It eventually fell through, but they weren’t going about it by using a democratic process, instead trying to get a judge to give them the go ahead. Which, from previous debates, you’re also in favor of. The question is then if you think the various groups who formed to oppose the Sharia movement were exercising their freedom of speech, or simply being “panicky scared haters” oppressing that poor, misunderstood minority.[/quote]
Interesting point raised on what Vroom has said in other posts. To take it a step further, with regards to not supporting gay marriage, Vroom throws a tantrum proclaiming that anyone who doesn’t support it as a matter of natural law is a ‘bigot’ and that the gay marriage position is non-negotiable in a liberal democracy, worthy of no democratic debate on the matter…
…but an Islamic subculture of death, gender apartheid, theocratic ambition, and fascist institutions deserves our tolerant respect to convene and espouse whatever frightening attitudes - even ones that call for government overthrow - with our multicultural blessing.
A curious choosing of sides - but then again, Vroom has shown nothing more than a willingness to hang himself with the hypocritical rope of his manic worship of ‘tolerance’.
The question of free speech in a liberal democracy weighed against those that would plot against that liberal democracy is one of the hardest questions that liberal democracy will ever face, and no matter your politics, it needs serious consideration, not:
“LOL. If only morons around here would appreciate my principled approach we wouldn’t have this hatred that makes them attack us.”
[quote]vroom wrote:
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with Headhunter’s style of bigoted prejudicial rhetoric yet?[/quote]
What are you talking about? His entire post consisted of quotes from the cited article.
No, hence “various forms of opposition.”
Strike two.
That’s the big assumption that I find you’re much too eager to make. Somehow “take-over” doesn’t sound law abiding to me.
Have you even bothered reading the article?
Have you check out anything about Hizb ut-Tahrir? Even if just their Wikipedia entry? Are you aware of their stated goal and what methods they advocate to reach it?
Do you even know what Hizb ut-Tahrir means? Do you know that their stance on women rights are a bit more liberal than standard Sharia fare (but still quite removed from full equality)?
Considering the fact that you don’t really care who makes the laws, as long as they agree with your views, that’s not saying much.
You vastly overestimate the impact of your lumping pronouncements.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Interesting point raised on what Vroom has said in other posts. To take it a step further, with regards to not supporting gay marriage, Vroom throws a tantrum proclaiming that anyone who doesn’t support it as a matter of natural law is a ‘bigot’ and that the gay marriage position is non-negotiable in a liberal democracy, worthy of no democratic debate on the matter…
[/quote]
LOL. It must be “make shit up week”. Having fun?
Who says I support this stuff? Once again, pinbrain, you are mistaking my belief that others can talk about this viewpoint with a belief that I support it.
Hello?
What makes you think that a position based on principles is not one achieved through serious consideration?
Is it perhaps because it is not the same position as yours?
If you have any serious consideration on the matter, please jot it down. It would be more interesting to read than your fiction above.
[quote]pookie wrote:
That’s the big assumption that I find you’re much too eager to make. Somehow “take-over” doesn’t sound law abiding to me.
[/quote]
So, the part where the authorities have decided that, so far, there is nothing they can do about it, escaped you?
That would imply that they, so far, they are abiding by the law or criminal activities have remained undetected.
If they are breaking the law, which includes actually plotting some type of overthrow, rather than just having someone writing an alarmist article claiming it to be so, the legal system should be able to get involved.
It’s not me that’s quick to make assumptions. It’s the folks, possibly through fear, who are assuming that illegal and violent means are being proposed when the Australian authorities appear to be saying otherwise.
Your entire argument with me is based on nothing.
If you are going to whine about strawman arguments, perhaps you should stop making them yourself.
We have democratic processes and a constitution. We should follow them or amend them. Read back, I’ve even suggested that if need be the constitution should be amended to handle the situation – instead of acting outside of it, outside of our own principles.
I really can’t fathom why you guys are arguing that we can’t follow our systems to deal with this threat… because that’s all I’m arguing for.
The part of the article that matters is the following:
[i]
But today the Federal Attorney General Phillip Ruddock said the organisation could not be banned as a terror group under current laws.
“We looked very closely at the organisation some time ago to see whether or not it met the criteria to be banned as a terrorist organisation in Australia,” he told Southern Cross radio today.
"It doesn’t mean that we agree with what it’s saying, but there are strict criteria for banning organisations and when those enquiries were undertaken we didn’t have sufficient evidence.
Mr Ruddock said the organisation’s aim of creating an Islamic state were clear in the latest video advertisement, but it had also reportedly said it wanted to do so by peaceful means.
Government agencies would examine the latest propaganda to see whether it changed the situation, but agreed many people would see the material as provocative, he said.
“There’s no doubt in the context of a great deal of violence that’s been pursued in other parts of the world, that people might assume when they’re advocating that Australia have Sharia law ? and a Caliphate that should be a role model for the rest of the world that people might be alarmed,” Mr Ruddock said.
"If they look at some of the approaches by orgs such as al-Qaida and so on, there may well be a concern they they might be heading in the same directions.
“But by their own activities, there is no evidence for banning them as a terrorist organisation.”
[/i]
I don’t believe for one minute that Australian authorities aren’t watching like hawks for any type of illegal activity. I don’t believe for one minute that anyone in authority in Australia doesn’t understand the danger involved here.
LOL. It must be “make shit up week”. Having fun?[/quote]
Who is making anything up? Let me refresh your memory:
[i]In case there are any non-bigots reading this…
There is an important principle that exists with respect to rights, and it is often enshrined in a constitution or related documents.
Basically, in free societies, except where afforded by law, rights belong to the citizens. It isn’t that people can’t do things unless the law allows it, it’s that people can do things, unless the law disallows it.
This means that we can wear ipods or dye our hair blue if we want, because there are no laws that prohibit it.
Under such a system, unless laws exclude gay marriage, then gay marriage exists if gay people decide to get married.
The question for the bigots is really whether or not you believe in rights and freedoms. Giving people freedom, and rights, means that you’ll have to watch people do things you don’t agree with.
That might mean burning your flag, burning books, burning bras, gay marriage, or whatever. If you actually truly believe in your constitution, the importance of rights and freedoms, then you’ll have a hard time fighting to outlaw gay marriage.
Do you really believe in freedom, or do you just brag about it? [/i]
Now - after that rant, where is the one against the Islamic group? If you are so passionate about leaving people to believe what they want and act on those beliefs, why doesn’t that uber-tolerance extend to the ‘bigots’ that just want to do what the Islamic group wants to do - live their own way, pass laws that comports with their worldview?
Make no mistake - I don’t make a moral equivalent between the two groups. But it is an education that one gets a tearful rant about ‘natural justice’, and the other about being deferential as a matter of principle. Hmm.
This country wasn’t built on the ‘freedom’ of gay marriage or anything like it, but I don’t want to get off on a different tangent to the important one here. You want to give the Islamists all the civic space in the world to peddle what should be ‘bigotry’ in your eyes, but gay marriage is not entitled to the same respect as an issue in the democratic arena.
I’ll explain it this way - if I were raging against gay marriage opponents telling them their beliefs had no place in our society, you’d have nary a peep saying they were entitled to due respect for their opinions and that we should tolerate their attitudes (what you call ‘bigotry’). You’d be ranting in unison with me (see your above post).
And yet, if any of us stand up and so much as whiff the idea that the ideas of these subversive Islamists in Australia have no place in our society, suddenly we get a teary lecture on respecting the Islamists’ right to free speech and assembly and admonition over our lack of tolerance.
As usual, behind the fraud of your wordy analysis lies a incoherence and a lack of serious consideration of the issue. If you are so interested in ‘natural justice’ - which you squealed about earlier - where is your defense of it when dealing with the ultimate infringer on all the precious human rights you like? Instead, we get a sniveling lesson on tolerance - pathetic, Vroom.
I didn’t say you supported it, I said you are unserious because your blind devotion to a silly ‘tolerance’ makes you take inconsistent positions that, in actual practice, is bad policy - and dangerous.
Gay marriage should be mandated by judicial fiat because it is ‘right’, but you think that Islamist law - in contravention to every existing human right the Western world believes - deserves a laissez-faire approach and the Islamists deserve their opportunity to impose their mania as a matter of democratic tolerance.
I stopped taking you seriously a while back, but you’ve outdone yourself on this one.
Not principles generally - yours.
Nope - plenty of room for disagreement on this one. As I said earlier, this is a very hard question. I just don’t think you have much to contribute to discovering an answer.
Fantastic - but if I do, you should note: I will be using the Constiution that exists, not the fabricated one you keep referring to.
Your tortuous logic is pure nonsense and fabrication based on a very loose interpretation of my intended meaning. Adding things like “judicial fiat” really points that out.
The fact that I believe people have rights, except where afforded by law, supports my viewpoints in both cases. It also supports my disdain for the use of torture. It’s a pretty consistent application of principle.
I’m not arguing for tolerance, but simply that we apply the principles enshrined in our various constitutions. The protections of our rights or the rights of citizens.
The test of our belief in these principles is when people we oppose have rights that allow them to do things we don’t like. Such as promote certain Islamic principles, promote gay marriage or even perform gay marriage.
You do know what bigotry is, right? It’s not just being against something. It’s also about being a narrow minded prejudicial person on top of such intolerance. When it comes to gay issues or the religion of Islam we have a lot of bigots around here.
I’d say, that when people proclaim certain principles, such as those enshrined in their own constitutions, but suddenly discard them when faced with certain groups of people, they are perhaps acting as a bigot due to fear or some other prejudicial viewpoint applied to people in the group involved.
Maybe I’m wrong. So be it, if so.
Do I trust the Islamic group in Australia? No. Do I believe them when they claim peaceful intent? No. Do they have the right to lawfully voice their preference if they are indeed citizens? Yes. Don’t like that? Find a way to change the laws.
As for your characterization of my posts (in this thread or others), be careful, I think you are trying to put words and intent in my mouth that are simply not there… then arguing against me as if they were.
For example, did anyone ever stop to think that a lawful assembly of this type might just be an incredible intelligence bonanza, if it does occur?
The test of our belief in these principles is when people we oppose have rights that allow them to do things we don’t like. Such as promote certain Islamic principles, promote gay marriage or even perform gay marriage.
[/quote]
I have no tolerance for those who want to impose an intolerant society.
You aren’t even listening to yourself. Let’s review.
You are a bigot if you:
Don’t respect the rights of gay people enough to allow for the institution of gay marriage
And you are a bigot if you:
Don’t respect the rights of an Islamist subculture that, by way of comparison, would not only disallow gay marriage but would also have criminal punishment for homosexual activity, even as high as death
So, you are a bigot if you don’t give gay marriage advocates the natural right to marry or give Islamists the opportunity by way of democratic action the chance to hang gays. Hmm.
A question arises: if you give Islamists their due space and opinion to live the way they want in a democratic society, why doesn’t that same respect apply to born-again Christians? After all, they would not allow for gay marriage - why is someone not a bigot for telling them they are wrong for enacting a law forbidding gay marriage?
You want respect for certain viewpoints, else there is evidence of bigotry, but you pick and choose what gets respect, and those selected viewpoints are in complete contrast to one another. Your relativistic multiculturalism has put you in a pickle - you think that denying ‘human rights’ such as gay marriage is an act of pure hateful bigotry, but when Islamists want to pass laws that stand in complete contravention to your human rights and are thus by your own definition acts of ‘bigotry’, standing against them is an also an act of bigotry.
Hmm - you’re a bigot if you don’t want to let Islamists enact bigoted laws. You are a bigot if you deny gay marriage, but you are also a bigot if you tell a non-Christian subculture they should be denied the ability to impose Sharia, even if Sharia entails outlawing gay marriage.
Oddly, though, when born again Christians use ordinary democratic functions to deny gay marriage, they don’t get Vroom’s highly sensitive deference and tolerance that he wants everyone to observe for the fascist Islamists.
You have vehemently attacked Christians for being against gay marriage - by your own definition, you should be a bigot.
But your thoughtful model of ‘bigotry’ only allows for one kind of bigot - conservative Westerners. It’s a joke. It is intellectually inconsistent.
You have painted yourself into a philosophical corner, claiming on one hand that there is a natural law in play here that no one - no one - can deny without being a bigot (gay marriage), and on the other hand, that subcultures, no matter how out of step they are with a culture’s values, are entitled to complete respect to deny all of the natural laws and rewrite them any way they want, even if in contravention to the natural law, and not affording them that respect to pick and choose their own natural law is an act of bigotry.
With one caveat - the subculture can’t be traditionalist, conservative, Christian. Nice intellectual integrity.
I think what you need to take into consideration is that Muslims ARE taking over in alot of other countries because they make alot of BABIES. Just here in the States and Europe white and black people arent reproducing and Muslims are making babies like crazy. So they ARE taking over.
You aren’t even listening to yourself. Let’s review.
You are a bigot if you:
Don’t respect the rights of gay people enough to allow for the institution of gay marriage
And you are a bigot if you:
Don’t respect the rights of an Islamist subculture that, by way of comparison, would not only disallow gay marriage but would also have criminal punishment for homosexual activity, even as high as death
So, you are a bigot if you don’t give gay marriage advocates the natural right to marry or give Islamists the opportunity by way of democratic action the chance to hang gays. Hmm.
A question arises: if you give Islamists their due space and opinion to live the way they want in a democratic society, why doesn’t that same respect apply to born-again Christians? After all, they would not allow for gay marriage - why is someone not a bigot for telling them they are wrong for enacting a law forbidding gay marriage?
You want respect for certain viewpoints, else there is evidence of bigotry, but you pick and choose what gets respect, and those selected viewpoints are in complete contrast to one another. Your relativistic multiculturalism has put you in a pickle - you think that denying ‘human rights’ such as gay marriage is an act of pure hateful bigotry, but when Islamists want to pass laws that stand in complete contravention to your human rights and are thus by your own definition acts of ‘bigotry’, standing against them is an also an act of bigotry.
Hmm - you’re a bigot if you don’t want to let Islamists enact bigoted laws. You are a bigot if you deny gay marriage, but you are also a bigot if you tell a non-Christian subculture they should be denied the ability to impose Sharia, even if Sharia entails outlawing gay marriage.
Oddly, though, when born again Christians use ordinary democratic functions to deny gay marriage, they don’t get Vroom’s highly sensitive deference and tolerance that he wants everyone to observe for the fascist Islamists.
You have vehemently attacked Christians for being against gay marriage - by your own definition, you should be a bigot.
But your thoughtful model of ‘bigotry’ only allows for one kind of bigot - conservative Westerners. It’s a joke. It is intellectually inconsistent.
You have painted yourself into a philosophical corner, claiming on one hand that there is a natural law in play here that no one - no one - can deny without being a bigot (gay marriage), and on the other hand, that subcultures, no matter how out of step they are with a culture’s values, are entitled to complete respect to deny all of the natural laws and rewrite them any way they want, even if in contravention to the natural law, and not affording them that respect to pick and choose their own natural law is an act of bigotry.
With one caveat - the subculture can’t be traditionalist, conservative, Christian. Nice intellectual integrity.
You see why no one can take you seriously?[/quote]
If this post wasn’t a ROYAL REAMING of Vroom (and modern rubber-definition liberalism), then I don’t know what is!
This post should be required reading for Ren, TME, and company.
Ahahahahha. Thunderdolt, you are losing your mind!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You aren’t even listening to yourself. Let’s review.
You are a bigot if you:
Don’t respect the rights of gay people enough to allow for the institution of gay marriage
[/quote]
You are a bigot if you are a narrow minded fearful individual who is against such things due to prejudicial attitudes.
No, you are a bigot if you are so fearful and prejudicial towards Islamic individuals that you want to disallow them the rights they are guaranteed as lawful citizens - assuming they are lawful.
Idiot.
Look, whether we like it or not, there are no limits on democratic action in our country either… other than the constitution. Even the constitution can be amended when needed.
Your fear, hatred, distrust or whatever is overtaking your senses. Our system is set up to allow people to take legal means to persuade others to agree with them to pass laws about ruling our country.
It has nothing to do with whether or not I am for or against the rules that are being proposed. Perhaps that is your big logic flaw. I am not for that group. I am not for the ideas that they propose.
Stop being such a complete idiot, trying to throw me into their camp, just because I respect the laws that govern the rights of citizens.
If someone has a fearful and prejudicial attitude towards born-again Christians, then perhaps they may be bigoted. Perhaps you should figure out what the word bigoted means, instead of discussing it as if it means being against something.
I may be prejudicial towards Steveo, but that isn’t the same as being prejudicial towards all born-again Christians. You do understand that difference, right? No, I don’t suppose you actually do.
Again, perhaps it would be best if you bought yourself a little dictionary before throwing the term bigotry around like this.
You are making a fool of yourself.
Ahahahaha. Again, it isn’t what you do or don’t oppose that makes you a bigot. It’s the manner or source of the opposition.
Nice try on the hatchet job man. Idiot.
Dude, I may have appeared to misuse the word bigot (to you), but I don’t get to actually make up my own definition for the word bigot… and you don’t get to do so either.
Whatever skippy, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Oh please. The fact that we regularly slap people with labels around here doesn’t mean that you can suddenly redefine common words for some convoluted retard logic like this post.
Bigot means what it means. If I unfairly slapped the term on people for their viewpoint, then I unfairly slapped it on people. Don’t be such a retard.
Finally, what the fuck is this retarded bullshit “are entitled to complete respect to deny all of the natural laws and rewrite them any way they want, even if in contravention to the natural law, and not affording them that respect to pick and choose their own natural law”
[quote]
With one caveat - the subculture can’t be traditionalist, conservative, Christian. Nice intellectual integrity.
You see why no one can take you seriously?[/quote]
Too bad you are so much of a pedant that you can’t converse like a normal human being. We insult people here in the politics forum. We apply labels that aren’t a perfect fit.
Sue me for taking liberty with the term bigotry at one point.
You sir, are a complete fucking idiot. Now, howabout, if possible, sticking to the topic at hand instead of your obvious desire to attack me. I must have hurt your feelings or something.
[quote]jawara wrote:
I think what you need to take into consideration is that Muslims ARE taking over in alot of other countries because they make alot of BABIES. Just here in the States and Europe white and black people arent reproducing and Muslims are making babies like crazy. So they ARE taking over.
Because of the susceptibility of their religion to an extremist viewpoint, it might be wise not to let a western democratic country get to the point where Islamic citizens were in a predominant majority.
Alternately, it could be possible to strengthen some of the basic principles in various constitutions (now) such that it becomes almost impossible to impose certain specific issues or overturn others (in the future).
At the same time, for as long as such a crisis is ongoing (which may be forever at the current rate), it might make sense to have a moratorium on allowing new citizens to immigrate based on cultural issues.
For example, during WWII, I don’t think we had many German immigrants. However, with no national boundaries in the current conflict but instead a fuzzy religious one, I’m sure the idea of such policies will make a lot of people uncomfortable.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You have painted yourself into a philosophical corner, claiming on one hand that there is a natural law in play here that no one - no one - can deny without being a bigot (gay marriage), and on the other hand, that subcultures, no matter how out of step they are with a culture’s values, are entitled to complete respect to deny all of the natural laws and rewrite them any way they want, even if in contravention to the natural law, and not affording them that respect to pick and choose their own natural law is an act of bigotry. [/quote]
Perhaps I can give the village idiot a breadcrumb…
Dude, I said that rights and freedoms are natural, in our system, and that we have them except where denied by law.
See, the point you miss is that we have a system in place which allows us to deny all kinds of things… and I’m not railing against the ability of the government to deny us things, or impose rules upon us.
Finally, the rules we have allow citizens, or elected representatives, to change our laws, based on the needs of society.
So, it doesn’t matter what the subculture is, or what the subculture wants, if it’s members are citizens, they are allowed to use the legal system to attempt to make changes.
Now, again, whether or not someone is a bigot isn’t really dependant upon what they are for or against… we both know that (I think), so calm down and start making sense.
Ahahahahha. Thunderdolt, you are losing your mind![/quote]
More evidence of your cleverness.
Hmm - well your rant about gay marriage told a different story. And that also means that most people I know that are against gay marriage aren’t bigots at all - they have thought about the issue, considered it, and came to the conclusion they don’t want it.
But, your post basically called anyone who wouldn’t allow gay marriage a ‘bigot’ - don’t try and move the goalposts now.
Then that means you are bigoted toward born-again Christians that won’t support gay marriage. Your definition. Born-again Christians have every right to outlaw gay marriage in a state constitution, then - and doing so doesn’t make them bigots. So your rant above is now meaningless. Good.
Which is what every person was trying to get through your thick skull w/r/t gay marriage, but like every zealot who think they are possessed by the Ultimate Wisdom, you didn’t much care for those due rights, instead going on a rant about how no one has the right to deny gays the right to marry as a matter of natural law. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
That viewpoint you just espoused in the above paragraph is in complete contradiction to your ‘gay marriage as natural law’ jeremiad earlier. Would the real Vroom please stand up?
I never said you did - keep up - but you are willing to allow them, as a positive law matter, to persuade and enact whatever laws they want, and so long as they follow the important process of who decides in a democratic society, they have your blessing.
That is exactly the opposite of what you argued when you argued about the primacy of the natural right of gay marriage - exactly the opposite. You had no such deference - you never said “hey, if Alabamans want to outlaw gay marriage, I respect their decision because I respect their ideas and values, so they are perfectly fine to legislate it, even though I don’t like it…”. Oops.
Your whole “sometimes living in a free society means you have to tolerate things you don’t want” is all well and good, right up until the time it runs into your preferred policies. Islamists = I will defer, Christians = it is a denial of natural rights!!!
How convenient it is to ‘respect the laws that govern the rights of citizens’ buffet-style, Vroom. I never said you agreed with Islamists, only that your ridiculously silly multiculturalism had exposed your idiocy, which it has. Can’t unring that bell.
Well, explain this: how is your treatment of Christians in this context different from my treatment of Islamists?
What is the substantive difference? Can you tell me? Why am I in danger of being a bigot toward Islamists but not you w/r/t Christians?
Should be a keen explanation.
Flailing and thrashing about now, are we?
Good, that clarified my opinion of you w/r/t to Christians and the issue of gay marriage.
When the insults come out, it is clear you have run out of ammunition. Well, actually the question is begged - did you even arrive with any?
No? Then tell us all how you have no problem with allowing Islamists to use the democratic process to erase existing Western human rights but you do have a problem with Christians wanting to outlaw gay marriage via the same democratic process because no one can be justified in thinking gay marriage is wrong or bad as a matter of natural law?
One group gets deference, the other not. And wow - none of the other human rights that Islamists would erase in law get the ‘natural law’ treatment from you, including women’s rights?
So female suffrage is fair game for legislating away, but not gay marriage? Someone alert the feminists!
There is nothing convoluted about my post, else you would eschew the insults and provide answers. Face it - you boned it up, and unfortunately because of your smug, self-satisfied tone, it always makes you look all the worse when your stuff just doesn’t add up.
That is what happens when you come prancing into threads pretending to know all the answers, as if they are all sooooo obvious to the Enlightened chin-rubbers, and that everyone who disagrees with you is a Neanderthal.
Got hubris?
It’s simple - why can Islamists tamper with natural law and basic human rights as you know them, but not Christians?
Seriously, Vroom - it is always painful to watch the Politics forum’s best candidate for He Who Writes The Most But Says The Least call someone else a pedant. No one is buying it.
And I could have predicted with decent accuracy that Vroom’s post would end with name-calling, insults, and an attempt to sound like a tough guy.
Do you have any new material?
I went after your posts, which happens in a debate. I know, I know - you desperately want everyone to see Vroom as the thoughtful, philosophical know-it-all, nuanced and brainy and progressive, so it hurts when challenged. But you simply aren’t what you want everyone to see you as, so can the act and just debate like normal folks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That is exactly the opposite of what you argued when you argued about the primacy of the natural right of gay marriage - exactly the opposite. You had no such deference - you never said “hey, if Alabamans want to outlaw gay marriage, I respect their decision because I respect their ideas and values, so they are perfectly fine to legislate it, even though I don’t like it…”. Oops.
Your whole “sometimes living in a free society means you have to tolerate things you don’t want” is all well and good, right up until the time it runs into your preferred policies. Islamists = I will defer, Christians = it is a denial of natural rights!!! [/quote]
This looks to be somewhat on topic.
Dude, you somehow (always) seem to miss the real issue involved.
Once again, for the criminally stoopid, it’s not about the issues you agree with or disagree with, it’s about how and why you go about doing so.
It appears, and perhaps I’m mistaken, but it appears that many are afraid of homosexuality and want to outlaw it because they fear it.
These people have every right to use the legal system to pass laws reflecting their own values, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be bigots if they want to enact laws simply because they are afraid of something for no real reason.
At least the Islamic faith, when twisted, represents a real threat. I can understand wanting to contain the threat.
Maybe you should read some of the posts that aren’t trying to counter your silly baloney. Perhaps the one where I was replying to Jawartha? It outlines some ways to protect western societies from today’s threats without throwing out the rights of citizens in the process.
Do you get it? I doubt it. Again, for morons, it isn’t what you are for or against, but how and why. If you are reacting out of fear, in violation of principles you supposedly cherish, then you might just be a bigot.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Thunderdolt, instead of crying endlessly about the gay marriage/born again Christian issue, perhaps you could stay on topic?
I mean, carry on if you wish, but you are just looking more foolish with each post on the topic.[/quote]
I am exposing your sham contention that you really, truly care about the ‘rights’ of people to self-govern by demonstrating that you have different rules for different sets of people, according to your political sensitivities. If you don’t think that is on point, that is your problem, not mine.
Once again, for the criminally stoopid, it’s not about the issues you agree with or disagree with, it’s about how and why you go about doing so.[/quote]
Then why support the idea that judges need to intervene to protect us from good, God-fearing Christians from legislating away gay marriage? You spent a whole thread on that - and I am just curious why you don’t treat Allah-fearing Islamists the same way?
You haven’t explained why you treat them different. Probably never will. I think it is a fair contention that any attempt to pass some version of Sharia law is borne out of your definition of bigotry, fear, and ignorance - much more than any Christian wanting to nack anti-gay marriage legislation. Where is your outrage? Instead, you sheepishly defer to the Islamists…
Fear? Of homosexuality? Nonsense. It is a complicated issue, including many people who have no problem with gays, but who just don’t want to chnage the cultural institution of marriage. But that doesn’t fit into your screaming rant, does it?
No problem - so are you changing your position from the other thread then? Because this “let 'em do what they want via democracy” was not your position w/r/t gay marriage - apparently natural law forbade passage of such laws.
Bigots can pass laws. That has zilch to do with it.
You just are naive about how to do so.
But actually, none of that is even remotely relevant. Bigots, whatever the definition, can pass all kinds of laws. You stood in defiance of Christians operating under democratic process, whether they be bigots or not, but you said “hands off” w/r/t Islamists wanting to operate under democratic process. Forget bigotry - it isn’t against the law to be a bigot. But that wasn’t the thrust of your argument in the other thread when you stood for the proposition that people shouldn’t have the ability to legislate away gay marriage?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am exposing your sham contention that you really, truly care about the ‘rights’ of people to self-govern by demonstrating that you have different rules for different sets of people, according to your political sensitivities. If you don’t think that is on point, that is your problem, not mine.[/quote]
LOL!
Oh, fine then, please do carry on. I am sure this will be amusing. I am already amused that you think I am not someone who believes in the rule of law and the protection of rights.
I have been arguing against abuse of authority by government in these parts for half a decade now. I have similarly been arguing against the erosion of those rights by the current administration.
Foolish man, though our interpretations of our systems of governance may differ, it seems extremely foolish to assume I have no regard for the rights of people.
You may eventually wish to grab a clue.
Honestly, this little snippet is priceless, “I am exposing your sham contention…”
The fact that you can’t see or understand any consistent underlying principles in the things I discuss is not a good reason to assume that they are not, in fact, there.
Hmm, perhaps you are on some grand noble mission, to be the one true protector of society, by trampling them when you see fit? Yes, perhaps that is your grand quest. You should buy one of these glassy things with a metallic coating on one side. You could gaze into it from time to time.
I look forward to more of your incredibly verbose and painfully tortuous attempts at logic.