Mr. Booker has reviewed history as it applies to humble, self-effacing politicians who avoid the spotlight. He has reached the obvious conclusion, and acts accordingly. Persons of modest decorum. such as myself and the OP, are naturally suspicious.
No, I think it’s against Democrats, not just Booker.
Okay. Well you’re certainly right that I have no special affinity for Democrats.
I think it’s more than just “democrats.”
Tell it to this guy…
Correct. Republicans play the same childish games.
How have we got this far without someone saying “Nobody expects the Booker Inquisition!”?
“Cardinal Harris … bring out – The Comfy Chair!”
Music sting!
Myself, I’ve been waiting for a Zork reference.
You are welcome.
Curious why folks who scold Booker won’t touch the World Church of the Creator question. Do you think it’s irrelevant how religious minorities are handled? Do you think somehow the reprehensible beliefs of one religious sect aren’t analogous to the reprehensible beliefs of another religious sect? Or does it give you pause that your version of “no religious test” would require Congress to ignore genocidal advocacy if it’s religiously motivated?
It’s because their religion is the only one that should matter, and their bigotries are the only ones that should be accommodated.
What’s disturbing is that merely believing that gay sex is immoral is considered a “reprehensible belief” by those in power, especially considering that nearly everybody in the Christianized world believed that until roughly yesterday.
Well I’m disturbed that people that you’ve never met are considered immoral by you just because of who they choose to love.
The Bible teaches us to love. I don’t remember what passages it was where Jesus told us who to hate. Where was that again?
Would you want someone in power over you that believes that people named Mike (I assume that’s your name from your username) are immoral and should not be allowed to love whoever they want. If this anti-Mikes nominee was up for a powerful appointment and your Senator asked them about this belief about Mikes, would you think that was out of bounds? What if they said that they belong to a sect of Christianity that does not recognize Mikes as legitimate. Would you be ok with them having power over you?
Gay sex is an action, not a person.
I don’t believe that it is appropriate or moral to have sex with everyone you love.
I agree with this, and don’t see what it has to do with the conversation at hand. Describing an act as immoral is not love or hate. It is making a moral judgment.
There is no equivalence here.
Explain why?
I don’t believe its appropriate or moral to judge others. Another thing the bible teaches.
It has to do with the fact that you aren’t even following the book you claim to believe in.
Really?
Okay. A name is an inherited immutable characteristic.
Sexual intercourse is a voluntary action (excepting cases of coercion).