Sarah Palin's membership in an odd religious sect shouldn't matter in regards to whether or not she is fit to hold public office....


... BUT...

...since the ever so saintly RightWing has chosen to make a huge issue of a candidate's religious belief, I think it only fair that they --along with the media-- begin to take a look into the workings of the superstitionist sect (and the particular church) that Palin belongs to and was brought up in.

Check out the video at-- http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/1526804.html .....and see how delusional the leaders of her church are.

They are convinced that their invisible Friend In the Sky is "invading" Alaska and that Wasilla is the "key to God's plans for the entire world".

Scary.

It is scary.

Sarah Palin's membership in an odd religious sect shouldn't matter in regards to whether or not she is fit to hold public office....


... BUT...

...since the ever so saintly RightWing has chosen to make a huge issue of a candidate's religious belief, I think it only fair that they --along with the media-- begin to take a look into the workings of the superstitionist sect (and the particular church) that Palin belongs to and was brought up in.

Check out the video at-- http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/1526804.html .....and see how delusional the leaders of her church are.

They are convinced that their invisible Friend In the Sky is "invading" Alaska and that Wasilla is the "key to God's plans for the entire world".

Scary.
Smells like a cult to me too.

Don'tcha wonder sometimes what is wrong with people that elect really strange or the corrupt to office?
Or why in some cases they do it over and over again..IE...Bush, Lieberman, Ted Stevens and now this 'fundie twit' went from mayor to governor.
There are way too many dumbasses out there.

Oh now Palin is in a cult. next thing we will hear is they make their daughters have babies so they can sacrafice them to the oil gods.

I'll accept that premise if you accept that Barack Obama was a member of a racist church for 20 years.

LOL, ya. That is a good idea. Wont happen, but may make them STFU a bit.

I'll accept that premise if you accept that Barack Obama was a member of a racist church for 20 years.

Why not just try to decide for yourself based on the available evidence?

I'll accept that premise if you accept that Barack Obama was a member of a racist church for 20 years.

Okay.

I'll accept it. I'm not voting for him either.

I can understand black people having racist feelings, or feelings of anger toward those who enslaved their ancestors.

It's when these loons profess to steadfastly believe in superstitious bunkum like "talking in tongues" and "faith healing" and all the other Benny Hinn (a leading 'Assemblies of God' minister) type shit that I do not want them in government.........or anywhere near it for that matter.

I think we should be educated enough to not have revenge racism, which is alive and well in America today.

It's amazing how black people are "allowed" to be weary of whites because they were abused by them at certain points in history, but yet America is not allowed to be weary of middle-eastern men who have abused the freedoms in America for a suicidal murderous opportunity.

Why not just try to decide for yourself based on the available evidence?
Touche'.

It's when these loons profess to steadfastly believe in superstitious bunkum like "talking in tongues" and "faith healing" and all the other Benny Hinn (a leading 'Assemblies of God' minister) type shit that I do not want them in government.........or anywhere near it for that matter.
I agree. They scare me, too.

If Palin is forcing that stuff into her governmental platform.. I am against it.

Something tells me FT is running on an assumption or biased prediction though. Scaring people into thinking Palin is the female Pat Robertson.

Scaring people into thinking Palin is the female Pat Robertson.
Any self-ascribed "Christian" is Pat Robertson to FT.

Anyone who has ever muttered a prayer is Pat Robertson to FT.

I can understand black people having racist feelings, or feelings of anger toward those who enslaved their ancestors.
I can too. However, all those guys are dead now.

A succinct point, Havok.

A succinct point, Havok.

It is a very poor *point* in my opinion.

The actual individuals who enslaved the blacks are dead. Right. But their descendants are alive and well and still seething with hatred for people with a certain color of skin.

Every mouth breathing Southerner (and there are millions of them in this country, of that I can assure you) who, to this very day, denigrates blacks and reviles them and who hates them for no good reason except the color of their skin perpetuates the centuries long legacy of black people being treated unfairly, being discriminated against, being treated as less than human.

I can truly understand the animosity blacks still have for the white race. By your comments, I see that you are incapable of understanding it.

Well, I've given Sarah Palin a chance.

She is a bitch.

She mocked Obama and everything he has done his entire life.

The entire Republican Party mocked Obama.

They belittled Obama.

They took sarcasm to an entire new level.

She's a smart-ass, which will appeal to Republicans.

It won't appeal to Independents.

The entire Convention is outrageous and is taking everything to an entirely new level.

She hit below the belt. She's now fair game.

Bring it on.

Who wants to make a pool to guess how long until freethinker is on a bell tower across the street from his local church?

Well, I've given Sarah Palin a chance.



:lolhit: You are kidding right? You laid into her like she stole your lunch the second you got one piece of info on her.

:lolhit: You are kidding right? You laid into her like she stole your lunch the second you got one piece of info on her.
She's a sarcastic, mocking, rude, belittling bitch.

Good choice.

She's what makes women have a bad name.

She advocates against her own self interests.

She is in the opposing party as you. We feel the same way about all your candidates. That is life, get used to it, thicken your skin kid.

She is in the opposing party as you. We feel the same way about all your candidates. That is life, get used to it, thicken your skin kid.
Maybe you guys should thicken your skin and stop blaming the media because they ask questions you think are too "tough" and "hard".

How dare Sarah Palin belittle community organizers and all the good they do for communities in which Sarah Palin is from.

They are the ones helping people find jobs and better their communities.

For this convention to belittle and mock everything Obama has done with a sarcastic tongue is sickening.

All they did is attack. They offered ZERO solutions. What a disgusting onslaught.

Your boy got hit, get over it. That is politics. I dont see you holding back on mcain or palin or bush. If you are going to dish it out you better be able to take it. Stop crying.

Your boy got hit, get over it. That is politics. I dont see you holding back on mcain or palin or bush. If you are going to dish it out you better be able to take it. Stop crying.
How about your party stops crying about the media being too hard on your poor little female VP.

Didn't Sarah Palin say Hillary Clinton should stop whining about unfair treatment by the media?

Hypocrites, yet again.

How about someone keeps on changing the subject :thumbs:

How about someone keeps on changing the subject :thumbs:
OK!?!?!?

Have a point or are you just post whoring?

Wait.. what is the HIDDEN MESSAGE in that? What do I really mean, and then what does THAT mean?

Yeah..her speech last night wasn't so "Christian". Unless its ok to lie, belittle, and be sarcastic.

Sarah Palin's membership in an odd religious sect shouldn't matter in regards to whether or not she is fit to hold public office....


... BUT...

...since the ever so saintly RightWing has chosen to make a huge issue of a candidate's religious belief, I think it only fair that they --along with the media-- begin to take a look into the workings of the superstitionist sect (and the particular church) that Palin belongs to and was brought up in.

Check out the video at-- http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/1526804.html .....and see how delusional the leaders of her church are.

They are convinced that their invisible Friend In the Sky is "invading" Alaska and that Wasilla is the "key to God's plans for the entire world".

Scary.

This is EXACTLY why she IS being defended. - a self proclaimed Christian doing the god's work. If we didn't have checks and balances in this country, she would make it into a Saudi Arabia (except her OWN daughter of course-- that little one is exempt from her wacked out rules)

Sorry to hijack the thread, but....
The actual individuals who enslaved the blacks are dead. Right. But their descendants are alive and well and still seething with hatred for people with a certain color of skin.
Whoa, hold the phone there, Rev. Wright - are you saying the same people that are currently giving a black man the chance to run our country are "still seething with hatred for African-Americans"?!?!? I've said it before, and I'll say it again - you need to get the hell out of Mississippi, stat.
Every mouth breathing Southerner (and there are millions of them in this country, of that I can assure you) who, to this very day, denigrates blacks and reviles them and who hates them for no good reason except the color of their skin perpetuates the centuries long legacy of black people being treated unfairly, being discriminated against, being treated as less than human.
Maybe. Then again, seeing them behave like a group of spoiled children hasn't exactly helped to quell the feeling of animosity whites have either. For example, watching them cut in line, drive with reckless abandon, or throw trash in the middle of our streets. If they really wanna be treated more like civilized human beings, then might I suggest they start acting the part.
I can truly understand the animosity blacks still have for the white race.
Yet they're the one acting like morons. I suppose that's our fault, too.

How about your party stops crying about the media being too hard on your poor little female VP.

Didn't Sarah Palin say Hillary Clinton should stop whining about unfair treatment by the media?

Hypocrites, yet again.

Fine, I will stop crying about the media if you STFU about the community organizer.

In a country of equality.. we hold blacks and whites to different standards... how ironic.

Whoa, hold the phone there, Rev. Wright - are you saying the same people that are currently giving a black man the chance to run our country are "still seething with hatred for African-Americans"?!?!?

No.

If you re-read the post, you will discover that what I said was that there is a huge segment of American society --many of whom are in the South-- who, through their ceaseless hatred of and discrimination against them, perpetuate the centuries long legacy of black people being treated unfairly, being discriminated against, being treated as less than human.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - you need to get the hell out of Mississippi, stat.

Whether I live in Mississippi or move away, it will not in any way alter the fact that there are innumerable racist rednecks in this part of the world who hold a seething hatred for the black race, thus perpetuating the race problem.

Maybe. Then again, seeing them (blacks) behave like a group of spoiled children hasn't exactly helped to quell the feeling of animosity whites have either.

True. I understand that. But they are living in a culture where, in many instances, ignorance (example; their horrible butchering of the English language) is held dear and gaining knowledge and attaining an education are regarded as "selling out" to whitey. The white race's subjugation of the black race for hundreds of years was the progenitor of such a backwards mindset.

For example, watching them cut in line, drive with reckless abandon, or throw trash in the middle of our streets. If they really wanna be treated more like civilized human beings, then might I suggest they start acting the part.

a) I have seen more white people cut in line than I have blacks.

b) I have seen more white people driving badly, by several orders of magnitude, than I have blacks.

c) I think that even you will agree that some of the trash in this country's streets came from the hands of white people. Blacks did not throw all of it there.

d) Even if blacks DID do all of the above, and even if they were the only ones doing it, it does not merit them being denied equal opportunity and being treated as if they're all worthless and lazy.

a) I have seen more white people cut in line than I have blacks.
Yeah, because they wouldn't dare do it where you live.
b) I have seen more white people driving badly, by several orders of magnitude, than I have blacks.
See above.
c) I think that even you will agree that some of the trash in this country's streets came from the hands of white people. Blacks did not throw all of it there.
Of course, not - I realize that, but I think it's safe to say that my experience has been different than yours. I've seen far more blacks throw trash out of moving vehicles (on busy streets, no less), as you put it, "by several orders of magnitude", than I have whites, and just so we're clear - I'll pay attention to ANYONE who does that. I was raised, and rightfully so, to hate those people (regardless of their skin color).
d) Even if blacks DID do all of the above, and even if they were the only ones doing it, it does not merit them being denied equal opportunity and being treated as if they're all worthless and lazy.
Well, I agree, but having said that, I never (and I do mean NEVER) treat people unfairly on an individual basis. I've met many wonderful and intelligent black people, but if their "group", collectively, partakes in pulling shit on a daily basis, then it's kind of hard to view them as being anything less than "worthless and lazy" (the operative words here being as a group).

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm not trying to be a racist here at all. I hope you can see that.

Here in Atlanta, if I ever see a bad driver, they're either white or Asian women, or Ethiopian men. (they hate it when I point that out to them) Plain ole black folk don't do it because of another racial phenomenon I see.

If I ever see flashing lights on the side of the road, you bet your ass there's a black person in the other car.

Here in Atlanta, if I ever see a bad driver, they're either white or Asian women...
Whites represent the majority of traffic on the open road, so obviously, the law of odds work to their disadvantage in that regard. Asians, OTOH (male AND female alike), are nothing short of a danger behind the wheel, and by "danger", I mean that I believe they're far more likely to cause an accident than to actually get into one. Left lane at 50, much??? :@@: Hell, I could cite 9 outta 10 for impeding traffic alone.

On that note, how a culture that can produce people who are so adept at mathematics, physics, and science, can ALSO produce people who seemingly lack the ability to grasp the simplest of concepts, is beyond me.
If I ever see flashing lights on the side of the road, you bet your ass there's a black person in the other car.
Why? Because cops just loooove stickin' it to the black man? Maybe in Georgia. I see them pulled over in Illinois a lot, too, but that's usually because the laws don't apply to them. Think - loud stereos, no seatbelts, tinted windows (illegal in my state), no turn signals, and traveling 85 in a 55. Hell, 90/94 along our city's beltway is nicknamed the Nairobi 500.

Maybe in Atlanta black people cant afford to run a car!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a very poor *point* in my opinion.

The actual individuals who enslaved the blacks are dead. Right. But their descendants are alive and well and still seething with hatred for people with a certain color of skin.

Every mouth breathing Southerner (and there are millions of them in this country, of that I can assure you) who, to this very day, denigrates blacks and reviles them and who hates them for no good reason except the color of their skin perpetuates the centuries long legacy of black people being treated unfairly, being discriminated against, being treated as less than human.

I can truly understand the animosity blacks still have for the white race. By your comments, I see that you are incapable of understanding it. There is a percentage of every race that hates people of other races.

Yours is the poor point because you refuse to acknowledge these facts. Whats done is done. We can only go forward and do the best we can to not let slavery happen again.

For you to "truly understand the animosity blacks still have for the white race" only shows your prejudice. Especially for something that ended some 130 odd years ago.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
d) Even if blacks DID do all of the above, and even if they were the only ones doing it, it does not merit them being denied equal opportunity and being treated as if they're all worthless and lazy.


Well, I agree, but having said that, I never (and I do mean NEVER) treat people unfairly on an individual basis. I've met many wonderful and intelligent black people, but if their "group", collectively, partakes in pulling shit on a daily basis, then it's kind of hard to view them as being anything less than "worthless and lazy" (the operative words here being as a group).

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Absolutely.

I understand 100% what you're trying to say.

You are the one who does not understand --to put it mildly-- what is at work here in this society though.

Here's the case; you say you never (and I do mean NEVER) treat people unfairly on an individual basis. Okay. Point taken. And there are millions of other Americans who never (and I do mean NEVER) treat anyone, no matter their color, unfairly on an individual basis.

But the fact remains that there are countless millions of Americans who DO treat people (black people) unfairly on an individual basis. They treat them very unfairly every day, and for seemingly no other reason than that they do not like their skin color.

It means little to nothing that you or some other individual American does not treat black people unfairly......the racism problem will never (and I do mean NEVER) go away in this country as long as a huge segment of the populace continues -as is the case- to treat black people unfairly and to ceaselessly spread hatred of them and resentment of them.

The final analysis of this is........what you have in this circumstance is a barrel of apples where half are rotten and half are not, yet you want to cherry pick a good apple out of it and grandly proclaim --"See, everything's perfectly alright!"

Everything is NOT alright.

Everything is NOT alright.
Okay, but what I think you're failing to realize here is that animosity is a two-way street. Many of the things you accuse "millions" of white people of doing, black people do to. They're raised to HATE our fucking guts, and "millions" of them treat us like it (for NO other reason than the color of OUR skin). Can't you see that? Hell, if you're curious, Youtube a Rev. Wright speech.

Are you under the impression because we treated them badly first, they're exonerated, or something???

Okay, but what I think you're failing to realize here is that animosity is a two-way street.

Nope. Not only do I fully realize it, I think that being raised in Mississippi I have a FAR clearer understanding than you do of just how much animosity there is.

Many of the things you accuse "millions" of white people of doing, black people do to.

True. Absolutely.

They're raised to HATE our fucking guts, and "millions" of them treat us like it (for NO other reason than the color of OUR skin).

True. 100% agreement.

Can't you see that?

Yes. The difference between you and I is that I can empathize with the black people of America, and understand WHY there is that seed of never-ending resentment and distrust on their part. (hint; a little thing called slavery. And then, after slavery, another 100+ years of being treated like animals.)

Are you under the impression because we treated them badly first, they're exonerated, or something???

Not 'exonerated', per se.

I just understand why they (some of them) feel about white people in general as they do. I do not understand, however, how some white people can (i.e., this includes +90% of any and all white people I have ever known personally) harbor such ill will and derision for ALL black people everywhere at all times.

Do I wish slavery never happened? Yes. Do I wish blacks could let it go? Yes. But the black race comes far closer to having a reason for harboring feelings of resentment toward the white race than vise versa.

On July 20, 2008, the pastor of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s home church, Larry Kroon, delivered a sermon called “Sin Is Personal To God.” Kroon, the senior pastor of the non-denominational Wasilla Bible Church in Wasilla, Alaska, used the book of Zephanaiah as his reference point for discussing “that great day of the Lord when God will finally bring closure to human history… a day of wrath.” According to Kroon, “all things and all people” are going to bear the brunt of God’s “intense anger.” “There’s anger with God,” he proclaimed. “He takes sin personal.”

http://maxblumenthal.com/2008/09/palins-pastor-god-is-gonna-strike-out-his-hand-againstamerica/

An excerpt:

After that emphatic repetition, there’s a specific implication that Zephaniah follows on with his people in Jerusalem, and it’s in verse 4. After saying ‘He’s gonna remove man from the earth,’ he goes on and he says this—“So...” And that’s an important word right here, link-up in verse 4. He says, ‘So, as a consequence, the logical result of that, the conclusion to be drawn...’ He says

“So I will stretch out My hand against Judah...”

He has to be emphatic at this point; he has to get specific at this point, because the people of Jerusalem had the prevailing attitude—and it’s stated in Zephaniah—that ‘God won’t do anything to us, good or bad.’ And what Zephaniah says—‘Listen, He is going to remove everyone from the earth. He is gonna deal with all the inhabitants; so, as a result, understand He is going to deal with you, Jerusalem and Judah. There’s no exceptions here.’ And if Zephaniah were here today he’d be saying, ‘Listen, He is gonna deal with all the inhabitants of the earth. He is gonna strike out His hand against, yes, Wasilla; and Alaska; and the United States of America. There’s no exceptions here—there’s none. It’s all.’

Then that raises a question—well, when? When?

Twenty-six hundred years ago, as Zephaniah first delivered this message from God, God’s statement was this. He said

Near is the great day of the Lord, near and coming quickly;

http://www.wasillabible.org/sermon_files/2008_Transcripts/Sin%20is%20Personal%20to%20God.doc

Since when did you get interested in biblical scripture and pastor sermons Sedan?

Since when did you get interested in biblical scripture and pastor sermons Sedan?
Since about the age of five.

Why do you ask?

Just seems sudden to go into such detail...

Why not post this in the religion section?

Just seems sudden to go into such detail...

Why not post this in the religion section?
Uhh, maybe because this is a thread talking about a political candidates religious views???

Just a guess.

On July 20, 2008, the pastor of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s home church, Larry Kroon, delivered a sermon called “Sin Is Personal To God.” Kroon, the senior pastor of the non-denominational Wasilla Bible Church in Wasilla, Alaska, used the book of Zephanaiah as his reference point for discussing “that great day of the Lord when God will finally bring closure to human history… a day of wrath.” According to Kroon, “all things and all people” are going to bear the brunt of God’s “intense anger.” “There’s anger with God,” he proclaimed. “He takes sin personal.”

An excerpt:

After that emphatic repetition, there’s a specific implication that Zephaniah follows on with his people in Jerusalem, and it’s in verse 4. After saying ‘He’s gonna remove man from the earth,’ he goes on and he says this—“So...” And that’s an important word right here, link-up in verse 4. He says, ‘So, as a consequence, the logical result of that, the conclusion to be drawn...’ He says

“So I will stretch out My hand against Judah...”

Then that raises a question—well, when? When?

Twenty-six hundred years ago, as Zephaniah first delivered this message from God, God’s statement was this. He said

Near is the great day of the Lord, near and coming quickly;


ROTFL.

Taking the time to point out the myriad examples of the idiocy inherent in these people's (people such as Sarah Palin and the abysmally ignorant leaders/pastors of her church) worldview and their proclamations is akin to 'hunting' milk cows with high powered rifles.

Taking the time to point out the myriad examples of the idiocy inherent in these people's (people such as Sarah Palin and the abysmally ignorant leaders/pastors of her church) worldview and their proclamations is akin to 'hunting' milk cows with high powered rifles.
Which could be difficult if Prae's vision of asians are riding said cows.

Well then, if we are going to use Sarah Palin's religion as a guide to how she will act.. let's take a look shall we?

John 15:12- This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

So, with this passage, you can clearly see that Sarah Palin will love us all and do whatever she can to help us, even if it means bending over backwards and sacrificing...

Oh wait, you probably only want to bring up her religion if it's something negative.. my bad

Oh now Palin is in a cult. next thing we will hear is they make their daughters have babies so they can sacrafice them to the oil gods.
Only a "conservative" could dream-up something so bizarre. :rolleyes:

It's when these loons profess to steadfastly believe in superstitious bunkum like "talking in tongues" and "faith healing" and all the other Benny Hinn (a leading 'Assemblies of God' minister) type shit that I do not want them in government.........or anywhere near it for that matter.
.....Even if they can "cure" Gay-people????

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/07/politics/main4423486.shtml

Spark's and his wife are lookin' for swingers again.... tch, tch, tch.

If Palin is forcing that stuff into her governmental platform.. I am against it.

Something tells me FT is running on an assumption or biased prediction though. Scaring people into thinking Palin is the female Pat Robertson.
Nahhhhhhhhhhh.....she's more like George Bush.

"As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than nvest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs." :rolleyes:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130537

Shaman, that has nothing to do with the subject matter, which, since you were so far off, is putting religious standards into government platforms.

You are talking about budget surpluses in Alaska and road projects...

Well then, if we are going to use Sarah Palin's religion as a guide to how she will act.. let's take a look shall we?

John 15:12- This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

So, with this passage, you can clearly see that Sarah Palin will love us all and do whatever she can to help us, even if it means bending over backwards and sacrificing...

Oh wait, you probably only want to bring up her religion if it's something negative.. my bad

Yeah, she really showed her love for Obama in her speech. Is lying also a sin?

I don't want this nutjob in the Whitehouse! www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhs-Faxi55 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhs-Faxi55) :worship:

Yeah, she really showed her love for Obama in her speech. Is lying also a sin?

Now now Mesk.. we aren't judging people by their ACTIONS here... we are looking at Sarah Palin's religion and basing her future actions on what her religion is. :rolleyes:

Since about the age of five.

Why do you ask?

Spoken like a Verifiable future Liberal.
At age 5 one is in kindergarten,and working on their A,B,C's.
Unless you had a hoppy,gesticulating,haranguing Pastor like
Obama did { Reverend Wright } I can see how one mite get drawn into
watchin.I mean,like a Cartoon is a Cartoon.
And ... as we all knowed ... Democrats are the Kid Party.

Now now Mesk.. we aren't judging people by their ACTIONS here... we are looking at Sarah Palin's religion and basing her future actions on what her religion is. :rolleyes:

Why future actions? why not look at her current actions? Again giving her a free pass...

Why are people so fearful of a theocracy being established here--by anyone?

It is impossible. It will never happen. It is EXPRESSLY forbidden by our Constitution.

This same kind of fear mongering was present when JFK ran for office. As if he'd make the US the Vatican's vassal.
It didn't happen then. It was not even attempted.

There are greater issues to worry about--ones with a likelhood of actually happening.

Why future actions? why not look at her current actions? Again giving her a free pass...

Not so Mesk, at least not in replying to posters on allforums. My beef might not even be with you here, but we definitely have people judging Palin by her religion (the same people who called judging Obama being connected to the muslim party a smear :thumbs:) even though it's not part of her platform. None of the things they "site" as negative about Palin's religion show up anywhere in her platform.

Thus, her current actions are not looked at, just the religion, and predictions of future actions.

Why are people so fearful of a theocracy being established here--by anyone?

It is impossible. It will never happen. It is EXPRESSLY forbidden by our Constitution.

To quote our glorious, smirking pResident -- "Fuck the constitution! It's just a piece of paper!!"

Look; we both know how deeply infused with religious fanaticism Sarah Palin is. If McCain passed away and she became president, I definitely fear for what sort of ideas and initiatives --prompted by her strongly held fundamentalist religious beliefs-- she'd try to foist off on the American Public.

It would not be hard to do. She'd have the support of the majority, who "believe in" the same supernatural entity (the same "god") that she does.

_____________________

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."----Sinclair Lewis

To quote our glorious, smirking pResident -- "Fuck the constitution! It's just a piece of paper!!"

Look; we both know how deeply infused with religious fanaticism Sarah Palin is. If McCain passed away and she became president, I definitely fear for what sort of ideas and initiatives --prompted by her strongly held fundamentalist religious beliefs-- she'd try to foist off on the American Public.

It would not be hard to do. She'd have the support of the majority, who "believe in" the same supernatural entity (the same "god") that she does.

_____________________

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."----Sinclair Lewis

REligiouis freedom and tolerance is the very cornerstone of our liberty, FT.
I simply cannot believe that, in the very very unlikely scenario that such a thing was even attempted..that is, that the federal government would sponsor a state -establshed religion, AND, in order to vote, hold office, or hold property, among very many other things, a citizen would have to be a practicing member of that state sponsored religion, and that average citizens, with a minimun of education as to what our constitution means, would actively support such a scenario.

It would mean the overturning of one of the most important of our Bill of Rights; it would mean adding an amendment to our Constitution; it would mean the Supreme Court, by a majority, actually going along with wiping their collective butts on that piece of paper.

I tell you, it is impossible.

PS. ANY ONE of the amendments to the US Constitution can legally be overturned--except the first ten.

The Bill of Rights.

REligiouis freedom and tolerance is the very cornerstone of our liberty, FT.

Yup.

Tolerance being the exact opposite of what Palin and her ilk represent.


I simply cannot believe that, in the very very unlikely scenario that such a thing was even attempted..that is, that the federal government would sponsor a state -establshed religion

Yeah, I can't believe it either.

I guess it's a good thing no one has mentioned any such thing.

Where do you dredge up these strawman ideas!?!?!

NO ONE is making the slightest suggestion there will be a "state established religion" sponsored by the Federal Government. :confused: Sheesh.

I'm talking about her pushing the red meat issues that the Religious Right in this country is salivating over the thought of-- things such as opposition to gay marriage, opposition to a woman's right to choose, faith based education vouchers, prayer in the schools, creationism being placed on an equal par with evolution, etc.

Things that we both know religious wackos like Palin to be staunch supporters of.

Yup.

Tolerance being the exact opposite of what Palin and her ilk represent.




Yeah, I can't believe it either.

I guess it's a good thing no one has mentioned any such thing.

Where do you dredge up these strawman ideas!?!?!

NO ONE is making the slightest suggestion there will be a "state established religion" sponsored by the Federal Government. :confused: Sheesh.

I'm talking about her pushing the red meat issues that the Religious Right in this country is salivating over the thought of-- things such as opposition to gay marriage, opposition to a woman's right to choose, faith based education vouchers, prayer in the schools, creationism being placed on an equal par with evolution, etc.

Things that we both know religious wackos like Palin to be staunch supporters of.

Theocracy has been mentioned a number of times on these boards, including this very thread, if I'm not mistaken..... by those who do not understand either our history NOR our government. And it's getting old.

Do you actually think that creationism and prayer in the schools will be a common practice in this country, if Palin becomes VP? How much power do you think a VP HAS?

They preside over Congress--that's about it.
And if she becomes Prez---we're all going to have to toe her line?

I'm having a hard, hard time with THAt scenario, myself.

PS. See post number 31 by Mesk...claiming Palin would turn us into, quote, "Saudi Arabia" if we didn't have checks and balances.

Theocracy has been mentioned a number of times on these boards, including this very thread, if I'm not mistaken..... by those who do not understand either our history NOR our government. And it's getting old.

What's getting old is the fact of fundamentalist ignoramuses inserting their religious views into government.

Do you actually think that creationism and prayer in the schools will be a common practice in this country, if Palin becomes VP?

You claimed above to have noted that theocracy had been mentioned a few times. How very odd it is then that you missed where I said --repeatedly-- that if Palin were to become president is when I'd fear her inserting her religious beliefs into the national character.

And if she becomes Prez---we're all going to have to toe her line?


No one here has suggested that ""we're all going to have to toe her line"".

As I said before --(try reading it V E R Y S L O W L Y this time)-- I definitely fear for what sort of ideas and initiatives --prompted by her strongly held fundamentalist religious beliefs-- Palin would, were she to become president, try to foist off on the American Public. Ideas such as opposition to gay marriage, opposition to a woman's right to choose, faith based education vouchers, prayer in the schools and creationism being placed on an equal par with evolution, to name but a few.

You know, i've attempted to have a civil conversation with you, even tho I've been referred to as--on other threads-- a quote, twit, clueless, and now, maybe a person who has to read something a number of times before I "understand" it.

Bless you, my fine lad. I understand exactly what you mean. You are giving into fear mongering of the worst kind. Because you hate and fear her religion so, you do think--and yes you do--they we WILL have to toe her line. IE--creationism, vouchers, etc etc.

This may shock you, but I assure you, most people I know, and that includes Christians, of which I am one--do not support her stance on these issues. We like our religion, but not at the expense of our Constitution.

Now--you can sleep better tonite and won't wake up so grumpy and surly tomorrow.
Thank me later.

You claimed above to have noted that theocracy had been mentioned a few times. How very odd it is then that you missed where I said --repeatedly-- that if Palin were to become president is when I'd fear her inserting her religious beliefs into the national character.



.

What difference does it make if she's Prez compared to vice-Prez? She still won't have the power, you clueless...oops, i mean, uh, constitutional scholar.
See many times noted "checks and balances."

Not so Mesk, at least not in replying to posters on allforums. My beef might not even be with you here, but we definitely have people judging Palin by her religion (the same people who called judging Obama being connected to the muslim party a smear :thumbs:) even though it's not part of her platform. None of the things they "site" as negative about Palin's religion show up anywhere in her platform.She has a platform?

Where, pray tell, is this platform?

I'd love to see it -- please provide a link.

Exactly.. her platform is silence.. so how can we all know that she'll turn our government into some religious cult? Scare tactics at work here.

Exactly.. her platform is silence.. so how can we all know that she'll turn our government into some religious cult? Scare tactics at work here.This is exactly why you are wrong about nearly everything. You make definitive statements about her "platform" and then admit that she doesn't have one. You are seemingly oblivious to the logical disconnect of what you are arguing.

The workings of your mind are truly amazing -- it would drive me crazy to think the way you do, even for a minute.

Palin’s Church Promoting Conversion of Gays to Heterosexuals
by Associated Press
Saturday, September 6, 2008

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

“You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,” according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.

Palin’s conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain’s candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the “Love Won Out” Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.

Palin, campaigning with McCain in the Midwest on Friday, has not publicly expressed a view on the so-called “pray away the gay” movement. Larry Kroon, senior pastor at Palin’s church, was not available to discuss the matter Friday, said a church worker who declined to give her name.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/palins-church-promoting-conference-aimed-at-converting-gays/

Because you hate and fear her religion so, you do think--and yes you do--they we WILL have to toe her line. IE--creationism, vouchers, etc etc.

Because I hate and fear her religion so, I do think--yes I do--that she will ---if she were to become president-- try to insert her beliefs into her politics. EVERYTHING, every single piece of information I have ever heard or read about her leads me to the conclusion that she would try to advance an agenda that includes things such as creationism in the schools, vouchers, prayer in the schools, anti-choice initiatives, etc.

But I hope we never get the chance to see.

This may shock you, but I assure you, most people I know, and that includes Christians, of which I am one--do not support her stance on these issues. We like our religion, but not at the expense of our Constitution.

It does not "shock" me, because I do not believe it. Either the religious folk you 'know' are a very different sort of Christian than the rest of them in America, or you're misinformed.

An overwhelming majority of the Christians in this country have been shown, in poll after poll after poll, to be in favor of the very sorts of things we're talking about; creationism placed on an equal footing with evolution in the classrooms, school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc.

You cannot with a straight face tell me that you think that less than 50% of the Christians throughout America would NOT be in favor of things like school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc.

This is exactly why you are wrong about nearly everything. You make definitive statements about her "platform" and then admit that she doesn't have one. You are seemingly oblivious to the logical disconnect of what you are arguing.

The workings of your mind are truly amazing -- it would drive me crazy to think the way you do, even for a minute.

My mind IS different. However, I think I'd have an equally grand time going insane if I were to think as you do. Good thing we are both in our own heads :thumbs:

However, the claims being made were about Sarah Palin's religion, which she wasn't preaching. So why even talk about it?

1.
It does not "shock" me, because I do not believe it. Either the religious folk you 'know' are a very different sort of Christian than the rest of them in America, or you're misinformed.

An overwhelming majority of the Christians in this country have been shown, in poll after poll after poll, to be in favor of the very sorts of things we're talking about; creationism placed on an equal footing with evolution in the classrooms, school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc.
2.
You cannot with a straight face tell me that you think that less than 50% of the Christians throughout America would NOT be in favor of things like school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc.

1. That could very well be. I attend a Presbyterian church. We are considered somewhat radical, or, for want of a better term, liberal, by evangelicals. I should add that we are also one of the largest congregations in this country. Don't make the critical error in assuming that all Christians are fundamentalists. In fact, most are not. The Catholic Church is the largest Christian church in America. No one would call them fundies or evangicals.

2. You may find this article interesting. From US News and World Report~~

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/08/13/many-religious-voters-favor-obama-poll-finds.html

1. That could very well be. I attend a Presbyterian church. We are considered somewhat radical, or, for want of a better term, liberal, by evangelicals. I should add that we are also one of the largest congregations in this country. Don't make the critical error in assuming that all Christians are fundamentalists. In fact, most are not.

I'll second that. I have, over the years, regularly attended services at Lutheran, United Church of Christ, and now Methodist churches, and I can count on one hand the number of people I've run into with that sort of Palin fundie mindset. Of course fundies are far more common down south, which is probably why you run into so damn many of them FT, but they're not in the majority around these parts. What they are is more outspoken. The rest of us mind our own business, which is why one might get the impression that fundies are in the majority.

Personally I'm strongly in favor of the separation of church and state because the last thing I want is my kids learning that there's no such thing as evolution and learning how to speak in tongues.

My mind IS different. However, I think I'd have an equally grand time going insane if I were to think as you do. Good thing we are both in our own heads :thumbs:

However, the claims being made were about Sarah Palin's religion, which she wasn't preaching. So why even talk about it?
What?

Don't make the critical error in assuming that all Christians are fundamentalists.

I have never thought that to be the case. I'd think it is a fairly low percentage.

But in direct opposition to what you seem to think is the case, I would still maintain --and I welcome anyone to present a poll or study refuting it-- that taken as a whole the overwhelming majority of Christians in America DO favor things such as creationism placed on an equal footing with evolution in the classrooms, school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc.

2. You may find this article interesting. From US News and World Report~~

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/08/13/many-religious-voters-favor-obama-poll-finds.html

Yes.

Very interesting. But scary, in that a large percentage of the religionist faction in this country intends to vote. These people come out in droves to vote for a particular candidate for one reason; they want and expect that candidate to insert their religious views and their religious sensibility into the affairs of Government. Period.

Yet whenever I suggest that those candidates who are the darlings of the Religious Right (like Palin) might actually do that, I hear -- "Oh, tut tut. That person would never do that!"

Anyone who thinks that extremely religious politicians like Sarah Palin will NOT make political decisions, governmental decisions that are informed by their religious ideology, or that they will not begin to attempt to have their religious views weaved into the laws of this society is either not being honest about it or not thinking rationally.

I can truly understand the animosity blacks still have for the white race. By your comments, I see that you are incapable of understanding it.

I cannot truly understand the animosity FT has for people who believe in God. By your comments, I see that you are incapable of understanding it (why people believe in religions).

I mean, I don't believe in God, at least not like most people do, but I can understand it. I'm just saying. I think understanding is what most people lack.

I cannot truly understand the animosity FT has for people who believe in God.

It is not their belief in their invisible deity that engenders my animosity.

It is the fact that they desperately want to coerce me and every other person in this country, no matter what our own belief may be, to abide by and to be constricted by the taboos, prohibitions and prejudices of the Christian religion, by having said taboos and prohibitions codified into law.

I have never thought that to be the case. I'd think it is a fairly low percentage.

But in direct opposition to what you seem to think is the case, I would still maintain --and I welcome anyone to present a poll or study refuting it-- that taken as a whole the overwhelming majority of Christians in America DO favor things such as creationism placed on an equal footing with evolution in the classrooms, school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc.



Yes.

Very interesting. But scary, in that a large percentage of the religionist faction in this country intends to vote. These people come out in droves to vote for a particular candidate for one reason; they want and expect that candidate to insert their religious views and their religious sensibility into the affairs of Government. Period.

Yet whenever I suggest that those candidates who are the darlings of the Religious Right (like Palin) might actually do that, I hear -- "Oh, tut tut. That person would never do that!"

Anyone who thinks that extremely religious politicians like Sarah Palin will NOT make political decisions, governmental decisions that are informed by their religious ideology, or that they will not begin to attempt to have their religious views weaved into the laws of this society is either not being honest about it or not thinking rationally.

Here are a few numbers I've run across, concerning a few of your named issues and how Christians tend to vote on same.


http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS117227+04-Feb-2008+PRN20080204

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=290 (this link, scroll down to the graphs)

Lastly, I'll concede Palin may very well attempt to impose her religious views on the rest of us. She may attempt it--but it's doomed to fail. The Bill of Rights, and especially the first amendment, have stood the test of time. Thank you, James Madison.

Here are a few numbers I've run across, concerning a few of your named issues and how Christians tend to vote on same.


http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS117227+04-Feb-2008+PRN20080204

Thanks for that link.

It bolsters my point. All it says it that --

""Stunning Poll Results Reveal That Nearly Half of Christian Voters Support
Pro-Choice Presidential Candidates""

a) nearly half is less than half

b)even if 43% of Christians DID say they would vote for either Clinton or Obama, that does not directly equate to 43% of the Christians who were polled being pro-choice themselves. There's more than one reason to vote for a candidate. Many of them are no doubt thinking in exactly the same way that you say that you see it, in that even if elected they would not be able to pass any laws that would change the issue.

Also, the second link does absolutely ZERO to refute the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Christians in this country favor things such as pro-life, school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc.

It not only points out that most Americans --whether religious or not-- oppose same sex marriage, it highlights the fact that if you polled only those who identified themselves as 'Christian', the percentage would be even higher in opposition to same sex marriage.

Lastly, I'll concede Palin may very well attempt to impose her religious views on the rest of us. She may attempt it--but it's doomed to fail.

I disagree on the *it's doomed to fail* conjecture. Maybe it will fail, maybe not. As we can clearly see, the majority of people --and even moreso for Christians-- in this country would be very much in line with Palin's views on pro-life, school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc.

I posted the links to merely refute yr conjecture that the "overwhelming majority" of Christians are with Palin.
Clearly, they are not.

Also, the second link's graphs clearly show that civil unions are favored , not necessarily marriage--a matter of semantics, as a marriage IS a civil union.

But let's not quibble about semantics here. I'd like to address the "doomed to fail" scenario. It COULD happen......by jiminy! The dreaded theocracy just like Saudi Arabia..as Mesk so profoundly noted in another thread.

All she'd have to do is
A. dismiss Congress a la Oliver Cromwell ("Come, come, I'll put an end to your babbling")

B. Dismiss the Supreme Court (they're a bunch of senile coots and it's not like they actually WORK for a living)

C. Tell the public at large that the First Amendment "isn't relevant" anymore and besides, what did that dolt Madison know about REAL Americans anyway

D. Crown herself Empress a la Napoleon Bonaparte

By jiminy---this COULD happen.........

I posted the links to merely refute yr conjecture that the "overwhelming majority" of Christians are with Palin. Clearly, they are not.

?!?!?!?!?

Except that both links did the opposite!

My assertion was that the overwhelming majority of the Christians in this country favor things such as pro-life, school vouchers, prayer in the schools, abstinence education, opposition to gay marriage, etc...........and both links bear that out.

Also, the second link's graphs clearly show that civil unions are favored , not necessarily marriage--a matter of semantics, as a marriage IS a civil union.

I think you must have mis-read the header of the second link. It was --

A Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage


I'd like to address the "doomed to fail" scenario. It COULD happen......by jiminy! The dreaded theocracy ............

All she'd have to do is
A. dismiss Congress a la Oliver Cromwell ("Come, come, I'll put an end to your babbling")

B. Dismiss the Supreme Court (they're a bunch of senile coots and it's not like they actually WORK for a living)

C. Tell the public at large that the First Amendment "isn't relevant" anymore and besides, what did that dolt Madison know about REAL Americans anyway

D. Crown herself Empress a la Napoleon Bonaparte

By jiminy---this COULD happen.........

As for a, b and c ....yes, those things are always a possibility in a nation where an elected official can count on the undying support of the 80+ percent of the populace that holds a staunch belief in the same unseen gawd that the leader believes in.

Actually, given the current rightwing president's incredibly dismissive attitude toward and loathing for the Constitution, the extreme rightist Palin --were she to become pres, getting *c* accomplished seems a very real possibility to me.

*d* would not be necessary.

Most[/B] Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage





2.
*d* would not be necessary.


1.
FT, we don't agree on many things, but you are not a stuoid man, and I know you can read. Please scroll down to the SECOND graph concerning gay CIVIL UNIONS.

2. Oh yes, it would. The masses like their spectacle, and just love coronations......speaking of that, gotta run. I have shopping to do, by jiminy!

Do you think a pink ball dress is suitable for an afternoon crowning, or should I go with the darker, more sedate black?
It IS a formal ocassion.

1.
FT, we don't agree on many things, but you are not a stuoid man, and I know you can read. Please scroll down to the SECOND graph concerning gay CIVIL UNIONS.

Sorry ren, but the second paragraph absolutely destroys the point you seem (for some inexplicable reason) to think you're making;

to wit ----

""As with many other social issues, opinions about same-sex marriage are closely linked with partisanship, ideology and religion. For instance, opposition to gay marriage is lowest among self-described liberal Democrats (26%) and highest among conservative Republicans (83%), with other ideological and partisan groups falling in between. Those who identify themselves as independents are roughly divided on the issue, with 49% opposed to same-sex marriage and 41% in favor of it.

You can NOT tell me that you think this article indicates that the majority of self-professed Christians in this country are not aligned with the views of a person like Palin...........??!

It seems to me to indicate that they are very much in line with her views.

You do understand that the article says that 83% of conservative Republicans are opposed to gay marriage, dont you??

And you do understand, do you not, that virtually EVERY conservative Republican in this nation that votes will vote for the side of Palin?!?!?!

From that link I provided, please scroll down to about the middle of the page, to the graph entitled:

"Majority Support Civil Unions for Gay Couples."

Yes, that 83%, while frightening, also can be contorted.

Many probably oppose Gay "marriage", but SUPPORT "civil unions"... They don't oppose homosexual rights at all. However, you wouldn't expect folk like FT to consider that... that would be looking at something honestly, and we all know just how "honest" FT is :thumbs:

But as for the issue... I really don't get why homosexuals are so offended that they can have all the same rights but not have it called "marriage", at least in the scenario. They always reference back to the black "separate but equal" days, which were NOT separate but equal. Let's not kid ourselves. These days there are plenty of things that are separate but equal.

The argument mostly comes from those who not only are not religious, but seem to have a bone to pick with religion. Thus, it's a conflict of interest, using their natural sexual orientation as a tool to stick it to the thing that they claim "doesn't except them" from a few bible verses while some of the overlying concepts of the bible are love, acceptance, and forgiveness.

It would also cut down the confusion. You can say "i'm in a union with someone", and they'd know you are gay. If I were gay, I'd rather people know than to try and hide. Or make up a new term. Most homosexuals seem to be the "progressive" type, defying against the classic. Why not do it here?

From that link I provided, please scroll down to about the middle of the page, to the graph entitled:

"Majority Support Civil Unions for Gay Couples."

No thanks.

Whether a majority of the citizenry does or does not support civil unions for gays is of no importance to me.

My contention was and still is that the majority of Christians in America stand in staunch opposition to gay marriage.

And what's more --as your own link states --not only does a majority of Christian Americans oppose gay marriage, even the majority of the general populace opposes (just as Sarah Palin does) gay marriage.

And in that case, you're correct, Ft.

OTOH, we can't very well ask the state to step in and tell a particular congregation that a firmly held belief is wrong. Once again, that'd be unconstitutional. Separation of church and state.... See, that works both ways.

I see the support of civil unions by a majority of Christians as a huge step forward. Marriage--civil union--In my mind--they're one and the same. I didn't have a church wedding--neither time, and I'd wager that most of the married posters on here didn't have one either. However, I'm still married. But, on a personal note, my first husband, a Catholic, once said we weren't really married because we never recieved his church's blessing. Therefore, he was but a bachelor still.

I told him the State of Indiana didn't look at it that way and he was free to take it up with them.

http://www.ohio.com/news/ohiocentric/27989654.html

COLUMBUS: A group of mostly mainline Protestant ministers says the Internal Revenue Service must keep a restriction against politics in the pulpit.

The Rev. Eric Williams, a minister with the liberal United Church of Christ, planned to file a complaint with the IRS today against the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal organization based in Arizona that is challenging the restriction as unconstitutional.

And in that case, you're correct, Ft.

OTOH, we can't very well ask the state to step in and tell a particular congregation that a firmly held belief is wrong.

I disagree ....... IF it were the case that those in said 'congregation' happened to comprise the majority of the citizenry and IF that majority were passing --or pressuring the politicians who run the government to pass-- laws which unfairly discriminate against a certain group of persons based, for instance, purely on their height or weight.......or the color of their skin.......or their eye color.....or their sexual orientation.

Which happens to be exactly what we have in America, with the religionists/superstitionists (you know, that 'congregation' that you spoke of) demanding that their "firmly held beliefs" be codified into law, thus denying gays the freedom to obtain a legal marriage license, just like everyone else.

THAT is what would be unconstitutional.

I respectfully disagree, FT.
How is it discriminating towards gays, if certain congregations don't allow this practice, when certain states do allow a civil union, which is a legally binding contract?

I fail to follow your logic.
IMO you are wanting to give the STATE the same untoward powers you would take from the church. The power to tell people what to think, what to believe.
This is as wrong as fundies or ANY religious having too much power in the government.

If gays wish to marry in a church setting, there are several that allow this practice. The state forcing ALL congregations to do so is giving TOO MUCH POWER to the State.

I respectfully disagree, FT.
How is it discriminating towards gays, if certain congregations don't allow this practice, when certain states do allow a civil union, which is a legally binding contract?

Although I honestly cannot parse the second sentence of that, I'll try to respond to the **how is it discriminating towards gays?** portion of it.

If a huge group in America, with massive political power, were able to coerce the political leadership to pass a law which said -- ""People with blue eyes may obtain a marriage certificate that is recognized by the State, but people with green eyes can NOT have such a license. People with green eyes may obtain a 'civil union' license only" -- then in my view, that would be discriminatory on the part of the State. (and that happens to be exactly the case in this country with gays and marriage)

You, evidently would disagree that such a law is discriminatory.

And if the State were to change the law to read-- "All people, no matter their eye color, may obtain a marriage certificate that is recognized by the State" -- you, evidently, would view that change as the State (to use your terminology) "" forcing ALL congregations"" to perform marriages between people having green or brown eyes.

I fail to follow your logic.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....

Or prohibitng the free exercise thereof. That bears repeating.

You have failed to explain why it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL--per the first amendment, for a certain church to prohibit certain practices that go against their teachings, unless said practices constitute a felony.

Please do so.

http://www.ohio.com/news/ohiocentric/27989654.html

Very good. The pastors are 100 percent correct to challenge this.