Conservative bigots in the Senate gallery (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/6131-conservative-bigots-disrupt-senate-floor), angry that a non-Christian was allowed to offer the customary opening blessing and condolences to the late former First Lady Mrs Johnson's family on the Senate floor caused a disruption Thursday, 7/12/07.

The conservative Christian group "American Family Association," had previously encouraged its members to oppose allowing a Hindu priest to bless the Senate. It was the first time in history a Hindu had been invited to perform the honorary duty.

More information on this incident can be found here (http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/07/12/non-christian-allowed-to-bless-senate-floor-bigoted-conservatives-protest/)


.

christian facsists...who encouraged them again?

Dharma did. It was all a set up orchestrated by Dharmabum. They weren't even Christians. They were buddies of his from the Liberals of American Club.

christian facsists...who encouraged them again?

Conservative Christian Fascists... :shrug:

Their ideology has nothing to do with legitimate Christianity.

Conservative Christian Fascists... :shrug:

Their ideology has nothing to do with legitimate Christianity.

Their actions seem more totalitarianist and authoritarian than fascist.

And while their ideology may have nothing to do with "legitimate Christianity", it has EVERYTHING to do with so-called "Christianity" as it is practiced at present in America by the millions of RightWing faithful.

Their ideology has nothing to do with legitimate Christianity.
Elaborate and prove your claim.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
- Matthew 5:43-48

the only legitimate christianity are those who follow what jesus actually said. the rest are pretenders and conartists.

Matthew 5:43-48
So if I take another random Bible quote which includes intolerance then I can attach it to "legitimate Christianity" because I want Christianity to be like that? Interesting system.

So if I take another random Bible quote which includes intolerance then I can attach it to "legitimate Christianity" because I want Christianity to be like that? Interesting system.

Evak, do you think Jesus taught intolerance?

The quote I posted above is not "random". It was taken specificly from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew because it actually quotes Jesus himself.

Can you find a quote from Jesus that would support the actions of these bigots?

There is lots of stuff from the old testament that might support intolerance, but the teachings of Jesus were of tolerance and love, not intolerance and bigotry.

Evak, do you think Jesus taught intolerance?
Did I say I'd quote Jesus? Christianity is taken from the Bible, which is not exclusively what Christ taught.
The quote I posted above is not "random".
When you're quoting fictitious characters at any ol' spot in a huge book, it certainly could be considered that from some perspective.
Can you find a quote from Jesus that would support the actions of these bigots?
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." Matt 12:30-32

Christianity is taken from the Bible, which is not exclusively what Christ taught.
When you're quoting fictitious characters at any ol' spot in a huge book, it certainly could be considered that from some perspective.

So it is safe to say you are not a Christian, Evak?


Here is the whole quote you were trying to use. The whole passage supports what I said, that Jesus taught tolerance and love among men and he taught that Judgement is reserved for God.

Jesus and Beelzebub

22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.

30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

33"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

The whole passage supports what I said, that Jesus taught tolerance and love among men and he taught that Judgement is reserved for God.
He certainly skipped over that tolerance when it came to his buddy the Holy Ghost.

Their actions seem more totalitarianist and authoritarian than fascist..Since almost nobody who uses the word fascist has any idea what it means, just learn to accept it as a negative catch-all phrase.
Like evildoers.


Also, there's nothing wrong with the Hundu priest doing the blessing, but on the occasion of congress' recognition of Mrs. Johnson, it should have been a clergy member of her faith.

Also, there's nothing wrong with the Hundu priest doing the blessing, but on the occasion of congress' recognition of Mrs. Johnson, it should have been a clergy member of her faith.

The word is "Hindu". :thumbs:

The word is "Hindu". :thumbs:If you want to start one of these with me I'll have a field day. Just say when.

Since almost nobody who uses the word fascist has any idea what it means, just learn to accept it as a negative catch-all phrase.
Like evildoers. If these weren't Christian fascists then what were they?

Their actions show that they want a Christian American Government, thereby denying others their freedom.

If you want to start one of these with me....

Just trying to help Brooks.

By the way, the word is still "Hindu". You still haven't corrected it.

:thumbs:

Since almost nobody who uses the word fascist has any idea what it means, just learn to accept it as a negative catch-all phrase.
Like evildoers.
Excellent! :)
Also, there's nothing wrong with the Hundu priest doing the blessing, but on the occasion of congress' recognition of Mrs. Johnson, it should have been a clergy member of her faith.
Goddamned straight. Simple logic really seems to escape a lot of people around here.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
- Matthew 5:43-48

Beautiful answer:)

Beautiful answer:)

Thank you.

If these weren't Christian fascists then what were they?
Ask Free, he's the one who said they weren't fascists.

My comment was about people who throw around the word without having any idea what it means (I don't include you in that group).

By the way, the word is still "Hindu". You still haven't corrected it.:thumbs:
If I corrected my error now, your post that corrected me would make even less sense than usual.

I don't want to do that to the other readers.

perhaps dragging the hindu out in the street and slicing his head off would be more tolerant :rolleyes:
to bad our open minded liberal brothers can look straight past muslim attrocities of the highest order to point out stuff like this. Perhaps they know they can attack christians all they want and not face any reprisal. Maybe they are just cowards who fear saying anything bad about the obvious barbarism of muslim extremists. Eitehr way, people like guerilla and drama are the last to get it, as usual.

Yeah Trav, thats really going to help.

Lets lower ourselves to the level of the Terrorists.

:rolleyes:

everytime someone uses the word fascist in regards to christians or the USA they reduce what the word fascist means. and the yreduce any credibility they may have had by over exagerating

everytime someone uses the word fascist in regards to christians or the USA they reduce what the word fascist means. and the yreduce any credibility they may have had by over exagerating

The same could be said of anyone who uses the term "Islamo-Fascists"...

The phrase started with Mussolini and he defined Fascism as the merger of Corporate power and government.

That is the real definition.

:thumbs:

The same could be said of anyone who uses the term "Islamo-Fascists"...

The phrase started with Mussolini and he defined Fascism as the merger of Corporate power and government.

That is the real definition.

:thumbs:

Fine I will stop saying Islamo-fascist (if I ever have) if you stop calling anyone who does or says something you disagree with a fascist.

:thumbs:

Fine I will stop saying Islamo-fascist (if I ever have) if you stop calling anyone who does or says something you disagree with a fascist.

No problem, since I don't do that anyway.

:thumbs:

you did it in this thread

you did it in this thread

Incorrect.

I did not use it just because I disagree with them, I used it because it is an accurate descriptor.

:thumbs:

so does that mean all those who disrupt the president during speeches are fascists?

What exactly did this prove anyway? That old people can stay out late at night and party as well?

I think you are referring to the Senate All-nighter. Different topic.

That was an attempt to draw attention to Republican Obstructionism against the will of the majority of the people.

If you want to detailed explanation of what it was really about, watch this:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/18/thank-you-senator-landrieu/

if the will of the people was to pull out of Iraq we would be gone. If the will of the people is to leave Iraq immediately why then have the democrats, who say they won the last election for that very reason, not put forth a bill insisting we withdraw right away? So what if it gets vetoed, they would be doing the will of the people. Instead they vote on time lines and stunts like all night bitch sessions. The fact is, leaving Iraq in disgrace is not the will of the people. We know this because we all know politicians ultimate goal is re-election, and doing whatever it takes to get re elected. If the people REALLY wanted us to leave Iraq immediately we would have been gone by now. The fact the dems have done nothing but posture and pull stunts, instead of passing a bill demanding immediate withdraw the second they took office says all there is to say.

if the will of the people was to pull out of Iraq we would be gone.

While it is true that seven in 10 Americans favor withdrawing nearly all US troops by April next year, and 62% of us believe Mr. Bush made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, I'm afraid there's a bit more to it than that, Trav.

But that would require that you learn a little something about how our form of government works (or doesn't work, as the case may be).

why dont you be so kind and tell us why the democrats who seized power under the pretense of getting us out of Iraq have not been sending bills up demanding immidate withdraw from the region?

why dont you be so kind and tell us why the democrats who seized power under the pretense of getting us out of Iraq have not been sending bills up demanding immidate withdraw from the region?

If you had any clue, you'd already know that (a) Democrats didn't "seize power" and (b) the Republicans in Congress have prevented it. Not to mention the fact that, should such legislation reach his desk, good ol' Georgie has the veto pen firmly in hand.

:rolleyes:

OK, be that as it may, why have they not attempted to send the legislation out? Why dick around with time lines and all night rants? Why, have they not, as majority in the legislative branch, attempted to withdraw our troops? If they took control of the senate and house under the pretense of troop withdraw why are they not working on it? seems to me if they cant do it they failed doing what they were put in there for, in their own words. Now satop blaming bush and give me an answer. Please.

OK, be that as it may, why have they not attempted to send the legislation out?

Because they wouldn't get quite enough votes for it to pass. Did you miss the part where I said the Republicans in Congress are blocking them?

Why, have they not, as majority in the legislative branch, attempted to withdraw our troops?

Because their majority is extremely slim, and the Republicans in Congress are blocking such legislation. (There are 233 Democrats, 201 Republicans, and two Independents in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, there are 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans and one Independent. If there is ever a 50-50 tie on a Senate vote, the President of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney, can cast a vote to break the tie.)

If they took control of the senate and house

Once again, they did not "take control" of Congress. They were elected by their constituents.

under the pretense of troop withdraw why are they not working on it?

Jeezus. BECAUSE DEMOCRATS AREN'T THE ONLY PEOPLE IN CONGRESS.

seems to me if they cant do it they failed doing what they were put in there for, in their own words.

You're confusing intent with result. The fact is, it is the Republicans in Congress who are preventing a withdrawl of troops from Iraq.

Now satop blaming bush

We wouldn't be in Iraq if it weren't for Bush. The buck stops there.

and give me an answer. Please.

I've given you plenty of answers. You just don't like them. Get over it.

would it not behoove them to at least attempt to pass a bill requiring immediate pull out from Iraq, regardless if it gets blocked or vetoed? If they were elected to do just that why do they not try? Do not tell me they are beyond meaningless gestures either, that's the democrat bread and butter.

You folks have lost sight of the fact we have only a two party system in this country.
A party of "I can't", and a party of "I won't".

What we need is a "I will", third party, strong enough to at least sway the vote, one way or the other.

Originally posted by dharmabum
I think you are referring to the Senate All-nighter. Different topic.
....I can't read sometimes. :)

The same could be said of anyone who uses the term "Islamo-Fascists"...

The phrase started with Mussolini and he defined Fascism as the merger of Corporate power and government.

That is the real definition.

:thumbs:


Thanks for adding credence to the contention that you used the term Christian Fascist for the negative effect of placing the two words together thereby denigrating Christians. Either you did that or you think that the Christians have somehow merged themselves with corporate power and the government.

Oh, and bye the way, the word corporate shouldn't be capitalized in your post. It is not a proper noun. Just thought you would like a bit of help with your grammar since you were so helpful when Brooks made a typo.


You are an unbelievable hypocrite and a not very bright one at that, Dharmabum.

Thanks for adding credence to the contention that you used the term Christian Fascist for the negative effect of placing the two words together thereby denigrating Christians. Either you did that or you think that the Christians have somehow merged themselves with corporate power and the government.


You are incorrect again Frogger.

The group in question describes themselves as "Conservative Christians".

Am I merely using the term Conservative for it's negative contention also?

:thumbs:

What we need is a "I will", third party, strong enough to at least sway the vote, one way or the other.

A third party would be no different from the first two parties because it would not change the fact that politicians work for whomever funded their way to office. That is why most politicians currently represent corporate interests instead of We the People.

If We the People funded their campaigns then they would work for us. That is why we so desperately need publicly funded elections.


.