Saturday, September 12, 2009

And this is when we lay our money down.

Via a recent commenter, we have the latest crybaby whining from the folks who would protect us against the evildoer terrorists, unless those terrorists call them rude names, at which point the only trace of those folks will be a trail of urine as they disappear into the distance, shrieking inconsolably:

At this point, you'll have to take my word that I didn't follow the link therein (nor read the comments), because I'm feeling bold and daring enough to make a prediction that when one does suss out the details, one will find that KKKate's smarmy pandering will have left out some crucial detail that puts a whole new spin on things.

So that's my bet, and I'm in no rush to verify it one way or the other as I have other, more pressing things to do today, but who wants a piece of that action? Come on -- I'm taking the position that Canada's most famous Nazi sympathizer has, somehow or other, misrepresented the facts. Who wants to bet against me?

I'll give you odds.


Ti-Guy said...

I kind of still love a challenge when it comes to the religious right, but when I clicked on KKKate's link, it led a post by some ├╝ber-Catholic with about 20 other links, which would have be read in order to ascertain, to my standards of scholarly rigour, that that post is built on a foundation of sound arguments. But since there isn't enough heroine in the World to get me through that, I'll have to demure.

Renee said...

Syphilis has shaped human history for far longer than the past 2000... should we stop treating it, because that would be interference in a historical precedent? Pederasty has had a long and noble tradition in shaping the life of the church, so we should turn the other cheek (so to speak)? Just because something's old and established, or because it has shaped history, doesn't mean it's a good thing that shouldn't be mocked.

KKKate's got the idea of authority backward: the Church has no business doing civil marriage in this day and this age, and shouldn't have the authority to perform them - performing them DOES mean that civil tribunals have authority over the Church in that area. Sorry, can't have it both ways. Religious marriages? Sure, whatever, go ahead, mumble mumble hand-wave kiss kiss. But a trip to a government-appointed JoP with a witness and the $50 fee should be required for everybody before their marriage is legal and taxable. Who churches "marry" then wouldn't be an issue, then, anyway.

that_chris_guy said...

"the Church has no business doing civil marriage in this day and this age"

Hear hear

sooey said...

Haha - I argued the opposite on another thread.