"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

[Socrtease]

Nah, my lips didn't move, was that supposed to indicate something?

I already said, it COULD mean someone has a racist viewpoint, and they COULD be using religion as a cover for it. BUT, someone could also enter into an actual interracial marriage as a cover for their racist views. So we see, these are two entirely separate viewpoints, and you have merely lumped them together because you are bigoted in your view. You arrogantly assume you know what people's motives and reasons are for how they feel, and that is not the case, you simply don't know or understand how everyone feels or views an issue like this. Or any issue, for that matter!

I even gave you an example of this earlier, using an issue near and dear to your heart... abortion! If someone opposes abortion, does it mean they hate women? If someone allows abortion, does it mean they are Atheist? Wouldn't that be me applying a stereotype and and bigoted view to what someone's motivations might be? This is the point I have been standing up for through 8 pages of nonsense. You can't automatically say, because someone is opposed to interracial marriage, it means they are racist. It simply doesn't mean that! It COULD mean that... or it COULD mean they believe they are following a mandate from their God, which they have the full right to do.

For the highlighted part of the second paragraph I agree with you, but no, one CANNOT EVER believe that god forbids interracial marriage and NOT be a racist. Not possible. It is devinely inspired racism but racism nonetheless.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

For the highlighted part of the second paragraph I agree with you, but no, one CANNOT EVER believe that god forbids interracial marriage and NOT be a racist. Not possible. It is devinely inspired racism but racism nonetheless.

Yes, some people DO believe that God doesn't want races to 'intermingle' or mix. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a particular race being favored, or raised above another, or lowered beneath another. The root reasoning from religious perspectives for God's intentions, is to prevent collectivism. [DISCLAIMER: Please do not interpret this as an endorsement of this viewpoint in any way.]


Now all I have done, is to say.... some people believe this from a 'religious' perspective which does not necessarily make them racist in their views. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another, believing God wants us to live a certain way, is a completely different thing. They are NOT one in the same! One is not automatically synonymous with the other.

What has happened is, you have misinterpreted what "racism" is, or you aren't comprehending how it doesn't apply in this instance. God doesn't compel his believers to oppose interracial marriage because whites are superior to blacks! The basis for this belief is not rooted in a "racist" philosophy! If you want to SAY it's racist, you do so without any relevant basis for that statement, and without anything to support that view, except for 'political correctness'. No one has YET made the case for how a religious view as I described, is even remotely associated with racist philosophy. You just want to BRAND it racist, claim it doesn't require you to prove it is racist, and insist that everyone views it as such. Sorry.... I need the proof!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dixie, all this verbage and you've not convineced one single person, not even your fellow conservatives, that a religious basis for opposing interracial marriage is not racist. It is. That plain and simple. You're rationalizing.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Strange ideas? Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is exactly that. Do wahtever you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Like gay marriage. How does two gays marrying interfere in anyone's life except the life of a busy-body?

Abortion. Whose ass is on the table, literally?

It's typically the Cons who, for some unknown reason, like to stick their noses in other people's pants. That's what I find strange....well, especially with people they don't know intimately.

PMP is demonstrating a characteristic found all to often on the far right. Freedom and liberty are just words to them. There all for Freedom and Liberty, that is, until someone actually pracitices them. Then hear them howl!

 

[apple0154]

again, the purpose of the Constitution is not to protect the child from his parents, it is to protect the child from the government......is this somehow unclear to you?.....

yes, strange....you keep talking about children and parental control......the Constitution has nothing to do with in loco parentis.....

It is to protect everyone from everyone else. For example, abortion. There is no law forbidding all abortions but there are people trying to prevent others having that liberty. The government is protecting everyone's freedom to choose, thus, we have crackpots being arrested for trying to prevent others exercising their right to liberty and happiness.

Again, the Constitution protects everyone from everyone else whether it's the government or some religious whacko or, as is often the case, people who identify themselves as Conservative.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The government is protecting everyone's freedom to choose

no they aren't.....they are doing nothing to protect the child's freedom to choose....

Again, the Constitution protects everyone from everyone else whether it's the government or some religious whacko or, as is often the case, people who identify themselves as Conservative.

somebody needs to protect them from the bloodthirsty woman trying to kill them......

 

[blackascoal]

Yes, some people DO believe that God doesn't want races to 'intermingle' or mix. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a particular race being favored, or raised above another, or lowered beneath another. The root reasoning from religious perspectives for God's intentions, is to prevent collectivism. [DISCLAIMER: Please do not interpret this as an endorsement of this viewpoint in any way.]


Now all I have done, is to say.... some people believe this from a 'religious' perspective which does not necessarily make them racist in their views. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another, believing God wants us to live a certain way, is a completely different thing. They are NOT one in the same! One is not automatically synonymous with the other.

What has happened is, you have misinterpreted what "racism" is, or you aren't comprehending how it doesn't apply in this instance. God doesn't compel his believers to oppose interracial marriage because whites are superior to blacks! The basis for this belief is not rooted in a "racist" philosophy! If you want to SAY it's racist, you do so without any relevant basis for that statement, and without anything to support that view, except for 'political correctness'. No one has YET made the case for how a religious view as I described, is even remotely associated with racist philosophy. You just want to BRAND it racist, claim it doesn't require you to prove it is racist, and insist that everyone views it as such. Sorry.... I need the proof!

Question: Doesn't God know that all humans are genetically African .. thus most humans are mixed?

Is this a secret we're keeping from God?

 

[Cypress]

Well, I'll take a stab at the biblical precept about marriage. In the OT it was forbidden to marry outside of the faith, not race. If a woman became a Jew she could marry a Jew of birth regardless of her ethnicity. The key being she had to become a Jew. The same goes for the NT....

Wasn't there some mandate from God following the destruction of the Tower of Babel? I know this is supposedly when God cast men to "the four corners" and gave them different "tongues" and I thought there was something about not mixing races from that.

In any event, I am not a Bible scholar, so I am inadequate to debate the issue on a theocratic level,............

Dixie, you spent like three years arguing with absolute certitude that the bible could be interpreted to forbid the inter mixing of races.


And NOW you admit you might have been wrong about that this whole time????

Dude, I would still like to know how you came to believe, with a fair amount of expertise, why and how the bible forbade racial mixing? Who even comes up with that? And why were you so acquainted and expert in this - apparently now bogus - argument?

Its clear you pick up these nutjob (and by your own admission today) FALSE bullshit racist argument because you must read neoconfederate crap web sites and literature, or you surround yourself with people who cling to this racist crap. There is no other plausible explanation.

 

[apple0154]

no they aren't.....they are doing nothing to protect the child's freedom to choose....

somebody needs to protect them from the bloodthirsty woman trying to kill them......

There is no person until one is born.

When a baby is born in the US it is considered a US citizen or has the right to decide if they want to be a US citizen when they reach legal age. That is one of the reasons women nearing delivery try to enter the US and one of the reasons why the government tries to prevent that.

Now, if we are to assume there is a baby at the moment of conception.....well, do the math as they say. Maybe the US government can restrict the sexual activities of all foreign visitors? Not sure how that can be accomplished but maybe you have some idea?

There is no human being until there is a birth. Those who claim otherwise have not thought the ramifications through. For example, if a zygote/embryo/fetus is classified as a human being then the government would have the right to prevent pregnant women from doing all sorts of things. Like skiing, for example. No one would consider strapping a baby on their back and going down a ski hill so why should a pregnant woman be allowed to ski with a baby in her uterus? Or go hiking/mountain climbing? Or any activity that may cause injury?

Why should she be allowed one drink? Or allowed in any home where people smoke? And what food is she eating? And if there is a miscarriage are we to expect a full investigation? And if the woman in question has two or three miscarriages should she be prevented from getting pregnant in the future or do we allow her to continue to create/form/develop a human being knowing her defective body will result in it's death?

Maybe people should concentrate on the myriad questions such an idea poses. This is not the past where people simply follow laws like sheep. They demand logic. They demand answers to all the questions that would arise. Logical answers.

We can all be thankful for the freedom revolution of the 60s. Today, people demand answers. Logical answers and the problem is there are no logical answers to declaring a zygote/embryo/fetus a human being. None at all.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

There is no person until one is born.

simply because of operation of law.....there is no significant scientific difference between a fetus one hour before birth and a birthed child one hour after.....

There is no human being until there is a birth.

???....really?....is it a chicken?.....a horse?......I'm sorry but a DNA test would clearly show it to be a human being....

Those who claim otherwise have not thought the ramifications through. For example, if a zygote/embryo/fetus is classified as a human being then the government would have the right to prevent pregnant women from doing all sorts of things. Like skiing, for example. No one would consider strapping a baby on their back and going down a ski hill so why should a pregnant woman be allowed to ski with a baby in her uterus? Or go hiking/mountain climbing? Or any activity that may cause injury?

...so we need to let women kill their children to prevent the government from keeping them from skiing?.....fascinating.....

Maybe people should concentrate on the myriad questions such an idea poses. This is not the past where people simply follow laws like sheep.

of course it is....you're willing to let women kill their children because you are willing to follow a law like a sheep.....

They demand logic. They demand answers to all the questions that would arise. Logical answers.

fine, answer me this one.....what logical basis is there for denying an 8 month 29 day old fetus the same rights as a one day old birthed child......

We can all be thankful for the freedom revolution of the 60s.

not if you're one of the unborn.....

 

[Damocles]

Question: Doesn't God know that all humans are genetically African .. thus most humans are mixed?

Is this a secret we're keeping from God?

Thus none are "mixed".

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is no person until one is born.

What if we say....... You are not actually a "person" unless you vote Republican? You okay with that, if we decide this should be the criteria? Oh well, it doesn't matter if you're okay with it, we aren't going to give your voice any say in the matter, because you aren't a person! Constitutional rights? Pft... those are also for persons, not for you, because we've defined you as not being a person. Pretty neat huh?

Regardless of what you want to claim an unborn fetus isn't, you can't deny biology, which says an unborn fetus is a human being. A living male or female human being, with distinct and unique human DNA, with it's own fingerprints, brain, heart, blood, etc. Because you have incorrectly defined it as a "non-person" doesn't mean much, except that it gives you the justification you need to kill it. That's how I see it.

Three questions:
1. If it is not human, what kind of life form is it?
2. If it's not alive, why does it need to be 'terminated'?
3. If it is human life, why are we debating it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, you spent like three years arguing with absolute certitude that the bible could be interpreted to forbid the inter mixing of races.


And NOW you admit you might have been wrong about that this whole time????

Dude, I would still like to know how you came to believe, with a fair amount of expertise, why and how the bible forbade racial mixing? Who even comes up with that? And why were you so acquainted and expert in this - apparently now bogus - argument?

Its clear you pick up these nutjob (and by your own admission today) FALSE bullshit racist argument because you must read neoconfederate crap web sites and literature, or you surround yourself with people who cling to this racist crap. There is no other plausible explanation.

Prissy, I guess you can't get through the day without lying and distorting something I've said. I'm sorry you are inflicted with such a mental disorder.

I am a Spiritualist, not a Christian. I have read parts of the Bible, and I have had many deep conversations with Christians about the Bible and their faith. I have gone out of my way in this thread, several times, to point out this is NOT MY VIEW, and I am only arguing what IS and ISN'T racism. Still, people like you and BAC want to read shit I haven't posted, and claim I've said shit I never said. Why? Because you are retarded and can't debate the actual issue.


I did a little research, and I find this in Genesis 11:

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Now I realize many of you can't actually read that text without bursting into flames, so I will summarize... Men became too smart and wise, and God cast them abroad and gave them different languages.

Many fundamentally religious people take this scripture seriously, and they feel that God punished man by dividing us up into different 'races' and languages. Therefore, it would be against the will of God for us to "undo" what God did! This is the religious basis for opposition to interracial marriage. It doesn't have the first thing to do with racial superiority, inferiority, or anything else which can be defined as racism. It is the belief that they are following God's will, and has nothing to do with how they feel about race!

Is this sinking in with anyone here, or am I wasting my time? This is not MY personal viewpoint, because I think the Bible later rectifies this through the teachings of Jesus. But this IS the religious belief of many, and why they are opposed to interracial marriage. The argument is, can you be opposed to interracial marriage and NOT be racist, and I think this proves you CAN!

 

[ib1yysguy]

Prissy, I guess you can't get through the day without lying and distorting something I've said. I'm sorry you are inflicted with such a mental disorder.

I am a Spiritualist, not a Christian. I have read parts of the Bible, and I have had many deep conversations with Christians about the Bible and their faith. I have gone out of my way in this thread, several times, to point out this is NOT MY VIEW, and I am only arguing what IS and ISN'T racism. Still, people like you and BAC want to read shit I haven't posted, and claim I've said shit I never said. Why? Because you are retarded and can't debate the actual issue.


I did a little research, and I find this in Genesis 11:

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Now I realize many of you can't actually read that text without bursting into flames, so I will summarize... Men became too smart and wise, and God cast them abroad and gave them different languages.

Many fundamentally religious people take this scripture seriously, and they feel that God punished man by dividing us up into different 'races' and languages. Therefore, it would be against the will of God for us to "undo" what God did! This is the religious basis for opposition to interracial marriage. It doesn't have the first thing to do with racial superiority, inferiority, or anything else which can be defined as racism. It is the belief that they are following God's will, and has nothing to do with how they feel about race!

Is this sinking in with anyone here, or am I wasting my time? This is not MY personal viewpoint, because I think the Bible later rectifies this through the teachings of Jesus. But this IS the religious belief of many, and why they are opposed to interracial marriage. The argument is, can you be opposed to interracial marriage and NOT be racist, and I think this proves you CAN!

Only if you're spinning so fast you fall away from the meaning of the word "racism."

The dictionary, since that is the standard you have chosen, doesn't require the absolute superiority of any race to be part of a doctrine in order for the definition of racism to be met. Being against interracial marriage certainly does meet the definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Only if you're spinning so fast you fall away from the meaning of the word "racism."

The dictionary, since that is the standard you have chosen, doesn't require the absolute superiority of any race to be part of a doctrine in order for the definition of racism to be met. Being against interracial marriage certainly does meet the definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

rac⋅ism
  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
Use racism in a Sentence
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

There is nothing inherent in the religious beliefs I posted, which differentiates among races to determine achievement, or promote superiority in any way. There is nothing in the religious belief that promotes hate or intolerance for another race. By every aspect of the definition for racism, the connection is not made with what religious people believe is the will of their God.

Being against interracial marriage because you believe whites are superior to blacks and shouldn't mix blood with them... THAT is racist. THAT would be a racist viewpoint. Being against interracial marriage because you believe blacks are inferior to whites, and you wish to keep the white race pure... THAT is a racist viewpoint, and THAT is racist. But believing religiously, that God separated the people and bestowed race upon us, and gave us different languages so we couldn't communicate, because that was God's will for how mankind should live... that is following your understanding of God's word, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with racial equity.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Now segregation isn't racism either. This is really good stuff.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Now segregation isn't racism either. This is really good stuff.

Let us be clear and honest. These are NOT MY VIEWS! I am not speaking from the viewpoint that these beliefs are valid or correct, just that they are not inherently racist. You have consistently failed to prove they are! Now we can argue over whether God is real, or whether he created the races and whether he intended for them to intermarry, those are all valid theocratic arguments, and I will not attempt to contest any opposing theocratic view, because I don't personally agree that God forbids interracial marriage. But there are people who DO believe this, and it doesn't stem from a "racist" view at all. It is purely religious, it is an interpretation some people have gotten from the Bible, and the basis has nothing to do with racial supremacy or inferiority. Nothing about this belief is "racist" at all, it is merely following what is believed to be the will of the God they worship. That is my only point and argument here, don't read more into it than I have articulated.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Interestingly enough, the 'religious' aspect is actually contradictory to a racist viewpoint, as we see by these two comparative examples:

From the definition of racism:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement

From God:
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

So we see here, God was NOT a racist. He most certainly didn't believe race determined achievement, in fact... it was just the opposite! He bestowed race upon mankind to PREVENT human achievement.

 

[ib1yysguy]

And the Lord instituted segregation. And it was good. And the lord proclaimed it was not racist, yay. And it was good.

Then the Lord commandith that races shall not mix, and proclaimed it was not racist. And it was good.

 

[LadyT]

Dixie, you must dizzy by now. All that spinning can't be good for you.

So, Dixie do you also think its valid that people kill homosexuals or nonbelievers believers because they are based in their religion? Or do you just arbitrarily pick racist interpretations to support?