RSS

Legalizing discrimination is the entire purpose of SB 1062, it has no other provisions.

23 Feb

This entire post was written by Jim Wright of  http://www.stonekettle.com/. He was nice enough to allow me to republish it. Legislating religious beliefs is dangerous. Invoking the name of God as an excuse to hate others is even worse. But as Cluster said,  the free market is deterministic. If this passes, I hope the law is used against those who wrote it.  As Leon of Curb Your Enthusiasm once said: “turn the topsy turvy on their ass.”



 
 
 

Friday, February 21, 2014

Arizona Goddam

 

As we witness hostility towards people of faith grow like never before, we must take this opportunity to speak up for religious liberty. The great news is that SB 1062  protects your right to live and work according to your faith and was passed by the Arizona legislature. This bill is now heading to Governor Jan Brewer’s desk. One thing became undeniably clear as SB 1062 advanced through the legislature: opponents were not interested in an honest debate about the bill’s actual provisions. Instead, they distorted and attacked the bill and its supporters at every turn. Even before the last vote was cast in the House, opponents of SB 1062 started a mass calling and email campaign into Governor Brewer’s office to try to pressure her into vetoing this important bill. It is critical that the Governor hears from YOU that no one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs merely because they go to work or start a business!
      – Center For Arizona Policy Website.

Sir, the truth is, I talk to God all the time, and, no offense, but He never mentioned you.
 
Phillipe Gaston, Ladyhawke, 1985

What would Jesus do?

You hear that question posed on a daily basis here in America.

You see it on Tee-shirts and posters and on the internet.

Folks ask you that question with a sardonic smile, Say, whadaya suppose the ol’ Savior would do?

It’s a funny thing, that question, when you think about it.

Funny peculiar. Not funny ha ha.

Somebody asked me that yesterday, “What would Jesus do?” What would Jesus do in Arizona? Which side would he stand on? What, oh what, would Jesus do?

I mean, it sounds profound, particularly if you couch it in an admonishing tone with a single raised eyebrow, “Aaaah, same sex marriage? Gay couples? Sin! Abomination! What do you think Jesus would say? What would Jesus think of the homosexual war on religion? Tsk, tsk, yes, what wouldJesus say?”

Well, okay. Sure.

Leaving aside the fact that believers always structure the question in the past tense, which is fairly odd given that the guy in question is supposed to being a living deity (and frankly, if he’s not, then who cares what he thinks? And if he is around, then why doesn’t he just come right out and say it, instead of having people guess at what he’d say?), here’s the problem: me personally? Well, I’ve got no goddamned idea what Jesus would do or what he would say.

None.

And how would I?

No, really, how the hell would I know what Jesus would say about gay marriage?

After all, Jesus, according to his followers and the only existent written documentation, is God, right? You know, Yahweh, Jehovah, King of Kings, El Supremo, the Big Cheese, The Light and The Way, all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, the divine supernatural creator of Heaven and Earth and all the chirping birdies that fly in the sky and all the little fishies that swim in the deep blue sea. According to the user’s manual, he’s omniscient and omnipotent and his mind encompasses all of creation across the depth and the width and the breadth of the entire multiverse, from before the Big Bang to the last guttering spark at the heat death of the cosmos and everything that comes in between. Right? I mean, right? Because anything less and he’s not God, or at least not God God. Right?

So, seriously, can you imagine what a mind of that vastness must be like?

I sure as shit can’t, I wouldn’t even know where to start.

And you want me to guess what God would do about gay people wanting to be treated like human beings?

I’m not even a member of his fan club, I don’t get the weekly insider newsletter, so, given the playing field, honestly, how in the pluperfect Hell could I possibly know what God would do in any given situation?

How would I have any hope whatsoever of guessing the hypothetical actions of some unfathomable, likely mythical, divine being? How would I know what a god would do, especially one who speaks in riddles and vague long outdated anecdotes about people who lived millennia ago and whose most vocal ranting raging self-appointed representatives here among the dirty unwashed of this tiny backwater hamlet lost among the vasty cosmos are, for all intents and purposes, clinically indistinguishable from the mentally ill?

What would Jesus do?

Beats me.

Given his track record, it could be anything from wiping us all out in a giant flood to snuffing all the first born children to nuking a couple of cities to a plague of flies and poison toads to having us all wander around in the desert for a couple of decades to maybe just showing us his bare ass cheeks and lighting the bushes on fire.  I assume he’s got other tricks up the sleeve of his robe, I mean a guy like this could drop a neutron star on your head or turn off the sun as easily as he parted the sea, so, really, how would I know? Hell, I can’t even guess what my cat is going to do from one minute to the next – and God can conjure entire universes from his own mind. To a creature like that, humans and cats are basically on the same level, hell, from the perspective of such a vast, vast consciousness me and any random bacterium would be identical twins.

And you want me to read his mind?

That would be like asking the aforementioned bacterium to guess what I’d say – and the germ would have a higher probability of success.

What would Jesus do? Jesus?

It amuses me that there are people out there who actually think they know.

This God of theirs builds universes, universes. Black holes and globular clusters, whole galaxies, trillions upon trillions upon trillions of stars he fashions from nothing, he builds whole worlds with a wave of his mighty hand, conjures life from lifeless dirt … and yet – and yet – he actually gives a good Goddamn that two gay guys want get to married?

Really?

That’s God’s big beef? That’s what he’s got to complain about. Gay people?

War. Pestilence. Famine. Murder, Rape. Graven Images. Inequality. No, no, Jesus is good with those, it’s gay people God can’t stand.

Never mind that homosexuality is only mentioned in the Bible seven times, seven, making it pretty darn far down on the Damnation-O-Meter compared to, oh, say, hypocrisy which is condemned over and over and over and over and over again and again.  And there are hundreds of references to economic justice and the immorality of those bent to the accumulation of wealth.  And thousands, literally thousands, of words devoted to the feeding of the hungry, the clothing of the poor, and the healing of the sick.

No, no, it’s homosexuality, that’s the problem.

Never mind that Jesus himself never said a single word about it, for or against, and seriously, don’t you think he would? I mean, don’t you think he really would have given specific orders and admonishments on this subject? Don’t you think he would have laid down the law in clear and unambiguous terms, if it’s so, so very important to God and all, I mean.

You shouldn’t have to guess what Jesus would have said, he should have said it.

And just never mind that gayness didn’t even make the final cut when it came to God’s Old Testament Top Ten – let’s see, there’s the holy day thing, and don’t murder people bit, don’t steal, don’t covet asses, don’t lip off to your folks, no graven images, no other deities … but, nope, not one single word about gay people, nothing. Well, that’s just odd. I mean, how come it’s not in the Ten Commandments of all places? Given that, right there, is where God laid down his so-called moral law and all and given that he hates gay people so much? Seems like a pretty big oversight, doesn’t it?  Seriously, don’t swear made the list, but gayness didn’t?  No graven images, no idols, but not don’t be gay?

Look, it’s not my religion, but come on. Really?

It amuses me (and by “amuses me” I mean “boggles my mind”) that there are those who actually go around thumping their fleshy chests and proclaiming with ponderous gravid certainty that their God would say this or that, that he approves of this and disapproves of that, that he loves these people and hates those people (What? God doesn’t hate gay people, you say? He loves ‘em, but he’s going to torture them in pits of fire for all eternity. But he loves them. Riiiight. There’s a word for guys like this. I’m just saying).

These people pretend insight into the supposedly unfathomably vast mind of an incomprehensible being that they claim spans not just universes but all of time and space, and then they have the unmitigated gall to act offended when somebody demands proof of such outrageous and preposterous claims.

Worse, they inevitably, every single time without fail, attempt to use this supposed insight to justify their own personal agenda of hate and fear.

In Arizona, a fanatical group of religious extremists calling themselves the Center for Arizona Policy wrote a bill called The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, officially called SB 1062, and Friday that bill passed the Arizona state senate and is now on its way to Governor Jan Brewer’s desk.

The basic gist of the law would allow Arizona businesses to legally discriminate against anybody, but in particular Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) people.

This isn’t an exaggeration or hysterical hyperbole as its supporters claim.

In fact, if the law didn’t specifically provide protection for businesses that want to discriminate based specifically on sexual orientation and religion, there wouldn’t be any reason for it in the first place.

Legalizing discrimination is the entire purpose of SB 1062, it has no other provisions.

The law clearly and unambiguously allows businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers based solely on sexual orientation (or suspected orientation), it specifically protects employers who deny equal pay to women based solely on their gender if they believe women are inferior on religious grounds, it allows employers to fire employees based solely on their sexual orientation or lifestyle or religion or lack of religion, and it allows individuals and businesses to renege on existing contractual obligations again based solely on sexual orientation or lifestyle or religious beliefs – just so long as they “sincerely” invoke God when they’re doing it.

This law essentially turns every private business in Arizona into holy ground and imposes Christian Dominionism on every person inside the state lines.

This law was written and promoted specifically in support of one religion, Evangelical Christian extremism, and no other.

It’s appalling ironic that the fanatics behind this new version of segregation are the very same people who fear imposition of Islamic law upon themselves, and yet they see nothing whatsoever hypocritical about forcing their own religious agenda on everybody else. As I said, their own holy book mentions homosexuality a mere handful of times, but specifically condemns their own hypocrisy and small minded bigotry over and over and over again.

Religious extremists would have you believe that SB 1062 is about protecting their rights, that they are somehow being denied their 1st Amendment Rights if they have to treat LGBT people as, well, you know, people.  And that’s exactly what they are doing, Arizona legislators specifically wrote into the law a provision that clearly and unambiguously proclaims a “person” to be a “ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION OR OTHER BUSINESS ORGANIZATION.”

In Arizona a church is a person.

An informal religious assembly is a person.

An association is a person.

A partnership is a person.

A corporation is a person.

A business is a person.

Unless they’re gay.  Unless they don’t subscribe to the right religion. Then they are less than human.

The bill specifically targets LGBT people, but it’s written in such a manner that it allows any form of state supported bigotry so long as that discrimination is done in the name of religion, specifically a particular form of Christianity. Specifically Evangelical Christianity.

Think I’m wrong?

You just watch how fast the Christian sponsors and supporters of this bill start screaming in outrage when a Muslim refuses their business based on their religion.

If Governor Brewer signs this bigotry into law, you watch just how fast evangelicals backpedal when businesses start refusing them service, when employers start firing them or paying them less based solely on that little cross hanging around their necks, when the privately held cable or phone company turns off service to their church, when they can’t get seated in a restaurant or find a business that will cater their wedding.

This bill is being promoted by one religion, solely in support of one religion, solely for the benefit of one religion. Period.

Given half a chance, these same people would turn Arizona and the rest of America into Putin’s Russia, or worse, Iran. Q.E.D.

And just what would Jesus say about that?

If the same Bible that these people use as justification for their bigotry and hatred is to be believed, then Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, not one holy word.  But according to that same document, here’s what he did specifically say:

For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. -Matthew 6:14-15.

In the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. –Matthew 7:2-5

Then Peter came and said to Him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times? Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. -Matthew 18:21-22

Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions. –Mark 11:25-26

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. –Luke 6:25-37

But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink, for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. – Romans 12:20-21

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails; -I Corinthians 13:4-8

Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. – I Corinthians 14:20

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. –Ephesians 4:1-3

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. –Ephesians 4:32

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. –Philippians 2:3-4

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. –Colossians 3:12-13

For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. -James 2:13

To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. -I Peter 3:8-9

There’s more. Much, much more of the same.

So, why is it, do you suppose, that these people are so fixated on the unspoken, unknown, unguessable words of their God, but steadfastly refuse to acknowledge or obey the very very specific written instructions of their prophet? Why must they guess at what Jesus would say, when they ignore the words he did say according to their own beliefs?

The simple hypocritical truth of the matter is this: These people demand the right to segregate themselves from those who don’t adhere to their version of the Christian faith, they seek to shun and shame those they see as sinners, and they demand this right in the name of a religion that vocally and specifically commands them to do exactly the opposite.

They’re not trying to live up to the expectations of their God, they’re only using him as an excuse to hate others.

These hypocrites are simply mad that the current laws and the Constitution of the United States force them to live up to the admonishments of their own professed beliefs.

And the truly ironic thing is that this law is not only contrary to everything the United States stands for, according to Christian doctrine it’s contrary to everything Jesus stood for as well.

And just what would Jesus do about that?

I suspect he’d forgive them … but then again, he has that luxury, since he obviously doesn’t live in Arizona.

Advertisements
 

52 responses to “Legalizing discrimination is the entire purpose of SB 1062, it has no other provisions.

  1. Marner

    February 23, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    What would happen if the Brooklyn Nets were to play the Phoenix Suns and Jason Collins was told he is not welcome to play in Phoenix? How about when Michael Sam gets drafted and goes down to play the Cardinals, but can’t get served somewhere? If Brewer signs this discriminatory legislation, will the NFL pull the 2015 Superbowl out of Arizona?

     
    • Cluster

      February 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm

      They will find many places that will welcome them and serve them. But people should not be forced to do so. This is still a free country, and people should have free will. If I walked into a bar in south central, I don;t think I would be very welcome either – but you know what? That’s ok? I feel the need to force people to like me or accept me.

       
      • Marner

        February 23, 2014 at 5:13 pm

        Wow, so you agree with Rand Paul that businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason at all, including gender and race? Should an employer be allowed to discriminate by not hiring women or paying them half what they pay men, if their religion sees women as inferior? Should an employer be allowed to pays blacks less, because he believes them to be “mud people?”

         
      • Cluster

        February 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm

        I know you guys like to equate gay rights to civil rights, but there’s one glaring difference that makes the comparison ludicrous. No one knows your gay unless you tell them. So if some gay people feel the need to let everyone know what they like to do in the bedroom, then they shouldn’t be surprised when they are judged by that omission. If a 50 year old man wanted everyone to know that he liked to do 18 yr old girls, which is natural and legal, he may be looked upon differently by a lot of people, don’t ya think?

        Do you think I would have the right to force a lesbian cake maker to make me cake depicting women to be subservient to men, if she objected to it?

         
      • mitchethekid

        February 23, 2014 at 5:18 pm

        I understand your point, but it’s still discrimination using religion as the reason. Discrimination is what the civil rights movement was all about. Whats that saying about neither race, creed nor color? If it passes, there will be no situation where anyone; gay, black, Hindu can not be discriminated against. It’s stand your ground without a gun. Even Kansas came to it’s senses about a similar proposal. It’s been shelved.

         
      • Marner

        February 23, 2014 at 6:41 pm

        So if some gay people feel the need to let everyone know what they like to do in the bedroom, then they shouldn’t be surprised when they are judged by that omission.

        Like every straight couple does when they get married, or have an anniversary, or buy a Valentine’s Day gift? A straight couple walking down the street holding hands is looked upon favorably, while a gay couple doing the exact same thing is, to you, “letting everyone know what they like to do in the bedroom.”

         
      • Cluster

        February 23, 2014 at 7:41 pm

        I will let you know at the next heterosexual pride parade

         
      • rustybrown2012

        February 23, 2014 at 6:54 pm

        Cluster, the comparison of gay rights to civil rights is spot on, and your “glaring difference” is all wet. For one thing, you can tell plenty of gays are gay just by looking at them and/or talking with them. For another, it’s beyond question that gays should be allowed the full range of public behaviors that straights take for granted, i.e. contact, holding hands, kissing, flirting ect. You ever do any of those things in public with your wife? Guess what bigot, so can they.

        And what about Marner’s question to you, Mr.Freedom? Should the free people of this free nation be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender and religion?

         
      • Cluster

        February 23, 2014 at 7:41 pm

        You can tell people are gay by looking at them? Wow. You have amazing powers

         
      • rustybrown2012

        February 23, 2014 at 7:50 pm

        You can tell people are gay by looking at them? Wow. You have amazing powers

        I said some gays, not all. You mean to tell me you’ve never encountered a person you knew was gay just by looking and/or talking with them? Man, you must not get out much.

         
  2. 02casper

    February 23, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    “Cluster says:
    February 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    I know you guys like to equate gay rights to civil rights, but there’s one glaring difference that makes the comparison ludicrous. No one knows your gay unless you tell them.”

    Of course you could say the same thing about Jews, or Catholics, or Irish in many cases couldn’t you? Does that mean you are ok with denying them services?

    “If a 50 year old man wanted everyone to know that he liked to do 18 yr old girls, which is natural and legal, he may be looked upon differently by a lot of people, don’t ya think?”

    Yes he would. some of us would probably be a little envious.

    “Do you think I would have the right to force a lesbian cake maker to make me cake depicting women to be subservient to men, if she objected to it?”

    Is this something you do often?

     
    • Cluster

      February 23, 2014 at 7:45 pm

      I am trying to point out your guys intolerance and you just don’t get it, because of your self perceived sense of some heightened level of compassion, when in reality it’s just another form if intolerance.

      And you can’t answer that question can you Cap? You know why? Because it wouldn’t be right for me to do that, just as it is not right for a gay couple to force someone to take pictures of their wedding.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        February 23, 2014 at 7:58 pm

        I am trying to point out your guys intolerance and you just don’t get it, because of your self perceived sense of some heightened level of compassion, when in reality it’s just another form if intolerance.

        Blow it out your ass. Exactly how are we being intolerant? By being intolerant of your right to say “get out of my bar, faggot”? It’s obvious to anyone who knows the meaning of the word that you’re the one being intolerant, in spite of your sophisticated “I’m rubber, you’re glue” remonstrations.

         
      • 02casper

        February 23, 2014 at 8:01 pm

        “And you can’t answer that question can you Cap? You know why? Because it wouldn’t be right for me to do that, just as it is not right for a gay couple to force someone to take pictures of their wedding.”

        Actually, if that’s what you want to do, I support you. A person in a public business should serve everyone.

         
  3. 02casper

    February 23, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    As a teacher, I don’t get to chose my “customers”. I get them all, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or brains. They all come to me and frankly, I’m alright with that.

     
    • Cluster

      February 24, 2014 at 4:24 am

      You’re a public servant.

       
      • 02casper

        February 24, 2014 at 6:35 am

        “Cluster says:
        February 24, 2014 at 4:24 am

        You’re a public servant.”

        Are you saying that public servants shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate, even if it interferes with their religious beliefs? If so, nest thing you know, you will be extending the same argument to anyone serving the public.

         
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 7:49 am

        Public schools are for the public, using public money, and no, they don’t have the right to discriminate. Private schools, using private money, are a different matter entirely – hard to believe you’re a teacher Cap. If you are a public servant, and have a hard time serving certain groups, then get a different job.

        BTW, none of you have answered my question pertaining to Muslims. Is that a little too delicate for you?

         
      • 02casper

        February 24, 2014 at 8:05 pm

        “Public schools are for the public, using public money, and no, they don’t have the right to discriminate. Private schools, using private money, are a different matter entirely”

        Unless of course they are receiving public money via vouchers.

         
  4. mitchethekid

    February 23, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    If this law passes,all it’s going to do is cause problems. But the sword cuts both ways.

    “You just watch how fast the Christian sponsors and supporters of this bill start screaming in
    outrage when a Muslim refuses their business based on their religion.

    If Governor Brewer signs this bigotry into law, you watch just how fast evangelicals backpedal when businesses start refusing them service, when employers start firing them or paying them less based solely on that little cross hanging around their necks, when the privately held cable or phone company turns off service to their church, when they can’t get seated in a restaurant or find a business that will cater their wedding.”

    To me the phony “war” on Christians seems to be the other way around.

     
  5. watsonthethird

    February 23, 2014 at 9:53 pm

    Cluster said:

    I know you guys like to equate gay rights to civil rights, but there’s one glaring difference that makes the comparison ludicrous. No one knows your gay unless you tell them.

    So you’re good with all forms of discrimination as long as you can claim you couldn’t tell you were discriminating by the way the other people look? Really? This is your position?

    So it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against Christians because most of the time you can’t tell if someone’s a Christian? This is one of your weakest arguments ever, Cluster.

    Marner asked the appropriate question, Cluster, which you dodged. “Wow, so you agree with Rand Paul that businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason at all, including gender and race?”

    It appears that your answer is yes. It’s just mind boggling that we’re still even debating this 50 years after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. That an apparent mainstream conservative such as your self believes this is an indication of how conservative conservatives have become.

     
    • rustybrown2012

      February 23, 2014 at 10:31 pm

      So Cluster, would you like to answer the question that I, Marner, Watson, have posed on this thread several times? Based on what you’ve said it’s a reasonable question. Or shall we take your silence to be a ‘no, I’m against the Civil Rights Act and feel that people/businesses should be free to discriminate against anyone they please’. Inquiring minds want to know, that’s why we’ve repeated the question ad nauseam.

       
    • Cluster

      February 24, 2014 at 4:38 am

      In order to be a liberal, you need to fabricate issues, conflate issues, and deny reality. That is an essential component to perpetuating the delusion that is liberalism. Here’s a little inconvenient quiz for y’all:

      http://www.nbra.info/dyk-historytest

      I have grown very tired of all your ignorance, intolerance, and arrogance. You are raging religious bigots, have zero understanding of the separation of church and state, and have very little respect for the free will of people. I don’t think you guys are really cut out to live in a free society.

       
      • Marner

        February 24, 2014 at 5:19 am

        That survey is laughable for completely ignoring the fact that the Parties have switched in their ideologies. Substitute Liberals and Conservatives for your choices and see what your responses will be.

         
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 5:42 am

        Those are cold hard historical facts Marner, and no, parities have not switched ideologies. Liberals have simply switched bigotries, knowing that their efforts against blacks failed. However, now they just keep blacks on the welfare plantation and convince them that they are incapable of competing in this world without the handouts.

         
      • Marner

        February 24, 2014 at 6:47 am

        I have grown very tired of all your ignorance, intolerance, and arrogance.

        If you can’t even admit that party realignment occurred, I think you’ve displayed the above traits very well. It’s hard to debate someone who can’t answer simple questions posed to them and who ignores facts and history to support their argument.

         
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 7:44 am

        Marner,

        You, and other liberals, are the only ones anchored in denial, bigotry and myths. Constantly fabricating history and issues to fit your ever changing, narrow, agenda. This religious bigotry is just the most recent in a long, sad, historical line of bigotry. I truly feel sorry for you. Please read, and educate yourself:

        At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used the race card to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home. The truth, as Trende convincingly demonstrates, is the opposite: the growth of GOP support among white Southerners was steady and mostly gradual from 1928 to 2010, and was a natural outgrowth of the fact that white Southerners were ideologically much more compatible with the national Republican agenda and coalition than with the national Democratic agenda and coalition. What retarded the Southern switch from the Democrats to the GOP was a combination of party loyalties dating back to Reconstruction and the Democrats’ use of racial issues. In other words, if you take race out of the picture, it’s likely that white Southerners would have switched parties earlier and in greater numbers. The real “Southern Strategy” was the one pursued by the Democrats, especially under FDR, to keep conservative white Southerners in a liberal party.

        http://www.redstate.com/diary/Dan_McLaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/

         
      • mitchethekid

        February 24, 2014 at 10:44 am

        Oh come on! The Southern Strategy was devised by Lee Atwater to help Nixon get elected.(As did Roger Ailes.) I’ll bet this McLaughlin calls the Civil War a war of Yankee aggression.

         
      • meursault1942

        February 24, 2014 at 8:40 am

        Come on, Cluster. The Southern Strategy, the Dixiecrats, the realignment–they’re all real, the people who devised and pushed the Southern Strategy have discussed it in depth and at length (Kevin Phillips, for example), the Dixiecrats are basic history (Democrats adopt desegregation as a party plank, driving the Southern conservatives from the party), and the GOP even apologized for the Southern Strategy (although it waited until 2005 to do so).

        Leave the know-not rewriting of history to halfwits like Noonan. You’re better than that.

         
      • Marner

        February 24, 2014 at 6:18 pm

        Cluster,

        Forgive me if I don’t take a blogger at Redstate as an authoritative source on American political history.

         
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm

        Well read the article and refute the findings if you can. They are pretty clear cut.

         
      • Marner

        February 24, 2014 at 6:25 pm

        I read the article, Cluster. They aren’t findings, they are opinion.

        Now, why don’t you look up Lee Atwater’s description of the Southern Strategy. After all, he used it quite effectively.

         
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 7:31 pm

        Actually there is quite a bit of fact in there, like this:

        Basically, Trende follows three lines of data. The first thing he does is look at voting patterns, not just bottom-line statewide Electoral College figures but the actual trends in the two-party popular presidential vote as well as downticket voting behavior by state, Congressional district and state gubernatorial and legislative elections. What he shows, on the one hand, is that the South was, from 1928 on, not as solidly Democratic as portrayed (and there were pockets of the South that had always been GOP-friendly, especially in Tennessee, Virginia and Texas). Some of that in the case of 1928 can be attributed to Southern Protestant resistance to voting for the Catholic Al Smith, but the fortunes of the GOP began to pick up significantly as conservative anti-union Southerners soured on the New Deal after 1936.

        In order to believe the southern strategy, you have to believe that all of sudden, one party became racist, while the other party became altruistic. That’s quite a stretch.

         
      • Marner

        February 24, 2014 at 8:03 pm

        No, Cluster, he provided his interpretation of the book. I haven’t read the book and neither have you, so we’re not in a position to say whether or not his interpretation is accurate. His interpretation does fly in the face of established political history, though.

        Any comment on Atwater’s admission of the Southern Strategy? You know, “You start out saying ni**er, ni**er, ni**er,…”

         
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 8:28 pm

        Those are not interpretations. Those are trends which are clearly moving towards GOP as early as 1937. But I understand it’s in your interest to deny this.

         
      • meursault1942

        February 24, 2014 at 8:11 pm

        “In order to believe the southern strategy, you have to believe that all of sudden, one party became racist, while the other party became altruistic.”

        Not really. You just have to believe that one party formally adopted desegregation as a plank nationwide (as the Democratic party did) and that the other party saw this as an opportunity to pick up disgruntled voters who objected to that plank (as the Republican party did in wooing/welcoming, for example, the Dixiecrats, who were conservative Southerners who favored segregation). And those things did indeed happen, plain as day.

        One might also point out that, for a while at least, the Southern Strategy worked. It was a pretty shrewd political calculation: Were there more votes to be gained–particularly in the South–by appealing to segregationist conservatives, or were there more votes to be gained by appealing to blacks and anti-segreagation whites? The Republican party chose the former, and it even used the specter of desegregation to drive “negrophobe whites” from the Democratic party to the Republican party. Kevin Phillips laid it out pretty bluntly:

        From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

         
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 8:31 pm

        Well as Marner would say – that is interpretation.

         
  6. rustybrown2012

    February 23, 2014 at 11:36 pm

    Silence speaks volumes, so they say…

     
  7. Cluster

    February 24, 2014 at 5:38 am

    Legislating religious beliefs is dangerous

    Yes it is, that’s why there is a concept known as separation of church and state. And forcing private citizens to act against their Faith is equally dangerous. Did you know that gays are not allowed to be married in a Mosque? In fact, Muslim communities throughout America reject completely the gay lifestyle and agenda, and not one Muslim photographer will ever take pictures of a gay wedding. What would you guys do about that?

    The following is a good example of what is happening to liberal bigotry in the public square. Piers Morgan is going off the air because of dismal ratings, due to his smug arrogance and bigotry towards anyone who holds different opinions. People haven’t grown tired of a “Brit weighing in on American issues”, they have grown tired of an arrogant liberal with self superiority issues.

    Morgan told The New York Times that his show lately has “taken a bath in the ratings” but that he and CNN President Jeff Zucker were discussing a new role for him at the channel. CNN’s audience has tired of hearing a Brit weigh in American cultural issues, Morgan said in a story posted online Sunday.

    http://townhall.com/news/us/2014/02/23/cnn-says-piers-morgans-talk-show-is-ending-n1799581

     
    • mitchethekid

      February 24, 2014 at 10:40 am

      You are making a false equivalency. This isn’t about which religion says what about whom. It’s a transparent effort of Evangelical Christians to use “religion” as an excuse to discriminate because gay love will lead to the planet blowing up. These are the same tactics they use as school board members when they try to claim “creationism” (i.e. a religious belief) is an “alternative” to science. If you were to ask an Evangelical biblical literalist what would change their minds, the answer would be “nothing”. If you asked someone who wasn’t, the answer would be “evidence.”. I would like to know, as someone who seems to agree that church and state need to be separated, you can defend this maybe will become law. AZ has enough PR problems as it is. Border vigilantist, Sheriff Joe and the show us your papers legislation. I will say though, that it will be easy to identify anyone who you may want to discriminate against because all the residents have to have their birth certificates on their person at all times, correct? I’m a member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. Who shall I single out??

       
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 1:01 pm

        Just as you can not force Muslim’s to accept gays, you can not as well with strict Christians. It’s just the way it is, but in a free society, they have that right on a personal basis. They also have the right to suffer the consequences, but that is their choosing, not yours.

         
    • rustybrown2012

      February 24, 2014 at 11:33 am

      not one Muslim photographer will ever take pictures of a gay wedding. What would you guys do about that?

      That’s actually a sticky issue for me because photography, along with numerous other creative enterprises, can certainly be viewed as free speech, and one could reasonably argue that an artist should not be compelled to produce their art (speech) against their personal opinions, ideals, and yes, even prejudices. I’m inclined to agree with that but it’s not an easy call. Cluster and I agree with each other, a snowball is thrown in hell! Here’s good article touching on these issues:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html?_r=0

      Of course, artistic freedom does not apply to most commercial endeavors – restaurants, hospitals, etc. If these more prosaic businesses are open to the public they must take all comers and should not be allowed to discriminate.

       
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am

        And this is from Mitch’s link:

        Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, said the Kansas bill would not grant a right to refuse services to gays and lesbians generally. Under the Kansas proposal, Volokh argued, a hotel would not be able to refuse a room to a same-sex couple unless they had a policy of only serving married couples, because that wouldn’t count as “treating as valid” a same-sex marriage, since hotels rent to unmarried couples all the time. “If a hotel generally lets anyone in, but refuses a room to a couple because they are a same-sex couple, that’s not ‘related to…any marriage,’” Volokh says

         
  8. watsonthethird

    February 24, 2014 at 10:46 am

    Those are cold hard historical facts Marner, and no, parities have not switched ideologies. Liberals have simply switched bigotries, knowing that their efforts against blacks failed. However, now they just keep blacks on the welfare plantation and convince them that they are incapable of competing in this world without the handouts.

    For the purposes of this discussion, what different does it make what a political party did 150 years ago?

    Not only that, we asked you a direct question, Cluster. It’s not about the political parties. You and I don’t even belong to a political party.

    This bill is about bigotry, plain and simple. Which you obviously support. Christians used the same rationales to legislate against and persecute black people in this country. For God’s sakes, the KKK used the symbol of a burning cross.

     
    • mitchethekid

      February 24, 2014 at 10:49 am

       
    • rustybrown2012

      February 24, 2014 at 11:11 am

      One more post like that and you are permanently banned

       
      • Cluster

        February 24, 2014 at 12:17 pm

        Again, you’re on a short leash. I will not be called a racist. And censorship has already happened here, and it began with you and the other liberals in regards to your intolerance of Tiredoflibs.

        That ship has sailed

         
      • Martin

        February 25, 2014 at 7:45 am

        but you are a racist. plain and simple. you’re the worst kind of racist, the kind that hides it and claims to be tolerant.

         
      • mitchethekid

        February 25, 2014 at 9:53 am

        Lets drop the personal accusations of being any kind is icist unless it’s a demonstrable fact. OK Martin?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        February 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm

        I’ve censored no one. Why can’t you answer a simple question? If you feel I’ve called you a racist, why can’t you simply defend yourself and show me that I’m wrong?

        Goodbye

         
    • Cluster

      February 24, 2014 at 11:28 am

      It’s about the left’s religious bigotry, I agree. This entire issue originated with the lawsuit against a photographer who refused to take photographs of a gay wedding based on religious grounds. The gay couple wanted to force that photographer to act against his Faith.

      That’s religious bigotry, more specifically Christian bigotry. Period. Do you think this lawsuit would have moved forward against a Muslim photographer?

       
      • rustybrown2012

        February 24, 2014 at 1:32 pm

        Why are you even deleting the posts that agree with you?

         
 
%d bloggers like this: