Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Discussing Sharia law is off topic but you are confusing me because repug/neocons , like Bachmann, approve of male dominance....so why wouldn't they approve of Sharia law???
You guys should make up your minds.....
Sharia law is on-topic because male dominance is one of it's most important aspects. If/when Sharia becomes law in the U.S this country will become more male dominant than it ever has been. Conservatives do not want this. Most liberals probably don't want it either but are naive about Sharia and could help usher it in.
The point Bachmann was making is that submission in the Bble means respect, not a crude form of male dominance. She is obviously not submissive in the sexist form of the word or she wouldn't be running for President in the first place.
Sharia law is on-topic because male dominance is one of it's most important aspects. If/when Sharia becomes law in the U.S this country will become more male dominant than it ever has been. Conservatives do not want this. Most liberals probably don't want it either but are naive about Sharia and could help usher it in.
The point Bachmann was making is that submission in the Bble means respect, not a crude form of male dominance. She is obviously not submissive in the sexist form of the word or she wouldn't be running for President in the first place.
That's not proof of anything. She could be running for president precisely because her husband told her to. She said she studies tax law, which she didn't have any interest in doing, because he told her to. There are lots of other examples where Bachmann has said on video where she submitted to her husband's wishes against her own.
Sharia law is on-topic because male dominance is one of it's most important aspects. If/when Sharia becomes law in the U.S this country will become more male dominant than it ever has been. Conservatives do not want this. Most liberals probably don't want it either but are naive about Sharia and could help usher it in.
The point Bachmann was making is that submission in the Bble means respect, not a crude form of male dominance. She is obviously not submissive in the sexist form of the word or she wouldn't be running for President in the first place.
When one sex is told to be submissive to the other sex that IS sexism....no matter what the reason, what the setting, what the law, or who says it ....it's sexist.
According to BACHMANN submission is NOT a "form of respect" as you and very naive posters have stated ...it's SUBMISSION....it's doing what her husband tells her..
Why won't you people understand BACHMANN said it.
As Wayland Woman said, maybe her husband told her to run for president.... 'cause HE sure doesn't have a chance.
So, if a horrible tragedy happens and drug crazed lunatics vote Bachmann into office....WHO will really be President?
Will Bachmann empty the White house of all female staffers because their opinions mean nothing compared to the Supreme Males???
How many sexist laws will be passed against the lowly women of this country?
Will she submit to all male heads of state? Afterall, they, according to HER, are better than females.
Some replies on here say people do not want Christians or religious people in office, period. That is ruling out the majority of Americans.
No Christian would force religion on any citizen through gun or writ. Ever.
So which Christians are you talking about? The kind who points accusations every which way to dodge accountability? The kind who says I've got mine to hell with everyone else? The kind that can't bear to get their hands dirty or look the truth in the eye but condemn people wholesale no questions asked? The kind who instigates malevolence and claims themselves victim? These people aren't Christians. They're the very hypocrites Jesus rebuked.
The question that should scare you is are hypocrites the majority? If so, why should we encourage them to continue making a mockery of Christianity by electing them to office?
That's not proof of anything. She could be running for president precisely because her husband told her to. She said she studies tax law, which she didn't have any interest in doing, because he told her to. There are lots of other examples where Bachmann has said on video where she submitted to her husband's wishes against her own.
Wayland your statements are proof that this philosophy she's living out is certifiable. How many alter identities is she going to have? Frankly I think the reason why this is getting trotted out is because her leadership style is so obnoxious, so contemptuous of her constituents, that she's attempting to deflect accountability for her own conduct onto her husband. Both can point fingers at one another robbing banks and expect to get by on it? That's not flying with me.
This quote loosely paraphrased is attributed to Cleopatra...
'A woman's authority masks a man's deception'
It doesn't have to be so, but it is so when using it as a play book. Republicans can only serve female constituency as pimps? Right there in plain sight and nary a word out of any of you.
Grander scheme of this lunacy... let's go to the video tape during Palin-Biden debate. Why is the camera focused on her behind when she's answering questions? No complaints from her or her entire party over that, but histrionics over lipstick on a pig comment directed at policies she knew nothing about. Sad truth is it actually was her most flattering angle. Her behind is only thing she ever had to offer America.
Sharia law is on-topic because male dominance is one of it's most important aspects. If/when Sharia becomes law in the U.S this country will become more male dominant than it ever has been. Conservatives do not want this.
Proof is in the pudding. Name one conservative who authored policy as if his/ her daughter had to live in this country, then I'll listen. They never do. Not ever.
Instead we have an elderly juvenile delinquent Mike Huckabee standing on a stage wagging his finger at an unmarried pregnant starlet. Just the kind of thing you want to say to a woman who said yes to life, but how dare she say yes to life? He's oblivious to the empty suit who donated his sperm. Where is his outrage over Levi Johnstons egregious behavior? Where is Dan Quayles outrage over Levi Johnston's across America? Boehner's? :::crickets::: Wait wait, let's beat up womens clinics!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F
Most liberals probably don't want it either but are naive about Sharia and could help usher it in.
No one in this thread has endorsed sharia law. I'm against it 100%. The blame on liberal judges in this thread betrays their own ignorance of religious freedom having given itself too much interpretative license. It's a double edged sword, and one they don't want to be subject to, but subject all others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F
The point Bachmann was making is that submission in the Bble means respect, not a crude form of male dominance. She is obviously not submissive in the sexist form of the word or she wouldn't be running for President in the first place.
Verse 5:22, in its entirety reads: Wives to their own husbands as to the Lord.
This isn’t even a complete sentence, because there is no verb. So, where does the idea of submission come from? It comes from the verb of the previous verse, Ephesians 5:21. In 5:21, the verb is not an imperative addressed only to wives. instead, it is what Greek grammar calls a reflexive verb, in which submission is to one another other. here are some translations of 5:21.
* Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God (King James Version.)
* Be submissive to one another out of reverence for Christ (Modern Language version.)
* Honor Christ by submitting to one another (Living Bible.)
* Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (Revised Standard Version.)
* Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (New Revised Standard.)
* Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (New International Version.)
Can't rep you again but your posts are awesome, Thank You!
"""Frankly I think the reason why this is getting trotted out is because her leadership style is so obnoxious, so contemptuous of her constituents, that she's attempting to deflect accountability for her own conduct onto her husband.""
Glad you put her attitude to her constiuency into words I couldn't but it's true! I always knew she was obnoxious but never could put my finger on that contempt...that very un-christian arrogance.
She does have a habit of saying outrageously stupid things and then back pedaling as if everyone misunderstood her ...someday she'll slip and blurt out, "He made me say it!"
We're seriously detouring off topic but I'm going to use this as an opportunity to illustrate proper leadership consistent with American constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden
But in a President, the higher calling should not be religion, it should be the good of the country.
I agree in part. Religious higher calling and greater good of the country are actually synonymous with one another. When they're not, they've failed the mark on both counts. Separation of Church and state can never be 100% since human beings are incapable of being 100% objective and the bulk of US law hinges upon ancient philosophical evolutions rooted on Judeo-Christian ethics/ sensibilities. This is not to say either 'own' morality, or God, or that the evolution is completed, but that our language and culture is intimately entwined with all of the above.
Atheists trying to oversell their point denying that fact engage intellectual dishonesty and lose whatever point they were trying to make in the bargain. They refuse to believe so much of their character and sensibilities, a standard of common decency that is the basis of civilization, has been cultivated/ fostered by religious people all along.
At it's highest expression, religion has encouraged people to embrace self discipline and engage constructive behavior. At it's worst, it has been of means of manipulating the masses for malevolent exploitation. Faux religious trying to oversell their point exploit religion to control free society in a way that imposes/ intrudes on all others negating free will demanding a 24/7 police state. Atheists would do well to discern better the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden
An atheist is certainly capable of having this same higher calling.
I agree, but the burden of proof is upon them. The burden of proof should also be upon self identified Christians but too many lean on the talk and ignore the walk. I could be a satan worshiper wearing a cross on my neck and how many could discern a difference? Everyone should think long and hard about that pop culture phenomena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden
The point of freedom of religion is that you are free to choose what, if any religion you will practice, and everyone else has the same right. There is no need to respect a religion; there is a need to respect the practitioners of said religion as humans with the right to practice (within the limits of the law) as they please.
We're obliged to consider the Amish when authoring universal policy that may encroach upon their closed community wrongfully. I don't have to be Amish to defend them as fellow countrymen, and as fellow religious. There is a vast difference between secular management of free society and intruding in personal spaces. Unless someone is being harmed or irresponsibility is taking place, people need to respect their right to privacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden
As to Islam, it is also an Abrahamic religion, like Judaism and Christianity. There are reasonable Muslims, just as there are reasonable Christians. I don't believe any extremist, be they Muslim, Jew, atheist, or Christian should be in high office in the US. For that matter, I don't believe they should be elected to local offices, either, but that's harder to prevent.
Agree about extremists of any stripe. Disagree about reasonable Muslims, not because they don't exist or that the Koran is void of wisdom, but because the Koran directly contradicts the peaceful religion those with good intentions aim to practice.
Reasonable Muslims by our western standard are those who have cherry picked the Koran and hid the ugly under a rug. They need to theologically confront the ugly in scholarly debate, but alas, that's considered criminal and punishable by death. They also need to work on establishing a religious identity that isn't predicated on diminishing the rights of all others to exist. I would welcome having those debates with them to facilitate harmonious relations, but you aren't likely to see those debates when fatwha's are acceptable in their culture.
Fact; the Muslim world has a considerable amount of housekeeping to do and it's not our place to sweep their porch. It is our place to insist their mess/ baggage is not acceptable in America. Since inception America went to pains to keep European insanity off our shores, like bubonic plague rats stowing away in cargo holds jumping off ship infecting a major metropolis. This is really no different. Keep baggage rats out, all others willing to assimilate to an American standard are genuinely welcome. Tribal European animosity between Catholics and Protestants had no place to carry on here, and they were shut down at every turn.
So in my judgment... unfit for office of any kind. The burden of proof that they comprehend the higher calling I've referenced is even higher for them than an atheist. Paying dues in America is where genuine respect is forged.
She does have a habit of saying outrageously stupid things and then back pedaling as if everyone misunderstood her ...someday she'll slip and blurt out, "He made me say it!"
When the lives of my brothers and sisters in arms are on the line, "I'm a girl, I can't help it" is completely unacceptable.
The nature of leadership has an element of stewardship/ guardianship that has been neglected/ driven off point to distraction for decades. This needs to end immediately. The philosophies of Ayn Rand have corrupted governance and need permanent expulsion from leadership. Everything it stands for is 180 degrees opposite of what this nation was founded upon.
We're seriously detouring off topic but I'm going to use this as an opportunity to illustrate proper leadership consistent with American constitution.
I agree in part. Religious higher calling and greater good of the country are actually synonymous with one another. When they're not, they've failed the mark on both counts. Separation of Church and state can never be 100% since human beings are incapable of being 100% objective and the bulk of US law hinges upon ancient philosophical evolutions rooted on Judeo-Christian ethics/ sensibilities. This is not to say either 'own' morality, or God, or that the evolution is completed, but that our language and culture is intimately entwined with all of the above.
Atheists trying to oversell their point denying that fact engage intellectual dishonesty and lose whatever point they were trying to make in the bargain. They refuse to believe so much of their character and sensibilities, a standard of common decency that is the basis of civilization, has been cultivated/ fostered by religious people all along.
At it's highest expression, religion has encouraged people to embrace self discipline and engage constructive behavior. At it's worst, it has been of means of manipulating the masses for malevolent exploitation. Faux religious trying to oversell their point exploit religion to control free society in a way that imposes/ intrudes on all others negating free will demanding a 24/7 police state. Atheists would do well to discern better the difference.
I agree, but the burden of proof is upon them. The burden of proof should also be upon self identified Christians but too many lean on the talk and ignore the walk. I could be a satan worshiper wearing a cross on my neck and how many could discern a difference? Everyone should think long and hard about that pop culture phenomena.
We're obliged to consider the Amish when authoring universal policy that may encroach upon their closed community wrongfully. I don't have to be Amish to defend them as fellow countrymen, and as fellow religious. There is a vast difference between secular management of free society and intruding in personal spaces. Unless someone is being harmed or irresponsibility is taking place, people need to respect their right to privacy.
Agree about extremists of any stripe. Disagree about reasonable Muslims, not because they don't exist or that the Koran is void of wisdom, but because the Koran directly contradicts the peaceful religion those with good intentions aim to practice.
Reasonable Muslims by our western standard are those who have cherry picked the Koran and hid the ugly under a rug. They need to theologically confront the ugly in scholarly debate, but alas, that's considered criminal and punishable by death. They also need to work on establishing a religious identity that isn't predicated on diminishing the rights of all others to exist. I would welcome having those debates with them to facilitate harmonious relations, but you aren't likely to see those debates when fatwha's are acceptable in their culture.
Fact; the Muslim world has a considerable amount of housekeeping to do and it's not our place to sweep their porch. It is our place to insist their mess/ baggage is not acceptable in America. Since inception America went to pains to keep European insanity off our shores, like bubonic plague rats stowing away in cargo holds jumping off ship infecting a major metropolis. This is really no different. Keep baggage rats out, all others willing to assimilate to an American standard are genuinely welcome. Tribal European animosity between Catholics and Protestants had no place to carry on here, and they were shut down at every turn.
So in my judgment... unfit for office of any kind. The burden of proof that they comprehend the higher calling I've referenced is even higher for them than an atheist. Paying dues in America is where genuine respect is forged.
OOoops, talk about arrogant! Maybe it is only TOO Christian:
"""Atheists trying to oversell their point denying that fact engage intellectual dishonesty and lose whatever point they were trying to make in the bargain. They refuse to believe so much of their character and sensibilities, a standard of common decency that is the basis of civilization, has been cultivated/ fostered by religious people all along."""
BS! Much of the horrors and tragedies of world history were fostered by RELIGION... ...is that what you mean....learn what NOT to do from blood thirsty cruel christians???
Your CHRISTIAN arrogance makes you think atheists needed YOUR kind? NOPE!
"""At it's highest expression, religion has encouraged people to embrace self discipline and engage constructive behavior. At it's worst, it has been of means of manipulating the masses for malevolent exploitation. Faux religious trying to oversell their point exploit religion to control free society in a way that imposes/ intrudes on all others negating free will demanding a 24/7 police state. Atheists would do well to discern better the difference."""
Maybe so-called christians would do well to discern the difference!
Maybe christians could try to be discerning without some fairy tale creature in the sky allegedly making the rules for them which in reality was MEN interpreting their own feelings.
Now back to the topic which wouldn't even BE a topic if not for screwed up christians...and please take the atheist slamming and Christianity pushing back to the religion forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's oblivious to the empty suit who donated his sperm. Where is his outrage over Levi Johnstons egregious behavior? Where is Dan Quayles outrage over Levi Johnston's across America? Boehner's? :::crickets::: Wait wait, let's beat up womens clinics! 
