http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ

And I was a member of this church for 20 years and don`t agree with what this man is saying. ;)

Keep eating what the media feeds you without checking it for poison.

Listen to the entire 9/11 sermon (the one with the "America's chickens are coming home to roost") and you'll get an entirely different perspective on Wright.

This isn't directed at you personally. I just think that a 4-minute youtube clip is an intellectually lazy way to judge this man as a pastor. I've listened to the entire 9/11 sermon and I have to confess that it was a remarkable warning against letting legitimate outrage and anger against the hijackers turn into a desire to enact revenge on innocent civilians who had nothing to do with that attack.

I don't see how anyone can post a 4-minute clip and say "this is the TRUTH" about his message. It's just dumb.

John McCain 10,000 years in Iraq...the TRUTH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

:rolleyes:

Reaching for relevance? Shenanigans.

Maybe we shouldn't be judging Obama judgment about stickin' with Wright for twenty years when Obama's the one who's been stickin' with Wright for twenty years and we've got a four minute video of out of context excerpts?

But those 4-minute out of context quotes are THE TRUTH!

Here, here..
If you can`t believe a 4 minute hit piece from Faux news dot com?
What the hell can you believe? 8DRTV75

Then why did you post it?

Just to generate traffic and responce. 3452jjj

I throw shit out there sometimes just for fun in seeing the reactions.
That is especially true if I post a from news article.
About half the time I don`t even agree with the shit I posted. :toilet:

You can see what I really think about things by reading my own direct quotes.
To describe my actual stand, I`m a social liberal with conservative fiscal ideals.

As long as you aren't a social conservative, gawd I can't stand them!

Its ok, I can't stand social liberals either. nr6

Well this forum is just full of Libertarians and Democrats and that is one area they both want freedom and not tyranny from social conservatives.

That is an interesting observation since I would say its the secular progressive who seem to be the ones wanting to take freedom away from social conservatives. Of course I do remember something my father said that I agree with: its not discrimination if its against whites or Christians, its "social justice".

You definitely have the virus.

I'm sure you can articulate how any of us "secular progressives" are seeking to deprive Whites (me) or Christians (not me) of liberties?

Absolutely. The limitations of religious expression, the need to placate a vocal minority against the wishes of the majority in terms of religious expression, the censure against people like the Philly store owner who posted a sign that said "no English, no service"...I can keep going. The reality is that social conservatives are fighting to hold onto a morality that secular progressives want to displace with a godless, moralless country that thinks social justice equates to punishment for their own liberal white guilt.

You guys started this by saying you hate social conservatives. Don't QQ when one of us responds. 8DRTV75

define moral.

What's the story of the dude in Philly? I'll donate $25 to the non political charity of your choice if the government deprived him of posting the sign based on it's content.

In my eyes it would be the traditional American values of self determination, sacrifice, aiding others, traditional sexual relationships, freedom of religious expression, etc. I see secular progressives as the antithesis of those things.

You may or may not remember but last year or so it made national headlines that one of the original (or maybe the original?) Philly cheesesteak restaurants had a sign that said "No English, no service" because the employees there said it was too hard trying to fill orders with people who could not speak English and the delay in line would make them lose customers. There was incredible media and illegal allien supporters pressure on them to change the sign. I want to say someone actually brought a lawsuit over it as being discrimination.

So freedom of religious expression but not freedom of sexual expression?

Who's religious expression?

Sounds like you might be a "Who's Ox is getting gored" kind of guy?

I'm all in favor of religious expression. I just don't want my government or my tax dollars paying for it. And I've got a special clause in the Constitution that says I don't have to.

Wow . . . . So it's ok for a businessman to post an obnoxious sign but it's not ok to be obnoxious about the obnoxious sign?

You seem to have a fundemental lack of understanding about liberty. I have the right to express my opinion just like the business owner. But I will defend the guy's right to put the sign up without government intervention.

That's exactly what the ACLU is all about. In fact, it's the sort of case that they would take.

BTW, no one is seeking to deprive the guy of the LIBERTY to post that sign. At least no self respecting "secular progressive" would.

So do you have an example?

Of course there is a case of that, I would argue everyone has that. Your expressions says do one thing, my expression says that thing is morally wrong. Whose right, whose wrong? At some point someone's right will be superseded by the other.

But in this case, why is it wrong for a town to have public religious symbols that match the prevailing religion of the town? Why should the majority suffer to place the minority? If I was in a town of 1000 Jews and they wanted to use public grounds for Passover Pete why should I, the lone Orthodox Christian, have my rights superseded over theirs if I take it to court?

As for freedom of sexual expression, are you in favor of allowing polygamists theirs as well? What about bestialists? What about necrophiliacs? What about "furries"? Where does the slippery slope end?

Cute but the people who were in fact trying to force them to change the sign and possibly brought a lawsuit over it would identify themselves as secular progressives. I never said all secular progressives but when the conversation includes statements like "I hate social conservatives" we already threw the apple cart to the side.

Christo-fascism is one of the most morally and spiritually depraved forms of religious expression, and it is a clear and present danger to these United States and her Constitution.

Was there a point in that insult?

Here's something about that Philly owner:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009463437

Apparently they took him to the Philly city government to try and shut him down. No attempt to squash his freedom though! :unsure:

The only person who is wrong is the one that seeks to use the police power of the government to impose their view of right and wrong on others.

What's wrong with it?

Read the First Amendment then ASK OUR FOREFATHERS!!!!

And as far as their "rights" being superceded . . . . That's just crap. They are not being deprived of their right to worship or express their religious view anyway they chose. They just can't recruit the government to do it for them.

I promised to make the donation if you could give me an example of the GOVERNMENT depriving whites or Christians of a liberty. (of course, they must be singling out whites or Christians)

I hate people who use the government as God's police force. Sorry.

Is that what Christ wants from the government?

Due process is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

He had his hearing, ultimately prevailed and in fact, got sort of rich in the process (based on other articles I read.)

Anyone can file a lawsuit. Even Assholes. The people who filed the lawsuit were assholes and had no regard for the Constition. Again, they were NOT self respective secular progressives.

Do you really want to defend Christo facism?

Christianity? YES!

Facism? NO!

You said we were godless, moralless, social justice promoters motivated by "white guilt" and you don't expect an equal and opposite reaction?

Why not allow an open public forum where ALL religions can display their symbols? If the majority of the town is Jewish, should the town be able to take Christian's taxmoney and spend it on Jewish expressions while prohibiting Christian symbols from being displayed on the town square?

If you want prayer in school, then why not allow ALL prayer in school? Have a Christian minister offer a prayer on Monday, a Muslim lead students in prayer on Tuesday, a Wiccan lead prayer on Wednesday, a Jewish rabbi lead prayer on Thursday, and perhaps have a secular/atheist invocation on Friday?

If you want traditional moral values then why not leave that decision to the each individual? Why does YOUR morality require that homosexuals be thrown in jail for 20 years? [That was Georgia law sanctioned by conservative politicians until just a few years ago.] Why not govern YOUR life by traditional moral values and try to persuade others to do the same on their own accord? Why does promoting traditional moral values require you to use GOVERNMENT to IMPOSE YOUR morality on the entire citizenry?

Are you in favor of religious freedom, or do you think that religious liberties only extend to white Christians?

As for freedom of sexual expression, are you in favor of allowing polygamists theirs as well? What about bestialists? What about necrophiliacs? What about "furries"? Where does the slippery slope end?

Sorry, missed this part.

I have no problem with polygamists so long as only two of the partners (total) get the actual marriage benefits.

Beastiality? Animals lack the capacity to consent.

Necrophiliacs? likewise.

Furries? I have no idea?

Slippery slope? Do you realize how pathetic that argument is? Do you really advocate depriving certain people of liberty because YOU think it COULD lead to people having the liberty to do things that really ARE detrimental to individuals?

Gun ownership is a slippery slope to allowing people to own nuclear bombs and rockets. We can't have people owning nukes and rockets, so we need to ban all firearms now.

Much better point.

I would like someone to answer the question I posed in the other Rev. Wright thread:

The American government allows the killing of millions of innocent unborn children every year. Should we say that God has blessed America for allowing this slaughter? Are evangelicals proud of America's abortion laws? Or should evangelical Christians say that God will damn and punish America for allowing these atrocities?

How is that different from what Rev. Wright said?

I don't have a problem with what goes on in private but publically? Yes, I think its disgusting and should not be accepted. Frankly I have no problems using the government since it is in fact the people's will and using it to preserve societal norms and morees is a governmental responsibility.

I am an Orthodox Christian, not an evangelical protestant. I have no idea how they feel about this.