Michigan Theocracy

[Don K]

You're gonna leave/not return to Michigan because there are some right-wing wackos?

Wackoism is non-partisan. There are fools on the left. There are fools on the right.
You paint the GOP as if it is a monolithic, monotheistic party. That's called prejudice. There are reasonable members of GOP. And there are too many right-wing, religious wackos too.

Your hate for the GOP because it has a problem with a too-powerful religious wing is music to the ears of the radical left. But if you really want to get things done, ignore the radicals and look at what reasonable people can get done together.

BTW, if you think Michigan has a unique monopoly on right wing extremism, you might be wrong.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the equivalent of Courser and Gamrat among Democratic elected officials in Michigan. Name one. And no, just because you disagree with John Conyers doesn't make him the equivalent of someone who wants to impose fundamentalist Protestantism on all of the rest of us. There may be reasonable Republican officeholders, although I'm hard-pressed to think of one, considering the adoption bills passed both houses with virtually unanimous Republican support. Even the supposed suburban Republican "moderates" will vote with the wackos when it comes down to it. Even if one did find a reasonable Republican candidate for the legislature, voting for him or her would be voting to empower the wackos. I'm not buying this "both sides do it" bullshit, because when it comes to empowering extremists the Republicans stand alone.

BTW, i know Michigan doesn't have a monopoly on right-wing extremism. Texas and Mississippi come to mind, but really, is that the company we want to keep?

[Baselinepunk]

Sorry, I'm not seeing the equivalent of Courser and Gamrat among Democratic elected officials in Michigan. Name one. And no, just because you disagree with John Conyers doesn't make him the equivalent of someone who wants to impose fundamentalist Protestantism on all of the rest of us. There may be reasonable Republican officeholders, although I'm hard-pressed to think of one, considering the adoption bills passed both houses with virtually unanimous Republican support. Even the supposed suburban Republican "moderates" will vote with the wackos when it comes down to it. Even if one did find a reasonable Republican candidate for the legislature, voting for him or her would be voting to empower the wackos. I'm not buying this "both sides do it" bullshit, because when it comes to empowering extremists the Republicans stand alone. BTW, i know Michigan doesn't have a monopoly on right-wing extremism. Texas and Mississippi come to mind, but really, is that the company we want to keep?

Excellent post. +1!

[bailey]

You see discrimination, I see freedom.

in the same way isis sees themselves as freedom fighters...and I call them terrorists. One of us is perverting language to defend thier actions...the other isnt.

If you want more adoptions -- which is what's really needed if you care about kids -- then jamming your version of morality on everyone won't help.

how exactly does giving a taxpayer funded agency the right to deny adoptions and lower the applicant pool it will deal with INCREASING the number of adoptions?

I'm OK with freedom of choice and discrimination in adoptions. Just as long as the adoptions occur.

I'm ok with discrimination just so long as these groups do it without taxpayer money.

You want to force people to act against their beliefs -- just because the State puts some cash in.

Yes, because I'm having my income confiscated to pay for it. I'd like to at least be ELIGIBLE for the work I"M PAYING FOR.

I say to you -- go out and start doing discrimination-free adoptions. And stop complaining about other people's opinions and stomping on their rights because you happen to be right.

I say to you stop taking my money to pay for your mythology based organization and demand that organizations beliefs be sanctioned by the state..

And right you are. Discrimination is bad. And it should face the light of day. The solution is tranparency and shaming. Not mandates from the righteous left.

you are free to discriminate, but mandating I pay for it is the absolute height of hypocrisy from the right when out of the other side of their mouth they're screeching about tax money spent for social programs they disapprove of and demanding freedoms and personal accountability.

This measure is unconstitutional, it will lose, it will cost the state millions and harm kids. THAT is the Christianist agenda.... damn the torpedoes full steam ahead.

[beachboy]

The GOP far rightists, however, in the Michigan legislature, the legislatures of many other states, and the U.S. Congress are radicals indeed. And have aimed to completely remake our economic and social relationships to conform to their beliefs, including a sort of state-sanctioned fundamentalist nutball Christianity that comes pretty damn close to a theocracy. Fortunately, the tide seems to be finally moving against some of their more outrageously intolerant notions.

Viertes Reich [1] = American Theocracy [2] ??

"Phillips has remained a prolific and important political commentator in the decades since, but he long ago abandoned his enthusiasm for the Republican coalition he helped to build. [...] No longer does he see Republican government as a source of stability and order. Instead, he presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed and dangerous shortsightedness." [3]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater [4]
____________________________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Reich

[2] Phillips, Kevin. [[2006) American Theocracy, Viking Adult Press.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Theoc.../dp/0143038281

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/bo...anted=all&_r=0

[4] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/republicans

[Baselinepunk]

Viertes Reich [1] = American Theocracy [2] ??

"Phillips has remained a prolific and important political commentator in the decades since, but he long ago abandoned his enthusiasm for the Republican coalition he helped to build. [...] No longer does he see Republican government as a source of stability and order. Instead, he presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed and dangerous shortsightedness." [3]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater [4]
____________________________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Reich

[2] Phillips, Kevin. [[2006) American Theocracy, Viking Adult Press.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Theoc.../dp/0143038281

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/bo...anted=all&_r=0

[4] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/republicans

wikipedia = Booooooooooo!!!!!

[Wesley Mouch]

[QUOTE=beachboy;482174]“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater [4][/quote]
Sure, I agree. So vote the bums out.

Oh, and can you please explain exactly how the gay rights lobby is any different? They can't and won't compromise on what they see as their rights, do they? Civil Unions? HELL NO! We want marriage! Sorry, none of my pizza for your wedding, guys. Death and firebomb. Thank you for compromising.

[Baselinepunk]

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;482178]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater [4][/quote]
Sure, I agree. So vote the bums out.

Oh, and can you please explain exactly how the gay rights lobby is any different? They can't and won't compromise on what they see as their rights, do they? Civil Unions? HELL NO! We want marriage! Sorry, none of my pizza for your wedding, guys. Death and firebomb. Thank you for compromising.

... and the useless hyperbole and hasty generalizations continues ... smh

[bailey]

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;482178]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater [4][/quote]
Sure, I agree. So vote the bums out.

Oh, and can you please explain exactly how the gay rights lobby is any different? They can't and won't compromise on what they see as their rights, do they? Civil Unions? HELL NO! We want marriage!

Silly faggots why don't they just take their second class citizenship and shut the fuck up about it already? amiright? Look, a bit of historical info for you.... teh gheys WERE all about Civil Unions back in the 90s. THEN the christianists had a collective freak out, which led to the disaster that was DOMA. If christianists were actually telling the truth when they said it was all about the word "marriage", the matter would have been settled in the 90s with nationwide CUs. But it couldnt be because they fought CUs on every front. so it was an ad hoc hodge podge of inconsistent laws and inconsistent rulings ....that's of course when they weren't outright BANNED like in Michigan. So you can take that mess about "why didn't they just take civil unions and be happy" stuff and shove it up your ass. the christianist right is the reason gay marriage will be legal nationwide tomorrow [[or monday) because they simply couldn't allow anything that even looked like marriage to exist....even though they claimed otherwise...it is the straight line result of their refusal to compromise, to ensure where CUs did exist they were not equal in any way, and the use of the gay marriage issue as a wedge GOTV issue in the eary 00s. It is the very definition of being hoisted on one's own petard.

Sorry, none of my pizza for your wedding, guys. Death and firebomb. Thank you for compromising.

I'm sorry that the 50+ years of public accommodations laws have somehow gone unnoticed by you....I mean would you be saying the same thing about Woolworths not serving some black kids some lunch? but never fear, here in Michigan those Pizza parlors and photogs and wedding cake makers can hang a sign out front saying NO FAGGOTS and suffer zero repercussions from the state. Praise JEEEBUS!.

[KJ5]

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;482178]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater [4][/quote]
Sure, I agree. So vote the bums out.

Oh, and can you please explain exactly how the gay rights lobby is any different? They can't and won't compromise on what they see as their rights, do they? Civil Unions? HELL NO! We want marriage! Sorry, none of my pizza for your wedding, guys. Death and firebomb. Thank you for compromising.

All worked up like this just cause gay people want to marry each other the same as straight people do.
I think about the only horrendous thing that will come out of marriage equality is a gay wedding or two will get shot up by some bigot spewing hate like this. I hope I'm wrong, and it will be a sad day, but it will only make the public more sympathetic to gays and less to the burn-in-hell crowd.
Death and firebomb. Christ, what an asshole!

[Wesley Mouch]

[QUOTE=KJ5;482198]

All worked up like this just cause gay people want to marry each other the same as straight people do.
I think about the only horrendous thing that will come out of marriage equality is a gay wedding or two will get shot up by some bigot spewing hate like this. I hope I'm wrong, and it will be a sad day, but it will only make the public more sympathetic to gays and less to the burn-in-hell crowd.
Death and firebomb. Christ, what an asshole!

I was not posting against gay marriage. I just attended the gay marriage of close friends. I was pointing out that intolerance from the pro-gay movement is every bit as uncompromising as from the right.

The right believes in personal liberty and freedom of association. Those are some of what they won't compromise on. The ability to make pizza, sell it, and decide not to associate with homosexuals. Its a pathetic discrimination they are making, but I defend their right to make it. Its their freedom of association -- and its not a public accommodation to cater a wedding. Its a private contract. If they closed their restaurant to gays, that would be public accommodation. To be forced to associate with a lifestyle they don't endorse is a constitutional right. Even stupid bigots get constitutional rights.

From the 2 responses to my post, I think my point that the left is intolerant is proven.

Mouch out.

[Baselinepunk]

"I just attended the gay marriage of close friends."

Yeah, sure -- riiiiiiight.

Is that after you dropped your African-American friend off at the store?

Or before you helped out your Asian-American neighbor unload their groceries from their car?

Maybe it was right after you hired a Mexican-American worker?



You're all the same -- I bet you tell black jokes because it's alright cuz you have black friends or have a black relative, right?

[erikd]

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;482178]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater [4][/quote]
Sure, I agree. So vote the bums out.

Oh, and can you please explain exactly how the gay rights lobby is any different? They can't and won't compromise on what they see as their rights, do they? Civil Unions? HELL NO! We want marriage! Sorry, none of my pizza for your wedding, guys. Death and firebomb. Thank you for compromising.

What compromise has been offered? Civil Unions are not a compromise. The federal government, and most state governments, do not recognize civil unions. I have never seen a "civil union" check box on a government form. The federal government recognizes single and married. In the eyes of the federal government, "civil union" is basically the same thing as single.

[bailey]

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;482205]

I was not posting against gay marriage. I just attended the gay marriage of close friends. I was pointing out that intolerance from the pro-gay movement is every bit as uncompromising as from the right.

The right believes in personal liberty and freedom of association. Those are some of what they won't compromise on. The ability to make pizza, sell it, and decide not to associate with homosexuals. Its a pathetic discrimination they are making, but I defend their right to make it. Its their freedom of association -- and its not a public accommodation to cater a wedding. Its a private contract. If they closed their restaurant to gays, that would be public accommodation. To be forced to associate with a lifestyle they don't endorse is a constitutional right. Even stupid bigots get constitutional rights.

From the 2 responses to my post, I think my point that the left is intolerant is proven.

Mouch out.

Ignorance is forgivable, but the stupid willfully ignorant derp you keep posting is not. I am intolerant to lies, not opinions. what you posted are lies.

Stupid bigots have a constitutional right to be stupid bigots. What they don't have a right to is to violate state and federal nondiscrimination laws when they VOLUNTARILY enter the stream of commerce. When you open a for profit business that sells goods or services to the public, you agree to play by the rules. Some states prohibit discriminating against gay people when they come into your business or hire you to do some service.

As I've said, here in Michigan you can't hang a "White's Only" sign on the front door...which somehow doesn't bother anyone, but you CAN hang a No Faggots sign....so, you're safe here in this little slice of retrograde bigotry heaven to kick those uppty fags down a few pegs should they darken your doorstep.

And why is that still legal to do here? because when a Republican State rep proposed changing the to include gay people in our elliot larson act, he was primaried out of his job by the chirstianists in his district.

What you have a problem with is public accommodations and nondiscrimination laws....you're 50 years late to that party.

[Wesley Mouch]

in the same way isis sees themselves as freedom fighters...and I call them terrorists. One of us is perverting language to defend thier actions...the other isnt.


how exactly does giving a taxpayer funded agency the right to deny adoptions and lower the applicant pool it will deal with INCREASING the number of adoptions?


I'm ok with discrimination just so long as these groups do it without taxpayer money.

Yes, because I'm having my income confiscated to pay for it. I'd like to at least be ELIGIBLE for the work I"M PAYING FOR.
I say to you stop taking my money to pay for your mythology based organization and demand that organizations beliefs be sanctioned by the state..

you are free to discriminate, but mandating I pay for it is the absolute height of hypocrisy from the right when out of the other side of their mouth they're screeching about tax money spent for social programs they disapprove of and demanding freedoms and personal accountability.

This measure is unconstitutional, it will lose, it will cost the state millions and harm kids. THAT is the Christianist agenda.... damn the torpedoes full steam ahead.

You have valid points. You believe that non-discrimination in each and every action funded by the state is the highest priority. Me? I believe that we can be flexible and diverse in how we make adoptions happen. If a religious-based group discriminates it is a bad mark in their book -- but so what. As long as one more child is placed with a family, I can overlook some discrimination. And as I said, you can create a non-discriminatory agency too. Nobody is forcing anyone to use the discriminatory agency.

Rarely do I think the best answer to bigots is law. I think we've reach the point where the public does not approve of discrimination. Stopping adoptions because one agency isn't enlightened enough for you hurts children. I prioritize the kids, not yet another well-intentioned rule that forces compliance or else. Fine idea. Wrong tool.

[Baselinepunk]

"Me? I believe that we can be flexible and diverse in how we make adoptions happen. If a religious-based group discriminates it is a bad mark in their book -- but so what. As long as one more child is placed with a family, I can overlook some discrimination."

LOL! Accept some discrimination??

that's pretty twisted that this person thinks it's ok to use public tax dollars for some discrimination.

Any discrimination funded by tax dollars is not ok.

I think it's time to tax institutions of Religious practice, their persons who facilitate religious practices and pull all Government monies out of Religious hands [[including shutting down the Office of Faith-based Initiatives) and pump that new revenue into schools and infrastructure.

The time of Government subsidizing religion must be brought to an end.

After all, and borrowing from the Rightie Bagger folks, EVERYONE SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE -- no more Religious free-loaders!!!

[Wesley Mouch]

...LOL! Accept some discrimination??

that's pretty twisted that this person thinks it's ok to use public tax dollars for some discrimination.

Any discrimination funded by tax dollars is not ok.

Me thinks you've twisted the issue here. Paying a non-profit for an adoption placement is not funding discimination -- even if the non-profit only wants to adopt, say, Bosnia children. What about the Serb, you say. I say create an agency. Provide the social service that society needs. And great. And if more Bosnians than Serb kids get adopted --- well that's OK discrimination to me.

Yes, we should avoid discrimination. No, we should not hold absolute equality as the central principle in each and every action funded by government. So long as the valid social goal is being aided -- yes, I can tolerate that the service provider doesn't share my values.

Why does the left [[and right) have to be so totalitarian. Isn't there room for diversity of thought, action?

[[btw, I agree on property taxation for churches and non-profits. Own. Pay.)

[Zacha341]

...btw, I agree on property taxation for churches and non-profits. Own. Pay.)

Aren't church 'property' taxes already assessed/ paid locally? If so, that's not a federal issue [[the local states handles that). Unless we're talking a 'stronger' arm beyond the current established authorization and structure of taxation.

The time of Government subsidizing religion must be brought to an end.

Also, how do you tax donations to a religious non-profit entity receiving said 'donations'? Be they the Christian Church, Mosques, Synagogues, the Buddhist or Hindu Temple, etc. or other places of worship and or enlightenment?

[gencinjay]

Oh, and can you please explain exactly how the gay rights lobby is any different? They can't and won't compromise on what they see as their rights, do they? Civil Unions? HELL NO! We want marriage! Sorry, none of my pizza for your wedding, guys. Death and firebomb. Thank you for compromising.

The difference here is that civil unions are not the same thing. Civil unions would be earmarked for all sorts of laws saying they shouldn't be afforded a rights that marriage affords. They would be just another way of discriminating against those people.

If you want compromise, make every coupling a civil union in the eyes of government. The laws that give protections and benefits to couples can then be given only to civil unions. Leave "marriage" to the churches as a title that means something only to them.

[Wesley Mouch]

The difference here is that civil unions are not the same thing. Civil unions would be earmarked for all sorts of laws saying they shouldn't be afforded a rights that marriage affords. They would be just another way of discriminating against those people.

If you want compromise, make every coupling a civil union in the eyes of government. The laws that give protections and benefits to couples can then be given only to civil unions. Leave "marriage" to the churches as a title that means something only to them.

I agree 100%. Separating Church and State here would have allowed for compromise. The Church could define marriage. The State should deal with how groups of adults are treated as regards laws.

[erikd]

I agree 100%. Separating Church and State here would have allowed for compromise. The Church could define marriage. The State should deal with how groups of adults are treated as regards laws.

What you are describing is exactly how it already works. The Church and the State have different requirements for marriage, and many state-recognized marriages are not recognized by the Church.

For example, If a Catholic couple is wed in a civil, or non-Catholic, ceremony, the Catholic Church does not recognize the marriage, even though the marriage is recognized by the State.

If a Catholic person gets a divorce, and gets married a second time, the Catholic Church does not recognize the second marriage, unless the first marriage has been officially "annulled" by the Catholic Church.

These are just two common examples of legal, state-recognized, marriages that are not recognized by the Church.

It is a long-standing practice for many legal, state-recognized, marriages to not be recognized by the Church.

There is no need to come up with a substitute term for state-recognized marriages, versus Church-recognized marriages. The Church is free to not recognize legal same-sex marriages, just like they do not recognize many other legal opposite-sex marriages.

[aj3647]

You see discrimination, I see freedom.

And if it were a Muslim charity receiving state taxpayer dollars and then actively discriminating against Jews, women, Christians or any other group in providing services, you would absolutley lose your shit and you know it.

[Zacha341]

Inconsistent as it will be, I don't think there's gonna be much immediate concern or outcry relative to the push-back the Muslim religious community will have to this ruling. The main focus right now is upon Christians and Catholics.

[aj3647]

Why does the left [[and right) have to be so totalitarian. Isn't there room for diversity of thought, action?

Blacks should not be allowed to adopt white children and vice-versa. That's not racist, that's just "diversity of thought!" Nor should blacks and whites be allowed to inter-marry. Again, not racism, just an "opposing viewpoint" and if you don't respect its validity, then YOU'RE the bigot! And when some view Jim Crow laws and see discrimination, I see freedom! Certainly the best way to address that kind of discrimination is not through laws mandated by self-righteous liberals.

Wouldn't you agree, Wesley?

[Wesley Mouch]

Blacks should not be allowed to adopt white children and vice-versa. That's not racist, that's just "diversity of thought!" Nor should blacks and whites be allowed to inter-marry. Again, not racism, just an "opposing viewpoint" and if you don't respect its validity, then YOU'RE the bigot! And when some view Jim Crow laws and see discrimination, I see freedom! Certainly the best way to address that kind of discrimination is not through laws mandated by self-righteous liberals.

Wouldn't you agree, Wesley?

No. I don't agree.

Blacks and Whites should be free to adopt as they please. I also believe they should be free from your limitations on adoption. It doesn't bother me if a group wants to focus their adoption only on children of color, or on girls. As their focus doesn't prevent others from adoption -- I don't care if they wish to focus on certain groups over others.

If the question is adoption, the answer should be yes. No limitations if you're a loving parent.

[detroitbob]

All marriage should be entered into as civil.contracts and registered as such by the State . If the couple wishes to pursue a religious ceremony after the civil contract, they are free to do. Eliminates any religious objection to a marriage. This format us used throughout the world.