Tolerance applies except to the Christian right
Posted By: another observer on 2005-11-29
In Reply to: Our Endangered Values - Lib
then the gloves are off. Christians are not to be tolerated unless they are willing to *embrace* not just *tolerate* other views and/or lifestyles.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Just participating in a Christian church does not make you a Christian (sm)
Everyone who goes to a Christian church is not automatically a Christian. Only God knows if you truly are or not. He could easily still have Muslim values and attend a Christian church. Does he? I have NO IDEA. I really don't know. What I DO KNOW is that the Christian church he attended did not teach what God wants to be taught. I know that from the Bible because we are not supposed to preach hate or damnation, yet that is what his minister preached, LOUDLY.
I wonder if this applies to....... sm
folks who live in mobile homes. I bought my doublewide almost 13 years ago not anticipating that I would shortly be a divorced mom with a mortgage along with all the bills previously paid on both our incomes. I could afford the house at the time, but it is getting harder with each passing day and it doesn't take much of an emergency for me to have to miss making a mortgage payment. I play catchup all the time and with the rising cost of utilities and groceries, I'm barely treading water.
this applies also to you...I do not care
if O received his Islamic teachings BEFORE or after he attended the CATHOLIC school hours!
my post above applies also to your comment..
The flag outside the building shows enough patriotism, and I am sure that there are office policies.
Something interesting re Eliot Spitzer. It applies to now. sm
Eliot Spitzer wrote this editorial in the Washington Post 3 weeks before they politically assassinated him.
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.
Must be not. Double standard applies. Crickets.
/
I don't think dual citizenship applies to your kids -
Not being ugly, my daughter was born in Germany too, but I never heard that she had dual citizenship. She was born on a military base and that made her an American.
Too bad the cap only applies to TARP funded CEOs.
ANY CEO should be making more salary than the POTUS and that any compensation beyond that amount should be directly related to the success of the company, i.e. commissions, profit percentage, stock dividends, etc. I also believe stockholders should have more control of their salaries, benefits, bonuses and any other perks.
Yes, freedom works for everyone, right to choose applies....sm
to individual doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, as well as the woman; as you said, there are enough providers who will happily oblige and do the procedures for compensation and not have a problem with it. I used to be a surgical tech, I never had to assist in one, my docs were general surgeons, but I could never be in the room, myself, while an abortion was being performed, I would get sick. I am sorry, I believe in the freedom for others, but personally I could not be there, and would not want to be forced, could not! JMHO
Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm
They are alive, no matter how many pretty pictures you try to paint about it. They are life, God's life.
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
There is no tolerance
.
tolerance
I have my own set of beliefs. I have studied various religions. I am familiar with the Bible. I did not solict your advice on what I should or should not believe. I spoke about my hope for the future of our country with the strong candidates running for our next president. Please step off. What you think you know about all liberals is neither here nor there to me. I am here to discuss politics with liberals. How many times do I need to explain this? Now take your tamborine and move on,
Tolerance is
respectfully disagreeing with another person, not accepting everything a person believes.
I'm so tired of being told that I am intolerant. If you knew the truth about something and someone else was spreading lies, you would correct them. Christians know the Truth and when a false religion tries to spread lies that will ultimately condemn people to h.e.l.l. they do everything they can to combat that.
I've said this before: If you were about to walk out in front of a bus you would want me to stop you. I would be wrong for not at least trying to stop you. Well, you're about to get hit with the proverbial bus!
Zero tolerance for liars
Imagine how it would change the face of politics today if Republicans suddenly had TRUE "zero tolerance" for lying, cheating, stealing, vote fraud, false front groups, media shills, corporate malfeasance, crony capitalism, torture of innocents, war profiteering, oppressive foreign regimes and presidential dissembling.
But nah...instead they seem to have very high tolerance levels for all of the above - hence the claim to "zero tolerance", using their favorite trick of naming a thing the exact opposite of what it really is.
So much for the tolerance of the left. nm
Fundamentalists have no tolerance for anyone but themselves.
And for that reason, should not be running our country. They are simply self-serving right now saying they are doing it for the good of everyone else is a diseased excuse.
If their agenda was righteous they would not have to hide it and pretend it's something else in order to sneak their way into positions of authority. The truth is they know that their values and agendas would not be supported by the vast majority of Americans - so they cheat, scheme, and plot to put one over on us.
Is this the behavior of a moral group who sincerely believe in their gentle Jesus and his teachings? I don't think so.
I think you should take your exclusive agenda back where it belongs - into your churches and homes, and let everyone else keep their religions in their own way. THAT would be the tolerance you seem to value so much, but actually don't seem to understand in the least.
tolerance...........oh brother!!!
Listen, I don't give a rat's butt about all this political PC garbage. Muslim countries hate us..... plain and simple. They so-called "religion" teaches hatred, not love, not tolerance, but pure hatred!! What about that don't you get?
After 9/11 everyone got to PC about profiling. We're worried about profiling? H@ll with that.....I saw profile them to death. If I happen to be on a plane, you better believe I, just like everyone else, was watching them like a hawk. You can be PC about everything if you want, but this is my country, not the Muslims. They have a country. They do not teach tolerance of ANYONE but themselves.
This has nothing to do with intolerance of those different than me. What an idiotic statement. I live in a community with people different than me in so many ways, it would take a while but one thing they all agree on.....they love this country more than they care about being PC. I posted a few days ago about a Muslim couple in our neighborhood. And, they said they would go back to their country any day if they felt safe. They feel no allegiance to this country. They will tell you they do not agree with bin Laden's hatred, but they do admit their sons are taught the Q'ran, which does not teach love of anyone but other Muslims. They fear their daughters could be stoned or raped and they know no one there will protect them. They take comlpete advantage of our schools to educate their children, but there is no allegiance to this country. You need to get off your PC pot because as you can see, that'll get us nowhere real fast!!!
Tolerance, what a joke. Why don't we just tolerate them coming on over here and taking another 9/11 blow at us? Will that be enough tolerance for ya?
Actually, no I don't believe in one-sided tolerance...sm
This particular sign could have easily been displayed away from the creche, I feel, and it wouldn't have bothered me the least to see it.
You see, I also celebrate Winter Solstice, and the earth and the animals.
However, this particular sign seemed to be placed next to the creche to invoke upset from those who celebrate Christ's life and birth.
I like to imagine that perhaps baby Jesus kicked the sign to the ditch myself. He could have if he wanted to.
So, you only believe in one-sided tolerance? (sm)
As in the ditch was well deserved?
Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm
Far left tolerance....(sm)
Ummm, actually we have shown tolerance until we are blue in the face. Let's see, we have tolerated an unjust war (oops, make that 2 wars) for how long? We have tolerated having *in god we trust* on money, a church on every corner, a preacher on most channels, religious signs all over the place, a republican president who doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground, ...... the list is actually quite extensive. However, when it comes to something as simple as expecting equal rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution, we get slammed for just bringing it up. If an athiest sign is put up, it's all over the news (makes for good ratings, as Bill-O will attest to). What isn't all over the news is the daily discrimination dished out by the opposition.
Why don't I just answer my own question from below since noone else seems to be willing to give it a try. People who are against gay marriage say they are sacrificing. The only thing I see as them having to sacrifice is the joy they get from being able to hold a minority under thier collective thumbs.
Abortion - tolerance?
I ask this in the politest way possible and with all due respect. I felt the need to say this after reading the posts below.
Is it possible to be a little more sensitive to those who have undergone an abortion for whatever reason and to be careful on the words being chosen, such as "murder." I'm sure there are some reading these posts who have had an abortion. It can be a very traumatizing thing to go through, which you cannot take back. There are some of us who have become pregnant with very deformed babies that would be extremely difficult to raise, including the possibility of not surviving after birth, where the choice to abort was difficult but a personal decision. I'm not saying it's the right choice. I'm just saying sometimes a woman feels there is no other.
I say this from experience because I had to make that choice, and when I read that people think I'm a murderer and killed my baby, it makes it that much more hard to bear because I will always, always regret it. I know I'm forgiven, but sometimes it's still hard to think---what if.
Just please be sensitive with the words you choose, and know there are those of us out here who have made this choice and regret it and have to live with it for the rest of our lives.
The key word is tolerance....(sm)
not acceptance. I'm not advocating that everyone should accept homosexuality. To accept it would be to agree with it, which would obviously conflict with the personal interests of some. What I am advocating is tolerance. That would include restraining one's self from attacking verbally or physically simply on the basis of sexual orientation.
I think the point of the penguin story is to show that homosexuals are normal people who have feelings, goals, interests, families, etc. --- the moral: they may be homosexuals, but they are still people, no better and no worse than you or me.
Your tolerance is only for those in agreement.nm
nm
So much for tolerance of an opposing viewpoint....
talk the talk, don't walk the walk. Don't understand it, never will. Not trying to educate anyone; however, I am learning a good deal about liberals...and the differences among them. Very interesting indeed.
Have a good day....ignore away. :)
Yeah, and you show SUCH Tolerance, don't you?
Look, the Constitution of these United States says that the government shall have no part in establishing a religion, but it also will not prohibit the free exercise thereof. It is a constitutional right. So far, gay marriage is NOT. YOu want tolerance for gay marriage, fine. Show a little tolerance and less bullsh*t yourself, and someone might actually care about your point of view. :-)
Tolerance is NOT what they're being taught......
What they are doing is pushing crap down the throats of little children, undermining what their parents are teaching them at home. My children were not taught homosexuality is "okay" but neither were they taught to hate others just because they live a lifestyle that is different. There is a huge difference. Public education is paid for by the "taxpayers", not the federal govt, who is allowing this garbage in the first place. Obviously the federal govt forgot where they get their money from as well!!
If tolerance is your ONLY argument, they why aren't they teaching tolerance of the Bible, prolife, etc. THe list could go on and on. We all know what is going on here..... PUSHING A GAY AGENDA in a public school.
Children are sent to school to learn knowledge skills, not how John and Matt like to live together, which in case you don't get it, is morality. The last place I want my children learning morality is at school. They should be taught that at home in the first place. They see enough garbage in school as it is.
Well, there's a healthy dose of liberal tolerance for ya
You know your example was stupid...quoting porn stars. I think you're scraping the bottom of the barrell, and I can tell I hit a nerve..
Just one more example of that TOLERANCE liberals claim to disply...
they are very very tolerant, as long as everyone agrees with them. At least I am openly judgemental.
.Sure, O is Christian. His mother was Christian
his father Muslim. In Indonesia, where O spent 4 years, age 7 to 11, he attended a catholic school and received outside the school Islamic teachings.
When he was 12 his mother took him back to the US into the care of her mother and the rest is history......
Oh, I can beat that. A picture of liberal tolerance and love for the troops. SM
I don't see anything Christian in it, either.
It looks like America is becoming a theocracy. I always thought that freedom of religion was one of the greatest things about America. I'm worried it isn't going to exist in a very short time.
The letter you posted is great! Thanks. 
49 out of 55 were CHRISTIAN
From WikiPedia:
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin. However, notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Ethan Allen.[11]
Although not a religion, Freemasonry was represented in John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney.
Well I am a Christian
and I don't want the lack of morals and judgments in this country forced on me but they are everyday. I can't turn on the t.v., open a magazine, or walk into the mall without seeing sex, violence, drugs, etc.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible or Christ, you cannot argue that this country wouldn't be a better place if people followed the rules and laws that are laid out by Jesus in the new testament.
Christians have been passive far to long in this country. We've sat back while God was pushed out of everything. Well it's high time we stood up and pushed back. Don't tell me the fact that this country has gotten so liberal minded and anti-God and the fact that murders, school shootings, robberies, unwanted pregnancies, drugs, etc have skyrocketed isn't a coincidence.
To christian enough
christian enough for what? You said in one of your posts below that, "I find it especially interesting that black churches cannot be "angry" but white churches are free to do a shout out of the next anti-christ?
Hello? If a black church is preaching hate towards white people, I would call that "angry." If a white church is preaching about the coming of the anti-christ, how is that "angry?" Please tell me. One church is teaching racial hate, the other teaching Bible prophecy. Please tell me what you mean?
I dont know what kind of church you have been to, but it must not have been a good experience. God talks about the need for church in the Bible. We are supposed to worship him, keep the sabbath holy and all of that. You seem very sarcastic when you speak of Christianity. I hope that your sister is praying for you.
You are a Christian?
Judy, I am not being ugly here, but reading this post it sounds like you claim to be a Christian and then I read the ugly statements you posted yesterday and it just floors me.
How can someone who says they vote based on the Bible talk and act that way. That brings shame on the church and its members, which I was taught in my Bible is wrong.
A Christian is supposed to be tolerant of others and not judgmental of others.
As a Christian, it is a lot to me actually...nm
s
How very Christian of you!
Is that what they teach you in Sunday school?
He's just as much a Christian
as Jeremiah Wright is!
A Christian according to you
is 'mentally disturbed', but a gay living a deviant lifestyle is perfectly normal and in the right?! Being gay is a mental disorder in itself. I think you know where you can put your stick, although you'd probably like that.
What lie? He said he's Christian.
him being Muslim, convince yourselves and those voices in your head that he is Muslim and then say he's lying about being Christian.
America is supposed to have freedom of religion. I don't care what his faith is. He's not my pastor. He's my president.
As a Christian..
I don't even like to use the terms homosexual, heterosexual, gay, straight or any other such term to describe a sexual behavior which is what all these are. I'm female myself and my sexual behavior is my business. People would assume that because I'm with a man that I'm "heteroseuxal" and they would be correct. However, I do not describe myself as heterosexual. As a Christian, I believe that's a behavior and not a lifestyle. sex is a behavior, regardless of whether your male, female, or animal. Not all forms of sexual behavior are acceptable. But it is quicker to type out "homosexual" than it is to type out "people who engage in sinful, dysfunctional, disgusting behavior." But I actually choose to not even acknowledge the terms homosexual, heterosexual, gay, straight, etc. as these are simply behaviors, just as you label someone who steals as a thief, someone who sells their body for sex as a prostitute and so on. That is why homosexuals demand "tolerance" but, since the country already tolerates these people, what they really want is "acceptance" and since I can't accept homosexuality as wonderful and good, I in turn cannot accept homosexuals as wonderful and good. Homosexual/homosexuality. They go hand in hand.
As the Christian you say you are...
didn't you ever learn not to judge your fellow man? It is not very Christian to be calling someone "dysfunctional and disgusting." I do believe He taught us to love our fellow man, and I don't think he specifically limited that to the ones we agree with.
As a Christian myself
I don't condone that lifestyle and I'm against same sex marriage. However, I do not see where ones listening to the music of a gay man is showing acceptance of that lifestyle.
Christian beliefs. sm
Then, I suppose my next question would be, why do posters who do not agree with how boards are handled and who do not agree with the political spirit continue to come here? And my second question would be why, with two boards, posters could not have maintained their thoughts to those boards. Objectively, I believe that is why TWO boards were set up. The people you seem to have the biggest problem with made a pact not to come here. They kept that pact. By the way, I see sickness of spirit on both sides. There were occasions on the other board when posters were were wished death and to burn in hell. Would you fight back against that? Personally, I would have left then. Both of these boards are a mess. And it solves nothing to sit here and talk about posters who will no longer be here. Move on.
A christian, hun?? I dont think so
Robertson calls for assassination of Chavez
Televangelist calls Venezuelan president a ‘terrific danger’ to U.S.
OMG, you used the word Christian! SM
Run!!!!! By the way, I totally agree. But they have to give it little names like fetus and things to keep from admitting it is a human being that God has helped create. Whatever floats their boat.
The Christian right isn't political at all. sm
There are many Democrats who belong to the Christian right. I am not sure why you feel politicizing religion is so important, but I realize how important labels are to you. It's unfortunate. Jimmy Carter just recently came out and spoke against the Democratic party for abandoning God. If Christians feel they have to place to turn but the *right*, whose fault is that? Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me. However, he is a good man and a Christian man. As far as calling for an assassination that's bogus and was taken out of context and anyone who cared to do their research would know that. But it's just way more convenient and fits into the left's philosophy to damn him to hell. THERE' s the left for you.
Democrat plus Christian
I resent you stating that Democrats are trying to get Christians mad. Do you not believe that there are Democrats that are Christians? I was born in a Christian Democrat family, all my relatives are Christian Democrats. If you are a Christian does not mean you have to automatically be Republican. This is a falsehood that actually I have only seen happening in the last 10 years or so. Believe me, there are plenty liberal Christian Democrats out there that are quite tired of Republicans giving the impression they are the only true Christians.
Ok here is a better example...my father is Christian
x
|
