More stupid southerners.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
Not all Southerners are/were stupid.



Martin Luther King Jr., for example, as someone already mentioned.

MrFun sighting!!

[Dinner]

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Martin Luther King is not a southerner, hes black. southerners are white trailer trash.

[Japher]

Some southerners drive NASCAR

I think what makes ppl equate stupid with southern is the drawl... Kind of like those Minnesotans with their weird backwoods blueblood accent

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin
For the third time no one ever claimed all southerners were stupid. It was simply pointed out that her is a stupid southerner and that there have been stupid southerners in the past.

Can you repeat for the fourth time?

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Guynemer


I call bull****.

If he's such a widely-recognized buffoon, how does he get elected?

By representing the beliefs of his constituents, that's how. Now if you are, by extension, calling his constituents buffoons, you have my full support.

He represents an area near Tuscaloosa. Of course I'm also calling his constituents buffoons.

[rah]

Even if this law passes, I doubt many books will be burned. That would require that they be read to determine if they qualified.

[Solomwi]

You'll never see a more avid reader than a crusading dip**** with an ignorant constituency and an axe to grind, rah.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Do you really mean that delusions based upon a 2000 year old fantasy book are a stable ground for todays society ?

Whether you or I believe that its a '2000 year old fantasy book' is irrelevant. The fact remains that the vast majority of the earths population believe in some type of 'supreme being'. Ignoring or belittling those beliefs is foolish and often not without serious consequences.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Whether you or I believe that its a '2000 year old fantasy book' is irrelevant. The fact remains that the vast majority of the earths population believe in some type of 'supreme being'. Ignoring or belittling those beliefs is foolish and often not without serious consequences.

Actually, I don't mind if people has any kind of religious beliefs, it's their business.

What really bothers me is when they try to dictate others to live by their special rules, and I certainly are against any kind of influence they haved on legislation.

OF course I won't go into a church, mosque or whatever worshiphousing they may have, and say that they are living on an illusion - I'm not suicidal - but I won't keep quiet in common debate,

[St Leo]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Whether you or I believe that its a '2000 year old fantasy book' is irrelevant. The fact remains that the vast majority of the earths population believe in some type of 'supreme being'.

Belief in a supreme being is not necessarily tied to:
a) believing in the Bible
b) interpreting the Bible in a homophobic manner

What does a ban on books with gay characters have to do with religion anyways? I don't that that even in Leviticus there's a "Thou shalt not write about homosexuality".

[Gamecube64]

Wasn't there some part of the bible with gay characters or men having sex with men, or implying gayness?

If so, fundies want to burn the bible. It would be hilarious if this law passed, then someone pointed out that the bible violated it. Poetic justice.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Actually, I don't mind if people has any kind of religious beliefs, it's their business.

What really bothers me is when they try to dictate others to live by their special rules, and I certainly are against any kind of influence they haved on legislation.

OF course I won't go into a church, mosque or whatever worshiphousing they may have, and say that they are living on an illusion - I'm not suicidal - but I won't keep quiet in common debate,

You may be bothered by their 'special rules' resulting from their religious beliefs, but then they may be bothered by your 'special rules' which may be determined by your belief in something else, science perhaps. I see no difference.

I assume you have opinions based upon your beliefs (not necessarily religious beliefs of course) and that you believe in some type of democratic government where the people who reside in a place get to make the laws that govern themselves.

Thats all thats happening here.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by SpencerH
Whether you or I believe that its a '2000 year old fantasy book' is irrelevant. The fact remains that the vast majority of the earths population believe in some type of 'supreme being'.

Belief in a supreme being is not necessarily tied to:
a) believing in the Bible
b) interpreting the Bible in a homophobic manner

What does a ban on books with gay characters have to do with religion anyways? I don't that that even in Leviticus there's a "Thou shalt not write about homosexuality".

That comment was in reply to a comment made in reply to a comment made in reply to DeathByTheSwords rant which IMO is not focussed on christianity per se since homosexuality is forbidden or shunned by most of the major religions/population (not entirely sure about buddists and China). Therefore, rather than focussing my reply on christianity, I generalized my remarks toward 'supreme-being' rather than use the term "Christian/Moslem/Jewish/Hindu/Sikh etc gods".

As for why such people want to ban such books, I would think it obvious. They strongly believe homosexuality to be wrong and dont wish to promote the behaviour. I disagree with them, but accept their right to try to act in a democratic fashion.

[DeathByTheSword]

(not entirely sure about buddists and China).

not sure about buddists also but in general most of the eastern 'religions' have no problems with homosexuality because it has always been apart of there culture.

and now i will just up again and tend to my bunnies