Moby, we dont agree on most issues, but you are even-handed and intellectually honest about your views. I appreciate the way you handle debates.

How did you know about my small animal fetish?



My favorite small animal just so happens to be the "pussy" (if you know what I mean).



You have to remember that the original focus of Madmans thread here is his deep seeded hatered towards homosexuals. I just find it ironic that two of his heros just might have been gay themselves.

Yes I could have quoted a more reputable source (there's hundreds out there on the internet), but come on now. In the case of Hoover, how many men do you know that never married, were seen together with the same man just about all the time for over 40 years, and then after death, gets buried next to this "Significant Other"? I'm sorry but that screams:



As for McCarthy, again don't you find it a little odd that he marries so late in life (after the gay allegations) to his secretary, then adopts? Again, can you say:



:rolleyes:

Like I said, I don't care if they were gay or not. The time they lived in and the positions they held would most definately give them reasons to hide it if they were. I don't really think it matters either way.

Hey, I try to be, but the Madman pisses me off and I lose all control! hahaha.

Have you read this thread from the begining? You are totally missing the original scope here. Though I agree that it usually doesn't matter if a person is gay or not, it just so happens that it matters here. Both these hypocritcal men attacked/ridiculed homosexuals in their days, labeling them as deviants and the likes, yet practiced the same "lifestyle" themselves in secret. Pot calling the kettle black don't you think?

Dishonest debating makes your position look weaker, even if the other person is doing the same thing.

Who is being dishonest here? I don't think anyone here so far has purposly quoted a "dishonest" source for their debating material. Please elaborate.

Sorry. I was referring to WilMacs comment about honest debating. He said he tries, but Madman pisses him off. I was just saying that lowering your honesty makes your point weaker that is all. Even if you completely disagree with someone, using dishonest arguments doesn't help.

I think Ted Kennedy's recent comments are a good example of this. Making stuff up and spouting it off as truth just makes you look stupid. Unfortunately a lot of the Dems are doing this. Both sides do it all to often unfortunately.

That's why I've lost all respect for BOTH parties. If it seems I'm always against the Republicans, it's because they are the party that makes the most noise, plus the fact they've aligned themselves with a religious organization, clearly going against the Constitution (i.e. purporting religion). I honestly feel that within 20 years there will be a third party just as strong as the two we have currently.

Who has been dishonest? I tried rationally and calmly debating the point...he took it to the next level.

Whatever, I'm not going to get sucked back into it. Anyone that says we need to bring back McCarthyism truly is a madman, I guess.

And you just can't argue logically with the insane.

Sean, you need to read the Constitution again. What laws has Congress passed recently that are respectful of a certain religion?

WilMac I didn't say you were being dishonest.

ok...just checking.

You know and I know the conservative Republicans have aligned themselves with the Christian right.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of the 1st Amendment is what that idiot judge Roy Moore down in Alabama just doesn't understand.

Do we have to do this again? By establishing a religion they meant state sponsored religion. It was not meant to bar religion from government. It was meant to keep the government from establishing a state sanctioned religion ala the Church of England. Where it was the law that you had to be a member of this certain church. And remember, I am an atheist.

Oh and I suppose a two-ton monument of the Ten Commandments on display in the state's PUBLIC Judicial Building is not a show of bias towards religion?

Not a specific one. Did the commandements being there state in any way that if you are not a christian you will not get a fair shake here? What about jews, dont they have the same ten in thier torah? So which religion are we talking about. Which religion is being established?

Your hatred for religion and specifically christianity clouds your judgment on this issue. I am not a christian, nor a jew, nor a muslim....you get the point. I hear these atheists and others telling me I should somehow feel threatened because some judge wanted the commandments on the steps. But not once have they been able to tell me why I should be threatened. Since it is not a religious court, any mention of religion to me would be taken as something outside the judicial system itself, and more of a reminder of where we came from.

Now if, on the other hand, he stated that I had broken some law of the church, and that church law was the law of the land, then I would have a problem. But since this is not the case. Why should I feel threatened?

What if I were Muslim or of some other religion (or not religious at all)? Why should I be subjected to seeing or being part of the Christian or Jewish faith?

Quote:

Your hatred for religion and specifically christianity clouds your judgment on this issue.

As I've stated many times before, I DO NOT hate any religion per se, only the people who use it to get what they really want, usually power or wealth.

Quote:

I am not a christian, nor a jew, nor a muslim....you get the point. I hear these atheists and others telling me I should somehow feel threatened because some judge wanted the commandments on the steps. But not once have they been able to tell me why I should be threatened.

I'm sorry you don't see the problem in this. Are you sure you are an atheist? You don't sound like one. Swear to God?

Quote:

Since it is not a religious court, any mention of religion to me would be taken as something outside the judicial system itself, and more of a reminder of where we came from.

Then why is the monument there? Why doesn't the judge put it on his front lawn?

My feeling is, if it's making people angry, then it's not helping your cause...if they're all pissed off about it, then just drop it, and move on. Getting everyone all pissed about it blinds them to your viewpoint...

...wait a second...I just reread the thread from the other night between me and Madman...

...ahem....

Kettle? Pot?

Jeses H. Christ on a fucking rubber crutch!

How hard is this to understand? Sharing values with the Christians is not creating a law that establishes a religion. The ten commandments sitting in a building is not a law establishing a religion. I know you read it. Maybe it will eventually sink in.

The Constitution does not have the 'seperation of church and state' in it anywhere. The government does not have to seperate itself from anything religious. As long as the Congress is not establishing a national faith, they are in the clear. Leftist judges have decided to make up their own laws, because they hate Christianity. I am not a Christian at all, and I can see this.

How exactly does a monument force you to be a part of Chritianity. That is just stupid.

You're right, a monument won't convert me to any religion, but it shows to anyone entering the PUBLIC court house what side of the religious spectrum the judge is on. So much for impartiality, huh?

:rolleyes:

Bullshit. It does no such thing. The commandments represent one of the oldest group of 'laws' around. That is it.

Lets assume it does what you say. How is that unconstitutional or illegal? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it illegal. Unfortunately we have judges that think they have the right to make up what is legal and illegal. They are wrong. That is what our legislature is for.

I see we're at an impasse here. If you don't understand that the judicial system must be impartial to all potential defendants, I guess we have nothing else to discuss on this subject.

Hey guys....

It's totally useless arguing about religion with Sean and basically all of the morally bankrupt atheists on the left.

He has a venomous hatred for Judeo/Christian values and Christianity in particular. Haven't you ever noticed he will argue tirelessly against anything Christian yet in the next sentence he will defend a non-Judeo/Christian religion such as Islam as having certain public rights. Rights in which he would never extend to Christians. His is the same hypocrosy that permeates all left wing thought.

Another example of Sean's outrageous hypocrosy is his defense of everything homosexual. Sean rallies that these are noble people worthy of special consideration. He has stated they are "victims" of persecution by the Christians who want to impose their morality. He then turns around and describes a "suspected" homosexual as a "pickle-smoocher".

Originally posted by Sean:
How is his being christian affect his impartiality? Impartial against who? Do you honestly think because he is a christian that he would somehow be biased against jews, muslims, hindus, atheists once they walk into that courtroom? Does he even care? How does he know who is what? Does he ask? Does he have some magic anti-christian dust that he sprinkles on them when they take thier oaths to tell the truth. Will a muslim or hindu catch in flames? If you can prove he is being partial because of his religious beliefs than by all means he needs to be nailed to the wall. But until that time....

I am an atheist, but I can still see a witch hunt for what it is.

So what happens when a Quaker (a Christian) comes in, and refuses to take an oath on the bible? Will he keep his impartiality?

I don't know about Alabama, but a lot of states do not *require* swearing upon the bible. The oath of office for the President does not require it, either.