President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 22, 2010 10:49 PM UTC
172 Comments
those ignorant, church going, redneck masses to have any say in politics. Eeeeeeewwww!
They can have their say, and the rest of us can have our say. The Pols did not even remotely suggest that anyone, must less the government (1st Amendment, ya know?) should curtail their right to speak. But our right to dissent from their idiocy is just as valid as their right to be idiots.
Your constant squealing is just sad.
But I have a feeling that the majority of the church going American public might take a wee bit of offense.
and try to kill us? It’s an open question, when the likes of Dudley are concerned.
That’s the jihadists.
Are you talking Muslim jihadists or Christian jihadists?
Where exactly does Christianity promote jihad?
Have you ever read a good book about the Crusades? When the Christians took Jerusalem, they murdered all the Jews as well as all of the Moslems. The crusades were, precisely, an act of jihadism. You could earn a plenary indulgence by joining one. That got you into heaven, though apparently not with 70 virgins.
Of course, they were really gangster exercises. Besides murdering a lot of Jews on their way to the Holy Land, the crusaders sacked Constantinople…a
Christian city but one with a lot of gold to be stolen.
numerous and sundry persecutions, witch hunts, etc., etc. — jihads by any other name would still reek.
Aside from the fact that “jihad” is most often used in the Koran to describe a spiritual struggle not a military one, it is all too easy to debunk people who think that our Bible is nothing but peace and love compared to the Koran.
Just ONE passage as an example: Deuteronomy 20:16-17
“However, in the cities of the nations that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritence, do not leave anything that breathes. Completely destroy them as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping their gods, and you will sin agains the Lord your God.”
If that isn’t a clear demand to kill the infidel, I don’t know what is.
Yes, I know this is in the Old Testament (I am a Reverend). But it is part of the Bible; it is part of the same Bible that some Christians call the unerring Word of God when demanding that we teach Genesis 1 in our science classes.
The Bible (and the Koran) demand that the faithful engage it with integrity to make sense of the apparent contradictions each contains.
You don’t pack heat unless you want to show everyone that you have a huge pseudophallus or you want to kill some one. Take your pick Christians.
He’d just drive them out of America with a whip. (If you’re not a Christian, look it up in the Bible.) That, or Satan.
Remember that the “them” he’d be driving out would be the denizens of Wall St and ANY who charge interest on anything. If you claim to be a Christian, read your Bible.
Read YOUR Bible. He was not chasing them out of the temple because they were charging interest. He was chasing them out because they were conducting their business in the temple, which was supposed to be a “house of prayer”.
is Jesus reported to have used a whip to drive anyone out of anywhere?
I am a Christian, and while I’ve not read the bible cover to cover, I’ve read most of the New Testament which covers Jesus’ life, and I don’t recall him being reported as using a whip on anyone.
Right after the secion on stoning any who express liberal views.
because God loves show offs and the self-righteous who spend their time judging others.
I show off my conservatism in public, not my piety.
You’re obviously confusing the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the New Testament Jesus stopped an adulteress from being stoned. You know, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Quite a contrast to Sharia law.
The story is in John 8:1-11.
Matthew 21:12-13
Mark 11:15-17
Luke 19:45-46
John 2:13-16
You can look it up at http://www.biblegateway.com too.
reported to have used a whip (the other gospels make no mention of any sort of weapon)…and then on the “sheep and cattle” in the temple.
John 2:15 “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle”
It is interesting to note that in this passage Jesus pretty much has a melt-down over the fact that this place of worship had been turned into, what sounds like, a mini-mall, where people were selling all sorts of goods for personal enrichment.
Sounds a bit like today’s mega-churches….
I’m guessing that the Church of Dudley would want their savior to be armed with all of today’s most modern armaments. Musket enthusiasts need not apply.
1) these wackos are any where near holding public office.
2) the wacko followers are allowed outside without their special helmets on.
3) how much I Agree with this post of yours bjwilson.
ya know these guys actually advocate a poll tests to vote. I must agree! basic sanity, and a firm grasp on reality to be allowed to Vote is a must, especially with these folk.
As A redneck my self I am appalled at the paranoia and fear expressed by these so called “Leaders”.
In Froward’s world, I guess we’d be ruled by a socialist cabal which would ban religion. Sorry the U.S.S.R. isn’t around for you to live in anymore.
And still may.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I think it is a sin to say that your neighbor is going to knock on your door and take your gun.
I also know that the catholic church is far more organized, richer, and more powerful than the scattered protestant fundamentalist churches. So if you wish for a Christian nation, the pope will be happy to provide it.
You know, back in the day, the mid-60s, the reason selling any form of birth control, including condoms, was a criminal offense in many states was due to the power of the catholic church which controlled enough legislatures to maintain those laws. Do you favor returning to those days?
By all means, let’s use the government to suppress Catholicism. Riiiiight.
It’s kind of weird.
LB already has a personality. Get your own.
But I’ll take it as a compliment that you’re now unable to criticize me on the issues.
if I’d spent the summer trolling instead of working, but why would anyone bother to criticize a troll for being wrong on the issues? It’s like criticizing a frog for eating flies.
But you’re obviously imitating Laughing Boy. We’re all sarcastic at times, but that’s word-for-word plagiarism of his posts.
if you want to go join him in the “plagiarism” conspiracy theory.
Does this mean you won’t take my challenge?
I could care less.
Tell me you won’t take my challenge and let bygones be bygones.
Tell me you won’t take my challenge and let bygones be bygones.
How…odd.
You said we were a”christian nation” or words to that effect.
I said if you want a “christian nation,” the catholic church is by far the best organized, wealthiest and most powerful of the mainstream religion. This is my question, bjw.
Do you want the Catholic Church to guarantee that the US is a Christian nation?
Now, you said you do not want to go back to the days when dispensing, selling or prescribing any form of birth control was a crime in many states. Good. I do not want to go back to those days, either.
Let me educate you on how that law was changed. Connecticut had a state law prohibiting the dispensing, sale or the prescribing any form of birth control, to anyone…single or married. Catholic pressure had kept that law on the books until 1966. The law was challenged as being unconstitutional and the Supreme Court ruled in Griswald v.Connecticut that the law violated the Constiution because it was an invasion of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Now, even tho the only state law represented in the court case was Connecticut, because the law was found to be in violation of the federal constitution, then ALL such laws in ALL the states were declared null and void. So that is why birth control is legal today. If you want to call this using the “government” to suppress the power of catholicism, then I guess you can.
Second question: Do you agree with the decision in Griswald v. Connecticut?
Now, child, even tho the laws against birth control were declared unconstitutional, the government PROTECTED the right of the catholic church to continue to preach to its members that birth control was immoral and also to sanction those members who publicly disagreed with the bishops or whom worked in situations where birth control was practiced. Although the sanctions could not include burning at the stake or stoning.
So, you see, the First Amendment protects the practice of religion but also limits the ability of any one religion to use the power of the government to IMPOSE its doctrine on the rest of us.
Now, there are still legal issues. For example, the catholic church runs thousands of medical facilities which accept federal monies and yet those medical facilities do not offer any reproductive services except prenatal, labor and delivery. Those facilities, as a matter of policy, do not provide any birth control services. So the legal issue is if a facility excepts federal money can it still restrict services which the law allows? It is still being fought out in the courts.
However, I believe that Catholics have the same right to representation in our government as any other religion, or non religious belief.
What is it you didn’t say?
And the reason you are reaffirming the First Amendment is?
I think the questions I ask you are pretty straightforward. Why won’t you answer them?
Here is another one, bjw: If catholics were the majority represented in the Congress, would they then have the right to impose their doctrine in the form of laws because they were in the majority? Why or why not?
We’d be ruled by a right wing cabal which would ban Muslims.
They’d ban terrorists, and those who honor their conquests with beautiful mosques.
What did that mean?
If it wasn’t more snotty, mean spirited sacrasm, exolain yourself.
Please
they want to build at Ground Zero, refers to the mosque they built as a tribute to the conquest of Spain. Make no mistake, the mosque is symbolic of victory. It’s standard operating procedure for Muslim conquests.
…. there was no such motivation to the construction of that mosque (now a Roman Catholic cathedral, previously a visigothic Christian church). The Muslims simply did what they do, which is what evangelizing Christians have also always done – put a church or mosque where previously some other house of worship stood. SOP for both religions, little to do with celebrating anything.
which is fine, as I suspect you’re probably not a devoted follower of either. One key difference you hit upon though is that Christians evangelize by inviting people to accept Christ, rather than saying “convert or die”. And while many westernized Muslims do not do that any more, that is the traditional way Muslims have conquered lands and is found in the Qu’ran. Christians don’t oppress other religions, impose special taxes on them, and treat them as second class citizens. We also don’t advocate theocracy (except a few crazies in the ACP), although all the freedoms and rights we enjoy come from Judeo-Christian values, as opposed to the cruel system of Sharia law with it’s stonings, beheadings, degredation of women, etc.
you should read up on the history of how Europe came to be Christian. It was hardly “inviting people to accept Christ,” and actually WAS “convert or die.” In fact, Christianity has a worse record on this front, as Muslims recognized Jews and Christians as being “people of the book” (e.g., we all worshipped the same God) and let them continue to worship as they saw fit, but Christians held no such respect for Jews and Muslims. And yes, historically Christians have done ALL the things you listed: oppress other religions, impose special taxes on them, and treat them as second class citizens, and advocated theocracy (you’ve heard of the Holy Roman Empire, right?)
Sorry, but you can’t change history with a few keystrokes. Cordoba Mosque wasn’t a monument to conquest (though many churches were – read up on the history of Saint Basil’s in Moscow, for example) and the Christians weren’t all kind and gentle in spreading the Gospel.
The educational system has been corrupted by progressives worse than I thought possible.
Beej, history is my forte. I know it; I’ve studied it; I’ve seen what exactly the Catholic Church (who gave Christianity to Western and most of Central Europe) have admitted about this.
This is Christian history, beej. You can’t type it away, and dismissive remarks don’t change it either. Things are better now, but they weren’t better always.
As I recall it, most of the spread of Christianity throughout the world has occurred because of peaceful missionaries spreading the gospel throughout the world. Often they go at great personal cost to themselves and are put in great danger. Often they bring food and medical supplies, and help develop agriculture, etc. Obviously there were some abuses during the Crusades, but if we’re talking about anything near modern times, Christianity has been the greatest force for good the world has ever seen, while radical Islam is arguably the greatest force for evil the world has ever seen. Why do you think these terrorists are doing what they’re doing?
… but we can’t suddenly switch the arena to modern times on this topic. Muslims haven’t converted “by the sword” for many centuries either. And if you think they were always bad guys, you should get familiar with the history of your big subject, math.
You’re understanding of the history of the spread of Christianity is either incomplete or whitewashed. That’s not terribly surprising; “history is written by the victorious,” as they say, and they tend to leave out the details that make them look bad. It helps when your defeated heathens were illiterate, too. Christian universities are notorious for overlooking and whitewashing that stuff, too. But the history of Europe the century or two following the fall of Rome is one of violent wars and conquest, usually resulting in a new church and a lot of dead pagans. Not surprising – if you won’t just give up your religious beliefs, neither will anyone else.
discuss what is going on in modern times, because that’s what affects us directly. I guess what I’m getting at is that if you look at the underlying ideology, Christianity is a religion of peace, while Islam is a religion of violence, despite all claims to the contrary. There were “Christians” in Europe who did not follow the Bible and used violence. There are Muslims who do not follow the Qu’ran and are peaceful. But in the long run, it’s the ideology that matters. The world can either exist as a pluralistic society, in which freedom of religion is upheld (due to Judeo-Christian values) or under cruel and oppressive Sharia law.
Sorry, but lies. lies. lies.
ask yourself this: Why is the birth of Christ celebrated on the 25th of December (no where near Jesus’ true birthday, it’s the winter solstice celebration for pagan religions)??
It’s because when the Romans conquered Europe, they ‘peacfully’ converted pagens by slaughtering, raping, and pillaging not only the people but their religion by superimposing Pagan beliefs into Christianity.
Why is Halloween considered an “evil” holiday? (fall harvest celebration for Pagans)
Why is Easter wrought with fertility symbolism of eggs and bunnies? (Pagens celebrated the birth of spring)
Why is the Devil symbolized with a goats head or Pentagrams once symbols of protection were distorted to symbolize devil worship?
Why were women demoralized, vililfied and hunted as “witches”? (Wicca was a matriarchial religion)
Because Christian History will teach you that when confronted with a religion that threatens your stronghold, you seek, villianize, fearmonger and prosteltyze it out of existence.
Plus, I don’t view Catholicism as true Christianity. Yes the church was corrupted for a period of time. But then the Reformation happened. My point was about the last several centuries.
Catholicism is defined as a sect of Christianity because it adheres to the same set of beliefs that all Christians profess to believe: That Christ was the Son of God, who came down on earth to save us, and was resurrected and became part of the Trinity. That, among many, many other things that Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, Puritans, Orthodox, Pentacostals, and many others all believe.
You may not like their theology, but they’re every bit as Christian as you.
You trying to lecture me on who is a Christian is a hoot. The issue is salvation through faith in Christ vs. works. I do believe there are those in the Catholic community who are truly Christians, but there are others who do not hold that view of salvation.
Just clarification. Christianity is a huge umbrella You’re merely describing theological differences between your sect and theirs, but both sects believe the same fundamental things about God and Christ.
There should be a period: “Christianity is a huge umbrella.”
I do not believe Christianity is a huge umbrella, though it is used that way in secular culture.
In order to be a Christian, there are only a few things to believe in, first and foremost that Jesus died for your sins. Every Christian church preaches that message, including the Catholics. Muslims don’t believe that – that’s one of the reasons why Muslims aren’t under the umbrella of Christianity.
I’m not practicing or believing today, but I was raised as a Christian and that remains with me forever. I learned about the faith, and I know what it is that all the sects believe in common. So while you might not like to think that Catholics aren’t Christians, but the differences you can list won’t be the differences that distinguish between major religions; they’re theological only.
I think you also have to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, or it all goes out the window. This means that Jesus is the only way to God, which excludes unitarians, etc. I also think that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. are sufficiently far removed from Scripture that it’s hard to make the case they are Christians. Mormons, of course, would disagree. (Here come the comments about Glenn Beck.)
Or do you use pi = 3, Beej?
was written, they didn’t know the exact value of pi. That doesn’t mean it can’t be the inspired word of God. And besides that, you’re just nitpicking.
First, who is “they?”
Second, how can something be both “inerrant” and “wrong?”
And, third, no I’m not nitpicking. I am demonstrating how easy it can be to find verses in a holy book that seem pretty darn disturbing.
Come on, BJ, you are merely “fairly certain” that pi=3 is inspirational? What would you find to be an “inspirational” value for c? 0.3Gm/s?
So, I find it kind of cute that you are willing to make all kinds of breathless claims about the bizarre things you can find in the Koran, and then judge an entire group of people based on your misunderstandings. Then, rather than step back after you are shown to be judging others (lest you be judged, and all that) you instead choose to go through all kinds of contortions to apologize for the bizarre things in your preferred holy book.
I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame your confusion on “us liberals,” but maybe you’ll take responsibility for your own regrettable statements. Maybe you’ll even figure out what the “Christian” thing to do is.
Maybe not.
About scripture, that is. I understand that that’s important to you – perhaps important enough that Christians who don’t believe that aren’t “saved” – but that’s not a major enough point of departure to make those who don’t agree with that “not Christian.”
I actually agree about Mormons being sufficiently departed that their inclusion is questionable (things like Jesus and Satan being brothers, if I understand their theology correctly, are wholly unique to their belief system), but I won’t take it further than that. There used to be a regular conservative polster, young guy probably around your age, who was Mormon and he would turn livid at the subject – and no one here brought it up! Nice guy, wonder what he’s up to these days…
But you are not God. I am always amazed at the complete hubris of Christians like yourself who have decided that only your interpretation of the scriptures and view of God is the accurate and true path to God. The rest of us are all damned.
You read the scriptures and claim that it is the inerrant word of God when it plainly contradicts itself in multiple places. The best way to explain the contradiction is to understand it as the best attempts by humans to understand God. That’s my opinion about scripture but I don’t condemn you as being outside of God’s love for not sharing that opinion. I wouldn’t be so blasphemous as to announce that I speak for God.
I’m just saying that it’s funny when non-Christians try to lecture me about Christianity.
I’m not a “non-Christian” except in your distorted view.
Secondly,
By claiming that your way is the “only way to God,” you are speaking for God. Perhaps God accepts other pathways other than believing in the innerrancy of scripture and your narrow view of Jesus. The Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses both use the same scripture that you claim but they view it differently from you (and from each other). So, you mean sufficiently removed from YOUR interpretation of Scripture. Thus, YOU have decided who is a Christian. Thus, at best, you are claiming to know God’s mind and speak for it and, at worst, you are speaking your opinion in contradiction of God’s will.
starting off that quote. That means that is my personal opinion. I didn’t say “God thinks”.
Who decided what is Scripture? Do you agree with them on their choice? Do you have any basis on which to judge your reliance on them?
And why do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?
There are many mainstream Christian sects that do not believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible – it is not a requirement to being Christian by any traditional definition.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Now of course you can say that verse is wrong itself, but there are plenty of other reasons, both internal to the Bible and external, that Scripture is accurate. We should start an apologetics thread if we want to into it further – my dad wrote a book on the subject.
there are plenty of reasons to believe that God tried to inspire (breathe into life) the Word but then humans wrote it. I could name numerous places where scripture directly contradicts itself in two different places, tells a different version of the same story, tells the SAME story but uses different characters, or give you a list of scriptures that were written but certain ecclesiastic authorities (humans) decided that they weren’t part of the canon.
I could do all of this but your retort to another poster was “like you understand Christianity.” I’m not going to debate further with someone so close minded as that.
but that’s no reason to believe it is not God-inspired or that it is inaccurate anywhere. Of course different people have slightly different accounts of an event based on their backgrounds (the gospel writers, for example); however, there is nothing contradictory. “Humans” affirmed what was already recognized as Scripture.
In more modern times, Christianity was spread to the new world by the sword, either as a side-effect of European expansion or more directly as a result of “re-education” and religious conquest.
Christianity has been both a source of great good and great evil throughout its history.
in recent history is in Ireland (which was itself between protestants and Catholics), and there’s zero chance of that spreading anywhere else in the world.
I pointed out some examples of ongoing Christian cruelty last night in Ali’s diary. Christians are still leading fights, both as oppressor and oppressed.
They are no longer the major wars – what is left to make of a major war for Christianity at this point, unless it is to go back to the Middle East for another Crusade, complete with Bible-verse enscribed guns.
From what I’ve heard, Christians are being persecuted in Sudan and other places around the world.
And they are persecuting, too. Have done, are doing, and will do, so long as there are people willing to abscond with religion in search of power. Welcome to something called ‘the Human condition’.
Where are Christians persecuting people? It’s not happening.
Are you telling me all those NIMBY folks saying people can’t build mosques anymore are Pagans?
You don’t know what persecution is.
Recent persecutions by Christians? How about the Holocaust in Nazi Germany? Or are you a Holocaust denier?
Tired of your dismissive attitude and done with giving you any more of my attention.
Uganda, Nigeria, Malawi – in short, most of the African nations that have significant Christian populations. Most of these areas have very conservative, fundamentalist Christian beliefs; many have deep ties to conservative Christian groups here in the United States.
They persecute homosexuals, go on witch hunts (you know, for witches…), and occasionally spawn militia groups that vie for power against one another or against secular or Muslim governments.
Christianity now is only a bit tidier than it was in the bad old days, and IMHO it’s getting worse.
Aristotle just laid out in the simplest terms exactly the story of Cordoba, and you, rather that at least accepting the valitity of his post, respond in this typical, snotnosed, sophmoric, pissy way.
Next time you post, know what you’re talking about. Don’t assume that because newt gingrich’s pac put this out, it’s true. You only make a fool of yourself in doing so.
I’d encourage you to educate yourself on Islam.
but eight-minute youtube videos sourced to blogs don’t generally pass the smell test the way, say, books like Huston Smith’s “The World’s Religions” do. But before I lose eight minutes that I may never get back, would you quickly enumerate what the “three points” are? If they’re interesting, I promise to watch it.
You’re going to have to watch the video first. Otherwise you’ll just dismiss them out of hand without having to respond to the evidence.
… and all the BIG WORDS were pretty unprofessional, and a sign of emotive rather than rational argument. But I’ll watch it after dinner. I’d waste those eight minutes some other way, after all. 🙂
I watched it. Some thoughts…
First of all, the Koran (that’s how I’m going to spell it) was NOT written by one man. Mohammad was illiterate. He couldn’t have written it. No – he recited his prophecies to a team of scribes, and wasn’t actually compiled into a single volume until after he died. While it may still be more the product of one man more than any other religious text (save for perhaps the Book of Mormon), this video starts things off with a false statement.
Second, this video makes a lot of claims about what the Koran says, but doesn’t actually give a single cite for any of it. I have a copy of the Koran, but if I want to try to find any of the pertinent passages, such as the one claiming that the later, more violent passages have ascendancy over the earlier, peaceful ones, or the claim that the Koran tells Muslims to lie to non-Muslims if it helps Islam, I have to go hunting for them myself. Not good for the credibility of this video.
Third, it tends to make a big deal out of Shari’a Law but tends to overlook that all but a few Islamic countries are not governed by it. That’s because Muslims, like the rest of us, tend to want to live by more civilized standards, and being poor sinners like any Christian, tend to turn more of a blind eye to the more extreme passages of their text. We don’t stone adulterers to death anymore, but don’t kid yourself that there aren’t Christians out there who would love to bring back that kind of law.
In the end, I’m unimpressed. I already know a bit about Islam, and this video is presenting a distorted picture of it. It’s ingenious that it starts off with the whole “people believe what they want to” caveat; I believe it was tailored to exactly that kind of audience.
but it’s too graphic even for this website.
But keep in mind that “graphic” usually means “sensationalistic.” Please review it and see if you think it might be sensationalistic before sharing the link. Thanks.
but backed up by Qu’ranic verses throughout. I can’t actually pull out the link because I’ve only seen it on facebook, nor do I think it is a good idea to post it here.
… then you can double click on it in FB, and it should open up a new tab to its youtube page.
If you still think it’s too much, maybe you can find something making the same case without the disturbing images.
I think I found the facebook link, but even just posting a link I don’t want to violate any terms of use. If you want it email me at bjwilson83@yahoo.com. (That’s my junk email account which I normally don’t check; don’t get all excited guys.)
Your “forgetfulness” sure is convenient, though. Can you share your secret with us?
Well, of course you don’t. You don’t base your pronouncements on any understanding of anything in the real world. But here, maybe you can learn something today.
If you want more information, just search using the terms in the subject line.
It’s a very attractive building – you can find some pictures here.
I am a firm supporter of Democracy. This is why I am a registered to vote with Other Democrats. We belong to the Democratic party.
we vote for the smartest, brightest and sanest for public office.
Unlike the
republicanOligarch tea party that You belong… whom just may SELECT their man for the job. AGAIN!Nah reality shows us You are far closer in ideology, to a dictatorial society than I am.
Yes the U.S.S.R. is dead and it took a whole lot more than the puppet Ronny Raygun to kill it.
but banning all rednecks and church-going folks from voting is nowhere near democracy. We would be ruled by a small group of atheists and the other 80% of Americans would have no say in government.
I said Poll testing (the very same they advocate) applied to them. YOU see it as banning them from voting. (as they do and you now admit)
I do not advocate Banning them. I advocate sanity testing.
what even you do not think they are sane???
You said that you agreed.
Killed the U.S.S.R.
In short it took ALL of US.
are alive and well. Saudi Arabia sounds like it would suit you quite well…
Eg, this bullshit:
Never mind our second and third presidents who bashed Christian sectarianism in politics in ways that would make you freak out….
I mean I knew “you libs” believed conservatives didn’t deserve representation in our system of government; I just didn’t know you’d admit it so publicly.
that I wouldn’t consider to be respectful. (See my latest comment to you on the weekend open thread if you haven’t already, and you’ll know what I’m talking about.)
Does it offend you because it’s true?
He’s a fucking idiot. By arguing, you’re proving what? You’re smarter than a fucking idiot?
Thanks for the reminder. I hope I can remember the damn thing!
of the insightful and thought-provoking commentary on the left.
Whenever you don’t have a good, factual response or counterargument to the story at hand, you come up with some sort of idiotic non-sequitur like the one above.
BJ’s going to have to look up “non-sequitur” and then misinterpret what he reads. And we’ll have to see the inane post about it. Thanks!
ROFLOLOL. You can’t spin this one away.
He’s so wacky that I don’t trust him with it.
We’re supposed to stop wearing blue helmets now too? How much control do these people want over our lives?
Do I point and laugh at the ridiculousness of it?
Do I drop my head against my desk in sadness because of the stupidity of it?
Or should I be scared because these people truly believe what they’re saying?
Over and over and over again.
Nice try at creating a Boogey man.
10% Unemployment, 40% Obama approval rating, can’t talk about how your policies are working. Even Pat Waak can’t put a happy face on all of these accomplishments.
Time to focus on how bad things would be if someone else was in charge. So we hired some trackers who have confirmed that those people even go to Church. They say they may cut some programs, balance the budget and put people back to work in the private sector. Heaven forbid. They even believe in the Consitutional right to carry a gun.
What are we to do? I know. We will have ColoradoPols put up some stories about how those people are so fringe that the public will want us back even if we have blown up the economy and nobody is working. The DNC and the NY Times are doing their part, time for ColoradoPols to chime in.
This wasn’t a Saturday morning prayer meeting; it was a political workshop, sponsored by the Loveland 9-12 Project and promoted by the Northern Colorado Tea Party.
They advertised it as “open to the public.” Last time I checked, registered Democrats were still considered part of the “public”. What tyranny is it you live in, H-man?
If they choose to hold their political meetings in a house of worship, then you better believe sane people are going to show up to find out what they are up to.
I point out that the article, like most coming out of ColoradoPols these days, does not even try to show how the Dems have been successful in any of their policies but merely tries to belittle the opposition, and that is some kind of conspiracy. Just the facts, as I see them.
If it was all in support of ideas that every American favors, then the video just helps you side 🙂
That would be a real get.
I’m very proud of my church: First Plymouth Congregational – part of the United Church of Christ.
If that last part sounds familiar, it might be because it’s the Obama family’s church: when they’re not accused of being Muslims.
It is a church that welcomes gays, lesbians and transgendered people on an equal footing. It is open and affirming.
Meanwhile, a church in Florida – maybe one of the type you appear to support? – is going to have a Koran-burning ceremony soon.
What Would Jesus Do? Somehow I doubt he would cower in fear and get ready to shoot his Democratic neighbors.
Great. I am glad you go to church. Perhaps you will learn to be accepting of others who have differnt views than you and not just those that look different than you.
welcome individuals who think differently. In addition to Barack Obama and Howard Dean who are members, Republican Senate Candidate from Illinois Mark Kirk and Republican Senator Judd Gregg are also members.
and his Rocky Mountain Gun Owners count yourself lucky. He has gone after Republican legislators in a primary because they failed to vote for one of his crazy bills or amendments even though they had the backing of the NRA. He mails repeatedly to gun owner lists with misinformation and personal attacks. In my mind Dudley Brown is both armed and dangerous.
He’s going to jump off that donkey because it’s headed in the wrong direction. 🙂
because he believes (and has repeatedly stated) that the NRA is “anti-gun.”
He is a lying bottom feeder who only tries to prey on legitimate fears for his own greedy ends. The real leaders of the firearms community, mostly NRA, Colorado State Shooting Assn., Firearms Coalition, and other responsible leaders, see him as counter productive to gun rights.
Didn’t they carve out a special exemption for themselves in the DISCLOSE Act or something?
But traditionally the NRA has been regarded as a right wing group.
http://twitpic.com/2hf78t
(My private collection of T-Shirts, since I thought this one was funny visually)
http://www.thewashingtonnote.c…
Steve Clemons finishes his post with this:
(my bold)
People are being hyped into a frenzy by the ‘rulers of the mob’ and I sincerely fear that there will be blood soon.
The ‘rulers of the mob’ need to get a grip and hit the caution button.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
An interesting take on the stampeding of good sense.
It deserves wide distribution.
We have heard that a church in Florida will soon have a Koran-burning ceremony in response to the Ground Zero controversy.
when people celebrate their intolerance.
The church says they’re gonna burn ’em anyway. http://www.inewsconnect.com/fl…
Nice Christian group, too. Here’s what the pastor says about Islam:
A basic tenet of Christianity is that all non-Christians are going to hell.
Accept Jesus Christ as your savior and beg his forgiveness for your sins, or you’re going to hell. It’s really pretty cut-and-dried.
I know some Christians think that’s the only way to get to heaven, but I thought some also think it’s necessary to do good things in life, while others think even non-Christians can go to heaven if they live good lives.
I always thought it was weird that Christianity evolved into something like a Facebook petition campaign, where all you had to do is sign your name somewhere and you were instantly heaven-bound. It seems to me that Jesus was pretty clear that certain things were sins and other things were noble, and that people should avoid sins. Some brilliant guy decided it was impossible for him to actually try to live like Jesus and still get rich, so he decided it must be impossible for everyone else too. Thus just the act of signing up became good enough.
are those that feel they can go about “Sinning” or otherwise screwing others all day, every day, day after day… just to be forgiven each night when they say their prayers.
the instant forgiveness part is abused by truly despicable people. (usually republicans)
What with mortal sins and all (though I’m hardly an expert).
Even in the liberal UCC I attended growing up, the only way into heaven was to accept Christ and beg forgiveness (and you had to mean it). If you reject Christ and don’t beg forgiveness, it’s off to hell you go.
If you are not “born again” you cannot go to heaven. I ask her about people who lived in virtual isolation from the rest of the world and had never heard of Jesus and her answer was that she felt sorry for them.
Personally I think that there is one ‘God’ and people of all religions just worship that ‘God’ in different ways. It seems to me that that attitude reduces the ‘my religion is the only right religion’ attitude that causes death and destruction!
Even a literal interpretation of “the only way to the Father is through me” allows a lot of leeway. Try this one:
Come Judgement Day, Jesus will be there sorting the wheat from the chaff. What he considers to be wheat, and what chaff, is something we are not told. We are given to believe that good, though done in the name of evil, is still good, and that evil, though done in the name of good, is still evil. We know that we are supposed to love with deeds, not empty words. Who passes to the Father through Jesus at that moment?
At the end, when your eyes are supposedly opened and things become clear, is it not possible that people who have not yet accepted Jesus would see him as he is and be given the chance to accept him freely?
Or is it more broad – that God, omnipotent omnipresent being that He is, judges everyone equally by their lives, passing them by the standards of Jesus on their way? (And how many people practice beliefs that Jesus would approve of, in ethics and deed? My guess is, many.)
Reducing God’s will to the simplicity of a single Bible interpretation is foolish.
The statement is very clear.
The statement is very clear.
to an otherwise disgusting and depressing article:
This will be another test of the activism and good deeds of the Interfaith Community.
Help them out when you can with money or showing up for events etc.!
the Presbyterian congregation or just a group using the church? I never thought of today’s Presbyterians as being particularly extreme or militant about anything.
There are liberal Presbyterians, who are actually very liberal as churches go, and there are conservative Presbyterians that are basically fundies with an older history. I’m no expert on this though, who is?
Either way, it does look like the gun rights guy exploited the fact that they were in a church.
But the do believe in God so maybe that makes them fringe right wing extremists to the Democratic spin machine these days.
Nobody thinks believing in God is fringe. I simply was surprised because my understanding is that Presbyterians today are a pretty mellow bunch, one of those churches considered too liberal by many on the far right, and wanted clarification as to whether this more militant than the than the NRA guy was being sponsored by them or was just using the facility. I have relatives who were raised Methodist and Lutheran, grew up with close friends who were raised Catholic, so I am more familiar with those faith traditions. No really close connection with anyone I know of who is Presbyterian. That’s why I asked.
You are being crazy paranoid and have a completely out there perception of who comprises the center left which is where most Dems can be found. Jeesh!
They have one of the nicest big rooms in Loveland for this sort of event. The 912 project has used it for their meetings throughout and have held candidate forums and such. Any connection to the Presbyterians is coincidental.
That’s pretty much what I expected.
There are liberal Presbyterians and conservative Presbyterians. (There are actually three different major presbyterian denominations in the U.S.) The largest is the PC-USA. Being so large, their congregations range across the Christian theological spectrum but this is where you will find most of the liberal Presbyterians which would probably be described as taking up the center to center/left of Christian theology in America. The Reformed Church (part of the Dutch Reformed movement) takes up a more conservative (center to center/right position on the theological spectrum. The largest conservative Presbytarian Church (PCA) takes up a much more conservative place on the spectrum leaning toward fundamentalism. THen there are handful of small Presbyterian denominations that tend toward the fundamentalist side of Christianity.
Mountain View claims affiliation with the largest, PC-USA, on an old webpage. However, it’s website is under construction which might mean they are in the process of re-affiliating with one of the other denominations. They are still listed at the PC-USA website.
I can tell you that, as a minister, I had some authority (with the Board) in saying who could rent out the space. With a few exceptions, we would not have rented out space to a group that we felt was far outside the mainstream of the views of our members – figuring that they could probably find some other church to rent to them.
Insane Just… insane
I would just search for them online. sometimes org’s distribute them for free
My neighbors come to my home all the time and ask for money. Goddamned girl scouts.
But at least they give you cookies in return.
strikes me at the type of person that had a really bad high school experience.
on the contrary. Have you ever looked at the people driving around with Obama stickers. They put the UG with the LY.
Marilin Manson sang it best… “The beautiful people, the beautiful people… they can’t see the Forrest for the trees… they can’t smell their own shit on their knees!”
WOW! He also said “Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused…
I have to admit I feel pretty used with Dems in office.