Southern Baptists - 'Same Sex Marriage is Not a Civil Rights Issue'

Originally posted by Ookie

I am a realist. I do not let stupid emotions control me. I can objectively see that those laws we had were mostly good. Sure, there were abuses. But that is true of any system. I do not let compassion tell me to do things that are stupid. This nation does not use it's head. Thanks to women voting it uses it's heart. That is a sure fire way to disaster.

I am a realist too. People are People.

Native Americans were very diverse. But are lumped together as one race. Just like you are lumping blacks together as one mindset.

If all the Native American tribes had banded together as a focused unit - - - they might still be in charge of this country.

At least they knew what it was to be Free.

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by Ookie

Originally posted by AshOnMyTomatoes
reply to post by MentorsRiddle

 

I salute you just for your courage to post this post.
Really.

The sad irony, however, is that as far as slavery is concerned, he's actually right. A slave was guaranteed the means of subsistence. In other words, while they might not have been free, they were able to definitely continue to live.

All people are chained down to heavy toil by poverty more firmly than ever. They were chained by slavery and serfdom; from these, one way and another, they might free themselves. These could be settled with, but from want they will never get away.

We have included in the constitution such rights as to the masses appear fictitious and not actual rights. All these so-called "Peoples Rights" can exist only in idea, an idea which can never be realized in practical life. What is it to the proletariat laborer, bowed double over his heavy toil, crushed by his lot in life, if talkers get the right to babble, if journalists get the right to scribble any nonsense side by side with good stuff, once the proletariat has no other profit out of the constitution save only those pitiful crumbs which we fling them from our table in return for their voting in favor of what we dictate, in favor of the men we place in power, the servants of our AGENTUR.

Republican rights for a poor man are no more than a bitter piece of irony, for the necessity he is under of toiling almost all day gives him no present use of them, but the other hand robs him of all guarantee of regular and certain earnings by making him dependent on strikes by his comrades or lockouts by his masters.

-- The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Ookie]

Why do I have to be the guy to point out that anyone who has a brain can see now that those laws were good and kept things working well? It is no coincidence that our modern society is what it is only after we repealed these laws. Their removal has done more to destroy the fabric of this nation than any other event or cause.

Let me guess. You are a white male.

(no offense to other white males)

What does that have to do with anything? Why put a label on someone?

Originally posted by MrSandman

Originally posted by Annee

Let me guess. You are a white male.

What does that have to do with anything? Why put a label on someone?

Did you read the poster's full post - - that I am responding to?

When the Constitution took effect in 1789, it did not "secure the blessings of liberty" to all people. The expansion of rights and liberties has been achieved over time, as people once excluded from the protections of the Constitution asserted their rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. These Americans have fostered movements resulting in laws, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional amendments that have narrowed the gap between the ideal and the reality of American freedom.

At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870; American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924; and women gained the vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. www.archives.gov...

Originally posted by Ookie
Nope. I am an American Indian male. I am just smart enough to know that our grandparents weren't stupid ..

Then let me educated you about American Indians and homosexuality.
This is pretty basic stuff. Taught in entry level college psychology classes.

Two-Spirit

When English and French-Canadian fur trappers first grew acquainted with the cultures of the Native Americans among whom they found themselves, they were surprised to find that there were significant numbers of men dressed as women among the tribes of the region. What intrigued them the most, however, was the esteem with which these men were held by their fellow tribesmen. These men were considered to be spiritually gifted, a special gift to the tribe by God, men with a particular insight into spiritual matters. As they were encountered in most tribes, the trappers chose a French word to describe them all: "berdache."

Most Native American Indian tribes treated homosexual men as a gift from god.
They were specially touched by the creator.
It was good luck to have both a female wife and a male wife.

Like I said .. this is basic history and basic psychology.
I'm surprised that you, as a native american indian, don't know your heritage.

Originally posted by petrus4
-- The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

edit on 23-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Why do people keep posting quotes from this?

PROVEN HOAX.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the United States in the 1920s.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazis publicized the text as if it were a valid document, although it was exposed as fraudulent. After the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, it ordered the text to be studied in German classrooms. The historian Norman Cohn suggested that Hitler used the Protocols as his primary justification for initiating the Holocaust—his "warrant for genocide".

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by petrus4
-- The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

edit on 23-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Why do people keep posting quotes from this?

PROVEN HOAX.

Its' authorship being a hoax is irrelevant. The degree of correlation between what is in there, and what is observable about contemporary Western society is uncanny. I don't care if the Easter Bunny wrote it during an acid trip. That doesn't reduce the validity of what is actually said.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by petrus4
-- The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

edit on 23-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Why do people keep posting quotes from this?

PROVEN HOAX.

Its' authorship being a hoax is irrelevant. The degree of correlation between what is in there, and what is observable about contemporary Western society is uncanny. I don't care if the Easter Bunny wrote it during an acid trip. That doesn't reduce the validity of what is actually said.

Originally posted by petrus4
Its' authorship being a hoax is irrelevant.

OMG that's funny
It's a proven LIE. It was used by Hitler as an excuse to kill millions.
But the fact that it's a racist lie is supposedly 'irrelevant' because
it agrees with what you think. Priceless.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's a proven LIE.

No. The claim of authorship was a proven lie. The actual content of it isn't something that anyone talks about...or even knows about, because they're too busy obsessing over how anti-Semitic it is.

It's called logic, Flyers. You should try it sometime.

reply to post by petrus4

The sad irony, however, is that as far as slavery is concerned, he's actually right.

Um, no he wasn't right. You actually think slavery is a good thing and shouldn't have ended?

I've read a ton of recorded slave diaries. Most of them did NOT have good lives or living conditions. They were fed scraps and unwanted food. They could be beat at any time for any reason. They were kept dumb, uneducated and illiterate. Not to mention it's completely immoral to kidnap another human claim you own them and force them to do labor.

Originally posted by petrus4
The claim of authorship was a proven lie. The actual content of it isn't something that anyone talks about...or even knows about, because they're too busy obsessing over how anti-Semitic it is.

It's called logic, Flyers. You should try it sometime

You really said I should be logical after that silly statement of yours?
The authorship was a lie. The content is just as dubious.
But since it agrees with your agenda, somehow everyone should turn a blind eye to those issues.
They should accept obvious bunk from a known false source ... that's your version of 'logic'.
OMG ... like I said ... priceless


TOPIC - Southern Baptists say Same Sex Marriage is not a Civil Rights Issue.
Try staying on topic and not littering this thread with PROVEN HOAXES.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by petrus4

 

Um, no he wasn't right. You actually think slavery is a good thing and shouldn't have ended?

I think that ideally, they should have been left alone in Africa, or wherever else they were originally from. I'm also aware that their treatment was often horrendous.

I wasn't comparing slavery with pre-slavery, however. I was comparing slavery with the situation of employed people now. From what I've been seeing over the last couple of years, it at least looks as though someone under the prior system of slavery, as bad as it was, possibly had better odds of long term survival, than an employed person today. Maybe I'm wrong about that...but it is how it looks.

Originally posted by petrus4
The sad irony, however, is that as far as slavery is concerned, he's actually right. A slave was guaranteed the means of subsistence. In other words, while they might not have been free, they were able to definitely continue to live.

BULL. Tell that to the massive numbers of dead slaves .. those that were raped over and over ... those that were beaten and flogged ... tell them that they were 'living'. More proof that your Elders of Zion bullcrap is BUNK.

reply to post by petrus4


You weren't comparing anything. You said he was right about slavery. And this is what he said;

It was a bad idea to end slavery. The wrongs that were done to blacks could have been addressed and solved without removing the institution of slavery. It was the absolute king of all stupid ideas to end it. Before, blacks were fed, housed, clothed and made to do productive work. We still feed, house, and clothe them, but we get nothing but crime and mayhem for our efforts. How can any thinking individual see this as being good? Jim Crow laws mitigated the damage from the stupid decision to end slavery and the laws worked. You prefer the mayhem we have now?

What is he right about?

Keep that RACIST and HATE-FILLED Protocols of Elders of Zion hoax-crap off this thread.
(personal suggestion .. if you buy it, go play at StormFront)

Best Hoaxes and Pranks - The Dangerous Fraud of Protocols of Elders

The original source has been identified as an 1864 book by Maurice Joly titled The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, which was written as a satirical attack against the ambitions and methods of French Emperor Napoleon III. In the book, Machiavelli represented Napoleon III, and described a series of steps that he intended to take to become ruler of the world. The Joly book was in turn based on material borrowed from a popular novel of the time by Eugène Sue titled The Mysteries of the People, in which those plotting to rule the world were the Jesuits instead of Napoleon III. Neither the Joly book nor the Sue book mentioned either Jews or Masons.

Based on evidence repeatedly corroborated by British, German, Ukrainian, Polish and Russian sources over a 75 year period, The Protocols, far from being a "discovered" document as it was claimed to be, was in fact deliberately fabricated sometime between 1895 and 1902 by Russian journalist Matvei Golovinski. In a Swiss lawsuit in the late 1930s concerning circulation of the Protocols, "Two of the Russian witnesses gave testimony pointing to the involvement of Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky in the forgery". Rachkovsky was head of the Paris branch of the Russian secret police.

The source material for the forgery was a synthesis between Joly's book and a chapter from a work of fiction titled Biarritz, which was written in 1868 by antisemitic German novelist Hermann Goedsche and translated into Russian in 1872. In creating the Protocols, Golovinski took Joly's novel and changed the plotters from Napoleon III to the Jews, just as Joly had changed the plotters from the Jesuits to Napoleon III in his version of the story. The current belief is the forgery was initiated and authorized by factions of the Russian aristocracy opposed to the political and social reforms initiated by the previous Tsar, (Alexander II).

They are fiction. Reading them you can see clearly that they are fiction.

The are NOT authentic

au·then·tic   /ɔˈθɛntɪk/ Show Spelled[aw-then-tik] Show IPA
adjective
1. not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique.
2. having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master.
3. entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy: an authentic report on poverty in Africa.

Protocols are a literary forgery
ATS Thread - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Originally posted by FlyersFan
They are fiction. Reading them you can see clearly that they are fiction.

Have you read them?

Although as an aside, I've read The Prince as well. The comparison with Machiavelli is only fair to an extent. Machiavelli did advocate ruthlessness, yes; but within limits.

reply to post by petrus4


You still didn't say why you think slavery that it shouldn't have ended and was a good thing.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Christian Post - Southern Baptists say Same Sex Marriage is Not a Civil Rights Issue

NEW ORLEANS — Messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in America, went on record Wednesday to oppose any attempt by gay rights activists to frame same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue.

On the last day of their annual meeting, Southern Baptist messengers overwhelmingly adopted a resolution that denounces "the effort to legalize 'same-sex marriage' as a civil rights issue since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender."

The resolution, titled "'Same-Sex Marriage' and Civil Rights Rhetoric," was a direct response to President Obama's personal affirmation of gay marriage and recent federal lawsuits against the Defense of Marriage Act, according to the Resolutions Committee spokesperson.

'Homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections like race and gender' - they say.
They are entitled to their opinion but ... who are they to decide what qualifes?
And since when is being allowed to marry who you want something that needs 'special protection'?

I understand that practicing homosexuality is against their religion and all.
And I understand they have a right to their opinion.
But as far as I'm concerned - two consenting adults being able to marry whomever they wish IS a civil right.

Exactly. If they get to maintain that same-sex marriage is not a civil right then I want to maintain that the freedom of religious expression is not a civil right. I am equally offended by people who believe in "god" as they are concerning homosexuality.

So...when do we start burning bibles and tearing apart church's brick by brick?

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by FlyersFan
They are fiction. Reading them you can see clearly that they are fiction.

Have you read them?

Although as an aside, I've read The Prince as well. The comparison with Machiavelli is only fair to an extent. Machiavelli did advocate ruthlessness, yes; but within limits.

edit on 24-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Ummmm...in what alternate reality did Machiavelli advocate ruthlessness? Do you know anything about history at all? Even just a little bit?

Machiavelli was a satirist and a comedian and was drafted into military service during the Papal wars of acquisition in the early 1500's after the Medici families authoritarian rule of Florence was ousted. Machiavelli was then an ELECTED representative in the restored Florentine republic.

When the Medici's seized Florence again in 1513 he was charged with conspiracy (to oust the Medici's from power approx. a decade earlier) and was nearly tortured to death via strappado. After withstanding this treatment and refusing to confess the Medici's eventually let him go upon the condition that he no longer hold any political office.

It was only THEN that he retired to his estate in Sant'Andrea in Percussina and turned BACK TO HIS COMEDIC ROOTS and wrote The Prince.

The Prince and Machiavelli did not ever actually condone brutality and ruthlessness any more than Jonathan Swift advocated cannibalism.

What a stunning example of how the US educational system has failed yet again.