|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 25, 2014 23:15:56 GMT -6
$10 on the cat, 2-1.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Feb 25, 2014 23:17:52 GMT -6
If there is a time you don't see me logged in it usually means one of a few things: We are having one of our frequent power outages. I forgot to pay my internet bill. I fell asleep and the cats are playing with the PC Damn............................now I have to wonder who authored your better Islamic posts. Meow,
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 25, 2014 23:22:57 GMT -6
Woodrow, you are one seriously cool demographic--almost certainly the only septuagenarian, hippy, old-country groovin' imam I'll ever encounter.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 26, 2014 22:33:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 26, 2014 23:10:07 GMT -6
Texas!!! That's gonna sting.
The AZ governor vetoed the anti-gay bill that was on her desk. Do you think she was happy about that?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 27, 2014 10:56:05 GMT -6
Dunno, but she was quoted on the early morning news as having said something like allowing it to stand would have been insupportable.
Nothing like saying the PC thing, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 27, 2014 11:41:04 GMT -6
Dunno, but she was quoted on the early morning news as having said something like allowing it to stand would have been insupportable. Nothing like saying the PC thing, I suppose. The problem was that the spotlight was on her, after her Rep cohorts passed the bill. I'm sure she would have signed the bill if the nation wasn 't focused on her. What did she mean by "insupportable", was it from a moral, business, or constitutional perspective? A lot of business leaders were contacting AZ political leaders saying that this bill could affect business decisions related to the state.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 27, 2014 11:52:14 GMT -6
I don't recall what were said to be her exact words which is why I said "something like," just to clarify.
The gist was that she saw which side the butter was on and figured it wouldn't be smart to fling that side onto the floor, yanno?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 27, 2014 12:09:20 GMT -6
It was a political decision. This is the same governor who has signed into law discrimination against Latinos. She didn't do this for moral reasons, but because everyone was watching. This is why I support groups like Human Rights Campaign. They keep the spotlights on and the cameras running.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 27, 2014 16:48:58 GMT -6
And now, I can await a similar drama in lovely redneck MO.
Some "maroon" in my unfair state's lege is gearing up a bill he said is "modeled after Arizona's" because, according to him, religious freedom in this country has eroded dramatically in recent years. Now, mind you, he said he's not suggesting anyone deny services to gay people, nor should religious belief "trump everything" (whatever that means). However, people should have legal support in case they feel a need to act upon their beliefs. (A rough paraphrase. Heard the tale end of public radio local report.)
In other words, hell yes-and-no they can discriminate.
Thankfully, Gov. Nixon (D) is sharpening his pen for the veto, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 15:25:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 17:30:50 GMT -6
Hardly a surprise, FB, as much as Frank is emphasizing "Let's show everybody how much LOVE we really feel for them, second-rate though church teachings say they actually are." Some U.S. bishops are releasing preliminary replies to the survey of Catholics, and huge surprise, they say their initial suspicion that all this dissent is the result of poor understanding of church teachings on the family is being borne out. Yup, they just knew all along that ignorance and poor teaching of Catholic doctrines was the problem. I'm sure that makes LGBT Catholics feel all better to know that they never were being discriminated against; they just didn't understand that it's not discrimination at all. Oh, no, indeed! ncronline.org/news/people/synod-reports-point-poor-understanding-family-teachings
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 17:48:27 GMT -6
Hardly a surprise, FB, as much as Frank is emphasizing "Let's show everybody how much LOVE we really feel for them, second-rate though church teachings say they actually are." Some U.S. bishops are releasing preliminary replies to the survey of Catholics, and huge surprise, they say their initial suspicion that all this dissent is the result of poor understanding of church teachings on the family is being borne out. Yup, they just knew all along that ignorance and poor teaching of Catholic doctrines was the problem. I'm sure that makes LGBT Catholics feel all better to know that they never were being discriminated against; they just didn't understand that it's not discrimination at all. Oh, no, indeed! ncronline.org/news/people/synod-reports-point-poor-understanding-family-teachings Is your Francomania starting to ebb a bit? It doesn't take much to be a breath of fresh air after Ratzinger. Still, it is obvious that the RCC only wants to sound more tolerant, not to actual be more tolerant. Pity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2014 19:11:26 GMT -6
Hardly a surprise, FB, as much as Frank is emphasizing "Let's show everybody how much LOVE we really feel for them, second-rate though church teachings say they actually are." Some U.S. bishops are releasing preliminary replies to the survey of Catholics, and huge surprise, they say their initial suspicion that all this dissent is the result of poor understanding of church teachings on the family is being borne out. Yup, they just knew all along that ignorance and poor teaching of Catholic doctrines was the problem. I'm sure that makes LGBT Catholics feel all better to know that they never were being discriminated against; they just didn't understand that it's not discrimination at all. Oh, no, indeed! ncronline.org/news/people/synod-reports-point-poor-understanding-family-teachings Is your Francomania starting to ebb a bit? It doesn't take much to be a breath of fresh air after Ratzinger. Still, it is obvious that the RCC only wants to sound more tolerant, not to actual be more tolerant. Pity. Hi FB: You might be right that the RCC is only talking the talk, but why would you say this is obvious...? It seems to me that the RCC is actually being more tolerant. Baby steps I suppose, but institutions like the RCC change slowly. In other words, your post and the use of the words obvious/pity, indicate that you categorically dismiss the possibility of genuine liberalization of Church opinion. Is that reasonable? J
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 21:04:21 GMT -6
Is your Francomania starting to ebb a bit? It doesn't take much to be a breath of fresh air after Ratzinger. Still, it is obvious that the RCC only wants to sound more tolerant, not to actual be more tolerant. Pity. Hi FB: You might be right that the RCC is only talking the talk, but why would you say this is obvious...? It seems to me that the RCC is actually being more tolerant. Baby steps I suppose, but institutions like the RCC change slowly. In other words, your post and the use of the words obvious/pity, indicate that you categorically dismiss the possibility of genuine liberalization of Church opinion. Is that reasonable? J Yes, and well established in precedent. Before it was established (as you yourself have posted in the past) that civil union law does not result in equivalence, there was a somewhat better case to be made for what the pope is now suggesting. There was always an element of "separate but equal" and of "this union is holy and this one is legal (sort of)", but I'll grant that prior to the last decade's experience, one could make a case. What has experience taught us since then? 1. Separate but equal doesn't work any better in this context than it does in any other. Separate is inherently unequal. 2. Explicit opponents of both marriage equality and civil unions have nevertheless rallied to support civil unions as a political fire wall after popular opinion has turned dramatically in favor of marriage. 3. The church has reiterated and defended its position that homosexuality is a moral evil. It is undeniable that catholics are expressing and embracing more tolerance, but catholic leaders? Not a chance. In my opinion, you overestimate the benignity of your church in the face of overwhelming evidence that their social teachings are regressive and bigoted (just as they have historically been on racism, sexism). Personally, I don't think it reflects well on you. You may now proceed to compartmentalize...
|
|