Christian Right Wrong Again

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, Nov 15, 2002.

  1. I wonder if Powell is speaking on behalf of the "right" side of the cabinet, or the "left" side....

    My favorite paragraph in the following article is this one:

    'Veteran evangelist Jimmy Swaggart followed that this week by calling Mohammed a "sex deviant" and a pervert and demanding that Muslim students in the US be expelled. "We ought to tell every other Muslim living in this nation that if you say one word, you're gone," he said.'

    Jimmy Swaggart calling Mohammed a "sex deviant and a pervert?" Yup. If Mohammed had been a good Christian like Jimmy Swaggart, he would have simply gotten drunk and banged a hooker.

    Swaggart & Hookers

    Simply amazing how often the zealous pot calls the kettle black, isn't it?

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Powell attacks Christian right

    Oliver Burkeman in New York
    Friday November 15, 2002
    The Guardian

    Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, condemned America's Christian right yesterday for propagating hatred against Muslims, in what appeared to be a coordinated White House campaign to confront anti-Islamic rhetoric from a constituency that includes some of the Bush administration's staunchest supporters.
    Days after the televangelist Pat Robertson said on his Christian Broadcasting Network that "what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse" than the Holocaust, Mr Powell told a gathering in Washington: "This kind of hatred must be rejected."

    The escalation in anti-Muslim comments from conservative Christians includes a recent claim by Jerry Falwell, the country's leading rightwing Baptist, that the prophet Mohammed was "a terrorist".

    Veteran evangelist Jimmy Swaggart followed that this week by calling Mohammed a "sex deviant" and a pervert and demanding that Muslim students in the US be expelled. "We ought to tell every other Muslim living in this nation that if you say one word, you're gone," he said.

    As the likelihood grows of a war in Iraq there are strategic benefits for the White House in convincing Muslims that it would not be a war against their religion.

    The administration's increased willingness to confront the Christian right reflects the Republicans' sweeping victories in last week's mid-term elections, reducing Mr Bush's reliance on the extreme fringes of his supporter base.
     
  2. Powell's about the only centrist member of the cabinet it seems a lot of the time. But gee, when he's compared to ultra-right psycho clowns like Rumsfeld, et al - Powell probably seems "left wing".

    But then again, about the only ones standing to the right of the Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice triad are some of the more whacko members of the Christian right like Falwell, Swaggert, and Robertson.
     
  3. Wow...truly insane.

    I guess everybody has an agenda.

    The hard part is deciding what it really is.

    With these guys, it's money and sex.
     
  4. Wonder if it is just coincidence that he waited until AFTER the mid-term elections to start his condemnation?

    :p
     
  5. vvv

    vvv

    quote:""I am sick of all the DEMONcrats spreading lies about our beloved, Holy-Ghost-filled Attorney General, John Ashcroft.

    Some of them refer to him disrespectfully as "Crisco," because he has believes in anointing with oil. True Christians (Republicans) know that a God-fearing, Holy-Ghost-filled, shut-your-DEMONcratic-yap-you're-aiding-the-terrorists Attorney General would only use Pure Wesson Oil. Amen.

    Then the ninny-assed, whiny-mouthed, girly-man DEMONcrats had a hissy fit because our esteemed Jesused-up Attorney General had the moral decency to cover up a statue of a nekkid whore. What Christian (Republican) American wants to see some oversized marble slut with her tits hanging out on national TV? That sort of thing is eroding the foundations of our Christian Nation and is directly responsible for the current epidemic of lurid breast-feeding of babies in public.

    I am proud of our revered Attorney General for taking courageous stands, such as opposing "medical marijuana" for cancer sisses. If they would stop voting DEMONcratic and call on Jesus to heal them, they wouldn't need no dope. And also for helping make America safe for a gunrack in every gas-hog, flag-waving, suburban assault vehicle. Because that's what Jesus would do!""
    unquote


    [​IMG]

    lol :eek: :eek:

    (disclaimer, irony, not my opinion)

    THE WEEKLY TIRADE
    By Scotty Kowall
    Every Monday In Comedyzine

    What is society's problem with breasts?

    No matter what you call them, breasts, tits or boobs, some people have a problem with a woman's breasts.

    This past week a French woman attending a wedding in Evansville, Indiana was stopped at the airport by security screeners attempting to search her with a metal-detecting wand.

    The screeners felt the need to use the wand more than once; this agitated the woman causing her to strip to the waist. She was then arrested for public indecency as well as resisting law enforcement.

    If a screener thinks you may be hiding a weapon under your clothes, the ideal thing would be to let them visually look and see if there is something hidden. Unfortunately for the woman, common sense takes a back seat in a prudish society.

    Airport screeners would rather wave their magic wand than get a good look at the woman's breasts and see if she is hiding anything.

    Has any study been done on the possible dangers of the metal-detecting wand's electrical impulses on the human body? I haven't heard of any. Airport concourses are backed up waiting for passengers to be screened. It seems to me that having people strip to the waist before going through security would speed up the lines. A visual check can be much faster than the metal-detecting wand. Stripping to the waist would be optional, those prudes that are ashamed of the their body can keep their shirts on but those that are more interested in clearing security faster should be allowed to let the screeners and their fellow passengers get a good look.

    Hey, it is only the human body. Why is it public indecency to show a perfectly normal human body in public?

    All you have to do is look to Washington. Attorney General John Ashcroft often gives news conferences in the Great Hall of the Justice Department. In the hall is a large statue of a woman with her hands raised above her head dressed in a toga with one breast exposed. Mr. Ashcroft had curtains put up to hide the statue.

    He apparently has some psychological problem with a woman's breasts. Maybe if terrorists Mullah Omar and Ayman al-Zawahri went topless they would be in a prison instead of on the loose.

    (Osama bin-Laden is probably dead because if he was alive we would be flooded with videos.) If the Attorney General is so distressed by a woman's breasts that he feels the need to cover a statue, then he must have been horrified that a real woman would expose her breasts at an airport security station...

    I just don't understand what people have against breasts. Is it the nipple? We all have nipples and breasts, just women’s' breasts are mainly larger and actually do something, unlike male nipples which are strictly decorative.

    Why get offended at a part of the human body that we all have? A baby isn't offended; it requires the breasts for nourishment. A woman shouldn't be offended at a part of her own body. I would think most men wouldn't be offended. I find a woman's breasts like art work, some are better than others but none are obscene...

    The laws proclaiming "public indecency" for a woman to show her breasts should be removed from the books. They are outdated and indecent. In these times of struggling airlines, allowing women to strip to the waist at airport security can only have good results. It would mean faster moving security lines and more airline passengers, which would help the economy. For the good of the country ladies, show us your breasts...


    (now, this i can agree with):D
     
  6. truly good post. i needed the laughs after esignal started choking up on me again this afternoon - at least IB was alive and kicking...

    that ashcroft guy...he's like a dumber version of stalin, only instead of communism he's got religion...crisco is a good name for him. i'm sure someday he'll get caught in some whorehouse, smoking crack with the best of 'em...

    thanks vvv!
     
  7. if the republicans could get rid of the religious right, the dems would get about as much support as the Green party. All you liberals should be thankfull for the likes of Jerry Fallwell voting republican.
     
  8. I think you have it very, very backwards.

    Without the religious right, the repubs couldn't win elections.

    If the voters were smart enough to figure out how corrupt the republicans really were, the religious folks probably would stop voting republican, which they consistently do.

    Without the religious right voting republican, the repubs would be left with:

    -the upper class (<5% of americans - who vote for them purely for tax reasons)

    -the military (not sure what the percentage is, but probably not high enough to win an election)

    So who would be left to vote for the republicans then?? Not enough people to win an election.

    ...could it be that this whole Christianity thing is just a way to get voters?? could the republicans be that dishonest and thieving?? could it be true that many of Clinton's biggest impeachers in congress had also had numerous sex scandals and extramarital affairs of their own, and that they only use the whole "religious right" thing to get votes?? could that be why clinton didn't really give a sh!t about the whole impeachment thing??

    "NO!! Of course not!!! C'mon fella, relax! I'm not trying anything!" (Saddam Hussein South Park voice)

    if the repubs dropped the whole religion thing, everyone would probably vote libertarian or democrat...there'd be no use for a republican anymore.

    sorry, but it's the truth.
     
  9. Babak

    Babak

    Its a little known fact that since the mid 90's it has been legal for women to not wear a top in Canada. That right was won by a young woman who one summer day decided it was too hot and took off her top as she walked through her neighbourhood.

    She was arrested when someone called to complain but decided to fight it and in the end, the judge ruled that what she did was not against the law but completely legal.

    Now before you go and pack your luggage for a trip to Canada this summer, the unfortunate fact is that very few if any women have followed in that brave pioneer's footsteps.

    And amazingly enough, in countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and France where women do go topless at the beach frequently...it is illegal for them to do so.
     
  10. maybe we should all fly out of canada from now on.

    :D

    i think several places in the US have no topless law for women; i think NY is one of them...
     
    #10     Nov 15, 2002