The sadly obligatory “Meghan McCain calls Joe the Plumber a dumbass” post

posted at 8:08 pm on July 16, 2009 by Allahpundit

When news is slow, as it is tonight, it’s either MeggieMac or an atheism post. Consider yourselves lucky.

Worth noting that Elisabeth Hasselbeck said virtually the same thing about JTP two months ago, although I grant you that it’s bigger news when the daughter of the guy who made Joe famous drops the bomb on him. Even so, isn’t she right? Just this one time?

Yet even as the balance begins to shift, the old guard is still yapping in the foreground. Shortly before McCain sat for this interview, Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, gave an interview to Christianity Today in which he complained about “queers” and declared, “I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.” Unprompted, McCain rails against the man her father’s presidential campaign touted as an American everyman and made a showpiece in the weeks before the election. “Joe the Plumber — you can quote me — is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing.”

If you missed his full interview with Christianity Today in May, you’ll find it here. Seriously: Gay adoption is practically mainstream these days and presumably welcome by conservatives as an alternative to abortion — and yet JTP thinks gays are uniformly unfit to be around children? That’s not dumbass? Since anything MMc says is deemed RINO until proven otherwise, let’s approach the question from a different angle: Do you think Sarahcuda, goddess of True Conservatism, is closer to the McCain or Wurzelbacher position on this one? I’d guess the former. Tell me why I’m wrong.

Exit question I’m going to regret: Er, why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me? Is it because she spends most of her time bashing the GOP on gay marriage instead of rubbing The One’s face in crap? I’m puzzled.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Back to the original question. I view homosexuality as a learned abnormal behavior and not a genetic condition. While I believe people have a right to be just as abnormal as they want to be, I don’t think those people have a right to raise children and shape their minds to accept abnormal behavior as normal: accordingly, if a specific state, by it’s voters, determine homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children, I have no problem with that type of law. If a homosexual doesn’t like that law, they can move to another state that embraces their values.

FWIW – I really don’t care what is considered mainstream thinking.

David in ATL on July 17, 2009 at 8:42 AM

I’m just about as interested in what Ms. Mcain has to say about anything as I am excited to hear Levi Johnson’s views. Or Joe the Plumber’s for that matter. Republicans need to stop bothering with these people and find someone with intelligent things to say…we’re running out of time.

scalleywag on July 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Gay adoption is practically mainstream these days and presumably welcome by conservatives as an alternative to abortion —

Either you really don’t understand conservatives, or this was a tweak to get the count up. If so, worked like a charm.

Exit question I’m going to regret: Er, why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me? Is it because she spends most of her time bashing the GOP on gay marriage instead of rubbing The One’s face in crap? I’m puzzled.

While you seem biased on some issues (cough- Palin- cough), you provide interesting content, often express an understanding of the “other side” from what you propose, and pose thoughtful and funny stuff.

Aside from following her daddy around on the campaign trail, pretty much all Ms. McCain seems to do is say “I joined the party months ago. Why haven’t you changed to conform to my platform yet?”

IOW, while you express your opinion, you also seem to accept reality and know your limitations. You’re a blogger.
Pretty good one overall, and you have some influence but don’t overstate it. Ms. McCain’s “Don’t you know who I am!!!!” schtick is arrogant and tiresome.

IMO.

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 8:47 AM

I’m not a big supporter of Gay adoption.. I guess I’m a dumbass, but I endeavor on my life’s mission to elevate my inherent stupidity above this post, which has ‘dumbass’ labeled all over it..

saus on July 17, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Allahpundit,

Don’t assume that all of your readers accept your atheistic views. Frankly, I have read enough anti-theism in your posts that I’ve just about had it. I enjoy much of your work but simply cannot take much more of your anti-religious views.

Don’t think that I am a “right wing religious nut”, either. Right wing, yes, religious nut, no. While I do profess a belief in God and Jesus Christ, I haven’t been in a church for years, preferring to practice my faith in my own way.

Your writing is often cogent, precise and effective. That’s what has kept me returning. I’ve grown tired of the atheistic theme, though. I’m going to guess that many others feel as I do.

Why not just leave your anti-religion and my religion out of the discussion? Even if the topic at hand seems to require it, you must understand that you are going to offend many people that would otherwise enjoy reading you.

As a “right wing extremist”, (I believe that the second amendment recognizes a universal individual right and is not in the Constitution to protect deer hunting) I’m very tolerant. I can tolerate your atheism as long as you aren’t intolerant of my theism.

Your near constant slamming of those that do not completely adhere to evolution is a good example of what I am referring to. For a while it came up so often I was ready to quit the page altogether and I’m not even one who has any serious quibbles with evolution theory. You seemed to enjoy slamming those that do, however.

Perhaps I’m being too harsh. Take this comment for what it’s worth. But at least give it a think, please.

Erich

erich on July 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Perhaps if Ms. McCain had said “Well, I don’t agree with that” instead of sounding like Perez Hilton, she might not have sounded like, well, an intolerant dumbass.

dean_acheson on July 17, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Your near constant slamming of those that do not completely adhere to evolution is a good example of what I am referring

AP isn’t that bad…if he was a typical darwiniac, like at lGF, I would have been banned long, long ago…

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 9:21 AM

but he has been slipping, I haven’t seen an atheism/evolution post in a while….he should put up a post on a review of a new book: Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress…

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 9:23 AM

This useful idiot should just STFU and become a democrat. I was hoping we were done with mccain’s bullshit….now his idiot spawn will be paraded out on CNN for years to come. Great.

texaninfidel on July 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM

That’s the problem. She’s not going away. And no one seems interested in confronting her nonsense directly.

Blake on July 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM

why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me?

For one, you don’t pretend to speak for the GOP.

For another, you don’t tell us to shut up and get on the back of bus.

I R A Darth Aggie on July 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Meghan Mc Cain IS the modern GOP. ’nuff said.

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Stuff a pork chop in your mouth Meggie and STFU. Thank you.

NJ Red on July 17, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Joe’s remark about gays WAS a dumb remark and mean-spirited. But, that may be how he truly feels.

AnninCA on July 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM

A saying about glass houses and throwing stones springs to mind for some reason.

EconomicNeocon on July 17, 2009 at 10:31 AM

If not for multi-state separation…

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:04 AM

I’m not convinced that’s an insurmountable problem for you.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM

JTP’s opinion is what it is. MeggieMac’s “he’s a dumbass” comment is shallow, predictable, and unimaginative. It’s just her currying favor with the press by saying what they want to hear in the most low-rent way she can think of.

It’s imitation candor, hold the good will.

dkmonroe on July 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Why not just leave your anti-religion and my religion out of the discussion?

erich on July 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Social conservatives get their socially-conservative political views from their religion. Disabusing them of their theistic delusions is the most direct path to defeating their totalitarian aims politically.

We American laymen wouldn’t be debating Islamic theology if some Muslims weren’t trying to take over the world in the name of Islam. Likewise, we wouldn’t be debating the existence of your god if you weren’t trying to abrogate our inalienable rights in his name.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Exit question I’m going to regret: Er, why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me? Is it because she spends most of her time bashing the GOP on gay marriage instead of rubbing The One’s face in crap? I’m puzzled.

Answer I already regret: We’ve seen her. You stillhave the cloak of anonymity.

Real answer:
1. She picks all the wrong fights, despite what beliefs she espouses. There’s a reason why being a maverick is typically connoted as a negative in our culture.

2. Besides, having MMc do conservative apoligia is as effective as a two-tailed sperm…they both just go in circles.

bluelightbrigade on July 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM

why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me?

At least you’re honest about being an athiest and about being squishy on abortion. Meghan McCain? Not so much. She can’t even be honest about her political leanings.

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Disabusing them of their theistic delusions is the most direct path to defeating their totalitarian aims politically

Take it up with Jefferson, Adams et al.

we wouldn’t be debating the existence of your god if you weren’t trying to abrogate our inalienable rights in his name.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM

The founders indicated those “inalienable rights” came from the Creator.

We can debate the existence and name of God, and everyone has a right to worship or not according the the dictates of their conscience. “Disabusing them of their theistic delusions” runs counter to the principles our nation was founded upon.

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Meghan McCain calls Joe the Plumber a dumbass. It takes one to know one, I suppose.

What, pray tell, is conservative or Republican about Meghan McCain except her father? Like Ronald Reagan Jr., she’s an apple that fell far from the tree, rotting from the inside out, and the media are playing her to besmirch her father’s good name.

AllahPundit may not have read this, but those of us who worship and obey the Supreme Being are taught to “honor thy father and thy mother”. What would that mean to a child adopted by two men or by two women?

For a child raised by his/her biological parents, or by a heterosexual adoptive couple, the child tends to emulate the same-sex parent, and see the opposite-sex parent as a model for a future spouse. But how does a boy raised by two women learn what is expected of a man, or a girl raised by two men learn what is expected of a woman? How does a boy raised by two men learn about women, or a girl raised by two women learn about men?

This is the main objection to gay adoption. Gay “couples” who want to adopt children are thinking only of themselves–they want to “have children” without doing what is necessary to conceive them. But children are not objects to be manipulated, or toys to be played with–they are young, vulnerable human beings needing love, nurture and guidance, by both a male and a female adult, if the biological parents cannot take care of them. For the children’s sake, they should not be raised by gay “couples”, especially when there are millions of childless married couples begging for the chance to love and nurture a child to adulthood, being thwarted by over-strict laws and bureaucratic red tape.

No to gay adoption…for the children’s sake.

Steve Z on July 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Bwahahahahaha!!!

“He should stick to plumbing.”

McShamnestys bulbous daughter should stick to Twinkie scarfing.

She is so conscience of her massive girth, that when someone called her a RINO, she thought they were referring to her weight.

csdeven on July 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Take it up with Jefferson, Adams et al.

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Both my political and my religious views are a hell of a lot closer to Jefferson’s than yours are, pal.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Social conservatives get their socially-conservative political views from their religion. Disabusing them of their theistic delusions is the most direct path to defeating their totalitarian aims politically.

We American laymen wouldn’t be debating Islamic theology if some Muslims weren’t trying to take over the world in the name of Islam. Likewise, we wouldn’t be debating the existence of your god if you weren’t trying to abrogate our inalienable rights in his name.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM

delusional. seriously delusional.

lets see, communism is a totally atheistic theory…and the most repressive form of government known…responsible for 100 million plus deaths in the last century, and untold misery and suffering for countless others…

Darwinism is an atheistic theory, and it is the rationale behind eugenics, which has cost the lives of millions more…

the only rights you have come from God…and the freedom you enjoy is from a judeo-christian civilization.

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Let’s assume, hypothetically, that in 20 years it’s determined through statistical analysis that 5000 of the subjects in your experiment have died that wouldn’t have otherwise, either through suicide, ODing on drugs, DUI crash, etc… Would you propose the immediately cessation of the experiment and an attempt to undo the damage to those that remain alive? Would much would the whole fiasco of an experiment have cost the state for attempting to mess with mother nature?

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 1:32 AM

How can you prove that any of that was a direct result of the parents being gay?

Since the preference is still a mother and father, homosexual couples will likely only be adopting children who would otherwise be wards of the state, not the kind of blank slates that don’t come with their own baggage.

The better case would be to see how biological children of homosexuals are, but even then, you’d have to be able to do away with variables such as the death of a friend, failed romantic relationships, etc. And then you’d have to find a way to prove the homosexuals directly caused their problems.

Perhaps you should save your lecturing then until, you know, you actually win something. Just sayin’.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 1:55 AM

That’s illogical. He can be right and still unable to convince the majority of voters he is.

I also find it so amusing that pro-life fanatics are so often males, who do not have to face the ultimate consequences of spending time in prison for having an abortion.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM

Actually, the majority of pro-lifers are female, like myself. Being a man who says it isn’t his business isn’t brave either, and can we stop pretending women who have abortions will be rounded up and thrown into jail?

It was illegal in most states less than 50 years ago. Stories from then are filled with women in hospital wards, not prison cells. The main argument was that women needed access to safe abortions, not that they should be freed from jail.

In fact, I’ve tried researching and can find nothing to indicate that women were punished with anything more than what they did to themselves or something “gentle,” whatever that means.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM

I really, really really, don’t give a crap what this girl thinks.

Her opinion is about as valuable as Perez Hilton’s.

Brian1972 on July 17, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Social conservatives get their socially-conservative political views from their religion. Disabusing them of their theistic delusions is the most direct path to defeating their totalitarian aims politically.

Not all of them, and many take cues from their religion for more liberal policies.

Also, you need to get over yourself if you think you’re able to “disabuse” anyone of their religious beliefs with insults.

Likewise, we wouldn’t be debating the existence of your god if you weren’t trying to abrogate our inalienable rights in his name.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM

You mean the rights endowed by our Creator?

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Meghan McCain is NOT a Christian unless you count those with a United Church of Christ sort of theology as being within the bounds of orthodox Christianity which it is clearly not.

If you were to give Meg a quiz on Christian doctrine she’d get a lot of it wrong.

Anyone that promotes gay marriage is by definition an anti-Christ.

Also, she is not too pro-life as far as actions go. In theory she is, but not in action as far as I have been able to tell.

And to acknowledge Joe the Plumber’s good and protective parenting I must point out that most gay men are initiated into the gay deathstyle through pedophilia.

Good parents don’t let homos around their children – including gay scout masters who want to take your son out on camping trips for the weekend.

Good parents protect their children from gay men who are always looking for fresh young meat to enjoy.

JaqobJackson on July 17, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Meghan McCain is no Liz Cheney.

luvstotango on July 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Is “disabusing theistic delusions” what Jefferson was attempting to do by attending religious services in government-owned buildings?

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

I’m quite familiar with the Jefferson Bible, his dicounting of miraculous events, etc.

Are you familiar with his interest in religion and cryptography, including a kind of coded copy of the Lord’s Prayer he wrote out?

Jefferson was a passionate writer and speaker. Keep that in mind if you try to use isolated quotes or comments by him and build a whole “philosophy of Jefferson” without viewing them in the context of his whole life and work.

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Social conservatives get their socially-conservative political views from their religion. Disabusing them of their theistic delusions is the most direct path to defeating their totalitarian aims politically.

We American laymen wouldn’t be debating Islamic theology if some Muslims weren’t trying to take over the world in the name of Islam. Likewise, we wouldn’t be debating the existence of your god if you weren’t trying to abrogate our inalienable rights in his name.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM

You act like Christianity is a new thing to the U.S., and it’s not. They don’t have totalitarian aims, because if they did we would have been a religious theocracy 200 years ago. Your attacking social conservatives under the false flag of defending your rights from an invading hoard. Your either dishonest in your intent, or you’ve drank too much MSM cool-aid.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM

So, to Meghan McCain, having an opinion opposite of the PC police, and expressing said opinion, makes one a “dumb-ass”?

That’s liberal-think. “You don’t think like I do so you are… (pick one: evil, intolerant, a “-phobe” of some kind or other, stupid, a dumb-ass, etc.).”

I have a sneaking suspicion that Meghan didn’t even vote for her father in this last election, as she too has been “mesmerized” by The One.
She still calls herself a “Republican” now simply to help “Him” destroy the Republican party from the inside, much like some of the other “Republicans”.

Sterling Holobyte on July 17, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Late to the game but wanted to address your question.

why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me?

As far as I’m concerned your status as an atheist is your problem – not mine. When it turns out you are wrong about God, YOU will be the one defending yourself to him. No skin off my nose if he throws you to the wolves.

As for loathing the snotty daughter of our previous candidate – as far as I’m concerned she is a walking squeaking example of someone who should STFU until she has something of value to say. Like too many of her age she has an over-inflated sense of her own worth and intellect. IMO she is an embarrassement to women – a needy desperate wannabie who lives for attention.

katiejane on July 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Lord people, don’t ask me for dating advice. The best I can do is “save a horse, ride a cowboy” ;-) have a great friday people!
about 1 hour ago from web

Quick! Get Allahpundit into a pair of chaps and a cowboy hat!

Blake on July 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM

katiejane on July 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM

+1000

bluelightbrigade on July 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM

lets see, communism is a totally atheistic theory…and the most repressive form of government known…responsible for 100 million plus deaths in the last century, and untold misery and suffering for countless others…

Darwinism is an atheistic theory, and it is the rationale behind eugenics, which has cost the lives of millions more…

the only rights you have come from God…and the freedom you enjoy is from a judeo-christian civilization.

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Your argument is a complete non sequitur. I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole were it not the same argument made by every conservative in America.

To your first point:
a) The Inquisition was a completely Christian institution. You would have equally as much to answer for as I would, except b) Marxism, and totalitarianism generally, is an explicit rejection of both economic science and reason (Marx spoke of a “proletarian logic” that was different from, and superior to, the “bourgeois logic” of Smith, Ricardo, Mill, et al.). c) Marx got his idea of the teleology of history from Hegel–a Christian who graduated from a renowned seminary–and merely substituted class for race. A pro-reason atheist is not a Marxist; there exists no such bright line preventing any religious sect from returning to the principles of the Inquisition.

To your second point:
a) Darwinism no more implies or leads to eugenics than economic science implies or leads to welfare statism. Eugenics is a corruption of biology (the Social Darwinists completely misunderstood the theory and its implications–cf: “natural selection” vs artificial selection) married to a totalitarian political view (a liberal government of a free people would not intervene in the reproductive affairs of its citizens anyway). b) Even if it were true that Darwin’s theory of natural selection implied or lead to eugenics in the past, that has no bearing on whether or not natural selection is an accurate theory for biology. Evolution is a fact; it is for the philosophers to derive the appropriate political and ethical lessons therefrom.

To your third point, and to

You mean the rights endowed by our Creator?

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM

:
Jefferson was a Deist, as were most of the other Founders. Their Creator is not the same as your Christian god. Deists believed that God created the world, set up natural laws according to which it would operate just fine without him, then stepped out the back door and hasn’t been seen since. Deists believed that men can know what God intended for them by a scientific study of the natural world. As Paine wrote, “THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.”

Jefferson thought that Men are endowed with Rights because a scientific, rather than a religious, approach to political theory, demonstrates as much.

Notice Jefferson claimed that Man’s Rights are “Self-Evident” Truths, not revealed truths. For him to say that Man is Endowed by his Creator with certain characteristics is to say nothing other than that man has certain characteristics–the question of Man’s origin is completely exogenous to the proof or the ramifications of said characteristics. Compare Mason’s formulation in the Virginia Declaration of Rights: “all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights.” [Emphasis mine]

To your final point, that freedom is a product of judeo-christian theology:
Europe in the Dark Ages was ruled in an absolutist fashion by the Christian Church. Geneva under Calvin and Massachusetts Bay Colony under the Puritans were ruled in the same fashion. Both our concept of freedom and our Constitution that (in theory) guarantees it, are products of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Voltaire, and Jefferson. That is not to say that none of the thinkers involved were Christians; it is merely to say that Christianity as such did not lead to it.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Since the preference is still a mother and father, homosexual couples will likely only be adopting children who would otherwise be wards of the state, not the kind of blank slates that don’t come with their own baggage.

Check again. The preference is not, even if it once was, “mother and father wherever possible.” Because that would be, you know, discriminatory.

evergreen on July 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM

there exists no such bright line preventing any religious sect from returning to the principles of the Inquisition.

You betray your own ignorance here by pretending the Inquisition is supported by Christian theology or reason when the opposite is true.

Jefferson was a Deist, as were most of the other Founders. Their Creator is not the same as your Christian god.

No sh!t. And really not my point.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 11:51 AM

A pro-reason atheist is not a Marxist; there exists no such bright line preventing any religious sect from returning to the principles of the Inquisition.

Yadda, yadda. The fundamentalist secularist speaks, out of their own religious viewpoint, to say that other religious viewpoints are out of bounds while their own is superior. How original.

evergreen on July 17, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Check again. The preference is not, even if it once was, “mother and father wherever possible.” Because that would be, you know, discriminatory.

evergreen on July 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM

More discriminatory than not allowing gays to adopt?

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 11:56 AM

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM

What a load of crap.

Their Creator is not the same as your Christian god

See the founding fathers weren’t even Christians. Obviously the rich history of Christianity in this country is all a scam perpetrated by Christian ninjas in white jump suits who use throwing crosses instead of stars. The christian ninjas have conned us into believing that religion played a large role in the formation of this country when obviously it played no role at all.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Any Federal government big enough to ban abortion is big enough to ban child-bearing.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:36 AM

You’ve chosen to frame the debate in liberal terms. That’s telling.

Rather than seeing abortion as the state declaring that the civil rights of one class of human beings (babies) is void, at least where it conflicts with the whims of another class (women)… you choose to see banning abortion as abrogation of rights.

Rather than seeing “gay marriage” as the imposition on society by the state of a radically new definition not just of the institution of marriage (which is not merely a religious construct but an anthropological one, inherent to human civilization), but also of a new definition of the nature of gender itself… you choose to see “gay marriage” laws as the state getting out of the way.

You need to change your login name to guntotingliberaltarian.

evergreen on July 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM

For him to say that Man is Endowed by his Creator with certain characteristics is to say nothing other than that man has certain characteristics–
hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM

What about this clause from Jefferson’s draft of the declaration of independence?

and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them,

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/AMERICA/DECLAR.HTM

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 12:05 PM

There’s no longer honor in saying you’re a “proud Republican” anymore.

The term, a proud Republican, lost it’s Tiffany stamp of approval, when they could no longer define itself, and the outcome of a vote could driven by polls or who was paid off in porkulous spending.

It’s the reason why we now splinter off into other groups, conservative or libertarian, etc.

McCain broke our hearts for so long and for so many years, and now this lightweight, a la Paris Hilton, comes to preach to us, when her father is largely responsible for us being in the sh*tter. It’s akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull.

luvstotango on July 17, 2009 at 12:07 PM

a) The Inquisition was a completely Christian institution. You would have equally as much to answer for as I would

oh yeah 2000 or so deaths over a couple of CENTURIES…compared to a hundred MILLION or more by communism…do you atheists have anything besides talking points?? to compare the two is beyond laughable.

oh and THANK GOD FOR THE CRUSADES!!! (I know you’ll bring this up next)

a) Darwinism no more implies or leads to eugenics than economic science implies or leads to welfare statism. Eugenics is a corruption of biology (the Social Darwinists completely misunderstood the theory and its implications–cf: “natural selection” vs artificial selection)

this is just total BS. eugenics is nothing more than APPLIED DARWINISM.

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

you darwinists cannot STAND any criticism of your creation fairy tale, or your hairygod darwin.

Jefferson was a Deist, as were most of the other Founders.

this is more atheist talking points…I find it interesting that atheists usually say this, and then turn right around and blame christians in the US for slavery and our treatment of native americans. so will you accept that slavery is a byproduct of atheism then?? didn’t think so.

didn’t Jefferson spend government money on sending christian missionairies to the indians?? put chaplains on government payroll? and provide punishment of irreverent soldiers?? didn’t he attend worship services in the US capital throughout his term as president??

your assertion that our freedom is a product of atheist thought is beyond absurd. we saw the product of atheism in revolutionary france, about the same time, where they took the ideas of Locke and Voltaire and implemented them…it is now called the TERROR.

our government is founded upon a very christian view of the nature of man, and where we derive our rights from…God.

truth hurts.

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:09 PM

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Oh, and there are a number of quotes where Jefferson referred to himself as a “Christian” and a “disciple of Jesus.” Can dig those up if I need to.

I’m not pretending that Jefferson would agree with your typical Southern Baptist pastor today, or a John Wesley type of Methodist circuit rider in the late 1800s. Won’t let you get away with pretending he would go along with you in “Disabusing them of their theistic delusions is the most direct path to defeating their totalitarian aims politically” either, though.

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM

b) Even if it were true that Darwin’s theory of natural selection implied or lead to eugenics in the past, that has no bearing on whether or not natural selection is an accurate theory for biology. Evolution is a fact; it is for the philosophers to derive the appropriate political and ethical lessons therefrom.

evolution is nothing more than an atheist fairy tale. It is not supported by the fossil record, lab work, or anything else. the tree of life has been falsified, as well as the darwinian concepts of ‘junk dna’ and ‘vestigia’ organs.

darwinists take ‘micro’ evolution and think it ‘adds up’ to macro, without any proof.

list the mutations, in order, that led to an eye. you cannot, and no one else can either, but you believe it, you take it on faith.

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM

You betray your own ignorance here by pretending the Inquisition is supported by Christian theology or reason when the opposite is true.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 11:51 AM

It is true that modern, mainstream, American Christianity does not support inquisitorial activities. What you forget in your ignorance is that the Inquisitors sure as hell thought Christian theology was on their side.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I disagree. Religion played a huge role in the founding of this country. For instance, it was on account of King George’s imposition of Anglicanism upon the colonists that the idea of enshrining religious freedom in the founding documents came about. (Nobody wants religious freedom when their religion is in a place of power.)

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM

the only rights you have come from God…and the freedom you enjoy is from a judeo-christian civilization.

I guess the Greeks and the Romans had nothing to do with it.

Ann NY on July 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I guess the Greeks and the Romans had nothing to do with it.

Ann NY on July 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM

why don’t you explain how our rights are derived from Caesar??

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:26 PM

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I have decided, after experience in previous threads, not to respond to you or to progressoverpeace. Pearls before swine, etc. As Twain said, “you cannot reason a man out of a position he wasn’t reasoned into.”

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 12:28 PM

“you cannot reason a man out of a position he wasn’t reasoned into.”

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I don’t blame you..how can you defend the indefensible??

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM

oh and did you just respond to me in your thread at:

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM

You need to change your login name to guntotingliberaltarian.

evergreen on July 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Which part of the 10th Amendment don’t you understand?

And last time I checked, no one was interested in killing “babies”. Get a dictionary.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 PM

oh and did you just respond to me in your thread at:

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM

So I did. It was an accident. Sorry. The goal is not to ignore you per se, (clearly I’m not doing that now); the goal is merely to avoid arguing with someone either too illogical or too dishonest to have a reasonable discussion. I tend to get you and right2bright confused, too–maybe it was him I was going to avoid.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 12:38 PM

goal is merely to avoid arguing with someone either too illogical or too dishonest to have a reasonable discussion.

and you don’t think comparing the inquisition to communism, and trying to blame Marxism on christianity fit one, or both of those categories???

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:40 PM

right2bright confused, too–maybe it was him I was going to avoid.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 12:38 PM

if right2bright is the person I’m thinking of, I don’t blame you….

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Ms. McCain is beginning to sound like a Democrat in Stealth Mode.

wtng2fish on July 17, 2009 at 12:43 PM

It is true that modern, mainstream, American Christianity does not support inquisitorial activities. What you forget in your ignorance is that the Inquisitors sure as hell thought Christian theology was on their side.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I’m not talking about current interpretations but rather looking at what’s actually there, something you obviously haven’t done.

There is nothing in Christian theology to justify the Inquisition. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, not using someone’s interpretation but rather what’s actually there, same as you’ve done with evolution. That you’d give Christianity a double standard is the problem.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Memo to Ms. McCain: If Joe the Plummer is a “dumb ass” then you my dear are a “lard ass”. STFU!!!!!

Winebabe on July 17, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Ms. McCain is beginning to sound like a Democrat in Stealth Mode.

wtng2fish on July 17, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Why not, John Mc Cain was always Democrat-Lite

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I like what Allah says and how he says it, and you gotta admit he hasn’t done that many atheist posts lately. I am an atheist too, but raised in a Christian household when I was younger so my whole life I have had a heavy dose of both sides. Also, I am squishy on abortion as well.

Meghan is pissed because Joe is being oppressive. Not offensive. Oppressive. What he says is that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people, and should be treated differently. Christians may say, yup thats right, but then in the same breath denounce orthodox Muslims or Jews for saying women don’t have the same rights as men. Its the same thing. You are infringing on someone’s rights to live free and make their own choices. As long as that right does not infringe on someone else’s it is ok. You can say it affects the child because it is abnormal, but then in the same breath you say well I don’t listen to mainstream views. Well deeming anything normal is based on a mainstream view of what is normal. And on top of that, how many children have you met with gay parents? I bet they are just normal kids.

Anyway my two cents, from a straight atheist guy. Also stop being so picky to Meghan. I remember how everyone jumped on her for saying she liked wearing black and then somehow people translated that to somehow they were supposed to wear black too. Thats just silly, she was just trying to show that republicans arent the stereotyped stuffed shirt, we are young, old, clean cut, punk, rock, and more. And stop infringing on the rights of our fellow americans, gay people. If you think that infringing on someone else’s rights are ok if it could hurt someone then why don’t you want gun control? Guns can hurt people. You don’t because you feel people are generally responsible enough to handle guns, just like I do. Just as you should for gay people and let them handle their life the way they want to.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Anyway my two cents, from a straight atheist guy. Also stop being so picky to Meghan. I remember how everyone jumped on her for saying she liked wearing black and then somehow people translated that to somehow they were supposed to wear black too. Thats just silly, she was just trying to show that republicans arent the stereotyped stuffed shirt, we are young, old, clean cut, punk, rock, and more. And stop infringing on the rights of our fellow americans, gay people. If you think that infringing on someone else’s rights are ok if it could hurt someone then why don’t you want gun control? Guns can hurt people. You don’t because you feel people are generally responsible enough to handle guns, just like I do. Just as you should for gay people and let them handle their life the way they want to.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM

As long as were talking peoples rights, I have a hypothetical question.
Do parishes/congregations have a right to NOT hire an openly gay person for, let’s say an office job in the church or school, because that person is unrepentant of an act that parish/congregation considers a sin,and as stated in the bible, after various steps, the church MUST break off ties with that person if they remain in that sinful state.

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 1:23 PM

You are infringing on someone’s rights to live free and make their own choices. As long as that right does not infringe on someone else’s it is ok

gay marriage, and the entire gay movement, are all about infriging upon the rights of others…we can kiss freedom of religion goodbye if the gays get their way.

the catholic charties in MA can no longer do adoptions because, by law, they are forced to do gay adoptions…so much for freedom with the gay agenda…

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 1:26 PM

As long as were talking peoples rights, I have a hypothetical question.
Do parishes/congregations have a right to NOT hire an openly gay person for, let’s say an office job in the church or school, because that person is unrepentant of an act that parish/congregation considers a sin,and as stated in the bible, after various steps, the church MUST break off ties with that person if they remain in that sinful state.

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Yup, I believe that is their right, as it is their “business” owned and operated by idealouges. Just like how mosques and synagogues require women and men to be separated in their buildings or how most catholic churches don’t allow women to be preachers.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Well deeming anything normal is based on a mainstream view of what is normal. And on top of that, how many children have you met with gay parents? I bet they are just normal kids.

You can “bet” whatever you wish, but you have no data to back it up. Gay adoption hasn’t been around long enough to produce significant studies, and the population is also relatively small.

Look back to around the 70s. Progressives said divorce didn’t hurt kids, as long as the parents loved & supported the kids they would do just as well as kids with married parents, yadda yadda. Conservatives said the kids needed mom and dad. After 2-3 decades, studies starting coming out showing consistently that, on average, kids with married parents turned out much better than kids from divorced parents.

You can “bet” all you want with your own life and possessions, but children’s lives are too important to risk based on assumptions.

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM

gay marriage, and the entire gay movement, are all about infriging upon the rights of others…we can kiss freedom of religion goodbye if the gays get their way.

the catholic charties in MA can no longer do adoptions because, by law, they are forced to do gay adoptions…so much for freedom with the gay agenda…

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Well the church does not own the children so it is not in their right to say who does or does not get the children, as long as they are deemed to be good parents then the child should be placed. Catholicsm deems gays to automatically be bad, so they are being judged by their cover, not by the content. In the end the Catholic church has to decide which is more important, their hatred of gays, or their placement of children into good homes. Its like an American Officer said a year or two ago about Iraq. “The Iraqi people just have to learn to love their children more then they love killing each other.”

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Yup, I believe that is their right, as it is their “business” owned and operated by idealouges. Just like how mosques and synagogues require women and men to be separated in their buildings or how most catholic churches don’t allow women to be preachers.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM

But gays COULD argue that them not being hired is discrimination. Are you saying discrimination is OK if doen by a church?

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM

done

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM

You can “bet” whatever you wish, but you have no data to back it up. Gay adoption hasn’t been around long enough to produce significant studies, and the population is also relatively small.

Look back to around the 70s. Progressives said divorce didn’t hurt kids, as long as the parents loved & supported the kids they would do just as well as kids with married parents, yadda yadda. Conservatives said the kids needed mom and dad. After 2-3 decades, studies starting coming out showing consistently that, on average, kids with married parents turned out much better than kids from divorced parents.

You can “bet” all you want with your own life and possessions, but children’s lives are too important to risk based on assumptions.

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM

I know this is after the fact, but of course divorce is going to hurt the kids. They grew up with two constants that is now broken I can see all manner of repercussions for that. But you said yourself. “Gay adoption hasn’t been around long enough to produce significant studies, and the population is also relatively small.” Exactly, you have no idea the consequence but stopping it before it starts proves nothing except that your basing your opinion on the only insight you have on the case, religion has told you its bad so its bad. As for a mother and father figure, in some cases these roles are gender reversed. All the gay couples I have known still have these roles which I believe is essential for children.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Well the church does not own the children

but apparently the state or the gays do??

it is not in their right to say who does or does not get the children, as long as they are deemed to be good parents then the child should be placed.

so the church doesn’t get to say, but the gays do.

Catholicsm deems gays to automatically be bad, so they are being judged by their cover, not by the content

this is such a distortion of christian teaching…I’m not catholic, but anyone with any sense knows a child needs a REAL father and mother…not a fake.

In the end the Catholic church has to decide which is more important, their hatred of gays,

why is disagreeing with the gays on ANYTHING deemed ‘hatred’? it can’t be from sincerely held beliefs of THOUSANDS of years of history now can it??

or their placement of children into good homes.

you are assuming gays make good parents, but thats not true, as I’ve said, and thousands of years of common sense, and recent studies show, children need a REAL mother and father.

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

All the gay couples I have known still have these roles which I believe is essential for children.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

yes, all they can do is simulate real marriages. sigh.

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM

But gays COULD argue that them not being hired is discrimination. Are you saying discrimination is OK if doen by a church?

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM

It is discrimination in my book, but based on religion. With freedom of religion and to practice it, along with their buildings and their money, I think they should be allowed to discriminate in this way, as much as I don’t like it.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:43 PM

yes, all they can do is simulate real marriages. sigh.

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Just like many religious couples do for their marriages. They pretend its real because they can’t get divorced because of religion. Then all you have is kids in a house with an acidic marriage that just wears down the entire family. Religion or not.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Just like many religious couples do for their marriages

scuse me I shouldn’t of said many, just some. As marriages of all types and kinds can become, a fake marriage but you know what… the kids can always tell.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Exactly, you have no idea the consequence but stopping it before it starts proves nothing except that your basing your opinion on the only insight you have on the case, religion has told you its bad so its bad. As for a mother and father figure, in some cases these roles are gender reversed. All the gay couples I have known still have these roles which I believe is essential for children.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Actually, the insight is based on personal experience with my own family members, mountains of data at this point showing that kids do better if they can grow up with their own mother and father or the nearest equivalent, several millenia of human experience that stable homes produce stable societies, and yes religious influences.

But, other than that, I got nothing.

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

And last time I checked, no one was interested in killing “babies”. Get a dictionary.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Oh, right. Excuse me: fetuses. Just like liberals have stopped saying they want to “sterilize imbeciles” or “control the populations of undesirable persons,” they just want to eliminate “unwanted pregnancies.” That makes it all better.

I can see what dictionary you’re reading from.

evergreen on July 17, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Well the church does not own the children.
but apparently the state or the gays do??

No but the state wants the kids to be placed. The church is using their views to stop this. Its like having tons of money but deciding only people with your view get to have any, the rest, no matter how good of a person they are, dont get any.

it is not in their right to say who does or does not get the children, as long as they are deemed to be good parents then the child should be placed.

so the church doesn’t get to say, but the gays do.

The church is getting their say now and are you saying only the “gehys” want children placed in good homes? Cause I want them to as well. I just think the person should be judged on who they are not what you identify them as. You dont know their name, their age, their friends, their attitude, their job, nothing. Just the “ghey” so they are bad.

In the end the Catholic church has to decide which is more important, their hatred of gays,

why is disagreeing with the gays on ANYTHING deemed ‘hatred’? it can’t be from sincerely held beliefs of THOUSANDS of years of history now can it??

Your not disagreeing your oppressing. You are saying they don’t deserve the rights that you enjoy. If I walk into your house and say your not good enough for it and kick you out and take it for myself is that “ANYTHING”? Or oppressing your right of ownership? And as for historical truth, your still an infidel to some people because of thousands of years of someone’s “truth”.

or their placement of children into good homes.

you are assuming gays make good parents, but thats not true, as I’ve said, and thousands of years of common sense, and recent studies show, children need a REAL mother and father.

I think they need REAL gender roles. A 50% divorce rate shows that kids are having to deal with different difficulties nowadays, to me, as long as the parents are good parents then thats all that matters.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM

sorry no more time to comment here but it was good talking to those who I did. I really enjoyed the chat and I have nothing against religion. While I may rail on the gay thing, I think the good morals that most religions carry with them has helped to shape a better society, and as an atheist I have no idea how my view would ensure they would continue, so I just act as I would want to be acted upon. Just like religion taught me. :)

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM

It is discrimination in my book, but based on religion. With freedom of religion and to practice it, along with their buildings and their money, I think they should be allowed to discriminate in this way, as much as I don’t like it.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:43 PM

So a person, based on those same religious ideals, COULD logically have an opinion based on those religious ideals, that gays shouldn’t adopt. You might not like their opinion, none the less they could logically have that opinion.

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Your not disagreeing your oppressing.
js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM

“Help! Help! I’m being oppressed.”

cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM

But gays COULD argue that them not being hired is discrimination. Are you saying discrimination is OK if done by a church?

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM

It’s part of fulfilling the job requirements. Strip clubs that cater to men don’t hire men as strippers (well, I’m sure some do, but then those aren’t going to hire women as strippers and thus are still discriminating).

Discrimination is perfectly legal if it relates to job performance. Many jobs discriminate against overweight people by putting a requirement that applicants be able to lift a certain amount of weight over the head even if it’s unclear that the office job really entails much physical activity.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Satan has useful idiots too

PrezHussein on July 17, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Er, why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me?

Because I don’t believe her when she says that she’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, or hawkish. I think she just says that because she thinks that keeps her on TV.

phelps on July 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Just like many religious couples do for their marriages. They pretend its real because they can’t get divorced because of religion. Then all you have is kids in a house with an acidic marriage that just wears down the entire family. Religion or not.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

at least they have a REAL father and a REAL mother.

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Just like many religious couples do for their marriages. They pretend its real because they can’t get divorced because of religion. Then all you have is kids in a house with an acidic marriage that just wears down the entire family. Religion or not.

js82 on July 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

You need to come up w/ a statistic of these acidic religious marriage you’re citing as your reason why gay marriage is a better alternative.

If you don’t, then you have no position from which to argue, and you should just go back to Kos where the other non-thinkers are.

bluelightbrigade on July 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM

No but the state wants the kids to be placed. The church is using their views to stop this.

actually the gays are using their political power to stop children from being placed with real families, instead FORCING the church to violate their freedom of religion so that children get placed with gays. apparently its all about the gays, and whats good for them, hell with the kids.

You dont know their name, their age, their friends, their attitude, their job, nothing. Just the “ghey” so they are bad

again, you prove its all about the ‘gheys’ not about the kids, you and the ‘gheys’ don’t care about the kids, but about your own greed…hell with the kids.

Your not disagreeing your oppressing. You are saying they don’t deserve the rights that you enjoy.

oh please, any disagreement with what the gays want is HATRED or OPPRESSION…when the gays are all about opressing religion, or anyone else who dares disagree with them…and there is no ‘right’ to marriage. if gays should be allowed to marry, why not polygamy, polyandry?? here’s why, it makes marriage meaningless…and its the children who suffer the most….but again, hell with the kids, its all about the ‘gheys’

”? Or oppressing your right of ownership? And as for historical truth, your still an infidel to some people because of thousands of years of someone’s “truth”.

this analogy falls flat…anyone with common sense knows that heterosexual marriage works, and its the best environment to raise kids…gays can’t have kids without cheating…and they should not be able to adopt children. its not good for the kids..but again the gay movement is all about hell with the kids…

I think they need REAL gender roles. A 50% divorce rate shows that kids are having to deal with different difficulties nowadays, to me, as long as the parents are good parents then thats all that matters.

so show me this all this data that proves gays are good parents. you can’t…I have thousands of years of proof of what works, and it works real well…why sacrifice kids so gays can feel good about themselves?? again with the gays, its the hell with the kids…

right4life on July 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Exit question I’m going to regret: Er, why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me? Is it because she spends most of her time bashing the GOP on gay marriage instead of rubbing The One’s face in crap? I’m puzzled.

You’re more entertaining than she is. Like, way. If we were stranded on a deserted island, the outcome might be different.

misterpeasea on July 17, 2009 at 5:19 PM

David, pull your orange-sized brain out of your “whopper” and look at the facts. Do you think that people are born with the choice to have “Downs” or Ms or any other debilitating physical condition? Jesus!! Where did you go to school? Get your money back! Maybe you are a shithead Californian. Go figure.

LarryG on July 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Hmmm, takes one to know one?

Seriously, Meghan is a dumb-ass, JTP sounds like a bigot…there’s a difference. Being stupid apparently isn’t frowned upon, hence Meghan gets a lot of attention. However, being a bigot or ignorant about other cultures, races, religions, gender preferences, etc. is frowned upon and rightly so.

So, let’s recap;

Meghan = Stupid, dumb-ass, moron. (and you can quote me)
JTP = bigot.

Geministorm on July 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Exit question I’m going to regret: Er, why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me? Is it because she spends most of her time bashing the GOP on gay marriage instead of rubbing The One’s face in crap? I’m puzzled.

I pretty much ignore her, but I get the impression that she thinks she’s something special (I think of the drunken “do-you-know-who-I-am?” post). I think the gay marriage movement is stupid. Why? Because 1) the marriage concept of heterosexual union is well-established in human history. It just ain’t marriage if you’re gay. Period. 2) civil union with legal rights is perfectly adequate for everyone’s protection. She’s moving into dangerous touchyfeely territory, falling for that codswallop.

Gay marriage is an in-your-face, union type of demand, because activists and unions are the same damn thing – they live for the fight, they move relentlessly like sharks, or they will die. They live and breathe HUNGER FOR MORE. If they get gay marriage, they’re going to demand that they be married by bishops in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Why? Because someone said they can’t.

Look, I think gay people are fine – most of them. Some of them are obnoxious in-your-face a-holes (just like every group of people). A rare few couples really stick together – there are legal protections for them, which is only fair. Spousal inheritance, right of access (hospitals, funerals), etc. are rights every human has. Inalienable rights.

Regarding your atheism, AP, I can only say that IMHO it’s a platform that tons of liberals get stuck on. They buy into the “intellectual/scientific” argument that if you can’t see it or prove it, it doesn’t exist. By that reasoning, bacteria didn’t exist centuries ago. The same kind of weird liberal logic (snort) applies to the glowball vorming freaks. “Oh, we’re so intelligent and you who don’t agree are so stupid,” and “You godbags are so lame.” Remember that 90% of the world’s population believes in a Higher Power. There’s no correlation with intelligence.

You have erected intellectual resistance to the idea of God, because you’ve been indoctrinated into the “intellectual” club. Been there, done that. Essential to liberalism is the act of willingly teaching your thoughts to follow pathways so convoluted that at the end you believe that mocking your country is sophisticated (and charming to Europeans). They lick their lips when they meet self-loathing Americans. So your “intellect” teaches you that your instincts are low, animal, and primitive. Therefore you must deny God because you’re too craven to defend the possibility of his existence.

Some truths come from the inside, AP, and some day you may find yourself unbound, and embrace a new way of thinking. I don’t know how old you are, but I was raised Catholic, left the church in college, and never looked back. I had an epiphany at 45. It turned out that all I really had to do was say “no thank you” to organized religion. It’s fine for some, but doesn’t work for me. Life and the world make so much sense, now that I have accepted the nature of God.

Meanwhile, I challenge you to watch Ben Stein’s “Expelled.” There are a lot of thought-provoking ideas. I think you’ll agree that things have become very dangerous for freedom of thought out there.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

disa on July 17, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Oh, I’m squishy on abortion, too. It definitely has no place as a God-given right in the Constitution, though.

disa on July 17, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Social conservatives get their socially-conservative political views from their religion. Disabusing them of their theistic delusions is the most direct path to defeating their totalitarian aims politically.

hicsuget on July 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM

You know, for someone who has no investment in religion but a great deal in tradition and history, this argument is even more tiresome than the one about how one can’t be a real conservative if one is not Christian. To wit:

1) Abortion: I don’t care what the Bible has to say about it — I’m not blind or stupid, so I can understand the implications of an ultrasound. Abortion = infanticide. Plus which, since I don’t believe in the immortality of the soul, I believe that the children of the race represent the only thing that is transcendent about it; as a result, to me abortion is a crime against humanity.

2) Gay marriage: I don’t care what the Bible has to say about it — in 10,000 years of recorded history, humanity has never gone there. The Egyptians married their sisters, and Caligula made his horse a sister, but neither the Egyptians nor Caligula consecrated gay relationships. Take a look at how good unrestricted divorce has been for the social fabric before you render the entire institution of marriage meaningless. Not to mention a basic bit of sociology: Using Emile Durkheim’s terminology (himself not a noted member of the devout), marriage is a “social fact” upon which every other Western institution is built.

3) Religion: I don’t care what the Bible says — every successful society has rooted itself in civic religion, and the decline of every successful society can be generally traced to the point that public skepticism destroys civic religion. John Locke (himself not a noted member of the devout) opined that the one form of faith that could not be tolerated is atheism, since it also unweaves the social fabric. American civic religion is a strange amalgam of Christianity and Deism, as were its founders, but, again, look at the health of American society since the ankle-biters began their assault upon it.

I could go on, but my kids just got home. Let me just say that only the small-minded would presume to say that one set of beliefs could only arise from another. As for your atheism, that of course is as much of a religion as is theism — how the hell do you know?

loneloc on July 17, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Meghan McCain must have started another diet again. It seems she has to eat someone else up because she can’t eat food. Just except who you are, another desperate liberal women who real men won’t touch.
She’s just ugly in so many ways.

mmcnamer1 on July 17, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7