact religion has had in the world. But turning a blind eye to it dishonors not only yourself, but the millions of people who gave their lives on both sides of that battle. And, point in fact, the Earth was actually believed to be round thousands of years ago, not hundreds. And that's just in Europe. Other cultures figured it out even earlier than the Greeks. Despite this, the Catholic Church not only denied this fact as false, they used violence and intimidation to keep the truth a "myth" for hundreds of years. Now? I think most Catholics would agree that the Church was wrong on that count. So how do you justify that as a Catholic man yourself? Does this mean that the Church is evil? No. Does it mean the Church is failable? Absolutely -- the priests I've talked to would agree. Youre right..toss those Bibles, and Torahs....who needs em!!??!! Again, you're not even bothering to try to understand the point. The point isn't that I am saying the Bible is worthless, it's that the Church itself is openly revising it's own creation beliefs. This is monumental in a historical sense. Much like your example above with the Earth being round -- the Church said that was wrong, then changed their mind when presented with facts. And now, the Church is saying it's not only possible, but likely, that there is other life in the universe. It's an evolution of faith. And it's a positive thing. That does not mean I find the core religious texts worthless. Not at all. There is power in the words and lessons held within. But believing in a literal translation is something that the Church itself no longer does ... which was the point. Yeah...you have a "deep respect" for religion with statements like THIS. Do you believe the Earth is only 4,000 years old? Anyone who takes the Bible, or any religious text, literally when it flies in the face of fact is indeed backwards thinking. Which by itself is fine so long as those people do not try to use those texts to restrict someone's freedom. Not what I said. For a real fart smeller...er...smart feller....you didnt get my basic point? You haven't made one single point in any of your ramblings. At least not any points that have any bearing on my posts. But I do appreciate a good fart joke ... ...too bad yours wasn't good.

No shame in that.

First of all ... I completely misunderstood the sequence of events. My understanding was that the kid and his parents were brought to the principal's office and told to wash his face. I was completely unaware that they were singled out in front of the other students and teachers. That would piss me off as a parent to no end, without question and it totally changes my opinion on the matter. That's what I get for posting and drinking. My apologies.

Let's take all these gems one at a time. The reference was directly tied to Kristallnacht. If you want, I have plenty of books I can recommend on how that all played out. Then you'll understand the admittedly hyperbolic point I was making. Or, you could stick to the point raised rather than making ridiculous assumptions about my knowledge of history. Up to you. First off, you don't know me so don't try to tell me how I think. I have absolutely no problem with religion or people who wish to live their life based on their faiths. In fact, I consider myself to be quite spiritual and have had a long fascination and passion for religion in general. I've studied it. I've debated it. I've gone to mass after mass after mass. I've had endless conversations with Baptist Ministers, Catholic Priests, Imams and Monks. Sometimes for research for my work, other times simply for my own spiritual development. I have absolutely nothing against religion nor would I ever presume to tell someone that God doesn't exist. Because really, who the f*ck am I? I've always been drawn to religion. It fascinates me. Religion, in the broadest sense of the word, has played an undeniable role in helping humanity flourish and prosper across the globe. It has elevated and shaped humanity in countless positive ways. It's provided light in times of darkness and glory in times of despair. It's a powerful and profound force that every person who has ever walked the Earth has been touched by in one way or another. But, simultaneously, history shows that this force is not always positive. In fact, there has been never been a more destructive force than organized religion. None. More people have died in the name of God than from any other cause. And again, I'm talking religion in a general term. That paradox is what fascinates me. It's even more fascinating today because we're living in a new age. A new enlightenment is a whisker away thanks to the fact that information is more readily accessible to more people than at anytime in history. Where religion was once held the key to knowledge, today anyone with WiFi and a credit card can read just about anything they wish. This isn't really an overnight thing, it's been a steady progression in a historical sense. Science is breaking new ground at an absolute exponential rate which, in turn, has forced our society to evolve at a breathtaking pace. And it's only going to start to go faster. Think about this: in the span of less than 100 years Man went from wagons to trains to cars to planes to the moon. Science's rapid advancement is pushing progress on religion in a way unseen in history. This is a tremendous threat to religion. People are questioning their faith and the existence of God on a daily basis. And it's not just one question, it's hundreds. History is riddled with examples of how religion has traditionally responded to perceived threats to their dominion: wars, genocides, persecution, and countless atrocities are the norm. That needs to change. I don't point that fact out to besmirch religion, but I point it out as an agent of change that is necessary to me as a human being. Organized religion is only dangerous because it's run by men, not Gods. And men can be evil motherf*ckers who aren't above posing as men of God to get what they want. Questioning your faith when it puts you in ethical or moral quagmires doesn't mean you lose your faith. In fact, it deepens it. The good news is that religion seems to be beginning to realize that science and knowledge aren't threats to faith. In fact, it even appears religion is beginning to embrace its former arch nemesis: Science. The Catholic Church just recently made the announcement that alien life is possible. Imagine that ... the Catholic Church is advocating something that, less than 300 years ago, would have gotten you burned at the stake for even thinking. But it's bigger than that. The Catholic Church, in essence, is admitting that much of the Judeo-Christian creation beliefs are now are subject to revision. And if something like THAT is up for debate, then certainly something as innocuous as sexual orientation should be up for reconsideration. But this is a good thing! Knowledge and science aren't threats to God or faith. If anything, they make God bigger. The more we learn about our universe, the more questions we ask. The more questions we ask, the bigger God's scope becomes. However, religious literalists -- key word there is literalists -- who hide behind thier religious texts as a reflex to change should be questioned. They should be subject to scrutiny. It's backwards thinking that does nothing to elevate humanity but rather divides it. Mankind is not going to stop asking questions, it's not going to stop expanding its horizons. And religion shouldn't either. If that makes my thinking elitist, so be it. This is a ridiculous post on many levels. Not the least of which it has nothing to do with the post it's responding to. If you don't think the opposition to gay marriage is largely driven by religious objections to homosexuality you're a fool.

So by your logic the federal government should have let Jim Crow continue unchecked?

I'm not trying to say that the black community can't handle it and certainly am not attempting to be patronizing. But I disagree that MLK wouldn't find a problem with it. The legacy of Blackface runs counter to everything that MLK stood for and died for. While I do agree with you that he wouldn't have raised a big hub-bub about it with the press, I strongly believe that had he been a parent in that classroom, he would have taken the time to talk to the boy and his parents and explain to them why blackface is offensive. He was a minister first and foremost. In RDJ's case, his character in Tropic Thunder was clearly a send up about how crazy method actors are AND how few leading men are black in Hollywood even today. It wasn't done out of hate or mocking, it was done for the sake of satire. This kid's presentation wasn't done out of hate or mocking either, in fact I'd be willing to bet neither he nor his parents were aware of, or understood, the shameful history of blackface in America. So much so that rather than trying to understand how their actions could be deemed offensive, the parents shoved a news camera in their son's face and cried foul. And that's the problem to me. It's one thing to be unaware that your actions could be construed as offensive and recognize your mistake and remedy it. But instead of taking the moment as an opportunity to teach their child (and themselves) about the issue, they seemed to have ran to the media to raise hell over other people being too sensitive about an issue they are absolutely unable to sympathize with. Look at the title of this thread ... it says it all. The PC police didn't call the news -- the parents did. Which, to me, sends up a lot of smoke signals about the parent's true intent. They put their kid in the spotlight and I can't hold the kid responsible, but I darn well can throw the parents under the bus because they should know better.

Yes, it was a reference to the Nazi's but not a personal shot at you. Just showing how it's silly to think discrimination, of any kind, isn't related to a nation going down the shitter. It's all interconnected. It's all related. When times get tough people look for scapegoats. They look for people different than them to pin the blame. It's happened throughout history to all races, religions and creeds. In the case of '38 the continent was in the throes of a terrible depression and the world was in the shitter -- so the Nazi's picked the most marginalized and easy target they could find (the Jews) and you know how the rest of the story goes. Could that happen again? Absolutely. And it starts with sentiments expressed by (sadly) many in this thread. Sexual orientation is another "difference" those in positions of power use to distract the masses and keep us fighting with each other by playing on fears and ignorance. But the truth is our society (or nation) will never reach its full potential when it continues to discriminate against portions of its own population -- however small or large that may be. This is a basic human rights issue. To think it's anything but that is just silly. Old enough not to answer that question. Not sure why you think I'd be against that ... I've never said I was an atheist. In fact, quite the opposite. I have no problem with people believing in God or practicing their religious beliefs. I just find it disconcerting when people allow their religion to cloud their judgement or use it as an excuse to spread hate and bigotry. There's so much hate on this board that frankly I find it disturbing. And you don't think discriminating against American citizens, regardless of their numbers, is an issue of freedom?

Enlighten me, please.

You're still my hero.

"Sucked" in the good way?

I never claimed to be a victim. But don't let facts stand in your way. The point if you bothered to actually use that melon on top your shoulders is that the parents of the kid, not the school, made this a story by going to the press. They're the ones who made this national news, not the PC police. They let their kid go out in blackface and then, when people got offended, rather than trying to understand why people got offended they waited for the news cameras to show up. But yes, you're right, it's the school's fault.

There's a lot of blame to go around. But 99% of it falls on the parents who not only let their kid do it, but then made it a media event, which is why KD's statement above is so absurd.

It's not the same thing. Not even the same sport.

Agreed... people love that movie. Not sure why myself, but that's me being difficult.

:lol: I just noticed that too. Hilarious. Kid's got style and guts. I'll give him that.

According to the article the parents waited for the news to arrive. So money's on them calling it in. Which makes it worse. DC Tom is right. People are idiots.

It's confounded by the fact the kid was portraying MLK. A white kid dressing as MLK in blackface, unknowingly or not, is the opposite of the message MLK preached. It would have been a more profound statement for him to wear the suit and tie and mustache but forgo the blackface since MLK's message was one of color blindness. Putting on blackface defines MLK as a black man rather than a human being which was his central message. Again, not the kid's fault. It's the parents. Personally I would have handled the situation differently as I don't think the kid (or the parents) meant any harm ... but it's not an excuse.