I thought it was a fair point. Although you may not agree with Gingrich, you can't deny that it's typically causes supported by the left that are discussed, and very rarely are conservative issues asked about (unless it's how many more countries and people you want to bomb.)

what Adamm? it was in the news plenty at the time.

once again Newt is prince of cherry picking his facts. Gnopers don't care because they don't know and don't care what a fact is. liar liar pants on fire. freaks.

"Why did Catholic Charities get out of the child adoption services in MA? That's right. Catholic Charities (in Massachusetts) has chosen to get out of the child adoption services, entirely! It will no longer handle gay (parent) adoptions of children in Massachusetts. It will no longer handle heterosexual (parent) adoptions of children in Massachusetts.

"Why? Because it painted itself into a legal corner in which it could not get out of . . . unless it removed itself entirely from Massachusetts child adoption services.

"Well, what happened?

"Massachusetts has a law on its books that does not allow discrimination against gays who want to adopt children. The Roman Catholic Church through its Catholic Charities in Massachusetts suddenly -- after an edict from Rome -- refused to handle cases of gay parents seeking adoption of children. The Board of Directors of Catholic Charities had a revolt. Many Board members quit instead of being a part of discrimination against gays. Those Board members claimed that Catholic Charities would not be serving the best interests of the children if it discriminated against gays who sought adoption.

"Thereafter, Catholic Charities seemed to seek out Governor Romney for an executive order go-around that would allow Catholic Charities to discriminate against gays seeking child adoptions. No can do under Massachusetts law. Catholic Charities then sought legislative help for a go-around to the anti-discrimination laws in Massachusetts. Again, Catholic Charities hit a brick wall because the Massachusetts state legislature refused.

"Then reality hit the fan. Uuummmm, the wallet, that is. Oops.

"Catholic Charities suddenly realized that if it discriminated in its adoption services, claiming and seeking a "religious freedom" exception to the Massachusetts law, then Catholic Charities would lose money. Lots of money. Yes, United Way could not contribute to Boston Catholic Charities (as it did last year with a gift of $1.2 million) if Catholic Charities discriminated against gays seeking to adopt children. Catholic Charities would also be placing private charitable contributions in doubt as well. The Boston Globe reports that "Catholic Charities relies heavily on private contributions from corporations, foundations, and individual donors. In the last fiscal year, it received $6.6 million -- or 24 percent of its total revenue -- from these private sources."

"So, if Catholic Charities is set to lose millions in annual contributions if it discriminates against gays seeking to adopt children in Massachusetts, what happens next? Of course, Catholic Charities then puts a band-aid upon the entire matter by backing out of the adoption of children services entirely!! It figures that if its out of the adoption services business entirely, then it isn't discriminating, correct? Indeed."

the Catholic Church was not "FORCED" out of anything. and previously were handling gay (parent) adoption; they made a choice, an edict from Rome, to stop. fine, stop. but to continue and thus to discriminate, public fund flow will stop by law. you see, we have values in this country! do what you want on your own dollar.

I was just referring to the debates, not media in general.

I don't know why we even discuss these threads since we all know now that the MSM are biased to the hilt along with an anti-Christian bias.

Another dog chasing its tail

we have values in this country!

#4 | Posted by ichiro at 2012-01-08 10:16 AM | Reply

Translation:
They're relative---only when they fit our agenda

public fund flow will stop by law. you see,--- do what you want on your own dollar.

#4 | Posted by ichiro at 2012-01-08 10:16 AM | Reply

And pray tell; where do those "public funds" come from?

They are closing down the Catholic hospitals in Illinois too.

We do have freedom of religion in this country.

It's really sad to be pitting religion against gays who want to adopt or marry.

Watch for gays to file suits --in states with gay marriage --against churches for not marrying them.

They already do this against businesses--bakery, planners--they get sued or boycotted.

It's a legitimate issue--when there are groups pitted against each other.

The same thing happens between enviromental and the work force. Otherwise known as the greens against the browns.

We do have freedom of religion in this country.

#10 | Posted by MURPHY at 2012-01-08 12:33 PM | Reply

It's fast eroding. The irony is that colonists fled in part to this country for freedom of religion away from a state sponsored religion. This country is now moving to a perverted sense of church/state separation that is completely anathema to the very situation to which the colonists fled from. You're moving to a "secular"(state) religion that is attempting to force its' will on religions in this country that is very similar to the situation the colonists fled from.

The irony is that colonists fled in part to this country for freedom of religion away from a state sponsored religion.
......so the freedom they were seeking was freedom from religion......

You're moving to a "secular"(state) religion that is attempting to force its' will on religions in this country that is very similar to the situation the colonists fled from.
#11 | Posted by matsop
........no........we are just asking the religious people to put their bible/koran/torah inspired discriminatory behavior away........

When it's christers (lower case ... they have nothing to do with Jesus) pitted against common decency, concern for dignity and human rights, I know which side I come down on. herm

answer to sNoot: the state of MA didn't change, the church did. everything was fine, adoptions for all parents happened under Catholic Charities, until the church made an internal "private" decision. the state did not change the church did. no laws changed.

sNoot's fear tactics won't work. his time is up, he'll be gone very soon.

I can't believe that gay rights is on the agenda for questions and it is even more amazing the candidates don't squash the people who ask such questions.

Ron Paul was great this morning in the debate, it is nice to hear someone who actually understands.

public fund flow will stop by law. you see,--- do what you want on your own dollar.
#4 | Posted by ichiro at 2012-01-08 10:16 AM | Reply
And pray tell; where do those "public funds" come from?
#9 | POSTED BY MATSOP

look it up, it was covered in the news plenty... under: follow the money.

"This country is now moving to a perverted sense of church/state separation that is completely anathema to the very situation to which the colonists fled from."

That is so ridiculous and over the top, not to mention completely untrue that it is quite hilarious. Nothing is funnier to me than a religionist trying so desperately to make Christians victims here in the US.

Believe the term Gingrich used was "secular bigotry".

Spud's head did a pretty good Linda Blair impersonation upon hearing that one.

Because calling out people on their bigotry is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as being a bigot, presumably.

Hell, these *are* the same morans who think that noticing evidence of racism within their party (past and present) is clear evidence that them ebil Libs are the Real Racists (TM).

Santorum was the best, though, in terms of unintentional lulz-fueled obliviousness.

Actually came right out and stated that his intent was to overturn Roe v. Wade, Reinstate DADT and make an amendment making gays second class citizens and then, without even stopping for breath, declaring how hurt he was that the left had "declared war on religion".

Seriously, that level of self delusion is incredible to observe.

Little sad too.

Spud to Santorum:

If you go to war against an entire class of people you don't get to whine when they and their allies start fighting back.

Capiche, Frothmeister?

Be Well.

I don't know why we even discuss these threads since we all know now that the MSM are biased to the hilt along with an anti-Christian bias.

The Christian persecution complex is one of the most pathetic things in our society IMO.

In a way though I sort of agree with Newt (*shiver*).

I think it goes too far to expect the church, a private institution, to change its ways to accommodate something they don't agree with. If the Catholic church doesn't want to marry two men or two women, so be it.

The law, however, is a different matter. There should be a way by which same sex couples receive the same legal rights and benefits as hetero couples.

So I do think it's valid to talk about how far the church should be forced to accommodate something they don't agree with (although in far less inflammatory terms than Newt uses) and I do think that this isn't addressed.

(I know I know the obvious rebuttal is should the church be allowed to exclude based on race. I don't have an answer for that so don't bother bringing it up)

"This country is now moving to a perverted sense of church/state separation that is completely anathema to the very situation to which the colonists fled from."

That is so ridiculous and over the top, not to mention completely untrue that it is quite hilarious. Nothing is funnier to me than a religionist trying so desperately to make Christians victims here in the US.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-08 05:03 PM | Reply

Danni would fit in well with the old feudal system and not with the tough folks who first came to America. If she would study her history, she would realize that people like the pilgrims fled England to escape "religious persecution" due to a state religion that essentially told you how you may worship or not. That is essentially what our constitution was based on; to avoid an established state religion, not the perversion of the evolution of what we call church/state separation today. But I wouldn't expect a small mind like Danni to understand something as basic as history.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2012-01-08 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

In a way though I sort of agree with Newt (*shiver*).

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2012-01-08 05:40 PM | Reply

JPW, on the one hand you negate the "Christian persecution complex" and then you give credence (in a back-handed way) to what Newt said. You might say this is a form of "persecution" when you begin to take the inalienable rights (present for decades) away from a group. Newt was "spot on". At least I give you credit for thinking through what he said instead of just off-handedly not considering it based on the source. On the other hand, Danni's mind is so locked in a box that it'll never see the light of day even if truth hit it with a 2x4. When truth is revealed often, like the first glimmer of light, it takes time for many to actually consider it and then look at what is happening around them for verification of that truth. I wish the cameras had revealed the faces of the panel since they knew exactly what he was inferring.

"the "Christian persecution complex"

Yes.

The irony is that colonists fled in part to this country for freedom of religion away from a state sponsored religion.
......so the freedom they were seeking was freedom from religion......

#12 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-08 01:22 PM | Reply |

Now you're beginning to get it. The last time I looked, religion isn't monolithic in the US today. The freedom of religion they were seeking was freedom from a religion imposed on them by the state---what and how they were to worship.

"the "Christian persecution complex"

Yes.

[snark] Nothing sadder than the persecution of eighty-three percent of Americans.

And that's "spot on." [/snark]

#23 | Posted by Hans at 2012-01-08 09:33 PM | Reply

First of all, Hans, try to get your facts right. The last poll in 2008 classified 76% of Americans as being Christian (snark). Now, if you take those that said they believe in God and yet aren't involved in an active "Christian life" your numbers of "Christians" would drop precipitously.

Now for the definition of persecution---"systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group". Now for your education---it doesn't have to be physical mistreatment which you may think in your feeble mind. What Gingrich was referencing since it had to do with the MSM was persecution. It is well known that the MSM has been biased with an agenda for years. When we used to live in a perfect world, it was felt that the media should be fair and balanced but through the years, we've learned that's not the case. The MSM has a bias that has been uncovered over time and when it pushes that bias against Christians, it's a form of "persecution", the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. But I don't expect your feeble mind to grasp nuances like that. Snark.

"The last poll in 2008 classified 76% of Americans as being Christian..."

[snark] Nothing sadder than the persecution of 76% of Americans.

And that's "spot on." [/snark]

"what and how they were to worship."

So does that mean I can start putting up FSM statues all over public land, provided I pay for the upkeep?

So does that mean I can start putting up FSM statues all over public land, provided I pay for the upkeep?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-08 10:04 PM | Reply |

So, Dan, since it's getting late; I'll bite. What does the acronym FSM stand for?

"FSM"

Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Many bow down to His Noodly Goodness.

Ramen.

I wouldn't call it bigotry necessarily but it was clearly meant to dominate too much of the time of the debate. Some of it was inserted the media choose to insert to make all of them lok bad or at least the ones the hit with the questions.

Huntsman didn't care for it either by pointing out how much time was devoted to contraception. He was right. 15 minutes? Only santorum brought that stupid fucking issue up in the first place.

"FSM"

Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Many bow down to His Noodly Goodness.

Ramen.

Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-08 10:35 PM | Reply

The Flying Risotto Monster lives!!

"The Flying Risotto Monster lives!"

One of the Wholly Wheat Appendages?

Only santorum brought that stupid fucking issue up in the first place.

#30 | Posted by eberly

If I remember--Gregory asked the question to Romney which he thought was a goofy question--since no state was doing this--outlawing contraception. It was a nonsense question.

Then Gregory got to go to Santorum--which was his only target to begin with.

But that's what you get when liberals are running the debate for the GOP.

When Fox has another debate--check the difference in substance and topics. It's heads above MSLSD.

JPW, on the one hand you negate the "Christian persecution complex" and then you give credence (in a back-handed way) to what Newt said. You might say this is a form of "persecution" when you begin to take the inalienable rights (present for decades) away from a group.

Well first of all, in this case nothing has been taken from the Catholic church as of yet. Unless I missed it where the church must marry gays now?

At least I give you credit for thinking through what he said instead of just off-handedly not considering it based on the source.

Believe it or not I do that all the time, it's just the norm that the source will give a good indication of whether I'll agree or not (particularly someone as rigid and constantly quoted as a politician)

When Fox has another debate--check the difference in substance and topics. It's heads above MSLSD.

This is what Murphy really beleives.

Be Well.

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

your problem Matsop is that you don't recognize, understand and accept, or react appropriately to the fact that your type of Christian brought what you perceive as persecution upon yourselves. in fact you relish it and have continued to roll in it more and more as your particular numbers dwindle and power is shifted into the hands of those you would subjugate and those you have succeeded in punishing and persecuting both personally and by law... you wrap yourself in the flag of our nation and wish to dictate by police enforcement your interpretation of our Constitution.

take the historical blinders off, learn to live in peace and in the joy of forgiveness. stop regressing. it's over, that kind of strife, hurt and pain, domestically, is ending. your climax is well past, and will not return.

#36... now if you would just insert who is who in today's terms... then contrast the desire to "save souls" with "freedom and liberty." rinse and repeat until you feel clean and new.

#37 | Posted by ichiro at 2012-01-09 04:13 AM | Reply

So, Ichiro, my problem? It's pretty obvious you don't have a clue to what "my problem" is. You state a paragraph of generalities without specifics---I would love some specifics so as to systematically (gently, I might add) take apart the foundations of your preconceived thought patterns without supporting documentations. By the way, always enjoyed listening to MLK although some of it was always a little hyperbolic and over the top. But you get that often from individuals that orate beautiful themes that innately soothe the troubled minds and hearts.

your problem Matsop is that you don't recognize, understand and accept, or react appropriately to the fact that your type of Christian brought what you perceive as persecution upon yourselves.

#37 | Posted by ichiro at 2012-01-09 04:13 AM | Reply

Ichiro, just to solidify my position in post #39, I might add that your "problem" seems to be taking a position based on perception and not fact. You talk about my "type of Christian" when you don't have a clue to what I believe. Also, I don't feel "persecuted" whatsoever. What I have been able to see very clearly over time (it's a gift which I'll assume you'll never have) is when an individual, group, or institution has a bias or agenda of being intolerant of another group (and not what you've been programed to believe). And I might add it occurs in every movement, political persuasion, ethnic group, race, etc. And so, I guess you might look inward and consider what your "problem" is since as you move along in life you might be much more open-minded and tolerant of looking past your rigid thought processes to consider nascent thoughts outside the mainstream of propaganda. I'll be "praying" for you.

23 | Posted by Hans at 2012-01-08 09:33 PM | Reply

First of all, Hans, try to get your facts right ..
#25 | Posted by matsop

~ debating or rationalizing is of NO USE, as their "reality" is theoretical and imaginary, and THEY are the only ones smart enough to understand it

#36... now if you would just insert who is who in today's terms...

#38 | Posted by ichiro at 2012-01-09 04:29 AM | Reply

Some things never change and the paragraph posted by soulfly is as relevant today as it was when it was written as it was in the middle ages as it was in time-past, as it will be in the future. It's just that Ichiro would like it to be "different" in the current environment. But that's an area that society will never advance in and that's man's basic selfishness or as some intellectually inferiors would refer to as "immorality" or "sins". Every era has seen the "modern man" (example:Ichiro) think that "this time it's different" and we're "smarter" then previous times and generations. A perfect example would be how we look down on those encumbered with the "great depression" and that it would never happen again since we're "smarter" then that. We're so advanced now and know so much more then those "dolts" back in that time. The problem (a word I inherited from Ichiro) is that the morals of man don't ever change over time. That's one area man will never advance in.

Matsop, yawn & thx for the treatise, but u must b delirious ..

#41 | Posted by L_E_Light at 2012-01-09 06:54 AM | Reply

You're welcome. I'm not quite delirious; I just have time on my hands---when I'm bored, I come to the DR for my "filler", especially when I wake early at 5 am.

#43 lol, I suspected that ..
my comment was more a poke at Hans groupies, as more seem to be awakening their critical thinking skills ..
hence, the panic expressed by progressives as their theoretical world slips away and the "stupid masses" bid adios ..

Watch for gays to file suits --in states with gay marriage --against churches for not marrying them.

Anybody can file a suit, but in general the advocates of gay marriage don't care about churches refusing to perform the ceremonies. They care about the secular institution of marriage and getting those rights from the state.

Watch for gays to file suits --in states with gay marriage --against churches for not marrying them.

Get back to us when that actually does happen.

I can't believe they even brought the issue up about gay rights...LOL!

The issue will be mute come running against obama and the issue will not be solved by just one candidate.

#1 | POSTED BY ADAMMM
"I thought it was a fair point."

Not if his point was "anti-Christian bigotry".