Bachmann first presidential candidate to sign anti-Sharia pledge

Signing such a pledge, bob of potomac, simply confirms traditional American values and institutions (a real menace to modern liberals). Just because one is against gay marriage doesn't mean they are against gays enjoying many rights that married couples do, such as inheriting property tax free and hospital visitation privileges. Personally, I think gay marriage is ridiculous. It's like having kosher bacon, male nuns or guy waiters at Hooters. Moreover, many gays are against gay marriage. I have known several and, nationally, there are people like Tammy Bruce, a well known lesbian, who are on record being adamantly against gay marriage. But, in typical liberal mode, when you oppose something a liberal wants, you are not only wrong but bad, a heretic from the true faith which is modern liberalism. And what a hateful thing it is to believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Oh, the horror and bigotry of it all!

The term "denial of women's reproductive rights" is a boiler-plate phrase used by the Left to castigate anyone who is pro-life. I am pro-choice myself, although without enthusiasm, but I can respect folks who honestly believe that terminating the existence of a fetus at any stage in its development is the taking of a human life. It's been my experience that most pro-choice people simply can't tolerate an opinion on abortion other than their own.

As for man-made global warming, to date not a single piece of true scientific evidence has confirmed this theory. All man-made global warming enthusiasts have to sustain their hypothesis are computer model projections and correlation studies, both of which have notorious track records for accuracy. No hard scientific proof exists that man is affecting the climate in any significant way. If you think otherwise, go ahead and prove me wrong by citing the studies that do and which don't rely upon correlation studies or computer model projections, neither of which constitutes scientific proof. Sadly, even science has been politicized and this can be seen with the entire man-made global warming hysteria.

I do agree that Bachmann should bone up on her American history a little more. Putting Lexington and Concord in New Hampshire was a major goof, no doubt about it, but then let's not forget about the guy who talked about the 57 states, the bomb dropped on Pearl Harbor, who confused Memorial Day with Veterans Day and who said, when referencing some statement made by an Austrian, that he didn't speak Austrian. I think you know what guy I mean.

Finally, to accuse Bachmann of a theocratic interpretation of the First Amendment (or to aver as you did that her program is sharia-like) is, quite simply, absurd. Bachmann doesn't want a state church, doesn't want the clergy running the government and doesn't want direct government support of religious institutions. What she does want is what the Founding Fathers wanted---a secular government but not a secular society and the realization that there is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Liberals, in typical goof-up mode, confuse these two very different phrases.

Bachmann is not my first choice for the Republican nomination for President. She's not even my second choice. But I have no doubt that liberals will do all they can to trash her, portray her in one-dimensional characterizations and, in general, distort so much of what she stands for. Rather like you did.

nanook the eskimo, what's your problem really? When you're a public official, especially as the President, you need to set the right example, and since the US was founded on Judeo-Christian values (no, the Left and the Muslims didn't build the US!), the highest moral conduct, to the public especially the young!

... her denial of science (a conspriacy of thousands of scientists around the world is what she thinks global warming is)...

The claim of anthropogenic global warming has been an apparent scientific fraud from its inception. The geologic record consistently demonstrates that rising CO2 presence occurs roughly 800 yrs after the onset of a warming period.

Even GSERS living by the Potomac know that. Unless they're wilfully ignorant.

As for diversity, such wilfully ignorant GSERs could also live by the River Charles, the San Francisco Bay, the western shore of Lake Michigan, or in any number of other important locales where universities are located.

*** 33:21 ***

... (her) denial of gay rights...

The only right she and the majority of Americans would "deny" homosexuals is to call themselves married.

... (her) deinal of women's reproductive rights...

A woman has a right to the privacy of her own body. Trouble is, so does the unborn man or woman living inside the belly of a pregnant woman. Constiutionally speaking, the Roe vs Wade case never shoulda even been heard by the Supreme Court in the first place. The law calls for an up or down vote on the floor of Congress to legalize homicide. As Casey Stengel used to say, you can look it up.

Then why does she have a pro-Muslim running her campaign?

Please read:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/38608/why-did-michele-bachmann-hire-pan-arabist-ed-rollins-to-run-campaign/

Courreges W, this is dissapointing - looks like if Bachman gets into power, she might compromise after all! Herman Cain for President - he's very firm and truthful against Islam!

"Trouble is, so does the unborn man or woman living inside the belly of a pregnant woman."

Really? A "man" or "woman" lives inside the belly of a pregnant woman?
Whatever is inside the belly of a woman is her business and no one else's. No body has the right to decide what a woman should do with her body (or whatever is inside it). It is the woman's choice and it should be between her and her god.

Thanks for reading!

Yes, it's very disappointing.

Can everyone read this please before cheering Bachmann?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/38608/why-did-michele-bachmann-hire-pan-arabist-ed-rollins-to-run-campaign/

hi wellington! first of all the institution of marraige is the biggest fraud commited by man, straight or gay. you are also wrong bu thinking that gays and lesbians enjoy the same rights. thay do not. it depends what state they live in, more often the can not get health care for their partners, inheritance laws become very difficul, adoption is harder etc.. the women's reproductive system is not a liberal agenda. it is the right wing christian agenda and the church whose only intrets is to see who is f....ing who.global warming I am with you 100%.

Sorry, but I canot let this one go. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) does not allow polygamy; only a few members of apostate groups do so. Were a member of the LDS Church to be found having more than one wife, or committing adultery, he would be excommunicated for the former, and severely disciplined (up to and including excommunication) for the latter.

You unfairly categorize Mitt Romney. He is aware of the Islamic threat and strongly believes in the Constitution.

Your view on same-sex marriage is also questionable. I do not discriminate against gays and lesbians, but marriage must be reserved for the exclusive relationship of man and woman. Gays and lesbians may have unions, but please do not call it marriage. There is no society in the history of civilization which has recognized same-sex unions as being equivalent to the marriage of husband and wife.

look: this is totally drifting here. this whole issue of gay marriage, marriage, reproductive sytems and all that, everyone has a different feelings and opinion about it. however what we all have in common here is our hatred of sharia laws and worries that muslims are going to try to implent it. so let's just concentarate on that. if all of those candidates agree that sharia laws are no, then the should come and sya so. to mix sharia laws with say gay marriage and marrige vowis not right since epoepl have different feelings about it. all i am saying is this: let not mix something that is bad for everyone in this country, straights, gays, lesbians, conservetives, liberals etc.. which is sharia laws with contentious issues like ay marriage. it is going to further delay our progress. it is very gloomy here in NYC city. soon it is time for a stiff scotch and a monticristo #2!!!!!!!!!!!

Then why does she have a pro-Muslim running her campaign?

Because, despite being by far the best option among the slim pickings of the Repubican presidential hopefuls, she thinks that the U.S. Constitution prevails even where Moslems are involved.

A foolish but optimistic thought. She'll learn, although less quickly with a scumbag like CNN's Ed Rollins on her team.

"I do not discriminate against gays and lesbians, but marriage must be reserved for the exclusive relationship of man and woman. Gays and lesbians may have unions, but please do not call it marriage. There is no society in the history of civilization which has recognized same-sex unions as being equivalent to the marriage of husband and wife."

Same as my stance on this, EH. The entire issue of gay marriage could have been handled with the context of domestic or civil unions, with all the rights of marriage - without calling it "marriage."

The liberal left and gays are messing with one of the oldest institutions in human history, one charged with the care and training of the young, among other things. The gay agenda seems to driven by selfish narcissism and an organized attempt to discredit religion. Unfortunately, I also see quite a large number of leaders within the liberal churches conniving with the gay/lesbian/transgender alliance to advance their agenda. And there are those who are intent to shove it down the throats of a mostly unwilling military, as well.

It seems only to be in the West where this movement is picking up steam. And it gives Muslims another thing to point to as evidence that the West is becoming decadent.

"the marriage vow laws are just as shameful and disgusting as sharia laws"

Yeah - the above poster is nuts. And esp enjoys the phrase "douch (sic) bag."

No, the institution of marriage is not a "fraud." How absurd.

Bob I really don't know what you are doing here of course you have your right to say what ever but why not be honest rather than speak in generalities? How convenient it is to just mouth off opinion. MB has a right to be against gay marriage, she has a right to voice her opinion on abortion (by the way it is not excepted by all Americans if your not aware of that) she has a right to not accept the theory of global warming. The problem with you it seems is that you are so far left you would never be able to figure out right for yourself. If it feels good then go for it, isn't that the mantra of the Democrats today? Everyone like yourself speak of freedoms without responsibility. There is nothing wrong with a politician who takes a stand on principle. The fact of the matter is we have seen very few of them that are willing to do so. Why you ask? The reason they do not take a stand is because people like you are so shaped by the main stream media (and you are the norm not the exception) that they are criticized and demonized by people like you.

I cannot at all share your cynicism about marriage, miriam rove. I consider it the fundamental social building block for every successful polity and the sine qua non factor respecting marriage is gender distinction, not affection. As Eastview already mentioned, those supporting gay marriage are messing with probably the most important institution of man and I'm ticked off at them for this. I support gays and lesbians having many of the rights of marriage without them being able to marry someone of their own gender (I never said, by the way, that they already do have such rights in every state in America).

As I wrote above, gay marriage is ridiculous. It serves as the poster initiative of our time, lest it be the nonsensical notion that Islam is a good, peaceful and noble religion, which proves that we do indeed live in the Age of Nonsense, or the Silly Ages as I sometimes refer to man's history since the 1960s. One last thing. The intolerant and obnoxiously self-righteous Far Left may very well eventually go after the churches in America for being hate organizations for not marrying gays. I put nothing past these turkeys, just as I put nothng past the "more enthusiastic" Muslims out there. Both groups are a burden to mankind at large.

that is exactly my point

bob wrote: "Of course, the rest of her platform-- her misinterpretation of history....Don't get warmsy-cozy with wackos over one issue--

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Her misinterpretation of history." I'm prepared for bob's tu quoque allegation in response:

The following is a text of President Obama's prepared remarks to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009, as released by the White House.

"I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. ....More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims....."

Ahmad Al-Tayyib, Al-Azhar University President and Former Mufti of Egypt, Justifies Palestinian Suicide Bombings," from MEMRI (thanks to LGF):

Following is an excerpt from an interview with Al-Azhar University President Ahmad Al-Tayyib, former mufti of Egypt, which aired on Al-Mihwar TV on October 10, 2007:

Ahmad Al-Tayyib: We do not permit the killing or terrorizing of peaceful people, when two countries, two armies, or two forces confront one another. This is forbidden, even if the Muslim forces are being defeated. But with regard to Palestine and Israel, this is not the case, and to say otherwise is to confuse things. We are facing a country, which is armed to the teeth with a hellish weapon...

Yusuf al-Qaradawi; born September 9, 1926) is an Egyptian Islamic theologian. Al-Qaradawi condones Palestinian attacks on Israelis. A resolution issued by The Islamic Fiqh Council affiliated to the Muslim World League in its 14th session, held in Doha (Qatar) on 11–16 January 2003 has upheld his views on the matter. Defending bombings against Israeli civilians, al-Qaradawi told BBC Newsnight in 2005 that:

"An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."
"I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice."
"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".

He supports suicide attacks on all Israelis, including women since he views the Israeli society as a "completely military" society that did not include any civilians. He also considers pregnant women and their unborn babies to be valid targets on the ground that the babies could grow up to join the Israeli Army.

Israeli citizens are "forces of occupation." Therefore "martyrdom operations … (are the) highest form of jihad operations. Suicide attacks are "an Islamic commandment until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat."

-- Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the head of Al Azhar University in Egypt, April 4, 2002 *

The late Muslim Pope Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, Grand Imam of Cairo’s Al Azhar University from 1996 till his death last March 2010, wrote a 700 pp. treatise rationalizing traditional Islamic Jew hatred, past and present, sanctioned homicide bombings against Israeli non-combatants, and supported “martyrdom” attacks on US troops in Iraq–although under pressure he eventually equivocated on this latter justification,

Tantawi’s academic magnum opus, Jews in the Koran and the Traditions, included these words rationalizing Muslim Jew hatred (translated, here):

[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [Koran 2:61/ 3:112], corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word {Koranic citations here]….[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims {Koran 3:113], the bad ones do not.

Obama: "For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress."

You're the man Wellington!

Very eloquently cut through all the smoke screens and misconceptions, especially on the gay marriage and global warming subjects.

The fact is that many religious people see no contradiction between their religious faith and gay marriage or homosexuality. This includes clergy as well as lay people. Perhaps you are not aware of this fact, because your religious beliefs are different and you have not taken the time to investigate other faiths or denominations. Perhaps you believe your religious beliefs are superior and all others are wrong? That's unfortunate in my opinion because that attitude of intolerance is contrary to any sincere religious person who seeks to know G*d, which is ultimately personal.

Furthermore, as a religious person you certainly must know that there is nothing about homosexuality in the Ten Commandments.

"Why does the pledge lump Sharia in with the "The Marriage Vow" and all those other issues???"

Because they are all Christian conservative values. Whether they sign it or not Palin, West, and Cain would all agree in principle. The fact is, if you resist Sharia, but invite these other things, we would still be doomed.

"Furthermore, as a religious person you certainly must know that there is nothing about homosexuality in the Ten Commandments."

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
Ex 20:12

It even says "so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you". Ouch!

Mr. Pig Farmer, you'll be gratified to know that I am quite fond of bacon, sausage, trotters, chops--any pert of Piggy is perfectly fine with me (as Noel Coward once said), and your post will make my buy and eat more.

Ms. Bachmann looks better to me daily.

I'm old enough to remember when "scientific fact" held that we'd all freeze to death by 2000 or run out of oxygen by 1975. Back then, I wasn't a Christian, but since becoming one and running into the Campings and Hal Lindsays of the world, I've reached the conclusion that AGW (like the coming ice age before it) is nothing more than an apocalypticist fear-mongering ploy to revv up the troops for more government funding for various pet research projects, or, perhaps, for more and more power to the Soviets or whoever is going to play nanny to us benighted commoners. Apocalypticism is good for that kind of thing.

As for "reproductive rights" and a "womyn's right to choose", I can't help but notice that some of these groups advocating such things are having fits because sonograms are becoming more available, as if they fear people finding out that unborn children are human.

Since such people often call themselves democratic socialists around people whom they think are sympathetic, why the h**k don't they recognize that human society might not just begin the moment a fetus of four months is able to distinguish her mother's from other voices, or even earlier?

And I cannot see homosexuality, at least of the male variety, as healthy. Even if I didn't have the Bible, I'd think that anyone who enjoys the equivalent of a rectal inspection has to be sick in the head; and anyone who enjoys dishing it out has to be more than a little bit sadistic [pull the legs off small living animals cruel, perhaps]. My guess is also that one reason why HIV-AIDS and other loathsome diseases crop up so frequently among male homosexuals is that the human colon just isn't made to take a lot of entry, even if it is perfectly suited to get rid of relatively small quantities of disintegrating matter whenever needed [OK, now you know that old Uncle Kepha has had a cancer scare already].

Further, stats from Sweden and other places where homosexuals may call their hookups "marriage" show that such "marriages" are both few and unstable. My guess is that it's a ploy to sear the consciences of our judges and expose those of us who would protect traditional marriage to the taunt of "bigot". Given the propensity of organized sodomy to support things like "hate speech" laws and define crimes against its members as specially odious "hate crimes" (as if "love crimes" or "respect crimes" could possibly exist), I see that movement as an enemy of Western liberty, not as poor, put-upon oppressed people.
By all means, execute people who murder homosexuals, but don't pretend that such murders are any worse than any other kind.

The whole sexual revolution is a huge part of the self-destructive path on which too much of Western civilization has embarked; not evidence of how much we love liberty. It may also be one reason why our elite culture is absolutely incapable of standing up for the people it purports to govern and the constitutional order it has sworn to uphold, and hence supine, clueless, and timid before radical Islamic aggression.

Indeed, the whole Left-wing "thing" of destroying one's progeny before they can be born, going out of the way to prove how tolerant one is of behaviors which prior generations found disgusting and horrifying,and embracing every barbarous system from Maoism to political Islam is nothing less than political and cultural suicide. It's telling that those Hippies of 1968 who screamed about America as a "sick society" [and, back then,Young Folks, "fag" was one of the worst things they could call someone] have only made it a lot sicker since worming their ways into the corridors of power.

So, Michelle Bachmann, three ringing cheers to you for signing the anti-Sharia pledge. America doesn't need thieves' hands being amputated, non-Muslim testimony having only half the value of Muslim testimony, or Muslim marriage laws invalidating a battered wife's seeking an injunction against intra-marital rape. Nor do we need supposed laws of "sexual purity" which, in fact, only sanctify the basest lusts of us males.

If Bachmann's going to take a broom to that sorry mess, she'll get my vote.

You wrote:

"Anyone who opposes gay marriage should recognize that many people on the forefront of supporting the right for gays to marry are allied against Islamic supremacism, and for all the right reasons. For Bachmann to lump opposition to Sharia with opposition to gay marriage, as if rooted in the same principles, is at best a distraction from the critical fight against Sharia and Islamic supremacism, and at worst a morally inconsistent, self-harming endeavor."

Well, where I live, in the heart of a deep indigo state, most people I know who are for homosexual marriage also see Islamic influence as a positive force for their great god "diversity"--and not a few of them would revoke the license of any physician who refuses to perform an abortion as well.

Now, I'll grant you that most of the people I know who embrace both a large Islamic presence AND the homosexual agenda are also pretty ignorant about what the first thing entails and full of hackneyed moral equivalence when discussing the less pleasant things about Islam.

Kepha, you wrote: "I'd think that anyone who enjoys the equivalent of a rectal inspection has to be sick in the head; and anyone who enjoys dishing it out has to be more than a little bit sadistic [pull the legs off small living animals cruel, perhaps]."

Hate to burst your naive little bubble, but if your assessment is correct there's a staggering number of heterosexual couples that are "sadistic" and/or "sick in the head" as well. That, or perhaps they just do it because it feels good.

I enjoyed your posts. The Devil has sent a twin headed monster to the West to destroy it. Islam and the left.

Kepha

You have echoed my thoughts exactly on the subject of same-sex marriage, and also on Michelle Bachmnann's common-sense attitudes and her embrace of traditional moral values. No wonder the Left despises her so much and delights in portraying her as a yahoo, know-nothing, "pretty face". Nancy Pelosi has made numerous more serious gaffes than Michelle has, and the Left and the Mainstream Media give her a pass. Bachmann and Palin are off the Leftist "reservation", and therefore the feminists and leftists "throw them under the bus".

It is importasnt for all of us to realize that our ultimate challenge, and the ultimate challenge for all free people, is to prevent the imposition of sharia law by Islamists everywhere....

"It is the woman's choice and it should be between her and her god."
Never heard of "Thou shalt not kill"?

"All these proponents of the "rights of the fetus", do they also oppose death penalty and wars? I think not."

Moral equivalence between destroying human's before they have a chance to be born and killing enemies who kill us.. Good one, that is really logical. You liberals can't judge good and evil too well can you?

To make it simple for you, we kill only the bad guys and leave the good ones alone.

All these proponents of the "rights of the fetus", do they also oppose death penalty and wars? I think not. A bunch of hypocrites.

You think wrong, I am against the death penalty, and abortion, and war...

On Bachman...If she is the nominee I will vote for her...If she is not the nominee I will vote for whoever is...I would vote for Daffy Duck if he were running against Rasool Obama...

"Human fetus, tiger fetus, monkey fetus all look the same."
You're talking rubbish. Human features are clearly visible within the 1st trimester. eg human hands and feet are seen by 12 wks.

"Honor your father and mother" means that a child should honor his or her parents. That's easy to understand whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual. In fact, I should have pointed out in my previous comment that all of the Ten Commandments are easy to understand and are followed by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

In all my years of studying the Bible and attending religious services I have never heard anyone interpret this commandment as a prohibition against homosexuality. I've also never heard it to mean that a person can not be raised by grandparents, or be adopted by people to whom one has no genetic relationship, if you insist on being literal.

Seems like you are taking something which is a very beautiful sentiment about the responsibility of children towards their parents and twisting its meaning into something very different.

"denial of gay rights"
There are no rights being denied to anyone.

"deinal of women's reproductive rights"
It is not any woman's right to murder her unborn child.

"her thocratice interpretation of the First Amendment"
I do not know what you mean here. Please clarify.

"her misinterpretation of history"
Evidence?

"denial of science (a conspriacy of thousands of scientists around the world is what she thinks global warming is)
What denial of science? Global warming has been proven to be a hoax. Go look it up. I will not do your work for you.

"--makes her a candidate whose own program is very sharia-like"
Wow, really? Michele Bachmann supports submission/murder of unbelievers, the oppression of women and follows a religion that she believes must be forced upon the world? I must've missed that.

Go find somewhere else to troll.

"... from the destruction that is so evidently upon us."
The warnings in your quotes of Washinton, Madison and Penn are seen writ large in europe today where these warnings have have been mocked and ignored. acta est fabula. Now Islam moves in like a huge vulture over the dying body.

Wow, the trolls are out tonight. Is it a full moon?

"All these proponents of the "rights of the fetus", do they also oppose death penalty and wars? I think not. A bunch of hypocrites. As for a sonogram showing fetus as "human", that is nonsense. Human fetus, tiger fetus, monkey fetus all look the same."

Let's see:

- murdering an innocent, unborn child
- the legal system taking the life of someone found guilty of a heinous crime and
- wars, which are often started by one party being the aggressor toward another party who is unable or unwilling to fight, but has no choice other than to defend itself

In your mind, these are all the same? You know they are not.

Also, you know a human fetus does not look like an animal one. You know this. Take your nonsense elsewhere.

Whatever is inside the belly of a woman is her business and no one else's.

And what about the human in her belly. He or she has no business in its very survival?

All these proponents of the "rights of the fetus", do they also oppose death penalty and wars? I think not. A bunch of hypocrites.

How does one oppose a war? When confronted with aggression a people either defends itself or folds. They ain't no pro or con about it, so there can be no hypocrisy there.

The hypocrisy is baked into moral equivalency, where, in considering a fight, the assumption is that there is no right and wrong at stake, only near term costs and benefits. This thinking is delusional to the point of self destructive behavior.

*** 8:39 ***

So fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.

Betcha your average Joe Moslem doesn't oppose war. By design he's all for it, and ain't shy about naming his enemy and defining what constitutes victory.

You can call Moslems a lotta things, but when it comes to war you can't call them hypocrites. That's what they do, and they're darned good at it.

""Honor your father and mother" means that a child should honor his or her parents."

Yes, and it assumes they will be a man and a woman. So homosexuals have perverted God's natural law.

This verse is more direct for you. See if the shoe fits.

"God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Rom 1:24

Actually, much that I hear about West leaves a positive impression with me.

katharina wrote: "Great news! The once great US must be reclaimed from the evil Caliph Hussein Obama, Muslim fanatics and the Left!"

Ah yes, the Left.

Ever hear of Republican Congressman Larry Craig, who trolled around in men's rooms looking for gay sex? Or how about Republican Governor Mark Sanford, the one who jaunted down to Argentina to see his mistress? Not to mention Newt Gingrich, who appears to have a problem recognizing his wife before initiating sex.

Democrats do not have a monopoly on extramarital affairs and Republicans do not have a monopoly on the truth.

EuskalHerria wrote: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) does not allow polygamy; only a few members of apostate groups do so."

It is a lot more than just a "few members". Google on "warren jeffs" or "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" for lots of stories about how Mormons in North America practice polygamy by the truckload. The following URL explains the connection between the Mormons in Bountiful, B.C. Canada and the ones in southern Utah and northern Arizona, all of whom practice polygamy. They traffick in teen-aged girls for the top dogs, with "eight young teenage girls, some as young as 12" being sent from Canada to the Mormons in the USA.

RCMP to investigate alleged cross-border marriages tied to Bountiful
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/RCMP+investigate+Bountiful+over+marriages+underage+girls/4350475/story.html

You are way off base in your criticizing of the LDS Church. Warren Jeffs and his associates ARE NOT members of the Church; they are NOT "Mormons"! if they were they would be excommunicated, and fast! No Mormons do the horrendous things you stated!

You seem to have a great deal of hostility against the LDS Church. Perhaps were you to learn more about it and its texts and tenets you would change your mind.

The things you stated are abominable to all honest people.

EuskalHerria wrote: "You seem to have a great deal of hostility against the LDS Church."

I never said any insulting things regarding Mormons; I only stated facts.

I proved my point regarding your inaccurate assertion that there are only a few members of apostate groups, as you put it. I would have used a different word than apostate -- my choice is fundamentalist -- because they have not renounced anything; they believe in Mormonism as practiced before the Second Manifesto in 1904.

I know a great deal about Mormonism. I have talked to non-serious ones about the undergarments that women are never supposed to remove (bet you thought I'd never know about that). I know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I have traveled all over Utah and northern Arizona. I have worked with many Mormons.

If you honestly think there are only a handful of fundamentalist Mormons, then you need to visit southern Utah, northern Arizona, and Bountiful B.C. -- where there are thousands of them

For those who are curious about the Mormon Church, look at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/ where a Frontline special can be viewed.

Ray Thomas wrote: "pro-Constitution mindset are the essential cornerstones of our nation."

Funny thing about that Constitution; it has changed over the years. If you disagree with all of the changes since 1787, then you must also be in favor of preventing women from voting. I find it most amusing that women like Bachmann want to return to the Constitution, yet still want to vote.

Though I agree with most of the people here regarding sharia, as it is tantamount to treason / sedition and/or unequal treatment under the law.

I wrote: "For those who are curious about the Mormon Church, look at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/ where a Frontline special can be viewed."

It just occurred to me that we should all email Frontline and demand that they create a show on Islam similar to the one on Mormonism and Christianity (see below). These shows were fairly unbaised and showed a few warts. We should demand that they cover the usual subjects discussed here: Muhammad's marriage consumation with Aisha at age 9-10, the Koran requiring that four witnesses be produced to prosecute for rape, all of the Koranic calls for death to infidels, the true meaning of jihad, sharia courts in Saudi Arabia and the UK, Anjem Choudary, etc.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

"Wow, the trolls are out tonight. Is it a full moon?"

Must be. Since you are around.

"murdering an innocent, unborn child"

Really? There is no child. Just a bunch of cells trying to become something.

"the legal system taking the life of someone found guilty of a heinous crime and"

You are either against taking life or you are for it. Bachman claims that the rights to life comes from God in order to support her anti women's choice views. Then she should be against capital punishment as well. Anything else is sheer hypocracy

"wars, which are often started by one party being the aggressor toward another party who is unable or unwilling to fight, but has no choice other than to defend itself"

Such as the one that US launched against Iraq? Any of you anti women's choice zealots opposed it.

"
Also, you know a human fetus does not look like an animal one. You know this. Take your nonsense elsewhere."

You are the one that talks nonsense. Study the fetus from start to finish. It starts out like a fish, amphibean. All fetuses, mind you - tiger, pigs etc. It is only towards the later stages that it shows similarity to primates.

""It is the woman's choice and it should be between her and her god."
Never heard of "Thou shalt not kill"?

"

Kill what? Something that is not yet a human? What is a human, anyway? The bunch of cells growing in a woman's body has not yet demonstrated a sense of self for it to be defined as a human. Do you follow "thou shalt not kill" in other cases? Is capital punishment banned in US? Did you support the Iraq war? How about other living creatures? Let us say you have a dog as a companion. It is an intelligent creature, loving and obedient. But you still sometimes need to put it out. Is that not killing? Why is killing the dog that trusted you and was your steady companion okay, but the killing of undeveloped cells in your body wrong?

What you bunch of right wing hypocrites need to understand that being pro choice does not automatically translate to being pro abortion. It means it is between the woman and her God. "justice is mine, saith the lord.".

A gay person in America has the same opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex who is of the age of majority and not currently married as a non-gay person. No other civilization in human history, including those which have tolerated homosexuality, have called marriage anything other than between people of the opposite sex. It is a lie of modern liberals that conservative Christians want a theocracy in the United States. This lie is taught in many universities in the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who claim that those in opposition to "gay marriage" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) are the same as those who support Shariah law, or believe the same about homosexuals as those who would impose Shariah are either propagandists or hopelessly ignorant.

Life is a continuum from conception to natural death (or unnatural if one is a victim of a heinous crime). That is science. Period.

Poor Ted Olson. He is simply not thinking logically. Homosexuality is illogical from a biological, physiological, anatomical, and psychological standpoint.

You are absolutely wrong. I have lived in many areas among Mormons for years, and I have never known of any, besides the non-LDS followers of Warren Jeffs and other such screwballs, who behave in the manner you have described.

Incidentally the garments you referred to are worn by both men and women who have been endowed in the temple. They remind the wearer of the sacred covenants they have made.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a tragic act, the only one where Mormons were guilty of such an abominable act. When Brigham Young found out about it, he was devastated. The LDS Church has since tried to make amends to the descendants of the victims.

The Mormons were severely persecuted in New York, Missouri and Illinois, and Gov. Lilburn Boggs issued an "extermination order" against them. Their houses were burned, their women were raped, their men were killed, and their prophet Joseph Smith was martyred by a mob at Liberty Jail. They were forced to leave the city of Nauvoo, Illinois following the martyrdom of their prophet, most of them fleeing West under the leadership of Brigham Young.

All of this, of course, did not excuse the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the killing of innocent men, women and children in their wagon train, but please keep a sense of perspective.

Again, your judging of the LDS Church by such apostates as Jeff's group is totally unfair; you judge the LDS Church of over 14 million members by the scurrilous actions of small apostate groups not associated with the "Mormons" in any way, shape, or form. The so-called "members" still practicing polygamy and marrying young girls are sinning against God and are in no way members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

And that is the truth!

The point is Ron, that we are not all Christians. You have every right to obsess over the sexual acts of other people and condemn them as perversions if you believe your religion tells you that. Personally I would rather not think about the perverse sexual acts of anyone, heterosexual or homosexual.

It's typical of all religions for people to argue about which laws have to be followed and which ones can be ignored. Why did Christians decide it was OK to eat pork and shellfish, etc.? Was it an act of divine intervention that came out of a dream Paul had? Like Mohammed's dream of Jerusalem, which means Muslims have a claim to Jerusalem?

The point is you have every right to believe whatever you want. So does everybody else does. Just don't assume that everyone else has to believe what you believe to be blessed. For example, Jews think that living as a celibate, such as a Catholic priest or nun, is a sin.

There's really no point in fighting over the differences. Frankly it's the opposite of what any loving Creator would want for us, in my opinion.

EuskalHerria:
"Again, your judging of the LDS Church by such apostates as Jeff's group is totally unfair; you judge the LDS Church of over 14 million members by the scurrilous actions of small apostate groups not associated with the "Mormons" in any way, shape, or form. The so-called "members" still practicing polygamy and marrying young girls are sinning against God and are in no way members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

There may be a to me very interesting difference in the organisations of Mormons and Muslims.

One is a Muslim when one is born into Islam. And when one has said the Shahada, prays 5 times a day, practices the Ramadan, pays Zakat and goes on the Hajj once. One is even forbidden to leave Islam on pain of death.

Is it like that in Mormonism too?

Or is it, what I understood from you, the case that membership of Mormonism, although welcomed, encouraged and cherished, also has some doctrinal conditions? And when those conditions are broken by self-confessed Mormons, that those "Mormons" then can be officially kicked out of the LDS-church?

Because it would mean that every time a Mormon spoke out on doctrinal matters, about what Mormonism is or is not, wants or does not want, it can be verified if this Mormon speaks for the Mormon doctrine and all members of the LDS-church or not. And that (s)he can be challenged on that and judged by some authoritative councils inside the LDS-church if it is controversial what (s)he says and does.

This is refreshing because in this way at least clarity about doctrine is provided and trust and credibility and accountability of this doctrine are maintained. Notwithstanding that many other humans disagree.

I think it would mean also that when Mormons would be in majority and power in whole countries their co-religionists in Democratic countries still would feel responsible for what they did to religious minorities and would feel tarnished in reputation if Mormons behaved violent, oppressive and unjust in other countries. and that Mormon authoritative councils would seek to disengage from the misbehaving self-confessed "Mormons".

And that is a very good example to Muslims IMO.

Thank you very much for your statements and questions about the LDS Church and its tenets concerning membership and beliefs. The Church is headed by the First Presidency, the President (Prophet) and his two counsellors, and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. It is they who are the ultimate authorities on doctrine and practices in the Church. Members of the Church who violate its teachings on the sanctity of marriage and who act in opposition to the moral standards of chastity and purity are subject to discipline, up to and including excommunication.

No one is "born into" the Church; children of members are brought up as Mormon Christians and are baptized at the age of 8 years.

There is no penalty for "leaving" the Church, although it is considered an unfortunate, tragic choice for the individual who does so. The Church holds the principle of agency, or freedom of choice, to be sacred. This is in direct opposition to totalitarian belief systems, which mandate total control over the individual, including the matter of life and death in the case of Islam in the matter of a person's desire to part company with that particular religion.

It is illustrative to consider the state of Utah, where Mormons constitute over 50 percent of the population. Non-Mormons are free to worship anyway they please, and LDS people do not discriminate against them, except for a few unfortunate isolated cases. (Yes, there are a few Mormons who give the rest of us a bad name, with some). The Jews have a special place in the hearts of Mormons, and there are many people of all races who are Church members.

It is interesting to note that there are more Spanish speaking members of the Church today than English speakers; my son spent 2 years in Ecuador on a mission (young men are epected to spend 2 years serving a mission, and young women may, also, if they desire to).

I hope that I have done some good in explaining how the Church relates to its non-Mormon neighbors. We consider all men and women to be the sons and daughters of God and He loves all of His children equally.

There is no such thing as "Christian Sharia" and Michelle Bachmann has NO intention of imposing so-called "Christian law" on the populace. To compare the totalitarian Islamic law of Sharia with Christian teachings is outrageous, ind indicates a total lack of comprehension.

Remember, people, there is only ONE totalitarian religious system and it is the mortal enemy of freedom, and that is Islam...please do not go out in "left field" and make analogies between the practitioners of Christianity and Islam. This is the trap the leftists want us all to fall into...

EuskalHerria wrote: "When Brigham Young found out about [the Mountain Meadows Massacre], he was devastated"

That is certainly the official Mormon point of view. Sources I have read suggest that Young ordered it. We will never know. However, I find it extremely difficult to believe that John D. Lee was the highest ranking Mormon responsible, especially given that he declared that he was a scapegoat for others.

EuskalHerria wrote: "please keep a sense of perspective"

Oh, but I am. The massacre happened when the federal government was trying to force Mormons to renounce polygamy as a condition to Utah becoming a state.

EuskalHerria wrote: "Non-Mormons are free to worship anyway they please, and LDS people do not discriminate against them, except for a few unfortunate isolated cases"

I have known people who worked in the Salt Lake metro area. Their salaries were significantly less than devout Mormons. Concidence? Perhaps, but they were convinced that their being infidels was taken into account as far as their salary.

EuskalHerria wrote: "Michelle Bachmann has NO intention of imposing so-called 'Christian law' on the populace"

You have no idea what is in Bachmann's head. It is highly presumptuous for you to state this as an absolute fact. Below is an article showing Bachmann's hypocrisy about accepting $250,000 in government farm subsidies while decrying others doing the same thing.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/22/michele-bachmans-farm-received-over-250-000-in-federal-subsidi/

janaki wrote: "There is no child. Just a bunch of cells trying to become something"

Interesting choice of words. Wrong, but interesting. That bunch of cells is almost guaranteed to become a child.

A comment we often hear from pro-abortion people is that no one can tell a woman what to do with her body. Nonsense. If a woman asked her doctor to cut off her hand or remove her kidney because it is her choice, she might very well be locked up in a nuthouse. Ever read the original Hippocratic Oath?

"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."

And to compare abortion with the death penalty is really ignorant. The former involves an innocent party, while the latter involves someone who killed knowing full well what they were doing was really wrong.

You are, unfortunately, being intellectually dishonest.

I have never heard about non-Mormons being payed less based on their religion. No one I know of is treated like this.

I live in Boise, Idaho where over 25% of the populace is LDS, and Mormons and non-Mormons get along quite well, for your information.

Now quit the Mormon-bashing and face up to the fact that Islam is the problem, not Mormonism. Mormon Americans are loyal Americans!

Please grow up...

To Bob of Potomac:
The list of criticisms that you cite are actually COMMENDABLE ATTRIBUTES.
1_Are you a closet apologist for creeping Sharia? Your follow-up criticisms of this great lady make everything else you say suspect to a craven disregard for our constitution. I suspect that you have no understanding of how Muslims use the 1st amendment to hijack the Supremacy Clause of Article 4.
2_You ARE obviously a SODOMY advocate. Before libs came along and damaged the morality of our legal code, such debauchery used to be punishable and should be again.
3_Your support for the junk science of global warming makes you a big government proponent, and not a person whose judgment should be taken seriously.

Michelle Bachman has the cahonies that you and the other socialist ignorts lack! She didn’t hesitate, stammer, hedge or delay. She SIGNED IT WITHOUT ANY RESERVATIONS! Her judgment is sound. She is a righteous soul, just the opposite of her detractors. Signing this pledge is just another example of her moral courage and faithfulness to the U.S. Constitution. It is my hope that Michelle Bachman will be the next President of the United States. The others are either “thinking about” signing the pledge or will “refuse” to sign it. That’s the difference between a “statesman” and a “politician.”
God bless Michelle Bachman!

@John Noble

I seriously can't believe the crap you're spouting. Bob of Potomac has the Bachmann lady effectively pegged, but yet you think he's an apologist and a socialist because of it? Evidently you (and most of the JihadWatch membership, I've come to believe) have allowed the far-right to distort and conceal the definitions of apologetics and socialism, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such garbage.

As it stands, the more I re-read your post, the more proof I collect indicating that not only is there such a thing as the American Taliban, it is alive and well. The irony is that you don't even realize that with your talk about re-illegalizing sodomy, you're PROVING you're no better than the islamists you so despise.

The plan of the evangelicals and the dominionists to take over America is certainly more subtle, and what they want to turn America into will probably be less severe, but there will nevertheless be little to differentiate it from an islamic state. You can try to deny it all you want, but at the end of the day the christian fundamentalists want the the same thing as the sand cultists.

Michelle Bachmann is a NUT. She might be a NUT with a few good ideas regarding islam, most of us can agree on that, but that doesn't hide the fact that she is still a fundamentalist NUT. As with all religious wackos, she is incapable of accepting the idea that not everybody shares her warped viewpoint. She has no concept of tolerance, acceptance or compromise, and she will make this PAINFULLY clear if she gets anywhere near the presidency. Thankfully Mitt Romney appears to have the nomination locked in at this stage, though I have no doubt Obama would wipe the floor with her if she got that far.

I want to see the threat of islam curtailed as much as anybody else here, but we should NOT sacrifice the few freedoms and liberties we as true blue American citizens still have to do so. We should NOT have to fight fire with fire, because if we do, how are we any better than the Mohammedans?

Oh yeah, that pledge is almost identical to the tenets of Sharia law!

-1/29/07 Daily Telegraph UK: 40% of Muslims, ages 16 to 24, want Sharia law; 13% admire al-Qaeda; 36% believe apostates should be executed; 75% believe that women should wear veils.
-5/22/07 Reuters: 25% of young American Muslims believe in suicide bombings to fight the West.
-7/10/07 worldpress.org: Poll of Muslims in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia indicates that 75% believe in strict application of Sharia law.
-7/27/08 Sunday Times UK: 33% of Muslim students support killing for islam; 33% want world Islamic law.
-7/10/10 Sunday Times, UK: Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with Sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
-12/5/10 LA Times: A new Pew Research Center poll shows that majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing the current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion. All of this, under Sharia law.

Reply to Alex Fraser:
So, you’re another Bible-basher with name-calling expertise. Are we supposed to be convinced by your MSNBC style scorn for Divine authority? Should the founders of this nation be ashamed of the Judeo-Christian principles and values that are the basis for America becoming the greatest nation in history? Should the moral standards of the nation be lowered to accommodate those who reject moral standards? “Fundamentalism” is NOT a bad word, and “Gay” used to be a good word until it was perverted by the queers.

Biblical principles have long been upheld by both state and Supreme Court decisions that Bitch-Slap all of your self-serving distortions of right and wrong. There are mountains of legal precedent in this country to refute your evil arguments. Here are just a few:
1_ John M’Creery’s Lessee v. Allender, 1799_ Supreme Court of Maryland
2_ Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799_ Supreme Court of Maryland
3_ The People v. Ruggles, 1811_The Supreme Court of New York
4_ The Commonwealth v. Sharpless, 1815_Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
5_ Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824_Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
6_ Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 1838_ Supreme Court of Massachusetts
7_ Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 1892_U.S. Supreme Court
8_ Vidal v. Girard’ Executors, 1844_ U.S. Supreme Court
9_ City of Charleston v. S. A. Benjamin, 1846_Supreme Court of South Carolina
9_ Shover v. State, 1850_Supreme Court of Arkansas
10_ Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 1859_Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
11_ Lindenmuller v. The People, 1860_Supreme Court of New York
12_ Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885_ U.S. Supreme Court
13_ Davis v. Beason, 1889_U.S. Supreme Court
14_ United States v. Macintosh, 1931_U.S. Supreme Court
15_Zorach v. Clauson, 1952_U.S. Supreme Court

America needs a “Hard Right Turn” back to its founding principles, not the “Hard Left Turn” that queers and the honor-less lechers are trying to drag us down to. When the homosexuals in this country made their lifestyle a public issue trying to de-legitimize what our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture deems as perversity, they became FAIR GAME and need to be CHALLENGED and put down HARD. Sodomy IS and SHOULD AGAIN BE a punishable offense! It is not surprising that sodomites are uncomfortable with Islam. It would seem that Christianity is not the only “threat” to their warped behavior.

Michelle Bachman is a breath of fresh air. She has spotlighted the rats and roaches who resent being exposed for what they are… America-haters, those who would destroy the principles that built our nation in order to satisfy their unquenchable lasciviousness.

I read the pledge, kamala, in its entirety and found nothing awful about it as you did. It merely, among other things, reconfirms traditional views of marriage, something I support. As I've written before, gay marriage is absurd because the sine qua non factor for marriabe through the millennia has been gender distinction, not affection. Personally I have long supported domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples which would bestow many of the rights of marriage on such folks without it being labeled marriage. Even someone as liberal as Howard Dean, when he was Governor of Vermont, was against gay marriage because, as he said, it would unnecessarily aggravate many religious people. That's why he signed a civil union bill into law. Just because one is against gay marriage doesn't mean they are a bigot, you know. Also, the hard left, I think, will eventually go after the churches for being hate organizations because they won't marry gays. The intolerance in America today comes far more from the left than it does from the right. As an example, left-wing speakers on college campuses or at similar forums virtually never need protection but right-wing speakers often times do. There is a strong strain of totalitarianism in modern leftism. Speech codes and hate laws are evidence of this as well.

As for the contention that black children were more likely to be raised by their mother and father in the mid-nineteenth century than today, this is probably true. Today some 70% of black chldren are NOT raised by two parents. I know full well that when the heinous institution of slavery existed in America, many times slave families were split up, this being just another awful aspect of slavery, but I'm pretty damn sure it didn't amount to 70% of black families circa 1860. I do concede though that the take on this issue could have been better stated.

On the matter of nurture versus nature respecting why sonmeone is gay, the verdict is still out on this one. There is no definitive scientific proof that one is born gay or becomes one by the age of four or five. Personally, I don't think it's an either/or. I believe it's probably some combination of the two. But the footnote cited in the pledge which maintained that certainty about the genesis of one's sexual orientation has still not been determined is eminently correct. Besides, in a way, what difference does it make? If being gay is a good thing, then whether one becomes gay or is born gay is nothing more than an interesting academic question. Conversely, if being gay is immoral or wrong, then again whether one is born gay or eventually becomes gay doesn't make all that much difference. Ditto for those who are natural leaders (which most everyone would say is a good attribute) and for pathological liars (which, of course, just about everyone would say is a negative trait). I'm not arguing, one way or another, that being homosexual is a positive or a negative. All I am saying is that the morality of a particular attribute or inclination should not depend on whether one is born with it or acquires it.

Finally, I kind of like "Sharia Islam" being thrown in for good measure in the pledge and here's why: Islam, like the far left, is replete with totalitarian and intolerant elements (though I would have noted that Sharia is the legal system of Islam and phrased things along these lines). Opposing one should effortlessly lead to opposing the other. It's not illogical to link them. In modern America today, I detect far more intolerance from the secular progressive left than I do from the Christian conservative right. For the record, I'm not a Christian. I'm not religious at all. But I do admire the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic and I find it far more acceptable an ethic to follow than the ethic formulated by the secular progressives from the 1960s onwards.

I write all this in a spirit of amicable debate and not hostility. I would welcome any response from you should you be so inclined.

As I've written before, gay marriage is absurd because the sine qua non factor for marriabe through the millennia has been gender distinction, not affection.

I don't think I can outdo Ted Olson's response on this front: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

It sounds like you're willing to bestow every right of marriage to two gay people except for the right to label it marriage? If so, why do you care what two gay persons who love each other call their union? If not, which rights do you want to withhold from a gay couple and why? Live and let live, I say.

As for the contention that black children were more likely to be raised by their mother and father in the mid-nineteenth century than today, this is probably true.

Truth is not the right litmus test for a racist, irrelevant statement. I notice you were careful to leave out the word "slavery" in your summary above of this claim, whereas that was a key point in the pledge. Let me surmise that you yourself are embarrassed to make the same point. I could state that slavery, "as bad as it was," saw a lower black crime rate than we see now; would that be relevant to a discussion about the modern black crime rate? Or how about analyzing the Arab-Israeli conflict by pointing out that, bad as it was, there would be no modern Arab-Israeli wars if the Jews had just "stayed in Europe." True statement, right?

All I am saying is that the morality of a particular attribute or inclination should not depend on whether one is born with it or acquires it.

I believe you're missing a key point. One of the arguments against equal rights for gay people is that it will encourage more gayness (which is "bad"). If gayness is something that can be "caused" or "caught" by exposure to happy, loving gay people, and it's deemed immoral, then there would be strong pressure to repress rights for such people: they're "harming" individuals and society as a whole. Now, presuming you're straight, this leads to a very simple question for you: What would make you gay? Seeing lots of gay happy people? Watching (oh no!) gay people kiss in public? Perhaps a strong, logical argument from a gay person how the pros of being gay outweigh the cons? If you're being honest, you'd of course say that none of these would have any impact whatsoever over your own sexual inclination. (And this exercise should give you at least a bit of empathy toward a gay person feeling immense societal pressure to be "straight.")

So if being gay isn't contagious, then what could possibly be immoral about two consenting adults being attracted to each other, loving each other, wanting to live with each other, and wanting to commit themselves to each other in the same way heterosexual couples do? How are they harming you or anyone else? Don't you believe in that simple idiom, "live and let live"? Many people bring religion into this (e.g., "because the Bible says so"); for those people I have no argument -- how does one argue with blind faith? But you say you're not religious, so again, why do you care?

"Sharia Islam" is meaningless and reflects ignorance. There is no such thing. You're welcome to like having a rejection of "Sharia Islam" linked to preventing equal rights for gays (with a nice racist statement thrown in for good measure). But don't expect that view to broaden the coalition against Islamic supremacism; if anything, it will have the opposite effect.

For the record, my view is not that unusual among anti-Jihadists, especially outside the USA. Geert Wilders, praised here and on sites like Atlas Shrugs repeatedly as a hero for freedom, is a staunch advocate for gay rights and gay marriage. You can read a bit about that here: http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/03/geert-wilders-film-premiere-cancelled.html I sure wish we had more Americans politicians that shared Mr. Wilders' views, rather than being stuck between extremists like Obama and Bachmann and milquetoast duds like Clinton & Romney.

Your reply comes across in that intolerant leftist kind of way which betokens no willingness to see another side of the issue. For starters, I don't care about Olson's argument, nor do I agree with it. I think gay marriage is ridiculous. So do many gays by the way. My wife and I had wonderful next door neighbors for years who were a gay couple who had been together for some twenty years. Both of them thought gay marriage was absurd. They were also angry with gays who insisted on demonstrating their sexual orientation when doing so was absolutely not relevant. For instance, St. Patrick Day parades when some gays have insisted on having a gay element in the parade, identified as a gay element. What the hell does a St. Patrick Day parade have to do with any kind of sexual orientation? Surely you're not going to deny that there is an obnoxious, far left element out there that wants to ram being gay down most everyone's throat. Or are you? Which goes to the larger issue I already mentioned and that is there is far more intolerance on the left these days than there is on the right. Just look at who's often shouting down Robert Spencer when he tries to speak about Islam. It isn't conservatives. And when the Tea Party has a rally, there are no disturbances, no violence and they even carry their trash away when done meeting. By contrast, look at how leftist union thugs et al. trashed the Wisconsin state capitol when they didn't get their way on collective bargaining (something, by the way, that FDR was against too).

I mentioned slavery and its heinousness in the same paragraph I dealt with the abstract issue of whether more black children even during slavery had a mother and father at home than they do now. You rather cheaply intimated that I am a racist, very typical of a leftist. Disagree with a leftist and you're not only wrong, you're bad.

Following your logic what difference would it make if some polity allowed one to marry his dog or even some inanimate object? Hey, how could this hurt someone else's marriage, say mine with my wife? You really want to follow such an inane and shallow line of reasoning? Guess you do. Transforming the reason why marriage exists at the very least changes it, and arguably debases it. I wonder if there is any way one can argue for traditioinal marriage without you considering such a person intolerant or limited. Probably not.

I wonder how you deal with someone who is a devout Christian and who not only thinks heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sinful but all homosexual sex is sinful too. Are they just a nut job? A bigot? Not enlightened as you? I take it you think you're more enlightened than the Pope?

You see. Argue with a leftist and, ironically, what you get is religion---the substitute, secular religion of modern liberalism. And a pretty damn piss poor religion at that. Such as you provided.

''Truth is not the right litmus test for a racist, irrelevant statement.''

So, truth doesn't matter ? Now, *that's* a typically leftist remark.

Also, Wellington's reply to you was courteous and pleasant, yours to him was rude and abusive, simply because he disagrees with you. Again, typically leftist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "leftist." Is Geert Wilders a leftist? Ted Olson? No one else I know ever has called me a leftist, quite the opposite, since the issue I care about the most -- i.e., resisting Islamic supremacism, is hardly every deemed a leftist cause. My friends will laugh to hear I'm now a leftist.

The opinions of your neighbors are just that -- two opinions. If your point is that there exist some gay people who oppose gay marriage, well sure, on any issue you're always going to find a range of opinions. Surely you're not arguing that it's a significant percentage of gays that are against gay marriage, are you?

Will I argue that there aren't gay people who demonstrate pride about being gay? No. But do I resent them or care? No. Why do you care?

Your argument that gay marriage is a slippery slope to dog marriage or "inanimate object" marriage is, I must say, bizarre. This country was founded on individual rights, not the rights of pets or blocks of wood. Many rights are afforded to individuals; a few times, our leaders have been brave and smart enough to remove restrictions that qualified the subset of individuals afforded such rights. E.g., abolition of slavery, women's suffrage. Think about it -- in each case, our leaders removed the filters that only gave rights to a subset of individuals. Would you have argued that if women were allowed to vote, be careful, because dogs and animate objects could be next? No -- of course not, because our country's founding and history as been about promoting the rights of individuals, not about rights of individual canines or "inanimate objects." Gay marriage, indeed, is just one more brave example of removing qualifiers on the rights afforded individuals.

I wonder how you deal with someone who is a devout Christian and who not only thinks heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sinful but all homosexual sex is sinful too. Are they just a nut job? A bigot? Not enlightened as you? I take it you think you're more enlightened than the Pope?

If by sinful you mean unethical or immoral, then well I think cheating on a spouse is quite immoral and unethical. So I'd agree with someone who felt that way. Honestly I think what you describe as my "secular religion of modern liberalism" isn't much more than two simple rules we learn in preschool: live and let live, and the Golden Rule... I don't see anything unethical or immoral about gay relationships. If a devout Christian thinks all homosexual sex is "sinful" (i.e., immoral) for no other reason than some book says so, I'm not I'd have much to say about that person -- they're entitled to their opinion, and I'm unlikely to change it (or be influenced by it). But I sure would fight any attempt of to create legislation to enforce that opinion... that's not controversial in the USA, is it?

Would you argue that Geert Wilders thinks he's more enlightened than the Pope because he supports gay marriage? It seems like an odd conclusion, yet somehow you're assigning that same characterization to me and millions around the world who support gay rights (and happen to oppose Jihad, including many gay people).

'Truth is not the right litmus test for a racist, irrelevant statement.''

Was it racist for Jimmy the Greek to point out that blacks are generally better athletes? Definitely. Was it truthful? I don't know, but it's certainly close to words other black leaders have also said in the recent past. See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966590,00.html

Is it racist for this 2003 article http://www.rense.com/general44/sevenjewishamericans.htm to point out that seven Jews ran most of the US media? I think so. Was it true that the CEOs or leaders of the media companies he mentions were Jewish? Yes.

My point is that in racist arguments, the facts are much less important than the innuendo, and racists often inject irrelevant facts into their broader arguments. Do you disagree?

What was rude or abusive in my response to Wellington? I asked Wellington several questions about how he feels about gayness and gay people and he didn't answer any of them.

Hmmm. Where to begin.

Actually, I would be willing to bet a case of beer of one's choice that, if a truly reputable poll was taken of gays, at least a simple majority of them would be either against homosexual marriage or indifferent to it. I think it telling that wherever gay marriage has become legal, a very large majority of gays don't bother to get married.

Demonstrating gay pride in an event like a St. Patrick Day's parade is stupid, selfish and irrelevant. One knows this or should know it. In fact, the whole "gay pride" crap is tedious and an in-your-face phenomenon. Sick of it.

My argument, abstract to be sure, about someone being able to marry most anyone or anything is not bizarre in the least. I was simply following your line of reasoning, by arguing such, because it was you who put forth the query how does gay marriage affect someone else's marriage? Well, I called you on the carpet for such a vacuous approach to a very complex and contentious issue and you responded exactly as I thought you would---by missing the juvenile logic of your own contention. Let's make it a bit more reasonable then. If some man wanted to marry six women, and assuming all six women definitely wanted to marry this man, how would such a marriage impact upon a heterosexual man who is married to one woman and who thinks that marriage solely to one other person is the only way to go? You either see where I'm going here or you're clueless.

Respecting the hypothesis about some devout Christian who thinks that all sex outside of marriage is immoral and sinful, and that all homosexual sex is also, why you diverted things to someone cheating on another person is just demonstrative to me that you simply did not answer this question of mine. While I don't care one bit if someone is gay, being so still strikes me as a bit odd since sex exists to reproduce the species. Homosexual sex cannot do this. Therefore, it is not evidence of prejudice to place heterosexual sex on a higher plane that homosexual sex. Or does this condemn someone like me to a charge of bigotry? I do believe that many folks who are heterosexual and who assert that they think there is absolutely nothing wrong about gay sex are still, way down inside, not quite comfortable with, say, two men French kissing one another. I'm not. So, am I just a bigot, a less enlightened person than someone like yourself? The Pope too? The Jewish Orthodox rabbi? Are folks like us just way too beholden to traditional and prejudiced norms, blah, blah, blah?

Finally, would you do me the courtesy of answering my former question and that is is there any way that one can be for traditional marriage, i.e., only between one man and one woman, without someone like you calling them a bigot, a limited human being, a hater, a less clear seeing person than someone like yourself?

DDA and shortfattexan: My guess is that there are a few Western Leftists who want to tell the Islamic world, "Keep out! We want to destroy our relatives and neighbors all by ourselves!"