BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians

Subject: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 06:46 PM

First of all, my apologies for using "Xtians" instead of "Christians". The title will only allow a certain number of characters.
It seems that the Republican fundamentalist Christians in Kansas have passed a law stating that gay couples can be refused services at restaurants, hotels, caterers... Does this seem like a throwback to the sixties to anyone else? This, to me, seems like the very opposite of something a Christian would do.
I traveled through Mississippi in 1959 or 1960 on a boy scout trip and could not believe that some people were refused this type of services. Now it's happening again.
Does Putin have any influence in Kansas?

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 06:54 PM

I see that they have come to their senses and vetoed the bill. Too late for me to erase this.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:09 PM

Not too late for me to suggest that the thread title could have been shortened by suggesting instead of Republican you could have used AH.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:52 PM

LA TIMES article, "Kansas Goes Off the Deep End With an Anti-Gay Bill."
Feb. 15, 2014. By Michael McGough
The bill, House Bill 2453, stalled in the Senate.

It will die there.

No veto involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:58 PM

I Googled "AH" and this is what I found: AH

I don't understand why you think I should've used "AH".

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 08:02 PM

So... they didn't 'pass a law', the Kansas House just pushed it thru to make a point.

Having lived in Wichita for 30 years, (until 35 years ago)I am not surprised at anything they are trying these days.

more on the intent of the proposed law

If by any chance, they DID pass it, it would be quickly ruled against by appeal to the courts, as it contradicts basic US laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 08:11 PM

Fundamentalism isn't exclusively limited to Republicans. My guess would be that Anonymous meant the more generic "A** H*les."

Too bad they're not all self-limiting like this one.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 08:50 PM

AH - He means Ass Holes

PHJim, GOP is a common short cut for Republican, It stands for Grand Old Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas GOP Fundimentalist Christians
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 11:19 PM

Thanks Jack. Being a Canuck, I'm not familiar with these acronyms.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:03 AM

Consensus seems to be that this is a propaganda gift for anyone who wants to argue that most Republicans are bigots and nutters from the last century.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 01:57 AM

Having lived in Virginia in the early 50s I well remember the public water faucets marked 'Colored Only' and 'White Only'. My mind boggles at the notion of 'Straight Only' and 'Gay Only'. If they went that far, however, they probably wouldn't use "gay".

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

Keep banging the rocks together guys.


In the meantime, I note your federal government has decreed that people who are married in one state have to be recognised in another, even if that state discriminates against them.

Hope for you yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:29 AM

The federal government is indeed making some progress in the legal requirements being 'fair' for everyone. The problem is with our basic system, designed into the Constitution, of 'states rights'. This makes legislators & *sigh* judges in some states feel that they can resist these commie, pinko, liberal attempts to interfere in their 'hallowed traditional way of life'.
Getting the system adjusted and ruled on by the courts... and new laws enacted by Congress ...is a painfully slow process in these days of Tea Party BS and right-wing judges.

But... the good news is that new states are falling into line constantly. Kansas is just an unusually hard nut to crack. (I wonder if they study Alabama & S. Carolina & Texas before they start another batch of silliness?)

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:48 AM

It is important to note that all is not lost, and that there ARE organizations striving to counter the nonsense.

The Great Plains Chapter of 'Americans United for Separation of Church and State'.

go to the section labeled 'Vickie's blog' to see some of the recent actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:18 PM

Please remember that the States have the right to make certain laws that cover their citizens. The federal government is not the sole arbiter in the United States.

Alcohol, drugs (marijuana, e. g.), marriage and inheritance, state taxes (on gasoline, cigarettes and other substances), *guns, and many others are dealt with by each state.

Recently, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, have been over-riding those laws that infringe on civil liberties, but rulings from the Supreme Court have still upheld the states in matters that seem to be within their rights.

This system is not usual is most European countries, and is not understood by those living outside of the United States.

* In New Mexico, 10,601 handgun concealed carry licenses were issued in 2013 (available to anyone without criminal record). Many states do not permit this to private citizens. There is no overall Federal law.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:36 PM

Support for gay marriage has passed 50 percent for the U. S. overall, according to some polls.
A USA Today/Gallup poll showed:
Favor marriage- 42%
Civil unions- 25%
No legal recognition- 28%
----------
Independents
43, 26 and 25% respectively
-------------------
19% of white evangelicals support gay marriage
52% of mainline Protestants " " "
35& of Black protestants " " "

Al of these figures vary considerably from state to state.

Votes like those in the Kansas House reflect efforts to attract certain groups of voters, more than they reflect general voter belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 01:40 PM

Maine in 2009 voted down gay marriage, although in a poll, a slim majority approved and the bill had the support of the Legislature and the Governor.

Labels such as fundgelical and Kansas Rep. Fundimentalist (sic) Xtians betray intolerance of the beliefs of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 02:19 PM

"... remember that the States have the right to make certain laws that cover their citizens."

I do know that.... I also know that 'certain' laws make no sense when they limit their citizens in what are coming to be recognized as rights, not 'privileges'. When states use the concept to simply discriminate, it is time to change the system... much like happened with slavery.

In a city where a river or street defines state borders, it does make no sense for a committed couple to have the right to marry on one side of the border and not the other.... or to have easy access to voting... or to have access to health care.

Taxes & inheritance may involve different situations in different states, but items dangerous to health .. not so much. Gun laws are a can of worms because some states have areas where guns are vital for hunting, defense against predators ....etc.

As I have posted several times, state-specific laws which made a reasonable sense in 1800 may NOT be reasonable in the 21st century. Trouble is, some require amending of the Constitution... and that requires 3/4 of the states to ratify them. Kinda of a vicious circle, hmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:12 PM

Labels such as fundgelical and Kansas Rep. Fundimentalist (sic) Xtians betray intolerance of the beliefs of others.

No, Q, they betray an exasperation with the unscientific, illogical and idiotic actions of bigots hiding under the folds of the cloak of a Christianity[sic] that Jesus wouldn't recognize.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:21 PM

I fail to see as I have failed to see for over fifty years why someone's sexual orientation has anything to do with me. I am a latent heterosexual. I am happy that way. No one is forcing me to be homosexual. I detest the term gay as much as I detest the term straight.

I have said for years that people are entitled to their beliefs. I have also said they are entitled to shut up about those beliefs. I don't know why more people don't.

Stupidity is not confined to the Republican Party, although at times they certainly seem to give the term new meaning.

People either do or do not have rights, whether endowed by God, god, G_d, fellow citizens, people in their respective communities, written agreements, declarations of intent, etc. Interpretations of what the various agreements mean is where we appear to get bogged down. When you or I think other people do not/should not have rights, we both likely feel that ours will never be taken away from us. History has shown how untrue that can be. I used the term AH because it's a generic term for people who behave like idiots. It's too bad they get voted in, but maybe that should be a first clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

Labels such as fundgelical and Kansas Rep. Fundimentalist (sic) Xtians betray intolerance of the beliefs of others.

I don't think Phil was being intolerant. There is a big difference between voting against gay marriage and encoding discrimination into state law. I thing that he was kind to call them only fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:13 PM

Amen, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:35 PM

In no way did I intend to diss Jim.

Greg, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:35 PM

Posts by Greg F-

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:51 PM

Yeah, PHJim

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:17 PM

Your case being what, exactly, Q? That its OK for these fundagelical clowns to be behave like idiots and not OK for others to call them on it?

Or maintaining that we should respect and tolerate the beliefs expressed by the KKK and Aryan Nations groups, for example?

Do tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:30 PM

You don't have to call people names. It doesn't help. It puts you on their level.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 09:09 PM

Why do only people advancing views that are largely outside any civilised norms say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:41 AM

Since when did it need 51% of everyone else to agree that everybody is equal?

By the way,

Why is it that whenever Bridge leaves himself wide open, it has to be when I am in agreement with him? So damned frustrating....

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:45 AM

Musket

He is no doubt cowering in fear at the towering edifice you have created which is your awe-inspiring reputation for wit and retort!

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:52 AM

>>From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 09:09 PM

Why do only people advancing views that are largely outside any civilised norms say that? <<

Are you talking to me? Because if you are talking about me, I got an answer!

But first you gotta tell me... is this civilized norm?

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:15 AM

I don't need erudite wit and retort when dealing with Bridge. He can't handle compliments so insults don't stand a chance.

However, he is educated, clever, consistent and slightly daft. That's why I used to debate with him.

You however seem to be slightly less consistent, slightly less hinged, slightly less clever and slightly less fun. Or at least you were fun till you started defining antiquated views.

You seem a bit like the antiquated Kansas republican fundamentalist Christians and their fun antiquated ideas for an antiquated time that is antiquated when compared to now.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 09:20 AM

Calm down please Ian. And please stop spreading your manure around the forum. I would appreciate it if you kept your insults to the threads where you have already changed the subject to your hatred of ake.

What you are calling "raging bigotry" in Akenaton was the law of the land in your country 15 years ago. Its not even old enough to be antiquated, I used that word out of kindness to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:02 AM

Bot wait! Theres MORE!

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) 19 Feb 2014 — A Kansas lawmaker is proposing a bill that would allow teachers, caregivers and parents to spank children hard enough to leave marks.

Current Kansas law allows spanking that doesn't leave marks. Rep. Gail Finney, a Democrat from Wichita, says he wants to allow up to 10 strikes of the hand and that could leave redness and bruising. The bill also would allow parents to give permission to others to spank their children.

It would continue to ban hitting a child with fists, in the head or body, or with a belt or switch.

Finney says she wants to restore parental rights, and improve discipline.

KCTV reports (http://bit.ly/1nKbCjQ ) Rep. John Rubin, chairman of the House Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee, says he isn't sure the committee will even consider the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:21 PM

So... Kansas is still at it? In my middle school 60 years ago, several teachers did similar things. My shop teacher had a wooden paddle. (The rule was supposed to be that you had to get another teacher to witness corporal punishment.)
My science teacher on occasion locked 'bad' students in the equipment closet in his room.

None of this ever happened to me, as I was 'good' boy.

Now... I propose a law allowing lawmakers who introduce stupid bills to be spanked on the courthouse steps!

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:43 PM

Interesting. In Carolina, where you live, the law of the land executed a 14 year old child in the early 1940s, and that was the law of the land, yessiree and God bless America. To be fair, he was black and who are we to judge eh? A fair number of mudcatters were around then if you are defining antiquity.

The thread is about suppression of a section of the community for being gay. No manure to spread. It is the subject you oaf.

By the way Einstein. 1967 wasn't 15 years ago. We gave the vote to women way before that and abolished slavery even before that!   Calling for repeal of either couldn't be described as being antiquated in civilised places, so watch your Ps and Qs eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:58 PM

Mither, I hope you mean "unhinged"!

Yes Jack I mean you. Fight your corner in stead of crying "Please Miss the big boy called me nasty names".

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:14 PM

The UK has legally recognized Gay Marriage since 1967? Good for y'all. why didn't y'all tell anyone?

Maybe because,until this coming March banning same-sex marriage is still the law of the land?

"Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in July 2013 and will come into force on 13 March 2014, with the first same-sex marriages taking place on 29 March 2014."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Is same-sex marriage now allowed in Scotland?

BTW "the manure" I refer to is your name calling and fight picking.
It is tiresome that you try to turn so many threads to Akenaton's beliefs. No doubt, his opinions represent those of a sizable minority in your country and mine. he deserves as much respect as any member of this forum. Please do not try to bully him. Please, if you must, focus your efforts on his opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:47 PM

Jack, whatever your rather daft interpretation of rules may be, bigots DO NOT deserve respect on this, or on any other forum.

Musket is under no obligation to "respect" homophobia and neither is anyone else.

As for whingers about rules, well, respect has to be earned and that doesn't seem the best way to achieve that end, and neither is active support for bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

Obviously troubadour, this forum has not earned your respect.

There are no exceptions posted for "righteous" indignation.   

What you say here is true.

"Musket is under no obligation to "respect" homophobia and neither is anyone else."

He is under an obligation to respect the rules of this forum. Max asked him to. Max provides this forum for free. Respecting his request to follow the rules is very little to ask and the rules are wise and are for the good of everyone, including Akenaton and musket. DtG respects the rules and gets his point across. He clearly does not respect Akenaton's opinions, he does not appear to respect Akenaton, not at least when Akenaton is expressing his opinions. But he does respect the forum. So he expresses himself clearly, and without insults or rancor.

Musket has done the same in the past. There is no doubt that he can respect the forum. Hopefully over time, he will cease the insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:58 PM

"Musket has done the same in the past. There is no doubt that he can respect the forum. Hopefully over time, he will cease the insults."

You too have done the same in the past. Hopefully over time you will have something more valuable to offer than endless whinges about rules.

You are correct in stating that Max is the owner, so why, in the absence of any request from him, do you feel empowered to moderate the behaviour of other members.

That does not indicate respect for Max, the forum, or the members, but simply an overinflated opinion of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 04:12 PM

I try to moderate Musket's behavior because Musket insults me. Musket insults me often, Musket has been insulting me for a long time. Same with Steve Shaw. I have found that if I am not diligent the insults increase. Max gave us the rules. The rules give me a way to counter insults without stooping to insults or bickering.

I respect Max by being whatever I "want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty." Those are the rules. That is what he asks. That is what I do.

Hopefully, over time I will not have to gently and politely remind people of the rules. That would be wonderful!

I think that it is unkind and impolite and inaccurate for you to imply that the only thing that I have to offer is endless whinges about rules. I also tell the the occasion joke and talk about hockey.

I don't know what you mean by "whinges" but if it means what I think it does, I believe that your previous post is mostly a "whinge." If whinges are a bad thing in your opinion, you may want to take that into account the next time you give me feedback.

Thanks for the feedback. It is noted.

Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 06:58 AM

Ever thought about why Jack? Calling you a silly sod for saying odd things is doing you a favour.

I meant hinged Bridge. A play on words, but obviously backfired judging by your post. Hey ho.

Thinking about it, respecting bigotry is an awful thing to do. It is the only thing that stops bigotry from dying.

Well done Jerk. If it helps, and for your benefit, would it help if I called it antiquated instead? What if I joined you in assuming we all had bigoted Grandparents? Both my Granddads were thirsty buggers to all accounts but I don't recall them going in for the popular sport of the time, queer bashing.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 07:55 AM

Jerk and Akenhateon have earned every insult they get.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:57 AM

>>Well done Jerk. If it helps, and for your benefit, would it help if I called it antiquated instead? <<

Since you are asking, this would help. Do what Dave the Gnome does, Musket. Make your case without acting like a 10 year old bully. You too Mr. Bridge. That would help.

BTW you are 100% wrong about this.

"Thinking about it, respecting bigotry is an awful thing to do. It is the only thing that stops bigotry from dying. "

It was Martin Luther King's and others' nonviolence that brought about the civil rights act. It wasn't people yelling "honky" and "Cracker"

And of course, you know very well that I am not talking about respecting bigotry.

If you cannot show some respect to a fellow human being, show some respect for this forum.

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:27 PM

It does get confusing when people say "you" in writing posts, particularly when there have been intervening posts. Names were invented for quite a good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Kansas Republican Fundimentalist Xtians
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:56 PM

Amen, McGrath... folk should remember that there might be 3-4 posts while 'you' compose a reply. If necessary, post a C&P of what you're replying to, as I usually do with Pete.