Seriously, GOP? Really?

[DaShi]

Is he? This is the guy who has written books about the Christian faith of the founding fathers, completely ignoring the fact that 2/3rds of them were avowed Deists. He was a history professor for crying out loud, he was supposed to know this stuff!

So he's about an knowledgeable as Zevico. Makes sense.

[Elok]

This is showing up as an invisible dot, like the post above it by Krill. Do I need to fire up the ol' proxy server to see it? That's a PITA so you might as well just tell me if so.

[giblets]

[giblets]

All I did was copy Krill's post.

[Dr Strangelove]

This is showing up as an invisible dot, like the post above it by Krill. Do I need to fire up the ol' proxy server to see it? That's a PITA so you might as well just tell me if so.

You need to spray a little lemon juice on your screen then heat it with a match in order to see the secret message.

[Krill]

This is showing up as an invisible dot, like the post above it by Krill. Do I need to fire up the ol' proxy server to see it? That's a PITA so you might as well just tell me if so.

I actually tried to post a scumbag Gingrich meme but it wouldn't take. Quickmeme is useless.

[kentonio]

That sophistry involves pretending that the enactors of that Constitution, who had universally enacted laws banning the mere practice of sodomy, intended for it to protect gay marriage. The only justification for this act is political, not legal; and it involves not merely a defence of gay marriage but an implicit embrace of lawlessness. By this act the Administration does not merely support gay marriage. It tears up the Constitution its office-bearers are duty bound to uphold.

Presumably this also means that abolishing slavery was also an act of lawlessness which tore up the constitution?

Anyone who thinks that the US should forever be bound to the exact terms of a constitution written in an age when horseback was the primary mode of transport, needs help.

[giblets]

I don't see why the opinions of the enactors of the Constitution on sodomy are relevant, considering that according to Zevico, Obama cited the equal protection clause, which is found in the 14th amendment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And we all know that the Radical Republicans were a bunch of sodomizers

[giblets]

Well if we're interpreting the Constitution based on the beliefs of the people who wrote it then I guess the 14th amendment doesn't give equal protection to homosexuals, or women for that matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And the 1st Amendment doesn't protect internet porn

[MikeH]

To give an example, I frequent two churches. One is a Pentecostal one, where I usually attend the youth & young adult service on Wednesday nights. Now the church is pretty conservative and from the pulpit have heard passing references to: homosexuality being a sin, abortion being a sin, evolution being wrong, etc, etc. But 90%+ of the preaching is on caring for other people and showing the love of Jesus or (sometimes unfortunately) personal piety, in terms of spending time with God & living honorably. The preaching is usually simplistic, but sometimes very good. I usually go for the people I've met there and the love of God among the members. If someone were to exoriate me for what the pastors said in the >10% times they talk of social issues, they'd not be getting a good view of why I go there.

But on the other hand those social issues are very important. I don't feel I could attend anywhere that espoused those kinds of unacceptable views, even 10% of the time, without speaking out against them. (as I do here).

[Jon Miller]

I don't know.

I have racists and homophobes and so on as friends and relatives. I choose to keep those relationships up despite this, I have found that pretty much everyone has a failing of some sort.

I often try to say something, but not always (as even just saying something would hurt some relationships).

It can be difficult.

Same at church. If a church suggested to attack gays or discriminate against african-americans I would speak up or not attend. But attacking homosexual activity or reading harry potter is not the same, even if I disagree with what is being said.

JM
(I encourage homosexuals go to church and be christian, but I would not suggest a lot of the churches I attend, unfortunately. I think the one I attended in Vancouver would be fine, despite being in a socially conservative denomination (SDA), though.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

But on the other hand those social issues are very important. I don't feel I could attend anywhere that espoused those kinds of unacceptable views, even 10% of the time, without speaking out against them. (as I do here).

One can remain friends with those you don't agree with 100% of the time. Holding contrary positions is not, by itself, horrid, especially when you go to the Church for the fellowship with the people you sit with (for the most part). Like Jon said, if they advocated violence or discrimination, that's one thing. But its usually something said in passing and that's it.

Btw, the other church I frequent has a gay pastor (Lutheran) .

[MikeH]

I think it's worse if it's an authority figure like a preacher or a teacher (I'd see those as equivalent in terms of their influence on their charges) than a friend or relative, but I try and say something if it's a friend or relative to.

You are both right that sometimes it's not possible for a variety of reasons.

I know you both have different views, might be good for the world if generally people who didn't agree with that sort of thing told their church leaders how they felt about things. Or maybe not.