I'm confused about the American Republican party

[kandrathe]

Pretty damned stupid, if you ask me.

The opposition to gayness from religious groups is based on Judaic law and that it is outright declared sinful in the Bible. My observation is that religious people are against sin, and not so much against sinners. So, the "pray the gay away" is a silly attempt to address gayness as sin rather than as biological predisposition.

This is where religion becomes intransigent. It's in the book. Those religious groups who have "tolerated" gayness are seen as going against commonly held doctrine.

[Mavfin]

This is where religion becomes intransigent. It's in the book. Those religious groups who have "tolerated" gayness are seen as going against commonly held doctrine.

As in other things, 'common doctrine' has to adapt and change, and I think this is another area where the time has come to modify it. As I mentioned in another post, 50 years ago, it was 'common doctrine' for churches to deny interracial marriage, and the government participated, too. Is anyone here going to argue that 'common doctrine' of that time should be upheld now?

Social change takes time, and it's coming on this issue. Just a question of when at this point.

As an aside, many would say, and I agree at this point, that churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples. They do have the freedom to do that if they wish, since there are other outlets for that service. However, (and I don't have the ultimate answer to this conundrum) with the parallels to racial issues, would people go nuts if a church refused to marry an interracial couple now? I think they would. In 50 years, will gay marriages be viewed the same? I don't have those answers. Just musing on that a bit.

---

The opposition to gayness from religious groups is based on Judaic law and that it is outright declared sinful in the Bible.

As usual, those passages are subject to interpretation, of course. And, the bible had editors with an agenda. Was that actually the holy word, or just the word of the editors' political agenda at that time?

I won't go any deeper than that, I don't want to start a religion thread, too.

[DeeBye]

My comment on the gun control issue is that if it's truly as important and popular with the general public as some insist, then they should get the votes together to repeal the 2nd Amendment. After that they're free to make whatever laws they want to take away all the guns, UK-style.

It's widely believed that guns are taboo in Canada, but I think we just take a more pragmatic approach on it. "Long guns" are completely legal and not prohibited. A "Long gun" is basically defined as a shotgun or rifle. I know lots of people in rural areas that own these for hunting and wildlife control. I'd buy a rifle or shotgun if I lived outside of the city.

Handguns are restricted to those that have an appropriate license. Hunting with these is illegal. I don't know anyone who owns one of these and is not a member of the police, the military, a sport shooter, or a collector. I've never heard anyone claim they own a handgun for self-defense. It seems to me that a shotgun would be a better gun for self-defense, but I'm no gun expert.

Fully automatic guns, sawed-off shotguns, guns with silencers, and basically all the scary guns - are completely illegal.

So I could walk into a gun store in Canada (we have these) tomorrow and walk out with a shotgun or rifle, legally. I could also apply for a handgun license and in a relatively short amount of time legally purchase a handgun.

I cannot legally own a AK-47 or Bazooka. My government is trampling my rights

[Mavfin]

Fully automatic guns, sawed-off shotguns, guns with silencers, and basically all the scary guns - are completely illegal.

I cannot legally own a AK-47 or Bazooka. My government is trampling my rights

Those are all illegal here, too, and have been for some time. And you won't see me agitating for them to be legal for non-military/law enforcement users anytime soon. Oh, sure, you'll find those who *do* want that, but, those are generally edge cases, sometimes over-publicized, but not as large in numbers as some would like you to think.

However, when something as innocent as a semi-automatic (i.e. pull the trigger and shoot) .243 hunting rifle with a max magazine capacity of five is caught under the umbrella of 'assault rifle' by some proposed gun control laws, I think that's too far. It's just a hunting rifle that you don't have to run the bolt on every shot, but, you're not going to use just five bullets to do a massacre, and if the user is going to shoot one person, one bullet will do the job, especially a hollow-point from a high-velocity hunting rifle. Also, in DC, they had a complete ban of any handguns, since ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. My point about the hunting rifle is that if you take away everything someone can kill another with, you might as well take away the paring knives, the axes, and the car keys, too, because those can also be mis-used. It's not about safety when you get down to that level. It's about controlling people.

That's the kind of gun control cases I'm talking about. And, as I mentioned above, we already have laws about the big stuff. Gun control proponents do their best to omit mention of that when they're pushing their pet programs, though.

[kandrathe]

As in other things, 'common doctrine' has to adapt and change, and I think this is another area where the time has come to modify it. As I mentioned in another post, 50 years ago, it was 'common doctrine' for churches to deny interracial marriage, and the government participated, too. Is anyone here going to argue that 'common doctrine' of that time should be upheld now?

Social change takes time, and it's coming on this issue. Just a question of when at this point.

The Church has spent a good deal of time and energy (and blood) fighting against doctrinal drift. As we've seen with the Anglican church, this is the kind of issue that creates schisms resulting in a new splinter denominations, or sours people on church altogether. Anyway, my reaction was that it's not really that the Church acts "stupidly", more that it is entrenched in 2500 years of historical precedence. The interpretation is not in question. Judeo-Christian doctrine (from Leviticus 18 to be more exact), dates back to 5th or 6th century BC. It would be pretty hard to just outright do away with the explicit commandments in the books of Moses. And, in the warning tale of Sodom (ergo Sodomy) and Gomorah, there is a pretty stern warning about God's position on hedonism.

Christianity tends to set aside the rigidity of strict Judaic law, giving deference to loving and honoring God, rather than dispassionately following a recipe of godly living. But in the writings of Paul to the Romans, same sex and other "unnatural" acts common in Rome were condemned. So, again, in the Christian faith, the traditions of Leviticus are upheld.

[eppie]

---

While I am generally in favor of free speech (especially against government and political institutions or corporations), certain types of hate speech, in particular those of a racist, sexist, religious, or discriminatory nature toward gays/lesbians or disabled individuals should NOT be protected under any circumstances.

What a slippery slope. Who gets to determine exactly what is hate speech in that context?

Well it isn't really. If a constitution says all people are equal independent of their skin colour, sexual preference or religion it is not a stretch to not allow people to make hateful remarks about this.

So if I say "I don't like Catholics" - is that hate speech? Or a comedian makes the tired joke about Catholic Priests and little boys that upsets someone - should the comedian be beaten as AngryCommie contends?

You can't take the Potter Stewart Rule of Pornography (I know it when I see it) and use it for outlawing hate speech. It goes against the intentions of the First Amendment.

You can find definitions about hate speech everywhere. It is obvious that the examples you give here are not hate speech.

[kandrathe]

You can find definitions about hate speech everywhere. It is obvious that the examples you give here are not hate speech.

It's obviously not hate speech until you end up in jail.

[Mavfin]

But in the writings of Paul to the Romans, same sex and other "unnatural" acts common in Rome were condemned.

In some quarters, there is much debate whether Paul wrote any of the letters other than the first one, though. Some think the Roman Catholic Church of the time wrote all but the 1st.

So, that muddies the waters a bit.

[Occhidiangela]

MavFin, what do you mean by "the Roman Catholic Church" of the time, given that it wasn't until about 381 that the Church's legitimacy in Rome (after the "it's legal to be Christian" by Constantine in 313/Edict of Milan) morphed into MainStream, when the emperor declared it more or less the official religion of the empire.

Care to elaborate?

As to DeeBye's opening post and question ... what's it matter to you? You're Canadian. You have your own parties to deal with.

The GOP is doing all that it can to get Obama re-elected, but I think it's unintentional. The fractiousness and factionalism running amok reminds me of the Democratic Party a generation or so ago.

The GOP has chosen to air their dirty laundry in public for the past four to five years, which is aided and abetted by the various mouthpieces on talk radio who attempt to spread a meme about who is a true conservative, and who isn't, day in and day out.

I don't think these folks understand how propaganda, or at least effective propaganda, works.

So, the GOP is more or less doing President Obama's work for him, in terms of setting up the issues to address during the coming campaign.

With enemies like that, who needs friends?

[Tal]

You can find definitions about hate speech everywhere. It is obvious that the examples you give here are not hate speech.

But it isn't. The only way to be sure speech is protected is to keep the exceptions very limited - an example being speech that endangers the public good. Yelling Fire in a crowded theater being the rule of thumb.

Take the Westboro nutjobs. It's disgraceful, disrespectful and downright hateful for them to use their right of free speech to picket funerals to bring attention to their cause. But you can't limit that. If you start doing that you give the legislature the crack in the wall to impose more limitations until you wind up not being able to speak out against the government.

AngryCommie - Yeah I'm talking about your anti-capitalism rhetoric. Under your ideals an enterprising legislature could deem ANY speech against capitalism hate speech that is harmful to the economy and the greater good. They could jail you for your postings and beliefs. Is that REALLY the kind of system you think works best? I certainly don't. I may not believe in what you write but I sure as hell will defend your right to say it.

[eppie]

As to DeeBye's opening post and question ... what's it matter to you? You're Canadian. You have your own parties to deal with.

Occhi we went over this many times already, the US influences us greatly.
I have often half jokingly said that some Arkansas farmer who never set foot outside his own village and believes the earth is only 6000 years old has more influence on what happens in my own country than I have (simply because he is allowed to vote).
Who is to blame for this is another thing (our spineless politicians and morons that vote for them for example) but there is a lot of truth in it.
And for that reason my friend you can't blame us non americans to be interested in your politics.

[Mavfin]

MavFin, what do you mean by "the Roman Catholic Church" of the time, given that it wasn't until about 381 that the Church's legitimacy in Rome (after the "it's legal to be Christian" by Constantine in 313/Edict of Milan) morphed into MainStream, when the emperor declared it more or less the official religion of the empire.

Care to elaborate?

I don't have the sources in front of me, Bible study not being one of my specialties, but, I have read that some Bible scholars suspect that in the making of the King James version that some creative editing was done to fit someone's political agenda, and one of the examples most used to support that viewpoint is the differences between Paul's 1st letter, and the others labeled with his name. No more and no less than that. I was thinking the Catholic Church was involved in the compilation of that version, but I might have remembered that wrong.

It's all historical things that there may never be any proof of, but, I generally think that the King James version, which most modern versions of the Bible are based on, was creatively edited in its compilation to reflect the Church's political views of the day. Old white men, and all that. So, while it's very instructive and has many messages, I don't believe all of them to be from the same source. You can of course, believe your own version of events. The 1st amendment covers your and my freedom to do so, Occhi.

That's all I have to say on the Bible issues. If you have further questions, Occhi, feel free to PM me, and I'll discuss them with you, but that's enough religious derailing in an already contentious political thread.

---

But it isn't. The only way to be sure speech is protected is to keep the exceptions very limited - an example being speech that endangers the public good. Yelling Fire in a crowded theater being the rule of thumb.

Take the Westboro nutjobs. It's disgraceful, disrespectful and downright hateful for them to use their right of free speech to picket funerals to bring attention to their cause. But you can't limit that. If you start doing that you give the legislature the crack in the wall to impose more limitations until you wind up not being able to speak out against the government.

Couldn't have said it better, and probably not even as well. I despise Westboro's message, but I'm not in favor of silencing them.

[Jester]

It's all historical things that there may never be any proof of, but, I generally think that the King James version, which most modern versions of the Bible are based on, was creatively edited in its compilation to reflect the Church's political views of the day. Old white men, and all that. So, while it's very instructive and has many messages, I don't believe all of them to be from the same source. You can of course, believe your own version of events.

I'm no religious historian, but I'm not sure how that could make a big difference. There is about 1500 years separating the emergence of the first bibles, and the King James translation, which, though influential, did not set the pattern for all bibles everywhere, given the profusion of translations and editions in all the various languages, countries and traditions.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm no religious historian, but I'm not sure how that could make a big difference. There is about 1500 years separating the emergence of the first bibles, and the King James translation, which, though influential, did not set the pattern for all bibles everywhere, given the profusion of translations and editions in all the various languages, countries and traditions.

Beyond that... What we are talking about was written in Hebrew and has been handed down through Judaic traditions. The New testament sources reference the Old testament laws. Obviously Christians have set aside some of them, and protestants have set aside more.

Paul's writings are commentary on whether old testament law still applies, and we have Torah sources that are much older.

According to Halachic law, Jews are to keep the 613 mitzvot as part of their special covenant. Gentiles, to be righteous, are to keep 7 laws.

So, when Gentiles were brought in, the 12 imposed the Halachic standard of the Jews still keeping 613 mitzvot, and the gentiles only the Noahide laws; both factions under Jesus, worshiping one GOD.

In Galatians, Paul speaks against Christians taking the Jewish covenant of circumcision, and in chapter 4 berates them for keeping pagan festivals. Neither pagan festivals, nor the 613 mitzvot are part of the Halachic standard for gentiles.

As for accuracy... If people understood the "checksum" nature of the Hebrew Cantor (counter), they would understand how very accurate copies of the Torah must be. Any miscount would result in the text being destroyed. It has changed slightly over 3000 years, but not significantly. The current Torah is directly derived from those made in the 11th century by Maimonides when he used the Aleppo Codex to codify it's successors. Scholars are more amazed by how little it's changed.

I don't have the sources in front of me, Bible study not being one of my specialties, but, I have read that some Bible scholars suspect that in the making of the King James version that some creative editing was done to fit someone's political agenda, and one of the examples most used to support that viewpoint is the differences between Paul's 1st letter, and the others labeled with his name. No more and no less than that. I was thinking the Catholic Church was involved in the compilation of that version, but I might have remembered that wrong.

What was genius about the King James version of the bible was that they made it more lyrical. So yes, "creative" editing indeed. The biblical scholars who did the translations, prodded by Puritans complaints with prior translations, were interested in creating a more accurate Church of England bible translation from qualified Hebrew, Latin, and Greek sources.

[DeeBye]

As to DeeBye's opening post and question ... what's it matter to you? You're Canadian. You have your own parties to deal with.

I profusely apologize for asking a question about a country in which I do not live. I did not realize it was bad internet etiquette to ask about the US while not being a citizen of said country. I'll just shut up and let the important people talk now.

[kandrathe]

I profusely apologize for asking a question about a country in which I do not live. I did not realize it was bad internet etiquette to ask about the US while not being a citizen of said country. I'll just shut up and let the important people talk now.

Only a Canadian could be so sensitive. :-) Now, let's play some damn hockey!

[kandrathe]

The GOP has chosen to air their dirty laundry in public for the past four to five years, which is aided and abetted by the various mouthpieces on talk radio who attempt to spread a meme about who is a true conservative, and who isn't, day in and day out.

I don't think these folks understand how propaganda, or at least effective propaganda, works.

So, the GOP is more or less doing President Obama's work for him, in terms of setting up the issues to address during the coming campaign.

With enemies like that, who needs friends?

I couldn't agree more. And, it's good to hear from you ya ol cuss.

[FireIceTalon]

You can find definitions about hate speech everywhere. It is obvious that the examples you give here are not hate speech.

But it isn't. The only way to be sure speech is protected is to keep the exceptions very limited - an example being speech that endangers the public good. Yelling Fire in a crowded theater being the rule of thumb.

Take the Westboro nutjobs. It's disgraceful, disrespectful and downright hateful for them to use their right of free speech to picket funerals to bring attention to their cause. But you can't limit that. If you start doing that you give the legislature the crack in the wall to impose more limitations until you wind up not being able to speak out against the government.

AngryCommie - Yeah I'm talking about your anti-capitalism rhetoric. Under your ideals an enterprising legislature could deem ANY speech against capitalism hate speech that is harmful to the economy and the greater good. They could jail you for your postings and beliefs. Is that REALLY the kind of system you think works best? I certainly don't. I may not believe in what you write but I sure as hell will defend your right to say it.

Impossible, since Capitalism itself is harmful to the greater good and favors a tiny minority segment of society. My "rhetoric", as you so eloquently put it, is only harmful to Bourgoeis society, no one else. And I don't care about them, in fact I have nothing but disdain towards them for numerous and obvious reasons - and if it were up to me, every hedge fund manager and banker on Wall Street would be facing the guillotine right now. Lastly, hate speech toward political or economic systems is extremely different from hate speech toward certain groups of people based on their phenotype.

I know the point you are trying to make, and I'm not suggesting that hate speech be made illegal. I'm just suggesting that it not be under the same protection has non-hateful speech. One can say whatever you like to anyone, but if they get an undesired response from it, including one that results in retaliation toward said individual, I say they deserve it. With freedom comes responsibility. If you are going to hold KKK rallies or demonstrations against women, Jews, or blacks, etc, and your demonstration gets physically attacked, you brought it on yourself I say, and should not be able to have a recourse of action by asking the State for pity or help. It's like going into the shark infested waters off Australia. You have the right to do so, but you are entering THEIR world, where anything goes, and if you are attacked and mauled, it is no one elses fault but your own - you are taking your life into your hands putting yourself in such a situation. I don't agree with the diatribe that bigots, racists, sexists, and anti-gay pundits spew forth, nor will I defend their right to say it. I'll leave that to the KKK, the Tea Party, the Church, or any number of our incompetent Bourgeois scum-bag politicians - they are doing a wonderful job ensuring that these people are allowed to continue to pollute the worlds oxygen with their garbage. Now, if people want to sit here and defend capitalism, I have no problem with that, even if they are wrong, because it doesn't attack individuals or groups of people based on something they have no control over.

[Tal]

I know the point you are trying to make, and I'm not suggesting that hate speech be made illegal. I'm just suggesting that it not be under the same protection has non-hateful speech. One can say whatever you like to anyone, but if they get an undesired response from it, including one that results in retaliation toward said individual, I say they deserve it. With freedom comes responsibility. If you are going to hold KKK rallies or demonstrations against women, Jews, or blacks, etc, and your demonstration gets physically attacked, you brought it on yourself I say, and should not be able to have a recourse of action by asking the State for pity or help. It's like going into the shark infested waters off Australia. You have the right to do so, but you are entering THEIR world, where anything goes, and if you are attacked and mauled, it is no one elses fault but your own - you are taking your life into your hands putting yourself in such a situation. I don't agree with the diatribe that bigots, racists, sexists, and anti-gay pundits spew forth, nor will I defend their right to say it. I'll leave that to the KKK, the Tea Party, the Church, or any number of our incompetent Bourgeois scum-bag politicians - they are doing a wonderful job ensuring that these people are allowed to continue to pollute the worlds oxygen with their garbage. Now, if people want to sit here and defend capitalism, I have no problem with that, even if they are wrong, because it doesn't attack individuals or groups of people based on something they have no control over.

I'd much rather live in a society where they can freely say what they believe than live in your society where they can be justifiably attacked for saying it.

[Bolty]

I know the point you are trying to make, and I'm not suggesting that hate speech be made illegal. I'm just suggesting that it not be under the same protection has non-hateful speech. One can say whatever you like to anyone, but if they get an undesired response from it, including one that results in retaliation toward said individual, I say they deserve it.

Your post, whether you intend it to or not, is still coming off as "I'm not saying I'll attack these guys I disagree with, but if someone else does, I'm going to turn the other way." I'm scratching my head as to how you can feel this is correct or justified. Just because you're not actively incurring the violence yourself doesn't mean you're not a part of a violent system that will strike down anyone you disagree with. Free speech doesn't work that way. Lots of people will disagree with your viewpoints; do you want them to "look the other way" while you're violently attacked?

I can sit here at an emotional level and think "man, Rush Limbaugh needs a punch in the mouth," but on an intellectual level, I recognize that his right to spew filth needs to be protected. Because, at the end of the day, someone out there wants to punch ME in the mouth for things I believe.

Okay, lots of people want to punch me in the mouth.